With the power elite transforming every square inch of the planet into a battleground, people of Northern European descent need their own warrior book. Why, everybody else seems to have theirs, so in the name of multiculturalism, let the inquiry begin.

Next to the LaFondian canon, may I recommend “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest,” by Ragnar Redbeard. Just to warm up though, get some background music playing:

And, you could listen to this while driving your cement mixer,semi or Mad Max vehicle:

Here is Ragnar’s signature poem, dripping testosterone:

“Might was right when Caesar bled

Upon the stones of Rome,

Might was right when Genghis led

His hordes over Danube's foam,

And might was right when German troops

Poured down through Paris way,

It's the gospel of the ancient world

And the logic of today.

Behind all kings and presidents -

All government and law,

Are army-corps and cannoneers -

To hold the world in awe.

And sword-strong races own the earth,

And ride the conqueror's car -

And liberty has never been won

Except by deeds of war.

What are the lords of hoarded gold -

The silent Semite rings?

What are the plunder-patriots -

High-pontiffs, priests and kings?

What are they but bold master-minds,

Best fitted for the fray who comprehend

And vanquish by - the logic of today.

Cain's knotted club is scepter still -

The "right of man" is fraud:

Christ's ethics are for creeping things -

True manhood smiles at "god".

For might is right when empires sink

In storms of steel and flame;

And it is right when weakling breeds -

Are hunted down like game.

Then what's the use of dreaming dreams -

That "each shall get his own"?

By forceless votes of meek-eyed thralls,

Who blindly sweat and moan? no!

A curse is on their cankered brains -

Their very bones decay

Trace your fate in the iron game,

It's the logic of today.

The strong must ever rule the weak,

Is grim primordial law -

On earth's broad racial threshing floor,

The meek are beaten straw -

Then ride to power o'er foemen's necks

Let nothing bar your way:

If you are fit you'll rule and reign,

Is the logic of today.

You must prove you're right by deeds of might -

Of splendor and reknown.

If need be, march through flames of hell,

To dash opponents down - if need be,

Die on scaffold high -

In the morning's misty grey:

For "liberty or death" is still the logic of today.

Might was right when Gideon led

The "chosen" tribes of old,

And it was right when Titus burnt,

Their temple roofed with gold:

And might was right from Bunker's hill,

To far Manilla bay,

By land and flood it's wrote in blood -

The gospel of today.

"Put not your trust in princes"

Is a saying old and true,

"Put not your hope in governments"

Translateth it anew.

All "books of law" and "golden rules"

Are fashioned to betray:

"The survival of the strongest"

Is the gospel of today.

Might was right when Carthage flames

Lit up the punic foam -

And when the naked steel of Gaul

Weighed down the spoil of Rome;

And might was right when Richmond fell -

And at Thermopylae -

It's the logic of the ancient world -

And the gospel of today.

Where pendant suns in millions swing,

Around this whirling earth,

It's might, it's force that holds the brakes,

And steers through death and birth:

Force governs all organic life,

Inspires all right and wrong.

It's nature's plan to weed-out man,

And test who are the strong.”

As well, here is another prose sample, which will give all Darwinist survivalist nutjobbers a hard-on or three:

“ALL ELSE IS ERROR The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into a perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the heritage of previous generations. This “condition of combat” may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it. It rules all things; it governs all things; it reigns over all things and it decides all who imagine policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquillity, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine.”

The chapter titles contain more of the high quality Darwinist goodness:

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTORY .................................................................................. The living forces of Evil are to be found in the Moral Ideals of to-day.

CHAPTER II: ICONOCLASTIC ................................................................................. Christian Ethics impeached. Jesus, the true Prince of Evil — the Mephistopheles of the world — the King of the Slaves.

CHAPTER III: THE SPINNING-OF-THE-WEB!....................................................... The spinning of the web. The Ship of State, a pirate ship. ‘All men are created equal,’ is the strident doctrine of the maniac.

CHAPTER IV: MAN — THE CARNIVORE! ............................................................ Man the Carnivore. The Ideal Animal, a destructive warrior — not a crucified carpenter. “Moral Principles” are slave-regulations.

CHAPTER V: THE CHIEF END OF MANHOOD.....................................................The chief end of manhood — material success. Self preservation, the First Law of Nature. Hell takes the Defeated Ones — the Failures.

CHAPTER VI: LOVE, AND WOMEN, AND WAR. ............................................... - Love and Women and War. Female animals love the best fighting males. Sexual selection and the necessity of unmerciful conflict.

CHAPTER VI: THE LOGIC OF TO-DAY................................................................

If Freddy Nietzsche had hair on his scrotum, this is the sort of book he should have written:

I am disappointed; I really liked the madness from syphilis explanation, instead of the McCain one.

Naturally Redbeard has had his critics. In the Loompanics version of the text S. E. Parker, gives an often-cited criticism in his introduction (pp. iv-vi). Redbeard, it is argued eschews moral codes, seeing them as, to use modern lingo, social constructions, what is “natural” is “right” and that is contradictory. Likewise, if all beings are “differentiated egos,” then why should such beings accept the ideal of following natural laws? Parker, also mentions that nature is a “mental construct, not a fact,” following the trendy sociology of today.

First, nature is not a mental construct, because the mind of human primates is just matter, as shown each day in slaughterhouses created by the same ideology which has given us social constructionism. If nature was a mental construct, then sacred social entities such as minorities and refugees are also mental constructs, and then could we not think them away.

The rejection of morality is the rejection of the traditional universalistic system of supposed justified propositions given to us by Christianity and liberalism, and is thus a form of moral nihilism:

that moral propositions are not justified, or true, as there are no moral facts. It is still possible to claim that living in accordance with natural principles, while not morally right, is still in one’s biological interests, as it promotes survival value. Ragnar would not argue about whether or not survival was a “good” thing or not, because he rejected the ultra-rationalist masturbatory game of philosophy, requiring a reasoned justification for everything. In this respect, his position is more in tune with contemporary psychology, which has seen humans as limited in reasoning capacity, and more irrational than rational because of unending cognitive errors:

So, Redbeard is not inconsistently saying that it is morally right to embrace the natural way, but instead is rejecting the conventional moral way of thinking, and only referring to utility as a guide for action.

Parker claims that Redbeard is inconsistent in rejecting moral codes, such as in Christianity and liberalism, but criticizes female promiscuity and sexual degeneracy “in a language redolent of the very Christian morality he so fiercely attacks elsewhere.”(p. v) But, again, this is not a valid argument against him, because the mere shape of language does not determine its content and truth value. The actions of women are seen as having deleterious survival implications, which produce numerous harms, not moral harms, but physical ones. As such, the condemnation proceeds from there. Morality has nothing to do with it. Look, just think utilitarianism, but wipe away all of the moral talk. Replace it with “interests,” and bingo, there you have it, consistency, and balls in one package. Thank you expensive university education that took forever to pay off.

Parker’s master argument is that old Ragnar is a “racist,” believing that his tribe of Anglo Saxons is superior, which would have been a common belief back in 1896, when the book was first published. Oh, the fuckin’ shock and horror. Parker then, gloatingly proclaims that given the might is right philosophy, there can be no objection by Ragnar to non-Anglos grabbing power, which they have certainly done. That, however, is not an objection, since Ragnar would accept the implication. It does not follow that he would like it, or support it, and no doubt would urge his tribe to fight. But, if they do not, they will perish, as they now are. And, under present conditions, this existential threat exists totally regardless of all moral considerations. In fact, all that we write about at this site confirms the Redbeard view. Universalism is killing us, while aiding the Other. The “racial compact” is non-existent: www.racialcompact.com/.

Parker and others say that the fundamental contradiction in Redbeard’s position is that there is no “rights” outside the “might” of the individual. That interpretation arises from taking passages of text out of context. Nothing prevents Redbeardians from embracing all the results of evolutionary biology, seeing human as tribal creatures, and putting a value on tribe survival, not a moral value, but a life value. It is hard for normies to operate in a scenario where their sacred universalistic values, and moral talk, are abandoned.

After writing that I came across this quote from N. Glazer and D. P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot, which may explain how other sub-races, other than Nordics, accept particularism and reject universalism with no problems at all, with an attractive life as well:

“Edward C. Banfield has named the characteristic outlook of a small southern Italian village “amoral familism.” According to this outlook, one owes nothing to anyone outside one’s family, and effort should advance only the family…the content of this moral code remains basically the same among Italian immigrants to America. One should not trust strangers, and may advance one’s interest at the cost of strangers. Also, one does not interfere with strangers’ business. One therefore tolerates the breaking of law by others (leaving aside the fact that it might be dangerous to do otherwise)…” It is enough to make me want to eat an entire family size pizza, washed down with a big glass of olive oil.

Roosh v:

in an otherwise intelligent review, also falls for this criticism, in quoting Ragnar: “Woe unto those who stumble! Woe unto Ye who fall!” This is a warning about what happens to the weak, and it is true. It is not saying that if one slips, one deserves to die. “Deserves,” a moral term, has nothing to do with it. He is not saying that someone who bends over to tie a shoelace, therefore deserves to be butchered by an attacker, but only that if one blindly lives in “condition white,” ( , in a dark world, expect that. But, good old Roosh eventually gets it right in the end, which is all that matters:

“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…. 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.”

That, is an excellent interpretation of the work, which makes sense of it, unlike the cheap pseudo-refutation given by Parker. Here is another good summary:

but more philosophy types wanking on:

Here is a review of “Might is Right,” which sees some of the consequences of rejecting universalism:

A more philosophical piece addressing Western civilization decline, along with the Faustian man theme is:

but this book still has training wheels on it. Still a good read though.

Let’s go out with a slice of poetry:

Who would remember Helen’s face

Lacking the terrible halo of spears?

Who formed Christ but Herod and Caesar,

The cruel and bloody victories of Caesar?

Violence, the bloody sire of all the world’s values.

From: “Bloody Sire,” Robinson Jeffers (1887-1962)

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

.