What do nationalists actually want?

I’m dialling back my involvement in party politics for a little while because it’s chewing up a lot of my thinking time. Party activism can often result in burn-out, not least because there’s a lot of tiresome internal politicking, none of which is especially constructive or useful. The source of much the internal bickering (common to any party) is that three is no generally agreement on where we want to be, and what we actually want. To speak of the British right, or even the far-right, implies there is a homogenous political entity with similar views and aspirations.

In reality, the right is every bit as fractious as the left. There are a dozen micro parties to the right of Reform and they don’t even agree on anything. The far-right are only really united insofar as they are agreed that the number of foreigners in Britain should be as close to zero as possible. They disagree on everything else.

The other problem is that they can’t agree on what must be done to get there. Many don’t even believe there is a political avenue. Still, though, it has to be tried through democratic channels.

If any movement is going to succeed, there must be a vision, a plan, and policies to deliver on the vision. That’s actually why the Homeland Party is quite refreshing in that the vision is embedded in the party name. Britain must be run as a homeland for our own people (which does not include any biped who professes to abide by “British Values”).

As to how we get there, the party has identified a model of remigration that can reverse an alarming demographic trends that sees native Britons becoming a minority. The problem, though, is that many nationalists want remigration for its own sake. Just to be rid of the foreigners. And that’s the problem. That’s not a vision upon which you can build a movement. If the sole and central aim of a party or movement is to deport all the brown people, then it will be talking to itself for eternity.

Worse still, nationalism sadly travels alongside Nazi-adjacent ideologies, who will only vote for remigration if it explicitly includes Jews. I have seen things I can’t unsee over the last year. Kenny Smith, Homeland’s chairman, said it in his speech last week. "Nationalism is natural and sensible, and it must be presented sensible. Far too many cranks and bad actors try to distort what nationalism is, and present it as something vulgar and ultimately, something repulsive to the good people of this nation. They make it harder for us to win the hearts and minds of our people. They make it more difficult to become a mass movement”.

In setting out a vision of “sensible nationalism” towards a homeland, the party has set out a new doctrine, and one that reasonable people could, on the face of it, buy into. There is nothing especially controversial in nationalism and nothing outrageous about putting your own people first. Still, though, there are those who want to drag any serious attempt at nationalism into the muck. Trolls and nihilistic wreckers. As such, there must be a reckoning on the nationalist right. It simply cannot pander to cranks or even entertain members who do.

The problem for Homeland is that a lot of “supporters” have the wrong end of the stick. Remigration does not mean mass deportations. These individuals believe that if remigration doesn’t mean forcibly deporting all the brown people on day one then there is no point in it.

As such, if the nationalist movement, already a niche end of the British right, declares war on the cranks, one wonders how many people would actually be left. Certainly the popularity of simplistic and crass messaging on X by engagement farmers suggests that cool heads opting for “sensible nationalism” are in the minority.

As such, it is tempting for nationalists to appease the cranks. The problem with that is that the cranks are unappeasable. No hard line is ever hardline enough. Ideological purity, no matter how obnoxious and repellent, matters to them more than growing a movement that might achieve something.

I’ve made this case on X and it results in accusations that I am moving the party to the left, or that somehow the party is “cucked” or “zogged”. These are people with zero self-awareness. Nobody normal talks like this. This is the language of juvenile shitposters. This Zoomer drivel simply cannot speak to anyone outside of a very online bubble. Boomers remember post-war. Gen-X remembers the BNP skinheads. Kids have endured liberal schools. They're not going to vote for Nazi-adjacents.

As such, nationalists have to ask themselves what they actually want and whether they actually want to win. I could almost swear there is a masochistic trait on the right that enjoys losing. The more I speak up for sensible, humane, and relatable nationalism, the more I am accused of being a civic nationalist, and a subversive. I’m now at a point where Hope Note Hate calls me far-right, while the actual far-right calls me a subversive Jew and an MI5 asset.

This very much gives me flashbacks to the Brexit era, when remainers were calling me a fascist, and Brexiteers were calling me a remainer (among other unrepeatable things). I experienced similar in my critiques of Reform - until they all sheepishly admitted I’m right. It seems the only thing the right has in common is that nothing infuriates them more than the suggestion there should be a vision, policy and a plan. They are all experts in what they don’t want. Homeland certainly has its work cut out.