Talk:Might Is Right

POV

Point of view (This artical seems to only be dominated by Darwinistic Randroids). Can their be at least SOME critical reviews as well? -- 69.248.43.27 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the bottom link is quite critical of it. Being as it is the foundation for the Satanic Bible, and such an obscure text, reviews are likely to be skewed towards or against it, anyways. I don't really see a problem here, though. If you think it's a problem, just find a negative review and tack it onto the bottom. Fourthgeek 05:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Download Might is Right

Since the text of the Might is Right is in public domain for long time, does anybody know where one may download the full original text? Perhaps somebody can OCR the book without the copyrighted introduction and afterword? I would definitely appreciate this. Memediver 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm (slowly) working on uploading it to Project Gutenberg. My copy is pretty poor so OCR won't really work well. :/ Fourthgeek 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Satanism

Although LaVey used this in his work, I don't think this should necessarily be listed within the Satanism template. You could just as well put it under a Nazism template, an Evolutionary Theory template, or any other. It has contributed to much more than just Satanism, misinterpreted and reinterpreted to fit the aims of many groups. Fourthgeek 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing as Fourthgeek. The book has no basis or connection with any aspect of Satanism and should be removed. Keeping the template muddies what the book is about and almost acts in a slanderous way. 68.198.148.246 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

merge Ragnar Redbeard with this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ragnar Redbeard has no notability or verifiability outside of the book Might is Right, so that article should be merged with this one. — coelacan — 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As this has already been taken care of I'm going to archive this conversation for purposes of organization. --129.71.73.247 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content

• There is no clear-cut explanation on the page about the relation of the book with Satanism. This needs to be rectified.
• There are no examples of why it was considered "incendiary".
• There are no examples of its "glaring contradictions".
• Ragnar Redbeard should be merged into this, because it is lacking in content. Whatever little it does have, is subjective and unreferenced.

In view of these points, I'll go ahead with the merge and cleanup of these two pages in 48 hours if there are no objections. Thanks xC | ☎ 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial merge has been completed. Will complete the cleanup and re-write (where neccessary) asap. xC | ☎ 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

VS ^talk has removed an external link to a website which I publish containing information and on Arthur Desmond. I believe this link is still relevant to the article, and in fact is an important citation. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the link to the article myself unless it has been discussed on this page. Other editors are free to post the link if they think it is relevant.--Takver 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Arthur Desmond - Ragnar Redbeard and "Might Is Right"

Correct Publication Date

Article says book was published in 1986, yet the publication history shows this entry: "Auditorium Press, 1890." Is this a typo? Kasyapa (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point—the infobox showed the date as 1896 (not 1986), but the text had it as 1890, as well as did the item that you mentioned in the table. The later publication date seems to be given in several sources, including the Tolstoy essay. However, the earlier date seems more likely; while I couldn’t find a reliable source that actually stated that the original publication date was 1890, I found a National Library of Australia catalogue entry and a Google Books page for an 1896 third edition by Auditorium Press, making it likely that the first edition was published by the company some years earlier. I referenced the National Library of Australia web page in the table.

—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand Nietzsche is heavily cited and used in the book, which makes 1890 sound a bit early for an American piece. He was almost unknown to any wider reading public, even in his native Germany, all through the 1880s up to the final months of his creative life (and before that time he had not begun developing his anti-moral, antinomian ideas, the Superman etc). By autumn of 1888 he was just starting to get noticed as a major and innovative (and controversial!) thinker, championed by Georg Brandes and a couple of other critics and writers, and down the line he gained increasing momentum in central Europe, then in the English-speaking countries through the 1890s (while the man himself suffered a terminal mental and physical breakdown in January 1889, removing him personally from the scene) - but by 1890 he would still have been a very arcane, unknown name in most places and especially in the English language. By 1896 he was a very talked-about name and many people had got around to reading him or hearing about him, so it seems very much more likely as a publication date for this pamphlet. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not improbable that a man of letters, like author Ragnar Redbeard/Arthur Desmond, had read Nietzsche even though he wasn't know to the general public. It's also possible that Desmond hit upon similar themes as Nietzsche independently - Darwinism being all the rage and all. In any case, we have a source that puts the first printing in 1890; to speculate without a source is original research.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The authorititive edition on Amazon says it was first published in 1896 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/194368703X/) as does the reference cited. 1890 is speculation and not confirmed anywhere; 1896 is however.

References

Authorship

If you read the well-documented article on Arthur Desmond, it would appear that there is no question whatsoever about the book's authorship.170.71.252.34 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about Jack London seems unlikely. London's first short story was published five years after Might is Right. His second short story was eight years afterwards. London's first novel was twelve years after Might is Right.

And, by the way, Jack London turned 14 years old the year Might is Right was published.

London's age and the length of time between Might is Right and his first short story create a high presumption that he is not the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.228.120 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about reading this, but...

This book seems to get published by ideological publishers. I am wondering if any versions have taken liberty with the text in order to promote different agendas. And if not, which versions are recommended as authentic. --67.54.235.190 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a link to SATIRE in this article so that idiots who believe this not to be a work of satire understand what satire is

RAGNAR REDBEARD as a pen name, no matter who it is in actual reality, means it is a satire automatically, period.

This is a satire.

End of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.251.152 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken links tag

A recent edit added the "broken link" tag to two external links (labeled "EGO No 6 1985 Twenty Five Pence", a link to the internet archive wayback machine capture of the original link and one label "the original"). The first link works for me, it takes a moment for the wayback site to load. I added the first link because the second one died, so I don't believe it has to be tagged as dead. AFAIK, I followed standard procedure for link to internet archive versions of dead links, if someone knows any better, speak up.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tolstoy's "Reaction"

The Tolstoy quote as it was 3/1/13 is hardly a reaction, it's simply a summary of the arguments made in the text. I would imagine if that summary alone must be incorporated, it should be introduced differently. It could easily be misread as supporting the arguments of the author, whereas Tolstoy's actual reaction which follows is a scathing critique. It is a good summary and maybe someone else has another idea on how to incorporate it in full, but as it stands I've replaced much of it with the actual reaction. The content of Wikipedia articles is "booty for the bold" :) 24.91.23.219 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the translation here ought to be replaced by a more correct one. The original Russian quote (here inserted as to spare others the search) is as follows:

"Искусство это отчасти породило, отчасти совпало с таким же философским учением. Недавно я получил из Америки книгу под заглавием «The survival of the fittest. Philosophy of Power. 1897 by Ragnar Redbeard, Chicago1 1896». Сущность этой книги, так, как она выражена в предисловии издателя, та, что оценивать добро по ложной философии еврейских пророков и плаксивых (weeping) мессий есть безумие. Право есть последствие не учения, но власти. Все законы, заповеди, учения о том, чтобы не делать другому того, чего не хочешь, чтобы тебе делали, не имеют в самих себе никакого значения и получают его только от палки, тюрьмы и меча. Человек истинно свободный не обязан повиноваться никаким предписаниям — ни человеческим, ни божеским. Повиновение есть признак вырождения; неповиновение есть признак героя. Люди не должны быть связаны преданиями, выдуманными их врагами. Весь мир есть скользкое поле битвы. Идеальная справедливость состоит в том, чтобы побежденные были эксплоатированы, мучимы, презираемы. Свободный и храбрый может завоевать весь мир. И потому должна быть вечная война за жизнь, за землю, за любовь, за женщин, за власть, за золото. (Нечто подобное высказано было несколько лет тому назад знаменитым утонченным академиком Vogué.) Земля с ее сокровищами — «добыча смелого».

Автор, очевидно, сам, независимо от Ницше, пришел бессознательно к тем выводам, которые исповедуют новые художники.

Изложенные в форме учения, положения эти поражают нас. В сущности же, положения эти включены в идеал искусства, служащего красоте. Искусство наших высших классов воспитало в людях этот идеал сверхчеловека, в сущности старый идеал Нерона, Стеньки Разина, Чингис-хана, Робер Макера, Наполеона и всех их соумышленников, приспешников и льстецов, и всеми своими силами утверждает его в них.

Вот в этом-то замещении идеала нравственности идеалом красоты, то есть наслаждения, заключается четвертое и ужасное последствие извращения искусства нашего общества. Страшно подумать о том, что бы было с человечеством, если бы такое искусство распространилось в народных массах. А оно уже начинает распространяться." (From https://rvb.ru/tolstoy/01text/vol_15/01text/0327.htm)

Most importantly the English quote in the article leaves out the entire bold part(emphasis mine) which reads as follows when put in google translate:

"People should not be bound by legends invented by their enemies. The whole world is a slippery battlefield. Ideal justice is that the vanquished be exploited, tormented, despised. Free and brave can conquer the whole world. And therefore there must be an eternal war for life, for the earth, for love, for women, for power, for gold. (Something similar was expressed a few years ago by the famous and sophisticated academician Vogué.) The land with its treasures is “prey of the brave”.

The author, obviously, himself, regardless of Nietzsche, came unconsciously to the conclusions that new artists profess."

Instead it replaces it with "A subject of Fascism based off the “Proto-Fascism”.". This is misleading for the reader as the original text does not make use of the term fascism ("фашизм") - which was coined in the 1920's, a good ten years after Tolstoy died - and makes a much larger comment. I have, however, not been able to find a good alternative source. Tomvasseur (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Closed by Tiggerjay; see closing comment at the end of the discussion. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Might is Right → Might Is Right – Per MOS:CT, in the titles of compositions all verbs should be capitalized. Is is a verb and should therefore be capitalized. Although some (not all) sources do not capitalize Is, Wikipedia should capitalize according to its own style guidelines. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not our job to make up capitalization. The book appears to capitalize Is. Apteva (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the book cover shows "Might is Right" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. No, there is no dot on that I. What the book cover actually shows is MIGHT IS RIGHT, in 3 different sizes of capital letters. Is that how we should title the article? Graphical titles used to illustrate the covers of books (or albums, games and other titled works) are subject to the whims of designers and illustrators and are not a good indicator of how we ought to apply our style guidelines.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment no, you're wrong. it says MIGHT IS RIGHT, which is the same as "Might is Right" The "i" is not enlarged, and is the same size as the "s" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment While acknowledging that this is possibly the silliest argument in the history of Wikipedia, I must point out again that the I in IS has no dot, therefore it is a small capital, not a lowercase i. The two other lowercase is on the cover clearly do have dots, so there is a distinction made. But even if I were to grant your point, my other point still stands: Graphical titles on book covers are not a sound standard by which determine the correct or "official" capitalization of a title. --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment If you're going to argue that, then the title is "Might IS Right" with the S necessarily capitalized, because it is the same size as the "I". Clearly the other 'i's are not smallcaps, so you can't compare it that way, since the only allcaps are "MIGHT IS RIGHT" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Comment Font size does not determine letter case.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Comment in the case of the font/typeface used for "might is right" on the cover, the size of the caps is used to indicate capitalization, as it does in many different fonts/typefaces. Otherwise the M and the R would not be larger than the other letters in those words. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Comment Now you're just making stuff up. By that logic, the IS, in the smallest of the three font sizes, would be something "lower" than lowercase, whatever that would be. And all of this is still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand...--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Comment Have you ever used an allcaps font at all? Check some out [1] -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CT. Powers ^T 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • MOS:CT only applies to titles that we do not have articles about. WP:NCCAPS is the applicable page for article titles. Apteva (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Which says, "For details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles, which is MOS:CT, yes?" Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense whatsoever. Apteva (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:NCCAPS specifies a capitalization guideline for titled works that is exactly the same as MOS:CT.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And it refers to MOS:CT for more detail. It's not clear to me if Apteva is saying that referral makes no sense, or that my pointing it out makes no sense. Makes no sense... Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I've found its best to ignore such things these days. Powers ^T 12:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CT, indeed. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Closing comment - consensus is to follow policy in MOS:CT, since this page is already existing, I am deferring to an admin to CSD#G6 to make room for the move. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves/Doug Misicko/Douglas Mesner's contribution to the Bugbee edition

Which section would be most appropriate to include information about this? Given that it's a recurring topic in criticism of TST and Greaves, people who search for information about it and find this article as a result could benefit from the inclusion of a short summary. Ezqel (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)