Advice for Restore Britain
I am not affiliated with Restore Britain. I doubt Rupert Lowe even knows of me. Nothing about me, my life or my views should be seen to reflect on the party or its leading figures. However, I do think that it shares some - some - of my beliefs, and it is the closest of the viable political parties to my way of thinking. For that reason I will offer some unsolicited advice, for what it is worth.
We should be honest about the scope of what is ahead for Restore Britain. I will speak about three phases: expansion, electioneering and governing.
Expansion
This is a critical phase because the people in an organisation define what the organisation ends up being, how it will perform, what strengths and vulnerabilities it will have, and what daily life within it will be like.
Expansion means lots of new activists. Since this is politics, and politics of a certain pitch, some of those who volunteer their time will be misfits, malcontents, sociopaths, the types who love to fall out with people and actively look for ways to create conflict - just an all-round nightmare. Once they’re in, you can’t stop them doing damage because they always find ways around rules. You can only remove them. It is wise to do so promptly.
A separate category, ideological spergs, can be extremely useful but must be kept in a box. They are great at research, number crunching, strategising, etc. Don’t give them any social responsibilities or prominence.
Expansion will also mean bringing professional advisers onboard. That is a risk, especially because they will not be familiar with the sort of political party RB needs to be, since none has existed before. They should be chosen carefully. Not only should they be competent and trustworthy, they should have the imagination needed to understand the project.
Another risk is non-natives joining. Some will be well-meaning, some entirely self-interested, but all will weaken the resolve and ability of RB to do what needs to be done. Hold the line. Remember that the native people of Britain are with you, no matter how little diversity you have in the shop window.
Don’t accept Zionist funders. This is the death knell for any pro-European organisation. It has happened time after time, and RB would be no different. The same goes for figures, such as Douglas Murray, who would force RB down that path. Few things could be more devastating to a party that purports to be devoted to improving Britain and helping the British people. It is a key aspect of the farce of British politics that every party has a “Friends of Israel” organisation. If RB does this, people will see the party, rightly or not, as a sham owned and controlled by foreign interests and the organic support, the base, the energy, will dry up overnight.
Then you have to worry about infiltrators - spies from the media, Hope Not Hate, etc. - who will seek to get your people on tape saying something inadvisable. Everyone should bear this in mind and not say anything in private that they wouldn’t say on TV. State infiltration will likely come in the form of honeypots, because there is no surer way to corrupt young men than with young women. Insulate yourselves from scandal however you can. Finances, relationships, etc.
Then there are the drama merchants, the martyrs and exhibitionists who thrive on wild antics that get attention, creating fodder for their socials and for the progressive media, but generally bring down the tone and drive away sensible people.
What you need is straightforward, well-adjusted professional types, preferably with unblemished personal lives, the types of people who solve problems rather than create new ones.
Expansion is an extremely tricky business because basically every new person is a risk. Mistakes will be made. The whole organisation will need to be adept at recovering from these and continually moving forwards. However, vetting and monitoring new people will be essential to building a stable working environment.
I can’t emphasise enough that the organisation will need to be robust, because the opposition it is going to face will be historic. (Were the country’s situation not so drastic, I would even suggest delaying an electoral run until a solid base has been established.) I also can’t emphasise enough how being robust depends on the types of people brought onboard. An organisation is the people in it.
Loyalty (“he agrees with us”) should count for infinitely more than merit (“he’s clever/qualified”). But, obviously, you ideally want both in every person you bring onboard. The establishment parties will always be able to attract qualified people; RB’s appeal will be strength and conviction, not slickness.
Electioneering
I think this will actually be a lot easier than the first phase, because the message is one that the British people will naturally be very amenable to. Finally having a party that represents them, comes across as genuine and simply speaks the truth will be a breath of fresh air. If RB don’t win a majority in the next election, they will in the one after that. Yes, it might be necessary for Britain to endure a farcical Reform/Conservative or an appalling Green/Labour government, but if RB hold the line and don’t cuck, victory will be assured after that. I would strongly advise against accepting a minority role in a coalition government. It worked out badly for the Lib Dems in 2010, and the establishment would make sure it worked out badly for RB.
I suspect that, in time, RB will transcend the left/right paradigm to some extent, but clearly for now it is squarely a right-wing party. For that reason, courting Green, Labour and LibDem voters is largely a waste of time. You will have more luck pulling (some of) them towards your position than slyly adapting it to please them. The realities of Britain today - corruption, globalism, corporatism, cost of living crisis, the failures of multiculturalism - are visible to everyone who is willing to see them, and I think a lot of young men who currently feel that the Green Party sympathises with them could be brought over on the same basis. A lot of people are not stridently left-wing, they just hate the status quo. But Tolkien would have hated it for the same reasons. Be Tolkien, not Thatcher.
When it comes to Conservative and Reform voters, your task is at once easier and harder. It is easier because these parties are obviously corrupt and incapable of rescuing the country. It is harder because a) a lot of people have invested great hope in Reform and b) conservative people tend to be very staid. RB will seem to them like an unknown quantity, and maybe too extreme. Do not over-play any cartoonish memeable “basedness”, no matter how funny it might be. The party’s communications can be slick and “cheeky” and poke fun at its rivals, but should never veer into the sort of vulgarity that can be used against it.
RB’s top weapon against Reform is the fact that Farage, now admitted publicly by the man himself, lied about Rupert Lowe in the hopes of getting him imprisoned and destroying his reputation. No sensible person should want a man who behaves like that in charge of the country. There is a danger of over-playing this card, but only if you fail to supplement it with other things - tangible policy, capable figures, clear direction, a clean image, a proper constitution. If you have those things sorted out, you can safely go hell-for-leather against Farage on this crucial matter of personal integrity. The emphasis should be not on Lowe’s misfortune or suffering, but on Farage’s duplicity and malice.
Boomers, like left-wingers, should not be placated, but rather invited to come to your position. Don’t waste time and energy trying to adapt the message for them, because as far as I can see, the message really isn’t for them. It is for the young who will need to deal with the Britain that is on the way.
Don’t over-play the Christian angle. It needlessly alienates many people who would naturally be your allies. I say this as someone who is dismayed whenever a church is converted into a mosque or a callcentre. Of course our Christian heritage matters (even to those of us who are not Christian) and of course it should be protected. But we are not starting from a point at which a majority of the population are practising Christians, and it would be wise to proceed with that in mind.
Don’t over-play the stuff about welfare scroungers. While there is undoubtedly a huge problem with multi-generational welfare dependency, there is also the fact that a lot of jobs simply are disappearing due to automation, AI, off-shoring and low-wage immigration. This issue particularly affects young men, who would otherwise be drawn to RB, and have been systematically cut out of employment, training, promotion, bursaries, etc. and really left on the scrap heap. It’s also the case (I believe) that Thatcherite insistence that people “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” has led to dead-end communities up and down the country, when investment and sympathy would have been a more intelligent approach for families that, until then, wouldn’t have dreamt of going on welfare but found themselves with little option. All of these factors explain a large part of Zack Polanski’s appeal, and rather than refute or ignore this, I would suggest RB co-opt it. Make it positive; instead of demonising “the indolent”, speak of those who are “neglecting their potential”. You might even call them “the neglected”.
No token BAME candidates. This is a cheap tactic that insults everyone and demoralises the young who are “over” such things. They are worried about being strangers in their country; they don’t care whether you’re “down with the Sikhs” or not.
Having good people, who seem capable of doing the monumental work the party seeks to do in government, will be essential during the electioneering phase. People want to see that RB is a serious party, genuinely preparing to do what it has pledged.
Governing
Third will be actually being in government and saving the country. This might involve:
gutting and re-staffing the civil service (otherwise it will thwart you at every turn and get you tied up with a million kinds of nonsense)
reforming the judiciary to disbar activist judges. This is not just for criminal reform but to prevent them thwarting governmental action
leaving the ECHR
legally abolishing DEI
reforming the entire governmental apparatus (including banning Hope Not Hate)
prosecuting everyone involved in the Pakistani rape gangs and the facilitating thereof
bringing industry and food production home to revitalise the economy
reforming the tax system to incentivise native family formation and increase birth rates
slashing the insane, suicidal wokery in education
reinventing formal education for the 21st Century
abolishing or drastically reforming the BBC. Personally I favour reforming it and consider promising to abolish it a cultural and electoral strategic mistake, but I will write about that separately
remigration (eg. my 25-point blueprint)
Once in government, RB will be surrounded by traitors and “establishment creatures”. Get rid of them as quickly as possible so that the actual work can proceed unhindered. Clear them out.
General
Messaging should be simple and harmonised. Essays are for critics and academics. You are now in the role of political warriors. Politics masquerades as a debate club but is actually a gladiatorial battle. Do not think that reasoning with your enemies will ever placate them. Your job is to ensure that you don’t get stuck in the weeds and that they do.
Attack is the best form of defence. Always be on the attack. Do not justify to the enemy unless it is strategically useful for you.
Keep the weirdos and fatties out - optics matter. RB people should look good and sound good. The fewer Ts that are dropped, the better; leave the nihilism to the Greens.
Resist the temptation to disavow your radical supporters. Use Cato’s tactics. Radicals can be tactless but their energy is priceless. Disavow them only when absolutely necessary.
I realise there will be no shortage of people offering RB advice. White Papers Policy Institute have some ideas. So does Michael Reiners. WorldByWolf wrote a good tweet. Academic Agent has some ideas of the dangers you face and offers good advice. But advice can be suffocating. A lot of what you need to do will be simple common sense.
Sometimes there will be difficulties, both practical and psychological. Have confidantes you can trust completely, and use them when you need to.
In closing
Britain has been in need of revival for a hundred years now. We have watched our Victorian grandeur fade, sometimes we have watched governments actively destroy it, and today we watch as its remnants are mocked, or re-purposed for foreigners who wear our heritage as a skin-suit. Cold Thatcherite monetarism didn’t reverse any of this. Neither did Blairite globalism. Neither will autistic libertarianism.
What is needed is new thinking, the courage and imagination to restore a great country and revitalise a great people. We do not need a return to the 1980s or the 1990s or even the 1890s, but a spring forward to something new and innovative, something that respects our deep past and replenishes it, and which nourishes us as a people - because that is what we are.
A lot of the structures of the 20th Century, and the terrible first quarter of the 21st, will need to be dismantled. A lot of people will need to be re-homed where they belong so that we have our country again and can begin the long process of healing, of recovering our peoplehood.
These are uncharted waters. The state clearly needs rolled back, but at the same time, relying on the free market will not be enough, because its interests are most fully served by destroying peoples and countries.
Nothing - no principle, value, law or institution - is more important than our future.
What the British need now is a government that is not in hock to any ideology of the past, and which has the courage and imagination to conceive of a future for us - for only us.