Letters – Union Of Egoists

Announcing Der Geist, Issue 6. A Braille Stirner for Helen Keller and Ragnar Redbeards secret Canadian life!

Kevin I. Slaughter — Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:22:05 +0000

An anthology of rare and never-before-seen essays and images from the history of egoism. Over two hundred pages of original translations, bibliographies, art, ephemera and more.

Discover rare photographic glimpses of pioneering egoists such as Dora Marsden and Benjamin R. Tucker, and delve into the visionary project to produce a Braille edition of Max Stirner’s magnum opus for the indomitable Helen Keller. Unearth a plethora of fascinating artifacts pertaining to Malfew Seklew, and be riveted by the astonishing revelation of Ragnar Redbeard’s brief yet impactful foray as a Canadian Socialist Provocateur.

This sixth issue of Der Geist is sure to delight and offend, but most of all, serve as an essential philosophical reference work for centuries to come.

DER GEIST: The Journal of Egoism from 1845 – 1945 | ISSUE 6 | Winter 2023
Paperback, 212 pages, $15
ISBN 978-1-944651-29-9, ISSN 2639-5339

Der Geist, (Trevor Blake, editor; Kevin I. Slaughter, co-editor) is an English-language journal for an international audience, publishing original scholarship on the philosophy of egoism. The journal is descriptive of the first century of egoism in print (from the 1845 publication of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum by Max Stirner to the end of 1945), not prescriptive in advocacy of egoism.

Introduction by the Editor 2

1. Max Stirner 7

2. Malfew Seklew 29

3. Ragnar Redbeard 51

4. Dora Marsden 95

Dora Marsden for the Prosecution | The Freewomen of New York | Dora Marsden, unser aller Mutter | Dora Marsden Ephemera | Rare Portraits

5. Benjamin DeCasseres 107

Emmeline Pankhurst | Pyrrhonism and Acatalepsy | Balzac | The Borrowed Mirror

6. Friedrich Nietzsche 117

Nietzsche and a Braille Stirner for Hellen Keller | “Will Nietzsche Come Into Vogue…” | The Works of Friedrich Nietzsche | Alexander Tille Reads Egoism

7. Enzo Martucci 135

A Sketch of Martucci | An Excerpt from The Red Sect | Martucci on Stirner

8. Free Spirits 159

Benjamin DeCasseres on Pyrrhonism and Acatalepsy

Kevin I. Slaughter — Tue, 04 Oct 2022 13:15:48 +0000

The following letter to the editor of the New York Sun was published January 3rd, 1911.

Bankrupt Science

Mr. De Casseres on the Victories of Pyrrhonism and Acatalepsy.

To the Editor of The Sun—Sir: Mr. Gallatin’s remarkable letter in this morning’s Sun wherein the general bankruptcy of all scientific speculation is pointed out is a straw which shows us the drift of a world current. Are we going back, or going forward, to the doctrine of the Acataleptics? This doctrine was the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of things. Pyrrho is the supreme acataleptic among the ancients; Anatole France and Rémy de Gourmont are the supreme acataleptics among moderns. All opinion will finally become heretical. To say “I know” will be to put the stamp of ignorance on oneself. If catalepsy is a possession, acatalepsy is a state of ultimate freedom. The brain of the acataleptic was an eye that through an eternity of time focused its vision in an infinite number of directions. The world to it was a whimsey. Nothing can be proven; nothing can be disproven. “Eureka!” was uttered by a madman. And if this is true of science, why not of religion also?

Flux and reflux—what do we know? Belief of any kind is a species of hypnosis. Certainty is the superstition of sensation. Time is an illusion, said Kant. Eternity is a word, says Science. Each thing is only a mask for some other things—infinite veils. Names are the tags we put on incomprehensible objects. There is a Rabelaisian hilarity on the face of Nature, as if it would say, “Presto! Behold me! Behold me not! Whatever is is not. That is my supreme jest.”

Pyrrho and Montaigne arrive at ecstasy; the ecstasy of indifference. They lived in a world without longitude or latitude. The “I think, therefore I am” of Descartes would have been written by Pyrrho “I think, therefore I think I am.” At the touch of this Prospero of negations the dogmas, religious and scientific, that we have nuzzled to our bosoms turn to fantastic mockeries. If Shakespeare created a world, Pyrrho and Montaigne destroyed a sidereal system. “Only the absurd is true,” whispers Satan into the ear of St. Anthony in Flaubert’s great dream poem. The senses lie, the brain lies, the heart lies, consciousness lies. How do we know they lie? Because another lie proves it. Man, the eternal Sancho Panza on his ass of Certitude!

In the retorts of the brain of the Supreme Sceptic cosmologies and gods are melted. He puts his finger on Death and says: “Not proven.” He puts his ear to the heart of Life, thundering in its Gargantuan hulk of matter, and says: “Thou art only a seeming.” Crescent and Cross, Scarabee and Dragon are fused and evaporate in the mighty menstrum of this alchemic mind. One folly is pitted against another folly, one monstrous illusion rises to comfort another monstrous illusion. Mr. Gallatin’s reasoning solves the universe. The iron gates of God are papier mâché. Plato’s eternal Ideas are plaster paris. The celestial seraglios of Mohammedanism are sacrosanct pigsties, the “Mansion in the Skies” is in cinders. The First Cause of theology is a metaphysical spite wall. The Ego of the Romantics is a huge dummy swollen taut with flatulent German metaphysics. Anarchism, socialism, agnosticism, all isms, are merely mirage, the affabulations of temperaments. They are the passing incarnations of the Incomprehensible, the yawns of Maya, the god of illusions.

If, then, we are bankrupt in intellect, in faith, what attitude? While the battle rages the acataleptic polishes a spyglass. He belongs, then, to no army. He is not interested in victory or defeat. Only the spectacle enchants. His brain is ascetic; his eye alone is gluttonous. He is at Troy, at Waterloo, at Gettysburg. It is all the horseplay of ants on an unimportant star. And Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Hegel? They are interesting but unimportant, like life itself.

According to Mr. Gallatin to know will be the cardinal heresy. Ah! This little man who comes all ahuff into the world and solves the riddle of Being! This self-constituted aide-de-camp to the Infinite! This sculpted piece of protoplasm who, with arms akimbo, budgets his prejudices into the ears of the Sphinx!

The smile on the face of this ironic nihilist—the Pyrrhonian sceptic—is a smile that is more terrible than the grief of a world. He is the grand dissociater of ideas, the surgeon of illusions, a snow that blankets all growing things. Anatole France, before his descent to socialism, and Rémy de Gourmont are the modern prophets of this creedless creed. With the bare bodkin of incredulity they have slain the eidolons of the ages.

“What do I know?” asks Montaigne. “Just that,” answers enigmatically Pyrrho from his tomb.

Benjamin De Casseres.
New York, January 1.

“More Individualism” – Mark A. Sullivan’s June 1975 letter to “The Match”

Kevin I. Slaughter — Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:19:18 +0000

Mark A. Sullivan was the editor of the New York Gay Egoist Anarchist journal The Storm (1976). He has edited and introduced several books and is a friend of the Union of Egoists project. The Match is one of the longest-running Anarchist journals in-print, and is edited and published by Fred Woodworth. This letter was published a year before Sullivan’s first issue of The Storm appeared. It is a response to a response to a previous letter. We will seek out previous letters and transcribe if they contain information pertinent to the project.

MORE INDIVIDUALISM

EDITOR: —I would like to respond to the criticism of my letter in the March issue leveled by R. Yves Breton in the May issue.

First, I did NOT state, nor even imply, that under ALL circumstances “…ownership of what one uses and produces can only be realized by collective ownership of the factory by THE WORKER OF THAT FACTORY, no more nor less.” I prefaced that remark with: (which R. Yves did NOT quote) “…it seems that, for the worker (note the context) the individualist goal of personal property can only be realized by some sort of active struggle with the system. Given that industrial production is necessarily a collective venture….” (again, note the context, R. Yves). How, in a factory geared to a minute division of labor, assembly lines, and massive machines, a worker can INDIVIDUALLY own his or her own tools, as E. Armand suggested, is beyond my comprehension (do the workers dismantle the machines in the evening and take the pieces with them to their separate homes?). Of course there is much individualistic argument in favor of dismantling, permanently, the stupefying factory system, and restoring (perhaps with more sophisticated individual tools) craft production. Given an Anarchistic society this would be possible, but at present we are prisoners of production systems we do not own nor control. Either we control the workshops or abandon them and recreate an entire productive system outside the present one. Certainly for most workers who cannot afford to quit their jobs, the first is the only alternative at this time. Should workers succeed in such a take-over, I would still not maintain that a free society is necessarily reached. Significantly, R. Yves Breton did not go on to quote my conclusion: “But no one should be forced to participate in the collective, nor be banned from individual enterprise.”

I may be guilty of identifying workers’ control of the workplace with syndicalism, as the latter term implies FEDERATION of industries as well as factory autonomy. Still there have been individualists who saw in syndicalism “A valid form of regaining one’s property”—not the ONLY valid form, as R. Yves seems to imply as my meaning.

In this context, I would mention Malfew Seklew: “…I am an iconoclastic, atheistic, anarchistic, hedonistic individualist, with the social instinct well developed, and with syndicalistic solutions for the problem of poverty.” (“Minus One” #34). Oscar Wilde and Guy Aldred advocated forms of collective ownership in order to lift the burden of material concerns from the stifled individualities of the working and exploiting classes. An ideal, perhaps, but an individualism that cannot include social cooperation is an undeveloped individualism in my opinion. Even the most extreme individualist, Max Stirner, advocated collective take-overs of The means of production, even communistic arrangements within the context of voluntary associations to better satisfy our HUMAN needs and give us time to realize our UNIQUE desires. In America, Emma Goldman and John Beverly Robinson, both influenced by Stirner, were able to believe that, economically, the interests of working people were similar enough to justify voluntary, collective, and federated running of all industries. Besides, even the skills and tools needed to survive alone, outside of society, were given to us by society itself. The benefits of human association and cooperation appeal to my interests as an individual. There is much egoistic reason to favor collective arrangements to satisfy common needs, rather than reliance upon often wasteful or exploitive competition.

“Finally, as regards competition once more, it has a continued existence by this very means, that all do not attend to their affair and come to an understanding with each other about it. Bread is a need of all the inhabitants of a city; therefore they might easily agree on setting up a public bakery. Instead of this, they leave the furnishing of the needful to the competitive. Just so meat to the butchers, wine to the wine-dealers, etc.”

Peter Kropotkin? No, Max Stirner! Individualism IS the basis of true cooperation; as this primal Anarchist par excellence goes on to say:

“If I do not trouble myself about MY affair, I must be CONTENT with what it pleases others to vouchsafe me.” (The Ego and His Own, page 275).

—MARK SULLIVAN. (NEW YORK)

Benjamin R. Tucker on Nietzsche and the War, making a braille edition of Stirner for Hellen Keller.

Kevin I. Slaughter — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:04:47 +0000

The following letters from Benjamin R. Tucker to George Schumm on topics of interest to the Union of Egoists. In the first letter, the responsibility of Nietzsche for the first world war is discussed, and then in a second letter over a decade later, the proposition that a braille edition of Max Stirner’s book could be made for Helen Keller. We have sought to uncover if this work was ever completed, and have found no evidence that it was.

Benjamin R. Tucker (1854 – 1939) was the publisher of the journal Liberty and the first English translation of The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner. George Schumm (1856-1941) was an individualist anarchist writer and translator. In 1884 he launched the Radical Review and worked for Benjamin R. Tucker for three years publishing Liberty. He translated John Henry Mackay’s The Anarchists in 1891 and assisted Steven T. Byington in translating The Ego and His Own. William Archer (1856–1924) was a Scottish writer and theatre critic, based, for most of his career, in London. He was an early advocate of the plays of Henrik Ibsen, and was an early friend and supporter of Bernard Shaw.

October 2, 1914
London
Dear Mr Schumm:

I have heard from the Hetzels (as indeed you have written me yourself) that you think me mistaken regarding Nietzsche’s responsibility for the war. I enclose a letter from Wm. Archer to Gerhardt Hauptmann, showing that not only archer, but Hauptmann himself, takes my view.

How do you account for the writings of Treitschke, Bernhardi, H. S. Chamberlain, and others? Are not these evidently an outgrowth of the reading of Nietzsche? And have these not dictated the military policy of Germany? It is no answer to argue that Nietzsche meant this, or that, or the other. The apologists for E.G. use the same argument when confronted with the acts of her disciples. In both cases there may be some slight misunderstanding of the teacher, but I think that both may fairly be held responsible. Certainly, if Hauptmann is misled, the Kaiser may well be. And I think that Archer’s quotation from Nietzsche illustrates with sufficient exactness the German treatment of Belgium.

Yours sincerely,
Benj R. Tucker

(Excerpt from a letter of 10/11/14)

I enclose some clippings. That signed W. Bulloch expresses my view of the actual results of Nietzsche’s influence, while not failing to do justice to Nietzsche by showing that these results have not taken the exact form that he looked for or would have approved.

In reading these clippings, of course, you will entertain no suspicion that I share the tendency of the writers to champion Christian influences. I am the same egoist as always. The egoism of Germany does not disturb me; given the Germans’ domineering instincts, I am glad that they have no scruples about satisfying them; and my answer to their brutality would be to slay them as speedily as possible and put them forever out of the way, in order that egoists of another type, who love peace and liberty, may enjoy their preferences undisturbed.

November 25, 1927

Dear Mr. Schumm:

I wrote you of the proposition of the National Institute for the Blind regarding ‘The Ego and His Own’. It turns out to be a bit less encouraging than the first letters to Fifield indicated. Not bad, though, after all. What it amounts to is this; a copy is to be cut in raised type, by hand, by a volunteer, for Helen Keller, and a duplicate is to be put in the general library of raised type for the blind. I suppose, then, that Helen Keller is interested, or, if not, that some enthusiastic person hopes to interest her.

One sees now in Russia the perfect realization of “peace at any price,” a land that knows not hate, the flowering of the gospel of universal love, Tolstoyism gone to seed. What a spectacle does that unhappy country present today! Simple, stupid, sodden; reeking, rotting, rampant; a deliquescent nest of life that crawls and creeps, she melts, she sprawls, she slops, she stinks! A gigantic Camembert, in the last disgusting stage.

Yours sincerely,
Benj R. Tucker

c/o Munroe & Co.
4 rue Ventadour
Paris, France

Malfew Seklew Asks: Was Nietzsche to Blame?

Httpswwwunionofegoistscom — Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:00:00 +0000

A previously unknown letter to the editor by one “R. Spencella McGean,” strongly suspected to be Sirfessor Malfew Seklew. This letter from Volume 24, Number 628, page 560 of T. P.’s Weekly (November 21, 1914) lists several other significant egoist authors, translators and publishers.

Was Nietzsche to Blame?

To the Editor of T.P.’s WEEKLY.

SIR,-

Our Society has been very much interested in your articles on Nietzsche, and feels indebted to Mr. Holbrook Jackson for his lucid and remarkably unbiassed article on this advocator of the Superman and the Super-Race. It has been Nietzsche’s misfortune to have been born in an age when morality was so rampant as to obscure the psychic vision of even clear thinkers. There have, however, been a few who have appreciated his philosophy. Of these, our President, Malfew Seklew, has been one, and we venture to submit to you and your readers a small account of his efforts in this direction:-

“I have been a reader of T.P.’s WEEKLY ever since the first number, and nothing has interested me more than Mr. Holbrook Jackson’s article on ‘The Truth about Nietzsche.’ It gives me pleasure to sec so influential a force as T.P.’s WEEKLY giving recognition to the labours of Irwin McCall, the editor of The Eagle and the Serpent, and of Thomas Common.

“Through the medium of The Truthseeker, a monthly journal published in Bradford, I introduced the public to ſlashes of lightning from the pen of Nietzsche. In most of the large centres of England and Scotland I introduced the gospel of the Superman and Social Aristocracy, ably assisted by Mr. Thomas Common. In the coſfee taverns, where debates are held, the same thing was done. The Cogers Society of London, where the cranks of the Metropolis used to congregate; Lester’s Coffee House of Nottingham, which Robert Owen used to frequent; Laycock’s Coffee Tavern of Bradford, the Talking Shop of Yorkshire, where all sorts of saints and sinners have assembled for forty years to discuss the Desires of Demos, have all been scenes of wordy warfare in the introduction of the Gospel of Nietzsche. In the County Forum of Manchester, also, I was the first to introduce this strange philosophy.

“As President of the Society of Social Aristocracy, of which I am the founder, I have so irritated and irrigated the minds of the mindful with alliterative phrases and sound philosophy that many of them have at last commenced to think—for themselves.”

Possibly the above may interest your readers, and if anyone is interested in Irwin McCall or Ragnar Redbeard, Mr. Seklew is in personal touch with these gentlemen and will be glad to give their addresses if desired.

—Yours, etc.,

The Society of Social Aristocrats and Conscious Egoists.

R. SPENCELLA McGEAN,

Secretary.

Announcing “Der Geist: The Journal of Egoism from 1845 to 1945,” Issue 3!

Kevin I. Slaughter — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:00:18 +0000

DER GEIST, The Journal of Egoism from 1845 – 1945
VOLUME 3 NUMBER 1, ISSUE 3
Spring 2020
Paperback, 204 pages, fifteen dollars
isbn 978-1944651169
issn 2639-5339

The newest issue of Der Geist, the journal of historical Egoism, is here. Rare and unpublished works from the first century of egoism-the philosophy of Max Stirner.

from: Underworld Amusements or from Amazon.com: US | MX | CA | UK | DE | FR | IT

This issue of Der Geist includes rare reprints of egoist history. These include blow-by-blow accounts of Dora Marsden in her street-fighting phase, lost transcriptions of J. William Lloyd saved from the darkness by individualist feminist Wendy McElroy, the philosophical and physical wanderings of the laughing philosopher Malfew Seklew, and more. This issue of Der Geist also includes original inquiries into egoist history. These include a history of the Radical Book Shop of Chicago, and the heretofore undocumented bands of iron that link the Industrial Workers of the World (the “Wobblys”) and Ragnar Redbeard’s book Might is Right.

Sections:

Dora Marsden
J. William Lloyd
Malfew Seklew
Laurance Labadie
Max Stirner
Free Spirits
Ragnar Redbeard

The Reader Critic on Remy De Gourmont

Httpswwwunionofegoistscom — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 13:45:19 +0000

The following is a letter mentioning Stirner’s work among others, culled from Margaret Anderson’s literary journal The Little Review. This journal was the American sister publication to Dora Marsden’s Freewoman/New Freewoman/The Egoist, a force for “modernism” with an influence that outlived its publication. The reader’s letter in question was in response to an entire issue of the journal being dedicated to the French writer Remy De Gourmont.

From The Little Review
Vol. V. April 1919 No.11

The Reader Critic

Helen West Heller, Canton, Illinois: on The De Gourmont Number, The Little Review Vol. V. February-March No. 10-11

The De Gourmont number, great! I do not just admit the fineness of Ezra Pound, I am glad of him. What Roger Heller calls his poundigrams are a delight, but chiefly he is a Great Appreciator. It is a joy to find so exquisite a master of the exquisite differentiations of the English language. More, his thought has such urge of fine distinctions that only one speech irks him; he must be a Chaucer to an amalgam of the speech of two peoples.

All languages coalesced will be none too ample for the intense complexity of future thought. All languages and all arts are not enough with which to declare the sensings that wriggle within us. Ezra Pound and Margaret Anderson are administering the future to readers in this country. The English speaking denizens of the U.S. have been nursed by their silly eagle so long that it goes hard with them to have to learn something. But they probably will be compelled to swallow the cosmopolitan pill.

“Gourmont’s essays the best record of the civilized mind from 1885-1915.” From the excerpts here given de Gourmont would seem to be a condensed, transmuted record of Max Stirner’s ”Ego and his Own .” The War of the White Races was fought, is fighting, against three books: “Der Einzige Und Sein Eigenthum”, “Also Sprach Zarathustra”, “Das Kapital”; and the greatest of these is “Der Einzige Und Sein Eigenthum”.

War Versus Industry by Thomas Common

Httpswwwunionofegoistscom — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:00:00 +0000

A letter by Thomas Common to the editor of the Edinburgh Evening News, published September 7th, 1898 (Number 7,916). Thomas Common was an early English-language translator of Friedrich Nietzsche. Common appeared in the egoist journal The Eagle and the Serpent (1889 – 1927), as did the Ellis and Wallace mentioned by Common. Common may have been part of a lost English-language translation of Max Stirner‘s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum mentioned in the egoist journal I (1898) edited by C. L. Swartz. Common also published his own journal, Notes for Good Europeans. Egoist titan Benjamin R. Tucker described Notes for Good Europeans in Volume XIV Number 23 of his journal Liberty (September 1904): “The contents of the magazine are both good and bad — depending on the ‘point of view.’ The subjects range from a sober discussion of Shakespeare and quotations from Bernard Shaw and others to an unmeasured laudation of the rantings of Ragnar Redbeard.”

Common makes reference to “Friedrich Nietzsche: His Life and Works” in Volume CLXII (October 1897) of Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine (pages 476 – 493) and “The Opinions of Friedrich Nietzsche” in Volume 73 (1898) of Contemporary Review (pages 725 – 750). Both essays are by Profesor Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1856 – 1931), and both do vilify the philosophy of Nietzsche. Common also mentions La Philosophie de Nietzsche by Henri Lichtenberger (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1898).

Notwithstanding some very excellent arguments in your two articles on Nature’s decrees concerning industry and militarism, I hardly think question is finally settled. It is not us to put on our seven-league boots and go on a tour of inspection among European nations during the past 2000 years. If we wished to determine the course human evolution with some degree of accuracy, we would have to traverse a period at least one hundred times greater.

It will be enough for our purpose to go back to the time when Egypt became part of the Roman empire. What would the philosophical Roman soldier have thought about the course of human evolution after having examined the pyramids and the wonderful temples and tombs of long past ages? With the military exploits of Rome vividly impressed on his memory, he might probably have thought Nature has decreed that militarism was destined to replace the apparently peaceful industry that had left such wonderful monuments on the bank of the Nile. His opinion, however, would have been just as erroneous as the opposite opinion.

The fact is that militarism and industrialism are not necessarily antithetic, in the predominance of the one or the other is no certain indication by which we can always distinguish advancedness or the backwardness of the people in the scale of civilization. Neither the one nor the other is the true end of humanity; and the Czar and his Ministers are equally in error when they say that “the maintenance of universal peace and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments… represents the ideal aims towards which the efforts of all governments should be directed.

In so far as the human race can be said to have a goal at all, it is the highest excellence of society, and neither militarism or industrialism, neither peace nor war can be judged independently, but must be tested by their effects in furthering or retarding the attainment of man’s true end. It is doubtful what may take place with regard to national armaments. It is quite possible that they may be reduced in the near future, not from a decrease in aggressiveness, but owing to the increasing lack of solidarity among the individuals comprising a nation.

There is little doubt, however, that as regard the police organization (which is practically a military organization) it will be more and more strengthened for a long time to come. The disorganization of social arrangements which has resulted from the vast increase in trade and commerce during the present century has produced a state of latent anarchism, which is only prevented from bursting forth in lawlessness by the great increase of the police force in all our industrial centers.

I would most emphatically deny the probability of the dream of a millennium of happiness and comfort for all individuals ever being realized. Instead of the struggle for existence ceasing in the future, it is likely to become more violent. Under Christian influences this struggle has been reduced to a minimum for the lower classes of the population, and has resulted in the deterioration of the European races.

Now, however, when the theologians themselves have torn up their creed and the Christian records and in their triumph have painted the shreds in all the colors of the rainbow (see the Polychrome Bible), Christian morality, with the secular salvation which it has assuredly provided for sinners, must necessarily perish in spite of all the efforts of the ethical societies to foster it. The natural result is likely to be a recrudescence of pagan morality.

The struggle for existence will probably once more be waged fiercely, as in ancient Greece and Rome, and as a final result of a long and bitter struggle a united Western Europe may once more be realized. The fierce struggle of classes and of individuals will, in all probability, continue its natural course until it results once more, as in ancient India, in welding society into a system of castes – a ruling caste, a soldier caste, an a laboring caste, each with its various gradations. It is likely that industrialism and militarism will always continue to co-exist; in future, however, there will be a regulated system of manufactures, trade, and commerce according to the national requirements – not the anarchical huckster system that is carried on at present.

The whole philosophy of the subject is set forth at great length in Nietzsche’s works, which, instead of taking a pessimistic view of the world like Schopenhauerism, are joyfully optimistic. As Nietzsche has succeeded best in explaining the past, he may also be taken as the best guide with regard to the future; and notwithstanding that Professor Andrew Seth has misrepresented and even vilified the new philosophy in “Blackwood” and the “Contemporary,” Nietzsche has an ever-increasing number of enthusiastic disciples and able defenders. We may mention among the number Mr. Havelock Ellis and the late Professor Wallace of Oxford. Perhaps the best book on the subject is La Philosopie de Nietzsche, by Professor Lichtenberger.