This England

Really interesting proposal, we urgently need more rigorous constitutional planning so I hope Restore gets you on board. That said, I doubt a genetic conception of citizenship could ever win over a majority of the British electorate. Any serious programme to restore demographic security must balance ideological clarity with political pragmatism. Ultimately, the policies need to be sellable to the public. A purely genetic definition of citizenship runs against deeply embedded English cultural instincts and is unlikely to build the broad coalition required. Restore Britain’s programme needs to feel authentically English. Luckily for us, we have an enormous wealth of historical material we can leverage to build such a formation of identity. Historical context for “British” identity Britishness was fundamentally an imperial identity, which can be conceptualised in 3 different ways: Settler Colonies In the White settler colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia), local identities hybridised with a shared sense of belonging to a global Britannic civilisation. "Britishness" remained the cultural core that attached the colonial peripheral to the metropole. This version was implicitly and explicitly White, and describes the Hereditary Citizenship you propose. Dependent Colonies A competing legal tradition, rooted in English common law, held that anyone born within the sovereign’s realms was a subject. This was deliberately used to bind colonial populations to the Empire and provide them a narrative of belonging. The 1948 British Nationality Act was the product of this discourse, then leading to Windrush. It cannot be ignored, though, that many colonial subjects did feel an attachment and loyalty to Britain when they arrived in the Isles. Global Britishness Since the cultural turn of the 1960s, postcolonial narratives and mass immigration have hollowed out British identity. It has become purely civic and vacuous: anyone who lives here for five years can claim to be as British as anyone else. A major reason we are in this mess is that Britain never properly marked the end of the Empire. We have continued pretending it lives on through the New Commonwealth. We therefore need a coherent revisionist history that we can integrate into our political-constitutional programme and citizenship laws. This requires pragmatically rehabilitating the second, "dependent" form of Britishness: the imperial subjecthood that non-White colonial peoples legitimately claimed as we did knowingly extend it to them. Clear periodisation is essential. Anyone who arrived while the Empire still had tangible reality holds a fair historical claim to British citizenship. That period ended with the 1981 British Nationality Act. Those who arrived afterwards have no such lineage to the British imperial civilisation and therefore cannot claim continuity with our historical identity. Though purists may dislike it, this approach is far more effective for normalising remigration and Restore Britain. It offers several key advantages: (a) Wider appeal Granting firm citizenship rights to pre-1981 New Commonwealth arrivals delegitimises accusations of ethnopuritanism. The policy frames the issue as one of history, ancestry, and belonging rather than race. This pragmatism and fairness could persuade many more people, including moderate Labour, Lib-Dem, and Conservative voters. Fairness is a core value of the English, it's just been bastardised in recent years. (b) Academic legitimacy The distinction between the two forms of Britishness (Old Commonwealth hybrid nationalism vs. New Commonwealth imperial subjecthood) is already well-established in scholarly literature. This academic scaffolding helps us reclaim our history from the Left’s political rewriting, and rigorously academically legitimise and articulate our claims on a national-level. (c) Cultural authenticity The Britain we seek to restore must feel genuinely English. The English have historically been a tolerant, open-minded, and gentle people; this history has simply been weaponised and occupied by the Liberal-Left; we must reclaim it. A purely genetic/materialist justification for citizenship feels and is alien to the English spirit and is unlikely to gain broad traction. Basing restoration on a more historically grounded, civic-imperial conception is both more authentic and more electorally viable. (d) Imperial rehabilitation The Empire is central to our national story. By allowing the Left to portray it as purely evil, we have been cut off from centuries of our own history. Presenting it instead as a tolerant yet ordered and firm civilisational project (which is the historical truth of it) enables us to reintegrate those centuries into the popular imagination, tying the people of the British Isles more firmly to the noble project we once commonly participated in and shared to the world. There's lots of other details I want to add, but I thought I would leave it there with the general architecture. What do you think?

We are close to “The BINCA point”. That is to say, the point when political actors realise that the expansion of denaturalisation powers will be necessary to address the demographic terraformation of Britain, a terraformation which is locked-in without retroactive action, such as those being proposed on ILR, and now, also asylum. Britain will require an updated citizenship act (superseding the 1981 BNA) to provide the powers necessary. One such bill, called the “British Indigeneity, Nationality & Citizenship Act” (BINCA), is published here on @ReinersProject : t.co/mkyPl0QIbL These powers are framed in a “muscular civic nationalist” manner; within the wider bill, they make coherent & workable the 1981 BNA’s denaturalisation powers, which are used primarily in citizenship fraud cases (around 200 per year). Without this, we become a minority in annual births shortly after the 2029 election on current trends– schools follow in around 5 years, then overall population thereafter (see the graphic below, from @charliecolecc)

@HalcyonArt777 @WorldByWolf It's almost certainly his media team, not him.

@thisengIand @WorldByWolf when he`s already been pumping out controversial tweets 24/7? nah bud.

I’m not going to be gaslit into believing Rupert doing a few hours worth of interviews in 2 months is normal. If any other party leader did so little press you’d think that was weird. Sure he’s busy but all party leaders are, you have to find the time. Visibility is king.

I agree completely. That said I think we need to come clean and be completely honest about the history of Judeo-European relations. The discrimination doesn't go one way. Many secular Jews, almost certainly due to their experiences of anti-semitism and pogroms, developed a particularly revolutionary and anti-White politics. It is no coincidence that they constituted a significant proportion of the European communist parties. Nor is it a coincidence that the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse) and some of the broader bulk of critical theorists (Butler) are secular Jews. Jewish historian Murray Friedman identifies this: "Central to their belief was the idea that Jews could never feel safe unless prejudice and discrimination against all minorities were wiped out." Ashley Montagu, who worked on the UNESCO Race Statement which forms the basis of modern liberal dogma, even declared "all non-Jews are antisemitic". Yet whilst they dismantle ethnonationalism for White people, many of them are simultaneously avowed Zionists, showing the clear contradictions in their beliefs. That said, you are correct that the West has a specific set of values, meaning we shouldn't be dragged down into continuing this blood conflict, especially when we bear partial responsibility for historically creating an environment where they were pushed towards racial animosity. I think that we need to promote rapproachment. Now is the right time because this older generation of secular-revolutionary Jews are being displaced, both by their horror that the society they have created is turning against Israel (to which they still feel ethnic loyalty), and by the fact that a new generation of pro-Western Jews (Karp, Thiel) are emerging who have a strategic interest in shoring up the West. But we can only do that if we have an honest moratorium on White-Jewish relations, and determine where the truth actually lies in certain conspiracies, and where it veers into schizophrenic anti-semitism. I'm not saying that this is something that needs to be discussed publicly, but more a matter of discussion for the online right who are more interested in getting to the truth of subject matters, which is otherwise derailed by low-IQ anti-semitism that fetishises Hitler/Nazis and prioritises global anti-Jewish crusade over nationalist interest.

@omoduduwa @Ultramarine577 @deezguy49 @indicmawntee You seem to forget what the original post is.

The whole beginning of the problem was you saying “It’s not over, We are still the same Europeans who invented the modern world” but now you want to flip it and gaslight me, I am suddenly the one being resentful and don’t want history to be history. I am not your wife or mother that you abuse daily at home. You cannot gaslight me.

you are facing this cuz your great-grandfathers couldn’t stop themselves from invading countries enjoy the Karma of their actions

@Citizen1909 @PositivFuturist This isn't the English way. Your efforts to pick up the shards of England and weld them back together will only create a shoddy replica. We must understand who we were, and we weren't what you are describing.

@PositivFuturist Weak. You need to be advocating for blood to be spilled. Over a million of your nation's girls were hunted down and raped by foreign dogs. You need to desire to see their heads on pikes; to see their families burned and their blood relatives extinguished.

The far-right want to deport Windrush.. everyone non-white and then create a culture of shame around race mixing I just want to deport illegals, criminals, non-English speakers and fiscal drains I'm a centrist, listen to me otherwise the *actual* far right will eventually win

We must make a historically accurate distinction between English and British identity. Englishness is an ethnicity. It belongs to those who possess indigenous ancestry from the historic English people: the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, and earlier Brittonic populations who formed the English nation over centuries. Only those with such roots can claim to be ethnically English. Britishness, by contrast, is an imperial and civilisational identity with two distinct strands: Settler British: This applies to peoples of British Isles ancestry who settled the colonies and forged new White settler societies (such as White Canadians, White Australians, New Zealanders, and White South Africans). Here, Britishness represents a shared ethnic root, legal tradition, language, and values across the Anglosphere settler nations. It is both ancestral and cultural. Imperial British: This refers to indigenous peoples of the dependent Empire (British Raj, British Africa, the Caribbean, etc.). Under British imperial law, any person born a subject within the Empire could legitimately claim to be British, encapsulated in the assimilatory principle Civis Britannicus sum to integrate the dependent subjects into an imaginary of overarching British loyalty and bonds. Those who migrated to the United Kingdom from the dependent colonies while the Empire still existed, particularly the Windrush generation and similar migrants up to the early 1960s, arrived under this framework. Many genuinely saw themselves as participants in British civilisation and had a direct historical tie to the Empire that had shaped their own societies. This gave, and still gives them and their descendants, a legitimate moral and legal claim to Britishness and, by extension, to settlement and citizenship in the United Kingdom. However, once the Empire effectively dissolved, this pathway ceased to function. The British Nationality Act 1981 (which came into force in 1983) formally ended the old Civis Britannicus sum regime by redefining British citizenship on narrower, post-imperial grounds. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 had already begun restricting automatic rights of entry, but the 1981 Act marked the decisive legal closure of the imperial route to British identity. Any large-scale migration to Britain after this point (the era of modern mass immigration) lacks this historical attachment. Post-imperial migrants have no equivalent tie to the British imperial project or civilisation that once justified broader claims to Britishness. They cannot invoke the same civilisational continuity. This distinction negates accusations of racism, as it's really about about historical continuity, legitimate attachment, and honest recognition of how identities were actually formed under the British Empire and after its end. Englishness remains an ethnic reality; Britishness was always a broader, time-limited imperial construct.

@reecetalking You're an anti-Jewish ideologue, not a Britain-first patriot. The Restore Britain elite are all ethno-nationalists. Pragmatic policies deployed effectively around this ideological core is a reality of politics. Blood-feuds are for third-worlders, not Europeans.

The coping and seething about Restore is genuinely mind blowing. You people can’t be helped, I could show you all the evidence in the world and you’ll always find some other way to downplay it or deflect. Dare I say, the right wing are just as deranged as the left.

I want to know what your understanding of the JQ actually is, preferably outside Europa: the Last Battle. Are you just finger-wagging "Zionism/its the Jewz" to virtue-signal or do you actually have a nuanced analysis?

@WonderingEng @thisengIand I do have a worldview lmao what is this slop

Why do I oppose Restore and Reform more than the greens?

@omoduduwa @Ultramarine577 @deezguy49 @indicmawntee You're the one who's resentful and bringing the colonial blood-feuds to our indigenous lands. We decolonised, remember? You're the ones that don't want to let history be history.

@Ultramarine577 @deezguy49 @thisengIand @indicmawntee Yeah only a savage will be proud of that. Instead of celebrating bringing about world peace, you’re celebrating genocide then you have the audacity to turn around and call us savages. Too bad you’re not better at convincing the sun to stand you, or reproducing.

What unites us is people like you: third-worlders incapable of behaving in civilised European society, and despite living in our national homes and benefiting from our advancements still have a blood-feud against us. Now we understand we're not so different, and we have a common civilisational interest.

@thisengIand @indicmawntee No it's not, what unites you is the US. The moment the US is down, y'all return back to your default savage behavior. You bleed the world twice in your world wars killing millions. Now you Europeans have been bombing and invading the global south

@deezguy49 @indicmawntee Unlike you we progress and learn. Europe is now united, and when we're colonising space you'll still be fighting over the local water-well which we built when we tried pull you out of the mud.

@thisengIand @indicmawntee No you don't, you end up chumping out and kill millions of other Europeans

@omoduduwa @Ultramarine577 @deezguy49 @indicmawntee No, you just have petty tribal conflicts for all of history. You can't do war on the scale that we can because you simply aren't capable of organising or advancing to a point where that's even possible.

@Ultramarine577 @deezguy49 @thisengIand @indicmawntee At least we don’t chimp out and mass wipe each other out every century.

@LoMARTI71905853 @MBlueflame @indicmawntee It's not about karma for colonial powers, it's about white racial animosity. Ireland was colonised by England and Scotland, yet Ireland too must be "enriched". They are simply resentful racists.

@MBlueflame @indicmawntee also this logic is totally rotten since they are invading us thus will they face karma too ? we will see I guess

I would argue that wokism (or modern radical leftism, whatever one chooses to call it) exhibits more of the classic totalitarian logic than any other major ideological force in the West today. Its intellectual genealogy runs from Marx’s materialist dialectics, reframed by Gramsci into a theory of cultural hegemony, and then fused with postmodern deconstruction of the foundations of Western civilisation (gender, race, sexuality, family, nationhood). The ultimate telos remains the same as classical Marxism: a totally equal society in which the state eventually withers away. However, achieving this now requires abolishing not only material oppression (private property) but also all cultural and psychological dimensions of oppression (patriarchy, heteronormativity, whiteness, colonialism), which it considers to be reproduced through Western civilisation.. In this culturally-inflected dialectic, human history becomes the unfolding liberation of human consciousness from oppressive external structures. Minority groups are cast as the agents of progress, steadily gaining freedom against the perpetual enemy: the white, Western, heterosexual male and his civilisation. Like fascism and communism, the objective is to immanentise the eschaton and realise a perfect, free, and harmonious utopia here on earth. Because it operates according to totalitarian logic, it short-circuits traditional Western and Christian moral and liberal safeguards that restrain the brutal suppression of political enemies. This makes censorship, exclusion, and even violence against dissenters justifiable and even morally necessary (purifying, perhaps). I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that if second-wave wokists ever gained full political power, they would be willing to mass-murder or otherwise eliminate right-wing opposition in the name of their moral utopia. Zak Polanski’s earlier today was really revealing: he was essentially openly questioning whether right-wingers who oppose the regime should even be allowed to exist within the society they are trying to build. Ominous. By contrast, I do not see movements such as Restore Britain inhabiting the same totalitarian logic. Nationalism is not synonymous with totalitarianism or fascism. One can defend national identity, culture, and sovereignty without adopting the full suite of struggle–inevitability–eschatology–utopia that defines totalitarian ideologies, and which wokism/Greenies participate in.

By no means am I downplaying nationalism, it's an implicit integral component throughout (when I talk about the purity and struggle of the national community). Again though, this nationalism carries an entirely different meaning and within a fascist context compared to a contemporary one. In the same vein that Nazi-German nationalism is not the same as 19th century romantic German nationalism. To your second point, the reason why the two blur is because they do have many structural similarities: (1) a history of perpetual struggle, (2) a sense of historical inevitability, (3) an eschatology, (4) an immanentised utopia afterwards. The accumulation of these things then builds a new framework of good and evil, which justifies the use of murder against genuine or imagined enemies. While these components manifest differently in each ideology, their shared presence is no coincidence. It's simply the superstructure of Totalitarian ideology.

More Restore Britain meetings yesterday, more planned tonight, more happening over the weekend - we are rapidly building a national infrastructure capable of fighting and winning a general election. Social media is great, but it's these people who will win us that election.

@SellikBhoy @TheNativist_ @HornetShaaa @RupertLowe10 OK, good point, you've got me Sir, I've done some reading and can't think of a way to rebut. I agree with you regarding conflating the two.

@thisengIand @TheNativist_ @HornetShaaa @RupertLowe10 Marxism is based on dialectical materialism. ie. Class and economic forces driving history. Fascism rejects that. It’s not materialist and it's built around myth, identity, and nationalism.

"Dr." Lawrence Britt, the author of the "14 Characteristics", is not a scholar. He's a novelist. If you want to actually understand the inner logic of fascism this isn't a good starting point. The main flaw with this characterisation is that he equates methodology with ideology. Two entirely different ideologies (fascism and communism), may, for example, employ similar methods to pursue their goals: (14) election tampering; (13) cronyism and corruption; (11) disdain for intellectuals and the arts; (7) obsession with national security. The list goes on. Does this mean that Stalin and Hitler are both fascist, or both communist? Of course not. Methodology is not what constitutes an ideology. This is the error that you are making. This is why Britt's thesis is so misleading. It manipulates your emotional need to find some kind of intellectual legitimation for your anxieties. By flattening what is an immensely complex topic the need for deeper understanding about the philosophy of the ideology itself the need for deeper study is negated, and you are provided with a ready-made strawman with which you can accuse any of your opponents of fascism, regardless of whether or not they actually inhabit the fascist ideology. I would like to offer you my own definition, one largely derived from Roger Griffin's palingenetic ultranationalism thesis. Fascism: (a) like communism believes in a particular historical dialectics; the entirety of history is an unfolding perpetual struggle of the racial or national community, which may or may not be articulated in opposition to an eternal enemy ("the eternal Jew"); (b) wherein victory within this struggle is seen as the inevitable, mythic destiny of the racial or national community; (c) which involves the faith in an eschatology where both the existing society and civilisation, seen as degenerate, weak and aged, must be entirely destroyed and purified through violence; (d) and from the "ashes" emerges an entirely new, virile, type (the utopia) emerging from the ashes where individual conscience has "transcended" into the collective, unitary consciousness of the racial and national community. Eric Voegelin describes fascism as a "political religion", and you can see why. In my view, this is a much more precise synthesis of many of the observations of fascism which reveals its inner inner universe. It obfuscates true understanding of fascism by merely equating nationalist language, for example, with what is essentially, as Voegelin says, a new kind of religion.

@TheNativist_ @HornetShaaa @RupertLowe10 Eco's framework isn’t a checklist, but a set of warning signs. This rhetoric overlaps with several of them (fear of difference, scapegoating, crisis framing, strongman language).