ISBN: 1300653892

Might Is Right attempts to make the social Darwinist argument that the human natural order only rewards strength and power, just like in the animal kingdom, and those who do not understand this fact will always get trampled on by groups who are more powerful.

Written in 1890 by anonymous writer Ragnar Redbeard, it includes a scathing attack on Christianity for fostering weakness in European-derived people. In spite of the questionable morality of its Darwinist position, the book’s predictions about how the West will be weakened has been quite accurate.

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.


The victor gets the gold and the land every time. 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.

Redbeard argues that only a society built upon the principles of strength can avoid the crippling social problems that our generation is currently fighting against. The promotion of egalitarian ideas, which the author states originated with Christ, have elevated the weak and degenerate as beacons of what is right and true.

What is your “civilization and progress” if its only outcome is hysteria and down going? What is “government and law” if their ripened harvests are men without sap? What are “religions and literatures” if their grandest productions are hordes of faithful slaves? What is “evolution and culture” if their noxious blossoms are sterilized women? What is “education and enlightenment” if their deadsea fruit is a caitiff race, with rottenness in its bones?

When strength is not seen as a virtue, mean become weak and lost, mere slaves to the system that now has them solidly controlled.

Everything that a corrupt civilization can do, is done to compress the growing intellect into unnatural channels. Thus the great mass of men who inhabit the world of to-day have no initiative, no originality or independence of thought, but are mere subjective individualities, who have never had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideals that they formally revere.

Redbeard anticipates that a strongman type of leader will reassert the natural order. From him will come untold destruction as the system is overturned. Perhaps the man that Redbeard envisioned was Hitler, who did rise to power forty years after the book was written.

Mankind is aweary, aweary of its sham prophets, its demagogues and its statesmen. It crieth out for kings and heroes. It demands a nobility – a nobility that cannot be hired with money, like slaves or beasts of burden. The world awaits the coming of mighty men of valor, great destroyers; destroyers of all that is vile, angels of death.

Absolute truth that stems from nature must be identified and obeyed. Everything else can be discarded. Otherwise, egalitarian lies will ingrain itself into a people and destroy them to the point of extinction.

Whatever alleged “truth” is proven by results, to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies and other useless lumber and wreckage.

…when a lie has gone too far—when it has taken up its abode in the very tissues, bones and brains of a people, then all remedies are useless.

A man who doesn’t believe in using violence to achieve powerful ends is a slave to those who do, for violence is the only way to overthrow a tyrant.

Strong men are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth and Material Power. The mission of Power is to control and exploit the powerless, for to be powerless is to be criminal.


He who is afraid to risk his life must never be permitted to win anything.


During the whole course of human history, there is not upon record, one authentic instance wherein a subjugated people has ever regained property-holding Liberty, without first butchering its tyrants.

The author’s attack on Christianity is one of the harshest I’ve seen. He argues not whether Christ exists or not, but that he’s weak, incompetent, and has led European people astray for centuries.

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


‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked.


If we lived as Christ lived, there would be none of us left to live. He begat no children; he labored not for his bread; he possessed neither house nor home; he merely talked. Consequently he must have existed on charity or have stolen bread.

I’ve long argued that practicing game is a way for man to reach his potential, since it forces you to improve many other areas of your life. Redbeard states that war is the true mechanism that fosters the best of men and nations.

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

The author interprets equality as a poisoned idea that has been allowed to spread by inferior individuals who should have been destroyed by the strong, and that the struggle for existence will soon commence anew, more vicious than before.

Neither the machinery nor the raw material of equality has ever existed, only the dream, the idea of it. Equality! Equality! In that one word is summed up the accumulated dementia of two thousand years! The thought of it was born in the brain of an inferior organism, and the brains of inferior organisms nourish it still.


…the easiest way to enslave a Race is to wheedle it into or impose upon it counterfeit Ethics, that is to say, fraudulent standards of morality.


Foolish and blind (or mad) are they who think the struggle for existence ended. It is only begun. This Planet is in its infancy, not in its decrepitude. The “end of all things” is afar off. The kingdom of heaven is not at hand. Incessant is the rivalry for supremacy among men, and manifold are its metamorphoses. Not for a single hour, for a single second, is there an armistice. Night and day the combat rages.

Redbeard correctly predicted the sterility that would result if our countries were taken over by “social justice” and other ivory tower propagandists.

Overt action is not always needful for the drastic removal of lower organisms. Very often, if left alone, degenerates cremate themselves. If given control of governmental mechanisms, they immediately commence to grind one another into mincemeat (that is to say, into dividends) – crying Holy! Holy! Holy! Mentally, physically, morally, they are past redemption. Doomed souls are they, miserable sinners!


As the Old Man of the Mountains trained his fanatical Assassins and sent them forth to slay, so Civilization trains its Fiendling Intellectuals and sends them forth to assassinate Human Nature.

You won’t win if you follow prescribed rules of law or morality. Redbeard advises you to break the rules in order to accomplish your goals. Violence, thieving, and immorality can be seen as justified and even celebrated if does on a large enough scale.

Great animals (whether man or brute) never operate in strict accordance with prearranged rules of procedure. If they did do so, they could never prosper and would die of hunger. Their greatness lies in springing surprises, in doing exactly what their antagonists (or intended quarry) doesn’t expect them to do, in being beyond and above all moral measurements whatsoever.


Slay one man (in order to rob him) and you are a murderer. Slay a million men (in order to rob them) and you are a renowned general. Annex from one person and you are a felonious ruffian, but annex from the whole population or from rival nations, and you are made Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chairman of Ways and Means, or decorated with the grand cross of the Legion of Honor.

Women want a virile, strong man, not a vegetarian weakling.

Strength, energy-of-character, ferocity, and courage, she admires in her possible husband, above all other qualities combined. Even to be carried-off by force, is not repugnant to her feelings, if the ‘bold bad man’ is in other respects acceptable. She pines to be ‘wooed and won,’ (or as it were) she likes to feel that she has been mastered, conquered, taken possession of—that the man who has stormed her heart is in all respects, a man among men.


Wherever soldiers conquer in war, they also conquer in love—after the first paroxysm of revengeful patriotism is over. Women of vanquished races are usually very prone to wed with the men who have slaughtered their kindred in battle.

Redbeard states that feminists are absolutely useless because they cannot provide strong men with sons.

There is nothing particularly inviting about baren, dyspeptic, bluestocking, ‘New Women,’ in pants and spectacles; talking idiotic snuffle through their noses; with busts made of adjustable india-rubber; with narrow or padded hips, and ‘wheels between their legs,’ scorching across the curbstones like mad. When such women are ‘captured’ what good are they? They won’t even breed; or if they do so (by accident) their puny embryos, have to be delicately nurtured into life with steam-heated incubator – mechanism and afterwards fed and weaned on ‘the bottle.’ The sons of such women – bottle fed abortions – of what good are they?

If you happen to be weak and a man who is strong wants to kill you, here’s the advice the author has for you: “Woe unto those who stumble! Woe unto Ye who fall!” At this point one has to wonder if Redbeard is actually serious that you deserve to die if you happen to slip once in the presence of a man stronger than you, who should not be bound by any type of ethical code in order to slay you on the spot if he is able to do so.

Imagine a man on the street bends over to tie his shoes. Another man, seeing that he is in a vulnerable position, slits his throat with a knife and steals his money. Redbeard’s philosophy could find justification for this behavior, simply because the killer was “strong” at the critical moment while the victim made himself “weak.” For that reason, it is almost impossible to defend his ideas on an individual level, though it may have more application when pitting one society against another. While I doubt that many of you want to be the type of man who kills others in the name of strength alone, at the very least you must be able to defend against other men by maximizing your own strength.

Might Is Right ultimately makes an anti-religious and anti-tradition argument for human organization, providing justification for the extermination of societies or peoples based solely on strength. Whatever allows you to gain ultimate power over the lives of others is the correct answer regardless of its morality or effect on the social aspects of society.

How would the author interpret ISIS, who is implementing his model of strength to take over lands, killing and executing along the way? I don’t suspect that the author wants Western society to look like present-day Iraq, but he definitely had in mind the fact that Islamic forces have been using strength to wage jihad on European lands. In that respect, Might Is Right can be seen as a self-defense manual for European people against Islam. After noting the many anti-black and anti-Jewish outbursts within the book, my best guess is that Redbeard envisions a homogeneous Europe that retains Viking-like strength against its enemies. A hint of that is the pseudonym he chose.

I’m in full agreement with Redbeard that if you are weaker than those who wish to take your land, you will lose, and no Christian idea or egalitarian slogan will save you when men who are ready to kill for their beliefs arrive on your doorstep while you hold a “Refugees Welcome” sign. Teaching societal passivity and meekness while other violent groups exist among you is suicidal and will result in slaughter.

In the end, might will eventually subjugate the weak, even if the weak is intelligent, moral, or do-gooding. It may take centuries for that to happen, but it will, and unless you can properly fight against groups who are strong, who truly believe that might makes right, you will be eradicated. Even if you don’t believe, morally, that might makes right, there is always a human group that does, and unless you can stop them, they will kill you and rape your most beautiful women. Therefore if you are ready to conclude that strength is what’s essential for victory, it wouldn’t hurt to develop that strength yourself.

Read More: “Might Is Right” on Amazon


  1. Wes June 6, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Ragbeard’s argument has one glaring fatal hole in it. As Christianity took over Europe. Europe grew more dominate in the world, not less. As Christianity has started to die in Europe, Europe has grown weaker not stronger.

    End argument

    1. Roosh June 6, 2016 at 10:05 am

      Yeah when you look at the Crusades, it’s hard to argue that Christianity is weak. But the modern interpretation of it, from the Pope down to the churches, is definitely more in line with his argument.

      1. Wes June 6, 2016 at 10:13 am

        You are spot on with that. Christianity is not a faith for whimps. But the heresy I call churchianity is. You are not following Jesus’s teaching by letting evil kill others. A christian is all about love. And as Jesus said “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”

        We are nether pacifists or wimps. To be a coward is a sin

      2. Dirk Diggler June 20, 2016 at 1:46 am

        The disciples did carry swords. Jesus used a Thrash, which was a kind of small whip

      3. Titan000 June 6, 2016 at 11:09 am

        Even the scriptures command Christian men to be manly:
        ”Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

        1 Corinthians 16:13

      4. Morrison June 6, 2016 at 2:51 pm

        I agree. It seems that today, being a good Christian means becoming extinct. It’s out right unreal to witness the passivity of mainstrwan white europeans, primarily of christian heritage. Their governments are shirting all over its own people. The europeans ready and willing to fight for their heritage seem to few compared to the the mass of docile schmucks that make up the majority.

      5. SongTalkingMan June 6, 2016 at 5:46 pm

        Rooth, if you’d teach me something, and I fail to learn it, is your teachings inferior or bad? Is your work poor, if I fail to get it? Is The Way of Roosh bad, if I don’t do the Way right?

        Or is it due to the cause of me?

        Don’t mistake the bad, clumsy, unsuccessful, failing follower with how it’s done where it is done right.

      6. Shmalkandik June 6, 2016 at 10:31 pm

        How long did the Crusaders get to stay in the Holy Land?

      7. Darwin June 6, 2016 at 10:36 pm

        I agree that ssomething is wrong with modern Christianity. I prefer Old Testament myself. Maybe the Jews have subverted modern Christianity, especially after world war 2.

      8. Cecil J June 6, 2016 at 10:51 pm

        Watch Pastor Steve Lee Andersons out of the Phoneix,AZ metro areas two documentaries- “Marching To Zion” and “New World Order Bible Translations” free on YouTube as he supports your premise and offers calm, clear, logical reasoning as proof of it’s veracity.

        Roosh you should check these out too as they discuss the Christian religion in an intelligent way as well.

      9. Shmalkandik June 8, 2016 at 12:30 pm

        His arguments about European genetic descent from Ancient Israel are sufficiently tendentious to make suspects the line pursued in this documentary – on which he has also disabled comments. Without discussion, the value of his work cannot be possibly known.

      10. Nestor June 7, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        “Maybe the Jews have subverted modern Christianity”

        How about the Manicheans subverting modern Christianity?

      11. Shmalkandik June 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm

        Jews invented the original form of Christianity. All his immediate disciples were Jews, with the probably exception of Luke. Paul, the one apostle who never met Jesus, continually emphasized this connect, explaining why there was still benefit in being a Jew. Indeed, Nietzsche argued that Judaism founded Christianity as revenge against the pagan Roman world. His discussion on how resentment gives birth to values is still worth studying today.

        If anything, the trend in the contemporary study of Christianity is focusing on its Jewish foundation. William F. Buckley put it as the necessity to understand traditional Judaism as “the tap root of Christianity”. There are indeed many Jews who have been among those who attack Christianity, but you won’t find the traditional ones among them.

      12. Mjolnir2010 June 7, 2016 at 2:12 am

        I’ve thought about this problem at length, and wavered between the Redbeard philosophy and Christianity (you may remember my ROK articles that were Redbeard in tone). I’ve concluded that the old warrior values of Europe combined with Christianity in a sort of symbiosis, each reigning in the excesses of the other. Ideally we will return to that someday. However, we’ve swing too far towards the feminine side, adopting the logical conclusion of Christianity (ie modern leftism). We need an age of Ragnar Redbeard to sweep away the present rot, and then we can ease some of the softer philosophy back in. Different times call for different ideas; it is time for Christianity to take a break while the battle axes swing.

      13. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

        First, it is important to lay off the tit-growing beer…and return to large quantities of Divine Mead, instead… 🙂 THEN You can again merrily burn, pillage and ra….oops…I meant ” RAVISH” the neighbours again… ;))

      14. Nestor June 7, 2016 at 2:06 pm

        There is no modern interpretation, there is a Manichean interpretation by Manichean Illuminists who have infiltrated Christianity and who pretend to be Christians. This includes all the popes from John XXIII to the current one who are all Illuminists not Christians as every Sedevacantist Catholic knows.

      15. GGG June 8, 2016 at 8:06 am

        Christendom was not particularly a strong global power at the time of the Crusades. It was only centuries later that our christian nation-states dominated the world.

        How do you maximize your personal power? It’s not just about straightforward fighting ability, but you must appeal to the psychology of the people around you to gain real power. Brute violence alone only gets you so far, both on individual and on a larger scale.

      16. Dirk Diggler June 20, 2016 at 1:45 am

        The form of Christianity taught for at least the past 50 years has been a weak, feminized interpretation.

      17. Alessio Pinna July 5, 2016 at 1:57 pm

        Actually, the Crusades are a pretty damn good point that Christianity was making europe weak. Historically, Christianity was seen by the falling roman empire as a threat because its member didnt want to be soldier, and were more loyal to their faith than to their empire. Anyway, the r.e. fell. After that another offshot of yeowa, islam, emerged: but it was much more military oriented. It conquered literally half of the, at the time, christian world: all north africa, modern day israel and syria, turkey were christian before islam. Muslims arrived on the door of Paris, for god’s sake. It was not christian ideals that pushed them back: it was charles martel first, and the reconquista later (both military significant), and the crusades that tried to recover israel. In a way, europe recovered only, note well: ONLY, when the christianity-inspired meekness gave way to “deus vult” brutality. Pizarro was fervently christian, but of the post-crusades type – as in, the musllim type: in south america he saw infidels, and infidels were to be subjugated. Same could be said for colonialism. Nowadays we are back to the original christianity, the meek one…. and europe is no longer expanding, in fact it is back to barely defending its own border. As for the US, its more energetic nephew…. well, its destiny seems similar in the long term.

      18. Owen Gilmore July 9, 2016 at 10:30 pm

        Not sure about the Crusades but this guy is missing the point that it’s peacefulness and cooperation, respect for civil order and property rights that make civilization, not his war porn fantasies. How could it be otherwise? A farmer can’t grow crops when he’s being plundered by Huns, and the merchant can’t do business, bankers can’t bank, etc.

    2. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 12:13 pm

      This was discussed by Greg Hood in his article “The de-Germanization of Christianity” where he compares the differences between Middle Age warrior Christianity and current day American Protestantism.

      It gave me a good perspective on the issue.

      (Ignore 90% of the article, just go straight to the last paragraph)

      To summarize : Medieval European Christianity, when infused with European warrior mythos became more of a folk religion and has abandoned most of its occult, egalitarian and eschatological aspects of the original Judaic Christian tradition.

      He argues it is not Christianity that made Europe great. It was Europeans that made Christianity great. And now with the death of European warrior culture Christianity has returned to its mystical, egalitarian views.

      Similar arguments was proposed by Evola who claimed that Europe succeded DESPITE, not THANKS to Christianity and that all good elements of Christianity are the traditions that were added on top of the original practice.

      An interesting opinion to consider.

      1. Untergang07 June 7, 2016 at 11:10 am

        The article was interesting, but the warrior spirit died after Christianity died in Europe, otherwise the WWI, WWII and the litany of small wars in the 100 years before and after those events wouldn’t have happened. Christianity was agonizing in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, even in the 19th century the Christian ethos was on the wane, hence the inability and unwillingness to convert Africa (or anyone else for that matter) and the rise of Churchianity, and Modernism, you cannot give what you lack.

        Moreover the introduction of a rational deity spurred the development of science in Europe, something which didn’t happen in other civilizations despite how advanced they were neither in Europe during the aegis of the Roman empire or the Greek civilization. Once objective truth was abandoned, even science has shown signs of stagnation in the west (just look at the state of physics today…)

      2. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:28 am

        Now THAT is some smart talk, at last! 🙂 Bravo.
        If only Constantine hadn`t have been such a mama`s boy …and had chosen good old Mithra instead…. )))

      3. Shmalkandik June 8, 2016 at 12:39 pm

        Luther is the one who starts the De-Germanization of Christianity. Sounds like a paradox, but what he started was a movement that severed it from its historical foundation, paving the way for its subordination to the state.

      4. SomeRandomFellow June 9, 2016 at 6:29 am

        Agree. The fall of Catholicism and the rise of Protestantism was the start of decay.

      5. Shmalkandik June 19, 2016 at 10:42 am

        In Germany, yes. In the United States – no.

    3. Dolan Duk June 6, 2016 at 1:35 pm

      That was old school Christianity, we all know what those ideals have been replaced with today.

      1. Wes June 6, 2016 at 2:10 pm

        All there really is is Christianity and new heresy

    4. Avraham rosenblum June 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

      One of the epics of the Middle Ages Nibelungenlied had Christian Knights in it that went to church. Take a look.

    5. CoachellaValleyFinalSolution June 7, 2016 at 12:34 am

      I’m afraid your argument is lacking Wes. You are ignoring the fact that European peoples were so much more advanced than the darker races that even a hindering belief could not stop them from surpassing the others, like a champion prize fighter who engages in useless (or negative) superstitions prior to a fight. You are welcome to disagree with the author’s position on Christianity but your “glaring fatal hole” accusation did a mind-bending job of omitting what was at the time, an undeniable instance of white supremacy. Hell, we thought smoking was harmless and bleeding the wounded was proper medical practice and we still enslaved Africa, that’s how fucking stupid they are.

      Glaring hole is in your logic, not Redbeard’s. Try again.

      1. Wes June 7, 2016 at 12:37 am

        Got it so while his argument is totally baseless mine it just coincidental

      2. CoachellaValleyFinalSolution June 7, 2016 at 3:58 pm

        If you can’t acknowledge the differing capabilities between the races then there’s no use even debating with you. If you can acknowledge it then do so and we can move on from there.

      3. Wes June 7, 2016 at 4:19 pm

        I get it then it’s not the cultural and religious differences that make a nation great. It’s only the racial differences. But Europe became weak shortly after World War 2 when it’s racial makeup had not changed significantly. Yes its weakness has accelerated with the influx of immigrants. but nobody feared Germany or England back in the 1970s. when they were still overwhelmingly White. While the United States a mostly white nation. But it was more racially diverse than the rest of Europe. It continued to be a powerful and feared Nation until about now.

      4. CoachellaValleyFinalSolution June 7, 2016 at 10:09 pm

        You joking? Europe became weak because it developed – then implemented – the technology to destroy itself. It had nothing to do with Christianity/cultural differences and everything to do with developed technology which is a product of racial capability. 1970s England and Germany was still post-war, recovering Europe by any reasonable understanding of the effects of WWII. The US, which was and is a predominantly white country, has so much fucking oil, land, agriculture and resources that anyone who could extract it was going to grow powerful – as it turns out, whites were able to. Before I go further, are you trying to argue that human races are equal?

      5. Wes June 7, 2016 at 10:12 pm

        I got it everything is just coincidence. And while I’m sure we agree on many things it seems discussing anything with you would be a colossal waste of time so long as you have that attitude.

      6. CoachellaValleyFinalSolution June 8, 2016 at 10:00 pm

        Agree to disagree I guess. Good day

      7. Wes June 8, 2016 at 10:02 pm

        This one we are not going to agree. But I can tell that would not always be the case.

    6. kelley July 5, 2016 at 1:15 pm

      not to mention, mr wes, that Jesus pulled off some mighty impressive, strong miracles, which demonstrated ultimate strength, not weakness

  2. Influence man June 6, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Here’s something for the next fat shaming week:

    It turns out that losing weight can significantly reduce the risk of breast (and other) cancer:

    “They show that losing weight and taking up exercise have a significant effect on the biomarkers of cancer. They are showing that it’s causal – that by changing activity or weight loss it could improve your prognosis. This is crucial.”

    In other words, the fat-acceptance feminists are dragging other women with them into an early grave. We’ve always said feminism is a cancer. Now we know that is literally true. The media liars might call you a “rapist” (which is a lie), but the reality is that you have actually saved women’s lives with your message of fat shame.

  3. Corey June 6, 2016 at 10:04 am

    “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.”


    I’ve been wanting to read the book for years. Too bad there doesn’t seem to be a Kindle version.

    1. Roosh June 6, 2016 at 10:05 am

      I’m pretty sure I downloaded the Kindle version.

      1. Corey June 6, 2016 at 11:24 am

        I still don’t see it. It might be due the fact that I’m registered with a Canadian account at

      2. EvigtRegn June 7, 2016 at 9:53 am

        Can’t see it either… link?

        I found a German and a French translation, both in kindle format but that’s it. No English.

  4. Dimi June 6, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Why do you keep calling him Ragbeard?

  5. Titan000 June 6, 2016 at 11:11 am

    ”Ragbeard states that war is the true mechanism that fosters the best of men and nations.”

    It chews up the valiant and leaves the weak and cowardly men. It made Leftism dominant and destroyed the traditional order that is more healthy.

    1. Zeta June 6, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      Very true. Before modern war, conflict killed more of the weak. Now, the strong are mowed down by machine guns.

      1. Titan000 June 7, 2016 at 1:40 am

        Modern war is more about chance and intelligence rather than brawn.

  6. $136606304 June 6, 2016 at 11:13 am

    The feminized churchianity of modern times is not Christianity …

  7. TSK June 6, 2016 at 11:17 am

    His name is “Redbeard”? and later on as I read further, his name is “Ragbeard”?

    Violence should be your last wildcard and should be used as a last resort when all your other options fail. But every men should be able to learn how to deal with violent situation when things get out of hand (learning mixed martial arts, learning how to use weapon and firearm). It shouldn’t be used as a first attempt.

    If you are weak physically and mentally, just know that you are like a half dead meat in the middle of the fields surrounded by hyenas.

    But business itself is a war if you think about it. You are fighting for customer’s money, and fighting to gain more money to obtain more resources and ‘freedom’. And there are many other people who will compete with you on that.

    Business owners might not be outright hostile to each other but when one business owner hears the news that the other guy failed his business venture, that one owner might secretly rejoice and laugh. But when these two business owners meet each other, that one owner will pretend and feel “bad” and say… “omg sorry to hear that” when in reality, it brings him less competition.

    When groups are prone to using violence as a first form of method instead of relying on other intellectual ways to allocate resources for themselves, you can get a result that look like a violent drug turf war. (i.e. Los Zetas vs Narcos vs Sinaloa Cartel vs etc)

    On individual level, if a Man encounters a hostile savage-like human, he can try to negotiate and use words to diffuse situations and if that doesn’t work out, the Man has a fight or flight mode. A person who resorts to violence before doing any other is basically like a brute savage that lacks intellectual mind. You can get an example of that from violent liberals and SJWs who resort to group like assaults on people they disagree with. And it correlates to their inability to have an intelligent, thoughtful debate. On individual basis, they would cower out but when in groups, they would feel invincible.

    But for rich Men wearing business suits and ties, it’s similar game with different strategy. Rich men will do business with each other using other forms of strategies like bribing if things don’t work out, and blackmail and use subtle threat and will hire other low minions to do their dirty (violent) work for them if all options run out.

    How do you think it works out with countries? Very similar. Politicians, bankers, and corporate owners would use military to subjugate other weak entities. Some lose all, some gain all and some make some.

    1. spicynujac June 7, 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Ragbeard is Redbeard. How do you think the beard got red in the first place?

    1. Cecil J June 7, 2016 at 6:26 am

      I remember when those guys came out they were like the slimiest known national act in rock at the time going for that wide spread shock appeal like Ozzy, Alice Cooper, Twisted Sister, Marilyn Manson, etc all did to launch their careers too. I’ve played guitar for 15 years and honestly the Bay Area thrash bands like Testament and Exodus are way more skillful as players-those dudes are like Ph.D guitarists. My favorite Chicago metal band is Soil-Adam Zadel is a great guitar player.

  8. Johan Strand June 6, 2016 at 11:38 am

    ‘Vegetarian weaklings’ Novak Djokovic and Nate Diaz stand in awe of your athletic prowess, Daryush…..

      1. Shmalkandik June 19, 2016 at 10:45 am

        Eat it raw, and miss all the food value gained by burning it over fire.

    1. Vegard Johansen June 6, 2016 at 3:57 pm

      Novak is not a vegetarian,
      he only eliminated gluten from his diet.
      (which is a wise decision)

  9. Nestor June 6, 2016 at 11:39 am

    According to Wikipedia: “First published in 1890, it heavily advocates amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism.”
    This with its attack on Christianity and with its use of the word “primitive Christliness” makes it clearly a manual of Manichean doctrine and heresy.

  10. Edwin Oslan June 6, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Didn’t Church of Satan leader Anton LaVey write the forward to this book, or some edition of it?

    1. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 12:00 pm

      Was LaVey into Darwinism ?

      I understand that Satanists are interested in the exploration of the carnal and human nature, the naked beast so to say, which is why they gravitate to far-right Darwinist politics.

      Is there any truth to this ?

      1. Edwin Oslan June 6, 2016 at 12:18 pm

        Well, I guess that depends on who he was trying to squeeze money out of; all evidence points to LaVey being more of a shock artist and huckster, than having any one set of beliefs. His 1960s Church of Satan was more about cheap libertinism and the freakier and weirder a person was the better; hippies, druggies, gays, digusting old women who walk around topless, even had a pet lion; his neighbors thought he was plenty cuckoo. This inevitabley lead to his blatant fascination with the Manson cult and their celebration of the Tate-Labianca murders, which, LaVey some how got the video to and watched during some 1979 ceremony as a way to “say goodbye to the egalitarian dream of the 60s”, so that would probably be some form pro-Social Darwinism, then LaVey’s daughter Zena would go on to marry Nicholas Schreck, a goth/performance artist, who merged Might Is Right, Social Darwinist views with Satanism, going so far as to appear on the white supremacist tv program Race and Reason and talk to Tom Metzger about these views; claiming that the Nazis didn’t go far enough. It’s tough to tell if this was a put-on, but one might be inclined to think so by the youtube video. When the 90s hit, al of a sudden Anton LaVey was liberal or libertine again since he ordained Marilyn Manson a minster in his church, go figure. Also google the Abraxis Foundation and the 8/8/88 rally which, happened in 1988, har. A real fascist rally or pre-internet trolling? Are Adam Parfrey, Nicholas and Zina Schreck and Boyd Rice the true beginnings of the AltRight?

        Also, after submitting that comment, I went to the wiki page for Might Is Right, which answers the very question I asked.

      2. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 12:30 pm

        It’s funny the dude is named Schreck.

        So Satanism is basically kids being edgy as far as I get it.

        I heard about 8/8/88 . I also heard conspiracy theories about Schreck’s group having an influence on Eric Harris, one of Columbine shooters. Supposedly Schreck’s group introduced him to far-right ideas.

        That explains Harris’ “Natural selection” T-shirt and comments and the “We are Gods” comments.

      3. Edwin Oslan June 6, 2016 at 12:43 pm

        I’m sure it’s possible that the Columbine shooters were fans of Schreck and his group Radio Werewolf; there was plenty of fascistic imagery in 80s goth musicians. Satanism is essentially libertarian and atheist values with kooky window dressing, though there are plenty of people who take it remarkable seriously. Are the Abraxis People just messing around with their “transgressive” art? If you’ve read Adam Parfrey’s compendiums Apocalypse Culture, Apocalypse Culture II and Cult Rapture, it’s a smorgasbord oddities ranging from Neo-Nazi, Satanic cults like the Process Church of the Final Judgment, which was started by Jews, to Peter Sotos talking about the transgressive pleasures of murdering children and all forms of Mondo-esque oddities, so there’s a good chance it’s all “for the lulz”, albeit really demented, morally bankrupt ones.

      4. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 12:51 pm

        Yes that’s were the connection was. They were supposedly fans of his band.

        According to evidence the “Trenchcoat mafia” was part of a circle of satanists. There were possibly more people who were in the know about the shooting. And the report of their activity at satanic rituals was really creepy. As I researched Columbine the Satanic Cult connection was the creepiest part.

      5. Edwin Oslan June 6, 2016 at 12:59 pm

        I’ll have to research it. For the longest time I bought the lie that they were misunderstood and simply lashed out against bullies when they were just ornary dickheads acting out their Satanic/Darwinistic fantasy, except for the part where they turned the guns on themselves, which is not very Darwinistic.

      6. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 5:02 pm

        There is an amazing documentary which looks into all the facts that were overlooked in 1999, such as the Third Shooter theory, with around 30 separate witnesses naming the same 3rd suspect who was never charged, and other weird stuff.

        The stuff dealing with Schreck, Satanism and occult connections is right at the end. 70 : 30 and forward

        “The group was into Satanic worship. And they fought the jocks they would chant satanic verses as they passed them by.”

        That is where things get interesting.

      7. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:33 am

        Au contraire. It was quite darwinistic, by the way…))

      8. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 1:04 pm

        “libertarian”? how?

    2. Nestor June 7, 2016 at 2:01 pm

      Why not?
      LaVey was an Illuminist and this book is a manual of some of the doctrines of Illuminism.

      1. Edwin Oslan June 7, 2016 at 2:29 pm

        Yep, I checked the wiki article; he wrote the forward to a 1996 edition of the book, and much of the Satanic Bible was lifted from Might Is Right.

      2. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:35 am

        More like all of it. Except the amusing part about sex robots. ))

  11. Libertas June 6, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    I wrote a chapter in a manuscript detailing the fulmination of “social justice” outward from the kernels first laid down in Christianity. It used to have a military tradition, but now no longer does. It was always at odds with the religion and a lot of doctrine needed to be formulated in the Middle Ages to give it its military tradition.

    Ultimately, “might makes right” – the truth of Troy as well, should be seen as a warning and, as mentioned, a defense manual, specifically for external enemies. How it can translate into a law and social code looking inward is a much more complex question.

    1. SomeRandomFellow June 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Great point. I made a comment in a similar vein just now.

    2. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:41 am

      Well…the Great Khan`s fleet felt differently, when swept away by the original “Kami-Kadze”….”wind of god (s)”….
      Twice. 🙂

  12. Lunostrelki June 6, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    If this guy was right, then China should have been conquered by the Mongols. Isn’t Genghis Khan revered as the ancestor of the most people? Instead, today over half of all Mongolians live in the PRC’s borders. For most of its existence, China was a sedentary culture that valued scholarly accomplishments over martial strength. Warfare was only useful in short bursts, to quickly rectify some obvious disorder so that civilization could get back on track.

    Long-term success is a game of give and take. Those who pretend to be some Übermensch and think they can just dominate and enslave their way to the top end up like Hitler.

    1. Cecil J June 7, 2016 at 6:08 am

      The Zionist central bankers created Hitler-he was a reaction to the NWO persecution of the European people via the Jewish Rothschild central bank parasitism. The Jewish Communists and their propagation of their totalitarian ideology killed far more than Hitler ever did. They are modern history’s butchers and plan on doing a lot more in the future yet no one in the press or Hollywood decries their Bolshevik horrors-why? David Duke and David Irving have plenty of info on the realities of WW1&2 the establishment history books don’t want people to know about. Hitler lived in Argentina after the War as several books by authors with Western intelligence community connections confirmed this. All WW1 &2 were was a Jewish banker ran scam to enslave and kill the greatness of the European people to make a way for a NWO/globalist central banker Luciferian totalitarian system (read Albert Pikes 3 World Wars). WW3 is to destroy the people and religions of Islam and Christianity so the globalist elite/Illuminati can implement their Global totalitarian Luciferian system. Every year the number of countries without a Rothschild ran fiat money central bank is shrinking and shrinking? The Rothschilds are at the top of the Illuminati (read Texe Marrs and Jeff Renses books and blogs).

      1. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:45 am

        Oh…such a music to my ears….listening to you is like enjoying the sounds of a testing room in a swiss wall clock factory… ))
        Please, do proceed… 🙂

      2. Shmalkandik June 8, 2016 at 12:44 pm

        Europe did not have a central bank.
        The Rothschild’s influence disappears with the event of WW1, when governments discovered that they could tax and print money with impunity, and did not need private sources of loans any more.
        Jews were never a presence in US Banking up through WW2, and the Fed was established in Wilson’s administation.

      3. Cecil J June 9, 2016 at 1:59 am

        The Rothschilds have been involved in America since the colonial era with the slave trade. Louis Farrakhan is a well respected leader in the black community and he blames them for slavery in America. Many blacks out here on the street that I’ve met agree with this. Wilson was a Zionist tool if there ever was one. The group of bankers in Wilsons era who created the Federal Reserve reads like a bar mitzvah list and so does the historical roster of leadership of the Federal Reserve- I’ve never seen a surname like Chang, Wu, Texeira, Gonzaleaz, Werner, or Smythe as Chariman of the Federal Reserve but 90%+ of them sound like a Brooklyn Bagel shops patrons surnames. The Jews wrote “Germany Must Perish” and unilaterally brought on WW2 after their preliminary UN style globalist micro management of Europe and the related corruption surrounding WW1. The Zionist neocons have started the colnization of the Middle East aka WW3. They assassinated the Arch Duke to kick off WW1. Many Hispanics, blacks, and whites are waking up from the Zionist NWO fog in the West- all lies and social engineering to implement tyranny and nothing more. The truth will prevail in the end. People aren’t meant to be banks and corporations slaves and they are waking up to the reality of this bullshit more and more everyday.

      4. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        You statements are not correct. I have given you two specific counter examples. I cannot respond tot he additional statements you provide, because it does not seem that you will admit of evidence contrary to your assertions about Jews, Zionists, and above all the specious claim that Jews killed the Hapsburg price. That last one is so well documented as being the product of the Serbians that I need not say more.

    2. Hank Davis June 7, 2016 at 6:13 am

      The Mongols did conquer China and ruled them for a century.

      1. Lunostrelki June 7, 2016 at 11:01 am

        Yes, but they a) got kicked out in a fairly short time—less than a century isn’t a good record for a Chinese dynasty, try two to four hundred instead—and b) got assimilated by the sedentary style of civilization and its social mores.

      2. Nomad Prince June 8, 2016 at 4:10 am

        Actually, you shouldn’t forget the Manchu’s who were of the same stock as Mongols (though very different in culture). Nurhaci invaded the Ming with the Mongols as allies. They were all barbarians in the eyes of the Han Chinese.

        What do you mean by ‘sedentary style of civilisation’? Nearly all civilisations were sedentary. It’s the only way to sustain an urban population and continue growing.

      3. Lunostrelki June 8, 2016 at 9:55 am

        The Mongols also had a civilization, but it was nomadic and sustained itself through plunder. It was the epitome of a “might makes right” culture.

        The Manchurian further proves the point that barbarism as promoted by Redbeard is unsustainable. The Manchus came from the Khitans, who also had a Mongol-style culture, but developed closer ties to the Han civilization (mostly starting with military conquest).

        Once the Qing emperors set up shop in Beijing, they actively assimilated themselves to Chinese culture and even forgot their own language. Things like calligraphy and the Confucian obsession with study overtook the cult of martial strength promoted by the Manchus.

        Chinese proverbs such as “being skilled in both martial and civil competencies,” “to advance you must retreat,” or “the benevolent one is without enemies” (also translated as “the benevolent one is unconquerable”) or pretty much all the stuff that Sun Tzu talked about emphasize the fact that no, you can and will not be strong everywhere and anytime you like. Chinese philosophy is all about adhering to a consistent moral and spiritual identity, then picking your battles as they come.

      4. Nomad Prince June 11, 2016 at 9:18 pm

        Interesting argument. It is true that the various nomadic rulers ended up becoming pacified. The same was true with the Jin and Yuan dynasties as well.

        With the moral/spiritual identity, I would contend that it is one aspect of Chinese philosophy and it isn’t consistent in all the dynasties. The Tang were very different to the Song, the Ming very different to the Qing. Despite popular belief, Chinese identity is fluid, changing drastically overtime. This is also a part of the cyclical fall of old dynasties and rise of new ones.

        Therefore it does not invalidate Redbeard’s argument. At least in China, ‘might’ is required to establish the new dynastic order and to continue history. It is only as the authorities become complacent and effeminate does their rule become weak.

        After all weakness could be argued to have led to the ‘hundred years of humiliation’ under the Qing.

        P.S. I live in China and 会说中文 so I get to hear what restaurant owners and cab drivers think about this kind of thing on a daily basis haha!

  13. internetguy1234 June 6, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    The book is generally regarded as satire written by an a left-wing anarchist / socialist from Australia.

  14. Avraham rosenblum June 6, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    This was a suggestion in the Republic of Plato. It was one of the opinions that were rejected.

  15. GoingSane June 6, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Might as a tool may create anything at all.

    Possessing singular might in suitable and specific circumstances may result in a man, a king, a tyrant rising to declare by his own existence his mastery over himself, his subjects, and all he surveys; the inherit goodness of his possession of right and the right that he may hold it, and the right therefore existent in his thoughts and deeds.
    A group in possession of might may result in a herd, a village, an army to much the same effect (though perhaps seeing a quickened decay of purpose).
    Either creates a relative right which conforms to the wishes and demands of the mighty, subject to change should ever subject become the master or the master(s) grow less mighty. It may serve as its own existential proof yet it is evanescent like words written in sand.

    Yet if one believes in an ultimate truth, good and evil intentions and outcomes, a correct choice and a wrong choice, or even God(s) then might has not only created right, it serves to maintains it outside of the whims and fecklessness of transitory human beings. It exists on some metaphysical plane, incorruptible and consistent, still as it was and has always been regardless the philosophies we might entertain to disregard it. Its perfection is grounded in its constancy, needing no proof to declare “I am that I am.” And to remain.

    Perhaps it is a balance of both which makes the world go ’round.

  16. TyKo Steamboat June 6, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    This is too funny.
    I kept reading this picturing a Viking with a turkey drumstick in one hand yelling the words rather than just saying them.

  17. Vegard Johansen June 6, 2016 at 4:33 pm


  18. Alto Berto June 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    No doubt! The victors do write history. However, this is one application of natural inequality that is best suited for one kind of situation. Start with the old state of nature concept and contrast to the state of culture which chooses, in a sense, what sort of utilization of natural inequality we reward. For instance the natural inequality of a bigger man that can kill you a long time ago would find such inequality put to good use in radically different ways today. I can’t help but think this is a big part of where we get that old yarn about how capitalism is the castration of mankind.

  19. Baphis June 6, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    The life of man upon earth is a warfare, and his days are like the days of a hireling.
    Your having a relapse are you?

    Job 7:1

    FUCK THOSE GOTH. They are weak. You think what? By buying guns and shooting innocent people makes u strong? No IT MAKES YOU A COWARD.

    Christ is the only savior. But he´s not a whimp. Never was.

    The best combination of civilization in the entire world history was judeo-christian. Problem is the judeo is taking over. And the christians are disapearing. Yes it might be our fault. But still. We shall recover the righteous balance.

    CHURCH AS NO WOMAN AS LEADERS. At least catholic church. Woman have no saying. The mess is given by a priest. If you listen to any fucking video from sanjosemaria from Opus Dei he will say the exact same things you say. Woman should be obedient to their husband.

    I´m leaving you with some advices from josemaria Opus Dei. They are the only words I´ve listen which made sense. Unfortunately life drifts you from this fine words.

    Tell me what´s wrong with them. The problem with the church is elitism. All the rest is right.

    Maturity. Stop acting the child; drop that affectation that only suits a silly girl. Let your outward conduct reflect the peace and order of your soul.

    Don’t say: ‘That’s the way I’m made… it’s my character’. It’s your lack of character: Be a man.

    Get used to saying No.

    Turn your back on the tempter when he whispers in your ear: ‘Why make life difficult for yourself?’

    Don’t flutter about like a hen, when you can soar to the heights of an eagle.

    Will-power. Energy. Example. What has to be done, is done… without hesitation, without more worrying.

    Don’t waste your time and your energy — which belong to God — throwing stones at the dogs that bark at you on your way. Ignore them.

    You a drifter? You… one of the crowd? You, who were born to be a leader!

    There is no room among us for the lukewarm. Humble yourself and Christ will set you aflame again with the fire of Love.

    Don’t succumb to that disease of character whose symptoms are inconstancy in everything, thoughtlessness in action and speech scatter-brained ideas: superficiality, in short.

    Mark this well: unless you react in time — not tomorrow: now! — that superficiality which each day leads you to form those empty plans (plans ‘so full of emptiness’) will make of your life a dead and useless puppet.

    Will-power. A very important quality. Don’t despise little things, for by the continual practice of denying yourself again and again in such things — which are never futile or trivial — with God’s grace you will add strength and resilience to your character. In that way you will first become master of yourself, and then a guide, a chief, a leader: to compel and to urge and to inspire others, with your word, with your example, with your knowledge and with your powe

    Be firm. Be virile. Be a man. And then… be a saint.

    You say that you can’t do more? Could it not be that… you can’t do less?

    The limited, miserable happiness of the egoist — who withdraws into his ivory tower, into his shell — is not difficult to attain in this world. But the happiness of the egoist is not lasting.

    For this false semblance of heaven, are you going to forsake the happiness which will have no end?

    You will never be a leader if you see others only as stepping-stones to get ahead. You will be a leader if you are ambitious for the salvation of all mankind.

    You can’t turn your back on your fellow-men: you have to be anxious to make them happy.

    You never want to get to the heart of the matter. Sometimes, through politeness. Other times, most times, through fear of hurting yourself Sometimes again, through fear of hurting others. And, always, through fear!

    As long as you are so afraid of the truth you will never be a man of sound judgment, a man of worth

    Don’t be so touchy. The least thing offends you. it’s necessary to weigh one’s words well before speaking to you even on the most

    trivial matter.

    Don’t be annoyed if I tell you that you are… unbearable. Unless you change, you will never be of any use.

    Don’t you think that equality, as some people understand it, is synonymous with injustice?

    You lack strength of character: what insistence on having a hand in everything! You are bent on being the salt of every dish. And — you won’t be annoyed if I speak clearly — you have little aptitude for being salt: in particular, you lack its capacity to dissolve and pass unnoticed.

    You have too little spirit of sacrifice and too great a spirit of curiosity and ostentation.

    You are curious and inquisitive, prying and nosey. Are you not ashamed that even in your defects you are not much of a man? Be a man: and instead of poking into other people’s lives seek to acquire a true knowledge of your own.

    One must compromise’ I Compromise is a word found only in the vocabulary of those who have no will to fight — the lazy, the cunning, the cowardly — for they consider themselves defeated before they start.

    Virtue without order? Strange virtue!

    When you bring order into your life your time will multiply, and then you will be able to give God more glory, by working more in his service.

    Don’t try to reason with concupiscence: scorn it.

    Say to your body: I would rather keep you in slavery than be myself a slave of yours.

    Do your duty ‘now’, without looking back on ‘yesterday’, which has already passed, or worrying over ‘to-morrow’, which may never come for you.

    Now! Return to your noble life now. Don’t be a fool: ‘now’ is not too soon… nor too late.

    ou drag along like a dead-weight, as if you had no part to play. No wonder you are beginning to feel the symptoms of lukewarmness. Wake up!

    Your personal experience — those feelings of restlessness, despondency and bitterness — makes you realise the truth of those words of Jesus: no one can serve two masters!

    Each day try to find a few minutes of that blessed solitude which you so much need to keep your interior life going.

    Man’s life on earth is a warfare’: so said Job many centuries ago.

    There are still some easy-going individuals who are not aware of the fact.

    You write: ‘My joy and my peace. I will never have real happiness if I have not peace. And what is peace? Peace is something closely

    related to war. Peace is a consequence of victory. Peace demands of me a continual struggle. Without a struggle I will never have peace.’

    War! ‘War’, you tell me, ‘has a supernatural end that the world is unaware of: war has been for us…’

    War is the greatest obstacle to the easy way. But in the end we will have to love it, as the religious should love his disciplines.

    There is no excuse for those who could be scholars and are not.

    Study. Study in earnest. If you are to be salt and light, you need knowledge, ability.

    Or do you imagine that an idle and lazy life will entitle you to receive infused knowledge?

    Check the rest by yourself. If you wanna talk about christians. Do real research. And not some stupid nonsense cliché.

    Read the pope writings. The specifically say woman must serve their husband. And Opus dei which is the most fanatical area of chatolic church.

    Check for yourself the rest. Christianity and judaism. Combined are the most powerful form of human and social development

    Don´t think christians are sleeping. The elite are going to far. They think burning europe and seeking refuge in the US will save them. Guess again.

  20. Shmalkandik June 6, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    The human species advances not just with competition, but with co-operation. Athens taking turning the Delian League from an alliance to an empire lead to Melos, That ultimately directly to the slaughter of 4,000 Athenian prisoners and the end of the Peloponnesian War. Economics’ principle of Comparative Advantage shows how those with superior talents benefit from focusing on what they do best, and lay off lower value tasks on the less talented. The entire argument here suffers from ignoratio elenchi.

    1. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:48 am

      Pssst….shoosh…do not introduce that garish light of Reason into this lovely “discussion”….You are such a spoilsport…)))

  21. David June 7, 2016 at 12:58 am

    As someone of the manosphere, this is the first article I’ve ever read on manosphere blogs that I disagree with 100%. Christianity is important precisely because of people like Redbeard. Embracing the natural animal-like morality of humanity is terrible. Most of human history is terrible because of this fact, filled with unjust murder and torture. We still see it today in the islamic world. It is important to become the strongest, most powerful man you can be, but without aiding the weak and the belief that every human life is sacred, life is worthless. Soon you will be old and weak, you’d better hope somebody loves you enough to aid you. There can and should be winners and losers in a society, but it’s the Godly responsibility of the winner to aid the loser, not step all over him. Not via a welfare state obviously. As the saying goes, give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for the rest of his life.

    1. Hank Davis June 7, 2016 at 6:08 am

      Did I see you handing out teddy bears to Mexican children down at the border?

    2. spicynujac June 7, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      The problem is people are so dishonest about their beliefs. Republicans can’t even say they believe in a minimum social contribution to help the weakest in our society. They campaign as if they will abolish public welfare programs, but of course never do. Democrats can’t even say that there are objective standards and people who are brighter, wiser, and naturally superior to others. But at the same time they don’t really want to bring everyone down to the same level.

      Books like this are at least honest. While I don’t agree with the principle of every man for himself, let’s all just live as if we are in the zombie apocalypse and those left standing will be those who deserved to live. I DO think that it is important to think critically about things like war, Christianity, the weak and disadvantaged, etc. Ragnor brings up interesting and important questions, even if I have different answers than he.

      The world has civilized more since he wrote this book. Some things have changed for the worse, but most have changed for the better. The current social sickness of feminism is a relatively new phenomenon. While we’ve been on the path to degeneracy for well over 100 years, it hasn’t been a serious problem until the last 10 years or so. Back in the 80s and 90s women seem to have been much saner and the dating world somewhat normal. The LGHTFJBUTYRH tranny anything goes attitude of the past 3 years is going off the rails.

      1. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm

        The problem with social welfare programs in the US, as currently operated, is that over 75% of the budget is spent on overhead. Contrast this to the private section, where charities do not exceed 25%. Oxfam is the best – 99% of what they receive as donations gets to the poor as goods or services. Our governments have proven to be very poor vehicles for helping the least well off.

      2. spicynujac June 10, 2016 at 3:26 pm

        I heard someone on the radio talking about an idea for replacing welfare with a guaranteed government income of like $15,000 a year for EVERY AMERICAN. Apparently the Swiss just voted down such a proposal last month but there is talk of it here. The host was a financial guy I”ve seen on TV (Maybe Kudlow?) and claimed the cost of doing this would be LESS than our current welfare programs (including housing, food, employment benefits, corporate welfare, etc.). That just blew my mind. Not just the poor but EVERYONE could get a check for $15 grand from the government if we just cut out welfare? ! No idea if it’s true but if your 75% figure is correct that sounds possible.

    3. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:52 am

      …let a man put a sticker of a fish on his car – his morals become irreprehensible… :))

  22. Charliedelto June 7, 2016 at 3:43 am

    Globalisation looks pretty damn mighty from where I’m sitting. Most of why I’m reading these sites at all is because I believe the world may reason its way to a happier outcome. If push comes to shove, Zuckerberg could buy a bigger army than I could.

    1. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm

      But this problem has existed since the days of King John, who was trying to extract additional monies from the nobility to fund a mercenary army. The solution is what it has always been – a well regulated (=well trained) militia raised by the people themselves. Thomas Jefferson once did the arithmetic on this. There were six million people in this country by the time of his presidency. He estimated that the nation could easily raise a trained militia of 100,000 men. He also expected that every man’s university education could and should include ‘military science’. In a country of well over 300 million, that could give us a militia on the order of 5 million.Rather alot really, and enough to overawe any quantity of hire lackies the elites could afford.

      Similarly, the 2nd amendment exists to protect two rights, the first being the right of the people to form a militia among themselves, The right to bear military quality arms follow logically. As with much else in the Constitution, the Founders were guided by the history of the English Civil War. It was the Trained Bands of London, a militia founded to product the city, which were among the first troops at the disposal of the Parliamentarian cause. The Trained Bands continued all the way through the 18th century, when they were supplanted by the Fencibles system.

      The attack on th3 2nd amendment is not just an attack on the right to have a firearm for personal protection, but also on the notion that the people retain the right to have the ulimta ratio – force – at their disposal,, for their defense. FYI, it is still legal in some states – Pennsylvania for one – for people to organize their own militia. I don’t know if this is true for any other State.

  23. Error June 7, 2016 at 4:52 am

    I bought the book just now from Amazon.

    Redbeard is IMO right when he says that Christianity has weakened Europeans.
    To those who say that “Christianity has strengthened Europe” or “Christianity has given Europe a moral fundament”, I’d retort that, to the contrary, Europeans made Christianity strong and Europeans held the Catholic Church to the moral standards of our societies.

    Christianity was initially not welcome in Europe. It had to be imposed by fire and sword. Charlemagne was one of those who helped christianize the continent. To this effect he butchered his way around the place, murdering any tribe that did not accept his snazzy new creed.

    If you look at the religion and the bible, it has nothing to do with us. The names of those mentioned there are not European, their prophets and gods do not speak to us, the places mentioned there are not in Europe.

    I got myself in hot water with a religion teacher for exactly this. I was even expelled from he class for blasphemy at the tender age of 11. I had questioned the whole thing thus: “God speaks to the children of israel. I am not called israel, neither is my father, neither is anybody in my family of whom I know. Bethlehem and jerusalem are far away inhabited by strangers. Why does this religion concern us at all if speaks to strangers but not to us?”

    Well. I hope Ragnar’s book is interesting.

    1. spicynujac June 7, 2016 at 12:26 pm

      I’m kind of shocked I’ve never heard this attack on Christianity before. When you put it that way, it’s just as relevant as Islam or Judaism. Hell, at least Islam is modern.

      1. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        Ever read Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ”? Published over 130 years ago.

  24. Hank Davis June 7, 2016 at 6:07 am

    Historically, Christianity has meant whatever people wanted it to mean – from justifying world empire to the sniveling leftist faggots of Christianity today. I would tend to agree that liberalism is Christianity taken to its extreme – a celebration of ugliness, weakness and poverty. Many on the alt right try to combine their beliefs in nationalism, patriarchy and tradition with Christianity. It comes across as forced and unconvincing but whatever contortions they need to do are fine with me if they arrive at the correct political views.

    1. spicynujac June 7, 2016 at 12:27 pm

      There is a fine line between tolerating and accepting others, and actively promoting degenerate behavior. Jesus may have loved prostitutes and lepers but he didn’t go around parading them, dressing like a homo, and calling them heroic brave and stunning role models to be emulated by society.

  25. lol June 7, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    I disagree and point to the Graves model of psychological growth. The “conquering everything with force and power” state of mind is actually pretty low on the scale of psychological growth. There are more advanced ways of thinking and being in this existence. Roosh needs to let go of his ego and understand that his own personal model of the world isn’t fitting for EVERYONE.

  26. lol June 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    P.S. Christ was Christ because he disassociated from his mind and body. He stopped seeing life as ‘self vs the world’ and saw himself as existence as a whole. Thats why he was able to turn the other cheek. Because his enemy was himself. He loves his enemy just as he loves himself because they are one. They are both apart of existence. There is nothing to destroy or hurt once you realize that the idea of yourself was nothing more than a game in your mind.

    Existence is not rational even though we like to apply rationality as a tool to understand existence. Roosh is simply another ego in a sea of many playing out his idea of life. Just like a ghost who doesn’t know he’s dead and cannot rest in peace.

  27. splooge June 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    “rape your most beautiful women”

    western women are sneaky, they can call false rape and their white nationalists aka white knights will belive it and die for it

  28. Balor June 8, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Redbeard doesn’t really address the full scale of human interaction. Firstly: what prevails, is strong. Vikings became christians – ergo christianity was the stronger belief system at that time and place.

    Islam or ISIS are not particularly strong. They’re brutal and barbaric but utterly lack the strength to do anything but guerilla warfare against a serious western power. Nor do the refugees have any hope of actually taking over our countries – they’ll make Europe a few degrees shittier definitely, but they will never dominate us. They don’t have the military-technological capacity to do so and never will.

    If the muslims ever get to be a serious threat to the powers that be, it will not be hard to put them back to their place by both rallying the non-muslims together, and by putting to decisive use all the military tech of horrors (robots, biological weapons) we will have developed in the next few decades.

    The (sand)niggers are just a tool by the powers that be to cement their power, over us.

  29. King Pin June 8, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Albeit I condone Desmond`s /”Redbeard`s” writing style (and style only)…and even though Meister La Vey tugs at my tail, asking me not to spoil the moment – Survival does not belong to the fittest….neither to the strongest, alas.

    Survival (and Evolution) favours the LUCKIEST….or, those “fit enough”, at least…

    So, burn Your offerings to Great Goddess Fortuna regularly, kids…))..
    And yes, She likes the virtuous ones. 😉

    1. Shmalkandik June 10, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      Fortuna Imperetrix Mundi, y’all.

  30. ShadowRising June 8, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Who is to say the weak have nothing valuable to contribute to society? In a different era, a man like Stephen Hawkings might have been left to die. Sounds easy to preach social darwinism until you somehow get stricken down with an illness or some other unfortunate situation and end up as one of the weak. This is all mental masturbation. When push comes to shove, few people would choose social darwinism.

  31. BlueBot22 June 10, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    If might makes right then we should all be praising the richest and powerful, the powers that be, the globalists. Is the reason we don’t because we’re jealous of them? Or is power not the greatest good in this world like the author of this book suggests?

  32. Rafalsky July 5, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    If you are dealing with a gangster think as a gangster.

    No morality…

  33. Debdut Kar September 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Yes, Zionists after 1948 & before them the enabler of them the Anglo imperialists proved it word by word. British imposed the Buddhist principle of non-violence in India through agent Gandhi & at the same time instigated Indians from different religious background to use violence for killing each other.

  34. logat890 February 15, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    Modern warfare is different though.

  35. anonymous March 25, 2018 at 2:36 pm

    You are such a liar and a hypocrite because you seem to support bullying.