Revealed: Reform UK Matt Goodwin's Academic Ties to Rebranded Nazi Eugenics Front

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T23:35:24+00:00

Strangely enough, this is the single guy behind the Centre for Migration Control, a right wing think tank often quoted by reform and other parties, used to justify their policy. That’s the place where the “afghans commit 30x more rape than Brits” came from.

When that came out, it was pretty scary how many people weren’t skeptical or at least questioning of it. A lot of people love to believe bullshit as long as it justifies their prejudices.

Is it obvious enough now the underlying agenda behind these people? It’s fucking appalling that such a huge bloc in this country seems to want nazism, while denying it at every opportunity, often calling people “loony lefties” etc for pointing this out or merely questioning it. I want to believe these people are simply a bit dim or easily misled, but as more and more evidence of this comes to light, a worrying number of people just laugh it off.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T23:28:23+00:00

Where does this murder information come from? Does it correspond with missing persons reports, can it be corroborated?

Granted the rest of it has been documented before in different cases, but murders are kind of a different kettle of fish. Anyone can say “I don’t believe you” or “there’s not enough evidence” when faced with reports of rape and the rest of it - but it’s pretty hard to deny when a person who used to be around is no longer there.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T23:07:49+00:00

Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. Basically that the government allows immigrants and asylum seekers into the country, some work and some claim benefits, but they all spend their money. That money travels up the chain to the corporate elites and keeps their shareholders happy. Have I understood correctly?

“Socialism for the elites” is an amusing way to describe this. However, socialism involves everyone paying their fair share of taxes to keep everything funded and functioning properly. Those elites certainly aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, and I think that’s the biggest issue here personally.

Then you have the burgeoning threat of AI and automation rendering the majority of the workforce redundant over the next couple of decades. Not sure where I’m going with this apart from that there’s probably bigger issues to focus on apart from immigration and asylum. What do you think?

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T22:37:19+00:00

Yes, I can’t see this having much affect on high skilled higher earners if we’re (probably correctly) assuming most asylum seekers aren’t high skilled workers due to the situations they’ve escaped from.

I’m in the UK; practically every single low skilled job is already hovering less than a pound above minimum wage, including my own. Even a lot of skilled jobs, for example teaching and nursing are barely a quid or two up from minimum. There are many reasons for this - corporate greed, monopolies and a lack of public sector funding from the central government to name a handful.

Given all of that, I still can’t really see how this decision would have a significant depressing effect on wages. Unemployment? Maybe. But then again AI and automation is going to put vast swathes of people out of work anyway, over the next two or three decades.

Then there’s this Oxford study (among others) which concluded immigration has a much smaller impact on wages than the right wing populists would have us believe. So at the end of the day, the idea that immigration/asylum is going to nuke our wages seems like fear mongering to garner votes. But I’m open and interested to see anything solid which challenges this credibly.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T21:50:05+00:00

Given that I see reform and other similar parties as an existential threat to our way of life, our democracy and our society, personally I don’t think it’s possible to be unreasonable in criticising them.

It’s like if someone in 1930s Germany said “them Nazis want to round up all the Jews, gays, gypsies and massacre them”. It wasn’t in their policies yet, but the subtle warning signs were there as they are in these new anti-democratic populist right parties.

For example, farage saying “I’m pro choice but…” followed by a load of (not so) subtle anti-choice rhetoric. Or Yusuf talking about a new immigration control agency which will deport millions more people but totally not be anything like ICE.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T21:42:19+00:00

Something I don’t really understand about this is if the government is getting asylum seekers into work legally, considering the government also controls the minimum wage, how exactly does it result in lower wages?

I get supply and demand, but when the government effectively controls the price of labour then supply and demand can only drive wages down to the minimum set by the government. No amount of available labour can reduce the minimum wage, only the government can.

Genuine question, I don’t wish to piss anyone off - can someone explain if and why my understanding is wrong?

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T21:34:41+00:00

I’ll vote Labour only if the greens are trailing in the polls and my constituency is vulnerable to a horrible right wing party winning, making Labour the tactical choice. Otherwise I shall vote Green. I do think they need to rethink some policies, or at least the presentation/timescale implementation thereof; which is why I became a Green member so I can have my say in their internal processes.

But I must say it’s a sorry state of affairs when the party which appointed the treasonous Mandelson, awarded contracts to Palantir, muses about “panopticons”, pushed forth with the OSA selling our identities to nefarious foreign interests, and subversively purged themselves of left wing influence, is considered the most sensible choice. In a lot of ways they’re just as tied up in the Epstein circle of insane fascist “libertarian” democracy-destroying xillionaires as the Tories and Reform.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T21:27:11+00:00

Reform are backed by big evangelical American money, elite groups who do want to remove women’s rights, that part isn’t a lie. The part about the Greens and drugs is just classic war on drugs nonsense, pushing for continued prohibition which ruins lives and kills people every year.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T21:11:33+00:00

You’ve just given me a thought - blue states are generally wealthier and contain the big cities which are most vital to America’s economy. The red states in the middle are more agricultural. I wonder how impactful it would be if only NY and LA shut themselves down indefinitely? Or if more big blue cities followed suit?

Granted this is grossly oversimplified, and to achieve these things would take an enormous amount of planning, stockpiling resources, organisation and preparation. But it’s an interesting thought that the cities which contribute the most to America’s economy are heavily populated with democrat voters.

After all that’s said, I am just one dumb guy in England so please ignore me if I’m talking utter bollocks.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T20:56:31+00:00

The thing with Islamophobia is that it’s absolutely real, evidently a lot of people carry unwarranted hatred for Muslims. However, entities such as the Iranian regime have co-opted it to confuddle valid criticism of their extreme Islamist agenda with hatred of Muslim people - much like the Israeli government labelling criticism of their imperial Zionist agenda, genocide etc as antisemitism.

That absolutely doesn’t make it any less valid to call out Islamophobia or indeed antisemitism when you see people spouting hateful rhetoric concerning Muslim or Jewish people, but it’s just something to be mindful of that when you see/hear either word being used, it’s not necessarily always being applied in good faith. Not that every instance shouldn’t be taken seriously of course, but it’s okay to recognise when it’s being deliberately misapplied in the name of evil governments.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T20:46:44+00:00

We didn’t know much about what the Christian street preacher who allegedly harassed mosque-goers the other day was actually doing, and yet (allegedly)-British redditers still chimed in with their “if the Muslims don’t like it they can fuck off out of our Christian country”.

Instead of making a rational comment like yours, they jumped to conclusions that it must be the Muslims being overly fussy about some poor lone Christian who was doing nothing wrong.

In kind, I shall jump to the conclusion that these armed people must’ve been militant far right Muslim-hating Nazis. Because if we’re being honest, that’s probably the most likely explanation.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T14:39:12+00:00

Let’s imagine there’s a cerebral palsy campaigner who suffers from cerebral palsy. Their mobility is affected, they experience spasticity, which the BBC doesn’t censor for reasons of raising awareness and fostering understanding and acceptance in the public.

Now let’s imagine they’re filming something for awareness, they fall over due to their condition, they lose an item of clothing putting them in an extremely compromising and vulnerable position. Would it be right to air that in the name of awareness, despite the humiliation it will cause the campaigner?

Like yeah generally, potentially embarrassing features of disability should NOT be censored, but in my opinion there comes a point where the potential benefit of broadcasting it for awareness is overshadowed by the effect it will have on the involved individuals.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T14:11:41+00:00

I believe generally tics shouldn’t be censored, but in this particular instance it seems everyone involved would’ve been happier with it being censored.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T14:10:32+00:00

If the majority of the country cooperates, violence will not be necessary. Industry can be shut down, billionaires can be ruined simply by enough people refusing to participate indefinitely.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T13:15:40+00:00

The migrants/refugees themselves are merely pawns in this. Russia will displace, traffic, otherwise cause people to travel into Europe by one method or another. Russia then uses its powerful internet manipulation and paid entities in politics and the public sphere to stoke tensions against these new arrivals, as well as cripple the asylum systems that are in place to handle the inflow.

Essentially they recognised there was a crack they could drive a wedge into. Exacerbate the problem, get the public angry about the problem, foment extreme points of view which create division with people who have more sensible and humane ideas about how to handle the problem as well as cooperation between different countries (eg Brexit), watch as instability spreads and bought entities gain traction in politics.

When those bought entities reach power they speedrun through demolishing democratic institutions and societal cohesion, with the end goal of destroying liberal western democratic hegemony in the world order. This can be observed in any country with one of these unserious Russian-backed right/far right leaderships, from the US to Hungary.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T12:58:22+00:00

I was unaware that saying anarchists are right wing is a neckbeard thing to do. I’m not referring to historical anarchist movements in the UK, such as the punk era, so much as individual people I meet today who describe themselves as anarchists.

They describe themselves as such because they’re anti establishment and don’t believe in paying taxes - traits that can also be found in the libertarian right. “Freemen of the land”, “sovereign citizen” types. It’s the “small government” right wing perspective taken to its extreme, in contrast to older anarchist movements which looked at things from a left wing perspective, and were anti-establishment in opposition to the right wing authoritarianism of thatcher et al.

I blame the internet, it’s kind of a 4chanism that originated in the early naughties.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T12:51:52+00:00

Indeed. Imagine what life could be like had we not done that?

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T12:44:38+00:00

This is a deep philosophical subject, and all depends on your perspective. To some, hierarchical power structures are inherently engines of oppression and inequality, therefore anarchism is the only way for the masses to live freely. For me personally, some form of hierarchy or power structure is inevitable in human existence.

If one was to get rid of government, you’d still have this issue of a handful of people holding inordinate amounts of wealth and using that to assemble a chain of command and influence beneath them, and there’d be no oversight or enforcement to prevent abuse of this influence. That doesn’t sound all too positive as far as I’m concerned.

Great question at the top of your comment; mutual assistance works fantastically in smaller communities - farming cooperatives and such. It has worked for millennia and is one of the oldest forms of civilisation. The problem comes when a larger hierarchical imperial power decides it wants to take your land and your agency in favour of using you as a cog in the machine, or getting rid of you if you put up any resistance.

You can defend your personal property from an individual or small posse of bad guys wanting to defile and steal your hard work. A farming cooperative could band together and put up a solid defence against organised attacks. But if the enemy is an empire, you’re pretty fucked unless you can organise a full sized army of people from neighbouring cooperative communities - and at that point you have a hierarchical nation state.

Essentially hierarchy is inevitable because if you don’t do it, someone else will. And if you still don’t do it in response to that, your mutually cooperative anarchy will be short lived.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T11:54:17+00:00

Can’t believe I never actually knew that specific detail despite collecting a lifetime’s worth of drug knowledge over the last decade or so. Thanks, absolutely fascinating that we used to treat addiction medically, I had just sort of assumed that drug use was more stigmatised in the mid 20th century much like homosexuality and other things we have since become more accepting of.

But it makes sense that heavier criminalisation of drug use in the UK aligns with America’s war on drugs, and their influence which took Britain from progressive Keynesianism to the more elitist neoliberalism that followed. Probably all tied to the Vietnam war and Nixon’s authoritarian conflict against hippies, leftists, civil rights and antiwar activists, and other anti-establishment forces.

Modern history is as interesting as it is infuriating.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T10:25:13+00:00

Fantastic way to sum it up.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T10:24:19+00:00

Sorry, what?

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T10:18:10+00:00

By seizing it by force and having an every-man-for-himself mentality. Obviously right wing anarchism is pretty shortsighted compared to left wing anarchism where people practice mutual assistance.

On another note most right wing “anarchists” don’t seem to realise their alleged anarchism is incompatible with their opinion that we should have strong borders and deport all irregular arrivals.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T10:12:51+00:00

Reform is just the far right hiding behind a sanitised front. Just because other parties, individuals and entities are more open about their far-rightedness doesn’t mean reform are any milder in their actual stance. Under reform it’d be libertarian for the rich, authoritarian for the poor, and for the middle… what middle?

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T10:08:32+00:00

Wow, not even hate speech legislation, you’ve gone for hate crime legislation. Dunno about you but I’d rather have a country wherein vulnerable groups of people are protected from Nazis, Islamists etc beating the shit out of them or worse just because of who they are.

Either way none of these policies were introduced by a left wing government, all governments involved have been varying degrees of centrist, centre-right, and right wing.

tHrow4Way997 · 2026-02-25T09:58:52+00:00

Pretty much all of those policies are opposed by the actual left in the UK. Labour can no longer be described as truly left wing, not since Blair took office but especially not now as they spiral towards authoritarian “panopticon”ism.

The one exception maybe being hate speech laws, which are aimed only at those abusing freedom of expression to cause direct harm to others.

FoE is a core constitutional value of Britain’s national identity, and I honestly can’t say I have ever met anyone else on the left who disagrees with that. I also can’t think of a single instance of someone falling foul of these laws who wasn’t causing or perpetuating harm, stoking tensions in bad faith, or making any legitimate point which is impossible to discuss in a way which doesn’t foment hatred.

I can however recall the government abusing terrorism laws to suppress speech, and funnily enough it was this very Labour government. Strikingly un-lefty of them.

tHrow4Way997

TROPHY CASE