The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil:

Our First Principle of Race as Right:

The Story of the Tower of Babel warns of the ruin and chaos that multiculturalism brings. Freedom from such madness is an inherent right of man and, above, all the peoples of Europe.

Author’s note: this article originally appeared in two parts on Counter Currents, available here.

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]  Entertaining these platitudes from high school civil rights class introduces another peril, insofar as mainstream conservatives are the only persons who believe in any of this, as evidenced not just by rhetoric, but more importantly by actions.  This is tantamount to unilateral disarmament, as the left pays lip service to these platitudes only when it serves their ends, but, once in power, abandons all pretense when it is advantageous to do so.  The side that wants to win will always prevail over the side that wants to leave well enough alone, or play by the rules.

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 women 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 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 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.

Race is inseparable from German identity. Even though we cannot see the face of the man in Wanderer über dem Nebelmeeer, his blond hair, skin coloring and even mode of dress for the time period are unmistakably German.  This image, if swapped with an African, Asian or other, would no longer be the icon of German culture and identity that it is. Also captioned: a buxom blonde beer maid, a column of heroes in Feldgrau, and a depiction of Young Werther with his unrequited love. Germanic phenotypes are intrinsic to German expressions of art and culture.

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, faitful 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.  So, too, are the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich bound up in race.  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?

Anja Huwe of X-Mal Deutschland.  To reference Joy Division, she is “An Ideal for Living.”

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.

Behold the pale Anglo-Saxon visage of the Queen’s Guard (now King’s Guard).  On the right, a still from the music video of “Stand and Deliver” by Adam Ant. A lovely English Rose is the face of Britain, and must always be the face of Britain.

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 see their Germanic phenotypes in various German cultural or artistic expressions, from people celebrating 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 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.

Faces of Scotland: Scottish identity is reflected in the myriad expressions of Scottish culture, from traditional marches with Pipes and drums to the heroin chic of Trainspotting.

                                                                             ◊

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 that 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 mousketeers 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 Spain, and expelled Muslims as well as Jews. Over a century of Spanish hegemony followed.

Depictions of the San Felipe and Unifier of Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Hideyoshi’s brutal vision may provide a blueprint for saving Europe and the West.

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]

                                                                         ◊

The left dismisses such considerations of race as “social constructs,” while resorting to other such pseudo-intellectual sleight of hand. A particularly dubious assertion is that Germany, Britain, or any other European nation or people are not homogenous.  Scots, English, Welsh are different groups, although one could rarely if ever pick out one from the other in a crowd of all three.  The same is true for Germany, which is just as varied with different dialects, customs, and even culinary delicacies.  The German speaking world is bifurcated by the Weißwurstäquator.  On the basis of such regional differences which, in certain instances, could arguably be described as ethnic differences, such Welsh or Scottish, some (quite stupidly) contend that Britain and Germany have always been multicultural. After all, the Scottish and Welsh are different cultures, as are the Bavarians, Swabians, Plattdeutsch, Hessians, and so on.

Such preposterous musings of course suffer from the continuum fallacy; it is akin to the absurd suggestion that because there are different shades of red and because, at some point, if one mixes enough yellow into red it ceases to be red and becomes orange, and, more importantly, because there is no precise, universal consensus as to when red becomes orange when mixed with yellow, red as a concept is therefore either a “social construct” or otherwise somehow an elusive or otherwise inconsequential concept to grasp or embrace.  A similar continuum fallacy would to be to suggest crimson and a reddish-pink color are different colors (actually different shades of the same color), and, on the basis of these assertions advance the even more preposterous argument that there is therefore, on that basis, no principle by which green or brown can be excluded, distinguished, or categorized separately from these different shades of red. That sort of continuum fallacy runs rampant in leftist claptrap that diminishes, trivializes, or explains away The Great Replacement and so many of our other troubles, as they even have the gall to suggest that race itself is somehow a “social construct.”

A Welsh teacher in Ireland accosts an Irish patriot, calling him racist.  She claims that, being Welsh, she is just as much a foreigner as black Africans and others who have no right to be there.  She exhibits the continuum fallacy par excellence.

One example of such sophistry is equivocating the Norman Invasion—which happened almost a thousand years ago and consisted of hostile Norman invaders who nonetheless had some racial and geographic affinity and proximity to the Anglo-Saxons and others who populated the British Isles—and using that as a vehicle to suggest that millions of black, Muslim, and other migrants that have arrived by boat, plane, or other conveyance are really no different.  The multiculti mousketeers also like to mention that there used to be a contingent of “Blackamoors” in London in the 16^th Century, until Queen Elizabeth rightly expelled them.  The Golden Horde of Genghis Khan is another similar, equally absurd argument; Genghis Khan sacked Europe the better part of two millennia ago so there is no reason why Germans should not agree to be a minority in Germany! Even though “continuum fallacy” or other arguments are not something everyone is able to articulate fully, these sorts of statements are always befuddling, because people can sense intuitively, instinctively, viscerally that this sort of obfuscation is the worst sort of bunk. The Norman Invasion was of course also a very bloody affair, so too was Genghis Khan, as such demographic shifts tend to be in varying degrees, whether in the Middle Ages or not.

These reasons and others explain why the most pernicious phenomenon of race-swapping, both in fiction and in real life is so grating, as it contravenes the immutable axiom that race is culture and defines cultural identity. Examples of such racial subversion include AI scripts depicting soldiers of the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht as something other than German or depicting the Framers of the US Constitution as black or various others sorts of brown-skinned genetic party favors of unknown origins. That inversion has continued longer in the great race swap that Disney and other insidious elements in Hollywood and American popular culture have been perpetrating for some time.

The Great Replacement is propagandized in both fiction and reality.

The race swap perpetrated by Disney and other Hollywood conglomerates is of course realized through the Great Replacement itself, and there is no greater symbol for this than the recent phenomenon where national football (or soccer) teams are fielded by blacks and other individuals who are the antithesis of what it means to be French, English, German, or any other European nationality.  This is devastating in terms of the psychological effect it has on the psyche.  Not only does seeing a French or English team composed mostly or almost entirely of blacks condition the populace with the proposition that blacks are French or English, it is touted as a benefit of multiculturalism on the supposition that these teams would be less competitive without such a contingent of imposters who are in no way French or English. Such bread and circus distractions are of deep importance to many; winning a European Cup championship, even if one is challenged to find more than a couple actual English of French players on the national team in question, blinds many to the realities of the reverse colonization of Europe.  Of course, if Europe were not subject to the Great Replacement, a bona fide English team comprised of actual Britons would compete against a bona fide French team, and so on.

The continuum fallacy is bolstered further with the lie that race is skin deep; the lie that should not fool a child. Indeed, despite the indoctrination in school that race was just skin deep, this author saw through the lie in elementary school by simply gazing at the visage of Bill Cosby, when The Cosby Show was a phenomenon in American “culture.” Physical differences in an African person like Bill Cosby that were apparent to me as a child include:

-          difference in hair texture and thickness,

-          difference in mouth, lips and teeth,

-          wildly difference nose structure.

These are just the differences that a child can spot while observing a person of African descent on a television (an analog color television of the era, of course).  Other racial differences not visible to a child of the 80s include differences in bone structure and mass, propensity for vitamin D deficiency in more temperate climates, complications in organ transplants with people of different races, among many others. Racial differences of course go well beyond mere physical differences.  Despite decades and many trillions squandered in Great society and other programs, blacks are still one to two standard deviations below average white IQ. Civilization fails wherever they are in charge or in sufficient numbers. Decades of wildly disproportionate rates in violent crime harken to a certain famous line about “racial commitment to crime.”

Readers will instantly recognize the allusion to that film that is like a soccer team that keeps scoring own goals.

The cold hard reality regarding differences in race further explains why countries that entertain this absurd experiment only become more dysfunctional the longer these ideas are entertained. The longer a nation entertains this most dubious experiment of multiculturalism, the more fragmented, low trust that society becomes.  Despite all the media campaigns touting the advantages of multiculturalism and miscegenation, most people congregate among their own. The worst sort of white limousine liberal always lives in white affluent enclaves like Mercer Island or Martha’s Vineyard, insulated (at least in the short term) from the consequences of their luxury beliefs that they externalize on the less fortunate members of their race.  This idea is hardly original, as Jared Taylor and others for have pointed out for decades, but to the extent a critical mass of people continues to delude themselves to the contrary, it must be repeated again, and again, and again.

Indeed, some developments in the field of evolutionary psychology indicate prejudice, involuntary or otherwise, evolved because prejudice and bias have been (and probably still are) conducive to survival and well-being.  Some research indicates infants demonstrate racial prejudice for those of their own race and against those of a different race.[12] Catherine Cottrell of the University of Florida and Steven Neuberg of Arizona State have posited a theory of human prejudice as something that evolved from living in groups, what John Locke regarded as the social contract. Banding together provides in-group members greater “access to resources necessary for survival including food, water, and shelter.” A collective in-group is also necessary for finding a mate, caring for children, as it also provides protection from others. Belonging to a tribe or other collective polity makes the individual and the group “wary of outsiders who could potentially harm the group by spreading disease, killing or hurting individuals, or stealing precious resources.” The Cottrell-Neuberg theory further posits that prejudice then has a protective, beneficiary function, as it allows humans to discern who belongs in an in-group and who does not. Over time, this process of quickly evaluating others might have become so streamlined that it became unconscious. The Cottrell and Nunberg theory of prejudice as an evolutionary adaptation simply reiterates the principles of Volksgemeinschaft and applies them to the field of evolutionary psychology.[13] Given wildly disproportionate rates of violent crimes in blacks and to a lesser extent mestizos, coupled with seemingly indelible deviations in average IQ, the necessity of this faculty of discrimination and bias—little more than pattern recognition, actually—does not seem to have lost its utility or necessity, despite decades of propaganda insisting the contrary.

The inherent right to any people to race, blood, and soil—as a defining characteristic of a people’s culture and society—is further demonstrated in various condemnations of genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on, especially as enunciated in so-called international law.  As just one example, the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Persons (UNDRIP) is replete with passages recognizing the right of race, blood, and soil for those people.  But as they are recognized for third world brown people, so they must also be recognized for the Sons and Daughters of Mother Europa. Some highlights of UNDRIP include:

·         the right to a nationality (Article 6)

·         the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence (Article 7)

·         the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. (Article 8)

·         prevention of, and redress for (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities (Article 8 2A).

One interesting but not all surprising admission by this document is the explicit recognition of the “historic injustices” suffered by indigenous peoples “as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources,” as this dispossession prevent[s] them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests.”  Does this warning from history not implore the Sons and Daughters to take whatever measures necessary and available to prevent this happening to them?

This meme reveals a most pernicious moral and ideological inconsistency in the left.

The operative language of Article 2 (c) of the Genocide Convention, an international treaty signed and promulgated by most nations after World War II, unquestionably touches on the Great Replacement:

 Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Somewhat paradoxically, throughout history civilizations and peoples that have clashed with other hostile alien peoples in ways that necessitate violating this or other supposed human rights (such as freedom of religion).  Spain could not have defended her progeny without expelling Moors that made incursions in Iberia, just as Native Americans would needed to have destroyed the descendants of Anglo colonial settlers to avoid their fate, a proposition that never had any real chance of success given the inferiority of their stone age technology.  Toyotomi Hideyoshi saved the Japanese people through intolerance and brutality. History has demonstrated time again that very often, in order to avoid being vanquished, a people or civilization must resort to abject brutality in contravention to such modern sensibilities.

Of course, a fundamental precept of Locke’s philosophy is that a people is governed by consent and that trampling on whatever is imagined to be human rights justifies revolt and revolution.  By discerning—correctly discerning—effective homogeneity as an inherent right, Europeans thus have justification for revolt and revolution if the ruling class persists in disastrous policies that are tantamount to racial suicide and civilizational ruin.[14]  This epiphany further reveals how most European democracies are illegitimate in view of the prolonged, concerted effort to foil these first principles of blood, race, and soil.  This framework also offers a more enlightened perspective on the race riots currently taking place in Great Britain. In addition, discerning racial homogeneity as an inherent or fundamental right—the inherent right to race, blood, and soil—provides an important limitation on the democratic process or any other, alternative form of government.  Such an inherent right would have been included if only the drafters could foresee what was utterly unthinkable in their time.  

Some more mainstream conservative types have postulated that if the people of Sweden, as just one example, want to vote themselves into racial and civilizational oblivion, that is their choice.  Discerning this inherent right of race, blood, and soil overcomes that objection by the same mechanism that prevents the tyranny of mob rule in various ways in a democratic republic or some other, perhaps more desirable form of government.  To whatever extent democratic republics or other forms of government limit the power of the state in ways that are presently of far less import or consequence than the existential perils that currently face Mother Europe and the West, there is no reason why the safeguarding of our posterity and the future of our race and varied phenotypes should not also be so anointed among rights deemed as inherent and sacrosanct.  Similarly, discerning the preservation and continuation of race, of blood and soil, as an inherent right provides an important framework by which to reevaluate for example the right to free speech. If a new order is ever established, recognizing these rights of blood and soil provides a principled, structured mechanism to ban expressions that promote or condone miscegenation or to ban alien undesirable cultural expressions, such as how rap music or other elements of so-called black culture have negrified Western culture.  

◊

Because of the power of modern media, because indoctrination has run so deep for decades, right-wing populists may never be able to get above thirty-five to forty percent of the native populations that actually have any right to any say. But just as no sane person would suggest a referendum mandating the entire populace commit a Jonestown style mass suicide-murder by drinking cyanide laced kool-aid en masse, at some point Western man must realize that preventing national and civilization suicide is not negotiable, and it really does not matter whether a majority agrees or not once whatever means necessary and available can effectively and decisively enforce this most fundamental right of all as inherent and non-negotiable.

Of course, in reality there are no inalienable rights.  Such rights only exist to the extent they are backed by state or other collective violence.  In the unfortunately named but brilliant Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein dismantles the myth of inalienable rights succinctly and in short order through this monologue, using Colonel DuBois as his mouthpiece.

“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’?

After repudiating the absurd notion that “life” is an inalienable right, Heinlein then dismantles liberty as an inalienable right:

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

Heinlein further reveals that whatever rights the populace deludes itself into thinking are inalienable are only good for as long as they are backed and guaranteed by violence.

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”

What generations are taught as inalienable rights are, in the final analysis, only good as long as they are backed by force.[15]

These and other considerations not addressed in this treatise all attest to race, blood, and soil as inherent rights to man and to European peoples above all. Because these principles are so essential and innate to man’s nature and particularly to the nature of European man, the position submitting that race, blood, and soil as inherent rights is just as valid, nay more far more valid, than any invented rights about life, liberty, property, or the “pursuit of happiness.” European peoples do have a right to kinship, to Volksgemeinschaft, to continued furtherance of their posterity as it existed in their ancestry, to high-trust, close knit societies that are born from sharing common blood, ancestry, language, and history.  A cursory review of both human nature and the history of civilization, as has been done in this essay, conclusively demonstrates this is so. But that will mean nothing if European peoples cannot safeguard their rights in actuality. For just as “liberty is never inalienable,” so it is with this right of race, blood, and soil.  The most arduous struggle lies ahead, and there is good reason to fear that the troubles facing Europe and the West may be intractable.  But every problem, no matter how small or seemingly insurmountable, begins with an intellectual and philosophical understanding of the phenomenon in question.  Discerning this right to race, blood, and soil is foundational to this understanding, as it is from this understand that European peoples can begin to liberate themselves from these existential perils that threaten racial suicide and civilizational ruin.

PLEASE NOTE: Readers who appreciate the inisght and perspective set forth in this treatise are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this article and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative. The like emoji or lack thereof is a greater factor than it should be that readers unfamiliar with an author or publciation use to decide whether to read any particular piece or not.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) (@)astheravencalls.com. Remove the parentheses, which were inserted to avoid conflict with Substack’s own handle system.

                                                                            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, that also suffers from the continuum fallacy, “effective homogeneity” is used.  

[9] As neurotic as the German national conscience is an account of war guilt and night 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 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.

[12] But see for example the study referenced here, which seeks to negate this theory by studying infants raised by caretakers of a different race. Since caretakers have invariably been the parents of a child or its close-knit, the degrees to which those in power want to push multiculturalism can only be regarded as unnatural and contrary to thousands of years of human experience.

[13] See also the theory posited by Phillippe Rushton, suggesting that racial prejudice and bias are adaptive functions in accordance with evolutionary psychology.

[14] Among the many problems with Locke and the Enlightenment is the notion that the masses consent to anything is preposterous. The masses are programmed to a larger degree, by the instruments of mass media and more recently social media, by the cultural media that envelops the individual.

[15] With perhaps one important qualification.  As articulated further in “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident,” laws do “enunciate moral standards and social mores of that society, from theft to animal cruelty to sex crimes.”  Platitudes about inalienable rights and other such tenets of American exceptionalism have been inculcated in the minds of many generations of Americans through the violence of the state.  Thus, “if the Constitution and the federal states and local governments were to vanish overnight, the moral standards and social mores that the Constitution and our body of criminal law both enunciate and reinforce would, in all likelihood, greatly inform whatever order that would eventually be established in the midst of the chaos and mayhem that would ensue.