Matt Goodwin in Budapest last month. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

2,378 words

Part 2 of 2 (Part 1)

Last time around we discussed Suicide of a Nation, a generic but perfectly serviceable beginner’s guide to the intentional immigration-based destruction of Great Britain by the former academic turned TV presenter and Reform UK politician Matt Goodwin. So far, we have focused upon how his book was critiqued by opponents on the United Kingdom’s Left. Although Goodwin has critics further to the Right to deal with, too — namely, people like us, who you may have thought would be broadly sympathetic to Matt’s cause. Evidently not.

In the immediate wake of his book’s release in mid-March, even before the Left piled onto it, by Goodwin’s own account:

The only criticism, ironically, came from the ultra-Right-wing, where an assortment of increasingly extreme young men began to criticize the book for being ‘too soft’. This was strange, I thought, given that I use the book to call for an immediate end to mass immigration, an exit from the European Convention on Human Rights, the deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, and a reversal of the ‘Boriswave’, which brought millions of low-wage, non-European migrants into Britain with no democratic consent whatsoever.

But were such promises really enough?

A Sikh Joke

A lot of anti-immigration dissidents don’t like Matt Goodwin very much, especially not now that Reform UK has a rival farther to the Right in the form of Rupert Lowe’s similarly-named Restore Britain party. Goodwin has been painted as the real-life incarnation of long-running English TV comedy character Alan Partridge, a low-ranking old-media idiot known for constantly rambling inanities on air, like proposing replacing Wimbledon with an alternative tournament based on the impractical concept of “Monkey-Tennis” (not a reference to the Williams sisters). An amusing video of Matt campaigning from an open-top bus during a recent UK by-election and chanting classic Partridge-isms through a megaphone has gone viral in an attempt to reinforce the comparison.

More seriously, Goodwin’s party has been rebranded by detractors as “Reform Yookay,” after the popular satirical “Yookay” memes in which Britain is presented as an incoherent, multi-ethnic hellhole. This is because, whilst out on the campaign trail, Goodwin courted not only white votes but also some ethnic ones — such as the Sikhs below — to (unsuccessfully) try and get himself over the line:

This CivNat pandering does seem inconsistent with Goodwin’s apparent desire for ethnic rebalancing, given that his recent book was one big warning against allowing white Brits to fall into minority status by, in his estimation, the mid-2060s. Thus, the question is whether Matt is sincere or not in his desire to reverse the demographic tide, or just hopping aboard a convenient bandwagon in the shape of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, the current favorites to form Britain’s next government.

The Great Reform Act?

Personally, I suspect Goodwin would like to go further in his rhetoric than he does at present, but it is doubtful whether his leader, Nigel Farage, would allow it given the way he threw Rupert Lowe out of the party after he began calling for mass deportations of Pakistani gang-rapists and their families. Understandably, the most important thing for those at the top of Reform UK appears to be getting into power, as without that they can do nothing whatsoever. The calculation they appear to have reached thus far is that open talk of mass deportations will put off enough wavering voters to cost them a viable majority in Parliament.

Hence, they think it makes present-day pragmatic sense to court relatively small minorities such as Sikhs and Hindus (1.7 and 0.9 percent of the population, respectively), as a co-opted client vote. The main clear and present dangers to the dwindling white majority in Britain right now are the tripartite alliance between the nation’s four million Muslims, 2.5 million blacks, and the traitorous white Left. The comparatively limited numbers of Sikhs and Hindus come way down the list of civilizational threats, and, being frequently persecuted by Muslims in cities such as Leicester, could potentially be relied on to support closing of the borders to most future incomers as well as the dismantling of many elements of the current anti-white state. In his book Goodwin seems to want to get such potentially pliable minorities on side, constructing a non-white alliance of white allies who may be persuaded to vote to maintain the country’s previous ethnic core as a means of rational self-preservation:

The ethnic and cultural core of a nation is what holds it in place, like an anchor. It is what gives people, whether white or not, a sense of shared identity, culture, history, values and way of life. But once this anchor gives way, once the waves become too strong and overwhelming, there is nothing to hold the nation in place . . . Many minorities feel just as strongly attached to this core as everybody else; they feel a strong bond to the only demographic make-up of Britain they have ever known. They see the historic majority as an important symbol of the community to which they belong and the sense of familiarity they feel. It is why people from minority backgrounds also voice strong concern about the level of immigration in Britain, or why one in every three backed Brexit.

You can order Jonathan Bowden’s The Cultured Thug here.

I think the unspoken message to turbaned gentlemen such as those pictured above might be “Wouldn’t you rather live in a massively white country than a massively Muslim one?”, to which their general answer would be “Yes”, because white people don’t usually go around attacking them and trashing their homes and temples.

Goodwin therefore does, by his own arguments, imply he wants Britain to remain a super-majority white nation, and to not decline into Lebanon Island. If this sounds more like an ethnic salvaging operation than a full-blown ethnic restoration project, then this is because it is — albeit probably being the most that is plausibly electorally possible as yet. This, meanwhile, is how Matt’s more harshly-spoken Restore Britain rival Rupert Lowe speaks about what has to be done, namely the outright reversal of mass immigration via the mass deportation of “millions”:

What is necessary will be incredibly painful, but for the first time in a very long time, voters will have a genuine alternative which is truthful with them about the scale of what now has to be done . . . Restore Britain will not just stop mass immigration, we will reverse it . . . If that means millions go, then millions go.

I want what Rupert’s selling. But within Reform UK, the computation has clearly been made that, for now, whilst the majority of white people (and many non-white people as well) want to wind back the demographic clock, they still don’t want to be labelled “racist,” “cruel,” or “far Right” for doing so.

Substantially closing the borders; deporting illegal immigrants, visa overstayers, and foreign criminals; and refusing to renew the visas and residency rights of others when they run out — besides abolishing welfare payments to foreigners, prioritizing natives for housing, scrapping free translation services and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) schemes, and banning alien Muslim customs such as the burka — are measures both Restore and Reform voters could agree on as a base minimum of what must begin to be done. These are also the measures Goodwin recommends at the end of his book. He doesn’t frame this explicitly as being a program of “mass deportations,” as Lowe does, but merely as sensible enforcement measures. Although the ultimate effect, if these are actually enacted, would be similar: bye-bye, millions of Muslims and Africans, many of whom would doubtless deport themselves once all the free money and housing disappears.

This is a good start. Once the immediate concessions are made, we can always bank them and move on to demanding more. Even turning the demographics back to the state they were in as recently as in 2010 or 2020, which could probably be substantially done via the above measures alone, would be a significant initial victory.

Eid and Groom

If you want to restore a long-term white majority, then the first thing that must be done is to dismantle the state-backed anti-white racism which made this Great Replacement possible in the first place. For now, Reform UK and Goodwin are pushing what is framed as being an anti-anti-white form of government. Implicitly, though, that is still a pro-white one, but more softly presented. Defense always sounds more palatable to people than attack, doesn’t it? Goodwin’s strongest rhetoric in his book comes when he describes the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs:

While everybody knows the name George Floyd, few know names [of rape-gang victims] like Charlene Downes, Lucy Lowe or Victoria Agoglia. Charlene Downes disappeared [possibly into kebab-meat]. Victoria Agoglia was injected with heroin and left to die. Lucy Lowe and her family were burned alive. They were all murdered or ‘disappeared’ because the New Elite decided that the feelings of Pakistani men matter more than these children. This is not a community cohesion issue. It is hatred. It is contempt. It is anti-white racism. It is violence born from a worldview that sees white working-class girls as subhuman and sees the [white] majority as an enemy. It is not just that the ruling class did nothing to stop it. It is worse: they enabled it.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Confessions of a Reluctant Hater here

Goodwin correctly identifies that all the Muslim gang-rapists, violent black criminals, and race-Marxists are really just a racial epiphenomenon, and that the true “cancer” (his term) are the white traitors who let them in here to torment us at will in the first place. One prominent line of criticism against Goodwin, however, is that, as a one-time Left-wing academic, he used to be one of these very same political tumors himself . . .

The Left Left Behind Him?

This argument is often applied against Goodwin by the dissident Right, but it seems to stem originally from Left-wing critics. Hope Not Hate, for example, is an alleged “anti-fascist” organization roughly akin to America’s Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center which has run repeated profiles of Goodwin, noting how he was “once a serious academic working to understand the drivers of far-Right extremism” amongst the primitive white tribes of Great Britain before he eventually descended into insanity and went native himself, as in a race-swapped version of Heart of Darkness. Once upon a time — as recently as the mid-2010s — Goodwin wrote anti-racist articles for the Leftist broadsheet The Guardian and even sat on the government’s Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, whereas he is now a prominent critic of Islam.

One dismissive explanation put forward for this ideological about-turn is that, whilst working on his 2014 political science book Revolt On the Right, Goodwin noticed there was a large potential gap in the market for a party which actually listens to dispossessed white people for once, and which openly says that the alleged prevailing liberal “consensus” about mass immigration, wokeness, and globalism is purely an illusion. Being ambitious, yet continually overlooked over for promotion in academia, Matt therefore simply spied a lucrative new career in politics and the Right-wing media by opportunistically hitching a ride on neglected voters’ coat-tails, only pretending to agree with them in return for easy money and attention, or so it was said. “He’s an opportunist extremist,” alleged Hope Not Hate (HNH). “He will say whatever he thinks will resonate with whatever audience he wants to rile up.” In fact, HNH argue, “[t]he [Left-wing] Goodwin of 2011 would be deeply alarmed by the Goodwin of 2026 and the possibility of him becoming an MP.” Dissident Right critics would agree, likewise viewing him as a fair-weather fraud.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here

Goodwin himself attributes his conversion to Brexit, namely the deceitful way the entire political, media, legal, and academic establishment tried their best to thwart it against the wishes of a population whom Matt came to realize they absolutely hated and despised. I don’t find this innately implausible. Goodwin is around the same age as I am, and our political journeys sound fairly similar; if I had seen my own politics of 2026 back in 2011, I also would have been somewhat surprised.

Back then, I foolishly still believed that the unfolding demographic trashing of Britain was mainly a function of 13 years of Blairite New Labour government from 1997-2010, and that the new Conservative administration of David Cameron was sincere in its desire to get the numbers down to what they promised would be in the “tens of thousands,” albeit I still thought this sounded too high. That they then failed miserably to do so could plausibly at that point have still been attributed to their enforced coalition with the Left-of-center Liberal Democrats as well as the restrictions of European Union law, I thought. As the years passed by, however, it became increasingly clear the Conservatives were lying.

Following the Brexit vote, I honestly thought things might finally begin to change. When Theresa May’s Tories then joined up with all the others in Westminster to try and block Brexit, though, it became more and more self-evident we were governed by a uniparty of traitors. Once Brexit finally went through (in name) under Boris Johnson, and mass immigration actually shot up exponentially, combined with the open anti-white hysterias of 2020 and afterwards, with each passing betrayal I, too, was forced to become much more “extreme” (i.e., realistic) in my politics. If I look back at some of the things I wrote back in the early-to-mid 2010s, then — just like Goodwin — I would no longer agree with them, and now consider them naïve. Indeed, Hope Not Hate could buy my books and compile the quotes.

Thus, I do find it at least possible that Goodwin is sincere in his public political conversion over the past 15 years. Can I be sure? No, of course not. It wouldn’t exactly amaze me if Reform UK, should they indeed win the next General Election, turn out to be a disappointment, either through incompetence or sheer lack of will to push the necessary things through in the face of mass civil service, judicial, and media opposition. But the only way to find out is to actually vote Goodwin & Co. in and let them try. As Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain do not, in my opinion, stand any realistic chance of winning this time around, we may as well give Matt the chance to disappoint us.