Frank Salter, 20 September 2022. Talk given at the Round Table on Western Civilisation, New South Wales Parliament House.

The moderator introduced Frank Salter:

Frank Salter received his Ph.D from Griffith University and conducted post-doctoral research at the Max Planck Society in Germany. He is a political scientist who uses knowledge from the behavioural sciences to understand political and social phenomena, such as command hierarchies and ethnic altruism. Frank has held teaching positions in Britain, the United States, and Austria. Returning to Australia, he published extensively on social issues. Recently, he published a series of essays in Quadrant magazine on the subject of Anglophobia, with co-author Richard Harrison. Last year Frank became president of the British Australian Community, a body that seeks to represent Anglo Australians in multicultural affairs.

FRANK SALTER’S SPEECH: [Based on the forthcoming book by Richard Harrison and Frank Salter, Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred.]

I should thank the organisers of this event, David Duffy, Beverly Anderson and the good folk of the Round Table and Western Heritage Australia.

And thank you all for attending tonight.

I’ll begin by acknowledging our national origins. This is very topical, and I have my own version:

I acknowledge Australia’s historic nation, forged by Christian explorers and pioneers from Britain and other European lands, who created the federal Commonwealth under the Crown; and I acknowledge Australia’s first peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are a valued part of our nation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Anglo identity, the identity around which the Australian nation was built and developed for over 200 years, is under siege in multicultural Australia. In this talk I shall define Anglos, and describe the ways in which they are being assailed by a cultural establishment that espouses the ideology of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is not diversity, but an ideology.

‘Anglo’ is a term commonly used within multicultural circles, more so than among Anglos themselves. In fact I find Anglos generally to be a bit uncomfortable with ethnic designations of themselves. They are not sure what they should think and say.

The term “Anglo” is an abbreviation originally of “Anglo Saxon” and more recently of “Anglo Celtic”. I take an Anglo to be someone descended in whole or in part from the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. The category includes those who have assimilated into and identify as Anglos. Thus Anglos can be of any religion and can include in their ancestry, non-British, indeed non-European, people. There are many Anglos with Aboriginal ancestors. Whatever the mix, their “foreground identity”, as opposed to knowledge of other ancestry, is Anglo or a correlate such as mainstream Australian. This definition opens a range of possible combinations of descent, culture and religion. However, for most of their history and still today, most Anglos have been white people descended from the British Isles. That’s the heart.

The assault on Anglo Australia, one front in what English commentator Douglas Murray calls the “war on the West” and the “war on white people” (he’s quite blunt about this), takes three forms – vilification, hostile discrimination, and violence. Many other ethnicities experience these attacks, which are not monopolised by Anglos. They are permitted, however, indeed expected, to protest and to demand their rights. Only Anglos are not meant to do so. The education system offers no such protests in its curricula. Instead it persist with what Geoffrey Blainey called “black armband” history.

So let me begin by quickly running through – there is too much to do here – though I’ll be giving some examples of the categories. What I’m doing now is naming some categories, some types of Anglophobia.

Vilification. The most common form of Anglophobia is vilification, of which several types can be identified. I shall provide examples occasionally.

Anglophobic vilification is the assertion or implication that Anglos in Australia or elsewhere, unlike people of other races or ethnicities … Detract from but never enhance diversity. Government departments, universities, and corporations commonly set “diversity” targets. Diversity has an objective meaning, measured by variables such as ethno-cultural heterogeneity and gender ratios. However, an ideological meaning of “diversity” is used increasingly by leftist and multicultural advocates. They speak of the “diversity component” or of people with “diverse backgrounds”. This really means non-white or non-male or non-Christian.

A second form of vilification is the assumption that Anglos are responsible for any and all negative actions of members of their race throughout history, because

a. They engaged in colonialism which was universally bad and somehow unique to them – an extraordinary proposition.

b. Are responsible or owe reparations for slavery or other harmful practices carried out by other Anglo or white people before they were born. Therefore Anglos

c. Should have their children taught to believe that their own people, history, traditions and culture have transgressed the rights of non-European ethnic groups.

Another type of Anglophobic vilification is to consider Anglos prone to racism according to the ideology of “Critical Race Theory”, even when no direct evidence of racism exists. This means that they are considered guilty of holding “white supremacist” beliefs for simply expressing or advocating on behalf of white or Anglo identity. As Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann points out in his book, Whiteshift, since the 1960s, multiculturalist governments and social movements have routinely suppressed white identity. They have treated Anglos as a common enemy against which to mobilise, against which to adhere the multicultural movement, instead of including them as a legitimate part of the multicultural mix who deserve the right to cherish and defend their identity like everyone else. Even mere depictions of homogeneous Anglo society are treated as suspicious and are being driven out of popular culture.

An example is the British television series Midsomer Murders based on the series of novels Chief Inspector Barnaby written by Caroline Graham. The setting is Midsomer, a fictional modern English county town. First broadcast in 1997, the program became popular around the world, especially in Anglophone countries. Arguably its popularity was largely due to the Englishness of the setting and characters. This interpretation was stated openly by Brian True-May, one of the two founding producers. In a 2011 interview, True-May explained that the program did not have many non-white characters because he had created Midsomer to be a “bastion of Englishness”. The formula had succeeded in attracting a large audience. He also implied that Englishness was its own ethnic category that was distinct from other ethnic identities. True-May was summarily suspended as producer, because of the interview, and only reinstated after offering a grovelling apology.

Critical Race Theory also holds that Anglos or whites are uniquely culpable of racism due to their power over non-whites always and everywhere. (An improbable proposition.)

Finally, CRT maintains that whites must be racist because they are on average wealthier, healthier, or better educated than some other racial or ethnic groups. The argument is obviously fraudulent, because the “racism” accusation is never made against minorities that are wealthier, healthier or better educated than whites.

A fourth type of Anglophobic vilification is to propose denying Anglos the freedom of speech required to promote or pursue the interests of their group, unlike other citizens in multicultural Australia. In particular, Anglos should have their free speech right to express ethnic identity or simply talk about ethnic affairs, regulated by multicultural agencies such as the Human Rights Commission; (This Commission does seem to have a special interest in white racism.). Also their expressions of ethnic or cultural pride, solidarity, and identity should be blocked or removed from media platforms, a practice long committed by Twitter, Facebook, Google and Facebook.

A fifth type of Anglophobic vilification is to insist that Anglos not be allowed a homeland in which they may remain the majority. Such a notion is considered outrageous. Bob Carr provides us with an example. Carr was once premier of New South Wales and later became foreign minister of Australia under prime minister Julia Gillard. He adopted informed positions on a range of issues, but was also a doctrinaire multiculturalist of the reflexive, Anglophobic kind. This emerged clearly in remarks he made shortly after the death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher in 2013. Because Carr was Australia’s foreign minister at the time, his critical comments were reported internationally, a sad event.

Carr accused Thatcher of making “unabashedly racist” comments to him in private after her retirement. She had warned Australia against large-scale Asian immigration. He recalled Thatcher saying words to the effect that (quote) “if we allowed too much [Asian immigration] we’d see the natives of the land, the European settlers, overtaken by migrants.” He also reported Thatcher saying: “You will end up like Fiji. … I like Sydney but you can’t allow the migrants to take over, otherwise you will end up like Fiji where the Indian migrants have taken over.”

Now let’s unpack that. My starting position is that the aspiration to remain the majority ethnicity in one’s own country is completely normal, completely ethical and, for non-white nations, completely uncontroversial. Thatcher’s remarks were not racist, they were ethnocentric. She did not express dislike for Asians. She simply expressed affection and concern for white Australians, with whom Britain has close connections. She acknowledged different identities and implied that becoming a minority would not be in the best interests of the Anglo Australians whose forebears had built the nation. Moreover, she expressed sympathy for the Fijians who felt the same way. Thatcher’s remarks about Fiji indicate that she was also speaking from principle, not only from special affection for Australia. Thatcher opined that Indians had overtaken the native Fijians, a view widely shared in Fiji and the source of much upheaval as Fijians sought to retain control of their country.

A sixth type of Anglophobic vilification is the trivialisation and denigration of cultural and religious traditions. I’ll leave that to your imaginations. If anyone would like to read the documentation, I refer you to the online edition of Quadrant, the April ‘till July-August issues.

The final type of vilification is the notion that Anglos are inherently evil. I don’t see another way to express this.

An example is the well known quip by American academic Susan Sontag in 1967 that “white people are the cancer of human history”. Equating white people with evil continues to the present day.

The New York Times, perhaps the most influential newspaper in that country, supports the 1619 Project, which defames Anglo Americans. The author of the Project is Nikole Hannah-Jones, an African-American journalist who declares that: “The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.” Her reference was not simply to the white people who settled America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She added that “descendants of these savage [white] people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community”. For these ideas, Hannah-Jones received the coveted Pulitzer Prize for journalism. The reality is that Anglophobia is approved by progressive cultural elites in the United States.


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 influenced by the multicultural establishment. It is designed and managed to benefit designated victim groups, which include various ethnic minorities but exclude 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 to feel guilt for their identity. At the same time, Anglo advocates are not represented in these institutions, nor in Big Tech and Big Social Media. So various forms of Anglophobia are being practised here.


The third major form of Anglophobia is violence. Unsurprisingly, vilification and hostile discrimination are sometimes followed by violence directed at the same identity group. 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. Anglophobic violence has not escalated in Australia as much as in some other Anglosphere countries, though in the year 2000 more than 50 Anglo girls were gang raped in Sydney by ethnically motivated groups of Muslim Lebanese men. In Britain, the police establishment failed to protect thousands of girls and young women from being raped and sex trafficked by largely Muslim Pakistani gangs.

So when I say “violence”, I mean violence of the ugliest kind.

Anglophobia has had damaging, destabilising impacts on Australia and other Anglosphere nations.

Demographic change is the most obvious manifestation of Anglophobia, even if there have been other motives, such as corporate demand for low-cost labour.

So pronounced is this process of demographic replacement – proponents might say “enhancement” – that one of its participants, senior journalist Greg Sheridan, declared in 2013 that Anglo Australia has been subjected to “benign cultural genocide”. By “cultural genocide” he meant the transformation of a once homogeneous nation into an ethnically diverse society in which Anglos have lost control. By describing it as “benign” he might have meant to excuse his facilitating role in that process, for Sheridan displayed Anglophobia for decades using the platform of his journalistic position.

Multicultural Anglophobia is beginning to be exposed. There is a backlash building. In the United States a critic of white nationalism, African-American professor Carol Swain, has come to recognise and condemn the overt anti-white racism of Critical Race Theory. She urges white people to rise up and demand their rights, within the multicultural framework.

I think that white people need to learn to think and act like racial minorities because they are racial minorities in many parts of the country; in ten, fifteen years they will be a minority nation-wide. We do have a constitution and laws. They need to know their rights, document discrimination and file [legal] cases and I believe that racial and ethnic minorities . . . we need to stand with our white brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans and fight for our values and principles about how you treat people. One of the things that is un-American is, we do not shame and bully people because of immutable characteristics, because of the colour of their skin. It seems ludicrous that people that would argue that it’s wrong to do it to racial and ethnic minorities think it’s okay to do it to whites and they don’t have empathy for white children who are being taught and told to hate themselves and their ancestors.

I second, especially, that closing sentence. This is a terrible business that is going on.

Finally, the demonisation of Anglo Australia matters. Why does it matter? If it didn’t matter, we could just go home and not worry about it. But it does matter. Anglos should care about their collective reputation because it affects their members’ wellbeing, and the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. As the late Anthony Smith maintained in his comparative historiography, nations have ethnic origins; they develop around a founding ethnicity. Social cohesion rests disproportionately on the public altruism of the ethnic core. If that core feels under duress, if its majority status is undermined, if it is defamed by the institutions that it founded, then it can lose faith in the political settlement, lose its tolerance and feelings of altruism. The polity can be destabilised. Ethnic diversity is a major correlate of polarisation and civil war.

Another reason to protest against Anglophobia is that individuals, especially children, need to receive positive identities from their families, from civics lessons at school, and positive role models. When Anglo history is taught in our schools to have been evil; when students are taught that their ancestors committed grave injustices, that is a psychological attack upon our children.

Also, ethnicity is extended kinship. Because fellow ethnics are genetically related, a population of millions represents the equivalent of a family much larger – orders of magnitude larger – than the largest nuclear family. It’s like having tens of thousands of your children. Thus people everywhere have a vital reproductive interest in the status of their ethnic groups.


As Swain and others are recognising, what might be called first wave multiculturalism has been a sham, an invidious reverse ethnic hierarchy, a form of revolutionary politics that attempts to overthrow the majority ethnic groups of Western societies. Perhaps the first analyst to recognise this aspect of first-wave multiculturalism was Eric Kaufmann in his history of Anglo American decline. Kaufmann called it “asymmetrical multiculturalism”. Australian political scientist David Brown reached a similar conclusion. He offered a theory of why multiculturalism excludes Anglos. It’s something to be explained. He argued that in the 1960s the state, in our case the Commonwealth and the states, began to license (ie. approve and encourage) minority identity at the same time that it withdrew its licensing of Anglo identity.

The institutional dimensions of this first wave have been described by Melbourne sociologist Katharine Betts. By the 1970s, she argued, cultural elites trained in leftist universities, had reached positions of power in the media, publishing, the arts and schools. This “New Class” held values often at variance with most Australians on issues of race and immigration.

If the cause of Anglophobia has largely been institutional, so might its amelioration. An institutional remedy might reduce another harm. If Australia or the Anglosphere as a whole manages to survive the present civilisational challenge, a tragedy might still have occurred if we use to much the tactic of ratcheting-up tribal solidarity. The damage will then consist of Anglos approximating, not denying, the level of ethnic prejudice and solidarity alleged by Critical Race Theory. We will have become a little less than we were. For, despite exceptions, European civilisation has been gloriously individualistic in conscience and thought.

In this light, the solution most preserving of our civilisation will be to vest ethnic defence in institutions, instead of whipping up an unnatural ethnocentrism.

I conclude on this note.

Any sustainable reform of first wave multiculturalism will involve democratisation, in which the founding ethnic group’s positive expression of group identity is protected from vilification in schools, universities and the mass media. The best way to achieve that would be to somehow depoliticise the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps it will be necessary, as proposed by historian David Starkey in Britain, to withdraw government funding from the humanities altogether. A more fundamental step will be to build up ethnic defence organisations to represent Anglo interests, such as the British Australian Community that I represent. Whatever the cure, people should be able to say “I’m Anglo, I’m proud of who I am and of my ancestors”.

The oppressive multicultural apparatus embedded in the media, universities and school system, needs to be reformed, indeed replaced, by an inclusive, representative second wave multiculturalism that acknowledges that Australia’s founding people also need and deserve a dignified identity and fair representation in the multicultural system.