Classic Essays

An Introduction to Sir Arthur Keith

449045by Yggdrasil

I WOULD LIKE to introduce you to Sir Arthur Keith (pictured), father of modern Nationalism and the single most important thinker of the Twentieth Century.

Keith (1866-1955) was born in Scotland, the son of a modest farmer. Trained as a medical doctor, he became one of the first structural anthropologists, dissecting modern primates and analyzing fossil primate finds. He was made president of the Royal Anthropological Institute, and was knighted by King George for his work in 1921.

Keith’s lasting contribution to Western Civilization was performed between 1943 and 1947, in the years surrounding his 80th birthday.

These contributions are, in order of importance, Evolution and Ethics, originally published in 1945 (hereafter “Ethics”) and A New Theory of Human Evolution, first published in 1947 (hereafter “New Theory”). Both books are exceptionally rare. A quick internet search of university and public library catalogs in 1998 indicates that these works are accessible, at considerable inconvenience, in fewer than 25 locations in the U.S.

Arthur Hooton, chairman of the Anthropology Department at Harvard, wrote the introduction to “Evolution and Ethics” in 1945 by stating; “THE name of Sir Arthur Keith deserves to be associated with those of Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley in the study of the evolution of man.”

Indeed, as I reflect on Keith’s obscurity, I am reminded of the obscurity of Johann Sebastian Bach until Mozart first heard his music, or the obscurity of the works of William Shakespeare until Goethe resurrected them.

Significantly, it is not the force of a single individual who now resurrects Keith, but rather the actions of humanity in the final quarter of the twentieth century which vindicate his theories.

While his ideas about the details of anthropology are now somewhat dated, the predictive and explanatory power of the political and philosophical principles derived from his anthropological studies surpass those of Aristotle or Plato.

Sir Arthur observed that the evolutionary heritage of modern Man has given him an inherent tendency to form groups and to apply one code of morals, that of amity, to his own group, and a completely different set of morals, that of enmity, to outsiders.

He observed that this behavior serves an evolutionary purpose. Races and tribes with a high degree of group awareness and who follow this “dual code” have a distinct survival advantage over those which lack this awareness.

He also believed that this evolutionary heritage, when properly understood and openly admitted, would enable man to tailor his political institutions and national boundaries in such a way as to reduce the probability of the enormously destructive conflicts — made possible by modern industrial technology — that have, in the recent past, been waged under the equally destructive universalist masks of “equality,” “liberal democracy” and “universal brotherhood”.

And for this offense against the modern and universal, he has been consigned to obscurity.

But the final quarter of the Twentieth Century finds a world marching very much to Sir Arthur’s tune.

Within the three years between 1989 through 1992, the World witnessed violent conflicts between ethnic or racial groups in 82 different areas, of which 79 involved conflicts between different ethnic groups within single states. Virtually all continue to rage in 1998. Political boundaries established by European empire builders over the last several hundred years are being re-drawn so that internal political processes can operate more in accordance with to the code of amity — avoiding the inevitable internal demands, conflicts and increased costs prompted by the codes of enmity that so stubbornly and persistently arise in the politics of multi-ethnic states.

Our collective living arrangements must be tailored to conform to human nature.


Sir Arthur’s thesis begins with a description of the tribal mind on page 7 of Ethics:

“[H]e (Darwin) supposed that man, before he even emerged from apedom, was already a social being, living in small scattered communities. Evolution in his eyes was carried out mainly as a struggle between communities – team against team, tribe against tribe. Inside each team or tribe the ‘ethical cosmos’ [the code of ‘Amity’] was at work, forging and strengthening the social bonds which made the members of such a team a co-operative whole. These mental bonds, Darwin supposed, had been evolved from those inborn ties that link members of a family together – the love of parents for their children, of children for parents, and of children for each other. Thus in the early stages of human evolution we find competition and co-operation as constituent elements of the evolutionary process; Huxley’s ‘cosmic process’ [the code of Enmity] and “ethical process” working not in opposition, but in harmony, to produce the races of the modern world.

“Co-operation and unity give strength to a team or tribe; but why did neighboring tribes refuse so stubbornly to amalgamate? If united, they would have got rid of competition and struggle. Why do human tribes instinctively repel every thought of amalgamation, and prize above all things independence,the control of their destiny, their sovereignty? Here we have to look beneath the surface of things and formulate a theory to explain tribal behavior. How does a tribe fulfill an evolutionary purpose? A tribe is a ‘corporate body,’ which Nature has entrusted with an assortment of human seed or genes, the assortment differing in some degree from that entrusted to every other tribe. If the genes are to work out their evolutionary effects, then it is necessary that the tribe or corporation should maintain its integrity through an infinity of generations. If a tribe loses its integrity by a slackening of social bonds, or by disintegration of the parental instincts, or by lack of courage or of skill to defend itself from the aggression of neighboring tribes, or by free interbreeding with neighbors and thus scattering its genes, then that tribe as an evolutionary venture has come to an untimely end. For evolutionary purposes it has proved a failure.”

And continuing on page 25 of Ethics:

“A good tribesman clings to his fellows and tells them the truth; he repels men of neighboring tribes and tells them lies. The real problem which faces us is this: How can the duality of human nature be explained? The evolutionist can offer an explanation which is agreeable to reason; the theologian has to appeal to superstition for an answer.

“It is only when we realize the conditions under which the later stages of the evolution of man were carried out that we come by a clue to the duality of his mental nature. Conceive, for a moment, what these conditions were. Throughout all the final stages of our evolution, mankind throughout the whole earth was segregated into small local communities or tribes. This was certainly so during the entire Pleistocene period, which at a moderate estimate endured for half a million years – perhaps a million. Tribalism was everywhere down to the beginnings of the fifth millennium B.C., when somewhere in southwest Asia agriculture was discovered, town-building and detribalization set in, and the era of civilization began. Tribalism was Nature’s method in bringing about the evolution of man. I have already explained what a tribe really is – a corporation of human beings entrusted with a certain capital of genes. The business of such a corporation is to nurse and develop its stock of genes – to bring them to an evolutionary fruition. To reach such an end a tribal corporation had to comply with two conditions: (1) it had to endure for a long age; (2) it had to remain intact and separate from all neighboring and competing tribes. Human nature was fashioned or evolved just to secure these two conditions – continuity through time and separation in space. Hence the duality of man’s nature – the good, social, or virtuous traits serving intratribal economy; the evil, vicious, or antisocial qualities serving the intertribal economy and the policy of keeping its genes apart. Human nature is the basal part of the machinery used for the evolution of man. When you know the history of our basal mentality – one fitted for tribal life – do you wonder at the disorder and turmoil which now afflict the detribalized part of the world?”


Keith goes on to note that with the advent of agriculture and civilization, tribes were expanded into nations through a process of conquest and subjugation. These wars of tribal amalgamation in Europe, with their relatively low casualty rates, were accompanied by values of “fair play” and “chivalry” intended to minimize continuing conflict with the loser following battle so as to ease the fusion of his identity into the larger tribe, and ultimately into the nation.

From page 9 of Ethics:

“When history raises the curtain on Germany, in the century which preceded the dawn of Christianity, we find her population divided into some forty independent tribes, warring with each other and with the outside world. No doubt the tribes which the Romans met with, or heard of, represented federations or compulsory amalgamations of earlier smaller tribes. If Germany had been like the rest of Europe before the practice of agriculture reached her, which was late in the fourth millennium B.C., her territory must have been divided among some 150 or 200 small local tribes or communities. Thus, when our historical record begins, modern evolutionary progress, as indicated by reduction in number and increase in size of tribal units, had made a very considerable advance. In the centuries which followed the Roman period local self-determination must have flourished, for by the seventeenth century there were 250 independent states established within the frontiers of what is now modern Germany. In the eighteenth century, under the sword of Frederick the Great, the number was reduced, mainly by the absorptive power and capacity of Prussia, so that in 1814 they numbered thirty-nine. By 1871, under Bismarck, only twenty-five states retained their independence. With the coming of Hitler and the establishment of the Third Reich, in 1933, Germany suddenly emerged as a unitary state – a single tribe or nation numbering over eighty millions, with a single leader and a central government;”

He notes that the tribal mentality, and the dual code by which mankind operates, was transferred to nations as a result of the amalgamation of tribes. As he states on page vii of his preface to Ethics:

“My second theme relates to the current conception of race and of nation. Most of my colleagues regard a nation as a political unit, with which anthropologists have no concern; whereas I regard a nation as an “evolutionary unit,” with which anthropologists ought to be greatly concerned. The only live races in Europe today are its nations.”

He uses as a modern example the case of Finnish resistance to Russia in 1939-1940 to illustrate the dual code and its meaning in the context of modern European nations. Beginning on page 32:

“Let us see if we can obtain a reasonable explanation of the state of mind which had been roused in the people of Finland by certain demands made on their country by powerful Russia. At first there was no threat against the corporate life of the Finns; they were requested to surrender certain strong points which were coveted by Russia for defensive purposes. Now, suppose the ultimate purpose of human existence had been such as we have passed in review – the development of personality, the provision of greatest happiness to the greatest number, the growth of the soul, glorification of the Creator, security, peace, prosperity; then the Finns ought gratefully to have accepted the demands of Russia. Could not all of these objectives in life have been developed more freely and fully under the protection of Russia than under the weaker power of the smaller state? We receive no explanation from the accepted theories of life. But if we turn to the theory that I have put forward – namely, that human nature has been fashioned to advance the cause of evolution – then we obtain a ready and sufficient explanation. An evolutionary unit, be it a community, tribe, or a nation, must, to fulfill its destiny, maintain not only its organization and its continuity, but also its independence – its right to work out its own destiny. If a nation loses its independence, then it has no longer the power to develop its separate destiny or to pursue the policy of self-determination. Thus I regard the spirit of independence which we have seen roused in the hearts of the Finnish people as a fundamental part of the machinery of human evolution.”


Sir Arthur contrasts the European Wars of Tribal and National amalgamation with the fierce and genocidal conflicts of the ancient Hebrews, the Huns, the Mongols, and Tamerlane. Indeed, the first indication that modern European war was itself evolving into something much nastier than the earlier wars of tribal and national amalgamation were the high casualty rates willingly suffered by Napoleon. Such losses did not bode well for the future of Europe. I should mention, parenthetically, a second characteristic of truly modern European wars which supports Keith’s thesis. This characteristic had its genesis in the U.S. Civil war. The history books will tell you that General Sherman was the first “modern” general because he was the first to wage economic war on a civilian population. But far more important is the fact that modern wars do not end when the fighting stops. The essential conflict continues on in the “peace.” The impulse toward amalgamation is gone.

While there was much talk following 1865 in the Northern states of the U.S. about “binding up the wounds,” as if our Civil War had been of the older “nation building” variety, the minions who went South to implement the peace had entirely different objectives in mind. And this highlights another characteristic of modern “liberal democracies,” namely the disconnect between the publicly stated purposes of a government program that are used to round up political support, and the collective policy preferences of the people who seek jobs implementing the program. Nathan Bedford Forrest understood this instinctively and responded in a way that preserved the independent evolutionary destiny of his people. No other Confederate general understood.

The Treaty of Versailles following WW-I expanded this modern trend of continuing the conflict in peace with punitive measures that plunged post-war Germany into poverty and deprived her of the means of national self defense. At the end of WW-II we had the Morgenthau plan which included (1) the killing of Germany’s civilian and military leaders, (2) the largest ethnic cleansing in human history with the forced migration of over 14 million ethnic Germans from Russia, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to East Germany, followed by (3) the reduction of German POW and civilian food rations to starvation levels for 3 years following the War as faceless bureaucrats watched an estimated 9 to 12 million Germans starve to death (including 900,000 POWs deliberately starved to death by General Eisenhower in the 3 years following the war). The only thing that saved Germany from more extensive post-war genocide was the onset of the Cold War between Russia and the United States.

Arthur Keith could not have known anything about the Aftermath of WW-II when he wrote his books. Thus, this pattern of peacetime conflict continuation would have been much harder to spot. (Indeed none of us knew this until a Canadian researcher named James Bacque published his research under the title of “Other Losses” in 1989, and a more comprehensive work entitled “Crimes and Mercies” in 1997.) Nevertheless, Sir Arthur sensed the development of a very ugly trend in the fierce and destructive conflicts into which modern war had evolved.

Modern European wars place us all on a clear path towards accelerating the pace of evolution. Ironically, at a time when we have discarded the values of chivalry and fairness toward our fellow Europeans, the suicide of the West has been accelerated by our collective extension and expansion of these values and the exclusive application of them to the more distant and unassimilable non-European races of the World, all of whom read our humanitarian outreach (correctly) as a threat to their own evolutionary destinies.

The tribal mind had no reason to apply its rules of exclusion and separation to distant lands, but rather reserved its hostility and applied it almost exclusively to its nearest neighbors. This is the source of the Euro-American predicament. In the absence of traditional tribal enemies, Euro-American elites are re-tribalizing in chaotic and unplanned ways, frantically distancing themselves from “trailer trash” while enlisting as allies in this effort Blacks and imported Browns. We have not escaped the evolutionary heritage uncovered by Sir Arthur – we just commit evolutionary suicide much more quickly than in the past.


Sir Arthur associates the viciousness of modern wars with the destructive ideal of Universalism. At this point Sir Arthur sets forth several concepts that provide us with an exceptionally accurate map for analyzing the second half of the 20th century.

Sir Arthur describes the Universalist vision on page 52 of Ethics as follows:

“What a world to look out on! The frontiers behind which sixty nations, tribes beyond number, and races are now entrenched have vanished; the earth below is as free as the sky above; among the peoples there is no longer any color bar; a common tongue has swept through the earth as in the palmy days of Babel. Tariff walls have been overthrown; there are no passports, no dues, no patriotism, for every living soul is a citizen of the world, free to come and go, free to trade as needs compel or moods suggest. There are no armies, no navies, for there is no longer any warlike spirit in human nature. Only a central airborne police to see that the one universal code of law is observed. There will be no competition, no rivalry, and hence no malice, envy, or evil ambition. Jerusalem shall take her place as the world’s capital – a center of power and uplift, in touch with all communities. One state, one government, one law, and one God.”

His prescient reference to the “central airborne police” captures the essence of it – and this was written in 1943, before the U.N. was created. He develops his theme further on page 56 of Ethics:

“Universalism as an ideal is as old as – nay, is probably much more ancient than – the Christian ideal. Yet see how different they are in penetrating power. Christianity has a momentum of its own which has carried it over a large part of the earth’s surface; Universalism has no drive, no momentum; it is not contagious; it has behind it no missionary enthusiasm. And yet this strange fact remains: Universalism, not as an ideal but as a political practice, has been and is at work in all parts of the earth. Nowhere is Universalism welcomed and encouraged by a people; everywhere governments have forced and are forcing Universalism upon unwilling and resistant subjects. There is something in the Universalist ideal which runs against the grain of human nature. Force and fear are the driving power behind this regional kind of Universalism. Love and brotherhood have had no part in its spread.”

Indeed, the essence of Universalism is force and fear, and it is here that we get the first intimation that while hidden tribal/ethnic agendas may not be the central driving force, at the very least, Universalism is an easily manipulated mask behind which to conceal such agendas from unsuspecting racial or ethnic enemies in order to rob them of independence and control of their own evolutionary destinies. Indeed, who else but the alienated and hostile would want such a job?”

Further to that point we find this on page 78 of Ethics:

“And yet as I make this statement I recall Von Luschan’s aphorism: ‘There are no savages, only people whose cultures differ from ours.’ It will be nearer to stark reality to say: In the world of humanity there are only savages, who differ in the degree to which they have masked their original nature in the cloak of civilization.”

And, of course, the World’s political elites are the very most aggressive, deceptive and savage of us all.

From page 59 of Ethics we read:

“Huxley condemned Universalism; it was an illusion. More than a century earlier J. J. Rousseau gave an equally unsparing verdict; ‘it was a veritable chimera.’ But the reasons they gave for their condemnation were not the same. Huxley’s judgment was founded on the belief that no sooner would Universalism be established than evolution would again raise her hoary head, pitting local group against local group, and that soon mankind would reassume its evil evolutionary ways. Rousseau’s reason was very different. For him nationalism was the source of all that is good: If people would be virtuous … let them love their own country … If it is a home for everyone … It is a home for no one.

* * *

A uniform Universalist system of schools could do much in the attaining of such ideals, but the old instincts would be merely suppressed, not eliminated. To eliminate them, and so secure stability for the Universalist State, breeding and marriage must be controlled everywhere so that individuals of a warlike spirit, individuals who are evolutionary – minded – that is, competitive, combative, strong-willed, ambitious. or jealous – are prevented from handing on their qualities to the coming generation. In this way mankind could be domesticated, tamed, and made suitable subjects for a Universal state. If we desire universal peace we must be prepared to surrender our evolutionary birthright. I for one would prefer to keep my birthright and use the gifts which Nature has given me for its maintenance, the chief of which is courage – courage and self-sacrifice.”

Amen! Brother Arthur!

And that is exactly the program that has consistently been attempted by all forms of 20th Century Communism, including the Othodox variety practiced in the Soviet Union as well as the Reform varieties practiced in virtually all “liberal democracies” of the West at the close of the Twentieth Century.


Back in 1947, Arthur Keith could not have imagined the “disorder and turmoil” that afflicts “the detribalized part of the world” (confined almost exclusively to the descendants of European Christendom) at the close of the 20th century.

Back then, the population of the civilized world was growing. Education and learning were advancing.

In 1998, birthrates throughout the entire civilized world (all of the European world plus Japan and China) have fallen to well below replacement with no force visible anywhere that might reverse the trend. In 1962, before the birth control pill was invented, we had 19,000 American students who scored above 700 on the verbal portion of the SAT. In 1995, we had only 8,000. At work are wildly dysgenic trends in which intelligent women are pressured to carefully medicate their wombs and become childless investment bankers while our social safety net subsidizes births to women with IQs a full standard deviation below the national average. Not surprisingly, the birthrate for successful career women with IQs above 130 is close to zero, while that of welfare mothers with IQs below 90 is over 3.

The world of 1998 would have been unimaginable to a British Anthropologist writing in 1947. He could not have conceived of a music industry which fabricates “entertainment” out of angry rhythmic rants – endlessly repeating lyrics that glorify killing and bloody sex. Equally unimaginable would have been a television industry which “entertains” us with an endless stream of self-indulgent confessions of deviant behavior from those who can communicate feelings but are incapable of communicating a thought in a complete sentence. Gone entirely from the public discourse is any effort to uphold civility or community life.

When Sir Arthur wrote his great works, Western Civilization had publicly repudiated only the last of his three commandments of nature (from page 116 of New Theory):

“Social animals have within their natures a Mount Sinai which issues commandments as they are required; human nature issues, not commands, but requests, and these are of varying degrees of urgency. Some are imperative, such as, ‘Thou shalt preserve thy life’; ‘Thou shalt mate’; ‘Thou shalt not treat thy friends as thou dost thine enemies.'”

By 1998, the organs of mass popular culture in the West have caused many Euro-Americans to abandon commandments 2 and 3, thereby putting at risk the only time tested strategy for fulfilling the first.

Indeed Arthur Keith’s greatest intellectual achievement, that which surpasses Aristotle, is his recognition of the fundamental principle of individualistic hedonism that guides and organizes all public manifestations of modern Western Civilization, including its politics and its theology.

On page 19 of Ethics we find:

“Since the days of ancient Greece until now there have been philosophers who maintain that the purpose of human life is to develop personality to its fullest possible degree; that every child is born to bring to full stature the potentialities of its mind and body. If it fails, then the purpose of life has failed or been misused. We may go to the writings of the late Professor L. T. Hobhouse for a modern statement of the personality theory’ of life: ‘The good for each man lies in the realization of what is in him … but only as far as the common good makes this possible … the rights of each are such as it is good for all to maintain.'”

Following on page 20 of Ethics:

“Carlyle’s statement is more emphatic and no doubt reflects his acquaintance with German philosophy: The meaning of Life here on earth might be defined as consisting in this: ‘to unfold your self, to work what thing you have a faculty for. It is a necessity for the human being, the first law of our existence.’

“Huxley was of opinion that the mystery of life lay beyond the reach of the human intellect, but nevertheless in his Romanes Lecture touches on the matter with which we are now dealing. The passage runs: ‘Creation of conditions more favorable than those of the state of Nature… to the end of facilitating the free expansion of the innate faculties of the citizen so far as it is consistent with the general good.'”

From page 21 of Ethics:

“Let me give, as briefly as I may, the names of famous men who have regarded the development of personality as the purpose of existence. Aristotle: ‘Now with us reason and intelligence are the end of Nature.’ Dante: ‘Right constitutions work for freedom in order that men may exist for their own sakes.’ Kant: … ‘not happiness … but the evolution of all the germs God has implanted in man’s nature.’ The Marquis of Halifax (1633-95): ‘The free development of human personality is the purpose of earthly existence…. Free-will is the method deliberately chosen by God.’ Herbert Spencer: ‘Social life will have no other end than to maintain the completest sphere for individual life.’ ‘Man exists in order that he may develop his soul’ is a theological explanation of life’s purpose. As ‘soul’ is a component of personality, the theological explanation falls within the present category.”

Sir Arthur has a response on page 25 of Ethics:

“What, then, is the explanation which the student of human evolution has to offer as a final purpose for man’s existence? It is not, as the Victorian scientists thought, to permit the individual man or woman to develop his latent potentialities; but to permit a closed society, be it tribe or nation, to develop its collective potentialities of brain and of body as an evolutionary unit. It is only when we make the assumption that evolution aims at the production of societies – not of individuals that we come by a satisfying explanation of man’s dual mentality, and the constituent elements of human nature.”

Indeed, our modern Christian Churches have succumbed utterly to this hedonistic philosophy. Go to a fundamentalist Baptist Church and the minister will declare that to be a member you must have a “personal relationship with Christ.” The personal relationship is all that matters. Gone are the (Calvinist) communitarian requirements of thrift, industry, probity and success. Gone is the (Catholic) communitarian obligation to protect innocent life with force if necessary. Gone is the obligation to sacrifice for the future. We are left with an atomized, highly individualized “feel good” Christianity catering solely to the spiritual needs of atomized and disconnected individuals.

The first obligation of any church in our multicultural society is to minister to the tribal or group needs of its own congregation and to ensure its long term survival. The second purpose is to minister to the spiritual needs of individual congregants as a means of enhancing this first purpose. But instead of this, our churches behave like governments, extracting resources from their congregants and shipping these resources off to some remote bureaucracy that busies itself buying souls in Africa and, when that fails, buying guns for groups whose mission is to ethnically cleanse Africa of anyone who happens to look like the congregants who supplied the money.

When is the last time you heard of a Christian Church that identified exceptionally intelligent children from their own congregations, mentored those children in their studies and then provided financial aid for college?

When was the last time you entered a Christian Church and found the pastor encouraging the successful parishioners to share information with fellow parishioners that might have a practical value, such as job availability, and careers and fields that are growing? On the contrary, our modern clergymen assume class divisions among their flock will make parishioners uncomfortable discussing opportunities and strategies with one another. They assume, and thus perpetuate, the very sin they should work to eliminate.

Until individual clergymen wake up to the fact that churches must fulfill a tribal as well as an individual spiritual role, they will continue to lose members, particularly among the disciplined, strong and successful, who would like to help those most like themselves but do not need a soft shoulder to whine on.

An undated article by George F. Will notes the social decay and the danger that our society of atomized and detribalized individuals has become (as of 1995) in his review of Robert Putnam’s lament over the demise of bowling leagues:

“Putnam, a Harvard professor of international affairs, says solo bowling is a sign of the erosion of social capital.’ More Americans than ever are bowling. Almost 80 million bowled at least once in 1993, nearly a third more than voted in the 1994 congressional elections. But although the number of bowlers is up 10% since 1980, participation in leagues is down 40%. Putnam calls ‘whimsical’ this evidence of ‘social decapitalization,’ but there is nothing trivial about the cumulative weight of his evidence of declining civic engagement and social connectedness. Since 1973, the number of Americans who report having attended in the past year a public meeting on town or school affairs has declined from 22% to 13%. Union membership has fallen from 32.5% of the non-agricultural work force in 1953 to about 15% today. Participation in parent-teacher associations has declined from 12 million in 1964 to 7 million today.

* * *

“The technological transformation of leisure–the movement, as it were, from vaudeville to the VCR–has had an isolating effect. So have some demographic changes–more divorces, fewer children. But these factors do not fully explain the broad decline in organizational memberships in recent decades. This has happened, Putnam notes, at a time when the personal attributes that used to correlate with group involvements–higher education, middle age–have increased.

“‘The repotting hypothesis’ blames mobility. Frequent repotting of plants damages roots, and frequent changes of residence–blame economic dynamism, the automobile, suburbanization–produce a deracinated population. But residential stability and home ownership are higher today than in the 1950s, when voting and membership in voluntary associations were higher than today.

“America has been well-served by the individualism of its political philosophy and economic practice. Liberty and prosperity are individualism’s fruits. And American individualism has traditionally been compatible with the joining impulse that produced a rich broth of private intermediary institutions that mediate between the individual and government. ‘Such networks of attachments breed habits of trust that are part of the social capital’ that makes possible cooperation for mutual benefits. Such cooperation sustains a free society. Social trust and civic engagement are strongly correlated. Therefore, given the decline of engagement, the following is not surprising: The percentage of Americans saying that most people are trustworthy fell from 58% to 37% between 1960 and 1993.”

Without Sir Arthur’s insights, conservatism is powerless to change the course of human events.


The tribal mind reasserts itself in unexpected ways in our detribalized and mobile world.

Signs of decay are everywhere. Back when I was growing up (in the decade following Arthur Keith’s death) boys and girls used to walk arm-in-arm in the halls of our junior high and high schools. In predominantly white suburban schools in 1998, you never see any overt signs of affection between male and female students. This rule applies across the nation, except in small towns where, I understand, overt signs and deeds of affection are quite common indeed.

Sir Arthur’s theory explains this decline. Young ladies carry with them an evolutionary inheritance that includes a powerful aversion to strangers. This evolutionary inheritance makes it quite difficult for them to interact or flirt with anyone other than a recognized member of the “tribe.” In our de-tribalized modern society, females instinctively apply this prohibition to all comers. They do it unconsciously. They cannot help it.

Indeed, a requirement for access to the young ladies in high school is to crash the boundaries of her circle of female friends who will constantly reinforce her aversion to strangers, is in the tribal days of old. As a friend of mine used to say years ago – “Get them laughing and you’re in!”

Sir Arthur alludes to the fact that there was (at the time he wrote) no evidence of border wars reinforcing tribal exclusiveness among chimpanzees as there is among primitive modern human tribes. He would marvel at the sight of footage frequently aired in the 1990s on the Nature Channel of a group of young male chimps patrolling the border zone of their territory in perfect squad drill, maintaining silence, crawling low to the ground to avoid visual detection, spotting a young female intruder with her baby, brutally killing her and the baby, and eating the intruder’s flesh in a final cannibalistic act that reinforces the importance of tribal boundaries and genetic isolation.

So much for free love and promiscuous sex among strangers in the world of primate behavior!

Indeed, this evolutionary inheritance may frustrate and alienate most young ladies, but it will be abandoned by very few.

Overcoming this mistrust is a herculean and profoundly alienating task for all but a small minority of exceptionally gregarious and socially aggressive kids. Tribes created mandatory places and encouraged relationships for all members. Tribal life did not select for special social or “group crashing” skills necessary for interaction with strangers. In the modern sea of strangers that our suburban high schools have become, life for shy kids seems like endless torture. For those with average social skills, it is merely profoundly alienating.

In small towns where all of the kids have known each other since early childhood, the normal romantic activities of youth continue on as in ancient times.

Indeed, the low fertility rates of the final half of the Twentieth Century may be due as much to a loss of tribal association, and the mental insecurity that such a loss entails, as to the invention of the pill.

Perhaps the most important lesson of Sir Arthur’s work for modern Nationalists is two-fold. First, detribalization and Universalism fail to secure the long run survival of the group. Second, to secure long run survival for ourselves, we must rebuild our own tribal communities on a local basis first, before worrying over-much about political power. We must adopt the dual code, becoming good and helpful neighbors, while quietly but persistently excluding those not of our tribe.

Survival in ways that are consistent with our evolutionary inheritance cannot be guaranteed by application of governmental power.


I remember those balmy years as an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins quite well. It was a time when my portly classmate, Sam Francis, was completely non-political and could with considerable assurance be found holding court in the snack bar. The air was full of pacifism – intense, revolutionary pacifism in opposition to the war in Viet Nam. There were campus demonstrations. There were bearded “outside agitators.” There were books by Bertrand Russell. There were escapes to Canada. The SDS staged meetings and held animated arguments laced with code words I did not understand. Many of the pacifists were Jews, and all Jews I met were pacifists. Earlier, I had attended a Jewish high school and had been bombarded with pacifism in the years before college as well.

All of the Jews I knew were intensely pacifist with only one exception. During a career counseling day in high school health class, a little 17 year old Jewish kid on stage crew admitted he wasn’t going to college and that he was going to move to Israel and join the Israeli Army. It was a stunningly absurd revelation. First, none of my Jewish friends ever hinted at any similar sentiment. Second, I could not imagine how he could get along with his fellow Jews who were so intensely anti-war and anti-military. Third, such a blood loyalty to a foreign nation was profoundly un-American. And fourth, I could not imagine any army wanting this kid in its ranks.

It was just one of those incidents that was so bizarre I put it completely out of mind until my Sophomore year at Hopkins in the spring of 1967. Suddenly war erupted in Israel, and all Jews immediately became fervent militarists, publicly praying for military victory in Israel.

I was stunned. At the time I regarded this reaction as simple hypocrisy. It seemed clear that they were not pacifists at all. Rather, they opposed any war in which Euro-Americans fought against brown people, particularly if Jews were required to put themselves at risk.

It was only many years later (after I read John Murray Cuddihy’s masterpiece, “The Ordeal of Civility”) that I began to understand the true significance of this event. This uniform emotional reaction to war in Israel was immediate, passionate and completely unplanned. There was no discussion, calculation or other debate. There wasn’t the slightest concern for public appearances. Bertrand Russell was cast aside without so much as a moment’s reflection.

All modern liberal democracies share a common characteristic with Sir Arthur’s Universalist state. They make a massive and prolonged propaganda investment in demonizing an enemy and whipping up public support before they go to war. This happened in the United States in World Wars I and II, in the “Domino” wars of Korea and Viet Nam, as well as in The Gulf war against Sadam Hussein. It happens in all wars in which the very survival and independence of the U.S. is not directly threatened.

But the Jews in the U.S. (whose lives were not threatened by war in Israel) did not need to be propagandized into wanting war with the Arabs. The reaction was entirely spontaneous and uncontrolled. It was quintessential racial behavior. The minds of all Jews seemed automatically programed to react in the same way to the news of war in Israel. It wasn’t hypocrisy in the conscious sense. It was a deeper reaction of the lower brain – that part which preserves humans over multiple generations without having to rely upon the weaker impulses of reason, logic, and planning.

Multi-ethnic democracies require an enormous amount of physical energy and capital to whip the public into a war frenzy. But in the case of the Six Day War, the communication among Jews was absolutely effortless and free. The mental response spread with an instantaneous impulse, much like waves of gravity that penetrate instantly throughout the universe with no resistance whatsoever.

These mental reactions are a primal force we do not yet fully understand. They are quintessential racial phenomena which are immune to censorship and will trump propaganda every time.

They are, of course, a prime example of the operation of Sir Arthur Keith’s dual code of tribal mentality. The signal event in this drama of pacifism followed by instant conversion to militarism is not Jewish sympathy for Israel nor Jewish support for Israel’s military. That sympathy is easy to understand. The signal event is the immense effort Jews invested in creating a Universalist logic of pacifism to place before us Gentiles in public – a pacifism which their lower brains commanded for us, but rejected when applied to themselves. It is this elaborate public staging – signifying that we who were opposing a communist regime are a “them” – aliens from a different tribe – that has evolutionary import. Like good tribesmen, they stuck with one another and told each other the truth, while they told us – whom they see as aliens – Universalist lies.

If only Sir Arthur had been there to watch!

A second example of a similar phenomenon occurred on the day of the O. J. Simpson verdict. Blacks uniformly and instantly celebrated the acquittal of O. J. in a visible display of emotion that stunned all Euro-Americans watching the same event. Once again, there was no planning, no debate and no propaganda campaign to teach blacks how to “feel” or behave should a innocent verdict be rendered.

They just did it, instantly, exuberantly and without any thought to the public relations costs of the reaction among the majority Euro-Americans. Jay Leno’s jokes week in and week out for the next 6 years about “finding the real killer” reinforced the Euro-American reaction which was equally instantaneous, untutored and uniform. The races see events differently, and there is nothing the government or a thousand Episcopal Priests can do to change it!

And indeed, the oncoming evidence from these events indicates that there are aspects of the operation of the tribal mentality that cannot be anticipated, controlled nor guided through central planning or propaganda campaigns. Sir Arthur’s dual code will pop up and assert itself in unexpected ways at defining moments of a multi-ethnic state’s existence, tearing the mask off the face of unity.

Indeed, media interviews displayed Blacks professing a fervent belief in O.J.’s innocence and an equally fervent belief that the ordeal of his trial was a Euro-American conspiracy to humiliate a successful black man.

Similarly there is a widespread belief in the Black community that AIDS is a Euro-American conspiracy to exterminate the Black Man. Universalists hold these up as examples of “delusional thinking,” which, in a logical sense, they clearly are. However, delusions – modern descendant of the impulse to worship the spirits of beloved streams and mountains – serve to reinforce the internal cohesion of the group and to define the boundaries between groups. After all, delusions will not be accepted or believed by outsiders, and thus they serve to reinforce the barriers that separate groups in modern societies and to relieve the tensions in individual members who must interact daily with members of different groups as a matter of economic necessity.

Delusional belief is an adaptation of the tribal mind described by Sir Arthur to the new circumstance of extensive but unwanted inter-tribal contact mandated by the Universalist state. They are a classic example of tribal mentality reasserting itself in new and unpredictable ways.

A more richly textured example of delusional thinking among our elites comes from the Holocaust Story. On one level, it makes perfect sense that the German program of ethnic cleansing undertaken to extract Jews from their communities in Germany and the captured territories and move them to transit camps and labor camps with the intention of relocating them to the eastern provinces of Russia would morph itself into a program of homicide once access to those Eastern territories in Russia became wildly improbable in 1942.

Nothing delusional at all on this “macro” level. But on the micro level of the detail – the “eyewitness accounts” of the survivors and the structures they point to as homicidal devices – the story of “industrial strength extermination” collapses.

Indeed, we are treated to standard crematory ovens no different than those in civilian mortuaries of that day, and in numbers reasonable planners would install to handle deaths from typhus. As evidence of mass gassings, we are pointed to underground structures with narrow entry ways that violate every rule in the standard military manuals governing prison construction and prisoner control if used for homicidal gassings. They are structures in which one or two stout-hearted individuals among each batch of the condemned could easily have delayed or disrupted the operation for hours. The mind of the engineer recoils at such a logistical nightmare. We are treated to the confession extracted from captive Hoess, an early commandant of Auschwitz, admitting to the extermination of 2.5 millions at a time before the ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau were built and placed into service. We are treated to the equally puzzling confession extracted from Gerstein, an SS officer murdered in Allied captivity, who describes gassings in camps other than Auschwitz with relatively harmless diesel exhaust, in wooden chambers of a size that could not hold a fifth the number of victims he claims to have seen processed. On the micro level we have nothing but doubt and uncertainty.

But the most certain evidence of delusional thinking arises from the fact that 25 years after Yad Vashem, the holocaust memorial center in Israel, announced that there were no homicidal gas chambers in any of the camps within Germany proper, tour guides at the camps of Buchenwald, Dachau, and approximately ten other camps inside Germany and Austria still dutifully parade tourists and school children through gas chambers at these camps built or modified after the War. Similarly, long after Jewish Holocaust experts such as Deborah Lipstadt announced that the Germans made neither soap nor lampshades from Jews or anyone else at the camps, we get fervent defenses of the soap and lampshade stories on internet discussion groups, at conventions of Holocaust survivors and in updated Haggadah prayers and readings for the Seder celebration at Passover.

From the perspective of the Gentile Nations which defeated the Germans in battle, the production of the delusional propaganda films of corpses at Dachau and the show trials at Nuremberg serve a recognizable function. From an evolutionary perspective they serve the same purpose as the rituals of mutilation and cannibalism inflicted on the dead bodies of the defeated by primitive tribesmen in Paupua-New Guinea. Such rituals reinforce the importance of the victory, and the reasons for which the battle was fought. A cannibal is the most sincere killer – he really means it! His descendants in the propaganda organs of our modern “liberal democracies” are a close second. After all, who else would want such a job?

For the Jews, however, the nether reaches of the Holocaust story powerfully reinforce and define the psychological boundaries that separate their race from others. And the more improbable the detail, the greater its value in separating the chosen from the unbelieving alien. To cling tenaciously to the extreme and admittedly false stories of human soap, human lampshades, and gas chambers with fake showers at Dachau and Buchenwald bears a functional resemblance to the “AIDS conspiracy” theories which circulate so enduringly in the black ghettos of North America. The very implausibility of the tale prevents belief by outsiders, thus reinforcing the isolation of the believing tribe or race.

Indeed, when we apply Sir Arthur’s theory, we see considerable justice in the claim of Deborah Lipstadt that for a Gentile to question any detail of the Holocaust story is to “deny” the reality of the Holocaust. Any claim of inaccuracy of detail, while not threatening the lives, property or security of individual Jews in any way, does threaten the web of belief that holds them together and holds them apart from us. Thus, in Arthur Keith’s anthropological sense, questioning details of the Holocaust “threatens” the existence of Jews. More importantly, questioning gas chamber details threatens to drag the wild and disorderly defense of the Holocaust Story into public view, thereby jeopardizing the considerable investment Jews have made in constructing before the rest of Euro-America an elaborate mask of indistinguishable and non-hostile “whiteness.” The danger for Jews is that Euro-America will react to that defense the same way it reacted to the Black celebration following the O. J. Simpson verdict. There are certain rain-dances of tribal affirmation you just don’t want seen in public.

Arthur Keith spent much of his life imposing linear thinking or “logic” on phenomenon that have proven, with fifty years of hindsight, to be chaotic and non-linear. Nevertheless, this heir to wits sharpened over generations of life in the march zone of conflict between England and Scotland has come up with a central descriptor of human reality.

A central message of Keith for modern Nationalists is that plausible and Universalist belief systems (pacifism being but one example) propounded by intelligent tribes and dominant elites are often delusional (when not deliberately and consciously malevolent in their intent.) They serve the same function of reinforcing the boundaries between tribes as do more primitive and obviously false delusions, but have the additional effect of causing considerable damage when implemented as policy. Examples are the modern welfare system in the U.S. and “womens’ liberation,” both of which threaten to deprive differing targets of control over their own evolutionary destinies in different ways.

These delusions cannot be countered effectively in the political arena with logic or linear argument.

In the political sphere, they can only be countered with a tribal response. A people operating under the dual code can see past the masks and will have a considerable survival advantage. A people lacking that dual code in a multi-racial state is doomed to extinction.


It is time now to pose a fundamental question: Is it a smart survival strategy for Euro-American Elites to form themselves into a social class, disdain their racial fellows and ally themselves with tribes and races that cling tenaciously to the dual code?

On page 208 of Ethics, Sir Arthur explains the fatal flaw in social class as a strategy for survival:

“There is one point about the constitution of Hindu castes and tribes which is particularly worthy of note: they are destitute of the means of offering a physical defense; they are not clad in a robe of enmity. Now, a tribe or caste which is not organized for defense could not survive unless it is protected by an overlord or governing power. We may conclude, therefore, that castes did not come into existence in India until large areas of that country were under the dominion of an invading power which brought with it a new religion.”

Here is how Sir Arthur describes the effects of Roman imperialism on the Celtic populations of Britain:

“The presence of four legions ensured the conditions necessary for the growth of civilization -viz., security of life and property and a code of laws was maintained and administered by governors and magistrates. Roads were made; cities, built on the Roman pattern, replaced ramshackle tribal towns; arts and crafts were introduced; trade flourished; native produce was carried to the Continent; luxuries, literature, and vice came back in exchange. Native youths of promise were taught in Latin; they learned to wear the toga, acquired with zest the Roman ways of life, and merged their British nativity in the wider fraternity of the Empire.

“Thus for three centuries and a half England basked in the sun of Roman civilization. We must note, however, that civilization may come to a people in two ways, which give different results. A people may import a civilization, as the Japanese did in the last half of the nineteenth century, or it may have a civilization thrust on it by a superior power. It was in the latter way that Roman civilization came to England; it was offered to her on the point of the sword. She was civilized not for the benefit of her inhabitants, numbering some two millions before the debacle set in, early in the fifth decade, but for the aggrandizement of Rome. We must note with the eye of an anthropologist the chief effect which was produced on the mentality of the inhabitants of England by these centuries of Roman civilization. The people were detribalized and disarmed; they had come to depend, for the safety of their lives and the maintenance of their civilization, not on their own right arm, but on the armed power of foreign legionaires. Hence, when the legions were recalled (A.D. 406), they were left a helpless prey to any tribal people who had the will and power to attack them. And they were attacked, in a way which will be described in another essay. We may assert, then, that if civilization unified and domesticated the Celtic inhabitants of England, it also led them to their doom and brought their evolutionary career to a disastrous end.

* * *

“At the time of the Roman departure there lived on the opposite shorelands of the Continent, from Jutland in the north to the estuary of the Rhine in the south, a fighting, pagan, farming people, of strong build of body and of a resolute, courageous spirit. Their organization was tribal; each local group had its township; the township within a definite tract of territory recognized an overlord or leader. These were the people who, sword in hand, began to colonize England in the year 449; they continued to land on the eastern and southern coasts for at least a century and a half, feeding settlements already planted and held; they annexed native lands, farmed them, established townships and tribal territories, each with its own leader or overlord. Some twelve centuries later the Christianized descendants of these pagan colonists repeated the process in America.”

The Latium tribe (the Romans) disappeared as well. Sir Arthur writes of them on pages 96-97 of Ethics:

“Gibbon was content, like Plato, to look upon peasant, artisan, and laborer as existing to form a mighty plinth on which a minority is superimposed in order that it might enjoy the blessings of civilization. Look at the size and composition of the Roman plinth in the time of the Emperor Claudius. Gibbon estimates that the population of the Empire was then 120 million; Over 100 millions should go to form the plinth, and probably one-third of these were slaves representing races alien to Italy. Now, a social pyramid such as that erected by the Romans may serve as an excellent structure for the growth of civilization, but as a structure designed to carry a great people onward in its evolutionary journey, it is as badly constructed as is anthropologically possible. It is not top-heavy; it is worse – it is bottom-heavy. A social pyramid which is to endure must be made up of individual human units, preferably of common racial origin, who, from bottom to top of the pyramid, are conscious of a common evolutionary destiny and work together to attain it. The Roman Empire may now provide scholars with a harvest; it provides only warning to the evolutionary-minded anthropologist.”

It is Sir Arthur’s bottom-heavy crime against evolution which Herrenstein and Murray decry in “The Bell Curve.” It is this same issue that Peter Brimelow decries in “Alien Nation.”

Our elites don’t listen. Universalism is “received truth,” a delusional belief system far too powerful to be overcome by mere facts. So then what of our Euro-American elites? Are they slated for extinction?

Are they predators, or prey?

Our elites have created an “inverse pyramid” of tax and cost burdens which inflict damage primarily on themselves.

Fifty percent of the income tax is paid by the top 5% of income earners, 3.5 million families. Twelve million families pay approximately 80% of the income taxes. In the 1950’s corporations paid 40% of all income taxes. Now they only pay 9%.While the cost of the Social Security safety-net is imposed more heavily on the middle class, the benefits of that system are heavily skewed towards the bottom 50% of wage earners. It is a second resource shift toward a large and growing plurality of our population that cannot produce enough economic value to pay for the education of their children, their medical care and the cost of their old age support.

Thus, the burden of financing our multi-cultural empire falls disproportionately on our elites. They are the supporting layer at the bottom of Sir Arthur’s plinth. Instead of erecting an economic edifice in the shape of a pyramid with a large strata of laborers at the bottom supporting the leisure and culture of the elites at the top, we have an upside-down pyramid with a tiny elite scrambling frantically to support the leisure of a huge under-class that amuses itself watching daytime TV.

It is hard to conceive of a more unstable system.

Our elites have created a system of higher learning that imposes a capital cost of $120,000 per child for college education at a private university and $60,000 for a similar education at a state-supported institution. In contrast, if you expect your children to complete only high-school before taking a job, then the cost of having children is dramatically less. This set of economic disincentives is so massive that it guarantees birth rates well below replacement for our elites. The more successful our educational and economic system is at identifying high IQ and rewarding it, the worse the dysgenic trend becomes. These perverse incentives created by our elites guarantee their extinction. Their numbers decrease by at least 30% with each generation. After four generations, each 100 of them leave fewer than 24 descendants.

Admittedly, these burdens were first conceived in a more tribal era, when the architects of the tax system viewed themselves as an “oppressed minority.” It was a time when the designers of the tax reasoned that “their people” who owned retail stores were in a better position to skim cash from the till and avoid the tax than were managers at the large “white shoe” corporations who would be subject to the iron discipline of the W-2 Form. It was a time when Franklin Roosevelt, a political dependent of those tribes, used to review the tax returns of his political enemies and laugh at their loss of wealth and power. It was a time when the architects of this system thought that the tax would fall primarily on “rich WASPs” even as contemporary surveys showed that WASPs had the very lowest average income among all European ethnic groups in America. It was a system born of delusion and ethnic paranoia.The question then becomes: Why did the Gentile Euro-American elites put up with it? In truth, their class consciousness deprived them of the opportunity to stage any defense. They had become so remote from the average Euro-American worker that they did not believe a tribal defense would work. They feared that the rest of the tribe would not respond. Thus, they acquiesced with hardly a peep in a system of burdens that would guarantee their extinction.

As I look back on the McCarthy era in the U.S., I am shocked at the timidity and utter impotence of the response to the clear and obvious threat presented by the entry of hundreds of thousands of intensely tribalized minds into the studios of Hollywood and the Federal bureaucracy behind the thin disguise of Marxism’s Universalist mask.

The best that the Gentile elites could come up with was an appeal to reason, an argument that the egalitarian policies were destructive to general prosperity – if the pie gets larger, we can all take larger slices. It was the defense of the universalized Economic Man – Gingrich-Kemp Republicanism – universally ridiculed by the tribalized elements of the Racial Extortion Coalition as “trickle down economics.”

The tribal mind thinks only of its relative position among groups, not the “size of the pie” available for all groups.In the 1990’s we are faced with conservative politicians like Bob Dornan, who make statements such as: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants… and if we lose our Northern European stock – your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair – tough!”

The leadership of the Republican Party seems to have accepted the notion that the marginalization of Euro-America under a political system administered by Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, and Jews is inevitable. To accommodate this vision they have already put in place laws that codify collective guilt and create remedies that ensure perpetual demands for compensation. Slavery for Euro-America seems to be the accepted wisdom.

But what does this mean for the White Gentile elites themselves. Where do their children fit in?

Charles Manson articulated a vision for America in “Helter Skelter.” He and his followers thought that their killings would provoke a race war in America, that the Blacks would win the war, but that the Blacks would be so disorganized following their victory that they would have to come to Manson and his band (who would hide out in the mountains) for leadership in order to hold this new non-white nation together.

Is Charlie Manson’s delusional thinking significantly different from that of our modern White Gentile elites?

What are the odds that the children of our White Gentile elites will see “reason” prevail when they are a racial minority? Is there any objective evidence that a majority Mexican-Black-Asian political coalition will feel they need the skills of the children of this elite? That they will allow them admission to universities, allow them to be compensated fairly in market based systems, and will refrain from confiscating their earnings in punitive and discriminatory taxation schemes?

Do we have evidence of this, or do we have wishful and delusional thinking?

These White Gentile elites also have a strong belief in the new-age “information economy” and that their skills and the skills of their children will be needed in that economy even as that economy comes to be dominated by Chinese, Japanese and Hindus.

They apparently think that as Chinese and Japanese companies buy out our large U.S. corporations (as their huge domestic savings rates eventually ensure) their new owners will not “downsize” the White Gentile CEOs just as those CEOs downsized White Gentile middle management in the 1980s and 1990s.

But isn’t it much more likely that the Chinese and Japanese cultures will produce ample intellectual leadership to satisfy the needs of world commerce without any American Whites?

Isn’t it clear that those who have the most to lose are the children of America’s White elites? Are they not next in line to have their wages and life styles scaled back to subsistence levels?

And what of those 180 million Euro-Americans in the fly-over areas of the country? What are they likely to think when the practical consequence of the aging of the Baby Boom generation begins to sink in?

Then we have the other half of the White Gentile political elite – the one fronting for the Racial Extortion Coalition. Does this fraction of the elite really believe that there will be a demand for White “front men” once Blacks, Mexicans and Asians become a majority?

For a political strategy, this elite hires consultants with Southern Accents who talk about “trailer trash” and affirm that “you never know what you will get when you drag a hundred dollar bill through the trailer parks!”

Most of those 180 million Euro-Americans harbor the illusion that in referring to “trailer trash”, the elites mean someone else. They have no idea that it includes virtually all 180 million of us living outside the D.C Beltway, New York, and Beverly Hills.

What will happen when these 180 millions tie the practical economic consequences of the aging of the baby boom with the cultural consequence of the open contempt and hostility toward average Whites that is so freely and carelessly displayed by this elite?

How do these elites imagine they can continue to indulge these sorts of conceits without a consequence?

What happens when the residents of that great trailer park that has become Western Civilization find out that the only thing standing between themselves and survival and independence for their children is our own openly hostile and contemptuous elites?

How many Whites does it take to unscrew a defective light bulb?

Sir Arthur Keith has several illuminating and profound essays in his “New Theory” on incipient races and race forming behaviors. He asserts that with the proliferation of specialized occupations, and the isolation of persons performing those occupations in civilized societies, there is a tendency for economic and social classes to “retribalize” thus forming new “incipient nations” within pre-existing nations.

According to Sir Arthur Keith, the pace of evolution is accelerating.

As tantalizing evidence in support of Sir Arthur’s theory, I quote from page 51 of “The Vanishing American Jew,” by Alan Dershowitz:

“Even America, which has had a significant Jewish presence for only the last century, has been enormously influenced by Jews. The theater critic Walter Kerr, writing as early as 1968, demonstrated the integration of Jews into the mainstream American life by describing not Jewish acculturation to gentile culture, but rather gentile adaptation to Jewish patterns of thought: ‘What has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility itself has become part Jewish, perhaps nearly as much Jewish as it is anything else. … The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly, to respond Jewishly. It has been taught to, and its was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders: they form ways of seeing.’ Today this influence is even more apparent, as individual Jews dominate television, film, book publishing, newspapers, magazine advertising, public relations, and other opinion-shaping businesses. Professor Sylvia Barack Fishman of Brandeis University titled a November 1996 article U.S. ‘Culture Has Been Judaized, and Vice Versa.’ She calls this process the ‘coalescence of two cultures.'”

And Dershowitz points out that more than 50% of Jews marry non-Jews, meaning that the odds that a secularized or Reform Jew (80% of the present total) will have Jewish grandchildren is close to nil. The class of White Gentile that has assimilated to Jewish patterns of thought is selecting Jewish marriage partners and vice versa. Herrenstein and Murray warn in the “The Bell Curve” that this new elite of Jews and those assimilated to Jewishness (our “Central Elite”) is more isolated from the mainstream of its host culture than any elite in history. But this real message of “The Bell Curve” has been summarily rejected by its intended audience.

And this Central Elite, as must be the case for one with such a low birth-rate, is a rapidly moving target.

Paradoxically, this elite is in a headlong rush to “Aryanize” itself. For fifty years the organs of popular culture controlled (as Dershowitz claims) by Jews have projected and popularized an image of beauty that requires a certain look to be taken seriously on television. In the highly encoded language of mathematics and print literature, appearance does not matter. But as the organs of popular culture drag us backwards to more primitive and less encoded graphic and visual communication, appearance becomes critical. This is another unanticipated effect of Sir Arthur’s tribal mentality. To be employable at the highest and most profitable (and least demanding) occupations in our society, one must look like the cast of Baywatch or Beverly Hills 90210.

And indeed we have a new race of blond haired, blue eyed Jewish half-breeds – Alicia Silverstone and Tori Spelling come to mind. The psychic stamp of this new “incipient race” is its powerful, obvious and yet unremarked Aryanizing process. Even the black upper middle class is in on the act, transforming itself into the “high-yellows” – producing the tall, slender Aryanized models and actresses of the kind who embrace white boys on daytime TV. They bring to the party a mild tan, slightly thicker lips, flatter noses, bigger breasts and, presumably, larger genitals but in all other respects are Nordic in appearance.

No-one in this Central Elite wants their children to look like Alan Greenspan or Robert Reich. And the pure-bred trio of Heidi Fleiss, Faye Resnick and Monica Lewinsky have smashed forever three generations of “Jewish American Princess” jokes with their public displays of heat and ease of access, thereby crippling a stereotype that previously slowed down the Aryanizing process. No one wants to be left at the station. Everyone in this newly forming Central Elite wants onto the Aryan train.

And if you think about it, the wistful daydreams of racial amalgamation we hear constantly in the media make perfect sense to this new elite. After all, these dreams accurately reflect the reality of their own lives!

But unbeknownst to our isolated Central Elites, the images of Aryan beauty they have broadcast have had an even more powerful effect on the typical Euro-American male in the flyover zones of the U.S. It has introduced a rigidity and desperation into his mating behavior that will never be undone.

It is the reason why these males now migrate en-masse to the Pacific Northwest, Utah, Northern Arizona, Denver, Dallas, Nashville and similar locales with relatively high concentrations of the type (but without the elaborate plumage, long claws and desire to be the childless playthings of older men that you find along the California coast).

To oblige the daydreams of our Central Elite, the average White guy would, after all 1000 or so of the Aryanized high-yellow mulattos are taken, be left with an Ebonics speaking creature of the welfare state, the likes of which can be found in Downtown Oakland or Detroit. No gratuitous offense intended, but to the average White male these creatures look like monsters.

The dream of a uniform light-tan race in America will never happen. It is delusional thinking. The same aesthetic imprinting that has had such a powerful effect on the minorities that now comprise our Central Elite has had an equal effect on Euro-America in the flyover zones, but in the opposite direction.

The problem for our Central Elite is compounded by the large (if yet unaware) regional Euro-American elite that resides outside of New York and Los Angeles and has not “assimilated to Jewishness.” This “Regional Elite” is shocked at what it sees on the TV. They are as shocked and alienated by the waste gasses from our organs of popular culture as are their millions of marginalized cousins living in trailer parks. This Regional Elite does not feel compelled to Aryanize themselves because they are the genuine article.

So what is the likely result from an evolutionary standpoint?

One obvious consequence is that this new Aryanizing Central Elite will rapidly lose its ability to use race and victimhood as an excuse for the failure of their policies. If they fail, they can be replaced by perfectly competent Regional Elites.

Further, they will have to face the relentless competition from the elites of Japan and China, supported by populations ideally suited to win the financial war as well as the evolutionary struggle over the long run.

In a series of brilliant essays in New Theory, Sir Arthur sets forth the preconditions for survival over the long term. A tribe or nation must have a balanced mix of leaders and followers – a range of mental and physical talents suited to the division of labor within the land they occupy – coupled with a sense of trust and mutual commitment to the their common evolutionary purpose extending from top to bottom.

On page 233 of New Theory we read:

“Of all the peoples engaged in the present war the Japanese are the most consistent exponents of the doctrine of evolution as applied to human affairs. Their national organization is that of a single tribe; they represent the perfect evolutionary unit. They regard their emperor as divine; they worship by offering him their loyalty; their religion and patriotism are one. They are both ambitious and exclusive. No people give their lives so resolutely in their country’s cause.”

So how are we to rate this new emerging race – this Central Elite? Can it last?

Sir Arthur would conclude that it has none of the qualities required for long term survival. It will surely perish. But in the meantime, the lack of these qualities guarantees that their policies for the government of the rest of us will be wildly destructive.

It is the first governing elite in Human history with no care whatsoever for the future!


Before the 1996 elections I took an extended drive through the countryside and small towns of Central Texas. At each intersection of these rural highways, I could see a dense crop of political campaign signs. For the first two or three of these, I turned my eyes and refused to look. Texas was Democrat country and I did not want to spoil my mood and transition from the code of amity to that of enmity in front of my family members. But finally, my curiosity got the better of me and I looked. I was stunned at what I had seen. All of the signs were Republican.

And I began to wonder what sort of force could have caused all the county commissioners, local sheriffs, school board members and dog catchers in these tiny and isolated communities to reject the Democratic party of their birth and migrate to Republicanism.

There was no elaborate media campaign costing billions, no heated commentary, no public statements of the rationale or reasons. Just a slow, quiet, but inexorable process of change responding to signals running underneath the surface of our public life.

Shades of the O. J. Simpson verdict.

But this phenomenon is much more interesting because it has taken place over a relatively long period of time, and has institutional consequences on the local level. It is another one of those examples of seemingly effortless communication, without words, coming from the lower brain. Is it a manifestation of Sir Arthur’s tribal mentality? Could it be the first stirring of a collective tribal or national self-defense?

Indeed, over the last 30 years, the voting base of the Republican Party has become progressively Whiter. Politics in the U.S. is becoming more and more racial. By default, the Democratic party has become the “minority” party through White flight to the Republicans. Throughout the entire period, the Party leadership has consistently and publicly repudiated any desire to represent the interests of these voters as a group. Yet they come anyway. The party leadership ducks with embarrassment.

My new neighborhood votes 80% Republican, and my daughters tell me that everyone owns guns. But my neighborhood is a result of white flight. Concentration of this sort is an inevitable and obvious consequence of new suburbs. But the conversion of small town central Texas around Lyndon Johnson’s ranch is another matter entirely. Nobody moved, and presumably nothing in the local communities changed much.

So how do they know? What are the unspoken signals that could account for this movement?

In New Theory, Sir Arthur Keith claims that there is no British race, but rather four separate and very similar races, having dual loyalties, confederating for mutual aid and convenience. The same is true, he says of Belgium and Switzerland.

He notes, however, that a British race has been created in Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps, Canada.

The United States is producing an incipient European race (in the sense of an evolutionary unit) – a race unique in the World. And if Sir Arthur were alive today, he would see that the tribal mentality of this race is being forged by aggression from the other races within the Racial Extortion Coalition. In the past, we Euro-Americans have had each other as tribal enemies. It has taken years of collective experience for us to slowly recognize that we are one, and that new tribal and racial enemies have gathered to define the borders of our collective identity.

For the last 30 years the Euro-American race has been driven from its cities in the largest ethnic cleansing in history, larger than the ethnic cleansing of Germans following WW-II. We do not attach that label to it, because we do not want to think of ourselves as fleeing. But we did flee.

We fled the crime, the threats, and the declining schools that the members of the Racial Extortion Coalition imposed on us. We rationalized it by thinking we weren’t really driven away by alien peoples, but that we really wanted those nice new houses in suburbia. We steadfastly denied any racial motive in this flight and we tried hard not to think about the effects on our less fortunate Euro-American neighbors who we left behind.

Indeed, we have our own little holocaust to feel guilty about. It continues on a daily basis in those relatively narrow bands of inter-racial contact surrounding our urban ghettos.

Those who attended integrated schools are the most eager to spare their children a similar “enriching” experience.The racial gangs and criminals produced, for their more law abiding neighbors, zones of racial concentration and comfort free of us. Crime was tolerated and jury nullification emerged as the tool to keep the ethnic cleansers in business.

As a race, the Euro-American is watchful and wary. Our racial identity it is not fully articulated on the conscious level. It is completely unclear whether this incipient race really believes the Universalism and individualistic hedonism they espouse on a conscious level, or whether this is a mask of civilization covering a capacity or predisposition toward collective self-defense.

A great deal rests in the balance!


On page 98 of New Theory, Sir Arthur Keith says the following:

“The care and upbringing of children has been safeguarded by one of the strongest of inborn emotions-that of maternal love. Maternal care is supplemented by the inborn partiality a father has for his own children. So omnipotent are the parental impulses that they may be said to enslave mothers and fathers for the best part of their lives in the service of their children. Child-rearing may be regarded as the chief industry of every social community; if this industry fails in a group, then that group passes out of existence. The process of evolution permits no balking of the reproductive instincts; the infertile groups are rigorously eliminated, and the fertile perpetuated. The parental duties which prevail among human beings are particularly onerous, owing to the prolonged period during which children must be cared for and fed. Just for that reason human parental impulses have a compelling potency.

“A group of primitive humanity may be regarded as a cradle for the young; the cradle is filled by the working of those elements of human nature just specified. The sole duty of group government is to protect the cradle; to this duty a group is always on the alert. Nothing rallies the fighting spirit of a human group with such impetuosity as a threat to its women and children – to its cradle. The duty of protecting the young by a parent or parents is a very ancient ordinance of Nature, but in the human kind this ordinance is carried out by the whole parental group. The cradle is also safeguarded by group opinion, which regards every act that legitimately fills the cradle as good, and therefore a virtue, while every form of conduct which tends to make the cradle empty as bad, and therefore a vice.”

As Sir Arthur Keith was writing his books, Menachem Begin was writing the book on terrorism and its uses in Israel. For terrorism and violence to work, a clear majority of your race must understand what you are doing and sympathize. If you cannot count on jury nullification, then terrorism and violence are wildly counter-productive.

The survival of our Euro-American race will not be secured by any sort of quick blitzkrieg. Indeed, our biggest challenge by far is keeping the cradle full. This is a struggle that will take generations. If we are lucky, it will go on for ever.

The tribal or racial mentality is DUAL in nature. We must work to revive a racially conscious “amity” portion of that complex. Everything having to do with that complex is completely legal. But even better, it slides effortlessly beneath the radar of the disconnected elites and culture destroyers.

I say this because up until the early 1990’s the nationalist movements have been dominated by “rogue males” who concern themselves only with the “enmity” portion of the equation.

The first order of business is to learn to compartmentalize both aspects of the mentality required for our long run survival, and to display each at appropriate times. The natural reaction of any female who encounters a courting male venting racial anger is to assume that he will display anger at other inappropriate times and will be unable to hold a job.

He will not be able to help her keep that cradle full without a job.

Our long run mission is to be good neighbors.

We must take back our churches from the hedonists and bureaucrats and redirect their resources toward our tribal mission (as both Christ and Saint Paul commanded). The modern clergy does not attract intellectual giants or risk-takers. The best among them are successful salesmen and fundraisers – marketers – very conscious of status and place – and reluctant to take risks.

Your best bet is to get together with a newly ordained divinity student and acquire a small church. We must also isolate ourselves from the popular culture. The best method is to cancel your cable TV – it isolates you from the worst toxins, while hitting the economic elites in the pocket book.

Here is a quote from an article in the Wall Street Journal of Nov. 22, 1996:

“Have millions of Americans suddenly lost interest in television?

“If the numbers from ratings provider Nielsen Media Research are to be believed millions of viewers have stopped watching TV this fall in favor of other pursuits, like computer on-line services. According to Nielsen, there are 1.2 million fewer 18-to-34-year-olds watching prime time in any given minute this season than a year ago.

“As a result, the six commercial-broadcast networks could wind up owing advertisers $100 million in airtime in the fourth quarter alone for not delivering the viewership they had pledged.”

This is the best news I had received in years. The prime audience of the culture destroyers is shrinking. And it is costing them a lot of money.

We must also vaccinate our children against the hedonism and Universalism that dominate our society. Make your children read Sir Arthur’s books. When they do, they will understand for the first time that they already have a civilization and a culture. After they read Arthur Keith, they will have found a reason to study Western history and literature in school. Without him, they do not have a chance! They will be lost to the chaos of rap and the gloss of Cosmo magazine.

Finally, you must lead your neighbors by example to the conclusion that they can adopt the dual code required for Euro-American survival without being gratuitously offensive to neighbors and co-workers not of our race. Concealment is part of the dual code, and is natural and healthy in a multi-racial society.


The militia movement has a clear message. They have lost their freedom!

Now that is a very interesting charge. They make other charges as well; that the U.S. Government has scrapped the Constitution, than national sovereignty is being forfeited to the U.N. and that the internationalist and Universalist elites want to disarm them and deprive them of their right of self defense. True enough – no delusions there!

But the truth of the militiamen’s description of the Universalist State is a mere recapitulation of the what Sir Arthur so eloquently described 50 years earlier. Because of the obvious truth of their historical charges, these are much less interesting that the charge that they, in Anno Domini 1998, have lost their “freedom.”

When you read or listen to the Militiamen, two things become clear; (1) they are scrapping for a fight to replace the U.S. Government, and (2) they are utterly silent about the exact details of what it is they wish to see in its place.

They adamantly adhere in public to the Universalist mythos of racial equality, and protest that their movement is non-racist and that they welcome all comers. In addition, they profess respect for modern Universalism and hedonistic individualism by advocating a libertarian state. Individual liberty is all that matters. Government should be reduced to a shadow of its present self – weakened to a point that it can no longer threaten the militias.

But in what sense exactly have the Militiamen been deprived of freedom?

They can seduce as many women as they wish, get drunk, smoke dope and pop amphetamines to their hearts’ content. They can move around unmolested, work where they please, and succeed or fail in accordance with their talents and determination. The modern Universalist state is quite careful to provide a great deal of this sort of individual freedom. In fact, the modern Universalist state quite artfully provides sufficient individual freedom so that a de-tribalized people will have ample means available to procure its own extinction over several generations and to amuse itself with creature comforts in the process.

Now the Anti-Defamation League doesn’t believe a word of it. They view militias as a very dangerous “them” to be suppressed by the “central airborne police” of Sir Arthur’s quaint and prescient phrase.

And indeed, it was only after I read Sir Arthur several months ago that I understood the militias.

For Sir Arthur states that their are two definitions of “freedom” – one is the classic Enlightenment (18th Century) notion of individual freedom that the Universalist state is so careful to provide, and the second is a more basic and powerful form of “freedom” which means independence of the group and control of its evolutionary destiny.

It is this second form of “freedom” which the militiamen have most assuredly lost.

And it is the yearning for this second form of freedom, and the intense anger that its loss provokes, that defines the militia movement as an incipient tribal behavior or potentially “race forming behavior” in Arthur Keith’s terms. Now I say incipient for an important reason. Unlike the instantaneous and unanimous reaction of all Euro-Americans to the celebratory reaction of Blacks to the O.J. Simpson verdict, the reaction of Euro-Americans to the Militiamen is far from unanimous.

Indeed, the Militiamen are well aware that they are a minority. That is why I do not classify their profession of faith in Universalism and hedonistic individualism as a classic delusional belief system. The motive of these professions of faith is not to create or to reinforce boundaries between groups, but rather to avoid creating a boundary that might isolate them from the rest of their fellow Euro-Americans.

But the basal part of the militia program, picking up rifles and heading for the hills to practice squad drill is indeed the most profound sort of racial or tribal response to a threat. Once again, it is unplanned, spontaneous and unthinking.

The stratagem of hiding this response behind the Universalist and hedonistic nostrums so as not to alarm suburban Euro-America is hardly delusional. It makes sense. It buys time until those suburbanites perceive the same threat, at which time they will all presumably grab their rifles and head for the hills as well.

And that is exactly how the Anti-Defamation League perceives it!

And that is why the militia groups are listed as “hate” groups.

The Anti-defamation League operates under an intense tribal mentality. They have followed Sir Arthur’s teachings all along, even as they have attacked him in their organs of public opinion and buried his works.

But the work of Sir Arthur Keith offers many insights to the Militiamen and all others that are angered by their loss of “freedom” in the U.S.

But I would caution again, that this struggle will be multi-generational. We must first isolate our families from the poisons of popular culture. Mock military exercises are clear threat gestures. At this point, much of the middle class is unsure who, exactly, this threat is directed against. Thus, militia activity gives our elites a free propaganda theme to round up support for Sir Arthur’s “central airborne police.”


I should say a few words about Sir Arthur’s group theory of selection. Phillippe Rushton, in his new volume “Race, Evolution, and Behavior” observes on page 88 (without necessarily endorsing the view he quotes) that “Indeed in recent times group selection has rivaled Larmarkianism as the most thoroughly repudiated idea in evolutionary theory … Mathematical models … show that group selection could override individual selection only under extreme conditions such as small intergroup migration rate, small group size, and large differences in fitness among groups.”

A mathematician friend took one look at this and chuckled: “Social scientists tripping over the law of large numbers again!” In any grouping of similar objects the standard deviation between the individual extremes within each group will be greater that the difference between the mean of the two groups being compared. Math proves nothing about the historical process by which groups were, in fact, selected. Indeed, Sir Arthur’s own calculations in New Theory show that individuals were selected against thousands of times more frequently than groups. But we know that thousands of tribes and races have disappeared as well. You must first understand a theory before you can disprove it, and in any event, you cannot disprove a theory with another theory.

But on a broader note, Sir Arthur’s point is precisely that the dual code produces very “large differences in fitness among groups.”

A word also on the Piltdown hoax. Carbon dating was not invented until 1955, the year of Sir Arthur’s death. Thus, there was no way to conclusively prove that a the Piltdown find was a fraud during his life. Piltdown caused Sir Arthur difficulties. He admits he has to modify his theories to accommodate it, and he shows that unlike other finds, Piltdown leaves no progeny and goes nowhere. He quotes the conclusions of his contemporaries that Piltdown was a hoax. But Sir Arthur’s rejection of Piltdown would have had institutional as well as intellectual consequences. As president of the Royal Anthropological society and conservator of the Museum at the Royal Institute, his rejection of the remains would have removed them to the trash bin, making them unavailable for further study. Sir Arthur was not the type of man to do this in the absence of clear proof.

I should say a few words of thanks.

First to Sir Arthur himself. From a personal perspective, publishing these works could not have been more ill-timed. It guaranteed that his final years would be filled with calumny and condemnation. And indeed they were. He was even attacked posthumously after his death in 1955 in the New York Times.

For this personal sacrifice, we of the West owe Sir Arthur an eternal debt. May we be worthy and repay it!

To the heirs of Sir Arthur we owe thanks for not renewing his copyright, and thus giving his work – as he clearly would have wanted – freely to the Western World.

And finally thanks to that collector in northern Virginia who has made it his life’s avocation to sift through the volumes produced by our civilization prior to WW-II and who brought Sir Arthur to our attention. At the end of your journey, may your name rest in Valhalla.

Previous post

Evolution and Conservative Beliefs

Next post

The Cobbler and the Professor

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments