Classical democracy, as was made manifest in ancient Greece—and especially
in Athens—differed greatly in complexion to our contemporary and
preponderant derivative. In essence, the ancient Greek electorate was
composed of free, native (Greek) men. This trio of voting preconditions is
relevant to us today and exerts a strong influence on how nationalists
reckon with modern political democracy and its core elements, the primary
being the electorate itself.
I am a passionate critic of established democracy because I do not believe
in the equality of man and therefore cannot envisage a fair,
representative, and potent government while the voting population is
scrutinised through an unnatural, egalitarian lens. But if democracies are
to function in a roughly fair, representative, and potent manner, then I
feel we must at a minimum review the classical Greek model and glean what
we are able.
As the late chairman of the National Alliance, Dr. William L. Pierce, once
“When empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and
women go into politics.”
In the context of a dictatorial form of government, perhaps Pierce’s
comment rings true to a certain extent. Women, who are by nature and on
the average, generally more empathetic than their men, are feasibly not
built for the formidable responsibilities and frequently ruthless
decisions that are the staple of the dictator – and even then, these
burdens are often too much for a single man to endure.
Under a democratic regime, the nominal leader is made a transitory
chairman-style figure and legislative duties are divided and shared or
allocated. Democracies tend also to be more intellectually balanced
affairs and can contrast sharply with more imperious dictatorships.
Because of this difference in structure and composition, women—in my
opinion—certainly have a role to play in a representative democracy.
Two further variables remain: the concept of a “free” citizen and the
status of “indigenous” members of a society or nation.
Taking the latter at face value, voting in Britain must be restricted
folk, of an eligible age, born in Britain and who can be defined as
indigenous to these isles. Because the despotic UK government will not
admit the existence of indigenous Britons, a recent scientific study into
the genetic character of the Britain may provide the much needed
The Oxford University research, which was peer-reviewed and subsequently
published in the estimable journal Nature, calculated that the genetic
constitution of Britain has not altered significantly (excluding the mass
immigration of the past seventy years) for approximately 1,500 years. The
answer to the indigenous voter question could, as such, be resolved below:
Voting in any British election is subject to, although not solely
restricted to, the registered voter being indigenous to Britain.
Personally, I would define indigenous, in this regard, as a person of
European descent whose European ancestry can be traced back as far as—for
the sake of a figure, though still based on the Oxford research—515AD, and
whose unique British ancestry begins no later than the time of the Norman
conquest of 1066AD.
The above, having ruled out large proportions of the modern British
population—and no doubt many nationalists—could comfortably be superseded
by the following holistic definition of indigenous:
A person of European descent whose ancestry in Britain can be traced back
through 20 generations (approximately 500 years).
Whatever the definitive prerequisite is for voting in British elections
cannot, however, be insistent upon strict genealogy. Many who today
consider themselves to be British have the right—under a democratic
constitution—to determine the direction of the country via the ballot box
and their elected representatives.
Once again bearing the Oxford study in mind, and with the clear impact of
the past 70 years of mass immigration, voting in British elections should,
in my opinion, be limited to registered voters who can trace their British
ancestry back through five generations, a figure which is extended every
general election. The verdict of an appraisal via this method might
designate the citizen as a British “native,” rather than an “indigenous
person,” but for the purpose of electoral politics, the differences
between these two specific definitions would be of no consequence.
So far then we have an electorate comprised of both men and women able to
demonstrate—via DNA testing if necessary—that they are at least a fifth
generation Briton. The final criterion is the equivocal concept of what it
means to be a “free” citizen.
In 1833 the Britain government of the time abolished slavery (temporal
bondage) across its then vast empire. Nevertheless, I would argue that
since the disastrous closing act of World War Two, a more insidious form
of mental and spiritual bondage has permeated Britain, and indeed most of
In order to conclude whether or not a native Briton is “free,” a stringent
psychological examination would be required. The basic principles of any
such testing should adhere to concise guidelines and fundamental enquires.
The core of any assessments must be the three tenets of a national entity:
survival, proliferation, and development (e.g., “Should Britain exist? Why
should the British exist? What is your role as a native Briton?” etc.) In
this manner, the theoretical liberty of proposed voters can be reliably
Should a potential voter fail their electorate test, then a period of
re-education would be mandatory if said citizen was insistent on their
vote. A second failure would result in a judgement of unfitness to vote
for a pre-defined period.
Practical democracy is therefore dependent upon and subject to the
1. The registered voter is a man or a woman;
2. The registered voter is a British native (as explained above);
3. The registered voter is free (as explained above).
However, these three components assume an underlying fallacy to which I
have already alluded: that all voters are intrinsically “equal.” Due to
the computable inequality of human beings—even of the same ethnic stock
and hailing from the same family—a fourth factor is, I feel, essential to
the operation of a successful democracy: a meritocratic points-based
allocation of votes based on intelligence, education, accomplishment,
political interest, etc.
For example, a Cambridge professor of political science—a former
businessman with no criminal record, a large indigenous family, and a
track record of sensible voting decisions—would receive 10 voting points.
Whereas a voter of secondary repute would enjoy a less generous
apportionment. This, of course, would be fluid and subject to review every
election, although it would require a significant degree of voter
participation in order to reduce administrative costs as well as
displaying an individual enthusiasm for politics (something scrapping
nonsensical policies, such as the multi-billion pound Foreign Aid
emotional blackmail scheme, could easily fund).
Rather than elections persisting as periodic and mechanical processes by
which a Westminster parliament is repopulated, a more progressive
democracy might influence the very health of the nation. Similarly,
academia would revolve around a social nucleus powered by the production
of eminent citizens capable of reaching the highest electoral grade; an
informed and motivated population to whom the governance and future of
their nation is of paramount importance. At present, we are regrettably a
long way from this vision of a forward-thinking British society.
You can visit the BDP site at http://www.britishdemocraticparty.co.uk