There are two kinds of rights: Political rights and folk rights. Political rights are relative; they rise, fall, rise again, and fall again like waves. Folk rights are cold, hard, and undying. Only folk rights are God-given, and therefore defended. Political rights are won or lost in the fight of the state of nature, and therefore granted.
History furnishes examples of the distinction between folk rights and political rights. The Romans, having conquered a nation, either annihilated it or, having decided that option unnecessary, entirely respected its folk rights. Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga exaggerated the extent to which the Ottoman Empire was “Roman” in this sense, but it is true that the Turks were not usually very interested in mutilating the subjugated Balkan cultures. One can observe this in the way Bulgaria is still Bulgaria, far more than the once-mighty Western nations are what they essentially are. The difference between folk rights and political rights can even be seen in more modern epochs. Louisiana was the most humane and enlightened state in the historical development of the American Union, because it was the only one to respect all national life — even that of the slaves.
Mankind is categorically better off under even the most brutal land-slavery than under the pseudo-freedom of money-slavery. Feudalistic landlordism was more culturally benevolent for Europeans and Japanese than neoliberalism is today. In some cases, feudalism was more a form of stewardship than slavery, but in the bigger picture, even the worst feudal lords were more benevolent than the rule of money-slavery. The latter Aristotle condemned with ever-pertinent clarity, even as he supported land-slavery.
Brutality is the least culturally destructive form of cruelty. Ask any Eastern European who watched his country go out of the frying pan of Communism and into the fire of neoliberalism. It was by the same measure that Dr. Nicolae Paulescu, writing from the standpoint of a European-Christian patriot whose country had been attacked by the Ottoman Turks many times, could write: “Indeed, the two branches, Arabic and Jewish, are both very greedy for human blood. But if the Mohammedans, who possess a certain bravery, resemble wild tigers — the Jews, who manifest themselves only through cowardice, are more similar to bugs…”
The Phanar was by far the most vicious thing the Ottoman Empire ever imposed on Orthodox Southeastern Europe. It is the sole reason that Ottoman Turkey does not deserve its reputation as an honorable respecter of the folk rights of its slaves, like Rome or Louisiana. The history of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans is thus another example of how, from the standpoint of respect for folk rights, brutality is the least culturally destructive form of cruelty.
“Human rights? That’s gay.” Thus spoke the smartest seventh-grader in his class. As Carl Schmitt noted, when it comes to the political, “whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat.” Humanitarian conceptions of “rights” are but a dishonest form of politically granted rights. They are still political in form, but empty in content.
Accordingly, from a viewpoint that cherishes folk rights, it is only proper to defend a certain pro-Confederate, abolition-skeptical view of American history. This has nothing to do with vulgarizations of Biblical genealogy, and even less to do with un-European faith in statistical algebra. Blacks were culturally better off in the Antebellum South than they are today because they are human, not because they are subhuman.
But what becomes of folk rights, if we’re dealing with a morbidly hyper-political culture like Jewry? A culture built not on trampling on others’ political rights — what great high culture hasn’t done that at some point? — but on everyone else’s very folk rights? Originally, the words “gentiles” and “nations” had interchangeable meanings. The influential medieval rabbi Rashi’s infamous statement that “even the best of the gentiles must be killed” does not necessarily refer to atomized individual life, but to national life. The results of this doctrine are more apparent now than ever.
What, the reader might ask, does anti-Semitism have to do with folk rights? It would be appropriate to ask the opposite question, that of what Jewry has to do with folk rights. The latter pertain to Carl Schmitt’s idea of “telluric law,” and uncomfortable as it makes those who repeat a neutered version of this concept nowadays, Schmitt quite clearly named its worst enemy as Jewry.
Only look at how everything Continental European is “anti-Semitic by default” to the Jews. Continental cultures retain their roots in land-based law. That’s why the British Empire still has the kosher seal of human rights in today’s culture, but Columbus does not. It’s also probably a better explanation than Kanye West’s as to why the U.S. government failed to protect the state of Louisiana from Hurricane Katrina. It’s why there were no adored Continental “public intellectuals” of the Christopher Hitchens type in the Jewish-manufactured American pseudo-intellectual culture of the early 2000s. Napoleon was a Nazi to them, with their horror of all things Continental European.
Jewry, as a sociopolitical body, is incompatible with land-bound law; Schmitt was right about that. Talmudism is hostile to agricultural work. But from the perspective of folk rights, this raises interesting questions about what Werner Sombart called the difference between “the Jewish spirit” and “the Jew as a person,” similarly to Codreanu’s remark that the enemy is not “the next-door Jew but the Kahal.” Regardless of the conclusions we come to in answer to these questions, it is true that Jewry represents a quintessential case study in how folk rights can be abused through systematic hyper-politicization.
Cultures are more easily destroyed insidiously than brutally. That is everywhere apparent throughout the so-called “free world” today. That is the true essence of what the Judeo-liberal banking caste calls “freedom.”
How, then, do we fight for our folk rights in a dark age when patriotism is conflated with pseudo-humanitarian platitudes? With the kind of patriotism that men actually die for. “Human rights” are boring. No one fights under the empty flag of “human rights.” All embattled peoples throughout the darkness of the “free world” today can take an illuminating lesson from the Unknown Black Confederate, who stayed loyal to the South and died for it, preferring to defend the integrity of his simple folk culture under slavery than to see it destroyed by modern “human rights.” That is patriotism. Folk rights live, and folk rights shall never go under.