The Menace of the Herd: Or, Procrustes at Large

by Francis Stuart Campbell (Pseudonym), Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

This exceeding rare book is by one of the great men of the 20th century. Written soon after his immigration to the United States, he signed the book "Francis Stuart Campbell" because he was a refugee from Austria and didn't want to endanger them. The contents: a relentless attack on the idea of mass government based on the egalitarian ethic, and its tendency toward the total state of Stalin and Hitler. And yet there is more here, more than can possibly be recounted in a paragraph. The author was a remarkable 19th-century-style liberal intellectual, startling in his erudition and wisdom. A bit disorganized, perhaps, and not as friendly to the market as it might be but a book overflowing with insight into the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds. To read him is to experience something of an intellectual liberation from every sort of conventional wisdom. This is a dazzling work from a man who seemed to be an impossibility in the modern age.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Economics, Sociology

399 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1943

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the earlier works by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It's not easy for me to remember which of his ideas I got from this book and which from Liberty or Equality. Not just because Menace of the Herd is still very disordered, there's also quite some overlap between the two books, although not nearly so much that you could replace one with the other. What I'm sure is from this one is his critique of urbanization, and in general his thoughts on geography. The constant noise, exposure to shallow social contact and the lack of solitude in the former drive people to neuroticism, or so he claims. It sounds plausible, although he probably makes the effect out to be too dramatic. Haven't lived enough in the countryside to tell.

Another idea, in fact one of the themes of this book, are the opposing drives towards identity and diversity. Every person has both of these drives, but in some, one or the other is stronger. The drive towards identity, which he calls herdism, is underlying egalitarian and totalitarian movements. It seeks to eradicate all that's different and unexpected, just because it's different. Herdism is what underlies the programs both of communism and national socialism.
Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn speaks much more favorably of diversity, which may sound odd to some modern conservatives and especially the alt-right. Diversity in the sense of von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has nothing to do with the weird diversity of the leftists, however. I'm sure that von Kuehnelt-Leddih would agree with me that the modern left hides its identitarianism behind a faked appreciation for diversity. You cannot see beauty in every skin color when you're colorblind, yet that's exactly what the left wants from us. Neither can you love a culture or a religion when you insist that all of them are equal in every regard that matters. True diversity is a symphony; "diversity" is someone aimlessly hammering on a piano.

There's also a very large amount of history in this book, like two chapters for both World Wars. Particularly interesting is von Kuehnelt-Leddihns analysis that the Nazis held a majority in Germany because there weren't enough Catholic electoral districts. Turns out that Catholic regions didn't vote for the Nazis, unlike protestant ones (both Lutheran and Calvinist). The theory is that if the Anschluss had been allowed shortly after the war, there'd have been more Catholics in Germany and so the Nazis wouldn't have won the elections. Simple theory, but based on a meticulous research. It also has implications for the silly notion that ideology plays no role in history, only material conditions do.

Now to one of the major downsides of this book: He talks about capitalism in a less than flattering manner, mostly out of ignorance. He repeats every cliché in the book, from the exploitation of workers to the ostensible denial that humans were social beings. While some of his more philosophical objections were quite interesting, it is very easy to avoid them even as the most ardent capitalist. His contrasting of individualism and collectivism on the one hand and what he calls "personalism" on the other is a good example. It's an interesting thought, but misses the mark, unless you're aiming it at the most cutthroat type imaginable, someone who really does hate poor people and would sell his infirm mother for a buck. Can't remember if I ever met one of those. Not even Ayn Rand or William Graham Sumner qualify, they're not remotely as heartless as critics made them out to be. If you want to see the reckless materialism that men like the early von Kuehnelt-Leddihn warned us about in action, take a look at the history of socialism.

Interestingly, von Kuehnelt Leddihn would later recant this position of his, for example in his essay Economics in the Catholic World:

In De Regimine Principum (II.3) of St. Thomas, we find a pronounced antipathy toward traders whose profession he considered immoral. In the period between the two World Wars, the old ban on usury, officially lifted only in 1918, was propagandized in certain Catholic circles by “anti-capitalist” enthusiasts, including myself. Today I am thoroughly ashamed of my immature presumption, but, like many among us, I was then honestly convinced that there simply must be a third way. Of course, there is none. The means of production belong either to individuals, to groups of individuals, or to the state which simply conducts state capitalism. (“Publicly” owned enterprises exist on paper only, and “society” always remains an abstraction. It cannot own anything.)

He backtracked on Martin Luther, too, and on the link between Hussitism and the Nazis. This just means you should read Menace of the Herd critically, though. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a genius and it even shows in this early work of his. In my summary, I just scratched the depth of his philosophy and the importance of his historical research.

[Colm Gillis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kuehnelt-Leddihn lays into the tendency of modern states to depersonalize people and to turn them into 'human rivers' that blindly serve some national cause en masse. He wrote the book during WWII and a sense of urgency is felt throughout. What was particularly impressive about this book was the tenacity with which the author refused to accept bland assertions about political topics, views often still expressed. Kuehnelt-Leddihn displayed a vastness of learning. This sometimes made the book feel like a diary. He also had a tendency to wax a bit nostalgic which worked and didnt work. His writing is not a strong point but the opinions he expresses are penetrating and insightful. The greatest joy of this book was the sheer originality, an originality often supported by hard evidence and lateral thinking.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

By Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn but written under a pseudonym to protect family members still living in Austria under the Third Reich. Grim and inescapable logic in deconstructing the inevitable rise of the National Socialist movement after the destruction of the stabilizing monarchies of Europe and the ascendance of democracy and group think/mob rule. His history as warning for the future is not fun but all of his arguments and postulations are since proven, in a sense making the book already dated. His predilection for classifying things into tables and lists actually brings some order to what is a wide-ranging book. His generalized table comparing the "Herdist Instinct" with the "Romantic Sentiment" is tremendously interesting.

Catholic, Monarchical, and Reactionary, if you have problems with opinions that lie outside of "the herd," don't open it, he's not going to convince you of anything. At the time it was written, still in the middle of WWII, I think that he was already preaching to a mostly empty hall. He also missed the mark in placing his hopes in the United Kingdom and the League of Nations to conserve/restore a "traditional" Europe after a future Allied victory. However, having only spent five years in the United States at the time of publication, his accurate insights into the American personality and character are as humbling and enlightening as de Tocqueville's.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the parts I understood - great stuff. It's especially interesting if you read him before or after reading some Counter-Enlightenment writers. One advantage I have found with Kuehnelt-Leddihn's books is that I don't have to read the book cover to cover. As long as I read the introduction, I can read chapters out of order. Most, if not all of his chapters, are connected by an overarching theme, but can also stand alone. Kuehnelt-Leddihn easily ranks as one of the greaters thinkers of his time; anything by him is worth reading.

[Ben]

Did not finish after only 26 pages.

I've read that this work is an historic contribution to the study of the populist and totalitarian tendencies of democracy, but other, later works do a much better job of explaining those problems than The Menace of the Herd. My mind goes immediately to Eric Hopper's very accessible The True Believer.

This book is extremely unfocused. The author cannot contain himself to one subject for long and instead veers restlessly from one idea to the next. It weakens this text dramatically as he cannot stay on topic long enough to craft a strong argument. It's my habit to attribute this tendency in writers to sloppy thinking. If their thoughts are clear, and their theses definite, their writing ought to be easy to understand and the logical progression of their arguments ought to be transparent and easily reproduced. But if your writing is as clear as mud, it likely means that the logical structure of your arguments themselves are equally muddy.

Thankfully, von Leddihn does often state his positions clearly. But he does so in the spirit of a polemic: he makes assertions, not arguments.

For example, he opens by defining what is meant by democracy. He defines it as direct democracy, because he finds it impossible by definition for political organisations to blend traditions. For example, he would not call the liberal-democratic tradition of Australia democratic or liberal. To him, it is one or the other. Therefore, he does not consider the government of America to be democratic because it is representative instead of direct. This is patently absurd. I am not aware of a single other scholar who that thinks that representative democracies are not democracies. This is a clear case of the No True Scotsman fallacy ("that's not true democracy") which allows him to define democracy however he wants in order to avoid or sidestep rebuttals some very obvious (such as the universally held belief that representative democracies are democracies. Direct democracy is far easier to criticise than representative democracies, which have been the benefactor of lots of innovations and which have proven to be very resilient, effective, peaceful, and wealth systems of government. He says democracy means only direct democracy because direct democracy is easy to attack, whereas representative democracy is not).

This convenient redefinition of democracy made me suspect from the outset. The reason I didn't finish this book was because of how unfocused it was (meaning my time would be better spent reading clearer books with a higher information content) and because of the way he repeatedly asserts outrageous things without argument or evidence.

For example, he writes that enjoying singing in unison and enjoying repetition in art is a sign of degeneracy. This is so bizarre that it hardly bears comment. But he was a traditional Catholic, so this statement is an admission of his own degeneracy for enjoying liturgical chanting, choirs, etc.

He writes for a long time about the herd instinct, proclaiming it bad. But is it bad to blindly follow road rules? Is it bad to not cut in line at the shops? Is it bad not to litter? Are highly collectivist cultures such as that of modern Japan degenerate simpy because they are collectivist? Herd behaviours emerge naturally in humans and countless other animals because they are adaptive. The self-organisation of masses of individual entities can lead to terrors such as majoritarian tyranny but it is also responsible for the resilience of modern civilisation. Imagine having to consciously make absolutely every decision in your life. It would be crippling. It would also be incredibly stupid. Deferring some, or lots, of your decision making to the wisdom of the crowd is often optimal.

Later he again creates his own bizarre definitions that lump in concepts that are not essential to them. For example, he says that egalitarians hate originality, uniqueness, things about which they're currently ignorant, and things that are "organically natural". At the risk of repeating myself, this is bizarre. And it directly contradicts his previous assertion that herd behaviour is degenerate. If "organically natural" things are good, then the emergent self-organisation of crowds that's seen in ants, fish, birds, humans, etc., is good. He has just undermined himself.

On page 35, he says that homosexuals are "bestial" and that they are egocentric because they desire the same sex, i.e., people like themselves. By analogy, he is egocentric because he does not care for animals, "herdists", gays, etc., and instead cares only for people like himself. On the same page, he says without explanation that most "herdists" are perverts and that herdists are humanitarian, as though that's a bad thing.

I stopped at page 26 because it was clear by this point that this was a polemic, not a carefully reasoned analytical defence. It was clear also that the author made repeated elementary errors of reasoning, that he contradicted himself, and so on. This man was well-read, but he was not a careful thinker.

Edit 20/07/2025: and one more thing. I was recommended this book by a monarchist Eastern Orthodox Christian who rejects modernity and dislikes democracy, liberalism, and multiculturalism. OK. But when I mentioned to this person that von Leddihn called gays "bestial", their response was to defend this view by saying that most cultures and societies throughout history have thought the same. The implication is that it is right and good to call gays bestial because this has been the majority opinion of humankind throughout the ages. But this adherence to the majority opinion which they call tradition is exactly the kind of tyranny of the majority that this whole book was written to condemn. von Leddihn and this monarchist both commit their own cardinal sin: using a majority opinion to condone an atrocity. More, von Leddin raves that the "herdist" instinct is a sign of degeneracy. But deferring without thought or argument to the majority opinion of received tradition is the example par excellence of abandoning critical, independent, "Romantic" thought and submitting in an "animalist" fashion to the herd instinct. The cretin undermines himself.

Edit 02/08/2025: and what could be more "herdist" than to subject oneself to the consensus of elders who advise you to neglect your own faculties of reason and submit instead to theirs? What could signal a great hatred of originality and uniqueness than the command to believe in tradition simply because it is traditional? At least von Leddihn believed in Catholic ideas about theological development; the believer in Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even have this.

[Didier "Dirac Ghost" Gaulin · Rating 2 out of 5]

EKL is a polemist, right wing Hegelian monarchist, a deep critic of democracy and a fervent catholic. Strangely in agreement with Marx on many levels, very often anti capitalist and anti laissez faire (which makes it very strange that Ludwig von Mises would be sympathetic to his opinions) , a believer instead in economic and social paternalism and legal utilitarianism (although he seems to be a critic of Bentham.) as a remedy against the ''plague'' of modernity. The author loves to name drop and quote authors of old. He is not keen on epistemology, Hegelians rarely are. Full of contradictions and vitriol against atheists, gays, women and non traditionalists, he is often an obscurantist, anti science and it seems to me, a denier of evolution. On the other hand, his critic of the social topology under democracy is interesting (the herd), albeit it very quickly devolves into economic materialistic determinism (again, like Marx). He never clearly explain how science and modernity generates the herd, but not the catholic church with its hegemonic and totalitarian creed. Isn't God the good shepherd after all? Erik prefers not to spend too much time on it, or takes vague examples within the framework of history and restrict it to the most positive version of life under catholic monarchies (let's not ask the Dutch why they did not appreciate the Hapsburgs). The chapter on monarchy and the first world war are pretty much the only material of quality, in what seems to be a series of rants that he was performing, whilst someone else (probably his poor wife) was punching them on a typewriter. Much better than his second opus, since the informal style makes him less pompous than he actually is.

[Jared Tobin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The vaunted Kuehnelt-Leddihn. I'm afraid my experience didn't match those who recommended him; I found Menace of the Herd to consist mostly of slightly-misguided, occasionally-risible assertions wrapped in erudite prose.

I went into this book expecting to have been exposed to most of the ideas before (via earlier, later, or similar authors), but hoping to see them expressed in eloquent ways, perhaps by a prescient genius who had happened to see further than some others. But that's not what I got at all. The arguments in Menace of the Herd seemed to me to be of relatively low quality; immature, underdeveloped, and typically flimsily-asserted. Kuehnelt-Leddihn's thought around what he called 'the herd instinct' felt somewhat like a parody of that of some wiser and clearer thinker; from Kuehnelt-Leddihn's era alone, perhaps that of a Mosca, a Schoeck, or a Burnham.

I understand that Menace of the Herd was Kuehnelt-Leddihn's earlier work, and that he later recanted many of the ideas he presented in this book -- to his explicit embarrassment, at that (and to his credit). He clearly seemed to be as intelligent as people claim he was, and I suspect that his later works have more to offer. But as for this work, here: it is not a timeless book, and I can't recommend it on its merits alone.

[Oolalaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

13/20

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Theoretically should have liked the book and learned something from it, but this menacing mess left me none the wiser.

[João Pereira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eye opening.