Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred, Part III: Anglos Must Not Defend Themselves

Parts 1 and 2 of this series began examining types of Anglophobia, distinguishing three types—vilification, discrimination and violence. These attacks have come mainly from the ideological Left. Examples of vilification were provided in Australia, the United States, and other English-speaking countries. Part 3 continues discussing types of vilification, describing attacks on Anglos who advocate their people’s interests or identity. In Australia, this kind of Anglophobia has come from leftist ideologues, the Human Rights Commission and various ethnically-motivated actors.

 

*

 

5. Must be denied the freedom of speech required to promote or pursue the interests of their people, unlike other racial or ethnic groups

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recommends that populations be free to organise to preserve their culture and other interests.^[i] There is nothing radical about making this assumption for any non-white or non-Anglo group, whether they be Chinese, Indians, Nigerians, Jews, Palestinians, Malaysians, or any other nationality. All these populations are considered to have a legitimate right to their own nations. The only exceptions to this principle are white, and especially Anglo nations. If whites or Anglos express concern about immigration policies, on the grounds that these policies will inevitably consign them to minority status in their own lands, they can lose reputation and employment. They can face baseless accusations of bigotry and intolerance and can even face criminal charges.

An example of the promotion of the selective restriction of free speech comes from Frank Knopfelmacher (1923–1995), who was an academic at Melbourne University. He was a Cold War warrior who considered communism to be the main threat to the West. The openness and clarity of his writing reveal the Anglophobic prejudice that had become normal among intellectuals by the 1980s. In a 1984 essay on multiculturalism he began by categorising Anglos as non-ethnics. Only immigrants from outside the UK and indigenous Australians have ethnicity, he thought. “Non-anglomorph immigrants and Australia-born children from at least one non-anglomorph parent are defined as ethnics …” Knopfelmacher saw Anglo identity as having nothing to do with descent or race. Instead, it consisted of “institutions, habits, political structures, and ways of life” derived from the British Isles. This implied that ethnic identity was not legitimate when felt by Anglos. Knopfelmacher recommended suppressing Anglo ethnicity by introducing criminal penalties for intolerance against Asians. He thought this could be achieved by screening immigrants from the UK to bar those with a history of Anglo advocacy. British immigrants with ethnic attitudes who slipped through the screening should be deported. Knopfelmacher thought, however, that these harsh measures should only be applied to Anglos. His recommendations were relatively benign for other ethnicities, whose acts of intolerance, he wrote, should not be criminalised. His reason for this distinction was the assertion that Anglo ethnic discrimination undermines national cohesion but the same behaviour by non-Anglos does not.

Knopfelmacher saw the record of multi-ethnic societies in the twentieth century as “catastrophic”. Therefore, he concluded, the “anglomorph cultural hegemony of Australia” should not be tampered with. At the same time, any expression of Anglo ethnicity should be suppressed because “English racism” in Australia threatens “national survival”. His argument was that as Australia is an “anglomorph enclave in an alien sea”, assimilation of diverse ethnics is imperative. He treated the non-discriminatory immigration policy that was creating that diversity, especially permanent mass Asian immigration, as a non-discretionary fact, a force of nature. Somehow he saw that as compatible with retention of Anglo identity, perhaps because for him Anglos lacked ethnicity.

Unstated in his essay was Knopfelmacher’s important assumption that Australia lacked a powerful military, and so was forced to rely on the United States to defend it from neighbouring countries. In a 1967 essay Knopfelmacher contrasted Australia’s supplicant status to Israel’s armed independence, which allowed it to survive in an alien sea. Military prowess made Israel’s ethnic particularism, including restrictive immigration, prudent, unlike Australia. Moreover, Israel was an “impressive and lasting achievement of permanent value” for Jews and for the world. Knopfelmacher implied that Australia could not be a lasting achievement for Anglos despite it being more geographically defensible than Israel due to its large size, distance from potential enemies, and being girt by a vast moat of seas.

Knopfelmacher was effectively Anglophobic because he singled-out expression of Anglo identity for suppression and Anglo Australia as the vessel of unlimited Asian immigration. Yet he was relatively moderate, suspicious of multiculturalism, and sympathetic towards Australia’s anglomorph culture.

 

5a. Should have their free speech right to express ethnic identity regulated by multicultural agencies

In 2012 Helen Szoke, Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner, stated that Anglo Australians have a special problem with racism not found in other ethnic groups. She claimed that “people who are part of the majority grouping, the white Anglo-Saxon grouping” deny that their discrimination is racist. Szoke depicted an insensitive Anglo Australia that denies opportunities to Aborigines or immigrants of non-English-speaking background, and asserted, “The white Australia policy is still part of the ‘muscle memory’ of the more homogenised white Australia.”[ii] Typical of anti-discrimination advocacy from its earliest days, these disparaging remarks were not balanced by a discussion of non-Anglo networking. She did not discuss group interests, for example the cost to the Anglo community of affirmative action for minorities or of infrastructure built for immigrants. Moreover, Szoke described how her own family had been adversely affected by discrimination in Australia. As she explained it herself: “Here [Australia], our psyche has been scarred.”[iii]

The components of this story sit uncomfortably together—the appointment as race discrimination commissioner of someone with an ethnic and emotional stake in opposing Anglo identity, her categorical criticisms of Anglo Australians, her failure to compare ethnic interests, and her personal ambivalence towards the same ethnic group that she officially condemned. Szoke called for the criminalisation of racial vilification[iv]. This anti-Anglo bias was not an aberration. Since its inception, the anti-racism bureaucracy has often been staffed by individuals who have conflicts of interest. They are appointed to administer public policy in an unprejudiced manner, but simultaneously have ethnic or ideological interests in targeting Anglo identity.

White identity has been suppressed by the multicultural apparatus, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the media and the school system. Since the 1970s, multiculturalism of the Anglophobic kind has been official government policy throughout much of the Western world, particularly in Anglosphere countries. In a process sometimes called “identity politics”, ethnic, religious and cultural groups are welcomed into this fold. They are given access to government resources and funding and are invited to express their group identity, especially as supposed victims of racism. Politicians seek their votes in exchange for funding, appointments, liberal immigration policies and condemnation of their Anglo critics.

Anglos are kept out of this process. Though they pay for multiculturalism’s largesse through taxes, their advocates are routinely excluded from the process. Political parties do not offer them benefits in immigration or participation in government inquiries. They are excluded from all these perquisites. By and large it is they who are condemned as the common enemy of the multicultural community. This is in stark contrast to the principled multiculturalism publicly advocated by governments. In Australia, early examples of this anti-Anglo bias are provided by Mark Lopez in his ground-breaking study The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945–1975 (2013). The networks and government committees of the 1960s that gave rise to official multiculturalism were manned by progressives and minority ethnic activists. Anglo advocates were never invited to participate in policy formation. The old Department of Immigration was broken up by the Whitlam government precisely because its officers argued for assimilationist policies that took into account the interests of the majority culture.[v]

Even conservatives such as then Prime Minister John Howard saw fit to consult with the leaders of non-Anglo minorities while ignoring Anglo advocates. For example, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson reported having had a series of meetings and correspondence with Howard regarding indigenous recognition and reconciliation. “Howard sent me his [2007] speech before he delivered it. Its substance was the subject of various meetings and communications commencing in 2004 and in the lead-up to his Sydney Institute speech.” Pearson also quoted Prime Minister Scott Morrison as claiming that “I’ve had numerous meetings myself on this matter” of designing an indigenous Voice to Parliament.[vi] Both Howard and Morrison oversaw large-scale Third World immigration and refugee intakes without acknowledging the harm this did to Anglo interests. Neither did they consult with leaders of the Anglo community or attempt to identify such leaders. The displacement of Anglo Australians deserves to become Howard’s and Morrison’s historical legacy.[vii]

Anglo advocates were also excluded from official inquiries into matters of great significance to the historic nation. Examples include the 1988 Fitzgerald Report on immigration, set up by the Hawke government, and the series of committees appointed to develop policy for indigenous recognition, set up by both Labor and Liberal governments. The Expert Panel looking into Indigenous Constitutional Recognition was appointed by the Gillard Labor government and its follow-up panels were appointed by Coalition governments. These panels did not include anyone with a record of advocating Anglo interests, though all other members were either indigenous activists or their non-indigenous supporters.[viii]

As the Szoke case illustrates, not all Anglophobia comes from the cultural Left, though this has been the powerhouse of anti-white prejudice. As discussed in Section 3a above, its association with the Left helps explain multiculturalism’s cavalier attitude towards free speech. It is this insensitivity that has tended to suppress Anglo participation in public debates concerning immigration and ethnic affairs. Minority tribalism has also been an influential source of Anglophobia. As with Leninist ideology, ethnic partisanship among any group often overrides their concern for civil liberties, including free speech. The remainder of this section discusses examples of ethnically motivated Anglophobia that impinge on free speech.

An obvious example of tribal Anglophobia is Islamic jihadi hatred and violence directed against the West, as discussed in Section 7 below. Another example is the campaign to impose racial vilification prohibitions. In effect, this was a campaign to silence conservative, and usually Anglo, free speech, on the subject of ethnic affairs. Though often supported by the Left, in Australia the campaign has sometimes been led by ethnic minorities and their organisations. For example, Chinese activists and members of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies significantly influenced the wording of Section 18c, the 1996 amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) of 1975.[ix] The amendment was passed by the Keating Labor government.

Section 18c has turned the already illiberal Racial Discrimination Act into an instrument of totalitarian domination, because it sets the law against expressions of opinion merely for causing offence, insult or humiliation, all of which are psychological states accessible only to those claiming to be victims. As the Australian Human Rights Commission summarises, “Section 18C is concerned with [public] acts that offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate because of someone’s race or ethnicity.”^[x] Section 18d allows exemptions if the acts are made in pursuit of academic or artistic expression. These exemptions are not available to most people.

According to the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, their original goal was to stop the anti-Semitism that was appearing in some Arabic publications.[xi] As it transpired, however, Section 18c was mostly used to prosecute Anglos, whether or not they were anti-Semitic. A well-known example involved the journalist Andrew Bolt, who was found guilty of racially vilifying nine individuals of partial Aboriginal descent. Bolt doubted the genuineness of their claimed identity on the grounds that they looked white. He suggested they had emphasised this part of their ancestry to further their careers.

Bolt complained that at his trial he faced a Jewish prosecutor who told the Jewish judge that Bolt was like a neo-Nazi and referred repeatedly to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The leading barrister for the plaintiffs even discussed another case he had represented against a Holocaust denier. In a subsequent comment Bolt chided his many Jewish supporters for failing to defend him against what he saw as a scurrilous attack. Bolt concluded that they held their silence in order to defend Section 18c. He cautioned them that their defence of 18c could be seen as being “largely for the benefit of their own highly articulate and influential community”.[xii]

In effect, Bolt was making two allegations. First, that the prosecuting lawyer used a slur likely to affect the judge’s ethnic sensitivities. And second, that Bolt’s Jewish supporters failed to defend him because they gave higher priority to defending their ethnic group interests via Section 18c than to defending the principle of free speech. He might also have known that the Jewish barrister and lawyer representing the plaintiffs were working pro bono.[xiii]

Whatever the merits of the case against Bolt, it appears that the legal team arrayed against him was partly motivated by defensive ethnic sentiment. In other words, the campaign against Andrew Bolt may well have been driven by the strange combination of radical post-ethnic ideology and its exact opposite motivation, ethnic solidarity.

Ethnic defence also appears to have motivated an earlier high-profile litigation relating to Section 18c against Professor Andrew Fraser, a constitutional legal scholar at Macquarie University.[xiv] The professor had written a letter to a local newspaper criticising the policy that allowed Sudanese immigration which he felt was bound to increase crime. (Statistics on subsequent Sudanese crime are provided below under “C. Violence”.)

George Newhouse, a solicitor active in the civil rights arena, organised and led a legal team to lodge a complaint against Fraser on behalf of the Sudanese Darfurian Union. The complaint was lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), alleging that Fraser had breached Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The prosecuting team included the president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, the organisation that represented many other Jewish organisations. This would not have indicated hostility to Anglo identity if Fraser had made anti-Semitic or anti-Israel statements. In such a case, legal action from individuals dedicated to defending their community would have been defensive. In fact, Professor Fraser had no history of making such statements. Instead, Fraser was being attacked for trying to restrict the immigration of a non-Jewish group.

The symbolism could not have been clearer. The leader of a peak Jewish organisation joined with other Jewish lawyers to sue an Anglo professor for raising a legitimate concern of ethnic and national welfare. Like the unprovoked attack on Pauline Hanson,[xv] it raises the question: Were elements of the organised Jewish community actively opposed to Anglos’ legitimate interests of self-defence and remaining the majority in their own country? Or was it a coincidence?

At this point, the editor of the Deakin Law Review invited Professor Fraser to submit a paper on the matter, providing him with an opportunity to present his arguments in a scholarly manner. The professor did so, and the paper passed peer review. The Review was about to publish the paper when Newhouse threatened the university with legal action if it went ahead. He stated to the press: “I put the university on notice that if they repeat the racial vilification, a claim for compensation may be made against the university and the editors that publish or republish this poison.”[xvi] Deakin University’s vice-chancellor, Sally Walker, informed Fraser that the lawyer representing the Sudanese community had “threatened the University with legal action if it published your article”. She claimed to have received legal advice that Fraser’s scholarly article “would contravene the Racial Discrimination Act”. Consequently she overrode the editor to censor Fraser’s paper from the Deakin Law Review.[xvii] The legal opinion and the responsible lawyer have never been revealed. The advice is prime facie absurd because Section 18d of the Racial Discrimination Act expressly exempts scholarly works from prosecution. Newhouse’s threat against Deakin University may have reduced Fraser’s ability to defend himself under Section 18d, because when Fraser was subsequently found guilty of racial vilification by the HREOC, the judgment was made on the grounds that his letter was neither based on academic analysis nor was it a contribution to fair public discussion.

It seems possible that the prosecuting legal team could have been motivated in part by their shared ethnic identity, based on the fact that it was led by Newhouse, who was Jewish, and included a senior lawyer who was also president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, the same agency that had helped compose Section 18c and lobbied to have it legislated. The choice by Newhouse of a team member who was the representative of a Jewish activist group was inconsistent with principled opposition to ethnic particularism. If he opposed ethnic organisation or ethnic nationalism in general, and not just the Anglo kind, why choose a passionate ethnic advocate as an ally?[xviii] And if he was motivated by opposition to bigotry, why act to prevent Fraser from defending his ideas in a peer-reviewed academic journal?

In 2020 Newhouse did what he had accused Andrew Fraser of doing, by publishing a commentary that lacked scholarly apparatus and contained sweeping defamatory generalisations about an ethnic group, in this case white Australians. He approvingly quoted an Anglophobic statement by Australian author Peter Carey: “All white Australians know that every day [they] are the beneficiaries of genocide.” Newhouse went on to make other anti-white accusations, including that the Australian people have a brutal history of dispossessing and colonising indigenous people, and that “the racist attitudes that enabled these mindsets still remain within the fabric of our nation”. Such poisonous views may be why he enthusiastically supported the Black Lives Matter movement, notorious for incendiary anti-Anglo and anti-white rhetoric.[xix]

The mainstream media portrayed the controversy surrounding Andrew Fraser as involving a clash between Anglo racism and principled universalism. However, the Fraser–Newhouse contest had the hallmarks of a tribal fight. Fraser’s most effective antagonists themselves might have been ethnically motivated, all the while wielding the language of universal human rights.

Ethnic motivation might also have been involved in the development of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Recall from Section 4 above that CRT has been adopted as one of the prime tools of leftist radicals. This helps explain why CRT is associated with radical policies and intolerance of free speech wherever it arises. Across the Anglosphere, school children are subjected to this thinly disguised racism. This ideology masquerading as theory is common in universities and government bureaucracies.

CRT’s Marxist roots are well understood, as outlined in Section 4 above. Most CRT ideologues present themselves as opposing white privilege, not the white race. However, some of those academics display ethnic bias, using whiteness rhetoric to dog-whistle anti-white racism. An example is Noel Ignatiev (1940–2019), a founding figure of Critical Race Theory who famously called for the “abolition of whiteness” and co-founded the journal Race Traitor together with the slogan, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”. Ignatiev did not reach minimum standards of scholarship, such as comparing white ethnic solidarity with that of other ethnicities, including his own.[xx] As someone who grew up Jewish in 1940s and 1950s America, Ignatiev would have had personal experience of the Jewish subculture. He must have known that minority ethnocentrism, endogamous marriage[xxi] and ethnic networking, were typically more intense in that minority group than among those of white Gentile Americans. In addition he surely would have known that Jews and Chinese have higher average incomes than whites. As someone whose research was focused on class, it is inconceivable that Ignatiev was oblivious to the realities of ethnic stratification by socio-economic class in the United States, in which whites do not rate as the highest stratum. Ignatiev claimed to base his belief in white privilege on unequal outcomes, because he rejected all evidence of group differences in merit. How could he fail to conclude that some minorities were at least as privileged as whites?

It should be noted that in 2007 Ignatiev accused Israel of racist treatment of Palestinians.[xxii] Did that make him a genuine communist, one who rejected all ethnic and national loyalties? Not if Ignatiev showed what Eric Kaufmann calls “double consciousness”. It was common for Anglo idealist liberals in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to harbour attachment to their ethnic group, while nevertheless criticising slavery and other gross forms of Anglo racism. They were not truly post-ethnic in line with idealistic liberal principles, because they retained some tribal motivation. The same appears to have been true of Ignatiev, because he failed to compare the solidarity and privilege of whites with his own ethnic group. Ignatiev’s criticism of Israel was a brief excursion into even-handedness, a rare occasion on which he applied the same communistic standards to that country as he spent his entire academic career applying to white Americans. Whatever else Ignatiev stated about other countries, there was no excuse for failing to identify and compare, in the United States, the wages of whiteness with the wages of Jewishness or Chineseness. Unfortunately, his crude Anglophobia is now widely taught in schools and universities and is influential in the corporate media.

An example of the tribal character of Critical Race Theory in the United States is its use by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a leading Jewish defence agency. In 2020 the ADL defined racism as the “marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people”.[xxiii] This implied that only white people can be racist, itself an Anglophobic assertion likely to excuse discrimination against Anglos and other whites. The ADL’s statement illustrates how CRT in fact serves prejudice against whites. It is telling that an NGO as sophisticated and richly funded as the ADL adopted a patently Anglophobic definition of racism. It is doubly significant because the ADL has extensive influence, for example on the FBI (according to its director in 2014, James Comey) and on social media giants which it advises regarding who they should ban or curtail.[xxiv]

These examples of ethnic activism against Anglo interests involve an intense level of motivation. The individuals and organisations concerned devote significant resources to these attacks. What is the motivating factor which drives these protagonists? Their behaviour is puzzling, because Jews are safer and more comfortable in the Anglosphere than anywhere else in modern history, apart perhaps from Israel. They enjoy absolute equality in opportunity, and levels of anti-Semitism are vanishingly low. Almost the same number of Jews choose to live in North America as in Israel, their historic homeland.

It is difficult, of course, to determine the motivation of an entire racial/religious group. Not all members of a group will have identical reasons for particular beliefs or actions. One clue, however, was given in a statement made by a Jewish advocate, Miriam Faine.

At that time, Faine was a Victorian teacher and editor of the Jewish community journal Australian Jewish Democrat. She made the following remarks in a 1992 article, in which she discussed how multiculturalism and immigration policy affect Australian Jews, and vice versa. She began by condemning Australia’s formal and informal acknowledgment of its Anglo roots: “Australia … even today, clearly values one of its immigrant cultures and heritages (the British Anglo-Saxon) above all the others.”[xxv]

Instead, Faine stated, the country should see itself as a collection of equally valuable immigrant groups. She asserted that immigration should favour minority ethnic groups, in order to build up their ethnic identity. “A successful on-going immigration policy would take as its first premise the need to support the ethnic identity of those already settled here and to maintain and encourage the diversity within the community.”[xxvi]

Faine accused assimilationist, pre-multicultural governments—that is, every single one prior to the 1970s—of being racist. In support she quoted the Lyons government of the 1930s. They had described German Jews seeking to immigrate as difficult to assimilate. Faine’s response was to recommend a minority ethnic coalition to defeat the Anglo community: “Therefore we should make it our business to strike common cause with other non-Anglo groups to promote a multi-cultural Australia.” The strategy was not new, because multiculturalism was from its beginning a form of cultural and demographic warfare against Anglo Australia. What was new about Faine’s words was their honesty.

Faine saw her approach as a diaspora strategy, as opposed to one of migrating to Israel:

 

With the demise of Zionism … it is precisely such a multi-cultural society which would give space for Australian Jews to fulfil their hopes for the continuation of the community. The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor-General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.

 

Already at that time Faine saw her anti-Anglo strategy being executed. She explained that “it is in our own interests as Jews to advocate on immigration and ethnic issues, as Jews in the wider community, and we should welcome the initiative of the ECAJ [Executive Council of Australian Jewry] and Orthodox and Reform rabbinate in supporting the Cambodians and hope it continues.”[xxvii] The ECAJ was and is the peak body representing Jewish organisations across Australia. Faine was praising the organisation for lobbying on behalf of Cambodian refugees around 1992. This action was also being supported by religious Jewish bodies. Whatever the motives of these organisations, Faine made her own motives very clear. She saw non-white refugees as allies in breaking down Anglo influence.

Faine’s hate-filled words give us a window into explicit multicultural strategising. She did not express vague unconscious implicit prejudice. This was someone intent on group domination and replacement, in a deliberate targeting of Anglo Australia. The motivation for this behaviour sprang from an extremely pessimistic assessment of Anglo behaviour and history as inherently ethnocentric and anti-Semitic. This pessimism might have been generated by Faine’s ethnocentrism and group defensiveness, both of which she expressed at an intensity that is rare among Anglos.

We cannot say for sure whether Faine’s sentiments were unusual within the Jewish community. Perhaps her views were roundly condemned at the time by Jewish leaders and we missed those articles. However, a year after her article appeared, a mainstream Jewish journal, the Australian Jewish News, reviewed the Australian Jewish Democrat. The reviewer found the journal to offer a perspective which was not fundamentally out of step with the Jewish mainstream. He reported that instead of being aligned with religious or Zionist Jews, the journal adopted a mix of ethnic and radical perspectives supporting “the preservation of Jewish life, a wide-ranging pluralism, social justice, peace, Tikkun Olam, interaction with Australian society”, which the reviewer judged to be “legitimate Jewish expression” because they are “never offensive to, or undermining of, Jewish interests”. In other words, though the Australian Jewish Democrat was secular and occasionally critical of Israel, it presented an ethnically loyal way of examining issues that affected the Jewish people.[xxviii] The reviewer was reassuring his readers that though the Australian Jewish Democrat was progressive, it was supportive of the diaspora way of life, even though it was different from the traditional religious approach of Judaism and the nationalist approach of Zionism.

Although Faine explained that she would not feel safe as a Jewish person in Australia until the country had a Chinese person as Governor-General, she did not express any special attachment to China or to the Chinese. Therefore, it seems likely that “Chinese” stood for any non-Anglo or non-European.

The Governor-General is the head of state, so Faine was expressing a preference for non-Anglos to occupy high government positions. In other words, Ms Faine saw Anglos as posing the major threat of anti-Semitism. Therefore, she recommended increasing diversity (which, as discussed, is a code word for reducing the proportion of Anglos or whites). She also wanted to see Anglos removed from positions of power.

Once these steps had been taken, once the hostile ethnic group had been reduced in demography and power, only then would she feel safe. But why would she not feel safe in a country like Australia which has no significant history of anti-Semitism? There has never been a serious political party with anti-Jewish policies in its platform. There has never been a political leader who has verbally attacked Jews. Australia was an early supporter of Israel after its declaration of independence in 1948 and has maintained a friendly posture since then. What would cause Ms Faine to feel so threatened by Anglos? Surely it was not the mere possibility of anti-Semitic politics arising? Such thinking would justify attacking in many directions, but Ms Faine singled out Anglos. A cause is hard to imagine. Fear is a strong emotion, but whatever Ms Faine was afraid of, she was acting on that fear by wishing for the disempowerment of white Anglo Christians. It is hard to know if this fear, and the reaction to it, are widespread in the Jewish community. If so, then it could be one reason for the examples given above of strong Jewish support for non-white mass immigration into white and Anglo countries. As well as being irrational, however, the wish to strip Anglos of power and swamp them demographically in their own nations is an unambiguous act of Anglophobia.

Jewish Anglophobia is sometimes understandable. Anti-Semitism is real and although its frequency has been low among Anglos for a long time it is reasonable for Jews to be resentful when it does occur. Given their history of persecution, it is also understandable that Jews remain alert. In such circumstances it is reasonable that Jews organise to oppose the defamation of their people and emphasise disabilities suffered by them. Examples of recent Anglo anti-Semitism include the modern neo-Nazi movement. This movement is sometimes violent but it is tiny and lacks organisation, funding, patronage and any semblance of mainstream acceptance. Historical examples are also relevant. During the 1930s the British Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley were anti-Semitic. They had counterparts in the United States. Further back, Jews not converted to Christianity were prevented from serving in the British Parliament until 1858. As far back as 1290, King Edward I of England expelled the Jewish community.

For historical reasons Jews, especially secular Jews, are typically on the political Left and are often very sensitive to any sign of Gentile ethnic solidarity. For reason of individual merit they are also over-represented in the professions, including in academe. It is likely that these factors taken together helped cause the examples of Anglophobia described here. Though Anglophobia is evident in some Jewish organisations, it does not define them. Those bodies mostly perform welfare and legitimate representative functions. The voluntary labour and philanthropy upon which these organisations rest spring from prosocial motivations, not Anglophobia.

However, it should also be remembered that there have been positives. Jews have flourished in Anglosphere nations due to the rule of law. Benjamin Disraeli served as British prime minister as early as 1868. Sir Isaac Isaacs was an early governor-general of Australia. Anti-Semitism has never been entrenched in Anglo societies as it has been in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. Yet the cases reviewed above indicate unprovoked hostility to the continuation of Anglo Australia. In such circumstances, attempting to undermine or disempower an ethnic group within its own nation has no moral basis. This is especially true in a robust, advanced and fully functioning liberal democracy.

Irish Catholics have also been known to display ethnically motivated Anglophobia in Australia and elsewhere. Some individuals here have continued the centuries-long conflict between England and Ireland. Anglo prejudice against Irish-Catholics has been analysed in numerous scholarly and popular texts, while the reverse hostility has received less attention.[xxix]

If Anglophobia is defined as any attack on the British, then eighteenth- and nineteenth-century rebellion against British occupation of Ireland might be categorised as such. Surely that would be an error. Aggression motivated by the aspiration for ethnic or religious defence or for national independence is not Anglophobic in any meaningful way. In that circumstance, neither is hatred of British symbols linked to oppression.

For this reason, Irish fractiousness in early Australian and American history cannot be simply categorised as Anglophobic, though naturally some ethnic hatred would have been involved on both sides. By 1800 Irish rebels were being transported to Australia as a means of suppressing the Irish nationalist movement. These Irish convicts sought to return to Ireland to continue the fight against British occupation. In 1804 about 400 mainly Irish convicts rose up in armed revolt in what is known as the Castle Hill Rebellion. They were put down by the New South Wales Corps.[xxx] In 1868 Irish rebelliousness spilled over again in Sydney when an Irishman wounded Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria’s son, in a failed assassination attempt.

By 1921 Ireland had gained independence from Britain. By that date Irish immigrant communities in Australia and the United States were well on their way to economic and political integration. These events make it less plausible to categorise later examples of anti-Anglo behaviour as defensive. Irish-Australian hostility towards Anglo-Australia was at its most popular shortly before Irish independence. During the First World War, Prime Minister Billy Hughes sought to introduce conscription in order to maintain Australia’s contribution to the Anglo-French alliance in the face of heavy casualties. He called two referenda, in 1916 and 1917, in an attempt to give conscription powers to the Commonwealth. While most British-descended Australians voted for conscription, most Irish-Catholics voted against it. Dr Daniel Mannix, an Irish patriot who had recently been appointed Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, urged his parishioners to oppose conscription. Both referenda were defeated, partly due to Mannix’s opposition.

Whilst many of those who followed Mannix’s voting advice were likely moved, in part, by Anglophobia, there were other powerful motivations. The war had inflicted grievous wounds on Australia, notably at Gallipoli in 1915. The country would lose 60,000 young men during the war, out of a population of fewer than five million. About 39 per cent of the adult male population served in the armed forces between 1914 and 1919.[xxxi]

Minority ethnic activists often adopt radical ideological positions to present themselves as victims and undermine the legitimacy of their majority opponents. In Australia this tendency has been expressed by some politicians and intellectuals of Irish descent, including those who have lost the Catholic faith. Ideological vehicles of Irish Anglophobia include multiculturalism and republican nationalism, which attempts to strip away connections to Britain, including flag and monarchy.

Persistent Irish Anglophobia can be nastier. Thomas Keneally, in his novel The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (1972), sought to evoke readers’ sympathetic understanding of the racially-motivated murder of nine Anglo men, women and children by an embittered Aboriginal man, based loosely on a rampage by Jimmy Governor, an historical figure from 1901. Keneally and Fred Schepisi, the director of the film adaptation of Keneally’s book, used the opportunity to not only exculpate racially-motivated violence, but to vilify the Methodist Church and its missionaries (discussed further in section 7 below). The book was nominated for a Booker Prize in 1972. Keneally has never apologised for his book or criticised Schepisi’s anti-Christian film.

Greg Sheridan, senior editor at the Australian, is another example of Irish Catholic identity coinciding with bitterness towards Anglo Australia decades after the conflict between Britain and Ireland was resolved. Though born and raised in Sydney, he was immersed in Irish nationalism and the historical grudge it can engender. At his father’s knee he learnt of 800 years of British persecution.[xxxii] “I was a republican kid …” he wrote, “so I refused point-blank during my school years ever to stand for God Save the Queen or in any other way to acknowledge English sovereignty over Australia.”[xxxiii]

Later in life Sheridan conceded that English culture had some good points, while maintaining enmity against British-Australian identity and pride. As a journalist writing for the Australian in the 1970s, he was critical of the British connection and became a committed multiculturalist. He promoted Asian immigration and argued that Australia’s future lay in close integration with Asia. He supported demographic transformation through “Asianisation”, and the globalisation and deindustrialisation of the Australian economy through removal of industry protection. He was enthusiastic about the end of Anglo Australia. “I am a constant champion when I am in Asia,” he wrote, “for Australia and for the great success of Asian immigration and the many other things which make this a lovely, honey-coloured society.”[xxxiv]

Sheridan’s attitude began to change when he and his family suffered from Islamic aggression in their Sydney suburb. By 2011, in an article titled “How I Lost Faith in Multiculturalism”, Sheridan called into question decades of multiculturalist activism, though he did not clearly identify diversity as the core problem.[xxxv] In a subsequent article he expressed polite regret at how the policies he had promoted had resulted in the cultural genocide of Anglo Australia.[xxxvi] “Almost from the first words I wrote for public consumption I have strongly supported this policy [Asian immigration] … It has resulted, incidentally, in a kind of benign cultural genocide. The old race of ‘Austral-Britons’ is gone forever.” Sheridan undermined his already lukewarm expression of regret by qualifying the cultural genocide as “benign”. He explicitly supported the displacement of Anglo Australia: “The old Austral-Britons have been supplanted by a much more diverse range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I don’t feel at all unhappy about that …”

Sheridan has maintained the same hostility towards Anglo identity wherever it exists. In 2015 he criticised Nigel Farage’s UKIP because he thought it represented English nationalism.[xxxvii] Also in 2015 Sheridan managed to combine praise for Australia’s ethnic transformation with acceptance of India’s efforts to remain majority Hindu by regulating immigration. He described India’s policy without criticism, sarcasm or irony, as he should, given how normal it is throughout the non-Western world and was in the West until the 1960s.[xxxviii] Sheridan admitted the normalcy of ethnic selectiveness in choosing immigrants, at least for non-Western societies. He praised the cultural continuity this makes possible, “stretching back across the centuries”. He offered similar remarks about China, also in a matter-of-fact way.[xxxix]

If Sheridan applied the same standards to India and China that he applies to Australia, he would have to believe that Hindus and Han Chinese could become minorities in their own countries without losing anything precious, so long as the transformation was peaceful. Sheridan’s failure to meet this perverse standard speaks well of his Christianity and common sense. Unfortunately, he has not extended this benevolence to Australia or other Anglosphere nations.

There is an extraordinary contradiction between Sheridan’s conservatism on many issues and his Anglophobia. On the conservative side he evinces an essentially neoconservative set of stances—strong defence and alliances with other Western societies, juxtaposed with a cavalier, even subversive, attitude towards the West’s demographic interests. This contradiction embroils his abiding Catholicism, because that religion is compatible with his conservative side but not his attitude to national identity. Indeed, Sheridan’s ruthless treatment of white Australia is un-Christian.

No Catholic, no Christian, of any seriousness who was aware of first principles would agree that cultural genocide can ever be “benign”. This Orwellian language is the opposite of Christian grace and charity. It resembles a mask for ethnic hatred.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great Catholic philosopher, the renowned “Doctor of the Church”, was explicit in how nations should treat immigrants according to biblical principles. He cited scriptures that acknowledged peaceful and hostile relations with foreigners.[xl] He discerned in the Old Testament types of peaceful treatment of visitors—charity, respect and courtesy—but only if they are compatible with the receiving nation. Saint Thomas put the welfare of the host nation first, its unity and commonwealth. There is no obligation to accept all comers. If visitors seek to remain, their complete acceptance should await a trial period of two or three generations, as recommended by Aristotle.[xli] To be accepted permanently, immigrants should become part of the society and bear no hostile intentions towards it. Saint Thomas noted that Ancient Israel was more likely to accept immigrants who were similar to the Jews.[xlii] The stipulation of a trial period implies that if a group of immigrants is proving injurious to the nation, they should be repatriated, even if that means expelling their great-grandchildren.

The Genesis story of the Tower of Babel also fits Saint Thomas’s thesis. God punished the people who had displeased Him by making them speak different languages, resulting in social chaos and collapse. Modern social research confirms that the most stable and peaceful societies are ethnically homogenous, a phenomenon discussed earlier in the section headed “Sociological Dimensions of Racism”.[xliii] Homogeneity is incompatible with indiscriminate mass immigration. It can only be sustained by regulating immigration and promoting assimilation.

The ancient Middle East was harsh and the liberality of policies was constrained by a subsistence economy and endemic warfare. Though times have changed, it can never be argued that the Christian tradition evaluates immigrant policy only through the lens of minority interests and rates host societies as expendable.

Sheridan has formed part of a broader institutional Anglophobia. For much of his career he has been employed by the Australian, part of the media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper has been Murdoch’s loss-making show pony since he founded it in 1964. Murdoch’s News Corporation has become more diverse in its commentary than its leftist rivals. However, as discussed further in Section 5b, its spectrum of views has rarely if ever included a champion of Anglo Australian identity or interests. Sheridan’s promotion of replacement immigration has not been balanced by different views. There have been no long-term journalists who openly and proudly identified with Anglo-Australians and advocated their interests. Sheridan has never felt moved to object to this suppression of free speech.

The censorship of Anglo-loyalist voices in the Murdoch media may have involved more than the usual multicultural coalition of minority and radical motivations. Corporate ideology might also have played a role, from the desire to increase population and thus profits. After all, those responsible for denying media platforms to Anglo advocates were in the senior ranks of News Corporation. In 2014 Rupert Murdoch celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Australian. In a speech in Sydney he urged Australians to keep the immigration doors open wide.[xliv] This was at a time when the country was drowning in a government-sponsored flood of immigration at the rate of about 1 per cent of the Australian population arriving every year. That is the equivalent of the United States receiving over three million migrants annually or China receiving 14 million.

The reduction of Australia’s enviable homogeneity and low population density has been a victory for corporate interests who want a Big Australia of 100 million. They are willing to accomplish that goal at any cost to free speech, the environment and social harmony.

The case of Greg Sheridan shows that elitist anti-white bigotry is not a recent product of Big Tech and social media. It has been a prominent feature of the mainstream academia and media since the 1960s at the latest. Thomas Sowell, a senior American social analyst, identifies the universities as the main long-term source of divisive racial sentiment. He notes that Barack Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer, accepted the sermons of his Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, although Wright was a “ranting racist” who condemned white America. In his 2010 book Dismantling America, Sowell described how the Obama administration was pulling down marriage, culture and self-government, bringing America closer to civilisational collapse.[xlv]

The only change in recent years is the openness of the hatred expressed by Marxist organisations such as Black Lives Matter and ideologies such as Critical Race Theory. Australia’s continuing demographic transformation cannot be understood without realising its elite origins.

Through a process of elimination, it is reasonable to link Sheridan’s callousness towards Anglo Australia with his tribal identity. It cannot be that his views on immigration have been based on Left-liberal principles, because he has openly promoted Asian immigration to Australia whilst accepting discrimination in the immigration policies of Asian nations. There is no excuse for such obstinate resentment from someone who shares so much of Anglo Australia’s identity, who was fully accepted into Australian society, and was able to reach the top of his field in the same society that for most of his career he assiduously attempted to destroy.

Examples of Anglophobia can be found among Irish Catholics, but that sentiment has not been general or inevitable. An example is Arthur Calwell, a leading light of the Labor Party. Calwell advocated using immigration policy to maintain racial homogeneity. As immigration minister in the Chifley Labor government he put in place the post-war immigration policy that brought millions from Europe. Although he was born and raised in Australia he was also a staunch Catholic and Irish patriot. In his youth he protested against the British occupation of Ireland. He supported Archbishop Mannix and considered him a gift to Australia as well as a loyal Irishman. At the same time, he was unhappy that Mannix took the side of the anti-communist Democratic Labour Party when it split with Calwell’s Labor Party in the 1950s, keeping the latter out of office for a generation. Calwell saw no contradiction between his love of Catholic Ireland and loyalty to white Australia.[xlvi]

Irish Catholic Anglophobia has largely faded, though residual traces remain. Most Australians of Irish descent count themselves as part of the mainstream. The partisanship and aggression shown by a few writers and politicians have mostly been overwhelmed by shared identity and equal rights.

The same process of reconciliation is evident in other peoples whose Anglophobia-like behaviour was forced upon them by British colonialism. Australian Aborigines are an important example. During the century of British colonisation, no reasonable person could blame the indigenous inhabitants for resisting, sometimes with violence. Their way of life was being transformed. Many were being pushed off their ancient homelands. From their perspective the British annexation did have invasion-like characteristics, and armed resistance was understandable. The excuse does not extend to massacres of settler families, which did occur on the frontier.

The modern Aboriginal rights movement operates in different circumstances. It is reasonable for the nation to expect loyalty from citizens with indigenous ancestry because the days of colonisation are long gone, replaced by equal, and from 2020 superior, ethnically-privileged, citizenship rights.[xlvii] Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders receive generous benefits, from education to health care. They are counted as part of the nation. They have been granted large concessions in the form of land rights. Modern Australia encourages the expression of indigenous identity, including advocacy of community interests. There is no excuse for the Aboriginal movement to co-operate with those who hate Anglo Australia, including elements of the multicultural establishment.

The trial of Andrew Bolt and another prosecution of Anglo students in Brisbane led to a popular backlash and a promise by Liberal leader Tony Abbott to reform Section 18c. When in 2013 Abbott became prime minister and tried to enact this policy, he was stopped by a group of minority advocates organised by Jewish leaders, according to senior journalist Michael Gawenda. The group included representatives of the indigenous, Greek, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities.[xlviii]

Freedom of speech is something for which Anglos have shed blood. It is a defining value of the English political tradition, along with freedom of association, the rule of law and representative democracy. It is one of the highest values that has dignified and empowered Anglo society and those who choose to join it.

Free speech allows the powerless to criticise the powerful; it erodes ideological domination. Without freedom of expression, the edifice of civil liberties and reason is compromised. Any group’s ability to fight back against oppression and establishment lies, depends on such liberty.

Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is considered necessary by those who judge Anglos as so dangerous for non-Anglos, so inherently racist, that they need to be punished for speaking words that merely offend. This at a time when traditional taboos—blasphemy, pornography, homosexuality—have been decriminalised despite some people continuing to be offended by them. Anglophobic multiculturalism has changed nothing—except who is in charge.

The joys of diversity are thought to be so fragile that the whole experiment in radical social engineering—mainly the abandonment of assimilationist immigration policy—is deemed at risk of collapsing into mass conflict and white-supremacist tyranny unless the majority have their freedoms curtailed. A tyranny to end all tyranny, it is implied.

This was an assumption motivating the coalition of minority leaders that opposed the Abbott government’s attempt to reform Section 18c. Recently arrived immigrants demanded the reduction of a core value of the Australian nation in order to defend their ethnic interests. At the same time, these ethnic enthusiasts insisted that the nation consists of nothing other than values, that Australia has no ethnic core. They propose that values are the only things that define Australia’s identity and hold it together; except freedom of speech, an outmoded Anglo-Celtic value not to be tolerated. But the new national values do include “diversity”, which just happens to consist only of non-Anglo identities. Unsurprisingly they also demand that diversity be tolerated and celebrated.

Antagonism towards Anglo ethnic identity was an integral component of the pro-18c cause. Associated controversies revealed an extraordinary demographic divide. In the prosecution of Andrew Bolt and the attempt to reform Section 18c, one side consisted of leftist lawyers and their minority clients, both with explicit ethnic goals. The other side consisted, by and large, of Anglo conservatives, not explicit in their ethnicity, attempting to defend a precious political tradition from illiberal attack. Free speech has been the first victim of multiculturalism. This pattern has played out repeatedly since the 1970s. On numerous occasions, explicit minority and radical ethnic strategies have defeated implicit Anglo opposition. Adding salt to this particular wound is the fact that it is the Anglos who are accused of racism.

 

5b. Should have their expressions of ethnic or cultural pride, solidarity and identity blocked or removed from media platforms

The exclusion of individuals who openly and proudly identify as Anglos or who advocate on behalf of them has been a striking feature of the mainstream media since the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Such individuals are denied balanced news reporting, often being criticised or misrepresented. They are prevented from offering commentary. This profound media bias is described by Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann in his 2018 book Whiteshift.[xlix] In Australia, Anglo pride in identity or concern about interests are rarely reported without censorship or editorial criticism. Anglo advocates are never asked to participate as commentators. This is also true of so-called conservative newspapers and broadcasters. An example is the ethnic bias of the Australian. This newspaper is considered one of the most right-wing newspapers in the country, despite carrying no reporting or commentary favourable to white identity. However, the newspaper frequently prints stories favourable to Aboriginal and other minority identities or critical of white identity.[l] The progressive media’s bias is more extreme. The effect is to distort news and commentary and create a pervasive media environment that is unfriendly towards Australians who identify as Anglos.

The mainstream media has been biased against Anglo identity for decades, as illustrated by a controversy that emerged in 1984. It involved Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Australia’s best-known historian. Blainey received considerable media exposure after he gave a speech in Warrnambool warning that the pace of Asian immigration was outrunning public acceptance. Later that year he published a short book, All for Australia, to explain his concerns.[li] The multicultural establishment condemned Blainey for inciting white racism and he was harassed at his university in Melbourne. But he was not and is not on the right. He never publicly affiliated with Anglo identity. He never criticised non-white immigration as a threat to Australia’s national identity or to Western civilisation on this continent. He was concerned about the loss of social cohesion and the rise of domestic conflict.

Today, traditional print media are in decline and people spend far more time on social media. Social media companies generally allow non-whites to publicly identify with their peoples. This can include language which is divisive, supremacist, derogatory and even threatening. In contrast, even the mildest expression of ethnic identity by Anglos or whites is generally considered to be unacceptable. Alternative social media platforms which have not conformed to this Anglophobic view have been removed from their servers by large tech companies. An example was when the tech giant Amazon removed the social media company Parler from its servers in January 2021.[lii] Social media platforms are important forums for discussing ideas and sharing information. Locking out anyone who identifies with or advocates for Anglos is itself an act of Anglophobia.

This article began in the April and May issues and will conclude in July-August. 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] The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html, accessed 4.5.2021. The government headed by prime minister Julia Gillard subsequently endorsed the Declaration.

[ii] Anne Susskind, [Interviews Helen Szoke], Law Society Journal, May 2012, pp. 20-22, p. 21.

[iii] Anne Susskind, [Interviews Helen Szoke].

[iv] (Herald, 30 Aug. 2012.

Dan Harrison, “Calls for federal law to criminalise racial abuse”, SMH, 30 Aug. 2012, p. 5. http://www.smh.com.au/national/calls-for-federal-law-to-criminalise-racial-abuse-20120829-2512p.html.

[v] Lopez, M. (2000). The origins of multiculturalism in Australian politics 1945-1975. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.

[vi] Pearson, N. (2021). Recognition and the constitution. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, News Corp., 20 March, p. 19. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/recognition-of-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution/news-story/f6cade95b30c85591e287ed74167f225, accessed 28.8.2021.

[vii] Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.

[viii] Salter, F. K. (2014). “The misguided case for indigenous recognition in the Constitution. Part III: The ethnic bias of the Expert Panel” [http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/03/misguided-case-indigenous-recognition-part-iii/]. Quadrant 58(3): 56-64. (Also in F. Salter, The Aboriginal question.)

Salter, F. K. (2015/2018). The new Referendum Council: Gillard’s ghost. The Aboriginal question. Australian racial politics of indigenous recognition and Anglo de-recognition. F. K. Salter. Sydney, Social Technologies: 171-174.

[ix] Rutland, S. D. and S. Caplan (1998). With one voice: A history of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australian Jewish Historical Society, p. 312-313.

Beginning in 1982, Ian Lacey, honorary secretary of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, chaired the NSW government’s legal subcommittee authorised to draft an amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

See also a report of lobbying of the Keating government in 1994 by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and Australia/Israel Publications. Legislation was requested that would ban Holocaust denial:

Kleerekoper, V. and L. Zelazne (1994). Keating gives assurance on vilification law. Australian Jewish News. Melbourne, 11 February.

[x] AHRC (2016). Race hate and the RDA. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/race-hate-and-rda#Heading39, accessed 13.8.2021.

[xi] Rutland and Caplan, With one voice, p. 310.

[xii] Quoted in Gawenda, M. (2014). Why Andrew Bolt’s distress is truly uncomfortable. The Australian. 3 April, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/why-andrew-bolts-distress-is-truly-uncomfortable/750b94b0f00eedce7ed31d9331aa2f3d, accessed 10.8.2021.

[xiii] Quinn, K. (2010). Aborigines sue Bolt over racial writings. The Age. Melbourne, Fairfax, 18 September, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/aborigines-sue-bolt-over-racial-writings-20100917-15gk7.html, accessed 19.8.2021

https://www.probonocentre.org.au/news-media-2/apbn-archive/apr-2011/, accessed 12.8.2021. The lawyers working pro bono for the plaintiffs included “senior counsel Ron Merkel QC, Herman Borenstein SC, supported by junior counsel, Claire Harris and Phoebe Knowles and the services of Holding Redlich as solicitor on the record”. “Lawyers Joel Zyngier and Natalie Dalpethado from Holding Redlich have put in a lot of the work on the matter recently, working closely with counsel. … Holding Redlich national pro bono coordinator [was] Linda Rubinstein.”

[xiv] Race row professor suspended for ‘safety’. The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax, 30 July 2005, https://www.smh.com.au/national/race-row-professor-suspended-for-safety-20050730-gdls1y.html, accessed 24.8.2021

Fraser, A. (2005). Adventures of an academic pariah. American Renaissance. 16: 1-7, https://www.amren.com/news/2020/2011/adventures-of-an-academic-pariah-andrew-fraser/, accessed 2024.2028.2021.

[xv] Brunton, R. (1998). Naming rights. Courier Mail. Brisbane, News Corporation, 18 July. “Last week the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council screamed ‘Gotcha’ to One Nation. …the council published the names of 2,000 members of Pauline Hanson’s party in its magazine, the Australia/Israel Review.”

[xvi] AAP (2005). Legal threat over racist article, News.com.au, 14 September.

[xvii] Walker, Sally (2005). Letter to Associate Professor Andrew Fraser from the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University, 19 September.

[xviii] David D. Knoll A.M., Jewish community service, http://www.davidknoll.com.au/community.html, accessed 21.8.2021.

Knoll, D. D. (2001). Right of return claim avoids Arab responsibility. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, Fairfax: 4 January, p. 8, http://www.davidknoll.com.au/files/JCOM/Right%20of%20return%20claim%20avoids%20Arab%20responsibility%20(2001).pdf, accessed 2021.2008.2021.

[xix]Newhouse, G. (2020). Australian Aboriginal activists protested against the Nazis. Time for us Jews to return the favor. Haaretz. Israel, 7 August, https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-aboriginal-activists-protested-against-nazis-time-for-us-jews-to-return-the-favor-1.9055020?v=1629463780269, accessed 20.8.2021.

[xx] Ignatiev, N. (1996). How the Irish became white. London, Routledge.

[xxi] See comparison of endogamy by American Jews and mainline Protestants in 1914, in Dutton, E. (2020). Making sense of race. Whitefish, MT, Washington Summit Publishers, Pp. 319-321.

[xxii] The chapter was subsequently removed after protests by Jewish organisations. Ignatiev, N. (2007). Zionism. Encyclopedia of race and racism, Macmillan: 240-244.

Also see Ignatiev’s criticisms of Zionism in his blog, undated but perhaps in mid 2019: Ignatiev, N. (2019(?)). “My mentioning Israel touches a nerve, https://blog.pmpress.org/2019/09/02/my-mentioning-israel-touches-a-nerve/, accessed 4.11.2021.”

[xxiii] Brad Jones (2022). Anti-Defamation League changes definition of racism after backlash, https://www.zerohedge.com/political/anti-defamation-league-changes-definition-racism-after-backlash, 4 February 2022.

[xxiv] Comey, J. B. (2014). The FBI and the ADL: Working towards a world without hate [transcript of speech]. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 28 April, https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbi-and-the-adl-working-toward-a-world-without-hate, accessed 12.3.2019.

Anti-Defamation League (2017). Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and ADL announce lab to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate, ADL, 10 October, https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/facebook-google-microsoft-twitter-and-adl-announce-lab-to-engineer-new?mod=722, accessed 19.2.2022. Google owns YouTube.

[xxv] Faine, Miriam (1992). The Jewish community and the immigration debate. Australian Jewish Democrat: A journal of independent Jewish thought (Winter): 9-10, p. 10.

[xxvi] Faine, ibid.

[xxvii] Faine, ibid.

[xxviii] Liberman, Serge (1993). People of the Book: The Australian Jewish Democrat, The Australian Jewish News, Sydney Edition, 29 October, p. 9. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/261623727, accessed 18.2.2022.

[xxix] For example, see the Irish-centric review article: Marley, L. (2019). The history of the Irish in Australia: Racial profiling down under. The Irish Times. 2 February, https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/a-new-history-of-the-irish-in-australia-racial-profiling-down-under-1.3768249, accessed 19.10.2021.

[xxx] Castle Hill Rising, Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Castle-Hill-Rising, accessed 4.11.2021.

[xxxi] Enlistment statistics, First World War. Australian War Memorial, https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/enlistment/ww1, accessed 8.11.2021.

[xxxii] Sheridan, G. (2014). A brave move for Scotland. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, News Corp, 6-7 January.

[xxxiii] Sheridan, G. (1988). Why Australia must forget foreign symbols. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, News Corp, 30-31 January.

[xxxiv] Sheridan, G. (1995). Living with dragons: Australia confronts its Asian destiny. St Leonards, NSW, Allen & Unwin with Mobil Oil Australia, p. 171.

[xxxv] Sheridan, G. (2011). How I lost faith in multiculturalism. The Australian, 2 April. Sydney, News Limited.

[xxxvi] Sheridan, G. (2014). Constitutional change will divide not unite the nation. The Australian. Sydney, News Limited, 20 September.

[xxxvii] Sheridan, Greg. (2015). Pity centrists, beware the nationalists and praise Australia’s good friend. The Australian. Sydney, News Corporation, 14 May.

[xxxviii] Sheridan, Greg. (2015). Boatpeople crisis a global phenomenon. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, Newscorp, 16-17 May, p. 17.

[xxxix] Sheridan, G. (2015). A geeks’ paradise in Mysore is among the most magnificent temples of a forward-looking India. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, News Corp, 16-17 May, p. 24.

[xl] Aquinas, Saint Thomas (1947). Summa Theologica, https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum243.htm, accessed 12.11.2021. “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

[xli] Aquinas, Summa Theologica. “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

[xlii] Aquinas, Summa Theologica. “Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, ‘was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred.’”

[xliii] Salter, F. K., Ed. (2004). Welfare, ethnicity, & altruism: New data & evolutionary theory. London, Frank Cass.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30: 137-174.

Vanhanen, T. (2012). Ethnic conflicts: Their biological roots in ethnic nepotism. London, Ulster Institute for Social Research.

[xliv] Murdoch, R. (2014). Speech at the Gala Dinner celebrating the 50th anniversary of The Australian newspaper, https://australianpolitics.com/2014/07/15/murdoch-abbott-speeches-the-australian-50th.html, accessed 15 July 2021.

[xlv] Sowell, Thomas (2010). Dismantling America, Hoover Institution, https://youtu.be/5SDLBqIubCs, accessed 19.2.2021, 6:15 minutes.

[xlvi] Calwell, Arthur A. (1978/1972). Be just and fear not. Adelaide, Rigby.

[xlvii] BBC News (2020). Aboriginal Australians born overseas cannot be deported, court rules, 11 February, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51455256, accessed 16.11.2021.

[xlviii] Gawenda, Michael. (2014). The real reason Abbott broke his promise on section 18C. The Australian. Sydney, 6 August, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/the-real-reason-abbott-broke-his-promise-on-section-18c/bc977f7be04dc1dab8eb1db52a5707ed, accessed 10.8.2021.

“People have a right to be bigots, says Brandis”, The Australian, 25 March 2014, p. 5.

“Race act set for radical reshaping”, The Australian, 18 March 2014, p. 6.

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

Salter, F. K. (2019). The ethnic predicaments of the shrinking white majority [part 1]. Quadrant. 24 September,

Salter, F. K. (2019). The ethnic predicaments of the shrinking white majority [part 2]. SydneyTrads.com. 2 December,

[l] For example, Trinca, H. (2021). ‘Racism, tokenism and sexism’ in our workplaces. The Weekend Australian. Sydney, Newscorp, 26 June, p. 40, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-deal-magazine/racism-tokenism-and-sexism-in-australian-workplaces/news-story/5970778659318427d62272fa26f9f4e7, accessed 30.6.2021.

[li] Blainey, G. (1984). All for Australia. North Ryde, Australia, Methuen Haynes.

[lii] Keach Hagey (2021). Parler sues Amazon after Tech giant kicks site off , 11 Jan. 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-sues-amazon-kicks-site-off-its-servers-11610363052, accessed 5.8.2021.