britishaustraliancommunity.com

Proud to be British Australians!

Archive for the 'Endeavour Articles' Category

Anglophobic historians

Author: Administrator
8 July 2012

Professor Henry Reynolds, born in 1938, is typical of too many historians of his generation. He has dedicated his life to the service of people who are not his own people. The Israelis have a term for Jews who, like Henry, seem to be ashamed of their own culture: they call such people “self-hating Jews”.

Although his ethnic background is unknown to Endeavour, Henry enjoyed all the benefits of our Anglo-Celtic Australian culture. He received a good state school education in Hobart, then attended the University of Tasmania. After a spell of school-teaching in England and Australia he obtained a plum job at what is now James Cook University in Townsville.

In 1970 to 1971 Henry received a British Council travelling scholarship, but this didn’t endear him to Australia’s British heritage. From his academic perch in Townsville, then later at the Centre for Aboriginal Education of the University of Tasmania, he did his ungrateful best to defame the early British settlers, particularly by promoting the idea that our ancestors were nasty to the Aborigines. He was one of the founders of what the doyen of Australian historians, Geoffrey Blainey, dubbed the “black armband” school of Australian history.

In 2002 a better researcher than Henry, Keith Windschuttle, accused Henry of making up evidence to back his fraudulent claims against the early white settlers. Keith methodically trawled through Henry’s “references” and found that they often didn’t stack up.

You might think that Henry would have then gone to ground licking his wounds. Alas, it doesn’t work like that any more. Like many historians of his generation, Henry is still pontificating against everything British in Australian culture, and Henry still gets an undeservedly good run in the media.

The latest bee in Henry’s Anglophobe bonnet is that ABC television shows too much content sourced from the United Kingdom. In an article published by two state branches of the Friends of the ABC, Henry laments that “… if ABC1 is the corporation’s flagship, then it frequently sails with the Union Jack at the top of its mast”. Henry then goes on to suggest that ABC TV should be subject to a “content quota” – in other words, Henry wants an upper limit on the amount of British content the ABC should be permitted to broadcast. (See: http://inside.org.au/a-very-british-summer-on-your-abc/)

Yep, Henry is Anglophobic. Yep, Henry wants to censor the national broadcaster to keep decent British culture from our screens. Presumably he’s happy with all the current British TV rubbish that enforces political correctness, that makes heroic but ludicrous efforts to pretend that multiculturalism is working, that boosts homosexuality, and so on.

But what Henry would no doubt like to see removed from our screens is what the BBC does best: superb adaptations of great Anglo literature, such as their 2005 version of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House. In 2006, Bleak House won the Best Drama Serial category at the British Academy Television Awards, and Anna Maxwell Martin won the Best Actress award. The series was nominated for ten Emmy Awards, winning two.

In his criticism of the ABC, Henry Reynolds wrote:

Are they ever embarrassed by the Union Jack on the mast head? Do they ever feel uncomfortable when night after night ABC screens are dominated by British programs? … . It is as though [the ABC] doesn’t think it matters – that British and Australian programs are easily interchangeable, that what is of interest or concern over there will evoke the same response and be equally relevant here, half a world away.

Ratings figures would suggest that ABC viewers are not “embarrassed by the Union Jack”, are not “uncomfortable” with our ethnic links, and prefer real British culture to the half-baked political propaganda so dear to the likes of Henry Reynolds.

Another Anglophobe

Author: Administrator
30 January 2012

“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.

Aussie Court backs BAC

Author: Administrator
20 October 2011

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.

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.

Did you hear about the bigot?

Author: Administrator
21 January 2011

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.

21 January 2011

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

British Genes Resist AIDS

Author: Administrator
21 January 2011

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.

By GINA KOLATA
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.

Threats to Brits

Author: Administrator
21 January 2011

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.

21 January 2011

The United Kingdom Settlers’ Association survey of British migrant needs was  completed in 1999, with financial assistance from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

As a result of very extensive publicity, almost 11% of the British-born “usual residents” of the City of Melbourne completed survey forms.

The largest group of respondents was aged 20 to 49. 53% were female and 47% male, which possibly reflects the clustering of jobs in the “caring industries” in and around the City.

There were no apparent differences between the perceptions of male and female respondents.

74% of respondents were pleased that they had chosen to migrate to Australia. 78% reported that Australians had been welcoming and friendly. 32% even felt that they were now more Australian than British.

These results indicate that the survey did not attract a disproportionate number of malcontents. It would seem that the respondents represented a genuine cross-section of British migrants, and that their response to the migration experience was, overall, very positive.

Given this strong endorsement of their Australian experience, it is alarming that several of the questions elicited considerably negative responses. These responses need to be considered separately, but in general they suggest aspects of the British migrant experience that need to be addressed.

First, 43% of respondents felt they had not been adequately advised and prepared for migration. The main reported information deficiencies related to housing, children’s education, and the Australian medical system.

To address this problem it was recommended that DIMA should make a greater effort to inform prospective migrants of what to expect, particularly in the fields listed above. It was also recommended that DIMA assist British migrant community organisations to provide appropriate advice and information services to British migrants, both before and after arrival. Finally, in 2004 the British Australian Community (formerly known as the UKSA) created an exhaustive web page for prospective migrants.

The other issues that elicited a significant negative response tend to be inter-related.

35% felt that the Australian media “create or reinforce negative stereotypes about British migrants”

24% believed there was generalised discrimination against British migrants

39% claimed to be aware of discrimination “in favour of” people of non-British origin

37% disagreed with the statement that “Complaints by British migrants are taken just as seriously as complaints by other groups within the community”

The UKSA made appropriate recommendations to deal with these problem areas exposed by the survey.

The media was also informed of these results, which led to many reports being run in newspapers and on radio.

The President of the then-UKSA was invited to contribute an article to The Australian daily newspaper, which was run on 28th April 1999 on page 15, opposite the letters page.

In October 2000 the Immigration Minister, Phillip Ruddock, announced that every skilled British migrant adds (on average) $8,250 in value to Australia every year, years after year after year. By the same reckoning, each refugee costs Australia $5,5000 every year.

On this basis, the 18,272 British Isles migrants who arrived in 2003-4 are enriching Australia by $150,744,000 every year (to which an allowance for inflation since 2000 should be added).

The problem for Australia is that about 30% of British migrants who come here with the intention of enriching Australia for the rest of their lives end up returning to their original homeland – as a result, largely, of Anglophobia.

Clearly, Anglophobia is not a joke. It is costing Australia something like an extra 45 million dollars forfeited every year. That is to say, 45 million in the first year we choose to look at, then 90 million in the second year, then 135 million, then 180 million, then 225 million. That is just five years. It simply goes on and on, for the lifetime of those people who changed their minds about enriching Australia.

To put it even more simply, for every single British migrant who leaves Australia because of Anglophobic discrimination, Australia will be impoverished to the tune of at least a quarter of a million dollars over the next 30 years. (This figure does not even allow for compounding.)

We suggest that the next time you hear an Anglophobe sounding off on radio or television, or read one venting his or her personal inadequacies in the print media, you should send them a copy of this page. These anti-British people are clearly sabotaging the Australian economy.