If I was a US citizen I would be voting for Trump. In simple terms, here is why:
The democratic electoral pluralism that was more or less operational (albeit inperfectly) when I was young is now a farce in the Western world. It has become little more than a smokescreen for our real governance - a permanent multi-institutional nexus variously called The Machine, The Cathedral, The Blob etc. Whatever else he might be, Donald Trump is quite definitely an outcast from this establishment machine and his blustering personality is such that he will not fall into line. That is very rare in a modern politician and - in our current context - this can only be a good thing. If elected he will not really have much power (for the reasons given above) so he presents little of the danger that The Machine tells us to fear. But he will be a disrupter and that is the least-worst thing we need just now. Another four years of a Leftist pretend democratic executive in lock-step with the real permanent Leftist Machine would be far far worse.
"Whatever else he might be, Donald Trump is quite definitely an outcast from this establishment machine and his blustering personality is such that he will not fall into line."
He sure as hell fell into line during his first term, and it was useless. His administration consisted of Deep State operatives. He did not pardon either Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. He did not release information on the JFK assassination. He did a piss poor job of sealing the border. One must understand there is no democracy/democratic republic in the United States - that is long gone. The electoral process is dead.
Indeed. Whenever I see someone complaining about Trump, I always have to say "Compared to whom?" Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? Kamala Harris? Trump, for all his faults, is a piker compared to any of these.
Muh ad hominem 😂. You wouldn’t recognize a better argument if it was punching you in the face dummy.
No need to release a virus & steal the election if it didn’t matter who you vote for…. Assignation etc… the whole house of cards is being revealed. “But the deep state won’t let you” LMAO, you’re just a pussy.
I was under the impression that Trump became President in 2016, something surely due to more people voting for him than for Clinton. It therefore follows that one's vote means something rather than nothing.
Does 'charade' here mean that we won't get everything we want, even if Trump becomes President? If so then everything is a charade, including my wife.
This is an interesting point, and I'd like to depart from Trump as the agent of change for now, and dwell a bit on the idea of the rate of change--social/economic--in the US.
How fast, and how much change is optimal? Is it possible to change too much, too quickly, and if so, how can we tell?
Also, back to Trump, he's an agent of change, but in a very specific context, and it's extremely important to consider this. He offers a change from the present direction and rate of the Demo/progressive administrations of Obama and now Biden, and likely Harris. These administrations actually jarred the stasis of US society, which tended toward a slow evolutionary change unless stimulated externally to a more brisk pace. An example of such change was the Civil Rights era in the 50s-60s, and the call for the recognition and subsequent actual recognition of homosexuality as a norm, and the idea of racial reparations as an actual concrete transfer of assets from one identified group to another, under external authority. I'm unconvinced that these changes, they way they were brought about, and their abruptness and rate, were of net benefit in the intermediate term.
So what Trump is, is an agent of change from a norm of very fast and abrupt social change toward a slower rate of change. He slows things down.
Both parties have gone insane, just on different issues.
Democrats believe in open borders that destroy working class wages, and increase housing costs when we can’t house our own citizens.
They believe that people can change their biological sex an impossibility that destroys the rights of women to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons . They allow men in women’s sports which eliminates fair competition.
They encourage the mutilation and sterilization of children in pursuit of the obscenely named “gender affirming care”.
They encourage homelessness and crime by refusing to say no to destructive behavior of the mentally ill (who deserve custodial care), the drug addicted and, of course, the criminal class.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile attempt to compensate for past discrimination against others.
They are currently led by a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEl selected idiot.
Republicans deny the climate change that threatens humanity.
They denounce the vaccines that reduce deaths from disease.
They believe that this ( . ) is a 👶 which can destroy a women's future.
"...every prediction made by the climate change believers that's specific enough to be falsifiable has in fact been falsified."
For sake of discussion, let assume that this is absolutely correct, although in reality I'd want support for the idea that *every prediction* has indeed been falsified.
And that's because it's unimportant to the way I've come to my own conclusion about climate change.
I've thought long and hard about this for years as an interesting debate that is pretty clearly binary in nature. There's really no possible middle ground: either the climate is changing, at whatever rate, or it's not. And more precisely: it it getting warmer, or not?
I won't bore you with my methodology but cut right to where I decided to judge the proposition that the climate is getting warmer within the period of my life (>70 years) in roughly the same climatic zone: the US west coast. In my mind, it is unequivocally warmer, and I have various subjective and anecdotal metrics for this as well as objective historical temperature data. It has accelerated noticeably in the last 20 or so years to the point where it's not possible for me to say that this is a short-term exception. It is at best an intermediate term exception, and possibly a long-term reality.
So really, you don't need to know if dire predictions prove correct, all you need to know is one thing: is it hotter in the environment where you live? That should be fairly simple to determine objectively by checking weather data within your lifetime. You should be able to answer yes or no.
Here's an example of the kind of data I'm talking about. It's for where I live, and I downloaded the data as CSV and viewed and sorted it in many ways, and I'm convinced that yep, it's demonstrably warmer over the intermediate term here.
If yes, there is no requirement to get on board with the proposed changes to one's life; you don't have to suffer the ignominy of saying that climate change jihadists were right. Just plow forward as best you can for the duration. It's what every living organism on earth has done since life began; sometimes it works, sometimes not. No big deal.
Nor are the causes of the change important any more. Climate change proponents have long warned that unless C02 is radically reduced world-wide--which seems impossible so long as the human population is at present levels--within a timeframe that has already passed, warming will continue for hundreds of years at least. According to them if we stopped C02 entirely tomorrow, it would still happen, so we're already committed so far as continued warming.
But for God's sake, if temperature data for your area shows an increase over 30 years, e.g., but someone's grimly satisfying predictions that parts of Florida sliding under water as a result haven't come to pass, that doesn't prove that it's not warming up; all it tells you is that the specific prediction about sea-rise was wrong. The data for you area will tell you if it it, in fact, getting warmer.
To do otherwise is to gaslight yourself. Don't be that dumb.
A debate between two people (or two imagined voices) where they both begin by agreeing that they despise the subject of a debate….is not really a fair debate, is it? This would be an honest exercise if one of those involved actually did like Trump. As it is, the exchange is like two Democrats talking where one has decided, for pure speculative entertainment, to briefly contemplate the idea that people voting the other way might be human.
The discussion on character is particularly hilarious, when completely avoiding the fact that being willing to be shot at to save your nation and being able to shoulder more hate than has ever been poured unjustly on one man’s shoulders in a supposed civilised nation of free political choice might say something about character that is a little more important than mere mannerisms are.
The point about lying is also tiresome. What gets Trump into so much trouble is that he is remarkably open and honest. He’s never lied about what he believes or what policies he supports. His slogans and his aims are the same thing. The lies (Russian collusion, he told people to drink bleach, he told people there are good Nazis, he said all Mexicans are rapists, he is a racist, he is a rapist, he is a threat to democracy, 2020 was an honest election, J6 was an insurrection, telling people to assemble peacefully and depart peacefully was inciting violence, paying a loan in full was fraud etc etc) have all come from his opponents.
"...the electoral process is dead at the federal level in the United States"
I basically agree with this. As in the way candidates are chosen by the major parties for national office, the actual specific selection is by supposed proxy rather than by plebicite. I think that this was by original intent when the electoral system was interposed between the electorate and the chief executive. Possibly it was conceived as a fail-safe against Huey Long-like populist movements, but it's at least equally as likely that it was a compromise to the less populace states.
But it's how stuff works here and now, and so as an individual one has to figure out how best to work within the system, for better or worse.
"But it's how stuff works here and now, and so as an individual one has to figure out how best to work within the system, for better or worse"
I was mainly in agreement until your last paragraph. As an adult, I have never been a fan of Democracy or its lipstick cousin, Representative Democracy. It never works for long. The attitude you espouse is precisely what those who control the United States want: a nation of sheep. Destroy the Deep State and replace it with a meritocracy.
Yep, it *is* sheep-like. There's a reason for it, too.
I'm 77. Basically I've gutted through a lot of stuff in life, was "passionate" about various ideals--this is called "getting caught up in X". I found that getting caught up is almost never to your direct benefit, and that indeed, as you often say WRT voting at the national level, you exert no control over major policies, and in fact might be thought of as a tool for someone who wants actual control, themselves, and misleads others (and you) into believing that it will benefit them, as well.
If it ever does, it does it so infrequently that it's not worth the effort that you expend, that might otherwise having been used to learn to game the system to the best of your abilities. So basically I found it best to shut the fuck up, lay low, and worm every advantage that I recognized, and it was after I did that that I began to succeed in the present system. And the *reason* that this is possible is because this nation, the US, is so cram full of surplus resources that in this saturation of wealth, all it really takes to share in it is understanding the rules--which are seldom, if ever, directly stated.
All this stems from two basic principles, which you may not believe or wish to adhere to, it's up to each person.
1) You have significant power over yourself, which rapidly diminishes as you seek to extend it beyond your proven capabilities. This can be increased with increasing effort (think "asymptote" for a model), and there is a natural sweet spot for each person where it makes little sense to increase the effort for very little gain in the scope of personal power; and
2) recognizing this reality of your power, also realize that it's every man for himself.
I also agree that a benevolent authoritarian system would be smoother and perhaps more satisfying (probably would be, for me, who thinks that the voting franchise is way, way to broad now) and it would, again, simply be learning the limits of your personal power in this system and looking out for how best to use them to your own benefit.
That's the long and the short of it, after all these years.
I’ve come here to this site, read my first article and this written diarrhea is what I get? Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this website? Are you not a direct competitor to Counter-Currents and American Renaissance? WHO the fuck is this total kook character, Meander?
Is this back and forth horror show a parody?
Kamel-Toe is an existential threat to Whites and western civilization writ large.
The idea that anyone, much less a contributor, would even sniff at voting for her is occupational malpractice!
Why is such an absolutely abhorrent opinion even being entertained on this website?
I enjoy your dialogic style, but it’s hard to read this discussion as anything but a fantasia. Either decadence is real and we are sitting in its midst, or the progressive’s daydreams negate its relevance. Are the public embrace of sexual deviancy, or the dismissal of cultural and racial truths through mass immigration just neutral lifestyle choices without consequence? The progressive’s blithe attitude here is too ridiculous to engage in the current year. His place as a serious interlocutor is done.
Trump is a canny politician, his “vulgarity” a necessity ploy, given acceptance of current liberal constraints. Arguing about it ingenuously is pointless. A more interesting debate would have involved your Philo engaging with an accelerationist, prepared to vote Kammy in the hope of bringing a more illiberal figure to the fore in reaction.
The real issue in voting Trump is in whether the liberal system can or should be saved.
Get out of your head nerd 😂. Nothing can “be saved” at this point. Trump is the flaming mad emperor of a dying empire & it’s glorious!!! Enjoy the collapse 🔥🥳
I think that it's VERY important to consider that we already know what sorts of things Trump does if president: we saw this for 4 years. No nuclear war started, no economic meltdown. There was a pandemic that he could not alleviate, and public rioting after a video of a black man dying under the custody of white and Asian police officers was also beyond his abilities to alleviate.
He appointed fairly conservative justices and judges, and lowered taxes a bit.
...and in his public pronouncements his rhetoric is extremely flamboyant, but is unmatched by his actions, which are fairly moderate.
We *know* this, we don't have to guess.
I enjoy colorful hyperbole as well as he next man, but saying that he's "...the flaming mad emperor of a dying empire..." is just plain silly.
Also last Term the entire establishment was against him even his cabinet. Completely outmaneuvered. Thus far him staying alive is a revolutionary act. Since then things have changed. Congress is different people. Kushner is out. Even 40% of Dems want mass deportations.
Trump has good instincts but poor character. If he surrounds himself with the same shills he will kick the can to the next tyrant & their great reset. He must follow through or his legacy will be failure. He’s his own worse enemy. The stakes are all or nothing. Trump represents all of Western civilization. If he succeeds Europe follows. You’re witnessing the greatest turning point in world history with a dumb orange hamburger hero at the crossroads.
PS.. any of you reading this are overweight? …You’re a disgrace to your ancestors. Stop being a complacent consumer slave & start acting like conquerors. None of these politicians & corporations care about you, actually they hate you.
There is no paying back America’s debt. His judges are corporate shills. 20 million illegal invasion last couple years alone. 50+ million before that. Mass LEGAL immigration past 40 years. If you don’t see how elections are counted at this point you’re in lala land. Soon Texas will turn blue. Europe is being invaded. They are going to extinguish the remaining dollars on last ditch wars of a collapsing empire. Their open borders digital global currency insane asylum is in full swing.
It is Trump who exposed their darkness. He lit a flame to all of this.The system hates him because they hate white civilization.
Trump has exposed how bad things really are. For that alone, he is the great wrecking ball. More people awake today than ever.
Petty taxes isn’t going to fix this. We have to go over a cliff, to upend this tyranny. You’re not going to enjoy retirement. Rather enjoy the flaming madhouse it’s only going to accelerate & if he gets in and I hope he does he will have one chance to decommission the corruption in time for the debt collapse. This is history in the making & you’re mowing your lawn 😂
I don't enjoy being a one-issue person, but the demographic issue has become so pressing that it overwhelms all others. A stupid economic policy can be reversed, and its adverse effects repaired. A stupid demographic policy will have a much more lasting impact.
In addition, American policy strongly influences what other countries do, like my own. Is it a coincidence that immigration has spiked simultaneously throughout the entire Anglosphere? How is it that we see the same policy — or lack thereof — not only in the US but also in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand? This has happened because the policy-making elites of those countries are all bathing in the same ideological soup. Very often, they end up being appointed to the same transnational institutions. It's all very "monkey see, monkey do," and it will end only when the alpha ape gets replaced.
Yes, Trump is not the sharpest tool in the shed. But neither is Harris. Neither are most politicians. They all have to go through the same vetting process where "cooperative" candidates get campaign donations and "uncooperative" ones don't. That process is not very kind to people who are too intelligent for their own good. Obama was bitterly criticized by Democrat donors for being too independent-minded, and he survived largely because so many Democrats were entranced by the idea of having a black president.
So, as a non-American, I recommend voting for Trump — even though I tend to agree more with Harris on non-immigration issues. The rate of immigration to the US is now so high — at least five million a year, perhaps twice that number (nobody really knows anymore) — that it has become an existential issue. And that high rate is being blindly imitated by the rest of the Anglosphere and, increasingly, by the rest of the developed world.
1. Why do you prefer Harris on non-migration issues?
2. Do you see any way for western countries to not only halt mass immigration but to begin to undo the damage already done? (See Muslim sectarian voting in Britain).
Like Harris, I believe that the market economy should be regulated to prevent concentration of economic power and to ensure that labor and capital negotiate on a level playing field. Keep in mind that employees are much more numerous than employers, so the possibilities for collusion are much greater for the latter than for the former. Wages thus tend to be kept below their real market value, and prices tend to be kept above. This is especially true in an inflationary environment.
Consequently, I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in its calls for a higher minimum wage, a higher rate of unionization, and a return to the high corporate tax rates of the postwar era.
Like Harris, I believe in unhindered access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion and assisted reproduction. I agree that the fertility rate needs to be raised, but this will not come about through coercive measures, like banning abortion. It will come about by making IVF and surrogacy freely available to those couples who really wish to have children.
As for your second question, if mass immigration can be halted, the demographic crisis will resolve itself on its own. In the US, the major population groups now have the same low fertility rate. In fact, there is very little difference between Euro-American fertility and African American fertility. Euro-American fertility is being buoyed up by two factors that will become more and more important as time goes by:
- Presence of high-fertility subcultures: Amish, Mormons, Hassidim and, to a lesser extent, Protestant evangelicals and Catholic traditionalists.
- Greater use of assisted reproduction. In 2021, 2.3% of all American births were made possible by this means.
A similar process is happening in Europe. First and second generation immigrants are moving toward very low fertility. Northwest Europeans are, in fact, emerging as an island of relatively high fertility in an increasingly anti-natalist world.
So there is cause for some optimism. This crisis will resolve itself on its own if we simply stop mass immigration. But there is also cause for pessimism because too many social conservatives see the corporate community as a friend and ally, when, in fact, it’s the main driver of mass immigration. In addition, social conservatives, like Trump himself, are prone to shooting themselves in the foot and making strategic blunders.
I agree with Keith Woods in his recent analysis. Trump will likely lose this election—not because immigration restriction is unpopular but because he has chosen to support the carnage in Gaza and the banning of abortion. On both issues, he is acting opportunistically in the naïve belief he will win votes. In reality, he will lose far more votes than he will gain.
Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to answer my questions in full. I really appreciate it. Several of your points I either knew nothing about or had never thought about, so that has given me food for thought. Thanks again.
A well written article that puts the choice in perspective. I wrestle with many points made by Philo and Meandor. Trump, the man, is to be despised. And I don't understand the folks who seem enamored with him, however, it is a binary choice so I'll have to vote for the lessor of 2 evils.
The last time Bo used the Philo/Meander format was because he wasn't sure how he felt about the topic he was writing about, so I assume the same is true here. However, I do hope he feels more aligned with Philo than Meander. Anyone who finds themselves unable to vote for Trump, regardless of the reason, doesn't hate progressivism as much as they should.
I wonder why anyone would feel compelled to vote for anyone running at the national level. I believe the U.S. Presidents since at least JFK have been titular. The Deep State makes the ultimate decision on who will fill the puppet position. During Trump's first term, his administration consisted of Deep State bureaucratic operatives, and it was a disaster. The 'United States' government ranks as one of the most corrupt on the planet.
There is no chance in hell that any crucial issues will be resolved, whoever is 'selected'. The avaricious megalomaniacs that comprise the Deep State will never allow the proles to decide anything - they are in it for all the marbles.
I was curious why Philo and Meander were used as names in a conversation. Are these real people? Or a philosophical exercise? Figments of an imagination of a singular voice? Is one a chorus in a play and the other AI? If one merges "philo' and 'meander", but drops the "o" and "me" one gets "philanderer."
If I was a US citizen I would be voting for Trump. In simple terms, here is why:
The democratic electoral pluralism that was more or less operational (albeit inperfectly) when I was young is now a farce in the Western world. It has become little more than a smokescreen for our real governance - a permanent multi-institutional nexus variously called The Machine, The Cathedral, The Blob etc. Whatever else he might be, Donald Trump is quite definitely an outcast from this establishment machine and his blustering personality is such that he will not fall into line. That is very rare in a modern politician and - in our current context - this can only be a good thing. If elected he will not really have much power (for the reasons given above) so he presents little of the danger that The Machine tells us to fear. But he will be a disrupter and that is the least-worst thing we need just now. Another four years of a Leftist pretend democratic executive in lock-step with the real permanent Leftist Machine would be far far worse.
"Whatever else he might be, Donald Trump is quite definitely an outcast from this establishment machine and his blustering personality is such that he will not fall into line."
He sure as hell fell into line during his first term, and it was useless. His administration consisted of Deep State operatives. He did not pardon either Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. He did not release information on the JFK assassination. He did a piss poor job of sealing the border. One must understand there is no democracy/democratic republic in the United States - that is long gone. The electoral process is dead.
Yes Character matters and there is not a single Democrat that can hold his flame up to Donald Trump’s little match. That is how bad it is.
Your hypothetical Meander is well drawn as suffering from a serious analcephalic impaction.
Indeed. Whenever I see someone complaining about Trump, I always have to say "Compared to whom?" Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? Kamala Harris? Trump, for all his faults, is a piker compared to any of these.
The point is this is all a charade. Your vote means nothing.
Then enjoy being a slave you pussy ass faggot. I never see leftists NOT VOTE. They always win because they never quit.
NOTHING IS FIXED. There is no elite in power. ITS CHAOS.
Stop being a cuck 🔥 Pussy
"Then enjoy being a slave you pussy ass faggot. I never see leftists NOT VOTE. They always win because they never quit."
When one can not argue a point with facts go to ad hominems. You are truly a loser.
Muh ad hominem 😂. You wouldn’t recognize a better argument if it was punching you in the face dummy.
No need to release a virus & steal the election if it didn’t matter who you vote for…. Assignation etc… the whole house of cards is being revealed. “But the deep state won’t let you” LMAO, you’re just a pussy.
Hee hee hee 😂🥳
I was under the impression that Trump became President in 2016, something surely due to more people voting for him than for Clinton. It therefore follows that one's vote means something rather than nothing.
Does 'charade' here mean that we won't get everything we want, even if Trump becomes President? If so then everything is a charade, including my wife.
"Does 'charade' here mean that we won't get everything we want, even if Trump becomes President?"
It means that nothing of import will change.
"If so then everything is a charade, including my wife."
You know her better than I do.
"It means that nothing of import will change."
This is an interesting point, and I'd like to depart from Trump as the agent of change for now, and dwell a bit on the idea of the rate of change--social/economic--in the US.
How fast, and how much change is optimal? Is it possible to change too much, too quickly, and if so, how can we tell?
Also, back to Trump, he's an agent of change, but in a very specific context, and it's extremely important to consider this. He offers a change from the present direction and rate of the Demo/progressive administrations of Obama and now Biden, and likely Harris. These administrations actually jarred the stasis of US society, which tended toward a slow evolutionary change unless stimulated externally to a more brisk pace. An example of such change was the Civil Rights era in the 50s-60s, and the call for the recognition and subsequent actual recognition of homosexuality as a norm, and the idea of racial reparations as an actual concrete transfer of assets from one identified group to another, under external authority. I'm unconvinced that these changes, they way they were brought about, and their abruptness and rate, were of net benefit in the intermediate term.
So what Trump is, is an agent of change from a norm of very fast and abrupt social change toward a slower rate of change. He slows things down.
Eh, maybe we get to keep the sunshine in the cans a while longer.
"Eh, maybe we get to keep the sunshine in the cans a while longer."
If false hope makes you happy.
Why wait for doom, then?
Both parties have gone insane, just on different issues.
Democrats believe in open borders that destroy working class wages, and increase housing costs when we can’t house our own citizens.
They believe that people can change their biological sex an impossibility that destroys the rights of women to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons . They allow men in women’s sports which eliminates fair competition.
They encourage the mutilation and sterilization of children in pursuit of the obscenely named “gender affirming care”.
They encourage homelessness and crime by refusing to say no to destructive behavior of the mentally ill (who deserve custodial care), the drug addicted and, of course, the criminal class.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile attempt to compensate for past discrimination against others.
They are currently led by a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEl selected idiot.
Republicans deny the climate change that threatens humanity.
They denounce the vaccines that reduce deaths from disease.
They believe that this ( . ) is a 👶 which can destroy a women's future.
They support an ignorant sociopath for president.
A pox on both their houses.
> Republicans deny the climate change that threatens humanity.
Well every prediction made by the climate change believers that's specific enough to be falsifiable has in fact been falsified.
> They denounce the vaccines that reduce deaths from disease.
The problem is that the COVID "vaccines" did indeed cause harm.
"...every prediction made by the climate change believers that's specific enough to be falsifiable has in fact been falsified."
For sake of discussion, let assume that this is absolutely correct, although in reality I'd want support for the idea that *every prediction* has indeed been falsified.
And that's because it's unimportant to the way I've come to my own conclusion about climate change.
I've thought long and hard about this for years as an interesting debate that is pretty clearly binary in nature. There's really no possible middle ground: either the climate is changing, at whatever rate, or it's not. And more precisely: it it getting warmer, or not?
I won't bore you with my methodology but cut right to where I decided to judge the proposition that the climate is getting warmer within the period of my life (>70 years) in roughly the same climatic zone: the US west coast. In my mind, it is unequivocally warmer, and I have various subjective and anecdotal metrics for this as well as objective historical temperature data. It has accelerated noticeably in the last 20 or so years to the point where it's not possible for me to say that this is a short-term exception. It is at best an intermediate term exception, and possibly a long-term reality.
So really, you don't need to know if dire predictions prove correct, all you need to know is one thing: is it hotter in the environment where you live? That should be fairly simple to determine objectively by checking weather data within your lifetime. You should be able to answer yes or no.
Here's an example of the kind of data I'm talking about. It's for where I live, and I downloaded the data as CSV and viewed and sorted it in many ways, and I'm convinced that yep, it's demonstrably warmer over the intermediate term here.
If yes, there is no requirement to get on board with the proposed changes to one's life; you don't have to suffer the ignominy of saying that climate change jihadists were right. Just plow forward as best you can for the duration. It's what every living organism on earth has done since life began; sometimes it works, sometimes not. No big deal.
Nor are the causes of the change important any more. Climate change proponents have long warned that unless C02 is radically reduced world-wide--which seems impossible so long as the human population is at present levels--within a timeframe that has already passed, warming will continue for hundreds of years at least. According to them if we stopped C02 entirely tomorrow, it would still happen, so we're already committed so far as continued warming.
But for God's sake, if temperature data for your area shows an increase over 30 years, e.g., but someone's grimly satisfying predictions that parts of Florida sliding under water as a result haven't come to pass, that doesn't prove that it's not warming up; all it tells you is that the specific prediction about sea-rise was wrong. The data for you area will tell you if it it, in fact, getting warmer.
To do otherwise is to gaslight yourself. Don't be that dumb.
Congratulations, this is probably the single stupidest comment I've read on the topic.
Well, since you're obviously new to reading, that's quite possible.
A debate between two people (or two imagined voices) where they both begin by agreeing that they despise the subject of a debate….is not really a fair debate, is it? This would be an honest exercise if one of those involved actually did like Trump. As it is, the exchange is like two Democrats talking where one has decided, for pure speculative entertainment, to briefly contemplate the idea that people voting the other way might be human.
The discussion on character is particularly hilarious, when completely avoiding the fact that being willing to be shot at to save your nation and being able to shoulder more hate than has ever been poured unjustly on one man’s shoulders in a supposed civilised nation of free political choice might say something about character that is a little more important than mere mannerisms are.
The point about lying is also tiresome. What gets Trump into so much trouble is that he is remarkably open and honest. He’s never lied about what he believes or what policies he supports. His slogans and his aims are the same thing. The lies (Russian collusion, he told people to drink bleach, he told people there are good Nazis, he said all Mexicans are rapists, he is a racist, he is a rapist, he is a threat to democracy, 2020 was an honest election, J6 was an insurrection, telling people to assemble peacefully and depart peacefully was inciting violence, paying a loan in full was fraud etc etc) have all come from his opponents.
Trump is the ONLY way to stop Harris. That is more than sufficient.
"Trump is the ONLY way to stop Harris. That is more than sufficient."
You have fallen for the scam.
No, I have grasped the limitations of Democratic politics.
"No, I have grasped the limitations of Democratic politics."
But have you grasped that the electoral process is dead at the federal level in the United States?
"...the electoral process is dead at the federal level in the United States"
I basically agree with this. As in the way candidates are chosen by the major parties for national office, the actual specific selection is by supposed proxy rather than by plebicite. I think that this was by original intent when the electoral system was interposed between the electorate and the chief executive. Possibly it was conceived as a fail-safe against Huey Long-like populist movements, but it's at least equally as likely that it was a compromise to the less populace states.
But it's how stuff works here and now, and so as an individual one has to figure out how best to work within the system, for better or worse.
"But it's how stuff works here and now, and so as an individual one has to figure out how best to work within the system, for better or worse"
I was mainly in agreement until your last paragraph. As an adult, I have never been a fan of Democracy or its lipstick cousin, Representative Democracy. It never works for long. The attitude you espouse is precisely what those who control the United States want: a nation of sheep. Destroy the Deep State and replace it with a meritocracy.
Yep, it *is* sheep-like. There's a reason for it, too.
I'm 77. Basically I've gutted through a lot of stuff in life, was "passionate" about various ideals--this is called "getting caught up in X". I found that getting caught up is almost never to your direct benefit, and that indeed, as you often say WRT voting at the national level, you exert no control over major policies, and in fact might be thought of as a tool for someone who wants actual control, themselves, and misleads others (and you) into believing that it will benefit them, as well.
If it ever does, it does it so infrequently that it's not worth the effort that you expend, that might otherwise having been used to learn to game the system to the best of your abilities. So basically I found it best to shut the fuck up, lay low, and worm every advantage that I recognized, and it was after I did that that I began to succeed in the present system. And the *reason* that this is possible is because this nation, the US, is so cram full of surplus resources that in this saturation of wealth, all it really takes to share in it is understanding the rules--which are seldom, if ever, directly stated.
All this stems from two basic principles, which you may not believe or wish to adhere to, it's up to each person.
1) You have significant power over yourself, which rapidly diminishes as you seek to extend it beyond your proven capabilities. This can be increased with increasing effort (think "asymptote" for a model), and there is a natural sweet spot for each person where it makes little sense to increase the effort for very little gain in the scope of personal power; and
2) recognizing this reality of your power, also realize that it's every man for himself.
I also agree that a benevolent authoritarian system would be smoother and perhaps more satisfying (probably would be, for me, who thinks that the voting franchise is way, way to broad now) and it would, again, simply be learning the limits of your personal power in this system and looking out for how best to use them to your own benefit.
That's the long and the short of it, after all these years.
Couldnt even read this. Forget personality, look at policies. Never Trumper's are moral high road ideologies. Excited to delete post
This article is frankly depressing. If Bo is what passes for a centrist intellectual in modern day America, the country is doomed.
Is this a rhetorical question?
I’ve come here to this site, read my first article and this written diarrhea is what I get? Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this website? Are you not a direct competitor to Counter-Currents and American Renaissance? WHO the fuck is this total kook character, Meander?
Is this back and forth horror show a parody?
Kamel-Toe is an existential threat to Whites and western civilization writ large.
The idea that anyone, much less a contributor, would even sniff at voting for her is occupational malpractice!
Why is such an absolutely abhorrent opinion even being entertained on this website?
I’m disgusted 🤢
I enjoy your dialogic style, but it’s hard to read this discussion as anything but a fantasia. Either decadence is real and we are sitting in its midst, or the progressive’s daydreams negate its relevance. Are the public embrace of sexual deviancy, or the dismissal of cultural and racial truths through mass immigration just neutral lifestyle choices without consequence? The progressive’s blithe attitude here is too ridiculous to engage in the current year. His place as a serious interlocutor is done.
Trump is a canny politician, his “vulgarity” a necessity ploy, given acceptance of current liberal constraints. Arguing about it ingenuously is pointless. A more interesting debate would have involved your Philo engaging with an accelerationist, prepared to vote Kammy in the hope of bringing a more illiberal figure to the fore in reaction.
The real issue in voting Trump is in whether the liberal system can or should be saved.
Get out of your head nerd 😂. Nothing can “be saved” at this point. Trump is the flaming mad emperor of a dying empire & it’s glorious!!! Enjoy the collapse 🔥🥳
Women signal that they have no children by way of cats and box wine. Men do it with posts like the above.
I think that it's VERY important to consider that we already know what sorts of things Trump does if president: we saw this for 4 years. No nuclear war started, no economic meltdown. There was a pandemic that he could not alleviate, and public rioting after a video of a black man dying under the custody of white and Asian police officers was also beyond his abilities to alleviate.
He appointed fairly conservative justices and judges, and lowered taxes a bit.
...and in his public pronouncements his rhetoric is extremely flamboyant, but is unmatched by his actions, which are fairly moderate.
We *know* this, we don't have to guess.
I enjoy colorful hyperbole as well as he next man, but saying that he's "...the flaming mad emperor of a dying empire..." is just plain silly.
Also last Term the entire establishment was against him even his cabinet. Completely outmaneuvered. Thus far him staying alive is a revolutionary act. Since then things have changed. Congress is different people. Kushner is out. Even 40% of Dems want mass deportations.
Trump has good instincts but poor character. If he surrounds himself with the same shills he will kick the can to the next tyrant & their great reset. He must follow through or his legacy will be failure. He’s his own worse enemy. The stakes are all or nothing. Trump represents all of Western civilization. If he succeeds Europe follows. You’re witnessing the greatest turning point in world history with a dumb orange hamburger hero at the crossroads.
PS.. any of you reading this are overweight? …You’re a disgrace to your ancestors. Stop being a complacent consumer slave & start acting like conquerors. None of these politicians & corporations care about you, actually they hate you.
There is no paying back America’s debt. His judges are corporate shills. 20 million illegal invasion last couple years alone. 50+ million before that. Mass LEGAL immigration past 40 years. If you don’t see how elections are counted at this point you’re in lala land. Soon Texas will turn blue. Europe is being invaded. They are going to extinguish the remaining dollars on last ditch wars of a collapsing empire. Their open borders digital global currency insane asylum is in full swing.
It is Trump who exposed their darkness. He lit a flame to all of this.The system hates him because they hate white civilization.
Trump has exposed how bad things really are. For that alone, he is the great wrecking ball. More people awake today than ever.
Petty taxes isn’t going to fix this. We have to go over a cliff, to upend this tyranny. You’re not going to enjoy retirement. Rather enjoy the flaming madhouse it’s only going to accelerate & if he gets in and I hope he does he will have one chance to decommission the corruption in time for the debt collapse. This is history in the making & you’re mowing your lawn 😂
I actually agree with the thrust of your argument, but do you think that you are overstating it a bit?
BTW, I've been retired 10 years. It's been enjoyable. So I've got that at least, huh? :^)
The problem with “Philo” is he keeps playing Meander’s game. He concedes every false point!
The only way to win is not to play his game. Flip the game, go on the attack, and stand up for your candidate for f’s sake.
Stop being a pansy.
The problem is that Bo is in fact a pussy.
I don't enjoy being a one-issue person, but the demographic issue has become so pressing that it overwhelms all others. A stupid economic policy can be reversed, and its adverse effects repaired. A stupid demographic policy will have a much more lasting impact.
In addition, American policy strongly influences what other countries do, like my own. Is it a coincidence that immigration has spiked simultaneously throughout the entire Anglosphere? How is it that we see the same policy — or lack thereof — not only in the US but also in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand? This has happened because the policy-making elites of those countries are all bathing in the same ideological soup. Very often, they end up being appointed to the same transnational institutions. It's all very "monkey see, monkey do," and it will end only when the alpha ape gets replaced.
Yes, Trump is not the sharpest tool in the shed. But neither is Harris. Neither are most politicians. They all have to go through the same vetting process where "cooperative" candidates get campaign donations and "uncooperative" ones don't. That process is not very kind to people who are too intelligent for their own good. Obama was bitterly criticized by Democrat donors for being too independent-minded, and he survived largely because so many Democrats were entranced by the idea of having a black president.
So, as a non-American, I recommend voting for Trump — even though I tend to agree more with Harris on non-immigration issues. The rate of immigration to the US is now so high — at least five million a year, perhaps twice that number (nobody really knows anymore) — that it has become an existential issue. And that high rate is being blindly imitated by the rest of the Anglosphere and, increasingly, by the rest of the developed world.
Two questions:
1. Why do you prefer Harris on non-migration issues?
2. Do you see any way for western countries to not only halt mass immigration but to begin to undo the damage already done? (See Muslim sectarian voting in Britain).
I ask because you always seem very sensible.
Like Harris, I believe that the market economy should be regulated to prevent concentration of economic power and to ensure that labor and capital negotiate on a level playing field. Keep in mind that employees are much more numerous than employers, so the possibilities for collusion are much greater for the latter than for the former. Wages thus tend to be kept below their real market value, and prices tend to be kept above. This is especially true in an inflationary environment.
Consequently, I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in its calls for a higher minimum wage, a higher rate of unionization, and a return to the high corporate tax rates of the postwar era.
Like Harris, I believe in unhindered access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion and assisted reproduction. I agree that the fertility rate needs to be raised, but this will not come about through coercive measures, like banning abortion. It will come about by making IVF and surrogacy freely available to those couples who really wish to have children.
As for your second question, if mass immigration can be halted, the demographic crisis will resolve itself on its own. In the US, the major population groups now have the same low fertility rate. In fact, there is very little difference between Euro-American fertility and African American fertility. Euro-American fertility is being buoyed up by two factors that will become more and more important as time goes by:
- Presence of high-fertility subcultures: Amish, Mormons, Hassidim and, to a lesser extent, Protestant evangelicals and Catholic traditionalists.
- Greater use of assisted reproduction. In 2021, 2.3% of all American births were made possible by this means.
A similar process is happening in Europe. First and second generation immigrants are moving toward very low fertility. Northwest Europeans are, in fact, emerging as an island of relatively high fertility in an increasingly anti-natalist world.
So there is cause for some optimism. This crisis will resolve itself on its own if we simply stop mass immigration. But there is also cause for pessimism because too many social conservatives see the corporate community as a friend and ally, when, in fact, it’s the main driver of mass immigration. In addition, social conservatives, like Trump himself, are prone to shooting themselves in the foot and making strategic blunders.
I agree with Keith Woods in his recent analysis. Trump will likely lose this election—not because immigration restriction is unpopular but because he has chosen to support the carnage in Gaza and the banning of abortion. On both issues, he is acting opportunistically in the naïve belief he will win votes. In reality, he will lose far more votes than he will gain.
Hey, @James Knox I found one of those racist progressives you were talking about.
Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to answer my questions in full. I really appreciate it. Several of your points I either knew nothing about or had never thought about, so that has given me food for thought. Thanks again.
A well written article that puts the choice in perspective. I wrestle with many points made by Philo and Meandor. Trump, the man, is to be despised. And I don't understand the folks who seem enamored with him, however, it is a binary choice so I'll have to vote for the lessor of 2 evils.
Trump is the great orange wrecking ball ☄️
If he fails it’s the DR’s fault for doing nothing better
The last time Bo used the Philo/Meander format was because he wasn't sure how he felt about the topic he was writing about, so I assume the same is true here. However, I do hope he feels more aligned with Philo than Meander. Anyone who finds themselves unable to vote for Trump, regardless of the reason, doesn't hate progressivism as much as they should.
"Should we vote for Donald Trump?"
I wonder why anyone would feel compelled to vote for anyone running at the national level. I believe the U.S. Presidents since at least JFK have been titular. The Deep State makes the ultimate decision on who will fill the puppet position. During Trump's first term, his administration consisted of Deep State bureaucratic operatives, and it was a disaster. The 'United States' government ranks as one of the most corrupt on the planet.
There is no chance in hell that any crucial issues will be resolved, whoever is 'selected'. The avaricious megalomaniacs that comprise the Deep State will never allow the proles to decide anything - they are in it for all the marbles.
I was curious why Philo and Meander were used as names in a conversation. Are these real people? Or a philosophical exercise? Figments of an imagination of a singular voice? Is one a chorus in a play and the other AI? If one merges "philo' and 'meander", but drops the "o" and "me" one gets "philanderer."