‹ Back

The native political sphere in Britain is at something of a crossroads. 

 

On the one hand, you have the ‘far-right’ nationalist.

 

The ‘far-right’ position is one that, whilst ethnocentric, has its reasoning in capitalism, libertarianism, and Conservatism. Virtually every self-identified nationalist party in Britain has adopted this position in some degree or another. It is an inherently flawed position, full of contradiction, and which routinely produces manifestos and programmes in which one half contradicts the other. You will readily find the adherents of this path demanding low tax but high government spending, localised/devolved decision making yet centralised authority to shut down foreign sectarian communities, militarised actions to reverse the demographic problem yet a demilitarised society, radical policies for reshaping society yet limited government authority to actually implement them. It is also true that for adherents of this position, there is typically less difference between them and the most hard-line elements of the Conservative Party, than there is between elements of the Conservative Party and each other.

 

What this ‘far-right’ position in terms of race and nation boils down to is, in a word, sectarianism. The contradictions in demands are ignored because there is a double standard being applied. The real problem of this sectarianism is that it isn’t racial, it’s political. The sect doesn’t actually benefit anyone outside of its own bubble, even the majority of white British people. Where some of these sectarian enterprises obtain land, it becomes exclusively for the use of the political sect and nobody else. Where businesses and enterprises are created, they exist to benefit only the people in the political sect. In the rare instances where this kind of sectarian politics gets public office, these offices get used primarily for the advancement of the sect, not for the betterment of the wider community as a whole (or even for the betterment of the native community).

 

This position, as adopted by the majority of nationalist organisations in Britain, is completely antithetical to any kind of political success, precisely because it offers very little to anyone except the person advocating for it. It doesn’t even offer very much, if anything, to native British people.

 

The ‘socialist’ position is one that has its reasoning in collectivism, not just from a racial perspective, but also from an economic and governmental perspective. There aren’t any contradictions or flaws, because the principles on offer are consistent, without double standards, and the methods work towards the ends. It recognises that high government spending and accessible public services requires at least a moderate level of taxation, that creating a unified society means having a centralised government with legitimate but limitless authority, that militancy of any kind requires the militarisation of society as a whole in order to be possible, and that collectivisation of any kind (including racial) requires a decision making process in government which is based on the greater good rather than the individual good.

 

This position fundamentally renounces the concept of individualism, and liberalism along with it. The creation of an ethnocentric, socialist society as opposed to a sectarian one, will not benefit absolutely every single individual, BUT crucially, it will benefit the majority of people, the majority of the time. The National Community as a singular whole, WILL be better off. An individual person accepts that they will not always get absolutely everything they want, but it ultimately doesn’t matter, because the majority of time, they will, and if they don’t, it will only be because it was in the National Community’s interests. There will be times when an individual will have to make sacrifices for the good of the community. At the same time, every individual knows that their community is also there for them, when they are in need.

 

This position is the only position, which is capable of any kind of political success, because it offers something for the country as a whole, which includes the majority native population. The enterprises it carries out will add value to whichever town, city or community they take root it. People will, on the whole, be better off for having the nationalist as a neighbour, councillor, mayor, MP, leader.

 

The principles of the National Rebirth Party – the Twenty Demands of the National Agenda – are rooted in this idea, and that will never change. Eventually, those who choose to follow to sectarian path will recognise that the reason their National Community appears to have abandoned them, is because THEY have abandoned IT. All things are possible, when individuals become a group.

 

By Alek Yerbury

 

Party Leader