The Revolt Of The Anglophiles:
The New Political Anglos And Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity
This article is essentially the same as that which
appeared in Ab Aeterno, 14, Jan-Feb-Mar 2013, journal of the
To compose a short piece to criticize an old friend, particularly one who has contributed so much in recent years to the critique of Western liberal attitudes and policy on ethnicity, identity, immigration, genetics and related issues, is not easy.
Yet, if something arises in any political-theoretical
literature which is very much mistaken, it follows that a potentially dangerous
situation could come into being at the level of political formation. I am concerned that Frank Salter has theorized
of late in such a way that a potential for action predicated upon a false-consciousness – the basic recipe
for a political defeat – is confronting
us. My interest is political formation, the development of a conscious cadre -based and popular movement that
Of course, I must affirm that the essential works of Frank Salter should be consulted and widely read by all with the capacity to understand, not just in Australia,. but internationally. I refer to a brief catalogue of Frank Salter’s books to make the salient point that he cannot be ignored as a primary thinker in the culture war with globalist liberalism. (1)
The setting for dispute
Briefly, the Salter material at issue addresses the coal-face
development of Australian liberal attitudes on immigration and multicultural
policy over a long time period. Salter rightly documents the culture war being
waged by media and other forces which serves the effective recolonising of the country.
In particular, he refers to their obsessive ritualized attacks upon Australians
of “Anglo-Celtic” background. He rightly states that the propaganda of the
dominant liberal elite makes racism a sin committed only by “whites” - and “Anglos” in
particular. He records examples of the intolerance of academia towards
However, the subject matter and the discussion is keyed in such a way to effectively equate Australianity with Anglo-Celtic ethnicity and a culture that can be interpreted as being essentially British, with the very idea of the Australian Nation an Anglo-Celtic construct (but sanctified in our wars). I hope these comments do Frank Salter justice because I can see his argument no other way.
I cannot but place the label of Anglophile upon my friend. He has essentially restated in a contemporary context the long-held views of many Australian conservatives.
Nonetheless, I can say that unlike the material offered by
some Anglophiles in
Of course, one could nit-pick the idea of ‘Anglo-Celtic’
employed both by Salter and the conservatives and suggest that even mentioning
our Irish past and Irish input to the national ethos causes some of our
political Anglos no little angst. I note that Salter failed to fully address
the Celtic question. After all, it was a tangled history of contention between
the Anglo conservative imperial establishment and the poorer Irish migrants fed
on Emerald Isle resentments over British rule. Yet, it might also be said that
the Irish ethnic stream mutated culturally beneath the Southern Cross and fed
Basically, Anglo-Celtic-ism would imply an acceptance of a fusion of two great European families. It should follow that the political Anglos of today would have concluded that a new nationality had emerged, but I doubt that is really a kernel of this thought-system. I charge that the Anglophiles of all types, Frank Salter included, are hung up on the ‘Anglo’ bit. That is not good enough and it misleads.
Times have moved on and Frank Salter rightly perceives an
external threat to the survival of
“Anglo-Celtic Australians are being rapidly displaced by mass Third World immigration that they were never asked to approve, are excluded from multicultural forums, and are the prime targets of political correctness, including a growingly coercive legal apparatus.”
I charge that this is a false position because it is white
So where are we? The Salter material would not alone constitute a problem for an Australian nationalism (as I shall define shortly) if it was the isolated view of a single publicist, and even if it was part of a line of thought sharpened to the present.
However, a moment came for a revolt of the Anglophiles against the settled positions of the nascent Australian patriotism and nationalism. From 2005 the Anglophiles, hitherto marginalized, regrouped and decided to undo what had been achieved and argued. Indeed, they had probably rankled a period of years at the weight of the Australian nationalist argument and resources. At least, the trace data tells me that. From rancour came action. I am minded of an old adage from Mao: when the revolutionaries rebel against the reactionaries it is good, but when the reactionaries rebel against the revolutionaries, great evil is done.
The current Salter articles have been published in Quadrant as part of a series and other
articles by him have appeared there over the last few years. Quadrant styles itself as a conservative
journal of intellectual opinion and cultural commentary, that is conservative
on some areas of social policy but which espouses free-market liberalism.
Quadrant is also not any sort of ‘white
I do not refer to the peculiar Cold War circumstances of its foundation courtesy of the CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as being in any way determinative of its quality, but I must make note of its place in the arrangements of the Liberal Party of Australia.
Essentially, Quadrant is a specialized journal whose essential objective is to harness intellectual forces to the conservative arsenal. Its function is to shore up the ‘conservative’ side of the globalizing regime. In other words, it represents a type of Australian ‘neo-conservatism’.
Quadrant would always seek out intellectuals and other useful authors and critics, enmesh them in the conservative scene, while holding itself out as a non-politically-correct publication that offers an opportunity for them to influence the ‘mainstream’ debate. In fact, it would be the mainstream that would simply co-opt the target and employ his views as warranted.
If Quadrant has now chosen to publish the Salter material at issue, then it is appropriate to ask: why would they do so?
To ask the question is really to answer it. Quadrant’s interest in stymieing the
efforts of nationalist-minded Australians has depth. Its former editor, Peter
Coleman, was the prime instigator of one of
Journalist Margo Kingston wrote of this grubby plot not long ago:
“From your position on the ceiling you can see that the table below is occupied by four stalwarts of the neo-liberal scene, including a couple of associates of its most influential intellectual forum, Quadrant magazine, published from another fashionable Sydney suburb, Balmain. There’s former NSW Liberal leader and ex-federal MP Peter Coleman, a Woollahra resident, father-in-law of Treasurer Peter Costello.” (6)
She concluded that Quadrant was more than it seemed. Indeed, it is possible to say that it is an element of a veritable Liberal Party ‘dirty tricks department’ (albeit the psychological action section) which embraces political and cultural-ideological action.
Even given the foregoing, it would be irresponsible to suggest that anyone who wrote for Quadrant was a shady character. Many fair-minded people have written for Quadrant. However, it is from a nationalist perspective an inescapable suggestion that Quadrant’s editors, let alone the Australians for Honest Politics group, would recognise at once the destabilizing power of an Anglophile position inside a developing opposition movement to mass immigration.
If the real challenge for Australians was one involving the need to displace the current globalizing state and building the unity of all ‘whites’ against the Third World intrusion, then a movement that opts to have its audience (the Anglo-Celts) exist inside a multicultural system as an “ethnic” group and which by its very nature must divide those whites against each other – would be a blessing. The first option is political to the core and the second an abstinence from the pursuit of power, a deconstruction of Australianity which the regime itself cannot but see as part of its own agenda howsoever it is dressed up.
If the political Anglos accept their cooption without resistance then the neo-conservatism of a state force intrudes onto our political territory as a Trojan Horse.
Genesis of a problem
I detect that the current revolt of the political Anglos began with a 2005 article in the New Times Survey of the conservative and generally Anglophile Australian League of Rights. Why there? I don’t know for sure. I do note that the old League was always sympathetic to any expression of Anglophilia; its publications are widely read by conservatives and the veritable manifesto they published seemed well researched and endnoted. It would travel.
That article :”Racial
Treason: From White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy" by two pseudonymous writers, (7) attacked
Arthur Calwell Australia’s post-war Immigration Minister, accusing him of
undermining “Anglo” Australia with his wide-European immigration policies and
even suggesting he was not genuine in his defence of White Australia. They
blamed him in ‘historical’ terms for being the author of
But this article
gave its own game away. An attack upon “so-called Nationalists” who revere
historical nationalist labour heroes and White Australia supporters Jack Lang
Enquiries of the League as to the real identities of the authors were stonewalled and ultimately this writer personally was put under public fatwa by the League National Director, Don Auchterlonie, in September 2011. And yet, League founder Eric Butler, whatever his heart-felt sympathy for the Anglophile view of Australian history may have been, had moved publically long ago towards a defence of Australia’s overall European identity rather than a staid espousal of the virtues of an idyllic Anglo imperial and colonial past. I praise Eric Butler for that.
From 2005, it seems that the revolt of the Anglophiles intensified. I believe Anglophile concerns played a role in the messy attempt by certain persons to seize control of the old nationalist Australia First Party in 2006-7,that broke it up occasioning its reincorporation and which produced the Anglophile Australian Protectionist Party with its (then) link to the British National Party. (8) Of course, this activity was the ‘political side’ of things.
The new political Anglos have other muscle of more renown.
Professor Andrew Fraser is its most well-known advocate of the Anglophile line. His book The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (9) was a statement that argued for an Anglo-Saxon (Fraser is shy on the term ‘Anglo-Celtic’) global-nation living in diaspora inside the mechanics of the globalised order. Whatever the many useful and interesting observations it may make upon the Anglo-hatred of the multiculturalists, counter-hegemony and so on, the work cannot be viewed as part of an Australian literature of resistance to the state; rather it is a plan for a divorce from the state by establishing an ethnic-cultural identity without territory linked to a revivified monarchy. I would aver that no European race, invisible or otherwise, can exist without territory over which it is master.
Fraser does not accept that
Alan James of the British Australian Community (an organisation referred to favourably by Salter as a model for a community representative force for his ‘Australians’) has recently authored New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo-Australia. (10) This substantial work gets down to the nitty-gritty.
For James, the definition of
Nonetheless the website of the British Australian Community (BAC) states (by way of including the Irish):
“The history and culture of
English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people (plus a few
other related northern Europeans) came to
The nationalists reject that ‘British’ concept of Australianity absolutely and call in aid the work of P.R. Stephensen by way of refutation. Indeed, Stephensen directly confronted similar nonsense in the 1930’s whereby “the British Garrison” as he dubbed them suggested Australian culture was weak and derivative only. (12) Again, we witness the deconstruction of the Australian identity, the nation vanishes, whites are divided. Given that the BAC is a lobby and cultural group, we see the essential de-politicisation of the struggle (although we would debate what ‘struggle’ is being discussed).
I could say in passing that the BAC has some links to the Protectionist group and to the League of Rights, completing the circle, such groups providing the outreach structures for the political Anglos.
The problem restated lies for me in the question of political formation. The struggle being waged against the nationalist position neutralizes potential cadre, confuses recruits, creates strife and delays the mobilization of a white Australian nationalism.
We now move towards defining the parameters of Australianity and the false consciousness model of a British Australia as advanced by the political Anglos.
Defining the Anglos
But what do the political Anglos believe of Australians? Salter says:
are a subaltern ethnicity. They are second-class citizens, the only ethnic group subjected to
gratuitous defamation and hostile interrogation in the quality media, academia
and race-relations bureaucracy. The national question is obscured in political culture
by fallout from a continuing culture war against the historical Australian
nation. Many of the premises on which ethnic policy have been based since the
1970s are simply false, from the beneficence of diversity to the white monopoly
of racism and the irrelevance of race. The elite media and strong elements of
the professoriate assert that racial hatred in
Of course, much said here is true. There is a
culture war in
The Australian nationalists would have preferred to say that, with a few significant upper class exceptions, Australian Anglos had long assimilated themselves to not being the “historical Australian nation” but rather being a proud component stream of that nation.
Frank Salter has opted to obliterate from the discourse the group he rightly defines as an enemy target - “homogenised whites”. Indeed, I would happily argue that a large slice of English-speaking Australians are in fact, homogenised whites and that as a group ‘Anglos’, whether branded Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon, do not really exist as proposed in the Anglophile literature and certainly not in the strength claimed.
The Old Frank and the New Frank
Frank Salter did not always hold the view of Australian identity he now does. Of course, we are all entitled to change our minds and we are all entitled to ‘mature’ and develop as aptitude, perception and circumstances permit.
I suppose my trouble with the new Frank is that I am still at one with the old Frank.
In the Australian National Alliance (ANA) in the
years 1978 – 1980, the view of the Australian Nationality was advanced by
Salter and others that I believe was correct and which Australian nationalists
have held to pretty much ever since. I shall describe it as best I can in a
It is rather obvious that this world-view contrasts in toto with the position of the new political Anglos.
The ANA was, thanks to Frank Salter, the first ‘anti-immigration’ organisation to publish leaflets, posters and other literature in other languages and to formally reach out to Euro migrant communities. This was a deliberate act and hardly a concession to multiculti. It was hoped that the European-immigrant communities who were being encouraged to separate from the mainstream white English-speaking group could see our logic and in their acceptance of common dangers, a common vision could be advanced.
In my view, the old Frank was an innovator. For good reason, when a new party paper was established for a new Australia First Party founded after the disruption foistered upon the former party, the name Audacity was chosen. This was the name given to the Australian National Alliance paper by Frank Salter and co-editor and nationalist thinker E.F. Azzopardi.
The uncompromising Australianism expounded in those days travelled well and is usually the position taken by a new generation of activists – before the matter is ever even explained to them! In other words, the view is organic and obvious.
That the Anglophiles now contrive something else puts them at odds with the only possible formulation of the facts which permits constructive political action.
The Salter programme and the Australianist response
I must place before the
readers the concise programme now offered by Salter to answer the threat to
However, I note that the programme is predicated upon an awareness that “Britishness is an ethnic category, not a racial one”. The reduction of Salter’s Anglo-Celts into an ethnic group is a further element of the deconstruction that abolished the white nation. We now see the capitulation to the state.
“One or more Anglo
councils are needed, non-governmental organisations along the lines of other
ethnic councils but oriented more towards promoting the scientific study of
ethnicity and nationalism. The council should also advocate for Anglo
Australians, broadly defined. An Anglo council, and ultimately a federation of
Anglo councils, would defend its constituents’ ethnic interests - against
defamation, exploitation and demographic swamping. It would demand full
representation in multicultural bodies and seek consultative access to
government. It would lobby for schoolchildren to be taught the true history of
the nation. It would affirm its attachment to the land of
I am reminded of
a comment: "I don’t want a seat at this table. I want to take a proverbial
chainsaw to the table." (14) It may be fairly opined that Salter is
advocating a sort of accommodation with the very mechanisms which are
destroying the traditional
Indeed, we nationalists are not concerned to ‘survive’ in some marginalized way, but to reclaim the birthright that is ours – the Continent Nation.
As far as Australian nationalists are concerned we require a party organized at the community level and in alliance with any other forces to reject the state and its multiracial-multicultural ideology through the articulation of a different Australianist position expounded by extensive outreach; it must mobilize youth in the schools and universities into a movement of acculturation and defence; it must act to demoralize and undermine the system’s workings and act to incorporate all who can be assimilated into Australian cultural norms by appropriate methods; it must create national-liberated-zones in cities and towns and areas where Australianist norms predominate and are inculcated and state ideals excluded or rigorously challenged. All together, such a party must struggle to supplant the regime howsoever that can be done by becoming a mass political force organized by cadres but reflective of a populist ideology and method.
I suppose Salter is a sort of post-millenarian who sees the process of destruction so far advanced that he contracts for a type of survivalism. He says of his Anglo Council that it is:
“…a national lobby that represents its constituents’ ethnic interests. Such a national whip would defend Anglo-Australia’s interests against a political class that has been squandering those interests for decades. That is one, perhaps the only, way, to retain the benefits of the nation-state in an era of mass migration and self-serving elites.”
How could this be? In fairness, I must be harsh. To win the political war I see developing will be more than difficult and we may well fail; however, the Salter programme is fairy-tale stuff and devoid of the slightest hope despite the shiny practical-politics-packet it may come in.
Two lines: a matter of political space is decisive
It is clear that the positions arrived at by the Australian nationalists contrast absolutely with those of the Anglophiles. Reasonably, while both sides may make this or that point about cultural defence or anti hegemonic method or whatever, only one side can hold the political truth in its hands.
In my view the matter cannot be settled by debate, but only in struggle. The debate (sic) is simply methodology to psychologically prepare our cadres and foot-soldiers to fight the matter through not only by direct discussion with anyone misguided by Anglophile falsehood, but in normal political work which increases our resources.
The defeat of
the new political Anglos means we must locate and colonize available political
space. Political space is not too well defined in the literature. It may be a
geographical area where the establishment’s writ does not run, an available
sub-culture, a distressed social group, white ethnic groups turning towards
Australian identity for survival, places within a city liberated by our
presence, a voting clientele, cultural and historical associations. Our
political Anglos, we Australophiles are fortunate to have but one
fatherland, but one motherland. We are strictly antipodeans and we do not need
any more to fantasize of Home. We are Home. We may be Europeans by blood, but
we know our Place. Our national poets, like Ian Mudie,
tell us that the alcheringa (the
spirit of the place) is within us and that
Sorry Frank. We are Anglo-Celts no more.
2. See the on-line versions at:
Macdonald, “Frank Salter on Race and Nation in
4. I have summed
up much of that in the first chapter of James Saleam, “The Other Radicalism: An
Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right
Ideology, Politics And Organization, 1975 – 1995”, PhD thesis,
6. Margo Kingston, “How Abbott Funded The Fight Against One
Nation,” New Matilda,
Peterson and Rohan Phillips, ”Racial
Treason: From White
8. See “Defend Australian Nationalism’, a collection of articles at:
9. Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race.2011.
10. Alan James, New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo-Australia.
11. The British Australian Association website is more than instructive. See: http://britain-australia.org.uk/
12. Percy Stephensen, The Foundations Of
13. A composite from the newspaper Audacity, numbers 3 – 7 (1977 – 1979)