The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error...

>The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance, even as it was the heritage of previous generations. This 'condition of combat' may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it.

>Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downward grade. If the human animal lives a natural, cleanly life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to 'protect' him — no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests — no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no 'priests of the Idol' to 'save' his soul.

>The normal man is the man that loves and feasts and fights and hunts, the predatory man. The abnormal man is he that toils for a master, half-starves, and 'thinks' — the Christly dog. The first is a perfect animal; the second, a perfect — monster.


How can you argue against this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

you know the book was a parody right?

"no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests"

....

sperm cooperate in order to reach and impregnate the ovum, life is a team effort

yeah but what about this
>the real treasure were your friends all along

>Warriors are the scourge of the world. We struggle against nature and ignorance and obstacles of all kinds to make our wretched life less hard. Learned men—benefactors of all—spend their lives in working, in seeking what can aid, what be of use, what can alleviate the lot of their fellows. They devote themselves unsparingly to their task of usefulness, making one discovery after another, enlarging the sphere of human intelligence, extending the bounds of science, adding each day some new store to the sum of knowledge, gaining each day prosperity, ease, strength for their country.

>War breaks out. In six months the generals have destroyed the work of twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius.

>That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous materialism.

>We have seen it, war. We have seen men turned to brutes, frenzied, killing for fun, for terror, for bravado, for ostentation. Then when right is no more, law is dead, every notion of justice has disappeared. We have seen men shoot innocent creatures found on the road, and suspected because they were afraid. We have seen them kill dogs chained at their masters' doors to try their new revolvers. We have seen them fire on cows lying in a field for no reason whatever, simply for the sake of shooting, for a joke.

>That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous materialism.

>Going into a country, cutting the man's throat who defends his house because he wears a blouse and has not a military cap on his head, burning the dwellings of wretched[153] beings who have nothing to eat, breaking furniture and stealing goods, drinking the wine found in the cellars, violating the women in the streets, burning thousands of francs' worth of powder, and leaving misery and cholera in one's track—

>That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous materialism.

>What have they done, those warriors, that proves the least intelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannons and muskets. That is all.

>What remains to us from Greece? Books and statues. Is Greece great from her conquests or her creations?

>The naturalism as morality fallacy.

what book is this

>dude it was a parody
Just because you don't want to realise the truths presented in the book.
You can't argue against that.
Tribes cooperate to war with other tribes.
>muh war is bad
There's nothing wrong with pre modern warfare, and views that "war is bad" is a western modernist view.

In the first theory of life a man's life is limited to his one individuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of this individuality. In the second theory of life a man's life is limited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and classes of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will of those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life a man's life is limited not to societies and classes of individuals, but extends to the principle and source of life—to God.

These three conceptions of life form the foundation of all the religions that exist or have existed.

The savage recognizes life only in himself and his personal desires. His interest in life is concentrated on himself alone. The highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires. The motive power of his life is personal enjoyment. His religion consists in propitiating his deity and in worshiping his gods, whom he imagines as persons living only for their personal aims.

The civilized pagan recognizes life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies. The motive power of his life is glory. His religion consists in the exaltation of the glory of those who are allied to him—the founders of his family, his ancestors, his rulers—and in worshiping gods who are exclusively protectors of his clan, his family, his nation, his government.[8]

The man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in the family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government), but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family and social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his religion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the whole—God.

The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception[90] of life to the social conception of life, and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life. The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole of history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view of life to the divine view of life. Many such cases!

War removes resources- especially the energy of young men in the prime of their life. Think of all that processing power being sent to the front. The trenches were a cancer on that entire generation.

War removes resources in a process like subtraction, but every new connection you make with someone is closer to increase by multiplication. Two people working together are greater than the sum of their parts. Also, you have the potential for additional connections to each other's connections. This process is iterative.

>implying it's not true
Might is Right
Firstly, the Savage and the "Civilised Pagan" are the same. There's no difference between them, Tribal cultures have been like that.

Going past those causes degeneracy, sodomy, urbanisation, etc.
1. There is glory in dying in battle.
2. I'm talking about pre modern warfare, not trench warfare and modern killing with drones.

>glory

Any argument you had just went right out the window

>natural world
>natural man
>natural law
>natural, cleanly life
>normal man
Wew. I don't even wholly disagree but appeals to nature are awful arguments. Go back to /pol/ but actually read the sticky on logical fallacies this time.

Except the appeal to nature is valid.
>"but-but, infant mortality exists in nature"
Infant mortality is eugenics and ensures the fittest survive.

What does he define as "thinking" here? Obviously to even write this book at all, you'd have to do some thinking. Does he not approve of Nietzsche's vision of "lusting after knowledge as the lion lusts for its prey"? I'm always interested by these kind of books. Is he against thinking in the same way that someone like Zappfe would be against thinking? Zappfe had that thing about the ancient man who goes out to hunt his prey but soon starts thinking about "the brotherhood of suffering" in all living creatures or something like that and ends up getting killed by his prey.

Not an argument. Glory exists. The gods grant access to their halls if you live with glory.
Thinking is "muh philosophising", "muh what is good and evil", etc. The Barbaric man does not think, he acts, when he is hungry he kills, with no regard or thought, when he is angry he fights, when he is thirsty he drinks, and when he wants a woman he takes one.

You are literally proud of being infantile, how can someone argue with you

Ragnar must consider himself much less than his ideal then.

How is it being infantile? The weak die in nature, the strong survive.
Ragnar recognised that civilised men (such as him, and all in the west) were inferior to their barbarian ancestors.
>Our clean-skinned 'heathenish' ancestors with all their vital forces unimpaired, were really the nobler type of animal. We on the other hand, with our corrupt, irresolute, civilized hearts, our trembling nerves, our fragile anemic constitutions are actually the lower, the viler type -notwithstanding the baseless optimism that courtly rhymers drivel into their "Heirs of all the ages," etc., etc.

WOW great. Fuck modern science, if a baby can’t kill his own meal then what’s the point of him learning to walk?

>'If we only lived as Christ lived, what a beautiful world this would be,' saith all thoughtless ones. If we lived as Christ lived, there would be none of us left to live. He begat no children.

Was this nigga for real

Yeah, he's right about everything.

>Primitive Christianity cunningly appealed to the imagination of a world of superstitious slaves (eager for some
mode of escape that meant not the giving and receiving of battle- strokes). It organized them for the overthrow of Heroic Principles; and substituted for a genuine nobility based on battle-selection, a crafty theocracy founded upon priest-craft, hell-craft, alms-giving, politicalisms and all that is impure and subterranean. It is a doctrine at the disgraceful in its antecedents, its teachers and in itself. Truly has it been called 'the fatal dower of Constantine,' for it has suffocated or is suffocating the seeds of Heroism.

>Both ancient and modern Christianism and all that has its root therein is the negation of everything grand, noble, generous, heroic, and the glorification of everything feeble, atrocious, dishonorable, dastardly. The cross is now, and ever has been, an escutcheon of shame. It represents a gallows, and a Semite slave swinging thereon. For two thousand years it has absolutely overturned human reason, overthrown common sense, infected the world with madness submissiveness, degeneracy.

The word "strawman" gets thrown around a lot but wew is this a perfect example of a strawman. Obviously no one expects babies to kill their own food.
Fucking kek at sodomy being linked to degeneracy. As if the noble warriors of the past didn't buttfuck each other all the time. How do you make four Spartan soldiers sit on a stool? Flip it upside down.
Face the facts. Ironically, a lot of Jews are ruthless in their business endeavors in a "noble morality" type of way, yet Ragnar whiningly calls it "usurious," as in "unfair!!!!" Someone should tell him might makes right.
>glory
It sure is getting spooky in here

>There's nothing wrong with pre modern warfare, and views that "war is bad" is a western modernist view.
You are the first pathetic worm to lose his mind under the psychological terror instilled by constant dread of your life and one on ones, looking your enemy into the eyes, someone who might as well have been your neighbour, and extinguishing his life with your own hands, because the landlord who you serve wants more land to gain more power and uses you as his tool. You are the kind of loser writing about the rape and torture of your beloved ones, you would write how wrong you were about war, just for some stupid ignorant little soyboy, who couldn't even survive a fistifight without ptsd, to laugh at your grief and sorrow while spounting that war is the purest form of truth that we needed it, that war is great and needed. This twat will call himself intellectual because he uses words as "western modernist" and thinks that because his ideas deviate from the norm that they have any form of value or are the ideas that will wake the ignorant sheeple.

I meant the fact that he thought a world without humans was somehow a negative. Animals do everything Ragnar is describing but better. No humans, only animals.

The Germanic Tribes (uncivilised) drowned sodomites in bogs.
>muh war
You do realise that seeing killing as a bad thing, and war as a bad and sad experience, is a modern western phenomenon? People back in the day were used to death. You're the typical modernist, going on and on about how war is bad and you need to look into your enemies eyes when you kill him, etc, when ancient societies didn't view it that way. They viewed war as emasculating and as a way of life, and killing wasn't bad to them.
Yeah, he didn't like civilisation, not humanity.
There's a difference between tribes throwing spears at each other and stabbing each other with swords and thinking dying in battle is glorious (to be fair many muslims believe that nowadays) and shooting people with drones, being under constant artillery and mortar fire, afraid of being shot at any moment, under machine gun fire, etc.

>ancient societies didn't view it that way. They viewed war as emasculating and as a way of life, and killing wasn't bad to them.
That is because they were all brainlets only capable of dressing and feeding themselves. Their lives were so miserable that they made up cosmic deitys and myths that reward you in your afterlife more so if you die in battle. THESE people could seriously believe that because they were fucking degenerates and this was their only salvation, thus they could go into battle thinking that they do it for some kind of greater cause. But any human being born today, including you, even without being taught how bad war is, will not see war as these "ancient societies" saw it. You would still grovel on the floor from the after effects if you were to survive.
We humans love violence, but war is on another whole level. If you can't see that, then i can't help you.
Why are you advocating war anyways, the fact that you have to restrict it to the ancient times makes your point near senseless. You are saying you have to trick yourself into believeing into a nonesensical afterlife to ever appreciate war. You are advocating waisting incredible potential with your petty little human feuds, reducing the smartest beings on the planet to bags of meat that only have to react on instinct alone as to not get their skull smashed in. Get some stupid apes to do that for you.
Do you want to rape women that badly that you want to be a viking raiding other villages while your women have to to the math at home because you think math is witchcraft?
I think you should check into your nearest hospital if you seriously, with all your heart and senses and after logical examination believe your pile of shit to be true. And you aren't just drunk on the thought of lawlessness because you grew up to wholesome.

This is where it gets more complicated. The Ragnarian should not make a difference between pre modern warfare and modern warfare as far as how "bad" it is. Why would all that droning and artillery and mortar fire and so on be a bad and sad experience? It seems a little too close to the more conventional idea that war is bad because it is "dehumanizing." It should be considered that "the noble fight" might be nothing more than a concept a person turns to when they cannot effortlessly, far away from the scene of the crime, obliterate an entire city of their enemies with the push of a button. The atomic bomb ought to be the true symbol of might, not some errand-boy soldier out doing the shit work for the true winners of the war, who in their coldness and lack of feeling are best suited for the ways of the world, just as a rock is fitter than any living organism.

join ISIS, OP

>>Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downward grade. If the human animal lives a natural, cleanly life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to 'protect' him — no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests — no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no 'priests of the Idol' to 'save' his soul.

So basically what your saying is that indeed, a country boy can survive?

youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

>The Noble savage
Meanwhile tribal people still live life the exact same way we do and experience the same kinds of conflict we do