The era of impossible solutions made possible


All of us have grown up in a time dominated by the Leftist ideology and as a result, find it difficult to conceive of the world except on its terms. As part of that, we condition ourselves to believe that the obvious solutions we need are too extreme, and content ourselves with hybrid Leftist “solutions” that defeat our aims.

On a similar level, environmentalists struggle with this issue as well. Since the rise of the Deep Ecology movement, it has been clear that the only possible environmental salvation — from a fate worse than climate change, namely the destruction of our ecosystem and its replacement by a less functional one — is a redesign of society to incorporate living that does not have deleterious effects. Edward O. Wilson tells the plain truth on that one:

The Half-Earth solution does not mean dividing the planet into hemispheric halves or any other large pieces the size of continents or nation-states. Nor does it require changing ownership of any of the pieces, but instead only the stipulation that they be allowed to exist unharmed. It does, on the other hand, mean setting aside the largest reserves possible for nature, hence for the millions of other species still alive.

The key to saving one-half of the planet is the ecological footprint, defined as the amount of space required to meet all of the needs of an average person. It comprises the land used for habitation, fresh water, food production and delivery, personal transportation, communication, governance, other public functions, medical support, burial, and entertainment. In the same way the ecological footprint is scattered in pieces around the world, so are Earth’s surviving wildlands on the land and in the sea. The pieces range in size from the major desert and forest wildernesses to pockets of restored habitats as small as a few hectares.

His approach is similar to that of anyone who has had to balance a budget: if spending is excessive, cut it in half across the board. Instead of trying to target specific human activities, like washing your clothes in a dryer that is not energy saving rated, he suggests we should measure whole impact, and cut that. This in turn implies that humanity needs to have a discussion about its future, its population and the average load that people can exert on the environment. That in turn calls into question the design of our society itself.

Liberal democracy remains highly popular because it is a growth engine. It is essentially anarchy with a pretense of government that keeps business functional, since it requires institutions and courts, and for the early part of its reign liberal democracy seems like a good thing. As time passes, the hidden consequences of anarchy with grocery stores emerges: people, conditioned by the process of democratic thinking, become unrealistic and society goes crazy, then self-destructs.

For this reason, many ideas that were previously considered “too extreme” — like Wilson’s half earth — are now suddenly looking good. People make choices by comparing options, and if the default option is a further slide in Brazil 2.0 where your rape in the favelas will be televised, competing options which seemed too hardcore when we assumed liberal democracy was working now become viable. The same is true of other areas as well:

  • Ethnic nationalism. Diversity makes groups compete and hate each other, and its “success” would be the creation of a new brown race just like the one in most third world nations across the globe. There is no scenario for actual success with diversity. It seems unthinkable that we could deport everyone who lacks an unbroken Western European background, but that is what we must do in Europe and the USA to preserve ourselves.
  • Death of the welfare state. The bennies/freebies culture is very popular but it fails for two reasons. We cannot afford it, and it like democracy conditions our people to think like zombies. We cannot afford to, as happened in the last century, more than double our national budgets to pay for Great Society programs and their descendants; even worse, this massive increase in size of government makes a tyrannical Nanny State. Psychologically, welfare is also devastating. When reward comes before performance, performance becomes optional, and so everything declines in quality just as it did in the Soviet Union. In addition, the maze of rules and extra work required to pay for this makes jobs miserable and people into alienated little monsters.
  • Inequality is good. Inequality is how nature motivates some to rise above the rest, and is also how we grant special roles to certain groups. Women, for example, are happiest when not expected to work and thrust directly into the role of managing a family, in a chaste and traditional environment where marriage is forever and so they are always cared for. Caste systems give each person a job they can do well and a position that, barring absolute ludicrous incompetence, will always be there for them.
  • The death of the death of God. Atheism has failed, and many have noticed how it is a darling of the Left. That alone is reason to oppose it, as is the simple truth that non-Atheists seem happier. But even more, our understanding of the cosmos has changed. Our science has now reached the point where it is again, like the ancients, looking at patterns and information as a underlying structure to all reality, much like Plato did with his forms. Atheism died not of our ignorance, but its ignorance.
  • Existential importance returns. For the past century or more, we have seen ourselves as means to the end of ideology. No more: people are realizing that on both practical and personal levels, this approach is unworkable. People need to enjoy life and relax more, and even get nice and bored so they can figure themselves out in that void, so that they are more functional. But more than that, they need to be able to believe that life itself is pleasurable and good, not a grim task of implementing illogical and unrealistic rules against the resistance of the world. Our people are miserable and make bad decisions as a result, and that must change.

We have lived in despair for too long because of the Leftist indocrination that the family of theories and methods beginning with equality was the only path. Now we see differently, and as if by the turning of the world, new possibilities emerge. We are able to look at recent history as error and recognize what we must do to fix it, even if that denies everything we have known.

Tags: , ,

17 Responses to “The era of impossible solutions made possible”

  1. hhhhhh says:

    I liked the first paragraph: crow and jpw are clearly leftists and people don’t notice it.

    Leftists are almost never truly atheists: they believe in the new-age religion, and always in the religion of the state.

    Modern christianity is not a religion, but a group of break-away religions from Judaism coupled with some vestiges of the true European religion and the Roman state religion. Varg Vikernes has many videos on this. Paganism for Europe; prosperity for Europe. And it should always be treated as metaphorical, not literal.

    • AntiDem says:

      Varg Vikernes is a crank and a lunatic, and anyone who thinks that Europe will be saved if we all adopt a right-wing version of Wicca and do the Safety Dance around a maypole needs their dosage of Prozac upped.

      • I think he is Odinist, not Wiccan. Interesting points. Readers whose curiosity has been piqued can read more about Varg Vikernes at:

        And his blog:

      • -A says:

        @ Anti-Dem

        Love your blog. I was brought up Catholic (no Vatican II in the household but, it slowly infected family)and I always loved the tradition but, not the God. It as a thing on paper is nothing like the thing in the collective conscious of the European. We should have a God that is of our blood. Catholicism is a work of European Theology, it should not be impossible to make more European. It will be viewed as one more multi-kulti cog in the Beast and while they scoff now at Franny Evita, the Protestants are gonna get it worse. After all, no Syncretism and all you have is Judaism.

    • crow says:

      Still here?
      Only Neo Nazis hold the view that I am a leftist. While leftists hold the view that I am a Neo Nazi. There is little to distinguish between such people: they are all completely deranged.

      • Neo-Nazis strike me as too in love with the guillotine. Others are too afraid of it. I think you would view it as a tool, and use it wisely. That is both a middle path and an extreme.

        Me, I hate the guillotine but I love boats. Big glorious cruise ships filled with people going to places where they belong, to the benefit of all. Well, and liberals going to Brazil, which might turn out for the best as well.

    • -A says:

      JPW I get but, why Crow? Crow is not really left or right. Crow just is. Because he sees what is in front of him, the right will usually be his side out of necessity. We could all learn to be a little bit more like Crow. Just because too few people are innately doesn’t mean no such people as a Crow exist. Most of them are men, though, and many women love to imitate.

  2. Wrong Side of History says:

    Non-Western European whites don’t need to be deported. Different European ethnicities could be given their own states/regions with their own relative autonomy.

    • …or what, we’re racist against whites? Northwestern/Western, Eastern and Southern Europe (including Ireland) are vastly different in genetics and culture. Let’s fix the problem not perpetuate it. It’s also nonsense to deport minority groups and not hold ourselves to the same standard.

    • -A says:

      Their homelands are also going through a native population crises. Sending them all back will help with the breeding of soldiers for their best interests. It will also leave us to our own cultures. I used to have quite the fetish for Eastern European culture. Especially their religions but, it really never is to you like what your own ways are.

  3. Martin Jacobsen says:

    Brett-I think the atheism bullet is right on target. They (AHA and similar groups) have adopted a minority status approach that I think ruins the entire stance. To my mind, the atheist ethos should be libertarian: Let’s leave each other alone. But it’s becoming “Give us equal time” or “You’ve offended us, destroy yourselves.” It’s preposterous for atheists to compete for religious recognition.

    • Great to see you commenting here. I am in full agreement on this:

      To my mind, the atheist ethos should be libertarian: Let’s leave each other alone.

      Atheism steadily won converts when its message was: I do not wish for participation in any religion to be compulsory, and atheists were mellow enough to stand quietly during prayers at football games and the like.

      The “nu-Atheism” has been assimilated by more powerful political forces and is being used for their ends. As a result, its proximity to obnoxious mainstream politics has risen at the same time its actual atheist content has decreased.

  4. AYY LMAO says:

    A hasty jump from one concept to the next; I anticipate further research necessary to back up your claims. This is an interesting topic. . .

  5. J.j. Cintia says:

    This microaggression and censorship is a good sign. Their narrative has collapsed and so they are using censorship and punishing dissent in a desperate attempt to retain control. That jackboot has no force behind it though. This is blatantly unconstitutional and they can only get away with this in Leftist strongholds. Whites can easily avoid these pits, and with the divershitty progrmas, soon they will be inundated with uncontrollable blacks and angry Hispanics. This is a recipe for an all-out brawl between competing grievance groups already hostile towards each other.

    • I agree. The use of censorship is dividing America and Europe into two camps: True Believers (Leftists) and everyone else cowering in the corner hoping it will blow over.

  6. moe connoisseur says:

    Weak-willed people pick up atheism to cover their escape from institutions that are too powerful for them. I’m in favour of institutions, and because of that, religion. However, I’m against Christianity. It is not the native faith anywhere in Europe or North America. The practical side is the old religion of the Jews. The impractical side of turning the other cheek and the virtuousness of getting killed is of little use.

    I’d like a religion that stressed honour and the real virtues, denied any revenge or reward that is delayed so much it exists outside of this world, and pulled us together as a people (as opposed to the internationalism of Christianity). Varg’s vision is the closest to my ideal.

    I should also say that once in a pretty long time there is need for someone who’d explore beyond good and evil. Atheism should be reserved only to those few exceptions as a privilege.

    • -A says:

      If Christianity as it is adapts to the needs of the people, then that problem is solved. There is no reason to corner others who are not really part of that fold. That will only lead to trouble that no one really wants until they are told that they do.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>