Does Might Make Right?

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.

This article was originally published on Roosh V.

Read More: “Might Is Right” on Amazon

162 thoughts on “Does Might Make Right?”

  1. The Patriarchy in the West actually comes from Roman Law, from the figure of Pater Familias and Pater Potestas, not from Christianity. This is why feminism came from the less patriarchal countries aka “rich northern europe” and the Anglosaxon world, the countries of the equalist Germanic/Scandinavian tribes, Protestant rebellion and “you dont let me divorce my wife, I create my own church, muh”. 0% of feminism came from the former Roman (Catholic) Empire. Shame on you, guys.
    PS: And thanks for financing the muslims during the last 50 years and ally with the (((jews))). It will be our turn again to kick them out.

        1. Yes, this is actually a very good point. Protestant obsession with (((“teh choosen peopul”))) is basically what allowed them to take over the West.

        2. “The Patriarchy in the West actually comes from Roman Law, from the figure of Pater Familias and Pater Potestas, not from Christianity.”
          Roman law died, in western Europe, with the western Roman empire. In fact, Pater Familias and Pater Potestas were, in practice, gone centuries before the fall of the western empire.

          “Even as the Republic drew to a close more and more Romans were questioning the argument that women were too capricious and impulsive to be safely allowed to look out for their own best interests and many wondered if perhaps it was time to get rid of laws that were clearly based on a false premise. Claudius decreed that while an adult woman continued to need a tutor he did not have to come from her father’s family. [5] When in the first century the Senate passed a law allowing women to replace an absent tutor, ‘no matter how far away he is,’ [6] a tutor’s power became little more than a legal fiction. Even if he was just around the corner, a woman upset with his interference could simply declare him missing and have a new one appointed within the hour.
          “All of this, of course, meant very little to the woman who had no money anyway, nor did it make a difference for the young women whose fathers were still alive, and the regulations that kept women out of government remained in place, but those few women who did inherit money were better able to live life on their own terms than their ancestors ever dreamt possible. Women were perhaps on a path to a hitherto unimaginable degree of equality until the rise of Christianity with its objection to divorce and its exhortation that wives should obey their husbands.”

        3. Yes, you are talking about the decline of the Roman Empire. The same thing that is happening to the West right now. The pater potestas and pater familias softened during that decadent period. But, the roman law did not die. In Spain, the pater potestas was continued under the Visigoths. The same for the Frankish, the roman law was taken as reference.
          Spain had Pater Potestas until 1981: women could not get a passport, no no-fault divorce, own real state, or open a bank account without the husband or father’s permission. 1981.

        4. “But, the roman law did not die. In Spain, the pater potestas was continued under the Visigoths. The same for the Frankish, the roman law was taken as reference.”
          There are still laws against sodomy on the books in many parts of the USA. Those laws haven’t been enforced in 40-50 years, but they haven’t been repealed either. When those laws, or laws like them, are enforced again (decades or centuries later), it won’t be because of the laws themselves, but because some religious group (Islam or Christianity) has breathed life and will power back into those laws. The laws themselves deserve zero credit.
          Actions > words.
          De facto > de jure.

        5. Very Platonic of you to say that. In the good sense.
          “A good law doesn’t need to be written. It will be natural, or it will be useless”.

        6. Point is that patriarchy did not originate with Christianity. Christianity overall was patriarchal during Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Western Christianity became increasingly more gynocentric with the advent of chivalry (as it is practiced today) during the Middle Ages, which portrayed women as quasi divine beings and men as beasts of burden. Western Christianity has been on the gynocentric path ever since. My take is that the East-West split happened because the East saw that Western Christianity was becoming too gynocentric.

        7. You mean until their silly ideas and freedom to spread them brought a mighty empire to crisis, and eventually death? And a religion arose to fix the problem before it spread anywhere else? Shocking.

    1. Very nicely stated. Feminism wouldn’t have lasted 5 seconds in the Eastern Orthodox Christian world either but for the poisoning of societies in this ‘modern and enlightened era’ we have the misfortune of being in.

  2. Western patriarchy is heavily influenced by Christianity. “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” (1 Cor. 11:3).
    Christianity linked the husband’s authority over the wife with God. Pretty strong evidence that true Christianity (not the Churchianity that is practiced in many parts of the West today) is about maintaining and strengthening Patriarchy. The only caveat was that the weak were to be protected not slaughtered. You can have a healthy civilization or brutality. Not both.
    Equality in Christianity referred to ‘value in the eyes of God’. But Equalist doctrines slowly infiltrated the Church. Look at ‘Christian feminism’ (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
    The Old Testament was definitely Patriarchal. Christianity did not change this. Marxist concepts, ‘equality’ movements however, did.

    1. <<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il659r:….,….

    2. Indeed. It is also important to remember that Christianity was a key factor in the development of free markets, which in turn allowed the acceleration of European science and technology to where it eventually eclipsed the Islamic empires.
      Also, Might Makes Right only really works out for you personally as long as you are the mightiest. As a philosophy it is not really workable or internally logical.

        1. You misunderstand. Yes what you are saying is true but that didn’t help people in the Soviet Union. Market dynamics require the enforcement of property rights which began to develop in the Christian world before anywhere else.

  3. As was mentioned in the thread of the Trans Military article, as much as I believe this Redbeard fellow’s words to hold weight, I severely question whether there’s anything left to defend anymore. Each passing day affirms my doubt. However, on a personal level, such as the aspect of game, the ‘go get it’ mindset rings true. If you don’t, someone else will. Good article, Roosh.

  4. Really nice article. It definitely makes a person think.
    I particularly liked this line: “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.”
    If you’re a white liberal living in the USA, I suggest you take a leisurely stroll through the local ‘hood, and walk among your misunderstood brothers, who have been oppressed and caricatured by the Evil White Man for so many centuries, and bend over and tie your shoes…and see what happens next.

  5. The first mistake he makes is comparing humans to animals. Humans are NOT the same as animals. Animals act primarily on instinct, while humans have the intelligence to rationalize their actions. If an animal is hungry it will just grab the food of other animals without thinking about it. If it wants sex it will often just rape a woman. If it doesn’t like an other animal it will simply fight or kill the other one.
    Yes, I know there are humans who behave like this, but it’s not the norm among humans. Also, you can’t compare the lawless world of pre-Christian times with the world we have today. In a lawless world you’re forced to fight, because there ain’t no cops, military or something else that’s going to defend you. But how can you live a normal life in such a world? People will be stuck at the basic needs of life and will never have the time or energy to focus on other things.

    1. I happened to watch a movie about a subspecies of macaque monkeys just a couple of days ago. The male spent a significant amount of time removing fleas from a female’s fur. After he was done, the female just left him alone, even though she was looking for a male to copulate with. There was no sex for the male.
      There are also species where the strongest male appears to force himself on the female, but it just appears that way. In fact, he is the strongest male and the female lets him have his way because that’s what her instincts tell her to do. “Rape” happens when a beta male happens to have sex with a female because there was no one there to contest that. Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio can rape? That’s also why modern women cry “rape” post-factum. Because there was no alpha willing to contest that at the moment. She had to satisfy her needs, but after that she began to regret it.
      Humans don’t act out of intelligence. Well, it happens, but very seldom. Humans act out of instincts. They just use their intelligence to justify why they acted that way, and how that is not related to the way animals act. Because humans inherently feel superior to animals.

      1. “”Rape” happens when a beta male happens to have sex with a female because there was no one there to contest that”
        I always wondered about that. I do not condone rape, but it seems to me that rape accusations get thrown at guys who are on the beta end of the spectrum, while a violent, psycho asshole type of guy never gets accused.

      2. You will get nowhere reasoning with people who have given into epicureanism like 99.99% of the planet. They think they are above natures design because they possess a mind and technology. The technology they didnt invent. The mind was invented by nature. They actually think they are above the rules of nature because nature provided them with some power. This is a major reason people have no self control and the west is going extinct.

        1. Very accurate. It’s funny to see these guys brag about how superior they are to their ancestors just because they have a fucking smart phone.
          Yeah, while their ancestors built empires, invented great things and actually contributed at least something to society, they are just playing Pokemon Go and bragging on how superior they are to previous generations. Hilarious.

        2. The things that pass for ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my generation are nothing more than abominations. They do all this unironically too.

    2. One thing that stood out to me was the argument that “‘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.”
      Of course, while an animal may cower when it is attacked, humans are different, and have reason and a well developed cerebellum. Therefore, just because an animal behaves a certain instinctual self-preserving way, doesn’t mean humans should mimic them. Humans are far different than animals, and if we lived like animals it would be precisely as described in the article–the moment one relaxes he would be killed by a stronger human.
      Humanity has not lived like that in a long, long time, if ever, and I wonder if we would regress that far in a zombie apocalypse. I think at first, some would act that way, more in response to being released from the laws and rules of society, but then, order and structure would return, as humans wish to cooperate together to build societies, not just survive, eat, shit and screw.

      1. Humans have evolved to this point because of co-operation. Emotions such as anxiety, shame and guilt long since stopped us from slaughtering each other. We are the only animal that truly cooperates.

        1. Ants. Wolves. Chimps. Dolphins (really, they do it at a pretty high level too), killer whales.

        2. Well that’s silly. Actually, for dolphins and whales, it’s pretty clear it’s how we do it. Verbal communication, coordination via a well tested plan and a shared goal with a shared outcome. Wolves hunt in nearly identical patterns to how men hunt in a group (which is how we came to have dogs as companions). Hell, chimps even craft weapons and go on organized raids against other tribes of chimps.

        3. What silly is to suggest that any animal cooperates to anywhere near the complexity of human beings. You let me know the next time you see an ant on one continent debating “cooperation” with an ant on another continent using an Internet enabled device designed and constructed solely by ants.

        4. Compare the civilization of some Pacific Islands and some areas of Africa with the degree of technological and architectural refinement of termites.

        5. They cooperate like we do. The basic patterns are the same. Of course they don’t use the internet. Chimps, wolves, dolphins and whales most certainly cooperate in the same higher reasoning way that we do, that they don’t use satellites or the internet has fuck all to do with the actual assertion. If you whole point is “humans use technology!” well no shit, dude.

        6. You compared ants with technological humans, why can’t I compare termites with 3rd World people?
          Be rational.

        7. No the point is that the level of cooperation required to develop these technologies is many times more complex than anything existing in the animal kingdom.
          My job for example is part of a long chain of complex cooperative relationships, amongst people who won’t even know each other exist that repeatedly results in the construction of a building with technology of the like never seen before on Earth.
          Chimps can barely think abstractly.
          I feel like I’m belaboring the obvious. Maybe its time for a cup of tea.

        8. Well, yeh. You could have avoided it by providing actual arguments or simply recognizing cooperation (opposed to intellect) is not an exclusively human trait.

        9. The level of social cooperation precedes the growth of brains to human capacity, obviously. That explains everything without having to have you stomp off in a snit. If you’re IQ 60 (or whatever chimps are, who knows) and you can cooperate at levels like we do, you’re going to get warbands and spear making, and grooming and group protection of the weak and young, like you see in chimps. The mechanism is the same, the results differ based on our higher level of intelligence, not our ability to engage in complex social cooperation.
          There, I’ve solved the problem for you. Now go get that Earl Grey, tiger!

        10. Ghost, you absolutely need to taste some teas they have here in France.
          Rooibos des Vahinés is my favourite. You’d like Rooibos des Lords, if Earl Grey is your thing.
          But I am yet to have one of their teas which I can’t simply adore.
          Sorry, it’s my thing. And it’s actually 5 o’clock right this second.

        11. I actually love tea, thank you for the recommendations, just opened another tab in my browser, will check it out.

      2. Interestingly, the quote you refer to above was stolen verbatim by LaVey and used in “The Satanic Bible” ..

    3. There is no rape in the animal kingdom. It doesn’t exist as a concept.
      By “pre-Christian times” do you mean the Roman Republic, the Greeks and the Druidic Kingdoms? Was this world “lawless”?

      1. Exactly, as it is instinct for the male to seek sex, it is often the female also giving off the scent or what not that attracts him. If that is not the case then it is also reasonable to assume that to allow the male to use her for sex is also the females instinct, instinctual duty perhaps.

        1. “Rape” comes from the demonization of sex, a naturalistic absurd. All living beings (even the assexaul ones, like bacteria) wish to reproduce. Mammals and other sexual beings use sex for this, so they would never see sex as a bad thing.
          Only exception for this is monogamy, which is a consequency of sexual selection, partner preference. Selection for “nothing” (demonization of sex) has no place in nature, as a being exhibiting this behaviour would not pass its genes to the next generation.

        2. Which is why Animals cant Rape. They cant demonize anything and definitely not sex. Just because the they see the lion on nat geo go to the resting lioness and mount her doesn’t mean its Rape. Damn liberals romanticize every damn thing even animal coitus. Fucking annoying.

        3. Agreed. Infact human females are the only female species that give no overt signs of physical arousal. As we know, human females have evolved to be intentionally deceitful when it comes to mating and sex.
          It’s no wonder that in modern times, men find pairing off with a woman and consumating the relationship so difficult.

    4. From various things you mentioned here, the worst is “lawless Pre-Christian times”. Pre-Christian times were more civilized than Christian times, and religion (an essential part of human existance) has, unfortunately, nothing to do with orderly Societies. Pagans, Christians and Muslims, they all had peaceful and lawful times, as they had ages of chaos and war.

    5. Intelligence is a survival instinct. The instinct of finding patterns and adapting. The reason the West is dying through declining birth rates is because it takes something it did not invent or create, the mind, and assumes this makes them more powerful than what created the mind itself. The argument that humans are not animals is based on this ridiculous arrogance.

  6. This article made me wonder if Roosh is my lost big brother. It matches my way of thinking exactly.
    It reminds me of the last X-Men movie, a movie that SJWs grew to hate so much, and I grew to like so much. Apocalypse repeats a very distinct phrase multiple times during the movie. “You follow blind leaders, systems of the weak.”
    Everyone has his weak moments. That’s what brotherhoods were for. Strong men were protecting each other in their moments of vulnerability. There were trust and honesty, virtues long forgotten.
    Now we have countries, systems that protect those who are in a constant state of weakness. And not only that, but those systems also give weak people privileges. We have all kinds of faggots, trannies, toxic women and beta morons running society. They are playing their game in a way that hides their weakness and dependance on strong men who work hard to maintain our society. That’s why they have been getting more pressuring lately. They feel they are losing their grip.

    1. “Don’t expect any of this to happen as long as we allow cunt to control our institutions”
      Anything with a cunt should not have any say in matters regarding the preservation and managing of a culture.

  7. The problem is looking at Jesus Christ as some kind of plastic statue.
    He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Hallelujah! For the Lord God OMNIPOTENT reigneth! He conquered sin and Death!
    There are those who are pantomiming something – I don’t know quite what – about Odin – who is either dead or nonexistent.
    Strength? Could you bear the abject despair of the Garden of Gethsemane? The Scourging? The Crucifixion? The choice was to call the 10 Legions of Angels or save unworthy Man. He healed the High Priest’s soldier that Peter maimed.
    Practicing game make men reach their potential? Why that commandment, why not become a really good con-man and commit acts of fraud? Get rich ripping off others? Or get good at intimidating them with violence? Or master the art of lying everywhere? Finding your potential for evil, and damaging people along the way is not going to help. Learning to be better at Arson while Rome burns. Burning civilization isn’t saving it.
    Christ won. The Catholic Church is still around after 2000 years and Protestantism after 500. As a viable faith. The alternative – which has all the attributes this books lauds – is Islam which has been around for 1300 years. If strength wins, then Christendom has been the biggest winner. It only faded from internecine wars and losing the faith and morals.
    So using violence for everything? Strength? Women are universally weaker. So do you think the children of violent rape are going to work well, assuming the women don’t insure they die? There is a difference in kind between strength and brutality. Strength is almost always discussed in the physical realm. Where are the Woton/Odin/Thor Cathedrals or philosophies that required great strength, self denial, and effort? Where did the scientific and engineering breakthroughs come from?
    There is a difference between violence as a first resort, and a last resort. But the latter normally implies or includes a scorched earth policy. I will try using reason and persuasion, but if you insist on only being convinced by violence, that can be done but it will end the argument permanently.
    Also the idea of strength and weakness was altered by Sam Colt. You may be physically strong, but if I have a gun it won’t matter. Who can shoot first, and in a context where you won’t immediately be shot back at by others because you are now an outlaw? An armed society is a polite society as Heinlein observed. It is not a weak society.

    1. Let me clarify to avoid one error.
      You can either accept Jesus as presented in the Gospels or not.
      He turned water into wine, walked on water and with a word calmed the winds and seas, healed a man blind from birth into perfect vision (Moderns can fix the system, but remote cars appear as toy cars), raised Lazarus from the dead, etc.
      See Jefferson who looked into it, but honestly.
      If you deny the miracles, you cannot stop there. Jesus was strong, powerful, and exercised authority, even over the stronger than human demons.
      You are free to throw the Bible into the Trash. Or Not. You are not free to rewrite some kind of weak Jesus by cherry-picking his actions.
      Christianity states he was the God-Man. Take it or leave it. If he was “true God and true man”, he was stronger than any man.
      There is strength and there is power. Jesus could call lightning to destroy anyone he chose – the Apostles suggested as much. If you want to discuss Christ, first decide if you wish to take on the “God-Man” or some strawman of your own imagination designed to be weak and easily defeated

      1. I’ve seen a demon when I was 5 and I have used the rebuke in Jesus name inside of dreams where I was being psychic attacked.
        It works.

        1. When you are having a nightmare, especially a night terror, activating your working memory wakes you up. Hence why people ‘escape’ nightmares by recalling prayers or names…

        2. Too few don’t consider spiritual warfare real.
          And we wonder why the left doesn’t see any threat from Muslims. If you don’t think they exist to fight, or don’t think they will, you can easily pretend that no resistance, much less defense is needed.
          If you understand the demonic, you find yourself as a savage against tanks and airplanes, but with powerful magic that can destroy the enemy. Even from outside the Mighty Fortress, or as Luther put it:
          And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
          We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
          The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
          His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
          One little word shall fell him.

          I have to add, is that weakness or strength beyond imagining?
          I must quote all the verses.
          A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
          Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
          For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
          His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
          On earth is not his equal.

          Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
          Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
          Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
          Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
          And He must win the battle.
          And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
          We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
          The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
          His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
          One little word shall fell him.
          That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
          The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
          Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
          The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
          His kingdom is forever.

      2. Strength also manifested in Jesus through sacrifice. Sacrifice of himself to pay for the sin of the world. Sometimes, not fighting takes more strength than fighting.

      3. So Jesus was magician doing all these things? Doesnt it sound like a myth? Am I supposed to believe that some goatfucker from 2000 years ago did it with no evidence left other than some edited writing throughout ages?

        1. First, you can believe whatever you want, but my original point is you aren’t free to make up your own strawman Jesus and attack that instead of arguing against the real Jesus. You can even dispute what or who the real Jesus was.
          Even if you reject the miracles, you have to confront someone that gathered a large following, taught wisdom (and not weakness in any way), and was an alpha and appointed a second alpha – Simon “The Rock” Peter – as leader which continues to this day as the Pope.
          That there are still believers (and miracles) 2000 years later should prove it, especially given how fallen and corrupt Christians are. In the time of the Borgia Popes a Jew wanted to be baptized but needed to do business in Rome first. The Bishop said the Jew would lose his faith. The Jew went, met with the Pope and Curia and returned. He told the bishop he still wanted to be baptized? The Bishop asked if he met and found them corrupt. The Jew replied that no institution that stupid and corrupt could last 14 weeks much less 14 centuries without being of God.
          The Gospels are certainly not Myth – the writing style was new and didn’t repeat until the recent centuries. They contain a chronicle, both of preaching, ordinary details, and miraculous occurrences. There are miracles done by the Apostles in Acts. And they were all martyred for their faith. No one goes to their painful, tortuous death for a fakir.
          It cannot be a conjuring trick. The man blind from birth was known by everyone, and not only could he see, he could understand what he saw (not true of adults blind until they could put in prosthetic lenses – they look out from a high window and try to grab at the tiny toy cars below).
          Lazarus was dead for 3 days when he was raised. They knew he was dead, and even Martha said “don’t open the tomb, there will be a stench”.
          I have no idea other than to express contempt why you used the term “goatfucker” to describe someone who you should merely call a man, or con-artist, or something else, so your mind appears as closed as any SJW. They are the ones who shriek insults instead of even making a point.

        2. What miracles are happening now? Show me them. I lost respect for Jesus, the myth. Im like Doubting Thomas until I experience “Jesus” or whatever. Why should I trust empty words? I want real stuff, not imagined fantasies, for that I have Game of Thrones, A name of the wind or LOTR etc.
          “[W]e must either abandon our reason or abandon Christ…All that is enervating and destructive of manhood, he glorifies — all that is self-reliant and heroic, he denounces.… He praises “the humble” and he curses the proud. He blesses the failures and damns the successful. All that is noble he perverts — all that is atrocious he upholds. He inverts all the natural instincts of mankind and urges us to live artificial lives… he advises his admirers to submit in quietness to every insult, contumely [outrage], indignity; to be slaves, de-facto. … this preacher of all eunuch-virtues — of self-abasement, of passive suffering. (p. 7)”
          I just fully agree with him.

        3. (p. 7) but what book is the quote from, as it does not resemble Christ in the Gospels – The author is attacking a strawman plastic Jesus, not one of the gospels. Jesus does say those that exalt themselves will be humbled. There are many examples, the most recent was Ben Shapiro’s response to Vox Day. You can be very proud of yourself without having accomplished anything. The whole self-esteem movement is based on it and it has invaded many churches. From the above excerpt, I can’t even tell as there are no examples. Yes, Jesus would rather us live as unfallen angels rather than rutting and reasonless beasts. The latter is the natural instinct – because it is instinct and not reason. So he is reasoning to abandon all reason?
          Those natural instincts built no technology, discovered no science or medicine, practiced no useful art to create anything beautify. It is an advocacy of Thomas Hobbes nasty, brutish, and short life, but one lived in the full belief of ones utter superiority.
          For Miracles note that you are demanding your creator bow down to you, that you are above him and in a position to make demands. It would be like me not believing in Donald Trump if after one email he did not immediately agree meet me in my town with a check for a million dollars. The Creator created nature. You wish him to violate the very laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. he laid down because you won’t stop throwing a tantrum if he doesn’t? Instead of demanding, perhaps you should simply ask, but that would require the very humility you consider an evil. If Trump demanded humility to even talk to him, would you similarly insist and demand that Trump humble himself before you? What reason?
          CS Lewis wrote a book called “Miracles” that explains things in detail. You might find it online. He wrote another called “God in the Dock” also describing better than I did the demand that God take the witness stand and justify and demonstrate everything to our satisfaction.
          God does occasionally do miracles, that is how saints are canonized, but you will be able to pick everything apart, the guy with damaged eyes wasn’t really unhealthy though doctors certified it, everything was just luck or a coincidence. It is not a matter of evidence, either personal or external miracles, but you will refuse to believe your own eyes. Even if God did any miracle you would specify in advance, you would call it an illusion, hypnosis, or a conjuring trick. But what then? Demand another harder miracle just to dismiss it in the same manner?
          If you have faith you will see the miracles. If you are skeptical and really seeking the truth, you just need the virtue of patience (another unmanly virtue). If you have complete faith in the non-existence of God, no amount of reason or evidence will be able to convince you.

    2. War and brutality damage human dna so really we are shooting ourselves in the foot by conducting ourselves that way or allowing others to do so without very good reason.

    3. Hello. My name is Chris (or Christos in greek) I’m a born again christian. I’m very happy to see that there are alpha christians, who haven’t been feminized by pussy whipped christian churches. Here in Greece that is very very rare. Actually I know only my buddy. Would you mind giving me your e-mail? I’m pretty sure we have a lot to talk about. And/or do you know any forum or blog or website that has alpha members who are alpha male christians? My e-mail is [email protected]

  8. Roosh, you took too long to say what we already know: all power, no matter how benign, is held at the tip of a sword or barrel of a gun. If not the person in power holding the proverbial sword, then it is someone/something else they are protecting you from that wields it.
    At some point, however, we need to embrace an intellectual strength without losing the mental and physical capacity to kill people. The mental is more difficult than the physical: Having killed in war, it is an experience that should be wisely avoided but always ready to perform should the circumstances warrant.
    In all, when a society values the lives of their enemies over the survival of their own way of life, it is bad.

    1. “In all, when a society values the lives of their enemies over the survival of their own way of life, it is bad.”
      I don’t know about that.
      The American “way of life” is bad, so the survival of its enemies; well one enemy in particular, Russia; should be more highly valued by Americans who can see the inevitable collapse and reset coming.

      1. Even so, those conscient Americans would prefer to heal their country than seeing Russia or others prevail.
        But I agree with your deep point aboout this, the healthy over the damaged, the future over “home loyalty”.

  9. I read this book a few months ago. It was excellent.
    I did some background research and some people have postulated that Redbeard was actually Jack London, working under a pen name.

    1. More Might (Power) is Life. From there, he took “God is dead”.
      “Right” was not something he cherished much. He wrote violently against Moral, and its enslaving nature. He was a social pariah from day one to his bitter, maddened final days.
      Someone who found the seed of SuperMan in the ruins of everyday humans was certainly destined to be poisoned by the worst kind of disappointment we can experience: imperfection.

  10. While there is certainly some truth in this philosophy, it seems like a disaster if fully implemented. Like most ideologies (democracy, communism, capitalism, fascism, nationalism, etc.) if one fully implements it to the exclusion of all other belief systems, it seems like a weak and miserable plan.
    If men lived ‘like brothers’ and had no powerful enemies (neighbors) to contend with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities

    While one can look at todays society and see that both of these factors are true, I do not believe them to be causally related. I don’t feel a need to attack or be scared of my fellow man in order to push me to strive. Even looking at American history, America grew to be the world’s strongest nation in large part because it was free from struggles.
    After its civil war, it was a peaceful* nation that did not have to worry about security or defense, and it grew to be incredibly prosperous, while Europe fought among itself and destroyed its great institutions, including Patriarchy, in the Great War.
    * America is quite belligerent and has been incredibly warlike in its post-civil war history; however these were all foreign wars of choice, which did not threaten the nation itself.

  11. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    Matthew 10:34

    1. Yep, God is the guide but you are the horse. He’ll get you to water but he can’t make you drink it.

  12. Might is Right was an evil book (there was a chapter that encouraged cannibalism.) but there are a few good quotes from it that are good conversation pieces for ROK discussions.
    On democracy:
    “If they could come alive again how those old Pirates and Freebooters would stare in shame and scorn at the sight of their ‘tenderfoot’ posterity, walking up in solemn, horny-handed, hump-backed procession in shoddy rags before an idol-altar called a ballot-box, dropping into its gilded maw, printed invocations for Justice, Mercy, Liberty, “Peace in our time O! Lord!” — Protection, — Cheap Money, — ‘more laws! more laws! more laws!’ How our blonde, clean-limbed ancestors would guffaw? Indeed, they would probably keep on guffawing, till they guffawed themselves to death again.”
    On law:
    As for the Common Law, it is an inheritance from those interesting old days, when Saxon and Norman earls (they were genuine noblemen then, for they had won their position by risking their lives in battle) administered ‘Justice’ direct, per media of knotted clubs, hilted knives, and long handled cleavers. That was the only kind of ‘Law’ understood by our ‘uncivilized’ forefathers, for they had not been ‘educated’ into the profound conviction that governments and laws ‘derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Such an expression would have sent them into convulsions, and he who uttered it would be considered — a most excellent fool.
    On manners:
    The will of the victorious chief, of the strongest, was the rule of all conduct. When he passed judgement on private quarrels, his decisions were the origin of law. The mingled respect and terror inspired by his person and his peerless qualities, then deemed super-natural by the rude minds that had scarcely an idea of the powers and limits of human nature, were the origins of religions, and his opinions were the first dogmas. The signs of obedience by which the vanquished, whom he spared, repaid his mercy, were the first examples of those marks of respect that are now called good manners and forms of courtesy.
    On women;
    In many respects women have proved themselves more cruel, avaricious, bloodthirsty and vengeful than men…….Women are also remarkably good liars. Deception is an essential and necessary part of their mental equipment. ……We must not forget that women really hate each other -intensely.
    Look over at France where (with the growth of government supervision) the absolutism of the husband is attenuated to a mere fiction – and what do you see? A nation steeped in communistic eroticism, as in a Stygian sewer. French women are notoriously unfaithful, and the most horrible sexual lusts are practiced and pleasantly laughed at. There promiscuity results in barrenness; and this, when supplemented by correlated self-sterilization, is rapidly transmuting the once all powerful Frankish Confederacy into a feeble and decaying tribe of wasted marasma-struck manglings, sheltering themselves beneath the all protecting wing of as Asiatic Despot
    And of war & love:
    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.
    French women (even against their deep patriotic sentimentalism) admired the fine physique and marital bearing of the German troops, that poured through Paris in ’71. The contrast between the tall, clean-skinned German Conquerors and the dwarfishness of the French National Guards was then most strikingly displayed
    Von Otto Ammon, proves the selective and ethnic advantages of warfare. …..all German children born during the Franco-Prussian campaign of 71, show a strikngly high average excellence, both of body and mind.. The converse is equally demonstrable.

      1. Use your katana to cut his head off in New York City. After all, there can be only one.

        1. I’d have no choice but to launch tactical nuclear weapons in the vicinity of his ISP.

  13. This book is nothing more than the raging of a two year old who was forced to share his toys with the other children. It expresses the ethic of a frustrated gamma in the throes of his favorite wet dream!
    Seriously. I don’t know who this Ragnar is, but I’d place money on him being the 19th century equivalent of a pimple-scarred keyboard warrior, edging himself with febrile fantasies of his ultimate domination of all the beautiful women and the strongest of the men. And of course, he licks the cum off his fingers when he’s done!
    Roosh, there’s nothing there! You’re getting caught up in his he-man orgy porno story. It’s not real. None of it. And there has NEVER been a time in history when it was real. Because if such a state of affairs ever come to be it wouldn’t last long!
    What he is raging against is the fact that he is a conscious, moral agent. That he has both a mind and a heart, with desires and needs, and he lives among other men, and women, and they also have desires and needs and he must deal with them according to rules and rituals and laws and customs that preserve the long-term health of their social structure.
    Perhaps you need to reread “Atlas Shrugged”. Intelligent Men, even if they are strong, do not fight and kill for what they want. They seek to build for the future, according to a plan. To do that they must already live in or create a society built upon the concepts of Truth, Justice, and Honor.
    Might is only Right when it is used to Protect and Preserve the Good.

      1. Define “true”.
        Can the condition Ragnar describe ever exist? Yes. Is it beneficial? No. Is it sustainable? No.
        If by wishful thinking you mean the condition of civilization I describe cannot exist, you’re wrong. If you deny it would be beneficial, you are wrong. If you deny it is WORTH fighting for, you are wrong. If you deny it is sustainable, you are wrong.
        I am guilty of “wishful thinking” only if you think a desire to build something of value that does not yet exist is wishful thinking. Or the desire to contribute to maintaining something of value is wishful thinking. Otherwise, you’re wrong.
        In other words, you’re wrong.

  14. You folks need to read Plato. His dialogue “Gorgias” addresses this properly and reasonably. You guys are chasing your own tails.

    1. “You folks need to read Plato. His dialogue “Gorgias” ”
      Could you mention a few key points Plato makes?

      1. It is where plato Maligns Gorgias by creating a dialogue that never happens in his never ending quest to make life, the universe and everything infinitely more simple and boring than it actually was….mostly because plato was tied to an idea that made sense to him but also because he was a bit of a jerk.
        Gorgias argued about the non-existence of things. Plato chalked it up to rank sophistry and argued against it using a strawman argument cleverly presented and the fact that we don’t have any Gorgias to read in order to see the truth of the matter makes plato the defacto winner.

        1. a less snarky and more accurate example of plato’s argument is that:
          Rhetoric doesn’t require the person making an argument to actually know the subject matter, he only has to know the art of making arguments. Because of this, Plato argues that the “art” of making arguments isn’t an art at all because arts require knowledge of the subject matter. He further argues (with quite a leap) that knowledge is necessary for virtue. Plato says that rather than an art, Rhetoric is just the talent for persuading people not by having knowledge of an argument, but by manipulating them, telling them what they want to hear or in some other way tricking them.
          Telling someone what they want to hear instead of the truth, while making it easy for you to win an argument without having actual knowledge of the subject, does not improve the person you are talking to the way that explaining the truth to them, whether they want to hear it or not, would. And because of this, rhetoricians are not virtuous in what they do because a) they lack knowledge and knowledge is necessary for virtue and b) they do a disservice by leading people further from knowledge so leading them away from virtue.
          Gorgias does a really fucking awful job of trying to defend his position (in the way you might imagine Roosevelt would sound if the Nazi’s won the war and Goebels wrote all the history books. The example of the physician is used, which I change for modern day to the example of bro science.
          A doctor might prescribe you some things you don’t like, tell you to take it easy on the weights, add more carbs to your died and a bro scientist might tell you to go paleo and go hard. Because you want to believe what the bro scientist is telling you, despite him not really having any medical knowledge, you will be more inclined to believe him.
          The problem is that Gorgias’ argument is being made for him by plato who comes into it wanting to disagree with him so his argument is inane. He is, in some ways, a proto-nihilist though and with the tools we get from modal logic, linguistics and continental philosophy of the 18th and 19th centuries Gorgias’ argument might have been fleshed out into something very interesting.

  15. The church needs to do some forearm work to cure its limp wrist. This means aggressive missionary activity, standing in the face of Muslims and condemning them, you might die but you need to be prepared for that. There needs to be more passion.

  16. Might makes right is a philosophy unfit for modern times.
    The world is filled with pollution. Might makes right can’t address that, doesn’t even know where to begin.
    The nations of the world have become economically interdependent. Might makes right doesn’t understand trade agreements.
    You get the point.

    1. I don’t disagree with your overall point, just noting that the world has always been economically “interdependent” to some level or degree, at least the parts that were discovered. The Silk Road was a “big deal”. Romans opening up trade across Europe and northern Africa was a “big deal”. Even the Injuns traded and came to accords among themselves, when they weren’t out slaughtering each other for fun. I don’t know about sub Saharan Africa, no doubt there was some kind of trade, but they don’t seem to have ever advanced beyond the Stone Age in most areas. Asia obviously had huge trading arrangements.

  17. 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.

    *cough cough carpenter cough cough*
    He was also a Rabbi as I recall, although I don’t know if that was a paying job at the time or not.

    1. “*cough cough carpenter cough cough*
      Actually Jesus was not a carpenter. Carpentry was skilled labor. The word used in Mark 6:2-3 is tekton which would more accurately be “handyman” but considering the context more like day laborer. It actually fits better with the humble story as a carpenter would not have been part of the peasantry.
      That said, rabbi in the gospels is used in its older meaning of “teacher” and not a cleric per se. When some people call Jesus rabbi it is a term of respect but not an actual vocation.
      Sorry to be such a pedant, but you kind of had it coming 🙂

      1. Bite me, heh.
        Tekton or carpenter, it was a job I’m assuming that provided income? That was my point.
        I kind of knew that about rabbi, but wasn’t absolutely sure, which is why I wondered whether it was actually a vocation or more of a titular thing. I’m always a bit fuzzy on when things like “lay priest” becomes “profession which requires a college degree and which pays” in historical religions.

        1. BTW: I think I am going to get a bachelors degree in Town Eldership and then complain that no one is paying me to sit in a hut and adjudicate local qualms. “But I was top in my class! This isn’t fair! How come hedge fund guys, brain surgeons and computer geeks make all the money! RAGE!”

    2. He was talking about the time during which Jesus was on the road, preaching. Also he would not have been paid any sort of income at that time. Likewise, he was a religious teacher of a sort, obviously, but wasn’t, to anyone’s knowledge, part of any hierarchy, wasn’t a professional. As such, he must have obviously lived off of charity, or perhaps even stolen.
      So what the author wrote was entirely sensible, you were just confused.

  18. Might is Right.
    Right makes Might would make sense in a causal relationship. A man who does not believe in gravity is likely to meet a messy end trying to walk across a ravine. Ascribing to 1+1=2 and having a strong physique is more advantageous in life than being mathematically illiterate and choosing a life of sloth. Concurrently, and to piggyback Redbeard, an individual may benefit marginally through thievery, but a better man would benefit immeasurably by cofounding a society where thievery is punished. To add a layer, common thieves become great thieves when they establish groups and rules where thievery and sloth are forbidden within their ranks.
    Of course, I think Redbeard is advocating for a return to civilization, not barbarism, and that Roosh knows Redbeard is being impromptu.
    But the problem with “Right makes Might” is the deeper sin of drawing causality – and distinctions – where there is none.
    The instance of a clan’s extinction by flood, famine, or plague, with no witnesses to mourn them, no evidence preserved of their existence; there is the epitome of Might (and the lack thereof). Concurrently, that is the crystallization of Right (and Wrong). There is no rationalization or whining, ad or post hoc – there’s nobody left to mourn (and if there were, it would no doubt be rote fancifully “human”, signifying nothing). Neither Right nor Wrong in the “social-justice” sense, but Might and Right in accordance to the Truth, or Physics, or God, or what have you. Redbeard should be praised for trying to return the issue back to Natural Law, Physical Law, Observable Law, rather than the poisoned well of Metaphysics.
    There is no “human judgment”, “valuation” or “bias”.
    Merely Judgment.
    Might is Right.
    The aphorism is correct, even if the two are not synonymous. Although not identical twins, they are undeniably a pair, like a charged particle and its magnetic field. One does not follow the other like a causal relationship on a timeline. They exist concurrently as a dynamic relationship like spacetime itself.
    As with so many aspects in Natural Law, too many people draw distinctions between two inextricable phenomena (or dissociate the phenomena itself), inventing self-serving concepts, from “Pacifism” to “Gravitons”, believing in causal relationships where none are in evidence. For example, the biggest hang-up for people versed in Newtonian physics (bigger than differential geometry) when they encounter general relativity is their own ego; the justification for their preconceptions, forming the need for a theory of “causality”.
    People in that situation fill in the blanks with something/anything that might tether them to a more comfortable paradigm. Like any human impulse, it’s a double-edged sword and applies to anyone with a self-image to inflate or protect; rich and poor, winners and losers, smart and dumb, altruistic and malicious.
    Ultimately, I think it is a question of Faith. Individuals either accept observations for what they are in the service of the Truth – what some call “God” – or they try to manipulate perception (mostly one’s own) to accommodate a nihilistic impulse. It’s the difference between an “Honor” culture, and “Face” culture. Einstein had it right in more ways than one.
    There is no space and time, but spacetime.
    No mass and energy, but massenergy.
    No might and right, but mightright.
    More than wordplay, it is a conceptual mechanism to convey the artificiality of drawing false distinctions within the natural phenomena itself, an act that betrays the distorted view of reality among those who would draw it.

  19. Second topic since I didn’t have time to edit my first before lolknee came in and made pee pee in my coke.
    A culture of might, strength with warrior components doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to embrace crushing the weak or be in constant warfare. Switzerland is (or was until just very very recently) a culture where there is a strong warrior ethic, as well as a lot of Darwinism in regards to the economy, but they’ve managed to stay out of wars for around 800 years or so, if I’m not mistaken. I believe that as long as you retain a *masculine* based culture, that you’ll be fine, since men traditionally adhere to things like strength, honor, hierarchy, codes, tradition, etc. It’s only when you allow women in the machinations of government do we get this whole weakening of society thing, and even then only if you let their preferences top those of men. So letting Maggie Thatcher be Prime Minister is fine, but letting her Sisterhood start dictating nanny state laws that benefit the weak at the expense of the strong, and you’re screwed.
    So on one hand we have Switzerland, which (again, until very very recently when they gave women the vote, and that was only in 1971) values a warrior ethic (every home has a machine gun) and is a world renowed hub of economic liberty (aka economic Darwinism), compared to, say, Sweden where the feral broads have taken over the government and culture and now they are in the express checkout lane for self termination and you can’t find a masculine man if you had to (ok, there might be a few left, but they’re keeping a really low profile).
    I’d also add America 80+ years ago was *highly* patriarchal and valued strength, character and “pull up your bootstraps and make your own destiny” to extreme levels.

  20. Is might right, you ask?
    I dunno about that. What I know for sure is that in the course of human history the losers don’t get to argue their position. So I’d rather have some might of my own, just do be on the safe side.

    1. Might is nothing by itself. Not even nature shows that might is right; many species have gone extinct and nature does not care, it is neither right or wrong to survive, neither right or wrong to die. All evidence indicates the cosmos will drift apart, grow cold, and die anyways.
      “Right” can only come from ultimate meaning, such as that given by a communicative Creator.

      1. Alright. Which one? Cause in history there have been many “communicative Creators” and its people killed each other at every twist and turn. It just so happened that the survivors where those who had more might to bring to bear.
        So, again, is it the might of the communicative Creator that makes right? Is he right because he’s undefiable in his might?
        And do you have any proof that this Creator isn’t himself subject to death should enough eons come to pass?

        1. No its not the might of a creator that makes him right. It is the fact that he is the Creator that makes him right. If he died he would still have been the creator in fact, aND whatever rules he established would likely still apply after his death. Whether you discover him, and like him or his rules or his followers, is another matter entirely than the fact that he made the rules about right andwrong.
          You asked which creator to pick.
          First, admit that “right” can only come from a Creator. If you admit this, I will reveal to you which creator from the long list of creators of history is the one thathat is most likely to be true and had the most proof.
          Aren’t you excited? ! You’re going to finally learn what criteria to use to select a personal deity!
          (I know that it was not an honest question. You’reYou’re just tipping your fedora. I’m making fun of you. The creator’screator’s name is Nessus Christmas according to autocomplete. That’s your first hint. It’s also a hint as to who created the autocomplete spelling database, and who his evil matter is. Probably wears a fedora too. )

        2. Actually it was an honest question, and while it was challenging your point of view, its purpose was not to question the existence of any god (which is why I didn’t ever question that particular concept).
          The question was aimed to try and understand how you could respond to a question which answer is highly subjective (might vs. right) using another extremely subjective concept (which is the right Creator), considering that in the course of history every time they tried to use that specific logic, the argument was won by whomever held the biggest stick (might is right) and how you go about deciding that your specif god is in fact the right one.
          Please, take note that the subjectivity of the concept of which Creator is the real one (whether there is one, more than one or none at all) is not of my own making. It’s the of all those people who kill each other over it, or even just argue about it. If it were objective, we would be having far less problems in the world right now.
          But of course, feel free to dismiss me by ascribing me to whatever category you dislike the most.
          If I had waited for the approval of anyone to get anything done, I wouldn’t have done shit.
          A pleasure talking with you, however unilateral that was.

        3. Sorry, I’ve never actually seen anyone honestly ask how to weigh the various creators and determine which is the correct one. It is just such a simple task that I have come to realize its never an honest question. But the specific creator comes after discerning is there must be a creator in the first place. Logically, you need to establish first that there must be a creator, THEN determine who the creator is. Most people want to jump straight to the name, but its important to establish the necessity first.
          Discerning the most likely Creator is an exercise in mostly a priori logic.
          1. We (our cosmos) were caused or not caused. We observe that everything in our cosmos is caused, at all times. Therefore it is most likely the cosmos was caused.
          2. The cause of the cosmos must either be intelligent or non-intelligent. A first cause that spawned a cosmos that is orderly, full of information, and contained intelligent creatures was most likely caused by another intelligence. A non-intelligence would not likely cause an orderly lawful cosmos.
          3. This intelligent first cause either did it for a reason, or no reason. It is not likely that an intelligent first cause would do something for no reason. It is more likely the First Cause did it for a reason.
          4. The intelligent first cause either communicated the reason to its creation, or didn’t. It is more likely that such a creator would also communicate the reason in order to bring about the desired outcome in the cosmos.
          5. Is it more likely that this creator has accomplished its objective or is a failure? It is more likely that the powerful creator is going to achieve its objective. Therefore it is most likely that this creator has established influence throughout the world.
          Now that we have established that the probability of a creator is too high to disregard, and the probability that the creator is personal and communicative, we can move on to determining its name.
          1. List all gods that have been established upon the Earth.
          2. Review the list to determine which gods have been disproved. (e.g. we went on Mount Olympus and Zeus was not there.)
          3. Determine which remaining gods have communicated the most accurate information. (e.g. which god has given us the most accurate, useful, powerful, true message. Which god has the most correct, powerful, influential, true religion, etc.)
          The answer is that after examining the other gods and religions and communications there are only 2 possibilities. Jesus and Allah. Buddhism has no god and is not rational and therefore does not support a priori exercises in logic and probabilistic reasoning in regard to metaphysics and philosophy. Its message is incomplete and insufficient regarding the objective of the creator, or if there is even a creator, or if we are anything more than a dream. Judaism is a dead religion, it was destroyed by the Romans in AD70. Hinduism, although it has gods, is largely in the same boat as Buddhism.
          Jesus or Mohammed is the most likely path/source of the Creator.

        4. I’ll skip the logic by which you ascertained what is what because that is not the purpose of this discussion.
          We still have 2 possible Gods in your scenario, or at least two possible religions with two set of rules and values. How do you determine which one is correct. And within that particular religion, how do you determine which specific sect got it right.
          The problem I see here is that human interpretation and personal trust in one own correctness is required for it to work but we still have on our hands the dilemma “how do we determine among us fellow humans what’s right”.
          I’m not going to argue whether your reasoning is correct or not, but I don’t find it answering the question this post poses. As long as there are two people with two separate ideas of right this dilemma won’t be solved, unless the rightful god himself makes himself known and literally puts his foot down (with his might, I could add) we are not getting free of this conundrum anytime soon.
          Now, does this prove that might is right? No, I don’t think so, but I still believe that you have better have some might to back up your right, otherwise you could find that your right will be easily disregarded.

        5. The better off the two is determined by following the same process and using the same principles I’ve already outlined. The Christians have the more probable scripture, theology, science, culture, historicism, God. Islam is just a rip off of Judaism, similar to how Mormon is a rip off of Christianity.

        6. Alright. I could ask for objective data about the above statement, but I understood the methodology you use now. Can’t say I agree, but I undrestand.
          Thank you.

        7. Sure. Would love to work out any ofyour challenges to any of my points because I feel I’ve worked them out pretty well over the years, and I’ve never seen an apologetic take that form, so I wonder if it is inventive

        8. Alright, let’s give it a shot.

          1. We (our cosmos) were caused or not caused. We observe that everything
          in our cosmos is caused, at all times. Therefore it is most likely the
          cosmos was caused.

          This is a pretty huge assumption right off the bat. You are saying that because things
          inside this bubble we call universe work a certain way, then what’s outside must also
          function in a similar manner. We have zero data on what is going on outside of this
          bubble so this statement is purely your assumption. We shall call it, Assuption 1 (A1)
          For the sake of discussing the other points, let’s accept that this is in fact the

          2. The cause of the cosmos must either be intelligent or
          non-intelligent. A first cause that spawned a cosmos that is orderly,
          full of information, and contained intelligent creatures was most likely
          caused by another intelligence. A non-intelligence would not likely
          cause an orderly lawful cosmos.

          This, right here, is circular logic. You are saying that there must be a creator because this universe is too complex for it to be a product of chances. But under that same logic then this creator (who is complex enough to create our universe willingly) must have had a creator. That creator too must have one of his own and so on and so forth eternally. We cannot escape this interpretation if we take A1 as true. This opens the can “which creator is the one we should listen to? The one immediately responsible of our making? The one above him? How deep is the rabbit hole of this logic?
          Conversely, if the Creator has come to exist on his own then our universe too could have had a similar, spontaneous origin. If we want to be anal about it, and apply Occam’s razor, then the simplest explanations is most likely the correct one and our universe is self-made.
          Again, for the sake of discussing the other points, we take that this creator does in fact exist. We call this Assumption 2 (A2).

          3. This intelligent first cause either did it for a reason, or no
          reason. It is not likely that an intelligent first cause would do
          something for no reason. It is more likely the First Cause did it for a

          We are going deep into God’s psychology here. I cannot say that he wouldn’t do something without reason. However, let’s take for granted that he had in fact a purpose for making this bubble. Did he achieve that purpose? I call your point 5 into question here.

          5. Is it more likely that this creator has accomplished its objective or is a failure?
          It is more likely that the powerful creator is going to achieve its objective.
          Therefore it is most likely that this creator has established influence throughout the world.

          There is another underlying assuption you are making but not stating here: the creator is infallible, that he has no learning curve. He wishes for something and that something comes into being just as intended.
          However, if we take into account A1 (things out there work as they do in here) then there is high chance that God is not infallible and therefore that this universe is not what God had wanted. This universe could very well be a botched product, left to run its course while he works on universe 2.0. The issue increases exponentially if A2 means that there is a hierarchy of creators. We could be the botched result of a botched result of a botched results that no one bothered to shut down.
          On the other hand, if we are exactly as intended, then there is nothing wrong with the universe (and ourselves) as it is. Right, wrong. Good, evil. They mean nothing because
          God is infallible and things are exactly as they should be, down the the last minute detail.

          4. The intelligent first cause either communicated the reason to its creation, or didn’t. It is more likely that such a creator would also communicate the reason in order to bring about the desired outcome in the cosmos.

          This is the statement that leaves me the most baffled. It implies that God needs us to bring about the result he wished for this universe. Why? Consider what kind of forces he put into motion on his own. Why would he need us to do anything? We (as a species, much less as individual beings) are literally nothing in the great scheme of things. Our existence as a species in the timeline of the universe is so brief that it holds no significance and the impact we leave upon it is even less so.
          You assume that this infallible Creator has bothered to make a plan specifically tailored for us to achieve a purpose that he couldn’t have reached without our cooperation. That he came forth an told us insignificant gnats how to behave least we screw up his project. Considering how small we are in the great scheme of things, I find it highly unlikely.
          Here we are assuming that he’s aware of us (1), that we are not an irrelevant byproduct of a much bigger project (2) and that we have an active role in it (3).
          Ultimately, what I see wrong with your logic is how you go about it in absence of data.
          It feels like you started from the concept that “we humans have a purpose” and backtracked to the origin of the universe systematically discarding all possibilities
          that would invalidate the initial statement, using the popularity of a religion at the current point in history to determine which is the most correct.
          More importantly, it doesn’t answer the conundrum of “how to determine who’s right except with the application of might”.

        9. 1. I am assuming what occurred during the creation of our bubble by using the rules of our bubble. You would have me posit rules that are spurious? Multi verse? String theory? Oscillating? If I’m going to make stuff up why not make up a creator?
          2. Yes, the creator may have had a creator. Is something wrong with that? Would that negate the fact that you have a creator? No. Ocam’s Razor does not support “spontaneous creation” because Occams Razor posits that the simplest explanation is probably the correct explanation, and “spontaneous” is not an “explanation”, it is a cop out, magic, the acceptance that there is no causation, anti-science, underming all reason.
          3,5. Yes, we are assuming the creator is infallible, based on the assumed act that he is our creator. It was a mighty act to create us. It could not have been done by an ignoramus or a buffoon. The creator is likely omnipotent, or very effectively close to omnipotence. If there is a degree of randomness in the cosmos than it is likely put there on purpose, possibly as a means to”entertain” the creator or his creatures. The only way free will could exist is if a creator granted it, or if randomness were readily observed in our cosmos (which it’s not.)
          4. Although we are small in the nihilist view, the nihilist view is more absurd than the theist view. We are an amazing phenomenon, something not observed anywhere else in the cosmos, mathematically unlikely, quite significant.
          I don’t want to use data. I want to use a priori logic as much as possible. Posteriori reasoning opens us up to too much rationalization. However, it is impossible to eliminate posteriori reasoning, and is included in parts of my apologetic, for example when I state that randomness has never been observed. It is also difficult to use data in metaphysics, per se.
          I find that YHWH is the most likely creator, especially since he’s described as being both sovereign and just, which means although he’s infalible, we’re morally responsible. There are many paradoxes in this cosmos, YHWH made it that way for his entertainment is a likely explanation and given in his scriptures (data). I also find it most likely that Jesus is the reason for the creation, and a way for the creator to enter His simulation, so to speak. Although there was a plan and purpose, it is being worked out with us as a central part, a special role in the creation, to his entertainment, or to be more orthodoxed, His Glorification.

        10. Okay. Like I said, I do not agree with you. I don’t deny the possibility of a creator, but (personally) I find the possibility of it being what us humans evision him to be highly unlikely. I don’t claim to be able to explain the universe or how it came to be but when I put myself into perspective, when I weight myself to the rest of the cosmos, I can’t really see how an almighty creator would bother with something that is both extremely small and extremely transient.
          Now, is that a justification for anything at all? No. Whether or not there is a greater purpose, I believe in personal responsibility. Whether that will land me in Heaven, Hell, or nowhere at all I do not know, nor I care to find out.
          It was good talking with you. Thank you for your time and consideration.

    1. Ewwwww, dude, have you *seen* those A-rab broads? I wouldn’t fuck them if you held a gun to my head.
      Or did you mean take and put on an airplane and air drop, sans parachute, back over to Syria? Because if so, then yeah, that would be cool.

        1. Maybe the upper caste types, but the rank and file refugee types always appear to be bone ugly in the photos I see.

        2. They find the ugly ones to make them look more desperate, the good looking ones hardly look Arab. More of an Italian Mexican mix.

        3. right. I mean I would beat the breaks off of the Huma level a-rabs but the ones who look like they were born already stirring a large cauldron are pretty nasty

        4. Funny you bring her up. If she could remove that perpetual scowl from her mug and not look like she’s always about to pull out a shotgun and start shooting people, she’d be pretty nice looking.

        5. Someone here posted some modeling shots of here….hu-hu-huma. Also, I like the bitch scowl. Believe me, she would purr like a kitten once she got some good dick in her. Makes it a bit of a challenge.

        6. We all have our opinions. I’ve actually been with a couple Mexican Italians, which is why I reference it. Good looking Arabs are the exception not the rule and they look a lot different what normally represents an Arab woman… Not really something to search for, but something that just happens. ie “you are from where?, Id never have guessed”

  21. I dare to say, when there is Might, Right is less of an issue…
    Right implies a compromise of equals, a certain degree of trust and shared values. Might, not so much. Here on RoK, we constantly identify how a group (SJWs) claims a moral superiority (versus “patriarchy”, Tradition and good sense) and clearly they antagonize “shared values” with those who refuse their rhetoric (the “racists”, “bigots”, “patriarchs”, “capitalists”…).
    Oppose this to the Middle Ages, when there was a contract between peasants (who provided the food and material goods), noblemen (who provided Justice, diplomatic and administrative functions and military defense) and the clergy (keepers of culture and spiritual guides). Translatio imperii requires war (Social War, curiously), and they know it. We must understand this.

    1. Are you suggesting the middle ages was a good time for the majority of people and a just time ???

      1. No, I am saying there are no good or bad times, they are an illusion. There will always be people with power and people without power. The only thing that changes is the justification for that power, over time.
        Noblemen are perceived as useless, they lost their power. Nowadays, you value rhetoric and showbusiness, the power is controlled by the media. When you have fanatic atheists, they are simply claiming for their group (scientists, maybe?), a part of the former powers of clergy.
        Truefully, you have power in the sense you know what/who you are, and why others need you. Nobles were a bluff giant, peasants have shown in 1789. Gandhi took us India peacefully, he just had to say we needed India’s cotton, but they needed us no more to be civilized.
        When someone says you are a subjective being, outside any borders, family, religion or ideology, they are claiming the right to determine your own value (by giving you an assignement of their choice). The fanaticism around “diversity”, Lenon’s imagine song, is none other than translatio imperii, a new justification for a new elite to have all the power.
        That is why Trump is always “wrong and dangerous” and why you can lose your job for saying the wrong things. As once a peasant who didn’t want to work the land was punished (more hardly, but same principle).

        1. True might comes *without exception* from military superiority.
          When the romans took in german mercs, it was the beginning of the end for their empire. When the french nobles started to rely not on knights but on peasants to fight their wars, it was only a matter of time until said peasants took the power.
          On and on goes the story. The united states have the biggest warmachine on this planet and as long as this fact does not change we have little to fear.
          When the next financial crysis hits we may exchange a few faces on the top (socialists out and nationalists in) but there is no way the western world (basicly one big anglo-american-european empire) will be de-throned any time soon on a global scale.

  22. Christianity is largely based on (or at least rooted in) the Bible and biblical teachings.
    What if there was an organization — a group of men in an organized power structure — that had influenced what we consider the Word of God? What if there were councils of men from a social, religions and political organization who decided what books, writings and stories would be included in the Old Testament?
    What if a social, religious and political institution took all of the contemporaneous (more or less) writings about Jesus, his Apostles, his life, etc., and edited it, condensed it and published it? Or decided how the words of the original authors of the books and writings were translated from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, etc., in the more modern languages?
    Wouldn’t that organization, those groups of men, have incredible power to shape the ultimate form and understanding of the Word of God?
    If such a thing had ever happened, it is hard to believe that all of those men — even most of those men — could possibly have resisted “clarifying” (at the very least) the original material with their own thoughts and beliefs.
    One wonders, if such a thing had ever actually happened, whether the leaders of this fictitious group of people would have been tempted to “influence” the ultimate work produced in order to ensure the continued existence, even the success, of themselves and their organizations.
    Even if those men had the very best of intentions, completely absent of self-interest, might they still have been influenced by a desire to benefit humanity by focusing on certain aspects of the original material as opposed to others? Might they have realized the long-lasting effects of what they were producing, and thought to shape the message in a way they considered for the betterment of mankind?
    Good thing nothing like that ever happened.

  23. Cognitive dissonance ahead:
    The scathing remarks against “Christianity” are spot on. Yeshua (“Jesus”) Himself acknowledged the fleshly principle of “might makes right”:
    “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his
    plunder.” (Luke 11)
    Egalitarianism,pacifism, integration, “love thy enemy”, etc. concepts are false doctrines. They are not Biblical or Christian at all and have done great harm to Yahweh’s (God’s) Kingdom and law over the centuries. All false doctrines are rooted in Biblical ignorance or outright perversion.
    There is a world of difference between a Christian loving a fellow covenanted Christian enemy, as Yeshua taught, and loving Yahweh’s (God’s) enemies. The Bible nowhere commands “loving Yahweh’s enemies”, loving evil, loving sinners, etc. The Bible teaches to hate sinners, evil, and Yahweh’s enemies.
    The false doctrine of Egalitarianism, for another example, is rooted in the mistranslated Greek word “ethnos”. In short, “ethnos” is a generic Greek word meaning “nations”. It was translated into English as the word “gentiles” and given the false definition of “non-Israelite” or “Non-Jew”. The word “ethnos/ethne” in the New Testament most often refers to the nations of the ten “lost tribes” of Israel to whom Yeshua (Jesus) was sent to redeem.
    The misunderstanding of the word “gentile” led to the creation of a non-Biblical “spiritual Israel” made up of every race. Yahweh’s Christian covenant, like every other covenant, is with physical Israelites (Hebrews 8:8-10).
    Contrary to popular belief, the people referred to today as “Jews” are not genetic Israelites or racially the Jews of the Bible in any way. They are actually a people
    known as the Khazars who converted to the religion of Judaism centuries ago.
    The Anglo Saxon, Celt, Germanic, etc. kindred peoples of Europe are the true genetic descendants of the Biblical Israelites. These peoples have cast off their true Christian heritage, birthright, and responsibility which is responsible for the crisis we face in the west today (read Deuteronomy 28).

    1. Thank you.
      I get really tired of atheist retards misinterpreting Christianity. All it takes is some basic reading comprehension. Christianity has never been about egalitarianism. Also, the oft cited “turn the other cheek” is completely misunderstood by ignorant people as a sign of pacifism.

  24. The rise of Islam, Black lives matter, and the left in general in the face of the prostrating “let me understand your anger” approach clearly illustrates what works and what doesn’t. If we want our culture back we need to mob up and take it back.

  25. First, this author is arguing from a point o total ignorance, True Christianity (the Roman Catholic Church) has a tradition of waging Just War, (the Crusades, Battle of Lepanto) and it´s main philosopher saint, St Thomas Aquinas, has already debunked all arguments against a total pacifist view of Christianity
    “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.”
    Second, no system that does not work on individual level can work on a large scale, the fact that one cannot simply live in a society where there are no rules for the protection of the weak, THE RULE OF LAW, implies on the global level, the same rules apply. The author sounds like a Socialist that has an iphone.
    Third, (my ad hominem), a man that is not brave enough to put his name on a piece of paper criticizing Jesus, and the Martyrs is just laughable. The type of person who defends this kind of philoshophy is just a loser trying to justify why he has lost, for trues winners, Good Kings, are always remember for kindness toward the weak.

    1. If True Christianity was the Roman Catholics, it died with the Second Vatican Council.
      This Francis false pope is the image of the Apostate, and as christian as I am a Korean.

        1. I’ve not heard one non-Leftist give praise to Vatican II. It is staunchly held in near contempt by conservative Catholics, that I’ve encountered, bar none. Why do you find it a “very good council” if you don’t mind my asking?

        2. First you have to separate the council teachings from the following implementation.
          The teachings, the main message, is just awesome. One of the main points which I like the most is that to integrate the Church into this Modern World we need the Lay people, and that all of us are called to be Saints. The final defeat of this excessive Materialistic progressive agenda will come from everyday people, living normal lives in a sanctifying way, the Lay Saints.
          The following implementations had several if not major problems. Some Cardinals used this to perpetuate this spirit that there is no tradition. In some countries, like my own, Brazil, this had some nefarious consequeces, such as the Teology of Liberation (which is just evil). But this is an error of interpretation, not of the Council per se.
          Great commentary on the Council:

        1. The one with the fancy hairstyle and a crazy dinasty of Kims (if only the Kardashians dreamed of this…).
          Oh no, I said Great Leader is crazy, let me impale my hand with a fork and I’ll be right back.

    2. the crusades ??? hahahahahhahahaha come on man !!!!!! Religion on an international stage is just another vehicle of power.

  26. It’s easy to preach social Darwinism when you’re in a position of power. It’s easy to preach ‘might is right’ when you have nuclear weapons pointed at everyone’s head. It’s easy to want everyone to do for self when you have a disproportionate percentage of the world’s wealth. I believe you when you when you’re the weak one, the poor one, the defenseless one

  27. The problem with Redbeard’s analysis, and with atheists in general, is that it fails to see the larger picture. He has a laughably warped view of Christianity, which has never preached egalitarianism and is instead quite specific about defeating your enemies and installing the man as the head of the household.

    1. the core of christians is the old testament. The same books that makes the jews strong. The god in the old testament is no hippy.
      The new testament (the fable about jesus) is pure bullshit and was made up to subjugate the roman empire. It worked better than expected and is haunting us to this very day. Same with the muslims.
      There can only be one king of kings and it is certainly not a guy who gets himself killed on the cross. The story of David on the other hand gives a very good example how to do it.

  28. Christ claim Himself to be more that a men, more than a holy men, more then a prophet…He claimed to be God Himself. Do we need any more evidence of what Christianity is as far as patriarchy is concerned??? If women adore/crave for strong and powerful men, then, Christ is simply the most powerful alpha male of all time. In fact, we can clearly see the effect he had on women in the Gospels.
    As for power and religion, if Christianity is not the most powerful, successful and influential religion in the History of mankind, i do not know what it is.

  29. The Dark Ages were a perfect example of Social Darwinism in society as those with power and wealth (Knights and Kings) ruled over those that were weaker ; their word was law. This helped to spread Christianity as a king (wanting promised glory in God’s kingdom) could now demand his subjects believe in “The Roman Faith” … Christianity would then uphold its part of the bargain by preaching a Patriarchal society with the top being (you guessed it) the king.

  30. His point is that what he describes is inevitable if you do not maintain strength. I see no argument here that says strength and selfrestraint cannot coexist. At the end of the day, your most violent enemies will heed fear more than diplomacy.

  31. Wow..hard to believe this was written 120 years ago..he could’ve been easily talking about the west today…

  32. This book fails at the initial premise, which is the key to everything, and that is that GROUP is the vehicle of human genetic perfection. Humans live in groups exclusively, with lone wolf never existing at all as a mode of functioning of human race, as any significant occurrence anywhere. To the contrary, loneliness meant certain death.
    Hence, human elevate themselves in group, but also have to work to make their group as strong, or otherwise your good genes are good for nothing if you are destroyed by more numerous.

  33. I own a copy, have read it several times. Very useful and red pill. A lot of christians will be butt hurt over the drubbing he gives them and as far as I am concerned it is well deserved. I have successfully utilized some of his arguments shutting down leftist atheist/darwinist types using some of the survival of the fittest logic. For me the book is another useful tool with good information.

    1. Armenians were Christians they were genocided.
      America is still overwhelmingly Christian compared to Europe. Towns in USA youll find many Christian churches filled, far more than most any other country except Poland probably.

  34. Hello everybody. My name is Chris, I’m from Greece, I’m new to ROK and I find a lot of it’s articles really great. I enjoy approaching attractive women and I like seducing them. I believe that if the game is taught right it can help very much someone to become a better person. I also believe in patriarchy and that every man should become an alpha male. As a born again christian, I lately found out that Jesus Christ didn’t abolished patriarchy at all. I really enjoyed the christians’ reaction to this review and I would like to talk to any christian alpha male. I’m sure we’ve got a lot to discuss. My email is: [email protected]

  35. Redbeard’s train of through.
    1)Morality is nonsense. (call it moral nihilism or moral relativism)
    2)Because morality is nonsense all social mores, customs, and laws are arbitrary. All praises, demands and suggestions are arbitrary. Based totally on subjective preferences.
    3)Since such things are based on totally subjective preferences there is no reason to have guilt for being a powerful being or to have guilt for doing things others would consider wrong. What you consider to be “Right” and figuring out how you can achieve what you think is “right” is all that matters.
    4)Therefore, one should adopt a sociopathic mentality of Might is Right.
    All of which course hinges upon premise 1 being true.

    1. The strong does as he pleases and weak endures what he must. Been like that for ages.
      We have refined it somehow in our modern age insofar as the weak no longer realizes how weak he is becauser “weak” is the new norm.
      The very few who are strong (in mind and spirit) are seen as the rare exception within the “great unwashed masses” of lesser humans.

      1. So what? Are you saying because Might is Right was the ethic of antiquity therefore we have to adopt the same philosophy? That’s called an appeal to tradition fallacy.

  36. Some of the truest words I have ever read.
    And a great reason why we should end all great society programs, AA/Civil Rights laws, and all foreign aid immediately.

      1. Not sure what you mean. Please explain.
        Once again, I send END all social programs.
        Yes, I KNOW they are the tools of power for the “Bilderberg” and “powerful” types, and not the black and brown parasites they portend to help. Which is EXACTLY why I say to end them NOW!!! To hell with the “Bilderbergs” and to hell with their hopeful black and brown army! America belongs to hard working, traditional White Christian Americans! It’s time we take it back! Go Trump!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *