PDA

View Full Version : Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard



RoyBatty
06-06-2010, 09:28 AM
Ragnar's book is somewhat Darwinistic but the general idea conveyed in it is not wide off the mark. This is how things work in the real world.

Whenever you hear politicians talk about "peace", "freedom", "human rights", "democracy", "cooperation" and all the other limp-wristed feelgood nonsense
the gullible public like to lap up, remind yourself that it's all a lie. The excerpt below summarises what it's all about, what it has always been about and what it will always be about.

Whether you're a baby kissing Western politician, a Ghetto Gangsta King or a 3d World Dictator, it always comes down to the same things:

~Power
~Money
~Women (or in some cases men, lol)

:D





OPPORTUNITIES

A man’s opportunities are never exhausted so long as other men (who are not his friends) possess millions of acres and thousands of tons of gold.

The guarded treasure halls and iron-clad temples of modern kings and presidents, high priests and millionaires, are positively the richest the world has ever known.

Bulging are they with the vast hoards of silver and diamonds and gold.

Here,then, is opportunity on a colossal scale. Here is the goal of the Cæsars, Nebuchadnezzars and Napoleons in the days that are coming.

Allis ready and prepared for them, even as in olden times.

Cæsar carried off the treasures of Egypt, Greece, Gaul and Rome. Napoleon looted the money vaults of Venice, Vienna, Madrid, Berlin and Moscow. London only escaped him.

Nebuchadnezzar plundered the Temple of Zion, where the Jews kept all their deposits and drank his beer and wine out of Jehovah’s pots of gold.

Napoleon, Cæsar, Nebuchadnezzar! They were three great men, were they not? And in this their greatness consisted — they seized their opportunities.

- 2 -
ALL ELSE IS ERROR



The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into a perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the heritage of previous generations.

This “condition of combat” may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it.

It rules all things; it governs all things; it reigns over all things and it decides all who imagine policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquility, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine.



THE VICTOR GETS THE GOLD



Virtue is rewarded in this world,remember. Natural law makes no false judgments. Its decisions are true and just, even when dreadful. The victor gets the gold and the land everytime. He also gets the fairest maidens, the glory tributes. And — why should it be otherwise? Why should the delights of life go to failures and cowards? Why should the spoils of battle belong to the unwarlike? That would be insanity, utterly unnatural and immoral.



- 3 -


Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize?
Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.


Lo, I hear the fighters coming
Overhill and dale and plain.
With the battle cry of ages
In a Rebel world again.

Who’d forge their swords to plow-shares,
Shall sweat in bitter yokes,
The free-born race and fearless
Must deal out battle strokes.


In the wars of the Great Cæsar, and Grim Hannibal, in the times of Belzchazzar, the Pharaohsand all; the days of Rienzi and Roland the Bold; all banners are waving for WOMEN and GOLD.


It is might against might, remember, by land and sea, man against man,
money against money, brains against brains, and — everything to the
winner.



http://www.archive.org/details/MightIsRightByRagnarRedbeard

Eldritch
06-06-2010, 12:02 PM
During some temporary loss of reason a few years I ordered that book from some American "WN" online store. It is to the late 19th Century whar Steven Seagal movies are for today. :D

Breedingvariety
06-06-2010, 12:42 PM
It is might against might, remember, by land and sea, man against man,
money against money, brains against brains, and — everything to the
winner.
Absolutely.

It is better to die in a battlefield, then live as a slave.

Liffrea
06-07-2010, 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by RoyBatty
Ragnar's book is somewhat Darwinistic but the general idea conveyed in it is not wide off the mark.

I agree to an extent but what distinguishes man is that we are naturally a “moral animal” as Nietzsche would have wrote, I was just studying a couple of passages in Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil this morning where he writes about scepticism and the militarism that arose in Germany during the 18th century as a form of scepticism born through conquest and imposition, contrasted to the scepticism of indecision and spiritual weakness that has neither the strength to good or evil that he believed pervaded Europe at his time. For Nietzsche at least the former had something, although it was far away from Nietzsche’s belief in a “will to spirit” or “truth”. It wasn’t the crudeness of simple force that Nietzsche believed in. Nietzsche’s “new philosophers” were spiritually superior.

It’s noticeable than men have created concepts of universal peace and even love, neither workable, the former is suicide (I’m a firm believer in the way that only those who have never seen war can be that men need war, they need barbarism) and so is the later as well as being alien instinctually. We also care to preserve species that are no material benefit to our well being (no other species cares a jot for the survival of any other where it doesn’t impact there welfare). We have a concept of “justice” of “fairness” neither exists in any real sense they are conceits of the human mind. The question is that although we create artificial bridges over “depths of evil” are we better or worse for them? Justice doesn’t exist but perhaps it should and perhaps we should aim to create it? Mankind can be as red of tooth and claw as any other species but we are also more than the default package of instincts we are born with that allow us to survive and procreate.

Of course it is the conflict and contradictions of human nature that make life so exciting.

Lenny
06-11-2010, 03:52 PM
The writer of that book is a mad-man.

RoyBatty
06-12-2010, 12:07 PM
The writer of that book is a mad-man.

Alternatively, perhaps he could be described as being perfectly sane. In a mad world where stupidity and craziness is the norm the perfectly sane would per definition be mad. :D :thumb001:

His philosophy may be a bit crass and irk our gentle programmed preconceptions of "civilised behaviour" but I can't fault his logic. In the end it comes down to law of the jungle.

Liffrea
06-13-2010, 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by RoyBatty
His philosophy may be a bit crass and irk our gentle programmed preconceptions of "civilised behaviour" but I can't fault his logic. In the end it comes down to law of the jungle.

Peace is just as much a death sentence as Armageddon, the world needs both peace and conflict in order for equilibrium never to take affect, equilibrium in a living system, and human societies are as much organisms as we are, equals death.

Those who preach universal peace are as dangerous as those who have a thing for red buttons.

Lenny
06-13-2010, 06:47 PM
Peace is just as much a death sentence as Armageddon, the world needs both peace and conflict in order for equilibrium never to take affect, equilibrium in a living system, and human societies are as much organisms as we are, equals death.

Those who preach universal peace are as dangerous as those who have a thing for red buttons.
Excellent insight :lightbul:

That also hits upon the fundamental philosophical fallacy of Socialism:

Socialism in its ideal form would use the state to guide society towards maximum collective happiness.

But, even if Socialism were feasible and "worked", it would be a disaster. A world in which everyone only knew happiness and never had any need or want unmet... that would be disastrous. Happiness only has any meaning because we all also know sadness and despair and so on.

Cail
06-13-2010, 07:25 PM
It is to the late 19th Century whar Steven Seagal movies are for today. :D
Boring shit?

Liffrea
06-13-2010, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Lenny
But, even if Socialism were feasible and "worked", it would be a disaster. A world in which everyone only knew happiness and never had any need or want unmet... that would be disastrous. Happiness only has any meaning because we all also know sadness and despair and so on.

However the check within socialism isn’t bad in itself, political ideologies, philosophies and religions that express some form of co-operative and compassion are needed……just as long as they don’t go to far. Nietzsche wrote that the true philosopher is the one opposed to the prevailing value system of his time, he didn’t mean one who deliberately set out to be awkward but one who had the insight to see the different and to be a catalyst I suppose for the change. Heraclitus saw growth through conflicting principles; Hegel promoted the idea of a new synthesis from the clash of synthesis and antithesis.

Either way balance is disaster, which is why order works so damn hard to make sure it doesn’t come about! Entropy is death.

Breedingvariety
06-13-2010, 09:40 PM
Yes, we need cooperation. But only as a strategy to defeat other cooperatives. Principle of constant conflict or constant state of war is not refuted.

Eldritch
06-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Boring shit?

More like macho power/sex fantasies.

Flintlocke
12-24-2011, 10:14 AM
The premise of the book is correct but he takes is to extremes and draws the line too far.

Aces High
12-24-2011, 10:41 AM
Right is might.

Joe McCarthy
12-24-2011, 10:48 AM
Speaking of life as constant conflict during the era of the Pax Britannica was not the best timed observation. Men can coexist but it takes certain prerequisites; benevolent hegemony being one of them.

RoyBatty
12-28-2011, 10:07 AM
The premise of the book is correct but he takes is to extremes and draws the line too far.

To "average people", yes.

To politicians and their mega-rich patrons, no.

TheBorrebyViking
12-28-2011, 10:09 AM
Good book and pseudonymous author. Redbeard>

Egbert
01-13-2012, 07:15 PM
I actually appreciate Desmond's total lack of subtlety and intellectualism. It's brutal, caustic and offensive and it's intended to be. It is all that is good about Nietzsche, with none of the ambiguity or pomposity...rather a pure unrefined rage.

Phil75231
01-23-2012, 05:24 AM
Seems to me that "might makes right" is ultimately fair-weathered self-respect. By that logic, if someone defeats you and says it's right for me to saw off your arm without anesthesia, then they are right because they have the power - end of story. Therefore, I consider Social Darwinism / "might makes right" points of view ultimately leading to moral nihilism.

I suppose the above is all fine and well if you're a moral nihilist, but I happen to believe that at the very bare bones basic, it is simply wrong to cause pointless and nonbeneficial pain. We can debate which pains are pointless and nonbeneficial and which are not, of course; but I think it's clear that causing pointless and nonbeneficial pain is wrong - to the point of being beyond debate.

It also tends to be blind to the long term purpose of living itself. Say you are THE absolutely most powerful person who has, is, or will breathe oxygen at any time between the years 1880 and 2150. You win your struggle and come out on the top of the heap and..well..what now? Boastfully sing Queen's "We Are the Champions" for the rest of your life? Doesn't sound like a very fulfilling mode of existence to me.

Therefore, strength is only a means to an end - and that end is...mere survival for the sake of survival? I'd get bored quickly if I were in the hyper-dominant position, especially if I had (very likely) been conditioned to believe that struggling were my only reason for being. You're born, you grow and struggle, reach adulthood, then struggle some more - then die. So what?

RoyBatty
01-24-2012, 06:31 PM
I suppose the above is all fine and well if you're a moral nihilist

Name a politician worth mentioning who isn't.

Joe McCarthy
01-24-2012, 07:00 PM
Name a politician worth mentioning who isn't.

William Gladstone.

RoyBatty
01-24-2012, 07:04 PM
Gladstone = Imperialist = Moral Nihilist.

Try again Jew... cough.... Joe.

Joe McCarthy
01-24-2012, 07:09 PM
Gladstone = Imperialist = Moral Nihilist.


Gladstone was probably the greatest moralist of the nineteenth century. He and Cobden excoriated Viscount Palmerston's China policy before the Second Opium War and his ranting and raving prevented Disraeli from coming to Turkey's aid after the April uprising.

Cynic fascists may think everyone lacks convictions as they do but nothing could be further from the truth.

RoyBatty
01-24-2012, 07:20 PM
Granted, either through fluke or design he wasn't as bad as some of his peers but he was still an Imperialist and hardly a Snow-White.

Being a relevant politician and a moral champion are mutually exclusive concepts.

Might Makes Right.

Phil75231
01-25-2012, 05:00 AM
Seems to me that "might makes right" is ultimately fair-weathered self-respect. By that logic, if someone defeats you and says it's right for me to saw off your arm without anesthesia, then they are right because they have the power - end of story. Therefore, I consider Social Darwinism / "might makes right" points of view ultimately leading to moral nihilism.

I suppose the above is all fine and well if you're a moral nihilist, but I happen to believe that at the very bare bones basic, it is simply wrong to cause pointless and nonbeneficial pain. We can debate which pains are pointless and nonbeneficial and which are not, of course; but I think it's clear that causing pointless and nonbeneficial pain is wrong - to the point of being beyond debate.

It also tends to be blind to the long term purpose of living itself. Say you are THE absolutely most powerful person who has, is, or will breathe oxygen at any time between the years 1880 and 2150. You win your struggle and come out on the top of the heap and..well..what now? Boastfully sing Queen's "We Are the Champions" for the rest of your life? Doesn't sound like a very fulfilling mode of existence to me.

Therefore, strength is only a means to an end - and that end is...mere survival for the sake of survival? I'd get bored quickly if I were in the hyper-dominant position, especially if I had (very likely) been conditioned to believe that struggling were my only reason for being. You're born, you grow and struggle, reach adulthood, then struggle some more - then die. So what?


Name a politician worth mentioning who isn't.

I don't care if EVERY politician in the cosmos thinks that way (human or alien). If it's wrong, then it's wrong. So am I to take it that if somebody stronger than you said it was ok for me to grab a band saw and saw your arm off without anesthesia, that'd be ok with you?

As for Gladstone, I don't know much about him, but knowing liberals (including politicians, mind you) the way I do, I think they do have some empathy and compassion toward others. They may be corrupt and cynical with using power, but there is no way they can proclaim their policies with as much fervency as they do without at least some sense of empathy and compassion toward others.

Even assuming that last sentence was wrong, they still know just as well as you and I do that if nobody gave a damn about the concerns of others, then our society would just fall apart - anarchy would follow (common definition of the word, not academic).


Might Makes Right

Again, I quote what I said above


By that logic, if someone defeats you and says it's right for me to saw off your arm without anesthesia, then they are right because they have the power - end of story. Same thing with any kind of power that overwhelms your own beyond hope of your recovery. Political power, majority-opinion power, willing-to-use-deadly-force power, any other you can think of.

Are you sure you want to go down that route?

RoyBatty
01-25-2012, 07:07 AM
I don't care if EVERY politician in the cosmos thinks that way (human or alien). If it's wrong, then it's wrong.


You are being emotionally and logically crippled by irrational feelings of morality and love for humanity.

What's "right"? What's "wrong"? Who gets to decide? Me? You? The Corporation? The Judge? The Lawyer? The Policeman? The Politician? The Preacher? The Mullah?

All that ultimately matters is who has the biggest gun, the biggest clan and the will to use force on the rest to get what they want. Force on me. Force on you. Force on everybody else. If you believe that pretty words and intellectual debates solve disputes in the real predator infested world you are sadly mistaken. The sword decides.

If the Mighty happen to be somewhat reasonable and agreeable people it is typically a wonderful situation to be in for the rest of us pawns and nobodies. When they are not (as is currently the case) we have a problem. A big problem.

Either that problem will defeat us or we will defeat that problem. Either way, the problem-solving period won't be pretty. The concept of "good vs evil" morality is a mostly (imo) Judeo-American phenomenon. According to populist Judeo-American doctrine THEY are the "good" whilst their OPPONENTS are the "evil", over-the-top demonised bogeymen.

The reality is that there's some good & bad in everyone. In the case of our current Plutocracy the Bad by far outweighs any Good they may have.


Might Makes Right.



Same thing with any kind of power that overwhelms your own beyond hope of your recovery. Political power, majority-opinion power, willing-to-use-deadly-force power, any other you can think of.

Are you sure you want to go down that route?

Power belongs to those who seize it, not to moralisers. That is the law of the jungle and the only law which matters. Those with the power will use it on me, on you and on everybody and everything else which stands in their way.

Believing otherwise is just painfully naive.

Phil75231
01-25-2012, 07:53 PM
What's "right"? What's "wrong"? Who gets to decide? Me? You? The Corporation? The Judge? The Lawyer? The Policeman? The Politician? The Preacher? The Mullah?

What makes something “right” (or at least morally permissible) is either (a) “it is not causing pointless and/or unnecessary pain (i.e. “a wrong”) or (b) “it is giving a person the aid and comfort they need to reinstate a minimally humane quality of life i.e. eliminate the pointless and unnecessary pain to the lowest level possible without the aid-giver making unreasonable sacrifices). If you disagree with this definition, then I ask what is there to prevent the “strong man / band saw” scenario from being morally right?

Wrong is determined by whether (1) something causes pain AND (2) whether that pain either (a) serves no practical purpose for either the pained individual or society, or (b) is unavoidable but necessary to endure if the person and/or society is to improve in the way that person/society wants to improve without causing unjustified discomfort to others.


All that ultimately matters is who has the biggest gun, the biggest clan and the will to use force on the rest to get what they want. Force on me. Force on you. Force on everybody else. If you believe that pretty words and intellectual debates solve disputes in the real predator infested world you are sadly mistaken. The sword decides.

In the short run, perhaps. In the long run it’ll bite that regime in the ass – through decreased prosperity resulting from oppressing your most talented people, if nothing else. Scientists and entrepreneurs disproportionately tend to fall into the dissident or iconoclast categories – which “forceful” regimes tend not to like and will savagely suppress despite what good things they bring to their home country’s table.

Long-term result: decreased prosperity, decreased technological capabilities (including military) due to the “might makes right” attitudes inevitable tendency to harden into rigid inflexibility, unable to meet new challenges the future throws their way. “Might makes right” also degenerates into repression, which causes its most productive citizens to flee to lands more respectful of human rights – thereby sapping their émigré’s hom nature of the very talent needed to drive the entrepreneurship and scientific achievement upon which the regime depends.

Therefore, only governments that respect the rights of their citizens are able to secure themselves; for it is their citizens very entrepreurship and scientific prowess that creates the prosperity allowing the government to develop the military strength in the first place; not to mention that governments that take seriously the well-being of their citizens is much more likely to inspire loyalty in this citizens (and hence more willing to fight for it).

“Might makes right” also stirs up discontent, which creates future political instability (coups) or outright revolutions against it. Who the hell would start a business or invest in a land like that?


If the Mighty happen to be somewhat reasonable and agreeable people it is typically a wonderful situation to be in for the rest of us pawns and nobodies. When they are not (as is currently the case) we have a problem. A big problem.

Either that problem will defeat us or we will defeat that problem. Either way, the problem-solving period won't be pretty.

Calling the Mighty “somewhat reasonable and agreeable” implies that you do have standards for right and wrong independent of how the powerful behave or what they claim. This seriously undercuts the “might makes right” thesis.

“Might makes right” is usually used in the sense of short-term power gain at the unreasonably harsh expense of other (which is how I take you to mean it). Still, in one sense, you are right. However, I put a twist on it by saying “Right is reflected in Long-Term Might (where history judges Might = prosperity, a high number of contributions to global society, and a true enthusiasm to defend those in power). Believe me, a nation that represses its own citizens is not going to get away with it in the long run. The he USSR collapsed internally even without a major external war while Nazi Germany made too many enemies and treated its subjects too harshly for them to be willing to contribute voluntarily to the “Greater Reich”. Free men fight better than slaves precisely because of what I described above.


The concept of "good vs evil" morality is a mostly (imo) Judeo-American phenomenon. According to populist Judeo-American doctrine THEY are the "good" whilst their OPPONENTS are the "evil", over-the-top demonised bogeymen.

There’s also the notion of good and evil in EVERY society around the world – from cutting-edge “First World” cities to the primitive rainforest tribesmen and women. So it’s hardly a “Judeo-American” invention. Or are you prepared to say that Amazonian tribes, Zulus, and Chinese (who have Confucius) get their notions of right and wrong from Jews and Americans?


The reality is that there's some good & bad in everyone. In the case of our current Plutocracy the Bad by far outweighs any Good they may have.

Again, if you hold there is good and bad in everyone, you’re admitting that what is right and what is wrong is independent of how powerful the person is who makes the claim.


Power belongs to those who seize it, not to moralisers. That is the law of the jungle and the only law which matters. Those with the power will use it on me, on you and on everybody and everything else which stands in their way.

Believing otherwise is just painfully naive.

Sustainable power belongs to those who use it to better those under them, rather than use it abusively (i.e., for personal gain at the unreasonable or excruciatingly painful expense of others). This is even more true today and will be more true in the future as long as our technology keeps increasing. IOW, the higher our level of technology becomes, the truer my claims become, for suppressing and abusing the powerless not only disregards the talents of the powerless (and dissidents), but even in cases where there talents are used, they will not be motivated to use them to their fullest.

So again, if someone more powerful than you, that doesn’t make what they say or do right.

TheBorrebyViking
01-25-2012, 07:58 PM
What makes something “right” (or at least morally permissible) is either (a) “it is not causing pointless and/or unnecessary pain (i.e. “a wrong”) or (b) “it is giving a person the aid and comfort they need to reinstate a minimally humane quality of life i.e. eliminate the pointless and unnecessary pain to the lowest level possible without the aid-giver making unreasonable sacrifices). If you disagree with this definition, then I ask what is there to prevent the “strong man / band saw” scenario from being morally right?

Wrong is determined by whether (1) something causes pain AND (2) whether that pain either (a) serves no practical purpose for either the pained individual or society, or (b) is unavoidable but necessary to endure if the person and/or society is to improve in the way that person/society wants to improve without causing unjustified discomfort to others.



In the short run, perhaps. In the long run it’ll bite that regime in the ass – through decreased prosperity resulting from oppressing your most talented people, if nothing else. Scientists and entrepreneurs disproportionately tend to fall into the dissident or iconoclast categories – which “forceful” regimes tend not to like and will savagely suppress despite what good things they bring to their home country’s table.

Long-term result: decreased prosperity, decreased technological capabilities (including military) due to the “might makes right” attitudes inevitable tendency to harden into rigid inflexibility, unable to meet new challenges the future throws their way. “Might makes right” also degenerates into repression, which causes its most productive citizens to flee to lands more respectful of human rights – thereby sapping their émigré’s hom nature of the very talent needed to drive the entrepreneurship and scientific achievement upon which the regime depends.

Therefore, only governments that respect the rights of their citizens are able to secure themselves; for it is their citizens very entrepreurship and scientific prowess that creates the prosperity allowing the government to develop the military strength in the first place; not to mention that governments that take seriously the well-being of their citizens is much more likely to inspire loyalty in this citizens (and hence more willing to fight for it).

“Might makes right” also stirs up discontent, which creates future political instability (coups) or outright revolutions against it. Who the hell would start a business or invest in a land like that?



Calling the Mighty “somewhat reasonable and agreeable” implies that you do have standards for right and wrong independent of how the powerful behave or what they claim. This seriously undercuts the “might makes right” thesis.

“Might makes right” is usually used in the sense of short-term power gain at the unreasonably harsh expense of other (which is how I take you to mean it). Still, in one sense, you are right. However, I put a twist on it by saying “Right is reflected in Long-Term Might (where history judges Might = prosperity, a high number of contributions to global society, and a true enthusiasm to defend those in power). Believe me, a nation that represses its own citizens is not going to get away with it in the long run. The he USSR collapsed internally even without a major external war while Nazi Germany made too many enemies and treated its subjects too harshly for them to be willing to contribute voluntarily to the “Greater Reich”. Free men fight better than slaves precisely because of what I described above.



There’s also the notion of good and evil in EVERY society around the world – from cutting-edge “First World” cities to the primitive rainforest tribesmen and women. So it’s hardly a “Judeo-American” invention. Or are you prepared to say that Amazonian tribes, Zulus, and Chinese (who have Confucius) get their notions of right and wrong from Jews and Americans?



Again, if you hold there is good and bad in everyone, you’re admitting that what is right and what is wrong is independent of how powerful the person is who makes the claim.



Sustainable power belongs to those who use it to better those under them, rather than use it abusively (i.e., for personal gain at the unreasonable or excruciatingly painful expense of others). This is even more true today and will be more true in the future as long as our technology keeps increasing. IOW, the higher our level of technology becomes, the truer my claims become, for suppressing and abusing the powerless not only disregards the talents of the powerless (and dissidents), but even in cases where there talents are used, they will not be motivated to use them to their fullest.

So again, if someone more powerful than you, that doesn’t make what they say or do right.
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50515_6288014471_969_n.jpg

Phil75231
01-25-2012, 09:49 PM
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50515_6288014471_969_n.jpg

That's right! And proud of it too!!

rhiannon
01-26-2012, 09:11 AM
Might *might* make right in the actual scheme of things, however, is this what humankind should strive for?

I certainly don't think so. What's the point of evolution if we stop moving forward as organisms?

Might makes right in this day and age....but Might can be, and often is, morally wrong.

Yet, in the animal kingdom, "might makes right" ALL THE TIME.

For humans though, it is our morality and ability to show mercy and compassion to others that are things that do set us apart from the apes....who, like it or not, are everyone's distant ancestors.

JMO.

Flintlocke
01-26-2012, 09:32 AM
Have you seen a mafia don? They are very compassionate to their family and friends, they help the community, they genuinely give to charities. But that don't mean that they are gonna bend over and allow their power to be taken away by false ideas of cooperation. Those men who have fought and asserted themselves as the highest authority know how the world turns, and they configure the world in another, more truthful way.

You speak of the animal kingdom. There is compassion there if you see it. And besides, aren't we part of the animal kingdom?

rhiannon
01-26-2012, 10:43 AM
Have you seen a mafia don? They are very compassionate to their family and friends, they help the community, they genuinely give to charities. But that don't mean that they are gonna bend over and allow their power to be taken away by false ideas of cooperation. Those men who have fought and asserted themselves as the highest authority know how the world turns, and they configure the world in another, more truthful way.

You speak of the animal kingdom. There is compassion there if you see it. And besides, aren't we part of the animal kingdom?

Ok, there are some instances, I agree. Not to the degree of which humans practice, though.

We are part of the animal kingdom, but are separated from the animals due to our higher cognitive functioning which is generally a direct result from having a cerebral cortex.

Troll's Puzzle
01-26-2012, 05:18 PM
Might *might* make right in the actual scheme of things, however, is this what humankind should strive for?

I certainly don't think so. What's the point of evolution if we stop moving forward as organisms?

Might makes right in this day and age....but Might can be, and often is, morally wrong.

Yet, in the animal kingdom, "might makes right" ALL THE TIME.

For humans though, it is our morality and ability to show mercy and compassion to others that are things that do set us apart from the apes....who, like it or not, are everyone's distant ancestors.

JMO.

I'm curious though, why do you tag yourself as 'Viking Bitch' (now it's 'Viking Bitch Crusaider' :D) :icon_ask:

Vikings are sort of the personification of 'might is right'. that's why the author used the pseudo-viking pseudonym 'Ragnar Redbeard'.

After all, the Vikings were simply thieves, murderers and rapists, and their whole reputation is based on the fact that they were thieves, murderers and rapists, and while you would no doubt condemn white people behaving in such a manner today, you seem to deem Viking rapist murdering thieves as worthy of 'glory' as your ancestors :confused:

not that it is uncommon for even otherwise limp-wristed types to identify with their 'mighty' ancestors. I guess it's so far in the past that people don't think about the details they aren't allowed to venerate today (soldiers/colonials plundering africans) but find the 'mighty warrior' of their heritage irresistable (so long as it's distant enough not to equate with modern-day 'evil white people', that is). I wonder why :lightbul:
(it's a bit like blacks calling themseves 'zulus', or the mauri glorying their 'warrior past' even though they were just a bunch of dumb cannibals bashing each other with sticks and rocks who got beaten by more mighty warriors, that being: Europeans).

TheBorrebyViking
01-26-2012, 06:27 PM
That's right! And proud of it too!!
HAHA! OH WOW! Fuck the weak!

Might *might* make right in the actual scheme of things, however, is this what humankind should strive for?

I certainly don't think so. What's the point of evolution if we stop moving forward as organisms?

Might makes right in this day and age....but Might can be, and often is, morally wrong.

Yet, in the animal kingdom, "might makes right" ALL THE TIME.

For humans though, it is our morality and ability to show mercy and compassion to others that are things that do set us apart from the apes....who, like it or not, are everyone's distant ancestors.

JMO.

MIGHT IS RIGHT! I don't care for some starving little nigglet, and I never will.

Logan
01-26-2012, 06:40 PM
I don't think so. Unless one has no concept of right and wrong.


UGtKu2ovTYc

Phil75231
01-26-2012, 08:56 PM
HAHA! OH WOW! Fuck the weak!

Talk about a self-styled Rambo of Rhetoric who is actually better cast as the protagonist in Attack of the Killer Chihuahua!!!

TheBorrebyViking
01-26-2012, 09:03 PM
Talk about a self-styled Rambo of Rhetoric who is actually better cast as the protagonist in Attack of the Killer Chihuahua!!!

>Complain about making fun of minorities and the weak
>get buttmad and make fun of the strong and "white"(Isn't just about me, you do it to a lot of people it seems)
Lol'd

Phil75231
01-26-2012, 09:27 PM
>Complain about making fun of minorities and the weak
>get buttmad and make fun of the strong and "white"(Isn't just about me, you do it to a lot of people it seems)
Lol'd

Nah, not most of the time, anyway. I only use snide remarks like that when confronted with people who offer name-calling and nothing more. My dialogue with the OP shows I can be a very give-and-take kind of person when I see the other side's point. Look through my post history for hard evidence of this.

BTW, strongly defending beliefs =/= mockery. Mockery is a matter of tone, not content. If anything, YOU started the mockery toward me. All anybody has to do to find proof of this is to read my posts and your responses.

TheBorrebyViking
01-26-2012, 09:29 PM
Nah, not most of the time, anyway. I only use snide remarks like that when confronted with people who offer name-calling and nothing more. My dialogue with the OP shows I can be a very give-and-take kind of person when I see the other side's point. Look through my post history for hard evidence of this.

BTW, strongly defending beliefs =/= mockery. Mockery is a matter of tone, not content. If anything, YOU started the mockery toward me. All anybody has to do to find proof of this is to read my posts and your responses.

You should stop being a humble honkey, and become a mighty whitey.

http://wnthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/mighty_whitey_29.jpg

rhiannon
01-30-2012, 02:34 PM
HAHA! OH WOW! Fuck the weak!


MIGHT IS RIGHT! I don't care for some starving little nigglet, and I never will.

I'd help that starving little nigglet before I'd ever help you. You are mean.

rhiannon
01-30-2012, 02:37 PM
I'm curious though, why do you tag yourself as 'Viking Bitch' (now it's 'Viking Bitch Crusaider' :D) :icon_ask:

Vikings are sort of the personification of 'might is right'. that's why the author used the pseudo-viking pseudonym 'Ragnar Redbeard'.

After all, the Vikings were simply thieves, murderers and rapists, and their whole reputation is based on the fact that they were thieves, murderers and rapists, and while you would no doubt condemn white people behaving in such a manner today, you seem to deem Viking rapist murdering thieves as worthy of 'glory' as your ancestors :confused:

not that it is uncommon for even otherwise limp-wristed types to identify with their 'mighty' ancestors. I guess it's so far in the past that people don't think about the details they aren't allowed to venerate today (soldiers/colonials plundering africans) but find the 'mighty warrior' of their heritage irresistable (so long as it's distant enough not to equate with modern-day 'evil white people', that is). I wonder why :lightbul:
(it's a bit like blacks calling themseves 'zulus', or the mauri glorying their 'warrior past' even though they were just a bunch of dumb cannibals bashing each other with sticks and rocks who got beaten by more mighty warriors, that being: Europeans).

I don't agree with all the raping and pillaging the Vikings did.....but I have always been fascinated with them anyway.

The fact they DID rape and pillage largely explains my own Viking ancestry. And, if I am crossed, my temper can be quite volcanic....

Joe McCarthy
01-30-2012, 06:19 PM
The Vikings, ala 'Ragnar Redbeard', are some of the most overrated people in history. Most any organized army could have kicked their asses and they were able to flourish only because of the anarchical power vacuum that generally prevailed in the 9th and 10th centuries.

TheBorrebyViking
02-01-2012, 03:57 AM
Might is right, Hitler was right, and right is white!

Phil75231
02-02-2012, 04:20 AM
Might is right, Hitler was right, and right is white!

Ahh, bellowing it out like a mad bull is all nice. Now can you prove "might makes right", or are you just gonna assume that repeating the cliche often enough makes it true? I already said my piece, and all you could do is post some hand drawing with a catchy saying straight out of the Jim Crow days.

TheBorrebyViking
02-02-2012, 04:36 AM
Ahh, bellowing it out like a mad bull is all nice. Now can you prove "might makes right", or are you just gonna assume that repeating the cliche often enough makes it true? I already said my piece, and all you could do is post some hand drawing with a catchy saying straight out of the Jim Crow days.

The weak deserve to die. It's just simple as that. 80 years ago the weak would die out every day. It's life. Why do you want to change nature? Because every system fails at some point(the ones we have right now), and nature is the only one that will never fail. This is why National Socialists know to not fuck with nature(on a large scale), because when we start taking care of everyone and anything we start to fail.

Phil75231
02-02-2012, 06:17 AM
The weak deserve to die. It's just simple as that.

Just let them die of neglect, right? We see what happens in such scenarios - economic stagnation at best (due to the weak's talents being underutilized) and outright revolution at worst. Nations that fail to tap into the talents of its citizens do not get away with it (especially in terms of innovation, as Richard Florida argues in The Rise of the Creative Class).


80 years ago the weak would die out every day. It's life. Why do you want to change nature?

We've been changing nature ever since we learned how to make stone spears and start fires. It's not like humans can very well sneak up on an antelope and drag it down with their bare hands. Much less is it like we could fight off wolves and hyenas doing the same. NATURE gave us a brain with which to (within limits) change the rules. That same brain allows us to transcend the animals, too. In fact, I'll argue that EVERYONE is a descendant of a weakling if you go back far enough and certainly "weaklings" when compared to what it would take to catch game and fight off predators with fists and feet alone.


Because every system fails at some point(the ones we have right now), and nature is the only one that will never fail. This is why National Socialists know to not fuck with nature(on a large scale), because when we start taking care of everyone and anything we start to fail.

Same as the above. Also, I'll add that medicine (and everything development from the "invention" of agriculture onward) is a way of taking care of people - making their lives easier. If you simply let people too unfit to survive die by the wayside, it won't result in a stronger society - it will result in a huge missing pool of talent (i.e. productive, educated, and intelligent people who can 'build better mousetraps', thus contributing to economic growth).

On top of that, dog-eat-dog pseudo-philosophies tend to breed conformity and destroy community spirit. If dog-eat-dog is the rule, the the top dog will make sure everything goes his way. This cannot help but create excessive conformity, due to the fact that it's simply easier to play "follow the leader" rather than be the bearer of bad news to that leader (recall Galileo, f. ex.). Therefore, dog-eat-dog'ism enforces the status quo, which shuns new ideas, and eventually retards technological innovation and economic development.

Back to an earlier part.

Because every system fails at some point(the ones we have right now), and nature is the only one that will never fail.

If every system fails at some point, I just outlined some of NS has its own failure points. This thread I started (www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26299) several months ago goes into more detail. Suffice to say that following only the dog-eat-dog aspects of nature (as NS is prone to do) is ultimately short-sighted and fosters wrongheaded incentives, thereby actually weakening the society in the long run.

TheBorrebyViking
02-02-2012, 06:29 AM
Just let them die of neglect, right? We see what happens in such scenarios - economic stagnation at best (due to the weak's talents being underutilized) and outright revolution at worst. Nations that fail to tap into the talents of its citizens do not get away with it (especially in terms of innovation, as Richard Florida argues in The Rise of the Creative Class).



We've been changing nature ever since we learned how to make stone spears and start fires. It's not like humans can very well sneak up on an antelope and drag it down with their bare hands. Much less is it like we could fight off wolves and hyenas doing the same. NATURE gave us a brain with which to (within limits) change the rules. That same brain allows us to transcend the animals, too. In fact, I'll argue that EVERYONE is a descendant of a weakling if you go back far enough and certainly "weaklings" when compared to what it would take to catch game and fight off predators with fists and feet alone.



Same as the above. Also, I'll add that medicine (and everything development from the "invention" of agriculture onward) is a way of taking care of people - making their lives easier. If you simply let people too unfit to survive die by the wayside, it won't result in a stronger society - it will result in a huge missing pool of talent (i.e. productive, educated, and intelligent people who can 'build better mousetraps', thus contributing to economic growth).

On top of that, dog-eat-dog pseudo-philosophies tend to breed conformity and destroy community spirit. If dog-eat-dog is the rule, the the top dog will make sure everything goes his way. This cannot help but create excessive conformity, due to the fact that it's simply easier to play "follow the leader" rather than be the bearer of bad news to that leader (recall Galileo, f. ex.). Therefore, dog-eat-dog'ism enforces the status quo, which shuns new ideas, and eventually retards technological innovation and economic development.

Back to an earlier part.


If every system fails at some point, I just outlined some of NS has its own failure points. This thread I started (www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26299) several months ago goes into more detail. Suffice to say that following only the dog-eat-dog aspects of nature (as NS is prone to do) is ultimately short-sighted and fosters wrongheaded incentives, thereby actually weakening the society in the long run.

The weak should die off. It's not my fault, nor is it yours. They are a drag on the world. I don't care what some hippie liberal thinks, because liberalism has shown to degrade European and Western culture. Changing nature is by keeping the weak alive(hippies, faggots, etc).

Óttar
02-02-2012, 07:07 AM
The Vikings, ala 'Ragnar Redbeard', are some of the most overrated people in history. Most any organized army could have kicked their asses and they were able to flourish only because of the anarchical power vacuum that generally prevailed in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Were you there!? If not, don't talk. :no:

:coffee:

Phil75231
02-02-2012, 07:20 AM
The weak should die off. It's not my fault, nor is it yours. They are a drag on the world. I don't care what some hippie liberal thinks, because liberalism has shown to degrade European and Western culture. Changing nature is by keeping the weak alive(hippies, faggots, etc).

And who gets to decide who is strong enough or efficient enough to be worthy of survival?

So unless you are THE absolutely strongest and smartest person who ever breathed, breathes, or will breathe oxygen at any time 130 years either side of today, the same arguments you make against the weak can eventually be used against YOU. Be careful what you wish for - it could come back to bite you in the ass.

TheBorrebyViking
02-02-2012, 07:21 AM
And who gets to decide who is strong enough or efficient enough to be worthy of survival?

So unless you are THE absolutely strongest and smartest person who ever breathed, breathes, or will breathe oxygen at any time 130 years either side of today, the same arguments you make against the weak can eventually be used against YOU. Be careful what you wish for - it could come back to bite you in the ass.

If they die off in a society that isn't liberal like what they have. That's how I decide :thumb001:

Where are you from in Texas? I assume DFW or somewhere big, anyone in rural Texas(I know as I lived there) will tell you it's survival of the fittest(minus some of the religious liberals).

Phil75231
02-02-2012, 07:38 AM
If they die off in a society that isn't liberal like what they have. That's how I decide :thumb001:

What if that person goes to a liberal society and becomes the next Mozart, or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Killing them off means killing off any potential money-making ideas and innovation that strengthens our society. Besides, conservative societies tend to be less innovative in part because they tend to put too much faith in the cultural and institutional status quo.


Where are you from in Texas? I assume DFW or somewhere big, anyone in rural Texas(I know as I lived there) will tell you it's survival of the fittest(minus some of the religious liberals).

It's in my profile. However, I grew up rather next door (NE Louisiana, every bit as conservative as rural TX). So I think I know quite well what the rural TX mindset is in that regard. Even here, equating weak with undeserving to continue living is extreme even by rural Deep South standards (and almost certainly rural TX standards too - both areas have a broadly similar outlook).

TheBorrebyViking
02-02-2012, 07:41 AM
What if that person goes to a liberal society and becomes the next Mozart, or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Killing them off means killing off any potential money-making ideas and innovation that strengthens our society. Besides, conservative societies tend to be less innovative in part because they tend to put too much faith in the cultural and institutional status quo.



It's in my profile. However, I grew up rather next door (NE Louisiana, every bit as conservative as rural TX). So I think I know quite well what the rural TX mindset is in that regard. Even here, equating weak with undeserving to continue living is extreme even by rural Deep South standards (and almost certainly rural TX standards too - both areas have a broadly similar outlook).LOL! Yeah right. Also, liberal societies didn't make Mozart or Warren Buffet who they are, they did it by survival of the fittest. If Warren buffet helped everyone else up like you liberals want, he'd be poor as fuck. Liberalism is a disease and it's brought the downfall of Western civilization upon us.

RoyBatty
02-02-2012, 09:16 AM
LOL! Yeah right. Also, liberal societies didn't make Mozart or Warren Buffet who they are, they did it by survival of the fittest. If Warren buffet helped everyone else up like you liberals want, he'd be poor as fuck. Liberalism is a disease and it's brought the downfall of Western civilization upon us.

Jawohl. Let ze liberals go liberate their inner humanitarianist in Haiti, Liberia and Zimbabwe and leave ze rest of us in peace. :thumb001:

Phil75231
02-04-2012, 10:01 AM
LOL! Yeah right. Also, liberal societies didn't make Mozart or Warren Buffet who they are, they did it by survival of the fittest.

Liberal societies focus more on talent than whether they would be "survival of the fittest" in the usual sense - belligerent, empathy-optional, distaste of degenerate, etc. That's the usual sense in which NS use the term.


If Warren buffet helped everyone else up like you liberals want, he'd be poor as fuck. Liberalism is a disease and it's brought the downfall of Western civilization upon us.

Way to sidestep the point! The point is that liberal societies do disregard "survival of the fittest" in the narrow physical domination sense in favor of "survival of the fittest" in the dynamism, creativity, and hard work senses. Survival in the sense of animal dog-eat-dogism is a different issue.

RoyBatty
02-04-2012, 11:08 AM
What if that person goes to a liberal society and becomes the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?

Drown both at birth. We don't want them.

Phil75231
02-05-2012, 06:12 AM
What if that person goes to a liberal society and becomes the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?

Drown both at birth. We don't want them.


Ahh Roy, I see you forgot Mozart; so I presume you like him, or at least not find him too objectionable. :D

"Hate to" have to tell you this, but no matter what you think of corporatism, your attitude still would drown at birth a potential Mozart! Way to show shortsightedness.

As for the rest, well, I think you know quite well what my point was - either actively killing off the weak or letting them die of neglect really does a lot to drive talent away from your home area. Yes, that includes Mozart too. Put in deference to your opinion of Buffet and Gates, you gotta figure out all the prices of the product before deciding to buy into the product. You can't drown those two without drowning the other. It's a package deal. The price of progress IS looking beyond the narrow NS definitions of strength and vigor. You want Mozart? You gotta make room for Buffet and Gates. People who like making money and writing code who can't stand classical music? They gotta let Mozart function and flourish.

In the same way, you want a healthy, prosperous, stable society filled with great new innovations (ones that may one day save your life, I'll add)? Well, you gotta put less emphasis on NS definitions of strength and vigor and more emphasis on what other useful, productive talents they bring to the table.

BTW, that also includes Steven Hawking (wheelchair-bound, can't speak, yet still making tremendous contributions to physics), said to be the greatest physicist since Einstein. I wonder how HE would have ended up in a dog-eat-dog weak-vs-strong paradigm. Oh, BTW, a lot of those "weak" types helped developed the very weapons that let your country as well as mine maintain first-rate militaries. Hard to see how our armies could beat even Togo and Burkina Faso if armed only with 19th century muskets.

AussieScott
02-05-2012, 11:04 AM
Might is right as a general rule, other wise Liberals of the left and right spectrum would not vote for the status qou, the fact is voting enforces there ideals with controlled force.

'Might is right', as long as that force is controlled, and you win of course, then have the opportunity to rewrite history and control the thought forwards.

Phil75231
02-05-2012, 11:33 AM
Might is right as a general rule, other wise Liberals of the left and right spectrum would not vote for the status qou, the fact is voting enforces there ideals with controlled force.

'Might is right', as long as that force is controlled, and you win of course, then have the opportunity to rewrite history and control the thought forwards.

Big difference between "might is right" and "might enforces the values and attitudes of the mighty". Otherwise that's condoning oppression. Beyond this, I already discussed the long-term ruinous course befalls those who take that slogan to heart. While power can explain why certain courses of action and societal attitudes prevail, it cannot be used to justify those actions and attitudes.

RoyBatty
02-05-2012, 11:48 AM
"Hate to" have to tell you this, but no matter what you think of corporatism, your attitude still would drown at birth a potential Mozart! Way to show shortsightedness.


You don't know the first thing about me fuckwit. Go psycho-analyse your mama if you're bored.

AussieScott
02-05-2012, 12:21 PM
Big difference between "might is right" and "might enforces the values and attitudes of the mighty". Otherwise that's condoning oppression. Beyond this, I already discussed the long-term ruinous course befalls those who take that slogan to heart. While power can explain why certain courses of action and societal attitudes prevail, it cannot be used to justify those actions and attitudes.

Just as the current crop of elites have passed anti-terrorism and proposing new hate speech laws to enforce the status quo. To me this is a reactive action to plug the dyke, before the inevitable flood, or in other words liberalism taking a turn towards conservatism.

Phil75231
02-05-2012, 12:33 PM
You don't know the first thing about me fuckwit. Go psycho-analyse your mama if you're bored.

Translation: "I have nothing substantive to say to Phil that defeats his claim 'Might makes right is a ruinous paradigm for a society' - so I'm just gonna dodge the issue by insulting Phil"

Try again - this time sticking to the task of why serious-minded people who dislike tawdry insults ought not take seriously my criticisms of "might makes right" as a 'philosophy' on which to base a nation's values.

Piparskeggr
02-05-2012, 12:48 PM
All I have to contribute is my attitude of Might FOR Right...

Right is that which helps my Kin, Kith and Community.

Wrong is that which harms my Kin, Kith and Community.

Might is used to prevent that harm by whoever would cause it.

Phil75231
02-05-2012, 12:49 PM
Just as the current crop of elites have passed anti-terrorism and proposing new hate speech laws to enforce the status quo. To me this is a reactive action to plug the dyke, before the inevitable flood, or in other words liberalism taking a turn towards conservatism.

1. I though anti-terrorism laws were more a conservative issue. I don't know where you get off calling the USA PATRIOT Act (and other nation's rough equivalents) as liberal.

2. Hate Speech Laws - yes, a liberal concern. I'm not one to drag every bigot or even hater into court, much less do I favor stifling criticism of ethnic groups (minority or not) and such. Still, if the speech causes, to use US legal terminology, a "clear and present danger" (one that will plausibly create immediate civil disorder), I support banning it - especially if it is actually encouraging attacks on others because of which group they belong to or what their group purports to do.

In the US, at least, a "clear and present danger" has not been considered protected free speech for over a century (and I agree that it shouldn't be). Freedom of speech is meant to protect expression of unpopular views in a reasonably civilized manner - meaning they do not encourage people to start rioting and attacking others.

Still, what does that have to do with whether "might makes right" is a sensible paradigm on which to build society's values?

RoyBatty
02-05-2012, 12:55 PM
Translation: "I have nothing substantive to say to Phil about why "might makes right" is a ruinous paradigm for a society - so I'm just gonna dodge the issue by insulting Phil"

Try again - this time sticking to the task of why serious-minded people who dislike tawdry insults ought not take seriously my criticisms of "might makes right" as a 'philosophy' on which to base a nation's values.

There was no point giving you a considered reply because your assumptions are so insane and your ideology is so limpwristed that there simply isn't any common ground.

I already made it pretty clear what my views were on might. If you even paid an iota of attention, you *may have* (and I'm not holding my breath here) realised that I wasn't advocating morality or right and wrong.

I was saying how it is, how it was and how it always will be. Whether you dress up the system in pretty legalese, limpwristed care committees or whatever you chose, at the end of the day, none of that matters.

Might makes right. Unless your "humanitarian system" (and it makes me ill just thinking about these libby-luvvie values and the corresponding society of retards) has a stick behind it, it's worthless because people will simply beat the living daylights out of you and your ilk.

Might (be it of your oppressive Liberal-Marxist type or another type) decides in the end what is "right" and what is "wrong". There is no moral arbiter which does. Morality is whatever the Mighty say it is.

AussieScott
02-05-2012, 01:20 PM
1. I though anti-terrorism laws were more a conservative issue. I don't know where you get off calling the USA PATRIOT Act (and other nation's rough equivalents) as liberal.

2. Hate Speech Laws - yes, a liberal concern. I'm not one to drag every bigot or even hater into court, much less do I favor stifling criticism of ethnic groups (minority or not) and such. Still, if the speech causes, to use US legal terminology, a "clear and present danger" (one that will plausibly create immediate civil disorder), I support banning it - especially if it is actually encouraging attacks on others because of which group they belong to or what their group purports to do.

In the US, at least, a "clear and present danger" has not been considered protected free speech for over a century (and I agree that it shouldn't be). Freedom of speech is meant to protect expression of unpopular views in a reasonably civilized manner - meaning they do not encourage people to start rioting and attacking others.

Still, what does that have to do with whether "might makes right" is a sensible paradigm on which to build society's values?

The anti terror laws are to conserve the state of Liberalism, so the liberal establishment is using reactive policy to conserve itself, ergo Liberals of the left and right will be the new conservatives in future.

Australia politics is different, we have The Labor party(left Liberals) and the The Liberal party(Right Liberals, who are considered 'conservative', in reality they are on the political right of self autonomy and liberalism). You would adore Australian politics Phil.

Hate speech laws in Australia and new ones being purposed go beyond "clear and present danger", it enforces PC by costly court proceedings, which in turn also stifles debate where it's needed.

What has this to do with "Might is right"? Well it's the mighty with the hard and soft power enforcing these laws, it has every thing to do with it.

Flintlocke
02-05-2012, 01:39 PM
All I have to contribute is my attitude of Might FOR Right...

Right is that which helps my Kin, Kith and Community.

Wrong is that which harms my Kin, Kith and Community.

Might is used to prevent that harm by whoever would cause it.

A man's first duty in this world is to himself, and the word 'himself' includes those near and dear ones, who have twined their tendrils around his heart. A man's kindred are part of himself. He should not forget that when fighting for his own hand, he is fighting for them. His strength is their rampart. Their strength is his glory. The family and the individual are a unit.

Might is Right, page 77

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth :)

Phil75231
02-06-2012, 11:35 PM
All I have to contribute is my attitude of Might FOR Right...

Right is that which helps my Kin, Kith and Community.

Wrong is that which harms my Kin, Kith and Community.

Might is used to prevent that harm by whoever would cause it.

That's just what I mean, Pipa. Might is not the source of morality/immorality. While I agree might decides what will be done, it does not follow that it makes it right. Beyond this, humans may be animals BUT...we also transcend all other animals, too. While Darwinian evolution may explain, in some cases, why we behave the way we do, it can never be a basis for what we ought to do. We do need to aspire for something higher, Moreso, what purpose would our intellgence serve us at all (beyond mere survival)? Otherwise, as Byrnecres/rihannon says, what real purpose does evolution serve at all? We'd be little better than baboons with oversized brains in that case.

rhiannon
02-07-2012, 10:36 AM
There was no point giving you a considered reply because your assumptions are so insane and your ideology is so limpwristed that there simply isn't any common ground.

I already made it pretty clear what my views were on might. If you even paid an iota of attention, you *may have* (and I'm not holding my breath here) realised that I wasn't advocating morality or right and wrong.

I was saying how it is, how it was and how it always will be. Whether you dress up the system in pretty legalese, limpwristed care committees or whatever you chose, at the end of the day, none of that matters.

Might makes right. Unless your "humanitarian system" (and it makes me ill just thinking about these libby-luvvie values and the corresponding society of retards) has a stick behind it, it's worthless because people will simply beat the living daylights out of you and your ilk.

Might (be it of your oppressive Liberal-Marxist type or another type) decides in the end what is "right" and what is "wrong". There is no moral arbiter which does. Morality is whatever the Mighty say it is.

I just want to ask this:
RoyBatty, how are you gonna think about this *moral dilemma* as it were, if you and yours are on the wrong end of the might portion of might makes right?

Even if you know the scumbags threatening you and your loved ones are....well.....just that.....scumbags?

Is that scumbag right simply because you are now peering down the business end of his weapon, just before he decides to kill you and your family with said weapon?

This may be the reality of life....true....but is this what you want for your kids and your descendants?

Don't you think after some 100,000 or so years that we humans ought have evolved just a teensy bit away from such a barbaric existence?

This is an honest question.:)

Argyll
02-07-2012, 10:52 AM
No, I do not believe might is right. Those who often believe this idea are often those who love to extend their power and influence throughout the world and think that they are indestructible and develop high amounts of hubris.

They usually collapse in on themselves, due to other people believing that might is their right as well. Those nations that do have great power should learn to use it responsibly and not follow the model of previous empires.

Phil75231
02-08-2012, 05:12 AM
First, let me address everyone. I am NOT…NOT a pacifist; as I see where force is legitimate in many circumstances. All I’m saying is that strength does not determine ultimate right and wrong. My saw arm off w/o anesthesia example should illustrate this clearly. Now to the AussieScott’s post.


The anti terror laws are to conserve the state of Liberalism, so the liberal establishment is using reactive policy to conserve itself, ergo Liberals of the left and right will be the new conservatives in future.

The anti-terror laws are a legitimate point of political debate. However, their intent - to protect people on its soil - is a legitimate function of the state, including state liberalism. Even so, the very fact that some disagree with these laws shows that might doesn’t have anything to do with right. Liberals being the new conservatives of the future – if by this you mean “freedom of expression, speech, etc” are the status quo positions, I see nothing to disagree about (although everyone apart from extreme libertarians/borderline anarchists thinks certain expressions ought be regulated).


Australia politics is different, we have The Labor party(left Liberals) and the The Liberal party(Right Liberals, who are considered 'conservative', in reality they are on the political right of self autonomy and liberalism). You would adore Australian politics Phil.

Perhaps. I hear Australia’s pollies love to dish out quite cutting insults to each other in Parliament (or whatever you all call your legislative chamber). Personally not my cup of tea, but if it’s that deeply engrained in your political culture, I assume y’all’ve worked out unspoken but obviously present “rules of verbal brawling” (so to speak) on this matter – so I guess all’s well in Canberra on that front. Still, I’m sure that with even cursory research, I can find something to bitch and moan about it.


Hate speech laws in Australia and new ones being purposed go beyond "clear and present danger", it enforces PC by costly court proceedings, which in turn also stifles debate where it's needed.

I don’t know the specifics of Australia’s laws in this regard, so I can’t responsibly comment about those specifics. However, I will say I oppose those laws IF they don’t treat all groups consistently; though I would likely support those laws if the laws target speech that is unreasonably abusive (i.e. go beyond grievances about how certain ethnicities, genders, etc. behave and into sheer abuse and excessive humiliation). The latter doesn’t contribute anything to the societal debate at all – and is just frank bullying.


What has this to do with "Might is right"? Well it's the mighty with the hard and soft power enforcing these laws, it has every thing to do with it.

Again, this is confusing the enforcer of the mighty’s views of right and wrong with the ultimate source of right and wrong (which I discussed earlier in this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=671954&postcount=27)). Likewise, again, see my example of sawing off someone’s arm w/o anesthesia (or any such occurrence without their consent in general, for that matter).

Hevneren
02-08-2012, 07:23 AM
It's funny how the Internet Nutzis talk of "might making right", when their idol was defeated by superior forces, and humiliated to the point that he killed himself. Nazism became an utter failure, proving (by the admission of Net Nutzis) that they were weak and deserved to be destroyed. Democracy was victorious over degenerate Nutzi fascism. Thus, democracy is superior, if we are to use "might makes right" logic.

If might always makes right, then an adult is always right in raping and murdering not only children in general but also his/her own child(ren). If might makes right, then nobody should ever help anyone and the idea of cooperation and preservation becomes senseless since we'd all have to be in a constant lethal battle for supremacy, exterminating each other in the process.

If might always makes right, humanity would be going extinct by now. Nevermind all the wars we've fought over the millennia, because even so called savage cultures had certain rules of conduct, and they didn't all murder children and rape women constantly.

The Net Nutzis seem to forget another important detail: If we were to kill off everyone "weaker" than ourselves we'd find ourselves lacking in many brilliant and useful individuals. Doctors, scientists, engineers etc. There's a reason why killing off people willy nilly is actually not that common in human history apart from homicidal asswipes. It's simply not a good idea for the survival of humanity, because we need genetic diversity and more than one "type" of human being.

Believe it or not, but with human civilisation changing from hunter-gatherers into modern urban city dwellers, humans need to adapt to their environment. Humanity is going through a micro-evolution, having to adapt and learn new skills. Think of the scientific progress we've made since WWII ended! The world in 2012 looks very different from the world in 1942.

Joe McCarthy
02-08-2012, 07:27 AM
It's funny how the Internet Nutzis talk of "might making right", when their idol was defeated by superior forces, and humiliated to the point that he killed himself. Nazism became an utter failure, proving (by the admission of Net Nutzis) that they were weak and deserved to be destroyed. Democracy was victorious over degenerate Nutzi fascism. Thus, democracy is superior, if we are to use "might makes right" logic.

If might always makes right, then an adult is always right in raping and murdering not only children in general but also his/her own child(ren). If might makes right, then nobody should ever help anyone and the idea of cooperation and preservation becomes senseless since we'd all have to be in a constant lethal battle for supremacy, exterminating each other in the process.

If might always makes right, humanity would be going extinct by now. Nevermind all the wars we've fought over the millennia, because even so called savage cultures had certain rules of conduct, and they didn't all murder children and rape women constantly.

The Net Nutzis seem to forget another important detail: If we were to kill off everyone "weaker" than ourselves we'd find ourselves lacking in many brilliant and useful individuals. Doctors, scientists, engineers etc. There's a reason why killing off people willy nilly is actually not that common in human history apart from homicidal asswipes. It's simply not a good idea for the survival of humanity, because we need genetic diversity and more than one "type" of human being.

Good points, all. Nutzis are also violently 'anti-imperialist', coming off like Third World niggers in their denunciations of Western military interventions.

Flintlocke
02-08-2012, 07:49 AM
right in raping and murdering not only children in general but also his/her own child(ren)

Everyone knew there was something wrong with you but you're stating it here. Nobody here has even thought of such disgusting things let alone state them. They shouldn't let you out without your meds :crazy:

Hevneren
02-08-2012, 07:52 AM
Everyone knew there was something wrong with you but you're stating it here. Nobody here has even thought of such disgusting things let alone state them. They shouldn't let you out without your meds :crazy:

Just following the NS logic of might makes right, sunshine. Children are weaker than adults, so according to "might makes right" stronger adults have a right to murder and exploit children.

If you don't like the logical conclusion of the Nutzi ideology in the OP, then it's not my fault. :shrug:

AussieScott
02-08-2012, 10:57 AM
Good points, all. Nutzis are also violently 'anti-imperialist', coming off like Third World niggers in their denunciations of Western military interventions.

I have no problems with colonialism, neo colonialism and "Might is right", obviously neither do you, otherwise you would not support the Western policies today, that most of us draw a pay check from. Though I don't mind if the system folds into anarchy as long as the entire global system goes down in flames. What can I say I'm an anarchist at heart.

Plus I really like some aspects of the racialist traditionalist conservatism of 1940's and 1950's, which is considered fascist for the last 60 years by liberals.

I know the West is meant to have the higher ground, but the progressives who consider themselves even more Liberal then the left and right liberals, coincidently side with the BRIC's, using racist anti-white ideology. Which side do you think the Western anti-American left Liberals will side with?

AussieScott
02-08-2012, 01:24 PM
First, let me address everyone. I am NOT…NOT a pacifist; as I see where force is legitimate in many circumstances. All I’m saying is that strength does not determine ultimate right and wrong. My saw arm off w/o anesthesia example should illustrate this clearly. Now to the AussieScott’s post.

I'm not a pacifist, and I know your not either.


The anti-terror laws are a legitimate point of political debate. However, their intent - to protect people on its soil - is a legitimate function of the state, including state liberalism. Even so, the very fact that some disagree with these laws shows that might doesn’t have anything to do with right. Liberals being the new conservatives of the future – if by this you mean “freedom of expression, speech, etc” are the status quo positions, I see nothing to disagree about (although everyone apart from extreme libertarians/borderline anarchists thinks certain expressions ought be regulated).

I understand that a government has a right to defend itself and the people on the soil. I know the innocent people should be the main objective, when you see people shat on to protect politicians and the current government of the day, well that line certainly becomes blurred.

Politicians set the parameters of terms and references for Royal commissions, investigations, use the federal police to button up sensitive geo political/political situations, even at the justice and expense of a citizen. I have seen this with my own eyes, even the propaganda that is released to the media, that I know for a fact has been falsified and information omitted for geo political purposes.(Really so it doesn't make powerful leader/politicians look like fools.) That is "might makes right" as no one will know they are wrong, well not a substantial amount of people to make a difference anyway.

To conserve an ideology with authoritarian power and including, making progressively more harsher expansive laws that target the nations populace to form a highly reactive authoritarian state IMO is an ideology that is becoming more so conservative.

Look at England for Christ sake.


Perhaps. I hear Australia’s pollies love to dish out quite cutting insults to each other in Parliament (or whatever you all call your legislative chamber). Personally not my cup of tea, but if it’s that deeply engrained in your political culture, I assume y’all’ve worked out unspoken but obviously present “rules of verbal brawling” (so to speak) on this matter – so I guess all’s well in Canberra on that front. Still, I’m sure that with even cursory research, I can find something to bitch and moan about it.


Ahh yes, Australian politicians are rude to each other, it's rather embarrassing the way they behave, though the parliament is hung and not dominated by a confident leader at the moment, so it's more degraded than usual. It's quiet disgusting really. The real politic in Australia is in the 24/7 news cycle, think tanks, lobbyists, and political spin that goes with it all.

I thought you might like it as they generally try to come together with the so called liberalism that unites both parties. Though that certainly is not the case now as the Liberal right has moved to a more conservative traditionalist position. Very similar to the Republican and tea party conservative movement really, the Small (L) Liberals, leftists in conservative dress are very disappointed. :) It's still Liberal right, liberalism, libertarianism and self autonomy. The Liberals always pander to the traditionalists in opposition, but always return to the pragmatic social liberal conservatism.

So much for the next 40 years of progressive liberal politics...Don't worry Australian politics is confusing to non-Australians.



I don’t know the specifics of Australia’s laws in this regard, so I can’t responsibly comment about those specifics. However, I will say I oppose those laws IF they don’t treat all groups consistently; though I would likely support those laws if the laws target speech that is unreasonably abusive (i.e. go beyond grievances about how certain ethnicities, genders, etc. behave and into sheer abuse and excessive humiliation). The latter doesn’t contribute anything to the societal debate at all – and is just frank bullying.

Well it seems the pendulum has swung to far the Labor party along with the Greens here are witch hunting media out lets in order to shut them up, on immigration, refugees, climate change, gay marriage anything that doesn't fit the left liberal agenda politically. Not only that certain changes to the constitution may be coming up for a referendum that will make any perceived offence to become the space of the jurisprudence to penalise. Though I'm 100% sure such changes will be voted Nay, the liberal left are pushing the racist anti-white wheel barrow hard, it almost looks desperate.



Again, this is confusing the enforcer of the mighty’s views of right and wrong with the ultimate source of right and wrong (which I discussed earlier in this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=671954&postcount=27)). Likewise, again, see my example of sawing off someone’s arm w/o anesthesia (or any such occurrence without their consent in general, for that matter).

Fair enough, without "might is right", chaos would ensue.

For that matter if there were no pharmaceutical anaesthetics, what would you do? What happens when the government goes broke, can no longer pay welfare, and pensions, and austerity measure are forced upon the populace? What happens to those dissident, like in Greece?

IMO "Might is right" or those perceived to be right will fall and chaos will ensue, where "might is right' rules supreme. Then order generally arises via who had more might, which by default makes the victor right, no matter the ideology.

RoyBatty
02-08-2012, 05:22 PM
I just want to ask this:
RoyBatty, how are you gonna think about this *moral dilemma* as it were, if you and yours are on the wrong end of the might portion of might makes right?

Even if you know the scumbags threatening you and your loved ones are....well.....just that.....scumbags?


"Right or wrong" holds no meaning for me. It's arbitrary and inconsequential and I don't give a damn about "their human rights".

Me and mine are already on the wrong end of the liberal might-is-right stick.
There's no moral dilemma. Only numerous (currently attached) liberal skulls waiting to be mounted on poles outside the village when opportunity presents itself. :D

Rollo
02-09-2012, 01:26 AM
Just following the NS logic of might makes right, sunshine. Children are weaker than adults, so according to "might makes right" stronger adults have a right to murder and exploit children.

If you don't like the logical conclusion of the Nutzi ideology in the OP, then it's not my fault. :shrug:

That's the most stupid oversimplification of all time.

So what, if I'm a communist who believes in everyone being equal, Doctors should be paid the same as labourers? That certainly hasn't happened in any communist country.

If I'm a person who believes in democracy, do I believe everyone should be able to vote, regardless of age or mental capacity?:rolleyes:

You have a lot to learn about this ideology before you pass such a stupid judgment on it.

GeistFaust
02-09-2012, 02:10 AM
Might is right to a certain extent, in so far as it is led by rational and logical considerations. Might is only a tool or instrument to being able to secure thing given the use of reason in the process of such an application. An animal might have a lot of might, but might alone will not always win someone something they desire or need.


It sure can give someone a great advantage in certain situations and against certain individuals, but in affairs dealing with humanity it rarely wins the day without the appropriate use of reason. I think just saying might is right is sort of loose ended way of affirming thing, and that there should be more conditions and criterias as to when might does make something right.



I think in the great deal of cases this will be a "subjective" or "relative" matter to the individual or group involved. The nature of situations will always be changing, partly due to environmental evolution, and through the predictive powers of man to shape his environment. This means the situations which we "relatively" or "subjectively" will approach will never be fixed regarding whether might does make right in this particular situation.



The same applies to the individuals and groups applying this concept to certain situations. There will always be new individuals and groups that arise in society, and those who are already in existence will always be changing in regards to their perspective of different situations. I think in general the might as right statement as a universal precept for ethical considerations in particular situations is not valid on the basis that we affirm it in a theoretical sense.



Its consistency is constructed through practical application, and doing this does not always guarantee us the certainty that our brain is shaping our reality of certain situations in an ethical manner. I think the whole might is derived from right argument, which a lot of Christians use is rather invalid. There is no empirical means to justify the authority of certain people, and the God given rights to do certain things in a certain situation.



I think this type of mentality sets itself up for a certain kind of self-righteousness, which will allow the individual to justify and validate a certain course of thought or actions based on the presupposition that he believes in some divine being. This does not mean we should question the authority of certain individuals, but realize that their authority in a broader context has been gained through good conduct, intellectual awareness, and practical application of these two in reality.



This generally applies to people who authority is gained within the structures or an organized and structured society or civilization due to their abidance with certain standard steps and norms. I think that the Divine Right of King was clearly based on a hereditary line of succession, than some God given right, which was innately presupposed to be the natural right of that given individual.



This is the argument certain conservatives and traditionalists use, and I think its severely lacking concerning empirical and rational verification. This is why the might is right argument is more valid versus the might is derived from right argument, which has many gaps and rational holes contained within it.



In a purely relativistic sense it could be said that the might is derived argument validates or justifies the might is right argument, but I don't think its right to say the invalidity of one justifies its opposite. There should be a certain code or criteria to justify the might is right argument and this will be simply "relativistic" based on the situation and the individuals or group of individuals, but it should align itself as best as possible with good judgment as it concerns experience.


The whole might is derived from right is completely fallacious and contradictory on the basis that right can only be derived from might whether it be theoretically, practically, or a combination of both. This is where a list of antinomies would suit us well in refuting the impossibility of such an ethical concept such as the one that is advocated for in the might is derived from right argument.



If might is derived from right, but right can only be affirmed as such by might, than what is right is based off that which is purely situational and "relative" to the perspective, thoughts, and actions of certain individuals and groups of individuals regarding their situation. This would seem to throw a whole conundrum in that whole argument, and basically it would be a more one sided and absolutist way of approaching the might is right argument.



This is to say it would be projecting some negative or chimeric reality in order to justify the argument of the might is right. Then they would proceed to utilize rational and logical premises to justify this negative or chimeric reality as the source of might. It seems to be a shifty and rather dishonest way of merely affirming that might is right, and I find all together too evasive and theological in its nature.



That said the might is right statement can become too evasive as well, when it sets no boundaries and codes around the ethical procedures of its claim. If one can do whatever he pleases and determine a certain thing as a maxim for a certain course of thoughts and actions, then in a sense he is misusing and abusing what the might is right argument really means in actuality.



If one can not acknowledge the well being of others, as well as the authority of certain institutions, individuals, and norms of society then the validity of such a moral precept becomes lost to that person. There are two negative forms of affirming the statement of might is right, one of which is by affirming it in the positive, but by not defining it clearly given the context of a certain situation, individual, or groups of individuals relating to the norms and standards of a certain culture and society.



The second is the theological form of negating the might is right statement, which is just as insidious as the first negative way of affirming the might is right statement. It tries to affirm this concept on the basis of divine right or validation, when the application of such a divine right is blurry and unclear as applied to the real world of the senses.



It affirms something by validating it on the basis of something which it has to validate through might(Reason) in order to justify or validate the right of a certain course of thoughts or actions. This seems tautological and circular, and allows for all sorts of insidious conclusions to be made concerning moral matters.



Religiously affirmed concepts of morality are too often done so by hypocrites and contradictory individuals, who are blinded from their error by the most superficial and plastic forms of "sublime piety." Instead all it is doing is foolishly negating might in order to justify that might is right, in order to spook people with the notion that their might is justified and blessed by some higher power.


In a sense all it is a projection of might in a resentful and self-loathing manner, and a misuse of reason for truly treacherous behaviors, which violate good conduct and our rational duty to moral affairs.


The might is derived from right argument is merely a fallacious approximation and projection of the might is right argument, which is truly and authentically a positive moral maxim when guided by the forces of reason and logic relating to the "subjectivity" of individuals and certain situations.

Joe McCarthy
02-09-2012, 05:09 AM
I have no problems with colonialism, neo colonialism and "Might is right", obviously neither do you, otherwise you would not support the Western policies today, that most of us draw a pay check from. Though I don't mind if the system folds into anarchy as long as the entire global system goes down in flames. What can I say I'm an anarchist at heart.

Plus I really like some aspects of the racialist traditionalist conservatism of 1940's and 1950's, which is considered fascist for the last 60 years by liberals.

I know the West is meant to have the higher ground, but the progressives who consider themselves even more Liberal then the left and right liberals, coincidently side with the BRIC's, using racist anti-white ideology. Which side do you think the Western anti-American left Liberals will side with?

I don't believe might is right. I do believe that it's best for the West to have the might as our security depends on it. Strangely though the people who say they do believe might is right bemoan Western governments clobbering assorted decrepit Third World regimes and are peddlers of anti-American (the ultimate possessor of might) geopolitical conspiracies and unrestrained moralism about evil Jews, bankers, arms dealers, etc.