Quadrant magazine has published the first part of a major analysis of Anglophobia or anti-white racism in its April edition. The second part will appear in the May issue of Quadrant. At this time, the article (Pts 1 & 2) are available to subscribers only. See my tab Anglophobia – Anti-white Racism for more articles.


Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred (Part 1)

Richard Harrison & Frank Salter, Quadrant 31 March, 2022

In recent decades, the taboo against hostile discrimination has intensified. Racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and transphobia have been elevated to a point where they are now considered tantamount to criminal acts. Yet during the same period, discrimination against Anglos has been largely ignored.

(Note: In this series of articles, the term Anglo refers 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.)

This discrimination needs a name commensurate with its importance. We have chosen the term Anglophobia. A clear statement of the scope and types of Anglophobia has become necessary.

Anglophobia is defined as hostility towards, aversion to, or discrimination against Anglo people. Anglophobia can be displayed by non-Anglos, by other white ethnicities, and by Anglos themselves. Hostility and suspicion towards Anglo and white Australians have become systemic in multicultural institutions. This hostility appears to be intensifying as ethno-religious diversity increases. It is harming Australians in general and Anglos in particular.

If the other identity phobias are valid concepts for describing hostility towards particular groups, then so too is “Anglophobia”.

Anglophobia helps to motivate policies which disadvantage the Anglo majority. These include unrestricted large-scale immigration that is transforming our society. They also include assaults by the school system on the Anglo identity of children. Australians have never been asked to vote for these policies. Instead, they have been imposed by edict.

Multiculturalism is a policy pursued by the governments of Anglosphere nations and many others in the West since the 1970s. The form of multiculturalism adopted is not the advertised normative type. Diversity and ethnic pride are not universally celebrated. Instead, the policies are often aggressive against the founding ethnic group, acting like a form of cultural warfare intended to defeat Anglos demographically, economically and psychologically. From its beginnings in the 1970s, Anglo advocates were excluded from multicultural forums and remained the prime targets of multicultural attacks on freedom of speech and association. This is intolerable in a law-governed democracy.

If institutional Anglophobia is to be eliminated, it must first be put under the spotlight, examined and understood. To that end, some types of Anglophobia are listed below. These are followed by explanations and examples.

Types of Anglophobia—Summary

  1. Vilification. The most common form of Anglophobia is vilification. Anglophobia is the assertion or implication that Anglos in Australia or elsewhere, unlike people of other races or ethnicities:
  2. Are inherently evil.
  3. Detract from but never enhance diversity.
  4. Are responsible for any and all negative actions of members of their race throughout history, because they
    1. 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.
  5. 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 everywhere.
    3. Must be racist because they are on average wealthier, healthier or better educated than some other racial or ethnic groups.
  6. 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.
  7. Must not be allowed a homeland in which they may remain the majority.
  8. May have their cultural and religious traditions trivialised, denigrated or eradicated.
  9. Hostile Discrimination. Anglo Australians are routinely discriminated against in employment and promotion, despite (or more likely because of) an elaborate system of so-called equal opportunity legislation and accompanying bureaucracies. The Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action regime is part of the multicultural establishment. It is designed and managed to benefit designated victim groups, which includes various ethnic minorities but excludes Anglo identity. Indeed, ethnic affirmative action amounts to jobs and promotions being taken from Anglos and given to others. Another important form of discrimination against Anglos is the use of the education system to indoctrinate school children. Anglo advocates have been ethnically cleansed from this and other institutions, including Big Tech and Big Social Media.
  10. Violence. Unsurprisingly, vilification and discrimination are sometimes followed by the most extreme form of Anglophobia. This consists of physical attacks against individuals motivated by hostility towards their Anglo identity. Types of violence include the sexual assault of Anglo women and girls based on their ethnicity. Those who excuse, ignore, trivialise or cover up these crimes are also culpable.

These points are discussed in more detail presently. Before doing so, however, some general principles and key terms will be defined.

Some General Principles

The meaning of “Anglos” has changed over the centuries. The name originates from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who settled parts of the British Isles after the Romans evacuated around 450 AD. “Anglo Saxon” became the collective term for those peoples, and also named their language, with Anglo transforming into English. In Australia, the root word is retained in the term Anglo-Celtic, meaning the amalgam of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish peoples who constituted most of the white population from colonial times. In some countries “Anglo” designates English-speaking white people. Thus the meaning of “Anglo” has broadened, though perhaps less in the eyes of observers than among Anglos themselves. At the same time the constituent identities remain, especially from the subjective perspective of those in the Old Country. A residue of past disputes remains in the memory of older Australians. Despite this history, the similarity of British-Isles-descended peoples is manifest.

In this series we adopt this broader meaning of “Anglo”.

In psychology a phobia is an extreme and involuntary fear reaction, such as fear of heights or of being outdoors. The meaning includes the milder reaction of xenophobia, such as the aversion to strangers that begins at around five months in children. In politics a broader meaning was in use by the early twentieth century, when “Anglophobia” designated hostility towards England or Britain. By late in the twentieth century the suffix “phobia” was being used to designate hostility towards many religious or sexual categories. “Islamophobia”, “Judeophobia”, “homophobia” and “transphobia” are a few common examples. Applications of the suffix continue to increase.[1]

Perhaps the earliest study of Anglophobia was by James Gwin Cook, an American author who in 1919 wrote a book titled Anglophobia: An Analysis of Anti-British Prejudice in the United States. Cook distinguished types of hostile reaction to Britain, all characterised, he thought, by ignorance or obsession with long-dead causes. This included Irish and German dislike of England.[2] (Irish Anglophobia in Australia is discussed in section 5a below.) As early as the War of 1812, American Anglophobia emerged as fantasies about vast English conspiracies,[3] though it was no fantasy when, in that year, the British navy sailed up the Potomac River and burned Congress and the White House to the ground.

Cook’s thesis, that dislike of Britain originated in real or imagined conflict, suggests why Anglophobia was widespread a century ago. At its height around 1900, the British Empire ruled almost a quarter of the world’s land surface and traded with much of the remainder. This vast enterprise brought subject peoples and many others into contact with Anglo administrators, soldiers, missionaries, traders and, in what would become Anglosphere countries, settlers from Britain.

In the present document, “Anglophobia” names something personal. It is the dislike or mistrust of British-descended people wherever they reside around the world, though mostly in Anglophone countries.[4] The new meaning usually applies within, not between, countries. Also, the word and the sentiments it describes cannot usually be applied to the past. For example, Americans of 1812 could not have been Anglophobic in the ethnic sense unless they hated themselves, a phenomenon yet to arrive.

This raises a question. If Cook was correct, then a degree of Anglophobia was understandable, if not excusable, a century ago at the height of the British Empire. It is not a straightforward matter to explain why Anglophobia became more common after the British dismantled their empire, and why it is frequently evident among leftist Anglos in English-speaking societies, which show relatively high levels of openness and tolerance.

Though hostility towards Anglo ethnicity and culture has been increasing since the 1960s, the term “Anglophobia” is not in common usage. Neither is it recognised by the multicultural establishment, which does not classify Anglos as a protected group. Most multicultural scholarship treats Anglos as perpetrators, not victims, of prejudice. This is unfair because Anglos have for many years been subjected to vilification on a large scale. Consider the mainstream Australian media.

Read the rest in the April edition of Quadrant magazine. Part 2 will appear in the May edition