Religion and Philosophy

Might Over Rights

With the Heart of a Wolf 

There is no such thing as “human rights.” Every day, everywhere, people are bleating like wounded lambs about this “right” or that “right” being infringed upon by some new horror, some tyrannical or fascist oppressor that seeks to take away their precious little whatever-it-is.

They have been convinced by the seductive voice of equality and universalism that they are “entitled” to these “rights,” such things as freedom, recognition, fairness, leisure and so on. They have been taught that these are realities that no one and nothing should be allowed to take away from them- and it is this exact sense of entitlement that has made modern civilized man feeble, dependent, stomach-churningly weak and incapable.

Man is an animal- brutal, savage, violent, aggressive and primal. This is the natural state he has existed in for millions of years, by necessity- but within the State, he is docile, deferential, gentle, passive and servile. He has become so because he truly believes that his “rights” will be defended for him by the benevolent masters who rule his world, those kind and philanthropic members of the Ascended Caste who keep his best interests in mind and pick him up and dust him off when he falls with a warm smile and a helpful word.

He has come to believe that this is natural, and he gnashes his teeth and weeps at the rampant “injustice” still left in the world when some event arises and goes against his carefully planned weltanschauung. He is comfortable in the thought that this will never happen to him, however, and he goes about his life in blissful ignorance of the complete fallacy of his understanding of the world around him, totally unprepared for the eventuality that he will one day come face to face with natural law.

Does the wolf have a “right” to eat a deer, or to live free from the hunter’s rifle or the trapper’s snare? Does he have the right to be treated equal to the alpha-male? Of course not. He must kill the deer, he must prove to be more than the deer’s equal in order to eat and survive. He must evade the bullet, and out-wit the snare. Who will he petition or complain to when he is “unfairly” treated by the other members of the pack? He will not. He will continue to attempt to prove his place through cunning, savagery, ferocity- he will show himself a worthy member of the pack through merit, because in nature, the weak and unfit die, or are cast out.

Why do we as humans feel that we can demand equal treatment with mewling words? We must obtain respect with our actions, not as a right, but with a cold fury, fully capable and willing to display why and how we will demand the treatment we desire- we have to be prepared to fight for our place in this world, to kill for it, if necessary- with the full knowledge that there are those who would kill us without a second thought to our belief in liberty, equality or “fair treatment.”

Freedom of speech? Certainly. Say what you like, and decide whether the bullet ripping through your skull was worth it. Recognize that even the spoken word is not a right to speak with impunity, it is a choice you have made and a potential repercussion you must deal with. We have to take responsibility for our actions and understand that in this world, only might makes right.”

3 replies »

  1. On the anarcho fringe we have two equally dubious narratives about human nature:

    On the left, we have the good old “noble savage” narrative, now dressed up in scientism as the “noble bonobo”. In this narrative the human race was once a beautiful peaceful species, living in a pristine state of primitive socialism and sexual communism, in total harmony with itself and the ecosystem. Then one day the serpent (property/society/civilization/capitalism/the male gender/reason) crawled into the garden and corrupted everything.

    On the right we have the Darwinian savage narrative, not so much dressed up in scientism as a direct product of it. In this narrative the human race was once a brutal ruthless species, some strange sort of asocial lizard, living in a pristine state of merciless evolutionary struggle against its own species, the war of all against all. Then one day the serpent (altruism/socialism/democracy/the state/the Jews) crawled into the garden and corrupted everything.

    Both are bullshit, and represent little more than an attempt to project your own political values onto “nature” or “natural man”, presumably because you incompetent to actually argue for them on their own terms.

    As long as you are merely enjoying a deviant subculture of political consumerism, this isn’t much of problem. If you ever want to actually destroy the toxic cage we live in, however, a more realistic view of human nature will be required, as will be the ability to argue for a new political order on the basis of its real desirability rather than some specious argument about our “natural state”. That entire argument can be refuted politically with “so what?”. The internet is not natural. Medicine is not natural. The grocery store is not natural. If you really want to go back to hunter-gathering, go right ahead, but don’t get all butthurt when no one else is interested in following you.

    The view of the Wolf Pack that is so attractive to the anarcho-right comes from fiction and bad science that was based on observing wolves in zoo cages. In nature most wolf packs are small families, with the “Alphas” being the parents. It isn’t a successful survival strategy to mercilessly compete with your own children. Like other mammal children, Wolf cubs are weak and dependent and can only survive by the altruism of their parents. The entire life of the “Pack” is a process of one set of wolves (the parents) feeding and nurturing another set of wolves (the children) until they are strong enough to leave the pack and have cubs of their own.

    • The bonobo left needs the hardcore, gangster attitude of the wolf pack right if it wants it’s values to survive and the wolf pack right needs the compassion of the bonobo left if it plans on building a community that anyone would actually want to live in and contribute to.

      I’ve met a number of radical leftists who are eager to talk to me about the noble savage narrative of Natives in my region. I usually steer the conversation toward talking about how my tribe’s clans were more equivalent to today’s street gangs than today’s leftist group therapy sessions.

  2. “On the anarcho fringe we have two equally dubious narratives about human nature.”

    “Both are bullshit, and represent little more than an attempt to project your own political values onto “nature” or “natural man”, presumably because you incompetent to actually argue for them on their own terms.”

    Which means the two sides probably end up balancing each other out, just like an-coms and an-caps, national-anarchists and anti-racists, primitivists and anarcho-technophiles.

Leave a Reply