British Renaissance:

 

 

Jez Turner and Andrew Brons

 

[With special Noisy Kid guest appearance!] 

 

Audio recorded at the first British Renaissance meeting

in Southport November 30th 2015.

 

 

Jez Turner

[10:11]

 

But with knowledge comes responsibility! Knowing the truth imposes obligations. And one, is the obligation to tell the truth, to spread the truth. And those that don’t, give their reasons, you know. They give various reasons for not spreading the truth, “I’m not sure, …”

But the real reason is, fear! Very real fear! Plain bourgeoisie cowards!

Because they want respectability at any cost. They are scared of being ostracised. Ostracised by worthless people, whose views are worthless. And they shouldn’t be afraid of being ostracised by such people.

There is no dishonor in being a political prisoner. The worst they can do to you is send you to prison. But, think about it, England’s second best play writing poet, Ben Jonson, went to prison three times for political reasons and it didn’t harm his respectability. It didn’t harm his popularity, he is still highly regarded.

So, going to prison is no big deal. But don’t expect any help from Amnesty International.

When, when David Irving was in prison in Austria for speaking the truth, Lady Michèle Renouf wrote to that particular organisation and said:

“Will you help David Irving?”

Their immortal reply was:

“We don’t!  [help “Holocaust” deniers!] We only help humans.”

 

[Image] Handcuffs are removed from historian David Irving before February 2006 trial

 

“Banged up“ — What I Went Through and Thought as a Political Prisoner in Austria

David Irving recalls his four hundred days in solitary confinement in Austria’s oldest jailhouse, convicted in 2005 under a 1945 Stalin-era law, because of a lecture on history that he had delivered sixteen years before.

Free book download here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Banged/

 

Now, this is an organisation that’s supposed to help non-violent political prisoners. It doesn’t help anyone “non-human”. We all know who founded that organisation, the same type I’m talking about here.*

 

* [In 1961, British lawyer Peter Benenson was outraged when two Portuguese students were jailed just for raising a toast to freedom. He wrote an article in The Observer newspaper and launched a campaign that provoked an incredible response. Reprinted in newspapers across the world, his call to action sparked the idea that people everywhere can unite in solidarity for justice and freedom. 

Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/ 

 

 

Peter Benenson (31 July 1921 – 25 February 2005) was a British lawyer and the founder of human rights group Amnesty International (AI). In 2001, Benenson received the Pride of Britain Award for Lifetime Achievement.

He was born in London as Peter James Henry Solomon, to a large Jewish family, the only son of Harold Solomon and Flora Benenson; Peter Benenson adopted his mother’s maiden name later in life. His army officer father died from a long-term injury when Benenson was aged nine, and he was tutored privately by W. H. Auden before going to Eton. At the age of sixteen he helped to establish a relief fund with other schoolboys for children orphaned by the Spanish Civil War. He took his mother’s maiden name of Benenson as a tribute to his grandfather, the Russian gold tycoon Grigori Benenson, following his grandfather’s death.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson]

 

Sometimes people say:

“Let’s do a deal with the you-know-who’s. Don’t mention them. And if you don’t mention them they’ll leave us alone.”

No! It’s enough to be against their agenda. It’s enough to be against the Jewish agenda. It’s enough to be against mass immigration, multi-racialism, multiculturalism, feminism, political correctness and cultural marxism, whatever. That’s enough to earn their hatred.

And last, we have the Freedom Party. A member of this party said to me:

“Look, we can’t get to power in Austria unless we reach an accommodation with the Jews. What do you think?”

I said:

“Well, you may get to power in Austria by reaching an accommodation with the Jews, but such power is not worth having!”

[applause]

Some people, because of the intense brainwashing, or because of the way they are, cannot say the truth. But, some of us have to tell the truth!

Any nation, any system, any government, any debate that does not allow criticism or debate of the Jews and their power, quite frankly, is a system in which the Jews have too much power!

[applause]

In ancient Rome, Cicero was a wonderful, powerful orator. A very influential man. Despite all his power and influence, he told a friend:

“When we criticise the Jews, we must whisper.”

We must whisper! And Cicero in four speeches denounced Catiline for his alleged attempts to overthrow the Roman Republic. There is a famous painting of this where Cicero harangues the Senate about the evil man over there and all the Senators are drifting away from him. And Catiline is left there, quite a young man, handsome, masculine, sitting alone, in splendid isolation, in grim dignity. And your sympathy is immediately with Catiline, when all these cowards leave him.

 

[Image – click to enlarge] Cicero Denounces Catiline, by Cesare Maccari (1889).

 

If the chief citizen, Cicero of the Roman Republic, didn’t dare criticise the Jews then the Roman Republic needed overthrowing. My sympathy is with Catiline. After all he was an impoverished aristocrat from a noble patrician family whose fortunes had declined, probably through borrowing some money.

 

[15:00]

 

So he understood the common people, their grievances and fears. He championed the cause of soldiers who had been promised land on retiring and were not given it. Catiline was intelligent, honourable and above all he was brave! And courage is the highest virtue. He left Rome after his encounter with Cicero.

Cicero worked for the people against him, all sycophants, all those who had their noses in the trough. But some Senators still went with him and he formed an army of ex-soldiers, the poor people of Rome. And they turned around and faced bravely the armies of Rome and they came to attack them. And Catiline and his followers fought and died bravely. But what was really going on here? Well, he was a trail blazer for Julius Caesar, with whom he shared many qualities.

Again, Julius Caesar was from a noble family, he was an impoverished aristocrat, he was intelligent, resourceful, and insanely brave. And both met similar fates!

 

[Image] Stephen Mitford Goodson

 

Now, if you read Stephen Mitford Goodson’s book, … Stephen Mitford Goodson, by the way, is a former member of the Federal Reserve Bank of South Africa, so he knows what he’s talking about. He said:

“Because both men, as were J. F. Kennedy, as were Abraham Lincoln, as were Colonel Gaddafi, as were Saddam Hussein, both men were opposed to the money system and the banking system of their time, and so were wiped out.”

 

[Image] A History of Central Banking by Stephen Mitford Goodson

See: Andrew Hitchcock with Dr Peter Hammond – “Remembering the Late Great Stephen Mitford Goodson!” — TRANSCRIPT

 

We must learn from such men. We must conspire like Catiline and our success will exceed that of Caesar.

The nationalist movement has spent many decades trying to win by telling half truths and the result is people believe the half truths as the whole truth. [applause] And what happens? Such people very easily switch their support to UKIP, or when Margaret Thatcher gives a suitable speech about being swamped by immigrants, they switch their support to the Conservative party.

In other words, such a Nationalist organisation lacks ideology, it lacks coherence and integrity. It’s activists and candidates still get the hassle they would if they took on the issue head on. And campaigns are organised against them by the usual suspects but the activists and candidates don’t understand why. We end up sounding like a second hand car salesman who’s trying to sell a car without mentioning the engine. We end up sounding like a sailing instructor, who’s instructing people how to sail but doesn’t tell them about bad weather. So we have to address this issue here.

So, let’s look at the invasion. We have an invasion underway. A million and a half people, mainly young men, have already come this year, on foot as well as the usual immigrants, by the way. A million and a half! That’s more people, … If you combine the Mongol invasion, the Tartar invasion, the Ottoman invasion, the Moorish invasion, that’s more people than all those combined, has come in one year! And the only resistance that’s been put up is by one Bulgarian border guard. A toast to that Bulgarian border guard! [applause]

Why aren’t there more like him? There hasn’t even been much verbal opposition to this invasion, and why is that? That is because we’ve been bullied into silence, we’ve been blackmailed with guilt into silence, we have been bribed, or we have been brainwashed! Brainwashed into approving our own destruction. Brainwashed, at least, into not criticising our own destruction. Brainwashed into not criticising any element of the Jewish agenda.

 

 

Now this agenda is something they’re proud of. If you listen to the diatribes, the speeches of Barbara Spectre, Noel Ignatiev, Wesley Clarke, Donald Sutherland, whatever. This brainwashing of our people is a result of who has power and who is using this power. I say, better a good honest enemy who faces you in the sun and tells you he hates you, rather than these fifth column insiders who corrupt us and we can’t see.

Look at Japan. Japan lost the war, just like Germany and they had a de-nazification program, just like Germany. The difference is it didn’t work. It didn’t work. Why is that? I’ll tell you why, because Jews don’t look Japanese. [laughter]

 

 

[Image] Merkel is lauded by the Lying Press while being, in actuality, a traitor to Germans and to the White race.

 

And if a Jew went to Japan and started mouthing off about this and that he would stand out like a sore thumb. That’s the reason why. Whereas in Germany, Angela Merkel, who may well have had a Jewish grandmother, hates white people, literally hates them and invites the whole world to her country and when her country can’t cope says:

“Oh, the rest of Europe must take their share too.”

It’s like you’re having a party and saying:

“Come into my house, the whole world into my house!”

And then thinking:

“Oh, my house is full. The rest of the town must take their share too!”

“Sorry, sorry, you invited them!”

In Germany they have the Green party. And the Green party are more in favour of immigration than any other party. The Green party! They are more in favour of destroying the countryside and building new towns and houses and box flats for these immigrants. The only thing green about this party is that it’s green, as in naive. They are naive…. Or evil! [applause]

 

[20:11]

 

Audience member: The only thing green about them is the blood pumping through their veins. [applause]

 

Let me tell you about Herr Bril? ? Herr Bril has a daughter. She’s German, she’s thirteen years old. She was gang raped by four of these invaders. Gang raped! What was his response?

“I forgive them! I forgive them! They suffered harassment in their own country, persecution, racism! I forgive them!”

And he’s has helped two of them to find work. The other two. The other two got on the run and raped two more girls!

I ask you! Some people never wake up! But we must try, we must try.

Europe my friends has become nothing else but than a very big extermination camp for White culture, for White traditions, our religion, our customs and way of life, nuclear families. An extermination camp for the White race. The Jewish dream that they are so proud of is so obvious to everyone the whole world over except for our race.

Because our race has systemic frailty. We are kind, we are trusting, we are believers in fair play, we are legalistic, we are altruistic. Even so, people are waking up. More and more Whites are beginning to realize that something is wrong! Something is very, very wrong!

So much so that some countries in Europe and the West are thinking of bringing new laws to ban “conspiracy theories”. Really? You are going to ban conspiracy theories? If you talk about conspiracy you get put in prison!

So, no more conspiracy fraud, or burglary, theft or murder? At this rate the whole police force will be in prison! [laughter]

Madness, this is madness. Then there’s the Imperial College students and, you know, we can’t discuss Jewish power and it’s effects, but a female feminist Asian student Imperial College in London, … She can say, “Kill all White people!”. She can say that and she doesn’t go to prison, she doesn’t lose her job. She isn’t even kicked out of university.

Why is that? Well, because commonsense, commonsense in English common law has been overturned in favor of Marxist political correct laws.

Most of us don’t realize how most influenced our laws are now by Marxist lunacy. But they are! And the student herself explained why she wouldn’t get punished:

“I can’t get accused of racism for saying, ‘kill all White people’ because racism can only be from a more powerful race to a less powerful race. And as Whites are supremely powerful, then no other race that criticizes Whites can be guilty of racism!”

Kill off Marxist theory, that is! It’s a laugh, it’s a laugh. And it’s exactly how the law looks at it. Let’s look at reality, let’s look at reality how it really is. And then let’s apply this law fairly. If we did we would see that Whites in this country are not supremely powerful.

 

 

[25:08]

 

If we were supremely powerful, do you think we would let mad Asian bitches into the country, give them free education and let them say, “Kill all White people!”? No! No, we wouldn’t. Well I wouldn’t, anyway.

Because of the world failing, Britain failing, we see it’s not Whites that have the power in this country. It’s not Whites that are supreme powerful. It’s Jews, who are supremely powerful in Britain, Europe, America and the West.

And that means if we are to apply the Marxist theory and the politically correct law fairly, that means no one, no one could be considered guilty of racism for criticizing the Jews. Think about that. But of course, it wouldn’t be applied fairly. Of course we aren’t even part of the liberal Marxist mindset that hold hegemony over the White world. And it seeks to enslave the entire world.

Let’s look at the Middle East and our foreign policy. Our governments are destroying any country that doesn’t abase itself and grovel before Israel and the Jew World Order.

Our governments are destroying countries that oppose Israel. Because these countries see the truth and they are not brainwashed. In other words, like ???, better a burqa than a blindfold. And the West is blindfolded. We are blind.

Our governments have destroyed the Middle East and the rest of the world through bombing campaigns, through sanctions, through setting up and funding rebel groups. And they destroy Europe and the White homelands through multiracialism, multiculturalism, feminism and hedonism.

And when they bomb these foreign countries in the Middle East, they say:

“Well, this country is not a democracy! It’s a tyranny! Full of common thieves! And it possesses weapons of mass destruction!”

At this stage my eyes glaze over. And I say, “What about Israel?” Isreal has more nuclear missiles than France. Israel is the fourth most powerful country in the world, in terms of arms. We have Jane’s Defense Weekly saying that.

Israel claims to be a democracy. Israel is the only “democracy” in the Middle East! Tell that to the Palestinians! [applause]

The truth is, there’s a world wide struggle going on. A struggle bewteen “Identity” and the “Money Power” that seeks to destroy identities! All identities, except their own!

 

 

On one side there are national governments and the political parties, international bodies, NGOs, high finance, mass media, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand there are identitarians, traditionalists and nationalists. People like us. It’s up to us.

Now I have seen the future if our side loses! A world of MacDonalds, of Monsanto munching, mongrelized, miscegenating, materialistic, money worshipping morons! Morons without religion, without culture, without traditions, without family, without community, without nations, without belonging, without identity. Without anything that makes life worthwhile. We will be just followers of fashion, harlots in harems and worst.

We will have 100,000 Charlie Downs?? every year. We will be lobotomized consumers, perfect slaves because we won’t even know we are slaves! And we will be ruled over with a tyranny that will make the ancient world seem like a playground.

A minority will rule us with propaganda and with force and they won’t believe their own propaganda. That minority, who in polite conversation, in mass media, we are not allowed to discuss. A minority that still has a religion, that still has a race, that still has a nation, that still has an identity.

 

[30:00]

 

A minority that still has a religion. A minority that still has a race. That still has a nation. That still has an identity. My friends, that would be a minority who know this, but not in power. Unless, unless, we fight and fight now, and fight now with sustained, persistent, persevering vigour and energy!

Unless we use every weapon at our disposal and fight in every way possible. Our enemy has the money, but that’s all they do have. We, on the other hand, have commonsense on our side. We have history on our side. We have tradition on our side. We have genetics on our side. We have socio-biology on our side. We have science on our side. We have nature on our side and we have the Gods on our side.

All they have is money! And when the economy fails, the money will fail and when money fails we will win! We are not motivated by hate. On the contrary we are motivated by love. Love of our race. Love of our identity. Love of our country, of our culture, of our religion, of our traditions, of our countryside, of our families, of our communities, of our children. Our future.

Because that is all poor people have and once the money fails that’s all any of us will have. [applause]

My friends, we are about to start on the greatest adventure. The greatest adventure that our race has ever faced. We fight for a world where a man can find a meaningful job and earn enough money to get married and have a house and have lots of children and have his wife stay at home and look after those children. We fight for a world where the elderly are valued. Where children and innocence are protected. Where women are cherished, where bravery is admired. Where everyone has his part to play, where everyone is looked after and where no one is left behind.

Our enemy is cunning, but we are wise. The strong rule the weak, the cunning rule the strong. But, the wise, the wise always defeat the cunning!

So hold your heads up high! We fight for a noble cause. We fight for the noblest of all causes. We fight for the cause, the cause of leading the forces of good against the forces of evil! And in the centuries to come our people will tell tales, around the fire, of our struggle. They will gasp in awe at the deeds of our daring and valour and ballads will be sung about us for thousands of years and we will be immortal!

Thank you very much.  [long applause]

 

 

 

 

Andrew Brons

 

[33:00]

 

Before I start, I’d just like to comment that this particular meeting could prove to be quite an historic event, in the sense that Jack does seem to have the knack of attracting to his attention? ? People of all strands of nationalism. And this could be, when we look back on this in a later future, this could be a starting point of something really great.

Right. Let’s start. Now there is a school of thought that I prefer to call it a school of actions of thought among our factions that like to avoid abstract idea, general ideas and concentrate just on concrete policy.

Paul Channon who was Defense Secretary under Heath and later Foreign Secretary under Thatcher, said that Conservative Party was never it’s best when it became involved in questions of ideology.

Harold Wilson, a late and unlamented Prime Minister in the 1960s, the 1970s, popularized the word, “pragmatism” to describe his approach to policy making. Deciding policy on the basis of their immediate consequences, rather than on the basis of underlying ideas.

 

 

[35:00]

 

Now, the truth is not simply that it’s undesirable to take that approach, ultimately it’s impossible. Because if you don’t base your policies on sound ideas, you’ll find that you’ve been lobbied or persuaded to base your policies on somebody else’s ideas or assumptions, possibly those of which you are not aware.

In reality, all policies are ultimately based on underlying beliefs, or assumption, or opinions. And if you avoid thinking about that then you make yourself prey to the beliefs and opinions of others.

Well, let’s take the related policy areas of immigration and ethnicity. That’s a surprise, wasn’t it, that I chose those?

Politicians, for decades, have avoided general abstract thought on these subjects for fear of being labeled with these “R” words. Bet you don’t know what the “R” word is.

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.

 

[Image] Justin Welby.

 

Where out of all of this confusion about race and ethnicity is that politicians are prey to the paucity’s of the social anthropologists.

“Who are they?” you might say.

 

[Image] Franz Boas (1858 – 1942). The discredited Jewish anthropologist who has been called the “Father of American Anthropology“.

 

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.

 

[Image] Margaret Mead, author of Coming of Age in Samoa (1928)

 

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, that the differences between population groups, that is useless and racist, by the way. The differences between 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. [loud applause]

In fact, avoiding abstract thought, avoiding considering the questions 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. Well, they are not practical and down to earth! They are stupid and they are malleable!

 

[40:00]

 

Now, one of the underlying questions we must ask, is, to what extent can you 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. And that is simple.? ? ? Do so.

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.

 

[Image] Young “native” Londoners posing for the camera.

 

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 substantiates 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.

 

 

 

[Image] John Philippe Rushton. (see RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR)

 

The physical anthropologist, John Philippe Rushton, now the late anthropologist, considered this general question in his book, … Figures? ? And he said that it’s down to genetic factors and the climate? ? ? .

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 this 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?”

 

[45:00]

 

Now, it isn’t so much that a 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, say:

“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 [gun] .

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, They established that Mercer’s great grandfather had himself been hanged for murder.? ? ? It could easily have been a case in which the question of heredity is 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 again they are talking about people from a West Indian culture, an 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 by their mentors, 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.

 

[50:00]

 

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, to sum this up, 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 Boas’. Only those who are too idle to have their own ideas ought to consider their own ideas, or the ideas? ? ? Or be forced or persuaded to accept the more sensible ideas of others.

Thank you. [applause]

 

[52:00]

 

 

END

 

 

======================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post:   (5.2 MB)

British Renaissance – Jez Turner and Andrew Brons — TRANSCRIPT – katana17 – Ver 1

 

Version History

 

Version 12: Jun 3, 2022 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com. Improved formatting. Added more images. Added PDF of post.

 

Version 11: Feb 6, 2016 — Formatting improvements. Added some image captions.

 

Version 10: Dec 12, 2015 — Added some more images. Minor typo fixes. Removed Transcription request info.

 

Version 9: Dec 10, 2015 — Added 17 more minutes (provided by commenter Kirk). Total = 52 mins. TRANSCRIPT now complete!

 

Version 8: Dec 10, 2015 — Added 3 more minutes. Total = 36 mins

 

Version 7: Dec 8, 2015 — Added 5 more minutes. Total = 33 mins

 

Version 6: Dec 8, 2015 — Added 3 more minutes (provided by commenter Kirk). Total = 28 mins

 

Version 5: Dec 7, 2015 — Added 5 more minutes. Total = 25 mins.

 

Version 4: Dec 6, 2015 — Added 5 more minutes (provided by commenter Kirk). Total = 20 mins.

 

Version 3: Dec 5, 2015 — First 15 minutes entered (provided by commenter Kirk). Added images.

 

Version 2: Dec 5, 2015 — 1-20 mins now in progress (by commenter Kirk). Updated cover image.

 

Version 1: Published Dec 4, 2015