Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred, Part II

Part 1 of this series examined antipathy towards Anglos, who were defined as: people descended from the indigenous population of the British Isles in Australia and overseas as well as those who have assimilated into those populations.

We named this hatred “Anglophobia” in line with other forms of hostility such as homophobia and Islamophobia. As Anglophobia is a form of racism, various dimensions of racism were discussed along with related sociological concepts. Types of Anglophobia were described under the headings vilification, discrimination and violence.

In Part 2 we continue examining types of vilification, especially Critical Race Theory. This ideology has expanded to become an industry, impinging negatively on popular culture, education and much more. Connected topics include the claim that only white people can be racist because racism is a form of power, the replacement of Anglo identity in historical movies, and the firing of a producer of the British television drama Midsomer Murders. Finally, we examine how the accusation of “white supremacism” levelled at Anglo culture is contradicted by that culture not having the highest incomes or educational outcomes.

_________________

4. Are considered prone to racism according to the ideology of “Critical Race Theory”, even when no direct evidence of racism exists

Another accusation against Anglos is that white structural racism disadvantages non-whites socially and economically in Anglo or white societies. Whites are alleged to benefit from “white privilege”. Evidence for this is thin, consisting of such outcomes as high indigenous imprisonment rates and lower incomes. The accusation is backed by “Critical Race Theory”, a Marxist ideology according to which “whiteness” should be seen as an exploitative class, not an ethnic group. This commonly repeated canard runs counter to scholarship on ethnicity described earlier. It claims that all non-white members of our society are oppressed because some non-white ethnic groups have lower average wealth than the average white person. This is irrational. It ignores the fact that some non-whites and non-Anglos have a variety of cultural or other disadvantages which lower their economic outcomes compared to long-term citizens. Some indigenous people and recent arrivals from Third World countries have poor English and lower levels of education than most Australians, sometimes compounded by dysfunctional family relations. Critical Race Theory also ignores the fact that several non-Anglo ethnic groups have higher average incomes than whites. East Asians, Jews, Hindus and other groups have all fared well in Western nations, often enjoying higher average incomes and status than whites. Typically, these groups do well at school, work hard and are supported by their families.

In Australia, large-scale surveys conducted under the auspices of the United Nations in 2018 and 2019 found that three quarters of Australians believe white people are discriminated against to some degree.[i] Significantly, the survey used Critical Race Theory to interpret its findings.[ii] In the United States a 2017 poll found that 55 per cent of whites believed their ethnic group was being discriminated against. They also reported personally experiencing discrimination—19 per cent when applying for jobs, 11 per cent when applying for college admission, and 13 per cent resulting in lower pay.[iii]

In the case of the Australian survey, the United Nations’ goal was to bring about “cultural, social, attitudinal and behavioural change”.[iv] In other words, the Australian mainstream population, the majority of whom are Anglos, is judged by the UN to be so deplorable in ethnic attitudes that it needs re-education, even though they themselves face discrimination. Incredibly, the Australian government agrees and collaborates. The survey report admitted that it had not asked about anti-white discrimination before 2018 and did so only because white perceptions of being discriminated against ethnically “may be driving [their] prejudice towards other minority groups”.[v] The multicultural establishment shows little empathy for Anglo suffering.  

No other ethnic group is treated in this way. Critical Race Theorists never describe Indian privilege or the wages of Japaneseness. Yet networking and favouritism are found in all ethnic groups. If Critical Race Theory was a genuine scholarly enterprise, it would compare ethnic networking and trust across a range of ethnicities, including those of the investigators. Whiteness studies has been Anglophobic from its inception in the 1960s, targeting and defaming whites and only whites.

The irrationality of whiteness studies derives from the fact that it is an ideology, not science or open-minded scholarship. The Black Lives Matter movement provides clear examples of irrationality, often tied to Critical Race Theory and the naked hatred of whites. In Australia, it is not true that Aboriginal deaths in custody are more frequent than the norm (discussed below in Part B, “Hostile Discrimination”). It is not true that whites are more prone to develop racist attitudes or, indeed, that Western societies are burdened with such attitudes when compared to non-Western societies, as discussed earlier regarding ethnocentrism and collectivism. It is obviously not true that defunding police will improve the lives of non-whites. Nowhere are BLM’s claims more outrageous than in the universities and schools. The notion that marriage, or punctuality, or mathematics, are white constructs, is a fantasy.[vi] The defamation and marginalisation of British Isles-descended peoples has contributed to the growth of irrationality in the educational system and in public culture.

Critical Race Theory has helped normalise Anglophobic vilification, which has proliferated in the mainstream media and universities. A minor example indicates the ubiquity of Anglophobia and its corporate facilitators. Consider the ethnic slur, “I just want to see less white mediocrity being rewarded.” This comes from the Weekend Australian of July 3, 2021, in a review of the book Hype by Gabrielle Bluestone, published by the giant US corporation HarperCollins.[vii] A casual Anglophobic remark bears the imprimatur of Big Publishing and the Murdoch wing of Big Media. This was not an accidental slip. The review explains that Bluestone was quoting from a critic of the young blogger Caroline Calloway, who was characterised as a “very beautiful scumbag”. The anti-whiteness quote comes next, implying that “very beautiful” mediocrities trade on nothing but their white privilege. However, the only picture of someone who trades on her beauty offered by the review is of Bella Hadid, a model, of Palestinian and Dutch descent. It should come as no surprise that models often come from outside the white world. The “white” in the remark was gratuitous.

The casualness of anti-Anglo and anti-white slurs is also evident in Britain, again aided by Critical Race Theory, as reported by Doug Stokes, a professor at Exeter University.[viii] The British newspaper the Independent carried the subheading “When white men feel they are losing power, any level of nastiness is possible.” The racist (and sexist) slur was prompted by reports that journalist Cathy Newman had been criticised on social media after she interviewed clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson in January 2018.[ix] Peterson, a vocal opponent of racism and sexism, called this one of the most appalling headlines he had ever seen a credible news organisation produce.[x] (Critical Race Theory is further discussed in Section 5a below.)

Ironically, Critical Race Theory has enabled Structural Anglophobia, almost as if it was designed to do so. It has developed to such an extent that it has characteristics of an industry. There appears to be a market for anti-Anglo slurs powered by numerous individuals who perceive benefit in relaying and often amplifying the vilification. An anti-white infrastructure exists in the universities, media and government that uncritically repeats and sensationalises defamations. This infrastructure has been exploited by individuals who concoct stories of white racism. Once stated, structural Anglophobia does the rest.

A particularly egregious example from 2019 was provided by the black American actor Jussie Smollett, who told Chicago police that he had been attacked by two white men wearing MAGA hats (the slogan made famous by President Trump—“Make America Great Again”). Smollett alleged that the men used anti-black and anti-gay taunts, poured an unknown substance over him, and hung a noose around his neck. The accusations were widely repeated by the mainstream media in the US and internationally.

Smollett was interviewed on American television by Robin Roberts, who is herself of African American heritage and conducted an entirely sympathetic interview in which she refrained from asking any tough questions. Roberts later explained that she was under pressure from different groups to put different slants on her report of Smollett’s claims:

I’m a Black gay woman, he’s a Black gay man … He’s saying that there’s a hate crime, so if I’m too hard, then my LGBT community is going to say, “You don’t believe a brother,” if I’m too light on him, it’s like, ‘”Oh, because you are in the community, you’re giving him a pass.”[xi]

The alleged attack was presented as an example of rampant white racism. Democratic Party senators and Kamala Harris, then a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries and a friend of Smollett’s, described the alleged attack as an attempted lynching. Cory Booker, a Democratic senator for New Jersey, urged Congress to pass an anti-lynching bill with himself and Harris as co-sponsors.[xii] All these individuals had personal or ethnic interests in supporting Smollett’s racial libel against white Trump supporters.

In December 2021 Smollett was found guilty by a US court of lying to police. The prosecution’s star witnesses were the two black accomplices Smollett had hired to stage the attack.[xiii] The motive appears to have been at least partly commercial. Police alleged that Smollett hoped that he would receive a higher salary if it were believed that he was the victim of white racism and President Trump. The accomplices concurred with this allegation by stating that Smollett staged the attack because a threatening letter he received a week earlier (which was sent by himself) failed to produce as much attention as he had hoped.[xiv]

For decades the Anglophobia industry has been ready to condemn white people for alleged racist crimes. The Smollett case is the most recent in a series of media sensations fuelled by leftist politicians and minority activists such as Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama. Examples include the Tawana Brawley rape allegations of 1987, the Duke Lacrosse alleged rapes of 2006, and the Trayvon Martin murder trial of 2012. In all cases, white America was vilified by establishment media and politicians.

 

4a. Are considered guilty of holding “white supremacist” beliefs for simply expressing or advocating on behalf of white or Anglo identity

Racial supremacy is the belief that a particular people is better than all others and should rule over or dominate other races. This chauvinistic ideology has motivated conquest down the ages by aggressors of many ethnicities and races. Whites, of course, are not exempt. Supremacist notions were in evidence during the period of European colonialism. Since the mid-twentieth century, however, radical ideologues have used the term “supremacist” to describe defensive as well as offensive attitudes, and applied it exclusively to whites. Today, anyone indicating even the mildest defence or advocacy of white or Anglo people risks being accused of a laundry list of epithets. No other group is subject to such extreme labelling for simply advocating the rights of their group or defending their group against attack. For instance, when Senator Pauline Hanson put up the motion that “It’s alright to be white” in the Australian Senate, the Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale said the “it’s OK to be white” slogan had a long history in the white supremacist movement.[xv] This is typical of the anti-white racism displayed by multicultural advocates.

As sociologist Eric Kaufmann points out in his book Whiteshift, since the 1960s multiculturalist governments and social movements have routinely suppressed white identity. They have treated Anglos as a common enemy against which to mobilise, instead of including them as a legitimate part of the multicultural mix who deserve the right to cherish and defend their identity. Though it is normal for other ethnic groups to identify with their heritage, too often Anglos have been browbeaten into not doing the same.[xvi]

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

True-May was summarily suspended as producer and only reinstated after offering an apology. Soon afterwards he stepped down. Asian characters then began to appear in the program. The removal of True-May was driven by ITV, Britain’s oldest commercial television network and the purchaser of the Midsomer Murders series. ITV declared that it was “shocked and appalled”.[xvii] At no point did True-May defame non-Anglos. He was catering to market demand for portrayals of English society, a laudable undertaking if multicultural ideology is to be believed and freedom of association retained. True-May’s openness hinted at the arbitrariness of his punishment. “We are a cosmopolitan society in this country, but if you watch Midsomer you wouldn’t think so … quite honestly I wouldn’t want to change it.”

No other ethnic group is forbidden from making movies expressly for and by its members. One popular film review website happily lists 115 of the best black movies of all time.[xviii] “We defined Black films as those that centred on African American stories and African American characters, or—as in the case of Black Panther—were made by Black filmmakers and were embraced by African American audiences.” The review praised Moonlight, a film with an all-black cast that won best picture at the 2017 Academy Awards. Why not? The idea that Indian or Chinese or African film companies would be condemned for making movies without minority ethnic actors is ridiculous. Alone in the world, Anglos in particular, and whites more generally, have for decades been under pressure not to make films exclusively for, or about, their own ethnic groups.

More damaging is the falsification of British and white social history in recent movies. Casting black people as prominent members of the courts of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots (Mary Queen of Scots, 2018), having Winston Churchill converse with a black Londoner in the Underground in 1940 (Darkest Hour, 2017), or showing non-whites as normal in Medieval Europe (Anne Boleyn, 2021; Cinderella, 2021; A Knight’s Tale, 2001; Robin Hood: Men in Tights, 1993; Horrible Histories[xix]) are social lies.[xx] And they are not small lies, even in the case of comedies. Since the early twentieth century, film has been the most popular and persuasive form of mass entertainment. Film influences public understanding of mores and national identity. It is therefore a small but palpable act of cultural genocide, whether deliberate or not, to cast actors whose ethnicity misrepresents ancestral society. It steals people’s history. As George Orwell explained in his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Western audiences are tolerant of subtle racial differences in roles. They also tolerate non-whites being cast to play a role originally cast as white but which is not historically associated with whiteness. An example is The Equalizer (2014), which was originally written for a white lead but was played by Denzel Washington to popular acclaim. Non-whites are free to develop their own cinema, and they do so, producing overtly non-white movies, as noted above.

The falsification of Anglo history is a form of Anglophobia. Anglos and other European-descended peoples will not be able to claim and hold their identities without making historically correct movies. That will not be possible until the Anglophobic bias of film producers and distributors is abolished.

 

4b. Are uniquely culpable for racism due to their power over non-whites always and everywhere

A common Anglophobic nostrum is that only whites can be racist because racism entails power. It is contended that blacks and other non-whites cannot be racist because they lack power. This proposition has some obvious limits. For example, Anglos and whites have minimal presence in nations like China, India and most of Africa. Even in Western nations, the power of the white majority has declined markedly. Before the 1970s, Australia and America had immigration policies that favoured whites, keeping them an overwhelming majority of the population. These policies were removed by powerful progressive elites without support from the majority who have never been allowed to vote on them. The result has been a decline in Anglos’ share of the population and therefore a decline in their voting and political power.

For decades, restricting the power of non-Anglos in Anglosphere nations has been illegal and increasingly unacceptable culturally. Non-whites have therefore had no legal impediments and few other limitations placed on their pursuit of power. Minorities and their champions have been able to rise politically both locally and federally. In areas where minorities form majorities, local government positions are often dominated by non-Anglos thanks to tribal voting patterns.

In the United States, Barack Obama, an African American, was able to serve two terms as US president, thanks in part to these tribal minority voting patterns. Fully 95 per cent of African Americans voted for him in a record turnout, as did approximately two thirds of Hispanics and Asians. By contrast, in a country where white identity had been suppressed for generations by the media and educational establishments, the white vote was roughly split, with only moderately more voting for McCain, the white Republican candidate in 2008, than for Obama.[xxi] The white vote continues to be split, though the lean towards the Republican Party has risen in recent elections.

With the white vote only moderately leaning towards the Republicans, political parties were able to take those voters for granted, while at the same time fielding minority candidates and whites who cater to minority interests in the hope of attracting their votes. This voting power has contributed to the pro-minority legislation and the promotion of non-white immigration aimed at increasing the Democratic vote.[xxii]

Non-Anglos are filling positions of power in other areas such as business and the bureaucracy, sometimes aided by affirmative action that operates to reduce white advancement. In America, numerous Democrat cities with large minority populations often have political positions such as mayors, police chiefs and district attorneys dominated by minorities. Many giant corporations and tech companies are owned or run by minorities or migrants, as one would expect in an open economy.

The idea that non-whites can never wield power in traditionally white nations is therefore without merit. Almost anyone can wield local power. An example of local power is anyone showing hostility towards vulnerable individuals, whether by shouting abuse, assaulting them, or refusing to hire or promote them. Such acts are racist when they are motivated in part or in full by ethnic animus, regardless of whether or not the discriminator’s group is overall more numerous, wealthy, powerful or educated.

One example of a powerful individual expressing racist sentiments towards whites was provided recently by Professor Brittney Cooper, an African American tenured professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Cooper teaches classes on women’s, gender and African studies. In an online interview she stated:

I think that white people are committed to being villains … they are so corrupt, their thinking is morally bankrupt about power … The thing I want to say it we gotta take these motherf****s out, but we can’t say that … White folks are not infinite … they have an end, and we are trying to get to the other side of this very inconvenient interruption.[xxiii]

In American parlance, to “take out” people means to kill them. At its worst, the language used in this quote could be construed to be genocidal. In another public statement, while defending Critical Race Theory, Cooper denied she was advocating violence, but expressed approval of the low white birth rate.[xxiv] Even taken at its most positive, this is an example of extreme racial hatred. The claim that this outburst was not racist because it came from someone who lacked power on account of her African heritage is implausible to say the least. Professors possess the prestige of their rank and title and have real power over their students. They stand to influence young people who will go on to become professionals and occupy leadership positions. Power is also indicated by the fact that the professor was able to make eliminationist racist comments without facing any disciplinary consequences. Leftist media outlets such as the Huffington Post supported her remarks.[xxv] The Rutgers branch of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers as well as the AFL-CIO union federation expressed “solidarity” with Cooper’s right to free speech, denied that she advocated violence, praised her research into white supremacism, and accused her critics of “trying to silence people of color”.[xxvi] Most mainstream media outlets failed to report Cooper’s remarks, apart from Fox News and the Daily Mail.

Were a white professor to make disparaging comments about black people, even with ambiguous phrases, he would be lucky to keep his job. There are many examples of white academics, teachers and administrators in the US being criticised for using the word niggardly on the false assumption that it is an ethnic slur. Greg Patton, Professor of Business Communication at the University of Southern California, was suspended after a student complained that his pronunciation of the Chinese word for “that” sounded like “nigger”.[xxvii] Patton did not have enough power to save himself from an absurd accusation. This contrasts with an absence of disciplinary action against Cooper for overtly racist statements. The power of her position is further indicated by the institutional support she received. Cooper was a privileged beneficiary of America’s multicultural political establishment, receiving what Critical Race Theory would label the “wages of blackness” if it were genuine scholarship.

 

4c. Must be racist because they are on average wealthier, healthier, or better educated than some other racial or ethnic groups

Critical Race Theory helps establish structural Anglophobia. It is aided in doing so by a much older aspect of leftist ideology. That is the insistence that cultural and racial differences do not contribute to inequality, whether social or economic. The ideology originates from the utopian wish for universal equality. Unfortunately, it has implications. Proponents of this line of thinking argue that whites do not have any cultural or genetic advantages over non-whites. Any differences in wealth or education are therefore assumed to be due to “disadvantage”, which includes racism enabled by the assumed ubiquitous power of whites. The same idea is often expressed in terms of “white supremacy”. It is claimed that there can be no cultural or racial explanations for class differences between whites and non-whites, because to make that suggestion implies that one type of people is superior and the other inferior, a notion that is immoral and therefore factually wrong.

These claims commit factual errors. To summarise, ethnic differences not only exist; they are the norm. Differences are typically minor, but can be substantial. Group differences in talent, wealth and health are caused partly by cultural and genetic differences, as well as by historical and geographical luck. Anglos and other whites rate higher than some populations, and lower than others. Finally, the argument commits a philosophical error, the moralistic fallacy. This is the attempt to derive factual claims from moral precepts. Unfortunately, just because a proposition is unpleasant, does not mean it is factually incorrect.

Let us briefly review the evidence for white merit—and demerit.

1. Culture

The different peoples that came into contact during the colonial period around the Anglosphere brought with them centuries of accumulated culture. It was an unequal contest, because the cultures were very different. The contrast was most stark with regard to material culture. The British had muskets and cannon, horse-drawn wagons, and printing. In the case of Australian settlement, they were already in the process of industrialising. The historian Geoffrey Blainey explains that when the British First Fleet sailed into Sydney Harbour in January 1788, it inaugurated contact between very different cultures. “The people who had just invented the steam engine were face-to-face with people, who, though rich in many branches of knowledge, could not boil water.” [xxviii]

Centuries later, the advantage in material culture has receded, but inequality remains. In every settler society the indigenous people are substantially poorer than the descendants of the European settlers. The cause is unlikely to be white racism because several immigrant groups have overtaken Anglos in average earnings and other measures of prestige. Could non-material aspects of culture advantage Anglos and other European-descended peoples? And could this help explain the extraordinary technological edge held by Anglos over native peoples in earlier centuries? The question of cultural advantage has spurred research among historians and social scientists, much of it directed at other ethnic, religious and national inequalities.

The German sociologist Max Weber, in his famous 1905 book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, tried to explain the rise of capitalism in Northern Europe as being due to religious differences between Protestants and Catholics. Weber thought that Protestantism was better attuned to capitalism. Right or wrong, the book opened a debate that continues today. Weber introduced the concept of “work ethic” and thus cultural influences on economic behaviour. Another German analyst, Werner Sombart, in his 1911 book The Jews and Modern Capitalism, thought Judaism was the front-runner. 

Weber argued that capitalism was the application of legal-rational thinking to business. He saw this as a modern phenomenon manifested in Protestant Northern Europe. His thesis fitted the Enlightenment dogma that scientific and industrial progress had to overcome Catholic resistance. The more radical version of Weber’s thesis is that agnostic and atheist beliefs facilitate science and business.

An alternative theory, as proposed by historian Rodney Stark for example, is that Christianity was the midwife of European modernisation. While there are well-known examples of the Catholic Church resisting some scientific ideas, the broader story is one of institutional nurture and encouragement. Across the continent the Church founded the first universities. For centuries scientists believed that by logic and observation they were revealing the marvel of God’s creation. Christianity thus emphasised truth as a goal in itself. It also buttressed individual responsibility. The effect was social as well as creative. Stark argues that together, these effects of Christianity helped the West pull ahead of the rest of the world by the end of the Middle Ages.[xxix] Stark’s account also points to the importance of individualism, another culturally enhanced difference between expanding Europeans and the peoples they encountered around the world.

Canadian sociologist Ricardo Duchesne presents another approach to understanding the source of the West’s outward urge, wealth, industry, scientific discovery and military power. In his 2011 book The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne argues that the West has achieved a number of firsts, such as the enforcement of elite monogamy, the era of worldwide exploration, the philosophical and scientific revolutions, the Renaissance, the development of constitutional government and plural institutions, the establishment of globe-spanning empires and trading systems, the repudiation of slavery, the Industrial Revolution, and the elevation of women’s rights. He points out that those who would censor knowledge of cultural group differences are typically critical of Western interests in general and Anglo interests in particular. Duchesne points out that their thrust is to discourage pride in Western achievement by denying merit as an explanation for Western advance. They attribute the success of European populations to theft through colonialism or taking ideas from other civilisations such as China.[xxx] They seek to belittle unique achievements.

Many of these cultural developments have conferred advantages on peoples belonging to the Anglo and Western tradition.

1. Genes

Different evolutionary histories have produced genetic diversity among human populations. The diversity is most apparent when comparing continental-scale populations (races). Consequently, instead of discussing Anglos, this section reviews data gathered on their encompassing population, the indigenous peoples of Europe and their descendants.

Race coincides with dozens of physiological characteristics, produced during development according to genetic blueprints. Some of these characteristics are so obvious that computers can accurately identify an individual’s race from photographs.[xxxi] That might not seem very special. After all, humans can also recognise racial identity from such clues as skin colour, hair form and facial features. However, computers can do something humans cannot. They can detect race by inspecting mammograms and x-rays of hands and chests.[xxxii]

It follows that race is not “a social construct” as our best and brightest are taught in school and university. Races are biological populations. They are similar, of course, as they belong to the same species, but also different because of separation through evolutionary time and being naturally selected by different environments. As a result of their evolutionary history, the genetic similarity of random members of the same race is surprisingly high, typically equivalent to first cousins or closer, depending on the races being compared.[xxxiii]

The case of unequal health outcomes between Australian Aborigines and their Anglo counterparts appears to be caused in part by genetic differences, a factor unrelated to racism. Until 1788 all Australian Aborigines lived as hunter-gatherers. Northern Europeans exited that lifestyle about 5000 years ago when they adopted Near Eastern agriculture. Hunter-gatherers have less ability to digest refined carbohydrates than populations whose ancestors depended on agriculture for thousands of years. Now that most Aborigines consume a Western diet, they typically suffer a range of adverse health outcomes such as higher rates of diabetes and vulnerability to alcohol, which exacerbates domestic violence. Sedentary lifestyle and obesity also contribute to diabetes. Dr Alan Barclay of the Australian Diabetes Council has attributed the early onset of diabetes in Aborigines to an evolutionary history that did not include agriculture.[xxxiv] John Boulton, a medical researcher specialising in Aboriginal paediatrics, believes that we need to draw on evolutionary biology to better understand and treat the health disaster that has afflicted outback Aboriginal communities for generations.[xxxv] This approach has had some success in Canada, where researchers have identified a gene predisposing the indigenous population of Manitoba to diabetes.[xxxvi]

A similar situation exists regarding cow milk, which most of the world’s populations find difficult to digest. Lactose is the sugary component of milk. Digesting it requires an enzyme, lactase, which is produced by all human babies. The relevant gene is switched off during childhood, except in those parts of the world where cow herding has been common. This includes large parts of Europe, especially north of the Alps. In that population, the lactase gene is not switched off and adults can consume milk. This is considered a classic example of gene-culture evolution, where culture (herding and milk consumption) selects for genes (coding for lactase), which then facilitate an intensification of the culture.[xxxvii] Adult Aborigines, like Chinese and Africans, are often allergic to milk. A 1983 study found that 80 per cent of full-blood Aborigines, but only 20 per cent of non-Aboriginal controls, showed malabsorption of cow milk. The percentages showing abdominal pain or diarrhoea were 64 and 20, respectively.[xxxviii] Today, thankfully, milk can be avoided and lactose-free milk is commercially available.

Despite high levels of government expenditure on Australian Aboriginal welfare, including health services, their evolutionary history combined with the radically changed environment often causes poor health outcomes.

Superior health is one advantage Anglos and other Australians descended from farmers or cow herders frequently have over many people of indigenous heritage. Genes predispose some populations, without conscious effort, to be better (not perfectly!) adapted to a diet that includes carbohydrates, alcohol and cow milk. Such a population will tend to enjoy a healthier, longer and more productive life. It is wrong to view the resulting inequality as evidence of “white supremacy”. By the 1990s sufficient data had accumulated to show that many racial differences, including physiology and behaviour, fall into a broad pattern in which Europeans, on average, score between East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. This was the finding of the late Philippe Rushton, a Canadian professor of psychology. If his results are correct, there is no scientific basis for an absolutist white supremacism.[xxxix] Rushton’s findings also apply to intelligence, as measured by IQ tests.

No topic is more controversial than race and IQ. A taboo is enforced against any attempt to use IQ differences to explain racial differences in economic or educational outcomes. Such attempts are understandable because, first, there are persistent race differences in IQ and, second, IQ is the single largest correlate of educational success. This point is well documented in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, a book authored by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in 1994. Herrnstein died around the time the book was published, leaving Murray to answer critics alone. The Bell Curve caused a raging controversy, because it reported the well-known fifteen-point average IQ difference between whites and blacks in the United States. Furthermore, it pointed out that whites and blacks of equal IQ have similar incomes. This suggests that the disparity between the races is not due to white racism but to merit. If this became accepted by the public, the identity politics industry was faced with losing its most bankable victim.

Accusations of white supremacism were levelled at Murray, though The Bell Curve implied that Anglos do not have the highest IQ or the greatest incomes. In fact, East Asians and Jews have average IQs above those of whites in the US, with correspondingly higher incomes. Like Rushton, Murray’s book placed whites on a spectrum, but not supreme. Why then should his theory be branded as “white supremacist”?

This pattern repeats itself outside the US. The most comprehensive source of IQ scores around the world is Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, written by British psychologist Richard Lynn in 2005. Lynn was the first to report the elevated IQs of East Asians.[xl] He also found that the correlation between IQ and income applied globally, in IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002). The book, co-authored with Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen, reported that per capita GDP was correlated substantially with the average IQ of the population.

Some of the foregoing scientific issues are not fully resolved, though theories of cultural and genetic influence have gained strength as research accumulates. Despite the support of many experts, hypotheses of cultural and genetic influences on ethnic differences in health, wealth and educational attainment have been written off. Once again, the debate was won not by facts or logic but by censorship and intimidation. The media’s misreporting of the controversy over The Bell Curve was so pronounced that fifty-two academics specialising in IQ research published a letter in the Wall Street Journal in 1994. The letter was written by Linda Gottfredson, professor of educational psychology.[xli] The letter pointed out that most of The Bell Curve’s assumptions were mainstream, such as the black-white IQ difference, the accuracy of IQ tests, and their correlation with educational, occupational, economic and social outcomes.

The savage reception of The Bell Curve was a repeat of that accorded to the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen in 1969 when he suggested that the black-white IQ difference was partly genetic. An analysis of that controversy by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman in 1984 found that, like the Bell Curve controversy, the media had misrepresented scientific opinion.[xlii] Most leading psychologists agreed with the core tenets of Jensen’s theory of the black-white IQ difference, a view repeated by Herrnstein and Murray (1994). Most believed that IQ measures scholastic ability, that it is substantially heritable, and that IQ differences contribute to socioeconomic differences including those between blacks and whites. Snyderman and Rothman found only one expert on race and IQ, Leon Kamin, of the Boasian school of anthropology, who rejected genetic effects altogether as a cause of racial IQ differences. They identified a strong bias in the media and among intellectuals against the hereditarian view despite it being in the scientific mainstream. They singled out biased members of the cultural elite as the drivers of this distortion—academics, civil rights activists and social service professionals who advocated liberal progressive ideas. They found that radicals such as Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould were regularly portrayed in the media as representing the mainstream scientific view. They also found evidence of anti-white racism. The aforementioned activists maintained that hereditarian theory was the product of a pronounced bias on the part of middle-class whites (pp. 18, 182).

A similar pattern of irrationality occurred in Australia. Senior Murdoch journalist Greg Sheridan, whose Anglophobia is described below (Section 5a), entered the debate over The Bell Curve on the far-Left side. In a tirade that demonstrated incomprehension, he accused Murray of being “morally offensive” and “a plausible statistical manipulator”, likened his work to “Nazi pseudo-science”, and called his thesis “perverse”. He summarised The Bell Curve as “a mumbo-jumbo amalgam of pseudo-science and highly dodgy statistics with, so far as I can see, zero intellectual credibility”.[xliii] Sheridan declared that Murray’s methods, “such as they are”, were inapplicable in Australia because “we don’t do IQ tests” and furthermore, “we do not really have identifiable, self-sustaining racial groups”. This kind of vituperation, combined with censorship, has helped shut down much rational examination of race and ethnicity in Australia since the 1960s.

Sadly, intimidation has played an important role in suppressing research on racial differences. Scholars are unable to mention or investigate ethnic differences without risking their reputations and livelihoods. There are many examples, but for the sake of brevity we shall examine just two. Jason Richwine, who completed his doctorate at Harvard University, was forced to resign from his position in the Heritage Foundation in 2013 for using research on race differences in IQ to understand how immigrants integrate into American society.[xliv] In 2019 a young Cambridge academic, Noah Carl, was fired for conducting research into race and intelligence. Carl was criticised in an open letter signed by hundreds of Cambridge academics. He was defended by few. The reasons stated for the sacking included Carl’s attending a scientific meeting on race and intelligence and thereby associating with individuals who had views unacceptable to the Cambridge mainstream.[xlv] This was an act of political intolerance, overriding ancient scholarly standards and rejecting anything that might show the indigenous population of England collectively in a good light. Like Australia’s universities, Cambridge has been colonised by intolerant Anglophobic ideologues.

To prevent a man from claiming merit as explanation for his success is to imply that he has been lucky or has cheated. Similarly, it is implicitly Anglophobic to impose a blanket denial that Anglos have done well partly due to merit.

In society as a whole, it does appear that Anglos and other peoples of European descent have achieved their place in society largely through talent and work. Some other ethnic groups outperform whites in IQ tests, education and earnings, and do so within Western countries. Taking these facts together, there is no evidence that white supremacism is a significant force in contemporary white societies. If it were so, how could Anglophobic multiculturalism survive?

The persecution of those who attempt to research racial differences leaves radicals free to attribute the poor outcomes experienced by some ethnic groups to Anglo racism and discrimination. Furthermore, the radicals emphasise only one kind of “supremacism”. They decry white ethnocentrism while ignoring the ethnocentrism of all other peoples. This singling out of whites—the starting position of Critical Race Theory (see Section 4, 5a)—is itself a form of racism.

What is white supremacy, anyway? Supremacism is ill defined. It can mean belief in superiority as a matter of fact, whether racial, cultural or political. Or it can mean the wish for dominance over other ethnic groups. The distinction is blurred, as are combinations of these two types. The one combination most clearly disliked by modern leftists consists of belief in superiority plus wish for dominance. But what about ambiguous combinations, such as belief that one’s people are objectively superior plus striving to liberate inferior peoples or even to make them dominant? Surely noblesse oblige is less objectionable than arrogant aggression? Perhaps Rudyard Kipling was right to extol “the white man’s burden” in preference to ruthless exploitation?

There is another possible combination, belief that one’s people are inferior plus striving for their dominance. Which is more damning, to believe in superiority or attempt to achieve it? It is bad enough that such nuance does not interest those who wield the term “white supremacist” like a club. At the same time, they also refuse to even consider the possibility of non-white supremacism. Those obsessed with white supremacy should reflect on the fact that empires have been rising and falling for four millennia. Most of them were not run by Europeans; some of them ran over Europeans.

The possibility that differences in religion, culture and genes underlie ethnic differences in wealth, education and elite representation has serious consequences. If true, it means that we must learn to live with ethnic and racial inequalities if high rates of diverse immigration continue to outpace assimilation. Because they are not supreme, many whites too must tolerate their inferior status.

Assimilation solves these problems; and assimilation is taking place, both culturally and genetically. Unfortunately, assimilation is not keeping pace with the mass diverse immigration that has been pushed by our liberal-progressive and globalist elites since the 1960s. It is sobering that these elites reject the idea of assimilation, accurately accusing it of being the basis for the White Australia policy that forged the nation. And they are right to claim that if assimilation is made a priority, then immigration must be returned to its restrictive roots so as to favour Australia’s core European identity. Instead of assimilation they have installed multiculturalism, the doctrine that minorities should hold onto and perpetuate their identities. It is these very same elites, dominating our universities, schools and media, who insist that ethnic inequality cannot be tolerated. Something has to give, and so far, it is the Anglo majority who are being thrown under the diversity bus. Inequality is claimed to be caused by white racism. This position is hemmed-in by the refusal to countenance the possibility that ethnic groups’ long-term relative class position is determined in any way by culture and genes. That position may be irrational; it may be unreasonable; but it is currently accepted and unchallengeable dogma. It can also be made to work for a time, if white identity continues to be suppressed. Mass replacement-level immigration can continue until there is no white majority or sizeable minority left to sacrifice.

The reality is that ethnic inequality is here to stay—all the longer if multiculturalism and indiscriminate immigration are continued. Inequality feeds socialism, the expectation that large-scale redistribution will ameliorate inequality. We know this only works to an extent by levelling down, not up. It also requires coercion, which would destroy traditional Anglo rule of law and civil liberties.

These considerations help explain the rising prominence of accusations of “white supremacy” and other vilifications of Anglos. The taboo against findings of ethnic difference is part of the Anglophobic cage in which we find ourselves.

This article began in the April issue and will continue in June. Richard Harrison edits the Richardson Post website and is the author of The Story of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled. He is secretary of the British Australian Community (BAC). Frank Salter’s books include On Genetic Interests and The War on Human Nature in Australia’s Political Culture. He is president of the BAC.

[i] Nicholas Faulkner, Kim Borg, Kun Zhao, and Liam Smith (2020). The Inclusive Australia social inclusion index: 2020 report, Monash University. https://inclusive-australia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/IA0013_Inclusive-Australia_Index2020_v6_single-pg-1.pdf, accessed 1.6.2021, Figures 6 and 7, pp. 17-18.

[ii] Inclusive Australia, p. 13.

[iii] Poll finds a majority of white Americans say discrimination against whites exists in America today, Press release, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, 7.11.2017. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-white-americans-discrimination/, accessed 29.5.2021.

[iv] Inclusive Australia, p. 6. The report carries the subheading: “Advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”. Australia is a signatory. https://www.dfat.gov.au/aid/topics/development-issues/2030-agenda/Pages/sustainable-development-goals, accessed 1.6.2021.

[v] Inclusive Australia, p. 16.

[vi] Pasha-Robinson, L. (2017). Teaching maths perpetuates white privilege, says university professor. The Independent. London, 25 October, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/teaching-maths-white-privilege-illinois-university-professor-rochelle-gutierrez-a8018521.html, accessed 16.10.2021.

Gray, A. (2019). The bias of ‘professionalism’ standards. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4 June, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards, accessed 16.10.2021

[vii] Thornley, J. (2021). Don’t believe the hype, just follow the money [review of Gabrielle Bluestone (2021). Hype: How scammers, grifters and con artists are taking over the internet, and why we’re following, HarperCollins]. The Weekend Australian. 3 July: pp. 14-15,

[viii] Stokes, D. (2021). Interview: Anti-white racism is rampant in universities, by Peter Whittle, 20 June, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlntg1qnyHM&t=65s.

[ix] Revesz, R. (2018). Misogynistic abuse against Cathy Newman is a symbol of the backlash against the MeToo movement. Independent. 21 January, accessed 16.8.2021.

[x] Peterson, Jordan (2019). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH1U9k0dwzI&t=1094s, accessed 21.7.2021. Posted 29 April 2019, from 18:12 minutes.

Peterson’s interview by Cathy Newman can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54, accessed 21.7.2021.

[xi] Kornick, L. (2021). ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ ignores Smollett trial despite giving sympathetic interview in 2019, Fox News Network, 30 November, https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-good-morning-america-skips-jussie-smollett-trial, accessed 15.12.2021.

[xii] Anapol, Avery (2019). Kamala Harris: Violent attack on ‘Empire’ star is ‘attempted modern day lynching’, The Hill, 29 January 2019. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/427538-kamala-harris-violent-attack-on-empire-star-is-attempted-modern-day-lynching, accessed 14.12.2021.

[xiii] Gbogbo, Mawunyo (2021). Empire actor Jussie Smollett found guilty of orchestrating fake attack on himself, ABC News, 10 December, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-10/jussie-smollett-verdict-guilty/100685594.

[xiv] Francescani, Chris, Stephanie Wash, and Eva Pilgrim (2019). Judge sets $100,000 bond for Jussie Smollett, orders ‘Empire’ actor’s passport surrendered, ABC News, 22 February. https://abcnews.go.com/US/jussie-smollett-custody-chicago-police-allegedly-lying-attack/story?id=61208295, accessed 14.12.2021.

[xv] “Pauline Hanson’s ‘It’s OK to be white’ motion narrowly defeated in Senate”, The Guardian, 16.10.2018. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2018/oct/16/pauline-hansons-its-ok-to-be-white-motion-narrowly-defeated-in-senate-video, accessed 4.6.2021.

[xvi] Kaufmann, E. (2018). Whiteshift: Populism, immigration, and the future of white majorities, Penguin.

[xvii]  “Midsomer producer to step down’ after current series”, BBC News, 23.3.2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-12830475, accessed 28.5.2021.

[xviii]  “The 115 best black movies of the 21^st century”. Celebrating black history. e, accessed 31.5.2021.

[xix] E.g. ‘Been here from the start’ song, Horrible Histories. Black British History | CBBC, 12 Oct. 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M-qsVS8zeU, accessed 8.11.2021.

[xx] Williams, T. (2018). ‘Mary Queen of Scots’ fact check: Was Queen Elizabeth’s ambassador actually black?, The Wrap, 25 December, https://www.thewrap.com/mary-queen-of-scots-fact-check-was-queen-elizabeth-ambassador-actually-black/, accessed 20.10.2021.

Gleiberman, Owen. (2017). The London Underground scene of “Darkest Hour’: So false, so winning, so slam-dunk Oscar, Variety, 25 November, https://variety.com/2017/film/columns/darkest-hour-underground-scene-gary-oldman-1202622763/, accessed 20.10.2021.

[xxi] Lopez, M. H. and P. Taylor (2009). Dissecting the 2008 electorate: Most diverse in U.S. history. Washington D.C., Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/reports/108.pdf, accessed 17.2.2022.

[xxii] Bowler, S. and G. M. Segura (2010). The future is ours: Minority politics, political behavior, and the multiracial era of American politics. Los Angeles, Sage.

[xxiii] Alex Hammer and Shannon Thaler (2021). Rutgers University fails to condemn tenured professor who said ‘we got to take these motherf*****s out’ about white people, Daily Mail, 30 October, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10145969/Public-furious-Rutgers-professor-Brittney-Coopers-history-anti-white-comments.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

[xxiv] Poff, Jeremiah (2021). Rutgers professor says white people deserve low birth rates, Washington Examiner, 28 October, https://news.yahoo.com/rutgers-professor-says-white-people-153000065.html, accessed 17.2.2022.

[xxv] Ross, Lawrence (2021). Brittney Cooper’s truth-telling is too much for the cowardly right-wing mob, The Huffington Post, 8 November. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brittney-cooper-racist-right-wing-mob_n_61887ea0e4b055e47d7c0af0, accessed 17.2.2022.

[xxvi] Rutgers AAUP-AFT statement in solidarity with Brittney Cooper, 5 November 2021, https://rutgersaaup.org/rutgers-aaup-aft-statement-in-solidarity-with-brittney-cooper/, accessed 17.2.2022.

[xxvii] Controversy over USC professor’s use of Chinese word that sounds like racial slur in English, Los Angeles Times, 5 September 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-05/usc-business-professor-controversy-chinese-word-english-slur, accessed 18.2.2022.

[xxviii] Blainey, G. (2018). Australia Day doubters misread our past. The Australian. Sydney, 25 January, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/australia-day-doubters-misreadour-past/news-story/a4ffd4e49074343a7c24fb1eb120e127, accessed 29.11.2021.

[xxix] Stark, R. (2006). The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and Western success. New York, Random House.

[xxx] Duchesne, Ricardo (2011). The uniqueness of Western civilization, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

[xxxi] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-quiet-growth-of-race-detection-software-sparks-concerns-over-bias-11597378154, accessed 24.11.2021.

[xxxii] Banerjee, I. and et al. (2021). Reading race: AI recognises patient’s racial identity in medical images, arXiv.org, 21 July, https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10356, accessed 24.11.2021.

[xxxiii] Salter, F. K. (2007/2003). On genetic interests: Family, ethnicity, and humanity in an age of mass migration. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers.

[xxxiv] Dr. Alan Barclay was interviewed by Alan Jones, Radio 2GB, 9 July 2012.

[xxxv] Nicolas Rothwell, “Genes key to health gone awry”, Weekend Australian, 1-2 June 2013, Inquirer, p. 15.

[xxxvi] Millar, K. and H. J. Dean (2012). “Developmental origins of Type 2 diabetes in Aboriginal youth in Canada: It is more than diet and exercise.” Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 2012, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnme/2012/127452/, accessed 25.11.2021.

[xxxvii] Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1986). Cultural evolution and genetics. Human genetics: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress Berlin 1986. F. Vogel and K. Sperling. Berlin, Springer: 24-33.

[xxxviii] Brand, J. C., M. S. Gracey, R. M. Spargo and S. P. Dutton (1983). Lactose malabsorption in Australian Aborigines. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 37(3): 449-452.

[xxxix] Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers.

[xl] Lynn, R. (1977). The intelligence of the Japanese. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 30: 69-72.

[xli] Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). “Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.” Intelligence 24(1): 13-23.

[xlii] Snyderman, M. and S. Rothman (1988). The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. New York, Transaction Books.

[xliii] Sheridan, G. (1994). Genetic inferiority just mumbo-jumbo. The Australian. Sydney, 2 November.

[xliv] Richwine, Jason (2013, 9 August). Why can’t we talk about IQ? Politico.com, 9 August, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353, accessed 24.11.2021.

[xlv] Adams, R. (2019). Cambridge college sacks researcher over links with far right. The Guardian. London, 2 May. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/01/cambridge-university-college-dismisses-researcher-far-right-links-noah-carl, accessed 25.11.2021.