It takes a nation to protect the nation
Doctor Matthew Goodwin is an Associate Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham. He's also the co-editor of The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain and author of New British Fascism: Rise of the British National Party. His articles have appeared in the New Statesman and The Guardian.
On his Nottingham University page he offers a curriculum vitae which includes working for the Institute for Community Cohesion (iCoCo), the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the Fabian Society, NothingBritish and Hope Not Hate.
More relevantly, Dr Goodwin comes across as a mix between an arrogant snob and the Left's version of Harry Enfield's Tory Boy. He’s always on the TV discussing ‘extremism’… yet, of course, never Leftist extremism or indeed any kind of extremism not carried out by the white working class; a group which tends to make his snobby little choir-boy face go into contortions of hatred. (See him here on the BBC’s The Big Questions - he speaks at 7 mins 48 secs - debating with his allies, including Mo Ansar, against Tommy Robinson.)
Finally, Doctor Goodwin, on his Facebook page, once described his politics in the following way: "Left, way way left. No more left!"
The level of snobbery, smugness and class hatred (against the entire non-Leftist working class) in this Guardian article by Doctor Mathew Goodwin, as well as a dismissive attitude towards “older more prejudiced voters”, is beyond belief. This man really is a posh runt. He would have been a perfect eugenicist Fabian (eugenics as carried out on the working class) in the 1910s and 1920s. And guess what, he is indeed a member of that renowned snooty club for ultra-posh Leftists – the Fabian Society. More specifically, he's written for the Fabian Society.
As ever, Doctor Matthew Goodwin, as a typical smug Leftist, simply assumes that all anger towards - and criticism of - Muslims (as Muslims) are examples of “prejudice”. And yet he fails to see the inanity of his position.
Goodwin talks about the Islamic murder of a defenseless British soldier, Lee Rigby, on the streets of London in 2013; and yet, in the very same sentence, he immediately concludes that all the angry and critical reactions to this slaughter were examples of “prejudice”. Indeed throughout this article, and in everything written by him, he never once considers why people should be angry at such things as the murder of Lee Rigby, the massive grooming of young girls by Muslim gangs, the daily death toll of the Global Islamic Jihad, the tens of foiled Muslim terrorist attacks in the UK and so on. All reactions, both angry or just critical, are simply, according to Leftist diktat, examples of “prejudice”... or “racism” or “fascism” or “xenophobia” or “bigotry” or, as American Loonwatch has it, “lunacy”.
Ad Hominems Against All Critics of Islam
Doctor Goodwin tells us that “far-right groups [point] to the murder [of Lee Rigby] as evidence that Islam poses a fundamental threat to modern Britain”. Nonetheless, he doesn't bother to debate the pros of this argument. In fact he doesn't even debate the cons. He simply doesn't debate or argue at all. He states things. And his statement on this is crude and simple:
Because “far-right groups” believe that “the murder as evidence that Islam poses a fundamental threat to modern Britain”, then this view must, quite simply, be wrong. It has to be wrong.
Why is that, exactly? Again, simply because “far-right groups” believe it. It really is that simple to Matthew “left, way way left” Goodwin.
This is a perfect example of what philosophers call an ad hominem argument. That is, Goodwin doesn't even deign to consider what these far-right groups are saying. What they are saying must be wrong simply because it is they who are saying it. Simple.
But the inconvenient thing for Goodwin is that it's not just the “far right” who are critics of Islam. Unless being such a critic miraculously turns you into being a “far-right bigot”. That is, the very belief that Islam is a threat makes you “far right” and no doubt a “bigot” too. Surely not! Besides which, are all the following critics of Islam and Islamism far-right bigots too? -
Richard Dawkins, Nick Cohen, Tony Blair, Michael Gove, Samuel Huntington, Bat Ye'or,Oriana Fallaci, Julie Birchill, the feminist and reformist Muslim Irshad Manji, members of the Worker Communist Party of Iran, Maryam Namazie, the gay group OutRage, the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL), Harry's Place, Bill Maher, the feminist Elizabeth Farrelley, novelist Ian McEwan, Ben Elton, novelist Martin Amis, Pink News, Christopher Hitchens, Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Salman Rushdie, Polly Toynbee, Peter Tatchell, Johann Hari, Ed Husain, The Quilliam Foundation ...
Numbers Mean Nothing to Professor Goodwin
Again and again Dr Matthew Goodwin seems utterly unperturbed by the very large amount of British people who do indeed have a problem with Islam and with a sizable minority of British Muslims. But numbers don't matter to him because everyone who has an alternative view to his own quite simply must be suffering from “false consciousness”. Either that or, to use his own word (which he uses a lot), they are suffering from “prejudice”.
So Goodwin rejects and dismisses the following millions of British people:
1) The “more than 100,000” followers - at least at one point in 2013 – of the EDL on Facebook. (Such people, every single one of them, are “toxic”.)
2) He rejects out of hand the the 70% of “citizens aged 60 and above” who have “expectations of a future clash between Muslims and non-Muslims”.
3) He rejects - from his supreme position of Leftist moral, intellectual and political superiority - the 40% of “citizens who think that conflict between groups is 'largely inevitable'”.
4) And he also self-righteously (or smugly) rejects the 59% who believe that “there will be a serious class between between British Muslims and white Britons” in the near future.
You see the thing is that no matter how pious Professor Goodwin is about his own distinct and deep lack of prejudice, that repulsive piety and self-righteousness will never make all the Muslim gangs, Islamists, sharia activists and terror-plotters go away. It won't transform Islam from being an essentially jihadist religion into being the counterfeit or taqiyya version of Islam that's sold at interfaith meetings. This is just the pious preenings of one man who, I bet, isn't really that concerned about the reality of Islam or how millions of Muslims badly behave both in the UK and in the world as a whole. What concerns him is is own lack of “prejudice” and his own intellectual, moral and political superiority to the millions of non-Leftist Brits who dare to disagree with him - those who must either suffer from false consciousness or be unutterably prejudiced.
The Leftist Young?
Despite the clearly negative results (from his perceptive) of the surveys Doctor Goodwin cites, he still manages to see the positive. For example, he comes out with some very vague multi-cult stuff. He says that “in the aftermath of these tragic events [Lee Rigby, 7/7, Muslim grooming], Britons were more likely to think positively about community relations”. Yes? But what does that mean, exactly? Besides which, people can “think positively about community relations” and yet not think positively about Muslim relations or communities. Indeed they can think positively about community relations and also think that the rise of Islam is working against such relations (as it does does throughout the world and has done throughout history).
Matthew Goodwin seems to have a lot of faith in the younger generation because he deems them to be less “prejudiced” (i.e., they don't have a negative view of Islam) than the older generations. For example, he tells us that although “70% of “citizens aged 60 and above” have “expectations of a future clash between Muslims and non-Muslims”, it's nonetheless the case that “among 18- to 24-year-olds this figure tumbles to 48%”.
Now I wonder if Professor Goodwin is talking primarily about students here. You know, the kind of people he teaches at Nottingham University. Now since the Left has almost as much control of our universities (or at least of certain social science disciplines/departments) and schools as the National Socialists (Nazis) had of their own universities (in 1930s and 1940s Germany), then it's hardly surprising that many young people concur with Goodwin's own views. Besides which, many young people's political views are largely based on political fashion or political hipness and not on any deep thought about the issues (e.g., the politically hip and omnipresent anti-Israelism of our universities). Indeed many student automatons simply accept what academics like Noam Chomsky, or even Doctor Goodwin, tell them. In any case, if they don't agree, then many of them may fail their degrees or, later, fail to find relevent work.
The other thing is that it is the duty of many younger people – especially middle class Leftist students – to rebel against what they believe the older generations think. That is why they exist. So if many older people believe that 2 + 2 = 4, then they will believe that it equals 5 instead. Or if many older conservatives or reactionaries believe that Communism resulted in mass murder and misery in the 20th century, then they'll believe the opposite. In contemporary terms, because these deeply prejudiced, racist and evil old people are critical of Islam and the behaviour of some Muslims, then, of course, many younger people – especially middle class Leftist students – will believe the opposite.
From Dr Goodwin's negative findings about the reactionary and nasty old, and the parallel positive findings about the idealistic and uncorrupted young, he concludes that “Britain is in the midst of a silent and generational shift away from prejudice”. Yes folks, more of that Goodwinian smugness again. How dare this little cretin class an entire generation as a generation of “prejudice”? Can you believe his front?
Nonetheless, there is one thing Goodwin is forgetting here: that older generation of prejudice encompasses many of the children on the glorious 1960s. Yes, that decade of free love, ultra-radicalism, feminism, antiwar demos, Leftist terrorism, Trotskyist/Maoist fanaticism and all that. Clearly Goodwin believes that many of the 1960s generation were largely untouched by that decade. Or is it actually the case that they were indeed touched and that's one of the reasons why they are now critics of Islamic misogyny, violence, fundamentalism, totalitarianism, terror and the rest?
Those Fu*king Stats!
As is usually the case, stats can be used to say just about anything and support any cause. Indeed I'm willing to admit that I too am using Doctor Goodwin's very own stats against him (as I did above). But it's not just the problem of stats and percentages. It's often also the problem of the questions being asked by the surveyors in order to elicit such responses (followed by the percentages).
For example, Goodwin states that 19% of the “more recent generations” do not believe that “Muslims [are not] compatible with British life”. So what is it, exactly, that they don't believe? It would depend on what the positive responders (according to Goodwin) took the word “compatible” to mean. If they had been asked, more specifically, if they believe that sharia law is “compatible” with “British life”, my bet is that the percentage - even amongst the hollowed young - would be lower than Goodwin's 19%. Similarly, if they had been asked if the increase in honour killings is compatible with British life: ditto. But no. The question actually asked was vague and mushy. The survey simply asked if “Muslims [are] compatible with British life”. Well, that Muslim guy who works in Tescos fits in quite well. And the Muslims on EastEnders seem like nice people. So what's the problem? Are you a racist bigot?
Similarly with Goodwin's marvelous stat that “84% said they would 'never consider joining'” the EDL... hang on a minute, Professor Goodwin! That's simply because 84% of any portion of the population would never join any group or organisation – be that the Labour Party or West Ham United Supporters Club.
1) You won't believe this. Matthew Goodwin has just had an article published today on, guess what, the "far right" working-class supporters of UKIP. And guess who has published it - the Telegraph!
This article received over two hundred responses yesterday.
Telegraph readers were astonished that the editor had allowed a self-confessed "left, way way left" socialist to write an article about the "far right and working class" nature of UKIP.
And guess what, Doctor Mathew Goodwin was twittering yesterday indulging in yet more smug ad hominems about the comments. He said that it was a "pile of crap" or something and that all the comments were littered with the word "Marxist". Of course he has called himself a Leftist on many occasions. Despite that, he has never been publicly confronted about his own political and ideological beliefs. These people never are. It's as if newspaper editors and local journalists believe - when they interview or use UAF, Hope Not Hate and Matthew Goodwin to comment - that their views just come from nowhere. That they are just imparting objective truths which have no grounding in theory, politics and ideology.
People like Goodwin are never asked to come clean about their overall/general political and ideological positions. They just write articles about the "far right" and "prejudiced" UKIP and the EDL which are littered with stats, graphs and percentages - all perfectly utilised to disguise the Marxist ideology and politics behind them.
The gap between Fabian socialism and Fascist socialism or National socialism is tiny.
The Italian Fascists were quite clear, that "guild socialism" was their inspiration. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm
And guild socialism (harking back to the medieval guilds), was something proposed by the Fabian Society.
Guild Socialism, in spite of its engaging medieval name, means nothing more
picturesque than a claim that under Socialism each industry shall be controlled by its own
operators, as the professions are to-day. This by itself would not imply Socialism at all: it
would be merely a revival of the medieval guild, or a fresh attempt at the now exploded
self-governing workshop of the primitive co-operators. Guild Socialism, with the
emphasis on the Socialism, implies that the industries, however completely they may be
controlled by their separate staffs, must pool their products. All the Guild Socialists
admit this. The Socialist State must therefore include an organ for receiving and
distributing the pooled products; and such an organ, representing the citizen not as
producer but as consumer, reintroduces the whole machinery of Collectivism
See the Appendix to The History of the Fabian Society: http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Pease_Edward_R_-_History_Of_The_...
The above is a perfect description of Mussolini's fascism. The state was to be what tied the bundle Fasci (corpora, guilds) together. One must assume, that it is the presence of communists and fabian socialists throughout the universities and the media who have ensured that the Fabian basis for fascism and nazism has been kept hidden for 70 years or more.
"UKIP Watch an impartial blog by Matthew Goodwin".
Goodwin must find the prospect of UKIP to be a genuine threat to the fascist elite who run LibLabCon.
Should we now feel sorry for Matthew Goodwin?
The revolution/fascists eat their own children, methinks.
The date everything changed is entrenched in my memory – June 23, 2016, the day Britain voted for Brexit.
Before that moment I was a professor of British politics who loved his job, enjoyed spending time with his colleagues and looked forward to life in Britain’s universities, which are among the best in the world.
But since then I have fallen out of love with my job, avoid my colleagues and look to the future with a sense of dread. So what happened?
Unlike the vast majority of people who teach and research in Britain’s universities, I made the mistake of saying publicly that we should respect the Brexit referendum result.
I was no Brexiteer but, in a world where just one in ten academics backed a Brexit decision that more than half of the country supported, merely accepting the result was more than enough to make me an outcast.
For the next four years, I faced a constant wave of criticism that at times bordered on harassment...