What is Might and Why is it Right?

Speak of the Devil – Reverend Campbell discusses What is Might and Why is it Right? with Warlock Jeff Bowling. We will be discussing various forms of might, where the concept is derived from, and if it holds up to our modern society.

Join live in YouTube chat and share your thoughts with the hosts and audience.

Discussion Notes

• Merriam Webster Definition
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/might%20makes%2Fis%20right
  • —used to say that people who have power are able to do what they want because no one can stop them
  • Definition of Might: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/might (entry 2)
  • Definition of Right: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right (entry 1)
• Might Makes Right
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
  • a society’s view of right and wrong is determined by those in power, with a meaning similar to “History is written by the victors”.
  • although all people have their personal ideas of the good, only those strong enough to overcome obstacles and enemies can put their ideas into effect, and spread their own standards to society at large.
• Nietzsche and Morality
  • Master-slave Morality
    • The essence of Master Morality is nobility
    • Values open-mindedness, courageousness, trustworthiness, accurate sense of self-worth.
    • Masters create morality, slaves respond
    • The basis of Slave Morality is re-sentiment (devaluing what the master has and the slave does not)
    • Master Morality originates with the strong, Slave Morality with the weak
    • The essence of Slave Morality is utility
    • Slaves subvert Master Morality by careful subversion
    • Anton LaVey echoed much of these sentiments in his writings: “You see, in my own distorted concept of right and wrong (nobility and rottenness), I view such matters as fraud as wrong.” ~Letters From the Devil column
• Social Darwinism
  • Applies Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest to sociology, economics, and politics.
    • The strong see their wealth and power increase
    • The weak see their wealth and power decrease
    • Various different schools of social Darwinist thought disagree on how the above two ideas are implemented, but all agree that is the “natural state of things” 

• Might is Right vs Right is Right
  https://www.nagalandpost.com/might-is-right-vs-right-is-right/190714.html
  • “Right is Right” is theoretically carried inside the mouths and minds of richer men, but in reality, they use money power. 
  • The might can be a power of knowledge, wisdom, skills, talents etc. 
• Might is Right
  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Might_is_Right
  • to measure “right” by the false philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and “weepful” Messiahs is madness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power.
  • A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero.
  • The consistent core of the work is this: the individual is against everything but the self, and any means of proliferation of the self is the only good. Might is the power of the individual, and that is the only foundation of Right.
  • We will end up talking about TSB at some point, we should also briefly discuss the history of Redbeard’s book among anarchists and socialists as well as nationalists and social Darwinists.
• Egoism
  • Might is Right is a key philosophical principle.
  • Philosophical basis for Objectivism, Individualism, and Satanism.
  • “The Unique and Its Property” by Max Stirner
    • “With right one always asks: ‘What or who gives me the right?’ Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your power, your strength gives you the right (your reason, for example, may give it to you).”
    • “The tiger that attacks me has the right, and I, who strike him down, also have the right. I defend not my right against him, but rather myself.”
    • “People try to distinguish law from arbitrary command, from ordinance: the former comes from a rightful authority. But a law over human action (ethical law, state law, etc.) is always a declaration of will, and so a command. Yes, even if I gave myself the law, it would only be my command, which I can refuse to obey at the next moment.”
  • “The Gospel of Power” by Dora Marsden
    • “The ‘poor’ man is the one who lacks the power to get what he wants. If he had the ‘might,’ the ‘competence’ to cover the wide expanse of these ‘rights,’ he would not be in the position of a beggar asking for the favour of a job from a master: he would have set about being his own master.”
    • “All properties are as fluid to the acquiring as air is: they know only one authority: the will which can command them; and the means which can command them can be as readily sought and found in the individual will, as can the force which primarily conceives them as desirable.”
    • “Now one’s just due is what one can obtain if one chooses to put the particular issue to a test of trial by strength. It is a corollary following from one’s competence.”
• Conversational points and examples
  • Might through:
    • Knowledge
    • Wisdom
    • Skills/talents
  • Why is it right? Why should one man/group who/which CAN impose his/their will be right? 
  • If right is defined by the individual through might, how can it be universal to all?
    • If the imposed right is only relevant to those imposing it, the subjects of that will refuse to acknowledge the right even if they acquiesce to it. Can it be right if ‘right’ is subjective?
  • If nature and natural behavior/order define right, why do human animals oppose it so naturally?
    • We have evolved past it in modern culture. Is that right as well?
    • I (Jeff) will disagree with both of these points, but I’m not bringing data or anything to the table on that, just discussion.