The Black Peanut

It is an anniversary, but one few realise.  We raised our glasses in the Tavern as 50 years ago, this year, saw the introduction of Franklin Armstrong into the Hall of Everyday, Ordinary Heroes, And he sits alongside Harriet Glickman, of whom you have very likely never heard. And also with a bunch of very familiar characters you will all have counted amongst firm friends. 

On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.

What they saw was Franklin Armstrong's first appearance on the iconic comic strip "Peanuts." Franklin would be 50 years old this year.

Franklin Armstrong is a character in the long-running comic strip Peanuts, created by Charles M. Schulz. Introduced on July 31, 1968, Franklin was the first African American character in the strip. 

He goes to school with Peppermint Patty and Marcie. In his first story arc, he met Charlie Brown when they were both at the beach. 

Franklin's father was a soldier fighting in Vietnam, to which Charlie Brown replied "My dad's a barber...he was in a war too, but I don't know which one." Franklin later paid Charlie Brown a visit and found some of Charlie Brown's other friends to be quite odd. His last appearance was in 1999, the year before Schulz's death.

"They'd never met before because they went to different schools," adding, "but they had fun playing ball so Charlie Brown invited Franklin to visit him. " Franklin quoted the Old Testament, and had no anxieties or obsessions. Franklin and Charlie Brown also enjoyed sharing stories about their grandfathers.

Franklin was "born" after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room.

Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say.

She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, 'I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”

Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society.

She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.

Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn't sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn't want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.

Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. 

This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to

 check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.

On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. 

Franklin also mentions that his father was "over at Vietnam." At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship. 

The Little Red-Haired Girl.

There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin's father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.

Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, 

“I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”

(No doubt, a Democrat.)

It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic's distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz' popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.

Schulz' response: "I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin -- he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, 

"Well, Larry, let's put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How's that?"

Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team.

More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" appears.

Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. 

ABC's annual "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" special was slammed as racist by some on social media, with some viewers - in typical mealy-mouthed 'Lucy' style-  objecting to the dinner-table seating of its only black character. 

The scene in question has four characters from Charles M. Schulz’s iconic “Peanuts” cartoon — Sally, Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and dog Snoopy — sitting on one side of a makeshift outdoor table for Thanksgiving dinner, with Marcie at one end of the table and Linus at the head.


The cartoon's lone black character, Franklin, is on his own side of the table seated on a lawn chair. 

But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.

But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.

Glickman would explain later that her parents were "concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people . . . 

The Feminazi Lucy ! The Architype for many women today.

And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit . . . Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them . . . and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time."

Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.

And the Hall of Everyday, Ordinary Heroes in the Tavern gives them honoured places.

Meanwhile the spirit of Lucy - she who snatches away Charley's football at every opportunity - looms increasingly over a society that Rosa Parks and Martin L King did much to bring curative care. 

The 'Race' card seemed almost a 'far past' issue a decade ago but now it is played, along with so many other 'minority rights' cards, at every opportunity. Maleness and boyhood are targets du jour, despite 'coloured' favour where it suits.

In Oz we have a version - amongst many - of Lucy. Clementine Ford, the hater of anything male. She happily snatches footballs and anything else a chap might enjoy. She gets space in newspapers too.

There are always those who bring nastiness, even against small black boys and white boys, and we must laud those that counter them.

Drinks on the house in Franklin's memory.

Pax 

Elections: Democracy's Achilles Heel.

The case for Kings has long been voted out. The problem with Democracy is that all votes are equal, so the vote of the King was (is) worth the same as that of the average taxpayer. And the half-wit who does not know her/his own gender, the mentally deficient dole bludger who holidays in Bali on the taxpayer benefits he gets fortnightly, and the Muslim fellow down the road who wants all Infidels to do as Allah said 1400 years ago, or else: and his four wives, who will all vote as he tells them or get a beating. He and they are all on benefits too. 

The taxpayer weeps. The King too.

Then we have the election process. The pre-selection of toadies: branch stacking; gerrymandering. The average punter has little effect on who is being voted for. And 'the system'. Designed by clods in order to conflate.

More weeping and gnashing of teeth have been heard from America in the past few weeks, such that normal conversation in the Tavern has been all but drowned out. The Land of the Free has never been known for clean elections. They have barely moved on from the  Rotten Boroughs that blighted Britain.

Not that Britain under the high heel of Mrs May can claim anything like representation of the Will of the People. Brexit betrayal on one side of the Pond and the ghost of Clinton's many victims buggering up the 'mid-terms' on the other side.

But over the hubbub we heard from several cogent souls talking of elections. Some 'advice' and perhaps admonishment came from one Arthur Chrenkoff who thinks we have it fine in Oz. And another from John Misachi who pointed out that in America 'twas ever thus.  Oz customers received a bit of an education in US matters of little fundamental interest but served as a precurser to an Oz POV. 

We were entertained, too, by Edmund Blackadder and his little friend Baldrick, who had to be hosed down several times before being allowed in the UK Room.

First, John, with a short run down on buggered elections in the Land of the Freedom to bugger elections. Of course, I cannot attest to the veracity nor the political orientations of Mr Misachi. That I shall leave to you to figure. But I can say, as I did to m'self listening to him, that the US experience is chickenfeed compared to the madness that infects Tasmanian elections.

Most Rigged, Fraudulent, And Corrupt U.S. Elections In History

Since the United States was founded, it has seen a number of controversial ballots, candidates, and outcomes.

In the United States, Presidential, Congressional, state-level, and municipal elections alike have often been characterized by fears that a candidate would steal votes or that they would otherwise be rigged. 

Accusations of stolen or rigged elections have been common in the history of the country, some candidates have accused their opponents of cheating them out of the U.S. Presidency, such as in the case of Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson in 1800. 

Throughout the 19th Century, almost every candidate claimed that an electoral fraud was committed. 

Even in 2016 the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has claimed that there is a plot to rig him out. However, sometimes the accuser was right because the electoral process is never fraud proof. Some of the most controversial presidential and state level elections in the history of the United States of America are looked at herein.

 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/u-s-elections-have-been-claimed-to-be-the-most-rigged-fraudulent-and-corrupt.html

10. U.S. Presidential Election of 2004 -

The US Presidential Election of 2004 was the country’s 54th and was held on November 2nd, 2004. The race was between the incumbent president George W Bush, and John Kerry, the Democratic candidate. Bush won with a small margin in the popular vote. However, the ballot papers and the voting were marked by error, omission and mistakes. In Minnesota, one elector cast a ballot with the name John Edward instead of John Kerry. In New York, the certificate indicated that 31 presidential votes were marked John L Kerry instead of John F Kerry. Also, there was an allegation of data irregularities and flaws during the voting process, particularly in Ohio. 

The Democrats dismissed the Ohio results claiming voter suppression and unreliable machines. They also accused the Republicans of engaging in unethical activities to manipulate the elections. There were also discrepancies in the number of votes obtained by Bush in counties where touch-screen Machines and other voting equipment were used.

9. 2002 New Hampshire Senate Election -

The 2002 New Hampshire Senate Election was held on November 2nd, 2002, following the incumbent Senator Bob Smith's decision to step down from his seat to run for the U.S. Presidency as an independent candidate. He claimed that the Republican Party was not ideal, a remark which would later deny him the nominations when he rejoined the party for the Senate election.

The Republicans nominated John Sununu while the Democrats nominated Jeanne Shaheen with the Republicans’ candidate winning the final elections. The campaign was characterized by phone jamming scandal by a telemarketing firm hired by the Republican Party to tamper with the elections. The operation involved using call centers to jam phone lines of the Democratic call centers. Four men have since been persecuted (sic) for their role in the scandal.

8. U.S. Presidential Election of 1960 in Illinois

The US Presidential Election was the 44th and was held on November 8th, 1960. The presidency was contested by Democrats’ John F Kennedy and Republicans’ Richard Nixon. The election was closely contested with Kennedy winning by 0.17% of the votes despite Nixon winning popular votes in 26 states. Kennedy’s victory was credited to the Roman Catholic support base, the economic recession of 1957 to 1958 which had affected the ratings of Republican, and his campaigning skills. However, most people believed that Kennedy was a beneficiary of vote fraud, especially in Illinois and Texas. He won Illinois by a margin of 0.2% with Nixon winning 92 of the 101 counties. The Republicans rejected the results while 650 people were arrested and charged with voter fraud.

7. 2006 Virginia U.S. Senate Election - 

The 2006 Virginia US Senate Election was held on November 7th, 2006, with the Republicans’ George Allen losing narrowly to the Democratic candidate Jim Webb. Allen who was initially favorite to win the race was caught on videotape using ethnic slur in reference to one of Webb’s campaign team member who was of Indian ancestry. The allegations considerably affected his campaign leading to his defeat by a margin of only 0.3%. The election was characterized by controversies involving both candidates, but Allen’s dramatic drop in the approval rating was his making. With the margin below 0.5%, Allen had an option of requesting for a recount but opted to concede defeat because he did not want to be labeled “sore loser” in case he lost the recount.

6. 2010 Maryland State Governor Election -

The 2010 Maryland State Governor Election was held on November 2nd, 2010 to elect the Governor alongside the members of Maryland General Assembly. Martin O’Malley and Anthony G Brown, the incumbent Governor and Lieutenant Governor, pursued a successful reelection on a Democratic ticket, becoming the first candidates in the history of Maryland Gubernatorial elections to receive more than one million votes on the way to defeating the Republican candidate, Robert Ehrlich, by almost 15% of the votes. The Republican candidate resorted to Voter Suppression techniques where the Democrat’s African-American voters were tricked into staying at home with the claim that their candidate had won thus there was no need of them coming to vote. The message reached about 112,000 voters with majority failing to vote. Some members of Robert Ehrlich’s campaign team were convicted of fraud in 2011 because of the calls.

5. New York State Senate Election of 1891 -

The New York State Senate Election of 1891 was held on January 20th and 21st by the New York State Legislature to elect a senator to represent the districts of New York in the State Senate. The elections were organized to replace Republican William Evarts whose term was coming to an end on March 3, 1891. The Democrats nominated David B Hill as their flag bearer while the Republicans nominated the incumbent William Evarts unanimously as their candidate. Both the Houses of Senate took their ballots separately on January 20, 1891, with Senator Evarts winning in the State Senate while Hill won the Assembly vote. Both houses could not agree on whom to give the seat and proceeded to a joint ballot. Hill won the contest with majority 2 votes garnering 81 votes to Evarts’ 79.

4. Kansas Territorial Legislature Election of 1855 -

The first Kansas territorial election, held in 1855, was one of the most disputed and controversial territorial elections in the history of the United States. Border ruffians forced their way to Kansas and demanded the election of the pro-slavery legislature. Despite the number of votes cast exceeding the number of registered voters in Kansas, Andrew Reeder, who was the governor of Kansas, approved the elections in an attempt to avert further violence. The political confrontations began with the approval of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 by President Franklin Pierce. The question as to whether the Kansas will allow or abolish slave trade led to political confrontations. The pro-slavery defrauded the elections leading to the formation of Kansas Free State. In April of 1856, a Congressional Committee was set up to investigate claims of voting fraud. The committee discovered that non-residents had participated in the election, a claim President Pierce refused to recognize.

3. U.S. Presidential Election of 1876 -

The US Presidential Election of 1876 is among the most disputed in the annals of American history, with the results being arguably the most disputed ever. 

Samuel J. Tilden won the first count of votes garnering 184 votes against Rutherford B Hayes’ 165 votes. However, 20 electoral votes from four states remained unresolved with each party claiming victory in the four states. The controversy remains on who should have been given these votes. A Compromise of 1877 that awarded the votes to Hayes was reached. The compromise also relinquished power in the Southern State to the Democratic Redeemer. 1876 was the first election in which a presidential candidate garnered more than half of the votes but was never elected by the Electoral College and also one of the three elections in which the winner of most popular votes failed to win the election.

2. New York State Governor Election of 1793 -

The New York Governor Election of 1792 was held in April to elect the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor of New York. The elections pitted John Jay against George Clinton with John receiving more votes. However, the votes from the counties of Otsego, Clinton, and Tioga were disqualified on technicalities and thus were not included in the final tally giving George Clinton a slight majority. The votes from the three counties were canvassed by a joint committee of 12 members, six each from Senate and Assembly. The canvass committee could not agree on whether the ballots be recounted or not. The issue was forwarded to the US Senators, Rufus King and Aaron Burr for arbitration with the King suggesting that all the votes be canvassed while Burr suggested that only ballots from Clinton ought to be allowed. The Majority of the canvass committee rejected all the ballots handing George Clinton majority of the votes.

1. U.S. Presidential Election of 2000 -

The US Presidential Election of 2000, the country’s 54th, was held on November 7th, 2000. The contest was between Republican’s George W Bush and the incumbent vice president and the Democratic candidate Al Gore. The campaigns focused on the domestic issues including tax, reforms, budget, and social insurance reforms. 

The current black mark on Florida

The outcome of the 2000 election was the closest presidential election in the history of the country. The election results were pegged on Florida with the margin of victory triggering a recount. 

Litigation in some counties also started further recounts, with the US Supreme Court awarding the Florida vote to George W Bush granting him victory. However, further studies have given conflicting opinion on the legitimate winner of the Florida votes since the recount was not allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court. Al Gore also blamed his failure to win the presidency on the sex scandal on the then-President Bill Clinton as having affected the ratings of their Democratic Party.

That is what John presented. The tales of woe will no doubt continue until America finally falls to the Yoof voters of Antifa and their champion  
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 
who gives every evidence of brain damage whenever she opens her mouth. 


In almost every election there are counts and recounts, arguements and even fist-fights, accusations of fraud and the odd individual sent to jail for corruption. The eventual result  may take weeks to be announced.  Meanwhile Tattslotto, the betting empire, can take the money and number-votes of millions of people from tens of thousands of locations and have a result in an hour.

Are things better in Oz? Well Arthur Chrenkoff thinks so.

An open letter to my American friends, re: 

your shambolic election process

Dear American friends

You probably don’t need those pesky foreigners butting in and telling you that the recent – and continuing – controversies in Florida and Georgia (themselves only the latest in a seemingly never ending succession of controversies surrounding election enrolments, procedures and counts) are sad and pathetic.

 http://thedailychrenk.com/2018/11/15/open-letter-american-friends-re-shambolic-election-process/

Nevertheless, take it from this pesky foreigner: 

they are sad and pathetic. 

And worst of all unnecessary. The leader of the free world and the world’s largest developed democracy can do better than have the results of its nation- and state-wide elections constantly overshadowed by the allegations of electoral fraud. It’s tearing the United States apart and it’s doing nothing to your international reputation.

I write this not with condescension or glee but as a friend who wants to help. 

Furthermore, I write as an Australian, from a country, which has always been on the forefront of electoral best practice and thus has much to offer by way of experience and example. 

In 1856, the state of South Australia adopted universal male suffrage as well as secret ballot as a way to conduct election, the latter reform adopted later that year by Tasmania and Victoria and over the next few years by the remaining states. 

Throughout the second half of the 19th century, political reformers in the United States and Great Britain would fight – eventually successfully – for the adoption of “the Australian ballot”, as it became known overseas. 

It is now the international standard. 

It seems to me that it’s time for America to again look Down Under for inspiration on how to improve its democratic process. Our Australian system is not perfect and it’s not 100 per cent foolproof (what is?) but it has been by and large free of fraud or the perception of fraud and its integrity is acknowledged by all sides of politics as well as the general voting public (voting in Australia is compulsory but I don’t recommend it for the US).

There are, in my mind, four different elements of the electoral system in Australia, each making a significant difference towards the transparency and reliability of the democratic process. 

Each one, if adopted and adapted, could make a great deal of positive impact for the American democracy, never mind all four.

Genuinely independent electoral commissions –  Governments and political parties have no role to play in the conduct of the elections, except for the parliaments setting up the general legal regime governing the process. 

Australia has a federal electoral commission and each state has got its own state body; the former handles nation-wide elections and referenda, the latter conducts elections at the state and local level (as well as, increasingly, trade union ballots). The commissions are strictly apolitical; there are no partisan appointments to their management and personnel and there are clear and precise policies regarding political neutrality of their employees. 

I’ve dealt with hundreds of federal and state commissions’ workers over a quarter of a century and have never encountered any issues of political bias or interference. 

To what extent completely independent and apolitical electoral bodies would be feasible in the United States where partisan politics is much more pervasive and divisive than in Australia is debatable. Where the proverbial county dog-catcher is an elected position it might be difficult to built a depoliticised bureaucracy, but the least you could do is try. Anything will be an improvement on the disgrace that is Broward County.

Secure enrolment – Tired of non-citizens enrolling (and voting Democrat (allegedly))? Or counties where more people end up enrolled (and voting) than are actually eligible to vote? Easy – to enrol to vote in Australia you need to present a driver’s licence or a passport or have someone who is already enrolled confirm your identity. This last option potentially opens the door to mischief, since you could make a chain of fraudulent enrolments based on the first, genuine link, but even with that proviso, the Australian system seems to me a lot tighter than the American seemingly free-for-all. 

Before an election, every person on the electoral roll is mailed a little card by the electoral commission with the voter’s details and a unique barcode. To be able to receive a ballot at the polling station you need to either present the card to be scanned or if you have forgotten to bring it with you you need to show a valid ID for your name to be marked on the voters’ list. 

Failing either, you can query your absence on the electoral roll and lodge a provisional vote, whose validity will be carefully assessed as part of the overall count, but it is a relatively rare occurrence. 

To an Australian, an argument that requiring an ID to vote is tantamount to “voter suppression” seems pretty ridiculous. Virtually everyone has got some sort of an ID; the tiny remainder can be accommodated separately.

Paper ballots – Forget about e-voting and voting machines, which can malfunction or get hacked – nothing beats a piece of paper and a pencil (or a pen). It might take a lot more time and human resources to count the votes, since it has to be done manually, but isn’t that worth an absolute piece of mind? 

Not every technological advancement automatically equals progress, and electronic voting is a perfect case in point. Go back to basics as fast as you can.

Hmmmmm. See Tattslotto !! 

Scrutiny of the vote counting – Every candidate standing for the election in a given district can nominate a certain number of their supporters per each polling station to be the “scrutineers” at the vote count. While the voting is conducted by the electoral commission staff, nothing connected with vote tallying takes place without the presence of the scrutineers. 

Before voting opens in the morning, the boxes where the voters drop their paper ballots into after filling them in are sealed with special seals in the presence of the scrutineers, and after the vote is over the boxes are opened in the presence of the scrutineers, who ensure that the seals have not been tampered with during the day. 

Then the electoral commission staff commence the vote count. Scrutineers can’t touch the ballots but they can observe the process from up close (usually the two major parties will have a scrutineer each for every staff member counting the ballots). Potentially invalid votes can be challenged, counters can be alerted if they put a ballot in the incorrect pile or where a staff member otherwise makes a mistake counting. Scrutineers stay in the polling station until all votes are counted, the number of ballots issued tallies with the ballots received, and the results are officially calculated and communicated by the staff to the commission headquarters. 

If all ballots cannot be counted that evening, they are sealed again in boxes and the count resumes on Monday (all the elections in Australia are held on Saturdays). 

There is virtually no way the electoral fraud can be committed during this process, ...

....even if the commission officials were somehow secretly acting on a party’s behalf; no new boxes or piles of ballots can magically be discovered in the aftermath of an election as all the ballots issued during the day are accounted for on the election night. The fact that a candidate’s scrutineers witness everything that happens during the count guarantees that everyone has got an absolute faith in the integrity of the count and knows that nothing untoward has taken place. The count of absentee, pre-poll and provisional votes happens at the commission HQ for each district and can likewise be witnessed by the scrutineers.

Since becoming an Australian citizen some 27 years ago, I have voted as well as scrutineed in over two dozen federal, state and local government elections. I am reasonably certain that only real, alive people who were eligible to vote actually cast their ballots, and I’m absolutely certain that the ballot counts I have witnessed were 100 per cent accurate and not a figment of the counters’ imagination, putting their fingers on the scales of democracy.

If you never want Florida to happen again, you have to go to Australia. The climate is similar but the elections are anything but.

Nevertheless, fraud occurs. 

It is enough to drive a chap to drink.

When I was the King I ran a fine small Kingdom where folk were treated well and right. But there are always those who want to 'fix' the system to their own advantage. They organise ne'er do wells, hold meetings, rabble rouse and protest.

My response was to hand the whole shebang over to them, retire, and open a pub.

I keep the rabble outside the hedges.

Drinks, for fine folk, are on the house.

Pax 

Empire

The Greatest, most benign Empire ever known was (arguably) the British Empire. And argue people do ! Great 'dominances' occur and always have. They come and go. At this juncture the British are on their last gasp but at least they are leaving behind a long and deep mark on the future. Few 'feel' the Khans of Mongolia these days but the Roman legacy remains quite strong. It remains to be seen if the revived Chinese will be in charge by the middle of this century. 

But the customers in the Tavern were today 'debating' the legacy of Britain and some were on the verge of throwing good Ale over the idea. Alternatives were even considered. The 'What if' case was even put, speculative as it was.

But first the praise was lavished. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has seen a history of which most Englishmen are Proud. Its 'children' are many, even if some are ungrateful louts who delight in burning the Flag. An American gentleman, whose flag is also burned quite often, stepped up to laud its effect on the world.

The poor fellow had barely taken a breath and a pint of the cheerful amber liquid before the barbs started flying. 

"The Brits were 'orrible" came the cry. 

Hmmmm There is always a dark side to human affairs. But the counter-arguments, to this old Tavern Keeper's mind, were as Budweiser is to Newcastle Brown; gnat's pee to a fine and full flavour.

Having departed Britain's shores many years ago, to carry the fruits of Englishness to my Oz cousins, and even adopting this new land as my own, I look upon such scurrilous cant and just that, but continued to serve the poor chap some ale. I am nothing but graciousness in such circumstances. One cannot teach fools. 

But, yet another stepped up. He was neither in defence nor whacking Britain with a club. He had the 'what if', considering just what a state we would be in today if Britain's chief rival of the past few centuries had been ascendant instead. He did have, I admit, a rather parochial view.

Britain and France has been at one another's throats for 1000 years. The current leadership of both nations are woeful. 

Macron, the Frog, decries nationality altogether, flooding his land with people who hate even France as a matter of daily drive, and being the hand-bag of an older and far from lovely German Frau. 

He is a baguette, in Thrall.

Britain has Mrs May.  Just what the British folk did to deserve such a Prime Minister so devoid of honour and honesty, I do not know. Perhaps it has a lot to do with her woeful prior Downing Street homeless persons. 

She is no Margaret Thatcher but 'may' well go down as having a far greater impact, as she defies the Will of the People and manipulates her way into remaining in a deeply flawed 'Union' with a Europe dominated by 'One World Government by the Elites' ideals.

This is a far cry from 1946, when the French, having been defeated by Germany, were rescued from slavery by Britain (with help from the Commonwealth and America). Then they sought a very different union, asking politely to become part of the British Commonwealth and having the King of GB&NI as their Head of State.

Britain said 'NON'. 

Had it said 'OUI', we might have had a very different Europe today.

As it is, history rolls on.

Christian Europe, Protestant and Catholic,  indeed most of the Christian 'West' - that is to say, the Anglophile nations begat by Britain - are being swamped by weak secularists and marxists who have no morals at all; and by violently anti-christian hordes who want us to 'submit' to the antithesis of morality, Satan. 

The future looks quite grim and I am glad I am old.

Waiting in the wings, which are slowly unfolding, is China. 

Not a pretty future, m'thinks.

Drink up. Hang on to your towels.

Pax

Cultural Enrichment

Melbourne has been the 'Most Livable City in the World' for many, many years. It has never suffered like, say, Warsaw. It is a 'Multicultural' city. It is rich in the many cultures that jostle for supremacy in its streets. And Australia has just experienced the 5th cultural enrichment incident, of the fatal kind, in a span of 4 years. 3 of those incidents have happened in Melbourne. But is a good thing we have the diversity bollards in our streets, lest we be overwhelmed by drive-by acts of enrichment.

But we tend, with every atrocity inflicted by mentally challenged muslims, to forget that 'twas ever thus.  Bodies have littered Melbourne's street since the gold-rush days. Not that history diminishes the current day.  I shall get to this in a moment.

The bollards of Bourke Street did not prevent a refugee the other day expressing his delight in being put amongst so many Infidels just when he had his ute stacked with gas bottles, nor the opportunity for stabbing random infidels in the street.

Sophie York, a Sydney candidate for the Australian Conservatives and a good Catholic gal, reminded us of the glaring contrast between the latest Muslim murderer and one of his victims, Sisto Malaspino:

Never was there a more stark presentation of the difference between migrants to Australia in past generations, and migrants in more recent decades, than in this tragedy in Melbourne. 

One migrant, from the predominantly Catholic country of Italy (Sisto Malaspino, hard-working cafe owner, who came to Oz in the 1970s) who rushes to help a person whom he believes has been in a car crash. That’s simply the type of person Sisto is. 

This is not him

The car-driver, in contrast, turns out to be Hassan Khalif Shire Ali, from a Muslim migrant family (from Somalia), who reportedly arrived here in the 1990s. 

By 2015, Hassan Khalif Shire Ali has his passport cancelled, because he wants to fight for Islamic State in Syria. 

Instead of gratitude towards the country that gave his family reprieve (from the hardship of life in Africa), and contribution towards Australia, there’s instead a 4WD full of gas-bottles & wild stabbing. 

And Australians get to gasp & cover their mouths, get to mourn a now-deceased much-loved cafe owner. And then there’s the poor people who have needed surgery after being attacked: brave retiree Rod Patterson & a security guard. 

What will it take, before serious lessons are learnt by Australian authorities, about ONLY allowing immigration of people with backgrounds which indicate a very high prospect of cultural assimilation and respect? Our immigration policy should not be a PC-driven game of chance! It is about facing up to the reality of the world, right now. 

I would not in any way contradict Sophie, nor all those who have expressed outrage at this atrocity. But as I said, we tend to lose sight.

Another chap I have a lot of time for, Bill Muehlenberg had things to say too.

Let’s Get Real About Islamic Terrorism

Face it folks: we have a Muslim problem. We have an Islam problem. And the problem is not with “extremists” but with the religion itself. The religion commands its followers to kill the infidel. Its founder led the way here, leaving all Muslims a perfect example of what they should be do.

 https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/11/11/lets-get-real-about-islamic-terrorism/

Most Western politicians and most of the Western media just do not get this. Indeed, they refuse to get this. They are apologists for Islam, and every time another Muslim goes on a jihadist rampage, killing innocent men, women and children, every excuse in the book is dragged out for them.

One of the most common excuses is to simply claim the killer was mentally ill. Hmm, so we have many thousands of Muslim attackers, and they are all mentally ill? Well, if Islam can only produce people who are mentally ill, then it seems we still have a massive problem with this political ideology.

Some of the most recent 'enrichers' include:  Ezzit Raad (MCG plot), Abdul Nacer Benbrika (plots vs Aust – various); Amer Hadarra, Aimen Joud, Fadl Sayadi, Abdullah Merhi, Ahmed Raad (plots vs Aust – various); Saney Aweys, Nayef El Sayed, Yacqub Khayre, Abdirahman Ahmed and Wissam Mahmoud Fattal (Holsworthy plot); Abdul Numan Haider (attacked Melb police); Talal Alameddine (supplied gun for Curtis Cheng murder in Sydney), Farhad Mohammad (killed Curtis Cheng), Man Haron Monis (Lindt Cafe, Sydney), Hassan Khalif Shire Ali (this week in Melb) – this is an incomplete list. 

And sadly, the list keeps growing.

On occasion however a few brave politicians and leaders get it right – or nearly right. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison said this after the latest Melbourne jihad attack: “The greatest threat of religious extremism in this country is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam.” 

And for saying this the lamestream media and Labor have attacked him big time. But he was simply speaking the truth – or most of it. It is not in fact a case of Muslim extremists committing acts of terror. 

It is the devout, loyal and true follower of Islam who does this.

Those Muslims who shrink back from killing infidels are the ones who are not the real deal.

The simple truth is this: if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he does so in total opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, and the entire New Testament. However, if a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he has full justification to do so from the life and teachings of Muhammad, from the Koran, and from the hadith and sira.

Yet the clowns amongst us continue to make ludicrous excuses every time another Muslim sheds innocent blood. On the social media one fool actually said this about the Melbourne attack: “It wasn’t a terrorist attack, if you listen to the news report the guy was angry at the treatment of Muslims in Australia. If you wanna blame someone for this, blame yourselves.”

Good grief. Um no, I am not to blame for this attack. No one is to blame for this attack except the Somali migrant who committed the attack, and the repugnant ‘faith’ that encouraged him to do so. So yes, I sure will blame Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the hate-filled ideology called Islam.

And  Malcolm Smith made the point...

There are more Buddhists than Muslims in Australia, and one presumes they are just as prone to mental illness. But I have yet to hear of any mentally ill Buddhists running amok and killing people. In fact, by far the largest number of potentially mentally ill people would be of Christian or irreligious backgrounds, but for some reason they don’t seem to be running around killing people.

Again, no arguement from behind this bar. I would rather Oz had no Muslims at all, as they do insist that fellow Australians, who have been here a lot longer, are Infidels and fodder for their knives. But..... 

Melbourne has even recently been more reminiscent of Chicago than of Mogadishu, to be sure, but that is feint praise for architecture and an acknowledgement of crude, murderous criminals. Our immigrant population over the years has brought many an appalling thug and lunatic and long before they had dark skins and anti-Christ religion.

Take just a couple from a very long, long list. And I will not go back far. I won't go back to Ned Kelly who is a popular hero murderous scumbag, but of a pre-Federation time.

Take Andrew "Benji" Veniamin (b1975 – d2004). 

He was an Australian criminal from Melbourne.  A convicted car thief, Veniamin is recognised as being a key figure in the Melbourne underworld killings, suspected of both murdering seven underworld figures, and being a hit-man for the Williams crime family. 

Veniamin was killed by Domenic "Mick" Gatto at a La Porcella Italian restaurant in Carlton in self-defence following a heated argument.

Veniamin was born to Greek Cypriot immigrant parents, and was raised in the Western Melbourne suburb of Sunshine. From a child to his early teens, Veniamin was an altar boy at the Greek Orthodox Church in the neighbouring suburb of Sunshine West, where his funeral would later be held.

He was also a known associate of Dino Dibra who was murdered at his home in October 2000, and of Paul Kallipolitis, who was shot in similar circumstances two years later. Victoria Police say Veniamin was one of the most dangerous and feared men connected to Melbourne's crime scene, and by the time of his death in 2004 they had connected him with several of Melbourne's underworld murders.

Veniamin met with Nik Radev on 15 April 2003, the day Radev was murdered in Coburg. Veniamin associated with an underworld group known as The Carlton Crew and after 2003 was connected with the Williams Family, and was a close friend of Carl Williams.

Not many mohammedans amongst his 'known associates'.

Or take Alphonse John Gangitano (b1957 – d1998). 

He too was an Australian criminal from Melbourne, Victoria. Nicknamed the "Black Prince of Lygon Street", Gangitano was the face of an underground organisation known as the Carlton Crew. He was also an associate of alleged organised crime bosses Tom Domican (Sydney) and John Kizon (Perth).

Gangitano is considered to be the second of the thirty Melbourne gangland killings between 1995-2010, when he was murdered in 1998. 

It is some small consolation that the killings were generally of people who richly deserved their demise.

Gangitano was born on 22 April 1957. He attended De La Salle College and Marcellin College. In later years through the 1980s and 1990s Alphonse had been alleged a co-owner of a King Street nightclub and numerous fight promotions and other ventures that went on to include horse racing and protection rackets. 

Spot the future murderer.

At the height of Gangitano's criminal career he was earning an estimated $125,000–$200,000 a month as a high profile member of The Carlton Crew. Unlike other criminals, Gangitano purely wanted to be a criminal from a young age.

King Street nightclub attack
Gangitano, Moran and associate Tony Rapasarda were charged over serious assaults on several patrons at the Sports Bar nightclub in King Street, Melbourne on 19 December 1995.

Moran later said of Gangitano: "He's a fucking lulu ... if you smash five pool cues and an iron bar over someone's head....you're a fucking lulu". The attack was portrayed on Underbelly (A TV entertaindoco)

On the day of his death 16 January 1998, Gangitano was reported to have had a telephone conversation with Kizon. That same day, Graham Kinniburgh drank at the Laurel Hotel in Ascot Vale with associate Lou Cozzo before driving to Gangitano's home in Templestowe. At a subsequent coroners' inquest, evidence was presented that Kinniburgh and Jason Moran were in Gangitano's home that night. Both were exempted from giving evidence at the inquest, on the grounds that their evidence might incriminate them. Hah !

Kinniburgh left Gangitano's house shortly after 11 pm to purchase cigarettes. Upon his return 30 minutes later, he found that Gangitano had been shot several times in the head in the laundry. Gangitano's de facto wife, Virginia, was with the body. Traces of Kinniburgh's blood were later discovered on the back flyscreen door at Gangitano's home.

Kinniburgh reportedly respected the code of silence, frustrating police investigating the murder. Gangitano's pallbearers included Mick Gatto and John Kizon. 

Gangitano is survived by his wife and two daughters, and was widely believed to have had another child with which he had no contact to an unidentified woman.

Moran allegedly pulled out a gun after an argument with Alphonse and shot him in the head. The murder may have led to as many as 75 revenge assaults on underworld members. Gangitano was charged with shooting petty criminal Gregory John Workman dead in 1995, at 1 Wando Grove, St Kilda East; however, Gangitano never went to trial over the shooting after two witnesses retracted their statements.

Kinniburgh and Moran were both later murdered themselves.

Immigrants? 

Nope. Born here, from European Immigrants. 

Islamic? 

Nope. Nominally 'christian', but by the Lord Harry long fallen and deep. In thrall to Satan as any 'radical muslim'. 

Did they and their ilk enrich our culture ?  Nope.

Were they 'mentally' challenged? 

You had better believe it. 

Morally bereft too.

Whilst the current crop of lunatic muslims rampage and rent space in our cranial rage-rooms, we tend to overlook the tens of thousands of criminals that roam amongst us, un-distinguished by black faces and unpronouncable names. They are mentally amd morally challenged. They hate rather than love. They steal, they kill, they attack. They would knock over a granny given an order by a more powerful evil sod.

We have home-grown criminal organisations: Russian Mafia: Italian Mafia: Vietnamese whatevers. You name a nation's group here and we have their crims and lunatics.

That of course does not excuse Muslims. 

Muslims are not 'more of the same'.

Personally, I take the view that all 'cultures' which have arrived amongst the predominantly 'Anglo' population here have brought some colour and fragrance that has 'enriched' us, despite the few wicked ones amongst them that we have coped with. 

Except the Muslims.

There is nothing that I can see or hear from Islam that adds anything positive. 

Italians, Greeks, even Vietnamese, Koreans and the Irish do not hate us. To them we are not 'Infidels' to be converted, enslaved or killed. In our entire history as a Nation, ONLY the ordinary, everyday Muslim bears us undisguised ill-will.

I would like to see every one of them deported.

Oh, and Politicians. We have many a politician who hates Oz.

Many of those could do with a one-way ticket out too.

It is enough to drive a chap to drink.

So choose your drink wisely.

Pax