Damien Richardson: Welcome back to Damienrichardson.online where we are continuing, definitely today we’re continuing to have the difficult conversations. We’re talking to retired academic Frank Salter. Once we hear the title of the book that he’s recently published with a colleague of his, Harry Richardson. I think we might wonder whether he actually retired if he was thrown out of academia because the name of the book is Anglophobia, the Unrecognized Hatred.

Frank Salter, welcome to the show.

Frank Salter: Nice, nice to be here.

Damien Richardson: Now, Frank, what prepossessed you to even be to begin to write a book with that title?

Frank Salter: Well, what began it was I received a 6,000 word email, in effect from my co-author Harry Richardson. And he said:

“I’ve got an idea for an article.”

We thought it would be maybe about that long, 6,000 words. It went to almost ten times that.

And he had this argument, which is the structure of the book, which is talking about everyone else can have their home country but not us. Anglo Australians and all other European nations are not permitted to have their own country where they remain the super majority. Not just a 51% majority, but an 85, a 90% majority, which most other peoples aspire to. They might not have it, but they aspire to it. They can lobby for it, they can agitate for it and they’re not called Nazis. Right?

So territory is homeland is a basic one, or control of immigration and so on and so forth.

And I thought this is rhetorically really powerful.

So between us, his concept of the book became a book project, took us a year. And with my academic training together, it was a great combination. And we came up with this book that I think covers a lot of the sensitive areas.

Damien Richardson: The book was only recently published, wasn’t it?

Frank Salter: Yeah, earlier this year [2023]

Damien Richardson: Earlier this year. How’s it been received in academic circles and also by the broader public?

Frank Salter: Not one review! It’s just been ignored, except on the dissident side of politics. It’s dissident Right. It’s been acknowledged, been reviewed. It was published initially in Quadrant magazine, which is Australia’s premiere intellectual magazine for conservatives. Quadrant magazine’s been running for 50, 60 years.

So it was published in a huge, you know, series, four long articles with other part of the book.

So that was good. And we had good responses from readers there.

But in academe, no, I think I can’t think of one review.

Damien Richardson: So why is it being ignored? Talk us through that process. Why would it be ignored? You have fine credentials, you worked overseas, as part of academia as well as in Australia, as well as your colleague, so why would it be ignored?

Frank Salter: Well, for the same reason that I could not find a job in Australia! I had to work overseas at a research Institute in Europe for 20 years. I couldn’t find work in Australia. Why? Because my field of study, it’s not Right-wing or anything, but I study human nature and how that underpins political systems.

So I’m a political scientist trained at Sydney University, PhD, Griffith University in Brisbane. My doctoral dissertation was published by Oxford University Press. You can’t do better than that. And my supervisor, [chuckling] my Professor said:

“You’ve got it. You’re home and hosed, Frank. You’re home and hosed! This is it!”

I mean, if Oxford publishes your PhD dissertation, you can just sort of name your position. It’s great!

No chance! I had just no chance. And for that same reason, the book is just ignored. Books on the Right are just ignored.

Damien Richardson: So it proves your thesis in many respects, doesn’t it?

Frank Salter: It does. It does!

Damien Richardson: And what is your thesis?

Frank Salter: That there’s been a Cultural Revolution which became manifest, it started earlier, but it became manifest in the 1960s with the student rebellions across the West. And then went through the 1970s. It’s called the Counterculture. I mean, it was pretty easy to notice. And it was called a Cultural Revolution, but it went much deeper.

And what it reflected was a change in cultural elites right through the West’s history and the history of other countries. Their intellectual elites have reflected, have belonged to the people, they’ve been part of the people, they’ve come from the people often, and they haven’t critiqued or sought to tear down the basic society, the structure of society and so on.

They’ve actually been loyal to it, although critical here and there, of course, being intellectuals got to be critical of something, I suppose. But they wouldn’t want to tear down the whole structure. That changed.

Now there’s a literature on this. Eric Kaufman, for example, his 2004 book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Eric Kaufman, still alive, valuable colleague, Harvard University Press. This is mainstream academy.

And he pointed out that by the 1950s, the cosmopolitan Left had captured elite American universities. The American university system at the top, not the bottom of it. There is like two or 3,000 American universities, most of them low powered two year colleges. But the elite ones, Princeton, Harvard and the big state systems, those universities were in effect captured by the late 1950s.

Ten years later, you have the student uprising, hating America, hating its history, hating their ancestors! Which really peaked in the 1970s. And people look back and they think:

“Oh, yeah, that’s interesting. But it’s gone now.”

No, it’s not gone! The rebels are now Professors! The rebels became the Professors. The rebels change the curriculum so that our school system now in Australia, this trickled down to Australia, because all these academic disciplines are global.

So you have the Society for Political Science, for example, has international connections. They’re all linked.

[07:15]

Damien Richardson: As a result of our connection to the US Empire, because we’re part of that empire, a suzerain, I would say of the American empire, and as a result, that Civil Rights Movement that you talk about, that really took hold in the sixties, then we got it, by Corollary, to just to maintain, to be part of that empire. Is that right?

Frank Salter: Yeah, I think there is a connection, but it’s deeper than that there are civilizational connections. So Australia was traditionally connected with Britain, and Britain had the peak academic bodies, and then Australian universities would hire them.

Now, as we matured, we trained up our own academics. Fine. But any serious scientific or academic discipline will be global, will be international, because it doesn’t matter who comes up with an idea. It can be black skinned, White skin, could be Asian, could be whatever. If it’s truth, it’s truth! If it’s science, it’s science! So these disciplines are fundamentally international in their outlook.

And so when you have dominant metropolitan powers, such as Britain during its Empire days or America during its empire days, it has tremendous ability to capture that, to influence the overall flavor of disciplines and also of culture.

So America also was a major, the global major exporter of popular culture, Hollywood, musical culture, and so on.

And part of that, Britain became part of that power structure. So these ideas flowed down. So Australian, for example, Australian immigration policy has roughly remained in sync with American immigration policy.

So America opened its doors to third world immigration in 1965, a piece of legislation which dismantled what they had in place, which basically forged, made America what it was, which is an extension of European civilization. 1965, that was dismantled. In Australia, it was 1969.

So there’s been a rough correspondence.

Why? Because these trends are international. And it’s not just because of who is currently in power in America. It’s deeper than that it’s more Deep State. It’s more Deep State, or establishment power involved.

Damien Richardson: Yeah, because it’s not party political then, is it at all? Because the 69 would have been a Liberal prime minister in Australia.

Frank Salter: Exactly!

Damien Richardson: [Harold] Holt. Yes, to brought about this cultural change.

Frank Salter: Exactly! So it began mildly, and then it became more and more radical, and you had Whitlam. And already Whitlam’s 72 to 75 were his years. Already he introduced political multiculturalism as the official ideology, which from then on, more and more governed immigration policy and also domestic ethnic policy.

Who’s on top? What is the ethnic hierarchy? Well, it wasn’t us on top anymore, I can tell you! [chuckling] It flipped the hierarchy to be minority centric!

Damien Richardson: So the White Anglo Saxon Protestant was on top previous to this cultural shift. You’re saying that occurred post Second World War?

Frank Salter: Yeah, and this was the case from the beginning. The Australian immigration policy made Australia. It forged what we are, our basic identity, which is at its heart, its Anglo, but in the broader sense of being Western civilization and so on.

So it encompasses Irish, encompasses Scottish, and goes beyond the British Isles to people from a broad European background.

Now, we had a shock to the system in the mid-19th century during the gold rushes, when there was, for a time, unrestricted Chinese immigration. And the Chinese being what they are, hardworking, studious, and they went overseas. There was a gold rush. Why wouldn’t they? But it didn’t work out culturally. It was a disaster, actually, culturally! And that really shocked the six colonies because several of them had their own gold rushes at different times. It was a shock!

And so when the Federation movement began in the 1890s and then culminated in 1901 with the Commonwealth being created, the first piece of legislation, the first was the Restrictive Immigration Act. That was the first, the most important thing that they had on the table. And they said:

“Well, obviously, we must have, …”

The point wasn’t, as the Left would say:

“Oh, it’s Anglo supremacism!”

The point was assimilation. That was the point! The point was to bring people in who would readily assimilate.

And in the great speeches leading up to Federation and immediately after Federation, they pointed at the United States as a negative example of where not to go if you want to have a cohesive country. They pointed to the civil war. They pointed to slavery, the terrible conflict over freeing the black slaves. And this terrible conflict, which killed 600,000 Americans, it was. Tore America apart during the civil war in the 1860s. And they said:

“We don’t want that!”

So they were determined. So Australian immigration policy can be taken back, actually taken back, right to Arthur Phillips, the first governor, or Hunter immediately after him. When it was put to him:

“Listen, we need more women. Let’s bring in some women from the Pacific islands, from the South Pacific. We can find lots of women there!”

And [chuckling] he said:

“No, I think we’ll do it ourselves. I think we can bring women.”

If he’d made a different decision, our history would be different. We’d now be a different people.

Damien Richardson: We’ll be paying a lot more reparations to another group of people, too. [chuckling] At this particular point in time.

That Restrictive Immigration Act that you’re talking about now is, there’s no subtlety or no understanding of where it’s actually come from historically, like you’ve just talked us through. It’s just used, it’s weaponized now against the nation as just being inherently “racist” from its inception.

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what is not taught is that this goes back to some pretty wise people contributed to that policy. My favorite, I have two favorites. One is the great English scholar, what was his name? John Stuart Mill. The father of liberalism, by the way.

Damien Richardson: On liberty. Yes.

Frank Salter: Yeah. And the father of women’s rights. He wrote the first major essay on saying:

“This is outrageous, that women don’t have the vote!”

And so on.

So he was a really fundamental pioneer of liberalism. He wrote another book that the Left never talks about, [chuckling] which was called On Nationality. I think it was called On Nationality. And he said:

“You know, if you want to have a cohesive country, you need to have it formed from people of the same background.”

And you put it differently. He approached it from the point of view of individual rights, which you’d expect a liberal to do. What would a person with liberty choose? And he said:

“If you just look at the world, what people choose to do is live among their own kind. They choose that.”

And by the way, that’s true in Australia, now! It’s true in every multicultural society. You get people clustering! Clustering together! Not because they’re whipped there, but because they choose! They want it. They live among comfortable people.

Now, as intermarriage happens, that blurs, of course, and you get integration happening. But sometimes you don’t get integration happening. Like the American racial scene is a disaster! Because the intermarriage rate between black and white, it’s there, but it’s very low, at a very low standard.

Damien Richardson: So you talk about these things. What explains the inconsistencies? Because I think of many instances now, like India seems to remain predominantly Indian. There seems to be no problem with that. I guess they would point to the British Raj and they would use that as an excuse to say, you know:

“Look what happened when we let you guys in.”

Japan remains ostensibly Japanese.

And of course, the nation state you’re not allowed to talk about is made as ethnocentric as Israel, and that seems to maintain its ethnic identity without a problem.

So why is it a problem, as you outline right from the get go, that a White nation cannot identify itself as being such? Where’s that inconsistency coming from, that hypocrisy?

[16:43]

Frank Salter: I’m not sure, I’m not sure.

But this is a field of academic research that’s ongoing. I’m not sure, but I have some insights, I think. Some facts we can point at.

To begin with, multiculturalism is a “mongrel theory” or is a “mongrel movement”. I’m using that term advisedly, because we’ll call it an unholy alliance between the far-Left, radical, (((cosmopolitan))) Left.

On the one side. And they’re the master, the power center.

But they have as clients, minorities, typically immigrant minorities, but sometimes indigenous minorities. That’s the truth in Australia as well.

So multiculturalism is a combine of the far-Left and the far tribal Right, but limited to minorities.

Now how can such contradiction hold together? And the reason it holds together is they have a common enemy. Who’s that? It’s us! It’s Western nations who have brought in immigrants. And it’s based on a partly on a Marxist, fundamental Marxist critique of the West, of Western nations. Globalists and globalism is a strong thread in this. Globalism is opposed to borders per se. It’s opposed to identity, religious, cultural, ethnic, it’s opposed to all that it’s saying:

“It’s the brotherhood of man and sisterhood of mankind, utopia.”

So the utopia is:

“Oh, we’ll have a world government, and once we’ve had that, and once everyone’s mixed together and no borders, no more war! War will go! We won’t have any more war!”

So you have Mr Brown, the ex-head of the Australian Greens, for example, has been repeatedly calling for a “Global government”.

Damien Richardson: Yes

Frank Salter: Without thinking:

“What is in the interests of the Australian people?”

And the last thing we want is a global government elected on proportional representation.

Because if I lived in the third world, the first thing I would vote for is stripping Australia of its wealth and spreading it across, around the third world.

Of course, of course that’s what I want.

These Western societies, not all Western. Japan has done the same. South Korea has done the same. So Singapore has done the same. Have created a law governed basically with human rights, civil rights, tremendously wealthy, generous welfare systems. These are attractive societies. And other people are naturally they’re envious. They’re envious of that. And they want to be there if they can. Many of them want to be there.

I think a figure of something close to a billion people around the world want to move to the West, that would like to move to a Western country.

Damien Richardson: It’s an impossibility, isn’t it?

Frank Salter: No! It’s absolutely possible!

Damien Richardson: To have a billion people move to the West and for it to maintain its sense of self.

Frank Salter: Oh, you’ve added, you’ve added some conditions there! Yeah. Absolutely agree with you. It’s impossible if one wants to preserve the West.

But if you set that aside, as our cultural elites do, because our elites are not., … Our elites are, in effect, hostile. I think they’re more cold than hostile. They just don’t care. They don’t have a sense of identity.

There’s a great book written in Britain about ten years ago called The Somewheres and the Anywheres, that the fundamental divide in politics is between people who identify with the local.

Damien Richardson: Yes

Frank Salter: Identify as Australians or poms, or they identify as Germans or Hungarians or Chinese or whatever it might be.

And then you have this very small (((elite))), the 1% who could be anywhere.

[20:49]

Damien Richardson: Cosmopolitan, urban elite, internationalist in their understanding of place and location. Yeah.

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they send their children to whatever, international schools. And they’re so wealthy these people, are typically billionaires, or with wealth in the hundreds of millions. But not only they are financially secure, not only their children are financially secure, as the money trickles down, their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be financially secure! So they feel, and they live in gated suburbs. The children go to private elite schools.

So these are the modern citizens of the world. Basically they don’t care about anyone.

Damien Richardson: So it’s a new feudalism, isn’t it? It’s a new feudalistic class!

Frank Salter: Yeah, absolutely! So it’s becoming a mainstream view in the United States political science discipline, now that America has not been a democracy for quite some time. It’s a plutocracy.

Damien Richardson: And you talk about the Civil Rights Movement, you talk about it coming to Australia, particularly born in the US and coming to Australia around 69. Harold Holt is the so-called conservative prime minister, Liberal [Party] at the time.

So is democracy a shame? Is it just, there’s a bureaucratic global elite that is actually in control? It makes absolutely no difference who you would vote for, it’s just window dressing. It’s just a pretense to democracy, because it’s going to dominate no matter what this urban global elite want to happen. And it’s rolling out, as you say, rightly, across the West. It doesn’t matter who’s in power?

Frank Salter: I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I wouldn’t go that far, but I’m in that direction. I think that it’s getting that way. For example, it does matter who we vote for. There’s Left globalists and there’s Right globalists. The Right globalists are these very wealthy billionaires and so on.

The Left globalists are the Marxist, neo-Marxian, utopian thinkers. So it does matter who you vote for.

For example, just to give one recent example, in Australia, if one voted Labor, if Labour had continued to rule from Keating [Paul-Labor Party] on, the boats would not have been stopped. Labor was slow to drag themselves kicking and screaming to the realization:

“We must stop the boat people.”

Howard [John-Liberal Party], to his credit, to stopped that. Howard still in effect, a globalist, though. Because the legal immigration policy was flooding Australia, creating all these minority communities that didn’t have to be there. So he was a disaster for Australia! But a disaster of a different kind to Labor. You see what I mean?

Damien Richardson: But the trajectory was still the same. There was still an increase in net immigration to Australia under Howard from what had happened previously. You even say under Keating.

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what’s missing in all these policy areas is the “majority founding nation perspective”.

So that is blocked out in the West. By the way, not in India, where the Hindu nationalists have been ruling for many years now with Modi as their prime minister. Not in China, which has realized that Marxism is just rubbish and they’re moving to legitimize their rule, rather dictatorial rule, with ethno-nationalism.

Damien Richardson: Is it a National Socialist country, China?

Frank Salter: Yeah!

Damien Richardson: With the Han Chinese as the pre-eminent, …

Frank Salter: Yeah. The problem with using a term like that is you conjure up Nazi Germany and it gets, you know, it confuses the issue. But one might argue, technically they’re National Socialists. But that term itself is loaded. It has a lot of baggage. But they’re an ethnic nationalist, authoritarian government.

And Australia is not forming its immigration policy according to what they are. Australia’s immigration policy is being conducted as if we know nothing about ethnicity or nationalism! As if we know nothing! We know a lot! The social sciences have come a long way.

We know, for example, that ethnocultural, especially religious as well, diversity is negative. There are serious costs to social cohesion and to economic growth of diversity! But you wouldn’t know that if you look at Australian government policy, you wouldn’t know that they talk about the “joy of diversity”. They talk about “diversity as our strength”. That’s a complete lie! That’s a complete lie!

We know diversity is costly. And in the end, it lowers the threshold to civil war.

So there have been illustrious studies done by political scientists, have shown again and again, diversity is a risk factor for civil war, for breakdown and so on.

Civil conflict!

Damien Richardson: I’ve heard some people say that that’s potential for the US in particular, for there to be Civil War 2.0. Is that something you could envision happening?

Frank Salter: Well, it’s absolutely horrific if it happened! A way to approach it from a Political Science perspective would be the break-up of the United States. Is the United States heading in the direction of a break-up? And it is in that direction.

But I think there are tremendous barriers to a real civil war getting underway.

But its heading in that direction. For example, and it’s not just America. Around the West, trust in the government is just collapsing. Trust in the major political parties is falling away.

So in Australia, the major political parties have never enjoyed a lower, never had a lower support from the population. All these minor parties popping up, right. People are just losing confidence, losing trust in the government. I think belatedly. They should have lost his trust 50 years ago when it became obvious that the nation was no longer favored by the broader political system. Instead, minorities are being favored.

[27:25]

Damien Richardson: But it’s an impossibility to lose faith in it because what can you do? There’s a compulsory voting system and if you don’t vote, you’re outside of the system anyway.

So the system still continues on as a result. Because through the two party preferred system, it’s almost an impossibility to bring about any realistic change. And because weaponization of the media, of the corporate media, it won’t allow any voices to operate outside of the very particular Overton Window it creates.

That’s why your book is being ignored. And that’s why this conversation we’re having now, if it was to ever gain any mainstream traction, we would be dismissed as being “fascists”!

Frank Salter: I think you’re wrong, … Luckily! I think you’re wrong, gladly!

Damien Richardson: Yeah.

Frank Salter: What you just said is based on a lot of unfortunate facts.

But there’s another side to it. That the solution is not political, it’s cultural. Because what we’re suffering is the downstream effect of a Cultural Revolution in the sixties and seventies. So it’s cultural.

Next we have the Internet. So technological change has made it more and more difficult for elites to monopolize the means of cultural production and distribution against Marxism.

Damien Richardson: And that’s a real concern to them. That’s what their Misinformation, Disinformation Bill’s about, I’m sure.

Frank Salter: Absolutely, absolutely!

Now, one thing that’s fascinating is the closer we, especially the Anglo-sphere, comes to the majority being demographically submerged, so we can’t fight back politically because we’ll be in the minority. In America, it’s in 20 years time. 20 years time, they’re predicted to be minority White.

And Australia, we keep such poor records, it’s not difficult to know what the ethnic proportions are. But we’re on a similar track, I’d say maybe a bit longer. In Britain, it’s not as bad.

What’s strange is that the closer we get to that submergence and that final defeat, the more totalitarian the establishment’s becoming. We get these draconian laws coming in! With these so-called, it’s ironic, “Human Rights Commissions”! It’s quite ironic, Human Rights Commission. What are they there for?

Basically to crush the free speech of the majority! They’re essentially an anti-free speech organization!

Damien Richardson: Or the anti-White, aren’t they, in their underpinnings?

Frank Salter: Especially White! Especially White. They’re there to crush!

So why is that? Why are they becoming more draconian? And how can it be that every major social media company was on the side of, for example, the Covid lockdowns? They censored anyone, any Dissident Voices saying:

“Oh, hold on, what about the antivirals? Couldn’t we use it? Just use well tested antiviral?”

“No, no! You’re a terrorist! You’re a denier!”

You know, why is it happening now? And I don’t know why. But just to speculate. It could be that because they have the power, they’re doing it.

But that doesn’t explain. Elon Musk is a standout because he’s taken over Twitter time now. He’s taken it over and he wants more free speech in that area.

But why is he a standout? Why aren’t social media companies across the political spectrum? What you would expect. Some on the left, some on the Right, some of the most clustering in the middle. No, they’re all on the cosmopolitan Left! Censoring patriots, censoring people with different views on Covid or whatever the topic might be. How can that work?

Damien Richardson: Elon Musk is in a battle at the moment, isn’t he? With the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, which is a jewish organization. And they’ve really gone after Musk because he’s opened up the people that can now engage with his social media platform, Twitter, now known as X. Platform X. That’s a really seminal fight, isn’t it? That’s a fight I would have never seen happening, even four or five years ago. That someone would take on the power of something like the Anti-Defamation League.

Frank Salter: Yeah, I prefer to call it the “DL”. The Defamation League. That’s what they define, destroy people’s careers and lives. They’re basically a hate group. ADL is a hate group!

Damien Richardson: That’s what they do now, isn’t it? They weaponize, … Take away your livelihood, …

Frank Salter: People don’t realize, that, for example, the de-banking movement, who was it? The, who’s the who’s the politician in the UK was just de-banked?

Damien Richardson: Oh, yeah, Nigel Farage.

Frank Salter: Yeah.

Frank Salter: But he’s just the latest.

Damien Richardson: He’s the tip of the iceberg as someone, that one that they’re willing to actually talk about. But there’s others have been de-banked, including Australian dissidents, for many years before now.

Frank Salter: One might not agree with their politics, but it’s typically on the Right. They don’t debank (((cosmopolitans))), they don’t debank people on the left, they don’t debank feminists, LGBTQI plus, whatever it might be! No, no! They wouldn’t be de-banked. It’s only patriots and people on the Right. Others on the Right.

But about the ADL, they’re not much of a jewish organization anymore, I can tell you. They have in the leadership, there’s severe criticizms of Israel. From their cosmopolitan perspective. Israel does not really have a right to exist as a jewish state. And if it’s not a jewish state, it’s really the whole Zionist mission has been frustrated. So Israel is also suffering from., … And it’s ironic because there’s a jewish contingent on the left. I understand that. But they’re often not friendly to Israel at all!

Damien Richardson: Jonathan Greenblatt heads it, doesn’t he?

[33:36]

Frank Salter: Jonathan Greenblatt! He’s no great friend of Israel, if you ask me. I don’t see that.

So they’ve become rogue in a way. They were initially a jewish organization, but they’ve become rogue. They’re not really friendly to Israel. Israel can only survive by controlling its borders, its immigration policy, for example. And making sure that they have a super majority within the country, not 100% majority, but a large majority.

The same thing goes for Hungary, for China, for Australia, for any country! If the state does not reflect the interests of the majority. Protecting minority rights, of course, that’s liberal democracy. You protect everyone’s individual rights. But group rights should be protected. The majority founding group should be protected, it seems to me.

And that’s what’s changed in Australia and America and Britain and across the West. The state apparatus has, since the 1970s, say, not supported the interests of the majority.

Now that’s an incredible statement! Because what would you expect in a democracy? Rule of the majority! With minority rights protected. That makes it a liberal democracy, not just democracy. Democracy can be savage, democracy can be unpleasant.

But if you have liberal democracy, you have individual rights protected constitutionally and legally. Separated, …

Damien Richardson: Equality under the rule of law. Equality under the rule of law.

Frank Salter: But that doesn’t mean that you can ignore the interests of the majority. Then it’s not even democratic anymore!

So this is what’s happened. And we need to somehow take back our countries and find a way to reverse this Cultural Revolution that’s occurred, where that has given us hostile elites!

Damien Richardson: How can that happen? How could it happen that the majority would be subsumed by a minority and the minority would have a whip hand, morally end up having a whip hand? It’s only because of the compliance of the majority, isn’t it?

So somehow it’s been weaponized against us through the institutions, particularly through education, where you feel a sense of guilt. They pick on Australia particularly and probably get to talking about The Voice debate that’s upon at the moment. The guilt that we’re given for our inhabitation of this landmass in the first place.

But somehow anyone that comes post Second World War is okay. They’re forgiven for inhabiting the land mass, but those with any antecedents before the Second World War are not forgiven.

Frank Salter: Exactly! And it’s universal.

So when I was living in Europe, my colleagues in Europe couldn’t believe. They said:

“Yeah. But France is especially evil because we had the we had the empire!”

Damien Richardson: Yes.

Frank Salter: Or the Germans would say:

“No, no, no! You’re okay. But we had the Holocaust in World War Two!”

And I said to them:

“Guys, you’re not special! We’re all in the same boat. In Australia we have the Aborigines, we have this. We were colonialists and we had the White Australia Policy! The White Australia Policy!”

And they looked at me, and I said:

“You’re not special. Every country, the majority, is demonized!”

Now, how can that be? Is Europe such an evil place, that uniquely evil? All the European countries must be replaced by other people! That’s the implication.

Damien Richardson: And that’s why the other people want to go there in the first place! Because inherently evil, that they can’t wait to get out of their own country and come potentially to start a new life with more prosperity in a Western democracy.

Frank Salter: That’s right. That’s right. I don’t know the answer to all this, but there are some strange things happening. You ask me how? Well, I can give some micro information on that.

For example, let’s consider, say, two prime ministers, Malcolm Fraser [Liberal Party PM 1975 to 1983] and Bob Hawke [Labor Party PM 1983 to 1991], absolutely instrumental in installing multiculturalism against the wishes of the Australian people.

Whenever the Australian people were polled:

“Would you want more Asian immigration?”

Or whatever it might be. And they said:

“Well, no, we’d actually prefer to remain who we are, actually.”

There was no great hatred involved, just normal human ethnocentrism! Ethnocentrism is an adaptive psychological state. It’s where you’re self regarding. You like your own children, doesn’t mean you hate other children. You just like you care mostly for your own children and for your own family.

And then it goes out to your neighbors and so on to your nation. It doesn’t mean you hate other people.

And if you don’t think that way, you can’t invest in anyone!

Because if you’re giving to the world, what does that mean actually, to give money to the world? It means nothing! It’s incredibly, incredibly selfish, in fact! Because you give to no one!

So Bob Hawke once admitted in an interview, he said:

“Look, it would have been impossible to establish multiculturalism, a nation, of non-White immigration, if both parties had not co-operated.”

Cooperation of the parties, a bipartisan policy. Before him, Malcolm Fraser, who many on the left see as some sort of hard Right figure. The guy was a, in effect, a neo-Marxist! He was a traitor to his class. He was a traitor to his country, in effect.

And he wrote in his memoirs, he said:

“I don’t believe the Australian people should be permitted to vote on immigration, because they always get it wrong! They just get it wrong! They get it wrong! Why can’t they be like me?”

Bob Hawke came along and gave us a famous speech, the Bicentenary. The tall ships are about to sail into Sydney Harbour, right? 200 years since 1788. So 26 January, the prime minister of the country stands up and gives this great speech and he said:

“There is no ethnic hierarchy in Australia. How do we define an Australian? There’s no ethnic hierarchy.”

“Ethnic hierarchy”, hat’s a really ugly, loaded term. What he meant was, what is Australian identity? And he said:

Damien Richardson: Unusual! Not a great cohort. Not a huge cohort. [chuckling]

Frank Salter: And say he falls in love with The Country Doctor, with A Country Practice, or whatever it might be.

Damien Richardson: Oh, yes, yes, yes, sir.

Frank Salter: Just imagine that. And he thinks:

“Wow, what a great country! I feel a real commitment to Australia!”

According to our prime minister, he’s an Australian. But contrast him with an Australian who’s not happy with some area of our policy, like our stance towards immigration laws.

Damien Richardson: Say, for example, … [chuckling]

Frank Salter: A lot of Australians are unhappy with current policy. And Bob Hook might say:

“Well, you’re not an Australian. You’re not an Australian! You don’t feel a commitment to Australia!”

But the person from Inner Mongolia is an Australian.

So the reason I’m reminded of this speech, because I hate to admit that I was alive at the time, but sees.

Damien Richardson: So was I Very young. Very young.

Frank Salter: [chuckling] Yeah. An interview given by John Howard recently, like three weeks ago, in which he referred to that speech and said:

“Yeah, everything he said was true.”

So John Howard did not have the intellectual nous to think this through for himself.

Now, how can that be? Well, the problem with this sort of micro approach of looking at this little example and what he said and what she said, is that it can miss the big picture.

The big picture is that every prime minister since Gough Whitlam [Labor Party PM 1972 to 1975] has basically been minority centric, has put minorities first, for example, in immigration policy. Every one! They can’t all have had bad character. It can’t be:

“Yeah, but he was selfish or he was nasty or he was a recovering alcoholic or he was haughty!”

No! There must be some systemic reason for it. There must be some, … And it’s to do with the Cultural Revolution. Again, it comes back to culture.

Damien Richardson: And it comes back to that globalist enterprise that we talked about earlier on. And it comes back to legacy for people that particularly say, Howard, for example, who got into so much trouble over the apology, etcetera, refused to apologize. Indigenous people turning their backs, painted in the media very much as being a racist, etcetera. Now think of his legacy. His legacy will be painted within the apparatus of state, which demands a multiethnic understanding of the West!

Frank Salter: Yeah.

So, I mean, if a politician wants to survive and work his or her way up through a major political party, there’s going to be screening, screening, along the lines you just stated. And if they get it wrong too often, they’ve got no future. They’ve got no future.

Damien Richardson: Well, they have no future within the political structure itself. It’s very clever, because there’s someone, you’ll have a colleague that can use it and weaponize it against you, to get rid of you as a potential opponent within the apparatus, whether it’s the Liberal Party, Labor Party, Greens, wherever, it makes no difference.

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. It’s a savage system!

Now, this can’t be explained without understanding the role of the media. The media have been very important. That’s why there’s such battles going on now, like Musk taking over Twitter and so on, we were discussing.

So this is another aspect that is not fully explained from my point of view. But the facts are there, that without the co-operation of the mainstream media, which began as just newspapers. The mainstream media was once just newspapers and there were very few universities, this sort of thing with that level of book reading and so on.

So it was the newspapers. And then you got newspapers and radio. And the newspapers, radio and television from the 1940s, fifties on. Why were they on side with this?

Well, one, from that theory of corporatism, corporate globalism, it sort of makes sense, that the big media companies were all bought by large global corporations.

Damien Richardson: They’re owned by them, they’re an extension of them, they’re an arm of them.

Frank Salter: I think the solution is going to be in that direction of corporate ownership and so on.

And this is why we’re having such turmoil right now, because the Internet has upset that power structure. To some extent.

Damien Richardson: To some extent. Because you get banned off the Internet very, very readily, very quickly.

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they began to look for ways to control access to the Internet from an early, … They realized this was a danger to them, and they began looking for ways of controlling that.

So again, along this line, which is sort of neo-Marxist, by the way, it’s sort of focusing on economic processes. So they began looking at that and buying up the major media companies, the major social media companies, I mean, big tech and so on.

So, the example of Musk is the exception that proves a rule. The example of these thousands upon thousands of small scale media, … Oh, such as yourself. You’re using this medium to get around this censorship and so on.

They’re the exceptions that sort of prove the rule, in a way.

Damien Richardson: Musk is an interesting figure, isn’t he? Because he wants to neuro link us all, he wants to microchip humanity.

Frank Salter: Well, I don’t know whether he likes to, but he’s got this corporation that’s working in that direction.

[46:19]

Damien Richardson: I’ll just say we’ve been here before, haven’t we? Like as a culture, Australia, there was a huge antipathy between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholics need not apply for government jobs for a long period of time. Somehow we’ve seemed to have moved to a point beyond that. Is it a possibility. Like:

“Oh, what are we talking about with this? Because Australia is a multi-ethnic state now, you can’t unbake the souffle.”

Is there a possibility for us to move forward as a cohesive entity? Are you saying that demands a predominantly Anglo population and therefore that’s the defining identity of that community?

Frank Salter: Yeah, my approach is different. And in Anglo-phobia book, the position we take in that is the reality is, as you say, we have a diverse Australia, so that’s the reality. So Australia after World War Two 98 percent Anglo-Celtic. Was 98%. There was some lingering friction between the Irish Catholics and the Protestants, yes, and so on.

But that’s largely been overcome. Perhaps not in the New South Wales Labor Right, but it’s still largely overcome. That’s not the case anymore. So we’ve been diversified.

Now, because the nation is so diverse, one can’t talk about a single united interest always applying in Australia.

So, for example, in immigration policy, one might argue immigration policy should reflect the interests of the nation as a whole. Okay? That sounds noble. That sounds noble, and I support that.

But also, it’s difficult to have immigration policy without it favoring one group over another.

So, for example, every group wants access from its own group. Chinese, Australians, we don’t want discrimination against Chinese immigrants, Burmese, Greek, whatever it might be. Well, they can’t all be pleased! Unless we have an open door policy. We have an open door policy, it’s suicide for Australia! But if we do begin to restrict it, well, however we do restrict, it’s going to favor one group over another.

So what I think is necessary as a starting position is for Anglo Australians. And that’s a very broad category. It’s very broad. Anyone who’s assimilating into the mainstream Australian identity is for them to say, what about us? What about us? All these policies, multiculturalism, open door immigration policy has been formulated without our input!

In fact, the result of opinion polls, have just been ignored! They’ve just been ignored. There’s willful ignoring of Anglo interests in Australia!

And I think if Anglos are brought into the multicultural system, which theoretically is Democratic and fair, theoretically, multiculturalism says:

“Well, people should be able to express their own interests.”

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah

Frank Salter: That sounds reasonable. People should be able to vote and lobby according to their own interests and the interests of their religious or cultural community. Yes, that seems fair. Why shouldn’t they be able to do that?

But in reality, that’s not, … In reality, they say:

“Yes for all, except one, the Australian majority, except one group, can’t talk!”

Damien Richardson: But as you say, it’s happening globally, it’s happening in Europe and it’s happening in the US, it’s happening in New Zealand, I’m sure Canada here. Is it a fantasy in some respects, what you’re suggesting? Because power is power, and power will need an enemy, and power will vilify whoever it’s taking its power from. And now globalist structure is taking power from those former holders of that power, which is those communities, those Anglo Saxon, Celtic, western European communities.

Frank Salter: Yeah, look, I think the reality is we have oligopoly. We are an oligopoly globally. Rule of the rich, the rule of the powerful, of the elite. But we can’t stop resisting! We can’t stop resisting! Democracy was born going back to Magna Carta and so on.

Democracy was born by little people finding their champion, like the Catholic Church. The church in Britain helped Magna Carta in 1215. So different elites said:

“Yeah, we also have a problem with the King, with absolute power of the King.

 

We also have a problem with making rules up as he goes along. So we want rule of law.”

This sort of thing. So it’s always a struggle. It’s always a struggle. And we’ve had it so good in Australia and other Anglophone countries for so long that it’s been just taken. Taken for granted:

“Oh, yeah, it’s a free country!”

When I was a little boy, you say:

“You can’t do that!”

“It’s a free country!”

It was a free country. By historical comparison, the freest countries that have ever existed. But that had only come about through struggle, through fighting for our rights.

And now we’re technologically equipped with the Internet and so on, to establish our own parallel institutions, which I think is a very important movement taking place. And why not, in principle, create or influence our own banks? Banks that do stand by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Damien Richardson: Is that happening?

Frank Salter: It’s actually happening.

Damien Richardson: People are building their own banking institutions?

Frank Salter: That’s beginning. The example I’ve come across is, what’s that? An American social media website. I’m so sorry. It escaped my mind!

Damien Richardson: That’s okay.

Frank Salter: It’s a Christian website. And I hear that this is a trend, very slow, but it is happening. So the parallel institutions are being set up. Jordan Peterson. Someone as famous as people will have heard of Jordan Peterson. He’s setting up his own university.

Damien Richardson: Yes.

Frank Salter: And there’s more than him. It’s not just him. There are others doing this, because they realize universities are critical to our survival. The survival of freedom. Absolutely!

Damien Richardson: That’ll be co-opted by the power structure as it is now, won’t it, and give you the pretense of there being alternative? But the power source will not allow an alternative power source to exist.

[53:32]

Frank Salter: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I wouldn’t be too black pilled about it. A great term. I wouldn’t be too black pilled.

Of course, that is a trend, and one should keep a sharp eye for that happening. Co-option, of course, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I think the key thing to do is to raise consciousness. To raise consciousness, people need to be aware of who they are, of where they came from, of their history.

And it’s very much like back in the early days of the Civil Rights Movement in America, when black agitators, blacks who wanted their people to have civil rights, normal citizen rights, talked about raising consciousness, talking about history. It’s okay to be black. We have our own history. We have our own interests. Don’t be put down by this hegemonic White structure.

Now, that’s going back 1910, 1920, when you had Jim Crow.

So there was, in fact, there was oppression of black America and the Civil Rights Movement reversed that.

So I think we should never give up the fight for freedom.

Damien Richardson: That Civil Rights Movement’s now been weaponized as against White majority populations, though, hasn’t it?

Frank Salter: It has, it has! But America being what it is, which is a rule of law country and a democracy, tremendous strides were made by black Americans overcoming Jim Crow. Many of them did it by simply migrating out of the south, and they moved to the big cities and the big industrial cities in the north. And amazing pioneers such as Henry Ford would employ anyone at the same wage, anyone! That’s why they flocked, for example, to Detroit and so on, New York and other places. And they used whatever strategy they could and they made great strides.

And so you had a black middle class developing, and you had their own newspapers. Very important black newspapers developed. So they’d receive reliable news about themselves and about their, …

Damien Richardson: From an ethnic perspective.

Frank Salter: From an ethnic perspective. And in that, …

Damien Richardson: It comes back to a race all the time, doesn’t it? We’re not allowed to talk about race, but it comes back to race all the time.

Frank Salter: Well, it’s not just race. It can be culture, it can be especially important, …

Damien Richardson: Well, that’s part of it, …

Frank Salter: But no, race is, … Religion’s not part of race. These are different ways to form communities. Ethnicity is important, but it’s not unique. It’s not the only, …

Damien Richardson: But I grew up in an Irish Catholic tradition and I was struck when I went to Spain how it was still Catholic, but it was very different culturally. It was very different culturally because of the mores of that community, which I would say did come down to how they interpreted it through race, through that Christian tradition.

Frank Salter: Did you just say that they interpreted it through Christian tradition?

Damien Richardson: They interpreted the same, ostensibly the same Christian tradition. Catholic, Christian. But I grew up in an Irish Catholic understanding interpretation of it, which was very different than the Spanish interpretation of it was.

Frank Salter: How did race come into that?

Damien Richardson: Well, I just say it would be their cultural, their racial understanding of who they are, how they express themselves. There is a bio-spirit to a Spanish community which is different than the bio-spirit of an Irish community.

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. Well, Irish in Australia formed its attitudes as a diaspora. In Spain they’re in their ancient homeland.

So that’s one difference. And also., …

Damien Richardson: Sure, but I’m sure if you went to Ireland, you would see there’ll be a huge difference between Irish Catholicism and Spanish Catholicism, even in their homeland.

Frank Salter: Yeah, it could be.

And I think one pointed aspect, let’s bring this religious aspect back to the topic, connect it even more closely. The pastoral duty of the Church is up for grabs. It’s been changing and I think being undermined for the last 70 years. The Catholic Church once respected and promoted the ethnic interests of its people.

So the Catholic Church has always cared for the individual. It’s cared for the family, very much. Right. It’s cared for the local, for the clan, the extended family, and it cared for the local community.

So, for example, if a city was being besieged by barbarians or by the neighboring nation, the city was being besieged. And behind its medieval wall, … You go, in Europe, they all had these medieval walls. The church was not saying:

“Open the Gates! It’s the brotherhood of mankind! Open up! We’re all the same. Everyone’s the same!”

Damien Richardson: But we’ve evolved now! We’ve evolved, Frank. We’ve evolved to a new point, a new man, a new understanding!

Frank Salter: What they said was:

“God is on your side and it’s right for you to defend your city against the barbarians or against the next city state. It’s right!”

And there was excesses in that direction, of course, but they were basically loyal.

And you can see that within the framework of the pastoral duty of the Church, which serves different layers of interests from individual to family to nation to ethnic group. That’s all gone now! There’s no pastoral duty by the mainstream church, by many minorities, but not the mainstream churches, especially my own, the Church of England, Anglicans. There’s no sense of pastoral duty to the nation.

Instead, they’ve adopted a minority centric perspective of critiquing! They’ve taken on board this critique of majority cultures, which is insane! It’s madness!

Damien Richardson: It’s part of the institutionalization of the West, isn’t it really? The same structures that controlling organized religion, as any other department we’ve already covered.

Frank Salter: And all these Bishops go through the same university system, by the way, they’re subject to the same indoctrination.

[1:00:21]

Damien Richardson: I just want to, because we could be here for another hour. It’s such an engrossing conversation. Clash of civilization. There’s so much going on.

But before we do, because I know soon we’ve got the vote in Australia for recognising an indigenous voice to Parliament and I know you’ve written an article on behalf of the British-Australian Community, which is your website as well, the BAC, I might add. What’s the name of the it’s actually a book you’ve written. What’s the name of the book?

Frank Salter: The book is The Voice to Parliament: A Statement on Behalf of the British-Australian Community by Frank Salter.

Damien Richardson: So, Frank, that’s a very countercultural thing to say, that a voice to Parliament should have a statement on behalf of the British-Australian community.

Can you just talk us through that? And what you see resulting in at the referendum on the 14th of this month.

Frank Salter: The one extraordinary thing about this whole Voice process, developing the referendum questions and all the rest of it, if you go back and look at the different deliberative bodies, the different consultative bodies, and so on, that were formed beginning in 2011, I think. 2011, 12.

Damien Richardson: Under Julie Gillard [Labor Party PM 2010 to 2013]. [chuckling]

Frank Salter: Under Julie Gillard. They have, of course, representatives of the indigenous people, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Of course they have people who are loyal members of those communities. Not only loyal members, but leaders of those local communities coming and saying:

“What’s in our interest? My people want this, we want this. These are our interests.”

Completely appropriate.

They had a lot of White supporters of those. Of those, also understandable.

They didn’t have one representative of the Anglo majority, not one! They had lots of Anglos, but they didn’t have one person who was there saying:

“I feel sympathy for the indigenous people, of course, I wouldn’t be here otherwise. But I represent the interests of Anglo Australia.”

Not one! And I’ve traced it back to 2011, 12. It’s extraordinary!

And so this whole thing has been formulated as if Anglo Australia is not in crisis! As if Anglo Australia is just still the boss and it’s a White run society. No, no! Since 1970, roughly, as we’ve been, as we were discussing earlier, immigration policy and multicultural policy has been run against the White majority! We’ve been marginalized! We’ve been vilified in the education! Our children are being vilified, are being taught to hate their own history, to hate their own ancestors. And now we’re being asked:

“Oh, you should vote for a special powers being given to an advisory body in the Constitution.”

Extraordinary! As if we don’t exist, as if we have no interests.

So I wrote this book, it’s a short book, looking at this systematically, looking at the whole Voice proposal from an Anglo perspective.

In other words, yes, I’m concerned about what’s good for Indigenous Australians, my fellow citizens, of course, but also keeping in the back of my mind, and is it good for the Anglos? And no one talks about that!

Damien Richardson: No reviews on that book either, I can imagine. [chuckling]

Frank Salter: The closest to it is Jacinta Price, who calls herself a Celtic indigenous person. A Celtic Aboriginal person, she proudly says:

“Well, my father has Celtic background.”

In other words, Anglo:

“And my mother is indigenous.”

So she comes closest to that. I think Warren Mundine also has talked about this.

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, something I know. I read a chapter from the book and you talked about the dispossession of Anglo institutions. It’s really just such a counter cultural concept that Anglos might even feel like they are being dispossessed. Because what we hear all the time, of course, is that indigenous Australians were dispossessed.

Frank Salter: Yes, well, they were dispossessed. But then, luckily for them, though, they were integrated into a culture that was leading the world in forming liberal democracy.

So, you know, that Aboriginal, in most of Australia, Aboriginal men, because initially it was male male suffrage, they got the vote before Englishmen got it in England! Well, before! Like mid 19, mid 19th century that you had in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania. Not Queensland, Queensland and Western Australia, as the frontier states were delayed, that was delayed.

But in most of Australia they got the vote before British men and women got it in Britain.

So it was good for them. But the dispossession that’s been taking place as a result of the Cultural Revolution of the sixties and seventies. I have a chapter called Our Stolen Commonwealth. Our stolen Commonwealth. And what do I mean by that?

Well, just what I’ve been saying, the Anglo nation. First the six Anglo colonies, and then they gave rise to the Commonwealth in 1901. They were set up explicitly to benefit the majority. These are Democratic societies, and they were overwhelmingly Anglo societies, so naturally they wanted to survive and continue their traditions and their identity.

The Commonwealth was set up explicitly to serve the interests of the nation, which was an Anglo nation. That was reversed by 1970! That was reversed! In effect the Commonwealth has been stolen from us, in effect, and it’s now operating against our interests.

And I define the Commonwealth not just as government institutions, but as the ABC, for example, SBS, public broadcasting. Since the late 1960s, …

Damien Richardson: All the institutions, I would say, Frank

Frank Salter: All major institutions, have joined this Deep State apparatus, and, in effect, they’re operating against the interests of the majority.

[1:07:27]

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, and we’ve been going for a while, so I’ll try to wrap it up. But I saw a speech the other day by Noel Pearson at the Press Club, where he made this claim. And he spoke to “multicultural” Australia, meaning not “settler” Australia, and he called, quite deliberately, “settler Australia”, being those mob, he would say, from the UK. And he said to multicultural Australia:

“I want to ask you this question. Who do you side with in this debate, as far as The Voice is concerned, do you consider yourself going to be an honorary settler somehow? Because, I tell you, a lot of you are the wrong color.”

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! He didn’t sort of get much opprobrium in the mainstream, because the mainstream would never want to be seen to criticize someone indigenous. And of that state stature. A man, too, has made himself a millionaire out of the largesse of taxpayers expense. It was an extraordinary claim to make. And really, if you start to boil it down, since he’s asked the question, I would say:

“Well, actually, those people of different color that have come to this nation have come this nation expressly to live by what was bequeathed to them by that settler culture, not to come and live as hunters and gatherers might have lived in this idealized picture of Indigenous Australia!”

Frank Salter: Yeah

Damien Richardson: I think Noel himself seems very comfortable living like a settler, too, I might add!

Frank Salter: And receiving $500 million investment over the last 15 years.

Damien Richardson: Is he relying on the fact that he knows no one will have the gumption to make that claim? He’s relying on. We have been silenced through the multicultural instrumentalities that we’ve already talked about?

Frank Salter: Yeah, he’s arisen, his career, his reputation is arisen, sheltered in sort of the sheltered workshop of the multicultural system. So he’s a creature, in my view, a creature of the multicultural establishment.

But Warren Mundine is not. Jacinta Price are not. They’re actually free thinking. They have their, … I don’t agree with everything they say, but these are independent individuals far more able to sustain a rational conversation and so on.

Pearson talks ideology. And he begins preaching immediately and he can barely talk! And how did someone like that gain such a high reputation? Was because the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the ABC, SBS [Special Broadcating Service] treat him as some sort of paragon. It’s absurd!

The man has made vulgar, racist remarks about White people, really vulgar. The man has said:

“I don’t think Anzac Day is appropriate because we should focus on my people’s suffering, not on the suffering of Anzacs.”

Damien Richardson: Well, a lot of these people would have been Anzacs too, as a matter of fact.

Frank Salter: Exactly, exactly! Aborigines have been participating more and more in the nation. I see them as a core group in the Australian national identity. But Pearson has been given this platform. He writes a note, he has these extraordinary media platforms to express his point of view, but he’s actually, when you listen to what he’s saying, it’s not pleasant.

Damien Richardson: You see now, too, that the conservative Right salivating over the idea of Jacinta Price someday being the first indigenous female prime minister. Janet Olbrixen wrote an opinion piece in the Australian recently saying such.

Frank Salter: Well, after watching her perform over the last month or two, I tend to agree. I think she’s actually prime minister material. There’s not all that much talent on the coalition side. And she just comes across as authentic, as able to think on her feet.

For example, her speech, become famous speech now to the Canberra Press Gallery about a week or two ago. And she said, her opening remarks she said:

“My husband’s sitting over there. And I do mean husband, not partner!”

Damien Richardson: Yes, yes.

Frank Salter: Immediately there was a cheer went up across Australia. We’re sick of this ideological language that’s being forced on you! She meant her husband, not her partner!

Damien Richardson: She went further too, and she talked about the oppression. She said:

“I’ve got it really badly if you’re saying I’m oppressed because I’m indigenous.”

And she said:

“Well, at least I wasn’t bequeathed to a man much older than me that I might have been under tribal law at the age of 14 or something.”

And she went on to say, too:

“And I’ve been doubly oppressed because my convict ancestors were also oppressed to come here in the first place!”

You could hear crickets in the media establishment.

Frank Salter: So funny. They’re just, … Like the ABC has become., … It’s so appalling! The main change with them is not ideological, because the news and current affairs was captured by the Marxist left in the late sixties, and the Science Show was captured by the Marxist left around the same time. What has changed is their subtlety. They used to sort of cover it a bit and make gestures to being balanced. That’s all gone. It’s amazing! It’s blatant. It’s blatant now.

And the same with our education system, with the curriculum. The national curriculum was captured by the neo-Marxist Left decades ago and that’s trickled down to the state curricula now. So it’s really, really poor.

Damien Richardson: And there’s been no defence against it from neo-liberalism on the other side, has there been? Because that’s just been about the bottom line, the bottom dollar, sell as much as you can. We’ve sold our soul to material wealth in many respects.

Frank Salter: Yeah. And they’re friendlier towards Right-wing globalism, which is corporate based.

So that’s their weakness.

Also, they receive all their funding from these people, so they’re not going to criticize them very much.

So again, on the Right you have Right globalism, on the left you have Left globalism. And the two sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, sort of they get along, they sort of get along.

But I urge Australians to look at the whole indigenous issue, including The Voice referendum, which comes up in nine days or something, and look at it from different perspectives. But look at it also from an Anglo perspective, from the perspective of mainstream Australia. And what we don’t want, for example, is to destroy and complicate our system of government, which is magnificent. It’s one of the things that sets Australia apart. We have the rule of law, we have representative democracy, we have division of powers and so on. And this would be compromised.

[1:14:42]

Damien Richardson: That’s just another irony of Pearson’s speech, isn’t it, that:

“Well, I want an indigenous voice to Parliament, but I don’t want anything that the settlers, ..!”

What? The incongruity is just extraordinary!

Frank Salter: I don’t look on myself as a settler. You know, I had a convict ancestor in Van Diemen’s Land. So for many generations, my family’s been here, I don’t think of myself, …

Damien Richardson: But even if we take his language on face value, what he means is “what came here?” Well, that was the Parliament. The Parliament that now “I want a specific voice to” is not of indigenous origin, although you would say it is because we’re indigenous!

Oh, this argument could go on and on and on! We’ve had such a good chat, too, Frank. I’m just aware of time, and I want people to stay to the end of this podcast.

So I think, do you want to just tell us where people can find you so they can find out more of this detail? We may well have you back to continue this conversation, perhaps post the referendum.

Frank Salter: That’d be fun. People can just Google, just a general search for British-Australian Community. And we have a website, which is the BritishAustralianCommunity.com dot au.

And then they can search for, … You go to Quadrant online. Go to Quadrant Online. There’s a Quadrant website and just do a search for “Salter”, and up will come all my articles, because I have a series of articles on the original, ten years ago, on the original attempt by Pearson to have a constitutional recognition. That was his big thing back then. So there’s critique of that.

So you’ll find resources.

One thing you’ll find is that this book as a PDF. It’s a free download so you can get access to the book.

I’d also go to YouTube. We have three videos out on YouTube. Search for British-Australian Community and it will come up. We have two on Anglophobia and we have one on The Voice. And there’ll be many more coming up, by the way, many more in the next months.

Damien Richardson: It’s good that you’re getting culture out there because I think this process was so far behind the eight ball as in understanding what’s happening to the culture, the attack that’s on it, the manifold attacks that are on it, that you almost need to reinvigorate what the understanding of the culture was in the first place.

So Frank Salter, co-author of Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, thanks so much for joining me at Damienrichardson dot online.

Frank Salter: It’s been a pleasure, Damien.

Damien Richardson: You can listen to more great podcasts on my website, damianrichardson dot online. Also follow me on Facebook and I’d love to hear your thoughts@facebook.com. Damienrichardson28 don’t forget to give this video a like. Remember to share and comment, to join the conversation and have your say.

[1:17:50]

END

top

============================================

YouTube Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/22/2024 = 0)

==========================

See Also

top