Well, you're taking flak so you must be over the target. The type of nationalism you are recommending now should be palatable to the majority. Fortunately, purists on X have little, if any, traction in the real world so as long as they are distracted they are largely harmless.
If there is a Homeland Party, it must define who belongs in the Homeland. Immediately it becomes a problem of "fuzzy logic". Is the son of an Irishman who moved to Liverpool in 1990 a candidate? Is a person born in HongKong whose father was a British soldier going to qualify? Inevitably one has to end up talking about culture, because it's ultimately the most important factor. A recent immigrant who admires Britain is a better citizen than a Marxist from a family that's been here for twenty generations.
The media programming of 'far right' has done a lot of heavy lifting to try and prevent the electorate from aligning with people and parties on the right of the political spectrum. It's incessant. You never hear 'far laft', but you'll always hear 'far right' and it's designed to scare people away from right of centre politics. And I'm sure that there are many who feel isolated in their workplaces by the incessant hand-wringing, virtue-signalling middle class lefties who shout down and turn on anyone who doesn't participate in their group think. Easier to keep quiet and head down than engage in debate or discussion. Decades of programming have led us to now. It's not going to be a quick exercise to unpick all that...
You'd hope that the majority of ordinary people who aren't chronically online have the common sense to agree with a sensible middle ground policy once they're presented with it. The trick is how to spread the message away from the Internet.
I would agree with you on much of this. Trying to define what constitutes a nation is a fool's errand for me. In reality we are trying to reverse as much of recent immigration as possible.
There are lots of things we can do without going anywhere near "full Nazi."
So
1) stop the boats - probably we are going to have to build detention centres and keep illegals there. We need to make coming here illegally a bad option for folks
2) no new immigration. More or less ban it for a few years.
3) deport who we can - overstayers and foreign criminals.
4). voluntary immigration schemes for people who have recent ancestry outside the UK.
What you can't do is use forced deportations for people with UK citizenship. That is going full Nazi in my view. My plans still allow a lot of "brown people" to stay.
Homeland is just yet another Right Wing party. Eschewing xenophobia is wise but calling all foreigners “brown people” worries me. I have been a welcoming voice for many of the ethnic Europeans, genuine Christian asylum seekers from anywhere in the world and the politically persecuted.
However, I am now firmly against Islam and all that it signifies. The misnomer “Islamaphobic” is an exaggeration as it is not a phobia. It is a considered opinion after studying the progress of its disastrous consequences wherever it takes hold. It is a long recognised Islamic method of continuous, peaceful invasion that is working to ensure totalitarian Islam across the world. The British Caliphate is almost in place. Bangladesh and many other nations have been taken this way. We will be no different unless we act firmly and fast.
I don’t want Muslims to integrate, I want them to go home, all generations of them. I know there are “good” Muslims but if they support Islam they are no good to our society.
We need a trustworthy, united and safe society back. We need protection and safety for our little girls and young women. This is a feminist position from which I will not budge. Our women need to be given the chance to have children and raise them without being bullied by the taxman into poor pensions and few rights to return to the workplace. Only then will the demographic, that is showing the white ethnic demise, be restored.
If I have to hold my nose and vote Reform to start the ball rolling to reduce the numbers, then I will do so strategically.
I've enjoyed reading Pete's efforts to articulate a sensible nationalism and his writing on the topic has given me much to think about. Here I'd make three points.
First, Pete says that remigration "does not mean mass deportations". But I'd argue that, according to Homeland's website, it does.
Second, Pete describes sensible nationalism as "humane". However, I'm unsure that the mix of policies Pete outlines elsewhere to incentivize mass voluntary return can really be described as such.
And third, I'm unclear as to exactly whom one of the policies in this mix, namely cutting benefits to foreigners, applies.
I elaborate on these points below.
_________________
MASS DEPORTATIONS
As noted, Pete argues that remigration doesn't mean mass deportations. And elsewhere [1] he writes that
"Deportation is a means to deal with foreign offenders and illegals. Remigration is a category of measures aimed at enabling and facilitating mass emigration of legal immigrants. That's the distinction we are making in our communications in order to avoid any harmful misconceptions."
However, his suggestion that deportation of foreign offenders and illegals is something other than remigration doesn't accord with what's on Homeland's website [2]. Under the heading of "Remigration", Homeland lists three policies relating to the deportation of foreign offenders and illegals along with a policy to expand the government's existing programme on voluntary return.
And given that Homeland regards the deportation of illegals as an element of remigration, that Pete puts the number of illegals in the UK at two million [3], and that deporting this number must surely count as mass deportation, then, by Homeland's own lights, remigration does indeed include mass deportation.
Note that Homeland's understanding of remigration as including both forced return (i.e. deportation) and voluntary return is that same understanding of the term as that described in the Wikipedia entry on the subject [4].
CUTTING BENEFITS: WHICH FOREIGNERS?
However, whilst it's Homeland policy to engage in the mass deportation of illegals, it's not party policy to engage in the mass deportation of legals i.e. UK citizens of foreign origin. Rather, the idea's to incentivize the mass voluntary return of such citizens. One aspect of incentivizing such return is the carrot of paying people to leave. And, from Pete's perspective [3], the other appears to be the stick of creating a hostile environment by, for example, taxing remittances, cutting benefits to foreigners, closing down chain migration, banning first cousin marriage and shuttering extremist mosques.
I take Pete's proposal of cutting benefits to foreigners to be referencing Homeland's policy to "eliminate all benefits and all entitlements to housing or free healthcare for immigrants" [2]. But I'm unclear how far Pete envisages this cutting of benefits to extend. For example, does it extend to first generation immigrants who are UK citizens? And to UK citizens who are second (or third) generation immigrants?
IS INCENTIVIZED VOLUNTARY RETURN HUMANE?
Clearly, the "stick" policies Pete proposes to incentivize mass voluntary return of UK citizens of foreign origin are more humane than the forced return of such citizens. But, nevertheless, I'm not sure that they can be characterized as humane per se. Certainly I don't think they'd be regarded as humane by the UK citizens of foreign origin they're aimed at. Nor by many native UK citizens on the left.
I think this would particularly be the case if the policies included cutting benefits to UK citizens of foreign origin as this would create a two-tier citizenship where native citizens had entitlements that citizens of foreign origin did not.
Of course, even if the policies aren't humane per se, it doesn't mean they're unjustified. Indeed, they're easily justified as the least worst approach to achieving mass departure of UK citizens of foreign origin.
Indeed the absence of a vision and plan and the ability if you have one to explain it to the 'people' bedevils politics.
In an era of instant coffee and fast food too many people want instant answers and it is only when we have reached rock bottom will the penny hopefully drop that before things really change our system of governance need reforming.
Well, you're taking flak so you must be over the target. The type of nationalism you are recommending now should be palatable to the majority. Fortunately, purists on X have little, if any, traction in the real world so as long as they are distracted they are largely harmless.
Please keep keeping on Pete.
If there is a Homeland Party, it must define who belongs in the Homeland. Immediately it becomes a problem of "fuzzy logic". Is the son of an Irishman who moved to Liverpool in 1990 a candidate? Is a person born in HongKong whose father was a British soldier going to qualify? Inevitably one has to end up talking about culture, because it's ultimately the most important factor. A recent immigrant who admires Britain is a better citizen than a Marxist from a family that's been here for twenty generations.
Strikes me, Peter, your maturing political views would make you an ideal refreshed Tory Party candidate.
I'm guessing that this is an early warning balloon that you'll soon be moving on from Homeland. I'm shocked I tell you 😉
The media programming of 'far right' has done a lot of heavy lifting to try and prevent the electorate from aligning with people and parties on the right of the political spectrum. It's incessant. You never hear 'far laft', but you'll always hear 'far right' and it's designed to scare people away from right of centre politics. And I'm sure that there are many who feel isolated in their workplaces by the incessant hand-wringing, virtue-signalling middle class lefties who shout down and turn on anyone who doesn't participate in their group think. Easier to keep quiet and head down than engage in debate or discussion. Decades of programming have led us to now. It's not going to be a quick exercise to unpick all that...
Eminently sensible and reasonable. You would have my vote if you ever stood for election.
You'd hope that the majority of ordinary people who aren't chronically online have the common sense to agree with a sensible middle ground policy once they're presented with it. The trick is how to spread the message away from the Internet.
Their nation?
I would agree with you on much of this. Trying to define what constitutes a nation is a fool's errand for me. In reality we are trying to reverse as much of recent immigration as possible.
There are lots of things we can do without going anywhere near "full Nazi."
So
1) stop the boats - probably we are going to have to build detention centres and keep illegals there. We need to make coming here illegally a bad option for folks
2) no new immigration. More or less ban it for a few years.
3) deport who we can - overstayers and foreign criminals.
4). voluntary immigration schemes for people who have recent ancestry outside the UK.
What you can't do is use forced deportations for people with UK citizenship. That is going full Nazi in my view. My plans still allow a lot of "brown people" to stay.
Homeland is just yet another Right Wing party. Eschewing xenophobia is wise but calling all foreigners “brown people” worries me. I have been a welcoming voice for many of the ethnic Europeans, genuine Christian asylum seekers from anywhere in the world and the politically persecuted.
However, I am now firmly against Islam and all that it signifies. The misnomer “Islamaphobic” is an exaggeration as it is not a phobia. It is a considered opinion after studying the progress of its disastrous consequences wherever it takes hold. It is a long recognised Islamic method of continuous, peaceful invasion that is working to ensure totalitarian Islam across the world. The British Caliphate is almost in place. Bangladesh and many other nations have been taken this way. We will be no different unless we act firmly and fast.
I don’t want Muslims to integrate, I want them to go home, all generations of them. I know there are “good” Muslims but if they support Islam they are no good to our society.
We need a trustworthy, united and safe society back. We need protection and safety for our little girls and young women. This is a feminist position from which I will not budge. Our women need to be given the chance to have children and raise them without being bullied by the taxman into poor pensions and few rights to return to the workplace. Only then will the demographic, that is showing the white ethnic demise, be restored.
If I have to hold my nose and vote Reform to start the ball rolling to reduce the numbers, then I will do so strategically.
I've enjoyed reading Pete's efforts to articulate a sensible nationalism and his writing on the topic has given me much to think about. Here I'd make three points.
First, Pete says that remigration "does not mean mass deportations". But I'd argue that, according to Homeland's website, it does.
Second, Pete describes sensible nationalism as "humane". However, I'm unsure that the mix of policies Pete outlines elsewhere to incentivize mass voluntary return can really be described as such.
And third, I'm unclear as to exactly whom one of the policies in this mix, namely cutting benefits to foreigners, applies.
I elaborate on these points below.
_________________
MASS DEPORTATIONS
As noted, Pete argues that remigration doesn't mean mass deportations. And elsewhere [1] he writes that
"Deportation is a means to deal with foreign offenders and illegals. Remigration is a category of measures aimed at enabling and facilitating mass emigration of legal immigrants. That's the distinction we are making in our communications in order to avoid any harmful misconceptions."
However, his suggestion that deportation of foreign offenders and illegals is something other than remigration doesn't accord with what's on Homeland's website [2]. Under the heading of "Remigration", Homeland lists three policies relating to the deportation of foreign offenders and illegals along with a policy to expand the government's existing programme on voluntary return.
And given that Homeland regards the deportation of illegals as an element of remigration, that Pete puts the number of illegals in the UK at two million [3], and that deporting this number must surely count as mass deportation, then, by Homeland's own lights, remigration does indeed include mass deportation.
Note that Homeland's understanding of remigration as including both forced return (i.e. deportation) and voluntary return is that same understanding of the term as that described in the Wikipedia entry on the subject [4].
CUTTING BENEFITS: WHICH FOREIGNERS?
However, whilst it's Homeland policy to engage in the mass deportation of illegals, it's not party policy to engage in the mass deportation of legals i.e. UK citizens of foreign origin. Rather, the idea's to incentivize the mass voluntary return of such citizens. One aspect of incentivizing such return is the carrot of paying people to leave. And, from Pete's perspective [3], the other appears to be the stick of creating a hostile environment by, for example, taxing remittances, cutting benefits to foreigners, closing down chain migration, banning first cousin marriage and shuttering extremist mosques.
I take Pete's proposal of cutting benefits to foreigners to be referencing Homeland's policy to "eliminate all benefits and all entitlements to housing or free healthcare for immigrants" [2]. But I'm unclear how far Pete envisages this cutting of benefits to extend. For example, does it extend to first generation immigrants who are UK citizens? And to UK citizens who are second (or third) generation immigrants?
IS INCENTIVIZED VOLUNTARY RETURN HUMANE?
Clearly, the "stick" policies Pete proposes to incentivize mass voluntary return of UK citizens of foreign origin are more humane than the forced return of such citizens. But, nevertheless, I'm not sure that they can be characterized as humane per se. Certainly I don't think they'd be regarded as humane by the UK citizens of foreign origin they're aimed at. Nor by many native UK citizens on the left.
I think this would particularly be the case if the policies included cutting benefits to UK citizens of foreign origin as this would create a two-tier citizenship where native citizens had entitlements that citizens of foreign origin did not.
Of course, even if the policies aren't humane per se, it doesn't mean they're unjustified. Indeed, they're easily justified as the least worst approach to achieving mass departure of UK citizens of foreign origin.
[1] https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1916776579465687168
[2] https://homelandparty.org/our-thinking/migration/
[3] https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1917589968085467343
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration
1)Whatever happens to Britain/ the West going forward "our people" need political representation.
2) It is the people driving the open borders Globalisation project/ mass replacement migration that are the extremists not us.
Really appreciate your work with Homeland.
I watched Ezra Levant trying to interview an Irishman who turned out to be an anti semite in Ireland recently.
I must admit I was shocked.
I thought such beliefs were more or less extinct, so anyone propounding such views was likely a plant infiltrated by the security forces.
It appears I was naive.
I hope Homeland can keep such evil at arms length.
So where does Integrity Party fit into all this?
Indeed the absence of a vision and plan and the ability if you have one to explain it to the 'people' bedevils politics.
In an era of instant coffee and fast food too many people want instant answers and it is only when we have reached rock bottom will the penny hopefully drop that before things really change our system of governance need reforming.
Try this for size ! https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
Homer Simpson on art. “I know what I don’t like, and I don’t like that”