The Homeland Interview

Following up on my interview with Renaud Camus, I spoke with Kenny Smith, the leader of the Homeland Party in the United Kingdom. His party was responsible for inviting Mr. Camus to the UK to participate in a conference they were hosting on remigration.

Remigration refers to a comprehensive emigration policy that includes voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) services, financial support for repatriation, and, in cases involving criminal or terrorist activity, the revocation of citizenship. Remigration is not a right-wing or left-wing policy. Denmark, currently governed by a coalition of Social Democrats, Liberals, and the Moderates, and Sweden, governed by a coalition of the hard-right Sweden Democrats and the Moderate Party, are both pursuing voluntary repatriation. Secretary Rubio’s State Department is considering forming an Office of Remigration.  Yesterday, President Trump mentioned remigration in a tweet about his migration plans.

Across the Western world, record levels of migration following the COVID-19 pandemic have strained social cohesion, state services, and created many political challenges. In many cases, governments have adopted strict asylum and migration policies, implemented stronger border controls, and pursued remigration and voluntary repatriation.

An exception is the United Kingdom, where the newly formed center-right Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, has made clear its intention to exit the European Convention on Human Rights, which limits the deportation of asylum seekers. As The Critic has described,

“Muhammad Asif Karim has been convicted of 21 drug dealing offences, but won his appeal against deportation by arguing that it would breach his rights to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Another recent example is a Kurdish asylum seeker who won the right to stay in Britain because he has tattoos which “deviated from the principles of Islam.” In another case, an asylum seeker was allowed to stay in Britain after a judge confused Iraq with Iran. If this wasn’t absurd enough, an Islamic State-supporting illegal immigrant could not be deported even though he is a threat to national security. His status as a refugee has been revoked, but he can’t be deported as it is thought he might face torture in his home country. A Pakistani convicted paedophile escaped deportation because it would “harm his children”. This even though he has been banned from living with his children since his conviction.”

Despite support for exiting the ECHR, Reform has been wracked by scandals over the Party’s failure to produce a comprehensive immigration policy, take seriously fears of historic population minoritization, deport illegal aliens, or commit to strong stances against Islam. Several respected and trusted figures on the UK’s right, including Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib, have been removed from or left the Reform party. The party’s previous chairman, Zia Yusuf, briefly quit and rejoined the Party on their DOGE team, with Nigel Farage blaming the alt-right and trolls from India for his temporary departure, though others would insist Mr. Yusuf resigned in relation to demands that the UK, like Denmark and France, ban the burqa.

This comes as the UK has been shaken by a series of controversies related to Islam and migration over the past year and a half. Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old babysitter, has been sentenced to jail for thirty-one months for the crime of tweeting negatively about asylum seekers after three girls were murdered at a Taylor Swift dance workshop in Southport, which was followed by anti-migration riots. The grooming gangs scandal has shaken the country, as revelations came out that a number of mostly white British girls were groomed and gang-raped by mostly Pakistani men, and the police in cities like Rotherham did not help because of a culture of victim blaming and out of fear of accusations of racism. Finally, a recent report from The Telegraph has predicted that Britons—the historical inhabitants of the United Kingdom—will become a minority within the next forty years. Given the failure of integration, this has concerned a significant portion of the public and especially Reform rank and file. Finally, over the past three days, riots have broken out in Ballymena, echoing the Southport riots less than a year ago, over reports that two Romanian boys, aged 14, sexually assaulted a teenage girl.

That is why I spoke to Kenny Smith, the leader of the Homeland Party, Britain’s largest nationalist party and the only party with a remigration platform.  

The Interview

Thank you so much for being willing to speak with me.

To begin, I would be grateful if you could just tell me a bit about yourself and the party that you represent.

My name's Kenny Smith. I'm a Scottish man now living in the middle of England, and I'm the chairman of the Homeland Party. We are a fairly new political party that started in the UK two years ago, and we've quickly become probably the preeminent nationalist party in the UK. Because we are promoting something that hasn't been done before in nationalism, which is, we term it a sensible nationalism. We've got a strong focus on being a positive influence in local communities through things like community politics. And we are intent on smashing the myths, really, about what about what nationalists are all about.

We, you know, believe that if you want to succeed, you have to have to be good people. You have to be positive people and make an impact. So we've got a no tolerance for the cranks and the antisocial elements, and it seems to be resonating now. And you know, we still have to combat these people on a regular basis. But it's something we're very happy to do, because I believe very passionately that nationalism is the answer to the world's problems.

I think everybody is entitled to a homeland of their own, and the only political concept that works that allows that to work is nationalism. The multiculturalism that's been forced on every Western nation actually destroys the homelands of the of European peoples. And it's, it's something that that is only denied to us, you know, around the world, indigenous people are recognized, and, and, you know, allowed to be masters of their own destiny. Everywhere, except in Western nations.

You invited the French philosopher, Renaud Camus, to a conference you were hosting on the topic of remigration, though he was banned by the Home Office from entering the country. Could you tell me why you wanted to have Mr. Camus come speak with you, and more about your party's view of remigration?

Yes, so we invited Mr. Camus over to speak at the Remigration Conference in England, which was the first ever remigration conference anywhere in the world. We were the very first people to do it.

We did it under the Homeland Party banner. We're a new political party, and we want to, as I said earlier, we want to change how people perceive of nationalism, and Mr. Camus is an incredible fellow. He is a very prolific writer and an author, but he's also a controversial figure. I think we can all admit that. And he is the man who coined the phrase, the Great Replacement.

And a lot of things have been said about Mr. Camus that are plainly not true. A friendlier, nicer man you won't meet. He has never promoted violence despite what the media said. And he, you know, he's never been convicted of any crime. So, he is just this lovely old French guy who is passionate about raising awareness, about demographic replacement. And that fits in well with our understanding and with what remigration is all about.

So mass immigration has had a massive negative impact on all Western nations, to the detriment of the, the indigenous people.

And even if we turn the tap off tomorrow, if we stopped mass immigration tomorrow, most nations in Europe will still have a demographic problem, because there's so many of these immigrants have now come in. Their populations are growing faster than the indigenous populations, and you know, I think they're now saying, by 2050 in the UK, we will be the indigenous people, will be a minority in their own homeland.

Now that for me is scary, scary stuff. Mr. Camus is one of the first people to start speaking publicly about that, you know. He risked his whole career to do so. I think he's an incredibly brave man.

And we wanted to send a message to people in the UK and say you're not alone. It's not only just the people in Britain who are concerned about demographic replacement. They feel the same in Europe. They feel the same in America.

And we wanted to bring somebody of prominence like that again to increase our standing. You know a man who hasn't spoken, spoken in England before, for a long time, a great opportunity to do that. His works have only recently been published in English. Most people weren't very much aware of him, although they knew that he coined the term. So, it was our opportunity to get this very powerful intellectual figure to come and speak to England, to a different audience, raise awareness, and sadly the British government took the view that his presence would not be conducive to the public good, which is pretty extraordinary. All he's basically doing is telling the truth. He's raising awareness.

I was recently interviewed by The Times, The Times of London, their radio team who basically, I had to stop them each time they kept calling it, they kept calling it a conspiracy theory.

And it's far from it.

Demographic change, demographic replacement. The Great Replacement is happening before the eyes of everybody. The whole country can see it. That's why remigration has become the word of 2025.

Even the American president is using the word. Now, Elon Musk is using the word. They might be squabbling now, but everybody is using it now, and you know, 18 months ago, when we started really pushing it in the UK, the Homeland Party were the first people to start pushing it. Nobody was talking about it. Nobody was using the term "homeland" for their countries and certainly in the UK. I know they have it elsewhere.

So, we've really pushed the overton window by being sensible, by being disciplined and just been very focused on what we're trying to do. We want to make an impact in local communities, we realize we’re very small. We can't do it at the parliamentary level yet. But what we can do is with, for example, with social media and with our own media output, is explain about the demographic problem and show that there is a sensible, humane solution to this, and this is very different from, I think, where some of the cranks and the extremists come. They're all screaming for mass deportations, kicking people's doors and deporting people.

That's not remigration. It's not what the whole of Europe understands remigration to be.

Of course, you're going to deport the criminals. You're going to deport the illegals and subversives and that's normal. Everybody does it around the world, you know, I think, was it Pakistan [that] kicked out 800,000 Afghans earlier on in the year? This is something that happens all over the world to varying degrees.

People put their own people first and get rid of the negative elements, especially the ones who have come here illegally.

And, as I said earlier, even if we halted mass immigration tomorrow, because of the sheer volume that have come in already, and been granted citizenship, amnesty after amnesty, we're still going to have a demographic problem where we will be, I mean, the minority in our own country. So what you have, what you do there is again, you don't want—we’re not bad people, we don't want to be mean—but we have to be sensible and put our own people first.

We have to withdraw all the factors that make this place attractive to these economic migrants, because that's essentially what they are. They're passing through safe country after safe country to come to the UK. Queuing up in France, doing this hazardous journey across the channel. That's illegal. But then they stay here for a few years, and they're given an amnesty. Other people are getting in all sorts of visas. We've taken in Indians now who are being allowed in the country without paying national insurance.

No one in Britain gets that, you know this, this is, this is the outrage. So, when we do away with the whole DEI nonsense, all these things that give them advantages that we don't have.

We've literally changed parts of our culture to accommodate these people. When we reverse that, all that these people are going to say, well, actually, I think we'd be better go into a place where we're allowed these things. You know, Denmark, for example, you know, banned the burqa and put the interest of their people first.

So, immigrants all come here, and Britain becomes even more attractive to these people. So that's all remigration is, it's working on the push and pull factors to say, “we are unapologetically going to put our own people first. If you don't like it, we'll help you to leave.” I believe the more that happens, and it will, there will be a domino effect.

We've just had local elections, County Council elections, where Reform have taken control of like 5 or 6 local County Councils, and they've claimed they will stop housing asylum seekers in these areas.

Now, I don't believe they'll follow through on this.

If the Homeland Party was in power, we certainly would. And if you, if you have that scenario where you're not housing them, you're not giving them benefits, you're not feeding them, they're not getting free gym, free dentists, free doctors—they’re actually stationing dentists in some of these hotels—it’s mad! When you take all, all the, all the pull factor away, you refuse them.

I mean in America, they had the sanctuary states, and other states were saying, “No, no, we're not housing them,” and when they were getting dropped off, they were bussing them straight back out.

There's a precedent for all these things. We're not coming up with new inventions or ideas that nobody else has thought of. We're not that good. We’re simply putting things in place that are commonplace around the world and delivering for our own people.

That's the most natural thing. That's what nationalism is. Everybody looks after their own personal family first, then their extended family, then their community, then their neighborhood, their state, their region. Their country.

Nationalism is natural, normal. You know, the liberal progressives are literally telling you, “It's hateful to have love for your own people” in the West. We need to have love for asylum seekers or for economic migrants. That's for me where the madness and the insanity is.

There are two things I want to get into from that.

The first is I want to ask about your thoughts on Reform. You said that you don't think Reform will stop housing asylum seekers.

Could you tell me why you think that is and maybe share some broader thoughts about Reform? I know that with some recent things that have been going on in the Reform Party with Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe, that there's been a lot of talk about if Reform is a serious party or not, so could you share your thoughts?

Yeah. So, the reason I don't believe that they'll follow through on that is because the leadership of the party is very different from the membership of the party.

Farage, Tice and Co., and Yusuf, until just yesterday, they are people who are pretty much are just classical liberals. They would jump into bed with the Conservative Party at the drop of a hat if they were given a seat at the top table.

Farage has constantly betrayed people. You know, he’s pretty much detested by most patriotic people in the country who've ever who've ever worked with him, including people in the European Parliament. [he laughs] He's very good at identifying as a man of the people, you know. He's the kind of person that people think, “I can go to the pub with this man and have a great time.” He speaks our language, but every time he speaks with the legacy media, with the establishment media, with people who are part of the establishment in politics, he backtracks.

He's literally said he wouldn't deport people. He wouldn't re-migrate people. He doesn't care if England was majority non-white. Richard Tice had exactly the same problem just yesterday, that he doesn't care, he literally said, “I won't be around.” He doesn't even care that his own children are going to be a minority in their own country because he doesn't care.

I want to ask if you could expand on that. I've been watching a lot of what Richard Tice and Farage have said about this. I agree with you on this classical liberalism point, and they talk a lot about this, the idea of integration and assimilation, that it doesn't matter if Britain is majority non-white, because everyone will integrate and assimilate. What is your view of that?

Integration is a myth. It doesn't happen—it does when the numbers are tiny.

That, you know, we see that throughout history, as soon as any community becomes dominant in a local area, they start flexing their own muscles. They start implementing the things from their homeland, from their culture, from their community. We see all the time most of the ethnic and religious conflict we see in the UK is different ethnic groups fighting against each other, not whites against Asians, not whites, against blacks. It is Hindus against Sikhs. It's Pakistanis against Indians. It's Eritreans, it's Somalians having their intertribal conflicts on our soil.

Every time any of these people from a non-UK indigenous background gets elected to office, whether it's at local government or the national parliament, or any of the regional parliaments, they fight in the corner for their people.

Humza Yousaf, from the SNP, Anas Sarwar from the Labour Party, they all do it. That’s one of the features. There's been a by-election in Hamilton, in Scotland, recently, where that became one of the focal points. Where Anas Sarwar, who's the son of a Pakistani man who became an MP in this country, [he] was seen to be part of the establishment, a Labour Party MP, when he finished his term, I think he did two or three terms, maybe more, in the UK Parliament, he gave up and he went back to the Punjab to be a governor over there. So, he remigrated himself. Now his son is an MP. Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, claiming the same thing, but he keeps getting caught in video after video, saying he's fighting in the corner for his people, his Pakistani people, and for Muslim people. Today I've seen him on the news where he was asked a question about Farage, and responded by saying, “I wish Farage Eid Mubarak.”

Integration is a myth. As soon as they get power and control in the local area, they dominate. There are now four or five, I think, MPs in the UK Parliament who are elected on a Muslim ticket.

That is not people who have integrated.

And the, the thing I was going to point out earlier about the difference between the leadership of Reform and their membership, is traditionally, in UK politics on the right: the leadership of a party is usually further to the right socially than the party, and for the first time ever we have got a popular right wing party whose leadership is closer to the center than the membership. Most people who join Reform join because they think they're going to be tough on immigration. That's the number one factor. They can tell you. They've got no other platforms. They've got no other issues.

I have yet to meet a single—and I speak lots of them, I go to some of the meetings, and I help some of the people—not one of them has told me they're in Reform for any other reason than they are anti-immigration, and they believe that they will see a change with Reform, and for me, as much as I distrust Tice and Farage. Farage has actually told three of his PCs, the candidates of the general election, to stop working with me, send him a message. Stop working with Kenny Smith. He's a nationalist. He's beyond the pale.

Some of them did. Some of them didn't. But you have a, this situation, where you've got the leadership of the party who are talking tough on immigration. But I don't believe they're going to be any different from the Conservatives. The Conservatives had 14 years in power unchallenged. They could have passed any law they wanted, and didn't they betray people? And now they're talking tough again. It's nonsense. The only people that are going to change that is by having genuine nationalism.

And that's one of the reasons why we created the Homeland Party. We need to start standing up and fighting for our people. And it's not, just as I said earlier, about halting mass migration. It's now about remigration, and we are still the only political party in the UK who has published a solid policy on remigration. And it's not something, when most people read it, they are surprised how moderate and how sensible it is because it's not about a form of extremism, it’s something about putting your own people first and encouraging people to go, and that can be done, I think, fairly easily, and Reform could do it if they now are in control of these county councils.

They can literally switch, you know, shut down these asylum seeker hotels tomorrow.

The elections are, now have been, a month ago. There's no sign of that actually happening. They've actually purged counselors from their party who have said these things, that used such strong language, and that, that's further evidence, why, you know, I believe they're not going to deliver.

And for me, it's a good thing that Reform are doing so well, because it's breaking the two-party system. The Labour and Conservative domination of national politics in particular, has been broken by this, and once you get people out of the habit of voting for the old gang it's only just one more step to voting for a nationalist, and if we can hold their feet to the fire for the next four years, who knows what can happen in 2029.

Thank you. I have reviewed your immigration and remigration policy platform. I am familiar with the policies of Sweden and Denmark regarding remigration, as well as the American government's policies, which are also shifting in the direction of remigration. Notably, our Department of Homeland Security Secretary has offered funds for people to return home, and reports suggest that Secretary Rubio might establish a remigration office. Your policy is relatively moderate. So, I think there is a problem where people talk about remigration as a far-right policy.

I think, where the obstacle comes in is, of course, your previous affiliation with the British National Party and members of Homeland having worked with more extreme parties that maybe were closer to the cranks than to what you're talking about here with sensible nationalism. I don't think it's a question of whether or not I believe you, but it's a question of whether voters believe that, you know, that there aren't cranks in the Homeland Party, and people are being sensible nationalists.

Could you tell me a little bit about those past relationships and your transition towards what you call sensible nationalism?

Yes, you know, I'm actually very proud of being a member of previously been a member of the British National Party. We did a lot of really good work, and I was part of the team that helped modernize the BNP. Back in the day, we did the sensible nationalism process to a degree back then, then we got involved in community politics, and we were moderately successful at that, you know. At one election, they got almost a million votes. They got MPs. We were the official opposition in two local authorities, and we had, you know, hundreds of councilors at various levels about the country.

It became undone because the leader, Nick Griffin, was pretty much corrupt and tolerated the cranks and the weirdos. I was one of the people who was actually kicked out because I constantly fought that. Then, you know, I later on, I got involved with other organizations, mostly cultural ones, like Scotland First, and then with Patriotic Alternative, because I was sold again on the promise that they were going to clean up nationalism. Their leader did a speech where he said he wanted to get rid of “that guy,” which is essentially the same thing.

However, I was in about two years, and it became apparent that that was all just talk. It was just nonsense. They weren't serious about being a political party. They weren't serious about cleaning up their act, so I bailed out.

I very much believe that people are entitled to find a road to redemption, that we can give people a second chance. We do have people in the party who have a checkered history. I think every party has that.

What makes a difference to me is whether they've changed their ways or not, whether they, when they come on board with us, they are actively participating in community politics and maintaining the discipline and the sensible nationalism that we want and that doesn't matter whether they've come from the left or the right. We've actually got a councilor in Scotland who, probably about five or six years ago, was a left-wing activist, you know, an extreme left-wing activist. So, we give that opportunity to people from both sides of the spectrum. Obviously, there are things that are beyond the pale. You know we have standards, but if it's just some young kid who said daft things online, or they went to some stupid demo, I frankly don't care, as long as they've grown up and they're behaved, and they're doing the right stuff.

And for me this is where the Homeland Party succeeds, and where community politics succeeds, and when people do positive things in their local community, if they're seen to be to be stand up people in the local community, if they're helping the local community, and they are basically dealing with the local nexus, anything that comes in from the mainstream media, any smear is quickly obliterated because people said, “No, I know, Jane, you know, I know, Tom. They are good people, you know they helped clear this path for me. They got the lighting fixed. They fought my case for housing.”

When you have these stories, when you have these examples, nothing the mainstream media says, “Oh, look at him! He went to a far-right rally when he was 16,” who cares? The guy is a 24-year-old doing positive in my community. He's helping our community. He's making a positive impact. That's absolutely the power of community politics. Parties like the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, I mean, they have some severely mental policies—I mean, they are pushing transgenderism, they're pushing open borders—and yet, because there's some areas where they focus on community politics, they're having tremendous success. People ignore what's going on at the top. We have the advantage in the Homeland Party in that we are exactly what you see on the tin. We're nationalists. We're open and proud about that. We stand up for our people and our identity to put our people first. We don't hide any of that, and we do that at the local level as well as the national level.

And we just want to go in and help our people, and we are starting to have success. But you know you're right. It's a tough uphill battle. There is a very powerful establishment in this country. We've also got the class system that's filled with snobbery that looks down on working-class people.

But I do believe, do believe we're making an impact in changing that. You know, we've gone in two years to be 1,300 members. We've got twelve councilors already at the district, sorry at the parish and town council level. That's more than anybody else has from the national sphere. So that's happening because we are doing what we say.

Our conferences like the Remigration Conference that Mr. Camus was denied access to by the Labour Party, we've got an open door policy, anybody can come to them, and people are regularly coming, and their testimonies are brilliant because they're saying “I went there with trepidation,” or “I was there” where they're expecting, expecting to see something different from what they say online. And they can go. “No, no, they're actually exactly as they say they are,” and that's the difference for us.

I think this is kind of an interesting space to get into, because we're talking about a sort of new thing, where parties become remigration parties that might have had neo-fascist roots or ties like the Brothers of Italy but did actually moderate themselves, and in such a way as to bring in people who would not have been in the coalition.

So, AfD, for example, AfD is a fairly conservative party, a remigration party. They also have LGBT members, including gay and transsexual members. The co-chairwoman of the AfD is Alice Wiedel, who has a Sri Lankan partner. I think a lot of people are inclined to take AfD seriously. Of course, the media doesn't, as they are a remigration party, but they are not a white nationalist or antisemitic party, and they in their actual membership, have a track record of not doing terrible, crazy things that upset people.

My question about Homeland is whether it is a party that could also make that transition and turn. Is Homeland a party where Ben Habib could say, “I'm done, and I want to go join Homeland, because remigration is the future?” Is that a party where someone who, you know, understands that Anas Sarwar is selling sectarianism, but who is Pakistani, and whose family has been in Britian since 1955, when a lot of Pakistanis came over to work in textile mills, could come and support that, because they believe remigration is inevitable and mass migration endangers their status in the country?

Is Homeland the kind of place that would make that turn? Or is Homeland more about pushing Reform?

Do you mean like push, pushing the Reform party?

Yeah, do you envision Homeland being a party that could become an AfD, a major national party?

I think Homeland is already recognized on the European continent as being something very different.

We are a political party that has been created from day one as a genuine nationalist party. We stand up for our own people. We've been unapologetic about that. Our stance is incredibly clear on that.

That is the, we were, we were formed to push remigration. Remigration is something that we push because it allows us to put our people first and ensure that our people have a homeland. So it's, it's a tool to ensure that happens.

But we do not prevent anybody else coming and joining this political party, regardless of their ethnicity or anything else. That is because UK law says that that has to be the way—it is, however, I also believe, you know, like our continental friends do, that we are facing an existential threat and anybody who wants to be an ally in that fight is very welcome.

You know, Ben Habib, Rupert Lowe. These Reform dissidents would be very welcome to join the Homeland Party, and I think they're not that, you know, when you're looking, when you, when you speak to them about their politics, they’re not too far off.

They probably do think we're a bit rough around the edges at the moment, because we unapologetically stand up for our own people, and they look at the history, and because they're still a bit concerned, a bit Tory, they think that that's too radical for them, but they need to wake up because radical is what is shifting Europe right now.

The AfD are very different. You know, they started basically as almost like a libertarian party. The nationalists came in that second wave and now seem to seem to be dominating.

But they are sensible, are sensible. Lega are sensible. The Austrian Freedom Party is sensible. Chega, Chega, leapt from the third biggest party to the second biggest party because they started in the last week's election pushing remigration. It is the wave that is pushing nationalism in Europe, and you don't have to be, you know, indigenous to believe in it.

I was involved in some surveys last year where we were trying to get a cross-section of everybody, there were people who were immigrants in this country who are opposed to mass immigration, people who are immigrants who want remigration to happen to a certain degree. They believe that they're so well integrated that they'll never want to leave. But they think there's other people that should be encouraged to go. That's normal, and I think we'd be rather foolish to knock that kind of assistance back, for some kind of purity nonsense.

You know there is, there is nothing in my view that's more important than making remigration happen at this stage. If we don't do that, we, as a people, are gone. I've got, I've got three daughters. It has to happen and I don't think, you know, I think that one of the big problems with the crank online right is they live in this little bubble, a purity spiraling bubble where they don't tolerate anything that's not themselves. And for me. It's frankly retarded. I want to win.

And do you have to be pragmatic to do that? You have to work with anybody who's prepared to make that happen. You know I take people at, on their, on their word, and what they did, what they deliver on. You know a lot of people talk the talk. Very few of them walk it, but you know, if they do, I'll work with anybody. And that's, I think, if you want to be successful, if you want to, you want to win, that's what the real world of politics is about. And I think that what we've seen with the Homeland Party is that we've, you know, had the ability to take on people who are maybe at the extreme right end of the spectrum, and who are at the kind of center left side of the spectrum. And as long as they're all agreed on remigration they're welcome to come on board the party and help us, help us push it. Yeah, sometimes it'll cause me a headache here and there because of the things they say, and the way people overreact on the Internet. But the grand scheme of things is we need to get more people. We want to become a mass movement, and that won't happen if you're just entertaining the crank extreme right.

You know, we have to appeal to the broad masses and get ordinary people who are all suffering because of mass immigration, and you know they just need a proper political party can deal with that. So yes, to answer.

The short answer is, yes.

I know that in the UK, people are cautious about speech because the Government has arrested people for posting things on X. I think it has created this interesting and difficult dynamic for anyone who is affiliated with remigration because you have what Nigel Farage calls the alt-right, which is apparently some of his supporters. Then, you have the very extreme right, which are people that I've seen post things about you and Renaud Camus, saying that you both are not “pilled enough on the Jews,” and so they can't work with you. So, I guess in this kind of odd situation, how do you tell those extremists and cranks from people who have to have anonymous accounts to talk about their views on migration, on Reform? How do you separate anonymous posters and the extreme right? Where do people become cranks?

Very good question. Yeah. I think these people generally expose themselves, you know, when they see you do good things, you post about something very wholesome, like removing pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli graffiti from the Yorkshire moors, and then they come and attack you, and they call you homos. They call you Zionist, they call you Putin lovers. They call anything you could think.

That's clearly a crank. You know, we've posted something really wholesome, community politics, community activism, where we've cleaned up a local beauty spot, removed the foreign propaganda, and all they want to do is attack you generally. That's a crank. So, they reveal themselves.

In terms of you know the who are the extremists and free speech… I think everybody from the left and everybody from the establishment will label you as an extremist simply for saying the mildest stuff.

So even Labour Party politicians are getting called Nazis and fascists, because they might say, just some off the cuff remark about “yeah, immigration has got a bit bad around here,” oh, you know, it's nonsense!

And the, what has what has happened in this country is that the establishment, the media, the judiciary, the police force, the political establishment, have created an absolute culture of fear around mass immigration and free speech.

Most of the people who seem to, who have been locked up and convicted have pled guilty in plea deals because their legal representation has told them they're going to throw a book at you, plead guilty, and you get a light sentence, and lo and behold, they don't. I believe the majority of these people should not be in jail at all. If anything, you know. Okay, slap on the wrist. Don't do it again. You know, community service, job done. The, you know, the Lucy Connolly case is horrific. That woman should not be in jail. Never mind getting that kind of sentence.

But people are too quick because of this culture of fear to accept these guilty deals.

I believe they should fight absolutely everything. The Labour councilor who threatened to slit the throats of right-wing people is still free, you know because he's not pleading guilty. He's challenging, and he's fighting, and he's out, and he's free man, and he might get a conviction, you know, but he hasn't as of yet, because he’s fighting the challenge. And that's and that's part of the problem.

And you know, I see it, there was an interesting thing after Southport. It was the police and the politicians that whipped up this false view about some kind of right-wing unrest. In places, they were literally going into town centers and telling people there's going to be a right-wing demonstration in here. Close your shops early today and go home.

No such demonstrations had been planned that was absolute propaganda whipped up to crush the popular uprising and the popular, popular anger about mass immigration brought on by Southport. Now that's horrific. That shows you the lengths the state will go. That shows you the fearmongering and the lies and the hate that they're doing. And it's the same with this free speech thing.

And it's sad to say, I see a lot of people online on the right who feed into the, to the, to this myth, and scare people into being silent and being quiet, and every time somebody posts, “Oh, don't say that they'll lock you up.”

I believe the system should be challenged and should be fought. It's great to see the Free Speech Union fighting Mr. Camus’ case. I hope they do the same thing for Jared Taylor and Martin Sellner in the future as well. Because the system needs to be challenged, our civil liberties and freedom of speech must be defended, and the only way we do that is by fighting back and not being silenced.

And I do understand, and I've got friends, and it's affected me as well. I've been debanked in the past. I fought and challenged, and I've won. I've lost employment, or I didn't actually lose it, I got suspended from my work for a period. I challenged that, and I fought and got my job back, and later on promoted in that job. So you, you can succeed when you challenge.

But, for me, if we, if we don't, if we don't fight back, we lose. And it's the same way I ask people to engage in the political process and community politics, because if you opt out, if you run away and you hide, you let these liberal progressives, these lunatics, take power and control. But I do understand there are some people, because of their jobs and the current climate have to stay anonymous. And I fully accept that. And I back that. There's young people, for example, who have joined our party, who are currently studying law and doing other things, and I tell them, do not be a political activist.

You know, hide your light under a bushel at the moment, qualify, become a lawyer, help the nationalist movement like that because there is this, a witch hunt, in some professions and some environments, because we've allowed them to dominate, because we've not challenged them in the early days. And we need to get our people doing exactly that, you know, we all know about the slow march through the institutions. Patriots and nationalists need to do exactly the same thing. Now, there was a video recently of one of a lawyers' association in London, where there was like 30 or 40 people in the room. Not one single indigenous Briton in that room. That's who's controlling the judiciary. Now there, who's going to get a fair trial?

You know, we have to get back into these spaces, back involved, and back in that decision-making process. And you know I do, I do feel that that part of the problem has been the patriots themselves who've decided not to get involved and not challenge. And that's what I'm very passionate about. I want to give confidence back to our people. That's why we're open, and we are so you know, so strong and staunch in in what we say. Why, why, we, we shouldn't just be you know slightly to the right of Reform. We have to be you know, much stronger than that. We have to be a proper nationalist party, telling it like it is from the start. But you know, we also show that, you know, although it sounds strong today, our policies are just what would have been acceptable 40-50 years ago.

You know, they had the everyday thought of the everyday man back then; it's nothing extreme. It's just feels new because it's, it's extremists who are in power who are telling us that we're evil and bad.

I was looking at media reports earlier today about the 1962 Immigration Act, brushing up on my history before this interview, and the Act was deemed at the time by critics to “codify racism into law” for bringing down immigration from 150,000 to 60,000 per year.

I have a couple of things I want to touch on, but I want to ask, how do you describe the cause of the Great Replacement in your party, to party members, and other people that you may talk to?

Do you mean? Do you mean, why has mass immigration happened?

[Nods yes]

Yeah, it's simply because the political establishment wanted it to happen as a source of cheap labor.

Simple as that, you know.

You know there's all sorts of people have pushed for open borders for different reasons. You know some of them have been communists. Some of them have been capitalists. Some of them have just been liberals. Lots of different forces have been at play wanting this, this to happen.

And now you know, you can look at, look at it and it's still the same thing. There's people from centrist parties. There's people from left-wing parties. There's people, people from conservative parties, all still pushing for mass immigration. So, generally, it has been an economic tool. You know, people like the Green Party. The Liberal Democrats do it because they say they're internationalist and stuff like that. But the initial factors were, for me, the economic reasons, you know, cheaper workers for the cotton mills and stuff like that. But you know, it's also been part of the communist conspiracy for years, you know, they think, how can you destabilize the Western nations through mass immigration. You know, that has happened throughout history as well. You know, any nation that diluted its original makeup, you know, all these Western civilizations fell for that reason.

Thank you. So recently, Nigel Farage has been getting asked about what people are calling the ethno-right, and I saw him go on a show called The Winston Marshall Show, and Winston Marshall asked Nigel Farage the same question that I'm about to ask you. Which is about the link between skin color and being British. Nigel Farage's answer is that it is not about skin color and has nothing to do with skin color. It is all about software rather than hardware. He says that what makes someone British is a common language, a good sense of humor, and a shared sense of history.

How would you respond to that?

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.

You know, nothing can change that. If I moved over to Uganda and live there, I don't become a Ugandan just because I live there. If I, if I have children there, they don't become Ugandan either. You know I’m Scottish, that's where people like Farage will peddle the lie that if you wrap yourself in a flag, you eat fish and chips, you can sing God Save the Queen, you become English, you cannot, and, as I said earlier, every time any of these people who are non-indigenous get any kind of power in this country, even at the local council level, they fight in their corner for black and minority ethnic rights, they fight for deals. There was 40 MPs, ethnic MPs in the UK Parliament, demanding that Britain pay for an airport in Pakistan.

What does that matter? We need to be represented by our own people. I'm very proud to be a representative of our people, and I will fight our corner because this is our homeland. I have absolutely no problem answering that question, and that's for me is evidence that Nigel Farage does not stand for the people of this country.

Do you think, the way that you just talked about being Scottish, do you think that's closer to how regular people feel about being Scottish than what Farage said?

Yes, yes, I do. Yes, I do.

Most people understand intrinsically where they're from, you know. If the left wing come out with nonsense like that, well, who would you deport who would remigrate? Most people know themselves who they are and intrinsically who they are, you know. If you, if you ask people from immigrant communities, they are generally fiercely proud of their origins.

There was a Labour Party Association meeting we've seen recently where they were all waving Pakistani flags. Now, if they're integrated and as, and as British as you and me, not necessarily you, [he laughs] but you know, if they're as Scottish as me, or whatever, as English as my neighbor, you know. Why are they waving Pakistani flags? Why are these not little Union flags? Why are they not English flags?

No. Because they still identify with their ethnic identity. And that's why they push and they promote their culture. Their culture is different. Their way of life is different, that their way of thinking is different simply by being here—and you mentioned Mohammad, Anas Sarwar's father, came in 59’—you know, he looked like he integrated, yet he still remigrated back to govern the Punjab. Integration is an absolute myth, and people who push that have no understanding of reality. They don't go into these communities.

I, we recently, in April, had some politicians from the Alternative fur Deutschland over, and they wanted to go and see the non-indigenous side of Birmingham. So, I walked down Alum Rock Road with them. Quite a long, infamous road that, and we seen one apart from the four of us that walked down that road, we seen one other person that was white and British.

And we were getting funny looks. We were getting people shouting at us. They were actually stopping their cars, going down the window and shouting “Pakistan” at us.

And you know we weren’t intimidating anybody. We were walking. We were doing interviewing, things like that. But it was like a foreign country. These people, when they dominate, as I said, several times, when they dominate an area they turn it into an enclave of their own homeland.

They do not, wholesale, adopt the culture and identity, and people like Farage, who sell it and claim that are doing it, based on a tiny minority of people who do that and integrate and be part of the system.

The Reform Party has got probably more ethnic minority candidates, election candidates, than even the Conservative Party has. He has got no loyalty to the people of this country.

I see. And do you think that the tendency to form ethnic enclaves is just a natural part of human nature?

Yes, 100%. You know, there's a very famous interview with Muhammad Ali. I don't know if you ever seen it, with Parkinson, one of the British media figures who was famous for doing interviews, and you know he was spot on, birds of a feather flock together. It's natural. It's normal. It happens in every country, every community, you know. They talk about Brits, for example, who travel to Spain, for, you know, they're seeking sun and sangria, they do the same thing. They congregate in little enclaves. They'll go to a British pub. They'll have British nights.

It's, it's what people do of every ethnicity, you know. If, if you have a strong Polish community in Italy, they'll have Polish shops and Polish clubs.

It's natural and normal. I don't see anything, you know, the Muslim community is the same, the Pakistani community, the same [for the] Sikh community. Everybody does it because it's natural and normal. You can have Black Police Officers Association. You can have the Asian Medical Association. Whatever.

The only people who are denied the right to do these things are white people are people in Western nations. We are the only people who are denied that right. There's actually, in this country, it's illegal for us to advertise a job for whites only, yet every week you see examples where things like the NHS and education boards are allowed to advertise for specifically ethnic people. That's discrimination against the indigenous people of this country. The whole thing is orchestrated. Even Keir Starmer, earlier on in the year, said, “This was by design, not by accident.” They are deliberately making us second-class in our own country, so that we do become a minority. And it's madness.

One of the reasons that the UK is becoming so totalitarian, especially with things like free speech, and the way they attack people in demonstrations, is because if this country becomes majority non-white, and this might sound a bit controversial, but if this country does become majority non-white, and I'm fighting to prevent that, and I believe it can be prevented, you're going to need a totalitarian government to manage these diverse ethnic groups who generally hate each other. So the state, to keep control, and keep, keep these, these people who have the moneyed interest at the moment, the people who have got all the power and control the moment who love their rich lifestyles, when they're off in these gated communities away from the real world, they're going to need a strong totalitarian state with a strong police force to manage these people so they can still live their privileged lifestyles.

And I believe that's part of the reason why there is such, you know, why they come down so harshly, on anybody who is patriotic or nationalistic in any way, and deal with us so harshly because they're trying to put us in our place, that they've pushed the mass immigration so far it's reached a point where the majority of the population are absolutely enraged with the situation. They're up in arms about it. They're wanting change. That's why they're voting for Reform, but it's got too late for them to scale back or to slow it down.

So, I feel that the likes of the Labour Party that they're, they're almost escalating things and speeding things up because they have to get it over that tipping point quickly, and that's why they are so totalitarian and brutal at the moment.

I think, to a lot of people, it would sound controversial. But actually, I mean, in the United States, I think the conservative Sam Francis has talked about anarcho-tyranny or a two-tier policing system. On another note, Singapore is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world. It's an authoritarian government for that reason, because the state has to manage all the different relationships between groups that have a lot of tension with each other. The state also has to regularly intercede in religious nationalism to prevent different groups from trying to dominate the state. And it's really the story of Singapore for the past 20 years.

So, let’s get to how regular people and the public react to all of this. I think there's a divide between mainstream media and how regular people feel.  Back to the Farage example, I think most people, if you talk to them in the contemporary United Kingdom about race politics and about skin color, for example, are not going to go out of their way to do what Farage did, which is say that skin color has nothing to do with being English or being Scottish, because, as you said, it's not this super, deep, meaningful thing. I don't think any regular person is like, reading like, Aryan literature, but rather they just happen to be white, because that is the color that Scots are, and they're not going to deny that. And they're not going to try to do this very post-modern liberal thing, where they shut that idea out of their mind completely. I think most minorities in the United Kingdom, or ethnic minorities, understand that. I heard a caller the other day on a radio station, I think LBC, even say that he knows he's not ethnically English, he considers himself British, that he's ethnically Indian, and that's a pretty normal thing, but the white host told him he was wrong. In most media, that idea is treated essentially as equivalent to calling for Lebensraum, right? [laughter]

And so my question is, when you're talking to regular people, doing community politics, how do they respond to this type of “indigenous” language that you're using?

I've got no filter. I've been an open nationalist for 34 years. You know I've stood in elections also, all sorts of elections. I've, you know, my home sometimes has been the election HQ. My address been on the election leaflets, my telephone number, I've never hidden where I was. So, I never go into an environment and whisper. I've moved into a new town a couple of years ago and did exactly that. And I go to the local pub, and I'd literally see people whisper to each other and look over the shoulders before they had conversations about immigration.

And then I come in there with my friends, and we, we talk and just let it be openly, and people come over and approach us, “Wow! I overheard what you said. I can't believe you're talking about that openly, and you know I feel exactly the same. It's good to hear somebody else saying it.”

Now I go into some of the local pubs, and when we have new friends come around, sometimes I arrange meetings for people to come who come to come to see us and stuff like that. And they said, “I can't believe we're sitting in the pub openly talking about remigration in this pub, and nobody's batting an eyelid.” And this, this gentleman did it did it earlier on in the year, and the, the lady at the next table leant over and just said, “Yeah, Kenny does this every week.” [he laughs]

This is where, for me, the confidence comes in about, about the challenging thing, comes in about being open and positive and doing, doing good things. If you're a good person, nobody should fall out with you because your politics are different.

But I do believe the UK has become extremely polarized. In certain communities, that could lead to conflict in the local pub. You could get into an argument with some other political extremist from the left, who will get upset about what you said, or the pub will want to chuck you out. It's the risk you take. It has become very extreme.

But generally, what I find is as soon as you start having these conversations, or you make these comments, and it doesn't need to be even about immigration. It can be about transgenderism, about free speech. And all these things. As soon as somebody realizes you're on the same page with them, it's like the floodgates open, they want, they want to, I've literally, I was in Kidderminster recently, and Stockton, and spoke, spoke to a gentleman who's seen my badge and he kept me for 40 minutes talking, and I was in a bit of a hurry. But I felt that this guy, he’s just, it's like a pressure cooker, you know somebody's opened it up, and he's been interested in my card, and we've spoken since he just he was so happy to speak to somebody else, and he was telling me that he's saying that you know, he's felt like this for a long time, but he's scared to open his mouth.

Because everywhere in the media, this kind of thing is condemned on the television. In the papers. The politicians are condemning it, you know, at work. He's getting propaganda. He works in the NHS. So there's constant propaganda going up on the notice boards about if you're calling it discrimination, and this and that. So he's terrified to speak, and then, as soon as he gets speak, he tells me stuff, and there's nothing extreme about what he's saying. He's just unhappy about the way the country is going and his community is going, and the fact that he's been silenced because he's scared to say it.

And that's what I want to build up in that situation, and it's what Reform should actually be.

Reform should be at the vanguard in local communities, smashing all this DEI nonsense, doing away with that and doing away with the culture of fear, allowing people to, to speak their mind. You know, if they're Christians, they want to wear the cross at hospital. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? There's nothing wrong with that, you know.

We're constantly having to accommodate and make way for other people's cultures and their sensibilities that are not our own. And, and I think I think from my experience, most people that I come across think like me, and even the ones who are who are, you know, politically more liberal or politically more to the left do actually agree with me on lots of points, of points like, you know, I could say I sat with somebody who's, who's, who was a socialist a few weeks back and I said, do you agree that people in the local community should be housed first? People have lived in that community for the past 30, 40 years. Them and their children should get, get priority housing ahead of immigrants, “Yes, 100%.”

Say that to anybody who leads the Labour Party, and it's a “Hell no.” So, I think the majority feel like that, but they're being coerced by the establishment and the powers that be, and the legacy media. They're the people force-feeding this propaganda, and I tell you, sorry for ranting. But they, I, I get so, I get so passionate with this.

Proof that, that they are getting desperate now is that they’re doing it in schools. They're doing it in the workplace. It's not just good enough now to do it in the media and the newspapers on the television from the ballot box. They're actually trying to force-feed this community, this propaganda in schools and the workplace, because they realize people are starting to resist. And people are saying, you know, you're telling us all these things, that “diversity is our strength,” you're telling us that “multiculturalism is good” but actually our real lived experience, our day to day life, tells us, its not. We're getting mugged. We're getting abused, they're telling us, “Cover up your arms. This is a Muslim area. Now, you shouldn't come in here. This is our pub,” you know, or “shut down that pub.” All these things are happening to people on a day-to-day basis. They're missing out on promotion because there's DEI projects and positive discrimination everywhere you go.

Our people are vilified for standing up for themselves and made second-class in their own country, and people are getting sick, fed up with it. And, and I really do believe that Farage and Tice have misread the mood of the nation.

I believe they could be a far bigger, stronger party if they actually embraced the views of their membership and started standing up for them, delivering the things that their members want.

I think that's an interesting point, but I think that my takeaway—I don't know much about politics in the UK—my takeaway when I look at Farage, and this is just my rudimentary theory, I think back to how in 2024, though many people forget this, the Republican Party ran against Donald Trump. They ran against Donald Trump because they did not want him to be the face of the party, and because they thought he was very extreme, and he would make them lose.

When I look at Farage and I look at Richard Tice's interview the other day, where we have a very young reporter saying, “What do you think about white British people becoming a minority in 40 years?”, and his response is, “I'll be dead by then.”  You know, I don't see it as they haven't read the mood of the country. I see it as they have, and they're afraid of it, and they don't like it, and they oppose it. They’re running against it, like the Republican Party ran against Trump.

I think they just genuinely are, like you said, very ideologically, classically liberal. They think that this entire conversation is unsavory because you said the word "genetic" in relation to the word "Scottish," which means that this whole topic is unsavory. You have to be ignored, and everybody who feels this way has to be ignored.

Which is why I was so curious about how regular people feel, because if you ask them what it means to be Scottish or English, I'm pretty sure they would talk about being from that country for a very long time.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said there.

But the, the point I'm making is even though that's how they feel, they should understand they're leading a political party that's supposed to be rebelling against the system, that their whole trajectory is being pushed by this anti-immigration lobby, and he [Farage] had a perfect opportunity to throw some red meat at his support base there, who have been quite unsettled by the situation, with Habib, with Lowe, with Farage's comments about not being able to implement remigration.

It was a perfect opportunity for him to give them something, whether they believe it or not. They could have given a little more, but the way he floundered there like some kind of wet fish, that was pretty embarrassing, and has, you know, forced a lot of people to wake up to see. “Well, I've joined this party because I believe that they can implement change. But actually, what's going to? They don't believe the same thing as me. Why should I put all my effort and energy into business and putting them into power?”

So I think it was a very silly move, and you know it's a legitimate question. You know we do not want to be a minority in our country, and the other important thing, which, you know, I don't think any of the interviews ever seem to get to get that far is that you know, to ask them, “what would the country be like if it became majority non-white, would they have the same values and way of life as we have now?”

Evidence throughout the history of time shows you it doesn't, it simply doesn't. England will not be England without English. Scotland won't be Scotland without Scottish, Wales without the Welsh, and so on and so forth. French, Germany, Austria, all these places without the people that created that culture, that civilization, that nation, it ceases to be.

It ceases to be.

How have interactions with media been for you and for people in your party?

Yeah, it, it goes two ways at the moment. They either completely ignore us, and that includes most of the dissident right media in the UK, some of them have actually instituted bans amongst their team where they say, “Don't mention Homeland. You can talk about remigration, but don't mention Homeland.” They're only the premier nationalist party who are the people who have created this excitement around the world and push, pushed the policy. So, they tried to contain us for that in that way.

The mainstream media have always, you know, for the 30-odd years I've been involved, tried to de-platform anybody from the nationalist sphere. Anybody who talks, I guess, because they know fine if we get a platform, if we get to debate or they get to argue us, we can argue our case as a party. We work extremely hard in teaching our guys. We do something, we call it hostile interview techniques, where our talented young men and women, we cross-examine them. We do scenarios. We do it in front of audiences where we teach them how to deal with the media and be open and honest about the politics, and you know no questions off, you know, off limits.

I didn't ask you what your questions would be. You know I don't mind you if you’re recording, we are, like I say, exactly what we are on the tin.

But you also get ones who—actually, there's three categories—so the third one is the extreme left wing, the far left pressure groups who just blatantly lie about us. We challenge these things all the time. And the problem that I think we have in the UK, with things like, some of the national newspapers, do cover us with the likes of Wikipedia. They treat these much-discredited, far-left sources, pressure groups, as reliable sources.

So, you know our Wikipedia page, for example, I'm told that people have gone and look at the at the edit reels, or whatever they call them. That they've, you know, they've deleted positive articles in The Telegraph, or deleted positive articles in The Times that just call us an anti-immigration party, and then Hope, Not Hate calls us, what was the one we had the other day? Racist, fascist, Nazi, like they couldn't get another, another word in there [laughs] so, and so but what we've been very good at, we seem to be featuring more and more in the mainstream media.

They're starting to recognize that, that we are a force in right-wing politics. And we have had favorable things where they call us that [an anti-immigration party]. But when they don't, we challenge them every time, we've got a very robust media team who will challenge them on the code of press code of conduct on things that are not true. And recently we've had a lot of things that have come to us. They say “we're going to publish a story. Here's the bones of it.” We challenge them on it, and they actually don't publish because they go and examine the facts later on and realize that what these far-left pressure groups are saying are just plain lies.

So we're very good at defending ourselves. One thing that I strongly believe in is I don't just generally answer what they, what they're asking.

I tell them what they need to know. That's the important thing, because they try and paint this narrative of nationalism as very negative, and I know it's not, and I won't allow them to sell a false narrative to their readership or to their to their viewing audience. If they want to speak to us, they play fair with us, or you know, you know we'll release the we'll release the information ourselves. For example, when I interviewed with The Times, you know, our team videoed at the same time so they couldn't distort anything, and I think that's why that interview was, was, was pretty, pretty good, you know. She did her best to try and smear us. But you know it turned into, I think, an advertisement for us really.

Looking at the Hope, Not Hate website, they say that you are “Nazi, Fascist, and ethno-nationalist” and you splintered from “the Neo-nazi group, Patriotic alternative.”

I mean I literally said it to The Times, “You know how retarded are you that you can be both Nazi and fascist at the same time,” you know, it's silly. I'm just nationalist. We are simply standing up for our own people. I oppose extremism from the left and from the right. I've got a track record of that. Everybody's ever worked me knows that. That's why I get, you know, you've seen it yourself, my social media. I get attacked from both sides. Frankly, I don't care. I stand up for our people unreservedly, and I will combat both these people. Yeah, it is what it is.

I think an important part of this story, which goes against deeply held liberal beliefs, is your belief that people are naturally tribal or nationalist.

Looking at the UK, with a lot of the stories that have gotten attention over the past year or two with some of the revelations about the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Southport riots, and the murder of the three young girls, a lot of people are interpreting these events as just a wave of sectarianism that will pass like anything else.

What would you say about that?

Yeah, no. Sectarianism has existed since the dawn of time.

Whenever two distinct peoples are put into close, close proximity and have to fight for dominance, or sorry, they end up fighting for dominance. They don't just automatically melt together in some happy, happy clappy, you know, you know, Coca-Cola advert. It is literally, everyone looks out for their own interest.

A few years back, I lived on the Isle of Skye, and this Scottish couple who originally from, from the Central Belt they'd moved over to America. For years, he'd been involved in the oil industry, went over there with, I think it was BP. And then they came back, and they retired to Skye.

And the lady was a lovely lady. You know. We got on, we got on really well. She was a big Bernie Sanders supporter.  And you know, she said, you know we had lots of political conversations. She says, “you know, I can't believe so many of the things that me, as this lefty believes are exactly the same things as you believe, Kenny,” and I says, “yes, the only difference between me and you is that you believe in open borders and mass immigration, and I don't.”

And I says, “I'll give you—can I, can I challenge your views?” And I said, “if you had only a small amount of money to do to do your weekly shopping, enough to pay for food for your family, would you share it with anybody else?” She says, “no, I'd feed my family first." I said, “yeah, okay, yeah. You know, I think I would do the same thing.”

And I says, “What about if you had a little extra money, and you know me and my family were struggling this month, would you? Would you invite us all for dinner?” She goes, “You know, fine I would, Kenny. Of course I would. That's what we do. We're neighbors, we're friends. I'd look after you.” “See, and say, there was some kind of disaster in our local community, and lots of people were struggling. Would you put money in and help them?” “Yes, of course we would. Ridiculous questions, Kenny. Why, why are you asking me this?” And I says right then, “so say at the same time as this as these things were going on in the other end of the island, these people were having a similar issue. Where would your support go?” She said, “I’d do it locally. Of course, I know these people. They're, they're my friends.”

There, you know, that's nationalism. That's what I believe. That's that's all we're doing. Just, just we've moved it out to a country level, that's all it is. It is the natural instinct of everybody, Muhammad Ali said it. People around the world said it. Mahatma Gandhi said it.

You know people look after their own community first. It's the most normal and natural thing in the world.

fin

After my interview with Mr. Smith, he asked me about myself, my magazine, and my audience. I had stopped recording, so I’ll share what we discussed here. I told him honestly that I have no audience and I have no fans. I just want to have my own magazine. DOGE purged me, and so with all the added free time, I took the opportunity to pursue my passion, which is writing. I have about 5,000 words in me a day that I have to get out. For a long time, I was giving all 5,000 of my words to the government in emails and memos. Now, I keep them for myself. Of those 5,000 words, perhaps a fifth are worth keeping, editing, and sharing.

I mentioned that DOGE fired me for being at a workplace they considered “ideologically left wing.” They took my writing off the internet, so I am familiar with censorship. I fear this happening again, which is why I have my own site and do not write on Substack.

I am quite aware that people lie a lot. Elon Musk was lying about my former employer and my workplace. Millions believed him. His lie was aired on FOX news.

I told Mr. Smith, when he asked about my beliefs, that I am a failed socialist and that I believe in freedom. My freedom to write and to speak and my freedom from censorship. I believe in freedom for Mr. Smith and for Mr. Renaud Camus. I think that the suppression of their views creates an artificial reality that distorts and warps how people understand politics. I understand many people think men like Mr. Smith and Renaud Camus should be banned for saying uncomfortable things.

I do not agree because here is an uncomfortable thing. The working class is the working class, even if they believe being Scottish is genetic.

Here is another. Most regular people think being Scottish has something to do with genetics.

If you suppress them, you forget that these two ideas are not uncomfortable at all, for most people.

In fact, you forget that you are the weirdo.

We talked further for a short time. He said that he loved to travel. He said he has a lot of respect for socialists and for the labor movement, but says that the British labor movement was for the British working class, not the working class of Peru. He talked about his mother and being an underdog. He talked about being smeared.

I told him that the reason I want to write and interview people is that every single day, the world seems to be getting worse. This was not always the case. Many people once believed the world would get better.

My magazine is called The Meteor because it feels as if we are living in a crater, in the aftermath of a great disaster. Some days, I feel that I can smell the still-burning pines of the Tunguska. I want to write about and talk to people who believe they know how to climb out of the crater. No matter who they are, their political persuasion, or what the media says about them.

Because the media can lie.

I can lie too.

Sometimes, in my 5,000 words, I catch myself lying.

That is why I only keep 1,000 of them.

I have written two companion articles to go with this interview. The first is a short piece that you can read now, "The First Political Order in Crisis," and the second is "Grandfather and Dispossession," which will be released shortly. I will update this article upon release.

I enjoy writing reflection articles. I think this is a fair way to interview people and write about them. I try, especially with controversial figures, not to bookend them—I don’t like how the NYT and other magazines bookend people’s interviews, to contextualize them for their audience. To contain them. Intro and conclusion like two hands clasping a buzzing fly. I trust my readers to come to their own conclusions.  

Incidentally, I will share, both this interview and my interview with Mr. Camus are long. I do not shorten them or cut any material. I keep the full conversation, which usually stretches more than an hour, except on this occasion, where I had stopped recording before the call ended. I enjoy long interviews, but if you're a reader, please let me know if you'd prefer that I shorten them in the future.

Thank you for reading The Meteor, my magazine, a magazine for the doom-driven events of our time. 

A magazine for life in the crater.