Listening to Extremes: A Podcast, Ethno-Nationalism, and an Uncomfortable Realisation
A Random Podcast Encounter
Recently, while listening to a podcast at random, I came across a far-right activist whose views felt strikingly radical even within today’s polarized political climate. His name is Steve Laws. Although he appears to have gained attention within fringe online communities, his ideas seem too extreme to enter mainstream political discourse anytime soon.
Still, listening to his interview was fascinating — not because I agreed with him, but because I wanted to understand the logic behind such convictions.
The Idea of a “Pure British” Identity
Laws argues that all “non-pure British” people should ultimately be deported from the United Kingdom. I had heard arguments before calling for tighter immigration controls due to irregular Channel crossings or concerns about crime. But this was the first time I had heard someone openly use the phrase “pure British.”
The term itself felt both provocative and deeply unsettling.
Is such a thing even possible?
Looking around my own social circle, I struggle to find anyone who could realistically qualify. If not parents, then grandparents — somewhere along the family line, most people have ancestry from elsewhere. European heritage often goes unnoticed simply because it does not visibly mark someone as different.
Yet Laws claimed that “pure British” identity includes Anglo-Saxon, Viking, or Roman ancestry, while allowing limited acceptance of certain Western European mixtures. Jewish, East Asian, Black, or Middle Eastern populations, however, would eventually face deportation if he ever held political power.
A Step-by-Step Deportation Plan
During the interview, he outlined what he described as a gradual and strategic process:
- Undocumented migrants
- Immigrants who commit crimes
- Immigrants who do not work
- Others who do not fit his definition of national belonging
The approach, he explained, would begin with groups likely to face the least public resistance and expand gradually over time.
What disturbed me most was not only that such a framework had been carefully constructed, but that there are audiences who actively admire it. In today’s Britain, where many people support stricter policies toward illegal immigration, I found myself wondering: if one issue were resolved, would the boundaries of exclusion simply expand further?
Confrontation on the Podcast
The podcast host, Andrew Gold — a politically conservative Jewish commentator — challenged Laws directly. During the conversation, Laws told him plainly, “If I were in power, you would also be deported,” adding that it was “nothing personal.”
When confronted with accusations of racism, he responded without hesitation:
“If what I’m saying is racist, then I’m willing to be called a racist.”
He framed his position as loyalty — caring for people who look like him, share his heritage, and belong to his nation. At one point, he argued that similar sentiments might not sound unusual if expressed in countries such as Japan, questioning why his views were condemned in Britain.
Understanding — But Not Accepting — the Logic
Hearing this raised an uncomfortable thought. Many societies, including my own Korean background, maintain strong ideas of ethnic belonging. Even after decades of residence, foreigners in Korea are rarely described as fully Korean.
From that perspective, I could intellectually understand where such feelings of collective identity originate — even if I could not accept the moral conclusions drawn from them.
But beyond morality lies a practical question: how could anyone determine who is “purely British”?
The host pointed out that writer Christopher Hitchens only discovered his Jewish ancestry later in life. Would he also be deported? Laws answered yes. When asked how such ancestry could be identified if it were not visible, he suggested examining medical records or genealogical histories — speaking with unwavering certainty, without hesitation.
What struck me most was not anger, but confidence — an almost frightening certainty detached from practical reality.
Ethno-Nationalism vs Civic Nationalism
Through this interview, I learned the term ethno-nationalism, an ideology defining national belonging primarily through ethnicity or race and advocating a state reserved for that group alone. Immigration, within this worldview, has virtually no place.
In contrast, what I had previously understood as mainstream right-wing positions in Europe more closely resembles civic nationalism — the idea that immigrants can belong if they respect laws and integrate into society.
The distinction suddenly became clear: one defines belonging through shared citizenship, the other through ancestry.
In a country like the UK, already deeply multicultural and multiethnic, ethno-nationalism feels fundamentally disconnected from reality.
When Politics Becomes Personal
What unsettled me most, however, was something personal.
According to Laws’ framework, I myself would eventually be among those removed.
Until recently, negative news stories about immigrants felt distant from my own life. I am a legal immigrant. I follow the law. My family relies little on public funding. I assumed criticism directed at immigrants did not apply to people like me.
But after seeing online comments demanding deportation under a news article about an Asian couple arrested in Brighton — comments filled with anger simply because they were foreigners — something shifted. Around the same time, I happened to listen to this podcast.
For the first time, the debate no longer felt abstract.
It felt close enough to be personal.
–
