VJM Publishing

The Alt Centrist Approach To Recreation

‘Live, love, laugh and be happy’ goes the common refrain. Unfortunately for those of us in the West, our historical approaches to recreation have been coloured by a Christian philosophy of life-denial that considers all pleasures inherently sinful. The logic of the Abrahamic cults is that the world is evil, and that all pleasures are the province of the forces of evil, and so recreational pleasures are forbidden.

Complicating this are ruling class narratives about how the working class needs to be put to work or it becomes destructive. Capitalist dogma holds that if the working class is given too much opportunity for recreation it will stop wanting to work, leading to economic collapse, and therefore recreational opportunites must be restricted.

On top of this is a lingering workamania that makes people feel as if recreation is immoral.

All of these factors have drawn people away from what would be a rational approach to recreation. Great thinkers such as Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius advocated for a middle way between asceticism and indulgence. The alternative centrist prefers this to either the indulgence of the Satanist or the life-denial of the Christian.

Plato, in Laws, argued for the importance of drinking parties. His logic was that moderate alcohol use, by repeatedly inciting a small loss of self-control, trained people to exhibit greater self-control in times when it might otherwise have been lost (e.g. mass hysteria). A contemporary cynic might observe that a list of the countries that have banned alcohol overlaps heavily with a list of the countries whose citizens commit the most rapes and sex crimes per capita in the West.

Aristotle noted, in Politics, that tyrants prevent people from coming together in common cause, prohibiting common clubs and education so as to sabotage mutual confidence and high spirits. The idea is that preventing recreation will demoralise a population into submission. Adhering to the Second Acceptance would therefore involve doing the opposite of this. Thus an alternative centrist state would encourage any and all group recreational activity that was not degenerate or criminal. Even if outsiders could not see much value in some activities, the reasoning is that social bonds are developed in any case, and therefore the general health of the nation is strengthened.

All of this presents a clear picture to the alternative centrist.

The alternative centrist state has to promote recreation for the sake of the population’s mental health: the opposite approach to a tyranny. This is not just for the sake of the recreational activities themselves, but also for the social aspects of the recreational activities, which contribute to the solidarity necessary for a nation to function.

This will mostly require the government not to step in, but to get out of the way.

In particular, this means ending the War on Drugs. Existing drug law would be replaced with a model based on the work of actual drug scientists, such as Prof. David Nutt, whose works such as Drugs: Without The Hot Air would form the bedrock of future policy.

The alternative centrist looks to history and sees that Western societies have generally tolerated alcohol and the harms caused by alcohol. Experiments with prohibition have caused more harm than they prevented. The most intelligent way to balance order and freedom, therefore, is to tolerate alcohol and also every drug safer than alcohol. Because alcohol use is normalised, any less-harmful drug effectively becomes an exit drug for alcohol. The California Sober phenomenon reflects the will of people today to live a healthier lifestyle than is possible with an alcohol habit, and is proof that people will naturally use less harmful recreational alternatives to alcohol if given the choice.

California Sober is mostly about using cannabis instead of alcohol, but several other drugs meet the criteria of being safer than alcohol when used in a recreational setting.

Licensed venues for consuming several of the safer drugs would be a feature of alternative centrist recreation. Apart from bars there would also be cannabis cafes, MDMA lounges and magic mushroom grottos. Licensing would be a complicated and expensive process, so as to exclude clowns and cowboys from the market, but would not be substantially harder than getting an alcohol licence.

The alternative centrist state would generally have an extremely light touch when it came to sporting, cultural and spiritual organisations (although it might run a state religion: see The Alternative Centrist Approach To Religion). Sporting and cultural organisations would be heavily funded and promoted, and created if they didn’t already exist.

To a major extent, sporting recreation will be a function of the history of the nation and of the local geographical opportunities. In most scenarios this would be self-funded and self-organised. The role of the alternative centrist state would be to facilitate opportunities where they wouldn’t otherwise exist, such as maintaining a conservation estate for trampers and hikers, or subsidising sporting insurance through economies of scale. Maintaining facilities for racing, drag racing or drifting would have the bonus of justifying hard crackdowns on anti-social road use.

John Wanamaker’s famous quote “People who cannot find time for recreation are obliged sooner or later to find time for illness” is relevant here. This suggests that workers ought to be able to make enough money in a 40-hour work week to own a home and raise a family (a point addressed at length in The Alternative Centrist Approach To Work And Employment). This should allow them sufficient time and energy for appropriate recreation.

For cases where recreation goes as far as addiction, see The Alternative Centrist Approach To Mental Health.

As alluded to above, a fair and reasonable approach to recreation, rejecting the tyranny of moralisers, would provide full and fair opportunity for any pro-social recreational desire, and would therefore justify crackdowns on anti-social elements. This is one of the reasons for the severity of The Alternative Centrist Approach To The Law.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming work of political philosophy that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2024-25
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

21st Century Nationalism

‘Nationalism’ is a dirty word in most circles today. Many people still associate it with the bloodshed and hatred of the previous century. But, just as globalism is not going away, nationalism will not either. New forms of nationalism are taking shape today as new generations find themselves facing similar challenges to the nationalists of old.

Everyone is familiar with 20th Century nationalism. Every history channel parrots the endless refrain: globalism is peace, nationalism is war. Nationalists started World War One and World War Two and so have to be opposed by all decent people.

20th Century nationalism had some drawbacks. Foremost was the extreme hostility towards other nations. Back then, human distinctions were considered greater than they really are. Charles Darwin, writing The Descent of Man in 1871, shocked many with the then-liberal position that Africans were definitively the same species as Europeans. This was less than half a century before the launch of World War One.

It seems bizarre to someone from the New World, but 20th Century European nationalists genuinely saw significant natural differences between themselves and their neighbours. A German could go to war with a Belgian in the belief that the two were meaningfully different. Even today, visitors to Europe from the New World are struck by the lingering animosity neighbouring groups have for each other. The combination of time and proximity seems to have been enough to engender hatred in many.

The latest phenomenon is Boomer nationalism. This is little more than pissed-off old people. This phenomenon can be seen all over the Western World, particularly in politicians such as Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Pauline Hanson and Winston Peters. These Boomers represent a generation who can see death staring them in the face, and who aren’t happy about it. They project their dissatisfaction with their own mortality onto society.

The archetypal Boomer nationalist demands are not just an end to mass immigration, but also Boomer concerns such as higher pensions and lower property taxes. They also often promote causes that directly harm younger people, such as work-for-the-dole schemes or restrictions on disability payments, neither of which pensioners have to worry about.

Boomer nationalism will never succeed because it is too selfish. Trump and Farage don’t care about young people, so their voters are dying off. Trump has done nothing to invest in the next generation of Americans. Winston Peters first entered government when the New Zealand population was 3.6 million: it is now 5.3 million, Peters is still in government and he has done nothing about immigration. The movement operates entirely on short-term self-interest.

The advance offered by Boomer nationalism over 20th Century nationalism is that it isn’t as hateful. Boomer nationalists are just as willing as 20th Century nationalists to assert their own interests, they’re just not quite as willing to make other people suffer in the pursuit. The argument of this essay is that Boomer nationalism has the correct amount of outgroup antipathy – i.e. a moderate one – but the Boomers aim it in the wrong direction.

21st Century nationalism is something else: a different philosophy to both of the above, for different realities.

21st Century nationalism, like 20th Century nationalism, is primarily for young people. Like Boomer nationalism, it is only moderately aggressive. It calls for remigration rather than death camps. Because 21st Century nationalism is for young people, it is for people who never knew the good times that the Boomers enjoyed. This will give it a cold and steely edge that Boomer nationalism does not have, but 20th Century nationalism did.

This new, third wave of nationalism will have to be more sophisticated than its predecessors if it is to succeed. 20th Century nationalism, arising in the aftermath of World War One where might made right, didn’t mind making enemies. Boomer nationalism, appealing to a credulous generation of television-watchers, is simplistic and vulgar, and is failing thereby. 21st Century nationalism will have to be more diplomatic and clever if it is to harness the support needed to win.

All three waves of nationalism have the same principal enemies, namely the globalists and their lackeys. These are chiefly bankers and Bolsheviks – the globohomo of Clown World Chronicles – and those they have bribed and threatened into doing their bidding.

21st Century nationalism, like the other two forms, will be forced to struggle with Christianity. This Middle Eastern religion, with its universal morality expressed in passages such as Galatians 3:28, has crippled the previous two waves of nationalism through sabotage and passivity.

The difference is that very few young people are Christian today. 21st Century nationalism will therefore not be Zionist as Boomer nationalism was. It might also therefore adopt many several elements. There was already a foreshadowing of this in the NDSAP’s adoption of a swastika as rallying symbol. We could see a form of spiritualism akin to that of Ancient Greece and Rome make a return (see the Pythia of the Oracle of Delphi), as it did during the time of William James. We could also see the rise of Elementalism.

If these 21st Century nationalists end up going to war, it would probably involve civil war rather than world war or generational war. The thought of one Western country invading another World War One-style is hard to take seriously today, but professors of war and conflict such as David Betz suggest that civil war across a number of Western cities/regions is a very real outcome given today’s demographic powder keg.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Alt Centrist Approach To Relations Between The Sexes

Good relations between the sexes are absolutely fundamental to a functioning society. The union between men and women in loving marriage is the most powerful social alchemy that exists. Absent such relations, healthy families cannot exist, and so a next generation of properly civilised people cannot be brought into being. Thus without good relations between the sexes, a society either collapses into totalitarianism or dies.

The current sitation facing the West – of fertility rate collapse – is a function of several things. One of those things is deteriorating relationships between the sexes. Dave Chappelle observed some years back that men and women don’t get along any more. Relations have only become worse since then.

There are two extremely unnatural approaches to relations between the sexes. We’ve swung from one to another and they’ve both failed.

One is the excessive order approach. This is best exemplified by the Abrahamic cults. The narrative of scriptural passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church,” or 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet,” is that women are categorically less than men, inferior.

Islam is, of course, even more extreme than Christianity in this regard. The Abrahamic approach to relations between the sexes is suited to equatorial people, a totally different sort of person to the white and Asian people who are the intended audience of this book. Thus it is rejected under the First Rejection.

The second is the excessive chaos approach. This is best exemplified by today’s total confusion. Gender relations are in a state of flux owing to no-one being willing to state, or even knowing, what masculinity is and what femininity is. The girlboss is just as much a travesty of humanity as the man in a dress, for both are miserable.

This excessive chaos, rejected under the Second Rejection, is a consequence of Communist influence. Communist logic is that men and women are identical, and therefore there are no such things as natural sex roles or natural sex-based behaviour. Some social justice warriors, delirious on this logic, will even claim that men are taller and stronger than women because they monopolise sport and exercise opportunities growing up.

Neither of these approaches are satisfying, as can be seen from the high divorce rates, from the involuntary celibacy epidemic, from the monumental suicide rates among trans people and from the popular rush from OnlyFans to tradwife then back again.

As usual here, the Alternative Centrist approach is first to understand the truth of the matter, as per the Fourth Acceptance. The truth is that most human behaviours are natural, and significant sex-based behavioural differences are also natural.

Sex differences in behaviour are readily observable in toddlers, and become accentuated in puberty. Cross-cultural studies demonstrate that these sex differences are biological and not cultural in origin. In fact, there have been about a billion years of evolution establishing differences between the sexes.

Most adults are readily aware of these differences. At parties, it’s often observed that women migrate to the kitchen and men to the barbecue. In the workplace, it’s often noticed that women prefer to avoid dirty and dangerous jobs. In the dating market, many have seen that women generally select for strength and men for beauty.

“Neither prejudice nor ideology” is the motto of the Alternative Centrist approach to relations between the sexes. Thus the Alternative Centrist approach categorically rejects the approach of the Establishment Right, and of Abrahamic religions, that women ought to be subjugated. It also categorically rejects any ideology insisting on absolute equality or conflict between the sexes, such as Communism, feminism or blank slate theory.

The approach is to accept that the two sexes are equal metaphysically, but in body and mind are different in a great number of ways, and in some of those ways profoundly.

The Alternative Centrist approach on this subject agrees, to a major extent, with Muammar Gaddafi. He wrote, in The Green Book, that women ought to be free to pursue any profession they desire, same as men. But a woman’s natural function is to bear children and raise a family, and if she is prevented from doing this by adverse economic conditions, she is just as much a slave as if made into a breeding sow by religious fundamentalists. Therefore, a just system would allow one man to afford to raise a family on his wage alone (see The Alternative Centrist Approach To The Economy).

The Alternative Centrist feels no need for the insanity of quotas for women in governance, in academia and in boardrooms. For one thing, women are already doing better than men at university, and are also well represented in Western democratic parliaments. For another, the inherent genetic differences outlined above seem to cause men to strive harder to distinguish themselves in the workplace. Geoffrey Miller’s brilliant book The Mating Mind explained how men evolved to put in tremendous efforts of diligence and applied intelligence to impress women. Women, not needing to chase men, need not make such efforts.

This, and not discrimination, appears to explain why men have greater career success than women in many contexts. The Alternative Centrist approach is to leave them to it, and not to force women into their spaces.

Absolutely no obligation is felt by the Alternative Centrist to give representation to sexual deviants in high office (or anywhere else). Thus there will be no quotas for homosexuals, asexuals or anything similar. Recognition of the greatness of Hadrian precludes the Alternative Centrist from banning homosexuals outright. Heinrich Himmler was correct when he argued that homosexuals, if tolerated, will seek to bring more homosexuals in, and therefore their numbers have to be kept at a minimum. Transsexuals will not be tolerated at all, being why the Third Rejection needs to exist in the first place.

If the Alternative Centrist state ran a state religion, as per The Alternative Centrist Approach To Religion, it would have a relatively even mix of men and women among the priests and priestesses, as per ancient Greece and Rome.

The general rule on this subject is that the subtler the relevant quality, the more it is accessible to both men and women, but the grosser the relevant quality, the more it is particular to one gender. So spirituality is something for both men and women, but physicality divides the two, e.g. men into soldiering, policing and labouring; women into caring, nurturing and pregnancy.

Thus in spirituality and academia there might be a roughly even mix of men and women; in politics and other warrior-class endeavours most (in some contexts all) participants will be men; most people-focused jobs will be done by women and most tool-focused jobs will be done be men. Ultimately, both are worthy of the same level of basic respect, although Lysistrata-style pisstakes will always be enjoyed.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming work of political philosophy that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

Where The Millennial Generation Won – And Lost

We oldest Millennials are now in our mid-40s. This affords us enough of a vantage point to look back and see where it went right for our generation, and where it went wrong. Where we won and where we lost.

Economically, our situation was clearly worse than for the Boomers but better than for Gen Z. Looking at the long-term home price to income ratio trend, it can be seen that Boomers enjoyed the best of times when it came to affording the necessities of life. The hardest times are now and the future.

Finding housing is hell for people today, but it wasn’t so bad 20 years ago. At the turn of the Century, when we Millennials were young, housing was plentiful and cheap. Finding good quality student flats was easy. Gen Z have it very hard by contrast. Compared to previous generations, very few of them are married and homeowners by the age of 30. This is the main reason fertility rates are crashing.

The days of the Boomers being able to land a job with a firm handshake are long gone. Millennials, however, have managed to scrape ourselves into a position where most of us are doing okay. For Gen Z the situation is so precarious that mental disorders are surging. The combination of housing uncertainty and precarious employment has made life hellish for the generations after us.

Education has been extremely mixed. On the one hand, the ease of access to higher education is excellent thanks to the Internet in general and YouTube in particular. This has made it possible to receive university-tier lectures without needing to move to a university city.

On the other hand, the education system is now full of Marxists. It’s very difficult to get an education today without also being brainwashed into hating white people. The Long March Through The Institutions has been completed, and now one cannot get into a teaching position without being a Marxist. This has ruined the quality of mainstream education and turned it into propaganda. So that high-quality material, although it can be beamed directly into your house now, is harder to find than in previous eras.

Arguably we Millennials had the best women. Millennial women were post-Christian in the sense they generally didn’t have the same religious hang-ups that Boomer women did. They were up for it – the popular belief was that sex was a fun and positive thing. Millennial women liked having boyfriends. The gender discourse was not yet totally poisoned.

Gen Z seems to have a preponderance of sexually unresponsive women owing to mass antidepressant and antipsychotic uptake. This was only a small problem for Millennials. Gen Z also appears to suffer from a new form of puritanism that suggests sex is immoral. Even approaching a woman is considered offensive by some of these new ascetics. The net result is that love and romance is much less fun for young people today.

Millennials also arguably had the best relation to technology and video games. The Silent Generation had the radio and the cinema. The Boomers had the television. We Millennials got all of that as well as (what seemed like at the time) incredible video games. But we didn’t also suffer the invasive panopticon that Gen Z did.

It was possible for Millennials to party and cut loose without the fear of being recorded that Gen Z currently operates under. We could do dumb stuff without it ending up on the Internet for the whole planet to gape at. Gen Z is imprisoned by technology in a way that we never were; history has truly vindicated Ted Kaczynski.

Entertainment and culture was very good for Millennials. The music may not have been as great as it was for the Boomers, and the literature may have been significantly worse, but the film was as good, and in all cases much better for Millennials than for Gen Z. We mostly had the same drugs as the Boomers, i.e. alcohol and tobacco with the occasional bit of weed. Gen Z has access to a much wider range of recreational drugs and has to deal with much less stigma.

Social cohesion is much worse for Millennials than for Boomers. The Boomers got to grow up in white societies in which politeness and consideration were normal. Their neighbourhoods were mostly safe and full of people who looked out for each other.

The Muttening kicked in for Millennials, who had it much worse than the Boomers. But Gen Z will have it much worse again. Gen Z is growing up in conditions closer to a zoo than to a civilisation. Whether our societies have still avoided collapse by the time Gen Z are pensioners is anyone’s guess. But the early stages of collapse can be seen in white flight from big cities.

When it comes to spirituality, we had it about the same as the Boomers in that we were also pinned by the Clown World Fork of Christianity or atheism. Almost all of us got the mainstream scientific atheist narrative throughout our school years, and many of us came to adulthood watching the Four Horsemen of Atheism, who seemed logical and reasonable. Those of us who suspected there was more to life than materialism usually ended up on psychiatric medication.

Gen Z may live to see a genuine spiritual resurgence, even if we don’t. This is because materialism is no longer satisfying to people in general. There’s now an awareness that materialism correlates with nihilism and thereby with all kinds of degeneracy and misery. This has led to a revival in the perennial spiritual philosophy. Whether this is the much-prophecised dawn of the Age of Aquarius and another Satya Yuga remains to be seen. But the early signs are promising.

The general rule is that Boomers had it the best, Gen Z the worst, and we Millennials somewhere in the middle. This accords with society’s general decline into Clown World. However, Millennials did have it best in some limited ways.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!