“When a new visitor lands on the BNP Web site there should be a bloody big link introducing them, not to politics, but to the concept of race...  and it had better be good too. I mean it needs to stand up to the counter arguments. It needs to cast "doubt" in middle England that there might, just might, be something wrong in perpetrating national genocide of the British People. - "Mark - commenter on 'From Titans to Lemmings: Conclusion.'"

Race, Racism and Liberal Lies
Today the liberal agenda is so slavishly accepted, that the basic question is no longer, “is it right or is it wrong?” but “what about our liberal image?” To take one issue - the view of nationality and race that liberals deem correct has been imposed with little rational or national debate. Peter Oborne, writing in the Telegraph reminds us that,

“A generation ago, mainstream politicians entered into an unwritten pact that race was a taboo subject.”1

Enoch Powell, a man of integrity and honour, was demonised and destroyed politically because he refused to be a party to this conspiracy. In true totalitarian fashion opposing views are uniformly misrepresented and lied about, so that rejection of the liberal view that race is irrelevant, is characterised as rabid Nazism, supportive of genocide. Ordinary and perfectly normal consciousness of racial differences is stigmatized as “racism”. Natural loyalty to one’s own race, founded on the obvious fitness of the innate attraction to one’s own racial likeness, is condemned as immoral!

That all human beings are related in different degrees of kinship is a natural fact of life. The closest kinship is obviously with one’s immediate family, followed by one’s nation and race or ethnic group and finally with all mankind. Feeling a greater attraction to those who are nearest and most alike is natural and right. That whites prefer being with whites and blacks prefer being with blacks is normal. This does not preclude civilised social interaction between the races. To “love your neighbour as you love yourself” requires both: love-for-own; and respect for the integrity of all God’s creation as he has created it, (not excluding racial boundaries). Condemning this as immoral is not only an outrageous affront to morality and common sense, but manifestly evil, serving the subversive ends of those opposed to God’s natural order! The sole choice allowed by these “champions-of-choice” is acceptance of their perverse project to destroy nature and to recreate man according to their repulsive progressive “rainbow” blueprint.

Concern with race does not imply rejection of the human worth of others, but simply that the differences are valued. European as opposed to African, Chinese as opposed to Indian, differences such as these are readily recognisable. To conflate this with the pseudo-racial categorisation of the Nazis and their hatred, intolerance and murder is a wicked liberal lie.

Liberal Liberation -  The Claim; The Aim; The Actual Gain
Liberals invoke equality to extort exceedingly loud lip service to “diversity” and “tolerance”, but the diversity they celebrate is only leftist bigotry, (anti-white – pro-black), and the choice they tolerate is only their own. In truth they dare not accept mankind’s diversity – of intellect, of ability, of behaviour, of stature, of race – because only if all are “equal” may the desperately desired autonomy-of-the-individual (and the dream of total “freedom”) be hoped for. No differences at all can be tolerated, as these threaten the right to autonomy on grounds of equality. Once admit distinction, and hierarchy and the natural authority of superiority arise, which curtail autonomy. Securing “absolute” autonomy is the goal and equality is the means. This is the real driving force at liberalism’s centre: not humane concern for the brotherhood of man, but self-centred pursuit of absolute power – even if a debased humanity is the price to be paid.

A “universal” uniform man predicated on the lowest common denominator, the lowest of human appetites, is the necessary and horrible conclusion of the liberal ideal. Utopian liberalism may begin with the ideal of equality but it ends in degradation, regimentation and uniformity.

The Liberal “anti-racist” Prejudice
The liberal attempt to equate universal human nature with an imagined progressive “universal man”, (men that are “all the same”), begins in error and ends in tragedy. Liberals mistake human nature, a term denoting the general attributes of humankind, for the actual range of individuals without which it could not exist. No individuals = no human nature. Human nature expressed individually incarnates – not one 'universal person' – but many different people. A multitude-of-people means, many degrees of kinship – not one “equal” relationship. The sequel, quite naturally, is unequally-related-groupings-of-the-more-nearly-related: i.e. diverse racial types. Plainly, racial division is basic to the individuality upon which the human condition is built. Besides those bewitched and bewildered by leftist PC prejudice and superstition, most rational people properly esteem the biological and physical features distinctive of their race, acknowledging a genetic inheritance - not to be squandered - but to be prized and preserved.2

Convinced that universal or common human nature signals that we are all essentially the same and that therefore differences do not matter, liberals omit half the picture. The self-evident truth is that what divides us matters equally with what unites us. We relate to one another because of our common humanity, but we are identified by our differences. Liberals dismiss differences so easily not because of superior enlightenment and toleration (as they like to think) but because, incredible as it may seem, they are so self-absorbed that they cannot comprehend the “distinctly other” that “difference” implies. They complacently believe that they themselves are the universal to which all will be conformed. This insensibility and blind faith that they are the flavour, makes the liberal urge-to-merge-we-are-all-one-mania slightly less hard to understand. It also helps to explain the perplexing lack of toleration that liberals exhibit notwithstanding pedantic declarations to the contrary!

Deriding differences as superficial cannot take away their importance or their place. In a world of teeming millions, respect for all differences is the first rule for freedom to prevail. Refusing half the picture and following the liberal creed of “colour-blindness”, “inclusiveness” and “equality” fabricates a society that is neither fair nor free, but one that is instead dishonest and unreal. This is the end product of all tyrannies and in fact, “colour-blindness” begets the tyranny of politically correct “multiculturalism” – merely the latest in the long line of leftist utopian tyrannies, beginning with Robespierre and including Nazism and communism.

The “Superior Morality” Deception
The usual liberal ploy – thunderous propagandising about human “rights” to mask their misanthropy – comes into play. Unmasked their hysterical hectoring reveals an empty egoism, fuelled by the incoherent adolescent fantasy, which combines inordinate desire for autonomy with hatred of real individuality and responsibility. Such an unstable state of humourless self-absorption mindlessly lurches back and forth between self-love and self-hatred. “Multiculturalism” is one more smokescreen behind which leftists can treacherously vent their self-hatred, (on those who do not share their miserable narcissism), by enslaving and destroying the civilisation they are indebted to, and which, for that reason, they despise.

Loudly proclaiming to be for the common man, liberals are really for distancing themselves from man’s common lot (i.e. the ignorance and powerlessness of his fallen state), hence the simple-minded dedication to their goal - independence (autonomy) - which prevents them from seeing how their means - uniform equality - defeats this objective. Like myopic, egoistic adolescents, they focus exclusively on those issues congenial to their goal of rebellion (such as “human rights” – chiefly their own) and overlook issues uncongenial (such as human inadequacy – above all their own). Unwilling to admit to their limitations, they are forced to design their utopia. Limited as they nonetheless are, all they achieve is a ghastly dystopia.

“Progressive” morality:  Sin Reconceived and the Liberal Immaculate!
Jealousy and envy have bedevilled man since the fall in Eden. This is the root cause of hatred, intolerance and murder and not some mythical “right-wing racist virus”, as liberals would have us believe. They can then, with impunity, conveniently blame the “forces of conservatism” (as the carriers of this “virus”) for all that is evil and wrong. The entire human race, not excepting the liberal left, has a weakness for the vice of bullying and any excuse will do. It is more congenial to the liberal sensibility not to blame bullying, but “racism” as the prime evil. This transfers the evilness from a human trait, which liberals too must own, to a constraint of the Neanderthal “conservative” past, which they can repudiate. This obviates their need to repent of any sin, while enabling them to condemn the sin of others. (Underlying this is the ancient human desire to blame the higher authority, against which they rebel, for their own sin).

CS Lewis exposes the stratagem in, ‘The Dangers of National Repentance’, warning against the self-righteousness and resentment typically at the root of “progressive” demands for national repentance:

“The first and fatal charm of national repentance is … the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing – but, first, of denouncing – the conduct of others. …You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without constraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practising contrition.”3       (…Which buttresses the conviction that you are morally superior.)

As so often, this subterfuge conceals great evil and begets greater evil, not the least of which is that “anti-racism” joins “racism” as yet another excuse for bullying.

The liberal urge-to-merge is most emphatically not a requirement of justice, decency or respect, nor yet Christianity. It has more to do with the liberal project to remake man in the “progressive” image, and with rebelling against the boundaries of reality. No matter what post-modern “liberal” man thinks - sexual, racial and other boundaries are given. Disregarding them licenses lawlessness and depravity, the real cause of bullying, and cannot but result in the diminution of human dignity. Justice, decency and respect are best served by honouring, not denigrating, difference; and by accepting lawful constraint and rightful boundaries. The truth is that, at bottom, the liberal’s concern for “non-racism” is an empty parrot-cry and one more adolescent-style denial of reality in favour of selfishness and self-righteous day-dreams.

Footnotes
1. Oborne, Peter. 2001, ‘Oldham’s fires were not stoked by debating asylum.’ The Telegraph. [Online] Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2001/05/28/do02.xml [Monday, 28 May 2001].

2. What science today – the science of the “scientific method”, of the pursuit of truth – has to say about race gives liberals a conniption and so even although displaying impeccable scholarship, books like these are not publicised by the “Main Stream Media”:

• Levin, Michael. 2005, Why Race Matters. New Century Foundation.
• Lynn, Richard. & Vanhanen, Tatu. 2006, IQ and Global Inequality. Washington Summit Publishers.
• Rushton, J Philippe. 2000, Race, Evolution, Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 3rd ed. Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron, MI.
• Salter, Frank. 2003, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
• …There are many, many more.

3.  Lewis, C.S. 1970, ‘The dangers of national repentance.’ p. 190, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.