Pinned Tweet
Douglas finally gets off the fence.
Well done, I’ve waited a decade for this inevitably.
youtu.be/5NFXPs4Maos?si=KdFK…
LordHiver retweeted
The country that stood around and watched 250,000 British girls get raped by Pakistani migrants draws the line at Russell Brand.
LordHiver retweeted
The New Statesman ran a cover story about me and my friends in Restore Britain, which was far fairer than any prior piece by the Spectator, Telegraph, or Daily Mail.
The article casts us as the disgruntled sons of Nigel Farage, disappointed with our father and seeing his revolution through to its logical conclusion.
But it’s remarkable how much an accurate description of our characters reads like an endorsement:
“These men – Christian, state-school educated – are unknown outside the online right. Yet they have become some of the most influential people in right-wing politics.”
“They dress formally and call each other “patriot” the same way a leftist might say “comrade”. Their references span the Old Testament, Marcus Aurelius and the video game Skyrim. They have a trollish streak, but many are Christian and morally serious; they advocate marriage and fret about degeneracy. They are sterner than their online personalities suggest.”
Despite Restore polling at between 3 and 8 per cent, author Emily Lawford writes: “There is evidence that these men are pushing the country’s political centre of gravity further right”.
Emily even described how I arrived at our interview with my wife, “him in a suit and tie, her a summer dress. Mrs Tomlinson (her husband asked that I don’t name her) brought a gift: a slice of freshly baked Victoria sponge. She watched, smiling, as her husband told me about his journey into the radical right.”
If the far right are young, presentable parents baking cakes and having conversations about how to fix the country, then sign me up.
Charlie Downes regularly reminds me, Harrison Pitt, and Lewis Brackpool that “It’s us, there’s no one else.”
Carl Benjamin insists he has “never been more convinced that essentially our victory is inevitable, as the horrors of multiculturalism become clear.”
With articles like this, I’m starting to believe them.
LordHiver retweeted
Mining tycoon Gina Rinehart has sparked a fierce national showdown by insisting that every person tied to ISIS must be forever barred from Australia and have their passports cancelled.
She cautioned that letting ISIS-linked individuals re-enter would endanger everyday citizens and openly criticised politicians she says have weakened the country’s defences. The remarks immediately drew fierce criticism, with opponents labelling them reckless scaremongering.
What began as a debate over returnees has now erupted into a full-scale clash over border control, community safety, and whether Canberra is prioritising politics over the protection of its own population. With mounting heat on the Albanese government, the public is pressing hard for answers on who green-lit these moves — and the reasons behind them.
Do you believe Australia should prioritise absolute security over any chance of rehabilitation for those connected to ISIS?
LordHiver retweeted
Marine Le Pen tore into Western 'multiculturalism' in a fiery interview with US programme 60 Minutes last night. Speaking to Trevor Phillips, poached by Bari Weiss to bolster CBS, the presidential frontrunner warned those who despise her culture that the door is open for them to leave Europe.
Asked about her views on multiculturalism, Le Pen said: 'Your world approaches immigration through integration. We believe someone who comes to immigrate to our country must bend in to the national community.
✍️ Steerpike
Article | spectator.com/article/watch-… | @MrSteerpike
LordHiver retweeted
I’m oft asked why I’m so drawn to the Rhodesian story though that I’m not from there
The reason is this: Rhodesia’s story is the perfect litmus test;
Is it human flourishing the functioning of the state that matters, or commitment to a vague idea of total equality, whatever the consequences?
Rhodesia was unequal and hierarchical. It functioned well. Quite well, in fact. It had the highest living standards for blacks on the continent, was immensely prosperous, maintained classic British social culture well after taxes and war destroyed that in Britain, and was generally a society that did not just allow for but encouraged human flourishing
Zimbabwe was the opposite in every respect. It was characterized by disorder and lawlessness rather than smooth functioning, kleptocracy rather than just and paternalistic rule, famine rather than being a breadbasket, and total destruction and decay rather than human flourishing
But Zimbabwe paid lip service to the concept of equality demanded of it by the Western egalitarians. No longer was there a propertied, largely English elite in control, with its rule premised on the country’s best supporting it. Instead Mugabe was a demagogue and tyrant who ruled in the name of “the people” while violently leveling society. The old hierarchy was wiped away in the name of racial and social equality, and that was considered more moral than the hierarchical rule that came before
We live in the increasingly tattered and tyrannical world built by that ideology. Our rulers bowed before the idea of egalitarianism, the idea that all are equal and do it is the job of the state to forcibly level society, and so we are following Zimbabwe’s path to ruin. DEI, reparations, disparate impact laws, soft on crime policing, and all the rest of the Civil Rights regime is how they are pushing us toward Zimbabwification
Rhodesia is relevant not just because it shows where this leads, but because it shows the alternative: the only way to avoid Zimbabwification is to choose the other side of the litmus test. To embrace flourishing through choosing hierarchy, paternalism, and stewardship and rejecting egalitarianism and mass democracy
That is difficult for many to accept, but it is true. There is no compromise that can be made with the global race communist poison. It must be rejected root and branch, in all its forms. Functioning must be put first and equality ignored. The correct side of the litmus test must be chosen
If not, if that choice continues to be avoided in the name of embracing comfort through abdication of duty, we’ll keep drifting toward the Zimbabwification cliff
That is why Rhodesia matters
LordHiver retweeted
Suicidal Empathy in Rhodesia.
This is Judith Todd. She had the luck to be born in one of the wealthiest and most secure countries at the time. But she chose to make it a life's mission to destroy it.
She was advocating for the destruction of Rhodesia and the majority rule of the black population, claiming that this would bring prosperity and democracy.
During the Bush wars, she was openly sympathizing with Marxist guerrillas and terrorists. The government did not punish her and just put her under supervision.
After Rhodesia fell and Mugabe raised to power, she celebrated. Then Mugabe started a brutal genocidal civil war and turned Rhodesia into the kleptocracy of Zimbabwe.
Again, Judith started criticizing the government, but this time it did not work out well. She was arrested, beaten, and raped by a black militant. Then she stripped her of her Zimbabwean citizenship and had to flee to South Africa.
Don't be like Judith.
Don't destroy the foundation of your security and wealth.
LordHiver retweeted
Multiculturalism is the greatest lie of our age.
At its core lies the dangerous falsehood that all peoples are interchangeable and that peace can be built upon this illusion.
The modern West remains shackled to a host of illusions, yet none is more ruinous than the conviction that man is by nature cooperative, that history bends inevitably toward inclusion, and that conflict dissipates once borders are erased.
This utopian ideal is not merely mistaken but fatal in consequence. Every society that endures, every civilization that lasts, rests upon a shared identity anchored first and foremost in ancestry, from which emerge the culture, language, religion, memory, and distinct way of life that bind a people across time.
When this foundation breaks, no constitution, no law, nor sentimental appeal to the so-called “universal brotherhood of mankind” can bind the fragments together.
Thomas Hobbes, writing his magnum opus “Leviathan” amid the convulsions of the English Civil Wars, discerned the human condition with far greater clarity than the architects of modern liberalism. He understood that peace is not the inherent condition of mankind but a fragile truce upheld only by authority, social cohesion, and the ever-present fear of reprisal. In this 1651 work, he offered a stark and unflinching diagnosis of mankind’s primal condition, defined by three inescapable drives: the pursuit of gain, the instinct of fear, and the claim of pride.
These are not mere imperfections or transient failings within an otherwise stable order; they form the very essence of all order. When left unchecked by a common identity, they erupt with terrible force.
Within a homogeneous nation, conflicts arise but are tempered by the bonds of kinship and shared belonging. A man who suffers defeat at the hands of another may accept the outcome as just or at least bearable because both stand within the same community. In contrast, in a society rent into competing tribes—be they ethnic, cultural, or religious—that loss is transformed into grievance. The defeated see the victor not as a rival but as a usurper.
Multiculturalism fans the flames of every source of conflict Hobbes named. It multiplies the stakes of competition for status and resources, deepens suspicion and fear, and transmutes the struggle for dignity into a zero-sum war in which every assertion of pride by one faction becomes an insult to another.
Carl Schmitt’s insight into the “friend-enemy distinction” finds its fullest expression in such divided polities. Here, enmity is not borne of policy or belief but of immutable essence. There is no room for compromise, only for domination or submission. The multicultural order has masked this fundamental antagonism with the trappings of rights, representation, and managed discourse.
Beneath this shaky veneer lies naked conflict among irreconcilable peoples, and thus groups, forced to share the same soil, to contend for the same finite spoils, and to perform an empty show of unity beneath a flag that one side embraces with pride while the other regards with contempt.
This discord is no accident but a calculated design. The American Republic was forged by White European peoples bound together through the unity of Anglo-Saxon culture and leadership. Its early representative government worked because it reflected the character of the people it served. A nation is a people united by common identity, while a country is merely a population occupying the same space.
Yet over time, this system was hollowed out by an elite that saw governance not as a sacred trust but as a means of wealth extraction and political control. Mass immigration was no unintended consequence but a deliberate instrument wielded by the ruling class. They imported a new electorate, weaponized demographic transformation, and rewrote the meaning of the nation to accommodate the flood.
No constitution, however exalted, can survive the desertion of the nation’s spirit. What once was a republic has become an oligarchy shrouded in the pretense of democracy. The two-party duopoly does not express the will of the people but circumscribes it within narrow confines determined by the interests of the ruling class, which now regards the nation’s founding stock as its chief threat.
America is no longer governed by representatives of its people. Instead, it is administered by an alien, cosmopolitan, technocratic elite orchestrating the largest demographic revolution in history from above.
The state no longer serves as protector, no longer the benevolent father who guides and elevates, but instead the bureaucratic manager of decline. In the name of diversity, it undermines the cohesion of neighborhoods. In the name of equity, it punishes excellence. In the name of tolerance, it suppresses dissent.
All of this flows from a singular logic: to erase the identity of the Heritage American—that is, White Americans—and all White peoples across the world—and replace it with a writhing, incoherent mass, fractured, disjointed, and malleable, an unformed chaos easily bent to the will of others.
Such a path, of course, is unsustainable. No nation, no civilization, can endure a ruling class that despises its foundations or a people trained to despise themselves, to endlessly defer, and to apologize for their very existence. These are not political quarrels but existential struggles. When a government wages war upon its majority, when media cultivates collective guilt and submission, and institutions conspire to delegitimize a people’s birthright, what remains is a battlefield.
War, in Hobbes’s account, is not confined to armed conflict but is the constant readiness for hostility. That readiness now saturates every aspect of life in America and the West. Normally, the Hobbesian “state of nature,” marked by competition, fear, and pride, is held in balance by shared identity and social norms. Multiculturalism shatters this fragile equilibrium, inflaming rivalries, deepening suspicion, and magnifying grievances.
Balkanized along ethnocultural, and thus tribal, lines, American society has devolved into rival factions bound by resentment, fear, and a zero-sum struggle for power amid increasingly dwindling resources. Once bound by common people and purpose, the center can no longer hold, having effectively ceased to exist.
Multiculturalism has laid waste to the social fabric of our once homogeneous nations and civilization, eroding the last remnants of unity and leaving behind a decaying political edifice propped up by mass surveillance, welfare subsidies, and anti-White animus. The unrest we witness, from the riots in Los Angeles to the broader decline of American society and the West, is the inevitable consequence of this failed experiment.
A nation divided against itself cannot endure indefinitely. Yet history shows that even in moments of profound crisis the restoration of foundational unity, rooted in blood and spirit, remains possible. Until that renewal is achieved, peace will remain elusive. This is not simply a republic in crisis; it is Western civilization laid bare and tested to its very core, awaiting the restoration of purposeful clarity and the strength to do what must be done.
LordHiver retweeted
Everyone talks about "authoritarian drift." Nobody talks about the real problem: for the first time in history, we might be led into authoritarianism by people who aren't even smart enough to realize it.
Let me explain.
The great dictators of the 20th century were monsters. But they were lucid monsters.
Stalin had a library of around 25,000 books, pamphlets and journals. He annotated everything, argued with authors in the margins, rewrote entire pages of texts submitted to him. A former seminarian and compulsive reader, he went as far as personally intervening in an academic debate on the origins of language.
Lenin: trained lawyer, polyglot, dozens of volumes written in his own hand. He theorized the seizure of power before pulling it off.
Mussolini: schoolteacher, then journalist, then newspaper boss. He understood the masses because he'd spent his life writing for them.
Mao: assistant librarian at Peking University, poet, a strategist who won a civil war with an army of peasants.
Hitler: rejected by art school, but an obsessive autodidact with an extraordinary memory, thousands of books, and an instinct for crowds and staging that propaganda experts still study today.
Napoleon: artillery officer, gifted mathematician, author of a Civil Code that shaped the law of dozens of countries.
Let me be clear: none of this excuses anything. Intelligence isn't a virtue, it's a multiplier. These men put exceptional minds to work producing millions of deaths. But they KNEW what they were doing. They had a theory of power, a vision, a plan.
Today we have a new model. I call it the zombie dictator.
The zombie dictator doesn't want dictatorship. He has no plan. He has no vision. He stacks up norms, regulations, speech controls "for our own good," endless public spending, and he can't see that the sum of it all looks more and more like a cage. He's sleepwalking us into it. And that's exactly what makes him dangerous: you can't reason with someone who doesn't understand what he's doing.
How did we get here? Four floors.
First floor: school. For fifty years, part of the left turned school into an ideological project instead of a machine for passing on knowledge. Less rigor, fewer fundamentals, less merit-based selection in the name of equality. The result: public school no longer lifts the best kids from working-class backgrounds. And when the social elevator is broken, all that's left is the service staircase, reserved for those already at the top.
Second floor: reproduction. The ultimate irony is that a left-wing sociologist, Bourdieu, theorized it best. And the numbers prove him right. 64% of students at France's grandes écoles come from very privileged backgrounds, while those backgrounds make up 23% of their age group. At the most selective schools, it's close to 80%. Children of factory workers and the unemployed? 9%. They broke the school of the poor and kept the network for their own.
Third floor: the disappearance of pressure. An elite that got things wrong used to pay for it. Today the state subsidizes everything: zombie companies, media, associations, careers. When nobody has to fight to survive, nobody has to be good. We select for conformity, not competence. People learn to recite the right talking points, not to solve problems.
Fourth floor: technocracy. Entire careers without ever touching reality. Elite school, minister's office, Brussels, corporate board, back to a minister's office. A closed loop, fed by activist money, foundations and NGOs that write the talking points technocrats then repeat. Nobody voted for this. Nobody is accountable for it.
Stack those four floors and you get an elite that was never truly selected, never tested, never sanctioned. People put in power by context, not by merit.
The 20th century taught us to fear strongmen who were too smart. The 21st will teach us to fear soft systems run by people who don't understand what they're running.
The zombie dictator may be less cruel. But he's much harder to stop. You can't overthrow someone who doesn't even know he's in power.
The only answer is to rebuild what was broken: demanding schools, real selection, and elites who are once again accountable for their mistakes.
LordHiver retweeted
British Army Colonel has warned that civil war between Christians and Muslims in the United Kingdom is now inevitable.
“The UK is heading towards civil war because the government is afraid to stop the Islamization of the country.”
This is not some far-right rant. This is a serving military officer stating the obvious after years of grooming gangs, knife attacks, no-go zones, and two-tier policing.
The establishment imported millions of people who do not share British values, then criminalised anyone who noticed.
Now even the Army is saying what the public has known for years: the government’s cowardice has made conflict unavoidable.
Stop the Islamization. Deport the invaders. Britain must choose survival over surrender.
LordHiver retweeted
Student Challenges Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islamophobia — She Responds With a Warning About the Caliphate
Student : You speak of Islamophobia and classes like Black Studies as phony,
ideologically driven things. But what makes white supremacy or Islamophobia different from antisemitism?
America imported millions of African slaves, Native Americans faced forced marches and genocide, and Muslims are being massacred in China today.
So what makes antisemitism so different?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Two things.
First, America and Western Europe have reckoned with their past.
We had slavery, we fought a war and ended it. We had segregation, we fought another major battle and ended it. We had the Civil Rights Movement.
And the people leading many of those emancipation movements were Christians inspired by the Bible.
Second, antisemitism is the oldest hatred in humanity, and you find it across the entire world.
What made the West different was that after nearly exterminating its Jewish population, it looked honestly in the mirror and confronted what it had done.
Islamophobia is a made-up word.
It's been created by a political movement that wants to exploit Western guilt to achieve its ultimate goal: the revival of the caliphate.
And the goal of that movement is to convert people to Islam whether they want to or not.
Those who refuse, she says, could face violence.
That's part of what I mean by subversion, active measures and asymmetric warfare.
The Islamists have become incredibly successful against nations with enormous military and economic power.
Islam is spreading.
They've regained Afghanistan. They have Iraq. They have Syria.
And Muslim governments themselves are afraid of what the Islamist movement could do to them.
They're exploiting principles like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association.
We need to understand that and find a way to preserve our principles while beating the Islamists at their own game.
Student : Is there room for compromise between principles?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: If I want to kill you and behead you unless you convert to the religion I dictate, what would be the place of compromise?
Student : I wouldn't mind converting, since I'm agnostic, but I understand some people wouldn't share that vision...
LordHiver retweeted
Islam is a political system that has a religion department.
The split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism was the product of centuries of theological and ecclesiological debate.
Questions about the nature of the Trinity (the Filioque clause), the authority of the Pope, and the relationship between church and empire were argued through councils and formal theological disagreement.
The Great Schism of 1054 emerged from incompatible theological and institutional claims.
The Protestant Reformation followed the same pattern.
Luther, Calvin, and others challenged doctrines like indulgences, justification, the authority of tradition versus Scripture, the nature of salvation.
In all cases theology came first; institutional separation followed. Violence followed these divisions, but it did not create them.
Christianity fractured because people disagreed about what was true.
Islamic sects came into existence in an entirely different way.
Islam did not fracture through theological debate. It fractured through power struggles, wars of succession, and political violence, after which theology was constructed to justify the outcome.
The first and most consequential split in Islam, Sunni versus Shia, had nothing to do with doctrine at the outset. It revolved around a single question: who gets to rule after Muhammad?
Muhammad left no succession mechanism. No council. No institutional separation between religious authority and political power.
When he died, leadership meant control of the state, the army, the law, and divine legitimacy, all at once. The result was immediate conflict.
What followed was a chain of civil wars: the Ridda Wars, the assassination of Uthman, the battles of al-Jamal and Siffin, the rise of the Kharijites, the murder of Ali, and the massacre at Karbala. Hundreds of thousands died, not over doctrine, but over who had the right to rule in God’s name.
Only after this bloodshed did theology harden.
Sunni doctrine evolved to legitimize whoever held power and to preserve order at almost any cost.
Shia theology evolved to sacralize dispossession, martyrdom, and stolen authority.
Theology followed blood. It did not precede it.
This pattern repeats throughout Islamic history.
Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ottomans, Safavids, each civil war produced a theological justification after victory or defeat. Belief adjusted to power, not the other way around.
Christianity fractured because people argued about God. Islam fractured because people fought over who gets to rule for God.
In Christianity, theology is primary, in Islam, politics is primary and theology is retrospective.
This is why Islamic sects, despite centuries of violence against one another, remain largely monolithic on the core elements: the Qur’an, Muhammad, and submission to divine law. The differences between them are marginal when compared to the scale of bloodshed that produced them.
This is why Islam behaves less like a religion in the and more like a political system that sanctifies power. Its internal divisions do not reflect competing visions of truth, but competing claims to authority.
LordHiver retweeted
Multi-ethnic states tend towards civil war.
Remove the safeguards (authoritarian rule / prosperity) and this result usually occurs.
How could we have condemned our people, our children, to this fate within their own country?
The cure for this evil is remigration. Demand it.
LordHiver retweeted
1/ Napoleon said every European war was a civil war.
Pat Buchanan called 1914–1945 a drawn-out suicide. Europe wasn’t conquered. It self-destructed.
What it lost wasn’t land, but memory, nobility, and the right to define itself. Let us discuss the European Civil War. 🧵👇
LordHiver retweeted
American believes there is likely no way to avoid a civil war because of the alliance of Muslims and Liberals
“Why would they want to conquer Texas? Well, if you think about it, agriculture, border, oil, landmass. If they can conquer Texas, they're taking us all down. I started having conversations with people and they're like, I don't know how we get the horse back into the barn at this point.
And the cowboys are like, if the police and politicians won't stand up, we're going to have to fight. And ultimately, I think that we're going to have to fight to save our country. I think we're going to head into another civil war.
Because you have 1.2% Muslims, but you have 53% of the crazy progressive liberals backing them up, helping them get elected. And that's exactly what happened in 1979 Iran — In 1979, they were bankers, lawyers, doctors. They could wear bikinis. They were secular. They were Jewish. They were Christian. They were Catholic. And I guess you've got the same woman who like the liberals who think they don't have enough freedom. So they assisted the IRGC thinking they would get more freedom. And once they completely took over and women were fully covered, they executed about 30,000 of them. So these people don't realize that they're just a pawn in their game”
People don’t realize this wasn’t that long ago, this happened in the 80s. The same people are alive and haven’t stopped planning our takeover and the results will be the same. They will take up over and start executing us
If you use AI to ask who would win a civil war, it’s conservatives by a landslide
LordHiver retweeted
Replying to @Phatymarh44
You’re in Nigeria, where Muslims are literally slaughtering Nigerian Christians on a daily basis.
LordHiver retweeted
🚨BREAKING: Sayed Mohassib, 27, a former NYPD officer and current elementary school teacher’s aide at PS 200 in Brooklyn, has been charged with second-degree murder in the Oct. 30 fatal stabbing of jogger Katie Suarez, 28, on the Shore Parkway Greenway.
Despite a documented history of psychiatric issues including a Marines discharge on psychological grounds, prior hospitalizations, and a paranoia claim that people were going to come and kill his family, he was still working with children at the time of the attack.
He allegedly returned home afterward, discarded bloody clothing down a garbage chute, then continued showing up for work with kids until his arrest.
LordHiver retweeted
They bombed my home when I was 10, buried me under the rubble screaming “Allahu Akbar,” put me in the hospital for months, then forced my family into an 8x10 bomb shelter for seven years
No power, no water, eating grass while snipers hunted us for the crime of being Christian.
That’s one. Want the rest of the list?
LordHiver retweeted
No words …
Meanwhile women are being fined tens of thousands of dollars by an ideologically corrupted judiciary for refusing to lie under oath and call men women.
🧐 Amicus curiae or amicus actoris?
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody as a guest speaker at the law firm Clayton Utz, which represented Tickle in Giggle v Tickle.
No surprises that Clayton Utz is also a recipient of ACON’s 2026 LGBTQ+ Employer award.
A concerningly small distance between the Commissioner, the activists and the lawyers advancing the same agenda- especially when taxpayers are funding the Commissioner to act as a “friend of the court”.
#Auspol




























