Might is Right

by Ragnar Redbeard, Darrell W. Conder (Editor)

Naslov kao što je MOC JE PRAVO skoro iskljucuje potrebu za uputnim objasnjenjem, od kad je istorije , prirodni zakon i zdrav razum proglašavaju njegovu istinu. Autor ovog epskog manifesta  ostaje enigmatska tema. Kao sto veci deo istorije nije nista drugo do "PROPAGANDA POBEDNIKA", tako da nikada necemo biti skroz sigurni u mnoge detalje. Ocekivano od same prirode "MOC JE PRAVO" i brutalne istine u njenim dinamicnim dekretima, nikada ranije nije bila objavljivana uz kriticko oko vecih izdavackih kuca. Ispada da je sirov tekst (originala sa adicijama, dodacima) bio precizno ocuvan u skoro cistoj formi. Imajuci zadatak i privilegiju izadvanja ovog mocnog dela, tajanstveni dokazi o autorstvu samog dela postaju prilicno vidljivi. Ragnar Redbeard uporedjuje se sa Niceom ako i on sam nije pocetni autor - kao ucen i inteligentan mislilac i pisac. Mnogi veruju da je Dzek London bio Ragnar Redbeard. U svakom slucaju knjizevni stilovi otkrivaju nedvosmisleno da MOC JE PRAVO ima dva osobita autora. Originalni Redbiard je pisao u cistom, tehnickom stilu, doslednom i metodicnom.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Religion, Occult, Classics, Satanism

116 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1890

About the author

Radical social darwinist or someone who satirized it.

Rumored to be New Zealand politician, anarchist, poet and author Arthur Desmond or Jack London.

Reviews

[Dissident Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a word: Hardcore!

Not for the faint of heart. Even Nietzsche wasn't this full-blast and feral. This is the antithesis of the The Holy Bible and every other white-light book. Anton LaVey lifted portions of Might is Right for his The Satanic Bible. Lusty, profane, Sadistic (literally--this is a work if not influenced by de Sade, then certainly in the same spirit), racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, classist, and more violent than any Tarantino movie. You might not agree with Might (or you perhaps you'll tell yourself you don't), but it'll have an effect on you. Like a nightmare, but a liberating one. A true experience. Read it if you dare.

[Ciro · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a top 10 all time book. You will probably never encounter anything else like it within the bubble of academia and polite social company. All the more reason to read!

The basic premise is that no matter what you moral view, no matter how you feel about the way something should be, the only thing that matters is who conquers. Those who win determine the new standards for right and wrong. The meak will never inherit the earth, and they never have. Only the strong survive.

[Cwn_annwn_13 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rumored to be ghostwritten by the great Jack London, (it probably wasn't) plaigarized from word for word by Anton Lavey in various parts of his "Satanic Bible", written in a way that is basicly a book length rant, Might is Right ranks as what is probably my favorite "philosophy" book when I go through stages where I have a strong dislike for most people.

Even though in a passage or two Redbeard hails Thor as a God to be admired and emulated this book more or less takes an athiestic stance, but other than the athieism I can agree with most of what is in Might is Right, especially the rants about the uselessness and wretchedness of the masses of people who through their cowardice and stupidity really don't deserve anything better than the mental and physical slavery that their lives are. Good stuff on the utter insanity of the Christian idea of loving ones enemies and turning the other cheek, as well as accepting a deity outside your own culture as your own. Some of the "Social Darwinism" ideas in MiR go a little overboard but for the most part I think they are correct, because after all, whether you like it or not, Might is Right.

[Signor Mambrino · Rating 2 out of 5]

racist? yes but in a fairly funny way
sexist? yes but in a fairly funny way
clever? nope.

worth a read, not worth taking seriously.

[Ossian's Dream · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is the most ruthless and aggressive worship of power that has ever been created. Thucydides, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Bismarck etc. at the very least attempted to humanise their message if only a little, Ragnar just tells you without the slightest care to sensibilities and its like taking medicine. Of course, the racial component will always be the point on which i wave him aside seeing that my motto is that of Napoleon "la carrière est ouverte aux talents" the career is open to talent. Let those who prove their worth take what is theirs but accept that they may come from anywhere and history has showed us that no great power remains so forever.

Changed my life.

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. 'Might is Right' is one of the most brutal books I've ever read on social Darwinism. It's like Robert Greene's '48 Laws of Power' combined with Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' on steroids. This book is surprisingly well written, with a prose that is very thought provoking and confronting. This book gives you a different perspective on nature, on yourself, on humanity and on life. It's a harsh truth. The only thing I dislike about this book is that it is somewhat repetitive. Saying that, I really enjoyed reading this book.

[Jos Oliveira · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another liar book , full of "western" masturbation, calling for a "superiority" that is contradicted by history and by science.
The author of the book is the kind of people who lived his whole life poor, enriched in old age stealing other people and now call himself noble superior.

[Jessica Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Life is for the strong. Take faith in yourself and battle on.

[Danny Druid · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can only talk about how everything in life is determined by power for so long before it starts to get repetitive. Still, the pseudonymous author's grandiloquent nineteenth-century style prose makes this a lot more fun than it would otherwise be.

It is basically true that contemporary westerner's are "Anti-Power", that is to say they think that power is something evil in and of itself, and that the means necessary to acquire it are also evil, and that whatever power one has must be checked. This view is totally pathological and insane, of course, because whatever people believes this will surely be subjugated, and a life spent in subjugation to someone malicious is hell indeed. I think Westerners think they can get away with believing that having power is bad precisely because they think they have all the power, a naïve outlook which will cost them dearly. The author may be correct that this disease of the mind comes from Christianity. All of his critiques of Christianity are straight from Nietzsche.

What "Ragnar Redbeard" is missing from his book is to point out that there are essentially two different kinds of power: Hard power and soft power. Hard power is brute force, soft power is persuasion and subtlety. The totalitarianism of the post-modern west is rooted more in the latter than the former, and the means of the former cannot be used to stop it unless society collapses Mad Max style (which would be pretty great, but we can't just sit and hope for something like this to happen).

Another thing he should have pointed out is that power is not necessarily "immoral" but rather "amoral"... you can do moral things and still have power, or you can not and still have power too. It's not that power and morality are necessarily mutually contradictory. In fact, people who love justice should be encouraged to seek power so that they can wield it for good.

[Илмар Шалаоя · Rating 1 out of 5]

At times thought-provoking, but most of the time self-centered, narrow-minded and generally unimpressive. While Redbeard bases his views according to nature, his outlook is flawed. The lion is not a ruthless ruler of the animal kingdom - it has its niche in the ecosystem and it certainly does not take from others for the sake of taking. And I don't even want to go to comment on his view on women.

All and all, interesting as a social study, but a sad excuse as a manual to live by - as it seems some actually do so.

[Youthknives · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was something of a puzzle for me because I have heard so much rumor and intrigue surrounding it that I sort of put it off for several years. I recently picked it up and finished it a couple of days and I don't quite understand what all the fuss was about. Probably because this information was rather "shocking" to people in the past, however, to us it seems like obvious necessity.

That being said the overall book is written in elegant English and is a joy to read. There are some points I diverge away from here but then again perhaps that is the nature of all man made philosophy and something Redbeard, to his credit, does make mention of.

I have incorporated this book into the "Triad of Masculine Awakening", a kind of collection I devised during the last year while I gathered information from various sources. This book makes the list so I strongly urge you to read it, but only after you read the others listed. I have added this "Triad" below in the order I recommend them to be read. Each one will act as a tool for another. For example, reading "The Metaphysics of War" prior to "Might Is Right" grounds Redbeard and reminds us all that rejecting metaphysical principles is simply impossible and self-destructive and thus the spirit of Redbeard's words can be applied through an Evolian lens and I think this overall will improve the way you will meditate and incorporate this information into your life.

Stout book, fun to read, interesting English. 4/5.

"The Triad of Masculine Awakening"
1. "The Way of Men" (Jack Donovan)
2. "The Metaphysics of War" (Julius Evola)
3. Might Is Right (Ragnar Redbeard).

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

Firmly grounded in the nihilist tradition of substituting assertions, as strong and offensive as possible, for actual arguments. Which is alright if you have a bad day and want to get pumped for the gym, but if you're looking for actual philosophy, look elsewhere. Can't say I didn't have my fun with this book and its overly vitriolic, nevertheless weirdly elegant prose, but halfway in, it started to feel extremely redundant and lost a good deal of its punch.

As a case study of the neopagan mindset in the right, Might is Right is quite interesting. Christianity is seen as the religion of weakness, mostly because no one told these people that not every Scandinavian was a viking, and because Thor slaying a giant serpent is more badass than Michael slaying a dragon, somehow. You can bet that if Wotan had brandished a flaming sword at any point, Ragnar Redbeard would've written two poems about it.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

More of a long vitriolic poem about egoism than a philosophical treatise. The egoism in this is almost completely pure, though it is tainted by some tinges of darwinism and racial collectivism. Very fun though. Would read again.

[J · Rating 1 out of 5]

Basically an incel and/or school shooter's manifesto.
Haven't accomplished anything in life? No problems! Here's a book to convince you you're a wolf among sheep.

[Steve Cran · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember growing up and hearing the statement that might does not make right. Of course, with regards to bullies and dictator I always agreed. Yet, when someone wrongs you , then you have to right to take restorative action which could include violence. Might does not make right but some right needs the might.

What follows from the pen of this author is a diatribe of extreme social Darwinism. Many right wing Republicans would agree with these sentiments. This pamphlet was written 1896 and like I said this was a rant. None the less this book has had a strong influence on many people including Anton LaVey.

Reading this diatribe I found there were things that resonated and things that did not. The author focuses on the greatness of Northern Europeans to the exclusion of all others. Asians, Africans, Jews and Indians it seems are frowned upon. The author wastes no time in bagging on Jews, Judaism and Christianity. The author would like to go back to a time when Vikings fought with swords and what was yours you had to defend with the edge of your sword. We were not going there back in 1896 and we ain't going there now.

The author believes strongly that Christian ideology has put a mental straight jacket on the minds of the Northern European. It has weakened their warrior spirit and has given them a slavish mentality. In his mind they need to get back to that. He would advocate martial arts training to strengthen the youth. After all only the strongest survive and for the sake of evolution that should be so. Conflict is seen as something good. True that many groups of people perished because they were not strong enough to beat a rival nation. To the author this is fine, if you are not strong enough to hold your own then you simply should not be about. Nature is not kind and she has a brutal selection process. This author would also be against support programs for the needy and less well off. After all if they cannot cut and make for themselves then they don't deserve it. Ragnar's view of women may be off as well. He believes they look for warrior type men. He also believes they like to be mastered by their men. A woman's job is to give birth to healthy children.

I do not subscribe to the authors views on women, different racial groups or on his views of charity. I do believe that our current Judeo Christian ideology does put limits on our success and causes us to be held back. On charity, let us say that those who paid into the system should receive benefits when they are down as should people who will eventually get back on their feet. I do not support the fact that welfare collectors are living better then someone who works and pays taxes. The author would also support corporate greed. Not me.

[Shannon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rating it a two because of the colorful use of language. I rate it a one for coherence. It is hard to think that this isn't over the top satire. But it is so full of the same thing, with various quotes and such, that if it is satire it is very well done. But it is more likely that the author was someone who was just really pissed off at someone, likely a group of women that's wronged him.

Seriously, read his bit about how women should be totally subjugated by men.

There is little rational thought in this entire book. No arguments at all. The author complains that philosophers are just sophists are just liars are just people using tricky language to fool people. Yet later he says that each person should think for himself (how to do that without philosophy?) or that each age must have its own morals and ethics, but then that they all suck (only might is right).

To sum up the book:
Christians are hypocrites (which I do agree with him) and when one finds a government that says it is Christian, one finds robbery (again, I agree). Christians worship a socialist pacifist that was crucified by better men, and were turned into a god by a group of jews, who have a long history being subjugated by other cultures. Somewhere along the way we've bought into the morality that one should be meek, not fight back, and believe in some farce called 'equality'. Yet governments fight and declare war. These religions keep people meek and obedient.

The basis of the above? Because things eat things in nature and if you are strong enough, you survive. Enter in to outdated understanding of social Darwinianism. That's it. Fill more pages of things eating things, while ignoring that there are not one, but two important drives among groups of people, competition and cooperation, and if one gets more important than the other the group will die out. Our species is a long history of this.

Seriously, this guy equates Brutus with Booth, Lincoln with Caeser. It is tempting to let him do so, because earlier he says if a person steals a horse he is a thief to be put in jail, but steal enough to cripple an industry and one is a business man and never is brought to justice.

This book is a good read because it does illustrate an attitude that is prevalent. It is a simple attitude that use only violence for every answer. Sometimes this IS the answer, but the wise man (which he says we should be, but doesn't explain what that is because philosophy is just sophistry) knows when to use violence, or tact, or some other measure.

But this book was a slug to get through. Wearisome and tired.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

So many things I agree with, so many I disagree with among all that I read in this book. Apart from the white supremacist and sexist thoughts against women that I find quite stupid, narrow-minded and paranoid - in fact, it's not much different to the conservative Judeo-Christian way of thinking, even though the author himself is very anti-Christian - I found the thoughts about natural laws very inspiring, and so the anti-Christian thoughts. However, it was quite a hard read as it was written in the late 19th century, and English isn't my mother tongue. The Social Darwinist thoughts couldn't have been better expressed than Ragnar's words. I still think of this book as a useful, inspiring piece of literature, just ignoring the bothering parts and move on to those that really say the truth. On the other hand I must confess that I didn't bother to read the very last chapter, after about 2 pages it made my blood boil too much.

[Steven · Rating 1 out of 5]

This must be a joke. It certainly has many "LOL" moments and comes off as pseudo-Nietzschean philosophy, but lacks the literary brilliance. I just couldn't take any of the arguments seriously... I pity anyone who does.

[Justin Ordnung]

This book was actually a lot more contemporary than I had been led to believe, there is mention in the sections of poety of tanks and other quite modern factors of war that betray a quite modern authorship. For all that I think it conveys a very pure mentality more in touch with our primitive and healthy side. It is a very honest take on the human condition and like it or don't like it you cannot even begin to debate whether force and ruthlessness should be praised if you cannot admit as this book so clearly does the way in which it is naturally awarded in the present world. Moralisms are fine and good for the wealthy and otherwise sheltered but for those of us who must exist in the real world this is the closest thing to a practical how to succeed in all endeavors book.

[Scott I'Anson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a revolutionary world view. A battle cry against Christianity and Judaism. A call to return to a natural and just world, a rejection of modern decadence.

[Rinstinkt · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a book first published more than 100 y ago, it's actually relevant. :)
Reading progress: https://pastebin.com/AgUe9Xwg

[Locky · Rating 4 out of 5]

'For might is right when empires sink,
In storms of steel and flame,
And it is right when weakling breeds,
Are hunted down like game.'

'Might is Right' is Darwinism on steroids and offers no apologies for it. It is extremely anti-christian in the same vein as Nietzsche is (christianity glorifies the meek and humble, a sin against nature according to Redbeard).
At its worst, this book comes across as a frustrated tangent that one might read in a high schooler's diary, but at its best, it's raw truth about the laws of nature and explains that no matter how civilised man may think he is, he is still subject to nature's will.

On a side note, nearly every page of the edition of this book was filled with multiple typos and grammatical errors. It doesn't look like it was proofread at all before publication.

[Steve Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

The mass shooter in Gilroy, California, apparently posted online praise of a book entitled “Might Makes Right”, which was first published anonymously with the pen name “Ragnar Redbeard” in 1896. I’d never heard of it.

So...I got a copy for free off the net. The version I downloaded was one that was re-released in 1999 by the “14 Word Press”, and edited by Katja Lane.

Lane’s husband, David Lane, was a white supremacist serving a 190 year sentence for his role in the murder of Jewish journalist Alan Berg. Lane died in prison in 2007.

Lane founded the neo-völkisch pagan religion of “Wotansvolk”. It advocates white nationalism, white supremacy, and advocates polygamy as an effective way for regeneration of the white race.

The edition of “Might Is Right” that he and is wife published after his incarceration appears to have some of Lane’s own writing mixed in with it, along with some poor Nordic style artwork which was done by fellow white supremacist Ron McVan.

It should be noted that “The 14 Words” alluded to in the name of the press credited with issuance of this version of the work are based on a fourteen word slogan coined by Lane himself: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”

“Redbeard” may have been a man named Arthur Desmond. “Might Is Right”, published in 1896, most certainly wasn’t penned by author Jack London, as Katja Lane claims. London would have been barely out of his teens at publication.

The work is said to be heavily influenced by egoistic anarchism, a 19th century philosophical concept put forth by Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar Schmidt).

Redbeard’s work is heavily anti-Christian and anti-Semitic, as was Lane. Redbeard writes, “Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.” He further writes, “Oh Christ, O Christ! Thou artful fiend!....Thou mean insignificant-minded Jew!” He goes on to describe Jews and Christians as degenerates. There are literally pages and pages filled with this sort of vitriol.

Readers can see why the work attracted Lane. Along with it being is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, it endorses white supremacy, amorality and ruthless individualism. It’s a 19th century proto-fascist work.

The irony is that many of the work’s modern fans are drawn from the white working class, which the book clearly reviles. Of these it states that “Failure is not only a disgrace, but proof of organic incompetence”. Redbeard thought the white working class had failed, and it was due to their innate lack of worth.

The book’s prose is affected, pompous, and rife with archaic terms...sometimes to the point of silliness:

“May civilization pump its vile narcotism through the flaccid ventricles of their pigeon hearts! May they inhale brain leprosy through the open windows of their Temples-of-soot; and May their noisome swineries and splendid Ergastlui, be unto them living tombs!”

He sure knew how to work a Thesaurus.

The book is extraordinarily misogynistic, stating that women are duplicitous breeding vessels that lack “reasoning organs” and who “comprehend their own incapacity for self-mastership, and logical business methods.” On pages 154-155 the author endorses raping women who refuse one’s advances. He uses euphemisms of his era to describe it, but it is unquestionably describing sexual assault.

In a section where Redbeard is singing the praises of successful criminals, he lists western legend Belle Starr. He thinks she was killed by state troops (she was murdered by persons unknown) and that she was a “border bandit” (she was not) and that her father was a “guerrilla chief” (he was a farmer). He claims that the Haymarket bomber, Louis Lingg, was the son of a crown prince. Lingg was the son of a disabled lumber mill worker. Redbeard either credulously believed the dime store novels and “fake news" of his era, or didn’t mind lying to his readers.

He maligns “over intellectualism” in men and women, stating that “Over cultivation of the brain cells undoubtably produces (in both sexes) physical decay and leads on towards insanity.” See the “nature versus nurture” contradiction issue below.

He thought that race mixing with Asians (among others) would degrade the white race. This was a hundred years before it was discovered Asians had higher I.Q.’s than whites. Now Asian nations have ascended economically and academically while maintaining their own racial homogeneity. He classifies Italians—who he calls “Dagos"—as mixed race “degraded” Europeans.

He sings the praises of athleticism and how winners of such events show their innate superiority. Note he wrote this in an age when whites in western civilization were for the most part the only participants allowed in athletic competitions. Non-whites today easily hold their own in modern athletics. By Redbeard’s own rationale, it’s a sign they’re superior.

Critics have speculated the book is a parody of Social Darwinism given its contradictions. It supports the heritability of superior or inferior traits, but then goes on to clearly state that environment will rather quickly cause degeneration of character and intellect. Well, which is it? Nature or nurture?

I don’t see it as a parody. It isn’t clever at all. It’s nothing more than a tedious and logorrhoeic pseudo-intellectual rant dressed in affected and archaic prose. It is incapable of recognizing its own absurdities.

For its current fans it’s a fantasy of self determination that provides fake self-esteem. In spite of what they may like to think, it isn’t addressed to them—middle class (or poorer) whites. It’s an elitist tract that repeatedly maligns the working class from which they come as constitutionally inferior.

For as he writes at the end, “He who is without wealth amidst unlimited quantities of it is either a coward, a born slave, or a lunatic; and no self respecting woman should marry such an imbecile”.

This was written shortly before the age of eugenics. One wonders what "Redbeard" would have planned for those lunatic white slave incels.

[Preacher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Didn't finish the entire book but keeping it for my kids to read one day. First off the book is spot on in a lot of ways and some of it I don't agree with since I am a racial socialist. It has been said that jack London wrote this book and until I read it I assumed he had but if you read about london's political views they don't line up with what the book advocates which I sense is anarchy damn near complete freedom from government etc. London was a racial socialist and even joined different socialist parties in his day but let them bc they weren't the same kind of socialist he was. I don't think London wrote the book or if he did it was written before he changed his political views as it seems this book was written in the late 1800's as it speaks of the 19th century in the current tone not past tense. Either way the book destroys Christianity and any other kind of silliness such as equality and everyone is the same blah blah blah. It's a dog eat dog world and one day we will return to our intended purpose of the strong destroying the weak etc. The book makes no bones about it and I love that about it which is a nice change. I hope to finish it in the future but it was taking me a day or more to drag through a few pages so I put it away to be kept for my kids like so many of my other books are. All in all what I read I give it 4 stars for its take down of silly crap like Christianity and equality which are false gods of the weak.

[John Anthony · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title says it all. But RR, whoever he/she was, constantly repeats the message - The strongest survives and rules. It is the will of nature.

Written in the 1890s and designed to shock weaklings, Christians, Jews and racially impure stock. Darwinism taken to extremes and intentionally ridiculed? Whatever the intention it could have been said much more effectively using fewer words. Lots of mistakes in this version of the book. At times I had to guess what the author meant, though that wasn't hard to do.

Deeply depressing, it reminded me of a song by the Only Ones c 1978 entitled “Why Don't You Kill Yourself”. The next line goes “You ain't no use to no one else”. Perhaps it was inspired by this book, although the song had a better tune.

[Null · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brutal, some very hardcore truths about what is real and whats false on the human struggle for existence. He blunts your very face just as he wants you to blunt those so called falsehoods.
Potentially life changing, the author makes a great effort to wrecks all the idols we came to love by default, objects of cult by the so called 'weaklings' and 'hirelings', the television concept of romance, being a 'nice guy', fair play and equality, all fall to Redbeard axe.
It aims to change you in a visceral level, to force you to enter in the arena with your head high, instead of bowing down to the comfort idols that surrounds us. It's a personal call for you to fight your fight, and win your war.

[Spread Love And Terror · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche version of Friedrich for people that pronounce him Nitchy, blended with chocolate flavoured whey powder and a little Sade. Drink it up incel, here's some conversation starters for that doomed moment of interaction with a woman. Get a shot of this "racialist", your biological delusions and pseudo-science need a bit of homoerotic violence to defend them from common sense.

Basically, stinky trash retrieved from the dustbin of history by neo-folk enthusiasts and Evola LARPers.

[A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really entertaining for such a shoddy argument- overly florid Victorian bravado you just can't find anywhere else. But uh... read it for a laugh, not a life philosophy.

[Joshywa Schrader · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is very straightforward to the point that it will offend probably 90% of those that choose to read it. Definitely makes you think.

[Chris Ostrowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little heavy on the Racist overtones. You really need to look between the lines for what the author is saying.