metaphysical Truth has beenseen (by metaphysicians) as natural and therefore somehow gentle. Clearly, this comes to mind as a paradox,because since when war is gentle? Sincemetaphysics, in claiming to see Reality and Truth without acknowledging theireffects in the world, such as justifying war for example, made it look so. Bobbio fails to see that his politicalstance - because that is what it is - that politics is war, ultimately foughtby two sides, cosmically participating in the "game" of"God-demon", is a particular Christian tradition,[6]and can never hope to speak for "human relations" or for allreligions.Foucault, in his analysis of the present politicalculture, claims that politics has come to be seen as war continued by othermeans.[7]He states: "This reversal ofClausewitz's assertion that war is politics continued by other means has atriple significance: in the first place, it implies that the relations of powerthat function in a society such as ours essentially rest upon a definiterelation of forces that is established at a determinate, historicallyspecifiable moment, in war and by war. Furthermore, if it is true that political power puts an end to war, thatit installs, or tries to install, the reign of peace in civil society, this byno means implies that it suspends the effects of war or neutralizes thedisequilibrium revealed in the final battle. The role of political power, on this hypothesis, is perpetually tore-inscribe this relation through a form of unspoken warfare; to re-inscribe itin social institutions, in economic inequalities, in language, in the bodiesthemselves of each and every one of us."[8] For Foucault, then, thepolitical ethic that has become dominant since the 17th century isone whereby history is a field installed through battle, that requires subjectpositions to be configured as in war. He called this supposed dependencebetween history and war, historicism. It is based on a discourse on biological imperatives that make uphistorical races, and this is why Foucault interprets the functioning ofhistoricism as racism. This is becauseit depends upon the raising of arms against the enemy, biologically ornaturally locatable. What happened in the 19th century is thatanother discourse, inverting and at the same time completing the previous one,comes to the fore. It also works throughthe war logic, only now with more subtlety. It locates war in the present, instead of ascribing it to an originalbattle. The dominant discourse on leftand right partakes of this. The enemy, in socialist discourse, for example,has been named capitalist, tyrant or otherwise, and these were, of course,named in order to be fought against, to be dealt with from inside themalfunctioning living unit. Thisdiscourse is part of what Foucault termed biopower, since its legitimacydepends on the assumption of natural roots to politics, located in thebiological construction named population. It is politics functioning through the power technology of war, byracism. For Bobbio,the right can be summed up as a position of inequality (including naturalinequality), while the left would be for equality. Bobbio's criteria of equality/inequality isunderpinned by his question of "which peoplemust be considered equal and which must be considered unequal."[9][emphasis added]. We see here that the"criteria" with which he works to get to his theory of