Might is Right

This book is so cringy. I really tried to read it with an open mind.

It is better as an audio book. It's actually quite brilliant.

The Garlic festival shooter memed this book. I agree there is a place for spirituality, while this book does have atheistic tendencies it does have some pro-Pagan commentary:

>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, horsewhipped Jew.

>This circling planet-ball is no navel-contemplating Nirvana, but rather a cast whirling star-lit Valhalla, where victorious battlers quaff the foaming heart's-blood of their smashed-up adversaries, from the scooped out skull goblets of the slain in never-ending war.

Could you provide an example of "brilliance" from that book?

Thomas Malthus would be so proud of you guys

You could say that, but, in Paganism, is it actually acceptable to be this ruthless? In the Norse religion, I have seen it said that you shouldn't relish in the suffering of another and honestly, part of the power I see in "might is right" is the way it encourages you to accept and embrace your sadistic wrath and desire to brutally destroy your enemies, showing absolutely no respect to the at all, relishing in the destruction and being fully confident and content in the righteousness of your brutality.
If there are divine forces that don't really like this sort of thing, well, the person that really wants to win ought to seriously think about the extent to which they can implement this shit.

I used to employ this type of shit myself back when I was a bit younger. It got me through some tough times. I was absolutely vicious and ruthless with my opponents and the viciousness and willingness to go for the jugular would genuinely spook people, as a lot of people are all bark and no bite. This mentality is a mentality of biting and eating then howling. It's powerful but, did every target deserve it? It's hard not to slip into this mode of conflict, especially when you feel your pride is under threat, and this makes such philosophies extremely dangerous for young people.

Basically all the stuff that puts heavy emphasis on embracing brutality and not saying sorry. Taking for yourself, and not having to mask your self serving through a pretext of bullshit. Your desire to win and survive is all you need. If someone crosses you, you obliterate them, and you obliterate their offspring and friends and you obliterate their women too. You take the resources and establish a kingdom of your own. Your only master is the universe and its laws. Beyond that, it's all up for grabs. If you fuck it, it was your fault for being a bitch.
It's brutal and beautiful.

And why is that brilliant? Just seems like a very dumbed down version of the Master-Slave dialectic of Hegel.

Insofar as Pagans believe in natural law, yes:

>"When Brennus, commander of the ancient Gauls, attacked the Clusians, a Roman ambassador protested, asking 'what offense have the Clusians, given you?' Brennus laughed at the question, and replied:— 'Their offense is the refusal they make to divide the country with me. It is the same offense that the people of Alba, the Fidenians and Ardeans gave you; and lately the Vienians, the Falisci, and the Volsci. To avenge yourselves, you took up arms and washed your injury in their blood; you subdued the people, pillaged their houses, and laid waste their cities and their countries; and in this you did no wrong or injustice; you obeyed the most ancient laws, which gave to the Strong the possessions of the Weak; the sovereign law of nature, that begins with the gods and ends with the animals. Suppress therefore O Romans, your pity for the Clusians. Compassion is yet unknown to the Gauls; do not inspire them with the sentiments, lest they should have compassion upon those you oppress.' "

You misunderstand the stated purpose of this book. It is not to be a dumbed down school of philosophy, it merely sets out to prove the premise that Might is Right and Survival of the fittest is Natures law.

The very fact that even today, 100 years later, that people deny this and it has to be explained is proof that this book is necessary.

Remember Hitler said the best propaganda is short, potent and to the point

You're moving the goalpost. We were clearly talking about brilliance and not about the goal or objective of the book.

But regarding "proof": can you provide evidence that allows for that premise to proven?

Look at this guy Wiki edit history. Holy jew.

Attached: patapsco913JIDF.jpg (1395x585, 420K)

>Trump says that he wants antifa to be labeled a terrorist group
>mass shooting
>"right wing" shooter(s)
::we are here::
>Jow Forums diggs
>finds shooter(s) liberal faggot history
>memory holed like the fake bomber van bs
Called it last night. Sloppy job mossad.

Attached: Screenshot_20190729-125954_Chrome.jpg (1080x2220, 837K)

Reminder - Murdoch Murdoch showcased this book a little: murdochmurdoch.net/video/?play=The Rabbit Hole

Wonder what MM think of this: probably that it was a stupid time, place, and target to do such a thing, at best. The book is available on that fan site, by the way:
murdochmurdoch.net/video/?play=The Rabbit Hole

Oops, link for Might is Right:
murdochmurdoch.net/various/

Should have clarified I'm the OP, not the guy you were talking to. I said what I said because you mentioned Hegel. If you're asking me I think it's brilliant because it makes the case for "Might is Right" in a short, brutal & effective way. The proof is laid out in the book itself, you're supposed to read the book in its entirety and compare what you read to nature and then judge for yourself if the book is correct.

You'll find that despite being slightly dated due to being written in the 19th century that it is still about 95% correct

It's the poetic way it is delivered and the boldness of its assertions. Why is it brilliant? because people are often crippled by morality that may be positively detrimental to their survival interest.
So when someone comes along saying "your superstitious nonsense is pathetic and weak, life is struggle and the best will triumph and the weak will perish and that is the order of things and the only truth" and repeatedly drives forward this "truth" taking swipes at various parts of decadent society.
For men of action but also morality, they are often torn between these two powerful instincts, one to be brutal and succeed, and the other to be good. When something presents the former as completely healthy and normal, and really dresses it up and laughs at the rest of society, it basically emboldens these kinds of men and takes them to a perspective that basically equips them with the advocated mentality.
"life is struggle"
"superstition is dumb"
"lets laugh at how fucking lame society is"
"look at the powerful men of the past, they are the winners, bitches lose"
"dont be a bitch and win and don't feel bad for it".

It's hard not to enjoy it, but like I said, its maybe a better audio book.

What's that from? Livy?

It's from Chapter 5 in MiR

THERE ONCE WAS A HERO NAMED RAGNAR THE RED

I mean the reference to what Brennus said. Is it from Livy or is he putting words into his mouth? because, if that's the case it doesn't really do much to say the philosophy is compatible with true pagan religiosity.

Unfortunately I don't recall who Ragnar Redbeard quoted that particular passage from

>Since our Iranian-Italian friend put this book in the spotlight
Gimme the tldr please. How did he bring it up? Some manifesto?

Your best bet would be the Darrell W. Conder edition of MiR and check the footnotes for the source, if any edition has it that would be the one.

He made a reference to it on social media, along with a pic of smokey the bear for some reason

Good lad, if (((big daddy gov))) truly understood what was in this book they would ban it harder than everything in this jew world bar none.