The abstract and idealize nature of liberalism doesn't require a belief of everyone being 'good', what ever this vague sign is meant to signify. Rather it's a kind of abstract equality in which the law is to act on the basis that their is a human dignity to every subject and should be treated justly/fairly which is often means equitable unless there is a justified basis for differential treatment (ie women have abortions, doesn't deprive men of a right but merely affords women a right that their biological capacity allows them to act on).
And this talk of individuals are bad purely on their own might lose sight of the social nature of individuals, because whilst an individual entity exists, they grow up in society and have an inherently social content to their subjectivity. And its quite often on the scale of individual to individual that one simply abstracts away society, which is why many posit thought experiments of people interacting in a way that in no way reflects real world relations and is a sign of deficiency in one's thought process if the thought experiment is taken too seriously.
Perhaps, wanting to zoom in the gap between an ideals or implications of a belief system and how it plays out. So for example people condemn the bible or quran as a text, language divorced from the active people and their real world relations. But at the same time to treat such meanings as insignificant cultural trends/artefacts in considering the development of things would just be just as one sided.
Need to dig deeper because sounds like trying to say that a person's ideology doesn't doesn't dictate the wrongness of their actions, a rejection of social determinism or something.
But ideology and stuff is often merely a reflection of the subjectivity that underpins one's actions (there can be a disjuncture in the form of hypocrisy, expressed beliefs contradicted by behaviour).
The ideology often reflect things found within the real relations between people as opposed to symbolic ones, such that male chauvinism versus feminism is more concretely reflected in real world struggles that are what give rise to the language that expressed that symbolic conflict.
All in all, it seems all rather narrow in the manner in which you abstract about the word. In that I don't think your thinking is properly mediated as to be a more concrete abstraction.
And it's also not apparent to me how the point I read out of the guts of the OP relates to a conflation of racism = anti-racism, doesn't seem to drill into this subject at all. The closest get to being explicit about race at all is the quote about Asians doing better at math than blacks and as mentioned a rather vague sense of western nations being 98% white.
Which should probably be qualified to get a sense of what you believe you're asserting.
I come from Australia which colonized the indigenous and at it's whitest after years of the series of policies and procedures that are dubbed 'White Australia Policy', was in the low to mid 90 percentile which entailed mass exportation of Torres Straight Islanders and stuff.
And don't do well to unpack the concept of whiteness which, is rather elaborate in it's association.Constructing Whiteness
n this paper, I hope to show that whiteness consists of a body of knowledge, ideologies, norms, and particular practices that have been constructed over the history of the American colonies and the U.S. with roots in European history as well. The knowledge, ideologies, norms, and practices of whiteness affect how we think about race, what we see when we look at certain physical features, how we build our own racial identities, how we operate in the world, and what we "know" about our place in it. Whiteness is shaped and maintained by the full array of social institutions--legal, economic, political, educational, religious, and cultural. As individuals and in groups, affected by whiteness, we in turn influence and shape these institutions. Thus, whiteness is constantly evolving in response to social forces and the constellation of people who are seen as white may change over time.
And this is probably a difficult thing to follow, the process of how things end up more abstract, more connotative. That the resonance of something being white being in relation to how the real world relations are lived and experienced, though this dynamic of our symbolic relationship with one another with a other aspect in relation to the concrete relations is difficult stuff to conceptualize itself.
My arrogant assertion is you need to work on a self consciousness to the implications on how you think/abstract and the nature of what is really under consideration, what is taken into the mind and what is left out. How does the image/model one constructs capture elements of the truth/reality.
And when people are critical of people who seem to adhere to an ideology of Neo-Nazism, it need not be an ideology considered separate from the real people who aren't some abstract ideal but the personification of that ideology in reality. Quite often the criticism is leveled at real world acts and then put in relation to a corresponding belief system that is professed as well as identifiable by characteristics. Though if one wanted, they might get deeper into whether the appearance/form betrays the essence/substance. But in the case of quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck, one should learn to trust appearances for their relation to the truth. Otherwise end up a methodological idealist that thinks the truth isn't considered in what is sensuous/empirically real, but ends up someone concerned only with abstract models with a priori rationalism that doesn't bother to confirm itself to the real because it rejects the truth of it. And one ends up in nonsensical stuff where the ground from which ideality arises is ignored and one abstracts about abstractions and ends up muddled with the void in considering things too distant from the real world.