Might Is Right

From Kings Wiki, masculinity and nationalism
Jump to: navigation, search
Might Is Right.jpg
Author Ragnar Redbeard
Country United States
Language English
Publication date
February 14, 2013
Pages 184
ISBN 1300653892

Might Is Right, or: The Survival of the Fittest is an anti-Christian anti-Jewish diatribe and treatise on Social Darwinism first published in 1890 under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard. Written in prose with bits of poetry interspersed, the book castigates weak men and justifies domination of society and women by strong men. In this point Redbeard is echoed by manosphere writers such as Jack Donovan, who places strength at the core of his masculine virtues in The Way of Men. Might Is Right was plagiarized in the 1960s by Anton LaVey for "The Book of Satan" in The Satanic Bible.[1] Adolf Hitler has also said things that bear a striking resemblance to the views expressed in the book, although there is no evidence that he was familiar with it.

Views[edit]

On Morality[edit]

Chapter 1 introduces the basic concept of strength-based and individually-decided morality. Rejecting all moral dicta, Redbeard writes:

Freemen should never regulate their conduct by the suggestions or dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free. No man ought to obey any contract, written or implied, except he himself has given his personal and formal adherence thereto, when in a state of mental maturity and unrestrained liberty... He who obeys any standard of right and wrong, but the one set up by his own conscience, betrays himself into the hands of his enemies, who are ever laying in wait to bind him to their millstones. And generally a man’s most dangerous enemies are his neighbors.

This passage may also be read not only as a rejection of bibical moral commandments, but also as a contradiction of social contract theory.

Redbeard's highest law is self-preservation, and in chapter 2 he states: "[Hate] your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law."

In Chapter 5, echoing Machiavelli's observation that nice guys finish last: "In all practical operations, non-principled persons possess a distinct advantage over 'principled' ones."

However, in a seeming act of backtracking against pure force as the way to control other men, Redbeard writes:

No one is bound to obey another (or a majority) EXCEPT 'the other' can coerce obedience; and to do that at all times, under all circumstances, would be terribly troublesome, expensive, and – dangerous.

Therefore, the strong ruler would be wiser to create moral values that cause people to police themselves.

On Christianity, Jesus, and the Jews[edit]

Chapter 2 focuses on Christianity, the Jews, and the weakness and degeneracy of their moral legacy. Redbeard sees Christianity and reason and diametrically opposed, and unequivocally favors reason:

As far as Sociology is concerned, we must either abandon our reason, or abandon Christ. He is pre-eminently, the prophet of unreason – the preacher of rabble-rabies. All that is enervating and destructive of manhood, he glorifies – all that is self-reliant and heroic, he denounces.

Redbeard argues that Christianity is closely tied to its Jewish origins, and poetically castigates gentiles who embrace Christianity:

Jewish books are for the Jews,
And Jew Messiahs too.
But if you’re not of Jewish bood,
How can they be for you?

On Democracy[edit]

Chapter 3 is a polemic against democracy, which Redbeard sees as a method for controlled the masses through encouraging complacency and acquiescence in the population:

There are two methods whereby masterful ambitious men may hold any population in a state of ordered subjectivity. The first and by far the most honorable method is through an irresistible and highly-trained standing army, ready to deploy anywhere; with mechanical precision at a telegraphic nob in order to lay down the Law at the cannon’s mouth and sweep away all dangerous opposition. The second and cheaper method is, first of all to inoculate those intended to be exploited with some poisonous political soporific, superstition, or theoria; something that operating insidiously, hypodermically, may render them laborious, meek, and tractable.

Democracy is therefore a method of governing based on fraud backed up by force, which is a more palatable condition for those subjected to it than naked force alone.

On Men[edit]

Chapter 4 enumerates the qualities of man that make him the world's most dangerous beast of prey, but gives credit for "most cruel" to women. Chapter 5 describes victory in battle as the chief end of manhood and ultimate rulership the destiny of the strong man. Redbeard expresses the idea that women must have their behavior and decisions controlled by men thus:

Woe unto him, woe unto [women], and woe unto our Race, if ever these lovable creatures should break loose from mastership, and become the rulers or equals of Man. (But that is impossible.)

On Women and Love[edit]

Chapter 6 is dedicated to women, love, and women's love for powerful men. He also opposes the early but expanding feminists and the Victorian New Woman. Women are characterized as hating other women, as adoring soldiers, athletes, and powerful businessmen, and as being generally intellectually inferior playthings:

Women congregate at athletic sports and gladiatorial contests; impelled by the same universal instinct that induces the lioness to stand expectantly by, while two or more rival males are ripping each other to pieces in a rough-and-tumble – for her possession. The lioness submits, as a matter of choice, to the embraces of the Victor; and in the most fashionable society, the stalwart footballer or the dashing soldier, has practically unlimited selective powers, among the marriageable maidens of his own particular set.[2]
Wherever soldiers conquer in war, they also conquer in love – after the first paroxysm of revengeful patriotism is over. Women of vanquished races are usually very prone to wed the men who have slaughtered their kindred in battle.[3]

Adolf Hitler expressed the same sentiment:

It's a fact that women love real men. It's their instinct that tells them. In prehistoric times, the women looked for the protection of heroes. When two men fight for the possession of a woman, the latter waits to let her heart speak until she knows which of the two will be victorious.[4]

Responsibility for the warlike nature of the human race is placed at the feet of women, who push men into it:

Women take supreme delight in the roll of warlike drums – in the marching of the military, in reading the poems and romances of 'battle, murder and sudden death.' (Police Gazettes are mostly supported by women, because of the sensational homicide reports.)[5]

Contradicting the feminist idea that women are natural allies, Redbeard points out how they are competitors for alpha males and this drives them to hatred.

We must not forget that women really hate each other—intensely.[6]

Since women are physically weaker, Redbeard identifies fraud and dishonesty as their modus operandi:

It is as natural for a woman to prevaricate, as it is for a man to resent a blow on the face. It is their weapon. Hence they take up with false religions, priest crafts, superstitions, much more readily than men. They like to play the hypocrite, and pretend to be 'O so holy,' when their secret thoughts are carnal, self-centered, and materialistic.[7]

While the ultimate goal of men is conquest, a woman's goal is to produce strong children:

A woman is primarily a reproductive cell-organism, a womb structurally embastioned by a protective, defensive, osseus network; and surrounded with antenæ, and blood vessels, necessary for supplying nutriment to the growing ovum or embryo. Sexualism and maternity dominate the livers of all true women.[8]
There is nothing particularly inviting about barren, dyspeptic, blue-stocking 'New Women' in pants and spectacles; talking idiotic snuffle through their noses; with busts made of adjustable india-rubber; with narrow or padded hips, and 'wheels between their legs,' scorching across the curbstones like mad… They won't even breed; or if they do so (by accident) their puny embryos, have to be delicately nurtured into life with steam-heated incubator-mechanism and afterwards fed and weaned on 'the bottle.' The sons of such women – bottle fed abortions – of what good are they? It is women of this kind (unnatural monsters they are) that cause so much domestic unhappiness.[9]

Again, Adolf Hitler echoes the idea:

Many women go slightly off their heads when they don't bear children. Everybody says, of a childless woman: "What a hysterical creature!" It's a thousand times preferable that she should have a natural child, and thus a reason for existence, rather than slowly wither.[10]

Manosphere Response[edit]

Roosh V has reviewed the book and agreed in general with its basic conclusions on a collective—though not necessarily on an individual—level:

I'm in full agreement with Redbeard that if you are weaker than those who wish to take your land, you will lose, and no Christian idea or egalitarian slogan will save you when men who are ready to kill for their beliefs arrive on your doorstep while you hold a "Refugees Welcome" sign. Teaching societal passivity and meekness while other violent groups exist among you is suicidal and will result in slaughter.
In the end, might will eventually subjugate the weak, even if the weak is intelligent, moral, or do-gooding. It may take centuries for that to happen, but it will, and unless you can properly fight against groups who are strong, who truly believe that might makes right, you will be eradicated. Even if you don't believe, morally, that might makes right, there is always a human group that does, and unless you can stop them, they will kill you and rape your most beautiful women. Therefore if you are ready to conclude that strength is what's essential for victory, it wouldn’t hurt to develop that strength yourself.[11]

Using the example of an individual "bending over to tie his shoes" and getting his throat slit, Roosh shows how individual strength depends on momentary circumstances. A weaker man could therefore overpower a superior man and "win" the struggle for existence without advancing the forward and upward march of the race.

Antecedents[edit]

The idea that "might makes right" was expressed by Thrasymachus in Plato's The Republic[12]. He makes the claim that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger", which Socrates proceeds to contradict.

Reasons for the opposition of Judeo-Christian ethics have a noticeable similarity to the theory of moral origins articulated by Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals.

Successors[edit]

Much of the content of the book served as inspiration for 20th-century Satanism and were plagiarized by Anton LaVey for The Satanic Bible.

Later, Adolf Hitler used versions of Redbeard's ideas.

In the 21st century Jack Donovan echoes Redbeard by placing strength as first among his masculine virtues.

References[edit]

  1. Aquino, M. A. (2013). The Church of Satan Volume I (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Michael A. Aquino. p. 88.
  2. Chapter 6, Section 2
  3. Chapter 6, Section 3
  4. Trevor-Roper, H.R. (Ed.). (1961). Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Young. p. 141.
  5. Chapter 6, Section 3
  6. Chapter 6, Section 4
  7. Chapter 6, Section 4
  8. Chapter 6, Section 4
  9. Chapter 6, Section 6
  10. Trevor-Roper, H.R. (Ed.). (1961). Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Young.p. 75.
  11. Does Might Make Right?, Return of Kings
  12. Book 1, Section 3