An Open Letter to Elon Musk
Americans must understand Rupert Lowe
Something I’ve always admired about Elon Musk is his willingness to make mistakes so that he can learn from correcting them. However, some mistakes cannot be corrected. In politics, there come decisive moments which affect the scope of future agency. Elon will remember how, in 1989 South Africa, the verkrampte head-bangers formed their break-away ‘Conservative Party’ from the old National Party and won an impressive result. This had the effect of persuading the Broederbund mafia that establishing a ‘Rainbow Nation’ was now in their own interests and 30 years later, South Africans are refugees. The 2029 election in Britain is one of these turning points. It comes at a crucial demographic pivot point, and will likely precede a period of relative economic growth so that whomsoever wins it will have, at least compared to the last five British governments, slightly more breathing space to make necessary changes. The victor shall likely rule for at least two terms, something we have not seen since David Cameron.
Let me begin by saying, I was more or less the only individual in British politics who dared to criticise Reform UK in 2024. I correctly predicted that Reform would disappoint their online base, that Farage would take on many ex-Tory MPs, I criticised the 2024 manifesto (universally praised by Lowe staffers) for its weakness on immigration and Tory foibles, I continued to hound Reform on their ridiculous insistence that the ECHR be put to a referendum and I also predicted that the Online Right would, after the inevitable ‘betrayal’ start pushing for cooperation with Kemi Badenoch. I also understand that the arguments given in defence of Reform, thus-far, on X, have been very second-rate. The reason Rupert Lowe is a non-starter is because, as we see, he’ll put the Conservatives back in power at the behest of his ex-Conservative staffers. This should be your only line against Restore Britain. Anyone waffling on about Luke Tryl ‘rooted sensibles’ isn’t in the game.
I will also highlight where I was wrong. I believed in 2024 that Keir Starmer planned to unleash a wave of repression and censorship in conjunction with radical changes to the British constitution. On these grounds, I felt that voting for Are Nige’s cheeky 0% VAT on private schools party was stupid. The actions of the people of Southport put a stop to this timeline, and I have reevaluated Reform as their policies have improved under Farage’s more proactive leadership.
The point being, Mr. Musk sir, you and I alone in 2024 were critics of Reform; the people you are backing with Lowe were Reform dupes. They have already failed, I have already won. I cannot be dismissed as a Reform shill. If you value predictive accuracy and maximum truth-seeking, you will at least listen to why I now believe Reform cannot afford to lose.
What is the psychology of Americans who are suddenly interested in British politics? A lot of these people, from various conversations, are interested in Britain because they think it would be nice to have ‘their’ Israel. A Summer Camp of Our Own. As America itself becomes less and less American, Britain can function as a sort of human zoo in which the High Troost Anglooo is preserved. By itself, this is a harmless, understandable and laudatory impulse but it must factor in the realities of the British situation. The implications of this way of seeing Britain is that it encourages Americans to view ‘the homeland’ as a place with a real, living tradition and millions of patriotic farmers just waiting for the call to take power. It would make no sense to have an Israel if Israel wasn’t more Jewish than San Diago.
This is bolstered by the tendency, diagnosed early in J’accuse as ‘Polandball syndrome’, where everyone, like former Warwick philosophy professors, is encouraged to lie about the ‘deep’ culture of their homeland on the internet. We eat beans and rice, in Russia we have tigers, in England everyone stands up when the Queen is on the telly. The Zionists who set up Israel did not see themselves as restoring an older tradition. They consciously set themselves against the Rebbes, the Shtetl and Yiddish in favour of High European Modernity.
The picture which emerges is that Britain is a largely rural, middle class society in which people speak, casually, about ‘Anglos’; because these people are High Trust and non-Ethnocentric, all Americans have to do is shout at them to BE MORE RACIST and then the Based Party will win all the seats. The Anglo belongs to the class of animals including Koalas and the Giant Panda who are sort of useless, incapable of fighting or breeding but whom we’ve all agreed, as a society, should be kept from going extinct because they are cute. British history begins with some vague volkische kitsch (‘we have Siegfried at home’), learned annotations about breeding patterns, moves almost directly onto the Puritans and ‘the invention of Capitalism.’
Britain is an Eastern European country. I mean this both sociologically and politically. Politically, there is no ‘right’ in Britain. In 1945, every aspect of the old society was erased and replaced by something different. A new national identity was created to underpin this system. Until 2020-22, there was nothing close to a democratic public sphere in Britain. People have lived with the expectation that, if you protest certain issues or say certain things, you will lose your job and be imprisoned. Many, densely populated, parts of Britain have a per capita GDP akin to Romania. Britain does not have a large, confident middle class who are just waiting for the bugle-call to rise up. Right-wing voters in Britain are materially and politically oppressed, forced to live in hostile municipalities cheek-by-jowl with newcomers. The goal of serious politics in Britain, however meagre some of the efforts might be, is not ‘restoring’ a dignified old country which supposedly still exists, only requiring the elimination of its oppressors to reassert itself but the destruction of the old system so that something new can be built.
We are all post-Soviet now.
Culturally too, as with post-Soviet Russia, nobody currently alive has any real cultural connection to Britain before 1945, it is ‘lost tech.’ As the USSR began to liberalise, the first opposition parties began to be set up in Russia. Many of them, along with the obligatory ‘Democracy party’, were ‘right wing.’ Perhaps the most famous individual associated with this tendency was Vladimir Zhironovsky. Zhironovsky led a kind of novelty party named after the Lib Dems who walked around carrying icons, flew the Tsarist-era flag and rambled about annexing Iran to a new Russian Empire. He was later found to be in the pay of the KGB, first to deflect opposition to the party, then to divide opponents of Yeltsin. Of course, if you were a Russian in 1993, only one party would’ve realistically changed your situation: the Communist Party. And when change eventually came to Russia it was led by a career bureaucrat, not a ‘based’ party. In Hungary as well, it was the boring, populist, Soros-funded party which ended up leading the only real case of RW institutional capture in Europe, not the iconophiles and Trianon revisionists.
Before discussing Rupert Lowe’s party, I shall illustrate this by an example which should be uncontroversial to anyone in Britain. Elon has been a devoted proselyte of Tommy Robinson, Elon, like many Americans, seems to believe Tommy is a Dick van Dyke character who is persecuted by the British state because he dares to speak out against the grooming gangs. Many Americans you speak to about him are very sensitive to a perceived class dimension, believing, on account of his accent, outfit and speech that Tommy is an ordinary, working-class Englishman and everyone who criticises him is motivated by snobbery.
Of course, this is very far from the truth. Tommy does not care about grooming gangs, immigration or changing British politics; Tommy, by his own words, consistent throughout three decades now, thinks that Islam, as a religion, is a threat to Democracy and has to be ambiguously ‘confronted’ by any policy except deporting Muslims. In terms of politics, Tommy is to the left of ex-Conservative politicians like Robert Jenrick, Tommy has consistently stated he doesn’t care about demographics and, because he nonetheless insists on associating himself with ‘right wing’ causes like Brexit, works hard to sabotage the efforts of people who do. People disassociate from Robinson not because he is ‘extreme’ but because, by doing so, you end up with all the baggage of hooliganism while also having a high-profile person lecturing you about racism all the time. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the non-ideological, hard facts like the fact that, in 2013, Tommy joined the Qulliam foundation and denounced far-right politics before, and nobody has ever given an explanation for this, magically reappearing after Brexit.
In other words, Americans need to realise Tommy is not the British equivalent of Donald Trump because he ‘does stuff’, he’s the British equivalent of a Mexican street-preacher arrested at January 6th. British people don’t want to associate with him because he carries a huge amount of risk for basically zero relevant rewards. The reason British people do not vote for extreme right parties is not because they are more left-wing than Americans. It is self-evidently because they have more to lose because we live in an authoritarian system. Sajid Javid recently got a lot of deserved flak for penning an autobiographical essay about abuse he received growing up from skinheads who specifically targeted Pakistanis, while it was obviously insensitive, what he was saying did in fact happen. It was normal for ‘indigenous’ whites to casually beat up ethnic minorities in this country until very recently, British schoolboys use racial terminology casually in a way which would get you kicked out of an American school. Brits don’t like Tommy, and won’t vote for Restore because they cannot afford symbolic gestures. Reform UK, uniquely, has become popular because it is the only ‘right wing’ party in a generation to suggest it might be able to win a parliamentary majority.
With some cultural context out of the way, the first thing we must explain to an American audience is what founding a political party and the polling it receives means in Britain. To some of our readership this will seem a bit AQA Politics but bear with me here. In the U.S, anyone can run for President if they are nominated by one of the two parties. The goal of U.S presidential candidates is thus to raise their profile as much as possible by ‘saying the right things.’ Once elected, the U.S President has much less power than a British Prime Minister and is not really expected to do half the things they promised during the election. The party system in the U.S is more or less set in stone, nobody really envisages the Republicans or Democrats being replaced; as the Liberal party was replaced in Britain over the 20th century and the Conservative Party is being replaced now. Finally, U.S cabinet appointments made by the President do not need to be members of congress, these appointees have broad powers to bring in their own staffers and sack previous staffers left over from the last administration.
In Britain, there is no formal office called ‘the Prime Minister’, whomsoever commands a majority vote in the House of Commons can pass any piece of legislation they want; as well as having access to Presidential super-decrees passed by the Monarch on the PM’s advice. It is my, private, belief that the shadowy checks and balances of the British system inherent in Monarchical governance makes the P.M, in reality, much weaker than the President. However, this is a minority view and on paper the P.M is not beholden to any constitution, congress or supreme courts. What this means is that the most important actions of the most consequential British governments are rarely advertised in manifesto literature beforehand. Blair’s mass immigration, censorship laws, lockdown, the Ukraine war and the Chagos deal did not feature in the manifestos of the parties which implemented them. The goal of British politics is to appear as harmless as possible until you have 300 seats and then establish a dictatorship. This was how Tony Blair successfully transformed Britain.
British cabinet appointments must be drawn from either the same MPs who vote for the Prime Minister’s agenda in the commons, or members of the upper house who serve for life. They do not have the authority to sack civil servants, who are largely independent. The most important people, after the Prime Minister, in determining whether a government actually intends to do what it says it does are the P.M’s personal staff, rather than their Cabinet. An ex-Conservative like Suella Braverman will bring maybe ten people into a ministerial role of her own choosing and otherwise act as a vassal for civil servants. What they lose in administrative clout, they compensate for in the fact that, since the ‘Prime Minister’ is simply the leader of his party, it is entirely possible for the party to get rid of him, at any time, as the Conservatives got rid of their last two leaders. This does not necessitate a general election.
The opposition party in the British system must, effectively, run a four year election campaign. This means keeping in the headlines just enough to remain visible while avoiding any upsets. The sort of non-aligned voters who win elections and are motivated by radicalism only switch on the Telly in the two weeks leading up to the general election. This is when all political parties drop their most radical policies and when you can expect Farage to unfurl his fully-operational deportations policy. Until that point, you are playing to the small audience of people who write about politics professionally for a living.
Understanding these, objective, facts should automatically clear up the following misconceptions among otherwise well-educated and thoughtful Americans.
‘Farage will betray his base’; if this happens it is not like an American President betraying their base, his MPs can and will get rid of him, especially if their own seats become risky. Supporting Restore, increasing chances of a Tory coalition, makes this LESS likely.
‘Farage has been taken over by the establishment’; the ministerial posts given to ex-Conservatives don’t mean anything. Reform’s ‘shadow cabinet’ doesn’t exist. Even if these people were to become ministers, they have less influence over policy than Farage’s Chief of Staff and CabSec. They’re being brought on-board because Reform has to stay relevant until 2029 and defections are a low-cost way of doing this.
‘Why doesn’t Farage do a Red Nose day appeal for Young White Men and ask Keir Starmer why the ovens couldn’t cremate more than 50 bodies every day’? Because Farage is (was) already polling at 300 seats and his job is to be as quiet as possible until one week before the election where he says he’s going to shoot the grooming gang perpetrators.
“Restore can help move Reform to the right”, Reform is not like the GOP, for it to ‘move to the right’ it must lose seats and if it loses seats it will stop being appealing to voters who just want a realistic chance of seizing power, what happens in the British system is parties move to the centre when they face ideological threats from their fringe to avoid this.
Understanding this, I hope, makes it clear that boosting Restore is not like voting for a third-party candidate in the U.S general election; or supporting Tom Massie to be governor of Georgia. Each seat in Parliament has its own election, small changes in national voting behaviour can have huge ramifications if the vote is otherwise too close to call; and the Prime Minister directly depends on their Parliamentary majority to do anything. In many Conservative marginals, Reform are leading by around 1000 votes, if only a small number of people are persuaded to vote for a nonsense party, that seat will be held by the Conservatives. If the Conservatives retain between 100-90 seats, Reform will not be able to govern without entering into a coalition with them. I shall proceed to explain why that would be a uniquely disastrous outcome, worse than even the worst betrayal by Reform.
Before I do this, however, we shall address the only argument left for Restore untouched by our previous explanation, which is if Elon genuinely believes it can win 300 seats, entirely replace Reform and also win over the 2024 Rishi Sunak voters lost to Reform. Nobody in the ‘inner circle’ of Restore itself actually believes this, as we shall see, their motives are about securing long-term work for themselves and are being manipulated by Conservative staffers.
If Restore stood a chance of doing this it would, indeed, be justified to compare them with Reform purely on policies. This scenario depends on several assumptions (1) it is possible to win all Reform voters, (2) there are enough undecideds who are undecideds because of immigration, (3) the Conservative Party will continue to lose votes.
Is unlikely because there exist at least 5% of the electorate and 20% of Reform voters who vote Reform tribally Reform is the descendent of the Brexit Party which is in turn a descendent of UKIP. The idea that everyone voting Reform now is only doing so because they’re anti-immigration is false. There were people joining Reform under Richard Tice. There are people who have spent twenty five years voting for a party led by Nigel Farage, who joined these parties because of their views on Brexit, lockdowns or economic policy. There are two other groups of Reform voters, people who follow the ‘strong horse’ theory of politics and vote for whomsoever will hurt their enemies (Labour) and people who are exclusively concerned with immigration. If Restore win the last group, half of the second and the first will still vote Reform.
Undecided voters are either extremely high-information political autists with platforms so bespoke they refuse to vote for any party which doesn’t take a position on Known Clones, or they are very low-information voters who don’t care about politics. Of the low-info voters, you can safely assume Farage has a bigger presence in their lives, because of I’m a Celeb and his TV show, that those motivated by immigration have already left for Reform. Of the High Info voters, it is worth noting Restore has failed to successfully absorb the other niche right-wing parties like Advance, Homeland, UKIP and Heritage. There simply aren’t enough of these people to meaningfully shift the vote. The low-info Undecideds will vote for whomsoever has the loudest anti-system messaging in election week as Dominic Cummings proved with Brexit.
The last two months of polls have seen the Conservatives hovering around 16 to 18 percent. They have now stabilised. The only people left in the Tory party are true blue Tories who genuinely ponder Mel Stride’s economic policy. None of these people are going to vote for Restore.
This established, we can safely predict that, as has been shown by several polls since Lowe’s announcement, the main consequence of Musk backing Restore Britain is to ensure a coalition between Reform and the Conservative Party. Before 2026, the one thing Reform didn’t need to promise but were simply going to achieve by forming a government is the destruction of the Conservative Party. On this alone, despite the IHT cuts, despite the Elton John, despite the recent, ill-informed pivot to Atlanticism, Reform would be justified.
You say, ‘well, Reform are becoming the Conservative Party!’ You might cite individual policy choices, or even personnel decisions but all this pales into insignificance if, like me, you believe ideas matter. Conservatism with a Reform victory will be dead. The destruction of the Conservatives would, to take one example, mean the end of the Second World War myth as an active force in British politics. You can laugh at me all you like, the spiritual victory of destroying one of the parties which dominated the postwar consensus will have powerful cultural effects. You will no longer be able to cite Roger Scutom as a serious figure. Winston Churchill will no longer be an obligatory father of the nation. Thatcherism will not be the be all and end all of economics. Disraeli will be a figure of purely antiquarian interest. Nobody will be able to claim, in internal debates within Reform that “this is a CONSERVATIVE party.” In some years, Reform might lean wet-Atlanticist-libtarded but there will be no tradition, when Nigel Farage began as an anti-immigration figure, to pretend alternative views are unacceptable.
On yer Bike!
The Conservative Party is, along with its philosophy, also a network of think tanks and tame newspapers with centuries-long links to the party. All of these people are already starting to feel their influence diminished. Some of them, yes, have gotten jobs in Milbank tower but they are no longer ipso facto listened to as they were in the past. It is barmy for people who will never, ever be tolerated so long as the Tories hold even a tiny role in government; to work hard for their return to power. The parallel scenario, of Reform signing a coalition with Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives, is nightmarish by contrast. Such a government will, almost immediately be spun as representing “the new Right” and the amorphous constituency which it is will insist all of their stupid hobby horses be reflected in policy. The Lawrence Newports and James Prices will feel this government is not a mandate from a nationalist public to change Britain, but a victory for Nick 30 ans and a Leeds tramline. This will have some reflection on policy because a coalition will justify the inherent laziness of Reformers and make it seem rational to just import huge numbers of Tory SPADs from the think tanks.
As a tangent, here is a good place to point out the self-interest argument for many Bloggers to ditch Lowe. If you run a YouTube account about non-mainstream history, or an X account about genetics, you likely have some followers who are, or have been, in Reform and there’s a decent chance, in the pre-Lowe timeline, you could establish a direct pipeline to Reform MPs. Considering that, even when Reform had a mere 4 MPs, two of them became outright ciphers of the Online Right, it is unlikely that with 300, all of them will be Laila Cunningham clones. You might not be able to become an MP yourself but there will be a demand, in the Farage parliament, for people who can pitch policy to hitherto inaccessible ideological biomes of Britain.
Those of the 2016 American right who disavowed Trump, backed successive meme-candidates like Andrew Yang and Vivek, or tried to start their own parties have inevitably ended up disappointed. While they may, if the Iran war comes to fruition, enjoy a vicarious sense of justification, they haven’t gained anything from it. By contrast, a significant portion of the original alt-right have been able to exploit Trump’s destruction of ‘Conservatism’ to establish a foothold in D.C, taking over old think tanks. The cynics will scream that they’ll never accomplish anything, yet from a self-interested perspective you should note the example. A clean Reform victory, with 300 seats and no Rupert Lowe, will open up opportunities for you which, however much you like calling Farage a Blairite, you simply won’t get if the Tories are even slightly involved in politics. I respect the determination of the zealot but, for their own sake, I wish the non-New Culture supporters of Restore realise their own ambitions are being sacrificed for the careers of about eight people in M&S blazers.
Tangent finished, what will the coalition with the Conservatives look like? Is it really all that bad? It is, in our view, worse than a Polanski-Keir coalition.
The Conservatives will do absolutely everything in their power to ensure Reform emerges from this coalition in tatters. They will leak the contents of absolutely every group chat they are in with Reform MPs to left-wing journalists. They will generate their own psychodrama splits to sabotage legislation they dislike (like abolishing the HRA). They will conspire with civil servants, who will view them as the ‘sensible ones’ to undermine ministers. They will champion stupid hobbyhorses like assisted dying over necessary legislation. Every time Farage does something like attack the judiciary, or question the Good Friday Agreement they will stomp their feet. Everything good the government accomplishes will be attributed to the Conservatives, while only Reform’s voters will care enough about the defeats. The Conservatives know this is the only way they will survive as a party. Everything about their strategy now is focused on achieving this outcome.
This government will be so dysfunctional that it will last one term at most. It will leave ‘the right’ in an impossible position electorally, with a declining Reform party sharing the vote with a revived Conservatives. Restore will not stick around to see the results of their work, moreso even than Reform, they are tied to a single individual: Rupert Lowe who is quite elderly and the other people in the party are divided into different factions.
Allow me, and Mr. Musk can skip this if he is busy, to paint a brief character sketch of who “The Conservatives” are, in terms of personality type because it is important for understanding what is going on.
The sort of person who joined the Conservative Party between 2010 and 2024 was primarily interested in power for its own sake. Privately, they might describe themselves as Gaullists, or Thatcherites, or Classical Liberals or Powellites but they made a conscious decision to join ‘the Conservative Party’ because it was a party which didn’t demand any real ideology from its membership and was thus ideal to serve as a vehicle for individual ambitions. People who join Labour do so because they are Socialists or because their parents were Labour supporters. Young Conservatives, like undertakers or hairdressers, are a ‘type’ identifiable by physiognomy before you know what they do. To be “a Tory” in 21st century Britain was to accept minor social disgrace in most normal adolescent contexts. If they meet right-wing people who read books and care about ideas, they reassure themselves that those people will never have “influence.” They told themselves every day at university that the Internet crazies might be right about the facts, might be more popular with normal people but that they themselves were the decent, sensible, underrated workhorses destined for greatness because they did all the right things.
You are perhaps starting to grasp just how deeply psychologically wounding the last four years of British politics has been for these people. There is real, real, real hatred for “the Online Right” from certain quarters stemming from a place of real anguish. When Peter Cook was asked to recall Conservative ministers at university he said they were ‘40 when they were 20’; imagine what it is like to, by arduous training, be 40 at 20 and then, overnight, wake up to realise you will be 40 forever. There will be no second act in the Cabinet where all the pompous graft is rewarded and everyone says you were really rather cunning. The way these people see it is that the barmy online trolls, who were allowed to be funnier than them, more insightful than them, better looking than them, have carried off a prize which was theirs as just compensation. They resent you, most of all, for making it impossible to be ‘right-wing’ without caring about ideas. They desperately want to go back to the world where you could just outsource your brain to Sir Rodge and Winston and make 30k p.a.
The people around Restore Britain are, on aesthetic grounds, in deep sympathy with Conservatism. They too were unhappy with the change in discourse 2021-23 where talking about immigration as an economic loss became more compelling than explaining who Lord Salisbury was for the 100th time. You can spit out a dozen posts where TheSpiffingBrit got a bit tipsy and said ‘Englishfolcry is race-based’ but I don’t think it is relevant. When assessing two parties, neither of whom have been in power and so lack records of objective actions, aesthetics are important. The Scarab Munchers are, at the end of the day, cut from the same cloth as Moggmentum and MasterBrew. They too, secretly, dislike Nigel Farage mainly because under his rule they know there is no place for waffling on about “Liberalism” for a living. By contrast, the old Conservative Party of Jacob Rees-Mogg did have a space for them as people to be ‘in dialogue’ with, in way they can never be ‘in dialogue’ with someone who combines compulsory genetic sequencing with an inheritance tax.
Kemi Badenoch can, on an emotional level, sympathise more with this stuff than she can with Bell and Spurling.
Restore Britain is, like the Conservative Party, explicitly Christian and this contradicts a truly aggressive immigration policy. Restore Britain shares the Conservative Party’s fringe-issues like Inheritance Tax abolition and assisted dying. Most telling of all, Restore endorse the Blairite-Postliberal view of Britain as an ‘isle of nations’ rather than a unitary country, with Rupert Lowe scrupulously doing a land-acknowledgment for The Irish and Welsh every time he is allowed to advocate for his interests. You might counter that Reform have hired postliberals but the track-record suggests they will fail. Many people, like current leader of the SDP William Clouston, have tried to be the ‘ideas man’ for Farage and all have failed after overstepping their authority. I am in no doubt that the regrettable attempt to make Reform about Protecting Our Village Churches will be short-lived.
The timing of Lowe’s announcement does not make sense unless it is conceived as anything except a deliberate orchestration by the Conservative Party. If Lowe genuinely wanted to start a new party, he would’ve done so last year. Instead, he waited until it became obvious Robert Jenrick would not become leader of the Conservatives consummated by his defection. The way it was organised; happening on the day of Farage’s cabinet announcements and coinciding with the byelection, suggests someone with an SW1 understanding of ‘the news grid’ was at least advising Lowe. I believe I can reconstruct exactly how the decision was made. Various People were getting increasingly angry, around November last year, when it became apparent Reform were not going to give them jobs. Charlie Uppers was At Pub with a “secretly based” Tory SPAD who assured him the other Tory SPADs are also “secretly based” and that if he launched R.B, the Tories would ‘move to the Right’ and ‘love to have him on board.’ The outcome they hope for is one in which Reform is chastened, and they receive some kind of policy role in the Conservatives.
If any Restore Britain supporter is angry with this, I simply ask them to ask their leadership to commit to the following, cast-iron principle:
Restore Britain shall not stand against Reform U.K candidates in any election where the choice is between Reform U.K and the Conservatives
You don’t need to argue for it, just make the suggestion and observe how your leaders react.
For myself, I am sure Reform will do much to annoy me, I am sure I shall regret parts of this article in the future. I cannot, however, tolerate anything, even on grounds of vengeance, which allows the Conservative Party to survive. The choice at the moment is a 5% chance Reform changes some things (scrap ECHR, secure border, minimal deportations) vs. a 0% chance Restore Britain. The best case outcome for Restore is a coalition with Kemi, the worst case outcome with Reform still leaves you with 100 new MPs, some of whom will be /ourguys/
I hope Americans will understand this is not a pro or anti piece, this is simply about understanding what the choices you are making mean. Boosting Restore Britain on X means severely retarding the demographic future of the British people on grounds of an incredibly slim gamble, it means destroying the first possible right-wing government in British history on the vague hope that a more right-wing alternative will emerge, it means saving the Tory party. If you persist in supporting Restore, understand you are demanding British politicians commit to ‘nationalism’ in principle regardless of outcomes, you are not supporting the ‘more right wing’, or ‘more serious about power’ party.
If this article has changed your mind, you cannot, consequently, just retreat to neutrality. If Musk wants to undo the damage he’s done he must actively start deboosting Rupert Lowe, and all associated with him.