'Might is Right' by Ragnar Redbeard.

[Eternal_Savagery]

‘Might is Right’ is an unprecedented book by an author of extraordinary virility and rugged primeval force, whose sense perceptions border on the supernatural. The Laws of Nature are explained, defined and expounded upon in detail in eloquent 19th century English.’ - Anonymous.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxtX_6dsq5I[/youtube]

This book was written around 1890. Nobody knows for sure who the original author of this book was. The author didn’t state his real name, but rather a pseudonym: Ragnar Redbeard. Some say it was Arthur Desmond or Jack London, and some even go so far as to say that it was written by Friedrich Nietzsche. I must say, Ragnar Rebeard’s ideas are very, very similar to Nietzsche’s, but Redbeard is more barbaric, more savage and in your face than Nietzsche. Redbeard is Nietzsche with a Viking axe! Nietzsche on steroids!

In the book ’ Might is Right ', Ragnar writes about how the masses have become emasculated by religion, statism, egalitarianism, humanism, democracy, etc, etc. Like Nietzsche, he states that Christianity is anti-nature and emasculating, that is to say, in direct opposition to all manly virtues.

Redbeard has a profound hatred for the American constitution. He makes a mockery of it as it insinuates an egalitarian, nihilistic, emasculating spirit. The author rejects the notion of inherent, inalienable rights. He makes it very clear that only might can establish ’ right ', in other words, that those with the most force and power create and uphold the societal norms, rights, and laws.

Ragnar radiates a certain primordial, rugged, hardcore masculinity that ancient warriors exemplified. A masculinity that laughs in the face of death; a form of masculinity that is dangerous even in defeat - a form of masculine vitality that faces the cold, cruel, harsh, merciless universe with a boldness that makes the average man fold into the fetal position with a paralyzing anxiety. This book is not meant for those who want to remain in their feminine submissiveness and cowardice. This book is meant for boys and men that want to break free from the emasculating shackles of religion, statism, egalitarianism, and other unmanly ideologies.

Ragnar also has much to say about females and their sexual psychology - how the most fertile females are naturally attracted to alpha-males, i.e., men of grit, power, virility, and prowess. He is against female emancipation ( feminism ) and believes that males should fight in bloody combat to the death in competition for females.

The book contains many other topics:

• Race

-Eugenics

-Ontology

-Cannibalism

• Darwinian evolution

etc.

Give it a read here online for free: archive.org/stream/cu31924029107 … 3/mode/2up

[Neither_Nor]

If masculinity has been replaced by femininity, and “Might is Right” is true, then doesn’t that mean femininity is mightier than masculinity?

[Eternal_Savagery]

In my opinion, no it hasn’t; masculinity is being systematically regulated and reduced, yes. But it’s not being done so, primarily, by a feminine force in of itself. Within any tribe or nation, there will always be the alpa-male, e.g., king, president, chief, etc. These elitist alpha-males will impose their wills upon other men, thus making other men submissive to them ( symbolically feminine ). What ruler would want a system that contains a bunch of defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males? The ruler would, constantly, have to worry about males trying to challenge his authority and overthrow him. Feminization is going to happen in any power structure, but in modernity it has reached absurd, cartoonish levels.

Femininity is not mightier than masculinity. They both have their places. Also, note that I’m not anti-feminity; I’m anti-effeminacy.

[Helandhighwater]

Penis envy?

[Neither_Nor]

@Eternal Savagery

In my opinion, no it hasn’t; masculinity is being systematically regulated and reduced, yes. But it’s not being done so, primarily, by a feminine force in of itself. Within any tribe or nation, there will always be the alpa-male, e.g., king, president, chief, etc. These elitist alpha-males will impose their wills upon other men, thus making other men submissive to them ( symbolically feminine ). What ruler would want a system that contains a bunch of defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males? The ruler would, constantly, have to worry about males trying to challenge his authority and overthrow him. Feminization is going to happen in any power structure, but in modernity it has reached absurd, cartoonish levels.

Femininity is not mightier than masculinity. They both have their places. Also, note that I’m not anti-feminity; I’m anti-effeminacy.

And what if these “defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males” aren’t wanted, not because they’re a threat, but because they’re a liability, a weakness? I can’t think of one scenario, other than a riot, where a bunch of these people would be benficial.

[Helandhighwater]

@Neither Nor

And what if these “defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males” aren’t wanted, not because they’re a threat, but because they’re a liability, a weakness? I can’t think of one scenario, other than a riot, where a bunch of these people would be benficial.

Mob justice requires a mob.

[MechanicalMonster]

Great stuff ES, thanks for posting.

[James_S_Saint]

@Neither Nor

@Eternal Savagery

In my opinion, no it hasn’t; masculinity is being systematically regulated and reduced, yes. But it’s not being done so, primarily, by a feminine force in of itself. Within any tribe or nation, there will always be the alpa-male, e.g., king, president, chief, etc. These elitist alpha-males will impose their wills upon other men, thus making other men submissive to them ( symbolically feminine ). What ruler would want a system that contains a bunch of defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males? The ruler would, constantly, have to worry about males trying to challenge his authority and overthrow him. Feminization is going to happen in any power structure, but in modernity it has reached absurd, cartoonish levels.

Femininity is not mightier than masculinity. They both have their places. Also, note that I’m not anti-feminity; I’m anti-effeminacy.

And what if these “defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males” aren’t wanted, not because they’re a threat, but because they’re a liability, a weakness? I can’t think of one scenario, other than a riot, where a bunch of these people would be benficial.

A “weakness” to whom, was his point.

And although I define masculine and feminine slightly different than he, what he said is right. Sensitivity, submissiveness, and subjugation are the usefulness of femininity. Masculinity is the opposite.

“Usefulness to whom” is the issue.

[Neither_Nor]

@James S Saint

A “weakness” to whom, was his point.

A weakness to oneself, if you like. All those characteristics listed, definance (for the sake of defiance), confrontation (for the sake of confrontation) etc. etc., are that of petulance. If you’re of the quality to be a leader, then in time, those qualities will come to the fore and you’ll be one within your relevant circle, maybe. If you want respect, then you earn it by what you do and how you treat others.

“Usefulness to whom” is the issue.

How can you be useful to anyone if you consider defiance a virtue?

[James_S_Saint]

You have to learn to think like a conqueror in order to understanding conquering.

To ensure that you are the emperor, you must ensure that no one else is emperor. You do that by ensuring that no one else has the ability to maintain fortitude and/or intelligence without your assistance. You make the masses dependent upon you for their survival.

In order to accomplish that, you must have a means to disrupt their efforts to “rise to the top” (your position) by always having dissonance in the lower ranks that is readily controllable by you. That means that you must be able to allow it to occur (it must already be struggling to occur) and you must have a means to curtail it at your whim (have the ability to thwart it). But you must never be without it, else who needs you?

So, “Useful for whom?”

[Neither_Nor]

@James S Saint

You have to learn to think like a conqueror in order to understanding conquering.

To ensure that you are the emperor, you must ensure that no one else is emperor. You do that by ensuring that no one else has the ability to maintain fortitude and/or intelligence without your assistance. You make the masses dependent upon you for their survival.

In order to accomplish that, you must have a means to disrupt their efforts to “rise to the top” (your position) by always having dissonance in the lower ranks that is readily controllable by you. That means that you must be able to allow it to occur (it must already be struggling to occur) and you must have a means to curtail it at your whim (have the ability to thwart it). But you must never be without it, else who needs you?

The closest most people are going to get to conquering anything or in being an emperor (an emperor! ) is a computer game - fact.

And in the world today, the one we actually live in and not fantasise about, when do we ever have dependents other than pets and children?

[James_S_Saint]

@Neither Nor

The closest most people are going to get to conquering anything or in being an emperor (an emperor! ) is a computer game - fact.

And in the world today, the one we actually live in and not fantasise about, when do we ever have dependents other than pets and children?

I see that you have already been conquered.

[Eternal_Savagery]

@Neither Nor

@Eternal Savagery

In my opinion, no it hasn’t; masculinity is being systematically regulated and reduced, yes. But it’s not being done so, primarily, by a feminine force in of itself. Within any tribe or nation, there will always be the alpa-male, e.g., king, president, chief, etc. These elitist alpha-males will impose their wills upon other men, thus making other men submissive to them ( symbolically feminine ). What ruler would want a system that contains a bunch of defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males? The ruler would, constantly, have to worry about males trying to challenge his authority and overthrow him. Feminization is going to happen in any power structure, but in modernity it has reached absurd, cartoonish levels.

Femininity is not mightier than masculinity. They both have their places. Also, note that I’m not anti-feminity; I’m anti-effeminacy.

And what if these “defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males” aren’t wanted, not because they’re a threat, but because they’re a liability, a weakness? I can’t think of one scenario, other than a riot, where a bunch of these people would be benficial.

This ’ Might is Right’ philosophy isn’t, really, compatible with modern society; societal virtues and Ragnar Redbeard’s virtues are, for the most part, in direct opposition. He was an anarcho-individualist. He despised the state and all of society’s virtues. So you are correct in stating that you can’t find many ways how this would be beneficial within the context of society.

[Neither_Nor]

@James S Saint

@Neither Nor

The closest most people are going to get to conquering anything or in being an emperor (an emperor! ) is a computer game - fact.

And in the world today, the one we actually live in and not fantasise about, when do we ever have dependents other than pets and children?

I see that you have already been conquered.

Possibly. But, judging by your previous use of the word “conquer” i.e. not pertaining to reality whatsoever, I’ll survive.

[James_S_Saint]

@Neither Nor

Possibly. But, judging by your previous use of the word “conquer” i.e. not pertaining to reality whatsoever, I’ll survive.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

…and I wouldn’t want to disturb your bliss.

But for many people (most in fact);

@phyllo

The individual is tortured now. The individual dies now. The individual’s children are killed now. The individual’s family line is extinguished now.

[Eternal_Savagery]

Moderator, I think it’s time to clean up the mess that is deviating from the topic…

[iambiguous]

Ragnar Danneskjöld. He was another cartoon character. He lived in a cartoon character world scripted by an objectivist who understood the consolation that fiction can provide.

Don’t like the real world? Invent one of your own.

[Neither_Nor]

@Eternal Savagery

This ’ Might is Right’ philosophy isn’t, really, compatible with modern society; societal virtues and Ragnar Redbeard’s virtues are, for the most part, in direct opposition. He was an anarcho-individualist. He despised the state and all of society’s virtues. So you are correct in stating that you can’t find many ways how this would be beneficial within the context of society.

Well, maybe he was relevant in his own little way, somehow. Obviously not for posterity, but maybe he had a little garden he tended or something. I don’t know. Actually, I’d probably respect him more if that were the case. At least he would have cultivated something that way. Ragnar Redbeard and Greenfingers.

@James S Saint

But for many people (most in fact);

@phyllo

The individual is tortured now. The individual dies now. The individual’s children are killed now. The individual’s family line is extinguished now.

More crap. If “the individual” were less of a melancholic narcissist, maybe he’d be less tortured too.

[Helandhighwater]

@iambiguous

Ragnar Danneskjöld. He was another cartoon character. He lived in a cartoon character world scripted by an objectivist who understood the consolation that fiction can provide.

Don’t like the real world? Invent one of your own.

I did it’s called Adam Westworld. See my signature for details.

If you look like Yul Brinner you get in free and a free black hat.

[phyllo]

In my opinion, no it hasn’t; masculinity is being systematically regulated and reduced, yes. But it’s not being done so, primarily, by a feminine force in of itself. Within any tribe or nation, there will always be the alpa-male, e.g., king, president, chief, etc. These elitist alpha-males will impose their wills upon other men, thus making other men submissive to them ( symbolically feminine ). What ruler would want a system that contains a bunch of defiant, challenging, confrontational, masculine males? The ruler would, constantly, have to worry about males trying to challenge his authority and overthrow him. Feminization is going to happen in any power structure, but in modernity it has reached absurd, cartoonish levels.

How does this fit into the Redbeard philosophy? These alpha-males are the archetype of masculinity, are they not? And yet, they want to rule over emasculated males and they are actively emasculating them. Or are you and Redbeard saying that these alpha-males do not represent correct masculinity? How should they act?