By David Futrelle
Like the Christchurch shooter, like Elliot Rodger, like countless other mass killers, the shooter who took three young lives at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California yesterday seems to have left behind a manifesto.
But it’s not his manifesto; it’s borrowed from a pseudonymous 19th century paean to “survival of the fittest.” Before launching his assault at the food festival, alleged shooter Santino William Legan posted a message on his Instagram account urging everyone to “Read ‘Might Is Right’ by Ragnar Redbeard.”
The book in question, first published in 1890, is an over-the-top, sometimes comically so, explication of the simple, and simplistic, idea encapsulated in its title; it’s been in and out of print for more than a century and is now readily available on the internet for free. The prose is ponderous and purple — “Redbeard” specializes in the sort of bombastic rhetoric that has an irresistible allure for many on the far right — but the ideas are easy enough to understand. It’s basically Nietzsche for Dummies.
The victor gets the gold and the land every time. He, also, gets the fairest maidens, the glory tributes. And — why should it be otherwise? Why should the delights of life go to failures and cowards? Why should the spoils of battle belong to the unwarlike?That would be insanity, utterly unnatural and immoral.
Imagine that stretched out over, say, 180 pages, with heaping helpings of racism and antisemitism on the side, and you’ve got Might is Right. Alongside its glorification of the powerful, the book is filled with snide asides about the “simian disposition” of “the Negro” and regular rants about the “usurious Jew.” (Redbeard is also pretty virulently anti-Christian, but mainly because Jesus was a Jew who liked to talk about the meek inheriting the earth.)
Naturally, the book has become a favorite of many in the manosphere and (of course) on the alt-right. It’s gotten shoutouts everywhere from the MGTOW subreddit (where one commenter hailed it as “the most important book out there”) to Incels.co (where it was described as “the most blackpilled and inflamatory book ever”); you can find it being recommended both by the old-school racists of the Vanguard News Network and by the relatively newfangled reactionaries of the Red Pill and DarkEnlightenment subreddits, not to mention 4chan’s /pol/. Before his recent (alleged) conversion to Orthodox Christianity, our old friend fiend Roosh V wrote a largely appreciative “review” of it.
It’s not clear where Legan ran across the book; it could have been almost anywhere. A better question might be: what exactly is it about this 129-year-old book that would appeal to a 19-year-old like Legan? And the answer to that, I think, is relatively straightforward: if you strip away the purple prose and the sometimes archaic references, what Redbeard preaches isn’t that terribly different from the contemporary ideologies of the manosphere and the alt-right.
Nowhere is that clearer — to me at least — than in the final chapter, in which Redbeard takes on the so-called “woman question” and delivers answers that would not seem out of place in Reddit’s the Red Pill.
As he sees it, women are naturally attracted to the most macho of men, those who can both take and deliver a punch, quite literally, as
fighting is the method whereby the most fitted to propagate conclusively prove the fact. …
Women instinctively admire soldiers, athletes, kings, 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. …
Young women have an instinctive detestation for the ‘good young man that died’ kind of adorer, and they positively abhor the pale coward … 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,’ … 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.
Nature, in other words, is an unending battle of Alpha Chads vs obsequious Beta soyboys — and Chad always wins, even if (perhaps especially if) he skips past romance and resorts to brute force to win his fair lady.
Change a few words in Redbeard’s text and you basically have a post on the Red Pill subreddit. Everything new in Red Pill ideology is actually quite old. Indeed, Redbeard even refers to sexual “market value,” an idea that many modern pickup artists think they came up with.
It’s impossible to know — at least given the scant information we now have — what in particular about Rebeard’s book most appealed to Legan, or how exactly the book may have played a role in inspiring his killings.
If he was trying to become the Redbeardian “man among men” that women instinctively hunger for (allegedly), I’m not sure than gunning down a six-year-old is going to earn him the posthumous adoration he may have wanted. It seems more likely he was hoping to garner the admiration of incels and others who are impressed by mass murderers. He may have been less interested in Redbeard’s specific ideas than in the amoral almost-nihilism that permeates the book.
We don’t know. We may never know. An alienated young man read read a really shitty book he (almost certainly) found on the internet and liked it so much he decided to make it the “message” behind his mass shooting. Now three innocents are dead, and so is the shooter himself, gunned down by police shortly after starting his rampage, and the biggest clue we have right now as to his motives is a terrible book from more than a century ago. Ideas have consequences; very bad ideas have very bad consequences.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Patricia:
I do realize that not covering shootings won’t make them “go away” once they’ve happened. But it deprives the killers of the notoriety they crave. Gun control laws have been tried and they actually don’t fulfill their promises of eliminating violence. These guys could always use motor vehicles like Alek Minassian did or better yet, homemade bombs like Boston Marathon terrorists.
But you don’t have to take my word for it!
I’ve heard the same statements for years from forensic psychiatrists.
Pot supuesto!
These people are so arrogant it’s pathetic. Arrogance is overconfidence. Like a teenager who thinks he’s invincible , picks a fight with someone, and gets his lights punched out and a broken nose too.
As an aside, Ragnar Redbeard is such an over the top fake Viking name that I’m pretty sure it’d get you laughed out off even the SCA.
I feel called out and personally attacked by this bit.
Then why is the US so much worse on gun violence than nations with proper gun control? FFS, if I didn’t already think you were a troll before, waltzing into a thread about a mass shooting and declaring gun control to not work would have sealed it.
@Pyxxxie: Gun control does work. Look at the rest of the world.
Gun control laws work.
The US experiences exponentially more gun deaths per capita than other countries which enforce gun control.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png
As for the argument that people will just use other means to murder? That’s not borne out by the stats, either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
US murder rate (per 100,000 people): 5.3
Canada: 1.8
UK: 1.2
Australia: 0.8
The US damn near triples the murder rates of similarly wealthy, stable countries. Because of guns.
Hell, most of the gun deaths in my country of Canada are a result of guns being brought across the border from the States. (And from what I recall, a similar thing happens to Mexico.) Because we share a border with the gun-fellators in the USA, our countries are less safe as well.
@ Pyxxxie:
I’m British and live in Britain (UK.) We have some of the strictest firearms control laws in the world, (please note, not a ban as the NRA and various American conservatives would have you believe,) and they are enforced.
Firearms crime is rare here.
It’s not rocket science.
As to keeping the perpetrators off the news, that was tried first by the Thatcher government here, per paramilitary attacks during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, but it soon ran into the buffers of unacceptable government censorship of news outlets.
And it didn’t work.
That’s not rocket science either.
I forget who it was, but a cartoonist (a funny one, not Scott Adams) suggested the “some asshole law”. This mandates that news media can only refer to mass shooters as “some asshole”. So you’d get coverage like “three dead and fifteen wounded as some asshole opens fire at a food festival”. This is pretty much the approach adopted in New Zealand after their recent mass shooting: report, but don’t name. And don’t propagate the manifesto.
Things that work:
Gun control
Not publicizing the method of a suicide to prevent copy cats
Things that don’t work:
Not talking about murder to prevent murder
Uh….Nobles? Kings? Neither are particularly well known for fighting there own battles. Especially not by 1890.
@Valkyrine:
?
Yeah I think there’s an agreement here in the UK, that when reputable news outlets report on a shooting or mass murder they focus on the victims and don’t give out information about the shooter. The coverage still happens, but the victims get the double page and the killer is a footnote. The “some asshole” solution, basically (see @Moggie’s post above)
That way we can have the discussion about shooters without rewarding them.
I don’t know how official this agreement is though, because it doesn’t seem to stop the gutter press printing all the details of killers they can get hold of
@ violet
There are all sorts of factors at play in such circumstances. Some are a matter of law, to do with reporting restrictions, contempt of court, and the risk of jeopardising an investigation or trial (cf the committal proceedings against “Tommy Robinson”). Some are a matter of convention and journalistic ethics.
There’s more here:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/member-publishers/guidance-for-journalists-and-editors/reporting-major-incidents/
Note the ‘give it a year before discussing the perpetrator’ guidance.
Redbeard’s appeal seems to be the same as Ayn Rand’s: telling evil people that their evil is actually good, that they are the Great Men, and that everyone calling their actions evil are just weaklings who envy the superiority of the Great Men.
Gah, what happened with that earlier post… Let’s try this again
@Moggie, Violet
I think the United States putting a “some asshole” law in place would be a good idea, but freeze peach conservatives would never allow it.
I think people get away with saying gun control does not work because they’re comparing cities or states. Which is silly because guns easily come into cities with stricter laws via areas of the country which have almost none. It’s not like there are check points. However, Hawaii is the one state that does show comparatively strict gun laws correlating with lower rates of gun crime because being an island chain, it is hard to bring guns in from another state.
Also, taking away an easy means of committing murder does stop murder. If someone is truly motivated enough, they will find a way. But a lot of people aren’t so motivated that they’ll make a bomb, which is a lot more difficult than picking up a gun.
FWIW, two of the leading candidates for the real identity of “Ragnar Redbeard” are Arthur Desmond and Jack London, both of whom were socialists. (London would’ve had to be a teenager at the time, even if we accept a later publication date of 1896, though to be fair, it does read like the ramblings of a disaffected teenager.) If so, that would undoubtedly buttress the claim that it was a satire of social Darwinism.
The Church of Satan is also very open about the fact that LaVey cribbed a lot of the Satanic Bible from Might is Right, particularly the first chapter. LaVey himself wrote a foreword for one edition of the book.
@WWTH:
Guns, like drugs, can be smuggled between countries. Not all guns are made in the US. The Russian mafia in particular is involved in gun smuggling and brought illegal firearms into western European countries. Don’t think that the Russian mafia cannot or will not come here. And the Donald would turn a blind eye so long as he would benefit from it politically and financially.
People like this WILL resort to other means to kill if they cannot pick up a gun.
I’d rather then resort to other ways when they can’t find guns. Let some asshole try to kill 60 people with a knife. At most he’s probably gonna get is 4 before someone takes his ass down. Some assholes will always try to kill innocent people they dont know but let’s make this shit fucking hard for them. Stop giving them tools that can clear a club full of people in a minute. Aslo pyxxxie your a fucking asshole. Go bring your bullshit somewhere else that is a thread about murdered children!
Pyxxxie basically has the same argument that trolls have when they show up on pages about how toxic masculinity increases rape and how we can educated people on rape. Then starts blurting out “theirs always gonna be rape. So we shouldn’t try to stop it”
Nice strawman, @Lainy. You’re calling me names because I express skepticism about gun control being the answer. I suggested a different approach that you and your cohorts don’t happen to approve of. This “my way or you’re a troll” isn’t gonna fly with me.
@Pyxxxie:
If you’re not internet savvy or connected to organised crime getting a gun on the black market is pretty difficult.
And your argument of ‘gun control is useless because smugglers’ is disproven by facts.
Western and Central Europe have gun control laws of varying strictness.
The rate of mass killings with guns is way lower. There’s years between them.
Whereas in the US they are a daily occurrence.
Most shootings in the US, fatal or otherwise, are done with LEGALLY PURCHASED guns.
Gun control works. The fucking rest of the world proves that!
Declaring otherwise is simply stubborn refusal to accept reality.