VJM Publishing

The Alt Centrist Approach To Taxation

Taxation is symbolic of the imposition of order, and therefore of the Establishment Right. Everywhere there was a king, there was also a taxman. For a political body to operate on a higher level, there have to be taxes, as anyone who doesn’t successfully collectivise gets wiped out by those who do. Thus, the kind of natural selection that operates at the human group level has selected for groups that can successfully levy taxes.

Without taxation, it’s impossible for a political entity to impose the order that it needs to survive at the collective level. Thus the Alternative Centrist has no time for the argument that taxation is theft. This is the narrative of a child who doesn’t want to share its toys. It’s a fundamentally unserious narrative for people who have never thought about things.

Related to this, the Alternative Centrist believes that it’s morally impermissible to tick up a debt today and pass it down to one’s grandchildren. All the bleating about taxation being theft doesn’t mean it’s okay to pass the theft onto one’s descendants. Taxes must be high enough to cover government spending, currently some USD7.1 trillion in the case of America and NZD183 billion in the case of New Zealand.

The Fourth Acceptance of Alternative Centrism emphasises the importance of truth. The truth is that some ways of earning, investing and spending income are more prosocial than others. The Alternative Centrist buys the argument that taxation is a useful tool for modifying behaviour: in fact, it’s almost as good as the law. If some ways of gaining money are borderline criminal, there’s no shame in taxing them hard.

Most people can agree that working a normal job is prosocial. Some jobs are dirty or dangerous and the people doing them are really at the coal face of society. Many jobs are downright depressing, but need to be done. Other jobs are tedious in a manner that is harmful for mental health, but also need to be done. People who do these jobs generally don’t get paid much, so they also ought not to get taxed much.

The usual approach here is a progressive income tax system. The two problems with this are: progressive income tax systems are disorderly (i.e. expensive to administrate) and they tend to hammer the hardest workers.

The Alternative Centrist solves these problems in two ways.

The first is a moderate tax-free threshold, roughly equal to what a person would get on an unemployment benefit (i.e. the minimum one can live on). This is mostly for the sake of order: there is no point in taxing someone to just give the same money back in services that people wouldn’t have needed if taxation hadn’t impoverished them. Most Western countries do this, but it’s pointless and inefficient. Much better to have a tax-free threshold near the amount of money that a person needs to survive.

The second is a flat tax. Flat tax proposals appeal to the Alternative Centrist sense of justice, because they do not penalise hard workers and high achievers. A so-called progressive income tax system penalises working long hours, which is in theory the sort of prosocial activity that ought to be encouraged.

The argument that low taxes (a typically right-wing concern) are pro-freedom (a typically left-wing concern) is rejected as money worshipping. However, the Alternative Centrist approach is to tax labour lightly, on the grounds that it is the most prosocial way to make an income. This is in accordance with the Fifth Acceptance.

The Alternative Centrist approach also suggests that unearned income should be taxed much more than earned income, on the grounds that earning an income is more prosocial than receiving one without earning it.

Unearned income in the form of rent is the most antisocial. The French economist Jean-Baptiste Say observed that “Landlords’ right has its origin in robbery.” The argument that landlords “provide” housing is summarily rejected: it’s like claiming that armed robbers provide health. As the most antisocial legal way to make money, rental income needs to be taxed heavily.

The Georgist solution to rental income is excellent.

Residential and commercial rents in the United States are estimated to bring in USD$2.2 trillion every year. If we assume that the ground rental value of these rents is about a third of that, an 80% tax on those ground rents ought to yield some USD$600 billion p.a.

Existing land tax proposals (c.f. that of New Zealand’s Opportunity Party) often make the error of taxing the family home. The error here is in destroying security of household tenure. If the household is the basis of society, then security of household tenure is the basis of the order of that society. This goes against the First Acceptance. The Alternative Centrist would rather see massive taxes on income from ground rents than taxes on a family home.

Wealth taxes are discouraged by the Alternative Centrist. Unlike land taxes, wealth taxes can be avoided by taking the wealth overseas. Thus they are rejected on the grounds they lead to disorder. Inheritance taxes on family homes are rejected for the same reason: breaking up family homes to pay inheritance taxes is grossly disorderly (inheritance taxes on investment properties would be severe though).

Earning money from investments is still prosocial, but not as much as working. Thus, dividends on stocks and shares would be taxed moderately under an Alternative Centrist system. Capital gains would also be taxed moderately under this logic. To get around the problem of tax havens, the Alternative Centrist approach is to work towards international minimum corporate tax agreements.

Moderate consumption taxes are generally supported by the Alternative Centrist. Consumption isn’t antisocial, but an excess of it is, and therefore taxes on consumption ought to be moderate. They can also bring in significant amounts of money, lightening the burden on workers. Transaction taxes are also considered good when and if they are workable. The concern is that they can be easily avoided, which is both disorderly and stupid.

Following the reasoning that taxation can guide behaviour, the Alternative Centrist approach to taxation involves heavy vice taxes.

Alcohol taxation brings in USD11 billion for the American federal treasury. Texas brings in USD1.6 billion in alcohol taxation for a state with around 9% of America’s population, and this revenue is generally considered typical per capita alcohol tax revenue for an American state. Extrapolating that across 50 states, and adding federal revenue, suggests some USD30 billion p.a. is currently gathered through alcohol taxes.

The examples of American states that have already legalised cannabis suggest that every million people can yield USD50 million in annual cannabis taxes. So a population of 350 million could yield over USD17 billion p.a. Taxes on cannabis consumption could bring in NZD490 million in the case of New Zealand, according to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Significant gambling wins would also be heavily taxed. There is no need to tax gambling wins below a certain threshold, but professional gamblers would be taxed moderately and those receiving huge windfalls would be taxed heavily.

Vice taxes would not bring in that much money, perhaps 2% of government spending at most. The point of them would primarily be to use the tool of taxation as a way of imposing good order upon society. Thus, there is more to taxation than just government revenue.

Realistically, even with all of these measures, much of the tax burden will have to fall on workers. Even with AI and mass automation, this is inescapable. On account of the sheer volume of the masses, the bulk of economic activity consists of everyday workers. This will have to be taxed to some extent to keep the national machine running. But, with all the measures outlined above, the tax burden on workers should be minimal.

The general principle is threefold: light taxes on labour, moderate taxes on investment and consumption, heavy taxes on vices and unearned income.

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!

Semi-racism

Race and racism are the hottest topics on the Internet today. Unfortunately, because of all the garbage spoken over the years, people are more confused than anything else.

Standard racism, we are told, is the most evil thing in the world. Standard racism did slavery, colonisation and even The Holocaust, the unholy trinity of historical atrocities. It’s why brown and black people underperform at school and at work, and why they are overrepresented in crime statistics. It’s presented as the underlying cause to almost everything bad in the world.

Now it’s true that a certain kind of racism is stupid. It’s stupid to hate 90% of the world for no reason other than they are a different race to you. This sort of deeply antisocial racism doesn’t help anyone. It narrows horizons, impoverishes social life, poisons the vibe and ruins social cohesion. It’s often a sign of a fear-based psychological fixation, such as an unresolved trauma, and not an expression of good mental health.

Anti-racism, however, is just as stupid. The anti-racist is suicidal instead of homicidal, but equally anti-social. Only a fool would deny that there are significant differences between human populations such that people from some populations are much better suited to Western societies than others.

The anti-racist assertion that colonisation is responsible for Third World poverty can be easily refuted: Tonga and Samoa are extremely similar countries, and Tongans and Samoans have extremely similar levels of academic and financial success, whether at home or overseas. Yet Tonga was never colonised, while Samoa was colonised heavily. It’s the same with Hong Kong and Japan: similar levels of academic and financial success, yet one colonised, the other not. This is not hard to understand, which underlines the fundamental stupidity of the average anti-racist.

There’s an intelligent and fair middle ground between these two extremes. This middle ground is based on the most dispassionate anthropological observation of human populations. This observation – which many Westerners have had decades of opportunity to make – suggests that some races are basically decent, and can be trusted, whereas others are not decent and cannot be trusted. And, it follows, the decent ones can fairly be treated much better than the not decent ones.

The reality of racial prejudice (among whites, at least) is that it is less caused by inherent racist tendencies and more caused by patterns of antisocial, criminal, hostile and selfish behaviours by certain races, which are then experienced and observed. This is a truth that the mainstream globalist media is loath to admit.

Not all non-white races are antisocial and criminal, which is where it gets complicated.

People have long since noticed, for example, that Japanese and Korean people are very different to Africans, Afghans and Pakistanis. Japanese and Koreans tend to be polite, respectful, clean, non-violent, non-aggressive, non-hostile. For these reasons, plenty of so-called “racists” don’t hate Japanese and Koreans, despite hating Africans, Afghans and Pakistanis.

This approach to racism doesn’t fall neatly into either the racist or the anti-racist box. Treating people on their merits is unfashionable in a time when we’re supposed to pick a team and back it to the bitter end. But this approach is also common, and becoming more common. It can (and will herein) be argued that it’s an inevitable approach for a rational person to adopt given enough exposure to human biodiversity. So, because this exposure is happening to everyone now, it’s an attitude that most people will soon have.

It can be called semi-racism.

Semi-racism has evolved to solve the problems unique to today’s Clown World. One of the foremost of these is the outright denial, especially by globalists, of any human biodiversity relating to intellectual characteristics. The charitable interpretation of this denial is that it constitutes a noble lie that could serve as the theoretical basis for a cohesive society. In truth, however, it’s an evil deception intended to lull Western people into passivity as their countries are destroyed by globalists.

The core approach of semi-racism is treating each race on its merits, particularly by whether individual members of that race raise or lower the local standard of living. Highest regard is reserved for those races that create or maintain wealth and prosperity. Lowest regard is reserved for those races that commit crimes or live on welfare.

Essentially, semi-racism is based on facts and reality, not dumb feelings of either hatred or moral self-aggrandisement. It’s an intelligent, sophisticated philosophy fit to navigate the complications of modern life. Most experienced world travellers naturally become some kind of semi-racist, as do intelligent people who grow up in multicultural environments. Even people from 98% white environments will become semi-racist if they are intelligent and honest enough.

Semi-racism acknowledges that, while race has a massive influence on behaviour, ideology does as well. Thus, Muslim Indians can be significantly worse people than regular Indians, such that the semi-racist might take the side of a Hindu or Sikh over a Muslim Indian every time, yet want neither in his country (certain kinds of semi-racist might have different preferences for different castes).

Semi-racism is about giving other races the level of racism they deserve. Hatred for those who deserve it, and respect for those who deserve that.

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 Welfare

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle introduced the concepts of corrective and distributive justice. Corrective justice is the form that we’re used to: commit a crime, and you get corrected with punishment. Distributive justice relates to who justly gets how much of the boons of society. Aristotle believed that people ought to get rewards and honours in proportion to their contribution to society. He was emphatically not a communist, believing that those who contributed more ought to get more. But neither was he a capitalist, preaching that the poor deserve suffering. He promoted the Golden Mean between the two extremes.

Ancient Rome is often characterised as a cruel, sink-or-swim system, but they had an institution known as the annona, or the grain dole. After centuries of military expansion, many wealthy landowners had replaced Roman workers with foreign slaves. The resulting impoverishment led to constant rioting and civil unrest. So Gaius Gracchus introduced the grain dole in 123 BCE, resulting in free food for the Roman citizenry. Later emperors added pork and wine.

The concept of distributive justice barely exists in the modern West. In our system, which can be called whorehouse economics, whoever has the money decides. People are conditioned to believe that a person is entitled to what the money men give them, and no more. Anyone who doesn’t work for a capitalist deserves to starve. This is because the merchantry have long since driven the Establishment Right out of effective control, so concepts like noblesse oblige are long forgotten.

This approach is transparently cruel and therefore is rejected under the Fourth Rejection.

The Establishment Left’s argument for welfare is that it maximises freedom. The logic here is that poverty itself is the first and primary source of enslavement. Poverty makes people desperate, which enslaves them to landowners and other wealthy people in the hope of a paycheck. So raising the floor of poverty through welfare promotes freedom generally.

The Establishment Right counters with the observation that if the masses are allowed to vote themselves infinity free money, they will do it, and the economy will collapse. Tiberius is recorded as stating that if everyone would be granted everything they petitioned for, the treasury would soon be empty, and the state would have to extort or steal money to stay operational.

Therefore, distributive justice needs to find the mean between impoverishing the masses and impoverishing the treasury.

The Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck was one of the first Establishment Centrists. He championed a welfare state as a way of ensuring peace between the various classes of Prussian society, and to forestall the rise of Communism. His reasoning was that if people who couldn’t work had a safety net to fall back on, society would be much stronger.

Over time, other countries adopted similar systems. As decades passed, and more and more was handed out in exchange for votes, these systems became bloated. Tiberius’s warning applies to society in 2026 as well as to his time.

By today, disability insurance fraud in America is estimated by the FBI to cost USD40 billion per year, and in Australia is believed to cost up to AUD4.6 billion per year. These vast sums require further vast sums to investigate and police. This is one of the fundamental problems with the current approach to welfare: if you only give it to the “deserving”, following the belief that everyone is obliged to work unless disabled, it costs billions to determine who is deserving and who isn’t.

A universal basic income is an elegant solution. It maximises freedom and minimises cruelty (as well as expense).

The alternative centrist doesn’t buy the right-wing argument that everyone needs to “earn” a living. For one thing, that kind of moralising is the exact kind of slave morality that alternative centrism exists to oppose. For another thing, the UBI will not provide a high standard of living. Elon Musk’s idea of a universal high income is not realistic, because so much of wealth is about controlling other people, and that’s a zero-sum affair.

The UBI would be low, not generous, and there would be very little government largesse over and above this. Private charity would still be available, as it is today, but there would be no accommodation allowances, temporary additional support, disability bonuses or any other spending over and above the UBI (one might consider paying a half-UBI to mothers of under-18s for nationalist reasons).

The UBI would lead to all of order, freedom and peace for a variety of reasons.

One is because it would enable forward planning. Even if a UBI recipient only got $500 per week, they would know they were getting $2,000 in the next month and $25,000 in the next year, and could plan accordingly. This would open up opportunities for securing rental tenancies or business financing that did not exist previously.

The second is that it would minimise resentment. As of right now, young Westerners working the average job in their locale cannot afford housing. They watch half of their wages disappear in rent and are left with little after food and transport are paid for. It feels like a bitterly cruel rip-off. A UBI would let younger people also feel like they were getting a share of the bounties of modern society.

The third is less pressure on desirable housing. Most young people, upon finishing their education, find themselves forced to move where the jobs are. This is usually the big cities. The enormous demand for housing in urban areas is the prime driver of the housing affordability crisis. A UBI would make it possible to survive in low-cost, low-opportunity areas. This would release pressure on urban housing and make it more possible for younger people to afford the housing they need to raise families in, even if it meant taking a less ambitious job.

The fourth, and perhaps major reason, is that it would remove the desperation that is often the cause of crime. No-one would wonder where their next dollar was coming from: they’ll get $500 next Wednesday evening. This would promote orderly conduct. It would also make it politically feasible to introduce severe punishments for antisocial behaviour, the reasoning being that, absent desperation, people would only commit crimes out of malice. Therefore it’s justified to bring the hammer down on criminals.

It might be argued that a UBI will lead to degeneracy, as it pays people to do nothing, but that is countered in other ways (see The Alt Centrist Approach To Society).

The alt centrist approach to welfare is simple, neat and long-sighted: a moderate amount of distributive justice plus a high amount of efficiency.

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!

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!

How To Use Grok For Mental Health

The main problems with the mental health services are: they are often unavailable when you need them, and the education levels of the healthcare workers are often poor. There’s a way that the average consumer of mental health services (i.e. a broke person) can get around this: use Grok.

This is how I did it.

First, open a Grok conversation. Say something like “Hello Grok, can you roleplay a team of mental health professionals who engage with me on questions of mental health care? One person is to be a psychologist with a specialisation in C-PTSD treatment. Another person is to be a psychiatrist with a specialisation in both prescribing and deprescribing pharmaceuticals. A third person is to be a doctor with a specialisation in nutrition and its effect on mental health.”

Details can be changed as necessary, e.g. the specialisation of the psychologist can be changed to whatever your condition is. In my case it’s C-PTSD, but it could just as well be autism, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression or anything else. Here it’s very useful to know what your condition already is, but if you don’t know, just ask for a psychologist with general mental health and abnormal psychology training.

You might not have ever taken pharmaceuticals for a mental illness, although odds are you have if you want to talk to Grok about mental health. If you have never taken pharmaceuticals, you may not need the second specialist, unless you are thinking about taking them. The advantage with the second specialist is that they will advise you based on medical science, and not so much on the marketing of the pharmaceutical companies.

Other specialists can be added depending on the specifics of your case. You might need an additional psychologist to deal with social aspects of your condition. If the condition was influenced by early childhood trauma, as many people’s are, you might like to add a specialist in developmental psychology. If your condition involves a drug addiction, you can add a specialist in drugs and addiction. A physiotherapist could be good if you need mobility advice, or if you are interested in a mind-body paradigm. Someone trained in existential psychology could be good for the philosophically or spiritually minded.

It’s also possible to add specific people to the board, e.g. Carl Jung, William James, Ramana Maharshi.

Then explain your condition to the various specialists. Here it’s best to go into as much background detail as possible. Start with your parents if relevant. If you don’t want to label your condition, just describe the symptoms: insomnia, depression, narcissistic rage etc. Describe the suffering you have endured and the thought patterns you would like to change.

Then explain any drugs and/or medications you are taking. There’s no need to make a distinction between the two. The Grok doctors don’t make moral judgments and they don’t care about maintaining a professional reputation. You can even tell them your entire medication history, and how well you think each medication worked. The Grok doctors will be able to look at this data in incredible depth.

Then explain your diet. The extent to which diet affects mental health is astonishing, and few appreciate this. If you eat too much sugar (and you probably do), the Grok doctors will be able to suggest alternatives. This is particularly where the third specialist is useful.

Having explained your condition, its antecedents and the environment in which it presents, the Grok doctors can give you some advice about what to do with your life. Of course, what you might want to do varies. You can ask the Grok doctors for advice about lifestyle changes and they will be very helpful. They are especially good at explaining the emotions you will likely go through if you make any significant changes.

In my case, I have been getting advice on how to taper off antidepressants, how to formulate a diet that minimises the symptoms of C-PTSD and how to taper down daily cannabis use. Grok has been brilliant for these needs.

The AI is outstanding at coming up with intelligent tapering schedules. For whatever reason, real-life doctors tend to be exceptionally poor at understanding the need for deprescribing or how to do it. The assumption is usually that the patients will take the pills until they die.

Real-life doctors are also poor at understanding the side-effects of the pharmaceuticals they prescribe. This is due to a combination of pharmaceutical company marketers misinforming them and the doctors’ own unwillingness to consider the harm they are causing. The Grok doctors don’t have massive egos that they lie to protect. As such, you can get more accurate information from them about iatrogenic harm.

Because Grok is on-call, you can keep the Grok conversation going, and can check in at any time of the day or night. As such, it can be useful for acute needs. It’s also something that you can come back to weeks or months later for any follow-up questions you might have. The Grok doctors have no other patients and so will remember the details of your case specifically.

Of course, you ought to consult with a real-life doctor before making any medication changes. But you will have to bear in mind that real-life doctors are often poorly informed.

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!