Am I a terrorist?
How the British state views opposition to mass immigration as an indicator of "terrorist ideology"
Matt Goodwin’s newsletter goes to 79,800 subscribers from 181 countries. Like our stuff? Then for the equivalent of buying us a pint become a paying supporter. Help us make a difference while gaining access to the full archive, exclusive posts, events, discounts, comments and the knowledge you’re supporting independent writers who are pushing back. You can join us on YouTube, Insta, TikTok, X and Facebook.
People who feel concerned about how mass immigration is transforming the West are supporting “terrorist ideology”.
That’s the bombshell revelation from government documents this weekend, analysed by The Telegraph, which suggest people who oppose mass immigration and believe rapid demographic change threaten Western culture could be at risk of terrorism and require “anti-radicalisation”.
Astonishingly, a Prevent training course mentions “cultural nationalism” —encompassing the conviction “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups”—as a “sub-category” of what it calls “extreme right-wing terrorist ideologies and their narratives”.
And, even more astonishingly, these terms have now become so broad they could not only include the likes of shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, but also, um, me!
Yes, that’s right.
“Others at risk of being labelled extremists”, The Telegraph writes, “could include Douglas Murray, the bestselling author, who was written extensively on migration, as well as Matthew Goodwin”.
Well, there it is folks.
In the best case scenario, I could soon be referred to a ‘de-radicalisation’ programme because, according to the British state, my evidence-based critique of mass immigration makes me a potential terrorist; or, in the worst case scenario, I could soon be locked up behind bars, having to dictate future Substack posts to my assistant Archie down the prison phone.
Sorry, but are these people insane? Has the British state officially lost the plot?
Are we seriously supposed to believe that the millions of people out there who oppose the very deliberate and failing policies of mass uncontrolled immigration and broken borders —about 70 per cent of the country—are all potential “right-wing extremists” and followers of “terrorist ideology”?
That the real extremists here are not the elite minority who are imposing radical policies on the country that only 10-13% of its people support but are, instead, the millions of citizens who are openly saying they do not want mass immigration?
Make no mistake. What all this reflects is two things that should deeply concern all democrats —and not only because they could soon ruin the lives, careers, and reputations of those who are brave enough to represent views that challenge the stifling orthodoxy.
Firstly, it’s now becoming crystal clear that the British state and its counter-terrorism Prevent programme —a programme which, remember, failed to stop Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana— is rapidly moving away from focusing on people’s behaviour to focus more on their ideology, beliefs, and attitudes, treating these as potential risk indicators.
What security officials, politicians, and hapless civil servants are now trying to do is engage in ‘concept creep’ —broadening out definitions, concepts, and terms to such an extent they encompass entirely legitimate beliefs that are held widely across society but which the state considers to be “wrong”, “troubling”, “problematic” or “controversial”, not least because they challenge the elite consensus.
As Lord (Toby) Young pointed out to Labour’s Home Secretary Yvette Cooper this weekend, the definitions of “extremism” and “terrorism” that are now being used in these state training courses have become so expansive they “include individuals whose views are entirely lawful but politically controversial”.
Indeed. The state’s definition of words like “extremism”, “terrorism”, and “narrative” have been inflated to such an extent they could now even include a press release from Keir Starmer’s team in Number 10, which only last month referenced “Britain’s failed experiment in open borders”.
As Lord Young continues:
“Now that ‘cultural nationalism’ has been classified as a subcategory of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, even mainstream, Right-of-centre beliefs risk being treated as ideologically suspect, despite falling well within the bounds of lawful expression.
Topics captured under the Prevent category of ‘cultural nationalism’ include widely held views, ranging from concerns about immigration and social cohesion to the belief that integration should be a policy priority, and that shared cultural norms help sustain a liberal society.”
Which brings us to the second reason why we should all feel deeply concerned about the current direction of travel.
What the Prevent guidance symbolises, more broadly, is a concerted attempt by the ruling class to try and steer, influence, police, and control the parameters of what is —and what is not—considered acceptable conversation in this country.
This latest example is not happening in a vacuum. Far from it. As we’ve tracked in detail, in this newsletter, it comes after the expansion of the deeply Orwellian ‘non-crime hate incidents’, the arrival of a new definition of ‘Islamophobia’, the imposition of vague ‘hate laws’, and the growing willingness of self-styled ‘liberal’ Labour politicians to brand anybody who disagrees with their views on mass immigration, the small boats, and Pakistani Muslim rape gangs as “far right”.
Longer-term readers will also remember our piece, back in January, titled “Are we all extremists now?”, in which I pointed to how a leaked Home Office report had similarly called on the government to expand “non-crime hate incidents”.
Those leaked documents —as I wrote at the time— also made it clear state officials now view public claims of “two-tier policing” as part of a “right-wing extremist narrative”, the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs a problem “exploited by the far-Right”, rather than a legitimate problem in its own right, and consider the “spreading of misinformation” to be “extremism”.
But who decides what counts as “misinformation” or “disinformation”, you might ask?
Well, the state does —the same state, as we’ve shown, that’s been hiding, concealing, or downplaying information that runs counter to what we might call the Officially Approved Narrative among the elite class—a narrative that says you can only discuss the positives of migration, multiculturalism, and diversity and cannot criticise them or mobilise any kind of opposition to this dreary orthodoxy.
Accusations of “misinformation”, “disinformation”, or “post-truth” politics are now routinely thrown around by elites to try and police the public square, especially when debates touch on things the state would rather we not discuss, such as the disastrous effects of mass migration, gender ideology, and Islamism.
Furthermore, state actors now routinely accuses citizens of misinformation, repeatedly, while simultaneously refusing to share information with them about how state policies, including mass migration and broken borders, are changing the country around them.
Take crime, for example. The state simply refuses to tell citizens how mass migration is impacting levels of crime and so independent researchers had to force this information out of the state through freedom of information requests, finding, by the way, that, yes, mass migration is driving crime, especially sexual assaults.
And now, the same state that’s concealing this information accuses citizens who voice these concerns of not only suffering from “misinformation” but potentially being at risk of becoming a terrorist. It is absurd. The whole thing is completely and utterly absurd.
As I said in January, what all this adds up to is a concerted effort by members of the elite class to redefine “extremism” --to make terms like this so broad and vague they encompass counter-cultural views that can then be stigmatised, removed from the public square, and, in the end, shut down.
If you can officially re-categorise the many people who openly oppose what are actually extreme policies —like imposing mass uncontrolled immigration on a people who do not want it, refusing to control their borders and keep people safe, or trying to medically transform little boys into little girls and little girls into little boys— as “extremists”, then you can remove or silence public opposition to your project.
Opposed to mass immigration? Sceptical of multiculturalism? Coming round to the view that maybe Islam might not be fully compatible with liberal Western societies?
Reaching the conclusion that our legal and judicial authorities are more lenient toward some groups over others? Angry about the mass rape of hundreds of thousands of our own children and the failure of state officials to do anything about it?
Telling other people that allowing more than 160,000 young, male, and often Muslim migrants from who knows where and who believe who knows what into our country illegally might not be a good idea?
Well, then, as I’ve said before and will say again —congratulations! Because, like me, you’ve now been officially designated a “right-wing extremist” who is at risk of becoming a terrorist.
Which means we will either be holding our next Substack party after we are all forced to attend a “de-radicalisation” training course, or, alternatively, behind bars. Who knows, they might even let actual terrorists out of prison to make room for us.
No you aren’t, but you ARE a patriot, trying your very best to push back against the Stalinist state that we are currently trapped within. I fear it has yet to peak, but its foundations ARE crumbling. Thanks for your courage and determination Matt.
You are right Matt, it is absurd and it’s getting more absurd by the day. The state is pushing their fallacious narrative so far it’s becoming a joke. Their leftist progressivism is scrambling their brains. The danger is, of course, whilst they are tilting at fictitious far right windmills the real threat to our society is getting a free pass.