/lit/ - Literature

>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.The book also contains anti-Christian and anti-Semitic statements.
cringe
no thanks

Is it even real? Can't find it on amazon.

Why would I read a book with a title that refutes itself? Might and who wields it is subjective, therefore right is necessarily subjective, which makes the statement "might is right" nonsensical, since it's an inherently subjective state.

>>16460043
--American, 2020

>>16460047
Also, I'm going to assume his point is that all laws necessitate an expression of "might", therefore all that matters is "might" and who wields it, as those are the ones who create and enforce law. In essence, an inferior, myopic version of Nietzsche's will to power.

>>16460061
>ackthually nietzche, a mentally ill failure is far better than Redbeard

>>16460028
lol what if it was actually true though?
would you not even give it a chance

>>16460080
There's not a single (not one) person who ever caught a glimpse of the truth without turning to madness

>>16460083
The Anglos were raped by the French for centuries. They're not superior. They're also currently being pimped by the Jews. And being anti-Christian is a deal breaker. What else is there but behaving like a wild animal for him?

>>16460056
Jokes on you, I was pretending!

>>16460043
its public domain
here
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bNo3aW3QZ6nXpdlGU453vAGjtUk1OpLE?usp=sharing
contains audiobook as well as PDF

>>16460088
>And being anti-Christian is a deal breaker. What else is there but behaving like a wild animal for him?
Are you seriously this stupid?

>>16460088
>What else is there but behaving like a wild animal for him?
thats a good question!
maybe you should read the book to find out?

>>16460088
you can decide if its wrong AFTER you actually read the damn thing

seriously its only 100 pages long
do you not like reading?
what the hell are you doing here?

>>16460096

>>16460047
>Might and who wields it is subjective
No
>therefore right is necessarily subjective
therefore no
>which makes the statement "might is right" nonsensical since it's an inherently subjective state
which makes your conclusion nonsensical since it's completely based on false premises

>>16460047
>Might and who wields it is subjective, therefore right is necessarily subjective
thats kinda the point of the book

>>16460119
>seriously its only 100 pages long
Are your stupid?

>>16460009
If this book was true there would be no need to write it

>>16460096
tbf, if we are going by might is right Christianity has historically been pretty right through its might.

>A man’s opportunities are never exhausted so long as other men (who are not his friends) possess millions of acres and thousands of tons of gold.
Stealing is nigger tier. Only niggers steal. See: Every US chimpout.
>Virtue is rewarded in this world, remember. Natural law makes no false judgments. Its decisions are true and just, even when dreadful. 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?
This larping faggot lived in some Viking fantasy rapefest. Wars are not even like this anymore. Outdated line of thinking.
>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.
Naturalistic fallacy. Rookie mistake.

Red beard is right that might is all that matters. Too bad anglos don’t have that anymore lol, the most recent expression of their “power” was seceding from the EU which they voluntarily joined

>>16460148
the PDF I sent was 102 pages long including a cover page as well as 5 pages you don't have to read

ONLY MIGHT IS RIGHT

but it’s also immoral and not nice that the jews control us through their superior IQ ):

>>16460153
>If this book was true there would be no need to write it
how

>>16460175
He was wrong. Power is all that matters. Might is not power, or else the Jews wouldn't control the world.

>>16460183
Again, are you stupid? Look again an the pdf and scroll through the pages. Notice something?

>>16460162
your missing the point

>>16460169
read the book cover to cover before making any false judgements

>To be right is to be natural, and to be natural is to be right.

>>16460192
because he’s implying that the current order isn’t fair bc it doesn’t favor those with might, when it actually does it’s just people you don’t like (jews, globohomos)

>>16460195
might and power same thing dude

>>16460198
yeah, each page has twice the amount of information on it
100 pages

>>16460203
Considering you've already read it, what's your true judgement?

>>16460212
>might and power same thing dude
Then the Jews are better than the Anglos, therefore the Anglos are not the best race, therefore he's wrong.

>>16460212
do you put this kind of scrutiny to everything?
are you a flattard

>>16460227
Yes he’s wrong about that but not about might being right. i said this in my first post dummy

>>16460198
No idiot, someone scanned the book. You wouldn't call a spread one page.

>>16460088
normans literally only impacted the upper class and rarely mixed with the anglo saxons
mutts mad

>>16460119
>it doesn't make sense and I can't defend it but it gets better after the first 100 pages
Garbage, dropped

>>16460237
Meant to quote this retard >>16460216

>>16460088
>>16460096
>>16460120
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST FOLLOW YOUR PRIMAL URGES AND INSTINCTS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW (((CIVILISATION))) AND (((CITIES))) AND BE A LOW T URBANITE BUGMAN

The >MUH JOOS retards ruined this thread.

>>16460240
You still got btfo by barbarians who got btfo by the french and then your ruling class got btfo again by the country who originally btfo them

>>16460250
primal urges are what create losers who just coom, intake calories, and consoom

audiobook link anyone?

>>16460250
Why are you typing or reading then?

>>16460250
Well, you can always join the niggers in Africa if you want to be a rabid animal.

>>16460220
the book is an important read
it is less of a lesson on things you don't know about and more of a wakeup call for things you do know about
the books english is outdated and so a lot of misconseptions that happen
however they are all easily explained away as things you already know by the end of the book

I which is why advise you to read the book cover to cover before making any judgements on it, it isn't that long.

trust the books information, what you do with it is up to you.

>>16460265
this is the people who read might is right

>>16460278
>trust the books information, what you do with it is up to you.
What can you realistically do with the book's information?

>>16460279
it's for his mighty ears KEK

>>16460258
>>16460263
>>16460272
>>16460276
>Y-YOU CAN'T be a barbaric savage who conquers and kills to survive. embrace pacifcity and peacefulness. embrace cities. embrace usury. embrace onions food. embrace 5G. embrace GMOs. Embrace the ZOG New World Order you uncultured barbarian!

>>16460312
Yes, you can, just take a flight to Africa, you nigger-hearted lunatic KEK

>>16460047

This. If what is here is right by being here and might is defined by the ability to be here, then the one defines the other that defines the one.

This is called a constructive paradox. You expect both to be attached to something outside like morality or physics, but when everything is inside, the terms reference each other back and forth.

It is a two sided circumlocution where both terms have to be defined from the outside instead of just one term from the outside as in regular circumlocution, which is just fundamentalism or axiomatic givens with extra steps.

>>16460237
no dude
it prints as one page, its one page

>>16460250
HOLY SHIT ITS EGOISM

>>16460325
Look at the page numbers at the bottom

>>16460047
survival is not subjective.

>>16460009
Might is not right, read the Bible (Douay-Rheims)

>>16460203
not really. power and might can be through many different avenues. if an idea replicates itself very successfully it is indeed mighty and therefor right. cultural might, phisical might political might. there are many forms of power.

>>16460265
I already posted it in >>16460095

>>16460323
I'm working on this in math but if x is the set of what is might and y is the set of what is right, and we're assuming might is right, or Mx and Ry, then (Mx and Ry) necessarily limit the variables so they're not free. So they're both bound by Mx and Ry which, I'm still working on it so feel free to correct me, makes it not a paradox, but I might be talking past you on some points.

>>16460279
yeah i'm retarded, why do you think i want to listen to this book

>>16460343
it prints as one page though

>>16460359
Surely you don't think truth period is might period because 1+1=2 doesn't reference might. So it's instead an intersection of the two which would be a new set MightRight.

>>16460370
I don't know, why learn from a book

>>16460323
>You expect both to be attached to something outside like morality or physics, but when everything is inside, the terms reference each other back and forth
Either I don't get what you're trying to say or you don't get Might is right. It is a moral statement. Like when the bible tells you what is right and wrong, this book tells you that having or getting might is right. So not having might is wrong. He says there are no innocent downtrodden people and being poor means being criminal. Only a powerful and rich life is a moral life.

edgy kid: the book, but for white man

>>16460377
That doesn't matter. You can't just divide every book with N pages by two and say it has N/2 pages, it would be stupid.

>>16460400
for the atheist anglo*

>>16460368

The whole argument of might makes right is a rhetorical exercise to "prove" or "disprove" morality, but it is pure nonsense and proves nothing.

You can’t use set theory for inclusion because the members of the set are dependent on each other, not objects that can stand on their own. In math terms they are asymmetric: neither set can be defined without the other. Kind of like if you defined pile and hole by digging a hole. If there is a hole there has to be a pile, but if there is a pile, then there has to be a hole. Pile and Hole cannot be defined by themselves if they are defined by each other unless you use an outside symmetry to see them.

The statement is subject to being here, So whatever is "here" defines BOTH might that got it, and RIGHT because it is here.

Might must be successful to be might, and right must come from might by your given that might makes right, so what is here is right, and it got here by might. Therefore anything that is here is right and defines the might that got made it here. Then the might that made it what is here then defines the right by being here. Over and over again….
So whatever is here defines both. a double circumlocution.
You could have as easily said, "what is here is here," and it left out all the might and right shit.

>>16460425

(cont)

Why it is a paradox is much harder to explain, but suffice it to say that what you think is paradox in math really isn't a paradox at all but a confusion built into the concept of "sameness"

In literature or philosophy, paradox is much simpler. It is the movement of narration inside a story that tries to see from two views simultaneously, thereby equivocating what is seen.

>>16460425
How you're explaining it they're antisymmetric in that both sets equal each other so are subsets but realistically necessarily Might isn't Right if for anything in how they're spelled. Taking away op and the author's error, we can examine it as it appears in reality which is they're both sets. Saying they're both sets and saying they're equivalent, which assumes they have are subsets of each other, we can assume a subset exists just that they're not might or right but an intersection of the two. It wouldn't matter what the author asserts because we can automatically check to see where they have the same elements and, given two sets necessarily make a new set in union, we can see whether it's a union of intersection or just a union.
Obviously my motivation is more in saying it's not a nonsensical statement just its export doesn't equal what might makes right fags, or the author believes.

>>16460445
that's fair, I'm this anon>>16460458

>>16460392

> moral statement

Exactly. For the one bringing in morality from the outside, might makes right is clearly wrong.

But for the one defining what is "right" by what is successful, and who defines "might" as the ability to get success, then the statement "might makes right" becomes nonsense, because anything that is here is therefore both "right" by being here, and "might" by how it got here, because it is here and "right" ... and so on and so on.

So if you bring in morality from the outside, the statement "might makes right" is just wrong. But if you go by what is here, then ANYTHING fits this statement.

Look up circumlocution on wiki and you'll see how a statement can move through a process of seeming rationality while proving nothing.

>>16460468
I don't get what you're trying to say by "what is here" and "from the outside". Why all this mental gymnastics?

>>16460323
thats kind of the point though
the point is that might does make right

because "right" doesn't exist, "Might" does

>>16460477
Not him but you posted the book moron or you're arguing for it. Might as well do it RIGHT

>>16460401
no dude its all one page its a pdf

>>16460491
But these are two pages, just side by side

>>16460379
>truth period
wut

>>16460513
cope faggot, if you can't read, don't read the damned book

>>16460468
>But for the one defining what is "right" by what is successful
That's not what right means. Right means according to nature. You can compare it to a religion where right means acting according to the rules of God, in this context right means acting according to the rules of nature. Everything in nature strive to be more, wants to evolve etc. So someone who lives his life this way will be rewarded.

>>16460533
Not him but if you're assigning right to what's in nature by means of might which is defined by moral action then that's a perfectly good definition

>>16460533
Your pic related is outdated thinking. Man bends nature to his liking these days and the future would be more like that. It was written in the late 1800s but not even the Romans were this silly.

>>16460532
i didnt, i just talked about the concept of might in its most basic form, which is a multifaceted one.

>>16460458
>>16460463

Okay.. I typed up a bunch of stuff before I realized that this is actually really hard to explain to someone who uses "sets" and "subsets" to order their world, and I don't know quite how to address this except to say that math allows paradox but philosophy does not and so they define paradox quite differently.

>>16460560
>Man bends nature to his liking these days
Just wait, my dude. The punishment will come

>>16460425
>>16460445
so what I understand is that you don't want to read it because you think its written poorly?
help me understand

>>16460504
it prints one page
all the words are on the same page

>>16460627
Doesn't matter, if you fold the pages and bind them to a book, there are two pages instead of one

>>16460563
If it's multi faceted then it's badly defined. If it has a lot of implications we can find them out and we have, they're limited.

>>16460574
I'm still learning so not into model theory or types, sheaff etc yet but I'm into analytic philosophy and however you group them it works but Math as far as my novice self is concerned, doesn't or at least shouldn't allow paradoxes. If a paradox is seen we can assert one is true and the other isn't by its assumptions.

>>16460560
>Man bends nature to his liking these days
only the rational natural parts (such as industrialization) bend nature to our liking
unnatural moves (such as global warming) are going to kill us

>>16460662
if might simply means utilized power than that power can be utilized in various ways.

>>16460655
well if you fold it again would you count more pages

>>16460321
NOOOOOOOO
YOU CAN"T JUST MALIGN MY PERFECT DOCILE SOCIETY WHAT AOBUT MY HECKIN MORALITYERINO AND RIGHTS

JUST GO BACK TO AFRICA YOU FUCKING NEGRO

>>16460690
Then it's not multi faceted, it has derivations but the derivations are just where might is applicable depending on definition of right. For instance might isn't used in math, so it's derivative of right in that sense. It also isn't used in all social situations. In overview, it's not used when in a relationship or taking care of your kids all the time. In particular issues, it's not used when eating a meal with someone.
So where might is right, it is minimally applicable.

>>16460047
Why are you so retarded? Wouldn't that just implicate what one subjectively views as mighty is also righteous, which would hence account for subjective views of truth?

>>16460379
>So it's instead an intersection of the two which would be a new set MightRight.
how? I don't understand.

>>16460702
Yes, where your nigger-minded kind abounds.

>>16460711
i dont disagree (in practice anyways) but practically anything outside of pure mathematics can at some essential level be affected by might to create a right. also
> it has derivations but the derivations are just where might is applicable depending on definition of right
whats the difference between a derivitive and a facet? as I see it a derivitive is a form of facet that is one directional.

>100+ autistic replies about the title and about the format of the pdf shared here

>>16460745
Sure multifaceted would be many faces so it would imply the definition of might is just x or it's at least a set of Might with an element x that goes through it. The set of that Might is determined by the set which defines it, assumedly right, which would bound x to be whatever Might is.
The issue is that saying it's multifaceted wouldn't bound x by anything, or if it's bound it's not done completely.
A derivative instead is given based on how x is bound. Because x isn't bound completely you can have a lot of derivations, even contradictions. So it's a matter of bounding it properly.
The title tries to make antisymmetric, so Might isn't bound by Right - they're of the same subset.
Effectively you get 3x = 2y, for instance. So you have to find the set which defines y or x.

>>16460760
you see the reason for this is because the only people who have read this book cover-to cover are the ones here defending it

>>16460780
Again I dont disagree, but multifaceted =/= omnifaceted. multi implies variety, but not necissarily and essentially any and all. Its just a good vague term of describing contextuality without going into long winded particulars. But I guess thats semantics, even though I think my semantics were justified.

>>16460800
The eternal paradox. Once you go out of your way to read a book through you usually have the bias towards it anyways.

>>16460780
Let me try and rewrite it, 3x = Might and 2y = Right.
We can say x = {3, 6, 9}. Because it's not bound entierly you get 9 = 2y, 18 = 2y and 27 = 2y. Not an issue, it's multifaceted it has a few derivations and we can get Right from it.
The issue comes up where the set defining a multifaceted definition with contradictions. In math having x be -3 or 3 isn't a huge issue but saying Might is defined by the set {do what you want, do what gives you power}, for example, would have a contradiction on many areas where doing what you want contradicts with getting power. This forces you to bound it at some point if not abandon it.

>>16460805
Semantics are only justified in a foundational set.

>>16460616

Okay.
First we need to step back.
When "might makes right" was first proposed, it was meant as a "proof" that morality did not exist. It was a counter-argument using what was thought to be the axiom of our experience in the world where morality, while a decent management idea, in practice held no power. What started as a collection of "good behavior" for people in a society became the "cause" of that behavior, which was absurd. It was a magical rainbow pony.

However, to make that argument that morality was absurd, a rhetorical paradox or circumlocution was created with an internal rhyme: "Might makes Right."
To make this argument that might makes right to Prove that morality doesn't exist REQUIRES an outside morality to exist to define right, so that the counter argument of Might can be addressed. Without the very "morality" they are trying to disprove, the argument that "might makes right" has nothing to define "right," to tack it down except the given Might.

But now lets look at Might. To be able to define might requires the outside story of Physics. Might is the ability to destroy physically. However physics itself is defined by what we can perceive as being here, and what we find is that what is here is not here solely because of destruction. Sometimes weaker things can gang up on the strong, or outlast the strong or outrun the strong. So Might itself is defined by what is successful, not by an outside Physics that sees only the ability to destroy.

So now the paradox: If might cannot be defined by the outside physics of force and is defined by what is here, and right cannot be defined by the outside morality and so is defined by might which is defined by what is here, then might and right define each other and are defined by what is here. So whatever is here defines both.

My statement was: without the outside definitions of Morality defining right, and Physics defining might, both might and right define each other by what is here, and whatever is here satisfies the statement "might makes right." So the statement contains no information. Any “here” as an outcome and any behavior that brings any outcome defines both. “Might makes right” is meaningless without the very things it wants to disprove and prove.

1. It cannot refute Morality because it requires an a priori definition of how morality defines right to refute morality.
2. It cannot support physics because it requires an a priori definition of how physics defines might.
Therefore: the statement "might makes right" is absurd. It is a circumlocution of both might and right while defining them in terms of each other.

This lead me to believe that anything in that book is just rehashed bullshit disproven sometime in the 1300s by rhetoricians much smarter than the racist mook who wrote it.
Have a Good night.

>>16460824
Then i foundationaly justified my semantics.

>>16460250
retard

>>16460849
You didn't, you said it's open to a degree less than omnifacit

>>16460843
BASED

>>16460009
I have not read this book, i will not read this book because i don’t feel like it

because of this, i will not pretend to know the full contents of this book and argue against summaries of it

but it sounds retarded and gay

see ya

>>16460991
yes open, but not necessarily arbitrary, infinite, or infinitely interpretatable.

>>16460009
Why is this the new meme? You can't just read atlas shrugged like a regular teenage sperg? Consequentialism is way edgy and cool until you realize that we're already done with it and building on top of its corpse.

>>16460843
what do you mean by physics?
doesn't might and right have an inherit meaning?

>>16460047
Begone Hegelian

>>16461155
>t. Hegelian

>>16460088
>And being anti-Christian is a deal breaker.
Christianity is dead and tons of writers were anti-Christian at the time. It's like not reading an author because they were racist in a time where many were.

>>16460028
Based

Arthur Desmond Is ragnar redbeard

>>16460028
This greentext comes from wikipedia you didn t read the book

>>16460009
Holy cringe! What are 14 year old closeted fags doing on my board?
>>16460047
>Attempt to reason with 14 year old brainlets
Why?
>>16460169
You have to realize that the endgame of every LHP do what thou wilt, might is right faggots is literally being an n word. Stealing like an n word, raping like an n word, REASONING like an n word (0 logic). All of them need to put into camps and tortured until they obtain basic agency and moral understanding, and if that fails just end them.
>>16460187
They wish they were jews. Too bad they're low IQ.
>>16460250
Pic related is you following your instincts and primal urges. The sooner you rope the better.
>>16460265
If you're genuinely interested in spending time on this book you're NGMI, it's too late.
>>16460400
>edgy kid: the book, but for white man
White men don't read this garbage. Whiggers do.
>>16460843
>reasoning with n words
I appreciate the effort though.

>>16460533
Nature is simply indifferent because it's impersonal, while might, insofar as having it tends to be enjoyable, is personal as can be. Charm and intellect, that combined are the makings of a social virtuoso's adaptable mastery of circumstance, are might's finest forms: People can be persuaded, for a time, by almost anything, but nothing is as permanently convincing as the synergy between an artful life and industry that is considerate to its making.

>>16460028
>copy and pasted Wikipedia
>muh rayzism and misogyny
You have to go back. Love the prose poetry style in this book. Used to listen to the audio book version on YouTube where they guy sounds evil as fuck while I was at the gym. Very high test book

>>16460250
You're conquering fucking nothing from a farm in Alabama. All of the world's real conquerors live in megacities identify as progressive (outwardly) now.

>>16460009
>Incel LARPing as viking
it's like a victorian //pol/

>>16460047
Wow you're a total retard

>>16460047
>Might and who wields it is subjective
Surely this is only true on a cultural level though? The ability to cause a change in accordance with personal will or inclinations is not subjective on an individual level. The argument isn't that might is morally correct - only that it's the only thing able to be assertive.

>>16460702
haha look at this fucking retard

>>16462519
Gather 'round fellas, witness this retardation!