Notes on Nationalism

I’m a recent convert to nationalism. It was only a short hop from the National Conservativism I was writing about last year. I’d have eventually got there under my own steam but revelations about the scale of the Boriswave did it for me. My patience has expired.

The thing about multiculturalism is that it makes liars of us. We have to live with the lie that all cultures are somehow equal, and that tolerance of grotesque practices and third world squalor is in the greater good. I’ve never submitted to multiculturalist dogma. Instead though, I chose the third space between the progressive multiculturalist zeitgeist of the nineties and the ethnonationalism of the far right.

Only very recently have I re-evaluated that civic nationalism. For civic nationalism to work then it must be a muscular variant that is willing to enforce and uphold its own values. Only we never got close to doing that, and there is no sign that we ever will. It would require a level of radicalism that goes far beyond what Reform or the Tories would ever commit to.

Now, though, I think we are beyond this civic compromise. The Boriswave of immigration tipped the balance where we are now heading into existential crisis territory.

Some would have it that I’ve become radicalised but I don’t accept that. I haven't been radicalised at all. I'm just more willing to accept and state uncomfortable facts. The basis of my homeland is not some nebulous notion of "British values", I see scant evidence of integration (nobody seems to be able to define it), and nobody can give me a good reason why we're importing net welfare recipients who contribute nothing to the economic and social life of the country.

I don't see a reason why we should open our homeland to peoples barely evolved from cannibalism who haven't even mastered flushable toilets. I see no good reason to sacrifice our high trust society to accommodate third worlders who see women as sex objects and property. I also don't see why we should risk schizophrenic sub-Saharans going on knife rampages.

I don't have to consent to my homeland becoming a squalid third world flop-house. I do not accept that someone is necessarily British because they happened to be born here. I see no reason to tolerate Islamic sectarianism. I see no reason to tolerate foreigners voting or holding public office. I see no reason why we shouldn't deport the millions who have no business being here. I do not consent to my ethnic replacement.

I don't see why thinking any of the above is far right, and if any of that is racist, you're going to have to explain to me like I'm a five year old why racism is bad.

The reason I'm now on board with the Homeland Party is because they recognise that it isn't simply a case of stopping immigration. We have millions of parasitic third worlders here who shouldn't be here at all, and we have to remove them no matter how squeamish we might feel about doing it. This is our homeland, not some squatter colony.

This is not something we can be polite about. Politeness got us into this mess by pretending anyone can be British. Being British is not a set of transient, nebulous values. If that's all it means then it means nothing at all. The question then, is how to build a functioning nationalist movement when all others have failed.

There is a certain urgency on the right about the 2029 election, as though it’s the absolute last chance to put Britain on track. That may or may not be true, but it categorically isn’t going to happen. Both Reform and the Tories are equally dysfunctional and neither party can win a working majority. Badenoch and Farage have played down any possibility of a Tory-Reform pact, but that’s the only way either of them are going to see power.

The problem with that is that it doesn’t actually get us anywhere. It might put a stop to the worst aspects of wokery and may pull us back from the insanity of Net Zero, but it doesn’t get anywhere near resolving the immigration problem. The Tory party is timid on this matter, certainly while Badenoch is in charge, and Reform spokesmen are very careful in their language, speaking only in terms of illegal immigration.

The bottom line is that fixing immigration does little to address the raft of issues created by legal immigration, not least Islamism and sectarianism. Not forgetting the economic costs. A Centre for Policy Studies report found that between 2021 and 2024 over two million visas were issued to people who can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) before the end of the decade. It estimates that more than 800,000 will do so, with many working in low-skilled jobs and others coming as dependents of workers who may not work at all. It estimated the cost of this number coming as £234billion in terms of use of services like benefits and social housing.

We can be assured, though, that Labour will not abolish ILR. We thus need to be thinking about remigration policies. This is where bog standard civic nationalism fears to tread. It prickles our British sense of fairness. Never though is any notion of fairness applied to our own people - who were told that all this immigration would pay for our pensions.

As such, little is going to be achieved by the legacy Brexit/boomer led insurgency. We must operate on the presumption that nothing is reversible, and that the second wave insurgency will be youth led and more nationalist in nature. We also have to work on the presumption that it will be a post-Thatcherite insurgency and less taken with the pervasive libertarian cant that infests the contemporary right. Boomerism will have shuffled loose of the mortal coil. The Zoomers will have their say.

The thing about the gripes of Zoomers is that they’re not wrong. The notion, for instance, that Boomers have accumulated so much wealth just through their own prudence and savvy is a fiction. At one time you could play the game smart, buy a house and keep trading up, but now, the kind of entry level homes working class people can afford are in slum areas that won't rise in value, and you'll be forced to live a "diverse" area where it's dangerous for your kids for the crime of being white.

Boomers could look forward to one day paying off their mortgages. Millennials may never manage it at all, and zoomers are increasingly writing off the idea of ever buying a house, living at home longer, deferring having kids, and then the neoliberal establishment tells us we need more immigration. The game is completely rigged. The rich get richer while the young are cheated out of a future. The social contract is broken. Young people have to work harder than ever to accomplish less, while being taxed to the hilt to pay for the welfare and perks of pensioners and foreigners. This is why the new nationalism is already youth-led.

This is where nationalism may come into its own. The reason nationalism can’t get a foothold right now is that nationalism sees a nation as an ethnic collective, which then lends itself to other collectivist ideas. This is one of the things that makes me sceptical about Homeland in that they practically insisted on a programme of social housing.

I’m sceptical because despite claims to uphold architectural standards, bureaucracies never do, and if housing is of a high standard demand will always outsrip supply, at which point you're rationing, and then awarding on the basis of need, which creates a race to the bottom. I’ve never been able to get over my scepticism. Younger people, though, who aren’t old enough to remember the slum estates, will be less hostile to the idea, and won’t really have an option after the combined efforts of Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves.

There are still barriers to nationalism though. Nationalism has been successfully kept at bay for decades by way of its association with neo-Nazism and antisemitism. Only now we’re nearly a century on from WWII and the Holocaust is German youth shaking off the blood-guilt, and asserting their opposition to mass immigration. Not least since the situation is arguably more acute in Germany. All the same, there is still an inherent suspicion of nationalism due to the inherent antisemitism.

This is especially problematic for nationalism in Britain. The fact Britain won a war against the Nazis is central to our national identity. This affliction tends to primarily affect Boomers but Gen X was also raised in that same moral universe, and will raise similar objections. Nationalism cannot succeed without being mindful of this. Gen Xers are going to be with us for at least another forty years and we’ll become the new Boomer class - the ones who decide which way elections go.

In short, if you want to be a nationalist party, and not fail like all other attempts at it, monging on about the Jews is so utterly retarded that your party does not deserve to succeed. I don’t know why I have to keep pointing this out.

There is then an issue that divides just about every faction of British politics. The Israel/Palestine debate. Civic nationalists hate Muslims more than they hate Jews and many ethnonationalists, for reasons that escape me, hate Jews more than literally anything/anyone else.

Some on the right would prefer I didn’t talk about this, but that’s not going to happen. There is no other issue that better demonstrates the corruption of the international NGOcracy and the UN, the gullibility of the left, and bias of the broadcast media.

I am often asked how I reconcile my support for Israel with my newfound nationalist ethos. We can argue the toss about who was there first, but Israel was a settler colonist project and it did displace the Arab population. It was done, with the full cooperation of the British (see Orde Wingate), and they were pretty brutal about it.

There are two conceptual issues to contend with here. Firstly, there was a war, and the Arabs lost it. If we’re saying that all conquered peoples must be restored, then we’re talking about dismantling New Zealand, Australia, America, Canada and South Africa - as a starter for ten. Strange how this only applies to Jews in the land of Judea. As an aside, I’ve never worked out why antisemites want to dismantle Israel. Where do they think the Jews they hate so much will go?

Secondly, you cannot give people a state. You can recognise a territory, but only the inhabitants can build a state. You have to start with the basics such as water and sanitation, moving up to education and health, and build up from there. Only the PA and Hamas have never really shown any interest in building a state. The functions of state have been outsourced to UNRWA and the NGOcracy, and instead of building up, they built down, diverting massive resources to turning Gaza into a forward operating base for Jihad. Palestinian statehood aspirations come a distinct second after eradicating Jews. And they make no distinction between Jew and Israeli.

As such “Palestine” does not exist as a concept, and nor will it while Gazan society is jihadist to the core. There leaves three basic options. Containment, displacement, or annihilation. Since annihilation is out of the question, that really only leaves displacement as a lasting solution to a century old ethno-religious war. A policy of containment will only ever lead back to where we are now.

The obvious concern is that displacement means a million Jihadi indoctrinated Arabs will be shunted into Europe, as is apparently the case, but that’s more a problem with our own malign political establishment.

On the broader question, it matters not whether Israel should have been created. The fact is, it was created, it exists, and will continue to exist as long as its citizens will it to. In a more pragmatic interpretation of nationalism, any state has the right to deploy disproportionate force on an enemy that did what Hamas did on 7/10. The FAFO principle.

This is an issue Homeland doesn’t really want to talk about given how divisive it is. I have my views, and others in the party have theirs. As far as the party is concerned, the conflict is only relevant insofar as it affects Britain as a homeland.

On that basis, it very much does affect us in that we have weekly antisemitic hate marches spilling out on to our streets. We intend to address this primarily with remigration. There is not much we can do about the stupid moonbat leftists, but we can certainly enforce out terror laws. Chanting slogans such as “Globalise the Intifada, is essentially calling for worldwide random attacks on people because they are Jewish. People chanting that belong in jail every bit as much as those who joined in the rioting last year.

So far as I’m concerned, British nationalism should be equally offensive to Muslims and Jews. I’ve never understood why there’ve been campaigns against FGM and yet we turn a blind eye to circumcision. I’d ban that along with non-stun slaughter. One of those “British values” we hear so much about is our very British respect for animals.

Of course that won’t abate the strange obsession many nationalists have with Jews and their influence in civil society. They’re right insofar as there should be rules against sectarianism within our politics, and we need tighter controls against foreign lobbying. It as much applies to Israel as Russia, America, Iran and Brussels. There's room to criticise Judaism in that, like Christianity and Islam, it's a set of backward superstitions steeped in misogyny.

Much of this is resolved by banning foreigners from holding public office or any position in upper tiers of the civil service. The issue there is that minorities have a tendency to collectivise in order to pursue their ethnic interests in British politics. Whether it’s Jewish, Muslim or Mormon, it should be frowned upon and legislated against. Even civic nationalists ought to be able to agree on that.

As far as I’m concerned, though, people are entitled to their private bigotries so long as they leave the party out of it. Having grown up in Bradford, I certainly have my own about Muslims.

Paradoxically, though, I still deplore racist abuse against the person. Our problems are addressed with policy, not hostility. On that basis, there is no real reason why immigration policy shouldn't be racist. As a rule, third worlders don't integrate or contribute. All policy is built on aggregates and averages. Why should immigration policy be any different?

It seems I’m never going to fit the classic nationalist mould. I have too many internal conflicts. This for me, is simplified by the name of the Homeland Party. Britain must be governed primarily as a homeland for our own people. This is hardly controversial, nor should it be. That we are going to have to take extreme and controversial corrective measures is only because of what has been done to us in recent years without consultation or consent.