Apr 13, 2015

Does Jewishness Matter?

via The Occidental Observer

Editor's Note: To learn more about Jewishness and the warping effect Jewish power has on White Western Culture see the Jewishness Archive at the Colchester Collection, which has a large and rapidly expanding selection of books on the subject.

A while ago, there was a minor media firestorm about a situation at UCLA that erupted when a Jewish student was being confirmed for a position on the student council’s Judicial Board. The student was asked a series of questions about whether her Jewish commitments would affect her performance on the Board. This, of course, violates a major taboo. From the NYTimes account:
“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”
For the next 40 minutes, after Ms. [Rachel] Beyda was dispatched from the room, the council tangled in a debate about whether her faith and affiliation with Jewish organizations, including her sorority and Hillel, a popular student group, meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions that come before the board, which is the campus equivalent of the Supreme Court.
The discussion, recorded in written minutes and captured on video, seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.
The council, in a meeting that took place on Feb. 10, voted first to reject Ms. Beyda’s nomination, with four members against her. Then, at the prodding of a faculty adviser there who pointed out that belonging to Jewish organizations was not a conflict of interest, the students revisited the question and unanimously put her on the board. …
“We don’t like to wave the flag of anti-Semitism, but this is different,” Rabbi Aaron Lerner, the incoming executive director of the Hillel chapter at U.C.L.A., said of the vote against Ms. Beyda. “This is bigotry. This is discriminating against someone because of their identity.”
The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”
The esteemed Dr. Block, whose Jewish identity is doubtless completely irrelevant to his statement, is going way beyond the evidence by saying that the proceedings assumed that “every member of a group can’t be impartial.”  The obvious reason for the questions was because there was doubt, not assumption. Anyone in his or her right mind would realize that it would not exactly be surprising if Ms. Beyda’s Jewish identity influenced how she voted on a lot of issues, most particularly Israel and the now common controversies over the BDS movement on campus.

So it’s no surprise that the BDS movement aimed at getting UCLA to cut ties with Israel was indeed lurking in the background.
The boycott resolution, and the battle it set off here, was not explicitly mentioned but was described by her and others as setting the subtext for the episode.
“The overall culture of targeting Israel led to targeting Jewish students,” said Natalie Charney, student president of the U.C.L.A. chapter of Hillel. “People say that being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic. The problem is the anti-Israel culture in which we are singling out only the Jewish state creates an environment where it’s O.K. to single out Jewish students.”
So if BDS is a current controversial topic on campus, and if Jewish students are predictably more likely to oppose BDS because of their Jewish identity and commitment to Israel, wouldn’t it make sense to ask questions about her affiliations, such as Hillel? Although there has been some breaking with ranks of late, Hillel has generally been a strong opponent of BDS and has often sought to ban speakers who are favorable to BDS.

The issue of being questioned about the implications of a Jewish identity is a bedrock issue for Jews. The basic fiction is that we must presume that each individual’s decisions are solely the result of honest weighing of evidence, uninfluenced by ethnic, religious, or other identities. This is an obvious fiction for pretty much everyone, although White people seem more prone than others to consider the other person’s point of view) (Because of their individualistic tendencies that promote scientific [i.e., unbiased, objective] views of reality in which group interests are irrelevant, White people are arguably less prone to such tendencies.)

Jews are certainly no exception. Jews often have viewpoints that derive from their identity as Jews. Nevertheless, the absurdity that they do not is a bedrock principle of contemporary political correctness.

This was the point, after all of the discussion of Jewish intellectual movements in The Culture of Critique: The Jewish commitments and motivations of the main players were never a subject of discussion, and the movements themselves were presented as scientifically sound and morally superior to the traditional culture of the West. As a result, non-Jews are invited to see these Jewish activists as disinterested social scientists, or, in the case of the neocons, as patriotic fellow Americans — as “just like themselves.” We are invited to view these Jewish activists as part of our ingroup, with all that that entails psychologically.

But of course, the intellectual movements discussed in CofC are only a small part of this issue. One example that has come up often on TOO is whether it makes any difference that Jews run Hollywood. The ADL, of course, insists that the fact that Jews run Hollywood makes no difference, just as it makes no difference that Rachel Beyda belongs to Hillel or a Jewish sorority. The views of such people can be expected to be no different than a random cross-section of the population. They are simply individuals acting apart from any group identity —  the idea, as Abe Foxman phrased it, “that Jewish directors, producers and financiers are there in Hollywood as Jews. They’re not.” (See “Gary Oldman becomes a pariah.“) The evidence against Foxman’s point of view, summarized in the article on the unfortunate Mr. Oldman, is overwhelming.

As Steve Sailer says in his recent piece on Mad Men producer Matthew Weiner, “racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. Here’s Matthew Weiner, son of a leading neurologist and a lawyer who stopped practicing to keep house, yet it still drives him nuts that Jews were a minority at Harvard School for Boys. He gets up in the morning and goes to work to get revenge for that.”

And of course, it’s more than that. It’s hostility to the mainstream culture of the 1950s and early 1960s depicted in Mad Men, the last period in American history before the rise of our new hostile elites and the last period in American history when Hollywood elites kept their racial resentment under wraps. There are a lot of movies with themes like Mad Men—e.g., anything on  Joe McCarthy; my personal favorite is Pleasantville.

Sorry Abe. It matters a lot that Jews run Hollywood.

Examples where Jewish identity ought to be a legitimate subject of discussion are legion. Just imagine the horror that would ensue if, for example, Elena Kagan had been questioned about her Jewish identity in the hearings for her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Atty. Kagan, could you comment on your ties to ethnic Jews during your career and on how these ties have helped you ascend to a position where you are a candidate for Supreme Court Justice?  For example, what about your friends in the journalism professions?

Can you enlighten us on the role of Larry Summers in your appointment as dean of the Harvard Law School without the usual academic qualifications? What role did your Jewish connections have in getting your clerkship with Judge Abner Mikva and in your career at the University of Chicago?  (See previous link.) (And if I was doing the questioning, I confess I have to exert a lot of self-control not to ask this: “I must admit that it really angers me as an academic that the average untenured faculty member at a second-tier university has published more than you did in your entire career at the University of Chicago and Harvard; yet you were considered qualified to be Dean of the Harvard Law School and a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Can you explain that?”)

Can you comment on the influence of growing up in the radical Jewish subculture of New York that you described so positively in your senior thesis at Princeton? How do you see the link between Jewish identity and politics of the left among Jews in the diaspora in the West?

Do you think your Jewish identity will influence your opinion in cases having to do with the  typical concerns of the mainstream Jewish community where Jewish attitudes are far more in step with the radical Jewish subculture of your youth than they are with White America—immigration and multiculturalism, free speech, the power of the central government, and gun control?

But of course, questions like that of Jews in public life are completely out of bounds. One final example:
[We all have our unconscious biases.]  Movements such as the Israel Lobby have typically presented themselves not as furthering Jewish interests but as furthering the interests of the society as a whole. Neocons such as Richard Perle typically phrase their policy recommendations as aimed at benefiting the US. He does this despite evidence that he has a strong Jewish identity and despite the fact that he has typical Jewish concerns, such as anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the welfare of Israel. Perle poses as an American patriot despite credible charges of spying for Israel, writing reports for Israeli think tanks and op-eds for the Jerusalem Post, and all the while having close personal relationships with Israeli leaders….
In my ideal world, Jonah Goldberg’s op-eds and Paul Wolfowitz’s advice to presidents and defense secretaries should be accompanied by a disclaimer: “You should be cautious in following my advice or even believing what I say about Israel. Deception and manipulation are very common tactics in ethnic conflict, so that my pose as an American patriot should be taken with a grain of salt. And even if I am entirely sincere in what I say, the fact is that I have a deep psychological and ethnic commitment to Israel and Judaism. Psychologists have shown that this sort of deep commitment is likely to bias my perceptions of any policy that could possibly affect Israel even though I am not aware of it.”
As I noted in The Culture of Critique, “many of the Jews involved in the movements reviewed here may sincerely believe that these movements are really divorced from specifically Jewish interests or are in the best interests of other groups as well as Jews. … But, as [evolutionary theorist Robert] Trivers (1985) notes, the best deceivers are those who are self-deceived.” (“The Israel Lobby and the Psychology of Influence“)
It really wouldn’t matter if Jews were an elite with attitudes and interests similar to those of the traditional American nation. The problem is that this is quite clearly not the case.

The Spirit of Capitalism

via The Distributist Review

Capitalism is something that is frequently defined differently by different people. For example, some people imagine that it is private property that is the distinguishing mark of capitalism, or freedom of competition or minimal government intervention in the economy. But private property is hardly peculiar to capitalism, and while free competition and a laissez-faire economic policy are normal results of capitalism, they are not its distinguishing marks. For a long time I have thought that the definition of capitalism enunciated by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (§100), is the most accurate of the definitions that I have seen. In fact, it expresses the specific note that distinguishes capitalism from all other ways of organizing our economic activity. In that encyclical Pius calls capitalism “that economic system in which were provided by different people the capital and labor jointly needed for production.” In other words, in a capitalist economy most economic activity is characterized by the separation of ownership and work, by a split between those who own the means of production and those who are employed to do the actual work. This is in contrast to a Distributist economy in which, to the extent feasible, owners and workers are the same people, or to some forms of socialism in which the government is the owner of most productive property and administrators hire others to do the work.

Although I am a Distributist, I admit, as Pius XI went on to say, that the capitalist organization of an economy is not essentially unjust. It is not unjust to own property and hire someone else to work with that property—provided of course that a just wage is paid. But although such an arrangement is not in itself unjust, it is not necessarily wise when it becomes the characteristic means of organizing an entire economy. Catholics must accept that the capitalist system can be just, but Catholics are not required to hold that capitalism is the best economic system. As John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus (§35): “We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization.” Even if, theoretically speaking, capitalism can be just, there have been few examples of a just capitalism in fact. In Centesimus John Paul gave words of praise to what appears to be the West German social market economy. He notes that after World War II there was
in some countries…a positive effort to rebuild a democratic society inspired by social justice, so as to deprive Communism of the revolutionary potential represented by masses of people subjected to exploitation and oppression. In general, such attempts endeavor to preserve free market mechanisms, ensuring, by means of a stable currency and the harmony of social relations, the conditions for steady and healthy economic growth…. At the same time, these attempts try to avoid making market mechanisms the only point of reference for social life, and they tend to subject them to public control which upholds the principle of the common destination of material goods. In this context, an abundance of work opportunities, a solid system of social security and professional training, the freedom to join trade unions and the effective action of unions….are meant to deliver work from the mere condition of “a commodity,” and to guarantee its dignity. (§19)
But this is by no means the typical way that capitalism operates.

Capitalism, when it lacks the social and political safeguards which John Paul specifies, and when it advertises itself as mainly an engine for material production, too often brings about
the affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on the level of pure materialism by showing how a free-market society can achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism, while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar as it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law, culture and religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs. (§19)

This is the more usual way that capitalism operates and one of the reasons for the historically widespread opposition to it by many thinkers and writers who emphatically cannot be classed as left-wing.

John Paul’s observations about “the affluent society or the consumer society” lead to my main topic, which is the spirit of capitalism. What is the spirit of capitalism? Before we can attempt to define the spirit of capitalism, it is necessary to understand what is the psychological mechanism by which capitalism, that is, the separation of ownership and work, operates. Hilaire Belloc provides a succinct but accurate description of this.
But wealth obtained indirectly as profit out of other men’s work, or by process of exchange, becomes a thing abstracted from the process of production. As the interest of a man in things diminishes, his interest in abstract wealth—money—increases. The man who makes a table or grows a crop makes the success of the crop or the table a test of excellence. The intermediary who buys and sells the crop or the table is not concerned with the goodness of table or crop, but with the profit he makes between their purchase and sale. In a productive society the superiority of the things produced is the measure of success: in a Commercial society the amount of wealth accumulated by the dealer is the measure of success. (An Essay on the Nature of Contemporary England, 1937)
A craftsman who owns the means of production himself wants to make enough money by means of his work to support his family, certainly, but generally he will also have some interest, some pride, in his skill and in his product. He will see himself not primarily as a businessman, but as a brewer or a shoemaker, and for the most part will be interested in the quality of his product apart from how much he can sell it for. Although this interest will be greater in some than in others, for the most part it will be the case that the “man who makes a table or grows a crop makes the success of the crop or the table a test of excellence.” But the man who hires another to make the table or grow the crop for him usually will not have this same interest. He is not a craftsman, he can hardly have the professional pride that only a craftsman can have. His interest will be at best in management and marketing, or worse, in finance, or as a stockholder, in being a merely passive owner of a corporation, content to receive dividends or capital gains, having little interest in or knowledge of what the corporation actually does.

I know of course that defenders of capitalism will tell me that the owner of capital has got to take an interest in product quality because otherwise he could not sell the product. And yes, this is true. The capitalist has an interest in making his product saleable, and at times that can even include manufacturing a well-made product. But it need not include that. If it did, if the need to sell a product could itself guarantee quality, then unsafe or shoddy products would be as rare as snow in summer. Moreover, advertising exists as a powerful means to sell products, whether well-made or not. I am not arguing that all capitalists can or do ignore the question of product quality entirely, though some come pretty close to it, but simply that the tendency in a capitalist economy is, as Belloc said, that “the amount of wealth accumulated by the dealer is the measure of success.”

We can offer a rough definition, then, of the spirit of capitalism as the way of thinking and acting which capitalism and the capitalist motive tends to produce in a society, the way of looking at all things sub specie pecuniae, as a mere means of gain. Education, for example, is valued chiefly as a means of getting greater earning power, the physical environment is seen as having no value except the amount of cash it can bring in, even if that results in permanent damage to the common home which God has given to us.

The study of economics as that has descended from Adam Smith is for the most part an intellectual construct concocted to explain and justify the ideal workings of a capitalist economy. As such, the very conceptual tools it employs are predisposed in favor of capitalism. The concept of economic efficiency, for example, does not mean a lack of waste, but rather the production of the greatest amount possible with a set amount of resources. In practice it means that the market mechanism of supply and demand dictates the use of resources, and it is held to be economically efficient to waste resources if there is no actual current market for them. Thus natural gas can be simply burned off at the wellhead when there is no immediate cheap way of storing or transporting it, in order to extract the oil that lies underneath.

Capitalist economy efficiency also results in a curious kind of reductionism. Although we all recognize the difference between packaged food, heated up in a microwave, and a fine meal, prepared with care from original ingredients, the spirit of capitalism actually works to destroy any acknowledgement of the importance of such a difference. Since each type of meal will eliminate our immediate hunger, capitalism’s inherent logic tends to compare them merely on the basis of cost, to the detriment of the meal prepared with care, because this latter seems to violate the near-sacred imperative of economic efficiency. If we can obviate our pangs of hunger with cheap food, is not this more economically efficient than the long and more costly process of preparing food by hand? We thus ignore the health consequences of eating packaged corporate food, as well as the destruction of local culinary traditions and skills that packaged food entails. Food made with real ingredients is seen as a luxury, a needless expense, something that is all right if you have enough money, but in fact unnecessary. In such a manner we congratulate ourselves on how inexpensive food is in the United States. That in fact our food is largely denatured, filled with pesticides and artificial ingredients, matters little or not at all, since it meets the obvious and measurable standard of being able to still one’s pangs of hunger. If the rich or the countercultural want better food, then let them pay for it. The rest of us (so we are implicitly told), should be grateful to have a relative abundance of cheap edibles, never mind the long-term health effects, the destruction of local cultural traditions, or the poisoning of the environment by means of pesticides and poor farming practices.

I mentioned above that one of the effects of the spirit of capitalism is that we mostly look at education as simply a means for obtaining a well-paying job. But the reductionist logic of capitalism goes further and has now begun to interfere with the mechanism of education itself. A real university with real classrooms and the give and take of discussion may be nice, but why not provide most people with taped lectures and online discussion groups? Certainly if the rich want to pay the price to attend a physical college, that is fine, but again, for most people this is neither necessary nor particularly desirable. (Of course the fact that higher education is overpriced provides easy justification for those seeking to disparage real physical institutions, but the logic of capitalist efficiency would point toward the same goal in any case.) Because the differences between high-quality products and services and low-quality are not always easily measured, and the difference in cost is easily measured, our notion of economic efficiency works against the former. If we can provide people with degrees via mass online courses, then why should state governments spend unnecessary funds providing costly physical universities, paying for thousands of faculty members, when we can accomplish the same with a handful of professors, who probably don’t even need to be full-time employees?

As I said above, it is the difficulty of measuring the difference between real food and packaged food, between education provided according to models that are millennia old and taped, mass-provided lectures, that makes the capitalist logic so attractive. The very evaluative tools that capitalist society creates to measure outcomes are biased against recognizing any important differences so long as the obvious immediate need is taken care of. The fact that the benefits of education cannot always be discerned by quantitative testing, the fact that many important nutritive ingredients in food are ignored by standard analysis—all this militates in favor of using the cheapest means of satisfying some easily identifiable immediate need.

If we are interested not in “the superiority of the things produced” but only or chiefly in “the amount of wealth accumulated,” then we will naturally not focus overmuch on the quality of the goods we produce, provided that we can convince someone to buy them. If we are in the business of selling food, we will take advantage of public ignorance as well as people’s inability to afford quality food, in order to sell packaged corporate food that does indeed satisfy the immediate goal of taking away hunger, but is hardly able to nourish the human body in the way that food made from real ingredients, with few or no artificial additives, can. Economic efficiency will mean not production without waste, but production that is as cheap as possible. It is not a waste, however, either of time or of resources, to prepare a meal from healthy ingredients, even though it might cost more than to heat up packaged food. But the latter satisfies better the reductionist logic of capitalist efficiency in that it appears to produce the same output—immediate alleviation of hunger—with fewer inputs as measured by the cost of production. The same logic applies in education and indeed in any area of the production of goods or the provision of services. In this way the spirit of capitalism operates to set the tone for society as a whole, to focus our attention on wealth accumulation, and distract us not just from concern with product quality, but from all those aspects of life which, in the end, matter so much more than the accumulation of riches.

Another Daily Dose of Racial and Jewish Reality

via Koinen's Corner

Pardon me -- would you be so kind as to allow me to ruin your day (...as mine was ruined when I came across these articles during the course of my usual internet browsing sessions over the past couple days)?

Well, maybe 'ruined' is the wrong word. While so many of the things we read these days are enough to make any rational White person perplexed, sick, and disgusted, it really is a good thing that we can still find articles that expose the reality of what is happening in the world around us.

Take the Negro problem, for example.  Sure, I know, they're supposed to be just like us.  We're all the same under the skin.  Race is just a social construct, after all.

Yeah, right -- like the Negroes portrayed statistically in this article and the references linked therein.

And if you are interested, here are some more details about that young black fellow Anthony Stokes and how he showed his appreciation for his heart transplant.

And of course we shouldn't leave this topic without mentioning all the overwhelming anti-White bias and deliberate misinformation when it comes to social pressures and reporting of the Jew-controlled press in matters related to interracial crime as described here as Hate hoaxes and the ritual of shame.

More evidence of the 'sameness' of Whites and Negroes when it comes to contemporary societal behavior -- some recent information about Detroit.

Still more black 'vibrancy' -- blacks killing blacks in St. Louis.

If you want to see another example of how they are 'just like us,' you'll want to read this piece about the beach behavior of black people in Durban, South Africa.  (Apparently an older article but one I just now came across.)  Enjoy the images.

I guess the main thing, though, is that we Whites don't turn our backs on black Africa.  That we always stand ready to help them -- even the ones that have openly declared their hatred of White people, stolen their land, and driven them out (when they didn't kill them). So in that spirit, I wanted to include this wonderful example of British benevolence and generosity -- coughing up $72 million U.S. dollars worth of aid to the Zimbabwe government.

One last article about Africa -- from a few years ago, but gives us a glimpse of the devastatingly frightening way in which the U.S. could very well follow South Africa down the path of  White decline.

Of course, racial conflict and decline are not the only ways in which things seem to be falling apart day after day -- literally coming apart at the seams.  Here in the U.S. we seem to be determined to abandon any form of wholesome normalcy by capitulating to leftist degeneracy and homosexual 'rights,' as described in this article about recent events in Indiana.

Moving on to the Jewish problem, and Israel and the Middle East -- and going back a few years in the history of that ever-volatile region -- here is a recent and very instructive article about the 1954 Lavon Affair and other Israeli false-flag operations.

And now, just in case I haven't given you enough to worry about on this one fine spring day, here are a couple important articles by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -- The Coming Doom, and Can Evil Be Defeated.  While Dr. Roberts is reluctant to come right out and name the Jew, he does point to the nefarious deeds of Bibi Netanyahu and his 'Jewish state' Israel, and he does frequently refer to the 'presstitutes' and neocons.  You can be assured that Jews have their fingerprints all over the problems he discusses in these articles.  (I don't agree with everything Roberts says -- in particular some of his misplaced sympathy and irrational observations about purported and/or unjustified 'mistreatment' of our black population by police and other government authority, and maybe some of his 'conspiracy theory' ideas; but overall he does have a good grasp of some of the most serious problems faced by our American society and nation these days.)

And lastly, since we have been talking about the destructive deeds of the Jews, let me leave you with this one last article that should help anyone understand the many ways in which they have been working to destroy our White Western Civilization -- all laid out here in The Sharpest Blade.

Well that's enough -- more than enough -- for one day.  I think, if you will take the time to just scan the several articles linked above, you will very quickly come to appreciate that we White people have some very serious problems that must be dealt with in some very definitive ways, and that we have got to find a way to do something about those threats right now.  And one thing we can all do is try to enlighten our relatives and friends, and help them become aware of the problems we face, by exposing them to articles such as those I have mentioned above.

Is This What it Takes to Get Whites Upset?

via The Political Cesspool

For the time being, European Americans have pretty much lost control of all the major institutions: Academia, Government, Media, and (most) Religious Institutions. Sure, there may be some WASPy looking people in positions of power, but that’s where it ends.

Some Whites are so ignorant and lazy these days that with no resistance whatsoever they allow those who hate us to take over positions of power and use them to teach us to hate ourselves while simultaneously stripping us of our freedoms. Yes, none of this causes them any distress at all.

Q: So, what will motivate Whites to take to the streets?

A: When “their” team loses a college basketball game.
The Kentucky Wildcats had won 38 straight games this season heading into Saturday’s Final Four matchup with Wisconsin. Big Blue Nation expected their team to take care of business and advance to Monday’s national championship game. But the Wisconsin Badgers had other plans. They played a sound game from start to finish and defeated the Wildcats 71-64.
Kentucky fans weren’t happy about it, so they took to the streets and began lighting things on fire. Fans were chanting “F— Wisconsin” and gathered in the streets. It’s a shame that they couldn’t deal with the loss without starting fires in Lexington.
Our nation is melting down in front of their eyes, yet they are too stupid and uncaring to give a damn. The only thing on Earth that they care about are a handful of college basketball players who pretend to be Kentuckians for a year before declaring themselves eligable for the NBA draft.

Common Core and the Myth of Equality

via The Daily Stormer

The primary architect of Common Core is the
self-identified Jew David Coleman, and his mentor
is his mother, Liz, who was a product of the
New School of Social Research, an
ideological successor to the Frankfurt School
According to an article called ‘Does the Anti-Common Core Movement Have a Race Problem?,’ on the pro-Black website The Hechinger Report, a recent poll has shown that White people are disproportionately opposed to Common Core Standards:
While protests against the Common Core have sprung up in communities as diverse as New York City, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and Portland, Oregon, a new poll suggests that the protestors themselves may be less diverse: White parents tend to dislike the standards, while the majority of black and Hispanic parents approve of Common Core.
The NBC News State of Parenting Poll, which was sponsored by Pearson, a publisher of Common Core textbooks and tests, found that 50 percent of parents surveyed approved of the Common Core and 38 percent opposed the standards, which are grade level expectations in math and English in place in more than 40 states. But the plurality of white parents – 49 percent – opposed the standards, while 73 percent of Hispanic parents and 56 percent of black parents favored the Common Core.
This is no surprise, as the Common Core Standards are specifically designed to benefit non-White children by closing the ‘achievement gap’ between them and White children. Organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza (“the race”), and over a dozen other ‘civil rights’ groups (which, by the way, all exist for the sole purpose of explicitly advancing the interests of non-White races) are in full support of it.

So obviously it is the interests of White people that are at stake in this, and that is why it is primarily Whites who are against it. Yet there is not one organization in existence that looks out for the interests of Whites. In fact, the Whites who are outspoken against Common Core wouldn’t even dare to be explicitly White and call out Common Core legislation for what it is, as that would be in direct violation of thy holiest of holies: political correctness.

Prominent anti-Common Core activists ‘Three Moms Against Common Core.’ They are pretty White

Common Core is an Assault on White People

As we have reported many times already on Daily Stormer, and will continue to do so in the future, the insane Common Core education standards are a result of forced multiculturalism and the myth of equality between the races, and as such are designed to drag White children down to the level of the lower IQ non-Whites who have flooded into our country and could never be able to keep up otherwise.

Common Core has been met with much opposition, which is great, but one thing that continues to go unquestioned in our current society is this myth of egalitarianism, which will eventually lead to the complete displacement of Whites if not confronted head on. You will see opposition to Common Core, but you will never see its opponents raising the obvious argument that everyone is not equal.

This concept of ‘egalitarianism’ flies directly in the face of basic common sense, and, again, can only be achieved by dragging the higher elements down to the level of the lower elements. Common Core curriculum takes this concept to such extremes it even strives to “close the achievement gap” between those still learning English and native English speakers. This is to accommodate the millions of illegal Mexican invaders who are filling up our country and its schools.

That those who don’t speak proper English should be scoring the same on tests as those that do is even a topic of discussion is a sure sign of how fundamentally sick and insane our society has become. But, according to the dictates of the egalitarian ‘political correctness’ that controls the narrative of our society, differences in achievement between people can only ever be explained in ‘environmental’ terms (e.g. access to better schools, wealth, better parenting or the ubiquitous myth of “White privilege”), since everyone is deemed to be biologically exactly the same.

Since it is common dogma that there are no differences between the races, all discrepancies must, by default, be blamed on White racism (never mind the contradiction there). This has now reached heights of pathological insanity in our schools, to the point where there is actually a substantial movement to eradicate suspensions (non-Whites couldn’t possibly be biologically more unruly than Whites, therefore, that they get suspended more often must be due to ‘discrimination,’ right?).

You don’t think perhaps these people might possibly just have offspring who are more prone to criminality than Whites, do you?

Also, as more non-Whites come into White schools there is a natural inclination to change the curriculum in order to not make them feel bad since White people’s historical achievements are so much greater than the rest of the world’s. Teaching them the fact that White people have invented virtually everything of value on the planet would hurt their feelings, so the White race must suffer for this and instead learn that all they have ever really done is oppress brown people, because apparently White people’s feelings don’t matter, only brown people’s do.

So, who and what is behind this madness?

Cultural Marxism and Multiculturalism

The so-called ‘liberalism’ and ‘progressivism’ that dominates current society is actually what is more accurately referred to as ‘cultural Marxism,’ which is essentially Jewish interests intellectualized to remake all of society so it works toward the Jews’ benefit, in direct contrast to the interests of the native inhabitants who built the country, Whites.

Whereas true liberalism’s roots are traced back primarily to White intellectuals of the Enlightenment and subsequent French Revolution, Jewish activists hijacked the already deeply flawed and self-destructive ideas embedded in it and twisted them to their own benefit. One of the core ideas of liberalism – the equality of man – was invented long before multiculturalism was even a concept that had been considered by anybody, so it was inherently just referring to the White people who were inhabiting the White countries in which it was being popularized (though it did result in the emancipation of the Jews). The idea was essentially that a peasant could accomplish as much as a nobleman if only he were to have the environmental opportunity to do so (e.g. being raised around highly educated people and immersed in wealth), or vice versa – and so on.

While this was still the dominant view among the upper crust of the intellectual community of the West during the early 20th century, anthropology (the study of humans) was making much headway with genetic research and was revealing, scientifically, that societal status was determined primarily by race and heredity, rather than environmental opportunity, and that all of history is virtually defined by ethnic conflict, even among groups of similar genetic makeup – much less those who are radically different – and that societies rise and collapse depending on the racial purity and quality of its inhabitants. If the race that has built a given society is mixed with a lower race, or if the lower elements within the race outbreed the higher elements, the society is dragged down and loses its previous character, as the people who built it no longer exist in significant enough numbers to maintain its integrity.

Beginning with the work of the brilliant French aristocrat Count Arthur de Gobineau in the late 19th century, the cold hard fact that all high civilizations throughout history were a product of the creative genius that flowed from the White race, and the White race alone, and that the admixture of non-White races has only ever dragged these civilizations down (such as in Egypt and India), began to come to the surface with great clarity.

It didn’t take much foresight to see that this science was rapidly leading to the exposure of the Jews as an alien race that is unassimilable and historically and contemporaneously hostile to the White race – and indeed every other race in the world – as a group, primarily due to their genetics, rather than their religion or just a few bad individuals among them.

As a result, in an extremely well-organized and almost single-minded campaign to stop these developments that were so dangerous to their interests, the Jewish community frantically went into ‘damage control’ mode and got behind one of their own, Franz Boas, whose pseudo-scientific work took the ‘nurture over nature’ egalitarian argument of the Enlightenment thinkers and transmitted it onto the outrageous claim that there are no biological differences between the races aside from skin color. Taken in its literal form, a Somalian Negro who was born in Sweden would end up just as civilized as a White Swede, and vice versa. Boas’ insane and unfounded ideas, although they can be easily disproved in a thousand ways on a daily basis by ones own eyes, came to dominate the mainstream view on race in the West during the 1920s, and the true racial scientists were swept into the dustbin of history and are remembered as nothing more than outdated and discredited White supremacists.

The triumph of Boasian anthropology, followed by the anti-racist fervor whipped up in order to convince people to destroy National Socialist Germany in World War II – and the lies associated with that, namely that the Jewish “Holocaust” and fanatical dreams of world domination by an Aryan ‘Master Race’ are the inevitable outcome of White people having pride in their own race, or even recognizing that races are biologically different – laid the groundwork that eventually allowed Marxist Jewish intellectuals (the ‘Frankfurt School‘) to take over the entire narrative of Academia and use it to disseminate their self-serving, radical, anti-White leftism and ‘political correctness’ all throughout our society.

The backbone of the openly subversive ‘Frankfurt School’ is critical theory, which is the basis of modern-day ‘liberalism’ and the phenomenon of White guilt. Critical theory is the rewriting of history to portray White males as the historic oppressors (of non-Whites, females, sexual perverts, etc.) in order to make them hate themselves and want to atone for their sins by allowing themselves to be walked all over by all of the alleged ‘victim’ groups (who are in turn also taught to hate White males – and the White race in general – by the same Jewish lies).

Sadly, Whites are susceptible to these unwarranted feelings of guilt due to their inborn sense of fairness, so critical theory has been highly successful. The Frankfurt School and Boasian Anthropology (again, both Jewish movements pursuing specifically Jewish interests to the detriment of Whites – best documented by Dr. Kevin MacDonald in The Culture of Critique) formed the intellectual foundation behind what is the impending death knell of the West: multiculturalism.

So we have been forced into a position in which we can’t argue against multiculturalism, because race supposedly doesn’t even exist, and if we do we are dismissed as Nazis, because we all know where that leads to: gas chambers and genocide. The White race is considered evil and as such must be eradicated at all costs – but race doesn’t exist.

The contradictions of the anti-White left can fill a book, but they don’t matter, as logical debate is out of the question. Anyone who objects to White displacement (of which Common Core is a part of) is simply shouted down, with frightening effectiveness, by smear terms such as “racist.”

The only way to even attempt to make multiculturalism work is by instituting a brutal anti-White tyranny, which is what we now living under.

I think it’s about time we start fighting back as White people, explicitly, as there is clearly a war being waged against us.

The future of our children depends on it.

Review of 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' by Colin Flaherty

via Amerika

Since our last review of Colin Flaherty’s work with the previous edition of this book, following up on the original issue of this provocative work, White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It has grown and polished itself to the point where it is more professional than the media narrative it critiques.

While on the surface this is a book about race, underneath its nominal topic its nature as a critique of media emerges. An experienced journalist, Flaherty reserves his ire for and targets his book against the media for being in denial of the obvious. He walks a treacherous path: those who notice failures in the media narrative are usually branded racist, sexist and homophobic and run out of their jobs, homes and friendships. But Flaherty cannot be accused of any of these. He makes it clear that he is speaking of a subset of the African-American population who may have legitimate grievances, and that these grievances are as ignored by the leftist media as are the riots, violence and knockout games of an angry underclass.

American journalists have written about race since before the founding of the nation, as slavery was a controversial topic even at that time. Experience with media over the past decade has shown to me the appalling degree to which news sources, fiction writers and academics are willing to outright lie about their subject. Watching the New York Times promote a false rape accusation as true when they knew it was dubious, and then refuse to issue a correction and seeing a concerted and dishonest media campaign to hype Ferguson, MO into riots finally woke me up, but I had been seeing it for years. The eternal truth is that humans are monkeys and we respond to emotion, much like a tribe of Bonobos comes alive when two members fight. Our monkey-brains are wired for conflict in which there is a good guy and a bad guy and we participate so the good guy wins, which defeats symbolic evil and exiles it, leaving by our absurd simplistic system of morality only that which is good. Like the ancient Jewish ritual of the scapegoat, the burning of witch doctors in Africa, or the witch-hunts of colonial America, the monkey in us comes out and evolution is defeated. We follow the appearance of good versus evil like zombies, smashing down the “bad” so we may have the pretense of considering ourselves nothing but “good.” In reality, which few Americans encounter because they are not in leadership positions where paying attention to more than what people like to think is true is important, most things are not good or bad but a little of both, and the real question is how to balance them to find a positive outcome. That notion becomes important toward the conclusion of reading this book.

Flaherty counteracts the power of the media to lie by introducing facts contrary to the narrative. He starts with a single one, then builds a pattern around it, and then shows how that ritual repeats in every city across America. Soon it becomes clear: this is not just a media oversight, but a media coverup. Probably not a planned one, but a consistent one nonetheless. American media have benefitted from the fear of racial strife for over two centuries, and they know how to milk it for every Nielsen point that it is worth. Every movie must have a black president, going back to the 1980s; every news story about the inner city must feature uplifting angels who are impoverished only by the cruelty of history; certain facts like crime statistics, IQ data and hormone differences must be suppressed and claimed to be taboo using the following key terms: “pseudo-science,” “rambling,” “discredited.” The media narrative is so ubiquitous that we do not even notice it anymore. Flaherty makes us notice and uses the phenomenon of crypto-race riots to make his point. From the first decade after the Civil War through the 1990s, America never went more than a dozen years between violent race riots that left large portions of her cities burned and many dead. This came to a peak in the 1992 race riots in Los Angeles over the beating of a PCP-abusing Rodney King by several LAPD officers.

There, the narrative broke down. The media did its groundwork, portraying King as an angel of light whose feet never touched the earth. But then the 100 mph chase came to light, the past domestic violence charges, and a long rap sheet, in addition to the knowledge that the video shown by the media had been slowed down and edited to make it appear as a deliberate beating instead of the frantic subjugation of a violent criminal that it was. All of this could have been counter-acted except that the resulting riots did not take the form the media promised. They promised us 1960s style we-shall-overcome linked arms and protest, but instead what came out was 1990s style gangbangers smashing into stores to steal everything they could and then burning down the whole block. The most prominent images were no longer those of Rodney King, but of Korean store owners firing back against criminal mobs, and the beating of Reginald Denny into mental retardation for no sin other than being white in a truck on the day the whole thing blew up. Should have checked your news report, Reg.

It is without doubt that the media hyped the Rodney King situation into a riot. They gave permission to the rioters on repeated news broadcasts in which they stated that surely riots would come about, and repeated the lies about the “injustices” done to Rodney King, without asking his past wives about any injustices he might have done to them or the people through whose lawn he crashed at 80 mph on one of his drunken evasion attempts. I remember a news broadcast where a female journalist went out into one of the non-gentrified but also not dangerous neighborhoods where a fire had been spotted. In her view, this was the beginnings of the riot. The comedy compounded itself as she tried to find someone who spoke English to tell her what was going on. Finally, she snagged someone fleeing the scene, who explained in broken English that it was simply an attic fire. The news team packed up and drove to another location to see if that fire was the start of the riots. They did everything they could to encourage the riots, from mentioning the long history of African-American victimhood to showing pictures of the rows of expensive stores before flashing the camera back to shots of tenements. The message was: “A race riot now would be justified, and we are on your side. There will be no consequences.” We all know how that one one went down.

Flaherty’s assault on the narrative takes a far less obsessive form than the media itself. He simply reports facts and points out contradictions. He does not target any specific ethnic group, nor issue an opinion on whether these race riots are a legitimate response to grievances. He simply shows us, time and again, how racial violence breaks out and the media covers it up. He shows the facts, and populates the books with many links to YouTube videos — some of which are mysteriously deleted on a regular basis — showing the incidents in question. The races of perpetrator and victim are clear. White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It avoids seeking reasons why and a good guy and bad guy in these riots. It demands we simply look at the facts, stop acting out a narrative that may have never been true, and break through the media wall to discover what is true and ignored. Written in a tightly focused and conversational style, it makes for a fast read that will have repercussions in how the reader views the official history of this nation in years to come.

Homage to Giuseppe

via Gornahoor

Giuseppe Salvo

News of the Week

Principles of negotiation

A deal was apparently made between the G6 and Iran over its nuclear program. Anyone who has ever negotiated in good faith understands that a deal will involve concessions on both sides.

Those opposed to the deal argue that economic sanctions should have been tightened in order to coerce a better deal. In other words, negotiations are unnecessary. A legal principle is that a deal is invalid if made under duress or coercion. Hence, the real goal is unconditional surrender. Just say it.

Climate Change

Obama is back on climate change. There is a simple solution to reduce greenhouse gases that no one is bringing up, at least not on the political talk shows. According to the World Bank, the per capita emission of CO2 (in metric tons) in the USA is 17.5. Other sample countries: Pakistan (0.9), Mexico (3.8), India (1.7), Nicaragua (0.8). The USA could easily reduce its emissions by 5% by reducing the number of inhabitants by 5%, without excessive taxation or burdensome regulations. Instead, it insists on increasing those inhabitants.


A young woman claimed that being in the presence of irrationality makes her feel ill; that is something she learned from Rudolf Steiner. Unfortunately, in her case, the illness arose from her own irrationality, but she is too irrational to notice that. On the other hand, most people experience no ill effects from their irrationality.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the presumed truth in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Francis Fukuyama claims that liberal democracies and free-market capitalism represent the highest point of human evolution and furnish the definitive answers to all previous political and social questions.

It may be regarded as a class marker since it is the default position, with some leeway, considered obviously true by educated and sophisticated people today. Moreover, the denialists of this consensus reality are considered insane or evil. The past is the history of injustices which need to be corrected.

A Day at the Zoo

A couple of weeks ago I visited the Jacksonville Zoo with my family. My son was impressed by how “ripped” the chimps were. Of course they were, since they seldom went to the ground and never stopped moving and climbing.

The next exhibit was for the gorillas. I asked the zookeeper why they kept the chimps and gorillas separate. She explained that they were too much alike and would end up competing with each other.

A biologist has speculated that humans involved from the mating of a male pig and female chimp. I can’t imagine how horny that chimp had to be although I have known woman with rather poor judgments about their boyfriends.

But that would be an interesting experiment: put some pigs in the chimp exhibit and seen if any humans arise. And maybe add a talking snake to see what happens.

Boris Mouravieff says that organic life is subject to three factors: hunger, sex, and fear. That does seem to describe animal life exactly.

Alternative Hypothesis

The alternative to the Null Hypothesis is what sane and normal people used to believe. They were closer to their natural life in the sense that it promoted fitness. Sex was channeled into procreation and the continuation of the gene pool (“the selfish gene”). Family life was recognized as the way to safeguard this, so any behavior that was opposed to it was considered taboo. Children were considered a blessing. Nowadays pregnancy is often considered an undesirable, if not dangerous, side effect of natural sexuality. Strangers threatened the gene pool.

Hunger drove the acquisition of resources and the social structures to maintain and keep them. This further enhanced genetic fitness. Unfortunately, the unfit often could not survive.

The fear of the lack of food and other resources, or encroachments from other tribes or peoples, led to rule by the fathers. Their duty was to protect against invaders and organize the acquisition of resources. Since that was often dangerous, leading to premature mortality, boys were particularly valued.

Since there was an awareness into the future through one’s descendants, there was also a reverence for the past. One’s ancestors were revered and their cultural and spiritual inheritance passed on.

Giuseppe Salvo

Giuseppe Salvo was my great grandfather. Below is the letter I recently sent to several of his descendants in the generation after mine.
I’m sending you guys a picture of your great great grandfather, taken in 1880. His name was Giuseppe
The first Salvo arrived in Sicily from Tuscany around the 15th century, where he was made a nobleman. From there the Salvo family spread throughout Sicily, especially in the province of Trapani where it is not an uncommon name. In Salemi, where our branch came from, it is a not an uncommon name.
Salemi is uniquely positioned, high on a hill where you can see for miles around. The countryside is gorgeous, dotted with farms, olive gardens, vineyards, etc. For that reason, it was also the perfect location for a military encampment, since a sneak attack would have been impossible.
The Arabs were there briefly, some 1000 years ago or so. They built a castle atop the highest hill. A couple of hundred years later, the Vikings arrived by way of the Normans. (The Normans were descendants of the Vikings who had settle in the province of Normandy in France.)
The Normans moved on to Palermo, where there was a much larger castle. From that position, the Normans managed to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire. I’ll tell that story if anyone is interested. There was a lively school of Romantic poetry, from whom Dante learned his craft. Again, let me know if you are interested.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of nobility, both from the Tuscan side as well as the Norman side, whose genetic and spiritual influence must have been quite extensive in a small village like Salemi. You can see it in the picture … Giuseppe looks nothing like those caricatures of Italian organ grinders that Hollywood portrays.
You can treat this as an interesting, but “so what”, story. Or you can use it as a model for your own lives, and the lives of your children: to achieve, to explore, to act nobly, and to avoid the vulgarity of contemporary decadent culture.

Officer Michael Slager, White Man: He Will Be Seen as One of Us -- and He Let Us Down

via American Renaissance

Police Officer Michael Slager
[The Saturday before last], North Charleston policeman Michael Slager shot and killed Walter Scott. A video taken by a bystander clearly shows that Scott was running away and posed no threat when Officer Slager calmly fired eight shots, killing Scott. He then walked over to Scott, shouted at him, and cuffed him.

There was reportedly a struggle over a Taser before Scott made a break for it, and a physical struggle brings out the fight in any man. Still, there was no excuse for Mr. Slager to shoot Scott in the back. What’s worse, the officer then dropped what looks like a Taser next to Scott’s body and radioed in to say he had to shoot Scott because Scott grabbed his Taser. Not all the evidence is in, but it looks like a textbook case of inexcusable police violence and a deliberate attempt to cover it up by faking the evidence.

I give police the benefit of the doubt. They have one of the hardest jobs in America. They may have to make a split-second decision, at any moment, that could determine whether they live or die. Sometimes it’s kill or be killed, and you can’t expect them to get it right every time.

Michael Slager clearly got it wrong. There’s no evidence race had anything to do with it, but in today’s climate, race has everything to do with it. Mr. Slager is charged with murder, and if there’s a trial we’ll learn all there is to know about whether he’s a “racist.”

But that won’t matter. It will make no difference whether he spends his weekends burning crosses or teaching math to black children. A white cop killed an unarmed black, lied about it, and got caught only because someone videoed him. This is the perfect “I told you so” for all white-haters and cop-haters and for everyone who thinks white people are thwarting blacks at every turn.

This, we will hear, is what happens all the time. This is America in all its gruesome reality. This is the true face of racism–personal, institutional, perpetual. And the only reason we have seen America’s true face is because a stranger caught the white man red handed.

Michael Slager has set us back. Virtually every other notorious case of “racism,” from the Jena Six to the Duke lacrosse team to Michael Brown to Trayvon Martin, collapsed. These stories of “racism” collapsed only after phony versions had been pushed so ruthlessly that their collapse couldn’t be buried on page 18.

That doesn’t stop the real white-haters. One hundred spectacular hoaxes could collapse, and they would still hate us. It’s the fence-sitters–the ordinary whites–for whom tales of phony “racism” are the first step towards white consciousness.
Michael Slager may be an otherwise fine fellow who simply lost control and killed a man. But he killed a black man, and in today’s America, when a white man kills a black man he better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, he’ll have a reason shoved onto him–racism–no matter what he says or does.

This website has already been criticized simply for running the story of this shooting. Some readers will be outraged that we are not standing “in solidarity” with a “white brother.” Too bad. Michael Slager has shamed his profession. And in a time of anti-white hysteria he has, objectively, shamed his race. Even if race had nothing to do with it, he has exposed all police officers and all whites to criticism we can’t afford. Right or wrong, he will be seen as acting as a white man–as one of us–and he has let us down.

'Hitler's Table Talk' Study Hour, Episode 54

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

German soldier with Russian machine gun
Ray Goodwin and Carolyn Yeager read and comment on the Sept. 5-7, 1942 and June 13-15, 1943 lunch and dinner table monologues by the German Leader, as taken down in shorthand by attorney Heinrich Heim. Included in this episode:
  • The failings of monarchies and stupidity of Princes - human need for an idol - courageous Munoz Grande;
  • Stalingrad so strongly defended because of its name - Dutch interbred with Malays - Church put religion over race - our soldiers marrying foreign girls ends in catastrophe;
  • Britons have no concept of chivalry in war;
  • No mercy on schoolmasters - discourages replicating museums in major German cities - plans a military museum in Linz;
  • Nineteenth century was time of greatest German masterpieces in every branch of art - Munich lacked adequate money to build quality edifices - men fight for the artistic and intellectual heritage of their nation;
  • In defence of Metternich - Bismarck needed the war in 1866;
  • Natural wonders of landscape attract people more than art museums - poor taste in art can be tolerated but not depravity.
The edition of Hitler's Table Talk being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.

The Metaphysics of Indo-European Tripartition, Part 4: Tripartition in Human Thought & Language

via Counter-Current


1. Universal, Particular, and Individual

Before we turn to the level of the purely ideal and transcendent, our highest level of abstraction, I will speak briefly about how tripartition displays itself in the way in which we attempt to embody the ideal in thought and language.

First of all, there are three fundamental types of noun: the universal, the particular, and the singular. We speak of “the wolf” as a genus (or of “wolfness”), and we speak of “wolves” or “a wolf,” and we speak of singular or individual wolfs (e.g. “Fenris”). The universal represents the third function in that it is a potentially boundless, and, for that reason, indefinite reality. It is not without character, but its character is not to be a determinate individual. The particular represents the first function: it is the universal made more specific and definite. The universal is an indefinite potential for multiple existence. The particular realizes the universal’s potential for instantiation. But although “a wolf” is an existent, “a wolf” is a “a wolf” is “a wolf,” etc. It is a generic, and thus still in some sense indefinite existence. The singular, the individual, which would be a unique not a generic wolf, is truly actual existence. Like the mesomorph’s relation to the ecotomorph and endomorph, it mediates between universal and particular. It is a particular existence raised to the level of fully concrete actuality, in and through the realization of some, but not all, the facets of the universal itself.

2. Perceptual Judgment: Identity, Difference, and Ground

In perceptual and all other forms of judgment, three concepts predominate: identity, difference, and the ground. We say that things are the same or other, and we say this in the awareness of some ground or basis for identification or distinction. For example, two men are the same, or different in respect of height, which is the ground. Here, identity represents the first function which unites, equates, makes one. Difference represents the third function which divides and breaks up (this will become more clear when I discuss the Indian gunas in a moment). The ground represents the second function, mediating, again, between the two. It represents a stalwart constant in the play of identities and differences. Like the warrior class, it provides the very condition under which men, or anything, can be associated together, or held apart.

3. The Syllogism 

In logic, we distinguish between three basic types of argument or syllogism: the categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive. The categorical allows us to associate concepts or apply concepts to particular cases. Here is an example:

All princes are Kshatriyas.
All Kshatriyas are warriors.
Therefore, all princes are warriors.

This argument moves entirely within the realm of the ideal or abstract, associating categories of things. Or take this example:

All princes are Kshatriyas.
Arjuna is a prince.
Therefore, Arjuna is a Kshatriya.

This argument subsumes a particular under a universal. It reverses the ontological order of things. Existence is a realization of the universal in the world, as a particular instance. The categorical argument “returns” the instance to the universal. Both forms of thought (moving from abstract category to abstract category, and subsuming particulars under universals) are characteristic of the cerebration of the first function.
An example of a disjunctive syllogism would be this:

Arjuna is either at home or he has gone hunting.
He is not at home.
Therefore he has gone hunting.

This form of argument depends upon sharp distinction — upon excluding possibilities, one from another. It thus exhibits the dividing, sundering aspect of the third function.
A hypothetical syllogism looks like this:

If Arjuna discovers his son is dead, then he shall seek revenge.
Arjuna has discovered that his son is dead.
Therefore, he shall seek revenge.

The hypothetical proposition is purposeful, action-oriented, and consequential. It expresses the consequences that will follow if an antecedent condition is satisfied. A hypothetical syllogism does not simply subsume a particular under a universal, it tells us something we may expect of the world. It is interesting to note that all categorical syllogisms can be converted into hypothetical syllogisms. For example:

All princes are Kshatriyas.
Arjuna is a prince.
Therefore, Arjuna is a Kshatriya.

If someone is a prince, then he is a Kshatriya.
Arjuna is a prince.
Therefore, Arjuna is a Kshatriya.

Notice the subtle difference the conversion makes. It now seems to say, “If you discover that someone is a prince, then you may know that they are a Kshatriya, so take care, for Arjuna, who is a prince . . . “ etc. The hypothetical is a worldly, dynamic argument, and thus it represents the second function.[1]
Looking specifically at the categorical syllogism, it consists of major, minor, and middle terms. Taking the same argument —

All princes are Kshatriyas.
Arjuna is a prince.
Therefore, Arjuna is a Kshatriya.

— “Kshatriya” is the minor term, “Arjuna” is the major term, and “prince” is the middle term. The minor term is the broadest category within the argument, the most abstract of the universals named within it. Accordingly, following my identification of the universal with the third function, the minor term represents the third function also. The major term gives specificity to the minor term: it names a specific something that belongs to the minor term (the universal). Accordingly, because of this role as a specifier or identifier, the major term represents the first function. The middle links the minor and major, since it is present in both premises. Because of this mediating function, which I have already discussed in other contexts, the middle term seems to correspond to the second function.

There is also, in general, an oft-noted tendency in our thinking to group things into three. (This may be universal, but I suspect it may be more prevalent among Indo-European peoples.) Children are taught their “A-B-Cs,” for example, not their “A-B-C-Ds.” Most people have three names: a first, a middle, and a last. Our stories and fables abound in threes: three bears, three brothers, three wishes, three witches, three ugly stepsisters, three beans, three bends in the road, etc. Many sayings or rhymes have three parts: “Jack be nimble! Jack be quick! Jack jump over the candlestick!”; “I scream! You scream! We all scream for ice cream!”; “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!”; “No more pencils, no more books, no more teachers’ dirty looks”; “Hip! Hip! Hurrah!”; “Of the people, by the people, for the people”; “Snap, Crackle, Pop,” etc. Indo-European myth is full of threes. In Norse myth there are three wells, three roots, three Norns, three brothers (Odin, Vili, and Ve), three offspring of Loki, etc. The Greeks had three fates, three graces, a three-faced goddess (Hecate), a three-headed wolf (Cerberus), etc. Most of the Indo-European traditions also tell of a battle between a hero and a three headed monster. Suffice it to say that just as the world exhibits the fundamental triplicity I have described, so our minds may be set up in such a way to order even the most trivial things into threefold patterns.

See also my article “The Gifts of Odin and His Brothers” in What is a Rune? And Other Essays (San Francisco: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2015) for a discussion of the fundamental threefold structure of the human spirit.


1. There is some basis for saying that the hypothetical form “mediates” between the categorical and disjunctive. Examine the three forms laid bare:
Categorical Disjunctive Hypothetical (Modus Ponens)
P are Q            P v Q               P > Q
R is P             -P                  P
R is Q             Q                   Q
Note how in the hypothetical form, P and Q are first brought together (as in the categorical argument) through implication (“P implies Q”) then separated (as in the disjunctive argument), but not opposed.

Spanish Lake - Race, Class, and White Flight in Missouri

via YouTube

SPANISH LAKE, the new documentary on white flight, economics, race and class in Missouri is shared by documentary filmmakers Philip Andrew Morton and Matt Smith. In the wake of the Ferguson police shooting and protests, this documentary is particularly relevant to America and the ongoing discussion in the media and society, and the insights we get about the film with the trailer and film clips contribute to an illuminating edition of the world’s only talk show on documentary films . . .