I. The species is decadent:   There seems to me no reason, presently, why species and race cannot be seen as distinct and separate "entities," operating, as I say, according to distinct and separate principles.   The race appears within the species; that does not mean that the race is of the species.  It would even be possible to assume that race and species are in a sort of competition with one another.    Biological science at present has no provision or study, known to me, that comes to this conclusion; so the burden of proof is on me, now.  I have tried in past pages of this blog to lay some sort of groundwork for coming to my conclusions.   In any case,  I earlier said that the species, precisely because it is exclusive and self-contained among other species, is decadent; it has within it all the possibilities it can logically have.   The species, almost by definition and by virtue of a venerable past of successful competition, has come to have a certain "standing" and respectability in nature in general and in the company of other species.  The species is by definition "successful."  Like any successful entity, it is conservative--it "strives" to maintain its place in its world.  Respectability and consciousness of success, however, is, on the other hand, per se decadent.

In Force Theory, to be merely static and conservative is to be decadent.  Life either expands and progresses, or withers.  This statis quo orientation of the species, as a form of Nature, is in this sense decadent.   Race, on the other hand, which emerges out of the species--like a child out of the parent--is full of new life and possibilities.  We may dwell at present on the "conservative" orientation of the species.  The species, as I say, is entirely contained within itself; it cannot take on, as a new part of itself, genes or possibilities that come from outside itself.  These new possibilities, if there are to be any, must come from within the species; but the species does not want them.  These new genes and possibilities are, from the vantage point of the species, simply "mutant."  Mutants are mainly, statistically, harmful to the species; they are woefully harmful, in the viewpoint of the species, if these mutuants spread.  Race from the standpoint of the species is simply a mutation, but one moreover that proliferates on its own accord with no account given to the already proven successes of species adaptation.  Race is the way nature resolves the issue of mutations within a species.  Race is an "entity" in a position to take the position of an independent, new species  and one moreover in competition with the old species.  This new threat comes even before the race has achieved genetic separation from its parent species.

II. The race is new, vital life:   Life we say expresses itself as a creative force through the race, not the species.   An example of a "successful species," because of its longevity on earth, is cockroaches.  Where racial forms appear, the evolutional advance is faster and more profound.   Racially, life advances as inward and outward form.  Race continually refines its own forms.  White people, precisely through racial mixture--because they mix out and not in--become whiter than they once were.  This is "cosmic whiteness" expressing itself.  Race is always passing out of itself, as waste, redundant and contradictory genes and possibilities.  Lower and degenerate forms of the stronger race pass out of their original race and into other races, which can be thought of as sponging up these bad genes.   Race on the other hand, if race is strong, does not take on corrupting genes and possibilities coming from outside itself.   Race takes into itself from outside itself only what is relevant to its own advance.  Thus the race--the stronger race--becomes over time more what it is, and less what it is not.  The white race advances in this way.  Degenerate forms of the white race pass out of the race, but into other races.  White people become "whiter."  Thiss is not a law of man but a law of nature.  Culture attaches itself to race and either affirms or contradicts this basic order and orderliness of nature.

III. The battleground of competition between race and species is the individual:  Within the individual a multitude of forces and principles are at work.   We may assume that any normal person has within him, genetically, principles of both race and species.  In the context of Force Theory we are saying that what is conservative and staid in the person is "of" the species; what is radical and adventurous is racial.  The person has within him or her tendencies to identify with or depart from his or her own race.  We may consider first basic mating before proceeding to the more subtle issues of race and species.   In the terms we are thinking now--and here a certain reversal of perspective is necessary compared to the ordinary contemporary "democratic" viewpoint--to be radical means to become more of what a person already is, in the face of what is essentially what one is not.  Here we may take up the sensitive issue of "race mixing."  To be radical is to allow or promote race mixing--but only if the mixing is "out."  We will say, for example, it is permissable for black and white to misceginate, while, on the other hand, the mixed offspring are not considered white but rather black.  Thus white genes go to the black race; black genes do not go to the white race.  This is in fact the present policy of the white race, meaning, of course, that the black race gets whiter--slowly, like Brazil--while the white race gets whiter.  The white race is now whiter because the people who do not want to be white are sponged out of the white race by the black race.  This is one example of racial evolution.  The  paradox we present here is that it is precisely race mixing, as we have qualified the term, that advances the cause of racial purity.  These are all principles working on various levels through the entire spectrum of biological evolution.

The species does not [note the recasting of this sentence:|] reject diversity, since within the species there may be all sorts of bizarre apparitions--as there are among American black people.  What the species abhores and fights against is the concentration of unique features in separate or segregated populations.  The species evenly spreads, as through osmosis,  any changes that occur within it throughout the species as a whole, affirming the species and the standing of the species in nature.  The species is centrifical.   Race on the other hand hordes newness.  Race is gravitational, it clings to what is unique to itself, while it discharges through miscegination what is species-bound back to the species.   A strong race exhibits its strength precisely in controling the outcome of miscegination.  The weaker race takes on the unwanted genes of the stronger one. 

IV. Culture that is "about" the (human) species is decadent:   Culture includes such activities as art, economics, religion and so forth.   Extending our perspective beyond biology to human culture, we may understand that economics, where it is about the species, is decadent; where economics--we would rather say art--is about the race it, economics, is creative and dynamic.  Friedrich Engels in Socialism limits himself to the area of human activity, consumer economics, that is of most universal human preoccupation and for that reason is the most trivial and inherently uncreative area of human endeavor.  Engels spent his life concerned about whether this or that humdrum person had all the cooking pots he needed.  Certain work is needed before we can make the required fine distinctions of biology and culture.   We need a great deal of discussion at this point to define species and race from the vantage point of life itself.  This essay will affirm race as creative and castigate the species as decadent.  But we may go beyond the purely biological issue, raising, as we are about to, the question of human culture. Our main examples of culture will be art and economics.  Race, species, art and economics--these are things we will try to bring together in a single picture.

The "dialectic" of race and species; of race culture and species culture:    The species, even as the species is confining and static, competes against the race.  This conflict is simply natural selection.  There are polyps in the sea whose new branches compete with the older branches, all this competion while the forms are still joined.  There can be--and is--a struggle between the general form and the form within the form.  Indeed, where there is life there is no aspect of life that is free of this "struggle for survival."  It is not enough to point out that the race is a form within the species; race and species are living entities and as such strive to develop at the expense of the other.   I am suggesting something other than is currently thought in biological science; therefore I accept a further burden of proof.  What I am saying simply is that this is the same universal struggle for survival among living forms, in this case outer and static forms and inner or vital forms.  Race and species are two different entities:  the one survives and endures, as its mode of existence; the other expands and even, in surpassing itself, dooms itself to extinction.  In Nietzsche's phrase, "Man is something that shall be surpassed."  This is precisely true.  But its mode of advance is through the race--at the expense of the species.

Race is a choice.  The species, on the contrary, is no choice.  One is born into a race without being consulted, obviously, and without any free decision.  But there is more.  While having no choice of the race into which one appears as an individual, there is for him or her still choice as to where to pass one's genes and possibilities.   One chooses a mate; that is a true choice in every sense and one that sets the person in one culture or the other.  Marriage is both a genetic and cultural choice.  We may follow mainstream philosophers in assuming that choice is an act of will, an event of biological and personal assertion.  Through choice the person is "free."  So far in this blog, and for good reason, I have avoided the word "freedom" as undefinable.  Freedom in the context of Force Theory means simply the ability to "choose" between one possibility and the other.  We may still assume that there are internal forces and principles "coercing" one's "free" choice; even emotions and other internal stimulae are coercive.  Insofar as one acts according to any internal motive, however, the person is "free" in choosing one possibility over another.  This is true of one's choice of a marriage partner, and simultaneously of one's race--not his race as extending into the past, but his race extending into the future.  We may qualify the word race here to mean future race.  Our decisions in general never are about the past, which is unalterable; they are about the future.  Still, one has no choice about the species, since the person imparts his genes and possiblities to the species in general, so long as the race does still belong to the  species.  One does not have to impart one's genes and possibilities to a given race, however:  in this one has a choice.  Of course, one can still impart his or her genes and possibilities into a race other than the one one is born into.  Whatever choice one makes in regard to a given race, that choice alters the race inwardly and outwardly.  If I choose not to bear black children, that fact alters the black race; if I choose to bear black children, that choice alters the black race.    Every choice I make whatsoever, in my culture and personal relations, affects race.   No decision I make affects species.  All decisions I make are absorbed uniformly, along with everyone else's decisions--and these are decisions large and small that we make countless times every day--by the species.  If we consider a choice an act of will, then race itself appears through an assertion of the individual, who, as we have said, is the focus of will and willing, or of pure nature. 

Trust is a suspension of free choice.  As we trust, so we agree to suspend any assertion of will.  I have already talked about true trust as a state of mind of human beings who, through language and promises, are together in an agreement.  Trust means in the context of an agreement that the human renders himself "vulnerable" to another person.  Any choice within the framework of an agreement is absolutely disruptive to that agreement.  To have an agreement in the first place means that everything stated in the terms of the agreement has already been decided.  Any choices that there have been are in the past and in that sense outside reach of any free choice whatsoever.  I have talked about agreement extensively in this blog.  An agreement can be seen as a confinement, in that sense contra naturam, in which choice and even life itself, as a vital force, is suspended.  The agreement is most perfectly represented in writing, as an abstract expression of language, where any living motives are per se suspect.

Both choice and trust can be understood only with reference to an agreement:  choice is about an agreement, in the formulation of an agreement [here I am skating on thin ice:(];  trust is a state of being within an agreement.  Choice is always active in making an agreement; choice is never, on the other hand, welcome inside an agreement.  Choice and trust are seen here, in Force Theory, as logical and empirical opposites.  Where there is free choice there is no agreement.  Where there is trust there is already, in effect, an agreement.   If I say I trust a person, I withdraw all personal input--choice--regarding what has been agreed to in the first place.  There can be specific provisions for trust:  I entrust my money to a stockbroker with the stipulation that he not buy and sell stocks in my account without my permission.  In this agreement I do not trust my stockbroker.  Or, I may give him permission to buy or sell stocks in my account.  Here I trust him.  To trust is to withdraw one's own freedom of choice, and to render oneself--for a reason--vulnerable to possible abuse.  We conclude by saying that agreements stipulating trust are regarded as "species" oriented.  Here I am going to have to make myself perfectly clear:rolleyes:.  I may qualify myself to say that the species rather than the individual person or race is first to benefit from agreements.

We may take the example of marriage.   Marriage stipulates the "union" of two members of the human species.  Of course, as was the case in Mississippi, there could be a racial requirement.  But in general, in all societies, marriage is a contract between human beings without discriminating race. Marriage is an agreement about the species, not about the individual or the race.  The children that ensue from marriage are to be human, not white or black or red.  This is the arrangement that human beings accept complacently and, as per agreement, on trust.   Marriage thereby becomes a vehicle for unrestricted miscegination.  Religion sometimes passes beyond offering the possibility of miscegination to the requirement of miscegination.  The Spanish in Mexico had this requirement; as did the Moonies and certain cultish groups.  Agreements--precisely because they demand trust and forbid choice--are favored for species ends, to, in other words, secure the biological and cultural uniformity (in the species mind, adaptibility) of the species.  Choice, which is anti-agreement, is also anti-species.  Race, as of the individual, obstructs the free flow of genes and possibilities from one extremity of the species to the other.  Agreements by definition, in the terms we have discussed agreements here, demand equality--and uniformity--of their parties, even as, as we have already said, the species is a biological expression of this very idea of uniform distribution.  [review this material:rolleyes:]

The human being lives in the world through his culture.  For this reason--that humans have culture with them and around them always--issues of biology and issues of culture are often difficult to separate.  Oswald Spengler speaks of culture, in its healthy phase, as "grown together" with race as the soil of a plant is grown together with the plant itself.  Culture as we define the word is not biological, but is about biology.  Spengler should have pointed out, at the same time, what a liability culture can be:  where culture and biology are indistinguishable, an attack of some sort--here we may imagine some sort of "cultural virus"--on the culture would be an assault, simultaneously, on a people's race or biology in general.  Culture and biology may be intertwined, by they are nevertheless external to one another. Human culture is only a physical and, what is the same, a mental thing; where culture is mental it is purely abstract and in that sense "external" to issues of essential life.  This--the distinction between biology and culture--will be our basic point of view.   Here again we may distinguish racial from species objectives of culture.    Culture, which is a conscious human effort to support life, is creative when culture is "racial" but decadent when it is simply "human."   Two areas of culture may be considered as examples of what we are talking about.   Art, for instance, although an apparently ephemeral and fleeting thing, is always individual and in that sense, too, racial.  What is merely economic, the thing Engels talked about--a mass of pots and pans for the kitchens of workaday people--is merely human, and in that sense decadent.  Just to say a thing is practical is to identify that thing, as such, as "decadent."   The very word economics suggests a reality that is in decline simply because any economy is a "human" economy.  Human means here of and pertaining to the human species, Homo sapiens.  Words such as mankind and man are used in this context.  The species as any species should be seen as an as an external enclosure for which there are no new possibilities.  The species is what life has become, a pure outline, but within the species appear new forms--these new forms we call race.  Having

Life declines within the species.   Seeing the species as the outer form limiting inward possibilities, the species has "become" entirely what it is, with no chance for change as a species.  Any change to the species comes first to the race, which is "open" to new possibilities.   Race has no immediate boundaries and is free in its choices and possibilities.  The race, as I say, is itself just such a boundary or confinement,  being--and passing away-- but not becoming.  Race is the child, the species is the parent. 

"Mankind," is an entirely abstract, species-focused word and in that sense "decadent."  As societies increased in size, and incorporated ever more diverse human elements on some sort of "contractual" footing with one another, the sacred documents of such groups--we may mention the American Constitution--use words such as "humanity" and "mankind" that are devoid of any content whatsoever other than the content of species.  In my Philtalk essays I talk about such words.  New research on apes shows apes can talk and use words as symbols in thinking much as so-called humans do.  In fact, if we take language to be the defining trait of "human being," apes are essentially as human as most people.  What confines Homo sapiens members in the living world is their genetic isolation from other species.  The word species indicates genetic exclusion, as I say, in biology and in certain communication in general.  The form of the species, in this situation of exclusion and isolation, does not change; the form simply passes away to make way for another species.  This is the order and progress of the living vital force.  The agency of any change that there is is race.  Through race, which emerges within a species, the species is simply overwhelmed by new form and new creative possibilities.  The race and species enter into a confrontational "dialectic," with the species the conservative and confining agent and the race as the creative, form-abolishing agent.  Correspondingly, human culture takes part in this confrontation.  What is creative in culture is what is also emphemeral and individual.  Thus, for example, art--in the widest sense of the word art--triumphs over the dull reality of everday economics.  The race supplants the species.  The very word "mankind," we suggest, is slated for extinction.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2009-09-09 18:56:36)


Issues of nature are radically obscured through issues of human culture.   A fundamental task of Force Theory is to disentangle these issues.  Our primary focus at this time is on race.  A race and a certain culture seen together are most often taken, even by serious scholars and scientists, to belong to one another inseparably.  A race lives in the world through its productions, its culture.   The race itself can be in a state of certain confusion in this regard.    The race, in identifying too closely with its culture, could theoretically also be destroyed by that culture.  As the culture sinks, so the race would theoretically sink in the aftermath.  I believe this happened to the ancient Greeks who were a small population and whose culture, in a condition of perpetual self-affirmation, sank the Greeks as the culture itself sank.  This--that the white race will disappear as its culture is submerged in and difused through other cultures--is the most basic premise of Americanism.  Americanism as a doctrine is anti-white.   

That is only to say that nationalism, as one facit of culture, is inconsistent with any strong sense, among a strong people, of ego and identity.  For this reason white culture is singled out for special criticism.  I believe there is a concerted effort by Americans in general, including white people, to subvert the white race by subverting white culture.  But white culture is especially prone to criticize and subvert itself; this culture has always been this way, perhaps since days of the upper paleolithic in Europe.  Trade and art, which the Europeans always excelled, has this very tendency:  to undermine itself.  I began a discussion of this subversion in the section here Philosophical Anthropology, but will amplify this material as time goes by.   

Such a premise--that culture idenfiable as white is contrary to the principle of American nationhood-- is believable only because white people are themselves apparently complacent regarding the passing of white culture and the white nation.  This passing, I say, was inevitable.  The passing furthermore--and this is unique to white culture--has been the result of an inherent dialectical process.  White culture negates itself.   I have already discussed how agreements fall inexorably into disagreements, from their into "arbitration."  Finally arbitration--by introducing an "enemy" into the first relationship--contradicts the intention of the original parties to an agreement.  This is an ongoing process and one which is at the center of white history.    The fundamental concept to emerge here is that of the white race itself, self-purified--through charity or economics, among several strong possibilities--of  what is extraneous to it.

Capitalism as Engels pointed out is a self-contradiction.  The capitalist deprives his workers of the means to live--and to buy!--when such buying by the common man is necessary to the support of capitalism itself.   But there is more.   Engels also saw that capitalism would pass over into something larger than itself, which has turned out to be not commuinism but the "global economy."  Engels was right on that too--capitalism seeks ever larger, more remote markets for its goods.  If the white race began capitalism, that race would also perish with it.    Engels was correct in this fundamental basic economic point.  What Engels did not mention, perhaps because this point was outside his narrow economic focus, that much of what white people do--charity and empathy are prime examples--contradicts the white race itself, demeans it, demoralizes it and would theoretically destroy it.    Actually white people are in an ongoing process of divesting themselves of and jetisoning their own culture and "anything white."  White culture in this sense, if it does not destroy the white race--which is a possibility--will simply purify the idea of whitenss.   No other race is precisely like this.   I am taking this later optimistic view.

With the passing of white culture there will pass, too, the culturally ingrained inhibitions against violence.  The paradox of charity is that it is the most destructive principle of nature; it is the principle wherein nature through mediating culture negates itself.    The new age of whiteness will accept violence as a way of life, but will use this in a creative way.    I have named Force Theory for this paradoxical principle of creative violence.   From self-destructive charity and empathy we pass to a period, of longer duration, of creative violence.  I have used the term "baboon fascism," which term appears to belittle the very principle I affirm.  Through the qualifying phrase "creative violence" we move our concept in the direction that would affirm the best in human nature, to appear, finally, as Spartan Socialism.  More on the details of this system--public physical exercise and military training--will be included later in this blog.

I have said that "self-criticism" is at the heart of white culture.  This is true.  This self-criticism is elicited by the very word "white" which is an abstract word meaningless in itself.    Many Americans who are white will not call themselves white; they are --no race at all!    The paradox of the white race is that, while white people live through their culture, they cannot readily be identified through their culture.  They are so to speak invisible.  Visibility belongs to other peoples, who through their culture point to themselves.  We have here to make a serious point.  It is precisely by controling a culture that an entire people can be controled.  A people can theoretically be destroyed through the destruction of their culture.  White culture is in the process of being destroyed in America.  But it is also true that white culture, since its beginnings--even through its very acts of empathy and charity and Christian understanding--has destroyed itself.  This, as I say, has been going on since the first Europeans landed here. 

Race, I will now aver, is not nation and vice versa.  But nationalism, which is culture, can obscure the spontaneous force of nature here called race.  In expressing this idea I have fallen regretably into a state (I hope temorarily) of disgrace and humiliation.   In my Philtalk blog, now verschoben from view and removed by Google from their cache-ing program, I criticized the idea, now popularized by David Duke (with whom I have talked personally and at length), of trying to unite concepts of race with those of nation.  This is one major instance in which issues of nature (in this case race) are intertwined with those of culture.  One of the worst stentences ever penned was Hitler's phrase, "a white volk within a white Nation."  This from the standpoint of Force Theory was damaging to the white cause, since, obviously, if the nation were to be destroyed--which it was--the volk would be destroyed with it. 

What we are sayhing is that, on the contrary, there is a white race and a white culture--these things should be kept distinct.  These concepts are at odds with one another.  Race and nation are not simply distinct ideas that should be kept separate, they contradict one another outright.  For race, the nation is only a confinement.   The National Socialist movement of Germany failed, I believe, on this contradiction.  Had National Socialism  simply resolved this contradiction in theory the movement would have succeeded.  I am trying to resolve the contradiction between culture and race (nature) here.  But that is only politics, a trivial thing.  In reality, nation is only a small issue in the total perview of Force Theory.  There are many areas of culture, for instance white technology, white literature, painting, music and so forth, where the contradiction between race and culture is pertinent. White economics is entirely destructive to the white race and to itself as an economy:  the "global economy" is the result of so-called capitalism.   All this culture is in a state of terrible decline (!)  Televsion and the universities, which reflect the "will of the people," even without the agency of conspiratorial Mason and Jewish cabalists, are perveyors of this destruction. 

What Duke's mainstream racist idea maintains is that that decline is "evil":  that the decline portends the end of the white race itself.  I say this decline of white culture is good.  I might refer to Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West.  Spenger on the other hand did not have a clear and unambiguous racial perspective, nor did the old-style racial thinkers, that I have here.  But there is no point in crying over what has already fallen into rubble.  That is, in any case, whether the decline is good or evil, such passing of white culture--and the white nation itself-- is highly inevitable.  It has already happened, first and foremost to America, that the country has fallen hopelessly into the hands of a mixed band of oportunists.  This usurpation has come to pass perhaps even within my lifespan; I have witnessed this.  There is all the more reason for white people to withdraw, first inwardly and then outwardly, from the system. [:|ceceed or ..??  check] This will be an "act of nature," as opposed to an act of man.     All in all, as whites lose faith in their own culture there will be, as a consequence, a cleansing and purification of the concept of whiteness itself.  Veritably, the more the issue of culture--in this case white culture--is stripped away from the idea of the white race, the more the principle of race, the white race, will appear in full clarity.  Understanding this inevitability has been the contribution of the Hegelian way of looking at humankind. 

Like the clothing of a machinist which becomes entangled in his machine, and drags him perilously into that machine, white culture is a danger to the white race.  It is only fair and useful that even the narrow designation of whiteness, say so called "caucasoid" (which regretably includes Hindus, Arabs and cult-minded so-called white people (Amish, Jews and so forth)), might pass away.  This designation is itself mere culture.  The general thought to emerge here is that humans can be controled when what they possess is controlled.  That is the principle that is active here.  Through his paintings or music the white artist, who has loss sight of the real distinction between him and his art, can be controlled and even finally destroyed.   White culture has first been embraced in American, then castigated.   Meanwhile white people are complascent and passive.  White culture is great and good.  But we should view the pathetic fate of white culture, which is a daily topic of "conservative" television pundits, as an entirely a mixed evil, even a good.    What is culturally white should be purged, even voluntarily, by white people, from (what I have earlier called) "cosmic whiteness."  This denial of white culture does not mean great white writers, like Dostoyevski, will be forgotten; it means only that they will be consigned to the museum of white history.  Great creations and events are still to come.  These events will transpire through the direct force of whiteness itself.  This--whiteness--is this cosmic principle which occupies us.  This principle is that of nature to which human beings must finally defer on their great  journey.  Of course when this great culture of ours has ended, pathetic as that end has been-- an end documented daily by television-- a new beginning is possible.

My principle is simple.  Culture in general, beginning with the primal institution of agreements, is in a process of dialectic and self-negation.  White culture, through its phases of technological advance and agreements about this advance, negates itself.  This process affects no other people in the world so radically.  Race, then, finally, is stripped of what is extraneous to race, leaving the race, itself--I have called this "cosmic whiteness"--emerges in full force and focus.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2009-08-15 14:43:08)


Several paleolithic men sit together at their fireside planning their hunt for the 'morrow.  Two basic ideas pass between them:

(1) Each man is to do this or that, to accomplish the group's objectives.

(2) During the hunt the men are going to "get along" together.

In short, there is a plan for action.  There is also a prohibition of disruptive behavior.   There is nothing more to the relationship between the men than these two things.   But I want to dwell on the second provision.  In what passes now between these two primitive humans there is prefigured the basic idea of all "higher" religion--that human beings should "just get along."  There is finally nothing more to Christianity, Islam or Judaism than what has passed, in barely articulate mumbling, between these Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons.  The culture of mankind has been an elaboration on very simple themes. 

The agreement of the day is a very simple thing, for human beings at any rate (impossible for animals, who have no language).  What is vastly more complicated is the means or method whereby agreements are enforced.  In the enforcement of agreements the small group, alone in by a fire in  a vast wildnerness, surrounded by inimical forces of all kinds, opens itself abruptly to this wilderness of men and animals.  It is impossible for men to enforce their agreements themselves:  they can only appeal for help in this to whatever or whoever is outside their group, outside their hunting lands, even to what is outside their comprehension.  The world outside the encampment, once menacing, now holds new prospects.  These prospects are nothing like wisdom or even wealth--they are solely for arbitrating differences between members of the otherwise solitary tribal group.  We conclude that disagreements  among members of the tiny group--the negation of that group and what the group has agreed upon--are what bring about what we call "social and intellectual" progress.  Society itself, and the complex relations humans have among themselves, is arbitration.  But without agreements there can be no disagreements;  without disagreements there can be no arbitration; without arbitration there is no society.

Animals and proto-humans, having as they do no language or agreements of any kind, enforce their own point of view on the spot, at even a hint of conflict.  A nip or bite here or there settles any argument.  Leadership passes from the dominant male down.  This kind of group organization is primitive but effective.  Such organization--which I call fascism--can be and often is enhanced by human beings.  I spoke earlier of Spartan socialism; the national socialists of Germany may have been headed in the right direction.  What is being said here is simple.   The position of the stronger member prevails and in this manner peace is restored to the community of animals. This condition we call, with Rousseau, a State of Nature.   State of Nature  means simply--no agreements.  I have elsewhere called this relationship "baboon fascism."  What I am trying to do at present is to contrast human relations with those of animals, and to show the advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of relationship.  Human disagreements are never settled or resolved finally, they simply pass into new disagreements.  Society has been called, with Hegel, a continuum, worldwide, of agreements; society is also a continuum of disagreements.  Each disagreement that there is is never resolved, finally, but becomes rather another disagreement.  And with each disagreement, and attempted but failed resolution of each disagreement, the individual person cedes his own self to what Hegel called an "alien other."  Human society--in the sense that each individual person and group cedes power to what was alien and originally inimical to these people--engages itself in a contradiction.  It is too early to call this a deadly or fatal contradiction; human beings seem able to persist and perpetuate themselves within this ongoing failure called society. 

The plan, or "agreement," has so far no provision for enforcement.  It is in the area of enforcement, provided later in human history by contract, that what was originally simply a plan for tomorrow's hunt--the relationship that men would have in the hunt--passes into a "social" relation properly speaking.    By society we mean enforced or contractual agreements.  Before there are enforced or contractual agreements there must be simple or unenforcable agreements.  Before there are simple agreements there must be language. 

The structure of human life, universally and throughout the cultures of mankind that there are, is seen already in the simple agreement as transpires between paleolithic hunters.   That structure consists of the agreement, first, which is a thing of trust but is contradicted, sooner or later,  by an (almost inevitable) disagreement.  Disagreement is followed by arbitration.  An arbitrated agreement, in settlement or resolution of an original disagreement, is different from and than the original agreement. 

First, the arbitrated agreement, which is an agreement added to the first agreement, includes more than the first two parties; it includes the arbitrating or mediating party as well. 

Secondly, the element of force which was absent from the first agreement--an agreement of "trust"--is present in the arbitrated agreement.

Third, notwithstanding the element of force provided to the new agreement, the original parties can no longer express private interests; the agreement itself is no longer "for" these two parties; the interest is entirely "for" the agreement itself as an abstract entity.

This final entity grows, over time, and in the course of the millions of agreements that there are, to become society.

I have shown, or attempted to show, that the human being has before him two prospects for a relation with other humans:

         First, in a State of Nature there  is what I have called "baboon fascism."  This is a sort of primal bullying that goes on even in advanced democracies.

         Secondly, there is among human beings an ongoing agreement which, due to misunderstanding, must be resolved.  In the resolution of the disagreement there is, in Rousseau's words, by virtue of a necessary Social Contract, a "loss of freedom."

   I have been more specific than Rousseau on the issue of "a loss of freedom."  A loss of freedom in tems presented here means that the individual, called in the context of Force Theory a principal, places himself in the hands of "an enemy" to whom, moreover, the principals has ceded power or force of arms.


human biology advances through culture

culture tends to affirm the species homo sapiens, not the principle of race.

the cultural activities that there are tend to pander to baser and more common human interests.

art, which is individual and in that sense racial, degenerates into manufacturing of consumer goods.

societies have their own order of growth that expands to include what is merely human.

society expands to include what is external to life.

...thereby setting up a confrontation (contradiction) between society and what is internal, nature

society of the future will be "of nature"; will reconcile culture with nature.

race is nature

race is "nature within"

race is subjective form