The G20 summit to discuss the world economic crisis is currently taking place in Toronto. Pseudo-socialists and wannabe-anarchists -- mostly under the age of 30 -- are itching to dress up to play revolutionary against naturally intrinsically fascist governments, and continuing to wreak confused havoc in the urban center. It would be laughable if I wasn't at the risk of having an intellectual aneurysm, and if the state of the downtown core didn't so ostentatiously affirm the stupidity and herd-following instincts of most people.

Masses took to the streets yesterday damaging property, including managing to target three large Canadian banking centers, numerous ABMs, storefronts along major Toronto streets (including buildings I used to live beside), some of which belonged to American corporations, some of which were harmless enough independent shops. Hospitals entered lockdown mode, and the Toronto Transit Commission halted service in core areas. It was essentially a roaming, violent, mindless mob that overtook Toronto streets, with such a confusing and hazy aim that leads me to only believe that their real perogative was venting adolescent, male, anarchist fantasies.

Asked why a Canadian bank was firebombed a week preceding the summit, the group taking responsibility made loose connections between the fact that they sponsored the Vancouver Olympics and it was rightfully "Aboriginal land." Making vaguely political, or really, ANY politicizeable statements seems so sadly self-parodical.

Watching YouTube coverage last night (I didn't want to put myself at risk of arrest or injury for gawking), there were Canadian flags with marijuana leaves substituted for maple leaves. What is it supposed to signify? What does marijuana legalization (for the record, it's already de-criminalized here), have anything to do with the meeting of global financial powers?

The G20 protests seem like the poorly thought out mind-experiment by a group of 15 year old boys who want to revel in the thrill of destructing public property. The justification for it is tenuous at best, and naturally is structured around portraying the protestors as victims of some hazily labelled "New World Order." Jerk-offs.

Yesterday, the mob chanted, "This is what a police state looks like!" as officers idly stood by and supervised the demonstrations. If this were a legitimate police state, they would not be gathered en masse and bullets would be firing at the crowd. Bourgeois teenagers with hypocritical political views are the larger crime anyway.

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.

The ideas of liberals often seem gullible and innocent at face value, but if we have learned anything from life, it is that face value is illusion. We need to look beyond the facade. A liberal friend of mine recently faced the bitter consequences of the facade he'd been trying to keep alive for years. After what he just realized, I don't think he'll want to talk about women or immigrants for a while.

The story is short and simple. This guy was looking for a job at government-owned news television. His dream was to become a famous news reporter, expressing to the world how unequal our society is against minorities. So he took contact with the head of the news department where he lived and asked around. Her answer was rigid: no, our financial situation is not what it used to be, we cannot hire you right now. Sorry.

A few weeks passed. He and I met up with a woman studying journalism. She was happy. We wondered why. She'd gotten a job at news television. How? Oh, she just asked for it. There was a temporary spot she could fill in. Great, I said. My liberal friend was not so happy. He wondered how the hell she'd gotten the job, despite the fact she was just a student and he had real credentials. He had merits. But she had the job. So he contacted the boss at the department again, and this is roughly how that conversation looked like:

Friend: We've been in contact before concerning a job as a reporter. At the time you told me there wasn't any need for me.

Boss: Ah, yes, that's right.

Friend: ...so how come you hired this woman for exactly such a job?

Boss: She was just the kind of person we were looking for, it was a good match. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.

Friend: But I had greater merits. She is merely a student.

Boss: That's possible, but right now we're working according to an affirmative action system...

Friend: --wait, you hired her because she's a woman?

Boss: ...she had the background we were looking for.

Friend: So I, as a Swedish man, stand no chance of getting a job simply because I am not woman or from an immigrant background?

The conversation ended with a bitter truth: the news department followed the liberal affirmative action policies of the Swedish government, which demand that employers are forced to actively increase the number of women and immigrants within the work force. My friend now stood at the far end of that program: he was Swedish, blond and blue-eyed--blue-eyed enough to really believe that all the inequalities he spoke about every day never could affect him. Now he was barred from work simply because of his gender and ethnic background.

I told him he should at least be happy that he's contributing to a better world where diversity rules. "Right," was his answer, as he went off home. Reality, as always, is law.

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.

Politics today is a fight over symbols. The idea is apparently that whoever "wins" the symbols over to their side, also wins the definition of their meaning. Free speech is such a symbol, and it doesn't mean what you think it means:

More than 10,000 protesters blocked a major neo-Nazi march in the former East German city of Dresden, forming a human chain surrounding the center of the city.

Far-rightists have used the Dresden bombing anniversary to push for recognition of German suffering during World War II in a tone that comes close to Holocaust denial, critics say. Neo-Nazis, including leading members of the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany, refer to the Dresden "bombing Holocaust" and belittle Nazi crimes against humanity.

Others attacked cars and buses in which the right-wingers had traveled to Dresden and set fire to trash bins, blocking the route of the neo-Nazi march. Police ultimately informed the right-wing marchers that authorities could not guarantee their safety and urged them to call off the march.

Mainstream lobby groups may be correct about the intentions of the neo-Nazis. That's really besides the point; they have a constitutional right to hold that demonstration, and any attempt of blocking it to defend free speech is disguised tyranny. Fascism comes in many forms, one of the most trickiest being anti-Fascism. If we were serious about our constitutional rights, we'd let the natural selection of ideas do its work in the public, instead of nannying the process like closet Fascists. Since we're not, some ideas become socially regulated:

Yet pity is also a strangely useful tool, for it reveals a strange global hierarchy. At the bottom are black people, whom everyone pities. At the top are the Chinese, whom no one pities. Alongside them are the English, the one foreign group that Hollywood may officially reduce to unpleasant racist stereotypes. And the cultural censor that allows this actually has a strange Oedipal streak. For the only US ethnic identity which can be perpetually reduced to a stereotype of grasping, greedy, shallow bigots are WASPs. Not far behind them are the hillbillies of the Appalachians, namely, the Ulster-Scots.

The taboos of this cultural hierarchy cause even simple truths to remain unspoken. Jews have been disproportionately responsible for financial crime in the US, yet even to utter this simple truth is to court shrieks of anti-Semitism. In Europe, on the other hand, the only public criticisms of Jews that are not merely allowed, but are actually encouraged, are of Israel, about which "liberals" may utter the most ludicrously untrue and racist libels, and be applauded.

You can say we have free speech -- but we haven't. Example: I can say Americans are loud, boorish, lazy and insensitive morons, and that's fine. If I say the same about Nigerians, I am in jail.

Here's the dilemma: Europe doesn't want to do good, it wants to avoid doing bad. As a result it believes it should regulate speech to make it less oppressive, which ends up meaning waging a war against the taboos found in the cultural hierarchy Meyers talks about. That's problem number one. The second problem can be formulated as a question: If there's a hierarchy of opinions deciding what's allowed and not allowed to say, what defines it culturally? And the answer to that question is liberalism.

While many graduates of American colleges cannot answer basic civics questions, a higher education does make their opinions more liberal on controversial social issues, according to a new report issued on Friday by an academic think tank.

The institute found that people who had attained at least a bachelor's degree were more likely than Americans whose formal education ended with a high-school diploma to take a liberal stance on certain controversial social issues. For example, 39 percent of people whose highest level of education was a bachelor's degree supported same-sex marriage, compared with 25 percent with a high-school diploma. The trend continued with advanced degrees: About 46 percent of people with master's degrees supported same-sex marriage, as did 43 percent of people with Ph.D.'s.

Do American college students become liberal after or before the start of their education? The answer could be argued either way, but here's a fact it doesn't change. These are the institutions where intellectual agendas and cultural trends are formed. It's safe to assume that they exert a huge influence on media, and thus, the crowd. It's why we find tens of thousands of protesters in Dresden, fighting tyranny with tyranny. A war over symbols, but most importantly, a war over definitions of what those symbols should mean to everyone. But the truth is that we don't need such a war, because we've got our constitutions who spell these rights out for us.

Liberal free speech is an oxymoron; it's either liberal and not free, or free and not liberal. As much as many of us dislike neo-Nazis and their garbage movements, we must think in Conservative terms: you don't nanny public opinion, you let it grow like a plant and ensure there's safe space for all branches. Liberals are afraid of public discussion - that's why they invented a hierarchy of taboos. Right-leaning officials are starting to do the same with global warming and terrorism. Honest Conservatives don't buy into either camp. It's a struggle for our basic constitutional rights, for competition between people and ideas, and a public climate where you're protected to disagree with the crowd.

We use the same words to mean different things, which can send us straight to hell. Shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, or change an exit sign to point into a wood-chipper, and you've used words as a weapon. In politics, the biggest words are these:

• Freedom
• Justice
• Liberty
• Equality

These are magic words because they suggest positive outcomes that the person hearing the word doesn't have to lift a finger to make happen. Here are their equivalents in product advertising:

• Free
• Guarantee
• No obligation
• New low price

Just buy this and it's all taken care of. Did you have a problem? Our product cures it -- guaranteed! New low price to make everyone happy. There's one for the whole family.

As our mainstream conservatives, or neocons, struggle to find a reason to exist, the Tea Party in USA and New Right in Europe is going to slam them hard. They will claim they offer more freedom, liberty and justice. Then the liberal parties will chime in. Whoah, total surprise! -- they're claiming the same thing.

In the midst of it all, the talking heads on the right are going to talk about how the essence of Conservatism is Freedom. Ron Paul will talk about Freedom. Then someone will pipe up that Marx, Engels, Mao, Clinton, etc. promised freedom too.

And this whole time, no one will have bothered to give a working definition of "freedom"!

One reason for this is that freedom is impossible to define without an object. Freedom from -- mosquitoes? exhaustion? bad smells? jobs? -- well, we don't know. If you're free you just know you are, I guess. Freedom requires an oppressor to be freed from, otherwise you weren't unfree in the first place. Who's trying to stop you from doing what? No one is going to open that can of worms.

Even more, freedom is a vernacular term for feeling like you could do anything. I feel free to do what the heck ever. But because all terms decay to the lowest common denominator through use, the most common meaning of the word freedom is this: no one telling me what to do. Of course, since those telling you what to do could be in some cases right, what we mean when we say "freedom" is "no oversight."

What's your definition of freedom?

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!

Our news media barons love bad news with an almost sexual intensity. We can ignore good news, if we want, but bad news shocks the part of us that is still a primitive mammal living among giant dinosaurs. Our inner rodent freaks out, and we just have to read it or watch it. If you're trying to sell newspapers, proof of the apocalypse is your best friend. Even if you die in fire, you'll die in fire with a fat investment portfolio.

Even better than bad news is vague bad news. Like the threat of an ancient deity punishing us for not leaving crossed chicken bones on the graves of our adversaries, vague and chronologically indeterminate bad news captures our consciousness like nothing else. This is why our newspapers drool, giggle and fart whenever stories like this come out:

Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.

It suggests that 70 per cent believe that society is now broken, echoing a Conservative campaign theme of the past two years, while 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change.

Overall, 64 per cent think that Britain is going in the wrong direction and just 31 per cent believe it is on the right track.

This is a widely used measure of mood in the United States where 57 per cent of people think America is going wrong and 37 per cent believe it is on the right track.

Notice how this article gets your blood boiling. The people in office -- they're screwing it up! We the people noticed the screwup and we want change! Everything's going to hell in a handbasket, which is really convenient for writing it off and heading down to the pub. A divisive and vague article like this cannot fail to force you to take a side and want to cudgel massage the brains of the opposition.

The Americans have their own version of reading the tea leaves, which involves getting on the phones at 10 AM on a Tuesday and calling all the drunks, shut-ins, sociopaths, bored divorcees and welfare cheats and asking them what they think of the direction of the nation. Surprisingly, it's still fairly accurate, in the same way crashing your car into the grocery store counts as "driving there." Here's some patriotic paranoia:

Voters are madder than ever at the current policies of the federal government.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.

Unless you have three copies of your 21st chromosome, you probably think asking voters if they're Happy, Angry or "Very Angry" is a really dumb way to assess a logical question like political outlook. Even more, you've got to wonder how many of the winos they called thought they were asking how drunk they were instead of a political quantification. Nonetheless, this worsening mood suggests to us that we in the West are self-hating bastards who can't seem to fix any problems, even if we're always claiming victory and going home.

You don't get this kind of negativity without extreme frustration. This frustration comes of recognizing problems we can't solve, at least with the assumptions we use to approach them. Unsolved problems are like tumors and they grow faster the longer we leave them around. This is nature's way of killing off that which is on its way out, and rewarding those who can quickly snap to consciousness and address their problems. In politics, tumors are pairs: issues we can't fix, and the reasons we cannot fix them.

For the category of reasons we cannot fix our problems, there is really only one leader: we threw out God, culture, religion, aristocracy and common sense so that each one of us could be an autonomous king. We hate the thought that someone might know better and tell us what to do. We hate even more that people might be rising above us.

In a crafty revenge, we as a species have created a prison for ourselves: we demand autonomy of the individual, or equality, and an end to hierarchy so we have as few authorities above us as possible. Since most people then pick what is convenient for them, and fight back against what inconveniences them, we have a problem. Any change we want to make is going to inconvenience or otherwise offend someone, and someone might lose, which is a sure sign of fascism.

Our frustration grows because we cannot fix our problems because we've tied one hand behind our backs. We did it with good intentions, so we hope in our stupor that the world will see we're nice guys and try to help us out. But as anyone who has struggled to get a fire going on a cold night camping can tell you, nature doesn't care whether we're nice democratic friendly guys, or vicious bastards. Nature just cares what works. And since we're paying attention to being nice guys and ignoring what works, nature has a world of frustration to serve us.

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!

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.

If you want to know why civility is in decline, just take a look at how people around you react when you join a good cause that doesn't involve money. Immediately you'll be accused of trying to raise your social status, appear important, or play morally superior. Civility is a threat to the laziness of the crowd, and when the crowd feels threatened, it becomes defensive. No wonder the West is currently signing up for socialism--it's the easy way to do things.

A few years back when I still lived in the southern part of Sweden, where we have a lot of beautiful nature, I used to pick up garbage now and then. I mostly performed this work on weekends and I limited it to the places where I hung out a lot; in parks and in forests. And my argument for that work then was that garbage destroys the habitat I enjoy, so I'll remove it. An extension of that argument is of course that every other person spending time in those places will benefit from a cleaner environment.

Did people say I was a good guy for doing this? Hell no! They constantly asked why I picked up trash, when we had municipality workers doing the job. Well, I replied, seems like they're not doing a very good job. Besides, what's the problem with me helping them out? Others even accused me of having trashed in the first place, and that I only went around there because I felt guilty.

We can never hope to have an open, free and civil society again unless we dare to take on individual and collective responsibility for our communities. Because if we don't, the government will, and the government always screws things up by hiring bureaucracies to do the work we couldn't be bothered doing ourselves. We're lazy, we're ignorant, and we're defensive enough to attack anyone who's decided to do a good day's work because he or she believes in a better place to live in. Therefore I don't trust the crowd and will never submit to a system of government that promotes it to power.

There's a difference between recognizing that the public sucks, as George Carlin used to "joke" about, and disliking it. I often subscribe to the former viewpoint, but avoid the latter. If not because resentment always eats you up and spits you out as a bitter loser, crowd hate is actually built around a misunderstanding. It assumes the Crowd, any crowd, will behave mob-like and push you around no matter what you do. I hereby call it out for what it is: failure to adapt.

I guess you've noticed by now that if you make something weird in public, but don't react embarrassed about it, few if any people will react or laugh at you for it. This is human psychology: the way you behave always intersects with how other people behave. You make a move, someone else responds. If you want the crowd to hate you, display insecurity and weakness in public, and they'll immediately loathe you for it and start picking on you. This is how most "nerds" become bully victims, misanthropes and school shooters. Try to go along with the atmosphere, enjoy yourself, and people are likely to become your friends.

Strong people don't attack their surroundings, they melt in like clever cobras and suck the venom out of situations to make themselves feel good. This is why me and my friends have watched Scarface probably a hundred times: every single time Montana is in deep shit, he simply grabs himself by the balls and sips a drink. He remains cool although he's dancing with trouble and sleeping with death. Can we allow ourselves to simply enjoy society and avoid trouble by setting most the social rules ourselves? Yes, we can. Remember: be a cobra.

I've been seeing over the course of the last few weeks a phrase that sets my teeth on edge.

There is this phrase that just says all there needs to be said about exactly how free-thinking, how much ikhtiyar, people are exerting over their own destinies. Its a phrase that only rarely should be used and which I admit to have practically used:

It is clear that you need professional psychological help.

Sorry, didn't write it properly for you guys the first time. Let me fix that for you.

If you do not agree with me on my opinion about this issue, then you need psychological help.

Occasionaly, the phrase is better and more honestly portrayed like this:

I've gotten emotional over the matter of discussion at hand, I'm going to ignore any facts you state because you're the one who needs psychological help for shocking me.

The language in which we speak contains memes we transmit. What does you need psychological help mean? It means that:

• I, the speaker, am a civilised and sane human being in comparison to you.
  What this is truly meaning is that the modern speaker cannot handle conflict or aggression unless dealt with under strictly arbitrated rules. They cannot reconcile the animalistic and dark natures of themselves to the civilised ideal demanded of a human being. It's a sin of false pride.

Who would you rather be: the ones who lie to themselves and say they are all individual or the one who deceives society and present themselves as not?

• You are pathological. Since what you say is abnormal, that makes you abnormal. The extension from this is that divergent ideas cannot be tolerated and have no merit to be addressed.

  What this signifies as far as the modern zeitgeist is that everything we do is somehow diseased. When someone does something with some structure, they're being anal. When a person sets expectations on a significant other, they're being controlling. When a person doesn't want to choose everything themselves, they're being dependent. When a feminist has sex, it's rape. When you have a strange dream, you're repressing something.

• What's wrong with all the above? Many things. Here's one. The problem in saying something is diseased is implying that it should be corrected. Regardless of whether it can be. Well, as anybody who's undergone psychotherapy can tell you, that's not true or easy. You are who you are. There are fundamentals that can't and shouldn't be influenced.

  You have to work with what you've got. e.g. If you're "controlling", you'll get along with someone "dependent".

  Why are we obsessed with calling all human actions diseased when accepting the unchanging parts of our natures is the path to happiness as what we cannot help being?

Psychology should be sparingly used. Abuse of psychology and psychiatry is nothing less than massive propaganda, a political and social tool to control a population. As exhibited by the easy clarity of the example of the target of homosexuality, what is psychologically healthy is what is considered socially normal.

For most human beings, there is nothing wrong with you! You are usually reacting in a sane way to a deranged human landscape: its the landscape that should be corrected and that can be corrected, not you. If someone went to war in Afghanistan, saw terrible unspeakable things and reacted to them in 'post-traumatic-stress-disorder' there is nothing wrong with him. Psychological help is a bandaid that effectively hushes up a much bigger problem: why send the man to a war unrelated directly to the defence of his country in the first place? Additional to this is the social problem, for any psychological problem you name, it is much more likely to happen given a lack of social support and meaning in life: in no small part due to materialism, superficiality of modern existence, a lack of cohesive communities caring personally for each other and dysfunctional families divorcing and collapsing.

Noone addresses the true issues behind mental health. A troubled mind is birthed from troubles.

Let's throw the idea out: Is there a possibility of a future post-feminist society? Most political trends only last ten or so years, and it's only recently that we've seen governments actively promote a feminist-socialist agenda, so why not? Assuming we're right, I see two interesting patterns that may exist then, and to varying degrees right now:

1. Female incompetence: When women abandon their traditional gender roles, ironically, they are also weakening their own individual power and status in society. Men still repair cars, compose symphonies and manage government agencies. Modern women, on the other hand, increasingly fail on basic tasks like child raising, cooking, cleaning, crafts and traditional clothing. Instead we're seeing an army of men taking over these fields at homes all across the West. This means that men are now managing work traditionally associated with both genders. Guess which gender is going to remain at the top.

2. An enlarged Nanny State: But there's a catch in this otherwise positive trend pattern, and that's the ever-increasing welfare State. When women abandon their individuality and self-responsibility by lowering their competence, someone is going to have to tend to these things. Just look at food: since few women today know how to cook nurturing food for a family, we're seeing ready-made dinners in plastic boxes at the supermarket. God knows what's in that shit. I predict we'll see a bigger government interference with our lives as a result of this female incompetence. Already women are at the forefront of socialist movements, demanding gender-oriented affirmative action and socialized health care/child care/elder care. This pattern, I predict, will not be restricted to party. The Democrats/liberals will nanny us with government bureaucracies, the Republicans/conservatives will nanny us with multinational corporations.

Men who roughly agree with me that these are two serious trends emerging out of the hell that is socialist feminism, will also find a way to circumvent the worst problems and empower themselves and the women they love to escape the madness of The Crowd.

Dogma always clouds the judgment of large groups of people. This is why I apply Occam's Razor to shocking news as often as possible: the simplest explanation is usually the best (and it pisses liberals off). When Finnish school shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinen made it to the news, Corrupt was the only place on the web that didn't demonize the boy as a misanthropic maniac.

The truth was, as later revealed by parents and teachers, that Pekka-Eric was a bright student and intelligent individual, but got bullied for it. In the end, like with school shooters Matti Saari and Cho Seung Hui, and recent mass killer George Sodini, there is always a human factor involved in mad acts of violence and terror. Simple madness might trigger a mad act, but the motivation or causes leading up to that act is usually a combination of desperation and alienation from society.

This is not just a psychological issue, but also a political one. When someone tries to blow up an airport in Detroit, how do most people react?

The government bureaucrat apologizes for mindless bureaucratic behavior, but suggests we simply need more of the same to avoid future catastrophes. The business journalist suggests terrorism exists because fundamentalists are maniacs, period. While I find his foreign policy ideas pretty naive, Ron Paul is one of the very few American politicians who understands underlying motivations behind terrorist acts. Organized terrorism is an answer to America's influence as a superpower, just like small tribes occasionally clashed with Rome during its height.

What's even more hilarious about this story is how the suspected Detroit bomb plotters were previously prisoners at Gitmo. Instead of realizing that people like this are too dangerous to let loose and ship home to America, the Obama Administration decided to go the populist, crowd-stroking way once again to cash home popularity. Europe might like it, but we are now also less secure as a result.

Just as easy answers often are good answers, easy solutions are often good solutions. Some people snap because of pressure from society. In some cases, like with many teenage school shooters, we need education reform to make sure we don't leave the intelligent students behind. In other cases, like with fundamentalist Jihadists preaching Islamic warfare with bombs, we need to return with determination and force. The best way to finish a war is to win it.

Everybody wants to call themselves something or be a part of some group. I guess that's how human nature works. But that doesn't mean that whatever group you're part of or what opinions you hold really matter. I argue that much of what people believe doesn't matter at all, either because they don't act on their beliefs, or the ideas they hold simply have no practical bearing on everyday life.

One of the brightest students I met was a hardcore Communist. Every day in class he wore a Lenin suit with the Soviet symbol. Eventually we had a chat and it turned out he was both very friendly and intellectually sharp. When it came down to it, it didn't really matter that I was on the opposite side of the political scale; we pretty much reached the same conclusions about society, and agreed on similar philosophical conclusions.

If you believe evil polar bears are secretly controlling the world, why should I care? If you're friendly, I'll still like you. If you're a dumbass, you're dumb either way.

To be certain, people in general take their beliefs very seriously. I've been attacked several times for the opinions I express publically, but this has less to do with politics and more to do with human psychology. People want to fit in and if they see someone that doesn't, that's a threat to their homogeneous views. And so that person is attacked until it caves in or runs off. It's one of the most horrific features of crowdism, but if you truly understand how pointless it is to go around caring about what other people say or believe, you'll start to look at outcomes, e.g. what really goes on in reality. Let's leave the rest to our dreams.

Everyone likes to blame journalists for all kinds of things. Most often, as in Sweden, we say they're biased and leftist. Maybe they are. But that's only because Sweden is a leftist country.

No journalist can be completely objective in reporting news, because accounting for all information related to an event is impossible. So, all journalism is "biased." What a news report does contain can still be factually accurate and relevant to the event at hand. That's quality journalism.

I'd say many Swedish journalists have got a leftist bias. So what? Most Swedes have got leftist biases. We believe in a big welfare State taking care of everyone. We believe that we can enforce pluralism, equality and freedom (!) through government programs. We are hardcore global warming fanatics. We think Communism is "less evil" than Nazism. In short, we're all a bunch of leftists, more or less.

Don't blame the journalists. The crowd is the problem.

The Copenhagen climate change summit is both winding down and coming undone, with the entire world wondering: "what can Alfred teach us about global warming?". Well I shall tell you.

I haven't done a single bit of first-hand research, nor have I looked at other people's evidence or arguments. Instead of placing my trust in one, none or both sides of a debate in which zealous combatants of all sides inculcate a strange kind of deeply filial bond to their opinions, what I have done is rely on common sense; that strain of cynical, optimistic and humble logic that always remains untainted from the virulent subject matter at hand.

The way I see it: the world may very well be getting warmer. Or not. It may be getting colder. It's snowing outside - a rare prelude to the Christmas season in England - and our last winter was among the coldest ones on record. It may even be staying the same for a while. However, the climate's various variables surely change at one point of another; I would hazard that the temperature of the Moon has been stable for millions of years now, perhaps as a mutual trade-off for not enjoying a single wheeze of breathable air. Are we contributors to this change? Surely yes, but surely not all of it. We are of course one factor to be considered among many.

The Earth's climate will always be changing, but the crowd remains predictably the same. People love to get whipped up into a frenzy about doomsday scenarios; it makes them feel important. Even more, they love announcing dramatic platitudes or flaunting trivial acts in response to the problem of the day (just check Twitter); this makes them seem selfless, anti-elitist and egalitarian, and thereby makes them popular. These twin tactics have historically always brought lots of empty souls together; look at the G20 protests for example. I guess that every individual there felt both important and popular.

That is why I am cynical about the global warmongering lobby. I would require an incontestable burden of proof before I agree to give away Mt. Everest sized chunks of money to incompetent third-world leaders that promise to use the money to sacrifice their own growth and economy, and to sit around and build solar panels instead. All of that to find out one year later that they were lying all along, thinking it a much better investment to purchase several thousand gold-plated AK47s.

But I recognise that my cynicism may very well be misplaced; in simple terms, we should always be wary that there is no smoke without fire, even if it's a very meek, smouldering kind of conflagration. Yet I remain optimistic in the face of such danger. We know that our behaviour is sometimes no good for the environment, it's just that sometimes it takes us a while to realise it en masse. This is why free-range eggs are now so popular, why CFCs are banned pretty much everywhere, why wind farms are being erected, clean coal technology being developed, why fly-tipping is frowned upon, overpopulation becoming a major issue, and why the old, garishly orange, sky-pollutingly inefficient lights on my high street have been replaced with elegant white-light LEDs.

The Copenhagen talks, if they went the way of its most fervent supporters, would have the entire planet infinitely bound into an awkward, anti-democratic and self-harming agreement over an issue widely contested and highly capricious. If, in the course of global events, we eventually come to a stark, irrefutable conclusion that we are taking an ineffable dump on our planet's well-being, perhaps something similar would be the best course of action. Yet despite the humorous foibles of the crowd, evolution has consistently shown humankind to be highly adaptable, and it is in this process I trust. To choose to regress is a failure to adapt, and signals demise.

I do think action is necessary to reduce our negative impact on the Earth. Crucially, we just need to keep to ourselves and I offer one example in support of that idea. Land situated next to a nature reserve behind my town has been left to fallow indefinitely by the local landowner. Within a couple of years, the result is that a beautiful meadow has sprung up and the riverside edges are now populated by a thicket of adolescent foliage. Playing children, hikers and dog walkers have trod a scenic footpath through the middle, and the local deer can be heard courting in the area during many summer nights. Species once endemic to the area can now spread back.

But more practical action is available; I strongly support research into renewable and environmentally friendly technology, despite being a Copenhagen cynic, but I generally do not believe in coercion. I recognise someone's freedom to happily drive an SUV around the home counties, but I don't recognise their intellect. The relevant motto is John Milton's: "opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making". A skyscraper is about to be erected in London that houses three giant wind turbines at its helm. The energy created is enough to power the entire living complex, and some of the area around it. This kind of action should be encouraged, but the capability to utilise such local solutions would be seriously hampered if we were to tax our pioneers and throw their money elsewhere.

Even with all of the most pious ranting available, we cannot force the world to act on our behalf; Europe's cajoling, China, India, and America's reluctance, and the limpet-like financial demands of third-world states have made talks too volatile to enforce global consensus. Yet unless all of these people are actually psychotic, they will each want what's best for their people, or at least themselves.

So in the wake of the conference's failures, what is my answer? I see no point in presenting an entire manifesto, so here are just a few simple words in a vaguely chronological order: be patient, develop, adapt, praise, share and change.

The battle is as old as the computer itself: Are Macs better than PCs, or vice versa? There's enough lobbying on both sides to feel dizzy and stay away from all computers, period. But I have an even more simple answer to that: if you don't understand computers--any computer--you're likely to screw things up. If you do understand computers, it doesn't really matter, because you'll get things done anyway.

Just to give you a funny example. At the department of my university we use iMacs, which are very popular among students (including the iBook). One day the power suddenly went out and all computers shut down. After the electricity was back again, no one could access the wireless web. I'd never even laid eyes upon Mac OS X before, yet it took me only a minute to play around in the system menus to re-reconnect to the network. I even set up a temporary ad hoc network to another computer to transfer files.

None of the Mac fanboys and fangirls knew what the hell to do. And they've been Mac users for years. How impressive is that? Should we blame an overpriced UNIX rip? I don't think so. In my experience Mac OS X is easy to use, about as simple as Windows Vista or 7. It's crowdism, stupid! People think they'll become heroes with the right machine, yet the computer is only the condition under which you work. If I buy a safe Toyota, only a moron would suggest I can drive any way I want to and still get home safe. You are not your computer. You are you. If you suck at computers, you'll suck at both PCs and Macs.

On a related point, I suspect liberals are committing a similar fallacy when they suggest the social environment completely decides the outcome of individual action.

Recently, I was accused of being a eugenicist on Facebook, by someone I've known for years. This all came about because I gently steered him toward my theory that humans have nearly worn out our welcome on this planet and maybe it's time we trim our numbers down by about 19/20ths so we can rebuild in a more natural, organic way. That, or maybe a nice ice age comes along and buries most of our cities so we're no longer a blight. He, on the other hand, believes the Earth can sustain 100 billion humans with no issues whatsoever - just a note, that's over fourteen times our current population.

My views were hard to understand for him, as he's a conspiracy theorist and didn't get to the point of figuring out how humanity could effect such a change, only worried about "freedom and liberty", and thus blocked my account after getting the last word. This was after I decided to spin it from a father's perspective, and tell him that I know what child rearing takes, in terms of man-hours at a hospital, stress, nine months of waiting, resources, clean water, available food, distribution resources for all these supplies made elsewhere, etc. just so that one baby can make it from prenatal to postnatal care with no problems...Oh and don't forget those doctors, with their American post-grad degrees. That OB/GYN who delivered our son? He's about $100K in debt before he ever sees his first patient.

Of course, much of these niceties are a wall built around ourselves. If left to mother nature, most births would go just fine, but some babies would die during childbirth as mortality rates are higher in nature, all else being equal. I certainly can't imagine life without my son now, so I appreciate the medical technology. But I do have the perspective to note that no matter what we do, we will never be able to save every single baby and give him those precious first few weeks of constant parental attention, doctor's visits, warm blankets, and formula/milk. It's just impossible, at least with seven billion people on the planet: humanity cannot organize at that level and the resources are becoming too scarce.

The hilarious irony in my (former?) friend's rants, per the linked post above, is that he believes in the New World Order and secret societies controlling humanity behind closed doors. Centralized authority loves groups of stupid people in small areas, and with 100 billion people it would actually be easier, not more difficult, to continue centralizing authority. Spreading humanity out with fewer numbers would decentralize authority organically, as it's more difficult - and less attractive - to try and rule more people in far corners of the globe.

As a parent, my views on population, humanity, and life have only been strengthened each time I come home from work and look in my son's eyes. Reducing population globally can still be done safely and voluntarily, or even through more aggressive foreign policy such as "no more aid to dictators who show no regard for their own population". Why this is so hard to understand for so many people who fail to see the endgame of overpopulation boggles the mind.