One of the reasons that I have found 'unity' projects or collaborative efforts with the 'established' nationalist sphere unworkable is because I've found that the 'consensus' of the group, even if well-meaning, is usually very irrational or self-deluding.
The objectives put forward by groups like Homeland, PA, British Democrats, you name it, are usually the right objectives, but the methods and strategies being used to realise those objectives are fatally flawed.
A very good example is the slavish devotion to the 'ladder strategy' (which is the same thing as Homeland's local community politics), despite the fact that nobody who has ever followed this theory has had any success, in 50 years. Another example is the way that 95% of the energy gets expended on branding, optics and marketing in the belief that if you can only make a party LOOK good (online, on a leaflet, at a conference), people will vote for it. Another example is people proposing to remove 10 million people from a country but with absolutely no comprehension of the logistics involved in doing that or how to make it work.
The decision making that I've witnessed in nationalist's leadership circles (and seen in things said) is like watching Hitler in his bunker. The sense of impending (demographic) doom and feeling of helplessness has induced a state of cognitive dissonance in these leaders. They can't recognise the faults in what they are doing because they are so desperately WANTING it to succeed. The reason that it hasn't happened to me, I attribute to my time in the army, where you learn how to deal with stressful situations without becoming irrational.
The reason the irrational decision making is so detrimental is because the fact that it is irrational is very obvious to the average person on the street. A sane person would never vote for a party like Homeland, UKIP, Heritage, etc (even Reform) except in a complete vacuum. Hence why the higher the threshold for winning (constituency vs local vs parish council), the less chance they ever have of winning. Because instead of say, winning by default on a parish council (by virtue of being the only applicant), or winning on a local council (because the voter turnout is so low), to win anything more than that, it means convincing tens of thousands of people in the same area to go along with irrational people. It's not the goals that are irrational, it's the thought processes on display in how to achieve those goals.
The ultimate proof of what I am saying regarding irrationality, is that if you take this argument right here and present it to people who are the leaders of these parties, they will denigrate me, possibly denigrate you, but they won't be able to rationally explain how any of what is being said is actually incorrect.
