>Well, for one thing, he didn’t do the holocaust. He could have and he should have, but he didn’t because he was a Jew-loving faggot. Secondly, he refused to kill Anglos, despite also having the ability to kill them in vast quantities. Instead of killing Jews and Anglos, like an intelligent person would have, Hitler just killed millions of Russians and Germans, which benefited Britain and the USA. He was one of the biggest dipshits in history, honestly.
- comment from https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-hitler
Lol
But anyways, "anglo" isn't a false term to use for someone who is english or of English descent. Nor is it necessarily false to call countries that were predominantly founded and settled by English people and which have English customs, such as America or Australia, "anglo" either. Like how Hispanic can be used for spain (although rare, it qualifies as Hispanic) or Mexico or Argentina all the same despite the fact that these countries have little in common apart from being culturally descended from Castilla ultimately (and Castilla is virtually synonymous with spain)
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
It's also worth noting that the aristocracy is heavily Norman (French Norsemen) on top of all the other ethnicities.
I don't mind using a term that doesn't explicitely mention Saxons, but I don't like Anglo just because of it's ambiguity, especially when talking about the "Anglo-sphere" (not unlike the use of Hispanic to mean metizos).
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed