Roots of Radicalism


NATIONALISM is a seed which grows in the rich, lush soil of national culture. It is the seed of national life. From this Nationalist seed springs forth Nationalist Doctrine, growing logically and organically to fruition. Nationalist Doctrine is thus the tree of national life. The fruit it bears is national life, the seed of which is Nationalism. So it is that Nationalism begets Doctrine and Doctrine begets Nationalism and thus the eternal cycle of national life is established and preserved.


EVERYONE knows that words are used to explain the meaning of things. In politics, words like 'conservative', 'socialist', 'liberal', 'democrat', 'republican' and 'nationalist' are used to describe different political views.

Yet all these words, taken separately, are themselves used to cover a wide range of political views. For example, the word 'socialist' is applied to all sorts of people holding a multitude of opinions. All members of the Labour Party would no doubt describe themselves as 'socialists', yet there is a great difference between those on the 'left' of the party and those on the 'right'. On an international level, the Soviet Union is described as a 'socialist' country. Indeed the initials U.S.S.R. stand for the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. Yet at the same time, many 'socialist' countries in the West are opposed strongly to the 'socialism' practiced in the U.S.S.R. It's all very confusing.

The same confusion arises over the use of the word 'nationalist'. For example, the National Front calls itself a 'Nationalist' organisation, as does the Irish Republican Army. Yet there is obviously a world of difference between the NF and the IRA. Likewise, many Marxist terrorists in Africa are known as 'Black Nationalists'. Thus the confusion grows.

Yet can the word 'Nationalist' really be applied so widely? Can it come to encompass groups which are so obviously diametrically opposed to each other? Can it be used at one and the same time to describe groups which hold opposite, and thus mutually incompatible, views? And, if it can, doesn't this frivolous use of the word render it meaningless?

It is clear, therefore, that a definition of the term 'Nationalist' is required if the word is to acquire a definite meaning. This being the case, it makes sense to use the dictionary definition as our starting point. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a Nationalist as 'one who advocates a policy of national independence'. That, in a nutshell, is the concise definition of 'Nationalist',

From this simple dictionary definition it is possible to build a logical and consistent Nationalist Doctrine, i.e. a complete world-view based upon the 'advocacy of national independence'. Once one arrives at this doctrine it becomes apparent immediately that it is the only Nationalist world-view which is logically consistent with the simple definition from the dictionary. All other creeds purporting to be 'Nationalist' can then be identified as imposters, not worthy of the name, and exposed for holding views which are incompatible with the 'advocacy of national independence'

In order that the reader can understand the principles of Nationalist Doctrine fully, this short handbook is intended to explain the only true creed of Nationalism in as simple and concise a form as possible.


If Nationalism is defined as the 'advocacy of national independence', Nationalist Doctrine is the set of beliefs which allows for this advocacy of national independence to come to fruition as a living reality. Without Doctrine, Nationalism remains little more than an abstract idea on paper. With Doctrine, it springs to life as a living creed, a coherent ideology, relevant to the world at large and providing much-needed solutions to the problems of the age.

What, then, is Nationalist Doctrine?

It is sometimes described as the Green Triangle of Nationalism because it is based on three equally important fundamental premises. These are National Freedom, Racial Preservation and Social Justice. All three premises are essential to Doctrine. They are inseparable and independent. They can't exist in isolation.

Thus Nationalist Doctrine is a three-sided creed, sometimes called the Triangle of Nationalism. The triangle is called 'green' because all three fundamental premises are themselves dependent upon principles of Ecology.


You say that Nationalism is defined as the 'advocacy of national independence'. If that is the case, it follows that National Freedom alone is the primary premise upon which Nationalist Doctrine is based. The other premises you cite are, therefore, at best secondary premises, or arguably are not premises at all.”


Nationalist Doctrine is based on three fundamental premises because each is absolutely essential to the achievement and maintenance of national independence (as we shall see from the following pages). To speak of National Freedom as being of primary importance, and to neglect Racial Preservation and Social Justice, is to commit an error which is made by many so-called 'Nationalists'.

One can no more have National Freedom in isolation from Racial Preservation and Social Justice, than one can have a naturally functioning brain in isolation from the heart or lungs. We may argue until we're blue in the face about which is more important between the brain and the heart, but we literally will go blue in the face, and die, unless both are functioning properly! Thus it is also with the three fundamental premises of Nationalist Doctrine. Unless all three are achieved and work together as one there can be no living Nation.


The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all people had become alike, with one character and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities. The tiniest of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a particular facet of God's purpose.

ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN (From an interview in Encounter).

It is as a spiritual and not merely a political or geographical entity that a nation has its ultimate claim to a place in the world's life. The real bond of a nation, as distinct from the mere State, is not its material interests, but its habits of thought, its community of ideas, its common aspirations.... The nation with its human emotions and its moral and spiritual ideals ― the living organic community ― and not the impersonal State, is the true glory of a national people.

FATHER CUTHBERT (From his essay on Nationalism)

In order to understand the sentiments which spring from the heart and soul of Nationalism, one must first understand that the Nation has a heart and soul! Until one understands that a nation is not merely 'the state', but is an organic expression of a people's history, heritage and culture ― possessing a life and soul of its own ― one cannot begin to realise how important the life and soul of a nation is. However, once one does understand their organic nature, it becomes clear immediately that nations ― like all living things ― deserve to be protected and preserved. In fact, we can go further than this by asserting that life is sacred and, as such, members of a nation have a moral duty to fight for the preservation of that national-life.

If man is the highest form of life it follows that nations, being an expression of the collective identity of men, are the highest form of organised life. This comparison between men and nations will help us to understand better the true role of national-life and man's moral duty towards it.

For instance, the geographical space occupied by a nation can be likened to the physical body of a man. As such, it is obviously important, but is not all important because a man also possesses a spiritual and intellectual being quite distinct from his physical body. So it is with nations also. If the nation's physical body is determined by its geographical boundaries, its spiritual and intellectual being is determined by its history, heritage and culture.

A similar comparison can be made between individual members of the nation and individual cells in the human body. Millions of living cells are formed every day in the human body and, while they are alive, they work to benefit the whole body to which they belong. When they die, they are replaced by the next generation of living cells. Thus the life of the whole body is preserved and protected even though countless generations of living cells pass away. As it is with the relationship of living cells to the whole body, so it is with the relationship of individual members of the nation to the nation as a whole. As such, although an individual has a responsibility to himself, he also has a responsibility to the nation to which he belongs. Thus, each generation holds the nation in trust, receiving it from ancestors and passing it on to descendants.

Finally, since a nation is organic and has an intelligent life of its own, it must have an inalienable right to freedom in the same way that a man has an inalienable right to freedom.

It is an affront to justice for any nation to be enslaved to other nations or international bodies, just as it would be an affront to justice for any man to be enslaved to other men or other groups of men. Nations like men must be free.

National Freedom, therefore, is the first premise of Nationalist Doctrine.


"Your belief in National Freedom is all very well in theory, but in practice Nationalism leads to war. When we begin to think of ourselves as citizens of the World and not just as citizens of one particular nation then, and only then, will there be international peace."


When the enemies of Nationalism cite this argument they show ignorance of what Nationalism actually is. They fail to understand that the belief in National Freedom necessitates an acceptance of the rights of all nations to freedom and self determination; to do otherwise would be logically inconsistent. Thus the belief in National Freedom acts against the national rivalries and international tensions which lead to war.

Nationalism, therefore does not lead to war. On the contrary, it is Imperialism which leads to war, and Imperialism ― far from being the product of Nationalism ― is, in reality, the negation of Nationalism. Nationalists respect the rights and cultures of other Nations, while Imperialists trample on the rights and cultures of other Nations and treat their cultures with patronising contempt. Nations by definition, are national. Empires, by definition are international. In short, Nationalism and Imperialism are mutually incompatible.

Two examples can be given to illustrate the mutual incompatibility of Nationalism and Imperialism.

The first example is that of the British Empire. The rise of the Empire, and the concept of British Imperialism, is most associated with the reign of Queen Victoria. Yet the fruits of the Empire can be tasted most bitterly today, one hundred years after the seeds of British Imperialism were planted around the world. The fruits are cosmopolitanism, multi-racialism and internationalism, all bitter and poisonous to those who taste them and all unpalatable to Nationalism. Before the rise of the Empire, the nations of the British Isles had enjoyed thousands of years of culturally-rich history. As a result of the Empire and the foul-tasting fruits it bore, these self-same British nations are now submerged beneath a rising tide of cosmopolitanism, multi-racialism and internationalism. Now, only a century after the emergence of Empire, thousands of years of cultural and national independence are threatened with extinction.

It is said that "by their fruits you shall know them. ...A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a, corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7: 18-20). If that is so, it is apparent that the evil fruit of cosmopolitanism and multi-racialism cannot belong to the tree of national-life.

The second example is that of the world we live in today. The forces which threaten 'international peace' today are the forces of International Capitalism and International Communism. The warring camps are no longer national armies but international armies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other. Furthermore, because the world has turned its back on Nationalism wars are now massive international bloodbaths. During this century, the age of internationalism, we have already suffered two World Wars and the next one threatens to obliterate life on earth once and for all.

Thus it is evident that Imperialism and Internationalism are the real threats to 'international peace'. Nationalism is not to blame, and those who seek to lay the blame in that direction have missed the truth of the matter completely.

However, although it has been shown that Nationalism is not a threat to international peace, one final point must be made if we are to answer this objection fully.

It is important that we get the whole question of 'peace' into perspective. Although peace is not threatened by National Freedom, it would be wrong to imply that we would give up National Freedom if it could be shown that it did in some way threaten peace. Should the two principles of Freedom and Peace ever come into conflict, Freedom must take precedence. After all, a slave may have 'peace' if he doesn't annoy his master by rattling his chains too loudly! Yet one who values his Freedom will never surrender it for a 'peaceful' life.

However, a Nationalist would never see there being a conflict between Peace and Freedom since the most important peace of all is the inner-peace which comes with peace-of-mind. A Nationalist could never have peace-of-mind unless he and his Nation were Free. Consequently, peace, in the most meaningful sense of the word, is inextricably bound-up with Freedom.


Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored.


Racial differences are important to Nationalist Doctrine because they are an established reality. They are as much a scientific reality as is the force of gravity and, as such, they cannot be ignored. Above all, the racial realities turn multi-racial societies into disastrous nightmares, where conflict, disharmony and irreconcilable differences are inevitable

What then is the reality of race?

To summarise, the human species is divided into genetically distinct sub-species. These are called the races of man. Each race is genetically different from all other races. Consequently this difference is inherited from one generation to the next and cannot be altered by environmental changes. Furthermore, much scientific evidence has been collected which shows that these inherited differences between races extend to intellectual as well as physical characteristics.

From this understanding of the reality of race two broad conclusions can be drawn. One conclusion is a matter of absolute principle while the other is a matter of practical experience.

In principle, all the separate races of man deserve to be preserved and protected because they are all distinct life-forms. They are unique ― the creation of God, or evolution, or both ― and, as such, they are precious. To wilfully destroy these races is an immoral act of the first magnitude known as genocide.

Thus, it follows from this principle that multi-racialism is an immoral act tantamount to genocide, since the mixing of races (miscegenation) destroys all races. Therefore, that which is euphemistically called racial 'integration' is, in reality, racial disintegration.

In practice, ignorance of racial realities causes chaos in society. For instance, multi-racial societies present a myriad of problems which can't be solved because they are the product of multi-racialism itself. These problems include the vain attempts by multi-racial societies to make all the races equal, e.g. 'positive' discrimination, race relations act etc. All these attempts are ultimately doomed to failure because they are based on false premise, namely that the races can be made equal if the environment is changed to help those who are 'disadvantaged'. However, as we have seen, races are genetically distinct and, as such, inequalities are inherited. They are not the product of the environment but of the parents' genes. A rudimentary knowledge of racial realities would indicate that environmental changes cannot eradicate inequalities since the inequalities have precious little to do with the environment!

Nevertheless, multi-racialists prefer fantasy to fact and this makes them blind to the realities of race.

Nationalists, however, are not blind to these realities. In the same way that an architect cannot design a building without being aware of the law of gravity, a realist cannot design a society without being aware of the realities of race. These realities make the preservation of the races of man a moral imperative and practical necessity. Thus, racial preservation is the second premise of Nationalism.


Social Justice means justice for all members of the Nation; and justice for all means unearned privilege for none.

Therefore, Social Justice requires equality of opportunity.

From the outset, however, it is important to stress that 'equality of opportunity' is different from the concept of 'human equality'. The former is a prerequisite for Social Justice, while the latter is a fallacy not borne out by scientific reality. As with the differences between races, differences between individuals are largely genetic, i.e. they are inherited and are independent of environmental factors. Therefore, 'human equality' like 'racial equality' doesn't exist since people are born unequal. However, although 'human equality' can never exist because it flies in the face of the cold hard facts of nature, 'equality of opportunity' can exist and must exist in a society that is Socially Just.

Nevertheless, the concept of Social Justice is not confined solely to the question of equal opportunity. In order to understand fully what is meant by Social Justice, it is necessary to keep in mind the dictionary definition of 'Justice'.

Justice means fairness and giving people what they deserve and have a right to possess. Specifically, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'justice' as the "exercise of authority in maintenance of right".

Taking this definition, and reasserting man's right to Freedom, it follows that justice is the 'exercise of authority in maintenance of individual freedom'.

Above all, therefore, Social Justice must mean the possession by all the people of their inalienable right to Freedom.

However, the term 'freedom' has been distorted and devalued through its abusage by those who fail to understand its intrinsic meaning. Everyone pays lip-service to freedom and most are sure that their beliefs are compatible with it. Everyone from the Conservatives to the Communists proclaim that their beliefs are conducive to 'freedom', yet clearly this cannot be so. Once again, as we have seen earlier, the meaning of a word is confused by a failure to understand its definitive meaning. This being so, and returning once again to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the definition of 'freedom' is given as "personal liberty, non-slavery; civil liberty, independence; liberty of action, right to do; power of self-determination, independence of fate or necessity".

Taking this definition it becomes immediately obvious that Freedom means nothing unless it means an individual having real control over all aspects of his own life. He must have 'personal liberty' and 'civil liberty'; he must have 'independence' and 'liberty of action'; he must have the 'right to do' what his conscience demands with his own life; he must have the power of self-determination and 'independence of fate or necessity'.

Ultimately, therefore, Justice can be defined as the 'exercise of authority in the maintenance of one's right to have real control over one's own life'

Consequently, Social Justice demands:-

  1. An individual must have ownership and control over the place where he lives.

An individual must have ownership and control of the place where he works.

An individual must have ownership and control of all other means of personal sustenance.

An individual must have real political muscle.

All of these four prerequisites for Social Justice are lacking from present-day capitalist or socialist societies.

Many people don't own or control the place where they live and are at the mercy of private and municipal landlords.

Most people don't own or exercise any control over the place where they work because they are employed by huge multi-national companies or massive state-owned concerns.

Nobody has full ownership and control of their means of sustenance, since their disposable income is heavily taxed, both directly and indirectly, and many are heavily in debt and paying usurious rates of interest.

Very few people are lucky enough to have any real political muscle since Parliament and other political institutions are totally unrepresentative and ignorant of the individual's views.

From this it becomes evident that Social Justice is incompatible with Communism (a.k.a. Socialism) or Capitalism (a.k.a. Conservatism or Liberalism). All these creeds are centralist, by which we mean they centralise ownership, control and power into the hands of a privileged few ― be it State bureaucrats (in the case of Communism) or big business (in the case of Capitalism). Regardless of the name it poses under, Centralism is incompatible with Social Justice because it strips the people of their Freedom, i.e. the power to control their own lives.

Nationalism can and must give Freedom back to the people because it is their inalienable right. Consequently, widely distributed ownership of property, equality of opportunity, finance without usury and human-scale political institutions must all be enshrined in Nationalist ideology.

Thus, Social Justice is the third premise of Nationalist Doctrine.


Your analysis of the four areas of Freedom which must be given back to the people is all very well. Furthermore, your enshrinement in your ideology of 'widely distributed ownership of property, equality of opportunity, finance without usury and human-scale political institutions' is doubtless well-intentioned. Nevertheless, what makes you think Nationalism will succeed in reshaping society along these lines when all others have failed?”


Nationalism will succeed in achieving Social Justice where all others have failed, because Nationalism understands the concept of Freedom while all others don't. Quite simply, the Nationalist analysis is correct and consequently the solution which springs from it is correct also. On the other hand, the analysis of other creeds is incorrect and thus their solutions are incorrect.

To put it bluntly, if you don't understand the problem you won't find the answer to it.

For example, the capitalist concept of 'freedom' is not the freedom of the individual to control his own life, but the freedom of certain 'enterprising' individuals to do what they like with the lives of less 'enterprising' people. This concept of 'freedom' is known as 'free enterprise'.

In reality, this bizarre and perverse concept of 'Freedom' is nothing more than the freedom of the haves to exploit the have nots, or the freedom of the slave owner to possess slaves.

However, the Communist concept of 'Freedom' is equally perverse.

Marxists maintain, quite rightly, that the unequal distribution of property leads to the enslavement of those without property to those with property. However, they then reason that private property is wrong because its unequal distribution is wrong. This analysis is incorrect and illogical to boot. Private property is not wrong ― on the contrary it is a guarantor of the owner's freedom ― it is its unequal distribution which is wrong.

To summarise; Marxists say private property is wrong ― abolish it! Nationalists say private property is right (everyone's right) ― give it to everybody!


Thus far we have outlined the three premises of Nationalism ― the three sides of the Nationalist triangle.

Now, however, it becomes necessary to stress that all three premises are absolutely essential to Doctrine. All three are prerequisites for national independence and, as such, they cannot exist in isolation one from the other.

The triangle only exists by virtue of the existence of its three sides. If one of the sides is removed, the triangle collapses. This is as true of the Triangle of Nationalism as it is of any other triangle: if one of the three premises is neglected or removed the whole concept of Nationalism collapses.

Consequently, because all three premises are absolutely essential, it follows that they are interdependent. Each relies on the other two for existence. Just as human life cannot exist without the heart, brain and lungs, so national-life cannot exist without National Freedom, Racial Preservation and Social Justice.

In short, therefore, it can be seen that the Triangle of Nationalism is indivisible.


A Nation is the collective expression of a People. It therefore follows that the nature of a Nation is determined by the nature of its people.

Now, a People is dependent for its very nature upon the gene-pool it inherits from past generations in exactly the same way as a man is dependent for his very nature upon the genes he inherits from his parents.

From this it follows that any change in a people's gene-pool will change the very nature of the people concerned and thus the very nature of the Nation to which they belong, or, to put it another way, the preservation of the Nation requires the preservation of the gene-pool.

Putting this principle into practice, and keeping our understanding of racial realities to the fore, it can be seen that immigration and miscegenation will alter the gene-pool significantly and thus change the very nature of the Nation. Consequently, a Nation's very existence can only be preserved if steps are taken to protect its genetic inheritence by ensuring that its unique gene-pool is not destroyed. In short, National Survival requires racial preservation.


You say that the influx of 'alien genes' will destroy the national gene-pool. This is not the case, since the introduction of different races to a nation enriches it both genetically and culturally”


Our understanding of racial reality allows us to dismiss this objection out of hand. As we have seen since, the genetic differences between the races of man lead to division and conflict when the races are brought together. The multitude of problems which accompany multi-racialism can be called many things, but to call them 'enrichment' is plainly absurd!

Nevertheless, there is another answer to this objection which emphasises the relationship between National Freedom and Racial Preservation still further.

As we have seen, a Nation is a human organism ― the highest form of organised life. As a human organism it has a specific genetic identity, in exactly the same way as each individual member of the nation has his or her own genetic identity. Again, just as the genetic identity of each individual person is unique to that person alone, so the genetic identity of each individual Nation is unique to that Nation alone. Thus, if that identify is tampered with or altered in any way, that unique being ceases to exist; it becomes something else. Consequently National preservation requires Racial Preservation.


Racial Preservation requires a conscious desire by the folk of each race to preserve their own ethnic identity. Once this will for survival is eroded, Racial Preservation is itself in jeopardy. Therefore, that which strengthens this will to survival is conducive to Racial Preservation while that which weakens it is destructive of Racial Preservation. This being so, it can be seen that the existence of free Nations strengthens the will to Racial Preservation, while the growth of internationalism and cosmopolitanism weakens it. Racial Preservation is, therefore, inextricably bound up with National Freedom.


In order to illustrate the necessity of Social Justice to a Nation's survival, it becomes necessary to look at the very nature of Social Justice compared to those systems which lead to social injustice such as Capitalism and Communism.

Since Social Justice has been defined as the 'exercise of authority in the maintenance of everyone's right to have real control over their own lives' it follows that it must decentralise ownership, control and power to every individual. This contrasts starkly with Capitalism and Communism which centralise ownership, control, and power with privileged cliques. This centralisation leads to power blocs becoming more and more powerful until they outgrow national boundaries, e.g. multi-national companies, international banks etc. Once these power centres outgrow national boundaries they then seek to undermine those boundaries. To take a practical example, a large multi-national company with branches in Europe, America and the Third World will not take kindly to any national government seeking to prevent or limit the free flow of its products or its capital investments. Consequently, centralisation inevitably becomes international, and when it becomes international it becomes anti-national at the same time. It is, therefore, the enemy of National Freedom.

Social Justice, on the other hand, demands decentralisation. It demands the reversal of the centralisation which leads to internationalism. Thus, National Freedom requires Social Justice.

The interdependence between National Freedom and Social Justice can be illustrated further by the employment of the following analogy.

Within a healthy living organism all the bodily functions interact in a harmonious way for the good of the whole being. Each has its part to play. A healthy organism, therefore, is in a state of biological equilibrium.

If the organism contracts a virus this equilibrium is lost and the whole body suffers and becomes unhealthy. When the organism regains this equilibrium it becomes well again. If, however, the body doesn't regain this equilibrium the virus will take hold and worsening health or death will follow. Now this biological example is true of all living organisms. Therefore, it must be true of the national organism. This being so, we can look upon Social Justice as the equilibrium which exists within a healthy national organism. Consequently, since Social Justice has been destroyed, we begin to understand why the Nation is in such ill-health. We can see that the national organism is suffering from a disease called Centralism which is spread by a virus called Capitalism. This virus has destroyed Social Justice and,as such, the health of the whole national organism is suffering. Unless the equilibrium of Social Justice is established soon all Nations suffering from the Capitalist virus will perish. Thus, we begin to understand why National Freedom requires Social Justice.


As we have already seen, Social Justice is defined as the 'exercise of authority in the maintenance of everyone's right to have real control over their own lives'. Furthermore, we have deduced from this that the centralisation of power must, therefore, be an enemy of Social Justice.

Consequently, since internationalism is the logical fulfilment of all centralisation it follows that internationalism is an enemy of Social Justice. As such, internationalism must be defeated if Social Justice is to be attained.

Therefore, while internationalism weakens National Freedom, Social Justice must strengthen National Freedom; and while internationalism puts power in the hands of international institutions, Social Justice must return this power to Nation States.

In short, Social Justice requires National Freedom.

Once again, this interdependence between Social Justice and National Freedom can be illustrated by the employment of a practical example...

A man has a reasonable say over these things which effect him alone, e.g. which newspaper he buys on the way to work each morning.

The same man has a great deal of say over those things which affect his family alone. However, he hasn't complete freedom to do as he likes since he will have to take the views of other members of the family into account before family decisions are taken, e.g. where the family is to go on holiday.

The same man has considerably less say over those things which effect his local community, e.g. how ratepayers money is spent. These things are decided by the local council and he is but one voter out of many thousands. Nevertheless, if he is prepared to harass his local councillor, he can still have a minor say in the running of the local community.

The same man has even less say, in fact he has virtually no say at all, over those things which are decided by the National Parliament since he is but one voter out of many millions.

However, the same man has literally no say, and becomes completely powerless and irrelevant, over those things which are decided by international bodies. Many international bodies, like the United Nations, are not even elected at all, but even those which are elected like the European Parliament, are not representative of the voters' interests since each voter is but one solitary voice in an electorate of hundreds upon hundreds of millions.

Thus, the more power is centralised in the hands of powerful political institutions, the less power is held in the hands of the individual. Consequently, since Social Justice demands the individual's right to have real control over his own life, it follows that Social Justice must decentralise power away from these powerful political institutions. Therefore, Social Justice demands:-

That those things which affect the family alone must be controlled by the family alone, and not by local councils, the national parliament or any other political institution.

That those things which affect the local community alone must be controlled by the local community alone, and not by the national parliament.

That those things which effect the Nation alone must be controlled by the Nation alone, and not by international political institutions.

Thus, Social Justice requires National Freedom.


We have stated already that Racial Preservation requires a conscious desire by the folk of each race to preserve their own ethnic identity. In other words, a conscious will to survive is essential to Racial Preservation.

Since this is the case, Racial Preservation will only require Social Justice if the latter is conducive to this will to survive. A look at the facts will illustrate that Social Justice is not only conducive to the will to racial survival, it is absolutely essential to it.

As we have seen, the forces of social injustice lead to centralisation; centralisation leads to internationalism; internationalism leads to cosmopolitanism; and cosmopolitanism is anathema to the will to racial survival. Thus the forces of social injustice destroy the will to survival which is essential to Racial Preservation. This being so, it goes without saying that the decentralisation which goes with Social Justice destroys the cause of cosmopolitanism and, as such, it must protect the will to racial survival.

Therefore, Racial Preservation requires Social Justice.


Our understanding of racial realities, i.e. the genetic differences which exist between races, make us realise that a multi-racial society can never be a Socially Just Society. The inherent inequalities between races will lead to inherent inequalities within society. These, in turn, will lead to tension and division. Consequently, it is evident that Social Justice cannot exist in such an atmosphere. In short, Social Justice is incompatible with multi-racialism. Or, to put it even more plainly, Social Justice requires Racial Preservation!


So far we have seen that there are three fundamental premises of Nationalist Doctrine, i.e. National Freedom, Racial Preservation and Social Justice. Thus we have the Triangle of Nationalism.

We have also seen that each premise is dependent on the other two. They cannot exist in isolation from one another. Thus the triangle is said to be indivisible.

Finally, however, we come to realise that the three premises of Nationalist Doctrine are themselves dependent on ecological factors. Thus we must affirm that the Triangle is Green.


We have seen already that a Nation is 'an organic expression of a people's history, heritage and culture ― possessing a life and soul of its own'. Consequently, since Nations are living organisms, they must be subject to the universal laws governing such organisms. In short, National-life is dependent on ecological factors for its sustenance and survival.

This dependence of National-life on ecological factors can be illustrated by looking at a couple of general examples:-

The wildlife of a Nation is part of the Nation's uniqueness and part of its heritage. Therefore, it is part of the Nation's life. As such, anything which threatens a Nation's wildlife threatens part of the National-life.

The soil of a Nation is, in many respects, the Nation's life-blood. From the Nation's soil must be grown the food upon which the Nation depends for its nutritional sustenance. As such, anything which poisons the soil poisons the Nation itself.

These two examples prove the point: national-life and therefore National Freedom, is dependent on ecological factors. National Freedom is Green!


We have seen already that “all the separate races of man deserved to be preserved and protected because they are all distinct life forms. They are unique ― the creation of God, or evolution, or both ― and, as such, they are precious.”

Once this is understood, it follows that a belief in Racial Preservation is an ecological belief, in the same way that a belief in preserving other species and sub-species of life is an ecological belief. Thus, Racial Preservation is Green!


I am sure we have been right in repudiating the rubbish and gadgetry of industrial society. I am sure it is wrong for people to have to live in housing estates and work in huge factories to produce such rubbish. I don't think the human animal has been evolved by natural selection to live happily like that - any more than the domestic fowl has been bred by natural selection to be happy in a small wire cage.”

JOHN SEYMOUR (The Fat of the Land, page 170)

Humans are organic beings. As such, they are happier, given a choice, if they are able to live in an organic environment in keeping with their organic nature. In short, man is more at home living a natural life in a natural environment than living an artificial life in an artificial environment. Just as a rabbit is happier running free in the countryside than being caged in a man-made rabbit hutch, so man is happier living free in the countryside than being caged in a multi-storey rabbit hutch, otherwise known as a high-rise flat.

Taking this facet of man's nature, we begin to see that Social Justice must foster a return to a more natural way of life. More specifically, Social Justice must include the right of men to rediscover their roots in the soil of their native land. In order to facilitate this, all those who so wish should be actively encouraged to return to the land as self-sufficient smallholders. This is totally in harmony with the concept of Social Justice since a self-sufficient family growing its own food on its own land has more 'real control over its own life' than any number of wage slaves in the city. As such, self-sufficiency is the embodiment of individual freedom and the cornerstone of a Socially Just society.

So Social Justice necessitates an exodus from the cities and a return to the land. Yet this return to the land will not only be good for the people it will be good for the land as well.

A re-emergence of labour-intensive mixed farming, brought about by such a return to the land, will end the poisoning and raping of the land by agri-business; it will end the destruction of the hedgerows and wildlife caused by modern, exploit-for-profit farming techniques; and it will increase the fertility of the land and the amount of food produced per acre.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the 'back to the land' principle called for by Social Justice is as good for the soil of the land as it is for the soul of man. Thus Social Justice is Green!


Nationalist Doctrine, as expounded in these pages is universal. That is, it applies equally to the survival and independence of all Nations.

In short, the existence of free and independent Nations is threatened today by the rising tide of cosmopolitanism. Only through the acceptance of Nationalist Doctrine can this tide be reversed. Cosmopolitanism leads to national slavery ― Nationalism is the key to National Freedom!


1. What are you?

I am a Nationalist.

2. What is a Nationalist?

A Nationalist is one who advocates National Independence.

3. How do you propose to obtain National Independence?

National Independence can only be obtained by putting the principles of Nationalist Doctrine into practice.

4. What is Nationalist Doctrine?

Nationalist Doctrine is a complete and logically consistent view of the world based upon the advocacy of National Independence. It is sometimes called the Green Triangle of Nationalism.

5. What do you mean by the Green Triangle of Nationalism?

When we talk about the Green Triangle of Nationalism we mean that Nationalist Doctrine is a three-sided creed and that this creed is Green.

6. What are the three sides of Nationalist Doctrine?

The three sides of Nationalist Doctrine are the principles of National Freedom, Racial Preservation and Social Justice.

7. What do you mean by National Freedom?

When we talk of National Freedom we mean that a Nation has an inalienable right to freedom in the same way that a man has an inalienable right to freedom. Nations, like men, must be free.

8. What do you mean by Racial Preservation?

When we talk of Racial Preservation we mean that the races of man must be protected and preserved because they are distinct life-forms. They are unique and, as such, they are precious and must be preserved.

9. What do you mean by Social Justice?

When we talk of Social Justice we mean the exercise of authority in the maintenence of one's right to have real control over one's own life. Consequently, Social Justice demands the individual's right to exercise ownership and control of the place where he lives and the place where he works. It also demands the right of the individual to have control over all his other means of personal sustenance and his right to exercise real political muscle.

10. Which of the three principles of. Nationalist Doctrine is most important?

All three principles are of equal importance since all are absolutely essential to National Independence. Therefore, the Triangle of Nationalism is indivisible, with each side being dependent on the other two sides for its existence.

11. Why is the Triangle of Nationalism called 'Green'?

The Triangle of Nationalism is called 'Green' because the three premises of Nationalist Doctrine ― National Freedom, Racial Preservation and Social Justice ― are all dependent on ecological factors.