Anyone who keeps abreast of the news in Britain will have become accustomed to the absurd, the insane, and the depressing: the sharp rise in violent crime; criminals routinely escaping with a fine or community service; the erosion of free speech; the destruction of our culture by an authoritarian “liberalism.” “Where will it all end,” someone asked me rhetorically a few weeks ago. No great comfort, I admit, I responded, “what makes you think it will end?” Every week brings another low point for the people of Britain, but this week we seem to have sunk at a faster rate than normal.
 
The largely government funded National Children’s Bureau has now issued guidelines to nursery teachers, instructing them to be alert for “racist” incidents. If a child as young as 3, reacts with “yuk” to spicy food, this is to be regarded as such. Personally, in my experience, every child reacts in this way to any food that is unfamiliar – even before they have tried it. And nearly all children, by this standard, will be branded as racists (although it seems that it will apply only to White children, as the example of curry was given as one food with which children might be tested).
 
Racism is horrible, but the pathological obsession to root it out wherever it might possibly be, can no more create a harmonious society than if the government and authorities were to turn its sights to petty theft with similar frenzy. Imagine if every child of 3 were to be branded a thief for stealing another child’s yellow bricks or toy train. And imagine what would be implanted in society. Theft would not only be normalized, it would become a badge of honor; grand scale theft the aim of every once-indoctrinated adult. A damaging self-loathing would characterize the average man – and so many seem to suffer this already, after a decade of Labour.
 
But who are the authorities to watch over us for any hint of racism? The Labour government refuses equal pay, and even necessary medical operations, to the revered Nepalese Gurkha soldiers, who have long fought so valiantly for Britain. It has been denounced as anti-Semitic (for using “Nazi slurs”) and colonialist, and its ideology of multiculturalism – which has created ethnic ghettos – has constantly been likened to cultural “apartheid.” Any other party would have anti-racist protestors in permanent uproar, but Labour avoids this for one reason only: it never loses an opportunity to denounce the indigenous British (and especially the indigenous English).
 
Just as the most extreme feminists once viewed all men as “potential rapists,” so extremist liberals view all White-British people as “potential racists.” Of the two, the latter is the more fanatical, because at least members of the male sex had to reach puberty before extremist feminists regarded them with such Orwellian suspicion. Thought-crime is now the preoccupation of the government, the authorities, and Britain’s phony-intellectuals – real crime seems to go unpunished. Earlier this year a Down’s syndrome boy with the mental age of 5, was prosecuted by the police for racism, before the case was finally dropped months later. It was impossible for him to understand his supposed ‘crime.’ A couple of years ago a 10 year-old boy was taken to court for racism because he called another boy, “Paki” and “Bin Laden.” This is not nice, but it is also not a crime. The case was dismissed by District Judge Jonathan Finestein, who then found himself denounced, and protested against, by a teachers’ union. The union accused Finestein of feeding the extreme Right-wing agenda, despite the fact that he is Jewish, or that his dismissal of the case as, “political correctness gone mad,” was backed by the Muslim Council of Britain.
 
Why is it we constantly see White British liberals attacking not only the British and their culture, but everyone and everything, in the name of anti-racism? Most suggest that they are driven by self-loathing, and this, no doubt, counts for much. They hate British culture, and they are suspicious of the British people – and these more than anything. But, the truth of the matter is that they hate culture, and they are suspicious of humanity itself. They hate high ideals: religion; nation; the flag; virtue; virtus; character; fortitude; justice; honor; freedom of expression; freedom of thought; freedom of conscience. And they are suspicious of anyone who would cultivate himself through them.
 
Liberalism has convinced us that these things are bad. We hear of ‘law,’ not ‘justice.’ We are embarrassed by the word, ‘God.’ We have exchanged character for ‘personality.’ And we ask ourselves merely, “where will it end?” not, “what can I do?” The US, by contrast, still instills in its citizens – of whichever race or background – a sense of pride and hope. It believes that it is a great nation. And it is a nation “under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  These are sacred words, and similar words must come to represent Britain, if the nation is to survive into the future.
 
A couple of decades ago liberals attacked Christianity because – in their view – it instilled people with a sense of guilt. How ironic, and how wrong. Archbishop Sentamu (of Ugandan origin) and Bishop Nazir-Ali (of Pakistani origin) have been among the most vocal supporters of the British and our culture. In contrast, Labour’s multicultural religion specializes in guilt. We are free to drink and have sex – to satiate ourselves so that we might forget the burden of guilt it has put on us. We are free to dwell in an existential banality. We are not free to reach for the heights of humanity, nation, culture, or our traditional religion. In the Catholic religion children are required to go to confession only after the age of 7, when it is thought they have reached the age of reason. In the multicultural religion, the child is under suspicion at 3.