Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Might Is Right - Ragnar Redbeard - Audiobook
'Might Is Right', or 'The Survival of the Fittest', is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. It is considered to either advocate social Darwinism or satire it, and was first published in 1890.
In 'Might is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas of human and natural rights', instead he argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right.
Brought to you by the Solar General : www.SolarGeneral.com the most controversial archive of politically incorrect books in the universe.
Might Is Right, or The Survival of the Fittest, is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. First published in 1890, it heavily advocates amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism. In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas of human and natural rights and argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right (à la Callicles or Thrasymachus).
Individualist Anarchist historian James J. Martin called it "surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere." This refers to the controversial content such as the viewpoint that weakness should be regarded with hatred and the strong and forceful presence of Social Darwinism in the text. There are also controversial parts of the book that deal with race and male-female relations, claiming that the woman and the family as a whole is the "property" of the man.
S. E. Parker writes in his introduction to the text: "The most likely candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written by Redbeard."
This post is going to be a summary of some viewpoints presented in the book Might is Right: Survival of the Fittest written by pseudonymous Ragnar Redbeard. It contains some red pill themes throughout, and is notoriously controversial and written in a harsh tone that would make most modern "men" blush.
It's important that you keep in mind that this book was written in 1890. It contains many hard truths, and yet also many foolish fallacies, equating man as simply another animal in a Darwinian struggle. The wikipedia entry has good introduction.
I am not necessarily personally advocating all of these views, but rather presenting the author's premise.
The book essentially makes the claim that force and power is the ultimate goal. It advocates Darwin's survival of the fittest, and discusses how humans are breeding themselves into oblivion.
Love in sexual relationship, Power in social adjustments, Polarity and Magnetism in physics, Gravitation in astronomy, and Might in ethics, are exact synonyms - 'the Persistence of Force'.
Hereditary virtues can only be maintained, by keeping them in constant use.
Each molecule, each animal, fights for its life. You must fight for yours, or surrender.
Man is part and parcel of the animal kingdom and he cannot escape from draconic ordinances
During the whole course of human history, there is not upon record, one authentic instance wherein a subjugated people has every regained property-holding Liberty, without first butchering its tyrants, thereafter confiscating to its own use the lands and realized property that previously had been in the possession of its defeated foes and masters.
Inequality is summed up in the scientific axiom "inferior organisms succumb, that superior organisms may survive, propagate, and possess."
To solemnly proclaim that "all men are created equal" is as stupid and unscientific as to assert that all dogs, cattle, apes, and trees are created equal.
Racism and a nod to genocide, as well as misogyny, are rampant throughout this book. Given the underlying premise of maximizing human breeding, it would naturally flow its logic towards things such as control and eugenics.
Are all men really brethren? [in discussing racism]
What proof is there that the brotherhood-of-man hypothesis is in accordance with nature? [in discussing genocide]
Woe unto him... if ever these lovable creates [women] should break loose from mastership, and become the rules or equals of Man (But that is impossible)
A woman is two-thirds womb. The other third is a network of nerves and sentimentality.
Women's noblest occupation is... to breed men.
These are the "milder" of the more controversial pieces, and I'd rather not write the harsher ones them here. Buy the book for yourself if you want more of this.
On Modern Society
(Keep in mind this book was written in 1890)
Personal cowardice is the great vice of our demoralized age. Cowardice is corroding the brain and blood of our race, but men have learnt to disguise this terrible infirmity, behind the canting whine of "humanity" and "goodness".
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" those three great lights of Modern Democracies are three colossal Falsehoods.
Personal liberty is very nearly unknown and any citizen who dares to think in direct opposition to the dogma of the Majority does so at the risk of his life, if he thinks too loudly.
Most Acts of Congress are the Machiavellian work of eminent rogues
Slay one man (in order to rob him) and you are a murderer. Slay a million men (in order to rob them) and you are a renowned general
My curse be upon the white-livered and the meek; the shameful dwindlings - who call themselves the "virtuous" the "law-abiding" the "righteous" the "godly" the "obedient ones"
Society is altogether a matter of convenience
When society becomes irksome to the strong they may dissolve it.
Society must exist... for companionship is natural... [but when] it develops into a synonym for social restraint, then it becomes a menace
Government and Society are two distinct entities, and care must be taken not to confound them.
All ethics, politics, and philosophies are pure assumptions, built upon assumptions.
Freemen should never regulate their conduct by the suggestions of dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free
Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might. Disguise it as you may
Is the Golden Rule a rational rule? Is it not rather a menial rule - a coward rule - a best-policy rule? Why is it "right" for one man to do unto others?... Should he not combat them, does not that give them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him?
Is it reasonable to ask preying animals to do unto others as they would be done by? ... could they survive?
"Love one another" you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so?
Readers must distinctly understand that sexual morality is nowise condemned in these pages. In all sexual relationships "morality" is what strength decrees. [In discussing how sexual fidelity is an important moral to maintain]
Certainly it is not good strategy for a man to openly proclaim his loss of faith in conventional moralisms; if he desires to get-on in the world. A wiseling keeps his real sentiments on this point to himself - guards them as his own life. ["Think as you like but behave like others" from the 48 Laws of Power]
The man who plays "the game of life" in strict accord with certain cut and dried principles... is not likely to come out a winner. [Related to my post on Learn to Play the Game]
The man-animal can never be rendered absolutely "moral" because by nature he is as full of wiles as a fox
If all men were scrupulously honest, then honesty might be all right (although even that is questionable), but if one percent are deliberately dishonest, then it is assuredly all wrong. Under such resultant circumstances the "ninety nine" actually become victims of "the one".
Every age and nation must interpret Right and Wrong for itself. So must every man.
All arbitrary rules of Right and Wrong are insolent invasions of personal liberty
Strong men are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth, and Material Power
Every one who would be free must show his power
Each individual should think as he pleases ... without the least respect for what others think or do - the only limit to his actions being the materialized opposition he actually meets with
Cowards serve masters. Bold men make themselves Masters.
The real man must depend upon himself absolutely
A sensible man should never conform to any rule or custom simply because it has been highly commended by others, alive or dead.
The best fighters are the best race-producers.
The word "brutal" in real life means the reverse of effeminate. A man is brutal who will not turn the other cheek.
On Women's Nature
There is no other earthly passion so fiercely, savegely, egotistic, as sexual desire and it is the physical basis of all human "Love" - even the most ethereal and romantic.
American women's passion for marrying foreigners, arises more or less, from similar instincts.
The nerve cells of splendid feminines and resolute warriors vibrate in rhythmic unison... that neither "creed" nor "culture" has ever been able to eradicate.
When these poor miserable manlings [professors, liberal arts majors, essentially beta men according to the author] do happen (by some lucky chance) to get a woman, they make her life a torment
Without deception of some sort, a woman would have no defence whatever, against rivals, lovers, or husbands. We must not forget that women really hate each other - intensely.
Over intellectualism transfigures women into freaks. The more Animal Nature [femininity] a maiden posses; the more of a true woman she is - the better wife and mother she will make. Culture and refinement are horrible substitutes, for the grand old matronly virtues - beauty, naturalness, purity, maidenly hypnotism.
His daughters are controlled with equal vigor, are not permitted to mate with every strumous Dick, Tom, and Harry, that comes smirking along; but are "given away" to men who are born of good stock.
Next to the belted sword-swinger and the sturdy well-to-do athlete; the successful money-making "main of affairs" [businessman] is especially attractive to the average female mind. He also is a resolute professional fighter.
In such matters the female mind is preternaturally acute...in questions of marriage and love, she is an expert.
If a man possesses wealth (no matter how obtained) he can pick and choose among the most delightful darlings in the land
He also [businessman] climbs to success over his prostrate rivals.
The successful business man is able to support a family, and rear up his children in an environment of comparative freedom, and women are sharp to perceive this.
Other things being equal, women prefer a rich-man to a poor-man for a husband, and they are scientifically justified.
He who is without wealth amidst unlimited quantitites of it, is either a coward, a born slave, or a lunatic; and no self-respecting woman should marry such an imbecile.
Without being capable of logical reasoning, yet women intuitively comprehend that "there is oft a lack of courage in the race of [indebted] men."
On Sexual Market Place
Women of all ranks are still a marketable commodity. Whenever the supply exceeds the demand, they are straightway transmuted into ... concubines or "new women"... When few in number, they posses a certain proportion of selective influence.
When for every eligible man, there is a score of eligible women, their market value dwindles, and instead of "selecting" they become "the selected".
If legislative injunctions, and other bogey contrivances were wholly disregarded; then the Strongest and the Boldest would be fertilizing the pick of the best damsels per marriage.
Women instinctively admire soldiers, athletes, kings, nobles, and fighting-men generally, above all other kinds of suitors - and rightly so.
The difference between a man who rules in the Castle, and the other man who is chained in the castle-dungeon, is the difference between success and failure.
When average women find in Statute Law a "deliverer" and a "champion" more powerful than their husbands and brothers, they become both unfaithful and profligate - especially if "well educated".
The bolder and more aggressive men are, the more women of all classes admire them
Capitalists, kings, and presidents never take these servile hounds into consideration - nor do sensible women.
In sexual affairs, they [beta males] must of necessity, mate themselves with second-rate women - who cannot possibly find anything more to their tastes.
This book would likely never get published today. But it was used as a basis for The Satanic Bible. It has some comments on "modern society" in the 1890s which are still prevalent today. It takes an extremely harsh view of the world, dictating that "Might" and power are the ultimate goals in life, and any form of morality is simply a nuisance. It shows how men used to think about race, women, etc., from that time period, and which of those views have fallen out of favor. His prediction on the beta-ization of men seems to have come more or less true. Interested in others' thoughts on these views.
The entire audiobook of Might Is Right by Ragnar Redbeard, one of the most scandalous and controversial books ever written. A treatise on Social Darwinism, or "Survival of the Fittest," this mysterious, classic work, written ina thunderous prose not encountered in modern times, has influenced such iconclastic thinkers as Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey, who used sections of it in his Satanic Bible. Learn the truths that many fear to know!