Folk Rights and Political Rights

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.


Counter-Currents Reader

“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…”

He was a good boy.


“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…”

Very well put and accurate observation.


The “human rights industry” is infested with Jews and was primarily set up to advance the interests of Jewry. Though it appears what the Jews have set up for themselves is now being questioned by the Jewry. We need to remain vigilant as ever against the subversive and perfidious plotting of the International Jew and be aware of their mechanisms against us goys.

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, “Jews, Law, and Human Rights,” Jewish Ideas Daily December 27, 2012

Are legally enforceable codes of human rights good for the Jews? Even to ask this question seems parochial and unseemly. Human rights deserve the utmost respect—and by Jews of all people. They are morally necessary; they are in keeping with the best religious, moral, and cultural traditions of Judaism; they are a universal imperative.

Yet, the “Good for the Jews” question cannot be ignored for two important reasons. First, the creation of international human rights conventions was seen in the 1940s as a response to the Holocaust and potentially the most effective way to prevent any repetition of the genocide perpetrated by Adolf Hitler’s Germany. It was hoped that a set of international human rights institutions would protect Jews and other minorities.

Second, Jewish opinion is now fiercely divided as to whether these institutions—particularly the United Nations Human Rights Council (Geneva), the International Criminal Court (The Hague), and the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg)—have achieved this outcome. Jewish voices are often heard to complain that the new international human rights system has come to be systematically biased against Jewish and Israeli interests. “Lawfare” has become a modern form of anti-Semitic agitation, albeit often conducted (it is claimed) by dissident Jews.

Jewish scholars and activists have been at the forefront of what denigrators call the human rights industry since its post-war inception. Many of the leading legal philosophers of the past century have been Jewish. The greatly respected but controversial American jurist Ronald Dworkin is one of the most influential advocates of, as his book title puts it, Taking Rights Seriously. Michael Sandel’s course titled “Justice” attracts enough students at Harvard to fill Sanders Theater and has proved a YouTube sensation—the lectures have been viewed over seven million times. At Oxford University, Herbert Hart (the descendant of a rabbi) wrote the ground-breaking volume The Concept of Law. He was followed by Joseph Raz, who arrived in Oxford from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. By far the most influential of Britain’s international lawyers, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, came to Cambridge University from Galicia via Vienna, where he studied under another intellectual giant, Hans Kelsen, a Jewish convert to Catholicism. Other Jewish names to be conjured with include Raphael Lemkin, credited with the invention of the term “genocide,” and the French jurist René Cassin. It would be repetitious to include the title of “Professor” gained by all of the above.

Their influence was not confined to academe. Kelsen, a member of Sigmund Freud’s circle, sat on Austria’s constitutional court, formed after the country’s defeat and dismemberment in the First World War. Lauterpacht advised the British Government on the legal basis of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He later sat on the United Nations’ Law Commission and as a judge on the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Cassin served as president of the European Court of Human Rights and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of the largest benefactors of human rights organizations, such as George Soros and Sigrid Rausing, are Jewish. So are many of the world’s leading human rights activists and experts—Aryeh Neier of the Open Society Institute, Richard L. Bernstein (the founder of Human Rights Watch), Peter Benenson (founder of Amnesty International), Lord Lester of Herne Hill (co-founder of Interights), the British judges Lord Hoffmann and Sir Stephen Sedley, and the former head of Israel’s Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, to name only a few.

Gubbler Chechenova

Alt Right must lead the Anti-War Movement. It must own it. Progs embraced globalism and did NOTHING while Obama destroyed Libya. And Progs said and did NOTHING while US aided Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in sending, funding, and arming Jihadis, Alqaeda, and terrorists in Syria.

With the Anti-War movement all but dead in the West, the Alt Right has a huge opportunity to pick up the Peace banner and own it. Alt Right’s message must be that nationalism = peace while globalism = war.

And Alt Right must soberly — unlike Mel Gibson who was prone to drink too much — lay out the case that many wars since the end of the Cold War have been instigated by globalist-Zionists who will do ANYTHING to bolster Israel, damage Iran, destroy Syria, and bring down Russia.

All sides have pretty much given up on Anti-War stance. Trump made some anti-war noises during the election, but he caved to Zio-con demands.

So, the Anti-War banner now belongs to any side that will pick it up, raise it high, and wave it.



The “human rights industry” is infested with Jews and was primarily set up to advance the interests of Jewry/ the State of Israel post-WW2. This has its roots with the corrupt and Anglo/ Soviet-dominated Nuremberg trials/ kangaroo court.

We see Jews at the forefront of advancing (((Americanist))) notions of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) as part of international law when it suits the interests of Jewry (Iraq, Libya, Syria now, Iran in the near future, etc).

Essentially American military power, and NATO of which it is part, does the bidding of the Jewmerican/ NATO empire.

We need to remain vigilant as ever against the subversive and perfidious plotting of the International Jew and be aware of their mechanisms against us goys.

How I pray for an end to Jewish perfidy against humanity and the constant Jewish scheming and ploys, not the least of which is to call everything and anything that goes against the interests of International/ organized Jewry “anti-Semitic”. Which is a “trick” the Jews themselves have admitted to using to get their way against us goys.

Leave a Reply