The Alt Centrist Approach To The Law

Law and order are often grouped together in political theory. And for good reason: without the capacity to impose order, there is no capacity to impose law. The first laws were not created by common agreement among equals: they were imposed by kings such as Hammurabi, the Babylonian whose code of laws inspired all Western legal systems that followed.

Alternative centrist theory is no different in this regard. Without the ability to impose law, there can be no civilisation. The majesty of the Roman Empire was only possible on account of the excellence of its laws. The less gifted lawmakers appeared to the Romans as barbarians, and were subjugated accordingly. The best laws belong to the best societies.

If the position of the Establishment Right towards the law could be expressed in one phrase, it would be: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you give people the excuse to ignore laws because they “didn’t know about them”, everyone would plead ignorance and the contrary would be unprovable.

The Alternative Centre agrees entirely. Everyone is responsible for making themselves aware of local laws. To not so do is deeply stupid.

The difference is, the Alternative Centre appreciates that not all laws are just. Humans write laws, and humans are imperfect, and therefore laws are imperfect. To the extent that they are imperfect, it’s not just to enforce them. This creates all kinds of moral dilemmas.

Back in the day, moral dilemmas about proportional punishment were easily resolved: most criminals were executed. Executing a criminal not only removes the possibility that they will commit further crimes, but it also removes all the subtler ways that criminals lower the standard of living of those around them. A study in the journal Evolutionary Psychology suggested that “by the late Middle Ages, [the courts] were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation.” Studies have found that the most criminal 1% of the population commits a majority of the violent crime, so this relatively small number of executions would have massively raised the quality of life for the other members of the community.

This worked fine as long as capital punishment was reserved for treason, murder, rape, armed robbery and a few other extreme offences. In medieval Britain, however, it became possible to get hanged for petty theft. This is clearly unreasonable.

The alternative centrist believes in freedom from unreasonable law.

Take the cannabis laws for instance. It has been until recently, and in many places still is, the case that people with medical conditions that could be treated with cannabis were expected to suffer instead of to use it. Here it’s easily possible to see the evils of excessive order.

It’s not realistic to expect people to obey the law when the law is clearly unjust, as per cannabis prohibition. In fact, eminent philosophers such as Henry Thoreau argued it’s a duty to obey unjust laws. Unjust laws are evil, and by defying them people can do good. The tension between order and freedom here is resolved with reference to one’s social class: the higher the class, the more one ought to err on the side of order. The law must serve justice in imposing order.

The Alternative Left is correct when they point out that many criminals have been influenced by poor upbringings. It’s a fact of developmental psychology that most children grow up thinking their parents are normal, and imitate them whatever they do. If the parents are antisocial, the children will become antisocial in imitation (unless they can reason themselves out of that at a later date).

Thus, crime is often truly not the fault of the criminal. Oftentimes they don’t know any better, because they have had selfish and infantile behaviours modelled to them by their parents, and this has taught them to see decent people as weak suckers. It’s cruel to expect people from environments like this to independently develop sophisticated moral reasoning. They have to be taught. If their home environment was too neglectful to teach moral reasoning, they need to be rehabilitated by the State. But if people are too damaged to be rehabilitated, they need to be executed.

Simply executing anyone who cannot be rehabilitated after their first violent crime is the essence of the alternative centrist approach to law and order. Modern psychological analysis is far more sophisticated than it was even 20 years ago. The violent psychopaths can be detected and eliminated.

The money imprisoning them can then be used on something else.

The alternative centre completely rejects the stupidity of prison abolition. The truth is that some people are evil, and these evil people see kindness as weakness. To treat evil people with kindness is to create more misery: as Adam Smith observed, mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. Execute the career criminals and then mercy can be applied to those who made an uncharacteristic mistake.

Our news media is replete with stories of violent criminals getting out and then killing someone. At time of writing, a murder trial is taking place relating to an incident in my home town, in which the defendant already had a criminal record for violent crime. Had this criminal been executed for his first violent crime, the murder (of a policewoman on duty) would never have happened.

Aristotle argued that good laws prevent tyranny. In fact, he argued in Nicomachean Ethics that laws were the main way that morality was taught (parents don’t have the all-encompassing authority of the State). Bad laws, according to Aristotle, breed immorality, discord and eventually lead to revolution. Complementing him, Plato argued in Republic that bad laws lead to tyranny and then revolution. Good laws are therefore also the guarantors of order, peace and the other Acceptances. But these laws must be just.

Some people (usually on the Right) argue that the law must be used to fight against degeneracy. The Alternative Centrist disagrees: vice laws are the archetypal examples of excessive order. There is no need to fight degeneracy if regeneracy is adequately promoted. Therefore e.g. marriage laws ought to prioritise heterosexual couples. That does not mean to discriminate against homosexual ones, but to e.g. reserve housing grants for couples that can produce the next generation of the nation.

The solution to the moral dilemma of unjust laws is to disobey them, but to make a point of this being an exceptional practice. The more legitimacy the law has, the harsher it can be on actually evil people.

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 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 Immigration

In a state of Nature, immigration is inherently a violent process. No organism in a comfortable niche will give that niche up to intruders without a fight. In ancient human societies, immigration was similar. Ancient history is replete with examples of one group trying to enter the territory of another with bloodshed resulting.

In modern human societies, however, immigration is a much smoother process. Thanks to modern transportation and neoliberalism, it has never been easier for a person to move across the world for work, for asylum or even just to go on the dole. Immigration is now so common that it has become normalised.

Despite this, immigration remains controversial. In fact, it’s possibly the most controversial political issue as we approach the end of the Trump Era.

The reason why immigration is so common today is that the Left and the Establishment Centre have come together in a globalist alliance against the other positions. The Left wants freedom for labour to move: the Establishment Left on the belief that the greater the choice labour has, the greater the leverage, and therefore the higher the wage; the Alternative Left because Marx has prophecised that the working class will unite across national borders. The Establishment Centre, representing capitalism, also wants freedom for labour to move, the logic being that the greater the supply of labour, the cheaper it is.

This means the Establishment Left and the Establishment Centre both support immigration, but for totally different reasons. Further complicating matters is that elements of the Right also support immigration because of religion (in particular the universalism promoted by Christian Bible passages like Galatians 3:28, Acts 17:26 or Isaiah 60:12).

As has been covered extensively in other works (viz. Clown World Chronicles), the current rulers of the world are the winners of the previous great war, i.e. capitalists and communists. These two forces have joined together on the basis of their common globalist interests – an alliance known as globohomo. As such, the world has been pushed in a globalist direction for almost a century now. This has meant mass immigration, hence why mass immigration is so normalised today.

Freedom and peace seemed to work together on the immigration issue for a long time. GDP does seem to have gone up a great deal since 1945. Which leads to the inevitable question: what’s the problem?

The lazy globalist assumption is that all races are the same IQ, therefore human beings are fungible units. Immigration has no impact other than boosting the size of the economy, which makes everyone richer. Only a stupid bigot would object to this free money.

In actuality, not every person is a net positive contributor to the finances of their host countries.

The first truth is that any person or group’s net contribution to their host society is highly correlated with that person or group’s IQ. Low-IQ people are far more likely to commit crimes and to use welfare. They are much less likely to complete a professional education and to work an important job. They are far, far less likely to produce an innovation that will improve the lives of many. They are far more likely to destroy their bodies early and require expensive medical care.

The second truth is that the various races differ on their natural IQs, from IQs of 65 (Australian Aborigines) to 105 (North-East Asians). This makes things far more complicated than they otherwise would have been.

For instance, Dutch and Danish studies have found that immigrants from low-IQ countries have a massively negative impact on the finances of their hosts. As it turns out, 85 IQ browns are at least as shitty to live around as 85 IQ whites. They have the same lack of consideration, lack of forethought, lack of insight, the same aggression, resentment, obnoxiousness.

The major difference is that, being of a different race, they have even less solidarity with normal people than working-class whites do. Thus they have weaker inhibitions against murdering, raping, robbing the locals.

When this is pointed out, the globalist apologist will counter that children from lower-IQ races can simply be educated to have high IQ.

In actuality, they can’t. The heritability of intelligence is between 0.5 and 0.8, which tells us there’s only so much education can do. The high heritability of intelligence is the reason for the discovery, in the Dutch and Danish studies linked above, that second-generation immigrants are about as financially net negative as the first generation.

The negative impacts of low-IQ immigration are not distributed evenly. Because the cheap labour is usually dumped in cheap housing, it’s the local working classes who suffer the most from their presence. The rich people who control immigration policy, insulated in their expensive neighbourhoods, don’t need to worry.

Neither are the positive impacts of immigration distributed evenly. The rich get a wider choice of tenants to bid the rents on their investment properties up. They also get a wider choice of employees to bid the wages they pay down. The rich win it all.

True justice must consider justice to the locals as well as the immigrants, and to the poor as well as the rich.

The alternative centrist approach to immigration involves a complete and total stop to all immigration from low-IQ countries. Letting low-IQ people immigrate destroys everyone’s order and peace as they commit murders, rapes and robberies, and then destroys everyone’s freedom as the government cracks down on crime. It’s a great deal of destruction for very little benefit.

In fact, the alternative centrist approach demands restitution for the crime of allowing mass immigration in the first place. It is exceptionally disorderly and unjust to open borders to hordes of cheap labour and then to dump the consequences of it onto one’s grandchildren. In fact, it’s despicable. It could fairly be considered treason, and fair justice would be for those responsible to meet traitor’s fates.

Freedom can apply to those who appreciate it, i.e. people from high-IQ countries who don’t commit crimes. Even in the case of people from high-IQ countries, order must take priority to their freedom to immigrate. Thus, citizenship would not be handed out easily, unless an immigrant had married in to the nation, and had children with heritage from that nation.

In summary, the alternative centrist approach to immigration is much more selective than the globohomo approach. The emphasis is on freedom for high-quality people, and order for low-quality ones.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming masterwork 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!

Paper Citizens And Roots Citizens

Because of mass immigration, and the propaganda to manufacture consent for mass immigration, there is now mass confusion when it comes to citizenship and nationality. Many people now don’t believe the words ‘citizenship’ or ‘nationality’ even mean anything. This essay clarifies the various misconceptions.

The mainstream conception is that citizenship confers membership of a nation-state.

In this mainstream conception, there are three ways to acquire citizenship. The first is ‘jus sanguinis’, which means ‘right of blood’ and refers to those who are born as children of existing citizens. The second is ‘jus soli’ which means ‘right of soil’ and refers to those who are born within a certain legal territory. The third is naturalisation and refers primarily to immigrants.

The problem with this conception is that nation-states are now so diverse that members of them often have little in common with each other. Thus the citizenship itself, regardless of how it was acquired, no longer means anything.

One sunny day in Spring many years ago, when returning home from working in Europe, I was waiting in line at the arrivals terminal at Auckland International Airport. In front of me was a woman in a burka. I couldn’t see her eyes or any part of her body except for – sticking out from under the black folds – one greasy hand clutching a New Zealand passport. In that moment, I realised that New Zealand citizenship was a meaningless concept. If people like this, who had nothing in common with me at all, also belonged to the category, then the category was meaningless.

The argument of this essay is that our existing citizenship system is an ad hoc mishmash of various ideas that needs to be redesigned, rationally, from the ground up.

When I immigrated to Sweden, it was made clear to me by everyone that, no matter my official citizenship status, I would only ever be a “paper Swede”. A paper citizen is someone who is not a member of the biological nation, but who has nevertheless been granted citizenship by the ruling class. In other words, their claim to be part of the nation only exists on a bit of paper.

A roots citizen, by contrast, is someone who did not need to be naturalised on account of that they already had roots in the soil of the country. In this sense, they are inseparable from the country itself.

Paper citizenship can be granted and taken away with the stroke of a pen. Roots citizenship, by contrast, is a biological fact. ‘Naturalisation’ is therefore, correctly understood, a nonsense term: there’s nothing less natural than a bureaucrat in a capital city deciding who is a member of the ingroup and who isn’t. A natural member is someone who is born into it.

If someone would ask me how to clean up the citizenship mess that has been made by decades of globalist immigration policy, here would be my suggestions.

All existing New Zealand citizenship would firstly be converted to paper citizenship. This paper citizenship would primarily confer residency rights and rights to vote in local body elections.

Then, the citizenship of anyone who has ancestors in New Zealand before September 1939 (i.e. before the globalists launched their war of domination that would lead to mass immigration) would be converted to roots citizenship. The logic is that these people are the descendants of those who built the country, and therefore constitute the New Zealand nation proper. It was for these people that the country was built in the first place, and so these people must remain the beneficiaries of it and in charge of it.

Roots citizenship would confer greater privileges than paper citizenship, in particular welfare and voting privileges. Roots citizens would be entitled to a universal basic income and to the right to vote for representatives of the New Zealand nation in the New Zealand Parliament. They would also be able to take on paper citizenships of other countries without losing roots citizenship of New Zealand.

From there, one of two options would be taken depending on national preference expressed at referendum. Either paper citizens would be converted to roots citizens after they could prove a hundred years of ancestry in New Zealand, or they wouldn’t. The logic of not converting them is that the descendants of paper citizens will eventually marry in to the nation of roots citizens anyway, therefore there is no need to naturalise them. And if they are unwilling to marry in to the New Zealand nation, they are obviously not our friends and therefore shouldn’t have citizenship.

This conception of roots citizenship would include 100% of Maoris but would exclude white immigrants, thus is in no way whatsoever a white supremacist policy. Foreigners would still be free to immigrate to New Zealand under the usual visa to residency to citizenship pathway, but only paper citizenship would ever be available (an exception could be made for foreign parents of roots citizens, i.e. those who have had children with a roots citizen, as such parents are committed to the success of the New Zealand nation through their offspring).

The main advantage of this policy is that it would realign the concepts of citizenship and nationality, bringing them back from the globalist free-for-all they have been since World War II. This would strengthen Kiwi identity, as we would once again know who we were: not the whole globe in microcosm, but those with roots in the New Zealand land.

Such a change would make an immediate improvement. If paper citizens did not have voting rights, the 2020 cannabis referendum would have passed, and freedom would have prevailed. New Zealand would be a better country if it was run by roots citizens for the benefit of all who live here.

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 Fifth Acceptance Of Alternative Centrism

The Fifth Acceptance of alternative centrism is the acceptance that the Alternative Left is correct when they speak of the importance of justice.

Aristotle considered justice, and the application of justice, the basis of civilisation. “Justice is the ordering of the political association,” he wrote in Politics I.2. His reasoning was that society comes together for the sake of securing and achieving justice. It’s with this aim that individuals form family households, families form village associations and villages become city-states. It’s in the bonds of justice that civilisation can develop.

The Alternative Leftist will claim that justice is the most important feature of society. Without it, no order, freedom, peace or truth is possible.

Injustice is the basis of all political dissent. Most other forms of suffering can be endured with little resentment, but the suffering of injustice tends to bring with it a particular form of humiliation that leads rapidly to political action. The Alternative Leftist would argue – and the Alternative Centrist would agree – that great levels of injustice are why the Western World is in so much chaos at the moment.

The logic of the Alternative Left, and the logic of the Fifth Acceptance, is that all of the previous four positions are unjust in their own way. Therefore, they are all insufficient in their own way.

Without justice, no order can be possible because people will fight incessantly. The Alternative Left argues that the Establishment Right errs on the side of excessive order when it refuses, stubbornly, to countenance the redistribution of property on the grounds that it would be destabilising. Aristotle’s concept of distributive justice suggests that injustice occurs when the wealthy end up with all of the resources, and the lower classes with nothing.

If one looks back at the times of extreme disorder in history, whether global or local, they were usually preceded by times of extreme injustice. Even if the winners of the wars arising from the disorder decide, post facto, that the losers had no legitimate grievance, the perception of one is enough to start a war over it. As David Icke would remind us, perception is reality. As long as the perception of injustice exists, there will be disorder.

Neither will there be any freedom without justice. Most obviously, this is because the unjust will take it away. Examples abound in the countless free speech abuses committed by various totalitarian governments. The injustice of the War on Drugs is a further example. If the unjust are allowed into power, they will inevitably strip freedoms from anyone they don’t like.

The absence of justice has a suppressive effect on freedom even without legislating it away. Just knowing that injustice is rife in a society is enough to make its members watch their backs, speak in hushed tones, stop trusting their neighbours and to withdraw from life. Injustice leads directly to hate and fear, which both restrict freedoms in the search for control.

Without justice, there is no peace for the same reason as there is no order. Injustice leads to resentments which lead to violence. The victims of injustice sometimes choose to not let their oppressors rest. The greater and more widespread the injustices, the more powerful this sentiment. If it gets powerful enough, revolutions or civil wars break out.

Finally, without justice there can be no truth. It might seem that the usual problem is a lack of truth leading to a lack of justice, but it can also be the other way around. As Basil Liddell-Hart wrote in ‘Why Don’t We Learn From History’, unjust people keep telling lies to gain unjust advantage over others. So wherever you have injustice you also have falsehood. Only just people can be relied upon to tell the truth.

As anyone who has studied psychology knows, finding the truth is often hard not because of the intelligence requirement, but because of the honesty one. As soon as people have political or religious loyalties, they also have an interest in telling lies. Invariably, one’s political or religious in-group will eventually commit some immoral deed, and then loyalty to that in-group will make one tell lies to save face. Injustice, then, directly destroys truth even more than it destroys order, freedom or peace.

Thus it can be seen that, from the perspective of the Alternative Leftist, justice is the ultimate value, and that, without the Fifth Acceptance, none of the others can be realised. The Fifth Acceptance accepts that holistic perspectives are sometimes necessary, particularly because they are broad enough to encompass everyone’s needs.

There is a lot of injustice in today’s world, for many reasons. Inherited privilege is one of those reasons. This inherited privilege, over generations, tends to replicate a feudal system, as the inheritors of property can charge rent on it, and then use the rent money to buy more property and so on. Unless there is a major readjustment, in the form of wealth redistribution or revolution, everyone else gets reduced to serfdom. This is why the Alternative Left pushes the idea of universal basic income so hard.

This motivation to push a universal basic income follows the observation that the Establishment Left have abandoned the poor. This abandonment is the essential aspect of the Establishment Left, and how they got to be part of the Establishment in the first place. But it vacated an empty space on the Left for an alternative movement. The Fifth Acceptance acknowledges that the Establishment Left have betrayed the truly disadvantaged, and that the Alternative Left are rightfully filling that empty niche.

The Alternative Left are, in the minds of many, synonymous with Social Justice Warriors. In this sense, they are the new moral puritans, challenging the Establishment Right for most disdain for sex and alcohol. This is one manner in which they are different to the Establishment Left, who have degenerated to the point where they care about freedom more than propriety. The wowserism of the Alternative Left, exemplified by their prudishness around age gaps in dating, reveals clearly that Communism is a religion.

One of the major social trends powering the Alternative Left (as with the other alternative positions) is the rapidly changing nature of information. However, awareness of this has yet to reach the people in power. The heavily-mocked conception of the Internet as “a series of tubes” has hardly been updated since first uttered in 2006; old people still don’t get the Internet or Internet culture. Hence the need for alternative conceptions of justice, fit for the Internet Age.

The Fifth Acceptance agrees that new thinking about justice is required. In some ways, this will require going back to Aristotle; in some ways, this will require a 21st Century perspective.

The obsession with justice goes too far when it becomes an obsession with equality. It’s obvious that people are different, whether individuals or groups. Even if it were true that, on some ultimate metaphysical level, all people have precisely the same spiritual value, this would not manifest as perfect equality by every material measure. To deny this is simply stupid.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” Hence the Alternative Centrist believes that justice, just like order, freedom, peace and truth, also needs to be moderated, else it begins to destroy the other qualities.

This stupidity of insisting that justice must mean equality by every possible measure is what gives rise to the Fifth Rejection.

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