“OUR RESEARCH SHOWS THAT ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ANTI-MUSLIM POLICIES ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO APPEAL TO YOUNG PEOPLE.Thus spake Matthew Goodwin. Clearly a young man who believes that youth has all the answers and age and experience have none. This last sentence clearly signals the on-message media darling's own globalist credentials. Here we have yet another fanatically patronising social engineer utterly at odds with and uncaring of the indigenous majority’s wants and needs.
Just how receptive are British voters to the policies of the far right? The collapse of the British National party, and the failure of the English Defence League to connect with a wide audience, has led some to conclude that British voters, unlike their European neighbours, are somehow immune to the appeals of far right insurgents. Put simply, the failure of these groups reflects a lack of public demand for exclusionary policies, and an electorate that is largely turned off by the narrative of the far right…
In the aftermath of the Olympics, the Extremis Project worked with the polling agency YouGov to test this argument, and probe public attitudes toward far-right policies. We surveyed 1,725 British adults, and asked whether certain policies would make them more or less likely to support a political party, or whether these policies would make no difference to their choice at the ballot box…
The first key message is that despite the failure of the BNP and EDL, and the onset of economic crisis, LARGE NUMBERS OF VOTERS REMAIN OPEN TO THE CORE IDEAS OF THE FAR RIGHT.
Across Europe, the far right has recruited significant support by offering a combination of populist, anti-immigrant and increasingly anti-Muslim policies. Most of these parties promise voters that THEY WILL STAND UP TO BUSINESS AND POLITICAL ELITES, HALT ALL FURTHER IMMIGRATION, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF MUSLIMS OR THE PRESENCE OF ISLAM IN SOCIETY, AND PRIORITISE NATIVE VALUES OVER OTHER CULTURES. While the British far right has long lacked the sophistication and resonance of its continental counterparts, our survey suggests that LARGE NUMBERS OF VOTERS ARE RECEPTIVE TO THESE POLICIES.
Consider this: 66% OF RESPONDENTS IN OUR SURVEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT A PARTY THAT PROMISED TO STAND UP TO POLITICAL AND BUSINESS ELITES; 55% WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BACK A PARTY THAT PLEDGED TO PRIORITISE BRITISH VALUES OVER OTHER CULTURES; 41% WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT A PARTY THAT PLEDGED TO HALT ALL IMMIGRATION INTO THE UK; AND A STRIKING 37%… WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO ENDORSE A PARTY THAT PROMISED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF MUSLIMS IN BRITISH SOCIETY.
At first glance, these results may lead mainstream politicians to the conclusion that they would be well-positioned by appealing to these enduring concerns over immigration and diversity… But our findings also contain a second key message, which is that there exists a sharp generational divide in our attitudes toward these issues.
Whereas older generations… appear relatively clear and resolute in their desire for a party that adopts a tough, populist stance toward elites, immigration, Muslims and British values, younger Britons are significantly less favourable toward this narrative.
Whereas over half (54%) of those aged 60 or above would be more likely to shift behind an explicitly anti-immigrant party, less than one quarter (23%) of the 18- to 24-year-olds in our sample would be swayed by this position, while exactly three-fifths of these younger respondents would be "less likely" to support this party, or say the policy would make no difference. Similarly, whereas over two-thirds (68%) of those aged 60 or above would be more likely to turn out for a party that promised to prioritise British values over other cultures, less than a third (32%) of the 18- to 24-year-olds adopt the same view. This extends to attitudes toward a party that pledged to reduce the number of Muslims: while almost half (49%) of the over-60s would be more likely to back a movement that pushed this message, the equivalent figure among 18- to 24-year-olds is 27%.
These findings are supported by research in sociology, which similarly points to a sharp generational decline in support for crude forms of racial prejudice… Seen at a broad level, "THE CHALLENGE IS TO AVOID A SHORT-TERM AND KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO THE OLDER, ANGRIER AND MORE HOSTILE GENERATIONS, AND THINK ABOUT HOW BEST TO SUPPORT THE ‘RISE OF THE TOLERANTS,’ AND CHANNEL THESE MORE ACCEPTING GENERATIONS INTO THE POLITICAL PROCESS.”
The weight of policy during the course of the last half century has been uniformly global. In respect of immigration, time and time again, the supposed democrats of the western world put two fingers up at those who voted them into power and did precisely as they pleased. The flooding of this country with undesirables (from the native point of view) has continued, with ever-growing intensity, despite the anxieties of the host community.
The ‘older, angrier’ ‘knee-jerk’ generations were once, themselves, young. It should always be remembered that the Matthew Goodwins of the time were doing their damnedest to ‘avoid’ what we angry Brits and our even angrier elders, wanted back then, just as they do so now.
‘Our research shows that anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim policies are much less likely to appeal to young people,’ says MG. That would be ‘OUR RESEARCH.’ You know, the Guardianista, gated community, leafy suburbian, 'your comments are being premoderated' (mine are always deleted) research, one presumes.
Also, amongst the youth of this country, there are many more with an immigrant pedigree than there are in old folks homes. So this section of the population would be much more likely to be keen on immigrant-friendly policies. Also, the young know less than the old. They haven't been around as long and are much more susceptible to the brainwash as a result.
As regards said brainwash, the young have been subject to it all their lives and, for them, spin, lie, political correctness and lack of enquiry is normal. And, as time has moved on, the New World Order's globalist, anti-indigenous, pro-everything-else propaganda has become ever more forceful, intimidating and sophisticated. So it's not surprising that the younger members of our society would fall foul of it.
‘23% of the 18- to 24-year-olds' would be happy with a 'shift behind an explicitly anti-immigrant party?’ Given the establshment's aggressive immigrant-partial policies of the last fifty years, I find this statistic as heartening as it is surprising.
What interests me is this, why are the overall foreigner-unfriendly stats never reflected in the election results? Huge numbers of British people are still patriotically inclined it would seem. So why aren’t the BNP, the National Front et al doing much better than they are?
We all know the damage done by a remorseless media campaign to promote the alien and discredit the indigenous over the course of the last fifty years. But do we think the British elector and the Nationalist parties may have been systematically and CRIMINALLY defrauded over the course of the last half century?