by STEVE BRADY
PERHAPS THE final fallback positions of liberals, confronted with the NF case on Race is this: 'although the NF argument that multiracial societies will not work because of the biological reality of innate racial differences, and the sociobiological and historical reality that non-ethnically-cohesive societies will simply disintegrate in bloody chaos, may be factually true, morally it is impossible to condone the racial discrimination that ending multiracialism would entail ― people would be deported from Britain simply on the basis of their race or ethnic origin'.
Such discrimination would, of course, be more morally acceptable than the alternative, total social collapse and chaos ― for the choice is ultimately repatriation or race war. But is racial discrimination simply the lesser of two evils? Is it an evil at all?
The liberal argument continues thus: 'it is far less morally acceptable to judge a man on the basis of his race or ethnic origin, which he cannot change or help, than for example on the basis of his political opinions, which he can change or at least keep to himself, or his actions, for which he is or ought to be morally responsible.'
But if one looks at the matter rationally, one must surely see that the converse is true. Most people would, I think, agree that if one is going to judge someone or something it is far better, and far fairer, to judge them on the basis of fundamental, rather than superficial, characteristics ― as the proverb says 'you shouldn't judge a book by its cover'. And fundamental to what a man is must, surely, be his (or of course her!) ethnicity, his race, which determines not just his skin pigmentation and superficial personal appearance but the structure and chemistry of his body and brain, down to the smallest detail. Almost as fundamental and dependent upon race, should be his nationality, his roots, his culture, his people and his history.
For example, I am a White Briton. I would still be a White Briton if I were a Communist, a lunatic or a mass murderer; I would even remain just as much a White Briton if I went around saying I was not, but was instead an Outer Mongolian ― and I would be no less a White Briton if Outer Mongolia gave me a Mongolian passport.
My nationhood, and even more my race, are fundamental to me as to everyone; far more than words, or a passport, or our opinions, they are part of what we are.
And I, at least, am glad that this is so. Being a White Briton is far more than just another attribute, like personality, intelligence and physique. It confers an identity, a place, a belonging, a partnership in a past and a role in a future. Like everyone else who has a racial national identity, it makes me much more than just myself. For me, as for every White Briton, the achievements and failures, the triumphs and disasters of thousands of years of Britain are uniquely ours.
The victory of Nelson at Trafalgar, the gallant failure of Harold at Hastings, Beowulf, and Shakespeare, Offa's Dyke and Stonehenge and Jodrell Bank, steam engines and computers and jet planes are all achievements of our people, and hence uniquely and personally ours. As Confucius and the Great Wall, for example, are uniquely and personally the pride and possession of the humblest Chinese waiter in a High Street takeaway.
For him, as for me and all of us, nationhood is more than administrative convenience. It is a fundamental part of our being, our share in a heritage and destiny no one individual could ever hope to match by his or her efforts.
I do not, of course, have to think like that. I can ignore, though I cannot ever truly renounce, my national identity. I can become an atomised ant, an autonomous individual who professes to care nothing for national identity or culture. It is even fashionable to do so. For multiracialism's tragic victims, the growing army of half-castes and ethnic mongrels, there is little alternative, for they have no nation because they have no race.
But such renunciation is a partial renunciation of self, and those who choose it lose. They join the apathetic army of non-people who express their rootless drifting in alienated embitterment and often drug addiction or suicide or, if they lack the self-perception to perceive a loss, in pointless hedonistic self-indulgence, the sterile, greed-obessed life of the yuppie. Or they renouce their roots less thoroughly than they proclaim ― it's surprising how many Marxists turn up at folk and other European cultural festivals! And no-one can renouce their Race. They can deny their racial identity, but they cannot dispose of it.
Their nationhood they may despise, their culture they may ignore, but every time they look in a mirror, their Race stares back at them. Almost everything else about themselves they can change but their race will be theirs for life.
So it is, surely, fitting that one should judge a man by his race, almost the most fundamental characteristic he possesses. Almost ― for most fundamental of all is another aspect of his biological nature, his species, that he is a man and not a horse or a worm. And here the basic contradiction of the liberal argument stands clear. For liberals do judge people on the basis of at least one biological factor they cannot help or change ― that they are people. Ironically, the 'common humanity' they so often invoke against us is based on exactly the same biological basis as our racialism.
And on no other basis ― a chimpanzee is as intelligent, and presumably self-aware, as a two year-old human child. Through no fault of his own, he physically cannot articulate words ― but he can be taught sign language, and speaks as well in that as many a human two year-old says words. Yet chimps can lawfully be shot, or experimentally infected with AIDS ― human children cannot.
Yet it is hardly the chimp's fault he is the wrong species, any more than it is the fault of the lamb or the chicken which ends up on our plate. They can no more help their biological identity than a Black man or a White can help his.
A few ultra-liberals see this, and rail at 'speciesism' as much as at 'racism' ― but few, quite understandably, take any notice ― many an 'anti-racist' activist scoffs his salt beef sarnie with ne'er a qualm. So if it is right to judge someone by his species ― and kill or experiment on or eat him if he is a different one ― is it not equally right to judge him by his subspecies (which, biologically, is what races are) ― and simply send him home if he is different?
Racial discrimination is not only morally justifiable, it is morally right. Far better, surely, to be denied a job, or repatriated because you are Black ― a thing which is certainly true and in which you can take pride ― than because you are lazy, incompetent or a criminal ― something which may not be true and in which few would pride themselves, and which may really be because you are Black anyway, but your discriminator is afraid of the Race Act.
By saying to someone 'I judge you because you are Black' you affirm his identity and confirm his pride in something he possesses greater than himself. The more so if you do so as an affirmation not of negative bigotry or hatred but of positive, pride in your own Race and desire to preserve it for your children.
Pride to which the Black is also entitled ― he has every right in Africa to say 'Get out of my country, White man', as we say to the Black that he should get out of ours. Far better such honesty from someone who racially discriminates and is proud of doing so than the hypocrisy and cowardice of so many who discriminate just as much ― because it is inborn human nature to do so ― but are morally ashamed of themselves for doing so and so lie to the Black man and insult his dignity with offensive and obviously untrue excuses (no vacancies etc).
Discrimination once implied to everyone good judgement and the ability to assess real qualities, as opposed to superficial ones. That is precisely what racial discrimination is, as well as being a mutual affirmation of fundamental identity which ennobles discriminated as well as discriminator ― even the humblest Negro is thus linked with Chaka Zulu and the Mandinka, the most ineffectual Pakistani with Asoka and Akhbar, and the Taj mahal.
Speaking personally, if I must be judged, I would rather that I were judged first on my Race, then on my Nationhood, than on anything else about me. In no other qualities have I more pride. And the same should go for everyone.
Let us affirm that racial discrimination is no evil, but rather a good, for no man is an island, and no man can be judged in isolation from the genetic steel from which he is forged.