Another Anglophobe

“Australia Day is, of course, an artificial fabrication designed by governments, the corporate world, media, Australia Day Councils and smug Anglo-Saxons to ensure that we forget real history.

“That Anglo-Saxon smugness is a resilient child of hypocrisy and racism. The mawkish jingoism, the noisy triumphalism and trumped-up nationalism lead to the xenophobia that treats our humanity as something special and beyond the humanity of others who are not of these shores or of those, the original owners, who live within our shores but have been relegated as relics of history, beyond imagination.”

Thus spake Peter Gebhardt in the Sydney Morning Herald, 26/1/2012.

There is nothing new in Gebhardt’s 2012 views. On Australia Day 2011 he was busy denouncing White Australians as “the usurpers” on this continent, and deriding our constitutional monarchy as dependence on “the regal pantomine in England”. (Note that he wrote “England”, not even “United Kingdom”: such is the strength of his Anglophobia.)

Gebhardt is a retired judge of the County Court of Victoria. Before that he was headmaster of Geelong College for 10 years, “leaving the school in 1985 after a disagreement with the school council” (according to The Age, 2/6/2003). He now writes books of poetry, sometimes illustrated by and introduced by Aborigines.

It therefore goes without saying that Gebhardt is a darling of the Anglophobic Age/SMH/ABC crowd. If he had slandered any other ethnic group with a negative adjective such as “smug”, Gebhardt would have been roundly denounced by those who currently praise him. Alas, it seems that in today’s Australia, putting the boot into Anglo-Saxons is a sure path to praise in certain circles.

Here is an extract from one of Gebhardt’s Anglophobic poems:

Forget the ancestral trespassers,
The heritage forbears,
The gin and bitters people,
They didn’t ask,
They just used their guns
Across the waters,
Across the sands,
Across the plains,
Across the hills.

No decision-time then,
As the map was bloodied
To imperial pink.

In this bit of trite racial hatred, Anglo-Saxons are depicted as “trespassers” and alcoholic murderers. We will leave it to readers to decide on this work’s poetic merit – if any.

Posted in Endeavour Articles

Aussie Court backs BAC

On the 28th of September, 2011, Judge Mordecai Bromberg of the Federal Court of Australia handed down a ruling against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and his employer, News Limited.

The case involved columns written by Bolt, in which he allegedly “conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that are available to Aboriginal people.” Judge Bromberg found Mr Bolt guilty under certain sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

This publication has always, to its limited ability, stood up for freedom of speech. We therefore deplore any infringements on freedom of speech, except in the most extreme cases.

But Judge Bromberg’s decision contained at least one silver lining. In point 22 of his Summary, the judge stated:

In reaching those conclusions, I have observed that in seeking to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society, the Racial Discrimination Act must be taken to include in its objectives tolerance for and acceptance of racial and ethnic diversity. At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying.

Amen to that! We’re not lawyers here at Endeavour, but we hope and trust that Judge Bromberg’s ruling sets a legal precedent allowing Anglo-Celtic people to be free to fully identify with our race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying.

The British Australian Community intends to do just that.

Posted in Endeavour Articles

Anglophobia – 7.8% of Australian residents hate Brits

On 23/2/2011 the (Melbourne) Herald Sun newspaper published the results of a very large study which concluded that Australian residents of all racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds particularly disliked specific groups of other Australian residents.

The study, released by Kevin Dunn of the University of Western Sydney, was conducted over 12 years and involved 12,500 respondents.

According to the study the most disliked group, rejected by 48.6% of the general population, is Muslims.

Aborigines are disliked by 27.9%

Black Africans are disliked by 27.0%

Asians are disliked by 23.8%

Jews are disliked by 23.3%

Italians are disliked by 11.0%

Christians are disliked by 9.7%

British people are disliked by 7.8%

That last figure is alarming. Within the lifetime of some readers, Australia was an overwhelmingly British nation. Even during the period of massive immigration after World War 2, people from the United Kingdom and Ireland were by far the largest group of immigrants to Australia. People from other northern European nations were a clear second.

Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the 7.8% of the Aussie population which dislikes British people are “traditional Australians”. Equally, it is very likely that this 7.8% is mostly made up of people from more recent migrant waves, such as those from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

If that’s the case, then another way of expressing it would be to say that we now have a core group here, 7.8% of the total population, who hate Anglo-Celts.

These people are having more children than the rest of us, and they are coming here in greater numbers, so obviously their numbers will continue to increase — and therefore so will Anglophobia.

Posted in Endeavour Articles

Did you hear about the bigot?

Did you hear about the bigot who hates all things English? He makes a good living in the concreting business, because almost everything in the city depends on this industry. It’s just a pity that reinforced concrete was invented by W.B. Wilkinson in Newcastle, England.

Our bigot’s home uses electric power generated by steam turbines, which were invented by Sir Charles Parsons. Many of his home appliances use electric motors, which were invented by Londoner Michael Faraday. These range from vacuum cleaners, the invention of Englishman Hubert Booth, to sewing machines, invented by Englishman Charles Weisenhall back in 1755.

Not all of his appliances run on electric motors, though. There’s his microwave oven, based on the magnetron invented by Sir John Randall and Dr H A H Boot at Birmingham University. Or his modern central heating unit, designed by Englishman A H Barker. Even his TV set, the brainchild of Englishman Shelford Bidwell, while its production depended on the invention of the cathode-ray tube by London physicist Sir William Crookes.

All these things reminded our bigot too much of England, so he turned on his radio for news from some country more to his liking. It didn’t help much though, because he remembered that satellite radio transmitters are powered by fuel cells invented by the English chemist Francis T Bacon.

He thought of expressing his frustration by writing an angry letter. But it wouldn’t go anywhere without the postal system, created in London by Sir Rowland Hill. That is, unless he chose to send his letter by e-mail on a computer – the brainchild of Englishman Charles Babbage.

Our bigot briefly considered getting away from it all, flying off to some remote place with nothing to remind him of English genius. But then he recalled that modern jet aircraft engines were designed by English test pilot Sir Frank Whittle.

He decided to do some home chores. So he thought of washing the dishes – but his sink is stainless steel, invented by Englishman Sir Harry Brearly. And some of his utensils are made of plastic, the brainchild of Birmingham professor Alexander Parkes.

Desperate to avoid the brilliance of the English, he headed out of doors – passing on the way out his modern WC, designed by Londoner Alexander Cummings. The lawn was a bit overgrown because he couldn’t bring himself to use a lawn mower, originally designed by Edwin Budding of Gloucestershire. That’s why he scraped himself, and was briefly glad that his tetanus shots were up to date – until he remembered that immunisation was discovered by Dr Edward Jenner, another Gloucestershire man.

All this contact with things English might well give him a heart attack. It’s just as well that he’s been fitted with a cardiac pacemaker, the invention of English surgeon W H Walshe.

Perhaps by this stage our bigot is secretly wishing that he could have a transfusion of good Anglo-Saxon blood. Well, it can be arranged – thanks to James Blundell, who pioneered blood transfusions at Guy’s Hospital, London. But whether that would turn him into a creative Englishman is another question altogether.

Posted in Endeavour Articles

British Australians (officially) second-class citizens

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson
Justice Bill Gummow
Justice Ken Hayne
Justice Mary Gaudron

These are the four judges of the High Court of Australia who ruled, on the 23rd of June 1999, that Britain is a “foreign power”. (The remaining three judges dissented, arguing that the High Court had no right to address the issue in question.)

For those who may have missed it, the issue was the election of a Queensland senator, Ms Heather Hill, a British migrant. She had taken up Australian citizenship, but had failed to “renounce” her British citizenship.

A Chinese migrant, Chuck Hong, had complained that by not renouncing her original citizenship, the senator-elect failed to comply with section 44 of the Australian Constitution.

Section 44 excludes certain people from representing us in parliament. They cannot be undischarged bankrupts or insolvent. They cannot have been attainted of treason, or convicted and subject to sentence for an offence carrying a jail sentence of at least one year. They cannot be under allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power.

The High Court effectively ruled that Heather Hill could not assume her elected responsibilities because (a) she had not “renounced” her British citizenship, even though she was a naturalised Australian, and (b) Britain had been a “foreign power” since at least 1986, when the Australia Acts were passed.

At a single stroke the High Court ruling officially made second-class citizens of over a million British-born residents of Australia.

Other migrants are also affected. Some countries, such as Greece, do not allow renunciation of citizenship under any circumstances – even by children born here of Australian/Greek parents. It has been estimated in the print media that up to five million Australian residents may be barred from public office as a result of this ruling.

What, we must ask, does this mean for British migrants who are permanent residents of Australia?

First, it means that even if we have taken up Australian citizenship we must go through the motions of formally “renouncing” our British citizenship.

Yet the repudiation process has no validity in British law. By virtue of s.12 of the British Nationalities Act 1981 it is theoretically possible to renounce British citizenship. But it’s just a farce. No matter what contrived declarations we may make here, we still remain British subjects. Think about it …

There is ample precedent for this, the best-known probably being the case of “Lord Haw Haw”, who first acquired American citizenship, and then German citizenship at a time when Britain and Germany were at war, but who was still tried in the U.K. after that war for treason. No-one could have given a clearer indication of his desire to “renounce” British citizenship. The British government hanged him anyway.

None of our readers will be tried for treason, but that is, in theory, the acid test. If the circumstances were extreme enough, could, and would, the British government try for treason a migrant to Australia who had “renounced” her original citizenship under s.12 of the British Nationalities Act 1981? The answer is clearly yes. In an atmosphere of fear and loathing, as applied in the Lord Haw Haw case, does anyone really believe that “renunciation” of citizenship under s.12 would make the slightest difference?

Clearly not. Therefore the High Court-preferred process is a sham – and a very undignified one. We are being asked to pretend to deny our legal identity.

Then there is the question of second-generation British migrants. They are automatically Australian citizens as a consequence of having been born here, but many Australian-born children of British parents are entitled to British citizenship.

Those who take up this right, for the purpose of study or travel or work or whatever, will presumably be in the same situation as Heather Hill.

What of those who don’t? They’re banned too! Section 44 of the Constitution says: “Any person who … is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives”.

Those of us who are not politically inclined might say they don’t particularly want to stand for the Senate or the House of Representatives. That is not the point. The point is that we are now banned from doing so. And so are most of our children.

What about voting rights? Those of us who have not taken up Australian citizenship – and what is the point now? – but were on the Commonwealth electoral roll before January 1984 will still be entitled to vote. That is, until a new High Court sitting on a different issue uses the June 1999 ruling as a precedent, and decides that we’re not entitled to vote, either.

What’s next? Well, perhaps we shouldn’t be entitled to jobs in which our status as people “entitled to the rights of citizens or subjects of a foreign power” might disqualify us. Like, say, the defence forces, the public service, the police, the education industry? It is already the case that promotion beyond certain levels in these careers is banned to migrants who haven’t taken out Australian citizenship. It is only a short step to applying the June 1999 Heather Hill precedent to these and other areas of employment.

The irony, of course, is that migrants from some groups who have had nothing to do with the development of Australia will be exempt from any such provisions.

Welcome to being a second-class citizen in your own country!

– Alan James

Posted in Endeavour Articles

British Genes Resist AIDS

Six hundred and fifty years ago, the Black Death was stalking Europe. It arrived on ships from Asia, carried by fleas that had infected rats on board the ships. Before it burned itself out, the epidemic had killed about a third of the European population.

Today, another plague – AIDS – has ravaged the world. Although it seems very different from the Black Death, there is one eerie similarity. Both the Black Death bacteria, Yersinia pestis, and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, home in on macrophages, which are scavenger white blood cells of the immune system.

Now, in a provocative report, scientists at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Md., say they have found that a genetic mutation that protects against the AIDS virus, by preventing the virus from entering macrophages, emerged in Europe around the time of the Black Death. And, they have found, this AIDS resistance gene is astonishingly common in people whose ancestors lived in areas of Europe that were ravaged by the Black Death.

The HIV resistance gene destroys a protein, called CCR5, that pokes out of the surface of macrophages, the large white blood cells that can engulf and kill viruses and bacteria.

Scientists have discovered that when HIV infects a person, the virus goes straight to the white blood cells and in particular the macrophages, latches onto CCR5 and another protein, CD4, to hoist itself inside.

It lives there for about a decade, throwing off billions of genetic variants. Eventually it makes a variant that can get into another type of white blood cell, the T cells. Then the infected person’s immune system starts to decline, and the terrible symptoms of AIDS appear.

People who inherit two copies of the HIV resistance gene can only be infected with HIV if they happen to come in contact with a virus from someone in the late stages of infection, when the virus can go straight for the T cells, said Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien, who is chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the cancer institute.

O’Brien and others have found that 10 percent of Caucasians have a copy of the gene, which slows the progress of HIV infections by several years, and one percent have two copies, which provides nearly complete immunity to HIV.

The HIV resistance gene is most common among British and other northern European people, and declines in frequency further south. Thus, it is present in almost 14 percent of Swedes but appears in only about 5 percent of Italians and is absent in Saudi Arabia. It is absent in Africans, American Indians and Asians. The gene emerged in the Caucasian population long after Caucasians split from Asians, which was about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, O’Brien said. And so, although the bubonic plague began in Asia, the HIV resistance gene is not there.

N.Y. Times, May 26, 1998

Since this article first appeared, it has also been discovered that a gene variant called HLA-B*35px, which is associated with fast progression from HIV to AIDS, is common among people of Indian origin. This means that vaccines tested on people of British Isles and Northern European descent may well have no effect on the more than 5 million Indians who are HIV-positive.

Update on AIDS

It is now known that the CCR5-delta32 allele, which confers strong resistance or perhaps even total immunity to the HIV virus, is found in significant frequencies only in populations of European descent.

This natural genetic immunity means that if HIV were to mutate so as to be able to spread through droplet infection, thus potentially exposing everyone in the world, a significant number of us would survive.

Within Europe itself the frequencies are highest in the north, which has led some researchers to think the allele was spread by the Vikings. Others disagree. At any rate, the -Δ35 allele is most common among people of racially Nordic type. The frequencies for different populations within Europe are shown in the chart above, with the darkest-coloured areas having the highest CCR5-Δ32 resistance.

The precise percentages would be higher than in the chart here, because the researchers have tested people living in the different parts of these zones without regard to their race or sub-race. The large-scale presence of non-Europeans in some of these regions would obviously drag down the overall percentages.

If only racially Nordic people were tested, the frequency would obviously be higher. Take England, for example. The research done so far suggests that of the total population of England about 10% to 12% have the -Δ35 allele. However, according to the 2011 census, only 44.9 per cent of Londoners were “white British”. Of the 53 million people living in England in 2011, just under 80% claimed to be “white British” — let’s say about 42 million.

To use the average of the estimated range, if 11% of the total population has the -Δ32 allele, that comes to 5.83 million individuals. These represent nearly 14% of the total “white British” population. However, probably only racially Nordic white Britons are immune.

Early 20th century anthropologists estimated that 80% of the genuine English were Nordic, but differential breeding rates have probably reduced that figure to perhaps 50% by now. 50% of 42 million is 21 million, of which the 5.83 million who are immune equal nearly 28%.

To sum up so far: at least 14 per cent of British-descended people are genetically protected against HIV. The real figure is probably much higher — maybe in the region of 28% for racially Nordic Britons.

These figures aren’t as accurate as they might look on paper, since the 2011 census was based on self-identification. Many people who wouldn’t be regarded as entirely “white” by a geneticist will have chosen to identify with the “white” portion of their mixed ancestry. (But that self-identification won’t give them the -Δ35 allele.)

However, should the HIV virus mutate such that the whole world is exposed to it, somewhere between 14% and 28% of people with pure British ancestry would survive.

It’s important to stress that this applies as much to people in the overseas “white British” diaspora as it does to people living in the U.K. itself.

Take Australia, for example. In 2011 its total population was 22.34 million. Of these, 50.6% claimed to be of English, Scottish or Irish ancestry. (A further 35% claimed “Australian” ancestry, which is too vague to consider here.) 50.6% of 23.34 million is 11.81 million. 14% of that figure is just over 1.65 million. So in a hypothetical AIDS apocalypse, at least 1.65 million “white British” Australians would survive. This is a minimum survival figure, since it doesn’t include Australians of Scandinavian, Dutch, Baltic, German or similar descent — or many (probably most) of the 35% who wrote “Australian” in the census. It also doesn’t take account of the Nordic percentage of the broader white Australian population.

Even so, for perspective, in the year of Federation the total population of Australia was estimated at 3.76 million. Therefore at the very worst AIDS might cull the population to just under half of those alive in 1901. That’s still more than enough to ensure that the island continent remain inhabited and civilised.

A similar calculation could be made for countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., not to mention the nations of northern Europe. But it’s hardly necessary.

The World Health Organization estimates that about 39 million people have died of AIDS so far, even though in its present form it is hard to catch. If HIV ever mutates into an airborne disease, the resultant deaths will therefore be in their billions.

Yet no matter what happens, enough people of British and related origin will survive an AIDS apocalypse to ensure that “the world’s great age begins anew”.


Posted in Endeavour Articles

Threats to Brits

There are many threats to the British migrant presence in contemporary Australia. This site will keep you up-dated on some of them. For the moment, read about a sad man called Harold Scruby …

Harold Scruby is the executive director of an outfit called Ausflag. You’ve probably heard of him. He’s always writing to newspapers, complaining about the existence of the Union Jack in the corner of the Australian flag.

Now Harold has another bee in his bonnet. He also supports the idea of Australia changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. He fears that the 300,000 to 500,000 British migrants who haven’t taken up Australian citizenship here (and whom he calls “a handful of foreigners”) might not support his republic.

According to Harold’s calculations, in any future referendum NSW, Victoria and Tasmania are likely to vote against the current constitutional arrangement, while WA and Queensland will vote to retain the Australian constitution. At least four of the six states have to vote for any proposed change to the constitution. That leaves South Australia as the key state.

The problem is that South Australia has the largest percentage of British subjects of any state, and Harold fears they would vote against a republic because “their loyalties lie elsewhere”. His proposed solution is to strip British subjects of their right to vote in Australia.

The people who would be affected all came to Australia several decades ago. They have made Australia their home, creating jobs here, paying taxes here, and raising families here. Regardless of Harold Scruby’s fantasies, they will obviously vote for whatever they think is best for Australia.

“Anglophobia” is a medical condition in which someone suffers an irrational fear of the English. Harold Scruby appears to have a bad dose of it. It’s time he sought treatment.

Posted in Endeavour Articles