It is quite revealing to witness in the "far right" a reliance on liberal semantics to challenge the liberal definition of citizenship. Everyone criticizing Kemi Badenoch thinks it is about making the correct argument about British identity, explaining correctly that it is historically rooted in ethnicity rather than liberal values. "If we lose this argument about what British identity is," Benjamin says, "we will lose the nation". If we persuade enough people about the correct definition, we can win an election; and then the ethnic definition will prevail in the public realm again. This Platonic liberal way of thinking prevails among all political parties, including white nationalists. If only the right doctrine (race realism, Traditionalism, a Fourth Political Theory) were taught, the people would see the truth and act accordingly. Some will add a Nietzschean side, insisting upon a leader with "a strong will" to go through with the implementation of the correct idea. Lack of will, they tell us, is why Trump or Meloni "failed" to challenge the order. Benjamin's argument is flawed both in its (i) interpretation of the current dominance of the civic liberal definition of identity, as if it was a product of people accepting the wrong definition, and (ii) in its liberal belief that the current order could be restructured by electing a party with the right definition. It ignores that the British Nationality Act 1948 that redefined Englishness in terms of values rather than ethnicity was not imposed by foreigners conspiring behind the backs of English people -- but was passed by a Parliament made up of native British men from a Britain that was still overwhelmingly ethnic British. Because dissidents think in liberal terms, in terms of the right ideas, the right agents to bring about change, the right will to change, they leave out a sociological account of how the British Nationality Act came out of a Britain that was already liberal, and, as such, committed to the progressive institutionalization of liberal values. In a liberal society the state has no right to mandate any ethnicity as the "correct" one, just as it has no right to mandate any religion or culture. No party is permitted to impose a particular ethnicity or doctrine as a criterion of participation or membership in the public realm of England. The same ones who are calling for the correct public ethnic identity against the incorrect liberal/civic identity, rely on the liberal argument that what's needed is to elect a party with the correct definition to break away from the liberal definition. They fail to see that the liberal definition is institutionally embedded in the legal, educational, economic, and media systems. An elected party with the correct definition would still operate within a public sphere dominated by the semantics of liberalism (individual rights, consent, rule of [liberal] law). A party that insisted on a collective definition of British identity would not be able to communicate with the other systems. The self-description and modes of communication of the other systems, including the other parties, is liberal. Of course, one may still argue that we must still press for a party that emphasizes the ethnic definition, not as a solution but as a path that may trigger -- in combination with the failures of multicultural liberalism -- a legitimation crisis that may open up opportunities for a recoding of British society away from liberalism.

"We are a race of people and we are all white." So tell us what you mean by "race" and what criteria you would use to determine whether a person can be defined as "white".