If Reform win the next general election, we will spend the next 5 years locked in a "legal battle" whilst they pretend they're trying to get it done, just like the Tories did. We need a Restore government, the only government who will be willing to get it done.

I need the government to lock up criminals, defend the nation, build infrastructure, collect the bins, and a few other services - basic research etc. I’m not an anarchist or anything. What I don’t need from the government is moral instruction. I don’t need them to tell me how to raise my kids. I don’t need them to nudge me into better dietary choices. I certainly don’t need them hamfistedly backdooring my devices to check I’m not doing anything they don’t like. GTFO of my life, thank you. You’re not smarter than me, you aren’t qualified to manage me, please leave me alone.

Complete insanity in the United Kingdom. The calls for @Keir_Starmer to be immediately removed for allowing this once great nation to go into the toilet are not only righteous but necessary. Henry Nowak may he R. I. P.

"It's very important not to politicise a personal tragedy."

"For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions." - Enoch Powell 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Never forget in 2003 Keir Starmer won the case that gave illegal migrants access to UK benefits. Twenty three years later, we're living in the chaos he created.

Restore shouldn't exist, but Farage thought that Zia Yusuf and Nadhim Zahawi were a better fit for his politics and ego than Rupert Lowe. Reform should be romping it, but because they became the Tories they offer nothing particularly different that Kemi's Tories if anything they're more left wing. If the lesson Reform learned from the last 29 years is that the public want more mainstream sloppery they are in for a rude awakening.

Two things can be true: 1. It’s good for your personal finances to be more careful about how much money you spend on food by packing your own lunches and minimizing eating out. 2. Eating out isn’t why young people can’t live independently of their parents or buy houses.

Pearl clutching because the actual average Joe has been driven beyond his wits and reason by the abuse by our useless government. Where we have to try vote our way out of changes we never voted for in the first place.

Let me speak plainly. The managerial state has no right to demand “social cohesion” from a people it has deliberately replaced. You cannot flood a nation with millions of outsiders, destroy its identity, and then lecture the original population about “cohesion.” This is not a social policy. This is demographic conquest disguised as governance. I owe this system nothing. No loyalty. No compliance. No respect.

Read what he's saying here and take it seriously. To him, you are not British if you don't worship the NHS and BBC: it's purely the institutions of society that matter, which is why the people are fungible and can be replaced as long as the institutions survive. This is a kind of wet fascism, where the state is the god that exists eternally and crafts the people in its image. The irony is, of course, that legacy 20th Century institutions are not eternal, they are temporal, fallible, and unfit for purpose now. It also ludicrously implies that Nelson and Wellington were not British as they didn't sacrifice their firstborn to the holy NHS or BBC. Torsten won't engage with these critiques because he can't, indeed, he will likely block me because he's Swedish.

This idea that the British walk about seething about Americans or carrying some sort of cultural animosity simply isn’t true, it just isn’t a thing and wasn’t a thing until MAGA invented it about 6 months ago. The French have it to a degree, also the Belgians. But the British don’t, it’s a product of MAGA influencers and nothing else, it’s pure fiction.

Another one of my fav X posts.

Last week, the United States refused to participate in the UN’s review of the Global Compact on Migration. The United States objects to the Global Compact on Migration and UN efforts to facilitate replacement migration to the United States and our Western allies.

Rupert Lowe is not "the right". His concerns and aspirations are those of the nation, a million miles above and beyond sectarian politics. Blood and soil. My parents would understand.

“Traditions are experiments that worked.” Louise Perry made a sharp point on Modern Wisdom: Progressives have a huge rhetorical advantage. They can always paint a shiny utopian future that’s never existed, so they never have to defend any real-world failures or trade-offs. Conservatives, on the other hand, end up defending imperfect past cultures and traditions — and immediately get hit with “so you support domestic violence / imperialism / cholera?” As Thomas Sowell said: there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Acknowledging trade-offs is fundamentally conservative — and often deeply unpopular in a world addicted to promises of perfect progress. I’ve always found this dynamic fascinating. It explains why one side feels perpetually on the defensive while the other gets to play visionary. What do you think — is the “traditions are experiments that worked” framing a stronger way to defend conservative ideas, or do you see it differently?

You have to be an idiot to think that these two cultures can coexist.

I’m sick of the negativity beaming from some supposedly “far right” accounts. Yes Reform UK are civnat slop. Yes we know that, but the majority of the public are still blinded by Farages charm. Yes we know Rupert Lowe was a Tory and is unlikely to be as extreme as us, but Restore Britain aim to deport millions. You can’t win a war without fighting any battles. There are no quick fix solutions to the decades long brainwashing and endless immigration that has been forced on us. Lock in for the long haul. In the end people will realise what needs to be done.

“Let every man remind their descendants that they also are soldiers who must not desert the ranks of their ancestors, or from cowardice fall behind.” ― Plato

For the majority of the population, equality leads to the collapse of polarity so they cannot have equality in the mutually respectful, mutually loving, co-architecting sense. The mere concept or notion of this is simple myth, nonsense and delusion to them, because the attempted practice of it without the clear delineation of roles in a concrete way almost always results in failure. So they cannot know equality, and it is not even desirable in the form they conceive of it, because for them equality is androgyny: there is no specialisation, mutual respect, or erotic tension - just the eradication of structure and desire, until all that remains is confusion and sterile pragmatism. Amongst the masses, the masculine is stigmatised in the man unless it is in direct, opportunistically useful service to the feminine, and the feminine is stigmatised in the woman if it is in service to rather than defiant of the masculine, until both are thoroughly detestable and unrespectable and you get a combative, inelegant, shrill of a woman, and a timid, pathetic, quibbler of a man. So the concept of equality here is inherently unworkable, because it is in a corrupted form that collapses polarity. Polarity is the preservation of inherent sex based traits, and the recognition they even exist. So for example, to claim emotion is not more primarily feminine than masculine because men possess emotions just like women do for instance, is to ignore the intrinsic tendency, difference in neurotic stability and preferential bias towards a particular orientation at the category level. The elevated version of equality then is not androgyny, but the integration of opposites, it is where the man is more of a man precisely because he is not a one dimensional brute flexing his dominance to signal how potent, strong and better than you he is, and the woman isn't an impotent, anxiety riddled flower prone to bawling like a baby at the first sign of stress - because both are *more than just their inherent propensities*. The woman possesses real grit and steel without being less of a woman for it, and the man possesses real warmth and tenderness without being less of a man for it. The man possesses feminine traits without losing his masculinity - which allows him to be paternal, and the woman possesses masculine traits without losing her feminine, which allows her to be maternal. An unintegrated woman (which let's be honest, is the majority) would say a man crying is disgusting, or if they would not outright admit disgusting, at the very least worrying or unattractive in a way that makes her feel less drawn to him. And the reason for this is simple: she views his human weakness as the collapse of polarity, as the one she relies on crumbling in front of her "and unable to handle her", so begins to reject him the moment he does not inhabit the performative role of "perfectly hypermasculine and invincible yet emotionally available never complaining or crying man" which let's be honest, borders on caricature in how it denies a man his core basic humanity as a being capable of romance, suffering, and deep sorrow. It's to say "don't be capable of that" or "if you're going to do that, make sure it isn't around me" - and how can you claim to fucking love a person if you are going to deny the fragilest parts of them? An integrated woman on the other hand would view his tears as the expression of beauty from a pure soul, and maternally seek to cradle him without viewing him as lesser. It is not that she is enabling weakness or wants him to be pathetic or will just tolerate him forever being a ridiculous bumbling mess, but she is simply not so dehumanising or punitive - she views him as more than just a set of roles: protector/provider etc who must always meet her expectations and never flounder or fail, but as a struggling soul she cares for and wishes to nourish. This is true love, and most of you are alien to it. Which is why when you see posts like this, you want to say "that's bullshit" and "he doesn't know what he's on about" - because if you haven't experienced it, then surely it is impossible and cannot be true, right? There couldn't possibly be things beyond your experience in this existence, right? Your personal experiences have the final say on what is and what isn't true, right? Your ignorance is not authority, but the extent of your limitation. In short: you are wrong. You see, most men and women actually never spiritually grow up, because they do not become beautifully coherent paradoxes. They do not integrate their opposite as the secondary function that augments the potency and magnetism of their primary essence. They insist on the maximisation of their base nature to the dismissal and even mockery of the secondary, and they are lesser, uglier people and lovers for it. Equality through mutual supremacy with sustained polarity is a relational model only outliers can inhabit. It is not the feminisation of man nor the masculinisation of woman, because it is not ignoring or diminishing their base natures, but potentiating them by elevating them from their childish to parental functions through the integration of the opposite into the self, to become more beautiful, more powerful, and more radiant.