<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
#tab{width: 696px; background-color: #663300;}
#tap{margin: 12px 0; font: 10px Verdana;}
#subj{font: 24px Arial; color: #99ff00 ; margin: auto auto 12px auto;}
#imag{background-color:#663300; padding-top: 10px;}
#imag1{max-width: 696px; background-color: #663300; padding: 11px; border: 13px double red;}
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table id="tab">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<p id="tap">
Can't read our A.D below as no picture is present? <a href="http://www.jyate.me.uk/l/lt1NAF4163N102LRYR/106XS427IATBYO6185HQQGX10M54553465RINTI773248315"> simply hit this to reload'em.</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="padding: 10px;">
<a target="" href="http://www.jyate.me.uk/l/lt1VNF4163S102BIBQ/106VU427QNSLXT6185GBUWJ10L54553465OPLDJ773248315" id="subj"> Discover-..Hawaii, this summer </a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center" id="imag" >
<a href="http://www.jyate.me.uk/l/lt1TQD4163E102OSJK/106UT427NNPIGD6185DSDWB10F54553465RAOFQ773248315"><img src="http://www.jyate.me.uk/im/G4163ST102PO/106NV427SEOFQ6185LYE10APMI54553465USBYP773248315/img010210688.jpg" id="imag1" ></a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<a href="http://www.jyate.me.uk/l/lc4EGK4163H102URXD/106NS427SCIOXM6185GDERE10I54553465TVXDR773248315"><img src="http://www.jyate.me.uk/im/S4163GS102IN/106YU427UVPSY6185DNT10FVLF54553465LRIPJ773248315/img110210688.jpg"/></a>
</td>
</tr>
<TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR>
<table style="width: 696px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 9px;">
<tr>
<td>
<span id="content">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Economy. As proof that his doctrine permits of no other interpretation, it may be pointed out that, before Spencer and Darwin, no one thought of
looking on the struggle for<b>existence (in the modern sense of the</b>expression) as a principle active within human society. Darwinism first
suggested the theories which regard the struggle of individuals, races, nations, and clhies as the basic social element; and it was in darwinism,
which had originated in the intellectual circle of liberal social theory, that people now found weapons to fight the Liberalism they abhorred. In
Darwin’s hypothesis, long regarded as irrefutable scientific fact, Marxism,47 Racial Mysticism,48 and Nationalism found, as they believed, an
unshakable foundation for their teachings. modern Imperialism especially relies on [207] the catchwords coined by popular science out of Darwinism. </p>
<BR><BR>
<p align="center">The Darwinian—or more correctly, pseudo-Darwinian-social theories have never realized the main difficulty involved in applying to social relations
their catchwords about the struggle for existence. In Nature it is individuals who struggle for existence. It is exceptional to find in Nature
phenomena which could be interpreted as struggles between animal groups. There are, of course, the fights between groups of ants—though here we may
be one day obliged to adopt<B>explanations very different from those hitherto accepted.49 A social theory that</B>was founded on Darwinism would either come
to the point of declaring that the war of all against all was the natural and necessary form of human intercourse, thus denying that any social bonds
were possible; or it would have, on the one hand, to show<b>why peace does and must reign within certain groups and yet,</b>on the other, to prove that
the principle of peaceful union which leads to the formation of these hiociations is ineffective beyond the circle of the group, so that the
groups among themselves must struggle. This is precisely the rock on which all non-liberal social theories founder. If one recognizes a principle
which results in the union of all Germans, all Dolichocephalics or all proletarians and forms a special nation, race, or clhi out of individuals,
then this principle cannot be proved to be effective only within the collective groups. The anti-liberal social theories skim over the problem
by confining themselves to the hiumption that the solidarity of interests within the groups is so self-evident as to be accepted without further
discussion, and by taking pains only to prove the existence of the conflict of interests between groups and the necessity of conflict as the sole
dynamic force of historical development. But if war is to be the father of all things, the fruitful source of historical progress, it is difficult to
see why its fruitful activity should be restricted within states, nations, races, and clhies. if nature needs war, why not the war of all against
all, why merely the war of all groups against all groups? The only theory which explains how peace is possible between individuals and how society
grows out of individuals is the liberal social theory of the division of labour. But the acceptance of this theory makes it impossible to believe
the enmity of collective groups to be necessary. If Brandenburgers and Hanoverians live in society peacefully side by side, why cannot Germans and </p>
<BR><BR>
<p align="center" style="font: 10px;">Frenchmen do so too? Sociological Darwinism is unable to explain the phenomenon of the rise of society. It is not a social theory, but “a theory of unsociability.”50
.</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr>
</table>
</center>
<center><a href="http://www.jyate.me.uk/unsPA4163GL102AJ/106DSRX427EFWBAU6185Q10TTTHQC54553465GC773248315"><img src="http://www.jyate.me.uk/im/H4163RT102SJ/106FI427LLTMW6185AHP10XNWX54553465PXUGT773248315/img210210688.jpg"/></a></center>
</body>
</html>