Matt Goodwin

The Projections: Goodwin and his report predict that by 2050, the "white British" population will drop from roughly 73% to 57%, becoming a minority around 2063.

Controversy and Accuracy: Critics, including researchers at Hope Not Hate and various media commentators, argue that Goodwin's methodology exaggerates these trends by using a narrow definition of "white British" and by presenting high-migration scenarios as inevitable, often with a political focus.
Alternative Viewpoints: Other analysts suggest these findings are an attempt to influence the debate on immigration rather than an objective academic consensus, sometimes pointing to misinterpretations of data regarding ethnic composition in schools or social housing.

The 33% Figure: According to, projections indicate the combined foreign-born and second-generation population could rise to 33.5% by 2050, not necessarily that the white British population will drop to 33%.
Centre of Heterodox Social Science
+3

In summary, Goodwin’s figures are based on specific, high-migration trend modelling that differs from some official ONS projections, leading to intense debate over their accuracy and interpretation.
HOPE not hate
+1

twaddle

Somebody on this thread asked what post-literate means. We have some striking examples in the above few posts. Words no longer have any coherent meaning.

They certainly do have a cogent meaning.

I am going to leave all you scoffers to yourselves, congratulate yourselves all you want on how liberal you all are.

The book forecasts that by the end of the century white British population will slump to just 33% of the entire country. I assume that all the scoffing posters here are entirely happy about that.

👋🏼👋🏼👋🏼👋🏼👋🏼

Somebody on this thread asked what post-literate means. We have some striking examples in the above few posts. Words no longer have any coherent meaning.

‘A new ruling class in Westminster intoxicated by a distorted moral code- and willing to sacrifice our national continuity to uphold it’

‘Suicidal empathy. It is the belief that extending limitless sympathy to outsiders is the highest form of goodness, even when doing so harms your own people.’

Maybe you could explain in plain English, with some specific examples, what you think that introduction means.

It has started well

‘For decades, the institutions that once embodied our nation - Parliament, the Civil Service, the courts, the police, the BBC, the universities, the schools, the museums- have drifted away from the public they exist to serve. They no longer protect our interests, they merely perform a morality play for one another’

sixandahalf

Chocolatelovinggran

I am given to understand that in this book, it is stated that, in Kent, 51% of pupils do not have English as their first language.
I hope that this is not what is said, as the correct percentage is 7.8%.
Perhaps I have been misinformed.

You seem pretty on the ball to me ( if I make so bold)

So possibly the author is telling big fat lies to support his offensive and racist views?

Lies, sixandahalf? Surely not..😱.😂

Chocolatelovinggran

I am given to understand that in this book, it is stated that, in Kent, 51% of pupils do not have English as their first language.
I hope that this is not what is said, as the correct percentage is 7.8%.
Perhaps I have been misinformed.

You seem pretty on the ball to me ( if I make so bold)

So possibly the author is telling big fat lies to support his offensive and racist views?

Chocolatelovinggran

I am given to understand that in this book, it is stated that, in Kent, 51% of pupils do not have English as their first language.
I hope that this is not what is said, as the correct percentage is 7.8%.
Perhaps I have been misinformed.

I am given to understand that in this book, it is stated that, in Kent, 51% of pupils do not have English as their first language.
I hope that this is not what is said, as the correct percentage is 7.8%.
Perhaps I have been misinformed.

It seems to be modern rhetoric for older views.

The Nazis believed in the idea of the Volk; people defined by shared ancestry (“blood”), not by shared culture, language, or political values. A “true German” was someone of so-called “Aryan” descent. Culture (language, customs, education) was seen as an expression of that racial essence - not something you could adopt to become part of it. A key example is how German Jews were treated. Many were fully assimilated, German-speaking, culturally integrated, often patriotic. Under Nazi ideology, this didn’t matter; they were still classified as non-German by ancestry.

In most modern states, there’s at least some path (in principle) to belonging through:
learning the language
adopting customs
long-term residence

Nazism explicitly rejected this idea. You could not “become” German through culture or loyalty. Identity was fixed at birth and inherited biologically.

Maizie is right when she says "indigenous white Brits' (is) a completely idiotic concept, given our history", but it was idiotic for the same reasons when the nazis applied it and when tranches of Americans try to apply it. In both cases people found and are finding that this view is one that does not allow even them to be German, British or American in the eyes of those who hold this belief.

Casdon

I take it to mean what Goodwin would consider ‘people like me’. I doubt if much self analysis was undertaken.

Well, 'indigenous white Brits' a completely idiotic concept, given our history , and I am amazed that people are taken in by it.

I take it to mean what Goodwin would consider ‘people like me’. I doubt if much self analysis was undertaken.

I'm so fascinated by this concept of the 'indigenous population'.

Surely our 'indigenous population' are the celts, the picts and the scots? Not really a great many of them left now after the time when our truly 'open borders' let in waves of Germans, Scandinavians, and Norman French... not to ,mention other interlopers over the centuries, French Huguenots, escapees from the French Revolution, White Prussians (there was quite a big enclave of them up here in the NE in the late 19thC) , not to mention the effects of 'mixed marriages' as a result of Empire'.

Though I perhaps I shouldn't mention them because, of course, all the previous infiltrations were by white foreigners, whereas the Empire infiltrations did bring in some not completely white additions to the population and it is clearly the 'not completely whiteness' of some of the UK population which is bothering these folks...

My underlying question is , I think, WTF is 'indigenous' about our white population?

Graphite

Yes, from Ben Bridges, big fan of the serial liar and creator of AI-generated fake news, Reform councillor Darren Grimes.

What did you expect him to say?

What he writes is not necessarily untrue though, regardless of who he supports.

LemonJam

What did you make of that review Meandrogog compared to all the other reviews such that you decided to share?

The author of that review is not sure he/ she agrees with the views of Matt Goodwin as put forward which is interesting. In fairness you have not read the book yet but for me that review was not clear and not a fully positive endorsement. You may form a clearer view once you’ve read your copy and be able to offer greater clarity on the issues that reviewer raises ie Matt Godwin’s position and evidence base once you’ve read the book - eg:
1) I wonder who Matt Goodwin belived forms “ the ruling classes” referred to?
2) over what time period he refers to?
3) in what way he believes these ruling classes prioritised “foreigners” over “its own population?”
4) who or what does MG believe is the UK”s “own population”?
5) what on earth does MG mean by “suicidal empathy”?
6) what does MG state constitutes the Uk “decline” and in what way can that be specifically attributed to “foreigners”?
7) in what way did the powers that be” “purposely” create ” this decline?
7) in what way did Matt Goodwin say the UK acted in this way to present “ virtuous compassion on the world stage?
8) what does Matt Goodwin define as “endless wing propaganda” compared to his “ right wing propaganda”?
9) who does Matt Goodwin believe is “gas lighting” the people and in what way specifically?
10) who or what is/ was” undemocratic and traitor ish” according to Matt Goodwin?

Once I have read the book I will try to answer your post.

What did you make of that review Meandrogog compared to all the other reviews such that you decided to share?

The author of that review is not sure he/ she agrees with the views of Matt Goodwin as put forward which is interesting. In fairness you have not read the book yet but for me that review was not clear and not a fully positive endorsement. You may form a clearer view once you’ve read your copy and be able to offer greater clarity on the issues that reviewer raises ie Matt Godwin’s position and evidence base once you’ve read the book - eg:
1) I wonder who Matt Goodwin belived forms “ the ruling classes” referred to?
2) over what time period he refers to?
3) in what way he believes these ruling classes prioritised “foreigners” over “its own population?”
4) who or what does MG believe is the UK”s “own population”?
5) what on earth does MG mean by “suicidal empathy”?
6) what does MG state constitutes the Uk “decline” and in what way can that be specifically attributed to “foreigners”?
7) in what way did the powers that be” “purposely” create ” this decline?
7) in what way did Matt Goodwin say the UK acted in this way to present “ virtuous compassion on the world stage?
8) what does Matt Goodwin define as “endless wing propaganda” compared to his “ right wing propaganda”?
9) who does Matt Goodwin believe is “gas lighting” the people and in what way specifically?
10) who or what is/ was” undemocratic and traitor ish” according to Matt Goodwin?

Yes, from Ben Bridges, big fan of the serial liar and creator of AI-generated fake news, Reform councillor Darren Grimes.

What did you expect him to say?

Amazon review:

I am in no way surprised that Matt Goodwin’s book has generated so many deliberately negative reviews on these pages. The ruling class has prioritised foreigners over its own people for many years now, even though that prioritisation will eventually lead to the decline and near-disappearance of the indigenous population. I am not entirely sure that I agree with Matt’s view that all this has been done in the name of ‘suicidal empathy’-that the powers that be have created this decline in Britain in order to look virtuous and compassionate on the world stage- but uncontrolled immigration has been allowed deliberately, and though its clear that open borders have been a disaster, that diversity is anything but strength for Britain, or indeed the world, the Left continues with its endless propaganda. Essentially attempting to gaslight the people into believing that everything is just tickety-boo and there is nothing untoward to see here- hence the number of negative reviews you find here. The truth is - this is a conversation we need to have before the White British are relegated to the history books. It is undemocratic and traitorous and Matt Goodwin has all the facts and statistics to back it up.

LemonJam

Would be interested to hear, should you choose to share your critique of the book, whether you agree with the critiques as set out in the links provided and the (current) 71% one star reviews on Amazon...

I will be sure to.

Would be interested to hear, should you choose to share your critique of the book, whether you agree with the critiques as set out in the links provided and the (current) 71% one star reviews on Amazon...

Meandrogog 18.24: "I have just received the book. What does post literate mean?"

Wikipedia sets out an explanation if Matt Goodwin's book is not helpful.....

I have just received the book. What does post literate mean?

Are Posters suggesting that outdoor Carol Singing be banned? In our town they are out on the streets collecting money for whatever charity, during the appropriate season.