Might is Right or The Survival of the Fittest

At the insistent nudging of my friend Diversity Chronicle, I read the book The Survival of the Fittest, or The Philosophy of Power  by Ragnar Redbeard. Here are some highlights, and my thoughts on them.

Pg. 11:

It is notorious, universally so, that the blackest falsehoods are ever decked out in the most brilliant and gorgeous regalia. Clearly, therefore it is the brave mans duty to regard all sacred things, all legal things, all constitutional things, all holy things, with more than usual suspicion.

This has been my opinion for many years. I couldn’t help but notice that certain groups (especially religious groups) will often compensate for lack of substance with flowery language, and aesthetically pleasing form. Simpletons, who comprise the bulk of humanity, are easily fooled.

Pg. 15:

However it must be distinctly understood, that the spiritual and temporal in all cosmogonies, are so intricately interwoven, that it is almost impossible to completely divorce them. Like the Siamese twins, Gods and Governments are inextricably bound together; so much so indeed, that if you kill one the other cannot live. Hence the open or secret alliance, that has always existed between the politician and the priest.

In Western democracies, as long as there are large voting blocks of religious people, this union cannot be avoided. In Islamic countries, this dynamic is even stronger. Whether consciously, or subconsciously, most people’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” flow from their religious traditions – though they’ll try to rationalize otherwise. “Right” and “wrong” are the bedrock of the Law. I’ve long said that, though religion is based on time-honored myths, it has yet to be proven that a society can survive, long-term, without it. When people abandon religion, they cease having enough children to perpetuate that society. At that point, other (more traditional) societies will swoop in and fill the void. In the process, the remnants of the religionless society will lose its liberties.

Pg. 26:

Practical fraternal sympathy (upon any universal scale) has always had in the end, a most destructive effect upon the internal structure of communities. Men will always love and cherish those that are near and dear to them; but when it is proposed to extend the circle of their ‘near and dear ones’ to all mankind, that is going rather too far. Indeed all must perish ignominiously if that foolish idea prevails. ‘All’ are even now enervating themselves, undermining their strength, by futile over-exertion in that very direction. They are straining themselves to death, by endeavoring to carry an impossible load.

How appropriate are these words of wisdom at a time when so many American politicians are forcing American taxpayers to support illegal immigrants by extending the CCPVirus stimulus packages to include them. If so, American citizenship has no meaning. If everybody is your family, then you have NO family.

Pg. 30:

‘He clothed the naked,’ you shriek; and why it may be asked should ‘the naked’ be clothed – they being able-bodied? What right have they to broadcloth and fine linen?…

Here, it may be suggested en-passant – is the wearing of garments, in itself, a natural and necessary condition of adult existence? It certainly does not render the ‘human form divine’ more healthy or more beautiful to gaze upon (although it may prevent Tenderlings from perishing of cold). Was it really intended that the man-animal ONLY, should wrap itself up, from birth to death in layer over layer of disease-breeding rags?

I thought it was interesting that Redbeard supports nudism. Personally, I have no objection to it either.

Pg. 36:

How absurd of men to hurrah over their ‘glorious political liberty’ who have not even been able to retain possession of the substantial products of their own laboriousness. After a century of ‘constitutional progress,’ ten per cent of the population are absolute owners of ninety-two per cent of ALL the property.

Here, Redbeard sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders. What solution would he suggest to bring more equality of wealth to the American people, and why should such inequality be considered a “problem?” It’s a problem if people are starving as a result, but Redbeard does not identify that as the problem.

Pg. 39:

Thereupon the Sword of Power, that had conquered on the battlefield, was carefully hidden away out of sight and ‘Constitutionalism’ invoked to aid in the re-harnessing of the Conquerors of Cornwallis, by their new masters. The old systems of Jurisprudence and Government (founded on naked force) were cleverly retained even amplified; and at the same time the white skinned populations were cunningly proclaimed ‘free and equal.’ Never having enjoyed genuine personal freedom (except on the Indian border) being for the most part, descendants of hunted-out European starvelings and fanatics, (defeated battlers) they now stupidly thought that they had won Freedom at last by the patent device of selecting a complete outfit of new tax-gatherers every fourth year.

These words ring increasingly true as the years go by. Aside from material wealth, and modern conveniences, our liberties are far fewer now than they were under King George. If you’re not yet enlightened in this matter, I suggest you read Lost Rights by James Bovard.

Pg. 46:

But, Equality before the Law is all we mean whimpers the everlasting sophist – the cunning liar! Let us see! By what rational method can any two litigants be placed in a position of unconditional ‘Equality before the Law?’ First of all, plaintiff and defendant always possess totally different physical and mental characteristics, different persona magnetisms, and – different sized bank balances. Also all judges, juries, and legal officials are unequals in temperament, ability, courage, and honesty. Each one has his own peculiar idiosyncrasies, prejudices, inferiorities, superstitions, and – price. Each again, may be more or less dishonest and more or less subject to financial pressure, or caste bias. No two men are born alike; each one being literally born under his own particular star, formed of different material; swayed by different ideals; educated and moulded in a different mill; by a different process.

I doubt that anybody could reasonably dispute this point – and I doubt that the fathers of this country would dispute it either. Obviously, what they meant by “equality before the Law” is that we, as a society, are obliged to STRIVE for such equality to the best of our ability. We know we can never achieve it. We can never completely conquer disease, pestilence or corruption either – but this does not absolve us from trying. We take pride in doing the best we can.

Pg. 50, 51:

You have only to look at some men, to know that they belong to an inferior breed. Take the Negro for example. His narrow cranial development, his prognathous jaw, his projecting lips, his wide nasal aperture, his simian disposition, his want of forethought, originality, and mental capacity; are all peculiarities strictly inferior. Similar language may be applied to the Chinaman, the Coolie, the Kanaka, the Jew, and to the rotten-boned city degenerates of Anglo-Saxondom; rich and poor.

This is a bridge too far. How dare he criticize Jews! Redbeard was not very fond of Jews, even the Jesus kind of Jew. In case you were wondering, a “Kanaka” is a Pacific Islander employed as a manual laborer in Australia. Actually, I quoted this paragraph mainly because I thought it was funny.

Pg. 81:

It is not improbable that this earth itself is a living breathing organism, and that the Tribes of Man are microbes and bloodsucking vermin (on its outer cuticle) imagining themselves “the whole thing.” Just as itch-creating parasites burrow into our own hide, so (in our turn) we may be unpleasant parasites, burrowing in the hide of some nobler and grander Being.

According to Wikipedia, the concept of the Earth being an integrated living organism (Gaia) was invented in the 1970s. Redbeard completed his book in 1894. Some of y’all may be familiar with the late George Carlin’s comparison of humans on Earth to “a bad case of fleas.” Now you know where he got the idea.

Pg. 83:

When not thwarted by artificial contrivances, whatever argument Nature promulgates is – RIGHT. The further man gets away from Nature, the further he departs from right. To be right is to be natural, and to be natural is to be right. The sun shines, therefore it is right that it should shine – the rain falls, therefore it is right that it should fall – the tides ebb and flow, therefore it is right that they should ebb and flow.

Darwin’s law exists – may be seen in operation – is practicable – of daily demonstration – therefore it is also right. It is not a dream like “Religion,” it is not an invention like “Morals,” it is not an assumption like “God.” It is a cosmic Fact, like the sunshine, the rain, and the tides!

I would say that the above represents the essence of this book, more than anything else I have quoted.

I’ve been alive longer than most, and I’ve had plenty of time to ponder the nature of morality. There is no escaping the fact that it is largely arbitrary. If people suddenly materialized on this Earth, and had no inkling how to behave toward each other, they might look to nature for answers. They might, indeed, end up as brutes, killing each other over trivial matters, and taking mates by force. Perhaps we were this way once – but some of us have evolved, and become more sophisticated. The result is a thing called “Human Nature.” It’s both Nature, and human. To say that we are “part of nature” involves give and take with the rest of nature. We can live in harmony with the non-human natural world, we can learn many things from it – and we can also honor our OWN nature. The best source of guidance, for most of us, is introspection and our upbringing. There is nothing “unnatural” about this. Human society is a manifestation of nature, and it needs social capital. In other words, our nature demands that we be nice to strangers, at least within our own society, and in times of peace. On the larger scale, international cooperation is also a manifestation of nature. When possible, we should strive for harmony. This is also natural.

Pg. 89:

(A man’s family is his property – it is part of himself. Therefore his NATURAL business is to defend it, as he would his own life. Women and children BELONG to man; who must hunt for them as well as for himself. He is their lord and master, in theory and in fact. Women are subsidiary organisms.)

I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with this wholeheartedly; the natural corollary would be that a man may do as he wishes to his children and wife – including murder. However, I do believe there is an element of truth here, at least regarding the minor children. This is why I don’t see a problem with circumcision, and I’ve written about this elsewhere.

Pg. 112:

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.

Many years later, the quote “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic” (or something to that effect) was attributed to Josef Stalin.

Pg. 117:

No man has (or ever had) any INHERENT right to the use of the earth; nor to personal independence; nor to property, nor to wives, nor to liberty of speech; nor to freedom of thought; nor to ANYTHING; except he can (by himself or in conjunction with his allies) assert his “rights” by Power. What are (in popular parlance) called “rights,” are really “spoil” – the prerogatives of formerly exerted Might; but a “right” lapses immediately, when those who are enjoying it, become incapable of further maintaining it.

We can agree that “rights” are a man-made concept, and that their existence is often fragile. But they are extremely useful in a functioning society, “artificial” or not. In my mind, this transience makes them all the more valuable. Good health is also a fragile thing, here today and gone tomorrow. Does this mean we should ignore good health practices? I speak for many when I say that I enjoy the freedom to speak as I please, think as I please, live where I please, own (most) property as I please. That somebody can take these freedoms from me by force is all the more reason to be vigilant, and to protect them. It’s all the more reason to maintain a strong, and loyal, military, police force and personal arsenal. If Redbeard is suggesting that I should go forth and seize the property of others, just because I can, then what’s stopping them from doing so to me? If preferring security and order makes me a degenerate, then so be it. I can live with that.

Pg. 145:

There are two distinct yet parallel species of the parasitical Semite: – The first, represented by Marx, Lasalle, Stepniak, and Jesus-the-dreamer; the second, by Goshen, Rothchild, Baring, and Iscariot-the-Banker. Between them they’ve practically extinguished civil liberty and personal independence, wherever they have been sheltered. Viper like, do they not bite the very mamae that gives them suck? What have they ever done to Gaul but eat her heart out; and Gaul was first to “emancipate” them? What are they now doing to Germany, Russia, England, America, Africa, Australia? Poisoning the brain-cells of the enslaved multitude while taking-in-pledge – the plough and the harrow – the millstone and the mill.

As stated, Redbeard did not like Jews very much… but compare this with what he writes later (pg. 98):

Get property, honestly if  you can; but remember “business is business.”…

‘Moral principles’ you say! What are moralisms that they should paralize your arm and brain? Are they not artificial human enactments, apparently sanctified; but not necessarily natural, hones, just, or true? Moral codes are the Black Terror of all dastards.

… and (pg. 160):

Therefore all men who would obtain freedom must obtain wealth ‘by hook or by crook,’ or as R.L. Stevenson rhymes it: – ‘You also scan your life horizon, for all that you can clap your eyes on.’ To become the child-bearer of a mere hireling, a day drudge, is the last resort of a sensible feminine.

Throughout the book, Redbeard tells us to take what we can, by any means necessary – and yet he’s sour that Jews have been more successful at it than others.

Pg. 146:

Even in years of peace, (peace may be considered a temporary truce – a partial suspension of the struggle for survival) civilians in female society are at a heavy discount, when the gold-braided naval lieutenant or the ‘Captain in his whiskers’ is prowling around. At balls and receptions, the martial uniform carries all before it sexually, (more especially if there be a MAN inside) just as it does among the head hunters of Borneo, the cannibals of the Congo, the redskins of Oklahoma – or the gruesome savages of Chicago.

This is self-evident. The common fetish women have of men in uniform is clearly based upon the authority that such uniforms carry – and this authority is based on brute force. Without brute force, the uniform would mean nothing. I’m not sure what Redbeard means by “the gruesome savages of Chicago.” It appears Chicago has been a hotbed of violence for a long time.

Pg. 148:

A woman is primarily a reproductive cell-organism, a womb structurally embastioned by a protective, defensive, osseous network; and surrounded with the antenae, and blood vessels, necessary for supplying nutriment to the growing ovum or embryo. Sexualism and maternity dominate the lives of all true women. To such an extent is this so, that they have little time left (or inclination) to “think” and therefore they’ve never been fitted out ab-initio with reasoning organs. Probably this is what Mahomet alluded to, when he sententiously affirmed that “women have no soul.” (Even in man, the soul is probably a fiction, but in women its absence is an absolute certainty)… They are never touched with any sense of personal responsibility; are mere babies in worldly concerns – hysterical, well supplied with tear glands, verbal mechanism – but lovable always. Slaves and women are notoriously incompetent of self-control – of holding their own in ‘business’ – when not inspired and assisted by male friends. They are intended by nature to be loved and defended but not to be “equalized.”

When their passions are stirred, women have performed deeds of heroism (and of terror), that even a man with nerves of steel, would hesitate at. They have fought on sea and land, the bravest of the brave…

I suspect that, if Redbeard was married, his wife forced him to add the second paragraph. I think he’s got a point that women should not be “equalized.” The “equalization” of women coincided with the downfall of Western civilization. On the whole, the performance of women in leadership positions has not been encouraging. Look at Sweden for example, or Germany.

Pg. 150:

But whether a criminal is successful or not, he seems to have a peculiar fascination for women. He who “risks his life to advance his fortunes” may reckon beforehand upon unlimited feminine approval. If he SUCCEEDS and becomes a millionaire, a chancellor, a president, or a king; he has only to ‘hold up his hand’ to be literally ‘rushed’ by the handsomest feminines in the land; and even if he fails bravely, women will gather in shoals to visit him in gaol, besieging him with bouquets and proposals of marriage, even at the gallows. In Michigan a law has lately been enacted, to prohibit female adorers, from sending flowers to condemned murderers, burglars, and bank wreckers. Lombroso says somewhere that “good and passionate women have a fatal propensity to love bad men;”

This is one of those things that never change. Women like the “bad boy.” One wonders if this is why the female leaders of Sweden and Germany so enthusiastically allow hordes of rapists and murderers into their countries. The effeminate “male” rulers of other Western countries follow their lead.

Pg. 155:

Gradually the cure of ‘Law’ invades the privacy of every home. It encourages emotional feminines to defy husbands, and Deify an irresponsible Authority. In other words it deliberately promotes unfaithfulness and unlimited free-love. It undermines the husband’s Control, but at what a dreadful cost? With the “equalization” of women comes wholesale panmixia – scientific concubinage, State-regulated polyandry, and the poisoning of all inter-family intercourse.

In other words, the goal of many Communists: The abolition of the family, and its replacement by The State – which will proceed to erase all vestiges of distinctive peoples, so that it may control the masses more easily.

Overall, I recommend reading this book. The fact that Amazon censored it is an approbation in its own right.



This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Might is Right or The Survival of the Fittest

  1. 370H55V says:

    “Look at Sweden for example, or Germany.”

    Or Finland . . . or Michigan . . . or Oregon.

Leave a Reply

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