- ~6500 words
- Version 1.0
(I may edit / expand upon / improve this article in future)
2. Social Structure and Sovereignty
— 2.1. Priests, Warriors, Producers
— 2.2. Who actually ruled in Indo-European society?
— 2.3. Slavery, kinship, and population replacement
3. Religion and Mythology
— 3.1. Religion
— 3.2. Mythology
4. Proto-Indo-European Cosmogony
5. The Platonic Tripartite Soul
6. Honor and the Cosmic Order
— 6.1. Cosmic Order
— 6.2. Honor and Fame
— — 6.2.1. Honor
— — 6.2.2. Fame
7. The Nature of the Castes
— 7.1. Natural hierarchy
— 7.2. Caste physiognomy
— — 7.2.1. Anatomy
— — 7.2.2. Personality
— 7.3. Misplaced disdain for Normies
8. The Inversion of the Castes
Appendix 1. The Four Castes of Indo-Aryan Society
— Appx 1.1. The origin of the Fourth Caste
— Appx 1.2. Why did four-caste systems not arise in other Indo-European societies?
Appendix 2. Further Reading
This article was inspired by a short summary of the Trifunctional Hypothesis that I discovered on Twitter. Initially, I copied the thread over word-for-word, but decided to expand it into a full article and include other aspects of Indo-European society that weren’t featured in the original thread. You can find the original thread here (archived here).
If you don’t know what an Indo-European is or if you aren’t familiar with basic concepts, such as the Proto-Indo-European expansion, you should watch the excellent Survive the Jive video below before reading this article, which is an introduction to more advanced concepts.
The Trifunctional Hypothesis, also known as the Tripartite Formula, is the idea that the entire worldview of the pre-Christian Indo-Europeans was once based around a trichotomic (or ‘tripartite’) structure.
A trichotomy is the division of one whole into three separate but interlinked parts. Trichotomies aren’t exclusive to the Indo-Europeans, of course; they form a recurring cultural theme, found in countless societies, throughout all of human history. Perhaps the most renowned trichotomy of all time is the Christian Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
What made the Indo-Europeans unique, however, is that a trichotomic structure permeated every aspect of their societies, appearing consistently in macro and micro elements of mythology, religion, social structure, and culture. This tripartite structure is theorized to have originated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (~4500 BC), the progenitors of all modern European culture and language, and the most significant contributors to the genetic makeup of Northern Europeans.
The Trifunctional Hypothesis was initially proposed in 1929 by the French philologer and mythographer, Georges Dumézil, who is widely viewed as the most eminent scholar of Proto-Indo-European studies to date. Dumézil supported far-right, anti-democratic politics, in addition to collaborating closely with many Nazis, yet his legacy is still held in high regard.
This article aims to provide a simple but holistic introduction to the Trifunctional Hypothesis and the traditional worldview of the Indo-Europeans, in addition to briefly covering the causes of its decline, as well as how this worldview relates to those of the current era (e.g., Liberalism and Marxism).
2. Social Structure and Sovereignty
2.1. Priests, Warriors, Producers
In his 1929 book ‘Flamen-Brahman,’ Dumézil proposed that all Indo-European societies were divided into three classes or castes, representing three social functions: priests, warriors, and producers.
The priest caste had two distinct but complementary aspects: juridical (lawmaking) and sacerdotal (religious). They could be described as priest-kings or priest-jurists. Their specific focus was upholding sacredness and the Cosmic Order (which will be covered in Section 5).
The warrior caste defended society, in addition to performing military functions; waging war, conducting raids, and so on. This caste was strongly associated with prestige, honor, and glory, all of which were integral aspects of the Indo-European worldview. In Indo-European society, war was viewed as a sacred and glorious act — a vague modern-day comparison would be the Islamic concept of ‘Jihad’ (loosely defined as “Holy War”).
This caste included everyone else responsible for keeping the wheels of society turning: herders, farmers, craftsmen, merchants, tradesmen, laborers, artisans, etc. Contrary to modern materialist conceptions of labor and production, the Indo-European producer caste was associated with metaphysical cycles of nature. Among the producers, there was a particular focus on skilled craftsmanship, which is evident in the highly decorative artifacts found throughout ancient Indo-European civilizations globally (see below).
For an example of the tripartite caste system in practice, consider the social structure of the Celts:
I. Druids acted as the priest-jurists.
II. Flaith were the military aristocracy.
III. Bo Airig (literally: “free men owning cattle”) were the producers.
The Indo-Aryan caste system follows the same structure:
I. Brahmins: priests.
II. Kshatriyas: warriors.
III. Vaishyas: producers.
The Irish and the Indo-Aryans were among the most Westerly and most Easterly of ancient Indo-European peoples, respectively. Yet, despite their immense geographic separation, they shared an almost identical caste system.
- Note: Since the Indo-Aryans will feature throughout this article, I’ll clear up a common misconception before continuing: They were originally biologically European, descended from the Proto-Indo-Iranian ‘Andronovo’ people. According to the worlds leading population geneticist, the Indo-Aryan population was 90% European, and 10% very-similar-to-European: “It is likely, based on our analysis, that the population that contributed genetic material to South Asia was (roughly) ~60% Yamnaya, ~30% European farmer-like ancestry, and ~10% Central Steppe hunter-gatherer ancestry.” — David Reich, Harvard geneticist (http://archive.vn/hcTQU).
Evidence indicates that the Indo-Aryans were originally phenotypically similar to modern Northwest Europeans, and genetically similar to modern-day Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. This, of course, changed over time, as they gradually intermixed with native Indian populations. To this day, Northern European phenotypes can occasionally be found among Indo-Iranian minority populations in regions such as Tajikistan and Afghanistan; e.g., the Kalash, Nuristanis, and Pamiris. The Indo-Aryans may have looked similar, but not identical, to the people below.
Apologies for the interlude.
2.2. Who actually ruled in Indo-European society?
This is a complex question that scholars continue to debate to this day. It may seem obvious that the priest-kings would rule, as they can declare holy law and have direct access to the divine. However, in many Indo-European societies, rulers often came from the warrior class, the Kshatriya class in Indo-Aryan society, for example.
In a sense, both warriors and priests can be viewed as part of a singular ruling class, though there was a clear division between roles, and the priestly caste outranked the warriors. The Brahmin (priest class) educated and advised the Kshatriya (warrior class), who often became the de facto rulers. However, the Brahmin could create religious law and override Kshatriya military law. The Brahmins would be kept in check by the Kshatriya’s military power, preventing the priest-kings from becoming too abstract, lofty, and overbearing.
2.3. Slavery, kinship, and population replacement
It should be noted that while all Indo-European societies featured slavery, there was a clear distinction between freemen and slaves, whereby slaves existed outside of or beneath the caste hierarchy. The Proto-Indo-European in-group designation ‘Heryos,’ translating to “kinsmen” — from which the Indo-Iranian ‘Aryan‘ (Aryo-/Arya-) is derived — specifically referred to free men and excluded slaves.
Cognates of Heryos often translate to “noble,” as in nobility or lordship. This is likely due to the manner in which many Indo-European societies were established: An invasive band of Indo-European warriors would conquer an existing society, depose its nobility, and impose their culture and beliefs from above. Genetic evidence indicates that instances of Indo-Europeans wiping out and replacing entire populations appear to have been largely restricted to a few cases in Northern Europe and Central Asia (around Kazakhstan); elsewhere, they merely replaced the existing elites.
3. Religion and Mythology
The trifunctional formula is codified in the mythology and religion of the entire Indo-European world. Although there are localized variations among each strain of Indo-European culture (Slavic, Germanic, Greco-Roman, etc.), these should be regarded as regional evolutions of the foundational Proto-Indo-European mythos and religion.
With regard to religion, each caste in Indo-European society corresponded to a particular deity. For example, in Indo-Aryan society…
I. Brahmins (Priests) to Varuna (religious) and Mitra (juridical)
II. Kshatriyas (Warriors) to Indra
III. Vaishyas (Producers) to Aśvins
In Germanic society, Odin embodies the ‘religious’ while Tyr embodies the ‘juridical.’ Similarly to Varuna, Odin is a sort of high priest-magus, while Tyr, similarly to Mitra, is the embodiment of ‘contract’ and justice. Thor, a warrior/thunder god, corresponds to Indra, while Yngvi and Freya correspond to Aśvins and the producer caste.
The chart below contains all of Dumézil’s pantheon/caste comparisons. It should be noted that Indo-European gods have complex personalities and are not simply “God of Thing” (e.g., Agni is not simply “God of Fire,” and Thor is not simply “God of Thunder”).
Trifunctionality features as a recurring theme throughout all Indo-European mythology. Consider the Irish, Greek, and Scythian myths listed below…
According to Herodotus, the Scythian origin myth was as follows:
The Scythians’ legend about themselves, which portrays the first Scythian king, Targitaus, as the child of the sky-god and of a daughter of the Dnieper. Targitaus allegedly lived a thousand years before the failed Persian invasion of Scythia, or around 1500 BC. He had three sons, before whom fell from the sky a set of four golden implements – a plough, a yoke, a cup, and a battle-axe. Only the youngest son succeeded in touching the golden implements without them bursting with fire, and this son’s descendants, called by Herodotus the “Royal Scythians”, continued to guard them.
Dumézil noted that the four items handed down by the Scythian Skyfather* had a clear correspondence with the three castes of society:
I. Chalice to the priests (representing religious ritual).
II. Battle-axe to the warriors.
III. Yoke and plow to the producers.
* The Scythian’s Skyfather was known as ‘Papaios,’ cognate with Roman ‘Jupiter,’ Greek ‘Zeus Patēr,’ Palaic/Anatolian ‘Tiyaz papaz,’ etc., stemming from the original Proto-Indo-European ‘Dyḗus Ph₂tḗr.‘
- Note: Multiple ancient historians, hailing from Rome to China, noted that almost the entire Scythian population was blond/red-haired and blue/green-eyed [source]. This is supported by modern genetic evidence.
The Irish myths of the Tuatha Dé Danann (or Tuath Dé, lit: “tribe of the gods”) also feature Four Great Treasures, which were brought to the Irish by the Tribe of the Gods. Again, these have a clear correspondence to the three functions:
I. The Stone of Destiny, used in ritual coronations, representing the priestly caste.
II. The Invisible Sword of Lugh of Long Arm and a magic spear, both representing the warrior caste.
III. The Cauldron of Dagda, a horn of plenty, representing the producer caste.
In The Judgement of Paris, a Greek myth featured in the Iliad, a trinity of goddesses are judged according to their beauty by a Trojan mortal.
I. Hera, the wife of Zeus (representing a sacred, divine hierarchy).
II. Athena, a goddess of warfare.
III. Aphrodite, a goddess of passion and procreation.
Each goddess attempted to charm the mortal man, Paris, with a gift: Hera offered him kingship over the entirety of Eurasia, Athena offered wisdom and skill in war, while Aphrodite offered him the world’s most beautiful woman: Helen of Sparta. Paris chose option number three, and thus began the Trojan War, as Helen was already married to Menelaus, the King of Sparta — a fact that Aphrodite had neglected to divulge.
We find a more subtle expression of trifunctionality in the mythology surrounding the Greek hero Hercules (also known as Hēraklês). Throughout Hercules’ life, he commits three great sins, violating the Cosmic Order by way of transgressing the three functions of society.
Firstly, Hercules doubted the gods when he considered disobeying their order to serve King Eurystheus. Although Eurystheus was Hercules’ social superior, Hercules believed that because Eurystheus was inferior to himself as a man, he was unworthy of Hercules’ servitude. Thus, Hercules violated the laws of sovereignty and divinity.
Secondly, Hercules betrayed and murdered Iphitus of Oechalia in a cowardly manner, while Iphitus was helping to defend Hercules’ honor by clearing his name of a crime that Iphitus (mistakenly) believed that Hercules did not commit. Thus, Hercules violated the morality of warfare and the warriors’ code of honor.
Thirdly, by attempting to marry Iole of Oechalia before first divorcing his wife Deianira, Hercules violated the protocols of courtship and fertility.
- Note: Morality with regards to violence in ancient European society was completely unlike that of modern civilization. Rather than being seen as a universal evil, violence was accepted as a fact of life. A killing was deemed as disreputable if it was carried out in a dishonorable manner, if the killer did not admit to their killing, or if the killer fled or otherwise refused to face the consequences of their actions (i.e. revenge duels). A man who had violence done to him but refused to retaliate in kind was seen as far more of a dishonorable character than the man who carried out the initial act of violence. In most instances, the man who refused to retaliate would not be seen as a man at all.
Although the small selection of myths listed above barely scratches the surface of Indo-European mythology as a whole, they demonstrate clear thematic consistencies that can be found in all Indo-European cultures around the world.
4. Proto-Indo-European Cosmogony
Perhaps the most important myth of all is the Proto-Indo-European creation myth, which forms the basis of all subsequent Indo-European creation myths.
The myth features three main human characters, Manu (“Man”), Yemo (“Twin”), and Trito (“Third”). It goes as follows:
At the beginning of time, two brothers traveled the cosmos accompanied by the primordial cow. To create the world, the first brother, Manu, with the assistance of the heavenly deities, sacrifices his giant twin, Yemo, as well as the primordial cow. From the bodies of Yemo and the primordial cow, Manu forges both humanity and the material world. The priestly caste is borne of Yemo’s head, the warrior caste of his chest and arms, and the producers of his sexual organs and legs, while the plants and animals are borne of the primordial cow.
To Trito, the third man, the gods offer the divine gift of cattle. However, this gift is stolen from Trito by Ngwhi, the three-headed serpent. Trito battles Ngwhi for the cattle, initially suffering heavily at the hands of the beast, though he eventually defeats it while fortified by an intoxicating drink and assisted by the god Perkwunos. Trito returns the cattle to a priest to be correctly sacrificed, cementing in place the cycle of mutual giving between gods and mortals.
Manu established the order of the world and performed the first sacrifice. Thus, he became the first priest. As all of humanity was borne of Yemo, and because he was the first mortal to die in the primordial state, he was granted kingship over the Otherworld — the realm of the dead. Thus, he became the first king. Trito heroically defeated the serpent, defended the cattle, and ensured the security of the relationship between man and god. Thus, he became the first warrior. Finally, the producer caste was represented by the cattle gifted to the warrior.
- Note: Interestingly, aspects of the Indo-European Otherworld myth — such as the guardian dog that guides men who wander into the Otherworld and prevents the dead from leaving — are likely derived from an even older source: the Ancient North Eurasians (~24,000 BC). Similar myths are found among Siberian and Native American cultures, both of which have considerable amounts of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, as did the Proto-Indo-Europeans [source].
5. The Platonic Tripartite Soul
Trifunctionality is also represented in Indo-European conceptions of the soul, perhaps the most famous of which is the ‘Platonic Tripartite Soul.’ This conception is similar to the Christian trichotomic body/soul/spirit distinction. However, Plato divided the soul itself into three hierarchical elements.
I. The Logistikon or ‘Reason’
– Logic, the highest element of the soul.
– Drives an individual to seek truth and wisdom.
– Represented by the Head.
II. The Thumetikon or ‘Spirit’
– Emotion, the central element of the soul.
– Drives an individual to seek honor, glory, and victory.
– Represented by the Heart.
III. The Epithumetikon or ‘Appetite’
– Lust, the lowest element of the soul.
– Drives an individual to seek physical and material satisfaction.
– Represented by the Stomach/Genitalia.
Plato related the three aspects of the soul to the three social castes:
– Priests to Logistikon.
– Warriors to Thumetikon.
– Producers to Epithumetikon.
Though Plato regarded the Logistikon to be the highest element of the soul, he stated that the soul can only be regarded as harmonic when the Logistikon and Thumetikon align to collaboratively resist the lust of the Epithumetikon, allowing an individual to eschew profane earthly desires and instead strive for transcendental goals. This is a clear reflection of the symbiotic leadership of the priest and warrior castes.
6. Honor and the Cosmic Order
In addition to reflecting social castes, Plato’s Logistikon and Thumetikon represent two concepts that are central to the Indo-European worldview: Cosmic Order and honor.
6.1. Cosmic Order
The ancient Greek Logistikon (‘reason’) is unrelated to modern understandings of “reason” that are based on the “rationalism” and atheistic scientism of The Age of (so-called) Enlightenment. It is derived from the ancient Greek concept of ‘Logos,’ which, in turn, is derived from the wider Indo-European metaphysical concept of ‘Cosmic Order’ or ‘Universal Truth (or Law).’ This concept is one of the most accurately reconstructed of all Proto-Indo-European metaphysical and philosophical beliefs. We find it expressed in both Western and Eastern Indo-European cultures: conceptually via the Indo-Aryan ‘Ṛta’ (“order, truth”), Iranian-Avestan ‘Aṣ̌a/Arta’ (“order, truth, righteousness”), Proto-Indo-Iranian ‘Hr̥tás’ (“truth”), and Anglo-Saxon ‘Wyrd’ (“fate, destiny”); via ‘personified’ means, in the Roman goddess ‘Veritas’ (“truth”), and the Old Norse ‘Norn’ [female deity] named ‘Urðr’ (“fate”). All of the above stems from the Proto-Indo-European ‘H₂r̥tós’ or ‘H₂értus’ (“properly joined, right, true”).
The Indo-Aryan Vedic texts — the oldest of which, the Ṛgveda, was written around 1500 BC (but dates much earlier as oral tradition) — contain some of the best-preserved explanations of the Indo-European Cosmic Order (‘Ṛta’). Though there is no clear-cut or limited definition, I’ll attempt to summarize this concept in layman’s terms as best I can.
Ṛta is downstream of ‘Satya’ (“truth, essence”), the constant, motionless, Universal Truth or reality. Satya is etymologically derived from ‘Sat,’ meaning “the true essence” and “that which is unchangeable.” While Satya is ‘motionless eternal truth,’ Ṛta — which is etymologically derived from ‘Ṛ,’ roughly meaning “to go forth in a natural manner” — is Cosmic Order in motion, within Satya. The opposites of Ṛta and Satya are ‘Anṛta‘ (“when falsehood is tolerated”) and ‘Asatya‘ (“untruth,” “false”).
- Satya: Universal Truth (constant, motionless)
- Ṛta: Cosmic Order (in motion)
- Asatya: untruth, falsehood
- Anṛta: tolerance of falsehood
Ṛta is the way of the Universe as a living organism, the harmony between nature, god, and man; the way that things are, and the way that things must be; the inalienable governing principles of the Universe itself.
It’s important to emphasize that while the Indo-Europeans viewed the universe as an ordered hierarchy, in which everything has its place, that doesn’t mean that “anything goes” or that what comes to be must simply be. All Indo-European cultures were extremely strict with regards to upholding behavior that is in line with the Cosmic Order — more in this in the following section.
The Greek ‘Logos’ was later adopted by Christians and, although they translated Logos to ‘Word,’ it is obvious that the Christian Logos is similar to the Indo-European concept of Universal Truth, with Christ himself being seen as Logos incarnate: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
6.2. Honor and Fame
Thumetikon (‘Spirit’) reflects the second-most important Indo-European concept: Honor. Similarly to the Indo-European conception of morality with regards to killing, their conception of Honor was quite different from that which exists in the modern world. ‘Honor’ and ‘shame’ formed the basis of the moral axis of ancient Indo-European society, rather than ‘virtue’ and ‘sin’ — which, as a moral framework, has been absorbed and bastardized by modern atheistic globalists (e.g., the ‘Original Sin’ of being White, male, and so on). The ancient Indo-European concept of honor is nuanced and difficult to summarize succinctly. Indo-European societies often had multiple conceptions of honor; a few examples from Old Norse society include:
- Sœmð: Reputational honor or “seemly” behavior.
- Orðstírr (orðs-tírr): ‘Words-honor,’ fame, glory, renown.
- Drengskapr: Nobility, courage, bravery, integrity, [being a Drengr].
The Indo-European conception of honor can, essentially, be divided into two related but distinct concepts: Honor and Fame.
A man’s honor was largely reliant upon the degree to which he fulfilled his societal role. A hunter who provides well for the tribe, a farmer who labors the hardest, a warrior who fights the most bravely, and a priest who is the most devout, would all be regarded as honorable men. A warrior may have a higher social status than a farmer, but a cowardly warrior who refuses to kill would always be regarded as less honorable than a hardworking and successful farmer.
The related Indo-Aryan concept of ‘Dharma’ — which, in simple terms, translates to “behavior that is in accordance with Ṛta” — is similar (but by no means identical) to Western Indo-European conceptions of honor. The Bhagavad Gita (‘Song of God’), part of the Indo-Aryan Sanskrit epic The Mahabharata, set on the verge of a colossal battle in a war between two families of cousins, documents a dialogue between Lord Krishna, an Avatar* of the god Vishnu, and Prince Arjuna, the main protagonist. Arjuna despairs at the idea of going to war against his own kin, knowing how much death and destruction it will lead to. The opposing army is filled with his blood relatives, beloved friends, and revered wisemen. Arjuna, brokenhearted, refuses to fight. Krishna, counsels Arjuna on the nature of life, ethics, morality, and responsibility, advising him to fulfill his duty as a warrior and uphold Dharma through selfless action. “And even considering your personal dharma as well, it is not right for you to hesitate. There is nothing better for a warrior than a fight based on dharma.” (Bhagavad Gita 2.31)
* A worldly incarnation adopted to preserve Dharma whenever the world is threatened by the destructive forces of evil and chaos.
The Proto-Indo-European conception of fame, from which all other Indo-European views on fame are derived, was greatly influenced by their metaphysical beliefs, particularly their views on death and the afterlife.
On this matter, Indo-European scholar Bruce Lincoln writes:
In a universe where impersonal matter endured forever but the personal self was extinguished at death, the most which could survive of that self was a rumor, a reputation. For this, the person craving immortality—a condition proper only to the gods and antithetical to human existence—was totally reliant on poets and poetry.
As such, the Proto-Indo-European term for fame, ‘Ḱléwos,’ was derived from ‘Ḱléw,’ meaning “to hear.” They believed that a man could only hope to live beyond death by achieving ‘ḱlewos ndʰgʷʰitom‘ or “the fame that does not decay.” Subsequent Indo-European conceptions of fame continued this theme. See, for example, the Old Norse Orðstírr (“words honor”), or the ancient Greek ‘Kλέος‘ (‘Kleos’), which is derived from the ancient Greek “to hear” and roughly translates to “what others hear about you.”
Although this concept of fame was prominent in all Indo-European societies, it was perhaps best documented by the ancient Greeks, via their Homeric epics, particularly the Iliad, which provides the most straightforward explanation of Kleos. A man attains Kleos by accomplishing great and heroic deeds, primarily in warfare, that are worthy of being immortalized via myth, song, and poetry. The hero Achilles must choose between a short and glorious life or a long yet insignificant life. Ultimately he chooses to die in battle, a short life that would reward him with undying Kleos.
The overall plot of the Iliad is remarkably similar to the Mahabharata. There are many thematic similarities throughout both epics, for example, Odysseus convincing a reluctant Achilles to do his duty as a warrior mirrors Krishna’s counseling of Arjuna.
“Cattle die and kinsmen die, thyself too must die, but one thing never will die: the fame [orðstírr, words honor] of a dead man’s deeds.”Norse Hávamál (800 – 1300 AD)
7. The Nature of the Castes
- Note: The following few sections are filled with generalizations. Exceptions to these generalizations exist, but the fact that we can identify them as exceptions merely proves the validity of these generalizations.
7.1. Natural hierarchy
Most people naturally fall into one caste. Natural scholars/priests, natural warriors, natural producers and businessmen.
The vast majority of people belong to the third caste, which is one of the reasons why Plato opposed democracy. People of the third caste (merchants, producers, laborers, etc.) are what we may refer to as “Normies.”
As with many stratified things, we can observe an approximate 20/80 split in the castes of society, whereby 80% of society are “Normies” (third caste) and 20% of society are not-Normies (first and second caste). This 20/80 split is also known as the Pareto principle.
7.2. Caste physiognomy
- Note: The term ‘Physiognomy’ is derived from the Greek words ‘physis’ (“nature”) and ‘gnomon’ (“judge” or “interpreter”). In the most literal sense, physiognomy is the science of judging a book by its cover; interpreting things such as an individual’s behavioral or psychological traits based on their appearance alone. Physiognomy is universally decried as a “pseudoscience” by modern “academics” (read: Leftist ideologues). No prizes for guessing why.
An individual’s social caste is often reflected in both their physical appearance as well as their personality type.
I. Brahmins: Ectomorph, little body fat, little muscularity, thin, not wide.
II. Kshatriyas: Mesomorph, broad shoulder, narrow waist, naturally well proportioned.
III. Vaishyas: Endomorph, naturally a bit fat and round, oval shape.
I. Brahmins: Tend toward introversion. Like to think and analyze. Tend to be abstract, rational, but also often spiritual and mystical as well. The archetypal Brahmin would be a priest or professor.
II. Kshatriyas: Tend towards extroversion. Action-oriented, strive for victory and glory. Tend to be naturally great leaders, but will also make the most fanatical followers of whomever they deem worthy.
III. Vaishyas: Love physical comforts. Overvalue eating, sleeping, and sex. High time preference. Softness of body and mind. Often struggle to make a firm judgment. Focused on sensual satisfaction, production, consumption.
You may have noticed that women (and men, to an extent) tend to naturally be attracted to Mesomorphs (Kshatriya) and Ectomorphs (Brahmin). They subconsciously recognize that these builds represent the higher castes. While these two castes are naturally attractive to the opposite sex, the dating strategies of Endomorphs (Vaishyas), who are less naturally attractive, often involve techniques such as the accumulation of wealth and resources or having a lovable, clownish personality.
7.3. Misplaced disdain for Normies
Although it is completely understandable that one would resent the masses of a society as putrid as ours, this disdain is mostly misplaced. By “masses” I refer to the depoliticized Normies, not the rabid leftists who would gladly see everyone politically to the right of Karl Marx lined up against a wall and shot. Although many on the Right-Wing understand that racial and ethnic groups possess innate characteristics, the fact that castes within societies also possess innate characteristics is rarely accepted or even acknowledged.
The “normie” caste are the “NPCs” of society, largely unconcerned with matters of religion, war, and politics. They are happy to “go with the flow,” as long as society remains comfortable and there are no major disruptions to their material conditions (i.e., as long as they are not being starved, violently invaded, or brutalized by unjust leadership). There’s nothing inherently wrong with their nature; imagine a society that was entirely populated by free-thinking Warrior-Priest hybrids — it would be completely dysfunctional and collapse into chaos within the blink of an eye. A society requires leaders and followers just as the passengers of a car cannot share the task of driving.
Rather than hating White Normies for following their naturally ingrained behaviors and doing what society expects and demands of them, you should instead hate the depraved bourgeois pseudo-elites who occupy our societies and weaponize the Normies herd-like nature for their own perverse, globalist ends. Society simply couldn’t function without Normies. Every caste has its place in the natural order of things, the problems arise when this order is disrupted.
8. The Inversion of the Castes
At this point, you may be thinking to yourself “What happened to the castes? Why are we currently ruled by obese, money-hungry criminals whose only interests are oil stocks, usury, and raping children?” In brief, the French Revolution happened.
A tripartite social order continued to exist in Europe even after the process of Christianization, which took place between ~350 AD (Rome) to ~1400 AD (Baltic states). Christian societies were divided into Oratores (“those who pray”), Bellatores (“those who fight”), and Laboratores (“those who work”). More or less identical to the Indo-European caste system.
The most renowned estate system is the French “Old Regime” that existed until the French Revolution (1789-99). It consisted of the First Estate (clergy), Second Estate (nobility), and the Third Estate (bourgeoisie or merchants, aka ‘burghers,’ and peasants). In many European countries, the First Estate consisted of both nobility and clergy, while the Second Estate consisted of knights. It should be noted that peasants and bourgeoisie were mostly regarded as belonging to the same estate, mirroring the “producer” caste of pre-Christian Europe.
So, where did it all go wrong?
Long story short: Liberalism and The Age of Enlightenment.
The British Glorious Revolution (1688), The American Revolution (1776), and The French Revolution (1789) led to the end of absolute monarchism, the widespread implementation of democracy and republicanism, and the enshrinement of Liberal values; “Human Rights,” individualism, equality, tolerance, secularism, and rationalism (humanism, materialism). With these revolutions, the Third Estate — that of the bourgeoisie and the peasants, the producer caste — came to reign supreme. As Liberalism weaponized the bourgeoisie against the priestly, warrior, and aristocratic castes, Marxism and Bolshevism in turn weaponized the peasantry (“proletariat”) against the bourgeoisie. For at least the last 300 years, the West has endured a near-constant revolt of the lowest elements of society against the highest, in an ever-regressing race to the bottom of the barrel.
The highest positions of power are now occupied by those whose nature has, throughout all of history, placed them firmly on the lowest rungs of society. Grifters, merchants, businessmen — those with no focus on transcendence or honor — have created a society in their image. The result of this inversion of the castes is the world you see around us today, a perfect reflection of the lowest, most profane values of the Third Estate: consumption, production, materialism, base pleasures, and carnal desires.
When it comes to attaining social status in a society dominated by money-grubbers, the ability to money-grub surpasses all other characteristics. An individual can be the most dishonorable, immoral, physically repulsive, and spiritually destitute man in existence, but as long as he can ruthlessly acquire capital, he will soon find himself elevated to the status of an “aristocrat.” And, of course, true to the quintessential nature of the modern world, the bourgeois pseudo-elite that controls our societies consists exclusively of the most depraved and wretched characters imaginable.
The Post-French-Revolution “caste system” of the modern world explicitly favors those who represent the precise antithesis to the Indo-European ideal.
[They] dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = favored-of-the-gods, and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that “only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!On The Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche (1887)
This form of degenerate civilization is in direct opposition to the Cosmic Order, rendering it wholly unsustainable. In Platonic terms, our civilizational Logistikon and Thumetikon (Logos and Spirit) are being completely overwhelmed by the Epithumetikon (Lust), leading to an imbalanced, inharmonious, and fundamentally corrupt society.
Although the quote below specifically addresses Capitalism and Marxism, its overarching message on the necessity to transcend materialism has consistently become more and more relevant as we progress further and further into the modern world:
Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, “productivity,” and “consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential…Julius Evola, ‘Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist’ (1953)
In my opinion, the two most important things to take from this article are:
- That the Indo-European worldview is highly cohesive, with every aspect of life and society being interwoven and interdependent, from myth to folk tale, to social strata, to cosmogony, to pantheons, and so on.
- That “newer” does not equate to “better,” and that European history of the past few hundred years has not been a progression towards a superior, “evolved” position, but a regression away from timeless ideals.
The perennial wisdom of the Indo-European worldview is completely alien to the modern man and has been all but lost in the all-subsuming tidal wave of “progressivism.” The default views of our era are almost a complete inversion of those of the Indo-Europeans. From something as basic as acknowledging the validity of physiognomy, “beautiful = good = strong = moral,” to our understanding of the Universe itself; traditional Cosmic Order and Universal Truth versus modern “Relativity,” whereby the fabric of reality itself has been called into question and actively dismantled.
This subject is vast and this article barely scratches the surface but, hopefully, it should suffice as a basic introduction to the traditional views of the Indo-European people. I hope that you at least discovered a few aspects of European history that you’d like to investigate further. Check Appendix 2 for some recommended reading materials.
Appendix 1. The Four Castes of Indo-Aryan Society
Appx 1.1. The origin of the Fourth Caste
Although it has been used as an example of the Trifunctional Hypothesis throughout this article, you may be aware that Indo-Aryan society was divided into four castes, rather than the standard three castes found in all other Indo-European societies.
To uncover the mystery behind the fourth caste, one simply has to look into the Indo-Aryans’ language and literature. In their oldest religious texts, the Vedas, the word ‘krsna tvac’ or “black skin” is used as a synonym for the native Indian ‘non-believers’ (or non-Aryans). Furthermore, the Indo-Aryan word for “caste” (‘Varṇa’) literally translates to “color” (or “outward appearance, exterior, form, figure, shape”).
The most likely explanation for the existence of the fourth caste is that it was established after the Indo-Aryan invasion, to distinguish and separate their ethnic group from the natives who they had conquered, as chronicled by the Ṛgveda (1700-1100 BC). The first three castes consisted of ethnic Aryans, while the fourth caste, Shudras, consisted of non-Aryan ethnic native Indians, who took the roles of peasants, servants, and slaves. Remember: the term “Aryan” is derived from the Proto-Indo-European ‘Heryos,’ which was a kinship/in-group designation.
More evidence to support this theory can be found in the later Manusmṛiti, or ‘Laws of Manu‘ (1250 to 200 BC), which contains various harshly-worded laws explicitly forbidding Aryans from interbreeding with anyone belonging to the non-Aryan castes, Shudras and Chandalas (‘Untouchables’). The laws even include a calculation for how many generations it would take for a racially mixed individual to be “re-bred” into Indo-Aryan stock (eight generations, according to Manusmṛiti 10:64-72).
“An Aryan who climbs into bed with a non-Aryan goes to hell; if he begets a son in her, he loses the status of Aryan. No redemption is prescribed for a man who drinks the saliva from the lips of a non-Aryan woman or is tainted by her birth or begets her son.”Manusmṛiti (3:15-19)
“A man born of confusion of wombs, even if he comes from a leading family, will inherit that [confused] character.”Manusmṛiti (10:57-61)
“If someone born from an Aryan [man] in a non-Aryan woman produces a child with someone of the higher [Aryan] caste, the lower caste reaches the status of birth of the higher caste after the seventh-generation […] Seed sown in the wrong field perishes right inside it.”Manusmṛiti (10:64-72)
A comparative situation would be the South African Dutch implementing Apartheid and anti-miscegenation laws to stop horny Boer men from interbreeding with native South Africans.
This theory is strongly supported by recent genetic studies.
As covered earlier, the Aryans that invaded India were originally biologically Eastern European. Below is a principal component analysis featuring the Indo-Iranian ‘Andronovo’ population, from which the Indo-Aryans split. (See also: the ‘Physical Anthropology’ section of this Wiki article).
Even a precursory glance at the races of India clearly demonstrates that Northwestern Indians have more European DNA than others. See below images displaying Northwest Indians, Central Indians, and South Indians.
“[Genetic] affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. […] the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes.” — Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations, Bamshad et al. (http://archive.vn/Iny0h).
Though the above theory had fallen out of favor after the end of the Second World War, largely due to anti-colonialist narratives and political correctness (Cultural/Western Marxism), it is by far the most rational explanation. Thanks to modern archaeogenetics, this theory is once again accepted in the West, though it is still largely unfavorable in India, particularly among Indian nationalists — for obvious reasons.
Appx 1.2. Why did four-caste systems not arise in other Indo-European societies?
With regards to Europe, the answer to that question is pretty simple: The Early European Farmers who were invaded by the Proto-Indo-Europeans were far more similar to the Proto-Indo-Europeans than the native Indians were to the Indo-Aryans. No European society ever implemented laws that forebode Indo-European men from intermarrying with Early European Farmer women.
Some historians have theorized that pre-Islamic Iran may have been divided into four castes — Priests (‘Asravan’), Warriors (‘Arteshtaran’), Secretaries (‘Dabiran’), and Commoners (‘Vastryoshan’). The Iranian Avesta (1200-600 BC) lists three main castes — Priests (‘Āθrauuan’), Warriors (‘Raθaēštar,’ lit. “standing in a chariot”), and Cattle Breeders (‘Vāstriia-fšuiiant’) — and mentions an additional caste in one passage, Artisans (‘Huitiš’). Information on Iranian castes is somewhat ambiguous, and some historians have even proposed a two caste system, though this seems unlikely.
Appendix 2. Further Reading
A handful of books that cover topics related to this article and more.
In chronological order:
- The Crisis of the Modern World, René Guénon (1927)
- Revolt Against The Modern World, Julius Evola (1934)
- Mythology, Edith Hamilton (1942)
- Oxford Intro to the Proto-Indo-European World, J. P. Mallory and Douglas Adams (2006)
- Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia, Christopher Beckwith (2009)
- Summoning the Gods, Collin Cleary (2011)