Rights, Duties, and Asserting Your Identity

The Enlightenment has made our world  obsessed with the concept of “rights.”

One camp argues for the right of religious liberty, another for abortion and free college. There is a very wide range of ideas for what exactly deserves to be a right, but allow me to make a proposition.

Rights do not objectively exist.

Now, you may find this absurd, and I may be excommunicated from the Church of the Founding Fathers, but there are a few basic objective qualities rights have:

  • Rights do not exist on a physical, or objective level, therefore,
  • Rights may only be promulgated by the state, therefore,
  • The state may at any time take away those rights.
This may upset the more libertarian or classical liberal folks among us, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that rights are guaranteed. This is awfully surprising to some, because of how many times “God-given rights” are mentioned in the Founding documents.

I’m not going to go on a tangent for why the state should become tyrannical, as I am arguing for quite the opposite. Rights are generally used by progressives to argue for things to be given to them for free, or why they should be allowed to partake in acts traditionally viewed as immoral.

The subjective nature of “rights” as a concept allows for them to be abused a great deal. Abortion may be promoted as a basic right due to “right to autonomy”, and the manufacture of hard drugs in one’s home argued from a position of “right to private property.” While negative rights are usually beneficial in practice, the philosophy of explaining things as a right can lead to cultural entitlement. Such things should be argued from the position of an objective duty, something which must be done, rather than a right, which simply can be done.

Duty, as a word, implies something which is important, distinguished, and imperative to the survival of something. The nature of duty focuses on what should be done, rather than what can be done for the sake of simply doing something. Duty, also as a word, implies more rigidity and effort on the part of a person. This may leave a sour taste in people’s mouths, but for us to return to greatness and glory, we must embrace duty and strength before we fall.

Duty cannot be argued with, while rights can be, which is why duties are more effective when it comes to morality. A duty can be proven objectively, a right cannot. It is more philosophically sound to not think the state is what gives you the ability to do something basic. Rights become a more complicated concept.

The timeless idea of duty to do what is morally righteous is less vague than rights, which can be twisted by those seeking a payout from the state. Duties derive from the idea that you cannot not do them. You must perform them to survive or because you have been commanded. Rights can possibly be done, for good reasons or selfish ones.

In the modern world, the idea of duty and objective morality isn’t thought highly of. The idea of rights is very delightful to the selfish man, for they allow him to abandon anything that would put his will in check. It’s not even Sophistry when one preaches what the government can give them, it is simply pandering. It isn’t about convincing people of what is right, it is about doing what is morally righteous at all costs. Rights allow for twisting and subjectivity, what is right and what is wrong must be non-negotiable.

As those who stand against the moral decay and degeneracy of the North, we must unite in our bond to the soil. We live in a land of manners and culture, not one of handouts and pandering.

What have we done with the liberty we have been given? We’ve allowed ourselves to be subjugated, overrun, and pushed around by the Eternal New-Englander even before the Revolutionary War. Our agrarian and aristocratic South was wrestled into a Yankee’s War, and our own interests were hardly ever cared for.

What has this liberty allowed for them to do to us? Our way of life is attacked and overrun by the progressive student and the Yankee corporate CEO. We are crushed under the heel of American corporationism and sandwiched between Marxism by the youth and their professors.

We must break away from any strain of the American identity. We must assert duties over rights, and our culture over any sort of invading influence. We never had a chance to assert ourselves at the Founding, and after we tried, we were crushed under the boot of Carpetbaggers and Radical Reconstructionists, and later our jobs sold oversees by Washington elites, and our culture robbed in the name of political correctness.


The worship of the American identity, and the Union, is nothing but pure statism. We not bound together by culture or creed, but by a government which cares for no one but themselves and those who line their pockets.

Question the philosophical roots of the Union – classical liberalism. The ideology which modern progressivism and all her heads stems from. As the intelligentsia of the Southern Nationalist movement, we should tireless work to assert a philosophy independent from Yankee influence and legend. Our own art, our own thought, and our own life. Take up the duty to defend your land, change your way of thinking, and no longer lose the battle.

Abandon your Paine, embrace Lee. Abandon false liberty, false unity, and rise to do what you must.

6 thoughts on “Rights, Duties, and Asserting Your Identity

  1. Hello Branden Plyler,
    You wrote a thought provoking article, though I am not fully in agreement with you. I agree that the excesses of liberty have led to “rights” to abortion and queerness -which are both very bad.
    A focus on duty is something that modern Americans (and Western society) have neglected. You stated that: “Duty cannot be argued with, while rights can be, which is why duties are more effective when it comes to morality. A duty can be proven objectively, a right cannot.” In a Biblical sense there certainly are “thou shalls” and “thou shalt nots”. But I am a bit skeptical that political duties can be proven any more than political rights can. The simple point that we have a legally (and Biblical) proclaimed duty not to rape or kill another would seem to point out that the other side of that coin is that people have a right to life and the security of our person that they cannot be deprived of under normal circumstances.
    I understand that you are not denying that we have rights and are not advocating for tyranny. Perhaps more important than whether rights or duties are more clearly provable, is whether or not these two things come from a higher authority -a deity. If all the people of a land read from the same holy book, and are of the same race and similar culture, things generally will go well. America, and the Confederacy, were founded on the assumption that the Bible was the word of God, and that we had duties and rights predicated upon it. That being said, Enlightenment thought did muddle some things up early on. I hold that Jefferson’s thoughts on liberty were just fine, as long as the majority of the people judged them by the word of God.
    Anyway, I enjoyed your piece this morning,


  2. Good start, soft finish. I agree that rights do not exist. I do not agree that morals or duty objectively exist, though. All are good rhetorical devices for bringing a people together under a common banner for a common cause. I am no anarchist, though. A minarchist, certainly. But I find anarchy inane. People need rules with consequences to maintain civil order, and the system to implement such rules is government. If we want a free Dixieland we should first be winning hearts and minds of whites by indoctrinating them with our propaganda in the most tactful ways. There is tremendous cognitive dissonance in undoing the now generations of liberal programming in our very core regarding the “virtues” of diversity. White minds will obviously struggle at the undoing and deconstructing of these chains. Second, we should be curtailing immigration and lobbying our government for an end to policies and laws of forced diversity. If we succeed in these endeavors, I believe Dixie will come along naturally.


  3. ‘We never had a chance to assert ourselves at the Founding,’

    Well, Yankees have a very very different take on this, because, for them, they see the period of 1776-1861 as a general Southern domination of the union, with 1865-2017 being something of a balancet partnership.

    Yes, I know – sounds strange to Southern ears, but, I have gotten this many times in 3D analog conversation, so I know whereof I speak.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes indeed Junuius. Both ideologically, politically (offices held), on the field of battle, and in the conventions that wrote the founding documents -the South was definitely dominant. That is why America used to be a nice place.


  4. ‘Rights may only be promulgated by the state, therefore…’

    Yes, I think I get your drift, but, most North Carolinians I know would take issue with this, and rather strenuously at that, they feeling that all right come from God, thus, no man is licensed to take them away.

    In North Carolina, there is this perception that government is at it’s best when it limits itself to standing in for God, and interfering less.

    Generally, North Carolinians, and I have known them born as early as the late 1870s, look to God as government, which is why, most our state is a sequence of rural areas, where the principal building in small communities centres is a church.

    Church-life and God orientation reflect our ideals of self-determination within the godly sphere.

    ‘Civil Government,’ as one Confederate once put it to me – ‘is something for and of the Northern Man, but, which is something that ‘happens’ to The Southern Man.


  5. Rights are intrinsic to human existence. There cannot be any substantive argument in opposition to that.

    You have to consider negroes fully human to extent rights, because that’s not true, they, like horses and dogs, have what we whites want to permit them to have.

    Animals don’t have rights, they have welfare concerns. I’ll kill anyone I find running a dog fighting ring, not because dogs have rights, they have welfare concerns of which I will look after.

    Negroes must be removed from North America. If we southerners can’t accomplish that, we can remove them from out southern lands. It’s the most cost effective action we can take to nullify them.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s