[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 993 KB, 900x900, Screenshot_2021-06-01 might-is-right jpg (WEBP Image, 600 × 600 pixels).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18362915 No.18362915 [Reply] [Original]

This book is 100% right and has never once been refuted.

>inb4 cringelord lit
It's still right, no matter who says it or what kind of individual identify with it.

>> No.18362919

Would you accept might as right when it’s applied to you?

>> No.18362923

I piss on the authors grave. My opinions are then right over his.

>> No.18362931

>>18362919
It doesn't matter whether I accept it or not, I have no choice. This only strengthens the argument in the book.

>>18362923
Yes, thus proving him right.

>> No.18363045

>>18362915
You mean it is then 100% might? What if I burn it?

>> No.18363064

>>18362915
>>18363045
Also how does one become might or how is it defined? Are there small acts of might one must follow?

>> No.18363074

>>18362915
That's a great book and fun reading as well. Also of course it is right. "History is written by the victors". People who sell a different narrative are just lying to you face up to control you.

>> No.18363076

>>18363064
You'll never be might

>> No.18363079

>>18362931
So why aren’t you a bluehaired woke corporatist pansexual dolphin? Last time I checked, they had the full might of the corporate world and increasingly much of the law enforcement behind them. Why haven’t you told me to check my privilege yet?

>> No.18363084

>>18363076
this

>>18363064
whatever makes you on top

>>18363074
>lying to you face up to control you.
Ironic considering the topic of the thread.

>> No.18363088

>>18363079
Because thats gay and its more impressive to not follow a herd of retards

>> No.18363090

>>18363079
yes they are in control... what is your point?

>> No.18363095

>>18363084
>Ironic considering the topic of the thread.
There are honest people with honest intentions, even if they also coincidence with controlling you. But these days in 5g warfare, deception and subversion replaced the duel. I think this is why most men are so bored.

>> No.18363105

>>18363095
coincide** sorry. currently in a language class so my brain is flip flopping.

>> No.18363111

>>18362915
Do books have might?

>> No.18363113

>>18363088
>>18363090
>might is right
>except when I don’t like it

>> No.18363120

>>18363113
i never said it was "wrong". But might isn't a straight path. There is might in forging your own path. I wouldn't say those blue haired freaks have that much power anyway, they are mostly a slave caste for greater powers.

>> No.18363129

>>18363120
>I wouldn't say those blue haired freaks have that much power anyway
More power than you, and therefore, according to your logic, they’re right and you’re wrong

>> No.18363131

>>18363095
>>18363105
I think you are right anon, boredom is a real symptom.

>>18363111
If you roll 'em up and smack 'em over the head with it.

>>18363113
KEK, I said they were in control, I never said anything about me liking or disliking... nor did I say "thats not real might"

>> No.18363135

>>18363113
That's not what is being said. Might is "right" in that it defines the status quo. Those people define the status quo because they possess might and use power to control other people. Therefore, they are "right". That doesn't mean an individual should or must accept other peoples authority. Jesus, read the book.

>> No.18363140

>>18363129
They're "right". You clearly never read the book. They are the ones who define the status quo due to possession of power, therefore they define the norms, morals, etc. Only those with enough Might are able to do this. However, no where does it mean another should accept this, rather existence is about various Might's clashing for supremacy. This is just how it is.

>> No.18363143

>>18363131
>If you roll 'em up and smack 'em over the head with it.
Interesting: seems like you're trying to convince me of this with rhetoric & not actually doing it... seems like the rightness of this book isn't something demonstrated by might

>> No.18363147

>>18363129
Not him, but their might is right. Correct. They are in power. Again... what is your point?

>>18363135
Also this.

>> No.18363155

>>18362915
Start with the Greeks

>> No.18363160

>>18363143
>Might is only physical
You're just trolling at this point.

>> No.18363166

>>18363147
So, once again, why aren’t you one then? Your deeds speak much louder than your words, namely that in your deeds, you make it clear you don’t believe that might is right

>> No.18363169

>>18363143
What do you feel I am trying to convince you of? I have told you in total admission that the bluehaired crowd have power and they have might over us all... what is your point?

>> No.18363170

>>18363166
Anon, the book defines what is "right" as a subjective and only might affirms this. There is no morality except the one that is enforced via Might. You aren't being clever, you're just making circular arguments that aren't even close to what is said by OP or the book

>> No.18363172

>>18363079
take your meds

>> No.18363173
File: 242 KB, 946x946, 1606116627381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18363173

>>18362915
The problem is that the claim "might is right" is redundant and doesn't actually answer any moral questions about how do we live our lives.
It doesn't even answer what "might" is. The definition of "might" in this context is so broad that we are left with "right is right" or "power is power"

>> No.18363174

>>18363166
You should be aware that you are replying to two anons, in case you don't know.

Why should them being mighty mean I should join them? The book is not called "Consensus Is Practical And Right".

>> No.18363178

>>18363135
>Those who have the most power have the most power
I genuinely don't understand what assumption people are making in order to be threatened enough by this book for this bait thread to keep being posted. Of course might is right. But what is that supposed to change?

>> No.18363180

>>18363160
Ah so might's a derivative of knowledge? My "might" as a general derives from my knowledge of commanding troops; my "might" as a swordsman derives from my knowledge of swordfighting. Wisdom is Right?

>> No.18363182
File: 40 KB, 326x406, 1575307770676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18363182

The most fallacious, untrue statement that ever came out of the enlightenment was:

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

An absolutely ridiculous lie, it's been engrained into the brains of so many people in the western world, and it's failed them.

There is no better argument in existence than one where the victim is physically unable to respond with a counterargument.

>> No.18363183

>>18363178
>>18363173
Also what this anon said

>> No.18363185

>>18363178
Because this was widely understood in antiquity but in contemporary times they try to sell great lies like pacifism in order to keep the population docile and weak. Thus, they try to harvest totalist power for themselves via subversion. This is what I mean by 5g warfare vs the hoplite phalanx of antiquity.

>> No.18363188

>>18363180
Yes but not limited. Might has many factors that contribute towards your supremacy.

>> No.18363189

>>18363188
Such as

>> No.18363191

>>18363185
>>18363182
Oh this is just about violence lmao. Violence is an extremely limited form of power.

>> No.18363194

>>18363173
I don't think the book ever proposed any moral compass or what should be considered moral. He is claiming that might is the only worthwhile (practically speaking) mechanism for making something "right" or shaping the world for yourself. He isn't interested in what is good, only what is fashioned from the world.

>> No.18363201

>>18363189
Wisdom, physical strength, ambition, charisma, intelligence, cunning, man whatever element increases power potential for supremacy. WHy are you being so stubborn? Fucking "intellectuals" jesus christ.

>> No.18363205

>>18363191
The sword represents force as well, which is superior to violence for the purpose of coercion.

Order > Force > Violence > Argumentation, in that order, for the purpose of coercion.

>> No.18363206

>>18363155
/thread

>> No.18363208

>>18363201
Ah so there's "potential" lying around somewhere? I thought this was about REAL things and REAL changes in the world, anon.

>> No.18363209

>>18363191
>goes circular yet again
It's not only about violence. Jesus Christ. We're just running in circles. Dishonest shill.

>> No.18363212

>>18363194
>might is the only worthwhile (practically speaking) mechanism for making something "right"
As apposed to what?
Do you understand that this claim is so broad that we can actually see the application of it in the first rule of thermodynamics?

>> No.18363215

>>18363208
It is about real things. Unless you're seriously going to try and convince me that power doesn't exist.

>> No.18363218

>>18363215
But potential is something that is-not; otherwise it would just be, and wouldn't be potential. Is "potential power" real or the concrete exercise of power?

>> No.18363221

>>18363201
What if we burn all the books? Does that mean he's wrong and might is thus wrong?

You understand how childish this book comes off right? It's "big truck squish smaller truck" philosophy which is a very particular and infantile way of looking at the world. You can't be right in math with it and if beating up physics teachers was the way to get nuclear power then nork would already have it. Geopolitics is even more complicated. No superpower could do anything it wanted. Even if everyone adored them for that they could steer themselves off a cliff.

>> No.18363222

>>18363218
Yes because if someone possesses more Might than you they will win.

>> No.18363226

>>18363205
No substance in this post lol
>>18363209
I literally don't know what the fuck you're even trying to get at. Narrowing force to violence is the closest you've gotten to making a point. Don't peddle might is right and then refuse to do anything but insinuate, you moron.

>> No.18363229

>>18363221
But those in power do ban books. It's happening even now. They set what is socially acceptable to enforce their agenda and system of beliefs. They make certain words "unsayable", they tell you certain books are "off limits". Thus, they use forces of Might to streamline you into the type of personality that is safe for their vision.
>childish
You know there is some wisdom to children because they often understand things without the hyper autism of adults.

>> No.18363230

>>18363222
But this isn't a real thing in the world; it's your hypothetical. Where is this might that's beyond the limit of wisdom?

>> No.18363235

>>18363173
Who are the people in power in today's modern world?

Progressives.

Why are they in power? Because they worship it. The left is only ever interested with the accumulation of power for the sake of it. The right usually accumulates power and then spends it like a currency to affect change.

This is why the left always wins. At least until it collapses unto itself and the right moves in to rebuild. The the new version of the left shortly takes over again and the wheel spins on and on. The book can teach you the practicality of the way of the world how society is ran.

>> No.18363237

>>18363226
>resorts to nonsense
You're not proving anything except pilpul tactics. Might is right, it is true now as it was true then. Might takes many forms as a concept, all of which contribute to Might as a form of control over reality and what one is allowed or not allowed to do. You can try to use some pilpul to overcomplicate this, but then you still must obey laws enforced by other people and written by other people in a culture defined by others.

>> No.18363244

>>18363229
Okay. How many books do you need to ban to get nuclear power? Dprk needs the formula. Clearly might isn't equivalent to right. There are cases where you can be right without might. There are some cases where no might makes you right and then have might like running from your rapist to get the cops. No might unless running is might now.

>> No.18363250

>>18363237
Ok but what is your point. I want to know why this thread gets posted so often because to me it's like someone saying "the sky is blue" in order to bait. Might is right and therefore... everything continues as it is?

>> No.18363254

>>18363226
>No substance in this post lol
Are you retarded? It's a natural continuation of your statement that violence is a limited form of power, which is true.

Do you not understand what force and order represent in the real world? Can you not conjure up any examples? Do I have to babysit you?

>> No.18363257

>>18363244
>to get nuclear power
and nuclear power is used to enforce Might. What exactly were you even trying to say to this? You just changed the line from books to nuclear power, a false comparison but still in line with Might as Right.
>DPRK
Has no Might beyond perhaps some local power. They are at the mercy of China, who possesses far more Might than them.

>> No.18363259

>>18363254
>>18363250

>> No.18363262

>>18363244
>There are some cases where no might makes you right and then have might like running from your rapist to get the cops.
So you don't possess Might but you know the "FORCE" of the Law does, and therefore a policeman will be able to act as a surrogate to enforce Might against a foe.

>> No.18363264

>>18363212
>first rule of thermodynamics
Not sure what you mean here.

>As apposed to what?
As opposed to anything that is commonly said to make you "in the right" like when an action comes from altruism. If I take your stuff when you gave it to the poor, I end up with it, so what good is your altruism?

>> No.18363267

>>18363259
The book explains the societal dynamics pretty well. It's a fun read. People should probably approach things like politics with power front and center in their mind, rather than any other reason.

It's a useful book. What more do you want people to say? Were you looking to unearth an epiphany here?

>> No.18363268

Might-is-right tards defend the notion of a lack of transcendental reference for correctness by appealing to "might-in-itself" as an abstract form, take #500

>> No.18363269

>>18363221
>What if we burn all the books? Does that mean he's wrong and might is thus wrong?
No because you have demonstrated that you are mighty than your local library, thus proving him right. It wouldn't matter if every copy of his book ceased to exist, he would still be vindicated.

>> No.18363273

>>18363244
>Dprk needs the formula
You mean the country that backed down the day Trump said he'd turn the entire place into a crater? Yeah, definitely not proof of Might Makes Right.

>> No.18363275

>>18363268
>muh God
done.

>> No.18363277

>>18363257
Are you obfuscating on purpose?
You said banning books is might, I'm curious how that derives nuclear power. If you can't answer this then several countries won't follow this out of hand and will still remain in power.

>>18363262
So running away to get the cops isn't considered might even if it submits the rapist? You can only account for might as an object not as a relation/action?

>> No.18363278

>>18363268
>abstract form
It's not abstract, it's pretty self-evident.
>transcendental reference
You're just fishing aren't you?

>> No.18363279

>>18363267
The fact that this keeps getting posted as "you can't refute this *blows raspberries*" would make me think that something was being offered besides the fucking obvious.

>> No.18363280

>>18363221
>philosophy which is a very particular and infantile way of looking at the world
It is the truth, which is independent of how you look at the world.

>math analogy
Anon, he is not making a claim of factual accuracy, only what worldview dominates and wins out. If I club anyone who says 2+2=4 and tell them it is 5, and they become scared of me, then from now on when they are asked, they will say the answer is 5.

>> No.18363283

>>18363269
>the cope

>>18363273
I mean the might makes right theory which can't produce a formula to get a right working nuclear weapons stash.

>> No.18363286

>>18363277
Banning books is a form of Might, yes - because if you are able to successfully ban books from people then you clearly possess power. But I explained 20 times that Might has aspects. A country possessing more power via stronger weapons in the form of nuclear weapons has more Might than a country that is simply banning books. Might is a competition. Read the book or stop shitposting with retarded pilpul.

>> No.18363288

>>18363280
You can club them and the the 2+2=4 guys will get better smithing practices and destroy you. So following your philosophy then would lead to your downfall.

>> No.18363289

>>18363278
u're not talking about any use of might in particular, only appealing to the enduring constancy of the thesis-in-itself behind physical mutability, which is simply an attenuated DIY platonism; u're not actually arguing that might is right, you're arguing that might is right is right distinct from might

>> No.18363291

>>18363283
>I mean the might makes right theory which can't produce a formula to get a right working nuclear weapons stash.
China and USA both ban books and both possess nuclear weapons and use this threat of nuclear warfare to enforce various agendas and also to enforce a regionalized status quo. WTF are you trying to get at here?

>> No.18363295

>>18363279
But the OP does touch on an important point, and it might be obvious to you, but a lot of people will call you an edgelord if you talk in this way.

Why would they call you that? Because you've offended their sensibilities. Why are they offended? Because this sort of thinking is alien to them and they've been led to believe otherwise.

This book might not offer some earth-shattering philosophical elucidation to people here, but it's still a highly valuable thing because there exist a metric fuck ton of morons out there who are depressingly naïve and allow themselves to be chewed and spit out by their betters.

>> No.18363297

>>18363289
No, I'm arguing that if you possess more Might than other people you have the ability to enforce reality. Look at Roman Emperor's like Nero and what they were able to get away with. Whether or not anyone liked it, they were right and able to enforce their ideas into reality.

>> No.18363300

>>18363297
Nero died

>> No.18363304

>>18363286
Okay why don't you just say right is right and skip jumping through hoops. If you do righter than another you "win". If you do mighter than another you could still "lose", it's called a pyrrhic victory.

>> No.18363306

>>18363300
Yes, because eventually someone got the better of him. But while he lived, he was shaping reality. Until someone used Might to kill him and replace him and then shape reality to their own desires.

>> No.18363309

>>18363306
Nero had himself killed

>> No.18363311

>>18363304
Because only Might is used to achieve what is right. All societies are shaped by this concept, all religions, cultures, and even languages. There is no exception and has never been in history and never will be in the future.

>> No.18363314

>>18363250
I made the thread, I am unaware it is posted often. I just like the book. Maybe it is tempting as it makes others sperg out about muh moral compass.

>> No.18363315

>>18363306
>people in power have power
Whoa bro, my whole mind has started pumping w testosterone. The smartness is on me. I'm not sure what might has to do with being right but whoa.

>> No.18363319

>>18363309
But only after being toppled by others. He realized he had been soundly defeated and chose to kill himself. There is some Might involved in this, e.g. he was the one who decided when his life would end and so his enemies never got a full victory over him (similar to Cato the Younger with Caesar), however anothers Might is what triumphed over his own and he was vanquished.

>> No.18363324

>>18363319
I don't understand though, he died as a direct result of his choice to die, you're saying being deposed caused him to die

>> No.18363325

>>18363315
I never claimed it was smart, nor original, nor inventive. And yet there are people who actively are denying this ITT. This shows you how detached from reality modern people have become from carefully crafted subversive propaganda designed to turn them into "Incapables".

>> No.18363326

>>18363311
So then how in God's name do people in scientific communities find out what's right? Lysenkoism was enforced by the state and it killed a lot of humans and made people lose positions of power. I'm thinking might might have made the issue worse in this case.

>> No.18363332

>>18363324
He only killed himself after losing all power and being declared an enemy of Rome. He didn't want to live without absolute Might. He killed himself due to this. If the Senate had not used Might to turn against Nero, he probably would have ruled until he died of more natural causes.

>> No.18363334

>>18363311
>>18363326
Oh but you mean lysenkoism was in power when it was put in power not that might actually has anything to do w right good point forgot. I need to have my memories fight it out so I can remember

>> No.18363339

>>18363326
>Lysenkoism
A great example of Might Makes Right. A concept that was so absurdly wrong and yet Might alone was able to keep it as a "working" concept in politics until other forces were able to completely topple it and prove its falsehood - thus creating a new Right through Might.

>> No.18363341

>>18363332
"If the senate had not used might to turn against him" - this is a counterfactual, it's not reality or even historical-reality. I thought we were talking about the real use of power bro not fanfiction

>> No.18363342

>>18363325
Nobody is denying people in power are people in power in this thread. I highly doubt the book says this. I'm sure the author didn't put two thoughts together on this.

>> No.18363347

>>18363339
Read >>18363334
So might absolutely has nothing to do with right. It has to do with power, no?

>> No.18363348

>>18363295
I am OP and you have summed up my position pretty well, the book is seethe-fuel for many and it bares saying that the book is 100% right. This makes people seethe more as they want it to say something novel and reveal a truth. It's more an encyclopaedia entry for the nature of might and authority though, and yet people are desperate for it to be something more.

>> No.18363351

>>18363341
>the Senate did not declare Nero an enemy of Rome
OK so what happened then?
>>18363342
The author just presented a simple concept in simple terms and to this day this book creates a great reaction of fear in people, probably because they either don't want to accept the truth or because they don't want others to understand this concept lest their own base of power becomes threatened.

>>18363347
Might defines what is Right. Lysenkoism was viewed as Right solely because if you questioned it you'd be squashed. Power is just an expression of Might.

>> No.18363352

>>18363324
who ever said that having might means you cannot throw it all away? You think you are a zombie that MUST act like a king for rest of your days? Who ever said this?

>> No.18363356

>>18363348
>people in power are people in power now go kill ppl
Holy shit anon, I thought y'all couldn't wade dumber.

>> No.18363364

>>18363356
where did I say this and what is it you are saying in response to this alleged thing I said? Make your point anon.

>> No.18363366
File: 34 KB, 500x500, kek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18363366

Might is Right is just Anarchy: the book. It's quite nice.

>“Equality can only exist between equals.
Civilization implies division of labor, division of labor implies subordination and subordination implies injustice and inequality.”
― Ragnar Redbeard

>“Laws” and “rules” imposed on you
>From days of old renown,
>Are not intended for your “good”
>But for your crushing down.
>Then dare to rend the chains that bind
>And to yourself be true.
>Dare to liberate your mind,
>From all things, old and new.”
― Ragnar Redbeard

>“He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog -- a Christian dog.”
― Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right

>“The rules of life are not to be found in Korans, Bibles, Decalogues and Constitutions, but rather the rules of decadence and death. The “law of laws” is not written in Hebrew consonants or upon tables of brass and stone, but in every man’s own heart. He who obeys any standard of right and wrong, but the one set up by his own conscience, betrays himself into the hands of his enemies, who are ever laying in wait to bind him to their millstones. And generally a man’s most dangerous enemies are his neighbors.”
― Ragnar Redbeard, MIght Is Right

“The lie that is known to be a lie is half eradicated, but the lie that even intelligent persons regard as a sacred fact – the lie that has been inculcated around a mother’s knee – is more dangerous to contend against than a creeping pestilence.”
― Ragnar Redbeard, MIght Is Right

>“If a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.”
― Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right

>“In actual operation Nature is cruel and merciless to men, as to all other beings. Let a tribe
of human animals live a rational life, Nature will smile upon them and their posterity; but
let them attempt to organize an unnatural mode of existence an equality elysium, and they
will be punished even to the point of extermination.”
― Ragnar Redbeard

>> No.18363370

>>18363356
The State kills people everyday and it is acceptable because they have the Might to enforce it.

>> No.18363380

>>18363352
Ah so basically all the other manifestations of Might are reliant upon not throwing them away? I thought there were types of Might extrinsic to mental agency & Wisdom...

>> No.18363381

>>18363351
There is nobody in history who denies people in power are people in power. This is not what the book says and it is not what anyone is criticizing you on.

Might does not define right by your admission. It defines power or who is of current might. It is more properly written might is might. We are criticizing it being truth/right/the option to pick. You have clarified that might made lysenkoism used and it produced famines. It was clearly not the option to pick.

>> No.18363391

>>18363381
Might defines what is Right. Power is an expression of Might. You're just using pilpul again to derail from a truth that has been accepted since the dawn of mankind.

>> No.18363393

>>18363364
Read >>18363326
>>18363334
>>18363339
>>18363342
>>18363351

>> No.18363400

Might is right is a brainlet materialist view of the world so no wonder it's associated with brainlet leftist ideologies like Marxism and fascism

>> No.18363401

>>18363391
Right is a spook, might doesn't define it

>> No.18363405

>>18363391
What is your definition of right then? You're not "might" enough to realize your use of the term, after being picketed from Truth, might need some clarification? You're saying right is not equivalent to power now so now you're not making sense at all.

>> No.18363410

>>18363401
OK anon whatever you say lmfao just remember don't break the law ;)

>> No.18363412

>>18363410
I do this all the time and receive absolutely no repercussions despite recognizing its Might

>> No.18363417

>>18363412
That doesn't disprove Might as Right though. If you get caught, you will lose.

>> No.18363420

>>18363380
>I thought there were types of Might extrinsic to mental agency & Wisdom
I don't know what you mean here.

>contingent
Yes, obviously. If you conquer a land and then slit your own throat... you are no longer king of this land. How is this controversial?

>> No.18363421

>>18363417
"If" is a hypothetical you've made up, might is right is about reality

>> No.18363422

>>18363410
Is this not the perfect image of a 16 year old learning to express themselves individually for the first time? That perfectly encapsulates who I think reads this book.

>> No.18363428

>>18363400
>t. Iamverysmart, the poster.

>> No.18363430

>>18363420
How do you cease being the king by doing this?

>> No.18363443

>>18363417
>>18363421
Yeah is there a might calculus or is this just all >>18363422

>> No.18363445

>>18363393
I did not post any of those that you referenced, so I asked for an example of where I (that would be me) said those things.

But if you want my opinion on why Lysenko proves/disproves Redbeard, then fine.

Lysenko is an example of a man with might making the world bend to his will. His might made right (made the world what he wanted). If the world was dismal for it, and he was dissatisfied about the result, then he was not mighty enough to overcome biology.

What else would you like me to say.

>> No.18363451

>>18363445
Would you stfu

>> No.18363452

>>18363443
Yeah you check your racial bonuses on the stats screen and then apply your equipment modifiers to them. Through this calculus you can determine who wins with DPS & Speech skills. It's just like Skyrim, which is a tough game for mighty men.

>> No.18363453

>>18363430
Is that a real question???
If you cut your own throat... you aint the fucking king anymore.

>>18363422
Not him, but this is pure ad hominem. Show me the lie in the book.

>> No.18363461

>>18363453
Someone who died can't be king?

>> No.18363464

>>18363173
The book is an exploration of power and an exultation and encouragement for you to harness it in what you believe is right. I'm not American but I'll use an American example because their zeitgeist is one we all understand, due to their might.
There are people in America who sit around and think their constitution holds power because in some abstract world it is right that the constitution have power and cannot be violated. However, it is only upheld because people with a certain amount of power believe in it. And when those people don't have power, those who want to violate that constitution can and do, because they have the might to. The constitution has no power, only might does. Denying this, as many people do, completely handicaps people into living in this fantasy world of pure abstracts, which is usually informed by those with might anyway.
The problem is, it's not a redundant question, and it does deliver many moral answers. "Power is power" seems stupid on its face, but there are many times when people will deny themselves power to do what is "right". But you need power to do what is right. If you deny yourself power that your enemies have in order to do what is right, you lose all ability to do what is right. When people mass import immigrants to vote left for them, as was the case in California and many places in New England and London and wherever else, but right wingers don't send them back because it wouldn't be "right" they deny themselves power and put themselves at the lefts mercy and lose their ability to do any "right". It might sound simple and straightforward, but it's something a lot of people either don't get or forget

>> No.18363465

>>18363451
No.... I am mighty so I will make you listen to me... unless you flee the thread, in which case I have dominated the entire thread, proving my might. ;)

>> No.18363466

>>18363445
>>18363451
Holy shit you say some dumbass shit.

Let's unpack Jesus christ. Okay so might is now including biological truths unless there's a secret biological man we need to kill. So I can promise you beating up biology questions or whatever way one would try to might them, they would not get any answers to overcome "biology man". For real though, how do you have no self consciousness on this?

>> No.18363469

>>18363465
I mean isn't this how you become schizophrenic?

>> No.18363473

>>18363461
If you are trying to make an argument for some pharaoh or Roman emperor that has an imperial cult, then he is so mighty in his life he continues to influence the world after his death. Now that is some might that is right.

Think how much the Romans influence you today... they were clearly mighty as they inform our worldview centuries later.

>> No.18363474

Y'all are almost worse than flat earthers. Holy shit, the non self awareness

>> No.18363481

>>18363473
Everyone influences the world after their death - every man is as great as the Emperor

>> No.18363487

>>18363466
>Let's unpack Jesus christ. Okay so might is now including biological truths unless there's a secret biological man we need to kill. So I can promise you beating up biology questions or whatever way one would try to might them, they would not get any answers to overcome "biology man". For real though, how do you have no self consciousness on this?
This is the single most incoherently worded post on this board right now. I honestly cannot understand what you are asking me. Please rephrase. I am not trying to dodge your question, I just cannot understand what it is about.

>> No.18363493

>>18363487
Look you said this >>18363445
How exactly does one become mightier than biology smarts?

>> No.18363496

>>18363182
But the pen is mightier, for it calls more swords to your cause.

>> No.18363499

>>18363481
Not as great, but yes you are right we all project into the future through cause and effect. This is further proof that your might projects into the future and therefore you have the might to shape the world (if only to a small degree).

>> No.18363502

>>18363487
>>18363493
Also I might jump the question and say people are looking for frameworks that say how to prevent lysenkoism biology issues. They aren't looking for a book that says people in power are people in power.

>> No.18363503

>>18363499
I can shape the world to a very great degree

>> No.18363504

>>18363474
Yeah, it's a horrible representation of the actual book, which is just anti-statism.

The OP is an idiot who clearly didn't read the book and is just parroting it for the sake of attention.

This board needs some sort of measured IQ test to be able to fucking post.

>> No.18363510

>>18363493
>How exactly does one become mightier than biology smarts?
I am assuming you mean overcome biology itself with this question?

If so, the answer is simple. You can never be mighty enough to overcome biology. No human is that mighty. That does not disprove Might=Right, it proves it, as there is something mightier than you. If you were a god-like being with the ability to overcome cells and hormones etc, then you would by definition be mightier.

>> No.18363512

>>18363496
Who's the real deal, The King or his Herald?

>> No.18363513

>>18363504
it needs a test barring any with enthusiasm for IQ tests actually, which presumably precludes mighty materialist midwittery too

>> No.18363514

>>18363504
I think ideologies need to be voted on to be put up for debate and losers have their ideology put in a containment thread or banned for a week

>> No.18363515

>>18363513
We get it, you're spiritual. Nobody cares.

You're a glorified cumstain and nothing else.

>> No.18363517

>>18363503
then you are mighty, and thus the hypothesis that Redbeard has given you is correct.

>>18363502
Well perhaps this book is not for you. It deals with the issue of power and exercising power over.

>> No.18363518

>>18363510
Again >>18363502
People are looking for what is right and you just admitted yours is powerless to decide, as a framework of being right, how to prevent famines due to biology.

>> No.18363520

>>18363515
"You're a glorified cumstain and nothing else."
- heard on the Lolita Express

>> No.18363523

>>18363514
You might you'd use Might to enforce ideology? :^)

>> No.18363526

>>18363517
Redbeard didn't give me any hypothesis

>> No.18363527

>>18363517
What if I told you platonism had a way to be right in ethical manners and biological manners? It would be more right without might. Odd huh?

>> No.18363533

>>18363523
Jesus christ get a new word. Yes might exists, it is not equivalent with right. The quarantining can instead be understood outside of terms of might but in terms of board quality. If you can only perceive things in terms you might be childish and you've already admitted your frame is lacking in breadth.

>> No.18363542

>>18363518
How to prevent famines due to biology? In the context of might, the only relation this really has is that either you are mighty enough to overcome nature itself so you can grow food enough for everyone, or nature is mightier but you are more cunning and you are able to create food by working WITH with nature, or you persist in fighting nature and die.

>>18363526
he does, it is called "might is right".

>>18363527
You should (re)read the book, Redbeard is not claiming you are factually right or ethically superior. He is claiming you get the privilege to exercise your program over others how you wish.

INGSOC tells Winston Smith in 1984 that he is not to say that 2+2=4 and is to repeat whatever he is told to say. That does not make INGSOC factually correct, it means they get to decide how people behave and how they respond to simple questions.

>> No.18363547

>>18363542
Nobody gave me "might is right" though, you're insinuating the hypothesis exists "out there" - where?

>> No.18363548

>>18363464
>The book is an exploration of power
No it isn't, it's meant to prove the moral correctness of Christian Anarcho-Socialism by demonstrating the moral failures of not-Christian-Anarcho-Socialism.

>> No.18363551

>>18363542
Listen dude, nobody wants to follow a framework that simply says people in power are people in power. They want to know how to get in power, what is power, what is right, how to apply to everything etc. Nobody wants to read the kid who was picked on in school's manifesto

>> No.18363565

>>18363430
Cause dead people have no might, they are literally inanimate. Wtf? Lol

>> No.18363576

>>18363565
Most people's legal authority increases after they die. The most binding, authoritative power most persons have is their own written will.
>>18363527
Redbeard anons just keep reinventing bootleg Platonism to explain where the "correctness" of might is right lives while the world continually transforms, it's funny. "Might is right" as a thesis is meant to be a method of conceptual understanding which lays claim to the truth -the only truth- that Might is Right. But if Might is temporal -as we've seen by the Nero exchange- then this truth either relates to its own temporality, in which case it is as mutable as Might is, or it relates to something else, in which case there is no reason it must remain restricted to Might.

>> No.18363587

>>18363576
Exactly I 100% agree

>> No.18363596

>>18363473
>Possibly the greatest empire in the world still influences the world
>So might doesn't mean anything
?????
Also it's contingent upon currently living people and the might they have to enforce their thoughts on Rome. If a power wanted to wipe out all Roman history, they could, presuming that they had more might than the people currently enforcing their own thoughts on Rome.

>> No.18363609

>>18363547
Well you've got it now anon, so contend with it. And yeah, I would say it is self evident.

>>18363551
And there is the rub... nobody WANTS to, but it doesn't matter what you want.

And the book does detail about the some of the rules of thumb to obtaining said power, or at least the outline of the types of power there are.

>>18363576
>Most people's legal authority increases after they die. The most binding, authoritative power most persons have is their own written will.
This only proves that you are mighty enough to extend your reach beyond death. If you are genuinely labouring under delusion that redbeard claimed "physical intimidation in the moment is right" and the only method of power, then lad, you aint read the book.

>>18363576
>Redbeard anons just keep reinventing bootleg Platonism to explain where the "correctness" of might is right lives while the world continually transforms, it's funny. "Might is right" as a thesis is meant to be a method of conceptual understanding which lays claim to the truth -the only truth- that Might is Right. But if Might is temporal -as we've seen by the Nero exchange- then this truth either relates to its own temporality, in which case it is as mutable as Might is, or it relates to something else, in which case there is no reason it must remain restricted to Might.
Why should your might necessarily end with your physical body. If you are mighty enough to build a strong reputation, you will enjoy great influence after death. Just because the echo of something temporal continues after that thing ends, does not mean it is not temporal in nature.

>> No.18363623

>>18363596
>>So might doesn't mean anything
where the hell did I say that??
The Romans were mighty enough to echo into eternity (so far), their might meant everything.

>>18363596
>Also it's contingent upon currently living people and the might they have to enforce their thoughts on Rome. If a power wanted to wipe out all Roman history, they could, presuming that they had more might than the people currently enforcing their own thoughts on Rome.
Yes, exactly, but the Romans were so strong (I am gonna try to stop using the M word as it is annoying me now) that that is very unlikely, so no modern people are stronger than them.

If some modern people wiped out the Greco Roman influence of the world, then they would, by very definition, be mightier.

>> No.18363632

>>18363155
Greeks affirm this view though. Read the melian dialogue in Thucydides:
>"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must"

>> No.18363643

>>18363609
People in power are people in power. Very insightful anon. Nobody disputes this and nobody will take you serious because you're not suggesting anything new and you're not suggesting anything warranting attention.

>> No.18363644

>>18363548
Aside from everything else, Christian how?

>> No.18363661

>>18363533
>it is not equivalent with right
>but in order to prove this to you iwant to forcefully quarantine people who have these thoughts
lel

>> No.18363672

>>18363632
This

>>18363643
When did I say I had Big Epiphany™ to show you?
I state a simply truth.
People still sperg out over the idea that M=R though, so it bares saying.
I never claimed anything more special than that.

>> No.18363682

>>18363609
>Why should your might necessarily end with your physical body
Didn't say anything about the physical body :)

>> No.18363697

>>18363596
/thread

>> No.18363710

>>18363682
If I took your point correctly, you are claiming that if might is temporal then it only relates to its own temporality, then it ends with its own temporal existence. Did I misunderstand you?

>> No.18363711

>>18363644
Because the system that Ragnar Redbeard (AKA Arthur Desmond or Jack London) proposes isn't an actual system, it's just a dystopian manifesto meant to shock and horrify Christian Anarcho-Socialists. Consider his view on women: on the one hand, they're dumb things that need to be lead along or else they'd all die and they have no Might (thereby insulting Marian Virginity and a woman's place as a hood ornament in the corner of your house that you occasionally bring to church). But, on the other hand, women have lots of Might, because they can be evil seductresses who use their wiles to control men (thereby promoting dastardly whoredom). These two views are irreconcilable, either "Might" needs to be more broad than just OOGA BOOGA ME CLUB YOU WITH ROCK, or the position on women needs to be reconsidered.

But Redbeard isn't trying to have a coherent worldview, he's just trying to shock a specific segment of Anglo society that would be horrified by either departure from a specific status quo; women cannot both be dumb virginal cows and conniving sluts at the same time, but Anglo society CAN be worried both about the worthlessness of women AND about their sluttiness. We see something similar in how Redbeard is simultaneously an atheist and a Pagan, and also a eugenicist and a rigid individualist. He's not trying to hold a coherent position but rather to shock Anglo society by glorifying literally everything it disagrees with for any reason.

His system, by his own admission, is unworkable and collapses into what he actually wants: Christian Anarcho-Socialism. Why? Because you see the workers who go to church are the Mightiest, after all. So, don't worry good Christian, even if something that you absolutely hate and do not want comes about, in truth it's just a way to get what you really want (Christian Anarcho-Socialism). Remember, Whig History is in full swing here, so obviously things HAVE to get better in the future.

>> No.18363714

>>18363697
He is right in his second half, but his greentext completely misinterpreted my point.

>> No.18363718

>>18363672
You have nothing except power is power. People define might and right in particular terms.

>> No.18363728
File: 486 KB, 1124x367, ideals_of_humanity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18363728

>>18362915
when you're a leftist, you want to put estroegen in the water source. you envision a world where everyone is (basically) an obese black transgender lesbian, where everybody sits peacefully around the campfire talking about their feelings.

when you're a conservative you want everyone to be a hard working diligent little protestant ethic merchant in a white picket fence house.

when you're an organic human being, a true man with red blood in your veins that's when you can imagine true human greatness. that's when you can comprehend radically different human experiences. that's being a traditionalist.

>> No.18363743

>>18363711
>These two views are irreconcilable, either "Might" needs to be more broad than just OOGA BOOGA ME CLUB YOU WITH ROCK, or the position on women needs to be reconsidered.
He LITERALLY states that might comes in all many forms, not just ooga booga bix nood. He has a whole chapter on how you can exercise might in business through non-violent and cooperative means that extends your power and that is a form of might, as you install yourself in positions of authority and power. These two views are not contradictory.

>> No.18363755

>>18363718
I have that to say and also a second point. The second point is that people will often elevate something higher and spooky to the position of right. It is right because the law says so, for example. There is one bare naked truth, however.

>>18363728
Pretty based.

>> No.18363768

>>18363755
Okay so power is power and people are fallible. I think everyone in history accepts this. You could say to a degree that you have the inalienable proof that power is power and, to a lot lesser degree but still universally accepted, that people are fallible. What's your next step? You're going to try and get power right? Since this book doesn't offer any step-by-step instruction for that, what is the ideology you'll use for that? Make a thread about that.

>> No.18363799

>>18363768
It is more than just fallible, it is a general condemnation that our culture (perhaps even civilisation in general) has gotten itself so deep in a lie about where meaning/morality/actions come from that they will claim that "you cannot murder someone, for it is against the law". As if this makes the physical reality of murder impossible. They believe with a complete religious ardour that civilisation has granted meaning or concreteness to reality, and that because a concensus says so it must be true. This is a disease, and if you pull back the curtain on the wizard, you will see that society is full of cope, and that really this bare naked brutality is the real fabric of the universe. If you want to reduce this argument down to "people are people" then it is just pilpul at this point.

>> No.18363809

>>18363710
No: I'm saying if might is temporal and the concept which lays claim to the truth of might-is-right relates only to might, transitively the concept is temporal. If it relates to something else to anchor its validity, it is no longer appealing to might alone as a standard. You assume I'm talking about human lifespans here for some reason. This is similar what all the other Redbeard-anons are mistaken about - they note the irony of all the people asking for jannies because "enforcing your views because you believe they are correct" is meant an example of Might is Right, because they neglect the antecedence or process through which this correctness was reached. They appeal to "might-in-itself" yet again & fail to distinguish between might exercised due to the conviction that it is might which is right, and might exercised due to the conviction that one is correct by reference to something other than might.

>> No.18363820

>>18363799
Actually the "bare naked reality" you speak of is an abstraction alienated from the concrete experience of living in civilization.

>> No.18363826

>>18363799
>they believe you cannot murder someone it's illegal because it's against the law
Now I know you're young. Nobody thinks that. Maybe you did when you were younger or kids said things without tact. Murder is everywhere on the news. There's nobody of sound mind who believes murder is impossible and never happens.

>civilization grants meaning
You mean modernism? Like natsoc, communism etc where racial/worker class societies etc define reality?

>> No.18363833

>>18363820
>>18363799
Tbh idc just pick an ideology which helps you actually get power and make a thread about that. You can say power is power forever but if you can't get power you know you're wasting your life and the board's time.

>> No.18363842

>>18363833
Power is but a flow'ring pride, so fading and so fickle, one that short Time shall soon cut down with his consuming sickle

>> No.18363848

>>18363809
>No: I'm saying if might is temporal and the concept which lays claim to the truth of might-is-right relates only to might, transitively the concept is temporal. If it relates to something else to anchor its validity
Well I will say this, and you can make of this what you will. The "anchor" is simply that is works practically and is concrete. If you exercise might, and it works to shape the world, then your might has worked. If you claim it has some Platonic dimension or if you claim it is materialistic only, either way, you can explore that idea, but the validity of might is only that it "warps" the world into the shape it wants.

In other words, Gandhi's "be the change you want to see in the world" is self sufficient. If you want to say the nature of "change" itself must have some non-material origin, you can prove or disprove that, but it makes little difference to the outcome. Gandhi told you to make change, if you successfully made change, the world is now some other way.

It should also be said, Redbeard is not talking about factual truth or moral substance (if this is your main concern) but that want you desire to happen can be made to happen if you exercise enough might over the situation and others. It may remain a lie, but with enough force or coercion, the untruth will hold for a long time.

>> No.18363849

>>18363842
I don't disagree but clearly progressing in what one wants is always a fruitful endeavor. This book/thread serves nobody in their progression.

>> No.18363850

>>18362919
I always wonder what goes inside of mind of a person like you. Do you really believe the universe has to work to your advantage otherwise you won't "accept" its workings?

>> No.18363854

>>18363833
You are willfully ignoring the greater criticism that I brought up in my post, and the author brought up in the book.

But as for getting power.... that is his point too.

>> No.18363875

>>18363850
THIS. That argument is literally the go to for 90% of people. Perhaps it is an NPC thing that makes them think "this worldview fits into my life, it is likely right because it works for me right now".

>> No.18363883

>>18363848
Yes I understand what you mean. But surely some people who believe that might is right really aren't successful in their endeavors and aren't happy with its [lack of] practical results. I think you're simply recursing this relational problem outwards by saying that the times it does produce pleasing results are it functioning "properly"

>> No.18363900

>>18363883
Evidently Redbeard is not the Demiurge; he wrote his text at a particular point in time, and it's claimed that what he is saying was true before he had written it. So we're still talking about a relation between the truth (whether it be practical or moral truth) of the book and time.

>> No.18363918

The reason no philosophy will ever refute Might is Right is because it is not a philosophical doctrine - it's a self-help manual for activists. It's saying Plato can't disprove that chocolate sponge is better than vanilla sponge. It only seems more profound than this because people instinctively react against powermongering.

>> No.18363936

>>18362915
Even if you could do some word gymnastics and "refute" this, the world will continue to operate in exactly this way.

>> No.18363979

>>18363883
Not at all, if it produces unpleasant results, it likely means you have failed to properly enact your will and get what you need, or you didn't really want it or misunderstood what you wnated.

It is more likely, I feel, a careful what you wish for scenario. If you seek money for happiness, then you get the money and you are miserable, the might still helped you get that (through ruthless business means) but the thing is not valuable.

>> No.18363992

This thread has been great help for me to determine that I'll never open this book.
>muh might
If everything is might then nothing is.

>> No.18363993

>>18363918
This. To your analogy, the book wants you to understand that if you are a vanilla supremacist, you can smash the chocolate fag in the face and scare everyone into never easting chocolate again. It does not actually affect the nutritional value of these foods.

>> No.18363997

>>18363936
That probably means it is the truth and therefore not refutable.

>> No.18364039

>>18362915
Might is always right. All countries have blood on their hands. Just plain fax

>> No.18364044

>>18364039
>fax
based spelling rebel

>> No.18364067

>>18363979
Yeah so failing to enact your will would be "doing it wrong" yeah? But this is an appeal to the truth of an idea of might-is-right beyond the contingent exercise of might -your exercise of it- which has failed to produce "right", pleasant, successful or effective results.

>> No.18364076

>>18362915
Might is "right" and were currently living in the logical progression of that system.
Gigagrug decides to terrorize lesser Grugs because he can, lesser Grugs band together forming social contracts to protect eachother and kill Gigagrug.
Might is right in the same way water is wet, its a truthful statement and might give a bit of insight but beyond that its useless. Most teenage edgelords that praise this book define might as being able to beat people up and therefor seethe about not being able to be Conan the barbarian today. Today might is having enough people with guns at your side, like most goverments do.
Might is right in a developed society isnt street fights but basically the Mandate of Heaven.

>> No.18364078

>>18364067
That would only mean that your aims are off or your execution is substandard.

If I said exercise is right, and you overworked your body to exhaustion or did a movement that injured you, you could say that exercise was not beneficial, but the fact is that it is objectively beneficial for all people.

>> No.18364103

>>18364076
See >>18363809 and the part about law.
As I said there, it may be a simple statement but it is almost mind melting for some people these days.

>Mandate of Heaven
Good analogy actually. Unfortunately teenage edgelords ruin everything but the book even talks about business as a form of modern and civilised will to power (much more relevant to 19th Century/Early 20th Century paradigm).

>> No.18364115

>>18363079
I do defend corporations. I don't have to be any of those other things you listed to do so.

>> No.18364118

>>18362919
Ofc he won't. Israel is BTFO the mudslims and 4chan whines about it saying it's not fair.
>fair
This comes from the people who think of themselves as superior and strong

>> No.18364144

>>18362915
Refuted by David myatt

>> No.18364152

>>18364144
Please explain, Myatt is interesting.

>> No.18364203

>>18363743
except for the parts where he says that it is literally just ooga booga bix nood club on head of course. but then as anon pointed out it is not supposed to be coherent its just supposed to offend fuddy duddies.

>> No.18364222

>>18364203
He never says that, he points out both violence and civilised money making are forms of might. I could just as easily say it is a business manual and when you point out the barbarism, I can say "yeah but whatever there is a business chapter".

>> No.18366066

>>18364118
you are mentally ill, really. 4chan is not one person.

>> No.18366082

Might isn't right. Might makes people say something is right.
>They're the same thing
No matter how much you say it, O'brian isn't flying away like a soap bubble

>> No.18366139

>>18363140
Ok, but that doesn't explain the genesis of each idea if 'right' that the squabbling factions adhere to and therefore isn't an explanation. Haven't read the book (im also not going to), so maybe it addresses this

>> No.18366155

every single person in this thread is a retard

>> No.18366164
File: 28 KB, 309x474, 51WPwXy3sYL._SX307_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366164

>>18362915
>refutes you

>> No.18366182
File: 17 KB, 322x499, 41Li7a2PJgL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366182

>>18362915
>more refutation

>> No.18366206
File: 81 KB, 769x638, 2tqycyspjaa61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366206

Shite is right

>> No.18366229
File: 128 KB, 320x298, 1605475847799.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366229

It is true that might lends itself to certain kinds of influence and expedience, but a society built upon might alone falls to shit in no time. Obviously.

Then you could say "true might is knowing when might is needed" or some shit, and then it just becomes a big fucking wankoff game of "who's the biggest faggot".

>> No.18366360

>>18366164
>>18366182
>people cooperate to dominate other cooperating people's with their collective might therefore might is right as a principle is refuted

You thought you were smart posting these, didn't you?

>> No.18366376

>>18362915
>This book is 100% right and has never once been refuted.
Yet it doesn't have the might to make itself widely known and believed. In fact it is so weak and irrelevant that no one but weak cringelords known of it and believe it is right. By that merit it is wrong isn't it? Curious.

>> No.18366386
File: 157 KB, 1600x1080, 4ad23d8e-0001-0004-0000-000001025314_w1600_r1.4815533980582525_fpx58.59_fpy44.86.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366386

>>18366360
>Thinking domineering people work together instead of dominating and competing against each other.

Incredibly retarded take. May competition run and mimetic desire run you to the ground. May this confusion of "might" delude you into fantasy. May you remain a peasant, wondering why you are at the bottom and others are at the top.

>> No.18366388

>>18362915
If you all were not a bunch of retarded faggots you would know that Plato completely invalidated this rethoric more than 2300 years ago in the first book of the Republic. And no, Machiavelli doesn't make a might makes right argument either.
Seriously, go read actual books or at least stop polluting this board.

>> No.18366917

>>18366386
>Thinking domineering people work together instead of dominating and competing against each other.
Groups of domineering people would work together to dominate other groups of domineering people.
Cliques fighting cliques.

>> No.18367342

>>18362915
Nope.
Got filtered by the Republic - this was the opinion of Thrasymachus in the dialogue and Socrates wiped the floor with him.
>>18362923
>>18362931
Actually it would prove him wrong:
>"Might is right" says anon1
>Anon2 defeats anon1 and claims that might is not right
>If might is right, now "might not being right" has been made right by might
>Anon1 now must believe that might is not right because might made it so
>This is a discursive contradiction
Ergo, might is not right.

Here's another quick argument:
>"Might is right" is not an argument established as right by might.
>If it were, rational arguments defending the proposition would be impossible because all such arguments would have no objective and independent criteria to be evaluated by.
>Such criteria exist (namely, the Form of the Good, essence and telos etc.,)
>Those who defend the proposition thus look elsewhere than might to defend the proposition that might is right
Ergo, not even those who believe that might is right act as though "right" is generated and sustained by might alone.