Coalition Realpolitik

I have rewritten this article many times. Four or five, now. So many times, I gave up and decided not to publish. I could not select what words were worth sharing. I have written well over 20,000 words to try to explain how I felt, and not ten of those words were simple. So, I gave up.

Then I thought giving up on something I care about is silly.

So, I decided to begin with that, begin there, with being serious, not silly. So, in this article I will tell you why I think that Homeland may be strategically crucial to preventing the dispossession of Britain from the Britons. Of preventing this:

Now, why Britons? I don't like how Kenny Smith says indigenous. “Indigenous” reeks of the United Nations, of distant wars in Manipur, of losers, of global citizenry, of a tie to land articulated by social justice warriors, masking some obscure third world-ism. “Indigenous” has a scent of loss, of edgeless appropriation. Indigenous is not poetic, like “Albion” or “Briton”; “indigenous” does not touch my heart. Indigenous makes my blood run cold. I think of protests in Geneva. I do not think of tin hats and Gaels and the Jack and men and ancient wars and soil, the scent of soil, familiar to a group of men and women and their families for one thousand years.

I also don’t like “white British,” because that adds a racial element to a question that is fundamentally not racial.

So, I find myself liking Briton, or the people of the British Isles, of Britain. For poetry, for history, for simplicity.

I want to be serious because I care.

Many years ago, when doing some work for the U.S. Department of State, I found myself in London going to the archives of the British Library, in search of books—ethnographic accounts—of the first British expeditions into Afghanistan. I won’t go into detail, but one of the things I learned there is that ethnographic accounts of Afghanistan in the 1790s and 1810s show more women in traditional clothing, revealing faces, hands, and so on. Not until the 1820s and 40s do we get women in chadors. As society became less stable—due to oceanic trade outcompeting the Silk Road’s last remnants—women dressed more conservatively, or were made to, by their men. Those with wealth sought to secure their women from other men who had little but the jezail and banditry. Bandits and the chador go hand in hidden hand.

I care because while in London, I found myself surprised at the city’s appearance. I had expected something beautiful and English, but—staying in the heart of London to be closer to the British imperial archives—instead encountered the aesthetic I would later learn was called “Yookay aesthetic,” which refers to the artistic and symbolic design of shops, homes, vehicles, clothing—material possessions—in multicultural British society, a society that has gone from 95% Britons to 75% Britons in thirty years, a demographic change larger and more radical than the French colonization of Algeria in raw numbers.

Think “English.” What comes to mind for an American? Harry Potter. Lord of the Rings. Oxford and Cambridge. English castles. Kind old men tending green gardens. Lads and meat pies, bosh. An aesthetic of neatness, of bare grime, like Japan in some ways. Of a proper way of doing things that tells you that things are built for quality, well-tended to, and not so much loved as cherished for their practicality. Grime, of course, but barely there, barely tolerated, and soon to be removed. Grime on brick.

For me? Ancient books in a library, detailing ethnographies of foreign peoples, encountered by brave men who would find by accident and will an empire that the sun’s kiss never left.

Of course—this—alongside the debris of British history, majestic, military, and humble. Hadrian’s Wall, Buckingham Palace, and that thing—the House of Lords—with which my lawyer friends at conservative think tanks are obsessed because they know American law is English common law, and worship Britain for it. They love this clip. I think Britain and hear Amazing Grace played on bagpipes, which brings tears to my father’s eyes because of his Scottish and English ancestry, from his mother. Yes, laugh all you want about stupid Americans and our fascination with our distant European homelands. But know that there is something between us, language, music, and the shadows of forgotten horizons, dimly recalled, on the golden waters of Louisiana swamps, and below the high peaks of the Indigo Rockies. In this lonely world of 8 billion strangers, would you deny our common heritage?

Yookay is bolted over this. Replace all of the above with a Halal Dog shop, a rickshaw, and a Mosque in Birmingham. A poster that says, “Together we can end Female Genital Mutilation,” and also, a Harry Potter shop at Kings Cross, and a fish shop run by Polish immigrants. Grime on rubber, permanent, never to be cleaned, black grime on bright yellow synthetic materials. Grime on grime on grime on a plastic rickshaw.

The metro was cramped and covered in graffiti; it felt like the Tokyo metro, but if the cleaning staff did not clean, it was as if they had all gone.

I made time to visit the grave of Marx at Highgate Cemetery. That’s the only touristy thing I did. I had no appetite for anything else. I took the train to the nearest station and walked to the cemetery. I wandered around inside the dense graveyard for a while. I found the grave at some point and felt a second of grace—only a second—before I realized that I hated Marx’s grave. I love that his grave has the 11th theses on Feuerbach, which is probably the best summation of his life and work, but loathe that above this, the words “WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE” are carved in his gravestone.

I hate that internationalism, which in Marx’s actual work was implicitly restricted to industrialized, Western countries, was turned into third-worldism. That most people who identify themselves as Marxists can’t distinguish between the two.

It’s fitting that on Marx’s grave, in large letters and placed high and first, is something that mattered to him little, and below this, near the dirt and obscured by bouquets, is something that mattered to him a lot.

I left the cemetery. I came across a little hamlet near Highgate. The homes were beautiful and clean. I stepped into a random bar that was empty, called The Star. I had a beer. The Beatles played in the background. Something, something in the dead of night. I toasted Karl. I felt like the last Marxist on Earth. Something, something, learn to take these broken wings. The beer was only okay.

Then, three “lads,” I think they’re called, came in, dressed extremely well, and the bartender—old, bald, sky-blue shirt, black vest—chatted with them like good friends. He gave them each a pint, and they drank. Celebrating something. Dark green. British racing green. That was the color on their fine uniforms. I felt that I had finally found England. Though this little nice spot was the outlier, the oddity, a consumerist suburban English canton surrounded by, as I learned later, the Yookay, which seemed to grow from Metro stations out towards England.

After my beer, I left and wandered for an hour or so, riding a light buzz, sad about Marx’s grave. I walked by things I don’t remember, indistinguishable from the parts of North Virginia, or NOVA, that are Somali, Afghan, Indian, Chinese, Ethiopian, Korean, Vietnamese—all the little cantons near the Pentagon—and there in London I felt exactly like I would in those empty and strange neighborhoods of Virginia. I felt alone, isolated. The sky was grey. Something, something, the dark black night.

I would hate to see the Britons lose Britain, because then Britain would no longer be Britain. Britian would be the Yookay, which though ugly in it’s own way, is the same as all the little internationalized places in the world with no culture or identity, except that of their two dozen ethnic cantons, exaggerated, contested, and built upon the debris of some other people’s dreams, who are then told that they never even built the debris or had those dreams in the first place. That men with tin hats had Deliveroo slaves. No other dream has ever been dreamt. There is nothing but Windrush.

Marx was a third-worldist. No blackbird has taken broken wings and learned to fly. No Scotsman ever trekked through the abandoned castles of the black Kush, against the repelling pale, dry wind, and authored in black ink by candlelight an ethnography of someone other.

There is only the grey canton, stretching from Arlington, Virginia, to London, to Paris, to Rio de Janeiro, the infinite favella, the international kebab shop, and life has always been and must always be this way. There are no others. There is no us. There is the grey canton.

Dispossession and Capitalism

Britons are on the path of dispossession. Dispossession means becoming a minority in your own country. This would be an odd outcome, as the democracy of Britons has never voted to become a democracy of people who are not Britons and an extant Briton minority. There are many rational reasons to oppose Britons becoming a minority. I think the best and simplest reason is that no one asked for this, and in a democracy, that is what matters. Britain is the land of the Britons, and the new population has their lands already—they have a home they can return to, the Britons do not. They have their tiny island and only that. Another reason is that becoming a minority does not work out well. I can think of no examples. Many times, minorities have, because of better military technologies or beneficial social, economic, and political conditions, conquered and ruled majorities; but never has a democracy voted for becoming a minority. This is, in fact, impossible. This is because a democracy, a demos, a people, would never do that. And in fact, the Britons have never, ever, voted for this. They have voted against this.

Being a lover of democracy, I oppose dispossession.

So, why are Britons becoming a minority?

In the 50’s and 60’s, the government of the United Kingdom allowed the movement of Pakistanis and other minorities into the country to import cheap labor. A certain class of businessmen, despite the impressive recovery of the postwar economy, sought ever cheaper labor. Cheap labor import began in the textiles industry, but over time, moved into construction, transportation, and healthcare. There was no need for immigrant labor; rather, there was a selfish need for cheap workers, aided by a post-imperial generosity, that drove a vast welcoming of post-colonial commonwealth peoples. Immigration boomed, reaching over 100,000 a year, despite no real need for immigration.

So, in 1962, the government limited immigration. This was called by communists an effort to “enshrine racism in state law”  but had the odd, adverse effect of assisting Pakistani migration. The voucher system established by the government to limit immigration made family and kinship networks vital for immigration. Pakistanis have a system called biraderi, which is a clan system of brotherhood similar to fraternal kinship networks found around the world. I detailed the issues with fraternal kinship networks in my first reflection article, so I won’t go too deep here. The result, though, was that despite immigration dropping, those with clan networks could manipulate the new voucher system to keep on coming.

Over the next thirty years, migration remained high but controlled. Then, suddenly, beginning in the 90s, immigration began to soar. Blair is credited with the start of mass migration to the UK, which we can assess as a multi-causal trend, that built on the growing ease of travel, new digital communication, optimism about a new world post-cold war, and as an attempt to eliminate the racism that seemed to plague the old world—in addition to that deep need for cheap labor.

So, Pakistanis were originally allowed to enter Britain for cheap labor. Over time, this took on cultural significance for liberals, who identified immigrants with a new social future and a more progressive way of life. Immigrants themselves worked to exploit restrictive systems using kinship and family networks that the British state could not fathom or predict. New technologies accelerated this trend. One can consider this the UK’s primary industrial policy—a homegrown attempt to prevent offshoring, utilizing the resources of post-imperial Britain: cheap labor from Commonwealth states and former colonies.

The British author, Tom Jones, has termed this “Human Quantitative Easing.” As he has described,

“Human Quantitative Easing is the method by which government allows geographically rooted industries, which cannot offshore their workforce to lower wage economies, to satisfy their need for cheap labour by importing the same workforce to the UK — with government providing a subsidy, if required, in the form of services and welfare payments.”

Here is an example of HQE at work.

Now, let’s be good Marxists and do some napkin math. I count thirteen men, seemingly, all South Asian and probably Sikh. I would bet they are related, by blood or tribe. They likely cost about £5 to £12 an hour each. The cost is so low and variable because they may be illegal workers or workers present via asylum or other means, who work for cash pay at lower rates than English construction workers. An English construction worker, entry-level or early career, will likely run you about £15 to £25, especially if they are independent contractors who own their own equipment, like a Genie Lift, which is usually what you would use to lift a steel beam. You’d probably need four or five of them for this operation. One with the machine, two to three working specifically on placing the beam, and one or two men elsewhere doing other tasks—cleaning the site, preparing materials for the next steps, and warning passersby. This does not even account for the administrative staff who supervise accounting, regulatory compliance, and deal with clients, among other responsibilities.

From the perspective of capital, these thirteen men make more sense to invest in than four or five English workers, who would demand higher payment that includes hourly wages, the cost of insurance, equipment repair, benefits, and funds for the support of administrative staff. These thirteen workers are individually cheaper, more disposable, and less likely to complain to the authorities. Likely, they would have been recruited illegally or informally, through WhatsApp or family connections. They can build faster by ignoring regulations (of which they may not even be aware), and their cheaper labor at a faster build rate results in cheaper and more rapidly built housing, lowering housing prices and construction costs, making their homes less desirable but more affordable for consumers. Their administrative staff consists of just one person with a phone. This is all likely off the books. They won’t complain because they may not be aware of the laws, and they often secure jobs through family networks and social status rather than based on successful contracts in the market. Status in this line of work is invisibility, quick, cheap, and done. Quality does not matter.

Labor is substituted for cheaper labor, and cheap labor is foreign labor, what I’ve called in my critique of Yarvin, peregrin labor or peregrini, in the Roman Republic. You could call this “falcon labor” for its predatory mobility.

There are only two economic models. One dominantly features the substitution of capital for labor, or what we would call automation via software or industrialization via machines; the second favors replacing capital with labor and then cheaper labor, and we can call this human quantitative easing—replacing five men and a tool with thirteen men—the model of slavery and offshoring.

This has led to what right wing politicians and authors in continental Europe call “the great replacement,” which is when demographically distinct cheap labor is imported to shore up the pension system, the consumer economy, and the post-industrial service system. HQE can be considered the inverse of industrialization and is a force that acts against anti-industrialization in the developing world, as laborers are drawn North, and as harmful economic practices counter industrialization in the Global South. As was said in the American South, “Instead of installing machinery to do the work, we always undertook to do it putting in another cheap negro.” This sort of attitude is a fundamental approach to economics, and as the global North relies on peregrini, the global South does the same, following the North’s development models towards anti-industrialization.

Now, no one thinks that anyone went to a meeting room and decided on this. Rather, they think that, like the trade in spices or the transatlantic slave trade, big capital did what big capital does and sought cheap labor, sometimes abetted by and sometimes opposed by politicians.

This is a Marxist, materialist explanation of demographic change. Consider the examples in your own life. Who brings you Uber Eats? What about Deliveroo? Who pricks your arm at the NHS?

The people who wanted Pakistanis in the UK for cheap labor were not the Homeland Party, but the liberal and conservative governments of Britain that wanted a cheap labor force and votes. Of course, now the cheap labor force has some political power and is expressing it. The cheap labor does not want to remain cheap labor. They want to control what their children are taught in schools. That's a normal human instinct.

The issue is that people don’t think this will last. Politicos, like Dominic Cummings, think all this is simply going to collapse. He is reading End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration, How Civil Wars Start, and The Collapse of Complex Societies. He, like a lot of people inside government who forage in the intellectual fringes, has gotten spooked. He believes JD Vance that the UK might be the first Islamist country with nukes. He believes reporting from The London School of Economics, and even Elon Musk that all this will end in civil war, in fact, a race war, with Islamist characteristics.

Tom Jones thinks this will simply continue until one day things are so different that they can never be the same again. Not collapse, but shift, like South Africa: Azanufuturism: accelerationism with South African characteristics, or, in his words,  “you have to understand Somali clan politics to understand Liverpool's local government.”  Or, in the words of Will Solfiac, 

“People have an amazing capacity to find ways to keep on living in their own little worlds, even if they are increasingly tangled up physically in another. I remember staying in Beirut and being surprised at how the Maronite Christians lived their European-style lives, seemingly untroubled by the presence of Hezbollah a few miles away in the southern suburbs. Since then Lebanon has continued its decades-long descent into crisis, but I would bet that this particular separation persists. There is indeed a great deal of ruin in a nation, even one with a situation as unfortunate as Lebanon. Most people tend to quietly adjust to new realities, moving to areas they feel more comfortable in — regardless of their stated ideology — without really admitting the reasons even to themselves. While it is possible that Britain could devolve into conflict, it could also, as the multiculturalism advocates are so fond of saying, just continue to muddle along. Under this scenario, its transformation into the yookay would continue to cause disquiet, but not enough to actually make anything happen, although I would say that the faster the pace of change, the more likely it is that something does happen. Regardless of the outcome, what we can say for sure is that the future of Britain is going to be very different from the country its people grew up in. In predicting what this future will look like, the idea and aesthetic of the yookay will be a far more accurate guide than the idealised image of vibrant multiculturalism.”

So at this moment of chang and chaos, enter from stage left, riding a dark horse, Nigel Farage, who—wielding the sword of borders and integration—has promised to save England from both Anas Sarwar on the left and Kenny Smith on the right. He has told Anas Sarwar to knock it off with being sectarian, and has told Homeland to please “go over there and have a beer, please, we don’t want you!” Now, I have spoken to this “ethno-right.” They are not going to go and have a beer somewhere else. Precisely the issue is that there is nowhere else to go, and lots of pubs are being turned into Mosques.

Farage and Integration

Assimilation in America happened because people came in small groups, because there were no economic benefits to remaining in ethnic cantons, because the state used force to assimilate people, because stigmas forced people to change, and because moving to America was a near-permanent decision, though we did deport Italian mafiosos.

Now, people can come in large numbers, there are economic benefits to remaining in ethnic cantons (one can tap into various kinship-clan networks of finance and labor, from hawala to biraderi),the state does not forcibly assimilate people, stigmas are suppressed so people don’t assimilate for economic opportunity, and because at any time, someone can facetime people at home or fly home, newcomers have no social isolation to drive them to assimilate.

In the 20th century, assimilation was the trend of migration. In the 21st century, fragmentation is the trend of migration. There is nothing right-wing about this sociological fact—a fact as in itself banal as the measurable increase in the number of transsexuals, that Zohran Mamdani has not yet been a citizen for ten years, and that Donald Trump did better with black men than expected. These are banal facts. The sun is shining. In the 21st century, fragmentation is the trend of migration. 

To not notice any of this, one has to do what Dominic Cummings has called superposition—though he used the term to discuss the British political elite’s inability to deal with the facts of the HRA/ECHR regime’s limitations on asylum.

…many politicians develop weird super-position personalities, where they sort-of-know and sort-of-lie to themselves such than an impartial observer can rarely conclude either ‘they’re lying’ or ‘they’re deluded’: it’s a bit of both. It’s how many cope when promoted to jobs far beyond them. And it’s very poorly understood among business elites who always overrate the rationality of political players and underrate the prevalence of this super-position-personality phenomenon which means widespread avoidance of the real issues in meeting after meeting to an extent the median business elite has little experience of outside companies heading for bankruptcy.

I am going to go much further and say that superposition is a way to describe what Adam Curtis called hypernormalization which is a way to describe what Orwell called doublethink which is a way to describe what the Strugatsky brothers called the Zone and what Zizek calls, ideology—which is the brand of clothing Hasan Piker sells, IDEOLOGIE. One could even nod at Baudrillard and say, “simulacrum and simulation,” or Renaud Camus and say, “replacer and replacee.”

All of these nice terms are fun ways for smart men to say that people are lying to themselves on a large scale.

I watched a few videos of Nigel Farage to gain an understanding of the Reform Party. Not too many, though. The most informative was his appearance on The Winston Marshall Show. Over the past year or so, with the Southport murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance class and the revelations about grooming gangs, the British media and public have been in deep reflection about Islam. So has Nigel Farage. What conclusions has he come to?

• First, the problem in Britain is young Muslim extremists, not Muslims or Islam. 

• Second, the Muslim population in Britain is increasing by 75% every ten years, likely, they will compose 16.7% of the population by 2050, so to win, the right cannot afford to alienate them.

• Third, Farage considers the majority of British Muslims to be in opposition to extremists.

• Fourth, Farage considers the end goal of integration to be the transformation of Muslims in Britain into essentially Protestants, who are Muslim in their private lives. He views integration to mean that people have to speak English, be tolerant, and keep their religion to themselves.

• Fifth, the state has to crack down hard on radical extremism, especially young Muslim men—after all, about the same number of British Muslims joined His Majesty’s Armed Forces as joined ISIS.

  
  

All of this comes up in his interview here. But here is the problem.

The Rotherham rapists were not young men, who just arrived of dinghies from France, who could not speak a word of English.

They were young, old, and middle-aged men. They spoke English. We know that, because the girls they raped reported being told exactly why they were being raped, in English. They were told they were being raped because they were kafir. Their wives are old, and believe their husbands are innocent, and that white girls used bad magic to seduce them. In English, their wives say, “bad magic.” These men do not hate and loathe British culture; they think British culture is promiscuous and individualistic, as a Christian thinks blasphemy is sin.

And from these facts and our earlier discussion of labor, the vision of Farage unravels.

• First, suppose the problem is not young Muslim extremists, but the importation of people with radically different cultures to provide cheap labor. In that case, exiting this cycle means ending the cheap labor system, not merely enforcing a border. He is not promising that. 

• Second, if Muslims in Britain will be a much larger share of the population by 2050, when has an increase in demographic representation ever led to moderation? Generally, the opposite occurs, as more people means less coalition-making, which means less compromise. We can already see this with “Gaza Independents” who have made their whole campaign about Palestine or Anas Sarwar promising to control childhood education.

• Third, Farage thinks the issue is extremism, as if the year is 2004. The issue is not extremists. The Rotherham rapists were not extremists. They were just Pakistani men, imported for cheap labor, who believed that white girls were seductive, easy prey, and so they raped them. Albanians who sell coke are not extremists. They are just international drug dealers. They all speak English. I know that because they have to be able to speak to their clients. 

• Fourth, suppose the end goal is to transform Muslims in Britain into Protestants, who are Muslim in their private lives. In that case, Muslims will oppose this, because they will oppose the transformation of Islam into Protestantism. And, after all, how is the state going to do that? The state won’t culturally eradicate FGM through police violence, so why would the state alter how Muslims in Britain live? They aren’t going to ban the burqa. They can’t even stop FGM.

• Fifth, sure, the state has to crack down hard on radical extremism, especially young Muslim men—but what if they are only part of the problem? What are you going to do about the Rotherham rapists, who are not political extremists? What are you going to do about Anas Sarwar’s sectarianism? What about all the children of young men you deport, their wives and cousins, who don’t join ISIS but agree with them? What about the men who think white women are going to use bad magic and Djinns against them?

  
  

All of this is to say that Reform is not going to prevent dispossession. They do not care. They think talking about dispossession is obsessive and weird. 

Farge prefers dispossession because he is afraid of what repossession means. He is afraid of the “ethno-right,” of "racists," of men like Kenny Smith. When asked about the “ethno-right,” and the tie between skin color and being English, Farage said this,

“I think there is that, that shared sense of the historic nature of who we are as an island, our level of tolerance towards each other—which I think it's always been far bigger than perhaps anywhere else in the world—and ideally once you're fully integrated, a ridiculous nonsensical sense of humor. And provided you've got all of those things you qualify, and I think the skin color thing you know it's funny, we're just bigger than that. We're just bigger than that. Our, our global reach, um our history of trade, uh by far the most international of all countries in the European Time Zone and always have been I just think we're bigger than that."

When discussing integration, he also said, “If you don’t speak the same language, you’re done! You’re done!” What the interviewer did not ask is what do you do if someone is “done”? Do you forcibly integrate them, forcing them to learn English, do you lecture and tut-tut them and ignore the problem, or do you make them leave? Kenny Smith has an answer: remigration, which is cheaper and kinder than forced assimilation. What did Kenny Smith say when asked about the tie between being English and skin color?

“I think that's absolute nonsense, software instead of hardware. But he's right on one thing, it's not about skin color. It's about ethnicity. England is the home of the English. The English people built England. It's named after them. That's their culture. I'm Scottish, Scotland. It's exactly the same. Scotland was built by the Scots. It's for the Scots. Everything about Scotland is Scottish. People who come here can be given a bit of paper to say they're citizens, if they’re Asian. They're given a bit of paper that says they're British. I don't believe they're British either, but they can be British citizens. That is something, that is, you know, for them to be English or to be Scottish, is genetically impossible and he can use these terms, ethnic nationalist, whatever as a derogatory term. I don't see it as derogatory at all. I'm a Nationalist because I stand up for my people. I'm very proud to represent the ethnic people of these islands because I am one of these ethnic people of these islands. You know. I'm genetically a Gael. You know I'm from the Northwest of Scotland, very proud of my Gaelic heritage and history. You can hear it in my voice. You can see it in my face. You know I'm a Gael. I'm a Scot.”

Farage thinks this is racist ethnonationalism. He thinks ideas like this will accelerate the sectarian trend, and if Dominic Cummings is any indication, Farage thinks that means collapse and civil war. So, he has concluded, strategically, that to hold the UK together, he must be an integrationist. Anything else means moving right into an ethnic articulation of ethnic identity, which would doom something Farage cares about much more than the British. Farage cares more about his legacy and the global order than about Britons.

What Farage wants is that when the history of this decade is written, the books will say, “sectarian and ethnic tensions were rising on the left and right, and then Nigel Farage returned, and saved the day, and fixed sectarianism with good English common sense.” Even if Reform wins, when the history of this decade is written, Farage will not have stopped sectarianism. He will have led Britain, if he is effective, to merely exit the ECHR, which is not nearly enough. Because by the time he is done, Britain will still be on the path of dispossession.  

Farage thinks he is bigger than that. Bigger than skin color, bigger than all the countries in the European time zone. Farage imagines his role in history to be bigger than Britain, to be to maintain Britain’s role in the global order and prevent the sectarian left and alt-right from ever gaining power. He considers the alt-right to be Homeland. But also Rupert Lowe. After all, Rupert Lowe was booted. He wants his legacy to be stopping the right and left, not preventing dispossession. He is, in that sense, a true post-national centrist.

He wants his legacy to be stewarding the Empire forward, which depends on stopping a party like Homeland—or a hard right—from forming at all. This is because Farage understands that if the UK had an AfD or Fratelli d'Italia, or even Trump’s Republican Party, they would try to move past the HQE regime of cheap labor, because this is the system that is leading to dispossession. His “global reach” and “global order” is a cultural and political idea that rests upon the status quo of international relations—if Britain pursues the hard-right path that so much of continental Europe has pursued—then all that “global reach” and “global order” will disappear. All the nations that participate in the myth of “global reach” and “global order” will begin to say Britian is a pariah, a fascist state, a failed power, and because all of this “global reach” and “global order” is myth and fantasy, all that will fade away. Consider the panic around the absorption of USAID into DOS, times that by ten, because for boomers in Britain, this would mean the collapse of their post-imperial identity as first among equals, stewarding the Commonwealth into multicultural modernity. He understands that if Reform were to be AfD, he could not pontificate about England’s global reach and the European time zone, because the nation would have to prioritize itself over managing the post-imperial system, which requires social status, and a friendly migration policy.

Let me quote Tom Jones again, who has explained the issue better already:

“Postliberal approaches to immigration persist, however, precisely because the wholesome abstraction it presents is a wholesome abstraction. It lets you talk about the vagaries of ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’ without descending into the particulars of race, religion, class or sex. It lets you believe that what’s being eroded is abstract mutual obligations, common culture, shared values. It lets you ignore the concrete results from that erosion; what happens when isolate children in schools, what gets said to your daughter on the street, what justice looks like when a jury doesn't understand the word ‘consent.' … “How can we talk about the bonds of civility, about the framework of a shared society, about shared acceptable practices and interactions, with people who believe that white girls are either possessed by Djinn and thus responsible for their own rape, or that they simply deserved it? With people who don’t even understand the concept of consensual sex?”

Farage is talking about dangerous young men, about the bonds of language, about the framework of a shared history, about shared acceptable practices and interactions, while old men and their wives, who have jobs, who keep religion to their private lives, who speak English, and also believe that white girls are possessed by Djinn and thus are responsible for their own rape live in Rotherham. Farage is trying to sell multiculturalism to a public that wants to ban the Hijab. He is saying that there is no tie between skin color and nationality, even as people are afraid that they are going to become a minority in their own country.

Knowing that Scottish people are white, and that English people are too, is not white supremacist, it’s normal. It’s what regular people know. It’s what history tells us. You can go and look at the portraits. What Kenny Smith said about skin color and ethnicity was more normal, infinitely more normal, and less radical than what Farage said. Very few people before 2016 would have accepted the notion that being English meant only speaking English and having a sense of humor.

Normal people have no problem accepting the idea that people can assimilate into their culture. You can assimilate a South Asian into the culture of Rotherham, but you cannot assimilate 10,000 people who live together, who come from the same valley in Pakistan, into Rotherham’s culture in 25 years. Normal people love their country and want to see their people thrive. Normal people also, generally, know who their people are and can articulate this, usually along ethnic and historical lines. Integration did not fail because of the ethno-right, because normal people are racist, or because of the ethno-left, but because integration was never, ever the goal. The goal was cheap labor and votes. Multiculturalism, in academia, in journalism, in liberal culture, is all downstream of this economic fact and normal people can see that.

Normal people can look around them. They know a lot of people are not becoming British, because they already have a culture—Somali culture, Eritrean culture, and Pakistani culture. So normal people want those people to leave, not because they are brown and black, but because their culture has practices that are incompatible with English culture, such as FGM and biraderi. Normal people know these different groups in close proximity in conditions of decline are not going to get along. So, normal people, having only one type of power—the power of their numbers—are going to Reform, hoping to stop the boats.

The problem is that Zia Yusuf was a token. The problem is that Nigel is from a different era, where a token was just a nice minority, not the future majority. The problem is that normal people are starting to get worried, and Farage is worried they’re worried, because he worries they'll go to the Homeland Party.

The Coalition Opportunity

Normal people, in a democracy—even a failing one—have one power: numbers. Numbers are why so many people do not want Rupert Lowe to have an alternative to the Reform Party. Numbers are why some people dislike Ben Habib’s Integrity Party. If numbers are powers, then all these little parties, including Homeland, hurt numbers.

But how do you get a number of people to follow you?

You get numbers by responding to their wants, needs, dreams, and desires. You promise numbers a vision in their language. Vision is its own power. Vision does not require a large number of people. Reform has been, at times, Farage and an iPhone. Yarvin and Renaud Camus are singular men. You do not need institutions to launch a political insurgency. You need a vision that people believe in, and they then flock to you, and the more they flock, the more come, until you have the numbers to win.

So what do people want?

People want a party that is against the boats, will deport illegal immigrants, will pursue left-wing social policies, right-wing immigration policy, will repatriate people who have not assimilated, and will—without shame—defend Britons. They want to prevent dispossession. They want to live a normal life, where trash is taken care of, houses are a bit cheaper, and their children are safe. This is not a right-wing or left-wing vision. Denmark and Sweden are working for all of this right now, in coalitions of left, center, and right. So, if numbers don’t want to leave Reform because they are afraid they won’t be numbers anymore, but little groups of people, few in number, what do you do?

You form a coalition that is hard-right, but which includes left-wing and liberal voices, to stand for a concrete, tough, and specific migration policy. You claim the mantle of anti-immigration from Farage, seizing on the weakness of his vision that numbers of people are disappointed in. Small parties aren’t going to work. The numbers know they need numbers. What works is a coalition. How did AfD do it?  They proclaimed:

“We are liberals and conservatives. We are free citizens of our country. We are committed democrats. We came together as citizens with different histories and experiences, with different educations, and with different political backgrounds. We did this in the awareness that, regardless of all our differences, it was time to act together and responsibly do what we feel committed to. We came together in the firm conviction that citizens have a right to a genuine political alternative, an alternative to what the political class believes it can impose on us as "without alternative." We could no longer stand idly by while the law was being violated, the rule of law was being destroyed, and irresponsible political action was being taken against the principles of economic reason. Likewise, we were no longer willing to accept the resurfacing of long-overcome prejudices and hostilities between the European nations as a result of the euro rescue regime. Therefore, we decided to offer Germany and its citizens a genuine political alternative in all areas. As free citizens, we advocate for direct democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law, a social market economy, subsidiarity, federalism, the family, and the living tradition of German culture. For democracy and freedom are built on the foundation of shared cultural values ​​and historical memories. In the tradition of the two revolutions of 1848 and 1989, with our civil protest we articulate the will to complete national unity in freedom and to create a Europe of sovereign democratic states, bound together in peace, self-determination, and good neighborliness. We are committed with all our might to fundamentally renewing our country in the spirit of freedom and democracy and to restoring these very principles. We are open to the world, but we want to be and remain German. We want to permanently preserve human dignity, the family with children, our Western Christian culture, our language and traditions in a peaceful, democratic, and sovereign nation-state of the German people.”

What about Fratelli d'Italia? By forming the Brothers of Italy—an alternative to the center-right—Meloni became the default opposition because of her anti-migration vision which meant that she absorbed all of the numbers that left others over time, many years, until she finally had the numbers to win, which allowed her to take power. Because she has a full-throated critique of international capital as the cause of demographic change, she allowed some leftists and rightists to join the party, and made it not about the immigrants, but about the people that make them immigrants—about the lack of a strict welfare system, about all the organizations that make illegal immigration easy, about big capital, and about that terrible Frenchmen—Macron—ravaging Africa.  

Reform can be easily outflanked on the right by a coalition, such as the AfD, which is oriented similarly but borrows its strategy and aesthetic from Fratelli d'Italia. Importantly, though, the goal is to do what Denmark is doing, not to pursue a fascist or racist or socialist or radical vision of society: the goal is to pursue remigration, deportations, voluntary repatriation, and reverse demographic dispossession, precisely to preserve society.

To do that, you need to go right, to go left. This is because in a post-national, multicultural society, the British working class will never matter more than Deliveroo drivers to the Labour Party. They have already sold rape for votes. To have a party that represents working people who are Britons, you need a party that has abandoned post-national, imperial, multiculturalism. To do Denmark, you have to go back to the nation, through the path trod by Fratelli d'Italia, to break the stranglehold of bourgeois liberalism and boomer imperialism.

For anyone on the left to do anything they want—unions and dealing with inequality—you need to break with cheap labor and international capitalism. For anyone on the right to do what they want—help the families of Britons, reverse demographic dispossession, reduce crime, deport people—you need to break with cheap labor and international capitalism. There is a common strategic interest. The wonderful thing is you don’t need to do the impossible and build a new economy. You only need to go back to an older model of national capitalism and industrialized society. 

This coalition would need Rupert Lowe, Ben Habib, Tom Jones, The Critic, Conor Tomlinson, whatever is left of UKIP, blue Labour defectors, and Thomas Skinner. You need a normal guy. The coalition needs Jenrick and Chris Phillips. The coalition needs the assorted people who compose the British online right. Alone, all these people are weirdos with names and small crowds of fans; together, they would be a coalition, a party, that could matter.

The coalition would need the Homeland Party for three reasons.

First, the elite need to be scared.  A center-right party will not scare them. Rupert Lowe, anything about the Tories, Ben Habib’s “integrity,” or Thomas Skinner’s independent campaign is not scary. An opposition will not force change if the strategy is politics as usual. How many times have Britons tried to vote for immigration restrictions, only for their leaders to turn them into something else? “Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.”

The coalition needs power. To get power, they need vision, and their vision is stopping dispossession, which puts them to the right of Farage, and to get attention on this, to get people hearing and listening and seeing the vision, they need to break the rules, and then the numbers will come, because they want the rules to be broken. The rules are leading them to dispossession. Therefore, leaders need to break with the past, both symbolically and strategically. The past is a vision of its own, with its power of containment.

With Homeland in the coalition, the coalition would strategically escalate metapolitics, emphasizing that all these different people—citizens from various walks of life—came together to save their country. By working with them, you say, the situation is so desperate that we need all the people we can get. The situation is desperate due to dispossession, which will make every other problem harder to solve; therefore, the vision is to address this fixable issue and return to normal politics. Labour and the Tories can fight over the NHS once Britons are no longer on a path of minoritization.

The reason parties with odd neo-fascist roots are winning across Europe is not because everyone suddenly became fascist. The reason is that neo-fascists realized the situation was desperate. They needed to stop being naïve. So they moderated. Then, they formed new parties with large coalitions and changed. The neo-fascists were the first to realize this, and so often the first to move. They moved in a moderate direction.

And, now, for my left-wing critics that wonder why I am not pissing my pants about the neo-fascism question, it is because the people actually killing Jews right now are on the left or are Islamists, who are far more antisemitic than young right-wing men who pretend to be to score points with their friends. There are as many leftists tweeting about “Death to the Colonial Empire” as are rightists tweeting about Rhodesia. The Internet is a park for fantasies of the id and dollhouse play.

The reason I am so full of detest for suppression of speech online, is that in the nightmarish cesspools of the Internet, in the infinite data streams of rape and animal gore, of infant animals being burned with acid, the state hunts for racial tension, brushing past Pakistani rapists coordinating via WhatsApp in order to arrest Lucy Connolly.

To recall, she tweeted this in anger, as a nanny, after children were stabbed to death. She deleted it shortly after.

There is nothing at all wrong with what she said. I was even surprised Kenny Smith joked about “community service” for saying daft things. I don’t think it’s daft. Children were stabbed to death. They were slaughtered like animals by a person who should never have been in Britain, who is now going to be a tax burden for the rest of his life. Kids were stabbed, and asylum seekers, who have no skills, who do not speak English, and who are in the news every other day for assaults, are randomly showing up. Lucy Connolly's tweet is a normal human thing to feel. She has received a 31-month jail sentence. Rotherham rapists are still free. Maybe a step towards the right or two would be good for a society that arrests babysitters and not actual rapists, that hunts for bad words when there are wolves at the door.

Certain things about Kenny Smith and Homeland make me uncomfortable. “Communist conspiracies,” for example.

But I would have been uncomfortable with Enoch Powell too. He was loved by working-class Britons, who had white-only clubs, which were considered a bastion of racism by liberal reformers and were destroyed. Enoch Powell had working-class fans, whose children and families are still around, who see Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) getting their own associations, jobs, and clubs, and find in their hearts nothing but resentment. They thought everyone was supposed to be treated the same. Turns out, that only went one way. One of the reasons you need Homeland is that the coalition needs the modern Enoch Powells of the world. The coalition needs men rough around the edges because working people are rough around the edges. And, even with his more uncomfortable statements about black freedom of association versus white freedom of association, about communist conspiracies, I know that Kenny Smith is still more rational and moderate than most MAGA uncles and UKIP hanger-ons, and that he is infinitely more moderate than Gaza Independents who are actual Islamists.

If you spit on working people for being rough around the edges, being a little racist, being a little conspiratorial, they are going to spit on you for not being a little racist, being a little conspiratorial, and then they are going to fucking abandon you. They are going to laugh at you, mock you, for living in your little gated community, or apartment with three digital locks, while they actually live next to different people, with different cultures, and see them get most of the council housing, and see them sometimes have multiple wives. They are going to think, quite naturally, that there’s a big conspiracy against them, because the liberals who always talk about women’s rights don’t give a fuck about the burqa, but give a fuck about abortion—that “labour” spends more time courting people who live in apartments with three digital locks, than talking to a rough-around-the-edges-men.

The second reason Homeland would be vital is that the coalition needs allies in the United States and Europe. Reform does not have ties to the remigration right in Europe or the United States. Reform is tied to Yusuf and Elon Musk, as well as tech enthusiasts. That is not what you need. You need Stephen Miller, Meloni, Alice Weidel, Marco Rubio, and all the other people in the remigration corner in your team. You need Chega, AfD, JD Vance, and Renaud Camus. The coalition needs them because they will aid, advise, and assist.

Third, the coalition needs to cross a Rubicon, which is no Rubicon at all. Here’s the odd thing. Kenny Smith may believe some things I don’t believe, about communist conspiracies, and sure, a few of his boys have said strange things about certain groups on X. But what scares normal people more: young men posting on X, or the facts of Rotherham? Which causes real-world riots, and what upsets Narinder Kaur? Where is the Rubicon and who has crossed it? Who saw the river and raped a girl nine times, passed her to someone else, raped her again, then gave her to the police, who called her a whore, then let her get raped again, and who let this happen 4,000 times, and traded silence for votes?

Regular people do not believe anything the media says about fascism or racism. They do not care. They were a bit worried about it, but they no longer care. They care about safety, immigration, boats, borders, deporting criminals, and stopping stabbings. They do not want to be racist, but they also know that racism is not saying impolite things: racism is segregation and killing people, which is already what is happening. There already are parallel societies and cantons, and already, people are getting stabbed. London is even exporting stabbers to Kenya.

The Rubicon is the media Rubicon, the polite world of liberal culture, which says that: thou shalt not speak to neo-fascists. But regular people have been called neo-fascists and racists a lot, so they don’t care, and more importantly, a lot of what Kenny Smith said are things that normal people believe, about ethnicity, Scottish voices and faces, heritage, and ancestry. To cross the Rubicon is to speak about race and politics from a working-class perspective, which is to say, we should not import cheap labor, and we need the modern Enoch Powells, who will say things about Scottish faces.

Why do you think Donald Trump, and not Bernie’s “billionaih,” is a working class voice?

Trump says, “I won’t let them replace you with cheap labor. Your kids will grow up in a country that speaks English. They will not poison the blood of our country. I am your voice.”

American citizens with blue-collar jobs who are deathly afraid of being replaced and of their kids growing up in an alien, strange country, flock to Trump—white, black, Asian, native, Jewish, and Hispanic—because he is promising to protect them. Protect them from what? Well, the shampoo at CVS in cities is behind plexiglass.

The way this works—if we look at the Italian model or Trump—is that by being the most right-wing party or person, you become the default opposition. No matter how radical you are, or whatever neo-fascist ties you have. Voters want a strong immigration policy and reward political moderation. The only thing voters do not want is to be racist. Was anything Kenny Smith said beyond the imagination of your uncle?

Homeland is a strategic asset if one desires credibility domestically on remigration and immigration, on claiming the right-wing space as a hard-right party, and long-term coalition success in preventing dispossession.

The goal is not a Homeland Party victory. The goal is to have a strong, ideologically diverse, political coalition that can welcome pop-culture media figures who aren’t intellectuals but are smart enough to speak plainly about what’s going wrong, and Homeland, and blue labour defects, and conservatives who understand the Tories aren’t going to save the day (they did the Boriswave after all). The goal is to be normal and form a hard-right coalition, which can shatter liberal hegemony and allow for the pursuit of the Danish model. You are not going to get there without radical change. The economy is structured to rely on cheap migrant labor. Labour is specifically cutting funding for domestic nursing courses to ensure the NHS continues to rely on foreign labor. The Tories did the Boriswave.

Homeland has to give up being “dissidents” and be part of a big anti-immigration tent. Lowe has to get real and not form his party. Habib has to join Homeland. All the online people need to stop being doomers and try to save their country. Britons need to form a coalition of the desperate and the normal. The models of the coalition would be Trump, Meloni, Weidel, and Chega. I know that some part of being British is looking down on crass American culture, on Trump hugging the flag, on RFK and rhinestones. There is sort of this vague hope that the Tories are going to politely, in a keep calm way, put out the fire. They are not going to. The Labour Party is losing to Gaza Independents. The Tories did the Boriswave. That is a crisis. In a crisis, smart people break rules. They do not quote an Enoch Powell speech from 1968 on X and hope this saves the day. They do not make a video about metro crime. They form a serious, hard-right coalition that then quotes Enoch Powell and makes videos about metro crime.

The coalition must go and find the modern Enoch Powells of 2025 and work with them to symbolically and practically break with the past.  

The coalition compromises on everything, except one thing: that Britian remains the home of the Britons.

If all the right people believe a coalition like this is naïve, then Britons are going to lose. Britons are not going to be lucky and have the government randomly listen. The nation is too deeply entrenched in this to have a party, like Labour or the Tories, pivot to the Danish model. Britons need a coalition to the right of Farage of everyone who opposes dispossession.

The Coalition Opportunity

There is an alternative path for Britain that the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Swedish, the French, and the Italians have all taken.  Homeland is part of that path because they have a remigration platform.

I am not endorsing Homeland. There’s no point. I am an American, a socialist, and a nobody.

Like Renaud Camus and like Robert Ménard, I am not on the right by nature. All my gentle instincts tell me to avoid these topics, to not talk to these people. Yet, I try to allow the truth to lead me where it will.

And the truth takes me to a few singular facts.

That in a democracy, no one voted to become a minority, and thus, Britons are justified in preventing that outcome.

That Farage is selling a dream, and dreams are the expression of a human wish, or the admission of practical failure.

And that in Farage’s failure, there is an opportunity, and the only political mechanism to seize this opportunity, following successful continental models, is a coalition.