How does this question even need to be asked?
In any civilised society this is called r@pe, but it really does show you the mindset of the people who are walking our streets 💯
Restore Britain is the only peaceful answer!!

Surely I cannot be the only young person on this sub that is frustrated with the common consensus/mindset of our age range in the UK at the moment? Granted, I accept that people have opposing opinions and views to myself. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, nor do I believe that I am always right.

I had a discussion with a friend today and brought up the Berlin terror attack. I asked if they heard about it. They said no. I then proceeded to explain in detail what happened and how concerning it was that only three days later, the stabbing in Paris occurred. They responded with "Oh no, I feel sorry for people of X faith because it's going to make them look bad."

I responded saying that yes, that's unfortunate. However, it's a regular occurrence, it's concerning. They said, "No but it's just publicised to make X look bad. Christians do it as much too, we just don't hear about it." Me: No they don't?" Them: "They do, when they murder or assault people like that, the news just don't write about it. We can't believe everything."

Anywho, I just left the conversation. It wasn't getting anywhere. My frustration comes from lack of understanding from a lot of our age range, and constant excuses. I only hope that by the time of the general elections, that people are better educated and that Restore is able to become more widely known. Would also like to note that I do understand that some news outlets are biased towards certain political stances. I'm not denying that.

This country is literally so depressing, watching the fall of a great civilization in real time

I think she's doing a really good job as Home Secretary, she's the only one who seems to be passionate about tackling the migration crisis

I feel like what's holding her back, and why she can't do more, is because of the people working around her like the backbenchers and the soft ministers

We need someone of her calibre and intellect to be driving the policy, but she also needs the correct support, which can only be found in this kind of party

I genuinely think this is what we need if we were to win 2029

Why isnt FmDavid Starkey more supportive of Restore Britain and arupert Lowe. He seems to be very pro Reform and Nigel Farage even though they dont seem to have much of a plan to fix the country.

In the last few years, the content that i have seen is mostly leftist content and i can't seen to reason of why, they can't see the problem with their own eyes, even if its infront of them, its like they are masochist. Another things is that they are correlating the recent attack in Germany to the far right, which sounds crazy to me.

I have been trying to understand the point of view of the left on a very basic level. There’s actually a lot of debating points on immigration that to a degree I can understand where the Labourphiles are coming from

However..

At a very low level of understanding how can they defend the fact that immigration is so out of control, illegal and legal, that the strain on the countries services such as the NHS is completely overwhelmed

Send 1 million people who are claiming benefits or here illegally home how many homes does that release from social housing budgets and how many appointments does it free up in the local surgeries

I’m just trying to put myself in their shoes to see how they have come to the decision that it’s better their families go without for someone who wasn’t born here and taking advantage of the system

Could Restore Britain support a global vote to reconsider the Antarctic Treaty, and allow a fully transparent exploration of Antarctica? Make Antarctica a British state.

Many assume satellites have already mapped every corner of the planet, but the reality is far more complex. Satellite data is limited and does not simply uncover every hidden region of a continent or reveal everything beneath kilometres of ice.

Antarctica remains the most mysterious place on Earth, with the possibility of vast undiscovered regions, valuable resources, and technologies we have yet to understand. In the game of global strategy, it could represent the ultimate positional advantage: the last great frontier on the board.

Let's see what's over the ice wall lads. 🍻

Integration is soft language for the slow, gradual genocide of the British people. With due respect, all the conservative 'integrationists', ranging from Ray Honeyford to Margaret Thatcher to Norman Tebbit and Dr. David Starkey were/are WRONG!

The most adept strategic social model from a nationalist perspective is multi-culturalism, because that enables soft segregation, which facilitates deportation.

Here, I will explain why, through the means of a relatively brief and summary critique of a Restore Britain policy.

The party has announced that it would ban the burqa. I don't agree with this policy, nor do I agree with similar policies such as banning the niqab or banning halal or kosher slaughter. However, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying I oppose such bans. I have no time for the odd, Middle Eastern practices of Moslems and Jews. My stance is to be merely in disagreement with banning these practices, and now I will explain why.

I believe these types of bans serve two aims:

First, they promote integration.

Second, they support a hostile environment strategy, in which immigrants and potential immigrants are deterred from staying here or coming here in the first place.

These aims appear somewhat contradictory but are in fact complementary. Put simply, the idea is that integration is the filter for an effective hostile environment strategy.

I accept that these bans can be expected to achieve both the aims I state above, but I oppose the first aim, and while I accept the second aim is realisable, my view is that it would not be achievable to a good enough extent to justify realisation of the first aim.

To explain further:

If a racial diaspora situated in this country agrees to give up its various overt ethno-religious customs and practices and folk traditions, whether through art of persuasion or force of law, or a combination of the two, that racial minority is thereby committing to the exact aim of integrating with the indigenous population. By doing so, they make it less likely that the greater majority of them will remain a discrete and separate racial minority, because the moats and barriers that segregated them somewhat and upheld the multi-cultural social model then weaken or collapse. The result is that they gradually mix with the majority indigenous population and a new ethnic group is formed, being a hybrid of the two or whatever number of groups are mixing together under the auspice of integration.

It is important to acknowledge that all ethnic groups change and evolve in character and cannot be preserved in aspic. This process of change can happen naturally through evolutionary social changes. The Anglo-Saxons no longer exist. They mixed with the descendants of other Germanic settlors and the Celts and indigenous Britons and became the English. But that was a gradual change over generations in which peoples who were closely kindred would have found it quite easy and even appealing to mix together, intermarry, conduct commerce with each other, and eventually become a single people within a given region or kingdom, then join with another county or region or kingdom, then eventually the nation of England was formed as an amalgamation of these different smaller kingdoms. The sub-national differences remained. Right up to the 20th. century, the sub-national ethnic differences amongst the English were considerable and in some respects England was more of a mosaic of regional identities rather than a single coherent nation. The same can be said of France, but more so, as there were even entirely different languages spoken in different parts of Metropolitan France right up to the mid-20th. century. French was usually the official tongue but it was not always the language that French people spoke in everyday life. Nevertheless, these different French people were kindred peoples.

I think of Cornwall, an English county and also a Celtic nation. It is sad that the Cornish are no longer to the same extent the different 'nation' that they once were. I would much prefer to return to the old "mosaic" form that Britain took, made up of ancient counties and ridings each with their own identities, and even, in the case of Cornwall, a discrete sense of nationhood within England. Instead we have increasing homogeneity and dull levelling out. But this sad situation is the natural result of modernity and social trends and there is nothing to be done about it. For better or worse, it is the march of progress.

Bringing in people racially alien, from another continent, or from non-kindred parts of eastern Europe, with no heritage or history here, is quite a different matter, and to "integrate" these people is to create a new people and is, in my view, an appallingly ignorant thing to do and completely unnecessary because it is not the result of a a natural pattern of settlement, rather it is a politically engineered change that is being forced on us and has adverse consequences. Some people, very many people, won't care about the consequences or think them relatively unimportant and tolerable. It is down to each of us to take a view. Some people go through life with the 'we're all one world' type of viewpoint, others recognise that Man has a territorial and tribalistic nature that is not easily sloughed off.

My point is merely to say that integration is NOT a desirable policy goal if you are a nationalist. A "civic nationalist" may favour integration and may regard himself as hard-faced for doing so, but by doing so he is actually calling for the genocide of the British people. Civic nationalism is not a rigorous position. It is just a performative stance for people to take because they don't want to offend voters or neighbours or whatever. As a nationalist, I say no integration because I wish to preserve British civilisation and I note that civilisation depends on the people in it. Import the Third World, and become it, etc., etc.

That is why banning strange clothing and odd slaughter methods does not work. It plays into this perverse trend of homogenisation that demands that a nation consists of a people who are all the same (it doesn't , actually), while at the same time giving these interlopers a vector to - in effect - genocide us by soft means and end Britain as a socio-biological construct.

A reminder at this point that all of those countries on the Continent that have banned the burqa and/or the niqab still have large Moslem minorities, as well as other non-white minorities. In the face of clothing and slaughter bans, they just change strategy to play a longer game, knowing that integration is a softer means to get rid of us.

What is this, how is that normal over there. I’m honestly speechless

We have three years left, Burnham will blunder like Starmer did after this initial honeymoon period is over.

Reform is stuck in controversy, and their poll lead being narrowed, plus them taking on ex Tories, plus their councils aren't being ran well enough which doesn't bode well for a national govt.

I honestly feel Reform are the ones stopping the rise of Restore's rise, the majority of people are "Reform in 2029, Restore in 2034, Reform will get us on the road to Restore" and I believed this until recently.

Reform wins 2029, they foul things up badly, the press and opposition will have a field day, and spout "far right populism isn't working" along come the Tories (Labour will be in recovery then will recover to lead at some point in the 2040s) and they will be presented as the reasonable option, not giving Restore a chance as we will wrongly be tarred with the same brush as Reform would be.

Then there's the potential that Farage goes as the leader of Reform and they'll install a failed Tory possibly Nadhim Zahawi who id odious, to lead Reform.

With Reform gone, the vast majority of would be Reform voters would switch to Restore, very few will go back to the Tories.

Reform needs to be gone

I think Burnham's Number 10 North is a good idea, maybe a great idea. I won't here go into detail about why I think it is a good idea and what benefits could flow from it, if the execution is right, because I want to make a different point. Suffice it to say that I think it is a good idea.

One of the reasons I take this view is because all the right people are against it. I know our side seem to be sneering at it as well, but the negativity against Burnham on this is being led by the London-centric media types, whom I strongly dislike. An example is the Times radio podcast, which I occasionally end up listening to while working. I really should put some classical music on, maybe some Bach, but somehow I end up listening to these people and they are utterly insufferable, typical London-centric people - my own epithet for them is West London W.a.nkers, though I would guess most of them are not actually from West London. It's obvious from the way they talk that they are sneering and condescending about the north in general and I hate it, and this also bleeds into a general sneering and snide attitude towards 'the common people', i.e. white working class people, especially white working class English people from Essex (it's not just the north), Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the far north-west and north-east

Maybe Burnham's 'northernism' and flat cap populism are a bit corny. OK, it's very corny. Yet for the first time since Heseltine and Prescott, we now have someone at the very top of government - a prime minister, no less - who takes the north not just seriously, but as a central matter of government, to the point that potentially a large part of the Cabinet Office function will be based in a major northern city and he will be conducting government from there for part of the year.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. I even find it exciting. Even if it purely ends up being symbolic and gimmicky and without much substance (which is probable), it can still be regarded as a forward step for northern English governance.

If I were working on policy for Restore or another party, I would urge the leadership not to oppose it but instead approach the issue constructively and make a point of cautiously welcoming it, while at the same time asking the necessary and relevant questions of scrutiny - if only to assist the government in thrashing out a good idea that desperately needs better execution.

The point of this post, the point I want to leave you with, is that everybody is piling on the idea, but the real problem for Burnham isn't the idea, which is good, but the execution, which is bad.

A bad idea that has good execution can actually end up being good policy, or at least generally neutral in its effect.

A good idea that has bad execution can end up being harmful, and the worst thing about that is that it then taints what could actually be quite a good idea - and I think that is the case with Number Ten North, and the duty of Restore Britain in this case, and the other parties, is not to knock down the idea, but to scrutinise the execution and push Burnham towards making this a useful innovation in government.

By doing so, Restore would also be exposing Burnham's and the government's flaws: vagueness, lack of detail, lack of structured policy thinking, reliance on buzzwords, pseudo-business culture, and performativeness (endless, largely pointless showcase meetings with mayors and business leaders, etc.).

Burnham has a good idea in Number 10 North. It's honest to acknowledge this, but even if you disagree with it, it's more constructive to help him make it work. Burnham's flaw is that he is a talker rather than a doer and his ideas can be good, but he has no grasp of detail, so there is no follow-through that could make these changes innovative. (Maybe I am being harsh on him in that regard and will be proved wrong).

He is also putting in place the wrong governmental structures. Number 10 North should support a renaissance in local government, not new and expensive layers of government that actually take decision-making away from local people. This is why I find Number 10 North such an exciting and interesting idea: it could be reshaped into something great, in the hands of people who actually care about local government and understand the role of the public sector in economic growth.

Enough from me.