4,726 words

Part 1

While certain rights are touted as “inalienable” and “self-evident” in the American mythology, “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident” offers a much more critical examination of the concept and tradition of human rights in the Anglo-American tradition and by extension the expansive reach of the American Empire. Piercing through all the rhetoric and sentimentality reveals these notions to be a hollow construct indeed, from both a normative and practical perspective. Dispelling these myths in this way further reveals that rejecting conventional wisdom on these “universal,” “inalienable” rights will almost certainly be necessary for Europe and the West to prevail over the many troubles presented. A cursory glance at human history reveals that the most transformative, consequential social movements in history rarely ever acknowledged or respected these rights in practice or even in rhetoric, just as momentous change in a society can rarely be affected while respecting these so-called human rights. [1]

Despite all insistence to the contrary, the notion of human rights as something either “inalienable,” “universal,” or “self-evident” seems preposterous at any close examination. The theory is that these rights are derived from what man is intrinsically. Problems arise because these thinkers never truly ascertain human nature for what it actually is. By unveiling and observing man’s true nature at long last, one discerns that man is first and foremost tribalistic in nature. As a people [2] (Volk) are defined by common race, ancestry, blood, language, religion [3], and history, these elements that bind individuals together in a collective polity are vital for both the individual and the civilization to which he belongs. These ties are necessary for the individual because of the sense of belonging that arises from these ties of kinship, as it is these very ties to those he lives amongst and with that form a sense of community. These ties fortify civilization through the strength and resilience that comes from a cohesive society unified by common blood, ancestry, history, and language. This treatise submits that such considerations, being far more inherent to the nature of man than what Locke and his intellectual progeny imagine to be human rights, are much more deserving of the status of “inalienable rights”[4] than life, liberty, or property. On that basis, this treatise declares that it is just as valid—nay, it is far more valid— to submit the following, first principles of blood, race, and soil as human rights above all others, as properties that actually are inherent to man, as opposed to those rights imagined or invented by John Locke or The Enlightenment and its intellectual progeny. Above all, race, blood, and soil are the first rights of European men and woman before all others:

First: a people’s eternal right and irrevocable duty and obligation to enjoy, propagate, preserve and protect the people’s culture, identity, and posterity as embodied in race, lineage, and phenotype.

Second: the social-contract envisioned by John Locke and others requires a high trust society which can only be achieved through a society bound together by common race, lineage, blood, language, and even history. [5] Because these binding agents are necessary conditions for a cohesive, high trust society, these conditions are inherent to the true, actual nature of the man and man’s nature for community and belonging, far more so than what Locke and others imagine in regard to Life, Liberty, or Property. This fundamental concept is signified by the German word Volksgemeinschaft. [6] It is also negatively derided and disparaged by the left as many things, including “white privilege,” a concept that is properly regarded as wholly unexceptional in other civilizations not subject to such ethno-masochism. Does anyone question or complain of how the Japanese enjoy “Japanese privilege” in homogenous Japan?

Before setting forth the reasons and postulations supporting the recognition of these rights of race, blood, and soil as inherent, a very brief synopsis “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident” is in order. Some of the considerations invalidating the concept of “inalienable” “human” rights can be summarized as follows.

Circular reasoning

Locke and those in his intellectual progeny just declare that these rights are “inherent” and God-given because he perceives them as universally desired or somehow inherent to man. A survey of the history of humanity shows they are not universally desired, either by civilizations or the individuals that comprise them. Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “self-evident” is one of the most celebrated and recognized in the English language, but it really should not be so persuasive or so celebrated. Some things are self-evident, e.g. the deranged lunacy of transgenderism, but one can set forth in quick succession the reasons demonstrating this is so, such as sex is immutable, humans are a sexually dimorphic species and therefore men and women under this delusion are usually glaringly apparent in the fraud they perpetrate by attempting to transition genders, that the so-called “gender affirming” procedures are fraught with horrible complications and are tantamount to genital and bodily mutilation and sterilization, this among so many other things. Jefferson never articulates what makes the existence of these rights so “self-evident,” a defect which should render such rhetoric far less persuasive than it has been.

The fiction of “human rights” is peculiar to our Western tradition as human rights are not universal

A brief survey of different civilizations in the world and human history reveals these novel ideas are not shared by other cultural traditions, or even most of them. See for example the traditions and history of Russian, Japanese, or Chinese civilizations, or ancient Rome, the ancient Assyrians (who wrote with great glee about all the unspeakably cruel, sadistic things they did to the condemned), or most civilizations throughout history.

The fiction of “human rights” is not even seriously regarded or adhered to in our own Anglo-American tradition 

This was seen most recently in the tyranny associated with January 6, which was nothing other than citizens rightly petitioning their government for redress of legitimate grievances regarding certain and widespread voter fraud that stole the 2020 presidential election. A petition for redress of legitimate grievances, albeit in a somewhat rowdy, boisterous manner. One must consider, as well as the flagrant violation of supposed human rights in regards to the greatest overreaction in the history of overreactions, the ridiculous response to COVID-19 in most Western nations. Worst of all are the hate speech laws in Europe and Great Britain. These laws have placed countless right-thinking persons in jail or caused them to suffer other legal sanctions, including Sam Melia, husband of Laura Towler, who was sent to prison simply for distributing stickers the hostile elite did not like. He was denied visitation from his own children for equally spurious reasons. To say nothing of Britain’s strong tradition in freedom of speech and limitations of absolute power, this is of course in direct contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as Article 19 reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media[…]

The wanton, flagrant violation of such rights observed in Great Britain has culminated with the race riots this summer, as her government is brutalizing actual Britons for rightly protesting and even rioting against their own replacement by people who have no right to set foot on British or European soil.

There are many other examples in our history. Abraham Lincoln brutalized and even killed citizens in Maryland and elsewhere for simply exercising their “First Amendment rights” by either espousing views favoring succession, simply sympathizing with the Confederacy, or even discussing whether states do have the right to secede from a union they agreed to join. Such outrages of more recent vintage include the sedition laws promulgated by Woodrow Wilson, which imposed criminal sanctions on citizens simply for (rightly) expressing opposition to this country’s entry in World War I. This was of course upheld in Schenck vs United States—a terrible decision that was only overturned some fifty years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio. [7]

On the basis of this very brief summary of some of the reasons and rationales set forth in “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident” that discredit received wisdom about supposedly “inalienable” rights, a proper set of rights can be discerned in their place. Locke and others assert that these “rights” are inherent to man because he sees them in human nature, as something inherent in man. As stated, a cursory overview of human nature and history shows this not to be true, that unspeakable brutality has been a hallmark of civilization. In many ways, humanity not only wants to tread on these rights but wants them to be tread on for a variety of reasons.

A much stronger case can be made that the desire and need for effective homogeneity [8] is much more universal to and inherent in human nature and the history of mankind. This truth—this most important principal that mealy-mouthed conservatives who blather on about principles hardly ever speak of—is first exemplified in the parable of the Tower of the Babel, as it is demonstrated time and again through the annals of history. Nations as envisaged by Fichte, Heidegger, and others are founded on common history, race, blood, language, religion (or religious history or culture). This is what allowed Germany to free herself from centuries of fragmentation and alien incursions through Unification in 1871, paving for the way for what ought to have been one of the great civilizations of the Occident, but for the disastrous Brother’s War in 1914 and subsequent events—events properly attributed to other matters besides German nationalism. This deep, fundamental truth, a first principal, actually—is further embodied in the 1790 Immigration Act, a document which predates the Bill of Rights and, as a cosmic tragedy of fate, was regrettably left out of the Bill Rights, but almost certainly would have been included in some way if these men could see in the future (of course they might very well rethink the very concept of democracy altogether, even as an indirect democracy by way of a democratic republic, and would be right to do so).

Far more fundamental to the nature of man—and by Locke’s logic is thus discerned as inherent to man and therefore a “god given” right—is how race and blood are defining features of a people’s culture and identity. For these and other reasons, race and blood, as well as common history and language are central, indispensable cohesive elements that bind a people together as a nation and civilization. If ever there were a truth to be held “as self-evident,” this would be it. Race and blood as culture and identity is demonstrated any time one thinks of any great culture, not just in the Occident but throughout the world.

One discerns this self-evident truth by simply beholding a lovely, buxom, blonde Brunhilde-type beer maid at a Volksfest or Gastwirtschaft, or for that matter the German phenotypes of German soldiers and officers (or the female auxiliaries or other women of the Third Reich) in war time footage as well as Hollywood movies or of World War II documentaries of equally dubious veracity. [9]

Other examples that are far less sensitive to the neuroses of the modern German consciousness range from the Opera of Richard Wagner to German art from Albrech Dürer to Lucas Cranach the Elder and beyond, to any decent, faithful production of Goethe’s Faust. The same applies to the character Werther himself, an overly dramatic blonde poet destroyed by his obsessive longing for Charlotte. The paintings of Caspar David Friedrich are bound up in race, too. Even without seeing the facial features of the Germanic individuals in his paintings depicting the Rückenfigur, the elements of race and blood are indelibly intertwined in his works, particularly as the most prominent figure of German Romantic painting. Indeed, as German Romanticism writ large was inextricably linked with German nationalism and the desire for national liberation and German reunification, the element of the German phenotype as part and parcel of this expression of German culture and identity is undeniable. Race as the hallmark of culture and identity is even exemplified in German figures in modern popular culture that lean on their Germanic phenotypes, from Kraftwerk to Rammstein. Could X-Mal Deutschland really be that German post-punk band without the blonde, Germanic phenotype of the lovely and alluring Anja Huwe?

This immutable principle is further exemplified in British culture and civilization, from the pale visage of the Queen’s—now King’s—Guard to the overtly British phenotypes of so many British indie and synth-pop bands of the 80s, to the faces of the Scots—as the idea of what it means to be Scottish is properly understood—from the stout lads and comely lassies in traditional Scottish garb at the Edinburgh Festival to the heroin chic exemplified in Trainspotting. As another example, race is inextricably and inseparably woven in Japanese culture and society in precisely the same way.

Race is emblematic of a culture and people.  Indeed, racial phenotypes expressed in a culture and civilization are avatars—symbols, even—of that civilization and culture.  As such, cultural expressions of a people and culture are inextricably bound to and signified by the racial phenotypes of that people.  Such expressions of race in culture are instrumental, indispensable even in forging a people as a close-knit, collective polity.  A Briton sees himself in all British art and all other cultural expressions that depict the British people as properly defined by race. Same applies with Germans seeing their Germanic phenotypes in various German cultural or artistic expressions, from people celebrating in the traditional garb and customs exhibited in a Volksfest, the production and performance of Richard Wagner, or even obscure music projects at various EBM festivals or performances. When the individual sees himself in these cultural expressions of his people and his civilization, when he sees his racial phenotype as an expression of his culture and people, he sees that he is a part of that people. Particularly in the modern age, this transcends, to some extent, limits on European nationalities, as European peoples see much of themselves in the vast array of cultural expressions of the different peoples of Europe; Germans and European Americans see themselves in British culture properly expressed, as British people see parts of themselves in other European cultural expressions (probably now so more than ever given the machinations of Keir Starmer). This is why such expressions are so adept at galvanizing nationalist sentiment, as it is precisely for this same reason why Hollywood and other nefarious elements seek to deconstruct how race defines a people and its culture through race-swapping and the Great Replacement.

While the history of peoples and nations informs how principles of race, blood, and soil are first principles inherent to the nature of man, the history of great civilizations—of empires—is a little more complicated.  Were the Spanish and British empires multicultural? Those empires ruled over different subjects of different alien peoples, but the Spanish, British and other European powers were themselves defined by these principles of race, blood, and soil, as the Spanish Inquisition which expelled foreigners and religious imposters kickstarted Spanish hegemony for over a century.

The height of Ancient Greece during the Hellenic period was defined by the city state polis, the antithesis of cosmopolitanism, a term derived from the Cosmopolis of the Hellenistic period after Alexander the Great. A summary of the history of civilization as provided in Alien Nation, particularly in the Chapter “So What,” is particularly instructive. A survey of the history of man reveals that many great civilizations throughout the ages have been multicultural, but such multicultural civilizations have been invariably despotic, and rarely did these civilizations of the past even pretend to conform to the vision of multiculturalism advocated by the left today. Such examples include the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union as well as its precursor and now successor, the Russian Empire. Yugoslavia is another example cited by Brimelow. It held together under the benevolent autocracy of Tito, and then fell apart like a house of cards once that benevolent autocracy went away. Brimelow concedes the fault lines underlying the war in the Balkans in the 90s did not even fall along racial lines, but quasi ethnic and religious ones. But, as Brimelow points out, this strengthens the argument. While both are southern Slavic peoples, the Croats, Serbs, and others cannot exist in the same society because one is Roman Catholic and the other Eastern Orthodox, while each speaks a different dialect of Serbo-Croatian (Croatian uses the Roman alphabet while Serbian uses the Cyrillic alphabet, as each dialect has a peculiar subset vocabulary of its own). The vastly greater divisions along racial lines touted by leftist ideologues necessarily subsumes these differences between the Croats, Serbs, and other ethnic groups that comprised the former Yugoslavia, peoples who despite irreconcilable differences had some similarities and connections in history, ethnicity, and geographic proximity. If the Yugoslavia experiment could not work, if it was unable to bind disparate but closely related peoples with historical grudges, a polyglot of utterly unrelated races from various parts of the world certainly will not last in the long run.

Despite these and other cautionary tales from the annals of history, the American Empire—and the ruling class which controls that Empire—is undeterred in its resolve to carry out this absurd experiment of multiculturalism not just in the New World, but in the ancestral homeland of white Europeans everywhere: Mother Europa. While the ultimate end of this multicultural experiment has not yet been determined conclusively, many signs are less than encouraging for those advocating such civilization destroying folly. Despite the exhortations of the multiculti musketeers who cheer on this absurd experiment, there are already sizeable fault-lines, noticeable fissures and cracks in the structure. And this is so despite decades of unprecedented posterity backed by a multitude of factors, such as being isolated with two oceans while sharing borders with two weak neighbors, the artificial buoyancy of United States currency by way of the petrodollar and its status as reserve currency, compounded of course by intricate, long-term market manipulation through the decades, a nuclear arsenal and ostensibly a formidable armed forces, although recent adventures abroad have turned out poorly. [10]

To the extent some of the great civilizations and empires in history are construed as “multicultural,” the inherent nature by which men congregate and bind along race, blood, as well as religion and language is still exemplified in these examples of history. The Ottoman Empire may have been multicultural in ways that are somewhat similar to the ways Spanish and British Empires were, with the Ottoman Turks ruling over their subjects in more ruthless, barbaric fashion, but the different peoples subjugated under their rule yearned for liberation along the lines of common race, blood, religion, history, and language in ways that negate the model of multiculturalism so foolishly touted by far too many. In this way, examples like the Ottoman Empire demonstrate this first principle of race, blood, and soil by negating the inverted, opposite of this principle. The affirmation of this first principle is exemplified for example by The Greek War for Independence, also known as the Greek Revolution of 1821, a conflict in which Lord Byron among others gave his life. Above all, remember when the Turks were at the Gates of Vienna.

The Siege of Vienna stands as probably the greatest avatar of pan-European nationalism, the preeminent symbol of this inherent right to blood and soil before any other.  Other examples throughout history abound, exemplifying this first right of race, blood, and soil, as they also demonstrate that these more traditional considerations of human rights are not, in fact, inherent to man. Beyond that, these and other crucial lessons from history inform how the Sons and Daughters of Europe will almost certainly need to jettison these quaint notions about “inalienable rights” to save Europe and European Civilization. The Spanish Inquisition discerned these very truths, resolving that Spain belongs to Christian, European Spaniards, and therefore expelled Muslims as well as Jews. Over a century of Spanish hegemony followed.

Feudal Japan, under Toyotomi Hideyoshi, followed a similar path in the wake of the San Felipe Incident. Crippled by a tsunami en route to South America from Manilla, the Spanish galleon San Felipe sought emergency docking in Japan. While there, the captain or other delegates confided to Hideyoshi and his court that Spain proselytizes primitive peoples in order, at least in part, to divide and weaken their societies, making them more susceptible to colonization. Hideyoshi, having seen what had already been happening in the Philippines, was already wary of European powers. These indiscretions allowed Hideyoshi to fully discern European colonization as the threat it was to Japanese civilization. The response was severe, drastic, but necessary. Hideyoshi expelled all Christian missionaries, and executed 26 Christians by crucifixion, to make an example of them. Several of the condemned were Japanese. He then forbade any entry into Japan by foreigners without express, prior permission, and prohibited Japanese subjects from travelling abroad without the same express, prior permission.

However much some fret about the trampling of so-called human rights, including religious persecution, Hideyoshi saved Japan from European colonization, as Japan was the only Asian civilization to not have submitted in some way to European colonial powers. Compare and contrast the fate of the Japanese with the mongrelized people of the Philippines, and it must be concluded the Japanese posterity of today and tomorrow owes their heritage to Hideyoshi’s wise but ruthless leadership and his unflinching brutality. The very same lessons are revealed by other such examples in history, including for example island peoples that let sailors of the Royal Navy or other European navies have their way with their women, versus those people less inclined to being usurped by foreign imposters. Finally, this first principle is further exhibited in Britian’s own history, from Queen Elizabeth’s decision to expel and deport blacks in the 16^th Century to the expulsion of Jews in the 12^th Century, as the failure to adhere in later centuries to both policies through the centuries may ultimately lead to the death of not just Britain but all of Mother Europa. [11]

Please see Richard Parker’s new Substack page, The Raven’s Call, featuring essays and other writings with a unique, hard-right perspective.

Notes

[1] Three examples of momentous social change that respected these invented rights include the three major reforms in Victorian Britain, the Velvet Revolution behind the Iron Curtain, and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The Civil Rights movement may lead to incredible bloodshed and destruction yet as it is a major fault line in the increasing balkanization and fracturing of the United States. The Velvet Revolution was largely peaceful, but American foreign policy in its wake is directly attributable to the War in the Ukraine and renewed hostility between Russia and the United States and its entourage of vassal states in Europe.

[2] For the purposes of this essay, the word “people” is used in place of the German word Volk, which means both people (in the sense of the German or Scottish people) and nation, as it also connotes a racial aspect that is absent in its English translation. Eg völkisch means racial.

[3] There is no doubt that religion is one of the great fault lines dividing humanity. This fault line will not be emphasized in the rest of the essay for several reasons. First and foremost, if Europe is to survive, petty squabbles between for example Catholics and Protestants must be set aside. It should also be stipulated this author is not religious and has observed how religious fervor has contributed to many of our problems, from mainstream conservatism only being able to object to the LGBTQ platform by way of religious dogma to many clinging stubbornly to silly or harmful superstitions.

[4] As discussed at length in “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident” as well as towards the end of this essay, no rights are truly inalienable. For this reason, the term inherent shall be used instead, but it must be noted such inherent rights are only good for as long as a people can defend them.

[5] This proposition should be indisputable at this point. See Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone and his study, or simply observe the disorder and chaos that plagues the modern world.

[6] Volksgemeinschaft is a critical concept that, for the time being, has been rendered taboo in German society because it was embraced by the Nazi regime, even though its origins go back to the Second Empire if not before, as it became even more prominent during World War I. Volksgemeinschaft translates as people’s community, but the word Volk has a racial connotation absent in the English translation. Volksgemeinschaft best embodies this inherent right of blood and soil advocated for in this paper, as it envisioned all stratifications of German society to unite around the binding elements of the common blood, language, and history of dem deutschen Volk. In the book Frontsoldaten, Stephen Fritz discerns Volksgemeinschaft as key to understanding National Socialism and its appeal (without the advantage of hindsight, of course).

[7] Some will object that the examples of Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson’s sedition laws were in a time of war or emergency. But war is simply an implementation of state policy by other means, as are declarations of national emergency, insurrection, or what have you.

[8] As discussed later on, Cultural Marxists and others seriously argue that Britain is not homogenous, either because English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh are somehow not homogenous, or because there was a small contingent of Blackamoors before Queen Elizabeth expelled them. To overcome such pedantic nonsense, which also suffers from the continuum fallacy, “effective homogeneity” is used.

[9] As neurotic as the German national conscience is on account of war guilt and nigh eighty years of occupation (and before that decades divided between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies), images of the Third Reich are still closely associated with the Third Reich. Indeed, many German actors such as Thomas Kretschmann and to a lesser extent Christoph Waltz have made their bread and butter by lending their very German likeness to these genres.

[10] The United States armed forces have not fought a peer power since World War II, and have not fared well against either rice patty farmers that comprised the Vietcong or the goat farmers that comprised Al Qaeda. This is not to slight the brave men and now unfortunately even women who have served. In these and other conflicts, the American armed forces had astonishing enemy casualty ratios to their own. These misfortunes, the infiltration of woke nuttery in top brass, as well as the black undertow that comprises much of the auxiliary personnel raise doubts about the American Armed forces if there were ever a conflict with a peer power.

[11] Any reader of a more mainstream persuasion who is offended by the latter assertion will be reminded of the role of the Rothschilds in Great Britain, as well as the Balfour Declaration, among other matters.