Might Is Right?
'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"?
Last edited by Moody; Thursday, April 29th, 2004 at 06:10 PM. Reason: added pic
Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
[Leibniz/Heidegger]
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?Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
-Lars
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.
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.
"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).
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 wrongOf 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?
I envision a world where people dawning long white robes and elaborate headdresses run rampant down the streets, waving their arms in the air while screaming "we've gone mad, we've gone mad", like defrocked monks breaking the silence of ages past.
Spoonblade: Sharper than a knife and twice as deadly.
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."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
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
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.
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)
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.
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.
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.
Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
[Leibniz/Heidegger]
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.
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.
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks