Reform Attitudes and an Update on The Great Replacement

It’s here, it’s real, and anyone still denying it in any way is a traitor.

JUPPLANDIA

“When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.
It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.
Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.
If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.”

Peter Hitchens. “How I am partly to blame for Mass Immigration” (April 2013)

.
Reform pollster Matt Goodwin has been talking about the Great Replacement, without saying the dreaded name.

I have my issues with Goodwin and his very close relationship with Reform, just as I have strong doubts as to whether Reform will deliver the kind of changes we need. I’ll explain those before I address what Goodwin is now saying about ONS statistics on Britain’s demographic transformation.

Reform’s behaviour in relation to the excellent Rupert Lowe and the pretty good Ben Habib went far beyond some mere ego driven internal shakeup. It touched on fundamental problems with Reform under Farage, the same kind of issues that saw Trump and Elon Musk distance themselves from him. Habib wanted greater democracy and accountability in Reform and the development of a real team that was prepared for government. Farage insists on running the party as a combination of amateur business venture and dictatorial one man band on a slightly shambolic, albeit popular, tour. That’s an important difference and we can say this about it: Habib was right, and Habib was ousted for being right.

With Lowe the way his split from Reform played out was even worse. Lowe has been spectacularly right on two incredibly key issues that Farage and Reform are terrified of publicly dealing with. Lowe insists that saving the country is not just about reducing mass immigration, but also requires mass deportations to deal with the fact that we have imported (both legally and illegally) so many people who aren’t integrated into the British way of life, who have no loyalty to Britain and its culture, and in many cases are criminal, antisocial, and fundamentally opposed to the values of the nation they have joined in ways that make them a danger to existing British citizens. As a corollary of that honesty on mass immigration, the necessity of deportations and the lack of integration from some immigrant communities, Lowe is also much more honest than Farage and Reform on Islam.

And for his honesty and courage on deportations and Islam, Lowe was subject to a smear campaign led by his (at the time) own party leaders, who conspired with the mainstream media and the police to try and arrest and charge him for invented, purely fictional crimes. All due to Lowe saying on deportations and Islam what Farage didn’t want Reform figures to say.

Farage has always run scared of these issues, and always been a more complicated character than anyone presents him as being. The Left, and until very recently the mainstream too, have long painted Farage as a beer swilling outsider, a rightwing man of the people chancer with the common touch, when they aren’t also portraying him as a Far Right extremist of a more serious and dangerous kind. Of course that’s never been what Farage actually is. He’s never been an actual racist, xenophobe, would be Adolf Hitler, anymore than Donald Trump has in the US. But he’s not really a man of the people either. He’s an ex City trader who has always been reasonably affluent, always enjoyed ruffling prim feathers, and always opposed the EU. But other than the mischievousness and the dislike of the EU, he’s a standard modern Conservative. He might talk about the woke as crazy people and their ideas as nonsense, but he’s often pretty uninterested in social and cultural issues. If David Cameron had remained (as he was once alleged to be) a Eurosceptic, and taken the Conservative Party in that direction, Farage would have been perfectly happy with the drippy brand of slightly watered down leftism that Cameron was selling.

It really is only on the issue of the EU dictating British policy that Farage has firm and real principles, with the rest of his political life being much more an ad hoc construction within very controlled limits, a grand lark kind of adventurous political cosplaying, and a surprisingly oblivious or excessively cautious approach to race, religion and identity underneath the flashy showmanship of the surface persona. What Farage has always been good at sensing, though, in an intuitive way now backed up by Goodwin’s polling analysis, is shifts in the public mood and the general populist trend of recent years.

Both Farage and Reform as a whole, guided and supported by Goodwin, have tried to navigate a middle ground between seizing the populist energy of the moment and the huge degree of public disdain for the main parties and mainstream positions they represent, and also staying within the safety lines set by the progressive Establishment, avoiding talking about the really controversial and really difficult and honest choices we face. In order to present as serious professionals in waiting, ready for government and devoid of extremism so far as the mainstream media and metropolitan political class are concerned, they have to be less serious and less honest about the really big issues.

To walk that tightrope, they have to be different enough from the mainstream to appeal to the bitterly disillusioned majority, but at the same time in order to attract funding and avoid a permanent state of PR war against them from the Establishment and it’s media outlets, stay close to them and rather cowardly on the difficult stuff like the nature of Islam and it’s incompatibility with the West. Deportations (no matter how necessary) were successfully cast, long ago, as the kind of thing that only outright racists want, so Farage is terrified of being associated with that policy. Criticising Islam or any other alien culture also ensures an immediate pile on and erasure with campaigns portraying anyone doing this as rabid and dangerous. So that too is avoided.

In recent months Farage, Tice, Anderson and other Reform figures have declared that they oppose mass immigration….but are unconcerned about demographic change. They have stated that Britain is changing for the worse….but that the most obvious demographic group behind some of the worst changes, Britain’s Muslims, will inevitably become the majority and it’s a good thing that they will. Farage says both that any serious level of deportation is impossible (it isn’t) and that Islam is here to stay, will inevitably become the majority, and needs to be courted and accommodated (all of which is only true if you take a coward’s path in response to it). Tice talks about immigration control but also says he’s unconcerned by demographic changes as he won’t be alive when whites are the minority in the UK.

Reform therefore act as the rebellious alternative to the mainstream, but strictly limit their opposition to immigration in safe ways and by avoiding the obvious associated demographic, racial and cultural issues surrounding mass immigration. This central cautious dishonesty looks increasingly threadbare when rapid demographic change underpins the most shocking crimes and injustices of recent years. White working class voters who have turned to Reform after the main parties made it very clear that they don’t care about white working class children being gang raped are not going to have infinite patience for ‘nothing can be done about your replacement’ comments from Reform leaders who they are expecting to finally give them some political protection. The truth is you can only separate race from mass immigration and cultural evils introduced by mass immigration if you are fundamentally dishonest about the issues involved.

Can anyone deal with terrorism coming almost exclusively from Muslims, and the gang rape of white children being very much a race issue for both the rapists and their victims, while pretending that whites becoming a minority and crimes towards whites from imported populations with alien values are somehow separate things? Not without lying to the public in very similar ways to the mainstream parties you are trying to replace. Reform are clearly running scared of being called racists, and that’s not a strong position to be in when any real and serious opposition to mass immigration will require recognition of the way in which race has factored in all this with the white majority as the obvious victims and with rapid racial replacement being inextricably linked to the most shocking and evil consequences of uncontrolled and unchallenged mass immigration.

Getting that balance where they want it and where Farage and Tice think they hit the sweet spot of being populist enough to draw in the disillusioned without being too populist and scaring off the money men and more conformist or programmed voters requires strict Party control of messaging-hence, in part, it’s that messaging balance and concern for how the Party appears to others that explains all of Reform’s internal battles. There’s a vicious circle whereby Farage and Tice think they have to very strictly control the message in order to win, which causes them to frustrate and alienate some of the people that work for them, these frustrations are aired, and then Reform oust the off-message figures while apparently bemused as to why their dictatorially controlled and policed members should chafe under restrictions that prevent them from telling the truth….in a party that sells itself as the more democratic, more courageous and more freedom loving alternative to the main parties.

Throughout these internal battles Goodwin as a semi-acknowledged key policy advisor for Reform has strongly backed the Party leadership, somewhat selectively couching his polling analysis to ‘prove’ that deportations are a minority issue vote loser and being honest about Islam is also an electoral dead-end. Goodwin has essentially set out evidence to try to make deportation not a correct reaction to an urgent problem but a presentational own goal that would render Reform an unserious party lacking in professionalism. Reform’s continued good performance in polling has been cited by Goodwin to suggest most voters don’t care for the firmer approach outlined by Lowe. This ignores of course just how much Reform’s appeal rests in not being the Labour Party and not being the Conservative Party. It’s very possible, for instance, that being even more NOT the mainstream parties by being as honest as Lowe is would have seen Reform support doing even more strongly than it is at present.

In some of his Substack articles though, Goodwin is more honest on the links between negative experience, social breakdown, national decline and the Great Replacement of the white majority. Specifically, Goodwin has strayed somewhat into the precise territory Reform have been self-policing against, the areas related to mass immigration that Tice and Farage either want to not talk about at all, or quickly dismiss with versions of ‘it’s unstoppable, and nothing to worry about’. Goodwin is an academic background polling expert rather than a working class demagogue, so there’s a certain inherent safeness in how he phrases things and a distinct lack of fiery or passionate rhetoric in how he presents information. Unlike Lowe on deportations or Habib on party democracy, his commentary is not an obvious challenge to the leadership and not something that immediately threatens the Reform leadership embargo on people and topics that could be attacked as ‘far right’.

But in his own dry fashion Goodwin is quietly contradicting the things he has explicitly promoted in being a Farage loyalist who considers an omertà on race issues as a mark of serious professionalism. Because his responses to recently released ONS data on demographic change make it abundantly clear that the Reform position has been as dishonest on this as the positions of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been. In his piece titled Wow. Bombshell numbers show how fast the UK population is changing Goodwin can’t help but acknowledge the significance of what Reform pretends doesn’t matter: that white replacement is real, it’s rapid, and it cannot help but bring with it fundamental, existential cultural and social changes. The key realities are now unavoidable to anyone being in the least bit honest:

“Let’s begin with the key headline finding, which is that, today, more than one in three babies in England and Wales have mothers who were not born in the United Kingdom.

In England, astonishingly, more than 40 per cent of all babies born last year have at least one foreign-born parent, which is up nearly ten points in less than a decade.

This figure has never been as high and reveals how quickly the country is being reshaped around a population that has much shorter or “thinner” links to the UK, a point I will elaborate on later.

And where do the foreign-born hail from?

Well, if you look at the top ten countries of birth for mothers in the UK who were not born in the UK then the vast majority hail from outside Europe —from culturally different if not, in some cases, culturally incompatible nations.

In descending rank order, the top ten are India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Romania, Bangladesh, Poland, Ghana, Afghanistan, Albania, and, in what is a new entrant, Iraq.”

What needs recalling even with these figures is that this is the result when the whole country is considered-in the metropolitan centres where most immigrants settle first, the changes are of course much more advanced. In London the white populace is around the 30% mark. In Birmingham the city is non white, and distinctly Muslim. All the towns in the Midlands and North which have been grooming gang centres of course display the same reality. All of these places elect Labour MPs and Muslim Mayors because the Labour Party aligned its fortunes with imams and the Muslim block vote, as evidenced by the number of Labour representatives whose activist ‘local support’ has simply been squads of Muslim men with not a female or white leaflet deliverer among them.

Of the top ten nations the ONS and Goodwin cite as providing much of Britain’s modern immigration, only three are European (and all of those Eastern European). Only two of these nations have any positive economic indicators at home, and one of those, Nigeria, is seeing severe terrorism problems and Muslim slaughter of Christians in parts of the nation. Poland, the ‘whitest’ of these nations and the most culturally European of them, stands out as the safest and most successful of these nations. Indian immigrants to the UK share some cultural ties from the days of Empire, and Nigerian Christians do likewise, but the majority on the list are failing nations with alien values. These aren’t nations, in the main, that are going to be providing high skilled workers from culturally similar places that display enlightened attitudes on things like female rights or sexual consent. At best most of these immigrants will be low skilled workers who depress wages. At a middling level many will be net economic drains who soak up welfare provisions without contributing anything worthwhile. And some, of course, and at much higher rates than your existing populace, will be criminals and people possessed of extremely backwards, violent, antisocial or malign attitudes and behaviours.

Goodwin’s language on this is lot more circumspect and cautious than mine. But read between the lines on this statement:

“I wrote recently about how, unless things change —and change fast—the United Kingdom will be completely and permanently transformed in the decades ahead…This, too, points to the likely acceleration of some very profound social, economic, and cultural challenges as the UK navigates this rapid demographic change in the years ahead….”

“Profound social, economic, and cultural challenges” and “permanent alteration” are the polite academic pollsters way of saying Things Can Only Get Worse. The economy will be a mess. Infrastructure will fail to cope. First World conditions will become Third World ones, just as a First World white population is entirely replaced by a mixed, often division and hate ridden, confusing patchwork of rival religions, races and identities. Britain will be self-Balkanised, with all the consequences for peace, security and prosperity that plonking people from alien cultures who hate each other together in close proximity entails.

In many ways, we are already there. Goodwin’s data and ONS data confirms what we already experience and know. Nations which rapidly import from failing nations themselves begin to fail. Culture issues and race issues are inevitably connected. And it’s accelerating-20 years ago the estimate was that the year 2100 would see whites as the minority. Today whites are already the minority in many cities and the estimate of that being true everywhere is around 2060 rather than 2100. When we were told whites would be the minority by 2100, net migration was at 185,000 arrivals a year-today it’s called a triumph if it’s less than 500,000 and hovers around a million arrivals per year. White replacement means massive social problems and more crime, more violence, more spending and more infrastructure collapse.

You can’t wish away the truth on these things and pretend that rapid demographic replacement doesn’t obliterate social trust and existing values and make life worse in every way for your declining majority.

It’s good that Goodwin is at least honest enough to share this data and tell us it matters. That is better than Farage or Tice. But if Goodwin was honest enough to say what I’ve just said (and what the data he is referencing really means) then it’s likely he’d be the next person purged from the Reform ranks.

---

This article (Reform Attitudes and an Update on The Great Replacement) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: x.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.