Dear those who believe that might is right

Might is Right, just because it doesn't go your way doesn't make it any less true. A truly objective man will see this as a fact of life.

This.

According to 'might is right', at a point in time someone else is mightier than you it is more moral to submit to the mighty one than to do anything else such as make yourself more mighty than him. Is it not?

Did I say I believed it as a moral stance?

...

waroftheworlds.wikia.com/wiki/Martian

I always took it to mean that you need might to protect what you think is right, that morals are useless without force.

Kind of like "before all else be armed' or 'if you want peace, prepare for war'

Talking to one with a certain characteristic doesn't imply that the talker has said characteristic, idiot.

Then define it better.

Neat, but I like the old illustrations still. Dat ((Martian)) beak

Looks like a jewish caricature mixed with an octopus

What's so hard to understand about "I was talking to those who believe might is the source of right."?
It means that they're the intended readers.

Clearly wasn't defined very well because you're still around and haven't got your answer. Bye now.

So, what will you do if you come across someone mightier than you?
Will you willingly become his slave?

no, we become mightier than them you cuck

just plainly and succinctly state your opinion instead of beghing the question

say what you mean

Might is right is only believed in by those in position of might. Those on the receiving end tend to talk about wrongs.

Take naziboos for instance. They're perfectly fine with killing, subjugating and robbing inferiors. After all, does not the strongest race deserve to be on top? And yet when talking about the end of WWII, they cry about the brutality of victors, the suffering of the losers and the unfairness of it all. They've no problem with 600,000 Russians dying in Leningrad from starvation but bring up the bombing of Dresden in every thread.

Everyone wants the spoils of war, but hates the consequences of loss.

I addressed that in
Answer it.

You just described every creature that has ever lived.

what the fuck are you on about? defeat is not a moral stance.

I don't see why I need to. I want to see the others arguments as well and look up the Socratic method.
Also, that's not what 'begging the question' means.

Disregard

I don't see why I need to. I want to see the others arguments as well. Also, look up the Socratic method.
Also, that's not what 'begging the question' means.

“It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.”

I appreciate the idea of a moral objective and I do believe that there is a way all people ought to act and behave but I also realize that there are people/systems that have the power to impose their will upon me whether I believe them to be right or not. What a state considers ‘right’ is written into law and determined in various ways depending on the system of government installed.

However it is not the pen that keeps the darkness at bay but the sword.

Actions have always and will always be louder than words, Violence itself is a golden language that even the smallest most insignificant beings can understand. I can crush a line of ants moving towards by picnic basket and they will understand the danger and begin to scatter, I can strike a dog to correct and condition his behavior, I can threaten a man who doesn’t even speak my language by brandishing a weapon. Violence is just a way to communicate and enforce your will. Enforcement of one’s will is more important than simply making it known. In a state, what is ‘right’ is enforced by the foot soldiers: police, military, ect. I don’t have the power the ‘might’ to resist such a system so my will is subservient to the state because the state is mightier than me.

So while might doesn’t make right. Might allows whomever is in power to enforce what they think/believe is right and silence/destroy/ignore anyone who thinks/believes otherwise.

jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

It's what my opponent's beliefs imply not mine you idiot.
I'm arguing against them that way.

might is right still has nothing to do with your moral kvetching though.

All my life

if this isn't circular logic then you can define what might is in this instance but you have instead made an ambiguous argument

i guess you win the debate of what-ifs and might-bes

it's a pretty simplistic breakdown tbh.

for example guile is also "might"

if you are altruistic and form many social bonds as a result the community may defend you, whereby passivity is also "might"

in a peaceful society people will respond to aggressive behavior with social ostracism and probably jail or injury/death

basically its a pretty pleb phrase. i cannot imagine how stupid one would have to be to find such an instrument useful.

Yes and?…Would that make it any less true?

Of course, OP. Being on the receiving end of something doesn't make the action any less moral.

That's why I want my people to be strong - because I realise that no other thing can guarantee our survival.

I'm assuming you believe that right comes from might.
How do your beliefs not imply ?

might = strength, power, ability
What else?

See above

No, it wouldn't I guess. But then again, it wasn't true in the first place.
Enjoy submitting to your masters you cucks.

...

That's one way of putting the desire of those who want to convert to the error of the Eastern Church, who will likely convert to the Arab religion of Mahomet or the bean religion of the Roman Catholics when the stars line up the right way (wrongful superstition).

I just realised that's not quite true.
However it would still be more moral to submit to the mighty one at that point in time than to make yourself more mighty than him if he didn't want you to.
How do 'might makes right'ers avoid that conclusion if at all.

I'm already on the wrong end of it but history has vindicated that the only thing that proves ideas is might

Holy shit, are you a cuck or something? Fuck off, you dumb kike

ahhaha nice try idiot
it's objectively true. whoever can enforce their will gets to shape history. "right" doesn't mean moral high ground, it means executive power.

you're overanalyzing a poorly phrased tautology.

MIGHT IS RIGHT

Like nearly everyone else, I'm going to point out that this is meant as a pragmatic observation, not as a "golden rule" to live life.

There will always be someone who wants to fuck with you if you are weak. If you are strong, it doesn't mean that you neccessarily have to fuck with others, but if you don't want to be on the receiving end, you have to realize that might actually is the only thing that can protect you…

Sorry. WHAT!?
Do you truely and honestly believe that the amount of physical or persuasive force used to back up an idea is at all proportional to it's truth value?
Good grief, what a blind, submissive, retard you must be!

Learn some reading comprehension, idiot.

Ah, I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you believed that morality comes from strength (what most people understand by the term 'might is right').

Nobody in this thread is stating might gives the moral right. You are pretending the people you are arguing against have stated that and are arguing against it.

None of that actually proves "might is right" is not correct. You are attacking "might is right" as a pragmatic statement of fact by using the strawman argument of "might is right" as a moral imperative.

gas yourself, kike

I agree wholeheartedly with what you interpret by the phrase.
However, I'm not sure that that interpretation is the most widespread.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

natsoc WN guy here.

Hmm, good point op.

oh wow look its some fag trying to troll

The problem isn't that maybe we are on the receiving end.

The problem is the subversion and underhanded tactics that puts us in a no-win situation were we can't fight back without severe punishment/restraints/consequences.

They rig the game and dictate the terms of engagement to win.
And that has nothing to do with might.

Yes, I know now.
However, I do suspect that some people here believe that.
Let me look for that screencap…
No, I just misinterpreted people.

Here it is: 8ch.net/polarchive/res/61.html#486
I saw this posted recently too so it's likely that there are people here who believe it but either didn't see this thread or just aren't stating it.

Oops, looked at the thumb only.

POST YOU STUPID THING

Might IS.

That is the whole truth, not the half-truth you concern troll about. You're playing shadow puppets theater without truly considering the images you are using, and thus, what you do is complete folly.

I've read the moral philosophers, I have pondered this maxim, I have debated about its nature, yet the conclusion always was unsatisfactory, incomplete. But that is because all those talks were done by trying to divide up what might is, trying to pretty it up. Might is raw, primordial and everpresent. Might IS. There is no right, no wrong, there is might and there are those that lack it, give in to its power.

When you wield might, you inevitably ARE on the receiving end. That is why it takes courage to wield it, courage to be mighty. Being timid is simple and easy, it takes no effort, it is relatively safe compared to being mighty. It's up to you to choose where you stand, but you cannot ignore or explain away these simple truths.

Might is actually real, morality/right isn't.

Morality is a social language game of shaming and praising. If that tactic changes someone's behaviors, then morally loaded terminology has psychological might over them.

A person can, however, see through the moral terms and realize the sham of a language game that underpins the whole practice of morally charged dialectic. Seeing this, one can choose not to care about its content, realizing it all just comes down to mere words. Compliments and pejoratives, nothing more.

Brute might, however, effects its aim with or without your acceptance. It achieves its end whether you buy into it or not. Morality can label such might as just or unjust, right or wrong, etc. But to the one who has unshackled their mind from morality's terminology, these labels are a trifle. Superfluous. Adding no substantive content or real meaning to the description of might. The aim is not to say that might justifies itself. The aim is to come to the realization that might needs no justification.

No shit. I want to kill the people I don't like but don't want them to kill me. There is no hypocrisy in this.

brutal cunning? or cunning brutality?

OP, you're acting like the people who say "would the romans have enslaved themselves to a superior people?"
and the answer is NO for one reason:
the only way to PROVE one is mightier than another is to FIGHT. You can't just look at someone and say "yup they're mightier than me" and pledge your unending loyalty to them. that's called cowardice

Might give the power of defining right and wrong, there is nothing to argue in that.

Jews won the war, they define what is right and what is wrong.

This is exactly how Lithuania became the strongest power in Europe. Various tribes all over eastern Europe were afraid of the hordes and accepted the rules of strangers as said rules allowed them to exist and gave them a better chance to survive the incoming shitstorm.

An attempt was made.

false normative theories always fail in practice.
individually and socially, they fail.
of one has a mighty intellect that manages to grasp the objectively true ethos, and the might to enforce it, you would see the full actualisation of the potential of humanity.
what you see nowadays is not this case. it is lame.

in other words, you reap what you sow.
and these kings of ours are nothing but the kings of fools.

Might is right and that's why we must become the mightiest.

Humans certainly aren't push overs, they indeed are fragile beings and very mortal, but they make up for that with brave acts of heroism and selflessness on the battle field. If aliens do try to enslave us, it won't be easily. We're crafty little bastards.

We (specifically white) historically have been known to win against insurmountable odds, the awoken white man is invincible in battle.

Might is right is a prehistoric reasoning, and today all but debunked.

Western thought has, for the majority of it's history, tried to use distinct words to express distinct ideas, but it was only partially successful.

The meaning of might is pretty straightforward but right is more complicated.

If it's selfish right, the one who is mighty will be right and get all the rewards while those who aren't mighty will get the left overs. Just like nature.
But it will lead to other seeking a greater might and in the insuing conflict more things might be lost than saved.

Objective right is right for all. And no I don't mean communism. It's a type of right that no one can dismiss like punishing criminals. Now you can't punish criminals if you don't have some might, so instead of equalizing might to right maybe see might as a tool for right ( and it could be a tool for bad).

I propose another maxim

The righteousness must be mighty.

I fucked up

The righteous must wield the might.

This.

To those who dont believe in might is right, have you ever considered youre hypocrites?

Who here has read the book from start to finish, rather than reading selective pieces? It really does make you think.

Morality is a spook and does not exist.

t. stirner

Might is right, end the kike

And "might is right" applies perfectly here. An arab is just as "right" as a white for conquering land or other peoples.
Stop trying to equate inner-society morality and actions with INTER-society relationships. Within a society, "right" is determined by evolution to keep the in-group/society cohesive and functional. Between societies, however, there exists no evolutionary responsibility for you to act in the same way you would within your society. In this case, invading and subjugating foreigners works in the best interest of your people, thus making it "right" in a pragmatic sense

Define righteousness and provide me with qualifiers and metrics with which we can measure the "righteousness" of an individual.

Go back to Holla Forums

Leftist ideology is a spook.

Might is quite obviously right. Look at world war 2 if you want a perfect example. The Germans were better than their enemy's in most ways after hitler took power.(I mean culturally and spiritually before anyone gets rustled)
It didn't help them to be spiritually superior when their country was overrun though. The average person has a horribly skewed idea of what happened during that period because the winner controlled the narrative. Might IS right that's why it's very important that we win, I don't think many people here would have might is right as their guiding principle though, it would be more along the lines of ''what is good for my people is right.

Red pill: Whites are already on the receiving end

Explain and say which sense you mean.

...

Yeah, that's the whole point you dumb retard. Might makes right is not a statement of what should be, but a statement of what is. It is essentially a tautology.

No, the truth is that there is no right or wrong. There is only winning and losing. Mike Brown robbing a store doesn't stop us from wanting to kill him for it. Might makes right works both ways here.

No. You're a moron. There is no morality, so nothing can be "more moral." There is only power dynamics, and appeals to morality are simply a way of exerting power over moralcucked faggots.

so i can, with a clear conscience, molest as many children as possible before my inevitable death?

Might is an actual thing, your ability to enforce your will. Also applies to unthinking entities. A storm has no will but by its nature it is a storm, and will destroy. If you build a sturdy house that can withstand the gale, you get to keep your house. Nowhere does any "right" to having a house come in. Same applies to interaction between humans and animals. What is right, then? Whatever the mighty group or individual deems it to be, or really, what anyone thinks it is. There is no right. The concepts of right and wrong exist only as frameworks for decision making. In societies, they get codified into a morality, which serves whatever purpose the society as a whole wants it to - usually ensuring its own perpetuation.

Might is natural, it is the ability to DO. Right is an abstract concept of WHAT you should do. Civilization is based on the might of the collective agreeing that perpetuating said civilization is right. They are two entirely different things, one is real and one is imaginary.

Oh so we are talking about inter society relationships. Haven't considered that. Only looked inside a society.

It depends on your conscience, obviously. You could do it, and if you are caught then people will kill/imprison you for it. The result is the same whether it is moral or not. Morality does not even enter the picture. In the end, only power matters.

Good post. Better explanation than I could give.

in the end power doesn't matter either. entropy will see to that.

Entropy is power.

and who controls entropy?

Why does it have to be controlled?

because everything is predetermined, and thus controlled by causes preceding itself.

How do you know that?

you are all retards, it's might makes right.

I have never encountered anyone that thinks physical strength is a source for morality.

i don't tbh, im just drunk and can't really think of any arguments for objective morality without appealing to an uncaused cause AKA god

my bad familia

I see morality as the thing we construct to look after our civilization and caring for our societies the problem is when you make it universal you invite people that don't play by your set of rules. I think fundimentally this is what the left misses.

Uhhh, YES, in fact I've done more than fucking consider it, Ive been on the receiving end of might, that's why I know you have to fucking use it against those who would wrongly use it against you and yours. Though, technically, I don't believe right makes right, it just makes right not matter so much to most people.

Nietzsche is so wrong and such a modernist faggot in that quote. For most of human history, the individual hasn't had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed or subsumed by his tribe, but rather struggle to keep from being cut off and cast out from the tribe, left to die alone because he was an irksome dickhead who pissed everybody off with his bullshit.

Also, morality is just as real as might because morality has, does, and will keep on restraining might and all with nothing more than hollow rhetorical flourishes and sleight of hand spectacles.

Objective right is God's domain, for us humans, we can only ever know subjective right, right as it seems so to us in our current context.

well to be fair what you are describing (a created and common code of conduct among a certain group) is an ethos not a morality. The fundamental or defining aspect of a culture.Morality requires perscriptive (aka do not kill,etc) action whereas its just sufficient in an ethos.

Morality also tends to be bullshit when you try to impose your ethos on other people, such as oy vey its another shoah and rape culture. The universalize of cultural norms (that thing racism was keeping us from) has been an on and off project for western society being meet almost entirely with failure.

the other possibility is that it just doesn't exist at all and morality is at best a doctrine of deceit.

Not that we have any groups with a doctrine of deceit that was fundamental in the basis of modern ….

...

Yes, Jews totally came up with the concept of morality as a trick to control the goyim, ignore actual history for wild assumptions that make Jews the master and inventors of everyone and everything for all time.

"Morality" rhetoric is a form of might. Just don't buy into your own rhetoric and start believing it is real. Believing in morality is for goyim (and appeals to morality are one of the key ways the Jew controls his goyim).

People posited and argued and employed morality before the Jews came into existence, or are we going to ignore the Greek philosophical tradition?

Correct.

ITT: Holla Forums shilling each other without noticing it

And even then it was a way of exercising power over goyim/masses. It's just most used by Jews today because whites forgot this and started believing their own moral bullshit.

stirner posting predates Holla Forums faggot

Nope, did you even study classical philosophy?

Yep.

Philosophy is mostly a process of self-deception. Deluding themselves with their own moral rhetoric is a part of that. Philosophy and intellectualizing are the marks of a dying civilization. It is only worth reading to understand rhe mindset of these declining and degenerating people.

They might have believe it with all their hearts, but it was still a way of exerting their own will even if they didn't recognize it.

You do realize you're philosophizing and moralizing here, don't you? Weaving a clean little narrative to self-rationalize your view.

Incorrect. I am stating simple truths. No arguments were made. No reasoning involved.

Do you have any rationality at all or do you just believe whatever's of your group?

What are your reasons for believing things?
What is/are your method(s) for discovering the truth?

Which parts aren't?

Yeah, so?

What morality doesn't have this problem? Only an ineffectual morality that punishes nothing and accomplishes nothing is immune. But otherwise someone will always get spanked, because duh, that's how bad behavior is discouraged.

Incidentally, in the current morality Holla Forumsacks are already on the receiving end. Even if might is right had a risk of being on receiving end as you say, it's still better than the current situation where we are guaranteed to be on the receiving end.

Yeah, and that's why you build yourself up and become strong.

It's a statement about whether the mighty have a duty to the weak beyond what is necessary to preserve their might.

For instance if liberals elect Obama with a 51% majority, attain a liberal house and a liberal SCOTUS, are they obligated to still care about conservatives, or is it okay for them to just push liberal policies on conservatives because by virtue of being powerful everything they do is acceptable?

From this you can see that complaining about "might makes right" is a way for the weak to weaken the mighty, it is analogous to communism. Basically you construct whatever argument is relevant to your precise scenario (politics, mutiny on a ship, strike against a factory owner, etc) and try to paint yourself as a leader of an minority oppressed by a tyranny, then you try to con the people in power into feeling guilty about their might and thereby stop fighting you (lessening their own might and letting you take charge). On Holla Forums this is called cucking.

You can see for instance how it happened with whites, colonialism and shitskins over past 2 centuries. Or with women and men over past century. Or American blacks and whites post-ww2. Or illegal immigrants and government past few decades. Or gays and degenerates and normal people over past 15-20 years.

So yes, as you say, might is not just physical might, but any kind of power that could be used to defeat you. But attitude is also critical, the moment you stop believing might is right, you have just been cucked by someone who does and will be defeated. This is why the admonition exists: Not heeding it, and accepting guilt over being powerful, leads to cultures being defeated.

/Thread.

Checked and spot on.

That example is such shit.

Without the might you have no right.
To enforce right, you must also have might.

Idk what's the product?
Er, because you can tell its degenerate anyway?

If you look closely maybe you'll see a few fallacies in his argument?
Don't assume anyone is objective. Always, look at their arguments and evidence.

Avoiding it just because its Jews is stupid. What if they pretend to be behind a thing just to get you to boycott it? Then you'd be being controlled by them.
To that I concede. But in general its not a good idea to make this fallacy.

Shill detected. Logical and Reason makes us stronger.

Reasons for believing things are not conceptual so cannot be formalized.

Truth is just known, and it is not conceptual. Philosophy is always wrong because it only deals with conceptual thought.

...