Despite its failings, democracy has been a true blessing to the English. It has allowed them to restrain tyrannical kings and queens beneath a democratically elected parliament. Since they achieved this (with much bloodshed) in the 1700s the Poms have never looked back.
Over the next few centuries they have benefited from unprecedented improvements in economic and political stability.
Quality of life, prosperity, technology and security have all increased exponentially. Along the way, they acquired the largest empire the world has ever seen.
Not surprisingly, this marvellous new democratic political system soon found favour across the English speaking world.
In the 20th century after a couple of minor skirmishes (WW1 and WW2) the Europeans embraced it.
After the Berlin Wall came down, democracy quickly spread across Eastern Europe too.
Not surprisingly, the Poms have been keen to encourage this system around the globe. As the Empire was handed back, democracy was the default option.
Later, the Americans would try to implement democracy where ever they could. Yet outside of European societies, time and again, in nation after nation, true democracy failed to take hold.
The question of “why this might be” never seems to have been asked, let alone investigated properly. Yet to me, the answer seems simple. Whether democracy will take hold depends on whether or not a society is tribal.
Prior to the arrival of Christianity, Europe was every bit as tribal as the rest of the world. People’s primary loyalty went to the tribe. When Christianity arrived, things changed.
The church brought in laws and customs for marriage which undermined the extended family groups which were the basis of tribal unity.
First and second cousin marriages were banned by Pope Gregory I in 579 A.D. Polygamy, concubinage, divorce and remarriage were also discouraged. Arranged marriages were ended by a Church insistence that a bride must agree to a marriage before it could go ahead.
Christian societies gained a huge advantage from these rulings. On the one hand, it ended inbreeding. We now understand the harm this does to the gene pool, particularly over the course of multiple generations.
More importantly, the primary loyalty of citizens was diverted from tribal affiliations to national patriotism. This allowed Christian societies to form Nation States.
Christian control of the Middle East and North Africa ended before these changes could have much effect in those areas. Less than 100 years after Gregory’s rulings, an aggressive Jihad by the Arabs brought the whole area under Islamic rule.
Islam has been based on tribal allegiances since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. Naturally, tribal customs have continued to flourish throughout the Islamic world.
Europe managed to hold back the Islamic attacks and retained its Christian faith. Not surprisingly, they advanced economically, technologically, politically, culturally and of course militarily as nation States. It seems unlikely that this would have been possible had they retained a tribal culture.
The nation State also provided fertile ground for democracy to take root. England, with its island geography was the first to take advantage of this. It was small enough to govern and to maintain a homogenous culture. It was also large and isolated enough to defend itself.
Democracy flourished in Britain because of the common culture and allegiance of its people. The British were inclined to vote for those they believed would best serve the national interest.
To do so benefitted the entire nation. Of course people have a tendency to vote for selfish reasons.
However, most of us instinctively realise that a strong and prosperous nation is good for both us and for our families.
Tribal societies are different. If democracy is imposed on a tribal society, each person will tend to vote for their own tribal representative. The largest tribe secures its own people in government. These tribal representatives then loot the national treasury and reward the tribe with favours and a share of the booty.
Despotism is tolerated because it suits the agenda of the largest tribal group.
A good example is the former nation of Rhodesia. For many years, the Europeans there kept the Africans out of power.
Although Africans were allowed to vote and at one stage had 13 seats in the 65 member legislature, their influence was limited by voting laws which insisted on property ownership and a level of educational achievement (arguably quite sensible requirements).
During this period, Rhodesia was for the most part peaceful and extremely prosperous. It was known as “The bread basket of Africa.” Of all the nations of Africa, indigenous Africans in Rhodesia had the highest standard of living.
Meanwhile, Africans from other nations were queuing up at the border wanting to come in.
Unfortunately, the North Koreans and other hard core Communist states felt that this system wasn’t quite democratic enough and financed a brutal war against the Rhodesian Government.
The British Labour Party agreed and instituted an illegal sanctions regime. These sanctions were arbitrarily justified by Labour’s disapproval of the voting laws in one of the most democratic nations in Africa. This sanctions regime was quickly adopted by the UN.
Eventually, the Rhodesian whites were forced to capitulate. They created a universal democratic franchise which left the non-tribal whites outnumbered by the tribal Africans.
This led to the election of Robert Mugabe who lost little time massacring 20,000 of his tribal rivals. His other policies were equally disastrous.
The United Nations, with no hint of shame, declared that during this time, Zimbabwe suffered the greatest reduction in prosperity ever recorded by any nation not at war. They managed to do this despite the ending of a war and the repeal of international sanctions.
So why did the Africans continue to vote for Mugabe? There was obviously a campaign of intimidation but that doesn’t explain everything. Why didn’t the Africans vote back some of the white politicians who had done such a good job prior to Mugabe?
In any tribal society, votes will split along tribal lines. The Europeans were simply regarded as one of the smallest (and least popular) tribes.
This bias ensured Mugabe’s continued grip on power and allowed him to continue his disastrous looting of the country.
Tribal affiliation is still seen in the African American community. In 2008 pundits were wringing their hands because 55% of white voters voted for McCain against Obama (the same percentage as voted for Bush before him).
Meanwhile, no one noticed or cared that fully 96% of African Americans voted for Obama.
This is not an exception. There are many examples of tribal bias in voting. The Vietnamese were the first non-Europeans to come to Australia en-masse. The first Vietnamese politician elected was Phuong Ngo.
Ngo was a founding member and President of the notorious Mekong Club which sat right in the middle of his electorate. According to his rival John Newman, the Mekong Club was a den of illegal gambling and 5T heroin gang dealings. Ngo would later be convicted of ordering the ruthless 5T gang to murder Newman.
In prison Ngo joined the W2K (Willing to Kill) gang and had to be put in a supermax prison. Many in the Vietnamese community must have been aware of his activities. At the time of his arrest, three hundred leaders in the Vietnamese community signed a petition asking that he be denied bail.
Most Vietnamese migrants are honest and hardworking. They have been a standout success. Why then did they vote for such a crooked politician if not through the pull of tribal identity?
In the Sydney suburb of Auburn, Selim Mehajer the Deputy Mayor has been involved in behaviour so bizarre and corrupt, it has made headlines the world over.
Given the serious charges against him it is quite possible that he will not even be allowed to run again for office. We all know however, that if he is, then the Lebanese community will get right behind him and his position will be assured.
In the 2010 General Election in the London suburb of Bethnal Green the five largest parties fielded Bangladeshi Muslim candidates.
Bangladeshis make up 30% of that electorate and the parties all knew that they would only vote for people of their own ethnic background.
In May 2016 Londoners, only 45% of who are English have voted for a Muslim Lord Mayor. This has happened, just a few years after the 7/7 bombings. It is also only a couple of years after the decapitation of Lee Rigby on a London street.
As you may remember, the perpetrators of this crime were Muslims. They openly declared that the murder was carried out with the justification of the Koran in order to spark a civil war.
Unfortunately, in a society containing both tribal and non-tribal groups, the tribal group has the tactical advantage. The non-tribal vote splits across candidates through differences of opinion on who is best for the whole community.
The tribal vote will go solidly to the candidate promising to advance the groups' interests. So it is always in the interests of candidates to pander to tribal groups. By putting the tribe’s interests before those of the nation, they will attract a solid block of votes which is likely to tip the balance in their favour.
If a candidate is elected through an ethnic or tribal vote, it is clearly within their interest to fast track more migrants from these ethnic groups to pad out their support base.
Not surprisingly then, the great majority of politicians champion more immigration from non-European sources.
Not surprisingly, almost every politician or political party in the Western world has jumped on this bandwagon.
Politicians love the idea of tribal democracy. There is none of this pesky accountability and hard work. Just look after your tribe and you can get away with murder—literally.
Those, like Enoch Powell or Pauline Hanson, who refused to go along have been frozen out, voted out, and smeared as racists or imbeciles (or in Pauline’s case, actually imprisoned).
Any who have managed to hang on are described as “fringe” or “extreme”. Within this corrupted political system, that is what they have now become.
Every Western democracy is now on track to become a tribal democracy in the coming decades. This will be achieved by a combination of immigration and higher birth rates amongst immigrants.
Politicians not only accept this, they champion it. David Cameron has told the world that he is looking forward to the time when Britain will have its first Muslim Prime Minister.
Tribal democracy is now the stated goal of all mainstream politicians and political parties across the Western world.
Opponents are branded as evil racists. The word “bigot” has been redefined to mean “anyone who opposes the imposition of tribal democracy.”
Tolerance has now been elevated to the status of “virtue” when applied to tribal practices, no matter how appalling. Patriotic support for the nation is derided as xenophobic.
Of course supporters don’t refer to tribal democracy as such. Instead it has been cleverly re- branded as “Multiculturalism.”
This is being presented to our children in schools and universities as the greatest achievement a society can ever make.
It hasn’t occurred to our current crop of politicians that once the ethnic population reaches a high enough percentage, they will not be voting for a white politician.
Neither will ethnic politicians be appointing white people to comfortable bureaucratic jobs as heads of Human Rights or Multicultural agencies.
Ordinary people are starting to get this. Donald Trump also gets it. He will need a large majority of the white vote to get in.
However, there seem to be an awful lot of Islamic chickens coming home to roost in Hillary’s henhouse and it looks to me like they will soon be pooping all over her well funded strategies.
Like the rest of the Western World, Australia is at make or break point. Despite starting late, we are now in the ludicrous position where 25% of the population (myself included) were born overseas.
Many of these migrants are from ethnicities which are likely to vote tribally, undermining the fabric of our democracy. This level of immigration is ridiculous. Australia simply cannot assimilate such a tidal wave of migrants into its culture in one generation.
If we don’t stop soon we will end up with a tribal democracy and the disastrous problems that come with it.
As we approach the election we need to do everything in our power to ensure a favourable outcome. It may seem like a choice between dumb and dumber although Turnbull at least has the Liberal party to restrain him.
If Shorten gets in, his party is so beholden to the ethnic vote it will be “open door” all the way. Refugee policies like the ones in Europe are almost inevitable.
The best outcome I can see is for liberals to dominate in the House of Representatives while Turnbull loses his seat in Wentworth.
In the senate, we have to hope that the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) will be elected to hold the balance of power.
Whatever your thoughts on other patriotic parties, the ALA has the best chance. By all means give those other parties your preferences but my recommendation would be to mark ALA first.
To help Richardson Post readers spread the word around to friends, family and neighbours I have decided to again reduce the price of ten copies of my book to just ninety dollars until after the election.
ALA candidates have told me that my book has made a huge contribution to bringing the electorate up to speed (thanks largely to the efforts you have all made).
Don’t forget to keep spreading the word on the internet. Keep sharing articles like this one on social media. People are waking up in droves and a new crop of courageous politicians are rising to the challenge.
We need to ensure they have the support they need to finally make a difference.