The Revolt Of The Anglophiles:

The New Political Anglos And Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity

 

Dr. Jim Saleam
____________________________________________________

 

 

This article is essentially the same as that which appeared in Ab Aeterno, 14, Jan-Feb-Mar 2013, journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research. Very minor editing has been completed, a few words and phrases and a couple of sentences have been added.

 


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 will ensure Australia remains Australian, that the European ethnos and culture of this land endures beyond our time. This means that the ideological groundwork for such a movement must reflect the facts and the history of our country and make the essential judgement as to where we now stand and how to propel forward motion.

 

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)

 

So, when I read his pieces in Australia’s Quadrant for October and November 2012 – “The War Against Human Nature III: Race and the Nation in the Media” and “The War Against Human Nature Part II: Race and the Nation in the Universities  (2) - and observed that they were reviewed by some American racial-nationalist publications as fair expressions of truth for Australia, I was dismayed. (3) I was further concerned that some Australian conservative commentators had picked up upon his arguments and endorsed them. The genie is beyond its bottle and must be confronted.

 

 

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 traditional Australia and its crafted attack upon “whiteness”. All this is vital and interesting material.

 

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 Australia over time, the Celts had a minor look-in with Salter’s articles.

 

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 the river of Australian Identity and the ideology of independence. Certainly the Irish awareness of the criminality of the British Empire assisted the anti-conscription movement of the First World War. And who really can say our raw Irish were so wrong to decry nation-murder? Their response was mixed between Ireland and Australia, but their sentiments were clean, while the Anglophiles of that day went on to found secret police organisations and the first paramilitary structures to defend the imperial outpost at war. I cannot say that development was a good thing if one takes a long view. (4) The old contention has long since died away in Australia which is the relevant point, but it is certain that for Australians colloquially dubbed ‘Anglo-Celtic’, the proportion of Irish blood in their veins is high.

 

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 Australia. He says:

 

“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 Australia, the formed nationality called ‘Australian’ and I say too along with any other unassimilated “Anglo-Celts” and other “European ethnics” who are the targets of the system. It is white Australia in general that will be displaced by the Third World masses. Of course the system does attempt to hook unassimilated groups into its order to disrupt the formation of a clear racial demarcation line in immigration matters (ie. it sets up an idea that we Australians are all ‘immigrants’ and puts some white immigrants against the mainstream).

 

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.

 

 

Co-option?

 

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 Australia’ publication as one recent contribution showed beyond doubt. (5) It should not necessarily be said that anyone offered space in Quadrant should refuse it. However, Quadrant is much more than its self-description.

 

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 Australia’s major scandals, the imprisonment of immigration-critic Pauline Hanson. It can be said that Coleman’s shadowy ‘Australians for Honest Politics’ stitched Hanson up and achieved a major success against her movement.

 

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 Australia’s current Asianisation crisis. They smeared him by mixing in chatter about Fabian socialism and noted that Melbourne’s Jewish community (which has usually favoured Asian immigration) had once praised him for the widening of immigration source-pools after the Second World War. They played on Catholic and Irish dislikes of Anglo Australia as a basis of his treason and even bagged Hero of the Nation, Prime Minister John Curtin, who saved our country in the Second World War. The aversion to our Celtic heritage stood out in this diatribe. They deplored the migration to Australia of people of Slavic background. False flags and smutty smears and twisted arguments abounded to the point (I need not record them) where the uninitiated may have concluded that Calwell was part of an alien conspiracy.

 

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 and William Lane and who regard Calwell as flesh of their flesh, was the crux of the matter. I suspect that was the article’s actual political point and the clever if somewhat falsely crafted article was a declaration of war on these “so-called Nationalists”. The nationalists who uphold the nativist-nationalist and White Australian nationalist traditions of Lang, Lane, Calwell and so on, are well known - and this writer is one of them. The Anglophiles had opened hostilities against those who argue the thesis that Australia has a native identity of its own and that its folk are drawn from all European source pools.

 

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.

 

Professor Fraser does not accept that Australia has an identity beyond a place where Anglo-Saxons dwell. I debated Professor Fraser on these and other issues of Australian identity in 2009 and I am pleased I did.  Indeed, we should also accept any interesting commentary upon our national identity (as I did). I was bemused to observe that Fraser denied we exist. This is the ultimate verbal act for deconstruction. Yet, he has been invited since to speak to various groups who need not indulge this version of free speech.

 

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 Australia itself is a transplanted Britain with its destiny and its history simply intertwined with the Mother Country. Australia has no identity of its own and its real history that demonstrated the betrayal of Australia by the former Empire at every point – from the opposition of the Empire to White Australia and its plans to introduce alien races, its nation-murder of the young men at war and its sundry foreign policy deficiencies – rates no critical mention. It seems too that our Irish (‘Celtic’) component seems to count little either and James confirms as other Anglophiles have over time, a disregard for the Irish.

 

Nonetheless the website of the British Australian Community (BAC) states (by way of including the Irish):

 

“The history and culture of Australia from 1788 until recent times is simply an extension of the history and culture of the British Isles.

 

English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people (plus a few other related northern Europeans) came to Australia, and created the culture that we now recognise as traditionally Australian. Everything that we think of as Aussie culture came from those islands of the north Atlantic that were known in Roman times as “Britain”.” (11)

 

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:

 

“Anglo Australians 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 Australia is the product of Anglo-Celtic society. But in the same media and even in the Commission for Race Discrimination most ethnic disparagement is aimed at “homogenised white” people.”

 

Of course, much said here is true. There is a culture war in Australia and it has been pursued by media and other elites. It is equally an oddity that when the ‘political class’ hits at something Australian, it will often ‘Anglify’ the object of its hatred in order to supposedly delegitimize it and strike it down. In that regard, the defence of our admittedly Anglo heritage (a component we say of our overall European heritage) is valid and important. But is it sufficient and is it a complete definition of the Australian reality?  I suppose the Anglophile’s trick lies in stating the Anglos are an ethnicity in the new Australian reality, that they remain the “historical Australian nation” which must re-negotiate its place. I might go further and suggest that if the multiculturalists have a ‘false consciousness’ of Anglo hatred (when it is White Australia they are in fact attacking),the political Anglos retaliate in similar form. Two expressions of false-consciousness confront each other.

 

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 paragraph

Australia was founded as a colony of Britain. It was regrettable that no war of independence ever ensued, a factor that left behind confused sentiments and delays in acquiring independence. In any case, the rise of the USA to a global power transferred control of Australia after the Second World War to the Washington / New York system although various colonial residue was left behind. In the years after that war, a consumer capitalist order disintegrated Australian social and cultural cohesion in the direction of suburbanism and apoliticism. An Australian identity had formed in the Australian cultural springtime of the 1880’s and was compelled to develop itself amidst the imperial overlay. The Australian population was diverse in terms of its European input, far more so than Anglophiles allowed and that to a great degree this was welcomed by the nationalists in the labour movement as a sign that the Continent was a collective possession of the Anglo-Saxon, the Celt, the Germanic, the Slav and the Latin peoples whose biological and cultural fusion was normative and natural. Immigration after the Second World War was designed to buttress Fortress Australia and its ‘white’ character until that notion was overturned by multiculturalism. Threats from the global-imperialism of the New World Order, from the rising superpower China, from the Third World generally and from refugee armadas, would eventually compel a breakdown of any white separatisms whether ‘liberal’ in character or otherwise culturally specific. A new war of independence would be needed to secure the future of the new nation. In that war, the fires of a nativist nationalism would be stoked and the final character of the Australian demonstrated to the world and a new state formed to establish the Workingman’s Paradise ideal of  the earlier labour movement.The Continent would become a ‘New Atlantis’ for European mankind in the South Pacific, a maritime and trading state. (13)

 

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 Australia and its identity.

 

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 Australia. And it would insist that if any people is to be recognised in the Constitution, pride of place should be given to that which founded the nation and provided its infrastructure, political and legal systems, culture and language. Representing the core national identity and the majority of Australians, such a council should adopt a conciliatory role to smooth ethnic relations but in a manner compatible with defending its constituents’ rights and legitimate interests. The effect would be to democratise multiculturalism and the immigration industry by giving the majority of Australians representation in those spheres for the first time.”

 

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 Australia he purports to defend. Indeed, it is more than unlikely that the present Australian state would accede to any ‘recognition’ of any hypothesized Anglo council or its works, unless it was truncated in such a way as to be a useful adjunct to the system’s management of dissent. As his possible Anglo ethnic lobby force, he offers the British Australia Community.

 

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 Australia provides countless opportunities. By applying ourselves to the construction of a political movement that sallies forth from the space which nourishes it, we can outlast and out-organize those who would drag us backwards towards a colonial world long past. Indeed we can win the independence struggle.

 

Unlike the 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 Eureka’s fires warm us. We are told by Stephensen that harsh and crude men will save White Australia and we take up the call. And like our Hero John Curtin, we too would wage a savage guerrilla war across a scorched landscape and burn our country, rather than sell it out - and fight long years until victory.

 

Sorry Frank. We are Anglo-Celts no more.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

Endnotes

 

1. See:  http://www.amazon.com/Frank-K.-Salter/e/B001HPYUJ4

 

2. See the on-line versions at:  

 

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/10/the-war-against-human-nature-iii-race-and-the-nation-in-the-media

 

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/11/the-war-against-human-nature-iii

 

3. Kevin Macdonald, “Frank Salter on Race and Nation in Australia”, January 24 2013 at:  http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/   

 

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, University of Sydney, 2001.

 

See:  http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/807/1/adt-NU20020222.14582202whole.pdf

 

5. Tanveer Ahmed, “Politics:  How Conservatives Can Win the Ethnic Vote”, Quadrant, April 2013.

 

See: http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/4/how-conservatives-can-win-the-ethnic-vote

 

6. Margo Kingston, “How Abbott Funded The Fight Against One Nation,” New Matilda,  11 December 2012.

 

See: http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/11/how-abbott-funded-fight-against-one-nation

 

7.  John Peterson and Rohan Phillips, Racial Treason: From White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy", New Times Survey, August 2005.

 

8. See “Defend Australian Nationalism’, a collection of articles at:

www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/defendnationalism/indeex.html

 

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. Melbourne: Renewal Publications, 2013.

 

11. The British Australian Association website is more than instructive. See: http://britain-australia.org.uk/ 

 

12. Percy Stephensen, The Foundations Of Culture In Australia: An Essay Towards National self-Respect, 1936. See this and other works:

 

www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/stephensen/index.html

 

13. A composite from the newspaper Audacity, numbers 3 – 7 (1977 – 1979)

 

14. Matt Parrott, Republican National Committee Report 2013:
A Declaration of War on White Americans” Counter Currents Publishing,
March 20 2013.

 

See:  http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/republican-national-committee-report-2013/#more-37500