Roots of Radicalism


STEVE BRADY explains why power must lie in the hands of the people in a Nationalist Britain – because the future of our race and nation is in safer hands with the mass of the people than it is with a dictator, or clique of self-appointed 'of the revolution'.

IT IS A widely held idea that the National Revolution, the coming to power of a racial-nationalist government, would imply some sort of dictatorship. Political opponents would be shot, an autocracy installed with a full supporting cast of secret policemen, concentration camps etc.

Then things would really get done: "all political forces within the nation" be "co-ordinated together in a mighty effort of national reconstruction", trains would run on time, fag packets would not be dropped etc, etc.

Obviously our opponents will accuse us of this anyway. But to be honest – and to win public support we had better be honest – some racial nationalists do believe that dictatorship is desirable, or at least necessary.

These nationalists would justify dictatorship on various grounds. These range from frustration with the corruption and squalor of "the old system of party warfare", through the pragmatic argument that setting up a dictatorship precludes a multi-racialist counter-revolution and is more efficient at getting things done, to the theoretical argument that if we believe that human nature is genetically determined, it follows that people are inherently unequal, so that democratic nose-counting is wrong in principle.

These points must be answered if our commitment to freedom is to be seen as sincere.


It is undeniable that the present system of government in Britain and other so-called 'democracies' is a squalid farce. But what is wrong with it is, very largely, precisely that it is not democratic, in the sense of reflecting the will of the people

Race is a classic example of this. Racialism pervades every area of British attitudes, as Bemie Grant and Ken Livingstone, not just the NF, will tell you, and the Commission for Racial Equality will agree. Most Britons are, at heart, racialist, so in a genuine democracy a racialist people would elect a racialist government.

But what do we find? A system of government which offers a 'choice' of three multi-racialist alternatives. When the greatest social transformation in British history, the importation of utterly ethnically alien Africans and Asians into virtually every town and city in the land occured, a genuine democracy would first have undergone the fullest public debate on the issue.

A General Election, or Referendum, would have been called on the issue of whether Britain should be a multi-racial society or not.


But what in fact happened? Not only was there no Election or Referendum but there was a determined effort to stifle all public debate on the issue. After each Election the leaders of all parties congratulated each other that "Race has not been an issue in this Election". There has been far more 'democratic debate' about the system of taxation for local councils and which MP slept with which prostitute than about whether the British people should continue to exist.

This state of affairs can be called many things but democratic or free it is not! Its shortcomings are those, not of democracy or freedom, but of the tyranny of an oligarchic elite, 'the Establishment' and its ideology 'the liberal consensus' masquerading as democracy.

Much better for us if Britain, really had been a democracy, in which the will of the people prevailed. For, as opinion polls have shown unwaveringly for forty years, we would have no coloured immigration, no EEC, the IRA smashed by resolute Army action, no US bases in Britain, a truly independent British nuclear deterrent, more of the economy in the hands of small businessmen, less pollution and so on – very largely (if not as clearly thought through) what British Nationalists want.

It is ironic that so many British Nationalists don't trust a public that so agrees with it. Of course the public isn't perfect, but after decades of endless media brainwashing in favour of apathetic acqusitive consumeristic greed and selfishness it is amazing they are not worse.


Indeed the racialism of the public is so overwhelming that multi-racialist editors battling for circulation figures at the popular end of the daily paper market have often yielded to Capitalist greed and pandered to it. The Sun and the Mail haven't taken to printing racialist articles and headlines because they are racialists, but because such articles are popular, and in the absence of a significant Nationalist challenge presumably felt harmless.

This deep-rooted popular racialism, and even broader Nationalism, isn't simply a bit of luck for us. It demonstrates an important aspect of our ideology, and the reason why we can trust the people with power.

Our ideology is rooted in a rational, scientifically sound, true understanding of the basically genetic origin and conformation of human nature, of why people act, and think, and feel, in the way they do. That understanding has not grown from the hot air and theories of political pundits seeking to justify their own prejudices.

It was built up by generations of mostly non-political scientists, ethologists, psychologists, geneticists, sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists. Most of them were not racial Nationalists and they did not mean to justify our ideas. That's why their doing so is so convincing.

That understanding of human nature implies that people will, in general, be basically ethnocentric - racialist in today's situation; that they will be better adapted to living in small close-knit communities than to giant cities and so on. In other words they will want the sort of society we offer, and they will be able to make it work. They will not need to be compelled to make it work.

Compulsion - tyranny - is needed to make people do what they don't want to do. We seek to get people to do what, at heart, they do want to do.

How an NF cartoonist saw 'democracy' in 1973


If our ideology is right we have nothing to fear from criticism. Create a society that works with, not against, the inborn nature of Man, and most will be happy with it. The weak, the insecure, fear freedom – we need not.

Free speech and the chance to vote out the incompetent and the corrupt make a society more, not less, efficient. We should welcome debate – we ought to be able to answer our critics, and where we can't the fault is ours: it shows where we need to further develop our ideas.

The New Britain ought to be strong enough to be able to tolerate Tories, Marxists and the rest. If we're right few will listen to them anyway. Freedom strengthens society: internally as it flushes out the corrupt, idle and inept from positions of power; externally because throughout history free men fighting for their beliefs have outmatched slaves fighting through fear.

Our ideology, of course, implies innate inequality. But in a more democratic society that too is a source of strength. At present Britain is not a democracy. Even if those running it were not corrupt anyway the present Parliamentary system gives people, and must give people, little real control over, or say in, their own lives. Power is remote and unaccountable. 600 representing 56 million cannot in any real way reflect their views.

Power must be given directly, at local level, to the people. In small gatherings, communities, either geographic or occupational, of at most a few thousand, everyone knows each other. Then the counting of millions voting for people and issues they know only as media images is replaced by discussion and decision in which individual worth is known and matters. The wise are heeded, the fools are ignored, because everyone knows which is which.

Democracy at that level does not imply equality or negate leadership. Anyone who needs laws and a secret police to get his will implemented is not a leader, whatever the billboards he may plaster up may say. True leaders lead by inspiration, not compulsion, and in a true democracy their qualities shine forth unhampered.


It is also ironic that we are advocating a return to the 'folkmoot' of our ancestors, where every free adult could speak and vote in the governance of the community, or indeed the Assembly of Athens, whence the word 'democracy' comes, whilst our 'Nationalist' critics advocate the Oriental despotism of the Asiatic.

Freedom, the right to stand up, say what you think, and have a voice in the affairs that affect you is at the core of the White, especially the Nordic, consciousness. It is very much a part of what, racially, we are.

Of course there are issues that local assemblies can't decide. Defence, foreign policy and macro-economics for example. There are also issues which normally affect few people directly, in the immediate sense, and about which most people know very little. They are therefore clearly best left to specialists – but those specialists must be open to criticism, and accountable to, and removable by, the people.

There, and there alone, political parties would have a role to play. Thereby a choice of broad policy directions could be offered to the people, since as the New Britain matures and prospers new parties, basically Nationalist but representing perhaps regional, or other special interests, would evolve.

So freedom offers efficiency. In a truly free society if the trains don't run on time the railway workers sack their management – or face complaints in their community meetings from those who were delayed!


It also offers one final and greatest advantage – security for the race, and for the National Revolution. Throughout history it has always been easier to corrupt the few than the many. Time after time revolutionary elites have held on to power "to safeguard the Revolution" and have ended betraying it.

The centralization of power is itself a threat to the Race. Firstly because it means the Race must depend on a few peoples' reliability and competence – can we risk it?

Secondly because it focusses economic and social forces so they can exert maximum effect – often a bad effect. Centralised economic power generates an internal dynamic towards multiracialism and internationalism. It is in the short term more profitable to produce on a vast scale for a global market and to use cheap Third World labour, for example.

Centralise political power and the economic bosses are in a position to exert leverage. Decentralise both and the economic imperatives to internationalism will not manifest themselves, nor be able to over-ride the people if they did.

So dictatorship is unnecessary and dangerous to the ultimate purpose of Racial Nationalism – the survival and advancement of the race. The future of the race is safer in many hands than few. Our understanding of the innate nature of our race indicates that those hands are safe ones.

Certainly in the last forty years they would have been – the people would have guarded the race from immigration if they had been allowed to. If we are right the people will want to defend the race and the revolution, perhaps more than the leaders of the party, for power will not be there to corrupt them.

Power to the People means Survival to the Race!