It is hard to fully understand what Junger is saying when he says this; rather, it is knowledge that only a few can relate to.
I am not sure that the optimal way to begin a discussion is to automatically limit the possible respondents to those who presumably agree with the OP? Nevertheless I do not think that the point being made is entirely valid.
The luxury of the rich and the privileged is they already have a maintained set of pride and face; they can feel free to attempt to coddle the impoverished with socialism and turn is into infantile victims. They want to become our parents -- parents we do not need. They want to be our providers -- providers we do not need.
This is where I think the author fails at the outset. The luxury of the rich and privileged is not necessarily in a “maintained set of pride and face” but in the fact that the opportunities available to them are much more extensive than those of lesser means. Recognition that talent is not limited to the moneyed economic classes is hardly socialistic or parental. Likewise recognition that the opportunities available to the moneyed economic classes are disproportionate is hardly illogical.
The most insidious figures in politics are the celebrities with their millions of dollars who campaign for us to get more help from the government; they are so miserable even with their own wealth they have to attempt to adopt we the people as their Holy Cause. We all become one of Madonna or Angelina Jolie's third world children to put on display for their feel good charities.
This paragraph makes a number of mistakes and presumptions that are unsupported. I do agree that we give people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie a disproportionate amount of attention, but the implication that they are the “most insidious figures in politics” is an automatic attempt to poison any action they may undertake. Additionally, the claim that they are miserable and their actions are based on their misery is another unnecessary editorialization. Actual discussion of their actions is absent, which is odd. If their actions are so terrible, why are these actions not addressed instead of the individuals themselves?
The blessing of the impoverished is the struggle of their journey and the meaningfulness of that plight; the beauty of the common man is his attempts to become uncommon and distinguished, and it is in the simple joys that he receives from a simplistic existence.
This is a statement I would agree with if it were not laced with editorial. I agree that achievement is a positive, that distinguishing oneself is again positive, but the tie to impoverishment is unnecessary. If you are born to parents, both of which are doctors, is your completion of medical school not as satisfactory as if your parents were plumbers?
All of our accomplishments are our own.
This is decidedly untrue. Our accomplishments, any accomplishments we may make, are dependent on a list of people, opportunities, circumstances, etc… that need to be recognized. Let’s take the newly graduated doctor above. He or she depended on each teacher, professor, the monetary support from parents/scholarships/federal aids, emotional support from friends and associates, spiritual support from pastors/rabbis/etc…, support of many forms and many types to accomplish their graduation. Certainly they relied on their individualized intelligence and drive, but these two characteristics were shaped, molded, formed, and honed by numerous associations.
Unfortunately for many Republicans, Hillary Clinton was entirely correct, it does take a village to raise a child.
Egalitarianism from this angle is wrong if it goes any further than providing a level playing field. But what is most disgusting concerning egalitarianism is the morally reprehensible collectivism that threatens to crush the individual. The attempt to join us together, ever and ever closer, to steal our personal identities in the name of a higher cause. We join together -- but not out of choice. Out of perverse elections we give power to men who seek more power to control our lives; you vote my rights away every time that you elect a socialist who has a better idea on what to do with my money than I do.
This is a leap that I hardly think is justified or warranted. Clearly the OP wants to assert that there is an attempt to impose collectivism, but without any real evidence or examples it is an empty claim that is almost impossible to discuss. The implication is that socialism is somehow negative, but this is again an editorial statement and not an argument. Some organizations are socialist and it is acceptable, the military for example, while others are not. When “Socialism” is simply used as a word to discredit instead of an actual argument against the idea that the government should be involved in some area, it is an empty assertion.
In a socialist society the government usurps the role of parent and takes the common person to mold into an image they find appealing.
Unfortunately this assertion lacks any form of support or factual proof. Again the real argument here is “Socialism is bad” which is empty.
Whether it is something as inoccuous as "standing against racism" or "fighting terror," or something so personal as to placing sin taxes on our alcohol and cigarettes and fighting hard for the normalization of every perversion.
And how exactly are laws against racial/religious/sex discrimination bad? How does that mold people into am image that the government finds appealing? As a society I thought that we agreed that discrimination was unacceptable? It is true that inclusion into the American society does enforce some standards, but this is part of the social contract. We also do not allow murder, but I did not think this was an unnecessary restriction on personal liberty.
And those who do not join in the lines of the government propaganda become social pariahs or even 'un-American;' but, in that case, who wants to be an American if it means a subscription to a repugnant socialist dream?
Being American does have definitional restraints, but also allows questioning the nature and scope of government.
In socialism, we no longer stand on our own feet, but we stand as dependents on a government that now provides us with our moral constructs and systems; a government that has messages it attempts to force on us and usually succeeds until we all suckle on the teet of soul erasing collectivism.
Again you have jumped to an unsupported conclusion without any real argument.
If we become a part of a socialist society, as Junger said, we are morally and physically ruined.
Could you quote the paragraph immediately before and after the quote you have provided. I am curious about context.
It is our duty to ourselves, to our very souls, that we bow down not to any system which is so empowered to control us all.
At the end this argument is about fear. You fear the government and are automatically distrustful of anything the government does. I think that is unwise.
I just ended up launching a meteor at it. 
- By Wellsy