Trumps not the problem, merely a symptom.
Your democracy was already rotten and hollowed out long before Trump came on the scene.

I must agree with Armchair Critic on this instance: democracy, whether in the USA or elsewhere, has always been only a slogan, not a reality.

Feeling brave, Alon?
I fear for you and your family, the mouse that roared - come over instead, there are vegemite sandwiches in the fridge!

Democracy has allowed too many minority groups to dictate !

Dear Indyvidual,

«Democracy has allowed too many minority groups to dictate !»

I don't know about it - perhaps you like to provide some examples?
(and firstly there needs to exist democracies so we can pick examples from)

Nevertheless, it does not really matter because no one whatsoever, be them in majority or minority, should dictate the lives of others.

Kudos Indyvidual. It's always been minority rule in a sense but now the rulers are foreigners and weirdo's, who compete with each other for weirdness. Every cultural ethnicity needs their own nation, their own institutions. Every person needs strong families, and grass root parish communities. Every culture needs to decide on their own principles not have their sovereignty taken from them by dictatorial universalist's. Don't vote for people you don't share identity with. Nihilist's want to suicide, and they want to drag you down and kill you too. Let them create their own world, but don't let them destroy yours.

Don't buy stuff from people you don't identify with. Consumption is a political act.

Dear Canem Malum (Bad Dog),

You have just shown your true colours:
You don't like to be ruled by others who are unlike yourself,
yet you are more than happy to rule over them.

Specifically, you would like the institutions of your particular cultural ethnicity to have sovereignty over the other people you share this earth with.

Nobody ever asked you not to have a strong family or a grass root parish community. Nobody denied your freedom to determine your own principles - but will you be content to live your life peacefully according to them without trying to impose them on others outside your family and parish community?

Are Marxist's pointing at Trump and saying Authoritarian... Classic Marxist DARVO (Deny And Reverse Victim and Offender). Trump is trying to save American jobs, this is about giving American power over their own future, and someone who seems to sound like a Marxist is calling this Authoritarianism and saying that this should stop. These Marxist's should be treated as traitors in my view. Marxist's seem to be giving away America's birthright inheritance to foreigners, evil nihilist's. Marxist's seemingly spend other peoples money and call it justice.

perhaps you like to provide some examples?
Yuyutsu,
America, Europe, Australia bleat & spruik about being Democracies yet they allow themselves to be dictated to by LGBT, Woke & migrant splinter groups & religious factions. I'm dismayed you even had to ask for evidence.

Dear Indyvidual,

Your original statement was:
«Democracy has allowed too many minority groups to dictate !»

So then I asked for examples and you listed: "LGBT, Woke & migrant splinter groups & religious factions".

While there are awful plenty of ways the state and its government, may they be banished to a place where the sun does not shine, dictate me, I can't see how specifically any of the above minorities you mentioned is dictating me and my life and in what way(s).

Also, there's no such thing as "allowing oneself to be dictated":
what you seem to describe instead, are agreements, give and take, negotiating "I will give you what's most important for you and you give me what's most important for me". This is a healthy discourse and not dictatorial in the least.

But let me get back to your original statement:
You say that there are "too many" minority groups allowed to dictate -
does that mean that a few minority groups should still be allowed to dictate, as long as there are not too many of them?
Or does it mean that majority groups should be allowed to dictate?

As I already said, this is our life and nobody whatsoever should be able to dictate to us how we live!

If, however, we freely choose to join a society, then we willingly bind ourselves to the give-and-take discourse within it. Practically everyone in a given society is a member of not one, but several minorities pertaining to different aspects of life - and all these minorities should be able to live in harmony together, that assuming that they joined the society in question voluntarily (which obviously is not the case, neither in Australia nor in any other country).

Given that you so dislike the minorities you mentioned, I must ask you why you agreed to remain in the same society with them, and if you haven't agreed (and likely neither did they agree to be with you) then why not explore ways to separate, so you both can be happy and not dictate to each other?

I'll stand with the Neo-Nazi's on this one Yuyutsu and say 2 words
'Israel Lobby'.

Most Western Traditionalist's tend to isolationism, but when they get office see that it's important to provide some limited skeletal structure to the international community to avoid a decline into chaos. So no Traditionalist's don't want to rule over others, but feel compelled to limit the expansion of corruption.

Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made, for example with oil, in order to secure the world, sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes individuals and individual companies go off script.

Joseph Nye talked about the soft power of setting the example.

Perhaps it's time that Western Traditionalist's took their hand off the tiller and let the chaotic elements have their way for a while, to remind other nations that while management can be sort of authoritarian, chaos is worse. Management also has reverted to Marxist Managerialism as James Burnham warned.

Yuyutsu said "Nobody ever asked you not to have a strong family or a grass root parish community. Nobody denied your freedom to determine your own principles"

Answer- Governments in the Anglosphere have stopped Anglo-Celtic people from restricting other ethnicities entry to their communities under multiple jurisdictions, under the auspicies of anti-prejudice laws, but these laws are themselves prejudiced against Anglo-Celtics, this will end in the Replacement of Anglo-Celtic people. But I suppose that Woke/ Progressive/ Marxism is happy with genocide as long as it's themselves that is executing it.

Anti-prejudice laws are a perverse artifact of our age, that will result in our extinction. But I suppose Paul1405 and Yuyutsu is happy with that. What if it was their children??

Anti-prejudice laws demostrate the truth of the principle of the human condition, "whatever we do, we know that we will fail and die", and some problems remain no matter which direction we travel. Good fences make good neighbours.

Rather than offering unlimited refuge in the west to all peoples, perhaps those seeking refuge need to fix their native countries, or aren't they strong enough. They can't be dependent on us forever, destroying the west won't create long term happiness, children and baby birds eventually need to leave the nest.

Learn what you can from the west, use it to improve your native countries, and live in peace.

Asia mostly needs to adopt Confucian principles to advance beyond "Asian rotating officials tyranny". Not sure what principles India, the ME, or Africa need to adopt given they don't have a Confucian tradition.

South Korea, Japan, and others seem to have done this, and advanced accordingly.

Essentially much of the world is living like they did 1000 years ago, only with more powerful technology. "What could go wrong??"

Mao was similar to the emperors, the Ottoman's were similar to the Persian's, the African's are still fighting tribal war's, because they never adopted Catholic Subsidiarity. Some technologies are device based (like the crossbow) some and social (hope this doesn't make me sound like a Marxist). Marxism seems to be essentially similar to the Asian rotating officials model that Machiavelli talked about in The Prince. Ironically Marxist's would have you believe that it is about equality.

As some have said- “Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t supposed to be an instruction manual!”

In the US Declaration of Independence they ask the question when should the bindings that bind two parts of a ruling structure be broken, in this case Britain and the US. Remember the answer...

"Perhaps it's time that Western Traditionalist's took their hand off the tiller and let the chaotic elements have their way for a while, to remind other nations that while management can be sort of authoritarian, chaos is worse. Management also has reverted to Marxist Managerialism as James Burnham warned. "

Keyword 'chaos'

If one was really evil, they would not only acknowledge chaos but seek to create chaos.

Chaos provides opportunity.

I could burn your house down, and then present myself as being the salvation to your problems, offering your family somewhere to stay, and buy up your property and assets cheap while you're desperate and in hardship, then seduce your wife, undermine your relationship and make her leave you.

I could get two countries fighting each other and then profit from the military procurements and market volatility and foreign exchange rates, even in placing my bet on the loss.

Count the dollars while both nations count their dead.

A smart and evil person knows that chaos creates opportunity, and sets out to deliberately cause chaos if it bring more wealth and power unto themselves.

Whether you know this or not, it's the reality of the world around us.

When the so called moral western world decides to undermine a country to conduct a regime change, just as what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and so many other countries, what was the West doing?

- Sowing chaos to bring more wealth and power unto themselves.

So 'the west' is overall 'a force for chaos' according to you Armchair Critic? Can you do a 5W's pro/ con analysis on this hypothesis over history?? You might need to define chaos and order...

Dear Canem Malum,

«Anti-prejudice laws are a perverse artifact of our age, that will result in our extinction. But I suppose Paul1405 and Yuyutsu is happy with that.»

I cannot speak for Paul, only for myself:

All laws against people, ordering them what they may and may not do in their own spaces, that within a "society" they never voluntarily joined, are perverse, evil, and I will fight against them with my teeth and nails.

Of the thousands of laws that restrict our lives, those particular ones against prejudice do not affect or bother me personally as I have no inclination for this kind of prejudice in the first place, nor do I see how they can cause extinction - yet it saddens me to hear that they adversely affect you and your community and I will continue to fight for your freedom against such laws until they are all repealed. Mind you, there being so many other horrible and immoral laws, that will be around the 9000th place on my list.

I have no understanding of your wish for an exclusive, fenced, Anglo-Celtic environment, I cannot see why anyone would want that, but since that is your wish, I highly respect it and wish you and your friends to be able to separate and release yourselves as soon as possible from this stupid "Australian society" which you are not happy with and of which you are captives, then live your lives with peace and dignity ever after.

So 'the west' is overall 'a force for chaos' according to you Armchair Critic? Can you do a 5W's pro/ con analysis on this hypothesis over history?? You might need to define chaos and order...

Not necessarily the individual people themselves.
Average people are mostly inherently good and decent, or at least like to believe they are.
But in many ways the west is malevalent, and even those people pulling the strings may even believe in the false righteousness of their own causes.

I'm just saying that some would seek to divide and conquer and create chaos if the result is more wealth and power to themselves.
Human beings are capable of doing both good and bad things.

in many ways the west is malevalent,
Armchair Critic,
It'd use stupid rather than malevolent.

There are legal ways to control an irrational President.
And there are men who can exercise that control.
But they don't.
I wonder why.
Surely not out of fear?
Could it simply be that they agree with him?
Or more likely they cannot yet see the damage being caused.
Whichever it is, it is a terrible thought.