Harry Richardson & Frank Salter’s Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred

2,282 words

Harry Richardson & Frank Salter
Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred
Social Technologies, 2023

White advocacy in literature can take many forms, both implicit and explicit. With Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred, authors Harry Richardson and Frank Salter choose the explicit — as the book’s title would suggest. Unlike other works in the dissident Right canon, however, this excellent volume catalogues and itemizes anti-white hatred into a consistent, durable, and easily-understood notion. In effect, it builds a vocabulary of white survival and helps whites overcome their “Anglo stoicism” in the face of the “weaponization of victimhood” which the Left constantly employs against them.

The term “Anglophobia” is meant to be used by whites as a shield — and quite possibly as a weapon as well — against non-whites who have plenty of anti-white weapons at their disposal and never shy away from using them (for example, “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” “Islamophobia,” and so on). By both naming and shaming this phenomenon, whites can push back against it, which is clearly the authors’ goal. “Anglophobia” will help defeat Anglophobia, so to speak. And the longer the white majorities in traditionally white countries continue to dwindle, the more whites will find themselves in need of such a term.

You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here.

The authors specify early on that while “Anglo” refers to people “descended from the indigenous population of the British Isles,” it can also include kindred ethnies from Europe; white people, basically. Richardson and Salter are Australian, and so much of their book has an Australian perspective. For readers outside of Australia, this encompasses the twin benefits of learning new things — one example for me was the 2011 Andrew Bolt trial — as well as appreciating how universal Anglophobia really is. They may be down under, but they might as well be in London, England or Main Street, USA for all the grief white Australians have received on the racial and cultural front since the 1970s.

Richardson and Salter structure their book around three main kinds of Anglophobia: Vilification, Discrimination, and Violence. The Vilification chapter gets the most attention and is by far the longest. Based on my reading, it is the most important of the three. The exactitude with which the authors describe Anglophobic vilification is quite impressive, and so vilification will take up the lion’s share of this review. First, however, the Discrimination and Violence chapters must be dealt with.

For Discrimination, the authors describe how Australia’s system of “equal employment opportunity” is merely a way to legitimize discrimination against Anglos in employment and promotion. They also point out how such hiring practices often set aside standards to the detriment of ordinary Australians. That is no surprise to those of us familiar with affirmative action in the United States. However, the authors provide a fairly grotesque example of exactly how detrimental such practices can be:

An example was the death of hundreds of elderly, mainly Anglo, Australians during the Covid 19 pandemic in Melbourne in 2020, due to the incompetence of a security firm hired by the Victorian government to manage hotel isolation. It appears the company hired to provide security for much of the hotel quarantine program was chosen because it was majority Aboriginal-owned. The government’s affirmative action program for indigenous firms was labelled a “social inclusion procurement policy”. Between March and July 2020 the company received a much greater dollar value of contracts than two rival companies listed on the government’s panel of pre-approved security suppliers despite the company not being listed on the panel. As a result of security failures at the quarantine hotels, Covid 19 infections killed over 700 Australians in 2020.

Stephen Farron made a similar point about the lethality of affirmative action in his indispensable The Affirmative Action Hoax (his case dealing with how the incompetence of unqualified black Washington, DC police officers led to fewer murder convictions, and thus more murderers on the street). But where Farron wishes only to impugn affirmative action, Richardson and Salter admirably go further by categorizing it as a form of Anglophobic or anti-white hatred. And this is correct. Affirmative action was created to harm whites in a myriad of ways, not least of which to reduce their power and influence compared to that of non-whites. Whether it also harms the people it is supposed to serve is irrelevant.

Anglophobic discrimination takes its most extreme form in the cancellation of whites, especially white men, whenever they express pride in their identity or heritage. Multicultural forums simply do not have a seat at the table for them — even if they don’t express such pride. As the authors point out, Anglophobes often find whites offensive or annoying just for being who they are. They will also disregard or downplay any legitimate disadvantages or grievances whites have, as well as indoctrinate their children with Anglophobia in schools. The authors address this last part at length by thoroughly debunking the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. They call it a “radical document” because it states that the school curricula must emphasize non-Anglo culture and history at the expense of Anglo culture and history. The authors review not only how high-level Australian academics vigorously support the Declaration, but also how conservatives, unsurprisingly, have a record of irresolution resisting it.

Fortunately, Anglophobic violence is less common in Australia than the other kinds of hatred that whites must face every day, so much so that the authors refer to American crime or Muslim grooming gangs in England as examples. But Australia has enough of its own, it seems:

In Sydney in 2000 a gang of fourteen young ethnic Lebanese Muslim men — the children of immigrants brought to Australia in the 1970s by prime minister Malcolm Fraser — conducted a series of pack rapes explicitly targeting white, mainly Anglo, girls, aged 14 to 18. More than fifty girls were assaulted, a forerunner of the mass rapes of English girls in Rotherham (described at the end of this section). The ethnic dimension was evident in the fact that all the rapists were Lebanese Muslims and all or most the victims were Anglos. Ethnic motivation was confirmed when one target of the attacks reported that the perpetrators called her an “Aussie pig” and called themselves Lebanese. Another rapist told a victim that she deserved to be raped “because you’re Australian”.

Richardson and Salter offer several other examples of Anglophobic violence in Australia, but no matter how much smoke is seen escaping the gun, the Anglophobes themselves never change their tune: Blame the Anglos when you can, and when you can’t, downplay, downplay, downplay. This double standard is certainly not lost on Richardson and Salter:

Whilst aggression by a white person against non-whites is often labelled a “hate crime,” aggression directed in the opposite direction is rarely referred to as such and is often minimised or not reported at all by the police or mainstream media, as discovered by some victims of the grooming gangs.

As ironclad as the arguments are in the Discrimination and Violence chapters, the centerpiece of the work is its chapter on Vilification –all 133 pages of it. The points are outlined neatly and fit well into a numbered list. I’m sure the authors wouldn’t mind if I present it in its entirety here, so the tl;dr crowd can copy-paste it into a document and tape it to their bathroom mirrors.

This comprehensive list really should be internalized. According to Anglophobes, white people:

1. Are inherently evil.
2. Detract from but never enhance diversity.
3. Are responsible for any and all negative actions of members of their race throughout history, because:
   1. They engaged in colonialism which was universally bad.
   2. Are responsible or owe reparations for slavery or other harmful practices carried out by other Anglo or white people before they were born. Therefore they:
   3. Should have their children taught to believe that their own people, history, traditions and culture have transgressed the rights of non-European ethnic groups.
4. Are considered prone to racism according to the ideology of “Critical Race Theory”, even when no direct evidence of racism exists. This means that they
   1. Are considered guilty of holding “white supremacist” beliefs for simply expressing or advocating on behalf of white or Anglo identity.
   2. Are uniquely culpable of racism due to their power over non-whites always and every-where.
   3. Must be racist because they are on average wealthier, healthier, or better educated than some other racial or ethnic groups.
5. Must be denied the freedom of speech required to promote or pursue the interests of their group, unlike other racial or ethnic groups, and
   1. Should have their free speech right to express ethnic identity regulated by multicultural agencies such as the Human Rights Commission.
   2. Should have their expressions of ethnic or cultural pride, solidarity, and identity blocked or removed from media platforms.
6. Must not be allowed a homeland in which they may remain the majority.
7. May have their cultural and religious traditions trivialised, denigrated or eradicated.

The authors dive into each point above in great detail, often enlightening the non-Australian reader with rather appalling instances of vilification down under. First up is Noel Pearson, an Aboriginal and darling of the Left “who has a reputation for crude Anglophobia.” As the authors point out, high-level academics will chide Pearson’s profane speech, but not his anti-white racism. One of these academics, Colin Tatz, spent his career trying to criminalize what he calls racist speech — which, of course, applies only to Anglos and not to people such as Pearson, who can call white people “fucking racist white cunts” and get away with it.

Richardson and Salter underscore this double standard with aplomb:

To blame the Chinese community in Australia for the practice of opium dens during the nineteenth century gold rush or for China’s appalling treatment of the Tibetans or the Uighurs, would be considered unacceptably racist in this country. Yet Anglos in Australia and overseas are sometimes held responsible for all negative aspects of white behaviour, whilst positive accomplishments are rarely mentioned.

The authors also adroitly note that the Left will praise replacement-level non-white immigration into Australia while condemning Europeans immigrating to destinations outside of Europe as colonization. Of course, mentioning any positive aspects of this colonization is forbidden in today’s Anglophobic climate. Even referring to Newton’s Three Laws of Motion as Newton’s Three Laws of Motion is considered racist. They must now be referred to as the “three fundamental laws of physics” in order to “decolonise the curriculum.”

Further, seeming to cast aspersions towards non-Anglos could land an Anglo such as Andrew Bolt before a judge. Bolt had accused a number of partial-aboriginals of using their supposed heritage to unfair advantage. To make matters worse:

Bolt complained that at his trial he faced a Jewish prosecutor who told the Jewish judge that Bolt was like a neo-Nazi and referred repeatedly to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The leading barrister for the plaintiffs even discussed another case he had represented against a Holocaust denier. In a subsequent comment Bolt chided his many Jewish supporters for failing to defend him against what he saw as a scurrilous attack. Bolt concluded that they held their silence in order to defend Section 18c.

You can buy Spencer Quinn’s novel White Like You here.

And what is Section 18c? Section 18c is the 1996 amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) of 1975, which effectively criminalized public acts that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate because of someone’s race or ethnicity.” Of course, victims of such abuse must only be non-white and the victimizers white, otherwise the aforementioned Noel Pearson would have landed in as much trouble as Andrew Bolt. The fact that Section 18c was passed only under tremendous pressure from a coalition of Australian Jews, Asians, and Aboriginals tells us all we need to know about its Anglophobic intentions.

A sweeping history of Anglophobic vilification in Australia is also provided, with the authors highlighting the insidious Immigration Reform Group of the 1960s and ’70s –which, incidentally, included as a member one John Darbyshire (not our Derb). Invective from this group praised all forms of non-white immigration while expressing deep hostility towards the founding Anglo population of Australia and its democratic wishes. Australian historian Donald Horne, in his popular books The Lucky Country (1964) and The Next Australia (1971), is another offender. So is Marxist Stuart Macintyre, who in 1999 explicitly called for the “demographic displacement of Anglo Australians by Aborigines and Asians.”

How does this not violate Section 18c?

The absurdity to which Anglophobia has descended in recent years is epitomized by Richardson and Salter’s treatment of Kate Holden and her 2021 book The Winter Road. Holden actually criticized Anglo Australians for their “morbid fixation” with their hard-working and thrifty settler forebears:

Even the wheat they grew “fitted wonderfully into the racist, nationalist, agrarian culture of White Australia on the eve of Federation”. How could wheat evoke white racism? Because of its “biblical associations, its satiny fields, its satisfying ceremonies . . . , its European heritage and even its blondness”. The book was favourably reviewed in the mainstream press.

As with most books I review, I underlined relevant passages in Anglophobia. After about 20 or so pages, however, I stopped. So much of it was pithy and elegant that I would have ended up underlining nearly all of it. Anglophobia is a crucial book which belongs in the canon of introductory material for the dissident Right (alongside a short list of other works such as Jared Taylor’s White Identity, Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto, and Frank Salter’s classic On Genetic Interests). The prose is clear, direct, and completely free of rancor. Richardson and Salter remain evenhanded and logical throughout.

Anglophobia was a joy to read. Most importantly, the way in which it organizes concepts and deftly applies them to history and current events makes the book eminently useful. It is a work we will refer to often in years to come.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
• Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments. 
• Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

• your payment
• the recipient’s name
• the recipient’s email address
• your name
• your email address

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.