I am still too young to vote. But if I could vote in the local elections on 1st May 2025, I would vote for the Reform Party. Not because I believe in it. I do not. I would vote for it because I reject everything else. A vote for Reform is a vote against the Conservative Party and what it has become: a decaying machine of cowardice and managed decline. It is a vote against the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and every other group that treats this country either as a museum to be looted or a sick man to be euthanised. Reform is not a vehicle of hope; it is a delivery system for contempt. That is the only function a serious person can expect from it.

And that is all I will say in favour of Nigel Farage and his collection of rebranded mediocrities. The Reform Party, considered in itself, is worthless. It is staffed by men who hovered around the Conservative Party for decades and now pretend they never did. A few may be sincere. Some may even believe that they have found a new home for the promises that the Conservatives made and never tried to keep. I do not dismiss them all. But they are outnumbered by the opportunists—the same types who joined the Conservatives in search of office and therefore money and status. They have simply moved to the next plausible ticket for getting invited to dinner with donors, so they can go on buying cocaine and paying for teenage whores. They do not believe in truth, duty, or nationhood. They believe in rotation. If the game moves, they follow it.

The policies offered by Reform are not new. They are stale reheats from 1983. Tax cuts, deregulation, spending reductions, Net Zero repeal—the usual catechism of the old New Right. Their thought process is linear and dead. They believe that if only the state were smaller, Britain would reawaken. In their minds, we are still in 1985, Margaret Thatcher is still alive, and monetarism still works. Some of these policies are not without merit. Lowering taxes would ease the pressure on families and businesses. Deregulation would remove the Kafkaesque barriers to production. Austerity would restrain the sprawling, punitive state. Scrapping Net Zero is not a matter of preference; it is a civilisational necessity. Net Zero is not just misguided policy. It is a suicide note written in crayon and signed by people who think a country can be powered by windmills and slogans. But these are not real solutions. They are technical tweaks applied to a dying body. The problems facing Britain in 2025 are not fiscal or procedural. They are foundational. At best, Thatcherism in the present moment would stabilise the collapse. At worst, it would delude the public into thinking that collapse is avoidable through accountancy.

To understand how far we have fallen, compare the present not with some imagined golden age, but with a real point in the past: 1925. In that year, Britain was still a serious country. It was the core of a global empire. It had a manufacturing base that supported tens of millions. Its universities produced knowledge. Its scientists led the world. Its writers and artists were men of genius, not recipients of funding for sub-mediocrity. Its people were peaceful, hard-working, and astonishingly free. They walked the streets of their cities knowing where they were. They could look back on centuries of progress. They could believe, with some reason, that the future would be better than the past.

I do not believe the British Empire could have lasted forever. It was the product of a unique head start in industrial development. That lead was not sustainable. Once others caught up, Britain’s supremacy was bound to decline. That is not misfortune. That is history.

But the condition of Britain in 2025 cannot be explained as historical fading. It is not a sunset. It is arson. It is what happens when a ruling class decides that destruction is more in its interest than defence, and that compliance is more profitable than excellence.

Our economy is no longer structured to produce wealth. It is a network of scams, designed to extract value rather than create it. A small elite harvests rents from speculation and leverage. The average worker lives off scraps, taxed at every level to feed a machine that hates him. The people who make things are punished. The people who manipulate and speculate are rewarded.

Our political system is no longer a contest of ideas. It is a cartel. The parties differ in language and branding. They do not differ in direction. Whoever you vote for, you will receive mass immigration, gender ideology, climate hysteria, speech controls, and a government that cannot define the word “woman.” None of the ruling parties believe what they say. They do not even ask you to believe it. They demand only repetition, or silence.

The population itself has degenerated. People are fat. They are lazy. They are increasingly stupid. People live through screens and gorge on ultra-processed filth. They have no memory of anything before the iPhone. They parrot BBC headlines as if they were scripture. They do not miss liberty because they no longer know what liberty is. They do not recognise the cage. To be more personal, most of the boys in my class should never have been born. Their grandparents should have died of exposure or disease in the slums that their ancestors built and deserved. Instead, they were subsidised to reproduce. Their offspring now fart through exams and call it education. These are not citizens. They are liabilities. And the state has paid for every last one of them.

The arts and sciences are dead, and they are dead on purpose. The artists are empty. The scientists are civil servants. The universities are diploma mills for civil service fodder. Research is no longer about truth. It is about securing funding from committees of ideologues. The entire cultural sector is a closed feedback loop in which the talentless praise one another for the production of nothing.

The most visible sign of the decline is immigration. Entire regions of the country have been handed to foreigners who neither resemble nor respect the people they displace. They are given money, housing, interpreters, and immunity from criticism. To object is to risk punishment. But immigration is not only a cause of collapse. It is also a symptom. A healthy nation would never have allowed this. A healthy people would have risen, even under despotism. The fact that no resistance has occurred tells you what you need to know about the condition of Britain.

These problems cannot be solved with tax cuts. They cannot be solved by better messaging. They cannot be solved by Nigel Farage. The Britain of 1925 is gone. It will not come back. The economic and technological conditions that made it possible no longer exist. But that does not mean we must accept extinction. A functioning nation can still be built—one that is sovereign, prosperous, and governed by people with a connection to the land they rule.

It will not be built by the existing parties. It will not emerge by accident. It will not be secured through polite debate and policy papers. It will require a new movement. It will require leaders who know what must be done and are willing to do it. Not propose. Not compromise. Do.

This movement must begin with clarity. Its purpose is not to save the current system. Its purpose is to destroy that system and replace it. It must not seek advice from the people who built the wreckage. It must not aspire to “respectability.” Respectability, in this context, is a euphemism for harmlessness. If the political establishment does not hate it, then it is not serious.

The first principle must be exclusion. Membership of a Party of National Salvation must be denied to anyone with a close association to the Conservative Party. That includes MPs, advisers, think tank operatives, and media hangers-on. These people had their chance. They had decades in office. They used that time to posture and surrender. There is no more room for them. They should be permanently excluded.

Every candidate for office should be required to prove that at least two of his ancestors were living in the United Kingdom at the time of the 18×1 census [date left open: AB]. After this party takes power, that should become a statutory requirement for public office. I accept that this rule would exclude individuals I admire. But this is not about individual exceptions. It is about drawing a line. It is about blocking access to power for those who have no deep connection to the country and no intention of forming one. Britain is in ruins because men without loyalty have been allowed to govern.

Candidates should also be male. The enfranchisement of women was a catastrophic error. Allowing them to vote was naive. Allowing them to hold office was insane. Most women are not interested in freedom, truth, or honour. They are interested in comfort, safety, and the status quo. That is not evil, but it is incompatible with good government. Giving political power to a group that forms opinions based on how they feel each morning was never going to end well. We would have done less damage by giving the vote to Labradors.

The party should also be biased in favour of the young. Older candidates should not be banned outright, but their presence should be discouraged. They are tired, cautious, and often corrupted. The young, by contrast, have energy, memory, and instinct. They still remember how to speak truthfully. More importantly, they have not yet learned how to lose.

The programme must be specific. Vague aspirations are useless. General promises are camouflage for inaction. The policies of this party should be detailed and explicitly aimed at the destruction of the system that now governs us. The purpose is not to manage decline more competently. It is to end decline by ending the regime that imposes it.

The first policy must be massive and immediate spending cuts. The British state is not merely bloated. It is malevolent. It exists not to protect citizens, but to monitor them, propagandise them, and punish them for noticing the obvious. Every department, agency, regulator, board, institute, and “charity” that survives by extracting money from taxpayers must be shut down. No exceptions.

The universities are not centres of learning. They are ideological training camps. Close them. The BBC is not a broadcaster. It is a cathedral of regime values. Burn it down—metaphorically or otherwise. The NGOs, regulators, public-private partnerships, local authorities, and advisory boards exist to give jobs to people who should be unemployed. End them all. Publish their records. Fire their staff without severance. Cancel their pensions. Let them stack shelves or push trolleys in carparks. They have done enough damage.

Freedom of speech and association must be restored. Not in theory. In law. No exceptions for “harm,” “hate,” “community cohesion,” or any of the other euphemisms used to smother dissent. Every citizen must be able to say what he believes and associate with whomever he likes. This is not simply a matter of principle. It is a matter of strategy. Certain truths need to be proclaimed—loudly and without fear—and the regime knows this. That is why it tries to silence them.

While we are at it, the right to bear arms must not only be legal—it must be encouraged. A disarmed population is a dependent population. Citizens should not merely have the right to defend themselves. They should be expected to do so. If a man is attacked in the street and is not armed, I would treat that as contributory negligence in sentencing the attacker. If you will not protect yourself, you have no right to demand that others do it for you.

But all of this is secondary. The central, unavoidable task of any serious movement must be the destruction of the monied interest. By that I do not mean the corner shop owner, the man who fixes boilers, or the owner of a local factory. I do not mean the medium-sized business manager who works fifteen-hour days and pays full tax. I mean the class that owns without building, extracts without risk, and hides behind accountants and publicists.

This is not capitalism. It is not even finance. It is a parasitic class that exists to speculate, inflate, and insulate itself from the fallout. It owes nothing to Britain. It has no loyalty. It uses this country as a platform for offshore extraction and regulatory arbitrage. Its money flows through tax havens. Its power is dispersed through layers of shell companies. It lives behind a firewall of jargon and complexity. That firewall must be torn down.

This class—the true enemy—has operated with near-perfect impunity for at least a century. It is now in its third or fourth generation. Its ancestors dismantled an empire not because they were idealists, but because empire required an imperial ruling class with its own idea of what the central nation should be. They deindustrialised the country not because they misunderstood the consequences, but because a strong industrial class had leverage. They broke the trades, closed the mines, and turned the working class into a fragmented pool of insecure service workers who could be replaced, relocated, or ignored. They then imported cheap labour to cement the collapse.

The four historic British nations, with their distinct traditions and instinctive claims to autonomy, stood in the way of this project. So they were rebranded as administrative zones or regional accents. Their institutions were gutted or reinterpreted. Their cultural memory was rewritten as oppression. The goal was not governance. It was pacification.

The monarchy was retained not out of loyalty but utility. It serves as a permanent distraction. Charles III is wheeled out to smile at factory openings and wear tribal feathers on command. He presides over a national funeral with no corpse, waving politely while the monied interest loots what is left behind.

The Party of National Salvation must end this arrangement. Not trim it. Not adjust it. End it.

The first tool is tax. A large portion of the state’s revenue must be drawn from land. Not because land taxes are fair, but because they hit the right targets. The monied class stores much of its wealth in real estate. A hard, immovable tax on land is difficult to evade, impossible to hide, and effective in driving out the non-productive class. The same applies to a wealth tax. Not for redistribution, but for strategic attrition. The goal is not to balance the budget. The goal is to force the enemy to flee.

Next, the financial system must be reconstructed around gold. Every deposit-taking institution—bank, shadow bank, pension fund, crypto exchange—must be legally required to redeem in specie. That means gold. Not digital promises. Not IOUs backed by hope. Gold. This would collapse most of the current financial system within a month. And that is the point. The opacity that defines modern finance—off-balance-sheet derivatives, collateralised debt, synthetic instruments, and abstract futures—exists for one reason: to manufacture risk and sell it to the public. That entire edifice is a trick. The goal is to privatise profits and socialise failure. The victims are everyone else. The time for reform has passed. This is removal. Any bank or institution unable to redeem its obligations in gold should be declared insolvent and liquidated. No bailouts. No rescue packages. No social concern. If you create money from nothing and lend it out at interest, you are a thief. If your business model relies on inflation, you are a criminal. We do not want your innovation. We want your exit.

Alongside this, we must ban most forms of limited liability. In the nineteenth century, limited liability was introduced to encourage enterprise. In the twenty-first, it exists to conceal guilt. It allows corporate executives to loot their own firms, destroy suppliers, sack workers, defraud customers, and then walk away with bonuses intact. The corporation folds. The executives buy yachts. If full abolition is not immediately possible, then limited liability must be treated as a privilege, not a right. Directors who want this protection should be required to prove its necessity. The burden must be on them. Not the public. And where protection is not demonstrably essential, it should be denied.

Beyond that, corporate governance must be humanised. That means stripping artificial persons of all voting rights. No company, trust, or charity should be allowed to vote in shareholder meetings. Only natural persons resident in the United Kingdom should have that power. Foreign and non-resident shareholders may collect dividends, but they must not dictate policy. Insolvency law must also change. The default assumption in any corporate failure must be that those with significant control are personally liable. Let them prove otherwise. If you ran the company, signed the contracts, and drew the salary, you pay the debts. No more hiding behind layers of legal abstraction.

These reforms would achieve two immediate results. First, they would break the web of concealment that currently shields the powerful. At present, it is almost impossible to trace ownership, responsibility, or liability in large firms. That is not an accident. It is the structure. And the structure must go. Any firm with a corporate ownership chain that crosses three jurisdictions should be deemed suspect. That alone should be cause for revocation of licence and liquidation of assets. Second, these reforms would force corporations to shrink. Once it becomes impossible to hide behind fourteen layers of holding company, people will think twice before gambling with other people’s futures. Directors will act like adults or they will stop doing business in Britain.

These are not the policies of moderation. They are the politics of cleansing. We are not trying to make capitalism fairer. We are trying to make it honest. If that drives the parasites away, good. If it drives some of the honest out with them, unfortunate but acceptable. If they stay and adapt, better. But if they resist, they should be treated not as competitors, but as enemies. There is no reform without confrontation. There is no confrontation without risk. But the alternative is managed decay.

The second major reform—just as important as attacking the financial class—is the deliberate reindustrialisation of Britain. Not for nostalgia. Not to reclaim a lost world. But because a country that does not make things cannot govern itself. A country that depends on imports for its energy, its infrastructure, and its military hardware is not a country. It is a client. It exists at the whim of its suppliers. The goal is to recreate an industrial working class—rooted, skilled, and proud. Not the economic underclass we have now, subsidised to consume and trained to obey, but a real class of men who know how to operate machinery and maintain systems. This class once existed. It had strength. It had leverage. And that is why it was destroyed.

Do not believe the nonsense about “market forces.” Deindustrialisation was not inevitable. It was not progress. It was a choice—made by politicians who wanted an obedient population and financiers who wanted a low-wage, high-debt workforce. The factories were shut down. The communities that built and staffed them were left to rot. The mines were closed, the steelworks demolished, the foundries sold off. Their replacement was retail, social work, and zero-hours contracts. This must be reversed.

Where private capital is willing to invest, the state should get out of the way. That means repealing most regulations, gutting planning law, and eliminating environmental vetoes designed to serve activist careers, not public health. Investors should not be punished for doing something useful. They should be assisted—quietly and without red tape. But where private capital refuses to act—because the risks are too great or the returns too slow—the state must act directly. That may mean building infrastructure. It may mean partial ownership. It may mean subsidy. And, to complete the economic heresy, I have nothing against tariffs if they are needed. This is not a violation of economics. It is the correction of its blind spots. Tariffs do not need to be about protecting inefficiency, but about protecting development—about giving domestic industries the space to grow, stabilise, and compete.

Unions must be handled strategically. If they support reindustrialisation, they should be welcomed. If they obstruct it, they should be crushed. Any union that chooses sabotage over partnership must be treated as an adversary.

Reindustrialisation is not a slogan. It is a requirement. If Britain wants to be sovereign, it must have the means of production. If it wants to be free, it must be able to sustain itself. That means factories. It means ports. It means energy. It means steel. Without these, the country is ornamental—an overpriced museum with no heating and a gift shop full of Chinese trinkets.

And then there is immigration. The new party must begin with a simple principle: the border should be open in only one direction—out. Every group that has contributed primarily to crime, disorder, dependency, or political sabotage should be told to leave. Permanently. I am not interested in hearing that some migrants pay more tax than they receive in benefits. The question is not cost. The question is civilisational coherence. Do they make the country stronger or weaker? Do they build or erode? If the answer is erosion, they must go.

This does not mean I am a white nationalist. I have no illusions about what passes for “native stock.” I see them every day. I have already mentioned the boys in my school—the products of a century of dysgenic selection. These are not superior to the Koreans I admire in film or among my friends. The Britain I want is not based on skin. It is based on loyalty, competence, and contribution. Some immigrant groups have not wrecked the country. They work hard, live quietly, and respect the law. They should be allowed to stay. More than that—they should be recruited into the rebuilding. The proposal to restrict political candidacy based on ancestry is not about ethnic purity. It is about purging the political class and slamming the door on the opportunists who enter politics for the perks, not the principle. Once control is re-established, once loyalty is enforced, this restriction can be lifted. But not before. Until then, it is necessary.

That leaves one final question: how do we build this party? How do we build it without being banned before it speaks? How do we fund it without becoming dependent on the very interests we aim to destroy? How do we grow it without being co-opted by those who will try to manage it, dilute it, and eventually kill it? I do not pretend to have every answer. But the first steps are obvious.

Those who agree with this programme must begin by meeting in private. They must learn to speak in ways that do not trigger the regime’s censors. They must develop methods of organisation that are robust, decentralised, and immune to legal strangulation. They must understand the long game. They must accept the possibility of defeat, and prepare for it. But they must not plan for defeat. They must plan for victory. This will be a hostile environment. The state will not tolerate a movement of this kind. The media will lie. The police will interfere. The old parties will mock and sabotage. But this does not matter. The goal is not accommodation. It is replacement. The mission is to take power, not ask for it.

And so, next week, vote for Reform. It is not a solution. It is not even a real party. It is a signal—a small act of rebellion still permitted within the system’s rules. A vote for Reform is barely half a step. But it is a step.

And once that step is taken, the next must be clear. It must be towards a movement that does not want to govern this country more politely, but to take it back completely. A movement that does not seek office in the existing order, but intends to burn that order to the ground and bury its remains.

We do not want a better version of the current system. We want its end.