Harry Richardson

 

Speech – Anglophobia

 

Moreton Bay SC

 

Mon, Sep 26, 2022

 

[In this speech Aussie nationalist, and member of the British Australian Community, Harry Richardson gives a good summary of the nature and aims of the anti-White/Anglo culture present in Australia and throughout the West, and what to do about it.

Points include:

Richardson defines conservatives as “people who don’t much like change” and discusses how conservatism in Australia has shifted.

“Anglos”, defined as “people descended from the indigenous population of the British Isles in Australia and overseas”.

The “assault on Anglos in Australia” through vilification and discrimination.

The term “anglophobia” is proposed to describe hatred against Anglo people and culture.

“Diversity” is criticized as “an anglophobic dog whistle, simply meaning less Whites”.

There is a double standard in how different ethnic groups are treated, stating “Why is it acceptable to slander Whites/Anglos, but no other ethnic groups?”

Critical Race Theory is described as an “ideology created by an American marxist professor from Harvard who described ‘Whiteness’ as an exploitative class”.

Free speech is under attack, particularly for Anglos trying to defend themselves against racial slurs .

Multiculturalism aims for “the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Anglo majority”.

Richardson advocates for Anglos to “explicitly identify and defend our group interests as legitimate” and “start playing identity politics and playing to win”.

– KATANA]

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmvaUKV43AU

 

 

https://britishaustraliancommunity.com.au

 

 

Published on Mon, Sep 26, 2022

 

Description

 

2:14 / 21:24
Speech Anglophobia Moreton Bay SC Sept 2022
British Australian Community
1.5K subscribers
Subscribe
29
Share
Clip
448 views
Sep 26, 2022
Speech detailing Anglophobia and the multicultural strategy for the defence of Anglo interests. Please visit our website:
https://britishaustraliancommunity.co…
where you can sign up as a community member to support and keep in touch.
The book Anglophobia The Unrecognised Hatred will be available soon in paperback, Kindle and as an audiobook. Look out for anglophobia.org which should be up and running soon too.
Follow and join us here
https://linktr.ee/britishaustralianco…
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.
Show transcript
British Australian Community
1.5K subscribers
Videos
About
British Australian Community
1.5K subscribers
5 Comments

_____________

 

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 3,259 – 21:24 mins)

  

 

The talk is called What Now and Where To for the conservative Aussie. But before I start, of course, I want to do an acknowledgement.

 

So I’d like to acknowledge Australia’s historic nation, forged by Christian explorers and pioneers from Britain and other European lands, which created the Federal Commonwealth under the Crown. And I acknowledge Australia’s first peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are a valued part of our nation.

 

Okay, if we’re going to discuss conservatives, let’s start by defining them. So conservatives are people who don’t much like change. That’s the definition, really, of a conservative. They agree to it only reluctantly. Conservatives like things the way they are, and they ensure that change is slow and reversible if needs be. But what does the conservative do when things change radically in a short period of time? To get back to where we were becomes a radical step.

 

My talk tonight may sound fairly radical today, yet when I was younger, it would have been considered a fairly conservative position. I was not in Australia when I was young, but I knew all about it from shows like Skippy the bush kangaroo and entertainers like Rolf Harris. Later we had Kylie Minogue and Paul Hogan. What did all these people have in common?

 

Well, with the exception of Skippy, they were all Anglos. They spoke English, albeit with a slightly funny accent. They had English names, and other than the sunny disposition and regular showers, they were fairly indistinguishable from a bunch of poms.

 

In the sixties, Australia was still around 96% White and mostly Anglo. The language, culture, history, clothing and food were still all derived from the British Isles, which had founded the colonies and then the nation. That’s Australia. This is who Australians were. It was the identity, the culture and the shared heritage and the descent which shaped this nation. Most Australians wanted to conserve those things, but it was not to be.

 

Hostile elites began an attack on Australia’s Anglo core. It began with a trickle of immigrants from outside the Anglo-sphere, which eventually became a flood. As I’m sure you’re all aware, Anglos have become an ever smaller part of the population and will eventually become an absolute minority, as they already are in many parts of the country. On its own, the demographic change would have been concerning enough.

 

However, alongside this change has come a steadily increasing attack on Anglo identity and interests. Today, Anglo identity is under siege in multicultural Australia as it is around the Anglo-sphere.

 

In this talk, I’ll define Anglos and describe the ways in which they’re being assailed by a cultural establishment that espouses the ideology of multiculturalism. I’m using the term “Anglo”, which I define 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. It can include kindred ethnic and cultural categories, namely people of European descent and Western civilisation as a whole. The assault on Anglos in Australia is unique.

 

Attacks on any other group, whether racial, ethno, religious, or sexual, have been elevated to a position where such slurs are tantamount to criminal acts.

 

Yet during the same period, discrimination against Anglos has been largely ignored. Let me give an example.

 

Although this is an American example, Australia is awash with the same ideology and attitudes. The New York Times, perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, supports the 1619 project*. The author of the project is Nicole Hannah Jones, an African-American journalist who declares that, quote:

 

“The White race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world!”

 

Her reference was not just to our ancestors. She added that, quote:

 

“Descendants of these savage White people pump drugs and guns into the black community, packed black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos, and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”

 

For these ideas, Hannah Jones received the coveted Pulitzer Prize for journalism.

 

[* The 1619 Project is a long-form journalistic revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War. It was developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine. Wikipedia]

 

Compare this to Greg Patton, a Professor of Business Communication who was suspended after a student complained that his pronunciation of the Chinese word for that sounded like “nigger”. Patton didn’t have enough power to save himself from an absurd accusation.

 

These are just two of the more high profile examples of the constant assaults on Anglo people, our culture and ancestors, which are growing more strident by the day. These attacks on Anglos are multi-pronged. They range from vilification to discrimination and eventually to violence. We need a word to define this hatred. In the 1980s, the gay lobby popularised the term “homophobia”. This word was wildly successful in stigmatising discrimination against homosexuals. Learning from this, the Islamic lobby then popularised the term “Islamophobia”. This was so successful that some members of their group were able to run a terrorist campaign without any official criticism of the enabling ideology.

 

We need a word, and my colleague and I have chosen this word “Anglophobia”. The most common form of Anglophobia is vilification, of which we’ve identified seven types with various subgroups.

 

The first type of Anglophobic vilification is the assertion or implication that Anglos, unlike people of other races or ethnicities, are inherently evil, as we see in the example just given. A high profile journalist can accuse Whites of being the biggest murderers, rapists, pillagers, and thieves of the modern world and be richly rewarded for it. Would anyone in this room be prepared to make such a statement about black people, Chinese or Muslims? At work, you’d be out of that workplace so fast your feet would not touch the ground. So why the double standard? Why is it acceptable to slander Whites or Anglos, but no other ethnic groups?

 

Then we come to diversity. The official definition is an assortment of different varieties in a group. In reality, the word has become an Anglophobic dog whistle, simply meaning less. White Anglos are assumed to detract from that, never enhance diversity. The optimum level of diversity is rarely stated. Instead, it’s assumed that diversity is good and more is always better! Meaning people who are not White. When corporations or government departments set “diversity” quotas, they really mean targets that reduce the number of Anglos, Whites, males or cisgendered heterosexuals.

 

White society, and only White society, is accused of lacking diversity, and its Whiteness is taken as evidence of racism. Other communities congregated in particular suburbs or nations, do not lack diversity. They are diversity, no matter how numerous or geographically concentrated. Did any politician or bureaucrat ever walk into Chinatown and declare that it needs to become more diverse? Of course not.

 

Increasing diversity is clearly not the actual intention. Reducing the number of Whites is often the real goal, especially in positions of power and influence.

 

Next we come to the “group guilt complex”, which no one would ever dare apply to any other race or other category than White or Anglo Saxon heterosexual Christians, for instance. There’s a rapidly increasing drumbeat of people demanding reparations for the slavery which was practiced by Europeans.

 

Yet consider the city state of Dubai. This was a slave trading port which operated for centuries, shipping slaves from both Africa and Europe into the now wealthy Emirates in Saudi Arabia. Is any mainstream commentator suggesting that Arabs pay reparations for the immense numbers of slaves that they took? Of course not.

 

Once again, we see an appalling double standard.

 

Then we come to colonialism. Is there a square meter of habitable ground on the earth that hasn’t been fought over, conquered and reconquered innumerable times? Conquest is inevitably brutal, but it’s an unfortunate part of life. Not only humans, but mammals and even insects fight over territory. Two things set aside Anglo colonialism. One was its scale and the other was the level of benefits that were conferred on many peoples conquered by the British.

 

Of course, there was suffering and loss. Every conquest involves invidious aspects, but some of the benefits were extraordinary.

 

Following British and other European colonisation, Indians were no longer allowed to burn widows to death on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Native American and Canadian Indians could no longer murder people for their scalps. Human sacrifice was outlawed in South America, and Polynesians could no longer murder people and shrink their heads. These were not small achievements, yet other aspects were in themselves astounding!

 

The European conquerors brought with them the wonders of the scientific method, technology, engineering, modern medicine, and social structures which no other society looked close to developing at that time.

 

Yet our children today are not taught any of this. Why not? Why are they presented with a black armband version of history which is often distorted or even completely fabricated, as in the case of Bruce Pascoe’s Young Dark Emu*? And why are other historical colonial powers, such as the Arabs or Chinese, lionised for such things as their architecture, poetry or art? This is a form of institutionalised child abuse, and yet it continues with ruthless determination. Who’s driving this?

 

[*Dark Emu: Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident? Is a 2014 non-fiction book by Bruce Pascoe. It re-examines colonial accounts of Aboriginal people in Australia, and cites evidence of pre-colonial agriculture, engineering and building construction by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Wikipedia.
Young Dark Emus: The highly-anticipated junior version of Bruce Pascoe’s multi-award-winning book. Bruce Pascoe has collected a swathe of literary awards for Dark Emu and now he has brought together the research and compelling first person accounts in a book for younger readers. Using the accounts of early European explorers, colonists and farmers, Bruce Pascoe compellingly argues for a reconsideration of the hunter-gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians.]

 

Another front in this multi-pronged attack is Critical Race Theory. This ideology was created by an American Marxist Professor from Harvard who described Whiteness as an “exploitative class”.

 

Can you imagine a Harvard Professor describing Chineseness or jewishness as an exploitative class? He’d be likely fired immediately. (((Noel Ignatiev))) was not fired, however, and Critical Race Theory is embraced by the corporate, educational and bureaucratic world.

 

 

Meanwhile, Whites who advocate for, or even express affection for their own ethnic group are accused of White supremacy as if they were literally Hitler! No other group is forbidden from expressing pride in themselves. If you are African, Indian, indigenous or Asian, then pride in your people is encouraged, whereas Anglos or Whites are expected to feel only shame.

 

For instance, Facebook, owned by (((Mark Zuckerberg))) and his wife Priscilla Chan, insist that, quote:

 

“Certain ideologies and beliefs that are inherently tied to violence, and attempts to organise people around calls for violence or exclusion of others based on their protected characteristics. In these cases, we designate the ideology itself and remove content that supports this ideology from our platform. These ideologies include Nazism, White supremacy, White nationalism and White separatism.”

 

Unquote. They don’t mention Black Lives Matter in this list. Neither do they mention Marxism, Leninism, Antifa, the new Black Panther party, or any other radical or violent non-White or anti-White movement.

 

Rather than scholarship, Critical Race Theory clutches at intellectual straws such as the fact that Whites in White countries have, on average, better health and higher incomes than some immigrant or indigenous communities. The obvious flaw in this argument is that Whites do not have the highest income of any group. East Asians, jews and other communities generally outperform Whites, whilst Africans and indigenous Australians often lag behind. If White racism is to blame for Aboriginal or African disadvantage, then why are Chinese, Koreans and Japanese people outperforming Whites? Clearly, the racism argument makes no sense.

 

Something which would explain these racial disparities is the fact that different racial groups have differences other than simply skin colour. For instance, Aboriginal people were exclusively hunter gatherers until the British arrived and consequently have very limited ability to process refined carbohydrates or alcohol, which are common in modern life. This causes a range of health issues unrelated to racism. Because we’re not allowed to mention these differences, however, our opponents are able to blame poor Aboriginal health on White racism and demand billions of dollars to close the gap.

 

Another issue is the idea that different races have different average IQ scores. There’s considerable evidence to suggest that this is the case.

 

Yet even mentioning these racial IQ differences has been enough to have academics fired from their positions. It’s considered verboten. We know that racial stratification in incomes occurs to we know that it’s highly correlated with racial IQ differences and yet we’re not even allowed to mention them. Instead, we must accept that Anglo racism is the cause of all of these differences and simply ignore the achievements of racial groups such as the East Asians, who are believed to have a higher IQ than Whites and outperformers in education and income. This dogma is then used as a club to justify further oppression and suppression of Anglo opportunity and advancement.

 

What about racism by non-Whites? Examples of the most egregious types of racism against Whites abound. Why do we not consider this? The explanation given is that non-Whites are considered incapable of racism due to their complete lack of power. This is an absurd claim! Most of the world’s nations and most of the world’s people are ruled by non-Whites. Even in countries that still have a White majority, there are many non-White individuals who have power through business interests or political, legal or bureaucratic power. We have non-White university Professors and educators as well as television and movie personalities. The United States, the leader of the free world, has had a black president. To claim that Barack Obama could not be racist because he lacked power makes no sense at all!

 

Yet all racism by non-Whites is dismissed using this ridiculous claim in order to facilitate these falsehoods and to ensure no resistance by Anglos is possible.

 

Free speech has been under vicious attack for decades. Rather tellingly, the war on free speech has been Spearheaded by the multicultural industrial complex and ethnic advocacy groups. Defamation of Anglos is lauded as free speech, whilst any attempted defense against these slurs is shut down by ironically named “human rights agencies”. This censorship of Anglo grievances has been willingly embraced by the entire media world, including the new digital monopolies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google.

 

The final ethnic slur directed towards Anglos by the multicultural establishment is the insistence that Anglos may not have a homeland in which they may remain a majority. This is an extraordinary belief!

 

Up until the 1970s, the idea that Australia did not belong to the Anglo Australians who made up the great majority of the population, would have been considered ridiculous! Aboriginals had full participation by that time, but were a tiny proportion of the population in its infancy. Multiculturalism never admitted that its ultimate goal was the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Anglo majority.

 

Over time and with Fabian stealth, however, this is where we find ourselves today. Anglo-sphere countries all share similar democratic systems which empower the majority by giving political power in the form of a vote to each and every citizen. This allows the majority to restrain the elite minority from encroaching on our freedoms and well being. Unfortunately, the multicultural establishment has partnered with political media and bureaucratic elitists to weaponise the voting power of immigrant groups against the Anglo majority. The more minorities they can import, the greater power they can wield.

 

There are numerous powerful constituencies which have had an incentive to engage in such attacks and who appear to have been active in the formation and execution of such strategies. An early player may have been the communist international or comintern for the duration of the Cold War. The United Nations has been another powerful and influential player, representing groups such as the 57 member organisation of the Islamic Congress and the communist bloc nations during the Cold War.

 

More recently, the Chinese Communist Party has been found meddling in Australian affairs, using identity politics and leveraging a Chinese-Australian population which has grown rapidly in size and influence.

 

In 1997, it was the Chinese and Korean populations that helped to unseat then prime Minister John Howard in Bennylong as retribution for his not opposing One Nation [Pauline Hanson’s party] more stridently, One Nation was seen as representing the interests of Anglo Australians and opposing mass non-White immigration. Ironically, John Howard had ramped up Asian immigration far more than any of his predecessors.

 

Karma can be a real bitch in the long term. Many of these players probably share widely divergent goals, but in the short to medium term are happy to collaborate in their shared goal of the destruction of Anglo nations as homogeneous, free and powerful entities.

 

Anglo-sphere nations have acted as a counterweight to these various totalitarian power groups and have prevented the worst excesses of their evil agendas. Destroying the power of Anglo nations by turning them into strife torn hellholes would be a godsend to such people. If this is really true, then these vicious attacks just mentioned are not really intended to enrich our societies or to protect vulnerable minorities from merciless Anglo racism.

 

Instead, they’re more likely a covert psychological attack designed to guilt trip Anglo Australians into giving up their nation to a coalition of totalitarian communists, Islamists and ethno-religious bigots. These fake accusations of group evil are deeply immoral and should be resisted.

 

The only way to fight back and to turn things around is for Anglos to have the courage to explicitly identify and defend our group interests as legitimate. This can only be done within the current multicultural framework.

 

The advantage of using this pre-constructed edifice is that once we enter the multicultural system that attacking Anglos would necessitate an attack on the system itself. This would be a win-win situation for our interests. Complaining about identity politics is a losing strategy. Anglos need to start playing identity politics and playing to win!

 

To do that, we must first recognise that we have group interests just like every other group and we need to start cooperating and coordinating the defence of our people against the attacks of our enemies. This will take courage on a personal level, but the sooner we start, the easier it will be.

 

I represent the British-Australian Community and that’s what we’re focused on as an organisation. If any of you wish to look us up online, we have a website which is still in the process of renovation but largely functional and will allow people to join and support us for a small yearly fee. If you do so, you will be kept in the loop of what’s happening and ways you can help.

 

Thank you for listening to the talk. It was based on a new book of which I’m co-author with Doctor Frank Salter. The name of the book is Anglophobia, The Unrecognised Hatred, which will be available soon in paperback, Kindle and as an audio book.

 

Thank you everyone for taking the time to come and listen.

 

[21:24]

 

 

END

top