Is this good or just a racist, antisemitic 19th century /pol post?

[Anonymous No.19572581]

[Anonymous No.19572589]

>>19572581
It's cringe that appeals to 20 year olds w no positive role model and a lot of mother issues.
>is it correct
It's embarassingly not, just look at the title.

[Anonymous No.19572591]

>>19572581
Why can't you guys just talk about literature instead of jokes.

[Anonymous No.19572595]

>>19572581
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.19572601]

>>19572595
Because unironic racists, antisemites and poltards are utterly pathetic copers.

[Anonymous No.19572662]

>>19572589
>hits your skull with an axe
>you stop disagreeing with the title and simply become silent
Yep, sounds correct to me.

[Anonymous No.19573159]

>>19572591
Tolstoy reviewed the book and said it was heckin' dangerous. Lots of people took it seriously in its day.

[Anonymous No.19573637]

>>19572581
It is basically a shitpost.

[Anonymous No.19573663]

I thought you progs liked consequentialism and hedonism. That's what this book is about.

[Anonymous No.19573679]

>>19572581
I mean by the logic of this book it's right that Europe and the US will be the new home of black and arab people.
You're too weak to stop it, after all. So now you don't deserve a homeland.

[Anonymous No.19573923]

>>19572662
Well you wouldn't do that because the strongest military forces (might) in the world have decided that liberal democracy is best. So Democracy makes right.

[Anonymous No.19573933]

>>19573679
That just means whites need to fight back like the Patriot Front

[Anonymous No.19573963]

>>19573923
Except it’s not democracy and never has been. Might also doesn’t have to be directly equated to physical prowess. In a genuine democracy the man who is the most sociable and convincing will most likely end up with the highest degree of success. i.e. might makes right. It’s just not as cringy as arguing that you could just slaughter all your enemies.

[Anonymous No.19574178]

>>19573679
In a sense you're right but obviously if the mindset adopted by the book would be generally accepted in the let's say Sweden, they would oppose this course of events with all their agency. Meanwhile a lot of people live with this "xyz has rights" mindset, thinking that they will have rights as well(a good example of that were the wignats that tried to start a legal battle in UN to declare mass immigration in Europe as genocidal - under some definition it could be considered as such, but this is not about the laws and the rights, the UN is not a neutral party in all of this, predictably their judges declared that it isn't).

[Anonymous No.19574395]

>>19572581
It's basically the first NazBol book with heavy machismo characteristics.

[Anonymous No.19574675]

>>19572581
The garlic shooter from a couple years ago was inspired by this book. So that should answer your question

[Anonymous No.19574692]

>>19573963
It is Socrates' refutation from Gorgias. Egalitarianism has overall shown itself to be enforced with might while the "might is right" weirdos are always squashed or punished by the government. Ergo egalitarianism is might.

[Anonymous No.19574694]

>>19573963
If might was actually right it would naturally be the dominant ideology of the world by its own standards.

[Anonymous No.19574697]

>>19572601
Sounds like you're the one that's coping.

[Anonymous No.19574711]

>>19572581
its cope

society is controlled by laws, norms, rules, and contemporary economics. Today's warrior class are technocrats who are enslaving the population with their technology. People LARPing about physical strength are coping losers who need to admit it to themselves

[Anonymous No.19574757]

>>19574694
Imagine being so unbelievably autistic. Might being right clearly indicates the cope that is beliefs versus the actual reality that takes place. It's a meta-ideology
>>19574711
>yeah it's actually happening but it's still le heckin' cope! It's tha technorats!!!
Imagine being so retarded you think might is just strength.

[Anonymous No.19574815]

>>19574757
That was Socrates' reasoning however. The greatest amount of people on Earth support egalitarian practices so their might makes egalitarianism right by its own logic.

[Anonymous No.19575148]

>>19574711
It’s never been about “physical strength” if that was the case the Neanderthals would have conquered the planet by now. “Might” in this sense isn’t how strong an individual can punch another individual, but is in fact simply the ability of groups to mold reality to suit their needs. A propagandist with the ability to believably edit history to suit his group’s collective interests, and then rile up the people to protest, sabotage, or even attack his enemies is far mightier than the most well trained soldier. What is widely considered “right” has never been what is factually true, or based on some fundamental, God given, “morality” But is instead determined by “might” by the victors, whose “might” originates from a myriad of different sources, military, political, economic, cultural, ect. In the end the mighty impose whatever values they see fit to impose, values which tend to suit their group interests. It makes no difference if power resides in who’s best at manipulating the lemmings, or who’s best at butchering men, this fact stays the same, only the methods change. Questions of right and wrong are irrelevant when you understand this simple truth, hence the term “might is right”

[Anonymous No.19575156]

>>19574711
>today's warrior class is not a warrior class
Nice retardation you've got there.

[Anonymous No.19575172]

>>19574815
>The greatest amount of people on Earth support egalitarian practices so their might makes egalitarianism right by its own logic
Yes, and now we live in the age of the last man. Amazing.

[Anonymous No.19575181]

>>19574711
> Today's warrior class are technocrats who are enslaving the population with their technology.
Its like you don't know who Peter Thiel and what National Conservatives are

[Anonymous No.19575192]

>>19574815
Socrates was against democracy. He can't hold that view, and be against democracy. Socrates just proved Callicles to be correct by being a sophist who who changes what he believes depending on the context and what hes' arguing for.

[Anonymous No.19575221]

>>19574697
Socrates was against democracy because he saw democracy as only being possible if the majority of people were ethical, virtuous and that to him would never be a possible because that required the masses being taught a philosophical education to teach people problem solving and decision making skills. That luxury was not possible - democracy in Greece was only reserved to the educated, aristocratic class who could debate and solve issues peacefully through discussion and deliberation. Most people back then could not, and that resulted in people using violence, their passions to solve disputes over reason and principle. Those criticisms haven't been proven wrong - we see that today where masses are willing to start necessary wars, take away peoples' individual rights for faulty reasons that are emotionally appealing.

[Anonymous No.19575334]

>>19572581
Yes it's a fun read. Most honest book I ever read desu. This is not a philosophy but just an aspect of nature's law presented in edgy prose. There is a comical tone to the edge that energises and motivates you to do your best in life and proudly fight facing the truth.

[Anonymous No.19575353]

>/pol
It's /pol/, you fucking tourist. Not short for r/pol or whatever you're used to. You newfag zoomers have no sense of decorum anymore.

[Anonymous No.19575688]

>>19572581
It's like how Varg Vikernes describes it, "Might is right is the most jewish philosophy ever conceived." Meaning it's a sort of false flag of pre-christian values, maybe intentional maybe not, but either way an alien interpretation that is meant to seduce those disillusioned with christianity down an equally retarded path. There is no way this person larping as a "Ragnar Redbeard" was not a weaselly little Armenid type.

And it simply makes no sense. It amounts to a declaration of amorality as the ultimate morality - a contradiction. The title itself doesn't mean what it says. It would be more accurately stated like "any act, by any means, that can be perpetrated without retribution frees the actor also of ethical considerations." Which obviously is not what "might" means or what "right" means. The title was chosen because it's a snappy, rhyming piece of marketing.

[Anonymous No.19575790]

>>19572581
Infantile; when you look at a modern army say, you notice that individually the parts are weak, but together in a combined arms formation, they are very strong.

The same applies to nations; the reason why fascists lost the last one, is because they alienated everyone, and had nothing to give but death to their enemies. The end result was totally expected; the people who hated each other less, and who had more interest in making money and not war, all got together and beat the living shit out of the axis, even though the allies were a motley collection of racist liberals, colonialists, and hardcore communists, who hated eachother at times just as badly as they hated the enemy.

British/Aussie and American soldiers even had street battles like rival gangs (all hushed up cause of the war), and meanwhile the Soviet GRU had infiltrated basically everywhere within the American and UK establishment, and nobody liked the French. But they all agreed to cooperate even though they were all trying to Jew each other to death. End result is that "might is right" died, and the slightly less childish "money is right" world is the one we got now.

[Anonymous No.19575921]

>>19574692
There is no egalitarian society that exists, has ever existed, nor will ever exist. Egalitarianism is a a rhetorical ploy used by the strong to pacify and control the weak. Might is right yet again. You'd understand this if you actually read the book, but this board is 90% illiterate zoomers these days it seems.

[Anonymous No.19575956]

>>19572581
You are racist and antisemitic.

[Anonymous No.19575970]

>>19575956
Yes, and FBI crime statistics are correct.

[Anonymous No.19575973]

>>19575970
O. K.

[Anonymous No.19576444]

>>19574697
Uhh no. Coping is fashipning oneself an unironic nazi in 2021. Whew lad you fuckers were btfo so many times and so detrimentally that we just leave you to btfo yourselves now because you’re cringe to behold.

[Anonymous No.19576767]

>>19574178
>Meanwhile a lot of people live with this "xyz has rights" mindset, thinking that they will have rights as well
Yeah. This is why I find ridiculously retarded whenever I see claims of “white genocide”. The adversary is low by implanting subversive ideas in one’s own community/kind, but is not our own side blameable for failing to keep that community in what we believe?

[Anonymous No.19576859]

>>19576767
Blameable I suppose? But I fail to see why you would blame the victim of a murder for walking in a dark street as opposed to the murderer themself. Sure, both of them had a hand in the ultimate conclusion, but one was far far more to blame.

[Anonymous No.19576929]

>>19576859
I don’t know really. This reactive force denounces a weakness. The very weakness that made room for that contrary force. If it is not creating, affirming itself, there is mild symptoms of an imminent sickness.

[Anonymous No.19577055]

>>19576929
They’re very much to blame, I’m just doing my hypothetical worthless blame scale. In reality the same dipshit take that all cultures are equal or valuable helped create this insane notion that we should welcome with open arms genuine filth. I understand the logic in being disgusted with prior actions, I just don’t think it’s worth much. Fuel for anger I guess?

[Anonymous No.19577210]

>>19575790
Most dipshit response in the thread, way to miss the entire point.

[Anonymous No.19578774]

>>19573923
>strongest military force
>loses to goat herders armed with Soviet era milsurp
cope