British nationalism is a toxic bin fire

Some people didn’t get the memo that I backed away from the Homeland Party. To put the issue to bed, I will set out my reasoning one final time. The short version is that there were irreconcilable differences in approach to policy. I think it should be done a certain way, expounding the arguments in full. I do not want to see important pillars of policy reduced to bullet points and blurbs. I could expand on my reasoning, but it suffices to say I lost that argument, thus I lost any interest in contributing further.

From the beginning, though, I was acutely aware there was an unpleasant side to nationalism, but I was prepared to turn a blind eye to much of it, in the hope of building a sensible nationalist party. It could be done by developing an intellectual foundation with coherent policy that would widen the appeal of nationalism and minimise the influence of cranks. There’s a reason nationalism continues to flop electorally, and it isn’t the nationalism aspect. It’s the nationalists themselves who are profoundly antisocial - to the extent that I start feeling like the normal, well-adjusted person in the room. That’s never a good sign.

My central complaint is the widespread antisemitism across the movement. It never bothered me that Homeland had a more neutral stance towards the Middle East conflict, although figures in the party would pander to “anti-zionism”. I soon came to learn that “anti-zionism” is integral to the ideological makeup of British nationalism. It’s part of the DNA, and as far as they’re concerned, if you don’t share their beliefs, then you’re not even a nationalist.

Since I support Israel’s right to self-defence, this caused considerable discomfort among members. As such, where you stand on the Middle East conflict is an ideological purity test. I soon gathered I was not very welcome regardless of how hard I worked.

I have long-held views on this subject. I began reading about it in 2001. It became one of my autistic fixations - not least because it is inherently interesting, and an integral part of Twentieth Century history. It is also a useful prism through which to understand how modern media works in terms of emotional manipulation.

In this, my sympathies are largely with Israel - but largely for pragmatic reasons. Whether or not Israel should have been created is irrelevant. The fact is, it was created, and it was a geopolitical fact of life before I was even born. As far as the West is concerned, it is broadly a liberal democracy, therefore it is a de facto ally. I do not find arguments to the contrary all that compelling. I just see a nation that aggressively pursues its own national interest - and wish we would do the same.

As it happens, I'm objective about the current conflict. I'd feel the same way were it any other country. I look at Israel's military operations and can't find cause to condemn them because that's exactly what I would do in their position. If we had a Hezbollah firing rockets at us, I would want the government to smack the bejesus out of them. If a neighbour sent in a rape-murder squad to slaughter British civilians, I would also want to smack the bejesus out of them and ensure they never have the means or the opportunity to do it again.

Then, if a nearby Islamic theocracy whose stated policy objective was "Death to Britain" was in the process of developing nuclear weapons, I wouldn't leave the matter to dithering international diplomacy. I could find cause to condemn Israel if it were carpet bombing civilians in Gaza without warning (as is often alleged) but the IDF has been quite methodical in moving non-combattants out of the way in order to destroy the Hamas bunker complex. Similarly, were it firing large yield unguided missiles at civilian population centres, I might consider that beyond the pale. But it isn't. Only Israel's enemies are doing that. Until that changes, they can crack on for all I care.

Because of this, though, online nationalists gossip among themselves - accusing me of being Jewish or being a Zionist. Because of that, they accuse me of being “containment”. The conspiratorial paranoia runs deep. It absolutely consumes them. The Homeland party instructed me to ignore the “online trolls and “JQ spergs” but it’s not something than can be ignored, especially when so many members openly subscribe to this toxic ideology.

I have several issues with it. As much as anything, antisemitism is inherently antisocial, but I also find it’s based on ahistorical narratives, and most of it is born from bog-standard antisemitic tropes - even to the point of sympathising with the Iranian regime. There’s no real sophistication to it. I wouldn’t mind it so much if there was at least a degree of sophistication. Much of it is absolutely retarded.

Worse still, British far-right antisemitism is a borrowed grievance from the USA. Nationalist activists tend to be of a younger generation who get most of their politics, either directly or indirectly, from American podcasters, projecting American anxieties onto a local context where they don’t fully fit.

A large part of the MAGA movement is ethno-centric and isolationist. This has significant alignment with European nationalism, not least because collective Western military interventions have diminished Western power, and come at great cost to us. Many lives have been squandered on ideological misadventure, while destabilising the Middle East, exacerbating migration.

On that basis, there most certainly is a case for a more neutral foreign policy on both sides of the Atlantic. That the US keeps sticking its oar in, and seemingly cannot resist doing so, is put down to Jewish influence in American politics. American white nationalism often fixates on perceived "disproportionate Jewish influence" in US institutions, media, finance, and foreign policy - framing Jews as orchestrators of globalism or neoconservative agendas.

It’s easy to paint this as a plausible narrative. What is overlooked though, is that Jews are not abstract to America. They are a fundamental, integral component of America’s cultural and political fabric. Jewish influence isn’t an external imposition. The Jewish contribution to American culture is massive, and it follows there would be an enormous affinity with Israel. There is also a major emotional connection to Israel, rooted in post-Holocaust solidarity and shared democratic ideals.

As such, the British far-right’s adoption of American antisemitic tropes is poorly tailored to Britain’s context, where Jewish political influence is marginal. In more recent years, we have more cause to be concerned over how much Islamist sentiment (and the implied threat of terrorism) influences our foreign policy.

There is certainly a debate to be had over the extent to which British foreign policy trails American foreign policy, and the “special relationship” that leads to Britain committing forces and material to American endeavours when we get so little out of it. That, I believe, is a legitimate debate.

What troubles me about British nationalism, though, is the extent to which this issue (the “Jewish Question”) is an all-consuming obsession bordering on the psychopathic - to the extent that if you dabble in Nationalism, you will eventually be sharing the same space with Holocaust deniers and closet Neo-Nazis. They do say, if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon, but I fear there is no spoon long enough.

For my part, though, It's the morally vacuous, dogmatic neutrality of doctrinaire nationalism I could never get behind. That and the flawed assumption that if we retreat from the world, the world will simply leave us alone. I find this naive and cowardly. Sometimes a country has to stand in defence of a moral principle even if there are consequences for doing so.

That doesn't mean joining in on neocon crusades, but it does mean recognising that inaction has consequences of its own. The price of being a passive spectator to world events is having the rest of the world making your choices for you. If the sum total of your foreign policy is to let the chips fall where they may, the threat will still, eventually, turn up on your doorstep.

I say this because contemporary British nationalism really is a retreat from the world. It tends to appeal to a younger cohort who have only ever known Britain to be on the losing side of failed military endeavours. Understandably, they don't see what's in it for us, especially when it tends to result in more undesirable immigration. It is a jaundiced worldview - albeit with plenty of justification.

This stands in contrast with the Boomer generation, and to a point, Gen X, who grew up in a different moral universe in which the West was proud of its accomplishments, and its military and moral victories against totalitarian oppressors. From this was born a sense of obligation to continue advancing the cause of freedom worldwide. Certainly we drew great pride and confidence form our victory in the Falklands- which was morally unambiguous. It was no small accomplishment.

What followed, though was witless meddling in Yugoslavia, botched operations in in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, believing we had the power, and the right to impose our idea of liberty and democracy on fundamentally different cultures. It was the West's last religious crusade.

This explains the generation divide and the ideological divide between nationalists and cold war conservatives. As someone put it to me the other day, one cohort views everything through the prism of Germany in 1930's while the other sees everything through the prism of Iraq 2003. Very obviously the former approach is obsolete and flawed, but we are also twenty years on from Iraq. The world is not the same in either case. A new blueprint for our thinking is required.

I take the view that while the national interest must always come first, we still have a stake in what happens further afield. We are affected by global and regional instability. It affects trade, the price of oil, and subsequently the price of everything. It also affects our national security.

On that basis, I do think we have a dog in the fight when it comes to Iran. I would add the caveat that we should be doing all that we can to insulate ourselves from global events, not least through national resilience policies, ensuring we produce our own food and utilise our own energy resources. All the same, a nuclear armed Iran is one that enjoys impunity for stirring up regional conflict, and it is not in our interests to permit it.

Further to this, we should stand on the side of freedom. Persians are not Arabs. Iranians have no real love for the Islamic theocracy. Iran is an occupied country. I do not advocate western regime change action, but we have to recognise that humanity is better off without this regime. If Israel is opening a window of opportunity for the Iranian people to take control of their own destiny, this is surely a good thing. Whether we're directly involved or not, there is a preferable outcome. There is a morally preferable side in this war. Neutrality is moral indifference.

You can argue, for pragmatic reasons, for the status quo, seeing Iran as merely a nuisance to Britain, but the Iranian regime will end sooner or later. The status quo does not hold out forever, and we are affected by the fallout one way or another. Our interest is a Middle East rapprochement process, but that is not possible while Iran is funding and arming regional terrorist proxies. There is no ambiguity here. Iran is an aggressor state.

That nationalists draw equivalence between Israel and Iran is largely motivated by antisemitism, historical illiteracy and moral midgetry. The two are not the same. Iran's foreign policy is "Death to Israel". Meanwhile Israel's entire defence and foreign policy is to assert its right to continue existing. Iran is brutal, oppressive theocracy. Israel, meanwhile, is as close as the region gets to a liberal democracy in which people are free to choose their own destiny.

As such, while I am not one to say "Israel is our greatest ally", it is a de facto ally by way of being a Western-style democracy. Israelis enjoy the same basic democratic freedoms we do. If we do not stand for that, then what are we for? If we compromise on that then we compromise ourselves. We give ground to our enemies at home and abroad.

It's not just the right that has lost faith in our foundational ideas. The West as a whole has, particularly on the left. We now see Russia broadcasting their exact decolonisation rhetoric through radio stations in Africa, and as a consequence, the West has retreated while Russia and China cannibalise the continent, weaponising migration against Europe - with a view to destabilising our politics. Moral retreat comes at a cost. The global balance of power tilts toward thugocracies.

The West must learn the lessons from the "war on terror" and the necon crusades, but we cannot afford to surrender to insularity, isolationism and disengagement. Despite our struggles with our political establishments, it is our way of life that the world envies, because our values are optimal for human freedom and prosperity. We must not lose sight of that.

While I could get behind a self-confident nationalism, that picks its battles carefully, with a more realistic view of the United States, I cannot support a jaundiced nationalism that is rooted in defeatism, cynicism and paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews.

Antisemitism, wherever you find it on the political spectrum, addles the brain of otherwise sensible people. It prevents them from assessing any situation objectively, and unable to apply reason to complex issues with multiple causes, thus can never arrive at workable, intelligent remedies. Consequently, they will always be bad at politics. When you're primarily obsessed with Jews (as the source of all the world’s evils), it marks you as incapable of rational thought.

This is the tragedy of modern nationalism. We have never been more in need of a nationalist government but British nationalism is currently the domain of deeply unpleasant people.

I will admit, there is a certain utility in their edgelord shock-jock rhetoric when it forces people to re-interrogate their own thinking, but there are limits. These people think they’re moving the Overton window, but they forget that when people see who they really are, they will put the window right back where it was. I was fully signed up to building a new, “sensible nationalism”, but given the raw material, the starting point is anywhere but here.