After I get all the text up I’ll contact British Renaissance to to see if they can help out with the garbled bits.

Now, one of the underlying questions we must ask is to what extent can we make generalisations about people? I expect we’ve all heard this, people are always prepared to tell us “You can’t make generalisations.” It’s quite untrue, we can. Indeed insurance companies make a great deal of money out of making generalisations whenever we take out a policy. It might be generalisations about age, about occupation, about lifestyle or whatever but one thing they don’t make generalisations about is ethnicity ???. The one thing we must bear in mind about generalisations is that once you can make a broad generalisation you can’t apply them to all of the population. So you can’t say because a disproportionate number of people are this then they all are, that’s untrue and unfair. Recently the London Metropolitan police reverted to a policy they had many decades ago and actually released figures which show which populations are committing which offences disproportionately and it has been found that London’s Afro-Caribbean population is disproportionately involved in street crime. Muggings, assault with intent to rob, ??? and so on. Indeed 54% of those prosecuted in the London area for those offences were Afro-Caribbeans whereas they only make up, according to the Metropolitan police, 12% of the population of London. More alarmingly perhaps, they were 67% of those prosecuted for gun crime and knife crime though it ought to be remembered that they are also disproportionately the victims which ??? there is a lot of black on black crime. Now in case people think I’m being terribly unfair, I’m going to stress absolutely, disproportionately means just what it says. It doesn’t mean that all or a majority of the black population is involved. It doesn’t mean you can turn percentages on their head and say “Because 67% of those prosecuted for gun and knife crime are Afro-Caribbeans that 67% of Afro-Caribbeans are committing that”, that is indeed quite untrue and of course quite unfair. It simply means that the proportion prosecuted in that ethnic minority is considerably greater, in many cases many fold greater, five times greater in the case of gun and knife crime, than their position in the proportions of population. Now the next question you might ask is why? Well purists of the liberal persuasion, there are many of those on the internet, the lead figures, have concluded that it’s all the fault of the long history of imperialism on one hand, and discrimination on the other. Fairly predictable and as ??? a hypothesis, ought to be looked at but of course it would be difficult, I suspect deliberately difficult, to evaluate. The physical anthropologist John Philippe Rushton, now the late anthropologist, considered this general question in his ??? figures and he said that it’s down to genetic factors and the ???. Now this problem of underlying ideas isn’t just in areas of race and ethnicity, it covers a whole range of government policy. Just as one example, the question of whether there ought to be selective or comprehensive secondary education and it shouldn’t be an emotive question, self interest question or what Wilson would call a pragmatic question. The choice between selective and comprehensive education depends on a simple question: Do you attribute differences in ability primarily to differences in heredity or differences in environment? If you choose the former you arrive at one policy, if you prefer the second then you arrive at a different one. We can also apply it to problems of criminality among the population as a whole and more often ??? the differences when a particularly unpleasant crime is committed you generally get an expert on television and on radio and the question they ask is “What made this person do this incredible thing?”. Now it isn’t so much that the hypothesis of people being born criminal is considered and rejected, I’m afraid the hypothesis isn’t considered at all. It’s just wiped out of the picture. I’ve heard radio and television programs in which the expert’s being questioned and is allowed to say without any challenge or even question from the interviewer something along these lines: “It’s not as if people were born criminal.” We don’t know that. We haven’t asked it. And they go on and say “We have to find out what was in their background to make them as they were.” We could just as importantly and I suggest more importantly, “What was there in the criminal’s family background, his ancestry to make him as he is?” I’ll give you a particular example of this. We’re in Southport just on the edge of Merseyside, we’ll call it Merseyside. In 2010, you might remember this case, an 11 year old, a chap called Rhys Jones was riding his bicycle around a park. Then another bicycle drew up, on it was a 16 year old who had a Smith & Wesson. He wasn’t black, this isn’t a case of the question of race, he was a member of a gang and he fired three times and killed him. They eventually caught Mercer and he was put on trial and found guilty of murder, and again the inquiry went into operation: “What made this boy do this dreadful thing?”. And then one little fact emerged, ??? Mercer’s great grandfather had himself been hanged for murder. ??? It could easily have been a case in which the question of heredity might not be considered. Now, the political class, let’s get back to it and back to the question of ethnicity. ??? Particularly in using the word ‘culture’ when it means ethnicity. So when they talk about, you know, the West Indies ??? they are talking about people from a West Indian culture, and Afro-Caribbean culture. And then it goes on to when it comes to the definition of the nation ??? what they were, in fact there are no, in the West at least, heterogeneous ??? and they claim that the thing that holds them together is subscription to common values, in our case British values, more accurately what they really mean is liberal values but let’s leave that on one side. Now, if you were to ask an Eastern European about nationality they will tell you that nationality is based on heredity as it used to be in this country. Citizenship is quite different. Citizenship is a legal status and it’s rather telling that even at the height of the Marxist Soviet Union on a person’s identity documents or their passport they would say Soviet citizen but they also mention a person’s nationality which might have been Ukrainian, might have been Russian, might have been Georgian, might have been Jewish which was also a recognised nationality. Now the narrative that the political class tells us or perhaps it’s the one that’s been given to them by ??? is that culture is a sort of loose fitting garment and as people arrive at the airport of choice, port of choice, we take their outer garment off, their cultural overcoat, their cultural jacket, and they put on a British jacket, a German or French jacket and they breath in a few gasps of British air and in that way imbibe British values, in no time with their new coat or overcoat, and with various imbibed British values they are as British as anybody here. Not. It sounds very nice but of course, as you know, it’s nonsense. Culture isn’t a small additional garment that can be taken off and tucked in one’s ???. It’s the product of ancestry. It’s not a fashion accessory that you can pick up and down. I would say that the culture of the ??? that is the collective personality of the people, is indelibly imprinted in the individual like the lettering ???. In fact, as some ???, distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples. If you bring people in the third world to Britain they don’t, after putting on their new jackets, and breathing in British values, they do not become British, they turn us, Britain, into the third world. If you accept that as the first principle you won’t become a victim of those who ??? like the Mead’s and the ???. Only those who are too idle to have their own ideas ought to consider their own ideas, or the ideas ??? and be forced or persuaded to accept the more sensible ideas of others. Thank you.

Very much appreciated Kirk!

Audience member: Religious?

It’s a thing that you deny being in the middle of a sentence when you suddenly find yourself talking sense and truth and you have to stop yourself by saying

Audience: “Mind you, I’m not a racist.”

And again, go on, louder.

Audience: “Mind you, I’m not a racist.”

That’s right. Now, politicians are not known for their religiosity. They do like to be liked and they like to be thought to be nice people. They like to be thought to be altruistic people. So they sometimes go through the motions of embracing Christianity, especially Christianity under the doctrine of ‘St. Justin Welby’. You might have heard of him, the Archbishop of Canterbury, because he really wants us to treat the whole world with the same ???unvalued??? kindness, not actually possible. Where it’s ??? about all of this confusion about race and ethnicity is that politicians are prey to the paucities of the social anthropologists. “Who are they?” you might say. Well, their founder was one Franz Boas and his first disciple was one Margaret Mead. Their statement, their belief is that all peoples on earth are fundamentally the same except for differences in culture and those differences in culture can be changed very quickly in the short term. Now of course, if you accept that nonsense, and many of the political class have indeed accepted it, you can very easily be persuaded that immigration is simply about numbers. Not about the particular peoples who are coming in but about, purely, the numbers. And indeed, you very quickly get drawn into the question of net immigration or measuring net immigration, the excess of immigrants over emigrants and you blind yourself to the fact that the ones who are going out are our people and the ones who are coming in are not. That is rather an important point they missed out. Of course the truth is the differences between population groups <> are inherited and indelible. They are not transient and easily changed. If you change the population of the country by importing large numbers of quite different people from outside it isn’t that the new comers take on the culture of the host country, they turn the culture of the host country into theirs. Now, allowing all and sundry to come and live in our country is not, as ‘St. Justin of Welby’ would like to claim, is not being kind and fair to everybody, it’s being very unkind, very unfair to our people and more important than that, to our descendants. In fact, avoiding abstract thought, avoiding considering the basis on which policies are based makes you very susceptible to the demands of those, like the Margaret Mead’s and their successors, who put a lot of thought into their words and deeds and don’t have altruistic ideas towards us. Indeed a lot of people who avoid ideology and abstract thought, people like Harrington and so on, they would like to think of themselves as being terribly practical and down to earth people but they are not practical and down to earth, they are stupid and they are malleable.

Thank you again Kirk! Much appreciated.