[@catchamber]

If you use a very atypical understand of modern conservatism, yes, they are certainly more classical conservatives in the sense of "valuing and preserving tradition", though I would not necessarily choose that term. It poses the same issue as calling modern leftists "liberals" when they are only socially and fiscally liberal. Either way, I suppose the point being that let us try not to mince words when we are attempting to be accurate about who or what they are. They are proposed apolitical identitarians and nationalists by their own claim, easier to go down that route and use it as the classifying mechanism than make it any more convoluted.

As for the "metapolitics" business, they are indeed using it in a way that while not wrong is certainly odd. I do think it has something, if not in large, to do with the narrative and audience they are trying to reach. However, I do not think it is so much a sales point as it is them attempting to state they are using politics, the various parties and peoples, to drive a goal home that isn't so much limited to the spectrum of Left-Right, Authority-Liberty biases. It is my understanding they are making a concentrated effort to be apolitical and appeal to playing outside the rules to meet their objectives.