Hubbry Logo
Might Is RightMight Is RightMain
Open search
Might Is Right
Community hub
Might Is Right
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Might Is Right
Might Is Right
Might Is Right
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Might Is Right or The Survival of the Fittest is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard, generally believed to be a pen name of Arthur Desmond. First published in 1896,[1] it advocates amorality, consequentialism, and psychological hedonism.[citation needed]

Key Information

Content

[edit]

The author sums up his work as follows:

This book is a reasoned negation of the Ten Commandments—the Golden Rule–the Sermon on the Mount—Republican Principles—Christian Principles—and "Principles" in general. It proclaims upon scientific evolutionary grounds, the unlimited absolutism of Might, and asserts that cut-and-dried moral codes are crude and immoral inventions, promotive of vice and vassalage.[2]

In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas such as advocacy of human and natural rights and argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right (à la Callicles or Thrasymachus). The book also attacks Christianity and democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche's theories of master–slave morality and herd mentality served as inspirations for Redbeard's book which was written contemporaneously.[3][2]

James J. Martin, the individualist anarchist historian, called it "surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere."[4] This refers to the book's assertions that weakness should be regarded with hatred and the strong and forceful presence of social Darwinism. Other parts of the book deal with the topics of race and male–female relations. The book claims that the woman and the family as a whole are the property of the man, and it proclaims that the Anglo-Saxon race is innately superior to all other races.[5] The book also contains anti-Christian and anti-Semitic statements.[5]

Authorship

[edit]

Anarchist S. E. Parker writes in his introduction to the text: "The most likely candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written by Redbeard."[5] The Bulletin, a journal associated with the Australian labour movement, reported in July 1900 that Desmond (a former contributor to the publication) was Ragnar Redbeard.[6][7]

Several observers have proposed Jack London may have written or contributed to Might is Right, a claim made by both Anton LaVey and white supremacist publisher Katja Lane (wife of convicted racketeer David Lane). Lane's assessment was based on her judgment on London's writing style and punctuation.[8][9] However, this idea was rejected by Rodger Jacobs, a biographer of London, since London was only 20 years old at the time, was busy with college, and had not yet developed a mature writing style, nor had he read anything by Nietzsche.[8]

Response

[edit]

Leo Tolstoy, whom Might Is Right described as "the ablest modern expounder of primitive Christliness", responded in his 1897 essay What Is Art?:

The substance of this book, as it is expressed in the editor's preface, is that to measure "right" by the false philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and "weepful" Messiahs is madness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero. Men should not be bound by moral rules invented by their foes. The whole world is a slippery battlefield. Ideal justice demands that the vanquished should be exploited, emasculated, and scorned. The free and brave may seize the world. And, therefore, there should be eternal war for life, for land, for love, for women, for power, and for gold. (Something similar was said a few years ago by the celebrated and refined academician, Vogüé.) The earth and its treasures is "booty for the bold."

The author has evidently by himself, independently of Nietzsche, come to the same conclusions which are professed by the new artists.

Expressed in the form of a doctrine, these positions startle us. In reality, they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The art of our upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the over-man — which is in reality the old ideal of Nero, Stenka Razin, Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire or Napoleon and all their accomplices, assistants, and adulators — and it supports this ideal with all its might.

It is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of what is beautiful, i.e. of what is pleasant, that is the fourth consequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our society. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were such art to spread among the masses of the people. And it already begins to spread.[10]

Parker wrote: "Might Is Right is a work flawed by major contradictions." In particular, he criticized the inconsistency of the book's central dogma of individualism with its open sexism and racism (both requiring a membership in a collective). However, he concluded that "it is sustained by a crude vigor that at its most coherent can help to clear away not a few of the religious, moral and political superstitions bequeathed to us by our ancestors."[5]

Influence

[edit]

Portions of Might Is Right comprise the vast majority of The Book of Satan in Anton LaVey's 1969 The Satanic Bible, the founding document of the Church of Satan.[11] Though it is no longer included in current printings of The Satanic Bible, early printings included an extensive dedication to various people whom LaVey recognized as influences, including Ragnar Redbeard.[12]

Santino William Legan, the perpetrator of the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting in Gilroy, California, mentioned Might is Right in an Instagram post. NBC journalists have claimed it is a 'staple' of white supremacist groups online.[13]

Editions

[edit]
Year Publisher Notes
1896 Auditorium Press[14][1]
1896 A. Uing Publisher
1903 A. Mueller Publishers
1910 W.J. Robbins Co. Ltd
1921 Ross’ Book Service
1927 Dil Pickle Press
1962 Unknown publisher 18-page abridged edition.
1969 Same unknown publisher Expanded 32-page edition.
1972 Revisionist Press Reprint of 1927 Dil Pickle edition. ISBN 978-1478225171
1984 Loompanics Unlimited ISBN 0-915179-12-1
1996 M. H. P & Co. Ltd. Centennial edition, with intro by Anton LaVey.
1999 14 Word Press St. Maries, Idaho.
2003 Bugbee Books
2005 Revolva Russian edition with commentary. ISBN 5-94089-036-5 {{isbn}}: ignored ISBN errors (link), released online
2005 29 Books Reprint of 1927 Dil Pickle edition. ISBN 0-9748567-2-X
2005 Dil Pickle Press Edited and annotated by Darrell W. Conder. ISBN 0-9728233-0-1
2008 Zem Books ISBN 978-1-329-41381-8
2009 Edition Esoterick German hardcover edition. ISBN 978-3-936830-31-6
2012 Kustantamo Vuohi Julkaisut Finnish edition. ISBN 978-952-92-9531-9
2014 Camion Noir French edition. ISBN 978-235779-620-1
2014 Aristeus Books, ed. Dragan Nikolic Second ed., eng. edn. ISBN 978-1682040232
2018 Zem Books Hardcover ed. ISBN 978-1-387-51811-1
2018 Noir Anthologie Spanish edition. ASIN B07DH2QWS8
2019 Underworld Amusements The Authoritative Edition, with intro by Peter H. Gilmore. ISBN 978-1943687251
2020 Pentabol N. E. Spanish Extended Edition. ISBN 978-0244274757
2021 Underworld Amusements 1927 Facsimile Edition. ISBN 978-1-943687-26-8

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Might Is Right

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
, subtitled The , is a polemical work published in 1890 under the pseudonym , advocating an anti-egalitarian philosophy rooted in and the supremacy of physical and intellectual power. The text rejects moral codes derived from or , positing instead that favors the strong who seize dominance through force, cunning, or superior ability, while decrying , , and as enfeebling illusions that hinder human vitality. The book's core arguments draw from observations of the animal kingdom and historical conquests, asserting that "right" resides solely in might, with victors defining retroactively and the weak deserving subjugation or elimination. Ragnar Redbeard, likely the New Zealand-born —a prolific using multiple aliases including political agitator and —crafted the in verse and to provoke Victorian-era norms, emphasizing perpetual struggle as life's essence and scorning or equal as suicidal. Reception has been polarizing, with endorsements from individualist anarchists and egoists for its unyielding , alongside influence on later figures like in shaping Satanist rejection of submissive , though critics have labeled it a for unchecked tyranny or proto-fascist brutality. Despite scarce mainstream academic analysis—potentially due to institutional aversion to its raw challenge to progressive orthodoxies—the work persists in niche circles valuing its unflinching appraisal of power dynamics over sanitized moral narratives.

Publication History

Initial Publication and Early Editions

Might Is Right, subtitled The , first appeared in under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard, with the precise date of initial publication debated among scholars and bibliographers. Some accounts point to a private, typewritten edition limited to 25 copies circulated in 1890, while the commonly cited first public printing occurred in 1896, producing 1,000 copies sold within six months through small-scale distributors. This underground approach stemmed from the book's incendiary rejection of egalitarian ideals and advocacy of raw power dynamics, which deterred mainstream publishers and prompted evasion of potential via or obscure presses. Early distribution relied on niche outlets, including Thurland & Thurland in , and Ross's Book Service in , , reflecting the work's appeal to fringe intellectual circles amid late 19th-century social Darwinist fervor. By the 1920s, five distinct early editions had emerged, encompassing variants such as proof copies from 1895 (100 copies) and subsequent reprints in (1900, 2,000 copies via Eagle & Serpent Publishing) and multi-city releases in 1903 (10,000 copies from original plates). These versions occasionally featured textual differences alongside consistent poetic interludes—verses attributed to Redbeard interspersed between prose chapters—preserving the book's rhythmic, polemical structure despite limited print runs and sporadic availability. The 1927 by Chicago's Dil Pickle Press marked a notable preservation effort among pre-modern iterations, underscoring the text's endurance through adversarial reception.

Modern Reprints and Authoritative Editions

Interest in Might Is Right revived in the late through niche and underground publishers seeking to preserve its polemical content amid limited mainstream distribution. By the , facsimile reproductions of early editions, such as the 1927 version, emerged from specialized presses like Underworld Amusements, facilitating access for researchers and enthusiasts. Digital preservation efforts enhanced accessibility, with scans of historical editions uploaded to platforms like the , including a edition digitized for public borrowing and download. These online archives, operational since the early , have hosted multiple variants, enabling textual comparison without physical copies. A landmark in modern scholarship is the 2019 authoritative edition published by Amusements, which harmonizes textual variants from the five original printings (1890–1927) into a single, annotated volume with an introduction by . This edition, followed by a second printing in 2020, includes indexing and contextual notes to address inconsistencies in prior reprints. As of 2024, physical copies remain available through commercial retailers such as , reflecting sustained demand via print-on-demand and stock listings despite the book's controversial status. Other variants, including leather-bound reprints from 2017, circulate through secondary markets like , underscoring ongoing efforts to maintain the text's integrity.

Authorship

The Ragnar Redbeard Pseudonym

The pseudonym "Ragnar Redbeard" was selected for the 1890 Chicago edition of Might Is Right, evoking Norse Viking heritage through references to legendary figures like , with the "redbeard" descriptor symbolizing primal ferocity and unyielding strength. This alias aligned closely with the text's exaltation of pagan vigor and dominance, contrasting sharply against prevailing ideals of and equality, thereby reinforcing the book's core motifs without revealing the author's personal details. Anonymity under this pen name facilitated the work's underground dissemination amid an era of heightened scrutiny over provocative literature, as the enforced stringent obscenity regulations via the 1873 Comstock Act, which criminalized the mailing of materials judged obscene, lewd, or tending to corrupt public morals. Given Might Is Right's blistering assaults on , , and religious —phrased in inflammatory, poetic verse that could be construed as seditious or morally corrosive—the pseudonym provided a shield against potential legal interdiction, social ostracism, or vigilante backlash in a society intolerant of challenges to Victorian norms. No authenticated claim of authorship surfaced during the writer's lifetime, a factor that entrenched the Ragnar Redbeard identity as a legendary construct, detached from verifiable and enhancing the book's reputation as a spectral of radical individualism. This veil of obscurity not only preserved the text's propagation through private networks and reprints but also invited perpetual conjecture, positioning the as an integral emblem of the philosophy's elusive, indomitable essence.

Primary Theories and Evidence

The leading hypothesis attributes the authorship of Might Is Right to , a New Zealand-born radical activist and writer (1859–1929), based on biographical alignments, shared pseudonyms, and overlapping publications. Desmond's peripatetic life, including residence in , the (notably , site of the 1896 first edition), and involvement in labor agitation and politics, parallels the text's militant advocacy for individual power against egalitarian norms. His documented use of multiple aliases for polemical works on and critique of further supports this link, as Might Is Right exhibits stylistic and thematic continuity with Desmond's known tracts, such as poems and essays decrying and promoting hierarchical . A key piece of evidence is Desmond's 1896 pamphlet The Survival of the Fittest, which shares subtitle elements and content motifs with early serializations of Might Is Right (initially titled The Survival of the Fittest; or, Might is Right), suggesting it as a precursor or variant edition produced under the Ragnar Redbeard pseudonym. Researchers like Darrell W. Conder have cataloged these connections through archival traces of Desmond's printing activities and radical network affiliations, though definitive manuscript proof remains elusive due to the era's pseudonymous publishing practices. Alternative theories include attribution to Jack London, proposed by Anton LaVey in the 1969 Satanic Bible and echoed in some white nationalist circles, but this lacks substantiation and is undermined by chronological and stylistic discrepancies. London, aged 20 at the book's 1896 publication, had not yet established his literary career, and forensic prose comparisons reveal mismatches in London's narrative versus Redbeard's unyielding anti-egalitarianism. Speculation of multiple authorship arises from observed tonal shifts and prose variations within the text, such as abrupt transitions from poetic verse to prosaic diatribes, prompting analyses suggesting collaborative input or heavy editing across editions. Stylometric examinations, though preliminary, identify at least two distinct authorial voices, potentially reconciling core contributions with uncredited revisions by associates in Chicago's anarchist printing scene. Other conjectures, such as (Irish nationalist, d. 1891) or supernatural "devil-inspired" origins, stem from anecdotal 1890s press rumors or satirical commentary and are dismissed for chronological impossibility and absence of thematic or documentary ties; Parnell's parliamentary focus contrasts sharply with the book's atheistic .

Core Philosophy and Themes

Central Thesis of Power and Survival

Might Is Right asserts that "might is right" constitutes the fundamental empirical governing , discernible in the predatory dynamics of world and the patterns of human conquest throughout . The text observes that in kingdom, superior strength enables predation and dominance, with weaker organisms serving as sustenance or subjects, unmitigated by any postulated universal or ethical constraints. This principle extends to affairs, where vigorous tribes and empires have repeatedly subjugated and supplanted inferior groups through force, rendering claims to abstract, inalienable as mere fictions unsupported by causal or precedent. Central to this thesis is the invocation of Darwinian , wherein the "" operates as an inexorable process that rewards adaptive power and condemns frailty to oblivion. Weakness, portrayed not as an external imposition but as a consequence of inherent deficiencies or to cultivate prowess, precipitates self-extinction by inviting exploitation from the capable. The book contends that evolutionary history demonstrates no sympathy for the vanquished; instead, the proliferation of strong lineages occurs precisely through the elimination of the unfit, establishing power as the sole validator of legitimacy. The work advocates for the primacy of individual vigor over submissive adherence to collective constructs, which it depicts as enfeebling artifices that foster dependency and erode . Through a blend of polemical and verse, such as declarations that "the tender lamb roasts on the spit" while predators thrive unbound, the derides postures of victimhood and urges emulation of nature's ruthless efficacy for personal ascendancy. This foundational argument frames power not as a accident but as the causal essence of endurance and expansion.

Critiques of Morality, Altruism, and Religion

In Might Is Right, Ragnar Redbeard contends that conventional morality, including notions of universal rights and ethical altruism, constitutes a fraudulent inversion of natural hierarchies, serving to empower the weak at the expense of the strong. He asserts that "Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might," dismissing altruistic imperatives like turning the other cheek as the hallmark of cowardice, labeling adherents "cowardly dogs—Christian dogs." Such doctrines, Redbeard argues, undermine egoistic self-assertion and predatory competition, which he portrays as essential to robust human conduct, thereby fostering dependency and decay among the capable. Redbeard portrays as a paradigmatic "slave " that glorifies the meek and submissive, inverting the valor of pagan which demanded retaliation—"smash him back and lay him low, for , and woe for woe." He derides as an "impotent mob-redeemer" and "Hebrew Madman," the "true prince of Evil—the king of the Slaves," whose teachings fetter the strong with pity and , as evidenced in scriptural calls to love enemies and abandon worldly power. In contrast, pre-Christian traditions upheld might as the arbiter of , unencumbered by what Redbeard terms the "fettering" influence of Christs designed to control the foolish. This critique extends to Judaism's scriptures, which he warns contain "eternal damnation" for those seeking authentic strength. The text rejects democratic equality and as egalitarian fictions that enthrone the unfit through "forceless votes of meek-eyed thralls," equating with the tyranny of the weak over natural aristocrats. Redbeard links these ideologies to , terming the realm of the "Divine Democrat" and a product of "majority-box" that perpetuates mongrelism and enervates society. He advocates restoring an aristocratic order where reflects unyielding power, scorning equality as a biological and historical unfit for superior races or individuals.

Natural Law, Evolution, and Human Nature

In Might Is Right, Ragnar Redbeard applies principles of , particularly , to human societies, positing that progress arises from unrelenting and dominance rather than cooperation or mutual aid. Drawing on Darwin's concept of , Redbeard argues that superior organisms survive, propagate, and possess while inferior ones perish or are subjugated, with strife serving as the fundamental driver of advancement: "Strife is the PARENT of things." He contends that must extend "to the death" to yield beneficial outcomes, as moderated rivalry fosters indolence and stagnation, whereas victorious struggle renews strength and selects for the toughest traits. This causal mechanism, rooted in biological imperatives, extends to societal dynamics, where the "—the Toughest" dictates evolutionary logic across time. Redbeard portrays human nature as inherently predatory and combative, with individuals acting as "carnivorous predators" driven by instincts for conquest and . Humans, described as "the fiercest, most ferocious, most cunning, and most bloodthirsty of all the vertebrates," naturally prey upon the weaker, with constituting an "eternal battle" marked by pitiless : "The struggle between men is more pitiless, and more unmerciful, than among brutes." This predatory essence manifests in strategic aggression, where the strong enslave others on pragmatic terms, and even favors traits like "Strength, energy-of-character, ferocity, and courage." is dismissed as unnatural and transient among carnivores, potentially transforming the world into a "festering ‘hell fenced in’" if pursued as a universal ethic, underscoring that , not , aligns with causal realities of . Laws and rights, in Redbeard's framework, emerge solely as products of conquest and superior force, not divine ordinance, rational consent, or abstract justice. He asserts that "All Law is now and ever has been, the mandate of successful belligerents," with legal systems originating in "Robbery under arms" that laid the foundations of courts and empires. Historical precedents illustrate this: the began as "a gang of banditti" whose s imposed rights through victory; the Norman invasion of England in 1066 established feudal hierarchies via military dominance; and figures like invoked natural sovereignty to justify plundering in 390 BCE. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution is framed as a mechanism of conquest rather than egalitarian design, while empires like those of Caesar and Cromwell demonstrate that "All the Regal Houses of the world have been founded by fighting-men," with rights functioning as "spoils of exerted might" abrogated only by greater power. Civilization's imposition of moral restraints and preservation of the unfit disrupts these natural processes, engendering and through biological and historical causation. Redbeard warns that softening via and ethical codes promotes "personal ," , and luxury, as seen in the downfall of dozens of civilizations where " and weaken societies" by thwarting selection: "dozens of civilizations have perished... BECAUSE of the spreading canker of personal ." This enervation stems from submissiveness eroding physical and mental vigor, with amplifying weakness across generations, ultimately rendering once-dominant powers vulnerable to fresher, more aggressive challengers. Thus, renewal demands reversion to primal struggle, as "Great and powerful governments... come into existence only in ages of ," but enduring vitality requires the harsh of conflict.

Reception

Contemporary Responses (Late 19th to Early 20th Century)

Upon its publication in 1890, Might Is Right elicited limited mainstream commentary owing to its obscurity and inflammatory tone, though it provoked intrigue and debate in fringe radical and freethinking outlets. A December 1897 review in The New Times, a Chicago-based periodical, highlighted the book's assault on egalitarian altruism, religious dogma, and democratic ideals, framing its central tenet—"Might is Right" as the unyielding law of nature and history—as a bold counter to prevailing sociological orthodoxies. The reviewer likened its provocative style to that of and , speculating on the author's identity as possibly a professor or even , while noting a German translation by anthropologist Otto Ammon. In individualist anarchist circles, the text resonated for its rejection of moral constraints in favor of raw power assertions. It appeared in listings associated with Benjamin Tucker's Liberty publication records, reflecting circulation among egoist and anti-statist readers who valued its unyielding naturalism. Religious critics, however, decried its anti-Christian polemics; Reverend J. Q. Henry reportedly attributed its origins to diabolical inspiration, underscoring outrage over its scorn for biblical ethics and calls for predatory self-assertion. By the early 1910s, underground endorsement grew among labor radicals, particularly within the (IWW). Activist Covington Hall adapted verses from the book's poetry in Direct Action, the IWW's official organ, across issues from January 31, 1914, to May 1, 1915, invoking "Might is Right" to rally railway workers against managerial tyranny and timid unionism, portraying class conflict as an arena of unrelenting force. The IWW's One Big Union Monthly similarly quoted passages, integrating the work's survival-of-the-fittest rhetoric into advocacy for militant over reformist compromise, though this alignment drew implicit pushback from more egalitarian socialists wary of its disdain for collective . Such responses evidenced a niche appeal amid broader neglect, with the text fueling debates on power's primacy without penetrating wider intellectual discourse.

Criticisms from Ethical and Egalitarian Perspectives

Critics from ethical perspectives, particularly those aligned with deontological traditions, contend that "Might Is Right" undermines universal moral principles by subordinating right to power, echoing Thrasymachus's argument in Plato's Republic that justice is merely the interest of the stronger, which Socrates refutes by demonstrating that even rulers benefit more from justice than from arbitrary might. This view posits that ethical norms, such as Kant's categorical imperative requiring actions to be universalizable irrespective of empirical strength, establish rights independent of dominance hierarchies, rendering Redbeard's thesis a relativistic fallacy that conflates is with ought. Utilitarian objections, drawing from thinkers like , argue that pure adherence to might fosters chronic instability and suboptimal welfare, as unchecked power incentivizes betrayal, vendettas, and , whereas reciprocal —evident in repeated interactions modeled by —yields higher long-term utility for participants. Empirical data from historical tyrannies, such as the short-lived reigns of despots compared to enduring constitutional republics (e.g., the ' 248-year continuity versus ancient empires averaging under 250 years per Glubb's analysis of 11 civilizations), is cited to claim that might-dominated systems collapse under their own weight, ignoring how moral restraints enable sustainable order. Egalitarian critiques, prevalent in academia and media outlets with documented left-leaning biases that prioritize constructed equality over biological realism, charge the text with endorsing , , and brutality by framing racial hierarchies and dimorphism as evolutionary mandates justifying subjugation, as seen in passages scorning "inferior" races and women's purported weakness. These interpreters associate Redbeard's ideas with and , arguing they dismiss cooperative human feats—like the Industrial Revolution's productivity gains through division of labor rather than conquest alone—as anomalies, yet such views often sidestep causal evidence from showing kin altruism and reciprocal alliances as adaptations enhancing group fitness amid competition, not negating might's role. While these egalitarian objections highlight potential societal costs of unbridled , they frequently overlook how egalitarian interventions, such as affirmative policies, have empirically reduced merit-based outcomes in metrics like standardized testing disparities persisting despite decades of equalization efforts.

Endorsements and Positive Receptions

Admirers within egoist and individualist circles have endorsed Might Is Right for its forthright rejection of altruistic moralities in favor of power as the arbiter of human affairs, viewing it as a corrective to societal illusions of equality. Sidney E. Parker, an egoist writer, praised the work in his 1982 introduction to a reprint edition for its "crude vigor" in dismantling "religious, moral and political superstitions" and for articulating the "frankest and most powerful" defense of , where rights derive solely from might rather than normative constructs. This aligns with egoist emphases on self-sovereignty and empirical dominance over fictive ethical constraints. The book's alignment with Nietzschean priorities of strength, , and critique of slave moralities has garnered support from interpreters of , who see it as exemplifying the ideal through unvarnished . It has been positioned as a key American exponent of Nietzsche's philosophy, prioritizing vital power dynamics over egalitarian "weakness-worship" and democratic dilutions of excellence. Reception in strength-affirming philosophies, such as , highlights its influence on doctrines celebrating carnal self-interest and rejection of meekness. Anton Szandor LaVey dedicated (1969) to Ragnar Redbeard as one "whose might is right," drawing on the text's advocacy for predatory to underpin Satanic tenets of and superiority. leaders have since reaffirmed this affinity, incorporating its themes into rituals and writings that exalt empirical conquest over sentimental pieties.

Influence and Legacy

Impact on Egoism, Individualism, and Social Darwinism

"Might Is Right" reinforced egoist philosophy by echoing Max Stirner's critique of moral abstractions as "spooks" that constrain the unique individual, instead privileging raw self-interest and power as the basis for action. Redbeard argued that ethical systems serve to subjugate the strong to the weak, aligning with Stirner's assertion that "might is right" when derived from the ego's own will rather than external sanctions. This emphasis on the sovereign self, unbound by altruism or collective duties, positioned the book as a radical affirmation of egoism's core tenet that the individual owes nothing to phantoms of duty or equality. In the realm of individualism, the text inspired a rejection of state-enforced altruism and democratic egalitarianism, portraying them as inversions of natural hierarchy where the capable are shackled to prop up the incompetent. Redbeard advocated for "complete bodily and mental self-mastership," defining liberty not as abstract rights but as proprietorship over one's power and possessions, free from coercive institutions. This contributed to individualist anarchist circles by framing society as a arena for personal conquest rather than mutual aid, influencing early discussions among egoists who viewed enforced sharing as a violation of the proprietor's natural dominion. The book's subtitle, "The Survival of the Fittest," directly advanced social Darwinist thought by applying evolutionary principles to human relations, asserting that unmerited equality disrupts the natural order of and dominance. Redbeard contended that life constitutes a "war of each against all," where mastership emerges from superior strength, rendering egalitarian reforms anti-evolutionary and doomed to weaken the species. This perspective reinforced social Darwinism's causal view that societal progress stems from the triumph of the fit, not compassionate leveling, influencing interpretations that prioritized hierarchical realism over idealistic uniformity.

Connections to Modern Thinkers and Movements

, founder of the in 1966, incorporated substantial material from Might Is Right into "The Book of Satan," the polemical opening of (1969), adapting its rhetoric on power, hierarchy, and rejection of altruism to underscore Satanic self-deification and the primacy of individual will over egalitarian ethics. LaVey explicitly endorsed the text by authoring the for its 1996 reprint edition, positioning it as a foundational critique of weakness and moral illusions that aligns with Satanism's advocacy for carnal strength and unapologetic dominance. In 20th- and 21st-century egoist revivals, Might Is Right is frequently cited as a post-Stirnerian manifesto exemplifying radical egoism through its exaltation of self-sovereignty and disdain for collective "spooks" like democracy and humanitarianism, with groups such as the Union of Egoists producing annotated editions that highlight its role in sustaining individualist defiance against modern statist and altruistic impositions. The book's Darwinian-infused rejection of imposed equality has echoed in libertarian and alternative right discourses since the late 20th century, where proponents reference it to contest egalitarian policies and political correctness as mechanisms that reward mediocrity over merit-based power dynamics, though it functions more as inspirational rhetoric than doctrinal core. Figures in dissident right circles, including white nationalist David Lane in the 1980s, drew on its themes to justify racial and hierarchical separatism as natural law, extending Redbeard's logic to contemporary identity-based power struggles.

Broader Cultural and Ideological Reverberations

The principles articulated in Might Is Right have echoed in cultural debates by underscoring the empirical primacy of power differentials over abstract notions of inherent equality or universal rights, as evidenced by historical patterns of where superior force dictated outcomes irrespective of moral assertions. For instance, during the from 1881 to 1914, European powers partitioned approximately 90% of the continent through military dominance and technological superiority, overriding indigenous claims and treaties without regard for egalitarian ideals. This aligns with causal observations of formation, where effective might—rather than consensus or ethical appeals—establishes enduring social orders, challenging narratives that posit equality as a natural default absent coercive enforcement. Such reverberations have fueled controversies, particularly associations with fringe ideologies, where the text is invoked by groups emphasizing racial or hierarchical supremacy, leading organizations like the to describe it as a racist and antisemitic work emblematic of white nationalist rhetoric. However, these linkages often conflate the book's amoral realism with prescriptive extremism, ignoring empirical precedents like the Mongol Empire's 13th-century expansions under , which conquered over 24 million square kilometers through raw military efficacy, reshaping demographics and governance without deference to victimhood narratives. Mainstream critiques, frequently amplified by institutions with documented ideological tilts, frame such validations as endorsements of brutality, yet they sidestep the observable fact that power asymmetries, not declarations, have historically resolved territorial and resource disputes. In digital dissident spheres, the work persists as a counterpoint to hegemonic equality doctrines, circulating in anonymous forums where users cite its rejection of altruism to dissect real-world dominance hierarchies, often preceding incidents like the 2019 , in which the perpetrator referenced the book online. This online endurance resists portrayals in legacy media as unadulterated , instead fostering discourse on unvarnished causal mechanisms—such as how Viking raids from the 8th to 11th centuries secured Scandinavian influence via superior seafaring and weaponry, yielding settlements from to despite ethical condemnations. By privileging these patterns, the text sustains ideological friction, prompting reevaluation of sanitized histories that prioritize rights over the mechanics of survival and ascendancy.

References

  1. https://staging.asyoulikeitshop.com/Resources/YA4FTa/1OK028/might-is-right__ragnar_redbeard.pdf
  2. https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/mightisrightragnarredbeard_201908/Might%2520is%2520Right%2520-%2520Ragnar%2520Redbeard_text.pdf
  3. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sidney-e-parker-ragnar-redbeard-and-the-right-of-might
  4. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/might-is-right-a-unique-publication
  5. https://churchofsatan.com/ragnar-redbeard-revealed/
  6. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/arthur-desmond-the-man-with-hundred-identities
  7. https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/nov/25/ragnar-redbeard-in-america-20181125/
  8. https://churchofsatan.com/anton-lavey-and-the-right-of-might/
  9. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2020/08/instructive-bad-reading-part-one-dissecting-fascism-with-the-help-of-might-is-right.html
  10. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/might-is-right-in-the-labour-leader-1897
  11. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/might-is-right
  12. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/might-is-right-ragnar-redbeard/1137973583
  13. https://underworldamusements.com/products/sa1205-might-is-right-1927-facsimile-leaf-ragnar-redbeard-ltd-ed
  14. https://underworldamusements.com/products/might-is-right-ragnar-redbeard
  15. https://archive.org/details/mightisright0000unse
  16. https://archive.org/details/might-is-right-by-ragnar-redbeard
  17. https://www.ebay.com/itm/167754936118
  18. https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-bad-canon-might-is-right/
  19. https://time.com/4373765/history-obscenity-united-states-films-miller-ulysses-roth/
  20. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201854563/mark-derby-ragnar-redbeard
  21. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/847/adt-NU20020722.19202507chapter6.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y
  22. https://www.unionofegoists.com/2019/08/18/manly-p-hall-name-drops-ragnar-redbeard-1927/
  23. https://dokumen.pub/might-is-right-or-the-survival-of-the-fittest-0972823301-9780972823302.html
  24. https://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/lewis.htm
  25. https://ia600109.us.archive.org/27/items/mightisrightragnarredbeard_201908/Might%2520is%2520Right%2520-%2520Ragnar%2520Redbeard_text.pdf
  26. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16h9gjr/is_there_proof_beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_that/
  27. https://dilpicklepress.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/might-is-right-1896-ed.pdf
  28. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/ragnar-redbeard-quotes-and-sayings
  29. https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/mightisrightragnarredbeard_201908/Might%20is%20Right%20-%20Ragnar%20Redbeard_text.pdf
  30. https://www.scribd.com/document/294282668/Might-is-Right-Excerpts
  31. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/the-new-times-reviews-might-is-right
  32. https://archives.nypl.org/3040
  33. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/direct-action-railway-workers
  34. https://www.unionofegoists.com/2019/05/30/ragnar-redbeard-and-the-industrial-workers-of-the-world/
  35. https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/Darwin_Meets_Socrates
  36. https://www.northwestern.edu/onebook/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/essays/darwin-morality.html
  37. https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/05/oddballs-of-english-philosophy/
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00191-024-00862-w
  39. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/issues/social-darwinism-poor/
  40. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/48495/pg48495-images.html
  41. https://www.ragnarredbeard.com/rebel-philosopher-max-stirner
  42. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002919219
  43. https://churchofsatan.com/interview-mf-magazine/
  44. https://www.unionofegoists.com/journals/stand-alone-2016/
  45. https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-10-2017/radical-the-story-of-arthur-desmond
  46. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/jnzs/article/download/4106/3636/5328
  47. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/118279410/white-supremacists-satanists-and-terrorists-the-true-story-of-nzs-hideous-virus-of-a-book
  48. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/imperialism-conquest-mass-murder
  49. https://extremearturo.medium.com/hate-in-gilroy-california-4b9a01527e08
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.