"Hence whereas the master is merely the slave's master and does not belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly belongs to the master. These considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)--because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling principle, as in the case of a musical scale."

      "It is manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both expedient and just. But at the same time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also right in a manner. The fact is that the terms `slavery' and `slave' are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors."

      "The term `master' therefore denotes the possession not of a certain branch of knowledge but of a certain character, and similarly also the terms `slave' and `freeman.' Yet there might be a science of mastership and a slave's science--the latter being the sort of knowledge that used to be imparted by the professor at Syracuse (for there used to be a man there who for a fee gave lessons to servants in their ordinary duties); and indeed there might be more advanced scientific study of such matters, for instance a science of cookery and the other such kinds of domestic service--for different servants have different functions, some more honorable and some more menial, and as the proverb says, Slave before slave and master before master."

      "The slave's sciences then are all the various branches of domestic work; the master's science is the science of employing slaves--for the master's function consists not in acquiring slaves but in employing them. This science however is one of no particular importance or dignity: the master must know how to direct the tasks which the slave must know how to execute. The science of acquiring slaves is different both from their ownership and their direction-- that is, the just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase. Let this then stand as our definition of slave and master."

     Sound familiar? Well, if you have read the Gor books, the concept above should be instantly recognizable. Nevertheless, those words were not written by John Norman, nor are they part of any Gor book. The writer is Aristotle, and the quotes above are from his Discourse on Politics, and have often been identified as being the key statements of his "Theory of Natural Slavery."

      John Norman, remember, is a doctor of Philosophy. It seems obvious that he studied the works of Aristotle with keen interest, especially those parts which have been suppressed due to modern biases which exist regarding such a theory.

      That theory is well known among those who study philosophy; however it, like numerous medical and psychological studies on the natural propensities of the sexes in relation to one another, have sort of been purposely overlooked and not really allowed to filter into the public consciousness due to their controversial content.

      I find it interesting that those who study philosophy understand and tend to agree with such a concept as that which Aristotle explores, and that those who study human biology and sexuality also understand and entertain such concepts, but that, for the most part, such information and any serious scientific study of such matters is kind of shuffled off into a back room and closeted from those who are considered to be laymen; namely, the general public.

      Not that there is a conspiracy to keep such information hidden; it simply seems that unpopular facts are discouraged from general assimilation into open society, to avoid angering those who might not agree with them due to their own agendas.

      Kind of gives the whole "first knowledge, second knowledge" concept discussed by Norman in the Gor books a whole new aspect, doesn't it?

      I try to remain neutral in my studies. If all that Norman says, and Aristotle says, and the psychologists who espouse such theories say, is wrong, then they are simply wrong. End of discussion.

      But if they are RIGHT, then they are simply right. And they are still right whether or not what they say fits comfortably into the prevaling social doctrine of our society.

      I admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for the underdog, and when I see so many people vehemently denouncing a particular theory or concept, I suspect that it may be striking a nerve in people which is dangerously close to the truth. Therefore I make it a habit of mine to explore such things and attempt to discern for myself whether such theories have any validity.

      Norman's theories, like those of Aristotle, seem to me to have a great deal of validity. I suspect that is the reason they are so frightening to so many people: because they shake the foundations of what we have always held to be one of the truths of human interaction: that all people naturally desire to be free of control, and will not be long subjected to the enforced directions of others.

      But if that is not the case, and there are indeed certain people to whom the guidance and direction of a higher power than themselves is beneficial and fulfilling to them... if that is so, then is it not possible that our long-held beliefs about the individual's inherent desire for personal freedom have overlooked a fascinating and very valid aspect of our shared human nature?

     "No, I would not try to reform man by pretending that my wishes for him were the wishes of Priest-Kings, even though this might be effective for a time, for the wishes that reform man, that make him what he is capable of becoming, and has not yet become, must be his own and not those of another. If man rises, he can do so only on his own two feet."