Ragnar Redbeard - Might Is Right

Women instinctively admire soldiers, athletes, king’s nobles, and fighting-men generally, above all other kinds of suitors — and rightly so.

Nothing so lowers a lover in a virile maiden’s estimation, than for him to be “whipped” in a personal encounter with a rival. Among all classes of females this sentiment persists. The best bid a man can make for the admiration of any woman (even the most pious) is a display of undaunted physical prowess.

Young women have an instinctive detestation for the “good young man that died” kind of adorer, and they positively abhor the pale coward — even though he be a blood relation. Strength, energy-of-character, ferocity, and courage, she admires in her possible husband, above all other qualities combined. Even to be carried-off by force is not repugnant to her feelings, if the “bold bad man” is in other respects acceptable.

She pines to be ‘wooed and won ’ (or as it were) she likes to feel that she has been mastered, conquered, taken possession of — that the man who has stormed her heart is in all respects, a man among men. This suggestive female idiosyncrasy is rhythmically set forth by an anonymous writer thus: — “Down a winding pathway in a garden old, tripped a beauteous maiden, but her heart was cold. Came a prince to woo her, said he loved her true; maiden said he didn’t, so he ceased to woo. Came a perfumed noble — dropping on one knee; said his love was deeper, than the deepest sea. But the winsome maiden, said his love was dead, and the perfumed noble, accepted what she said. Came a dashing Stranger, took her off by force: said he’d make her love him, and she did — of course.”

Conquersome personalities by obtaining possession of the best and handsomest females raise up as a rule, conquersome descendents. Hence the origin of Great Races. Second-class males are driven by necessity to mate with second-class females; and in strict sequence third-class males select partners from feminine remainders. (Hence the stereotyped nature of servile Castes).

Superior males take racially superior women, and inferior males are permitted to duplicate themselves, per media of inferior feminines. Each class reproduces its kind (on average) and if the ordained struggle for earth’s Good-Things is not artificially interfered with, the leading classes are periodically called upon to maintain their pre-eminence at every turn, by Might or be swept away, enslaved, supplanted, expropriated by the braver and bolder Animals.

Aristocracies have always originated in War. Sham ones grow up (like mushrooms) in times of peace. No “Aristocracy” ought to be allowed to dominate one moment longer, than it is unable to maintain itself, by the edge of the Sword. Again, subordinated classes should not permit themselves to be mastered by Usurpers who cannot fight. It is the Natural Order for first-class men to dominate second-class men and for second-class men to dominate third-class men — but the classes are self-selective; by conflict. Someday inferior breeds will be remorselessly exterminated, as useless and noxious vermin. Behold! I judge the future by the evolutionism of the past.

Women congregate at athletic sports and gladiatorial contests; impelled by the same universal instinct that induces the lioness to stand expectantly by, while two or more rival males are ripping each other to pieces in a rough-and-tumble — for her possession. The lioness submits, as a matter of choice, to the embraces of the Victor; and in the most fashionable society, the stalwart footballer or the dashing soldier, has practically unlimited selective powers, among the marriageable maidens of his own particular set.

No nation, no empire, has ever fallen — no race has ever been enslaved, because it delighted in manly sports — in the hunting of boars and lions, and men — in deadly tournaments — in dueling — in prize fighting — in gladiatorial combats — in scenes of “cruelty and blood.” No! not one! (Nature is cruel — a million times more cruel than man ever was). But dozens of ‘civilizations’ have perished shamefully, ignominiously, because of the spreading canker of personal cowardice — gendered by effeminacy, luxury, usury, laboriousness, statecraft, superstition, ‘culture,’ and peace.

Want of daring — enfeeblement of physique — meanness of mind — fear of danger and dread of death (sure signs of racial deterioration) have never originated with athletic tournaments, nor wars of conquest, nor gladiatorial games. When Clericalism abolished the ‘holmgang,’ the pride of Norland silently waned away: when it abolished the Olympian games Greece rotted into decay; and when it banned gladiatorial contests the Eternal City “had its day.”

Bull-dog virtues are bound to triumph in the long run and they can only be developed (if developed at all) by daily practice from youth up. Hence the necessity of ‘brutal’ football — ‘brutal’ warfare — ‘brutal’ personal encounters — ‘brutal’ thoughts and ‘brutal’ combinations. (The word ‘brutal’ is written here because it is popularly misunderstood and used as a missile.) The ‘brutal’ races have always been victorious races — the greatest men have always been supremely ‘brutal.’ (Alexander, Sesostris, Cæsar, Titus, Nero, Bonaparte, Cromwell, Grant, Bismarck, Cecil Rhodes.)

The word ‘brutal’ in real life means the reverse of effeminate. A man is brutal who will not turn the other cheek. What is it that “brutes” do that in nature, is wrong ?

Emerson perceived this pivotal anachronism clearly when he declared: Nature is erect, but man is fallen.’ Christlings are forever using the word ‘brutal’ to terrorize each other but who are they anyhow? Are they not the scum, the dross, and offscourings, and creeping things, of the Aryan migrations — mere shrieking, blubbering, fulminating dwindlings of the very lowest intellectual development? Let Emerson again be put on the witness stand. He may be considered fairly impartial. Hear what he has to say: —

Athletic contests (and combats of all kinds), have a powerful influence in moulding for the better, the personnel of all participants therein. He who must meet worthy antagonists face-to-face and defeat them or be himself defeated, ennobles his own mentality — unconsciously. Courage, coolness, intrepidity, purity of blood, and mental balance, are the athlete’s first requisites. He must therefore be individualistic, self-reliant and calmly resourceful; i.e. he must be brave.

The brave man is ever generous, frank, outspoken, dauntless. His brow is open — his step fearless and firm — his bearing self-poised, leonine. He looks at you without a tremor — sums you up at a glance, and in business affairs, his “word of honor” is more binding than a Shylock’s sealed bond. He may not be an erudite philosopher — a profound scholar — nor an eminent elocutionist — (nor be troubled over much with the “saving” of his soul) but he is more than all that — he is a man . Hence, everywhere he is first favorite, especially with the feminine gender — whose sexual instincts are as true to Nature as the needle is to the pole.