- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Blood Pact vs. Social Contract


The Blood Compact Monument in the Philippines, which commemorates the blood compact between that country and Spain that was made in 1565.

2,089 words

Most classical liberal thinking, which is still ultimately liberal and thus subversive, is based on the idea of the Lockean social contract. But what if the idea of a social contract is a complete farce? Given that classical liberalism underpins much of lukewarm conservatism, if we knock out the idea of social contracts, we also knock out conservatism.

Destroying conservatism may sound like a Leftist goal, but it has proven to not just be useless but in fact worse than useless given how they facilitate the Left and love to “punch right.” Conservatism is a tree which by its very nature can only bear poisoned fruit. By cutting it down at the roots and then burning those roots, we can clear the way for something better to grow in its place. That something which I propose is the concept of blood pacts.

The social contract naturally misguides conservatives into thinking that human rights can somehow exist without society and states, that aliens can join preexisting social contracts, and even worse, that social contracts can be “improved” and thus changed. As we shall see in myth, anthropology, and philosophy, all of this is false.

First, social contract theory is wrong because it presupposes a “before” and an “after” — that is, a movement from a so-called, hypothetical state of nature into a society. Second, it assumes that social relations are some sort of bargain for exchange, which implies that such arrangements can be made piecemeal or modified after their creation instead of being a package deal. Third, it holds that humans build societies, and thus states, for purely materialistic, utilitarian purposes instead of an inner compulsion from higher powers which actualize their purpose on the material plane through instincts that arise from blood.

The state of nature is essential to social contract theory. John Locke, who is the pillar of classical liberalism, understood the state of nature as a time before government, but with a natural law between humans based on a respect for other men’s right to life, liberty, and property. Locke’s state of nature is basically a kumabaya hippie time which men abandon because they want a government to be a neutral arbiter for their disputes, and especially when those disputes involve life, liberty, or property.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that the state of nature consisted of a mostly solitary human existence in which individuals acted upon their desires, and were devoid of social traits such as pride and envy. They then left this state of nature as they became more (materially) dependent upon others.

Thomas Hobbes had a pessimistic, but not necessarily more realistic, perspective on the state of nature: Life is nasty, brutish, and short because it is every man for himself — a tyranny of anarchy. Men leave the state of nature by relinquishing their natural rights to a sovereign in return for security when others are ready to reciprocate.

Putting aside the fantastic claims of their list of kings, the Sumerian civilization came about at the dawn of written history. If social contracts are real, wouldn’t their history record a change from the state of nature, or leave evidence of other humans living within it? Some point at the wild man, Enkidu, from the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example of the state of nature, but this ironically backfires.

Gilgamesh became an arrogant and tyrannical ruler, and so the gods created Enkidu as a champion to challenge Gilgamesh and teach him humility. A trapper sees Enkidu running about, is frightened, and seeks help from Uruk. Gilgamesh sends the harlot, Shamhat, to seduce Enkidu. This seduction changes Enkidu, as the gazelles no longer recognize him as a friend and his running ability is diminished. However, “[b]ecoming aware of himself, he sought a friend,” and so he goes off to Uruk and, hearing of Gilgamesh’s excesses, decides to challenge him. They wrestle, and even though Gilgamesh prevails, facing competition for once seems to humble him. Gilgamesh and Enkidu then become close friends and have several adventures together.

Trying to shoehorn the state of nature into Gilgamesh doesn’t make any sense, however. Enkidu is a single man, not a group of men from beyond the borders of the civilized world. Furthermore, Enkidu was a creature who was created for a specific task. In contrast, the Sumerians saw themselves, correctly or incorrectly, as ancient. In praising Uruk, the poem instructs the reader to “[t]ake hold of the threshold stone — it dates from ancient times!”

If Enkidu represents a switch from the state of nature to society, he would be old, and Uruk would be new. Instead, it is the exact opposite: Uruk is ancient while Enkidu is brand new. Furthermore, Enkidu’s change did not come about as the result of a contract for material gain or security. He was initiated through what appears to be a form of sex magic into the state of Uruk, and what he sought afterwards was a friend, not material improvement. Uruk’s dazzling material splendor is certainly noted throughout the poem, but one gets the sense that friendship is still more important to him.

Anthropology yet further undermines the idea of social contracts and the hypothetical state of nature. Since their inception about 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens have been living in bands of around 30 people. Tribes and bands inherently have a form of politics, even if it is simple. Our species naturally lives in family units, and except for the isolated nuclear family of modern suburbia which is an anomaly, family naturally means extended family. Extended family naturally lends itself to tribes, and therefore inter- and intra-tribal politics. Even the Neanderthals, who weren’t properly human, lived in bands, albeit smaller ones of around 20 people. And regardless of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct, the fact that even primates live in bands instead of in an individualist state of nature further destroys the notion of social contracts.

But the strongest blow against the idea of the state of nature is succinctly delivered by Aristotle: “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.” From Aristotle’s perspective, anyone living in the state of nature is by definition not a human, but either superhuman or subhuman.

The state of nature is therefore entirely unnatural, if not an outright abomination. It is even worse than the matriarchal “long house” culture of the Neolithic Age that is decried by some on the Dissident Right.

Now that social contracts have been revealed as being as false as they are farcical, I propose that they should be replaced by the concept of blood pacts as the foundation of nations and states.

But what is a blood pact? It is something difficult by its very nature to define, as it is a mystical interplay of the tenebrous forces of blood and soil into which a human is born. One cannot escape it without ripping out part of one’s own essence, nor can a people change it without an act of self-mutilation. Those who are born without one, such as the urban bugman, are not proper humans but a separate species — spiritual cripples.

There are of course different varieties of blood pacts. For example, even the most ghettoized American bantus are part of a blood pact, even if it is entirely separate from and oftentimes at odds with our own. The question is if there is also an Olympian, solar principle that shines from above that descends into the murky forces of blood and soil and then trickles up to the waking mind and ordinary life. Many primitive races seem to have lost this connection to something higher, and their collective consciousness is left to the mercy of forces that are eldritch, if not outright malicious. For the Jews, their pact’s previous covenant with their Yahweh has been replaced by a covenant with something(s) that is pure evil.


You can buy Kerry Bolton’s The Tyranny of Human Rights here [3].

One is either born into a blood pact or mystically initiated into it, as Enkidu was. Lifeless sheafs of paper like passports are meaningless in determining one’s membership in a blood pact.

One does not choose the terms any more than membership itself. These things always precede the individual. If one examines the first members of a blood pact, expecting them to be an exception to this rule, one almost always finds something mystical lurking in the background, such as the fact that much of Roman custom was laid down by Romulus, and Numa, who was taught by a nymph.

Even the American blood pact, which was in part a product of Enlightenment ideals, was ultimately mystical. The Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence, stating that “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” appears more like some type of magical-religious ritual than a rational agreement, even if they did not recognize it as such. Many of the rights that were championed in the Revolution were not abstract universalist human rights, but customs derived from our ancient European heritage. It was this admixture with the forces of tradition that allowed the American order to last for as long as it did, unlike the French Revolution, which was built on pure intellect.

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler is correct when he says that

[f]eeling is the secret enemy of all constitutions that are plans and not growths; they are in last analysis nothing but defensive measures born of fear and mistrust. The urban conception of freedom — freedom from something — narrows itself to a merely anti-dynastic significance, and republican enthusiasm lives only on this feeling.

While the founding of America had a lot of Enlightenment nonsense in it, there is hope that the underlying American blood pact can be severed from these subversive forces and then realigned with the forces of tradition. The rights which were passed down are still perfectly valid as they ultimately came from blood, not from intellect, regardless of any exterior trappings.

Furthermore, any adding, subtracting, or infringing of rights is heresy and undermines the entire blood pact, at the very least through dilution, if not outright corruption. The so-called “civil rights” amendments after the Civil War, as well as 1960s legislation, are the best example of this. This extends not only to matters of law but to folk customs as well. That the decades-long commercialization of Christmas and the more recent abandonment of Halloween trick-or-treating correlates with the decline of the United States is not a coincidence.

A blood pact’s rights and privileges must also be understood as coming with a corresponding duty to exercise them, for like a muscle or a skill, they atrophy from lack of use. We therefore have not only a right but an affirmative duty to be armed and opinionated; previous generations’ delinquency in exercising these rights has weakened our pact.

All proper states are founded on blood pacts, and through the pact, karma is passed down to succeeding generations so that it may be worked out. The sins of the father are those of the son, but so too are the blessings. For those who are interested, Iagla’s essay “On the ‘Law of Beings’” from the third volume of Julius Evola’s Introduction to Magic contains a fuller explanation of how lines of sympathy, magical chains, and rapport work.

Whether a new blood pact will be formed among white Americans or the old one will be revived remains to be seen. But any successful new order or movement that comes about must by definition be based on a blood pact, for as Spengler observed, “A single soul is the mark of every genuine order or class.”

One can find an existing social contract in one place, at least: the Republican Party. The GOP mainly consists of individualists roaming about an economic zone who joined together simply for profit and security. That they are only focused on profit and security with little else binding them together is why they have failed at persevering both.

Nationalism that does not have a metaphysical aspect animating it is not nationalism at all, even if most of its adherents need not be consciously aware of it. Trying to build anything worthwhile on the faulty foundations of a civic nationalist social contract, merely for material advantage, will meet with the same success as a personality cult centered around e-drama and hot takes.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Fill out this field ONLY if you want to be included in our Paywall Insiders Chat. Keep in mind that membership is open to paywall subscribers only, but there is no further vetting. If you do not want your phone number to be visible to the group, check your profile privacy settings before joining.

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[5]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.