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?

Yup, I went up early in the morning, feeling slightly drunk from last night, and went to church. The job I'm doing is pretty interesting in its simplicity. What you quickly come to understand if you actually take time to visit a Sunday ceremony is that the church ain't just a place for prayer. People who don't like the church or Christianity in general think there's some kind of weird brainwashing about herd morality going on. It's really nothing like it.

The church, at least where I work, is about community. It's a small church for maybe 50-60 people to get together. They sing and listen to the priest, who talks more about human dignity, unemployment and courage than about Moses or God. If it wasn't in a church, it could very well be a social center of some kind, with spiritual aspects. It's kind of cozy to sit there with a cup of tea behind the mixer board and listen to what's being said.

The church is also a place where old and young people from different generations can socialize. Teenagers figure the elderly aren't that weird, and they in turn find younger company and appreciate that. Local craftwork is presented in an exhibit for people to see and if anyone feels like talking to church people about their problems, they can do that later. You see, without a place like this, some other, similar, place would have to be invented. The church serves a social purpose for a community. That's conservation of values. That's something I dare to believe in.

I am happy to read about inspiring activities some of our readers are involved in. "fafner" enjoys physical activity:

I write, visit the gym and teach yoga besides working.

Teach yoga? That sounds like a healthy experience, and a perfect complement to lifting weights.

"EinZeta" is probably a very busy guy:

I'm a member of my local art gallery, volunteer as an adult literacy/ESL tutor, a designer/promoter for the local game design club, and am in the process of grooming some of my friends into a proper Germanic Heathen kindred.

You're doing a lot of fun things on the side, it would be seriously interesting to follow how that Germanic club is going to develop over time.

"Tommy D" describes something quite unusual:

Every months we do conferences about the Cosmos and I help to make people more connected with the Universe with personal experiences.

This sounds like a mystical alternative to visiting a church, very interesting idea.

"Wargozer" works for an entire community:

pierogi making parties, ice fishing, bbqs, beer brewing, gardening, potlucks, fixing ramps at the town skate park, surplus of garden goods goes to food kitchen

Apparently I'm not alone in believing in the power of people rather than bureaucracies. So what do people do when they're not working together with people? Well, they complain:

Now that you've brought up the subject, I have to ask: do most church going Swedes think differently than the reigning social democrats?

Then I have to ask in reply: Why would that matter? But to give you an answer, I think most church goers are pretty conservative, even if their political beliefs probably vary a lot. We can expect that most Christian Democrats are active church goers. Regardless, they all seem to value a few central ideas, which at least beats just voting for a party and living the dummie lifestyle for the rest of the time.

... capitalism causes people to become super materialistic, you'd be hard pressed to pry everyone from there wealth, whether that be TV, sports, games, or what have you.

...so, what are you doing about it, except complaining? I don't think computers and televisions actually stop people from taking an active civil role in society. I do think some people are doers and others are complainers by nature. Which one are you?

Forget this, now it's all about boosting your high self-esteem by doing something that people consider as "cultural".

What's wrong with that? If people feel good about working together with others to create culture (I don't know how you define that term, but over a thousand years of Christian heritage lies behind most of Western art, education, architecture and philosophy), how is that wrong?

We can now recognize the following simple dichotomy: doers and complainers. Some people fall in the middle, e.g. they don't feel motivated to work, but don't want to complain. I expect most readers fall under this category. So I'd thought I'd blog some about my civil work and maybe inspire you to do something similar.

My civil work will consist of working as sound technician during church service. It's in a small community church where maybe around a hundred people show up on Sundays. My job is to discuss the service together with the priest and other church workers, setting up the audio system, checking mics etc. I then sit in front of a mixer board during service to change sound channels depending on what mic is active and generally make sure everything goes as planned.

Afterwards there's supposed to be a coffee break, which is a time when I get to know people around here and learn something new. It's also possible I'll be helping out with ads for the church paper, taking photograph sessions during concerts for the web and other media-related work. I'm sure I'll learn a few things along the way and maybe spread some New Right Christian Jihadism among church goers. I'll try to blog about my experiences to describe just how a job like this can develop over time and what may come out of it. Stay tuned.

First we saw the global warming theory become a dogmatic religion, Europe being in the forefront of cap & trade policies. Industrial capitalism was evil, green taxes and recyclable tampons were hot. Now the crowd is changing its mind. It's becoming more and more mainstream to be a global warming skeptic. America, no surprise, is first to question its legitimacy:

According to a new Rasmussen poll, only the Democrat base (35%) now thinks climate change is man-made, rather than a naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon. Those who disagree now make up nearly half of the electorate (47%).

This is a backlash, in part a response to the recent fabrication of evidence and the questionable scientific methods. People begin to realize what is pretty obvious: science does not occur in a vacuum. Science and politics are intertwined, and when certain researches see increased funding and political policy making as more central than truth, this is what we get. Monkey science for monkey people who want to complain about how the world is going to end. Sob sob, it won't.

But the crowdism doesn't stop here. As we're seeing an increase in Western skepticism of the global warming theory, let's ask the same question here: Are we getting the whole truth of the story, or just propaganda? It's safe to say both camps are deluded. The most common skeptic arguments against the theory appear in "documentaries" like this one.

Yet their arguments have already been discredited, and their agenda has been exposed to simply be of the opposite camp: industrialize the third world, recklessly expand economic growth, promote governmental impotence in environmental issues. As a result we get hilarious governmental responses like this one from Utah:

Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?

Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.

The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.

There's reason to be skeptical of the greenist religion around global warming, but these Republicans are only half-right. This is why we are Conservatives who emphasize conservation, and therefore bring you the whole picture. While the scientific community obviously doesn't really know to what extent our lifestyle impacts the climate, there is no way you can infer from this that we shouldn't do anything to protect the environment. All data points to the same truth: we're wrecking our planet, regardless if you buy into the global warming theory or not. It's genocide, but on an environmental level.

Skeptics don't get it, because they're more concerned about parting from the crowd and looking at pure economics. Anti-skeptics don't get it, because they're more concerned about appearing morally good and looking at the effects of environmental problems, not causes. No need for conspiracy theories or world government policy making.

It's simple. First, spot the problems we've made for ourselves. Two, look at the causes, which mainly center around urban sprawl and unsustainable lifestyles. We don't need any more factors in the equation. Global warming may be true, or it might be some giant lie that leftists invented to oppress us with taxes. Either way, we remain fundamentally disconnected from the ecological cycle. When leftists realize taxation is ineffective in reducing urban expansion and rightists understand economics within an environmental context, environmentalism will no longer be a Right-Left issue. Conservation = common sense. Spread the word.

What happens when generations of people are subject to the nature of a general welfare system? They lose the spirit of independence and self-initiative. Sweden is a curious example in this regard. Here, people expect authorities to do everything for them. Stem cell research? Let the scientific elite decide. Multiculturalism? Sure, if our leaders say it's good. Homosexuality in the Church? No one goes to church anymore, so we don't care. Water pollution? Taxes will take care of that.

It's obvious that individual responsibility doesn't rank very highly in a society where people are used to complete, bureaucratic involvement. I quietly sat down and observed how students at my university program freaked out when they realized they had to contact employers and find a trainer spot at a work place. At this point three basic types of people emerge: people who immediately begin working, people who freak out and anxiously hope someone else will bail them out from the task, and people who simply can't be bothered and believe it'll be taken care of anyhow.

It's also super-obvious that only the people who take immediate responsibility and action will be guaranteed some form of success. The rest are lazy and impotent. Yeah, it hurts to suddenly be thrown out into the dark when you've been cuddled, praised and loved all your life. This is for real. Either you make some decisions on your own and contact the right people, or you'll slowly fail. This is why market competition and conservatism scare a lot of people. They quietly want to live off of the success of others. They don't want to lead their own lives. But we who're doing all the work are getting tired of supporting losers. And quietly we know, deep down inside, that the best motivator is a nasty consequence. Time to grow up!

People like to take stabs at random stuff on Facebook. Capitalism is one of them:

I propose, that as we're now in the early 21st century, we get beyond Marxism and Capitalism, who in many cases are remarkably similar in their view of man as just an economic animal motivated by greed or material concerns. Capitalism can be dynamic and has its positive attributes, but unfettered and taken out of a communal (national) context, it is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the fact that growth, development, and expansion of markets cannot go on for infinity. There are limits to growth, resources, and the abilities of societies to sustain these, socially and ecologically. What is the solution? Quite frankly, a synthesis of the better elements of capitalism and socialism.

I've covered this before, but let's rewind:

1. Capitalism in itself doesn't carry any intrinsic values. It's all about how you implement the system. The values of X nation will then guide that process. You can have a nation worshiping Hindu gods and still have a free market economy.

2. Where do you think concern for material standard is the highest? In a country where people are pretty well-off, or when people struggle just to get food for the day? Trust me, you'd be pretty concerned about money and material things if you lived in a shit hole.

3. Why would a synthesis of capitalism and socialism be superior to capitalism, when socialism has a terrible historical track record? It failed, everywhere, and is still failing in those European countries where it's blended with capitalism.

Let me repeat that: we are consuming ourselves to death, not because of capitalism, which is only a method of managing an economy, but because our values conflict with reality. If you hammer yourself on the finger every time you try to build a house, would you blame the hammer, or your own damn incompetence? It's so 20st Century to rail against capitalism, a superior economic system that triumphed all of its rivals, and came out as the most sensible way of maintaining competition and personal liberties.

You don't want the government to own your property, and you don't want it to own almost everything you produce. Be glad that you're living in a capitalist society, promote sensible values, and make the best of life. You'll be happier that way. Or, move to North Korea. Good luck!

I met an old Iranian friend this evening, and in passing by, he mentioned that it's hard to get in touch with me since I'm "anti-Facebook." I'm not really against Facebook (find my public account here). In fact, I see a lot of people using it to keep in touch with old friends, which is awesome, but we all know the pitfalls of social networking. You end up spending five hours a day blurting out stuff like: "I am now taking a dump," "These are my 999 favorite groups" or "I just broke up with my girlfriend, can someone send me funny YouTube videos?."

See me, talk to me, confirm me. WASTE - OF - TIME people, and you know it.

I'm quite baffled by the whole social networking deal, because I've always preferred dealing with people personally in real life than to send them lots of online messages. I believe young people spend too much time commenting each others personalities instead of getting involved with civil organizations. Start up a football club for kids, learn to play folk music with elder people, join a cooking school, support your local church, or help homeless cats find a home. Do something with your lives. In 50 years you'll be half-way dead and ready to be conserved by the welfare program for elderly.

If you need Facebook, keep it, it's not evil, but don't use it as an excuse to disconnect from society. Life is here and now. No one is going to save the world in a lifetime, so we need to look at our communities and help each other out as best as we can. That can't be done with a majority of people too busy farting around online. We need to meet new people, learn new things, challenge ourselves, harvest skills, find jobs and form families. Facebook is like HTML and genitals. They're tools, made to be used sensibly. I know you can spam the hell out of my account whenever I piss you off. But can you produce something of worth to someone other than yourself? Prove it; change your life.

This always beats me about white nationalists: white people are expected to be in top positions of society because they've got high IQ. This is cheered and seen as one reason to why one should become a white nationalist. But when someone points out that Ashkenazi Jews also are leading within science, economics and politics because they've got a general IQ of 112-115, which is 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the European average, it's supposedly because Jews are evil and are trying to take over the world. Yeah, right.

Why don't we just face the scientific facts? Eastern European Jews are highly intelligent, as a group even smarter than East Asians, and have a culture of intellectual discipline and excellence. They're supposed to be on the top. White nationalists additionally suggest Jews are on top to destroy Europe. But if you take a second look, white Europeans are generally leftist-oriented, vote for liberal socialism, believe in some soft form of multiculturalism, and love American Hollywood culture. Europeans believe in self-destruction, because that's been the dominant paradigm since WWII. All of our current leaders praise this development. Since Western Jews, both American and European, are liberal-oriented, they're going along with that meme, just like the average whitey is.

European white nationalism is an expression of how deep we're in this shit now. We're so neurotic that we blame a small "Jewish" (Israel is almost as multicultural as Russia) island for our own problems, and call it nationalism. The truth is that Israel, apart from American support, is completely alone in its struggle for survival and couldn't be in worse condition. That's why it breaches UN agreements and vote in extremists in office. In Europe many Jews don't dare to go out in public, in case a leftist gang accuses them of being Nazis or a group of Arab Muslims harass them for...well, being Jewish.

Whitey, your problem is not a Jew, but self-destructive behavior and a lack of civil confidence. Clean your house or shut the hell up.

People know that I am against sex education in school. To me it's simple: sexuality and sexual values should be taught to children by parents and their communal culture, not by public messengers of the government. The rest is up to individuals when they're experimenting in their teens. The biological aspect of sexuality should be taught in biology class based on scientific facts, but there shouldn't be any lessons concerning values, politics or lifestyle based upon those facts.

What happens when the government teaches our children about sexuality? They indoctrinate them with whatever ideological trend is popular at the moment. In Sweden it's been ultra-liberalism since the late 60's. It's a fact that gay and queer lobby groups are co-writing the biology books to suit their propaganda. Our teachers even hand out condoms from those lobby groups in class. And you say public education is not politically biased? When I went through sex education in school, I learned the following:

• "Here, have a condom!" (this indirectly suggests it's normal for 14-year-olds to have sex, as long as they're protected).
• "Can anyone here give suggestions on how to spice up sex life?" (this not only suggests the above, but really excludes a majority of the teens in the class room who haven't yet had any such experience).
• Homosexuality is just as morally acceptable as heterosexuality.
• Abortion is an important human right for women.

Read carefully: I'm not saying either of these suggestions are right or wrong. I'm saying it shouldn't be up to our education system to teach our children about them. Just as I teach my children certain values, certain lifestyle choices, certain moral behavior and certain cultural ideals, I have the right to be a dominant influence in how they perceive sexuality. I don't trust teachers or politicians to ensure that my future daughter avoids whoring like her friends and my future boy avoids ending up paying alimony to some dumb lay he screwed over when he was drunk.

Most young people, especially teenagers, are not capable of thinking for themselves or withstanding peer and teacher pressure. If an authority they trust say heterosexuality is oppressive or that whoring is good, they're gonna buy it. I remember gay lobby groups coming to college and trying to persuade us to convert to liberal sexuality. Most of my friends were brought up traditionally; they called the teacher a fag and ran him out. Some were immigrants and were taught to not even accept homosexuality.

Critics will say there are Christian families who profess extreme forms of chastity, or extremists who rally against homosexuals. So? Let them do it. Who are you, or the government, to say what they ought to teach their children? If the attitudes have no place in society as a whole, or if they're simply not in line with reality, chances are the children will grow up to dismiss them later on. Either way it's not any central power's job to babysit parents nor their children about this. The government's incapable of being unbiased on these issues, and regardless if what it teaches ought to be perceived as "good," it's brainwashing and has no place in public education.

Every blog needs an Englishman. Corrupt's got Alfred, a curious satirist who makes it a passion to mock the European Union and any people ill-spirited against transvestites, homosexuals and other minorities. Alfred's philosophy is a mix of evolutionary hedonism and free market competition, but stays clear of both the moralizing of the Right and the masochism of the Left. He doesn't need to stand anywhere--he's a bloody Englishman!

At what point in life did you realize you wanted to become a transvestite?

When I was younger, and when my dad was frequently out at the weekend working on some important reports with his secretary, my mother always had last night’s clothes scattered all over her room by every morning. I don’t know why she kept taking them off and throwing them everywhere! Our weekend cleaner, Brian, didn’t even clean them up but just left very early every morning. When mum went out that night to play poker I would sometimes put these clothes on and look at myself in the mirror. Later on I started trying out her makeup. I guess that’s how it started.

You describe life as ”a constant struggle between boredom and entertainment.” According to this view, is boredom something you're trying to avoid, or something you're trying to cope with and learn to appreciate?

When there is a struggle between two opposing forces, you can either root for one side or the other that tugs on you, or you can transcend the two entirely. Humans are hedonists by instinct. I think that condition affects most great apes.

How would you describe your political orientation?

The less politics the better.

You often mock the bureaucratic nature behind the European Union. Why do you regard EU as problematic?

Daniel Hannan explains the problems of the EU better than most. Some aspects of the EU are positive - certain regulation on unfair business practices, for example. Energy cooperation. But on the whole it’s a sterile, gargantuan, and creeping monolith of an empire-state that is making us less free, less powerful, and less democratic whilst costing us more money.

What is the attraction and benefits with a free market opposed to a socialist, government-regulated economic system?

I can do whatever the hell I want without some socialite tosser in power throwing my money around and lining his own pockets.

Can the free market idea be applied in other sectors of society?

Probably; competition tends to expose both the good and the bad. Both are positive outcomes.

If European governments have gone too far in controlling the lives of their citizens, what should the ideal role of a government be?

Europe, not including Great Britain, has always had an obsession with government power. English people are born intrinsically free, and are then subject to government limitations. Most Europeans, if they take a look at their relevant constitutions, will find that it is their government that grants them their freedom, not their birthright. The task of government should be to consign itself to irrelevance as much as it possibly can, whilst providing only the most necessary services.

You've been traveling around in Europe a lot. What is it about European culture that fascinates you?

Every culture on Earth fascinates me. Had I been born in the 1800’s I would have been the archetypal aristocratic colonist, faring all over the world, mating with the various locals and discovering plenty of treasure, both cultural and physical. I cannot explain this urge. Maybe it’s that hedonist instinct within me. I am curious by nature.

You are known as a skilled satirist in the blogosphere, not shying away from being offensive. What is it with Brits, who are otherwise fairly conservative, and their perverse humour?

We live in a fairly dull and physically isolated part of the world. We’ve had a fairly stable historic civilisation for almost a thousand years. No longer can we entertain ourselves with our empire building or defending ourselves against the Germans, French or Spanish. There’s a comfy settee in every home. What else to do, then, except try to make each other laugh?

The Irish. If you were king of Britain today, how would you deal with them?

Let them ruin their own country in peace.

When America and Soviet Russia were battling during the Cold War with arms races and space exploration, the conflict centered around raw power ("realpolitik"). The nation with the biggest nukes, best astronauts and most influential political power was going to win out. America won the battle and stepped up as a Western super power, eventually establishing what some refer to as Pax Americana today (they're only partly right; America isn't outright controlling other nations like the Roman Empire did).

Now the cards have slightly changed. The most dominant powers on the planet today increasingly don't just strive to build up military, economic and political mojo. They dominate through the will to use that mojo and force itself anally on any weaker enemy coming its way. Think of North Korea. A tiny, impoverished remnant of Communism, not even able to feed its own people. Yet it defies the international community by firing off a series of missiles, allegedly for "testing purposes." If one of those missiles hit America, we don't know. All we know is that Kim Jong's got the balls to suggest he might.

The foreign threats to the Western civilization today are pretty lame in terms of raw power. Neither Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Russia nor other unstable nations who are constantly in conflict, either with themselves or perceived enemies, stand little to no chance against a military West. Yet a handful of people can orchestrate an attack against WTC in America and set off bombs in Europe. How come? Because on the inside, we are weak. Take a look at this chart based on recent 9/11 polls:

In America the number of people buying into 9/11 conspiracy theories comprise a mainstream movement:

In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

This is what matters in political and military struggle today. Critics of the Iraq War are right: it doesn't matter how many troops we send to destroy terrorism. We won't succeed. And the reason why is because we are not willing to wage the power in our possession. Instead we turn against ourselves, which is exactly what foreign powers want us to. If you believe this is just anarchistic backfire against the Bush Admin., you're wrong. Europe is the first to go: Islamic fundamentalism (diversity), unsustainable economies (Social Democracy), civil impotence (individualism) and anti-Americanism (ego neurosis).

The West is in decline because it attacks the principles and institutions that build sustainable civilizations: heterosexual family structures, civil responsibility, self-confident cultural traditions, thriving free economies, flexible military power and reverence for the environment. What we've got left is an empty shell, kept alive through increasingly larger but impotent governments, fit for nothing more than to send troops and then apologize for doing it. Our enemies can smell that hypocritical weakness and therefore cease their chance to infiltrate, mock and overthrow our public culture. This is what's left of it:

I wouldn't put it above the Bush admin. to, if anything, allow 9/11 to happen. Though who knows. The USS liberty was a false flag operation, MKULTRA really happened, and operation northwoods was on the table until JFK wouldn't go along with it. So who knows? Or cares if some of Paul's fans subscribe to such theories?

Kill off millions of people? Wouldn't shock me if that was talked about by "global elites." Hell, you talk about it, and you're a nobody in the scheme of things. Not as difficult to see the people with real power feel that way. Not that I believe it is true, but it is possible, especially since humanity enjoys playing the "pat yourself on the back" game.

Instead of believing in ourselves, our society and our culture, we choose dogmatic theories created to undermine our very existence. It's up to scientists (not nerdy teens living in mom's basement, producing 9/11 documentaries after school) to determine how 9/11 really happened. What is happening right now is the following: the public mistrusts both itself and society. In the mean time, we're being outbred, outbombed and outsourced by people who'd like to see us serve under their rule. The public's right--there's a conspiracy set out to destroy the West. And it's orchestrated by the crowd.

While the West is busy hating itself, Russia, China and other former super powers are building civilizational confidence to increase their competition on the world political map. It's no surprise that we at Corrupt have a few less admirable things to say about the West as it is today. But we're also hopeful and positive about society in general. A contradiction? Let me recap why the current Western status quo should be criticized, but still is both dominant and pleasant to live by:

Liberal democracy: Before the New World Order (pre-WWII) Europe was a collection of dictatorships, which later transformed into socialist Fascist States. During that time we saw a lot of tragedy, including economic collapse and genocide. Yeah, democracy sucks, but looking at history, it's no wonder our leaders wanted to abandon the old way of managing government.

Capitalism: Admittedly, capitalism has its problems. Yet we tried out socialism, in different extremes, and we saw that it completely failed wherever it was implemented. What happened when nations around the world, almost exclusively under Anglo-American leadership, began adopting a (mostly) free market principle? They quickly escaped mass poverty and low standard of living. Today not even hardcore-socialist countries like Russia and China really believe in a planned economy.

Multiculturalism: Even the Nazis get this one; we're living in a mass-communication society today. Regardless if you don't believe in bringing in lots of people into your country, your culture cannot avoid being influenced by foreign cultures, rendering cultural patterns dynamic and ever-changing. That diversity of ideas and lifestyles, one way or another, will exist also within pretty homogeneous cultures is a mark of the age.

NWO: Sure, it exists, a New World Order. Why so many people resent it is baffling, because never before has so many people in the world enjoyed such a high standard of living under extremely humane conditions. Maybe that's a problem in itself, but there's a reason to why the West won the Cold War, and why everyone else suspiciously is trying to emulate its development.

Like Frank and many others who are Right-oriented and just want to get on with our lives without bureaucrats making life more troublesome, I supported Ron Paul's cause for the American presidency. I still do, kind of. Ron Paul's campaign was simply amazing, but then it quickly regressed into pure conspiratorial extremism. Today only his dogmatic fans listen to what he's got to say. What happened?

Ron Paul's world view is a Conservative libertarian critique of all forms of organized authority. This led him to become a strong critic of globalism. Many of us signed up for it--who wants commerce to become a religion? The problem was that Ron Paul's grass roots gradually transformed into anti-globalists with a totally different agenda. Alex Jones became a frequent interviewer, the 9/11 Truth movement took interest in him, and Israel critics followed his campaign. If you're an alienated candidate like Ron Paul, you try to consolidate whatever agreements you have with other alienated groups. Bad idea, Ron.

Bad, because looking back in the mirror, what became of it? Conspiracy theories melted with extreme anarchism, and occasionally, anti-Semitism. His fans spammed YouTube with insane ideas about the Bush Administration planning 9/11 (since long debunked by scientists), evil capitalists plotting to take over the world and kill off millions of people (I wish), and perhaps most controversially, how all of this tied in with Israel and Jews. Maybe Half-Sigma did have a point about Ron Paul being an anti-Semite, after all.

After Ron Paul's campaign became more and more centered around these topics, it was clear that the conspiratorial element had become dominant. It alienated common people who just believed in the Constitution or wanted a thin government installed, and it drew lots of crazy young people whose only political message was that America and Israel are evil and "true" capitalism will solve all problems. Ron Paul became a symbol for marginalized extremism made mainstream. For this he probably served an important purpose, but it also was a major factor in the end of his career. Ron Paul is still one of the sanest political leaders in America right now, but due to his involvement with these groups, it's questionable whether he really would have been a better President than, say, McCain.