All successful arguments necessitate an initial defining of one’s terms, and the consistent employment of these concepts in the course of the argument. While this does not, in and of itself, ensure an argument’s acceptance, it is essential to a reader’s navigation of the landscape of an author’s text. Michael Bradley’s “Born of Beast” superficially fulfils these two prerequisites with regard to his use of the concepts: “caucasoid” and “aggression”. However, this essay will argue that a closer reading of the text reveals not only flaws in reasoning, but an imprecision in employing these concepts that detract from the viability of his argument. It will be demonstrated that this imprecision is necessary to the maintenance of Bradley’s thesis, but by its very nature also subverts the argument.