“Hatred of Anglos is a core feature of multicultural ideology in Anglosphere societies”: A review of Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred

Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, by Harry Richardson and Frank Salter, is an excellent exposition of the hatred and dispossession of native White populations that is sweeping Western societies. Focusing particularly on Australia as a prime example, it is a valuable contribution to the effort to both inform European-descended peoples of the danger and injustice of the present situation and to motivate them to action on behalf of their legitimate interests.

Frank Salter needs no introduction to readers of The Occidental Observer (e.g., here and here). His theory of ethnic genetic interests develops a perspective that should be essential reading for a sophisticated understanding of ethnicity and multiculturalism; it is foundational to the book under review. His co-author, Harry Richardson is the author of The Story of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled and editor-in-chief of The Richardson Post. They have written a highly readable book that, at around 200 pages, does not require a major investment of time.

Focusing on Anglos may be off-putting to some because it may seem to exclude European-descended groups not descended from the British Isles. However, the authors apply the term widely, 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 people of European descent and western civilization as a whole” (5). Anglophobia, then, is hatred or mistrust directed at those populations. As they document in detail, Anglophobia is rife throughout the Western world, and often emanates from prominent figures in the elite media and academic world. Clearly Anglos and their interests are being systematically compromised.

As noted, this is a highly readable book, but it is also intellectually rigorous. Chapter 5, “Psychological and Biological Dimensions of Racism” notes that ethnocentrism is a biological universal that evolved for group living—likely in small groups of close kin. However, ethnocentrism spans a spectrum of variation, and “Anglos are among the world’s most individualist and least collectivist (in other words, non ‘racist’) cultures.” (16) Indeed, Western individualism is unique among the cultures of the world. But that doesn’t imply that Westerners have no tendency toward ethnocentrism at all, only that it is less central to Anglo cultures and more difficult to arouse. And when allegiance to the group is aroused, it is less likely to be directed at a group of co-ethnics, as we see with the phenomenon of civic nationalism—perhaps a fatal flaw in today’s multicultural West.

Underlying the theoretical basis of the book is Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interests—that genetic diversity creates conflicts of interest between people and hence between people organized into ethnic groups, with the result that multiethnic, multicultural societies are prone to conflict: “As ethno-religious diversity increases, cohesion falls and conflict rises. Most people choose to live among their own people and to marry and make friends among them [as noted in their discussion of J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory]. Ethnic identity is adaptive because it allows people to defend their ethnic cultural and genetic interests” (22).

Chapter 6, “Sociological Dimensions of Racism,” discusses the costs of multiculturalism, citing some of Salter’s own research: “ethnic conflict sometimes leading to civil war, a loss of public trust and cooperation, reduced democracy, reduced economic growth, the emergence of ethnic criminal gangs, and psychological and social costs to majorities who become minorities” (24). Around the world we see societies racked by ethnic and religious conflict. The civil war in Syria pitted Sunnis against Shiites, and within these larger groupings there are particular ethnic groups, such as Alewites, Arabs, Kurds, Druze, and Assyrians. Then there’s China and the Uyghurs, Israelis and Palestinians, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims in India, and the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. And then there are also the recent battles between Muslim migrant-descended groups versus the police in France and the Black Lives Matter riots in the U.S. in 2020. One would think that the reality of ethnic conflict would be obvious to anyone with or without any training in evolutionary biology, but this has not stopped our pro-multicultural elites from imposing it throughout the West.

Regarding the loss of public trust, the problem with collectivist, kinship-based cultures is that they do not produce high trust apart from close kin, resulting in much higher levels of corruption because individuals with power have a tendency to help their relatives; in Western cultures people readily trust and cooperate with non-kin on the basis of reputation (e.g., as honest or competent), not kinship connections.

The authors note that ethnic groups have common ancestors, that race is real, and that different races have different traits because they evolved in response to local environmental challenges. A nation, then, “is an ethnic group living in its homeland”—a definition that would imply, say, that ethnic Germans living in Germany constitute a nation. And it would also apply to settler societies like the U.S. and Australia that “developed as nation-states with unambiguous ethnic origins and identities” (28). Nationalism, then, reflects “the desire of a people for their own state” (29). Importantly in the current state of the West, “this analysis of nationalism … implies that they also wish their elites to share the nation’s identity” (30).

Such definitions would likely infuriate the left—for example, the Wikipedia article for ‘nation’ notes that “The consensus among scholars is that nations are socially constructed, historically contingent, and organizationally flexible”—ethnicity need have nothing to do with it. And it’s quite clear that Western elites typically do not identity with the ethnic identity of the native peoples. These elites desire top-down control of political institutions and utterly reject popular attitudes aimed at establishing the sovereignty of native, European-descended peoples.

Chapters 7, 8, and 9, describe the various types of Anglophobias. Chapter 7 “Examining Types of Anglophobia, Vilification” is by far the longest chapter, constituting 130 pages—~65 percent of the book. It is an exhaustive and well-sourced compendium of the hatred and distrust of native European-descended peoples throughout the West, with an emphasis on Australia. It begins with what is now standard wisdom among Western elites, that contemporary White people are responsible for any and all sins of their co-ethnics throughout history.  This phenomenon of being able to blame contemporary Whites for past imagined or real grievances naturally leads to hatred of Whites, such as crude Anglophobic statements by Aboriginal activists (e.g., “in 2012 [Noel Pearson] was reported accusing government officials and a female journalist, to their faces of being ‘f***king racist white c***s’” (32).

But Aboriginals didn’t get to the point where such crude denunciations of government officials would become mainstream by themselves. They were aided by academic activists, such as Colin Tatz, perhaps the most egregious example of an academic with a major role in making anti-White hate mainstream in Australia (see Brenton Sanderson’s four-part article, “Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge”).  And in the U.S., we have Nicole Hannah-Jones, of the elite New York Times “1619 Project” fame, stating “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world” (34). Similar quotes can be found from anti-White activists in other Western societies. Clearly Western elites have no problem disseminating and condoning anti-White hate.

These points particularly struck me:

  • Whites detract from but never enhance diversity: “Diversity in art requires reducing the number of white male artists whose work is shown in galleries.” (38)
  • “Western colonialism is falsely portrayed as failing to provide any benefit to those who experienced it. In contrast, non-western colonizers such as the Ottomans, Moors, or Chinese, are mostly ignored or given mostly favorable coverage for their artistic, literary, musical, and architectural accomplishments.” (41–42)
  • “Uniquely, Anglo and white people are blamed for slavery, despite the British being the first power to voluntarily end slavery, a process that began over 200 years ago.” (53)
  • “For decades now, schools and universities in Australia and elsewhere in the Anglosphere have been teaching children to be ashamed of their history, culture, and people.”
  • Andrew Jakubowicz, a Jewish professor of sociology and “seminal influence” on Australian multicultural education, preaches anti-White hate in the supposedly conservative Murdoch press, e.g., urging non-Whites to organize on behalf of their interests while condemning any attempt to do the same by White Australians. He also accuses “Australian journalists of suffering from too much ‘whiteness’ and ‘advancing white-only narratives.” (57–58)
  • As always, media influence is important, so it’s noteworthy that the Murdoch empire also owns the Fox News Network in the U.S., the most widely viewed conservative network, the Wall Street Journal (also politically conservative), and multiple media outlets in the U.K., Australia, and throughout the world. The authors seem to have a special ire against Murdoch media and its woke political correctness while dominating conservative opinion. They also note that a column appeared in an Australian subsidiary of Murdoch’s empire stating “I just want to see less white mediocrity rewarded.” (63)
  • “Critical Race Theory has enabled Structural Anglophobia,” in which people are rewarded for anti-Whites slurs. The entire reward-punishment structure of society is arrayed against Whites. (63)
  • Any advocacy of White interests is routinely labeled “White Supremacy.” (69) “Today, anyone indicating even the mildest defence or advocacy of white or Anglo people risks being accused of a laundry list of epithets.” (69) For example, multiethnic immigration has resulted in loss of political and cultural power for Whites (74). Yet mentioning this critical interest of Whites is nothing more than “White Supremacy” in the eyes of our politically and culturally dominant hostile elites—elites that mandated or at least enabled these policies without popular support. Cultural change in the West is from the top down, and any sign of emerging populism is vigorously combatted.
  • “Any differences in wealth, health, or education are … assumed to be due to ‘disadvantage’ which includes racism by the assumed ubiquitous power of whites.” (80) This ignores genetic and cultural causes for population differences, but bringing up issues such as race differences in IQ—a trait that is linked to a wide variety of outcomes associated with social mobility—would of course be immediately labeled as White supremacist pseudoscience, no matter how strong the evidence. The authors cite Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Arthur Jensen’s research in arguing that race is not a social construct and that genes are important for social class differences as mediated by traits like intelligence. (88, 90)
  • But when you have media and academic power, there is no need to have real science on your side. And again, the “conservative” Murdoch empire spouts the leftist line, publishing a “Senior Journalist” who reviewed The Bell Curve as “morally offensive” and likened it to “Nazi pseudoscience”—“a mumbo jumbo amalgam of pseudo-science and highly dodgy statistics with, so far as I can see, zero intellectual credibility.” (92)
  • While firmly coming down on the side of White ethnic genetic interests, the authors state that assimilation would solve the conflicts created by these population differences, but that elites favor multiculturalism in which different groups are encouraged to retain their identities and interests while Whites are condemned for doing so (95)—essentially a prescription for war against Whites and their interests. It should also be noted that some groups have resisted assimilation into Western culture. Particularly noteworthy are Muslim groups that are such an important aspect of European immigration. Other groups, such as Chinese who retain links to China or Jews involved in the powerful Israel Lobby in the U.S., may be highly assimilated to American culture but retain loyalties to other countries, resulting in potential conflicts of interest with the wider society. Still other groups, such as African-descended peoples, may have difficulty becoming part of the mainstream of Western societies because of low average IQ and proneness to crime.
  • The authors examine motivations for Anglophobia. These are mainly progressive ideology, but include tribal sentiment. The authors note the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. “In Australia, Jewish organisations sometimes act as de facto peak bodies for the multicultural sector as a whole, rallying, organizing, coordinating, and supporting the actions of other minority advocates.” (117) This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.
  • Irish-Catholics are another group with longstanding animosity to the Anglo-Australians. Their hostility toward Anglos stemmed from English colonial rule over Ireland, hostilities which were transported to Australia after Irish immigration. Discussion mainly features one Greg Sheridan, a journalist since the late 1970s for The Australian, another Murdoch publication. Like many multiculturalism advocates in the West, he has praised other countries, like India and China, for taking steps to ensure their cultural homogeneity. Influenced by his father, as a child he refused to stand for God Save the Queen or any other expression of British sovereignty in his school days. However, as in America, where such multicultural activism motivated by Irish hostility toward the British is residual at best, Jewish activism and its organizing influence on other imported minorities is quite clearly much greater than the residual anti-Anglo sentiments of some contemporary Irish-descended Australians. “Examples of Anglophobia can be found among Irish Catholics but that sentiment has not been general or inevitable.” (141) Examples can be found, but the organizational infrastructure, elite overrepresentation (implying the ability to make influential political donations and to fund NGOs), academic influence, and media ownership and influence are simply not there.
  • The authors note that the colorblind, implicit ethnic activism typical of Anglo conservatives phrased in terms of abstract principles has repeatedly been defeated by explicit assertions of ethnic interests by those favoring multiculturalism and, I would argue, by the deluge of moralizing messages spewed out by the media (with the blessing of academia) that appeal to many Whites, especially women. I have presented the case that Western cultures create moral communities based on reputation rather than on kinship, and that conforming to messages disseminated by the elite media and educational system results in inclusion within a moral community that is now constructed and maintained by hostile elites, while ostracism and other penalties await those who dissent from these attitudes. And because of the weakness of such principle-based activism, a common thread among non-White activists throughout the West has been to promote the idea that Western nations are based on principles like egalitarianism with powerful moral connotations rather than the ethnic interests of their native peoples. However, these activists also advocate for some Western principles, such as freedom of expression, being sacrificed for moral reasons, the usual argument being that they might cause offense to “vulnerable groups,” thus preempting any discussion of race differences that may result in differences like IQ or criminality.
  • Multicultural advocates never specify an end to immigration that would preserve a White majority, and the topic of the legitimacy of White identity itself is off limits for public discussion because of the power of hostile elites able to expunge opposing views from the media and academic world.
  • The inevitable loss of White power that non-White immigration entails has not resulted in a utopian society of racial harmony but in ever greater levels of anti-White hate—an entirely predictable result. “Anglos face the prospect of becoming hated and powerless minorities in countries they established.” (149) All the utopias dreamed up by the Left inevitably lead to bloodshed—because they conflict with human nature. The classical Marxist Utopian vision of a classless society in the USSR self-destructed, but only after murdering millions of its own people. Now the multicultural utopian version that has become dominant throughout the West is showing signs of producing intense opposition and irreconcilable polarization.
  • The authors make an important distinction between normal, legitimate ethnocentrism and hate. Thus, in discussing comments of Margaret Thatcher warning that Australia would become like Fiji where Indian immigrants had taken over, they note “She did not express dislike of Asians. She simply expressed affection and concern for white Australians.” (156) Similarly, as Salter has often noted, parents typically have a special love for their children without hating other children.


The long chapter on vilification leads into two brief chapters describing more extreme measures against the Anglo majority: hostile discrimination and violence. The many examples of vilification provide a warrant for hostile action. After all, if a group is indeed genocidal and intent on oppressing people unlike themselves, then aggressive measures against them are warranted. Hostile discrimination is indicated by governments ignoring examples of Anglo disadvantage (e.g., a higher rate of deaths in custody) while funding the ethnic activist infrastructure arrayed against the White majority and simultaneously excluding Anglo advocates from formulating policy, a phenomenon that began during the mid-1970s. White advocates are completely excluded from the mainstream media, including the conservative media.

Anti-White violence is fairly minimal in Australia, but there are ethnically constituted criminal gangs and Whites are fleeing some schools because of violence and hatred directed against Whites.  A more extreme example comes from the U.K. where Muslim rape gangs have systematically preyed on disadvantaged White girls, with the authorities ignoring the problem for decades for fear of stoking racial tensions; a similar phenomenon is well known in Sweden where a 2018 study found that men with a migrant background constituted 58 per cent of rape convictions. The authors note that in the U.S., the vast majority of interracial crime is committed against White Americans.

The authors make special note of the sociopathic personalities of two of the Anglo leaders of the multicultural revolution, noting their criminal ties and the personal benefits they have received by championing multiculturalism. The same can be said about the many White politicians who have championed White dispossession while achieving fame and fortune in the process.

Finally, as predicted by Prof. Andrew Fraser, African immigrants have much higher rates of criminality in general than White Australians (e.g., Sudanese migrants are 22 times more likely to commit serious assault, 129 times more likely to commit aggravated burglary, and 17 times more likely to commit sexual assault than native-born Australians) (189). Fraser was convicted for making statements offensive to the African-Australian community.

*   *   *

To conclude, the anti-White revolution throughout the West is an elite project directed against the White majority. The main actors are:

  • well-funded and well-organized ethnic minorities with historical or imagined grudges against the White majority;
  • well-intentioned Whites who have optimistic views of the multicultural future and guilt about the past induced by the media and educational system that are hostile to White identity and interests;
  • other Whites who conform to the reward-punishment structure of society established by these hostile elites and are loathe to suffer the consequences of dissenting from the establishment narrative;
  • sociopathic Whites who are only too eager to betray their people to enhance their own fame and fortune.

This is an important book for White advocates to promote. It is a compendium of the anti-White hatred that has been unleashed by multiculturalism throughout the West and a terrifying glimpse into a future where formerly White majorities will inevitably become vulnerable, powerless, and hated minorities in the countries they built unless there is a sea change in the culture of the West that acknowledges the legitimate interests of White people.

31 replies
  1. Clownworld Observer
    Clownworld Observer says:

    I speak as a third-degree sufferer: Anglophobia can ultimately only be cured by making it unequivocally clear to the Anglophobe, through a multi-stage long-term therapy, that his ridiculous phobia is based on a pure ideological fallacy, which roughly says: “Anglo-Americans are in truth the only enemies of the white race!”

    This illusion can be dispelled very quickly by exposing the patient, who is severely impaired by Anglophobia, to a real-life, real-time situation in Anglo-American countries, including contact with the environment. After that, at the latest, they will finally know whether their abstruse fears were justified.

    • Clownworld Observer
      Clownworld Observer says:

      That was meant ironically, of course. What would mankind be without its beloved prejudices. The frightening thing about “stereotypes” is that most of them actually correspond to reality. Whereby it is not quite clear whether the attribution produces the drinker, or the drinker only fulfills the attribution. Probably both in reciprocal process.

      Someone who is firmly convinced that his star sign Leo gives him almost superhuman powers can hardly be dissuaded from this delusion. I like people most who claim not to be typical (insert any prejudice here). However, one catches oneself unintentionally again and again embodying exactly that prejudice, which one rejects loudly. It is ineradicable in you.

      Somehow, prejudices also seem to have a function regulating the social organism. Let us take as an example the sexual action deviating from nature. Despite all attempts of especially Jewish ideologists to make these perverse deviations from the norm “palatable” to us, our instinct still reacts vehemently with rejection.

      When I just googled for “Colin Tatz” and the photos belonging to the name appeared, I immediately knew to which “tribe” this gentleman belonged without having to check it further. So is this an unhealthy prejudice? Not at all, because Mr. Tatz represented everything in one person, which is almost prototypical for his kind.

      Anglophobia of Jews is different from that of Muslims. Which is no wonder, since the Jews are the force that, through their neocon wars, generate both anti-Americanism among Muslims and, at the same time, anti-Muslim resentment among societies ruined by their immigration policies.

      Our globalized heads are filled with contents offered by the Internet, and only very little knowledge about the events in our immediate social environment; there is no longer any question of of “cultivation of tradition”. “Today, everyone is a Jew, a cosmopolitan,” a Jew once wrote, delighted at this rampant uprooting.

      • Clownworld Observer
        Clownworld Observer says:

        The “reality” of the postmodern Zeitgeist humanoid is based on a fallacy. That’s why he is so easily controllable, manipulable, seducible and distractible. He confuses the contents in his head with reality or the contents of his head became his reality. We have set ourselves up in this unreal world like a bird incapable of flight in its nest, or a dreaming groundhog in its burrow.

        Meanwhile I ask myself every day in all seriousness, whether what my brain experiences for quite some time, thus absorbs and processes, can be true at all, because it has to do so purely nothing at all with my unconcerned earlier life in a better (thus by “Jewish world politics” uncontaminated) world.

        There is the nice metaphor of the manager at his desk, who dreams of Haiwaii, and who therefore is neither at his desk nor in Hawaii. I have the same impression of all the people who, as if paralyzed, stare spellbound at their smartphone screens like zombies, wander the streets without registering their environment, i.e. the world in which they physically exist.

        Lost in virtuality, we are increasingly losing contact and touch with our roots. Our brains are crammed with useless information. It’s like geographical maps that have been burned into our memory since childhood. We can blindly draw any country on a piece of paper without ever having been in that country. Our idea of it is based on a pure abstraction.

        Already the old maps were pure abstractions, theoretical constructions of (apparent) reality. And how wrong they often were! In the same way one must think of the virtual reality, which is in principle a non-knowledge from a flood of disinformation. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKFydVCrS5W7cBgLDa6wa92lknPNYozbF

  2. GirlinTexas
    GirlinTexas says:

    While I suppose “Anglo” technically means English, it generally means white or European. It is my personal experience, that regardless of any argument, wherein references to like behaviors, such as colonization/slavery, is suggested as being a historical world-wide phenomenon, whites are ALWAYS punching down and everyone else is ALWAYS punching up. Europeans, who once accused white Americans of bigotry over relations with our black/brown populations are certainly suffering for their previous refusal to consider what some were saying; of course, the media blackouts are greatly responsible, as well. Yet, the Swedes and the French still seem to appear as deers in the headlights as Notre Dame burns, cities become hostels for Muslims or Africans, and their young daughters are found dead in suitcases, or get their throats cut in parks. I am baffled as to how the dots just can not be connected. It’s almost as if someone keeps scrambling the dots…….I wonder, who are The Scramblers?

  3. Marcus Baskett
    Marcus Baskett says:

    The Jewish lattice of oppression and power must be conquered – arrested and prevented from reviving itself ever again. Otherwise NOTHING will ever change for the betterment of human development. Simple. Not easy though.

  4. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    WHITES=Anglo/European NON jews.
    African American studies: WHITES are evil racists people.
    Chicano/Mexican Studies : WHITES are murderous colonialists racists.
    Women Studies: WHITE men are racists patriarchists rapists.
    Asian Studies: WHITES are envious racists colonialist pigs.
    Gay/Lesbian/LGBTQ+ Studies…WHITES Homophopbic racists pigs.
    Jewish/Zio Studies: WHITES christian are to blame for their 5Kyrs of persecution/Holocaust/Nazism/ANTISEMITSM…
    Now imagine a dumb guy like walking into the Deans office and suggesting a (poor) WHITE Studies. Courses covering from early Indenture Servitude, Whiskey Rebellion, the Scots/Irish yeoman farmers that opposed slavery long before the abolitionists. Then pepper with banjo/Appalachian Music/ the Films of DWGRiffith/John Ford ..Steinbecks Books…Grapes of Wrath etc. I was/am so dumb..

  5. Lorenz Kraus
    Lorenz Kraus says:

    I first started reading white nationalist literature in 2011. It has always bothered me that Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, et al have never been able to precisely define white or white interests.

    Since 2017, I came across the only truly authoritative definition of white from Benjamin Franklin. It is authoritative because it has explanatory power. Namely, Franklin explains that white = English. If you are not English, you are not white. This book affirms that in principle, by saying Anglo = White. Ergo: WHITE = ENGLISH = ANGLO.

    Per Franklin non-English Europeans were SWARTHY. Historically, the caveat is obvious. You can become an “honorary Anglo,” by serving British imperialism, as Jews do. Thus, Jared Taylor can legitimately say that, communist or zionist “Jews look white to me.” Taylor quotes John Quincy Adams to “take off their European skin.” That explains Noel Ignatiev’s book: How the Irish [were made] White.

    Englishmen like Franklin used white as an ETHNIC EUPHEMISM for the English. It is not a racial or biological concept, but 100% ethnic. This is why subsequent Englishmen can’t quiet say that Irish, Italians, or Germans are white. This infernal hesitancy does not exist on whether Irish, Italians, or Germans are bipeds, which Anglos would admit, with less hesitancy. Just as the English co-opted “Christian” to mean English, and “Western” to mean the Anglosphere, they co-opt a presumed racial identifier to mean English. This is deceptive and destructive because they want continental Europeans to fall under their two-faced concept of white, which is a loss of ethnic identity for generic white dishwater. This book admits ANGLO = WHITE = ENGLISH, with everyone else being an afterthought. You too “can” be Anglo, if you submit an Anglo-dispensation, which of late, is globo-homo British imperialism.

    Greg Johnson teaches that “white nationalism just means ethno-nationalism for all specific white peoples.” What is he saying? If white means white (i.e., English), then white nationalism is just English nationalism. Since white nationalists can’t admit to that, it means ethno-nationalism for all nations. You don’t need the white adjective for that. Indeed, that white actually corrupts the ethno-nationalism for all Europeans who would have their own ethnic nationalism.

    What ought to be explained is why are whites on the ropes, begging for mercy, and seeking to pathologize fear of Anglos, which Anglos above all helped create. Who wouldn’t fear those who firebomb civilians? The fact is, if we accept Franklin’s definition, whites are less than 10 percent of the US population TODAY. Albion’s Seed author David Hackett Fischer reported that it was less than 20 percent in 1989. If white means white, i.e., people descended from Briton, then America is 90 percent non-white TODAY. To borrow Jefferson on the white stranglehold on power in America and the world, “whites can’t hold on and they can’t let go.”

    This would explain white weakness across the board. What is the point of white nationalism, if white nationalist can’t acknowledge that hard fact? America needs a realignment of power away from the Clintons, Bidens, Bushes, Romney, McCain, who are Anglos who support the treasonous nation-wrecking “Special Relationship” with England that bankrupted and destroyed America. Anglos are OVER-REPRESENTED in the US Congress. That’s why they need blacks and Jews as props for their invisible hand. Non-Anglos can only get a better deal with ethno-parties in an ethno-Congress (see ethnopower [.] com) because the two-party system is ideological insanity.

    If non-Anglo Europeans need a color, they should claim themselves as the PEACH race and unite on Hitler’s concept of FORTRESS EUROPE. That would stop peach genocide, which surprise, surprise, is driven by the Jew-loving white race, as expressed by British and American domination and subversion of Europe.

    How many of you know that Privy Councilor Lord Malloch Brown was on Soros’s Open Society Board of Trustees? That’s the same guy who is accused of subverting Trump’s re-election through Dominion election machines. The British subverted US elections to get their Rhodes Scholars into Biden’s administration. How many of you know that Privy Councilor Sidney Webb groomed Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky? Privy Council is the top of British power. There is a direct relationship between the Bolshevik leader and the British regime. Only one man stood between Lenin and the King of England. Mass murder communism is a British state operation.

    GENOCIDAL BRITISH GEOPOLITICS (google it) is the true danger to Europe. Jews, being court Jews, serve British imperialism. A knight is a servant. The knighted Rothschilds are SERVANTS of the British empire. The Queen knighted Greenspan, Kissinger, Klaus Schwab, communists Mandela and Mugabe, and Simon Peres, President of Israel. Peres accepted knighthood on behalf of the State of Israel. This means Israel is NOT a Jewish sovereign-state, but a British servant-state. Even Israeli Interior Minister and Scheisse Party leader Eli Yishai said, “Israel belongs to the white man.” Now we know! if we didn’t already given the British Balfour Declaration. Benjamin Franklin holds the secret to understanding race and ethnicity in America. Understanding that Jewish power is a function of British white power (“white supremacy over Europe”) is the key to defeating Jews. Because white nationalists won’t teach that, white nationalism preserves and protects Jewish power and Europe’s genocide. This is all because of the lack of clarity on what is white, which this book, exemplifies:

    “Anglos in Australia and overseas are sometimes held responsible for all negative aspects of white behaviour.” (Salter) This is a truism. If white = Anglo = English, as is claimed, it’s the same animal. Who else could be responsible for negative white behavior than Anglos, the self-proclaimed white race? The dog is barking at its own ass. You can see how this book is afflicted by this lack of clarity that Franklin clears up.

    • GirlinTexas
      GirlinTexas says:

      Thank you for some very interesting information. I seem to remember reading Franklin’s referral to Germans as “swarthy.” I am German/Dutch/Irish, therefore not white? I also remember Jefferson’s words about blacks, wolves’ ears, and we can’t let go! No sarcasm intended, but you seem to be saying that the English, are indeed, Lizard People. Upon researching the history of The Balfour Deception, I also began to ask, What the heck was wrong with the English? And later, Why would Churchill sacrifice his own people? Was FDR English? He certainly played the part of a lizard man to support communists in Russia. It’s getting harder to identify the real enemy. I suspect white advocates like Taylor avoid the Jewish question in order to avoid the Wrath of Moloch which would otherwise rain down upon his lily-white shoulders, and I can’t say I blame him. Language has been co-opted by those who try to deceive those who actually pay attention to what “experts, scholars, most people” are saying; I ignore nearly everyone in mainstream media these days. I can usually identify “white” by appearance, mannerisms, etc., but now I have to distinguish English from everyone else – I think that will prove much more difficult. For the record, I think George Bush, the Younger, and his daughter, Jenna, look like lizard people.

      • Lorenz Kraus
        Lorenz Kraus says:

        Anyone who studies the Jewish problem long enough faces the question, “How could some obscene and degenerate minority like Jews really have such power?” Something is protecting them. Is it Satan, lizards, reptiles, aliens, or the British (and before that, the Catholic Church)? Churchill did say that the British “are with Europe, but not of it.” That’s a very intriguing claim. Given alt-history swinging to the notion that a substantial portion of Britons come from North Africa, by way of Carthage, I’m inclined to believe that the Egyptian and North African priesthoods became the masons (who today answer to the British royal family), while their temple prostitutes became the Jews. Thus, the British pimp protects his Jew prostitute. The typical notion is that Jews run the world. This thesis would reveal an inversion of an unspoken historical but official reality. Namely, that Jews run the world on behalf of British interests. Jews get power and privilege…and protection; which is exactly what we see. Anyone who objects to Jews, typically, gets heat from British quarters, not black, Asian, Muslim or other quarters.

    • What’s up Skip
      What’s up Skip says:

      Psychopathic personalities are likely more common in the upper class. As A. Joyce has demonstrated the British upper class is significantly judaized. These people call the shots in Britain and as for serving the crown don’t forget that pic of Rothschild J poking Charles’ chest. None of these facts is relevant to the great mass of the 150 million or so children of Britain.

      Is it suggested that Barbara L-S’a Kalergi plan is being implemented across the Western world for the ultimate benefit of middle-class Britons wheresoever they may live? I don’t think so. A stratified but thoroughly deracinated mongrel populace controlled by pleasure and replaceable more or less at will is what we can see being installled before our eyes.

      The book is primarily aimed at those with some British heritage or identification with British culture. I agree that stretching it to include other Europeans may not be that successful but the term will still serve for a sizeable portion of the White race.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        Yea, we’re being bred into a slave race that lacks identity and is a blank slate for elite manipulation. This is how slavery sometimes was perfected in the New World, lack of identity, lack of history.

        In theory, if we overcome this threat, we’ll be stronger as a people. But a strong sense of group identity is needed. “English” includes Norman, Viking, and Celt. So, methinks it open to some limited admixture outside the sacred isles.

    • HamburgerToday
      HamburgerToday says:

      ‘White’ does not mean ‘Anglo’. ‘White’ is a political category. This kind of argument is no different politically than claiming ‘White’ does not exist because it cannot be perfectly defined to your personal satisfaction. If you cannot accept that a Welsh person or a Scandinavian person is not ‘White’ for the purposes of *politics*, then you’re not part of the pro-White movement.

      As for the jews, they have no magical power. The Whites of Europe have a distinc biocultural tendency where they lack strong in-group preference. That tendency worked well for them when the entire race was isolated from the rest of humanity, but became an weakness when their homelands began to include ‘races’ with strong in-group preferences. The modeling done on this type of scenario shows that the group with the strongest in-group preference ends up dominating those groups with weak in-group preference.

      Many (but not all) Whites were not prepared to manage jews with their strong in-group preference and biocultural nepotism. It’s not magic and it’s not a superpower. It’s just an asymmetry in in-group preference.

      And the fix for that problem is White Nationalism, not ‘Anglo Separatism’ or ‘Anglo Supremacism’.

  6. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    Well, what do you know, it is the centenary of Leonard Bernstein’s birth… A move to properly celebrate him gave rise to a bit of controversy related to Bradley Cooper who portrays him wearing a large prosthetic nose (ah, the anti-semitic trope!). All considered, however, the movie contains more than enough adulation to satisfy even ADL.

    “Maestro” is a movie I will not see. Instead of the portrayal of Bernstein as a lovable, eccentric genius, a huge jewish gift to American culture, I prefer Tom Wolfe’s description in “Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.”
    Wikipedia, no surprise there, lies about Wolf’s description of the phenomenon, incipient in the 70s, of rich and influential jews supporting anti-White acts of violence, like those committed by black thugs like the Black Panthers, under the pretense of being advocates of “black liberation,” equal rights, etc.
    Wikipedia lies about it by labeling the Bernsteins et al. as “White” and their motivation as “White guilt,” despite the fact that the infamous cocktail party given in the luxurious NYC apartment of the Bernsteins had such “White” guests as Barbara Walters, Otto Preminger and an assorted group of all-jewish luminaries. To this party they invited the leadership of the criminal gang of Black Panthers they cynically promoted and lionized as noble social justice activists, and passed the hat.
    I would indeed prefer to see a movie based on Wolfe’s unforgettable description of the party.
    I am not aware of another, equally scathing unmasking of the radical chic (Wolfe coined the term “radical chic”) made fashionable by the jewish cultural elite, but plenty of testimonials exist that describe “lovable” Bernstein, the “homosexual who got married,” humiliated his wife, was sadistic, brutal and cruel in his relationships with musicians under his thumb and generally plagued by the most common jewish neuroses, including fanatical ethnocentricity, hate and contempt for the “Goyim.”
    His adoring daughter penned a posthumous panegyric published in the New Yorker magazine,


    revealing her mother’s accepting attitude:

    “An eager paterfamilias at home, he remained sexually active with men. Felicia knew from the start and was hardheaded about it. At the time of their marriage, she wrote to him, ‘You are a homosexual and may never change—you don’t admit to the possibility of a double life, but if your peace of mind, your health, your whole nervous system depends on a certain sexual pattern, what can you do? I am willing to accept you as you are, without being a martyr or sacrificing myself on the L.B. altar.’ But he did live a double life, and Felicia wound up tending the altar.”
    Of course, Felicia “knew from the start,” since he openly brought young men home and absconded with them in the conjugal bedroom.

    The New Yorker calls it “a story of encompassing family love, Jewish-American style.” You know… White…
    The NY article also calls him “exceptionally handsome,” hence the jews’ unease at seeing Bradly Cooper on screen with a large prosthetic nose, and it attributes his sexual promiscuity and deviance to some sort of overflowing, unfettered passion for life…
    “he slept with many men and with women, too. He seemed to be omnisexual, a man of unending appetite who worked and played all day and most of the night, with a motor that would not shut down until he was near collapse.”
    Ah, that volcano of a genius… He would not have had to lead a “double life” today, not that he really did, other than not “coming out” to be celebrated for his “courage.”
    Plenty of Whites eager to be included in the “chic” avant guard joined the ranks of Black worship, a virtue signaling not so subtly indicating submission to the jewish anti-White campaign. The malaise has only become more grotesque with time passing.

    • ariadna
      ariadna says:

      A friend who read my comment told me that this topic was comprehensively developed in a two-part essay published in TOO five years ago, which I do not remember reading.
      I am grateful that he provided the links because I have trouble getting the Search on this site to yield results.

      The two sequential essays (links below) are exceptionally good illustrations of what a perfect representative LB was of the most noxious and destructive characteristics inherent in his tribe’s ethos, mentality and drive.
      Outrageous and histrionic, LB is as perfect as a caricature is superior to a portrait, as bold face is to regular font, to reveal the essence of jewishness.



      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Everything written by Brenton Sanderson is as precious as gold, and the Bernstein article was one of his very finest.

        On a related matter, I have lost count of the number of TOO articles I have downloaded, including all of Sanderson’s, against the day when (((our masters))) drop the final veil and move openly against all white advocates and pro-white websites. You might consider doing the same.

        With those who do Biden’s thinking for him now openly suggesting that mandatory masking and lockdowns are again on the horizon, there is something between a chance and a certainty that the 2024 election will not even include an option for in-person voting. How long, then, before everyone who fails to vote the “correct” way is formally deemed, like those who demonstrated in DC on January 6, 2021, an insurrectionist?

  7. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    This is a great review, thanks Kevin. Definitely going to get this book.

    Tell your friends, tell, your family, tell whomever you can, as much as you can, that the problem with our country is Jewish supremacy. And give them examples of which there are many. Don’t ever stop.

    Have they ever stopped?

  8. Ari
    Ari says:

    I am from the very south of South America and I have European DNA, and all this anti-White hatred alongside all the real horrible things all non-White races do and have done (whether slavery, drug wars and crimes against nature) made me hate non-Whites so much that I curse our recent ancestors from the last 3 centuries for not being merciless enough at best towards them.
    I literally see every non-White male, female and child as a mortal enemy and it doesn’t help that part of me see all this hatred of them as too extreme, thus leading me to have a battle among two sides in my head: One where wants to terminate them without consequences and the other who is more moderate yet still denounces industrial scale race mixing and explicit non-White evil.
    I don’t know what to do, and some answers would be great for me.

    • What’s up Skip
      What’s up Skip says:

      Well you can rule out ‘termination’ of anyone.

      Culitvate friendships with non self-hating people of European extraction. Avoid mainstream news and entertainment. Read, listen to and watch the classics. Become knowledgeable about the history of your ancestors. Dress as well and as traditionally as you can manage. Attend a Latin mass. Face the world, including non-Whites, with a smile and give no cause for them to fear or hate you. Be a beacon of light.

      Pax vobiscum

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I think it positive for nonwhites to have pride. The trend is towards a cosmopolitan world of individuals. The alternative is “a chorus of superlative” national identities as GK Chesterton writes in “The Patriotic Idea.”

  9. Fitzroy
    Fitzroy says:

    Although merely alluded to in this article, it is worth repeating ad infinitum..

    The dislike and often downright hatred that much of the world feels towards Anglos is and always has been a direct result of the repulsive elites that have run the UK and indeed the US for centuries and who feel a similar hatred just as much towards their own kind as they do to the races and countries they have used and abused.

    They are vile, greedy and self-seeking and they have all the resources and agencies tied up into manipulating things solely for their on benefit. The security and intelligence services especially.

    It is time we shrugged off these despicable people and their serfs. And if we don’t do it now. Right now. We may never get the chance to do it again..

    No compliance to ANY of their agenda….

  10. PsalmistInProgress
    PsalmistInProgress says:

    The erasure of races is a core Satanic doctrine.
    Satan wishes to upend all that God has done.
    God divided the races after the tower of Babel and He has not authorized anyone to reverse that.
    The statement that, “all are one in Jesus,” always ignores the “IN”.
    Miscegenation is simply fornication in the vast majority of instances. The practitioners of this abomination do not care one whit about Jesus or marriage.
    Only a handful of relationships are formed properly, and I’ll even go so far as to extend that to parents who are married before the child’s birth.
    The medical and psychological repercussions for the children are a forbidden topic. The only right and proper thing to do is agrees that mixed children are beautiful.
    Not one time have I ever had to ask anyone if they thought my white daughters are beautiful. Many times, people of all races tell me that.
    It is the mixing process that kills beauty. One of the prettiest women where I work is Sudanese and nowhere near white.

    Miscegenation has been a forbidden topic in church for too long, but the Bible is not silent on the matter.
    It is evil, as illustrated throughout the Bible.

    The flood of Noah was to correct women breeding with angels, therefore race mixing is a type of one of the most abominable sins in history. Noah and his family were saved because he was perfect in his generations, a purebred.

    Balaam (of talking donkey fame) taught Balak to get the Israelites to curse themselves by breeding with foreign women, who then introduced false gods. This is the doctrine of Balaam. He did this when his way of cursing them failed. His error was to seek worldly profit by doing what is contrary to the Will of God.

    Saint Phineas stood against this sin among God’s people. He was granted an everlasting priesthood and is sung about as a righteous man in Psalm 106.
    He ran a spear through a man and his foreign wife while they were in the act.

    In Revelation the church of Pergamos is accused of keeping the doctrine of Balaam (a.k.a. miscegenation). Pergamy means mixed marriage.

    As Balaam looked down from on high and saw the camp of Israel laid out in the shape of a cross and was unable to curse them from without, so you, when you trust in the shed blood of Jesus on the cross to pay for your sin, cannot be cursed by others as you are a saved and sealed believer in Jesus Christ. You can, like the Israelites, invite a curse upon yourself and your family and suffer for it.

    You are to flee sin, no matter how much your flesh or your mind desire it. Seeking to please others by engaging in the sin they promote is a sin in and of itself, as is dishonoring your parents by destroying their bloodline and cursing your children to never belong to either people.

    You are not to mix to unlike things.
    You are not to defile the holy with the unholy.
    Genesis to Revelation.
    From beginning to end, miscegenation is sin.

  11. HANNES
    HANNES says:

    Occupiers enrich occupied country with knife culture. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12429417/Two-servicemen-arrested-Germany-man-28-stabbed-death-carnival-near-Spangdahlem-air-base.html

    Apart from small details (Germans would have settled in East Prussia for 200 instead of 700 years), this assessment is to be agreed with. However, the feminization of the German man can also be explained by the millions of missing fathers after the war.

    However, I cannot discover any difference between today’s feminized Norwegians and Germans. The post-war generation was not as effeminate and de-balled as today’s generation. https://odysee.com/@modernpolitics:0/ModPol-DefeatedPeople:6

    One thing is certain: what the British did to the Germans, the Germans would never have been able to do in the reverse case. There would be hours more to add to this, e.g. about the total looting of post-war Germany by the “liberators”, which would go beyond the scope of a commentary.

  12. katana17
    katana17 says:


    [Mark Collett – Book Review – The Culture of Critique – Nov 28, 2022 – Transcript]

    [In this video Mark Collett, leader of the pro-White British nationalist movement, Patriotic Alternative, says:

    “Aunt Sally, Natty and I are joined by Dr Kevin MacDonald as we review his world-famous book – The Culture of Critique. This book discusses how evolutionary psychology provides the motivations behind Jewish group behaviour and culture.”

    It’s a fascinating review where jewish hatred of Whites is frankly discussed.

    – KATANA]

  13. dr Tom Sunic
    dr Tom Sunic says:

    F. Salter is a great scholar. However, a sharp distinction needs to be made first between so-called Anglophobia and hatred against Whites in general. Why not talk about pervasive Europhobia or better yet Germanophobia – which has been, over the last 200 hundred years, a standard portion of Anglo – British obsession with the “balance of power” politics, i.e. preventing the French and Germans to turn into a unifying power of European peoples.
    There was a massive Anglophobe literature in the Weimer Republic and NS Germany.
    A caveat: How come that of all Whitie professionals, i.e. businessman, investors, constructors, engineers etc. in today’s Africa, Middle East and L. America, German professionals fare best while Anglos (W. Americans, Brits) rank at a low level?
    Let alone that the most vocal woke and servile politicians, academics in the UK and US today are White self-hating Anglos, avidly doubling down on their White self-denial.

    Let’s clear the semantic field first.

    • ariadna
      ariadna says:

      1. “How come that of all Whitie professionals, i.e. businessman, investors, constructors, engineers etc. in today’s Africa, Middle East and L. America, German professionals fare best while Anglos (W. Americans, Brits) rank at a low level?”

      2. “Let alone that the most vocal woke and servile politicians, academics in the UK and US today are White self-hating Anglos, avidly doubling down on their White self-denial.”

      I agree with you on #1, to which the answer is better schools and better discipline.
      I disagree with you on #2 given the spectacle of craven, spineless German politicians, accepting all abuse from their masters (including the unprecedented terrorist act by their greatest “ally” against their economy— blowing up Nordstream 2), and academicians lapping up all monstrosities of woke and WEF diktats. And the answer to that is also… discipline. They are as disciplined in their submission as their brothers in East Germany were collaborating with STASI. It may be in the German work ethic: if you have to do something, do it well..
      As for self-hate, nobody beats today’s Germans on that score. Die Sünden des Vaters for the “willing executioners” for eternity has been a successful project.

      Not many Ursula Haverbecks rising up there.

  14. SimpleMale
    SimpleMale says:

    I posted this at the Unz Review copy of this article, but if you feel it has any useful thoughts, then please consider posting, thanks:

    Focusing on Anglos may be off-putting to some because it may seem to exclude European-descended groups not descended from the British Isles.

    But then, historically, European sub-ethnic groups never had an ethnocentrically unified sentiment; they usually saw each other as opponents and usually warred against each other. And this is part of the reason why there has never been a successful universal European nationalism. So, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the book to only focus on the most successful European ethnicity starting from the period of the British Empire, and the ethnicity the authors belong to.

    However, ethnocentrism spans a spectrum of variation, and “Anglos are among the world’s most individualist and least collectivist (in other words, non ‘racist’) cultures.”

    Yes, confusing. Why not just say Europeans are “relatively low on ethnocentrism,” and then just leave it at that? Terms like “collectivist” “individualist” are confusing and not objectively defined. I’ve brought this up before, that using the word “individualist” to define Europeans would mean saying that Europeans are Individually Selected, aka Genetic Sociopaths. I’m very simple minded, but it seems to me that Prof. MacDonald has his own set of psychological terms that he has come up with without making them congruent with already established evolutionary terms.

    Fox News Network in the U.S., the most widely viewed conservative network,

    Even after firing Tucker Carlson, ethnic Europeans still can’t even do the extremely simple act of 100% boycotting any media owned by Rupert Murdock. Why is Fox News still in business? Why isn’t their viewership at zero levels? Ethnic Europeans too genetically lazy (among other things) to do anything consequential now, don’t want to get out of their “comfort zone.”

    “Today, anyone indicating even the mildest defence or advocacy of white or Anglo people risks being accused of a laundry list of epithets.

    Epithets which would have absolutely no effect if ethnic Europeans were innately united and innately felt a sense of a collective Greater Purpose.

    And again, the “conservative” Murdoch empire spouts the leftist line, publishing a “Senior Journalist” who reviewed The Bell Curve as “morally offensive”

    Most European elites, as I understand, have never really been on the side of their race as a whole, the result of the “Evolutionary Genius Strategy” which allowed for more genetic diversity in Europeans, meaning a lot more occurrences of elite sociopaths, for the chance of rare genes coming together to create the rare genius that would overall give the Europeans an evolutionary advantage over competing population groups. Mr. Unz stated that he recently discovered that the 1924 Immigration Act was created to restrict Bolshevik Askenazi immigration from Europe, but that the law did not restrict immigration from Mexico due to petitioning from Genetically Sociopathic European-American business elites who wanted Mexican workers whom they viewed as a very docile workforce that were easy to control. And even before that, think of the Genetically Sociopathic farm owners of the Confederate States who, against their ethnic genetic interests, brought in African slaves instead of having to actually pay fellow European-Americans for the farm labor.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      South Carolina was a colony of the Barbados and maybe Bermuda. So, slavery was here from near the start.

      Jews were involved in New World slavery and were in Charleston. How dominant they were, you can decide.

      Those English who engaged in slavery gained leisure and power with which they ruled others. It’s akin to elites we have today. Farmers, today, will hire illegals or go out of business. Employers, generally, will hire foreign workers. Chambers of Commerce tend to want foreign workers, today.

      The solution, Distributism? Usually, Anglos, today, will enthusiastically embrace liberalism, which seems averse to nationalism and group survival. So, either we change, or we go extinct.

  15. Claire Khaw
    Claire Khaw says:

    The Anglos ask: “Why does everyone hate us?”

    Doesn’t this remind you of Jews who are always asking themselves “Why oh why oh why does everybody hate us?”

    The Old Testament answer is simple and ancient: envy. Imperial races are always resented, hated for their imperial privilege.

    When the empire is declining and falling, there will be plenty prepared to strike blows to help the imperialists fall further in revenge for their acts of imperialism.

    How do empires fall? They become a victim of their own success. Thinking themselves invincible, they invariably lower standards of sexual morality until a state of widespread illegitimacy is reached at which point decline and fall is certain and accelerated until and unless they repent by changing their entire moral and legal political system. This also involves changes of identity. For example, Westerners are accustomed to thinking of themselves as Christian monarchists, particularly if they are British. If they are not Christian monarchists, they would be liberal republicans.

    Since Christo-Liberalism is conclusively kaput and Trumpian nationalism is being proposed as its replacement, there will be the inevitable culture war that can only be successfully won with the use of religion.

    Once America recognises which official religion or moral system it must adopt to save itself, the rest of the West will follow suit.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      You mention monarchy. We need a ruling class that desires English workers under it – Or European, whatever the identity might be.

      We see, today, closed socialist states that resist globalism. So, that might be the alternative to current society to some degree. I’m obviously not a socialist as an ideal.

      English tend to insist that we can’t, as a people, tolerate socialism or another societal form. Those English just have a disease and will perish. Socialism might not be necessary, but it’s the current form seen in the world that stands athwart globalism. So, it’s the starting model, at present. It’s perhaps not the only model. Jews, Amish, Parsi, other nonstate groups survive. I mention distributism often.

Comments are closed.