Matthew Goodwin: A cynical Establishment type, or a future friend of British Nationalism?

This article was posted by on Wednesday 12 April 2023.

Matthew Goodwin

Matthew Goodwin 

Matthew Goodwin is not a British Nationalist. He is Professor of Politics at Kent University. He is well in with the likes of Penguin/Pelican Books and the BBC.

He is a respectable figure and he wants to stay that way. Occasionally, he is one of four guests on the BBC2 lunchtime programme, Politics Live, where I learned of his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics.

The hostess there is Jo Coburn, an active member of the Ealing Liberal Synagogue. She is married to Mark Flanagan, former head of strategic communications for both the Labour government and the following Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Coburn’s guests frequently include another Jew of some variety.

I do not know whether Coburn personally chooses her guests, or whether that is done for her from either above or below. But we can tell the kind of company that Matthew Goodwin keeps.

As an academic, Goodwin has to demonstrate a certain amount of objectivity, although a host of Marxist sociology lecturers etc. seem to get by quite nicely without doing that. Just as the BBC is obliged by its charter to be politically impartial. Martin Webster and Philip Gegan have shot down that myth, on the Anglo-Celtic website. “Anglo-Celtic is campaigning to abolish the BBC”.

Matthew Goodwin has co-authored a number of books where British Nationalism is either implied to be, or openly stated to be, “fascist” or “far right”. But Nationalism seems to be a major interest of Goodwin’s. I do not know what first attracted him to his subject.

But as he developed his interest, he also developed an understanding, and an empathy with some modern nationalist ideological positions. He might have developed a sympathy with moderate nationalist positions. But, as he is based at a politically correct university, he dares not say so openly, if in fact that is the case. Many have been driven out of universities for not taking the right line.

In 2018, Goodwin co-wrote with Roger Eatwell, National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. They concentrated on ‘national’ populism, rather than populism in general. In that book they wrote:

One point that has recurred throughout is that people who support national populism are not merely protesting: they are choosing to endorse views that appeal to them. So we need to look more closely at the promises being made by these politicians and examine whether, contrary to the popular claim that it is a new form of fascism, national populism strives towards a new form of democracy in which the interests and voices of ordinary people feature far more prominently.

I enjoyed that book and even wrote a letter to the Hull Daily Mail about it – see the published text below.

Goodwin’s new book

The back cover of Values, Voice and Virtue states:

What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes?

British politics is coming apart. A country once known for its stability has recently experienced a series of shocking upheavals. Matthew Goodwin, acclaimed political scientist and co-author of National Populism, shows that the reason is not economic hardship, personalities or dark money. It is a far wider political realignment that will be with us for years to come. An increasingly liberalised, globalized ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. Now, this new alliance of voters is set to determine Britain’s fate.

In chapters one and two, Goodwin discusses the new political elite and how it accomplished a revolution. He writes in chapter two:

It opened the economy to a new and very disruptive model of hyper-globalization. It opened the country’s borders to a new and unprecedented era of mass immigration. And it opened up and hollowed out its national democracy, handing much greater power, influence and control to supranational institutions.

Nowhere in the book is there any mention of the Jewish role in all of this. Some time ago, I wrote to Matthew Goodwin and asked him if he was aware of the books by Kevin MacDonald. I did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of my letter.

But I am reminded of Ruling the Void – The Hollowing of Western Democracy, by the Irish academic, Peter Mair, and Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s commentary on United States society. Edward Dutton has things to say about some of this in his co-authored book, The Past is a Future Country.

Kevin MacDonald has much to say in his fourth book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, in the last two chapters, eight and nine. This includes comments on another book, by Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, a book describing how Westerners (read White people) do not look after their own, like other peoples in the Third World do, and the way this situation developed.

I think that there is hope for some Establishment academics. Remember, even Kevin MacDonald started out as a leftist, and later became a Reagan-supporting conservative. Only later did he become a racial nationalist.

All of these books, including the two mentioned of Goodwin’s books, are worth reading. Because British Nationalists should be well-read and well-informed.

There is some evidence that Establishment academics, in Britain and America, and elsewhere, are aware of the political situation, and are currently cautiously commenting on it. Of course, most of them will not mention the Jews. MacDonald is the honourable exception.

Some intelligent people know that there is a potentially revolutionary situation developing. The Establishment is trying hard to crush all Nationalist thinking. I have little doubt that people like Charles Murray in the United States, and Matthew Goodwin in the UK, would furiously deny having any sympathy with racial nationalism (at this stage, probably honestly). But they are noticing things that we know about.

All political revolutions start off as an Idea, and then develop slowly at first. Later, when they have gained momentum and more public support, there are always some among the old Establishment who come over to the new regime. Some of those people are braver than others. Some want to see which way the political winds are blowing before they will jump ship. Some are cynical and self-serving, but want to be well in with the new rulers — and they can be used by the new regime.

But I almost think that it is a pre-condition of the success of all revolutions that they win some  sympathisers among the old order that they want to replace. Are we seeing the first tentative signs of that with people like Goodwin and Murray?

If we do not make significant progress, such types will turn their professional interest elsewhere and play down their previous comments.

But a revolutionary situation demands a revolution. Goodwin’s book has five chapters. The first two are, The Rise of the New Elite, and Revolution, by which he means Cultural Marxism’s revolution. He does not call it that, but chooses “Hyper Liberalism” instead. In this he echoes the Tory writer, Nick Timothy, in his book, Remaking One Nation – The Future of Conservatism. Timothy refers to “Ultra Liberalism”.

Chapters three, four and five are about how the political elite are out of touch with the public. He devotes these chapters to the “Values, Voice and Virtue” of his title to the book. But interestingly, the conclusion to the book is called “Counter Revolution”.

Is he advocating that, or warning against it? Read the book and form your own opinion! I hope to comment again on this book, in a future letter.

Best Wishes


© Will Wright 2023


Published in the Hull Daily Mail, on Friday November 30, 2018, as:

Local politicians could learn a lot from this book 

Recently, I read National Populism, the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Although this book is by a couple of academics, it is an easy read and a good buy at £9.99 from Pelican books. Published on 25th October, 2018 it is right up to date and in my opinion, a must read for anyone who is interested in contemporary politics.

But more than that, I think some of our local politicians could benefit from reading it. Colin Inglis and David Nolan might find it useful in understanding why they were on the losing side in the EU referendum. But they are not the only ones.

Stephen Brady, who thought that immigration had been good for Hull, might see things from a different perspective once he has read this book. Regular Mail contributor, Michael Somerton, might realise that not everyone thinks in purely economic terms. Middle class feminists might gain insight into why America rejected Hilary Clinton and embraced Donald Trump.

Most of all I hope lots of Mail readers rush out to buy this book. The writers devote a chapter to each of the four ‘D’s:

• The distrust of the political class.

• The threatened destruction of nation states and indigenous populations by super-states and mass immigration.

• The relative deprivation of ordinary people compared to the global, jet-setting super-class.

• The de-alignment of the old political parties with their traditional voters.

Trump, Brexit and the rise of continental nationalist movements — the new force is populist nationalism.

The writers explain that this is different to fascism. This nationalism threatens the future of ‘centre-right’ parties and ‘centre-left’ parties.

According to the authors, the right’s only answer is to steal nationalist policies. The left hasn’t found an answer and faces terminal decline. The left cannot please both politically correct, middle class liberals and immigrants on the one hand — and their traditional working-class supporters on the other.

Much of Labour’s new recruits are in London, rather than that party’s traditional northern heartlands.

This is a very timely message, let’s see it in a few Christmas stockings!

Will Wright

16 replies
  1. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    While I have no doubt the BBC, and its counterparts in Canada and Australia, lost objectivity decades ago, the reasons are never examined. In the UK and Canada (not sure about Australia) when the broadcasters aired legitimate criticism of government actions or policy, they were met with budget cuts by Thatcher and Mulroney. Several rounds of that brought them to heel. Then, the people named to be in charge of the broadcasters became politically active, as did the messaging.
    As for the issue of left/right and nationalism currently, the fact that the former Soviet Bloc countries have a better sense of nationalism than the (((Western liberal democracies))). I met Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, and East Germans in the early 70s. All spoke of themselves in those ethnic terms, not as Soviets. There was tension between one Czech and one Slovak. None was in favour of immigration to their country, much less mass 3rd world immigration.
    As for the “right” being fascist, how many of those oppose usury and the international banking cartel? My point, as always, is that the left/right political paradigm is dead and buried. The current political paradigms are mirror images of the old. If you are opposed to immigration/migration (like North Korea) you are labeled as far-right/fascist. If you are in favour of immigration/migration (like the corporate types seeking cheap labour) you are left/socialist/communist. The globalists – the tribe whose name must not be spoken – are shape shifters, being whatever they need to be to take control. They are masters of deception.

    • JM
      JM says:


      “While I have no doubt the BBC, and its counterparts in Canada and Australia, lost objectivity decades ago, the reasons are never examined. In the UK and Canada (not sure about Australia) when the broadcasters aired legitimate criticism of government actions or policy, they were met with budget cuts by Thatcher and Mulroney. Several rounds of that brought them to heel. Then, the people named to be in charge of the broadcasters became politically active, as did the messaging.”

      It’s a new game today. The quality of the staff is far inferior to that of the past and the controllers have shifted from the Australian government to the Global cabal. There never was a serious threat to ABC funding, even when a large body of journalists went against the government narrative. Cuts in funds were never more than marginal. Until the late 90’s, at least the News (TV and radio) was impartial.

      With the advent of accelerated Globalisation in the late 90’s (when the great China maquiladora came – was brought – on board, all this changed. The associated de-industrialisation led to social changes in which the lower middle class started to predominate over the working class (once very powerful in Australia, including in its social expression, but effectively neutered by de-industrialisation and mass Third World labor ‘migration’) and upper middle class.

      The Australian government occasionally makes feint criticism of the lack of impartiality of the ABC, but this is always on a party political basis, never directly against the frontal attack on Australian traditions and nationality, nor on the outrageous one-sided pushing of the other subversive Globalist agendas. As with the Government and almost all parties, the overarching power over the ABC lies with the Globalist cabal.

      • Brian Rockford
        Brian Rockford says:

        What is needed with the BBC is not total replacement of the licence fee by advertising since this will only multiply woke-capitalist and low-standard broadcasting, but an effective campaign against its ethos. A return to Reith.

  2. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    An academic who denies to answer such a simple question as “Have you read any of Kevin MacDonald’s books?” is a f… coward and a waste of space; as this article is. This pathetic creature (Goodwin) is in the same league as Charles Murray. Why bother with cowards like these whose only concern is to be seen as “respectable academics” when we have men like Kevin MacDonald, Tom Sunic and Greg Johnson?

  3. Terry Bull
    Terry Bull says:

    Goodwin cuts a courageous, intelligent and lonely figure in the woke “academy” of Britain, for how long (Google, Academics for Academic Freedom). Leave him alone, and attack his enemies and ours instead.

  4. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Well written. It is always good to see writings that are not just informative but where solutions – big or small – are suggested.

    Thank you, Will.

  5. Terry Bull
    Terry Bull says:

    People who have not read, or not agreed with, Dr MacDonald’s books are not necessarily fools or cowards. He is not a guru but an academic with a theory, and now an activism open, to informed criticism like anyone else.
    There are Jews in Britain who oppose mass-immigration, ethnic crime, mob entertainment, mosque spread, and much woke poison in “education” and media; and the benefits of speaking alongside them outweighs the fact that they are usually Israel fans (with more “excuse” than a Gentile like Mr D. Trump).
    Incidentally, Murray as drawn attention to Barbara Lerner.

      • Terry Bull
        Terry Bull says:

        You have already said this.
        But you are quite right.
        “Follow the money. Expose the networks!” (David Horowitz)

        • JM
          JM says:

          @Terry Bull

          ““Follow the money. Expose the networks!” (David Horowitz)”


          When did Horowitz ever really “expose the networks”?

          I bet you’re a real Churchill Lover too.

          • Terry Bull
            Terry Bull says:

            @ JM
            You don’t do irony, do you?
            Not that you have probably read much of David Horowitz, e.g. on Soros & “The Professors”.
            Nor any idea what I think about Winston Churchill, with whom I agree regarding his early views on communism, fascism and eugenics, but neither his anti-German policies from and 1937 to 1945, nor his failure thereafter to protect British overseas assets and eastern Europe from the Stalin-Roosevelt alliance.

  6. dj
    dj says:

    It’s important to take the “win” when a leading commentator, including an academic like this, goes a long way towards nationalism. He is absolutely not a nationalist, as he argues that inclusion of the populist majority in the political process is necessary in order to avoid the “Far Right” from gaining a foothold. To that extent, he regards himself as a gatekeeper. But his insistence that the populist majority are not extremists and their concerns should be taken into account opens up politics towards a proper discussion of immigration and multi-culturalism. If we’re in the metapolitical phase of building a movement, such people are functionally on our side (whether they recognise that themselves or not).

  7. Space Cowboy
    Space Cowboy says:

    Guess who’s birthday is tomorrow? An up-and-coming Jew named “Jascha Hannover” reminds the goyim. The purpose of his film is to warn of the “disastrous consequences” of white people consuming literature that has not been censored by his tribal brethren.

    However, the junior Jew does not at all belong to the old inbred line of the German-British royal house of Hanover (even if he was circumcised by a rabbi just like “King” Charles), but his questionable ancestors must have appropriated this name illegitimately.

  8. Space Cowboy
    Space Cowboy says:

    …speaking about UK:

    My music tip today is a British multi-instrumen-
    talist named Robert Reed (born in 1968), who is
    maybe one of the few who can claim the right to
    walk in the footsteps of the great Mike Oldfield.

    However, his racial consciousness seems to
    be as underdeveloped as Oldfield’s, otherwi-
    se he would not necessarily want to collabo-
    rate with the same Jews (Newman/Phillips).

    Wiki doesn’t tell about “Newman”:
    “Born in Perivale (UK) from an Irish
    mother and Russian/Jewish father.”

    Oldfield’s last album is from 2017 and
    was a masterpiece after a long time. The
    question arises as to why Oldfield never
    made a breakthrough in America, given
    that his music is profoundly European. Per-
    haps Americans are simply too negroized.

  9. Carrie Whitelaw
    Carrie Whitelaw says:

    “The Studentenschaft [Germany 1925f] … The newly found solidarity of the students on the issue of racial differences was also reflected in other fields of life and thought…. Organization after organization, fraternity after fraternity, succumbed to the pressure of anti-Semitic agitation… They protested the employment of professors that were either ‘leftist’ or Jewish, and when more subtle means were exhausted they engaged in overt demonstrations…. In these areas, as in the past, the faculties failed to provide any opposition…At best they displayed a detached passivity [or] joined in the harassment of fellow Jewish or leftist educators.” – Prof. George L. Mosse, “The Crisis of German Ideology” (1998) pp.170-171.

    Deja vu — or uv ajed?

  10. Terry Bull
    Terry Bull says:

    Goodwin is now coming under fire from the wokeracy: he is no longer warning against fascism and extremists, he is one.

Comments are closed.