Occasionally I decide to break a few laws. When doing so, it's mostly motivated by personal principles. For instance, I refuse to pay the common license fee for televisions, because I don't watch the public service channels. I sometimes drive against red light to follow traffic rhythm in inner cities. And I don't see a problem with letting friends smoke marijuana at my porch when it's hot outside. Here's why.

I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.
- Henry David Thoreau

The rule of law is one of the key things that set the West (including its offspring like Australia and Japan) apart from most of its other neighboring powers. We follow the rule of law because we want each citizen to be treated equally under a common standard. But the laws themselves need to change over time in order to reflect the current culture they preside over. Sometimes politicians don't make that happen. Then people have to act.

Justice in Western societies is based upon Christian morality. According to Western tradition, people are sole responsible for their individual actions. This is why we have individual rights written down in our constitutions. But with these rights also come limitations. Following Christian tradition, we have a choice to either obey a law or break it. When we break it, there are ways of punishing our behavior. Punishment is a cost for behaving without limitations. This is what Plato described when he talked about the invincible ring of Gyges; if we act invincible, we will corrupt ourselves, because we escape consequences of our choices.

A law is a sort of contract. It's a promise that if you step beyond the bounds of society, society will punish you for it. This is why law breaking, in one sense, is unproblematic. You are free to kill your cheating wife or hunt down a rapist with torches, but if someone gets hurt, you'll have to pay for it. So when I decide to be civic obedient and not pay for a service I don't want, I'm rebelling against a law. But with that choice, I am also ready to face any consequences of my behavior. In this case, it'll just cost me a fine, and only in a rare case will I face a shorter prison sentence.

But the point stands: I, together with many other Swedes who feel the public service channels should either change the way they finance their service, or switch to a commercial model, are slowly changing an idiotic law by protesting against it. Civic disobedience is a common feature of Western societies all throughout history, and is actually actively supported by the Swedish parliament. It is believed to strengthen important rights and democracy.

Why is this important? Because most people today walk around in total fear of laws and are ready to commit to irrational behavior in order to obey the government. Sometimes laws, like in the traffic, can be more harmful than helpful. In those situations it's crucial to make an independent evaluation of what's going on. It's important to understand that a system of laws is just a contract, and you're free to pull off from any details, as long as you understand that it may cost you. In most cases, the cost is too high, which is what supposedly stops most of us from killing and stealing whenever we feel like it. The rest, of course, is up to communal and individual morality. That's why a strong civic community is important, both to protect, and occasionally, circumvent laws.

"I want anarchy!" "Save the white race!" "Money is our enemy!" When you've lived long enough you begin to understand why most people, especially those who are sensible in most areas of life, surprisingly are moderate when it comes to politics. They've seen extremists and revolutionaries destroy whole societies like Russia and Cuba. But more cautiously, they've observed how the best of soft intentions often spawn tyranny, as in the case of Holland and Sweden. This is the story of why conservatism really is about conserving moderation.

Revolution attracts young people, because of its inherent idealism. Powerful people are fascinated by it, because it gives them an opportunity to continue to rule under a new fashion system of government. When the lower classes in France demanded a revolution, the nobility recognized the problems their privileges posed to the public, but chose to resist opposition. After the Second World War, in many parts of Europe, they slowly passed votes saying yes to public democracy. Conservatism was therefore born to stabilize society by slowing down revolutions through the implementation of slow changes to society as a whole.

The conservative principle is belief in slow change guided by tradition. This means it's both futuristic and traditionalistic. Radical ideologies like socialism, feminism and anarchism fall outside of this scheme of thought, because they demand a radical transformation of society at fast speed, often with little or no consideration to historical reality. Put simply, radicalism takes no regard to human nature or history, but sees only ideas on paper. When they become reality, they often create dysfunctional cultures like Russia and North Korea.

Radical conservatism is therefore sort of an oxymoron. You're not really conservative if you believe we should immediately overthrow our democratic leaders, replace the entire class system with birth-given meritocracy and send home millions of immigrants from wherever they came from. It would completely disrupt the entire society, even if its goals are based on historic conditions. If we look realistically at the world, we recognize we need a moderate change over a longer period of time to which people can adapt to. Think about some of these issues:

• Feminism: Has caused us a lot of harm, but as it stands today, many women are capable in the work force and some of them are completely unsuitable as mothers. Forcing them all to revert back to pre-2000 gender roles would not work out, and would dig a hole in an already infected economy.

  Democracy: Moderates some problems with direct tyranny, but historically seems to transform into some form of fascism over time, clouded with bureaucracy. What would we do if we killed it next year? We'd have to rewrite our entire constitutions, many of them spanning centuries of political wisdom. And after anarchy? Well...

  Multiculturalism: Has not brought us much diversity, despite high promises. Yet most people today know that some immigrants have managed to integrate nicely and contribute to the host culture and society. It's not been a picnic, but slowly we've found out that culture is much more dynamic than what we think and if it wants to survive, it cannot be isolated, it needs to adapt to worldly conditions in a global civilization.

  Capitalism: Everyone's favorite target these days, and indeed, the West's hyper-effective economies have drained natural resources and made life boring and miserable for a lot of workers. The alternative though, as we can still see in socialist countries around the world, is not that appealing. Great minds have found that it's possible to limit environmental and social problems by better understanding how a free market really works, given the input of sane values guiding it instead of raw money craze.

  Americanism: When a dominant culture rules, all other cultures adapt to certain key conditions of that host culture. We saw it in central Europe during the rule of Rome and we see traces of it in Caucasus today. But what it means is not just that cultural diversity is relative to any master culture sustaining it, but most importantly that maybe, sometimes, we should be thankful there is a backing hand in a world increasingly left in the hands of unpredictable and dangerous dictatorships.

This realization may upset some people, especially young idealists. It means we may be thinking right when we orient ourselves around radical philosophy, but fail miserably when we try to apply these philosophies short-term. Therefore we choose not to directly advocate an uprise against democracy, death of feminism or destruction of globalism on this site. Radical conservatism, understood as a belief that life would be better if we returned to a pre-modern world, is appealing in theory, but is lethal in practice.

Instead we believe in a moderate conservatism where these over-arching goals influence the way we bring about slow change today. In terms of lifestyle, this means we may choose to lift weights instead of training with swords, letting our women repair the car one day instead of locking them up inside the kitchen, joining a local church community instead of declaring pagan gods our masters, or attending local Arab parties when we feel like having fun, instead of deciding that all immigrants are unwelcome guests. Some say this is pragmatism, but what it really is, is a recognition of the depth and value of history, and a willingness to let that history guide us safely but bravely into the future. Think wisely, think conservative--think Right.

Where I live, most people are either Social Democrats or Communists, or both. These people tend to blame every problem in society on capitalism. I once spoke with a bartender who went as far as claiming that it was the fault of capitalism that small beer breweries had to close down in the city. He wasn't receptive to alternative explanations. Let's look closer at this anti-capitalist sentiment common in the West today.

The single most common anti-capitalist argument you come across is that thanks to capitalism, when tied with globalism, big corporations buy up smaller businesses and destroy economic diversity. McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wal-Mart are textbook examples used to support this argument. People tend to forget that while these multi-national corporations are huge and do overrun similar business chains, there are still lots of successful alternatives. For every McDonald's in Sweden there are 5-7 alternatives, specializing on similar but not identical food selection. How many small Mexican food restaurants don't pop up every day, and Walmart is simply the giant among a whole bunch of we-serve-it-all-to-a-lower-price stores. The idea that big corporations by default kill smaller businesses is simply not true.

Young people may only see McDonald's everywhere and figure they've been duped. They may be right--McDonald's food is garbage served to people who cannot burn what they eat, but they're forgetting that big producers have been around for a long time, much longer than what modern day capitalism has been. This is especially true in European countries, where it was common (and in some cases still is) with one big company producing all the kitchen drawers, radiators or doors in people's homes. They took it for granted that it was simply the best product available. Today you can choose from hundreds of different producers, just in your average bigger city.

What do we do if we still say no to (largely) free business and tree? What alternatives to we expect to exist? The truth is that we'd still end up with large central producers and government-owned companies. Imagine the State of California taking over Microsoft and start producing Windows 8, or the state of France producing one bicycle model for all its citizens. I'm sure we'd see a dramatic drop in technical development and a lot of bureaucratic dysfunction swimming in tax money. The alternative to a one-size-fits-all economy has historically been the free market economy. We know it works, because that's how nations became prosperous, and it's been the best way to nurture and safe guard small enterprise culture.

People shoot the messenger when they're putting all blame on capitalism for fast food, plastic kitchen tools and uninspiring Tex-Mex salads. To illustrate the example in a completely different area, read this excerpt from a chat conversation about pop music and the fine arts:

Me: i can't believe some people plan their nights around watching reality tv, that has to be bad for the brain
Her (12:59:36 PM): My sister does. At least on Tuesdays.
Her (12:59:39 PM): She loves American Idol
Me (12:59:42 PM): yuck
Her (12:59:53 PM): I love Idol, actually.
Me (1:00:15 PM): how does ellen degeneras have any credibility to be a judge in music, she has no background in music; she just has a famous name and a happy face (which is just a bag of tricks; anyone can appear happy)
Her (1:00:42 PM): Because they wanted a judge that wasn't involved in the music industry.
Me (1:00:51 PM): well what's she know about quality singing?
Her (1:00:52 PM): People in the industry see music differently than people who just watch the show.
Me (1:01:11 PM): oh, that's a good thing?
Her (1:01:15 PM): Their definition of a good artist a lot of the time differs from non performers.
Me (1:01:45 PM): yea and they don't know what good is if they have no experience in music
Her (1:02:01 PM): But they know what they like and what they don't like.
Her (1:02:14 PM): Hence the reason people actually watch the show and vote.

What's funny about this conversation is not that the girl suggests American Idol is fun to watch. It's the guy's misunderstanding of what she is trying to say: the show captures people's interest because it bears a meaningful relation to our time. If we'd lived in 15th Century France, we'd probably observe the masses listen to something else that is trendy. But if we think 50 Cent is producing garbage music for wiggers, it's not the fault of popular music itself, but rather we are making a critique of culture and of mass psychology. I'm not sure in which society the masses have ever been smart enough to understand Beethoven or vote New Right, but we need to realize it's fantasy talk.

Just like popular music did not kill classical music, capitalism isn't killing small business. On the contrary, we need to look at people's attitudes and values. Competition on a free market offers us possibilities. The choices we make define how the market will develop. Me, I always go to a local hair dresser, I prefer locally produced food, I buy records of independent artists I enjoy, I tend to go to smaller clothing chains than the big and faceless ones, I like small churches, and the type of record stores you find in basements on odd street addresses. In Western capitalism we have choices to make.

The fact that many people prefer to go to McDonald's over Joe's Taco Grill is a sign of cultural convenience rather than system failure. I, for one, don't really have a problem with a strong fast food industry, as long as I pay minimum fees for the people who destroy their health because of it. Me, and many others who increasingly think locally, will continue to support small businesses and local shops. It doesn't stop me from grabbing a Big Mac sometimes or finding something interesting at a Wal-Mart-ish superstore. But if we want to preserve local business culture and people's economic independence from bureaucrats, we need to change our way of thinking and choosing, not reverting back to soft Soviet babysitting. Down that road there are few beer breweries and even fewer church communities..

Right now the West is busy regulating everything in sight that seems dangerous. Smoking, drinking, driving, fucking--just about anything humans have done for a century or so is nowadays classified as dangerous activity. Scientists love it, because they earn sponsor money for their research. Journalists love it, because it keeps their business alive. Politicians love it, because it gives them an excuse to play Nanny and protect their citizens from supposed harm. And the Crowd loves it, because...well, because it's full of morons.

The latest danger to be banned in Canada, and now also in Sweden, is the plastic baby bottle:

The government announced Friday that it intends to ban the import, sale and advertising of baby bottles with the controversial chemical bisphenol A, the widely used chemical found in plastic baby bottles, water bottles and food containers.

The announcement comes after a lengthy review of the chemical under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan. Recent research has shown that bisphenol A is an estrogenic hormone disrupter that causes reproductive damage and may lead to prostate and breast cancer in adulthood. Babies are particularly vulnerable, since most traditional plastic baby bottles leach bisphenol A into the milk they drink.

“Although our science tells us that exposure levels to newborns and infants are below the level that cause effects, we believe that the current safety margin needs to be higher. We have concluded that it is better to be safe than sorry,” Clement said.

Wait, we receive less exposure than what is believed to be harmful, and yet we need to ban it straight off? This is strange enough, but what I want you to pay attention to is the logic used as justification for the ban: "it is better to to be safe than sorry." I'm pretty sure he means it's better to be safe than to worry. They call it "precautionary action." But what if precautions turn into tyranny?

With this precautionary logic we can justify the ban of pretty much anything in society. And it makes people wholly neurotic. In Sweden they interviewed worried mothers who now refused to give their children plastic baby bottles. One mother commented: "I don't care if it might only be slightly dangerous. I'm not taking any risks." But dear mother, as long as your precious baby is alive, it will be exposed to risks every day. If these baby bottles aren't even proved to actually cause humans harm, why do we even worry? And why do we ban?

The conservative point is this: the need for safety is dangerous when it becomes a narcotic drug. We cannot, and should not, make everything safe. We need to take risks, and evaluate their effect. Health experts in Europe are now suggesting we go back to baby bottles of glass. Let's look at that for a moment. When you drop a plastic bottle, it bounces. When a bottle of glass is dropped, it is likely to break, because children don't like to hold heavy things. And what then? Children drink milk with glass in it? Children play with glass and actually get hurt? This is how worrying about safety turns into real danger.

Until a better bottle reaches the market, maybe a cross-over between glass and plastic, plastic baby bottles are good products. They make perfect sense, and are cheap. If I was a parent, I'd buy one for my kid. Do I care about a chemical proven to only cause harm much below the levels of exposure humans receive? I might take note and find a better product, if possible, but I won't worry. I'll still use the microwave, I'll still drink a beer every day, I'll still smoke a cigar when the occasion is right, and I'll still eat that bloody red meat people say causes cancer. It might be a risk, but as far as my life goes, it is most definitely worth it.

Love it or hate it, but Christianity and "Judeo-Christan" values compose the very backbone of Western law, morality and culture. Even Nietzsche had some good things to say about Jesus and Christianity. But with new scandals of pedophilia and corruption, Christianity is now a religion quickly losing momentum in Europe, and possibly also in America. We need to ask ourselves why, but while many will say "Richard Dawkins," and I will basically say they're right, the truth of the matter is that people are right in a way they probably don't expect to be.

When we talk about the three pillars of modern Western civilization, we point to Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. Democratic government, rule of law, Christian morality. The fact that we associate Western morality with Jerusalem, highlights the fact that Christianity originated as a sect within Judaism, headed by the rebel Jesus. The morality found in the New Testament changed our world, for better or worse, and spawned the underlying meme for the development of both liberal democracy and Western law: humanism.

Christianity was always about humanism, but from the beginning of its creation, it rarely lived up to its moral ideals of humility, peace, brotherhood and equality. The Christian feudal societies in Europe thrived on hierarchal power structures, constant warfare, injustices between social classes and conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Christianity was the word used to declare war, burn witches or keep people suppressed under tyrants. Religion, just like today, could not be separated from the social reality of its time.

Nietzsche's prediction of a Christian nihilism, or a death in the belief in God and the morality that deity represented, was really just a rare prediction of how the social reality of Europe would come to develop. As many European countries went through the Enlightenment, people "discovered" that one could keep the Christian morality, but throw all the supernatural dogma out the window. Eventually this process came to develop what we today call secular humanism.

You might as well call it secular Christianity, because it contains all the Christian virtues that a religious tyrant would espouse 600 years ago, only there's no mention of rituals, community, duties or any deity. One way to look at this development is to regard secular humanism as the ultimate stage of Christianity. It's finally cut itself down to its very core ideals that Jesus once preached to unite people against the Romans. Only today we call ourselves followers of human rights, UN and Amnesty, not Jesus Christ.

If you understand this, fully, you now also begin to see the problem Christianity is facing. Actually, it concerns Islam just as much. We are slowly killing religion because we're taking a shortcut to what we believe is its essence, but in doing so we actually threaten to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity without its dogmatic and ritual foundation is just another outpost for the UN. And those human virtues may contribute to a positive development for many societies, but without the religious anchor, will also help to erode the cultural and communal unity that is necessary to support a safe, humane society.

Richard Dawkins is therefore, correctly, a destroyer of Christianity. He's advocating the shortcut to humanism. But I and many others believe that the destroyers of religion may end up creating new religious life anyway. Like Nietzsche professed, godless people may be moral, but they will also suffer from emptiness inside. Without beliefs, virtues tend to lose their vigor and become hollow words of little or no meaning. It is through the sacredness, community and ritual of religious life that people tend to understand and command morality. Not from the view of a godless scientist.

Quite frankly, a godless society is boring and uncreative. It's like it has something important it wants to say, but it just cannot find an interesting way to say it. None of this may necessarily point to a rebirth of Christianity. Maybe it's not even a good idea to attempt a European Christian resurrection. But the godless European is destined, just like his ancestors before him, to invent new gods and new sacred systems for himself. He's not satisfied with the ones he has already created at offices, televisions and parliaments. And when those gods rise, so will the people who have the courage to believe in them.

In "The happiness of the people," Charles Murray makes the same prediction every Anglo-American journalist has been making about immigration and European welfare for decades:

The European model can’t continue to work much longer. Europe’s catastrophically low birthrates and soaring immigration from cultures with alien values will see to that.

The argument seems to rest upon the notion that the welfare system in the past did work, but because immigration brought outside cultural values, the system will eventually break down. But is this really true? First, let's look at some recent history of Swedish economics:

Beginning in the 1870s, however, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world's fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.

Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. By the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.

These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.

People often forget that Sweden didn't became rich because of its post-60s welfare model, but rather despite it. Naturally, such a model would never have existed unless there already were strong unions and labor movements who pushed for social democracy rather than capitalism. These are the inherent "Swedish" values behind the Scandinavian experiment. The idea of inborn cultural values that profess this welfare model is simply a myth.

But the real fallacy behind Murray & Co's reasoning lies not in the myth of homogenous welfare values. The real question is whether "alien values" is a threat to the welfare model at all. Consider the welfare society as an organism. It operates bureaucratically; as long as its citizens go to work and pay their taxes, the system basically works. In a more capitalist society where deregulations eventually lead to a greater civic sector where people are dependent upon each other, cultural homogenity becomes more important.

You can therefore live practically your whole life in moderate isolation from your neighbors and community, as long as you bring home cash and send off taxes. You'll survive, and if there is trouble, an agency will continue to support you. The dependence on other people is minimal. This is why Sweden is an extremely individualist society with great tolerance for subcultures, often baffling non-Europeans. In a society where you rely much more upon your own actions and those of the community, you will need to find common ground quickly. This is where cultural values come in.

Immigrants to Scandinavia can therefore keep their Muslim, Jewish or Hindu identity and still make it multiculturally, because they will live much of their lives in isolation from native Scandinavians, or end up in another multicultural community just like their families and relatives. It "works," because the citizens of Scandinavia are financing a system making it possible to live as secluded as possible. The only alien values threatening the welfare model are those that break with the ethics that profess hard work, little pay and heavy taxes. Most cultures can and will adapt to that model, since they'll maintain a good material standard in return.

There does exist such a break in values, but there are reasons to suggest it will even out over time across generations. The real immigration threat to the Swedish model is rather the costs, and the model itself, which, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, thrives on "running out of other people's money to spend." Aware European conservatives therefore take the immigration issue seriously, but even more profess the greatest systematic threat is the system itself, which preferably would return to the high-growth, pre-60's model that made Sweden prosperous and economically competitive.

An old conservative era is slowly coming to an end. We're seeing it in Europe, where the past crony-rightism of Berlusconi types and the weak leadership of social liberals come under frequent fire. Most notably, in America, there's been serious talk of a "GOP crisis" for years since the end of the Bush Administration. Tea Party movements are opening fire against the Republican establishment and radical Right-wingers in Europe are transforming old conservatives who have sold out to social liberalism and social democracy.

This old era now belongs to the past. The new age is that of a New Right. An age without central movements, but central ideas and motivations. But what does it really mean to subscribe to something like this? The New Right, to be perfectly clear, attacks both the Left and the Right. It is highly self-critical and lacks central ideological authority. While it remains anti-Left, to better understand its framework, you have to look at where it parts from the traditional Republican Right. And these are the patterns we may discern:

• Environment: The old Right was often environmentalist in character, but refused to compromise with industrial and economic development. "Progress" was the name of the game, but as the world increasingly became a filthy place to live in, New Rightists began to promote capitalism and environmentalism at the same time, some even suggesting the government should restrain population numbers. The idea? We want to live well off, but because of our numbers, all of us cannot do it, so we need to rethink both technology and urban design.

  At the front: Michael E. Arth, politician and urban designer, attempts to unite fiscal conservatism with progressive environmentalism. Current with a new book: Democracy and the Common Wealth: Breaking the Stranglehold of the Special Interests.

• Foreign policy: After the Cold War, Reagan was a hero for standing up for Western values, but when the Bush Administration began to see its mission to spread those values to the rest of the world, New Rightists spoke out and said the empire couldn't afford it. Some even went as far as saying that America's status as super power may be over soon. This shifted the focus away from the strength of West, to how it relates to the rest of the world. This culminated in the death of neoconservatism in America, and the rise of anti-Islamic, pro-patriotic sentiment in Europe.

  At the Front: Ron Paul, libertarian and Austrian-schooled presidential candidate. Made great news during the previous presidential election when suggesting that America had created its own foreign enemies and that the Iraq War was not handled properly by government and military agencies.
  In Europe, Dutch politician Geert Wilders warned that the issue Europeans should be worried about is not whether we are superior to other people or not, but whether our values match those of non-Western values. His conclusion was no, and everyone was offended, especially the old Right.

• Economy: When the economic crisis hit America, and later Europe, political leaders began to question the authority of capitalism. New Rightists fathomed this criticism but suggested that while capitalism is superior to any other economic system we've ever designed, it's been overthrown by bureaucrats and governments who control the market to promote special interests. By doing so, New Rightists highlighted the fact that any economic system can be manipulated behind closed doors, unless there is a regulating force stopping it from doing so. The invisible hand, not so invisible after all?

  At the Front: Peter Schiff, libertarian and Austrian-schooled, predicted the economic downturn in America years before it took place. At that time he was publically ridiculed for his viewpoints. When proven right, the old Right began to listen to what he and others had to say about the impact of growing government on the free market system. The message was too radical for any American President, regardless of political color: let that which spells failure, fail, so we can move on to stabilize markets and create jobs. Economic purists took notes and became followers.

• Culture: After the Second World War, patriotism and nationalism transformed into ethnic and cultural masochism in Europe. The old Right wanted to remain enemies of the old Fascist and Nazi regimes, so it adopted the same policies. The New Right became fed up with the urban sprawl, social decay and cultural confusion caused by leftist-driven multiculture, and said no. Even more radically, it suggested a more compassionate form of cultural nationalism is possible, one based on mutual respect rather than racism. If suppressed, it argued, the West will lose belief in itself and self-destruct.

  At the Front: Mark Steyn, conservative agitator and columnist, flamed the leftist-liberal establishment in Canada for trying to promote religious and cultural diversity over constitutional rights. Later moving to America and becoming the European voice in American old-school conservatism, Steyn controversially suggested America was the last outpost of Western civilization not yet fully succumbed to alien values and liberal-government supremacy. His attack on ideological multiculturalism remains epic.

• HBD (Human Biological Diversity): When Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein wrote the Bell Curve, it immediately became highly controversial. Its main thesis was the cause; it claimed scientifically that biology matters far more than social environment for the development, character and ability of social and racial groups. This sparked a slow revolution among conservatives of the old Right, who increasingly began to believe that humans cannot and should not be socialized to become equal, but instead pursue interests based on ability. The New Right thus began calling itself believers of HBD, human biological diversity, and suggested liberal leftists denied science in favor of social utopia.

  At the Front: Steve Sailer, famous American columnist and author, trespassed into forbidden territory by covering news about the relation between social culture and genetics. He found that genetics is superior to any social model of how humans interact and work, and that we therefore haven't changed much the last thousand years or so. His influence remains large in America, where smaller movements of conservative-leaning people have begun to apply similar theories on gender roles, dating, race relations and even music.

So what does all of this add up to? The New Right is first and foremost against entitlement programs and extended government control of areas in society that used to be civic or cultural in nature. To beat back what it perceives as being socialist policies, it upholds the nuclear family model, free business enterprise and traditional culture as central to society. It also seeks to challenge the mainstream environmentalism with conservationism, or the belief that it's more important to conserve free land for functioning ecosystems and designing sustainable infrastructure, rather than buying the right ecoproducts in the stores.

Perhaps what most clearly distinguishes the New Right from the old Right is the tendency to believe more in evolutionary and biological answers than in social and environmental answers. The New Right refuses to worship race and class, but recognizes their reality in society and seeks to understand them on scientific terms. While scrutinizing the Western empire-building post WWII, the New Right embraces local decision making and decentralized power to bring authorities closer to the people they govern, while emphasizing strong and persistant leadership in the service of constitutional tradition.

In our book store we list some of the most fascinating, penetrating and forward-thinking literature circulating among the New Right. We add more as we continue our journey.

"The two party charade must end"
- Ron Paul

Many Europeans feel that the American political system is less democratic because it only centers around two parties. In Sweden we have no less than eight big parties, ranging from moderate conservatives to hardline socialist leftists. The situation is similar to many other European countries. Yet the appearance of political diversity deceives; ideologically, there's actually a greater diversity in America than in Sweden. How come?

One answer issocial democracy. During Sweden's social democratic era, all political parties moved to the left. This meant that the only true Conservative party, the Right-wing Party, became the Moderates. As the name implies, they switched to a more liberal position. During the 90's they became neoliberals in the classical tradition. Today they are social liberals and support as much welfare as the Social Democrats do. So in reality, even if you have more parties to choose from, you really only vote for which tax money is to be shuffled around where.

In America you have two central choices that still maintain different profiles. Even if they nowadays overlap, especially thanks to the war budget and its aftermath policies, there is a clear opposition with different world views at conflict. In Europe this conflict is absent. We already know we want welfare, we're just endlessly arguing how to best finance it. In America, people are at a historical stand point: Socialized or privatized health care? End or continue the war? Let banks fail or bail them out? Issues that are big because the political choices offer a limited but stark diversity.

If you think about it, it's quite logical. More political parties means that single issues like the environment are becoming more important than ideological conviction, and since these parties can't profile on ideology alone like the Democrats and the GOP can, they adopt very generalized stances on larger issues like defense, economy and social care. You don't vote Green because you believe they have such a great health care budget. You vote Green because a few Green issues were put on the plate. This means people in a multi-party system will vote for very similar issues on a broad scale, but more differently on a single policy scale. In America you'll have to swallow the few bad policies in the bigger mix, hence you motivate your decision on broad, ideological issues.

As a result we have an ideologically-aware America (in Sweden, even Obama's soft-hipster patriotism would be viewed skeptically) and a policy-aware Europe. I question the utility of a system such as the European, where we are offered many choices with few real options on political impact--hell, I question liberal democracy altogether. But while the American two party charade, as Ron Paul describes it, continues, there's reason to doubt it'll last. The increasing radicalization of the Republican party thanks to third party libertarians and the nowadays influential Tea Partiers, the conservatives are forced to purify their ideological standpoints in opposition to the Obamarama-liberalism. A turn in political culture that we have yet to see in any European nation, despite eternal shifts between liberal conservatives and liberal leftists.

I came into an argument recently (I always do) with two girls I was doing a news report with. They wanted to interview an equal amount of men and women. I just wanted to find competent people to say competent things. Clash of work methods. "So what's the problem," they said, "why are you against women's rights"? First, read what Kevin Myers has to say about this--and Myers has always interesting things to say:

In any civilisation, certain values or concepts or individuals can achieve an iconic, untouchable status: imperialism and General Gordon in Victorian Britain, or Patrick Pearse and blood sacrifice in 1960s Ireland, or John F Kennedy and the Great American Dream after his assassination. The creation of the global village since then has also generated a set of international iconic values, which are beyond discussion or analysis: Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, women's equality, gay rights, Palestine. These issues do not permit discussion. They stand as virtues that are unassailably "right" in themselves. If you criticise Nelson Mandela for his presidency of South Africa, you are clearly a supporter of apartheid. And so on.

But it is worse than that: for if you utter an opinion that could be interpreted as violating the new international liberal taboos, then you will be hung, drawn and quartered, regardless of what you had actually said. The perception is all: and, of course, the perception is usually the creation of our friends in the media.

You're looking at the problem right here. Feminism includes women's rights, which I support (well, in retrospect, maybe we should have limited voting rights to aristocratic men only), but women's rights don't necessarily assume feminism. This is Myers' simple point: when people argue about feminism, they make it seem like you have to support it, or else you hate women or women's rights.

Don't fall for the bait, because it'll make you look like an idiot in public. The truth is that feminism is a socialist doctrine that seeks to empower women through bureaucratic government. I support women's rights in the sense that women organize themselves to improve their lives. I don't support any such "rights" handed out by some bureaucrat trying to raise female wages or discriminate men to force women into certain work fields. So how did I confront these whiny girls?

Me: So you're saying you're too incompetent to make more money?
Girls: Yes, we stand no chance because of the patriarchy!
Me: And you want white men in power to help you with that?
Girls: ....
Me: So we end up owning you anyway. Ain't life a bitch!

Men who say they are men, but still behave as boys. That's the topic of my latest article on paleo-masculinity at AlternativeRight:

If you study Western popular culture, you get an aesthetic view of masculine behavior and values. It's about fast cars, beer drinking, lots of chicks, nerdy computer games, and political labels. They all share a common denominator, aestheticism, or putting more value in the external than the internal. Instead of showing a man pursuing a value or goal, popular culture portrays a man as someone who has bought a certain gimmick or consumer lifestyle. Of course, since the traditional sociological move from boy to man has slowed down, and in many cases not even been made entirely, men need to share collective identity based on something else. If you're not managing a farm, a family, or a church, you have to pride yourself with something else. In our society, it's appearance.

Go and check it out!

For a couple of posts now I've made the case that civic work enriches life. It might be something as simple as helping your neighbor cut the lawn properly. But if there's something in it for you, there is also something in it for your appearance. In short, when you get involved with work outside of what's commonly expected of you, it will be recognized. Reputation.

The function of reputation is brutal, but useful once you learn to master it. Having lived most of my life in a small community, I know how this works. Do good, few people will recognize it. Do bad, most people will recognize it. It's harder to slay dragons and receive gold, than to accidentally trip on a baby and be sentenced to death by public opinion. There is a great satisfaction though in doing good and receiving credit for it.

Last Sunday I had to set up audio equipment for a professional singer, which in this case meant cutting the higher frequencies and boosting the mid-section register. Afterwards she told me I had almost perfect sound perception, and that other people had recommended my work. This is quite a charm after just a few week's worth of voluntary work, but it kind of proves my point. If, however, say an important key got lost and I happened to be the only one in the room at the time of its disappearance, my credibility would immediately be hurt.

I say this because people are small-minded crowdists, especially women, who love every chance to backfire and backstab to create drama. They may not even wish you harm, it's just their idea of wasting time. Reputation is therefore always a mix of action, appearance and myth. Civic work is good in that it's clearly action-oriented, it has a public appearance, and there's little myth surrounding it, since anyone can observe and join. Fearing I'd been too rough with a few female students, I dropped the church argument: "...anyway, you girls have fun, I'm staying home, I've got church tomorrow." Their jaws. Dropped. To the ground.

I suggest all anti-Western conspiracies constitute a European-liberal conspiracy to undermine our Western superiority. Follow me to understand why.

When I was loading a Wikipedia page about Judaism, my Internet connection froze. Opera had only loaded 9/11 elements of the page. JEWS DID 9/11!!1! Well, of course. If you're convinced about a belief, you tend to see proof of that belief everywhere, because there's a need within most people to constantly re-assert their personal opinions. If you hate America or Israel, or just dissatisfied with life in general, you'll find every opportunity to "reveal" conspiracy proof that they destroy the world.

That's the psychological explanation. But the reason to why we're seeing so much doomsday conspiracy thinking going on today may be of an ideological nature. Let's review the main targets of Western conspiracy beliefs:

• (Pax) America(na)
• Israel/Jews
• Capitalism
• Transnational organizations
• Populist greenism

What these groups, institutions and belief systems all have in common is success and status quo. They are powerful norms in all Western societies. America is still a world super power. Israel is backed by America, and Eastern-European Jews are still highly successful as a group. Capitalism has not only won the West over, it's winning ground where we never thought it would (China has recently even recognized a form of private property right). Transnational organizations like IMF, UN, EU and WHO are as powerful as ever. Greenism is dominant in every branch of industry today.

People who subscribe to Western conspiracy theories revolving around these targets also oppose the norms that currently support the Western power dominance. But instead of simply criticizing the power norms, which is healthy for everyone to do, conspiracists take it one step further: if we're against the West, and group X is too, we ally with X. This explains how young white people living arm chair lifestyles can blog on Facebook about how cool Russia is, why "mixed economies" are better than capitalism, why Israelis are Nazis, and how global warming is a religion that aims at controlling the world. It's an arm chair POV, because it bears little or no relation to reality. It's ideological fiction.

But by calling for revolution instead of internal criticism, we undermine our own position in the world and leave ourselves vulnerable to open fire from enemies abroad. This is how 9/11 happened--not because we were all-mighty and powerful. We all know Anglo-America pretty much is. It happened because while we were all-mighty and powerful, we were displaying signs of weakness. The weakness of not being willing to demonstrate that power. It's kindergarten psychology at a foreign policy level: you may be strong as a horse, but if you're afraid of fighting, someone else will figure you're a loser and hit you.

That weakness is liberalism, mainly European in form, but today transforming into mainstream politics in America through the Obamarama meme. Liberalism has turned against the founding principles of its own civilization by divide & conquer logic. Diversity instead of unity. Government instead of culture. Immigration instead of family. Commerce instead of faith. Chaos instead of authority. Anti-Western conspiracy theories all thrive on the inherent civilizational weakness the West is currently displaying in the face if its much weaker, but ballsy enemies. It's a crowd of people psychologically opposed to the status quo. I criticize, but defend, this status quo.

I'm a part of it and I believe in it. It's my sincerest belief that if You will, too, we can rise above our internal weaknesses and cast the liberal conspiracy behind us. It requires us to be able to appreciate the life we have here and now, for all its faults. We don't want to live under religious laws, we don't want the government to control every aspect of our lives to make us "safer," we don't want to live in poverty and unemployment, we don't want to wake up in chaotic multicultural suburbs without future...we reject the anti-Western sentiment, because it is self-destructive. We thrive because we constitute a superior culture. We don't necessarily believe in forcing other people to be a part of that culture, but by example, and through force if needed, we will assert and uphold it as our way of life.

I just had a new article published for newly-started Alternative Right, entitled "Let us fail!," where I argue that young men today suffer morally from not taking individual responsibility:

Here is how we morally destroy the character of men. It starts when we're just boys and we demand our parents buy the toys we see on television, serve us the food we want at any moment, and satisfy our every emotional demand as long as we yell loud enough. We learn as children that we can pretty much bully people around and get away with it. And parents, too afraid of what'd happen if they resisted or too lazy to even care, shrug and pay the dues. By doing so they breed a form of self-centered recklessness that damages the self-image and self-discipline of their children.

There's no excuse for being a lazy, incompetent fool, but as "preacher-dude" Mark Driscoll points out, a lot of blame is on girlfriends and mothers, because they'd rather babysit men than to force them into work. Authorities in welfare countries work the same way. By taking over functions that communities regularly would manage on their own, bureaucrats discourage us from being active citizens. Why bother, when someone else will do it for you?

I see this all the time, everywhere, in Swedish society. Curiously I also see it in church. When I spontaneously volunteered for work there, people were baffled. You get the kind of weird reactions like these: "But...you don't get paid?" or "Shouldn't you sleep on Sundays instead?" and even "No one is forcing you man, you better let others do it." It's laziness, but in aggressive form, and the logic is the product of decades of welfare-ism: don't volunteer to work for something you don't need to, only think about yourself. It even goes further: if I am lazy, but you are not, I better make sure you do like the rest of us and stay home all day, because otherwise you'll make us look...well, lazy. And people wonder why European culture is in decline?

Since a lot of women work within the church, you get a lot of babysitting unless you're a bit socially aggressive. If you're passive, they'll take over and pacify you. I had a weird conversation with the woman who was supposed to write contract with me. "You know, you can come here like every second Sunday or something." I insisted. "No, I want to make this a binding contract, I'm not here to fiddle around." She looked surprised. "That's great...you know, you don't have to take part in the ceremonies, it's free." I insisted again. "Part of the reason I come here is because I take interest in the ceremonies." So it went on until I had to talk her into signing me a binding contract. A-mazing.

It's not out of negativity or fear people are reluctant to give you pressing duties. It's the social mentality in an individualist culture where no one takes responsibility for anything - unless they're paid for it. They assume you're just another confused young dude walking in to check things out and then drop out when you pass the bar or something. Women in particular hesitate to give orders or enact their authority (those that do often abuse it, hence most women prefer male bosses). So a word of advice to male readers who are thinking of getting involved in civic work: women may treat you like a baby in the beginning. Press them to trust in you and your work. To female readers: we men love seeing you around when we work. The more of you, the merrier.

Sofia calls Islam a threat for contemporary society. I would clarify this statement by stating that radical forms of diversity is a threat to any established social or cultural order. Liberals disagree and don't think we can get enough diversity before we learn to import and export people like products across continents. Let's pick out some bullshit arguments about Islam and cultural diversity in Europe:

But Islamic shock is not simply a description of differences in flows of people. The claim is that the new wave of immigration has been uniquely disruptive of a European “way of life.” This narrative of pre-Islamic immigration by white Europeans sharing the same values, going to the same churches, and welcoming new immigrants with their good hearts, it turns out, is baloney. Yet even the most knowledgeable of the European-Islamic-threat writers, the journalist Christopher Caldwell in his Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (2009), describes an undifferentiated Europe now besieged by Muslims. Conveniently forgotten are centuries of religious wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions, attacks on Belgian and Italian immigrants to France, and, of course, the events of the early 1940s, in which good French and Dutch people joined good Germans in denouncing and arresting Jews and transporting them to death camps.

For a starter, this doesn't really justify the current problems Europe faces with integrating Muslims into our Western society. It merely describes the real problem of diversity. Further, there's no conflict between the existence of major differences among European cultures to this day, and the unity of these countries on ideas central to a common civilization.

Secondly, and most importantly, this is not a correct historical comparison. Europe's always been torn by religious, economic and political conflicts. Yet each country and State/region believed in and asserted a constitution and set of values that kept it moving. It would be impossible for instance to assert both a Catholic and Protestant church in Sweden after the religious wars in Europe. Today, however, hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Sweden demand Islam to become an equal part of Swedish culture as the Christian churches. That's a different situation, one that the writer conveniently leaves out of the picture.

The pertinence of these objections comes from the Burkean core of Caldwell’s complaints, highlighted by his title. People, he argues, should not have to radically change their ways of life. But the massive arrival of Muslims has forced such changes, wrested quiet Europeans from their peaceful ways, and forced them to look at minarets next to their steeples. Yet when about one-third of French people freely admit to being racist, and some Britons on camera casually compare Muslims to cockroaches, the conservative argument loses some of its bite. Perhaps some Europeans need a good jolt to confront the persistent racism that plagues the continent.

That French people are racist, or some British twats get caught on video for saying NILLA, are separate issues from the Islamic problem in Europe. Racism concerns ethnicity and not religion. Furthermore, the argument suggests the real problem lies with intolerance on behalf of the native Europeans. Everyone who has lived in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious community knows this simply isn't true. There are other more complex problems underlying the chaos in Paris, London and Copenhagen. Problems like a conflict between Western constitutional principles and Islamic values, begging for some kind of reconciliation. It's that reconciliation we need to discuss, not racism.

Indeed, current laws and policies in most of Western Europe do not promote immigration, but mainly guarantee residents’ legal rights. In Britain this means the right to wear religiously motivated dress to school and eat religiously required foods in the school canteen. In the Netherlands and France it means the right to have state support for religious schools that open their doors to anyone. These rights were won by earlier generations of Catholics and Protestants; they have nothing to do with naïve multiculturalist Islamophilia. While these legal rights are often challenged—by onerous language requirements in the Netherlands, or severe restrictions on family reunification in Italy—in principle, they are assured.

The immigration policies of the European Union render national policy more and more irrelevant. The social policies described are unproblematic for most Christians, since their religion is in tune with European culture and civilization. Non-Westernized interpretations of Islam are not. This is for example why wearing niqab is so controversial even in liberal cultures like Sweden: yes, you are allowed to express your religious freedom, but if your employer is not allowed to shake your hand and cannot see your face expressions, we have a problem. Whenever we avoid this discussion, we are in fact in the hands of "naive multiculturalist Islamophilia."

These arguments suffer from two defects: shallow historical memory and “block thinking.” As Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn remind us in their When Ways of Life Collide (2007), a generation ago those Dutch people who today vaunt their egalitarianism and their toleration of all lifestyles were authoritarian in family life and homophobic in public and in private. A recent study found a rising number of young Dutch men who espouse attitudes of tolerance, but then attack gay men. Nor have Europeans always been gender-equal. Two generations ago, French women were not able to vote and did not have the same rights to property as men, and Muslim women in much of the world had more avenues to gaining divorce than did most European women. Europeans, Africans, and Asians all have been moving gradually toward greater legal recognition of equal rights for women and men, and everywhere it has been a struggle.

The problem with this argument, that really should be posed as a question, as done by Mark Steyn: Then why aren't the Muslim communities and organizations in Europe actively condemning the terrorist and anti-freedom of speech plots committed in Madrid, Bali, London, Paris and Copenhagen? A moderate Islam exists, but if it's weak and silent compared to its more radical friends, then that fact doesn't really matter.

Shallow historical memory may be a vice, but short historical memory is probably worse. Go back a thousand years in European history and you will know why Europeans are wary of Islam. No, wait, you don't even have to go back that long. How about Yugoslavia? How about Kosovo? If you fail to understand the historical significance of Christian Serbs fighting against Muslim invaders to protect their land, and how it relates to the genocide we saw during the Yugoslavian collapse, you're likely not in the position of teaching history.

Perhaps more insidious is block thinking, whereby the diversity of perspectives within a social group is collapsed into a single caricature. Today, in Europe and elsewhere, there is a widespread assumption that all Muslims think one way and all non-Muslims another. True, polls show that in relatively non-religious Europe, Muslims are more likely than non-Muslims to be opposed to abortion, homosexuality, and suicide. According to a 2009 Gallup survey, in France 78 percent of the general public finds homosexuality morally acceptable, compared to 35 percent of French Muslims. We could also, however, compare Europeans with Americans on this question. A 2009 Pew study reported that 49 percent of Americans find homosexuality to be “morally wrong,” that regular church-going means a greater likelihood of disapproval, and that American Protestants and American Muslims disapprove of homosexuality in equal measure—60 percent. The gap is not between Islam and the West, but between more religious and less religious people.

The gap between religious and non-religious people, America and Europe, is real. Yet both groups agree to preserve and uphold each respective Constitution. The kind of intolerance we're seeing within Islam in Europe is often not only openly defiant of basic Constitutional ideals like free speech--it wants harsh punishments for certain lifestyles. Many conservative Christians may not wish homosexuals to marry in their church. That's intolerant. But when we look at Islamic intolerance in Europe, we're not just talking about if homosexuals can marry in mosques or not. We're talking about civic rights in an open and free society. This is where Islamic intolerance has proven far more radical than any fringe Christian nut movement.

Putting aside the faulty data—France does not even collect demographic data by religion—these arguments have two deficiencies. First, total fertility rates (TFR) are falling in many of the Muslim-majority countries sending people to Europe. During the period 1985-2003, the TFR fell from 3.3 to 2.2 in Turkey and from 4.5 to 2.5 in Morocco, thus approaching European rates—France has a TFR of 2.1. Second, Muslim women born in European countries are doing precisely what demographers predicted: having fewer children. Fertility rates for Muslim women born in European countries are declining quickly, heading toward rates for natives.

Basic math tells us this is irrelevant; natives continue with low birth rates and will never keep up with immigrant birth rates, hence the gap will persist. Additionally, a country like Sweden has taken in and still take in most of its immigrants from places like Iraq and North Africa, where people have high birth rates. The demographic gap, which this writer fails to explain, is and will persist. In fact, it's growing all the time, regardless of small adjustments among certain Muslim groups.

This writer is however correct on one point: there is no turning back. Europe is pluralist today. We have to deal with the situation realistically, and hence adjust policies accordingly, which is what every New Right movement in Europe right now is fighting for. Diversity, strangely pleasing to liberals and leftists considering the complex problems it brings, is currently one of our greatest weaknesses, not strengths. In the end, historically, we have only seen genocide and tyranny rise out of radical diversity. The aftermath legacy of Yugoslavia, and the absolute ignorance of terror displayed by its rulers, should teach us a lesson:

Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader, has told judges presiding over his genocide trial that the Bosnian wars during the 1990s were "just and holy".

He argued that conflicts resulting from the break-up of Yugoslavia were a natural consequence of the struggle for land.

"And even then it was Muslim desire for domination in Bosnia, and the nefarious interference of Western powers, perhaps in particular Germany, which took Bosnia into civil war, and not the acts of the Serbs themselves.

Denial becomes a virtue in a culture divided by conflicting interests. Let's not repeat this mistake again, because if we do, a second, more unsettling question needs to be asked: Would the Americans be willing to bomb our capitals to end another series of genocides?