“The idea that a book about the evils of racism could be considered controversial in 2023 is prima facie absurd. In fact, it tells us all we need to know about the rampant hypocrisy underpinning much of the anti-racism movement.”
Being born white is to win the lottery of life. At least that is the conventional wisdom, and in many cases it rings true (not current reality). White nations, and particularly Anglosphere nations like Australia, are the destination of choice for most of the world’s would-be migrants.
Their standard of living is the envy of most of the rest of the world. Added to that, they have advanced justice systems, the rule of law, free speech, low levels of corruption, and a welfare system which pays people for simply existing.
Being white in a white nation is a double privilege, we are told. These countries were built by – and for – people like you.
And yet… and yet.
There are things, often small things, which are easy to ignore and assuming that you aren’t silly enough to break the unspoken rules, life can go on for the most part without ever really having to think about them too much. There are words you mustn’t say, people you mustn’t criticise and policies you have to go along with, even if you don’t really agree with them.
Occasionally, these “things” can have more tangible effects. These can range from needing a higher score for university entrance to being passed over for a job or a promotion.
For the really unfortunate, however, the reality of the situation can be nothing short of catastrophic.
In the UK, thousands upon thousands of school aged girls were taken as actual sex slaves by gangs of men who were mostly of Pakistani origin. When the parents of these poor wretches reported these monstrous crimes to the police, they were ignored or turned away because, “y’know – racism”.
How can it be that the supposedly privileged majority can be treated with such utter contempt by the authorities who have a sworn duty to protect them and claim to do so with an approach that is completely colourblind?
Most of us are instinctively aware of the answer to this conundrum. The reality is, that whilst “racism” is supposedly the greatest evil, the modern definition of racism is not what it appears to be.
Racism is supposed to be discrimination against, or hatred of, people of a particular race or ethnicity. Yet the reality is that there is one race which is not at all protected by the anti-racism zealots. That race is the white race of people who are increasingly discriminated against and defamed. This discri-mination is committed by individuals, corporations, governments, media (including the ironically named “social media”) and more.
In fact, the majority of the institutions of western nations are increasingly hostile to western interests and act as if the marginalisation of white people and their history and culture would be a good thing.
Why is this? How did it happen? Who, or what were responsible for this disaster and what can we do about it?
One of the major tactics used by the radical left and their minority clients to gain power has been the weaponisation of victimhood. In order to enforce and amplify this advantage, they have adopted, or invented, words to describe any discrimination or injustice against them. These words become powerful weapons when wielded by anti-western radicals. These attack-words have been used without restraint to advance the interests of these groups against the founding majority.
White, and particularly Anglo, culture strongly discourages victimhood. Instead, it encourages self-determination and stoicism, encapsulated in the historic British concept of the “stiff upper lip.”
Unfortunately, in the face of organised and well-funded minority victimhood strategies, Anglo stoicism has been a losing response.
Whites need to recognise and identify injustices against them and against their group interests. They need to push back hard against these attacks. In order to do so, they need a word that encapsulates attacks upon them that are, or at least should be, unacceptable to most reasonable people.
The word should not be “clunky”. It should roll off the tongue with ease. It also does not need to be strictly accurate. The term “Semite” is not exclusive to Jews, yet we all understand that “anti-Semitism” refers to hostility to Jews.
After casting around and trying various combinations, we arrived, largely by process of elimination, at the term “Anglophobia.”
We understand that the term “Anglo” may not resonate with many whites who are affected by this phenomenon. In North America, many may find it jarring due to having non-English ancestors or due to the historic schism with Great Britain. Once the term becomes accepted and slides into the everyday lexicon, however, people will instinctively understand its meaning, even if they themselves might not identify specifically as Anglos.
Once these minor obstacles have receded, the ease of pronunciation make this the clear favourite, one reason why we have chosen it above all possible others such as “white-o-phobia” or the somewhat nihilistic “blank-o-phobia”.
The following book is the distillation of example after example of egregious Anglophobic behaviours. Whilst many of these examples occurred in Australia, there is no shortage of equal or greater injustices being perpetrated on an almost daily basis in other traditionally white nations around the world.
This is far from a complete study, but we hope it will inspire an awakening and further research and examination by those who come after us.
What does “Anglo” mean?
When the authors of Anglophobia – The Unrecognised Hatred use the term ‘Anglo’ they refer to people descended from the indigenous population of the British Isles in Australia and overseas as well as those who have assimilated into those populations. It can include kindred ethnic and cultural categories, namely people of European descent and Western civilisation as a whole.
The term “Anglo” may be confusing or even confronting to many. White people in North America and elsewhere are often descended from other European ancestors. Adding to that is the fact that the English were traditionally somewhat villified in the USA after the War of Independence. Whilst this hostility has softened somewhat after fighting together through a century of world wars and other conflicts, readers may still be asking why the authors chose the term “Anglo” over, for instance, “white”.
The short answer is ease of pronunciation. White-O-Phobia just doesn’t have the same ring and as the term “Anti-Semitism” has demonstrated, these terms do not need pinpoint accuracy to be accepted into general usage.
The many Germans, Greeks, Italians and other Europeans who moved to Anglo nations such as America, Canada and Australia assimilated seamlessly into the nation and the culture, becoming indistinguishable within a couple of generations.
Today, they are considered by the multicultural industry to carry the same guilt and are lumped into the same cauldron of wickedness. “Anglophobia” is the term we use for hatred, vilification, discrimination and violence against this largely white cohort of people.
About the authors
Harry Richardson is an Englishman who emigrated to The Great Southern Land in 1989 and still calls Australia home. He burst onto the literary scene in 2013 with the release of the smash hit, The Story of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled, which sold 30,000 copies and has been translated into seven languages. He currently lives in Brisbane with a beautiful daughter, a lovely dog and a rather ugly mortgage.
Frank K. Salter is an Australian political ethologist whose research areas include the politics of ethnicity. His work has been published by university presses and in reference books on social science. He has published several books including, On Genetic Interests, Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism and The War on Human Nature in Australia’s Political Culture.
A note on cancel culture
Powerful individuals and organisations are implacably opposed to the message the authors wish to share. When they can’t rationally oppose this message or argue coherently against it (despite their almost monopolistic control of the media and academia) they will try to have it removed, cancelled or shadow banned from any and all popular platforms.
What they cannot do is to stop you spreading this book by more traditional methods such as buying copies and distributing them to family and friends who may be receptive to such ideas. Please consider sharing this book as widely as possible, and if you wouldn’t mind, a good review on Amazon or Goodreads gives important books a great boost.