PDA

View Full Version : Might Is Right?



Moody
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 06:21 PM
'Might is right' [MIR] morality is very attractive to us.
Ragnar Redbeard's book of the same name is a best seller amongst nationalists, apparently.
However, when I read that book I couldn't help thinking that Redbeard's tongue was firmly lodged in his cheek!

Therefore I have tended to criticise this amoral stance of MIR; I have even said that it is hypocritical.

Let those who disagree with me HONESTLY answer the following question;

"Is rape right or wrong"?

http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~winter/giger.biomechlandscape1.jpeg

Lars
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 06:36 PM
"Is rape right or wrong"?

I would say wrong. Sexual dimorphism of humans leaves females, generally speaking, at a distinct disadvantage to males. I suppose it would OK in an anarchy, but so then would the murder of the rapist by the victim's mate after the fact. A "mighty" man should be able to attract females, no?

-Lars

Jack
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 05:28 AM
'Might is right' [MIR] morality is very attractive to us.
Ragnar Redbeard's book of the same name is a best seller amongst nationalists, apparently.
However, when I read that book I couldn't help thinking that Redbeard's tongue was firmly lodged in his cheek!

Therefore I have tended to criticise this amoral stance of MIR; I have even said that it is hypocritical.

Let those who disagree with me HONESTLY answer the following question;

"Is rape right or wrong"?

Rape is 'wrong' because I disagree with it. Might is right - I consider that a fact. Then consider that we are intelligent animals, with subjective motivations and values. I don't think its hypocritical. Lars' notes that murdering a rapist in anarchy is acceptable, I think it is safest to take Anarchy as the starting point for all societies. The strong impose their rule, the weaker exchange obedience for protection, the genius produces a common identity for the group, violent exchanges of elites occurs occasionally, and sometimes a rising elite will pull the entirety of the non-ruling population under his influence against the current elite or outside threats, and crush them and assert, through himself, the entire power of the population. This is known as total mobilization. Law is the codified values of those who wield State power.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:46 AM
"Is rape right or wrong"?

Neither. As Aloysha pointed out "Law is the codified values of those who wield State power." It depends on the society. I don't think that the "might is right" philosophy can always work when applied to individual issues outside of a larger context, and I don't believe it is meant to be (maybe for Satanists :P).

I guess there is the "moral" MIR philosophy (the kind many Nationalists may have) and the "amoral" philosophy (that is seen more in Satanists)

I don't personally think that rape is right (what a surprise! lol)...but in the event that it happened to me or someone close to me I would like to have my vengeance. And if I did, I would like people to look at it as "might equalled right" not wrong ;) Of course it is a hypocritical philosophy in this context -in my perspective it would have been wrong for him to rape me, yet right for me to obtain retribution. Where would you draw the line at this level?

Jack
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:58 AM
"Is rape right or wrong"?

Neither. As Aloysha pointed out "Law is the codified values of those who wield State power." It depends on the society. I don't think that the "might is right" philosophy can always work when applied to individual issues outside of a larger context, and I don't believe it is meant to be (maybe for Satanists :P).

I guess there is the "moral" MIR philosophy (the kind many Nationalists may have) and the "amoral" philosophy (that is seen more in Satanists)

I don't personally think that rape is right (what a surprise! lol)...but in the event that it happened to me or someone close to me I would like to have my vengeance. And if I did, I would like people to look at it as "might equalled right" not wrong ;) Of course it is a hypocritical philosophy in this context -in my perspective it would have been wrong for him to rape me, yet right for me to obtain retribution. Where would you draw the line at this level?

If you want to make it universally applicable, you draw the line at self defense. If you don't care for making it universally applicable, you draw it at your own interests - yourself, those you care for, what you own, and so on. I do not see a contradiction between MIR and European racial, cultural and spiritual preservation.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:38 AM
If you want to make it universally applicable, you draw the line at self defense. If you don't care for making it universally applicable, you draw it at your own interests - yourself, those you care for, what you own, and so on. I do not see a contradiction between MIR and European racial, cultural and spiritual preservation.

I don't see it either, but I see the arguments. I'm more or less looking for answers for them myself. If you draw it at your personal level...what if you want to rape someone, murder someone, etc.? What if you want to off the guy higher in seniority at your place of employment so you can grab the higher pay cheque? Anything like that!

Would the principle of MIR have to be defined by pre-existing ideas of morality? Then it's not a moral system of it's own.

(I'm not trying to be antagonistic btw, I'm just shooting off random thoughts at 1:33am when what I need to do is study and rest for my midterm lol)

Jack
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:54 AM
If you wanted to rape someone, what would stop the you? Whoever is willing to exercise power against you. Children aren't born virtuous. The child has no issues against lying to his mother if it means he gets another chunk of chocolate. The child grows up and becomes aware of the power structure, what he can and can't do, and these evaluations become ingrained and part of his morality. Why does the MIR principle need to be defined by pre existing ideas of morality? Why can't pre-existing ideas of morality be defined within MIR? :)

MIR isn't a morality of its own. It's a framework for action. If you want a morality for it, that morality is nessecarily subjective. Put a subject in it, and let him figure out who he is, provide him with innate motivations (instincts), let him find out his power-relations to the rest of the world, and he will produce his own morality.

Moody
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:09 PM
Rape is a perfect paradigm of MIR philosophy.

Read Ragnar Readbeard's 'Might is Right' - this is a long sustained treatment of this philosophy, and postively rejoices in the rape and pillage of Viking mythology.

Anything less than Redbeard is hypocritical.

In rape we have not so much a sexual act, but the assertion of power/might in its most base form; the stronger, mightier creature overpowers the weaker, and subjects her to pain, humiliation and sometimes death.
During war, gang rapes proliferate - just look at the Red Army in 1944-5!

Redbeard, an honest espouser of MIR, would find nothing 'wrong' in all this - indeed, it is 'right' because it is 'might'!

Are we savages of the Red Army?
No?
Are we then hypocrites?

Or should we rather look at the morality we actually do follow, a morality which hates to see the weak humilated by the strong, and hates to see the strong act without Honour?
Should we not rather look toward that European code of Knightly valour, which regards the good treatment of the weak and even of our enemies, right.
Ayran = Noble.

In English we call a Noble a Gentle - man.

MIR is Darwinian and Ignoble.

Ederico
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 02:16 PM
I do not support the Might is Right "Philosophy" especially within a Societal Collective context. It also depends whether it is a Universal Might or a Might in a particular field.

Most probably we will all be faced with Might is Right individuals who will try to impose themselves on us, and most probably we will all be Might is Right individuals ourselves when we are faced with individuals of lesser Might and/or Mights. I find Might is Right as a natural phenomenon quite in line with our natural instincts, yet in a Society Might might not be Right from some particular standpoints. The question is probably subjective, and due to this I am willing to hear any standpoint offered.

Jack
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 07:46 AM
As I said, there is no hypocricy in accepting Might is Right. I suppose it depends on how you define 'Right'. If we accept might is right as in, right is morally correct, then this is absurd, because man is a subjective being, and there is no absolute right - what is right for the victor is wrong for the loser. Might is Right as a sort of metaphysics - yes, that is what I accept. That is how the world works. In order to have society work the way one wants it to work, one has to exercise power - 'might'. I see no contradiction.

Moody
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 06:03 PM
As I said, there is no hypocricy in accepting Might is Right. I suppose it depends on how you define 'Right'. If we accept might is right, as in, right is morally correct, then this is absurd, because man is a subjective being, and there is no absolute right - what is right for the victor is wrong for the loser. Might is Right as a sort of metaphysics - yes, that is what I accept. That is how the world works. In order to have society work the way one wants it to work, one has to exercise power - 'might'. I see no contradiction.

Might is Right [MIR] is a moral (or rather, amoral) Absolute.

It states that Might is always Right;
It doesn't say 'might is right when it goes in my favour, but might is wrong when it is against my interests'.

No, it states - Might is Right, ALWAYS.

Therefore, the unhypocritical upholder of MIR - like Ragnar Redbeard - finds just as much to admire in the Mongol Hordes as he does in the Vikings; he even admires the crooked capitalist, the serial killer and the serial rapist!

To hold to MIR, but to claim that rape is WRONG is hypocritical, because rape is a form of Might making Right.

The position you yourself adopt in your post above is not MIR, but Perspectivism.
You do NOT always consider MIR - only sometimes, when it suits your own Perspective. Therefore, at those other times you MUST consider that Might is Wrong [MIW].

To hold MIR and MIW at the SAME TIME is contradictory.

This is Perspectivism.

Jack
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 07:30 AM
Might is Right [MIR] is a moral (or rather, amoral) Absolute.

It states that Might is always Right;
It doesn't say 'might is right when it goes in my favour, but might is wrong when it is against my interests'.

No, it states - Might is Right, ALWAYS.

ROFL. 'Might is right', in other words, is akin to 'turn the other cheek'? What rubbish. I didn't say what I judge as morally right is right for everyone. On the contrary. It is right in my opinion. Opinions are not absolutes. That is as far as ethics needs extend. Actions - which operate in the realm of MIR, i.e., reality - are guided by ethics.


Therefore, the unhypocritical upholder of MIR - like Ragnar Redbeard - finds just as much to admire in the Mongol Hordes as he does in the Vikings; he even admires the crooked capitalist, the serial killer and the serial rapist!

What is wrong with being a capitalist?


To hold to MIR, but to claim that rape is WRONG is hypocritical, because rape is a form of Might making Right.

The position you yourself adopt in your post above is not MIR, but Perspectivism.
You do NOT always consider MIR - only sometimes, when it suits your own Perspective. Therefore, at those other times you MUST consider that Might is Wrong [MIW].

*Yawn*. I use Might is Right as a sort of metaphysics. I am a subject in this world. Might is Right (as metaphysics) which perspectivism as ethics works just fine. Perhaps I should restate it so you don't screw my arguments and attack a straw man - again.

"Might is legal right. Political rights can be violated. That is a fact, and legal rights are based on power. I exist, I have a perspective. How should I act? In accordance with the wishes of those who wield the law? No - I'll act how I want to act, based on what is good as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a damn how others want me to act, unless it helps me achieve my aims - which are correct for me for the sole reason because I say so. I will exercise whatever power I have at my disposal in order to ensure I achieve my own subjective aims."

I hope I cleared that up.


To hold MIR and MIW at the SAME TIME is contradictory.

This is Perspectivism.

There are no contradictions. Check your premises.

Arkouda
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 12:52 PM
As Aloysha is explaining, you are ignoring the important subjective element in MIR thought. Just like there is no Right or Wrong, there is no One Universal Might - there is my might, your might, his might, her might... etc. MIR thought is ultimately the extreme logical outcome of legal Positivism.

"Might is Right" is not defining "might" but is redefining "right". We're not talking about judgement here; we're talking about facts. What matters that we condemn rape? It happens and no condemnation stops it. The only thing that can stop or truly "condemn" a rape is might, power. Today, my might is against rape. If I saw a rape happening, I'd be kicking ass. If I were born in a Viking culture (or were I a Catholic Knight in the Middle Ages, at any rate), I'd have thought different about raping enemy women. But still note that there are power structures which form ethics - it's not amoral. Vikings didn't rape just anyone - only war booty. There's a power structure which defines ethics.

Ultimately, MIR thought is more a metaethical exercise rather than an exercise in normative ethics. This is what each and every one of you will do - follow his/her own interests, and when you meet with opposition, you will try to break it according to your might (not to your right), and so forth.

Moody
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 05:04 PM
; "Actions - which operate in the realm of MIR, i.e., reality - are guided by ethics".

Moody; 'Right' is an ethical term which has its opposite in 'Wrong'.
Actions are judged to be right or wrong, in reality.
If you say that MIR=Reality, then you must agree that the action of Rape is Right.


"What is wrong with being a capitalist?"

Moody; Capitalism places the accruing of Capital as its Highest Value.
This is WRONG [ethical judgement, see above], as Race/Nation/Culture should be of the Highest Value.


" I use Might is Right as a sort of metaphysics. I am a subject in this world. Might is Right (as metaphysics) which perspectivism as ethics works just fine. Perhaps I should restate it so you don't screw my arguments and attack a straw man - again".

Moody; It was I who introduced the term "Perspectivism", and told you that that was what you were actually arguing; the term perspectivism was completely absent from your original statement.
You have now appropriated it, and use histrionic language to try and conceal that appropriation!
I have no intention of "screwing" with your arguments or anything else - please try and keep the language philosophical- leave that nonsense in the Lounge.


"Might is legal right. Political rights can be violated. That is a fact, and legal rights are based on power. I exist, I have a perspective. How should I act? In accordance with the wishes of those who wield the law? No - I'll act how I want to act, based on what is good as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a damn how others want me to act, unless it helps me achieve my aims - which are correct for me for the sole reason because I say so. I will exercise whatever power I have at my disposal in order to ensure I achieve my own subjective aims."

Moody; That is the kind of petulant stance affected by Capitalism's pseudo-outlaws; Marilyn Manson comes to mind.
In actual fact, we are all very much in the thrall of the systems which have evolved over thousands of years out of common community; our languages, our customs/mores, our racial archetypes etc., etc.,
The rabid individualist - unless he possess genius, which is rare - is a poseur.
What did the Punk Rocker say - "I want to be an individualist, just like him".
No, MIR is, as Ragnar Redbeard's book shows, somthing rather tongue-in-cheek; a piece of self-glorifying hubris.
All sound and fury signifying nothing.
We still work on the basis of what is wrong and of what is right, whether that be mighty or not.


"I hope I cleared that up.
There are no contradictions. Check your premises".

Moody; So is rape wrong or right?

; "Might is Right" is not defining "might" but is redefining "right". We're not talking about judgement here; we're talking about facts".

Moody; If that were so, then we would say;'Might is Might'.
That is a tautology.
To make it clearer, MIR could be rephrased as;
'Might is Never Wrong' [MINW]


"What matters that we condemn rape? It happens and no condemnation stops it. The only thing that can stop or truly "condemn" a rape is might, power".

Moody; When you try to stop a rape happening [rather than enjoy watching it happen because it is 'mighty'], then you are ACTING UPON YOUR JUDGEMENT.
The judgement you have made is "might is wrong" [MIW].


"There's a power structure which defines ethics".

Moody; Yes, and ethics deals with what is wrong AND right.
Ethics says that might can be both wrong and right, NOT that might is ALWAYS right [MIR].


"Ultimately, MIR thought is more a metaethical exercise rather than an exercise in normative ethics. This is what each and every one of you will do - follow his/her own interests, and when you meet with opposition, you will try to break it according to your might (not to your right), and so forth".

Moody; And you will sometimes use sympathy, compromise, passivity, standing-down, retreat, altruism etc., to further your interests.
In these cases, Might is Not Right, Might is Wrong - back to ethical judgement.

Arkouda
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 07:46 PM
The trouble is that you've once more ignored the subjective element.


If that were so, then we would say;'Might is Might'.
That is a tautology.
True. By this same fact, there can be no definition of right; it will always end in the tautology of 'Right is Right'. Let us say that MIR thought replaces Right and Wrong with Might-in-favour-of-my-interests and Might-against-my-interests.


To make it clearer, MIR could be rephrased as;
'Might is Never Wrong' [MINW]
I do not agree with such a rephrasal. So I could be said to not take the phrase "Might is Right" too literally; that is, as "Might is Always Right" (the true polarity of MINW). MIAR would fall into contradiction once there is a clash of two mights. My interests may clash with yours - to say that we are both right in the universal moral sense would be to fall into contradiction. MIAR proposes that there is a Universal Might (an objective moral system), but as I said there isn't. So my interpretation of "Might is Right" is not "Might is Always Right" but "Following my Might is Right", akin to Nietzsche's "Will to Power".


, then you are ACTING UPON YOUR JUDGEMENT.
The judgement you have made is "might is wrong" [MIW].
Not really. Allow me to answer with a question. Would you say that logically an MIR adherent would not counter an attack on himself or his family merely because he would enjoy the attack as a 'mighty' action?

Interest, Moody, interests.

The judgement which I have made is "This Might is Not Right" that is "This Might is Against Me/My Interests/My Values".


Yes, and ethics deals with what is wrong AND right.
Ethics says that might can be both wrong and right....
Yes, MIR says that "might against me" is wrong, "might in favour of me" is right. Again, don't ignore that subjectivity.


Moody; And you will sometimes use sympathy, compromise, passivity, standing-down, retreat, altruism etc., to further your interests.
In these cases, Might is Not Right, Might is Wrong - back to ethical judgement.
If you're understanding sympathy, compromise, passivity, standing-down, retreat, altruism as tools, as means to reach an end (your interest) rather than as intrinsic moral goods, then I don't know what the difference between this view and an enlightened MIR view is.

Such an enlightened MIR view is elucidated the following passage from Pareto's Les Systemes Socialistes. The passage is also adequate to illustrate better the notion that MIR is verily a metaethical exercise:


A sign which almost invariably presages the decadence of an aristocracy is the intrusion of humanitarian feelings and of affected sentimentalizing which render the aristocracy incapable of defending its position. Violence, we should note, is not to be confused with force. Often enough one observes cases in which individuals and classes which have lost the force to maintain themselves in power make themselves more and more hated because of their outbursts of random violence. The strong man strikes only when it is absolutely necessary, and then nothing stops him. Trajan was strong, not violent: Caligula was violent, not strong.

When a living creature loses the sentiments which, in given circumstances are necessary to it in order to maintain the struggle for life, this is a certain sign of degeneration, for the absence of these sentiments will, sooner or later, entail the extinction of the species. The living creature which shrinks from giving blow for blow and from shedding its adversary's blood thereby puts itself at the mercy of this adversary. The sheep has always found a wolf to devour it; if it now escapes this peril, it is only because man reserves it for his own prey. Any people which has horror of blood to the point of not knowing how to defend itself will sooner or later become the prey of some bellicose people or other. There is not perhaps on this globe a single foot of ground which has not been conquered by the sword at some time or other, and where the people occupying it have not maintained themselves on it by force. If the Negroes were stronger than the Europeans, Europe would be partitioned by the Negroes and not Africa by the Europeans. The 'right' claimed by people who bestow on themselves the title of 'civilized' to conquer other peoples, whom it pleases them to call 'uncivilized,' is altogether ridiculous, or rather, this right is nothing other than force. For as long as the Europeans are stronger than the Chinese, they will impose their will on them; but if the Chinese should become stronger than the Europeans, then the roles would be reversed, and it is highly probable that humanitarian sentiments could never be opposed with any effectiveness to any army.

Reference: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb/misc/pareto.html

I hope that I make my point clearer when I say that I do not consider Ragnar's MIR view to be very enlightened. As in all philosophies, one finds the coarse and the refined, and Ragnar is on the former side of the process (unless he be mocking us, as you understand).

Jack
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 11:56 PM
Aloysha; "Actions - which operate in the realm of MIR, i.e., reality - are guided by ethics".

Moody; 'Right' is an ethical term which has its opposite in 'Wrong'.
Actions are judged to be right or wrong, in reality.
If you say that MIR=Reality, then you must agree that the action of Rape is Right.

'Right' is also a political term, which is what I'm referring to.


Aloysha; "What is wrong with being a capitalist?"

Moody; Capitalism places the accruing of Capital as its Highest Value.
This is WRONG [ethical judgement, see above], as Race/Nation/Culture should be of the Highest Value.

Wrong by whose standards? Yours?


Aloysha; " I use Might is Right as a sort of metaphysics. I am a subject in this world. Might is Right (as metaphysics) which perspectivism as ethics works just fine. Perhaps I should restate it so you don't screw my arguments and attack a straw man - again".

Moody; It was I who introduced the term "Perspectivism", and told you that that was what you were actually arguing; the term perspectivism was completely absent from your original statement.
You have now appropriated it, and use histrionic language to try and conceal that appropriation!
I have no intention of "screwing" with your arguments or anything else - please try and keep the language philosophical- leave that nonsense in the Lounge.

Histrionic language? Please explain. I don't recall denying you brought the term 'perspectivism' into this argument.


Aloysha; "Might is legal right. Political rights can be violated. That is a fact, and legal rights are based on power. I exist, I have a perspective. How should I act? In accordance with the wishes of those who wield the law? No - I'll act how I want to act, based on what is good as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a damn how others want me to act, unless it helps me achieve my aims - which are correct for me for the sole reason because I say so. I will exercise whatever power I have at my disposal in order to ensure I achieve my own subjective aims."

Moody; That is the kind of petulant stance affected by Capitalism's pseudo-outlaws; Marilyn Manson comes to mind.
In actual fact, we are all very much in the thrall of the systems which have evolved over thousands of years out of common community; our languages, our customs/mores, our racial archetypes etc., etc.,

*yawn* - haha, check JV Stalin, trainrobber as a teenager, AND he went to a seminary as a young boy, great load of good religion and community did to him, eh? Specially when Lenin handed him a section of the Red Army to deal with an uprising of his own people. Lenin specifically said in his last testement that Stalin should not become General Secretary because he acted savagely against his own people.


The rabid individualist - unless he possess genius, which is rare - is a poseur.
What did the Punk Rocker say - "I want to be an individualist, just like him".
No, MIR is, as Ragnar Redbeard's book shows, somthing rather tongue-in-cheek; a piece of self-glorifying hubris.
All sound and fury signifying nothing.
We still work on the basis of what is wrong and of what is right, whether that be mighty or not.

But there is no right or wrong Moody, only personal judgements.


Aloysha; "I hope I cleared that up.
There are no contradictions. Check your premises".

Moody; So is rape wrong or right?

What does it matter to you? That's the key question to anyone who asks whether something, anything, is right or wrong.

Moody
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 06:44 PM
"The trouble is that you've once more ignored the subjective element".

I have discussed Perspectivism with Aloysha, which I take to be subjectivist.


"[Unlike 'might'] there can be no definition of right; it will always end in the tautology of 'Right is Right' ".

Not so, 'might' is not a judgement of ethics, whereas 'right' is.
'Right' is usually opposed to 'wrong'.


"Let us say that MIR thought replaces Right and Wrong with
1)Might-in-favour-of-my-interests and
2)Might-against-my-interests".

You are making the judgement that 1) is 'right', and that 2) is 'wrong'.



"I could be said to not take the phrase "Might is Right" too literally; that is, as "Might is Always Right" (the true polarity of MINW)".

Therefore you agree that Might is Not Always Right [MINAW]; i.e., that in some instances, Might is Wrong [MIW].
MIW severely weakens the argument that MIR to the point of abdication. You slip into Perspectivism.


"MIAR would fall into contradiction once there is a clash of two mights. My interests may clash with yours - to say that we are both right in the universal moral sense would be to fall into contradiction. MIAR proposes that there is a Universal Might (an objective moral system), but as I said there isn't".

But you've acted as if there IS. You have not admitted that Might is Sometimes Wrong [MISW], and therefore by implication have tried to sustain MIAR.


"So my interpretation of "Might is Right" is not "Might is Always Right" but "Following my Might is Right", akin to Nietzsche's "Will to Power".

But Nietzsche says that life IS 'will to power'.


"Would you say that logically an MIR adherent would not counter an attack on himself or his family merely because he would enjoy the attack as a 'mighty' action?"

Yes, that would be very 'Neronian' - Sado-Masochism is the reductio ad absurdum of MIR.


"The judgement which I have made is 'This' Might is Not Right, that is 'This Might is Against Me/My Interests/My Values'.

Yes, in the latter case you are saying that MI Sometimes Wrong in different words.


"If you're understanding sympathy, compromise, passivity, standing-down, retreat, altruism as tools, as means to reach an end (your interest) rather than as intrinsic moral goods, then I don't know what the difference between this view and an enlightened MIR view is".

Ends and means; a true, dyed-in-the-wool MIRist would not use Weak means to achieve his ends. He must use, like the proverbial Viking, only Mighty Means to achieve Mighty ends - anything else is a dilution. By using Weak means he allows MISW.


" 'Right' is also a political term, which is what I'm referring to".

So, by implication, am I;
"RIGHTS THEORIES OF POLITICS; Political theories which use such concepts as right, obligation, law and justice in describing and explaining political arrangements; to be compared and contrasted with power theories of politics ..."
[Scruton, Dictionary of Political Thought]
This is why you and 'Arkouda' are slipping into contradiction at every turn.


"Capitalism is wrong by whose standards?"

By the standards of Racial Nationalism.


"But there is no right or wrong Moody, only personal judgements".

Racial Nationalism makes a series of communitarian judgements; 'no man is an island'.

Jack
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 10:08 PM
Aloysha; " 'Right' is also a political term, which is what I'm referring to".

Moody Lawless; So, by implication, am I;
"RIGHTS THEORIES OF POLITICS; Political theories which use such concepts as right, obligation, law and justice in describing and explaining political arrangements; to be compared and contrasted with power theories of politics ..."
[Scruton, Dictionary of Political Thought]
This is why you and 'Arkouda' are slipping into contradiction at every turn.

Read my essay again. Rights are the priveliges of power.


Aloysha; "Capitalism is wrong by whose standards?"

Moody; By the standards of Racial Nationalism.

:bravo Tell me what is wrong with Capitalism. Under laissez faire capitalism, the welfare system would collapse and so would all racial discrimination laws, the vast majority of the Government structure would be gone, and most racial foreigners would simply be out of jobs. Without a welfare system for them to rest on for a while, they'd be at the point of starvation fairly soon, and the second they attacked you or your property, you have the right to defend yourself by any means you deem nessecary. The State could even be selective about who it recognised as citizens, and deny non-citizens the privelige of being recognised by the legal system. Also, those non-whites who do own businesses don't have a 'right', in any sense of the term, to a customer base - the customers can be convinced to buy from a white business. Capitalism is not hostile to Racial Nationalism.

Karl Marx's labour theory of value was exploded a long time ago by the Austrian School of economics. Do tell us what 'exploitation' you're talking about, and give a measure by which we can judge whether a business is exploitive or not.


Aloysha; "But there is no right or wrong Moody, only personal judgements".

Moody; Racial Nationalism makes a series of communitarian judgements; 'no man is an island'.

I never said man was an island. But groups do not think, only individuals think. "Communitarian judgements" is an excuse for one individual to exercise power over a group, in their name.

Moody
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 07:18 PM
"Rights are the priveliges of power".

In your reductionist view they are; however, they are mostly understood as ranging from the 'inalienable' [i.e., possessed by all, including the unprivileged], to those possessed by virtue of Race/Birthright, to those bestowed by privilege etc.,
The concepts of 'inalienable rights', and 'racial rights', are obviously related to moral concepts of 'right and wrong' [hence use of the same word].


":bravo Tell me what is wrong with Capitalism".

I already have; Capitalism places 'capital' as its 'ultimate concern', not race and nation.
You yourself said only three weeks ago that "national capitalism is a contradiction".
That makes it plain that nationalism and capitalism are contradictory.
Obviously, as a Nationalist I would find something wrong with Capitalism! Instead of ordering others to "read my essays", why don't you read them yourself?


"Under laissez faire capitalism, the welfare system would collapse ...".

Sounds like incipient anarchy to me!


"Capitalism is not hostile to Racial Nationalism".

Is it not?! - what Capitalist State do you live in!
Anyway, didn't you say three weeks ago that capitalism was definitively "Internationalist", and that "national capitalism is a contradiction"?
Oh, I forgot, I already mentioned that!
I don't think I need detain you any longer ...

Arkouda
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 08:59 PM
Arkouda; "The trouble is that you've once more ignored the subjective element".

Moody Lawless; I have discussed Perspectivism with Aloysha, which I take to be subjectivist.
And I take Perspectivism to be of higher value than Objectivism (in the moral sense of there being a prescribed morality for everyone. Your take? Have you read Julius Evola? The laws which govern individuals are objective, but the individuals themselves still have different perspective. The Will to Power is objective. It exists objectively. Yet, to every war, to every competition, there is a winner and a loser, a master and a slave - and thus different perspectives of what is right and wrong, good and evil. On successive levels, the Universe is polylogical.

Once you drop the assumptions of egalitarianism, you accept the implications of perspectivism. For what is the height of the Elite if not their higher perspective of reality?


Arkouda; "[Unlike 'might'] there can be no definition of right; it will always end in the tautology of 'Right is Right' ".

Moody Lawless; Not so, 'might' is not a judgement of ethics, whereas 'right' is.
'Right' is usually opposed to 'wrong'.
No, I did not imply . I implied [like might].


Arkouda; "Let us say that MIR thought replaces Right and Wrong with
1)Might-in-favour-of-my-interests and
2)Might-against-my-interests".

Moody; You are making the judgement that 1) is 'right', and that 2) is 'wrong'.
Yes. That's the whole point with Might is Right.


Arkouda; "I could be said to not take the phrase "Might is Right" too literally; that is, as "Might is Always Right" (the true polarity of MINW)".

Moody; Therefore you agree that Might is Not Always Right [MINAW]; i.e., that in some instances, Might is Wrong [MIW].
MIW severely weakens the argument that MIR to the point of abdication. You slip into Perspectivism.
In some instances, yes, Might is Wrong. When Might is against me. But don't think within Platonic/Christian standards of good and evil. I don't necessarily think that my enemy is evil. I agree with Yockey that the definition of "enemy" is one of a clash of interests - which should not prevent one from acting accordingly, of course.


Arkouda; "MIAR would fall into contradiction once there is a clash of two mights. My interests may clash with yours - to say that we are both right in the universal moral sense would be to fall into contradiction. MIAR proposes that there is a Universal Might (an objective moral system), but as I said there isn't".

Moody; But you've acted as if there IS. You have not admitted that Might is Sometimes Wrong [MISW], and therefore by implication have tried to sustain MIAR.
You are putting forth a very simplistic and strongly dualistic explanation of MIR, whereas MIR takes polarities to be extremities of the same fact (such as say, being on different sides in competition).


Arkouda; "So my interpretation of "Might is Right" is not "Might is Always Right" but "Following my Might is Right", akin to Nietzsche's "Will to Power".

Moody; But Nietzsche says that life IS 'will to power'.
Yes, and, in agreement, I said that MIR is a metaethical exercise as opposed to a normative exercise.

Definitions;
metaethics - ("about ethics" or "beyond ethics") a [u]description of the present condition of ethical values and structures.
normative ethics - a prescription of the ideal condition of ethical values and structures.


Arkouda; "Would you say that logically an MIR adherent would not counter an attack on himself or his family merely because he would enjoy the attack as a 'mighty' action?"

Moody; Yes, that would be very 'Neronian' - Sado-Masochism is the reductio ad absurdum of MIR.
That was a rhetorical question, but which further revealed your misunderstanding of what MIR involves. Even in such a pantomime as Ragnar Redbeard's book (the very definition of reductio ad absurdum, I should say), could you find a glorification of Might when this Might goes against Ragnar himself?

Moody
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 06:13 PM
"I take Perspectivism to be of higher value than Objectivism (in the moral sense of there being a prescribed morality for everyone). Your take?"

There was a thread done on the Philosophy Forum some time ago which looked at subject vs. object - perhpas you could add to it if you haven't already.
I tend to think that subject/object are inseparable and fluctuate in prominence accordingly, and so their value is likewise fluid.
I have always held that we are far less 'objective' than we like to think, and do tend towards Romantic, i.e., subjectivist forms of expression.
However, such should always be levened with some objectivity if possible.


"Have you read Julius Evola?"

I have, but I've some problems with his views.
I've said elsewhere that I disagree with his appraisal of the Renaissance. Evola seems to think that modern woes derive from the Renaissance which he regards as a false movement. I, however, go along with the Nietzschean view that the Renaissance was a great period in European Culture, and a genuine return to Classical Values.
Because of this, I have a couple of Evola books which sit as yet unread on my bookshelf!


"The laws which govern individuals are objective, but the individuals themselves still have different perspective. The Will to Power is objective. It exists objectively. Yet, to every war, to every competition, there is a winner and a loser, a master and a slave - and thus different perspectives of what is right and wrong, good and evil. On successive levels, the Universe is polylogical".

Agreed in part, although I would rather write 'objective/subjective' in each place where you wrote 'objective'. I like the term 'polylogical'.


"Once you drop the assumptions of egalitarianism, you accept the implications of perspectivism. For what is the height of the Elite if not their higher perspective of reality?"

Except to say that the Elite could be endowed by God, which is thought by believers to be an objective power, Creator of the Universe etc.,
Whether this is true or not, we can be assured that ancient Monarchs really believed that their Divine Right was an objective affair.
It is said that Charles I of England went to the scaffold in supreme calm, sure that he was to meet his God in utter vindication.


"In some instances, yes, Might is Wrong. When Might is against me".

And this is what I am getting at; this admission vitiates the principle of MIR [I am taking it as a principle, comparable with 'Life is Will to Power'].



"But I don't think within Platonic/Christian standards of good and evil. I don't necessarily think that my enemy is evil. I agree with Yockey that the definition of "enemy" is one of a clash of interests - which should not prevent one from acting accordingly, of course".

But I am deliberately using the ethically objectivised terms 'right and wrong', not the religious terms 'good and evil'.
Yockey was a jurist, and would probably agree that his racial objectives were 'right' in ethical terms; likewise, he cast the Jew as a 'culture-destroyer', which more than implies a sense of 'wrong' - even 'evil'.


"You are putting forth a very simplistic and strongly dualistic explanation of MIR, whereas MIR takes polarities to be extremities of the same fact (such as say, being on different sides in competition)".

Unfair; I am taking MIR as a Principle. If it cannot stand up as a Principle, then it becomes a cliched slogan [such as I think it is - cf., 'survival of the fittest'].


"I said that MIR is a metaethical exercise as opposed to a normative exercise".

But isn't it slightly absurd to call an Imperative and Normative Judgement such as 'Might Is Right', 'Metaethical'?


"Even in such a pantomime as Ragnar Redbeard's book ... could you find a glorification of Might when this Might goes against Ragnar himself?"

Actually, I see Ragnar's book as a DILATION on MIR. Surely the work of de Sade is an actual reduction in the direction that YOU are suggesting [i.e., to self-slaughter].


While it is fairly obvious that rights which are not backed up by might are ineffective, this does not mean that they are not 'right'.

If all racialists were outlawed and slowly slaughtered, that would not mean that racialism was 'wrong'; it would not mean that a White woman's right to reject a Negro suitor was no longer an ethical right.
Her right to breed within her own race only, is an 'inalienable' right, which, even if it were abrogated by a Black Rapist, would still be an inalienable right;

"An inalienable right is a right that cannot be RENOUNCED or TRANSFERRED; whether it can be forfeited is unclear ..."
[Scruton]

So the fact that Might can abuse, crush or steal rights does not necessarily vitiate them as rights per se.
For this reason, even in today's oppressive clime, we uphold the ethical rights of racial integrity whether we are stronger or not.

Ventrue
Wednesday, September 7th, 2005, 06:12 AM
Two thoughts on the subject:

1. The way I understand it, "might is right" doesn't actually mean that it is "right." It means this: "Like it or not, the strong win, so you better make sure your side is strong, because simply saying the other side is mean to you isn't going to help you. And like it or not, your people needs to expand its territory by force to gain more strength, if you want to survive. Actually, it's only good that you do, if yours is the best race, because the best race is the best vanguard of life."

2. To ask "is rape right or wrong" is beside the point. The question should be: "is an action good or bad for our goal?" Our goal is the survival of our race, because it's the best thing that life on this planet has accomplished so far. That's the goal you need to weigh every single action against. "Right or wrong" according to some Christian or other set of values is a thinking that does not have the survival of our race in mind. Good or bad, people -- that's your moral compass.

Siegfried
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 04:46 PM
taken from "Might is Right", by 'Ragnar Redbeard', 1896

It has taken countless evolutionary epochs to make man what he is, the most ferocious hirsute beast of prey that inhabits the caverns and jungles of earth.

Can his osseus mechanism and pathological instincts be summarily extinguished or reversed, merely by connecting him, per an electric wire, laid through the sewers of Rome, to the feeble dynamos of Bethlehem, and Tarsus ? Can his structural anatomy intended for conflict and slaughter, be transformed in a day, a year, or even in "a million, million of suns?"

To overmaster and devour his neighbor, in the reasoned effort to obtain food and booty, land, love, renown and gold is bred into the very marrow of his bones. Therefore all efforts made by Reformers and Messiahs, to transfigure him into a 'lamb' are foreordained to fathomless failure. Indeed it would be much more reasonable of them to attempt the transfiguration of a grizzly bear into a parlor poodle or propose the transformation of a bald-headed eagle into a gently cooing turtle-dove.

Nearly all the prophetic demi-gods of Democracy from Paul and Isaiah to Carlyle and Ruskin, have ever been madly screeching by the roadside, vainly endeavoring to stay the march! march! march! of a world of bannered armies; striding grimly, sternly by. What are these howling prophets of Evil but dogs eloquently baying at the moon ? "Right wheel there! Right wheel! Turn back! Turn back! You are going to the devil!" is their resounding, ear-splitting chorus. But the human flood sweeps on silently, scornfully, confident, inspired as it were by some over-mastering instinct. "We may be going to the devil" is the unspoken retort of these thundering legionaries ---- these Nations ---- "but even so! is not the Devil honest --- the Destroyer of Deception! ---- the Disobedient One ?"

Can you lass the stars with a green-hide lariat? Can you block the march of Might with magnificent howls of declamatory despair? No! No! Skyward or hellward, man moves on and on and on. If there are barricades in his way, he must surmount them or blast them aside. If there are Wild Beasts ready to spring upon him, he must destroy them or they will destroy him. If the highroad leads through hells, then those infernos must be be besieged, assailed and taken possession of --- aye, even if their present monarchs have to be rooted-out with weapons as demoniac and deadly as their own.

This world is too peaceful, too acquiescent, too tame. It is a circumcised world. Nay! --- a castrated world! It must be made fiercer, before it can become grander and better and ---- more natural.

Fools indeed are they who would arrest the unfolding process with 'humanitarian'. Cagliostroism and "rescue the perishing" mummery. Maniacs are they who would ward off the suns blazing rays from withering souls or the blighting frosts of winter from hearts that are already broken. For, I doubt not, through the ages, one tremendous purpose runs; and maturing crops are ripened with the process of the suns ---- to be sickled down, threshed and rolled away.

Undoubtedly the Black Magic of the Christ Myth, combined with the subterranean sorcery of medieval sacerdotalism has partially succeeded, not only in sapping individual intitiative, but also in suppressing in our race many of its ancestral leonine traits and emasculating necromancy. No! It has not transfigured us all into teams of contented oxen and bunches of earmarked sheep, although that is its final hope. There are some of the grand old stock, left alive. Few indeed are they amidst a world of slaves and swine.

The lion is still the lion, although his teeth have been most foully filed down by abominable moral codes; his skin made scrofulous with the mange and leprosy of caged peacefulness ----- his paws fettered by links of slave-voted statutes and an iron collar of State Officialism wound around his regal neck.

Someday, sometime, he is destined to break through the vile bonds that have been cunningly laid on him, escape from the wasting decline that originates from unnatural confinement and regain once more his primitive freedom of Action. The treacherous legislators and illustrious statesmen, who are now so eager to teach him the method of growing wool like sheep and how to fit his battle-scarred shoulders to a horse collar, may then be sorry and sad (if they have time) ---- for he will probably chew them up.

Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downward grade. If the human animal lives a natural, clean life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to "protect" him ----- no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests ----no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no "priests of the Idol" to "save" his soul.

It is false standards of morality that debase and enfeeble individuals, tribes and nations. First, in obedience to some sovereign code, they lose their hardihood and increase their numbers. Then that all may live, they become laborious, submissive to Regulations; and finally --- with Death held up by priestcraft as a fearsome Terror, al personal valor fades away. Thus nations of spaniels are manufactured.

The normal man is the man that loves and feasts and fights and hunts, the predatory man. The abnormal man is he that toils for a master, half-starves, and "thinks" ---- the Christly dog. The first is a perfect animal; the second, a perfect ---- monster.

Every belief that makes a duty of humility ----- that inspires people with "moral" courage only, enervates their fibre, corrupts their spirit, and prepares them first for thralldom and then for ---- throttling.

It is not possible to conceive of Grand Life without incessant rivalry, perpetual warfare and the implacable hunting of man by man....

The soil of every nation is an arena, a stamping ground, where only the most vigorous animals may hope to hold their own. What is all history but the epic of a colossal campaign, the final Armageddon of which is never likely to be fought, because, when men cease to fight ---- they cease to be --- Men.

This old earth is strewn to the very mountain tops with the fleshless skulls and rain bleached bones of perished combatants in countless myriads.

Every square foot, every inch, of soil contains its --- man.

The evolution (or de-volution) of mankind demands the perpetual transfiguration of one man into another, continuous reincarnation, eternal re-birth and re-construction. Scientifically considered, the 'resurrection of the dead' is not an illusion. Every living organism is formed from the decomposed essence of pre-existing organisms. The "man" of to-day is actually built out of the grave-mould of his prototypes; perhaps of ages long forgotten. Thus, without death there could be no birth material; and without conflict, fierce and deadly, there could be no surpassing.

But to individuals foolishly trained to bewail their fate, all these commonplaces facts are agonizing.

"When we solemnly look upon this perpetual conflict", writes Schelling with true theocratic pessism, "it fills us with shuddering sorrow, and with boundless alarm ---- but how can we help it? Hence the veil of sadness that is spread over all nature, the deep indestructible melancholy of all life."

Like many other philosophers, deceived by appearances, Schelling fancies savage and dreadful that which is pure, mischievous that which is preservative, and calamitous that which is benign.

The flow of Destruction is as natural and as needful as the flow of water. No human ingenuity can destroy the Immolation of Man, nor prevent the shedding of blood ---- and why should it?

Majestic Nature continues on her tragic way serenely, caring naught for the wails of the agonized and panic-stricken nor the protests of defeat; but smiling sadly, proudly (yet somewhat disdainfully in her passing stride) at the victor's fierce Hurrah. She loves the writhing of sword-blades ----- the rending of tradition, the crunching of bones, and the flap of shredded shot-torn banners, streaming out savagely (in the night, in the day), over the battle-weary, the mangled dying and the swollen dead. Christs may come and Christs may go but Caesar lives for ever.

Deep, permanent, and abiding is the elemental antagonism between the Sociology of "the Man of Nazareth" and the imprescriptible Laws of the Universe. They are as fire and water to each other ----- irreconcilable. Indeed our planetary system itself shall melt with fervent heat ere the Gallileans Philosophy can conquer.

No human being can ever hope to attain "the perfectibility that is in Christ". So long as we remain animals, we shall be dominated by animal wants and animal passions and animal rivalries.

Undoubtedly the Messiah ideal is unattainable, hopeless, and especially so upon its reformatory side. However the world loves to be deceived by some ghastly delusion and that is the reason perhaps, that it has taken to its bosom this rustic fable; this Gospel of Ineffectuality ---- this Evangel of Darkness ---- this Dream of an Israelite slave. "When the Assyrians and after them the Medes and Persians" writes Tacitus, "were masters of the Oriental world, the Jews of all nations, then held in subjection, were deemed the most contemptible." Christ was a pariah Jew.

Among the virile conquering tribes, the Ideal Man is ever the all-daring Jove, the splendid Apollo, the self-reliant Achilles, of the Constructive Genius. It is only in centuries of dotage ----- in ages of cankersome down-going and nervous disease, that the Model Man becomes a Christ. The Model Man of our forefathers was Odin, a War Lord, but our Ideal Man is a weeping, horse-whipped Jew [1]. A Jew for a God!

The deities of the Greeks and Vikings, Goths and Romans, were all (originally) mighty-men-of-valor, or virile women of surpassing beauty, afterwards held up (before their warlike posterity) as splendid examples of natural nobility, conscious power, daring courage, shrewdness, sexual vigor and boundless strength of charachter. The gods and heroes of antiquity spent their vital force in the destruction of monsters, in the seizure of new hunting-grounds, in the slaughtering of tyrants, and in the breeding of unconquered sons.

But Christ! the God of Christendom! the Divine Exemplar! "that Majestic Figure!" What godlike deed did he ever do? What unconquerable sons did he beget?

If the "first principles of Christianity" should, by an unforeseen miracle triumph in the elemental conflict that is approaching, assuredly the Anglo-Saxon is played-out, his days numbered, his dominion ended, his sepulchre prepared. Multitudinous multiplication of Unfit Millions (broods of strumous semi-idiots) must then proceed through dreary, barren, brain-paralyzing centuries,winding up perhaps in a blast of pestilential plague ---- a Black Death.

The "dead and alive" conditions of the "Celestial" Empire will then be applied to this Western world and under the thin disguise of "Advancement", "Progress", and "Civilization" , an atmosphere of excruciating torture must be artificially created, hostile to all but degenerative forces as in China. In the name of "goodness", "righteousness" and "morality" woe shall be poured out upon our Seed, as it has already been poured out on the rotten swarms of the Orient.

Congenital enfeeblement of body, together with organic degeneracy of mind, must then go on and on, at an ever accelerating ratio, until our posterity may end (as Darwin imagined we began) by becoming chattering apes, without sense enough to light a fire, crack a coconut or swing by their tails.

Behold the modern man! This "heir of all the ages ----- in the foremost ranks of time!" His sight, taste, smell and hearing are all notoriously defective. He can harness thunderbolts, but the unerring instinct of a carrier pigeon is beyond him. His brain has become an over-heated thinking engine, but he may not read the Daily Morning Liar ----- without spectacles. He "understands" more things (or thinks he does) but if suddenly removed from his artificial environment, he would perish helplessly as the Babes-in-the-Wood. He can gauge sound-waves; photgraph broken bones; construct gigantic iron monsters; whisper across miles of copper wire; but, when the pointer-dog sniffs the hidden pheasant from afar off, this erudite Bundle-of-Nerves looks on in blank amazement. The fact is that the civilized man is gradually "losing his senses". If he continues to "progress" at the existing rate, in a comparatively little while, he will have no smell, no sight, no hearing.

"Direr visions worse foreboding,
Glare upon me through the gloom!
Europe's smoke-cloud sinks, corroding
On the land, in noisome fume...
....Showering down like rain of ashes,
On the Cities of God's doom...
...Bustling smug, a pygmy pack,
Plucks its prey from ores embraces;
Walks with crooked soul and back;
Glares like dwarfs with greedy eyes,
For the golden glittering lies" [2]

It is good for a degraded people to be utterly consumed.

Notes:
[1] "Taunts and blows the portion of the slave." Macauley
[2] Henrik Ibsen --- Adapted in the translation.


In the department of Natural History it is axiomatic that all kinds of living beings, from protozoa to man, subsist and propagate, through and by the destruction of feebler competitors, belonging to the same species or to kindred species.

Thus, the big fish eat the little fish ---- the big trees (by absorbing and monopolizing the nutriment) "eat up" the little trees ---- the strongest animals eat the weak animals and so on ---- ad infinitum.

Man is no exception. Conquering and masterful nations have ever been ravenous devourers of flesh-food; and most of them have also been man-eaters. The slaughter-houses of Christendom reek with the dying effluvia of millions and millions of butchered brutes; that man ---- the King of Animal ---- may day by day eat flesh, drink blood and gnaw bones.

Even cannibalism is not extinct in far lands, nor quite unknown in the centres of our proudest civilizations. With the first great revolutionary cataclysm, its revival upon a gigantic scale is not an improbability.

During the eleventh century, man's flesh was cooked, sold, and eaten in England, and Englishmen may again revert to anthropophagy, if ever their imported food supplies should be suddenly and entirely cut off; either by convulsion of nature or acts of war. Ship-wrecked crews have repeatedly saved themselves by casting lots and devouring some of their number: and shipwrecked nations (loaded up to the hatches with seething cargos of festering useless non-descripts) may yet be driven to do the same.

Innumerable are the folk-legends, relating to ancient and modern man-eaters. Formal human sacrifices upon the Altars of Idols are quite common. In Mexico and Ancient Britain, prelates butchered their victims (generally young virgins) in public, amid the acclaim of musical instruments, the chanting of beautiful liturgies, and the hosanna shouts of the mob.

The modern prelate does not employ the rude smoking gully-knife, but uses other weapons, ten times more keen and more destructive. For every human sacrifice "offered-up" in olden times, millions are offered now.

Professor Huxley pictorially describes an African butcher's shop, where human steaks, roasts and sirloins were systematically retailed.

Josephus tells us of mothers who ate their own infants during the last siege of Jerusalem, and in many later sieges human flesh has been consumed.

Oriental traditions record of King Richard Lion Heart, that once upon a time when presiding at a feast of moslem heads, he remarked with grim matter-of-factness "one roast Saracen made good entertainment for nine of ten of my good Christian men." An English Crusading rhymer is even proud of this :

King Richard shall warrant
There is no flesh so nourissant,
Unto an English Man;
Partridge, plover, heron, ne swan,
Cow, ne ox, sheep, ne swine,
As the (roast) head of a Saracen.

Very intelligent New Zealand aboriginals may still be found who describe with much apparent gusto how (in comparatively recent dates) they satiated their ravenous hunger by banqueting all night upon the grilled flesh of foemen they had tomahawked during the day. Neither is it uncommon to hear tattooed old veterans, tell how war-captives were penned up like cattle and fattened upon each other, until required for the tribal oven (formed of red-hot stones, paved into an oval hollow in the ground); ----- how then the fattest were selected, one by one taken out, systematically bled, disemboweled and hung up by the heels on neighboring trees; just as sheep, swine, and cattle are exposed for sale, in our own abattoirs and meat-markets. The Maoris also have a tradition, that if a man kills and eats his enemy, he by doing so, absorbs all the dead man's vitality, strength, and courage.

In the nascent colony of New Zealand, missionaries, soldiers, whalers and pioneers were often cooked and eaten; but by a general consensus of epicurean opinion the "Pakeha's" flesh was voted bad form, principally because it was "too tough and too salty".

During the War of Secession, Northern infantrymen accidentally imprisoned in a Virginia mine, devoured each other one at a time; the last man (John Ewing) dying of hunger and leaving a written record of the facts, sealed up in a flask.

The story of Sawny Bean is well known, also the classical legends of the Cyclops, the Giants, the Phalaris Bull, the Moloch holocausts and Homer's Polyphemus.

Anthropophagy has been practiced in Australia, both by whites and blackfellows. In New Guinea and portions of Africa, man-eating is quite an ordinary custom to this hour. Marcus Clarke describes how Gabbet, and English-born Botany Bay convict, induced his prison comrades to escape with him (into the bush) in order that he might have a holiday and feast, picking their succulent bones and sucking out the marrow thereof.

All over continental Europe there is a popular superstition that Jew rabbis steal and murder Christian infants and maidens, in order to use the blood on the door-lintels, at Passover and other ceremonials.

A similiar charge was brought against the early Christians, and even proved in the Imperial Law Courts, if we are to judge by the verdicts.

Human fat is regularly retailed in modern drug stores and human heads are even now a marketable commodity in the South Seas. There are also mystic brotherhoods in our midst, whose initiates pledge fidelity, and obligate themselves to life-long secrecy, by drinking blood out of a skull, over emblems of violent death ---- with daggers pointed at their throats.

The foundation stones of many famous buildings, palaces, castles, temples, and monuments, have been emblematically laid upon the living body of a man ---- the Kremlin for example.

Is not the Communion Service allegorical anthropophagy ? Is it not a pious periodical cannibal feast in more ways than one? Does not the wine symbolize human blood, and the waters typify human flesh?

Metaphorically considered, every trading Christian State is a meat market, wherein the flesh, bones, and blood not only of men, but of women and little children are bought and sold daily ---- "offered up" nominally for the "Love of God", but really for the Love of Dollars.

Atrocities of the most revolting description are of daily, hourly occurence, not only in Turkey and Siam, but in New York and Chicago; not only in Cuba and Port Arthur, but in London, Madrid, and Paris; not only in Mashonaland, and on the Congo, but in St. Petersburg and Berlin. Men, women, and little children are being everywhere starved slowly to the grave, worked till they fall down, driven insane by legislation, and even tortured to death, inch by inch.

Great financial corporations (backed by the State) directed mostly by Hebrews, literally coin Great Empires into golden dividends; and upon the share lists of mortgage banks and man-devouring institutions generally, may be found the names of other human Carnivores by the thousand. He who doubts, should look up the official share registers, and behold the long rows of adorable names belonging to High Priests, Philanthropists and Rulers, appearing thereon.

Cannibalism was practiced in Ancient Greece at the period of highest culture. Herodotus describes Asian feasts where man's flesh was the chief dish; and down to the Thirteenth Century the Tibetans were in the habit of making their parents into broth.

There are confraternities still in existence, into which no one is ever admitted until he has first killed a man. Among the Dyaks (as among our own ancestors) a youth is never considered a full-grown person capable of founding a home until he has slain at least one enemy in battle. The Thugs of India (a religious sect) brought the science of holy murder, by strategic violence, to such a pitch of perfection that they have never been surpassed ----- not even by Grant or Moltke.

The Kinderawas of India, make a regular practice of eating all their diseased, useless, senile, and decrepit relations; just as packs of wolves fall upon any of their number that is seriously wounded in foray.

In portions of Sumatra, law-breakers are neither imprisoned nor electrocuted, but actually carved up and eaten alive ---- piece by piece. The Capanagugas of South America make of their own stomachs the sepulchre of their dead relatives. A funeral with them is a banquet ---- the collation being a corpse. The Terra Del Fuegans throttle and eat all very old women.

The Monbuttas of Central Africa carry on aggressive wars to capture flesh food. They also dry human flitches in the sun and smoke them for export.

During the Tae Ping rebellion, Chinese soldiers (under General Gordon) were in the habit of cutting out and devouring the hearts of their dead enemies (on the battlefield) like the Maoris and Britons.

Mistresses were specially kept by opulent ancient Peruvians, to breed sucklings ---- for the table. When these women became too old for child-bearing, they were likewise cast into the pot, as usless incumbrances. In 1782 more than forty gypsies were executed in Austria, upon a proved charge of cannibalism. The case of the herdsman Goldsmidt, must not be forgotten; nor the gruesome London legends, regarding sausages being manufactured out of dead cats, dead dogs, dead paupers, and murdered sailors.

The Ancient Scandinavians, Teutons, Celts, (vide St. Jerome) Scythians, Mongols, Sarmatians, Canaanites, Goths, and Huns were all anthropopagi.

Indeed the detailed facts of how men have tortured each other for pleasure, revenge, or profit, would fill 10,000 volumes. No man in his lifetime could read or comprehend all the horrors that have been perpetrated, say in the Tower of London, the Paris Bastille, the Spanish Inquisition, the Rhine Castle Dungeons, by the Bridge of Sighs, the Bosphorous, or in the prison-hells of Chicago, Newgate, Mazas, Siberia, Sing Sing, New Caledonia, Botany Bay or Van Diemen's Land. The cold-blooded cruelty of man to man, surpasses anything that poet-cranks could conceive of, as happening in hell. Cannibalism undoubtedly originated amid over-crowded populations in some pre-historic age. Among moderns (civilized and savage) it merely exists as a survival of social conditions which have long since passed away. At some former era of the world's profoundly mysterious history, men-animals increased in swarming myriads as they are doing now; until at last on the surface of the soil there was scarcely standing room for all. Then the air became laden with the reeking effluvia of their pox, leprosy, poisoning the wells and rivers, and transforming Babylons into charnel houses and tombs. The rearing of tame cattle for food in such an environment, probably became too expensive and cumbersome. Perhaps even the cattle would also be swept away by some blight or rinderpest. Under such horrible circumstances, survivors might from necessity resort to anthropophagy. Gradually the new habit would grow upon them and become a settled custom.

The segmental fragments of pre-historic civilizations are ---- the Cannibal Savages of to-day ---- the savages that we are displacing, pushing aside in order that we may enslave them and repeat over again the same weary old round of growth, power, and decay.

Shoploads of dead soldiers, dug out of old battlefields, possess a regular commercial value. They are imported into England, to be chemically treated and manufactured into fertilizers for enriching exhausted wheat fields. Human hair commands a steady sale, and "cadavers" may be bought for dissection, in any great city for a dollar, C.O.D.

The tanning of human skins for glove-making and book-binding (Meudon!) is an old established industry.

The transformation of blood from animals into human veins, and from healthy humans into unhealthy ones (for a price), is regularly practiced by medical men. The grafting of flesh, bone, and skin, has also been successfully performed.

American sheriffs and detectives hunt down tramps and criminals with specially trained bloodhounds, just as Russians hunt wolves, and sheep farmers hunt coyotes and dingos. It is nowise unusual for Negroes to be first captured, then chained to a stake, flayed alive, soaked in kerosene, and burnt to death amid exultant shrieks of corybantic delight.

Roman senators fattened their lampreys and eels upon the drowned bodies of old worn out slaves and patrician maids and matrons (with uplifted thumb) sent many a gladiator to kingdom come. For innate cruelty of deed, no animal can surpass woman.

In Mahometan Europe boys were unsexed by the lancet, that they may thereafter be more safely employed as harem attendants and in Christian Europe "eunuchs are made and trained and priced, to sing the praise of a risen Christ."

Young girls are nightly bought and sold for currency, like horses and hogs at the street corners; and upon the profits of licensed polyandry "pillars of the Church" become millionaires. Even the salaries of fulminating evangelists are paid out of Rahab's rent.

Baths of human blood are not unknown to students of history; and Jack the Ripper, with his letters written in harlot's blood; enclosing pieces of fried woman's liver to the London chief of police, is certainly not a fabulous ancient legend.

Is this the record of a breed of "dearly beloved brethren?" What hollow mockery these holy phrases are, to be sure? The Brotherhood of man! Ha! Ha! The Brotherhood of Devils, rather!

Allegorically speaking the clothes we wear ---- the houses we live in ---- the food we eat ---- the books we read, have been carved (by force) out of other men's bones and flesh. Literally they are the hides, sinews, flesh, pulp, and outer woolen covering of captive animals, transmuted by human slavery into garments, lumber, implements, thoughts, shoes, and daily dinners. Indeed man's tushes are against all other animate beings whatsoever; and in turn their fangs are against him. So it goes on, and on, and on, as merrily as marriage bells. Vae Victus! And behold, it's good!

This world is no Nirvana, where peaceful pleasure flows.

It is a gruesome butcher-shop, where slain men hang in rows.

"Can one be sure of making a distinction between the sacrificer holding a knife and the wolf with gaping jaws reddened with blood?"
---Marcel Detienne and Jesper Svenbro, "The Feast of the Wolves --- The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among The Greeks"

"History proves that man is a Beast of Prey. The Beast of Prey conquers countries, founds great realms by subjugations of other subjugators, forms states and organizes civilizations in order to enjoy his booty in peace ...Attack and defense, suffering and struggle, victory and defeat, domination and servitude, all sealed with blood; this is the entire history of the human race."
---Richard Wagner

[Source (http://www.galacticapublishing.com/ManTheCarnivore.htm)]

Oskorei
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Great quote, and sums up the realities of this world well. However, the fact that one has to be able to fight in order to survive and prosper, does not mean that one cannot do anything else (like spirituality). The true great man is he who can combine success in the "social war" with spiritual detachment and growth (the "inner war").

Spirituality from a position of weakness is unreal and empty, and spirituality based on an unrealistically "cute" worldview is harmful, but spiritual virility does not contradict the worldview of Redbeard in my view, rather it builds on it and completes it.

Ventrue
Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 05:41 AM
From Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right. Read more here:
http://www.satanservice.org/theory/rrmight.txt

You might as well take the time to read it. I bet that within the last month you've been watching hours' worth of anti-White propaganda on television, full of slave morality, haven't you? And I bet you've gone to school and gotten your head crammed full of even more propaganda. So take just a few minutes and read this webpage!

The excerpt below basically says that making peace with other peoples stands in the way of evolution through survival of the fittest. Not to mention, you'll probably get your head smashed in once the other tribe manages to get a stronger position. You can understand this intellectually, but to fully embrace it emotionally you need someone as eloquent as Ragnar Redbeard to explain it to you.



III.
"Love one another", you say, is this the supreme law. But what power has
made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest?
Is it even possible of practice, and what would result from its universal
application to active affairs? Why should I not hate mine enemies and
hunt them down like the wild beasts they are? If I "love" them, does
that not place me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to "do good"
unto each other? And what is "good"? Can the torn and bloody victim "love"
the blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb? Are we not all
predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon
each other, could they continue to exist?

"Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and dispitefully
use you" is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon
its back when kicked. Obey it, O reader, and you and your posterity to
the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They
shall be hewers of wood and carriers of water: degenerates, Gibeonites.
But hate your enemies with a whole heart. If a man smite you on one
cheek, smash him down! Smite him hip and thigh for self-preservation
is the highest law.

He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog -- a Christian dog.

Give him blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom -- with compound
interest liberally added thereunto! Eye for eye, tooth for tooth -- aye,
four-fold, a hundred-fold! Make yourself the Terror to your adversary;
and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to
ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of
life, and your spirit- your immortal spirit - shall live: not in an
intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and
unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid
progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits
timidity to its descendants.

If men lived "like brothers" and had no powerful enemies to contend
with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities --
like certain oceanic birds that lose the use of their wings because
they do not have to fly from pursuing beasts of prey. If all men had
treated each other with brotherly love since the beginning, what would
have been the result now? If there had been no wars, no rivalry, no
competition, no kingship, no slavery, no survival of the toughest,
no racial extermination, truly what a festering "hell fenced in" this
old globe would be!

Haplotype I
Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 05:54 AM
Yes, well delineated.


"Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and dispitefully
use you"

Yes the Jews wrote this just for us. Of course it's illogical, how can you have an "enemy" if you "love them", it's direct contradiction.

So we must ask ourselves, how did we, as White European Germanics, accept this for 1,500 years abouts? I've often thought about this. Recently I've come across the idea that it was Suspended Belief that did it.

For example, if you first get somebody to believe in a guy dying (Christ), but there was no body ever found, then you can get them to believe any twisting of logic at all.

You can tell them the sky is pink and your enemy is not your enemy, etc.

Suspended Belief seems to be the psychological tactic the Jews used in their early Media attempts with the Holy Bible.

Ventrue
Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 06:00 AM
Well, the Jews don't act as a collective, my fellow non-believer, though it may seem like that sometimes looking from the outside. Actually there's a whole lot of infighting among them, lots of rivalry and different sides. But what they do share is genes that are bent differently from ours, and that is what makes them act against us, not a secret agreement. It is true however that slave morality seems to fit them hand in glove. And so naturally it was Jews who spread it to their neighbors, who else would have? But it wasn't part of a master plan, couldn't have been. In fact, the Christian Jews tried to spread their new religion to their fellow Jews first, and had some minor success, but generally failed. And after that there were plenty of Jews who tried to stop the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, because they saw it as a religion that stole their god, Jehovah, and acted as if it was everybody's god, that everyone was equally loved by him and not just the Chosen. They hated that.

Back to Ragnar Redbeard: his writings will probably seem ... shocking to many readers. Fit only to be ridiculed and then forgotten. That is the democratic spirit talking, the cosmopolitan spirit; the one that believes rules and regulations will take care of everything and make the world a happy place.

That is precisely the spirit that is killing us. It is a lazy spirit, born from being too damn comfortable. The state says, "let me take care of everything, I'm democratic!" and the lazy citizen says, "Sure, I can't be bothered, I'm warm and have a full belly and lots of games. And the state is democratic!"

Those who consider race war more important than the "democratic process" win. Those who don't, lose. As luck would have it, practically every other race belongs to the former category, and ours stands pretty much alone in the latter.

Maybe Ragnar Redbeard can wake someone up? Or do we need a cold, hard winter brought on by nuking Manhattan or something?

Vestmannr
Monday, December 12th, 2005, 11:01 PM
The real question is: who is Ragnar Redbeard? (Jack London or Arthur Desmond?)

SC-Mann
Saturday, December 17th, 2005, 01:58 AM
At first I thought London partially wrote it due to a parallel with his earlier writing style and Ragnar's, but now I am not sure. London would have been 20 years of age at most when it was written; furthermore, London didn't read Nietzsche until years after Might is Right was written.

And as for Desmond, I see his name pushed around as being the real author. I've never read any of his work, and I don't know how experienced he was with America. Did Desmond travel to the United States? Ragnar Redbeard seems to have extensive knowledge about this country.

I am not sure who wrote it, and probably never will.

SubGnostic
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 04:02 PM
Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them.

--Adolf Hitler

During my time here on Skadi, I've ran into several sentiments, varying from side to side, concerning the question, and I'd like to further map your views on the matter. I personally find lamenting warfare and its legacy, immoralizing the concept of might and might put to practice, mentally crippled and quite alien to me. I believe in warrior virtues, and warfare/conflict is naturally the path towards embracing them.

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 06:32 PM
I disagree with this quotation of Hitler. IMO Germanics should guard there ancient grounds, stick to them and keep in good diplomacy - if possible - with their neighbours.

Strength, glory and pride are good things, but I see no reason to invade on foreign ground.

Moody
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 02:15 PM
I disagree with this quotation of Hitler. IMO Germanics should guard there ancient grounds, stick to them and keep in good diplomacy - if possible - with their neighbours.
Strength, glory and pride are good things, but I see no reason to invade on foreign ground.

Hitler was speaking within the context of scarce resources [there had been a huge Depression during that time with runaway mega-inflation] and an expanding population [also his country had been reduced geographically by the Allies].

When birth-rates are increasing exponentially, it will be necessary to expand geographically if possible [otherwise face overcrowding].

If resources are scarce [especially with an expanding population] it may be necessary to use military means to secure adequate resources to feed your people.

Of course, the West doesn't have those problems today; it has more food than it can eat and its populations are in decline [falling birth rates in many European countries].

Some may say that this in itself is a problem!

Military discipline, food rationing and a breeding programme may still be useful today.

Janus
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 02:34 PM
Hitler was speaking within the context of scarce resources [there had been a huge Depression during that time with runaway mega-inflation] and an expanding population [also his country had been reduced geographically by the Allies].

When birth-rates are increasing exponentially, it will be necessary to expand geographically if possible [otherwise face overcrowding].

If resources are scarce [especially with an expanding population] it may be necessary to use military means to secure adequate resources to feed your people.



There had never been scarce resources. Germany was much bigger back than than it is today and the population was lower. There has also never been a problem with feeding people because of those resources. The poverty in the Republic of Weimar was entirely caused by bad management of those resources they had and when Hitler established a better organization there weren't any problems anymore with feeding the people.
It was rather Hitler megalomany that made him say that because he actually wanted the German people to grow and to spread over other countries making them vassals.
Even if there are serious problems inside a country it still cannot justify conquering other countries. Internal problems should be solved internally and if the population is increasing while resources are getting fewer one simply has to prevent that through childbirth restriction for instance.