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 Religion

In the West, religion and Christianity are closely intertwined. The Establishment Right, for instance, are heavily Christian. Much of the recent history of politics in the West is defined by the need to deal with the power of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. To a major extent, the freedom desired by the Second Acceptance is freedom from religious dogma and strictures.

The Establishment Right’s obsession with order, at the expense of everything else, is the ultimate cause of hundreds of millions of deaths from religious terrorism throughout history. The belief that there is only one way to God, and that everyone rejecting that path is evil and God wants them destroyed, is psychopathic. There is no difference between Muslim jihadists, Christians demanding that “every knee shall bow” and Jews trying to subjugate humanity through tikkun olam. All are monsters.

If anything exemplified the excessive order of the First Rejection it is Abrahamism with its absolute refusal to tolerate other religions.

The Western World has not known a destroyer of freedom like Abrahamism. In the ancient European world, all manner of different cults to different gods existed. When the Christians came, they destroyed everything spiritual they could. The Eleusinian Mysteries, which Cicero called the greatest of all of Athens’s gifts to civilisation, were broken up by Christian fanatics over 1,600 years ago.

Atheism, however, is no solution.

Absent purpose, materialism has given us today’s mental health epidemic. The mainstream materialist narrative suggests that happiness comes from consumption. Television advertising shows us happy people buying alcohol, buying travel, buying fashion, buying, buying, buying.

The problem, as Buddha taught long ago, is that desire leads to misery. All the television advertising just implants desire that wouldn’t otherwise exist, thereby creating misery that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Mindless consumption, removed from existential meaning, doesn’t lead to anything close to happiness.

The truth is that people need religion. Materialists deny this, claiming that as long as people have food, shelter and work they will be satisfied. In reality, people have souls and those souls need purpose. Religion provides that. So people need religion to be happy.

For a religion to make someone happy, however, it needs to be true. The drawback of false religions, like the Abrahamic cults, is that people can intuitively sense they’re not true. People can tell, in their hearts, that it doesn’t matter if some rabbi claimed to have died for their sins or not. They can sense that God will judge them for their own karmic debt, not for what someone else may have done. Only the hopelessly degenerate are committed to a belief in no God. So people will always find their way back to religion in some form.

This yearning for religion can be seen everywhere in youth culture. The wokists and SJWs are really just another form of Abrahamist, as has been described at length elsewhere. These people are desperate for the order that true religion provides, and the reason why so many of them are going insane is because they’re not getting it from Marxism. It’s remarkable how similar woke culture, with its hundreds of unwritten rules about what opinions are permissible, is to the Abrahamic cults, which are also totalitarianisms.

A powerful desire for spiritual order can also be seen on the right, most obviously in the TradCath fad. It manifests in a variety of subtler forms also, such as Esoteric Hitlerism, which is everywhere on the non-mainstream Internet. The rising neopagan movement is a kind of European ghar wapsi, as white people seek to rediscover the beliefs and practices of their pre-Christian ancestors.

In the centre are practices such as Elementalism, which takes traditional spiritual practices like psychedelic sacrament use – something both left and right are generally indifferent towards – and blends it with a hierarchical priesthood and an admonition to overcome bestial impulses.

If the entire left-right spectrum exhibits religious or pseudo-religious behaviour, we can conclude that the religious impulse is universal, even if suppressed in some. Thus we can see that the order provided by religion is necessary. The Roman Empire was famous for its piety; heroic figures like Aeneas made a point of pious behaviour. The writings of the Greek Golden Age were replete with references to the gods. So it seems that civilisations wax and wane in correspondence with the strength of their religious belief.

Religion is therefore too precious to be left up to cowboys and clowns, as is the case in today’s West. The obvious solution is for the state to run its own religion, but for there to also be religious freedom, as per ancient Greece and Rome.

This means the state needs to promote a national religion. The precise form of these religions will vary from place to place. In New Zealand, for instance, there would be cults of Woden, Maui and Zealandia, reflecting British heritage, Maori heritage and the modern synthesis, respectively. Northern Europe could adopt elements of the Norse pantheon; Southern Europe could adopt elements of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

This solution has one major drawback: if you allow religious freedom for certain religions, as the Romans discovered, they will use that freedom to destroy the others.

The Theodosian Code records that, as soon as Christians took power in Rome, they worked to annihilate the European religions. Followers of these traditions were increasingly ostracised until the religions themselves were made illegal. Islam, also, has been responsible for the destruction of Buddhist and Hindu communities in countless places. The Mughal invasion of India is probably the single most murderous action in history (if measured by total body count). Neither have the Jews been much better. These three Abrahamic religions are characterised by their unceasing struggle for political power and control at the expense of truth, justice, freedom, peace and basic human decency.

The optimal solution, then, is a state religion plus freedom for all non-political religions. For maximum acceptance, this freedom ought to be extended as broadly as possible; only the Abrahamic religions are truly political enough to be worth of proscription. This could be taken even further, with a declaration that true justice would be the active destruction of the political religions, using all the powers of the state.

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!

How White People Could Get Kicked Out Of Aus/NZ Like They’re Getting Kicked Out Of Southern Africa

It’s not easy to believe that white people might get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand. White people have been in charge of this part of the world for 250 years now, and only the Imperial Japanese have ever looked like breaking that dominance. If anyone suggests that white people could get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia-style, the usual response is “It couldn’t happen here.” But everyone says this just before disaster strikes.

White people could start getting kicked out of Australia and New Zealand in about 25/30 years, and a simple analysis shows it.

It is unarguably true that many of the peoples of the world consider the presence of whites in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. Decolonisation movements have expelled white people in many places. Beginning in Haiti, white people have been pushed out of Kenya, Algeria and Rhodesia and are now getting pushed out of South Africa. There is a fanatical decolonisation movement here in New Zealand, as evidenced by the image below, from a Police report on Uruwera terrorist Rangi Kemara.

Well-travelled Kiwis will be aware that Chinese, Indian and African peoples are not fond of colonialism. The 4.5 billion people in this group generally feel that colonialism is one of the worst crimes ever committed in human history. Arabs feel similarly, despite being colonialists themselves. The five billion people in these categories generally feel that white people have stolen Australia and New Zealand and have no moral right to their possession. These people feel, at least, that power should be stripped from white people, if not that white people should be expelled.

It’s possible that a majority of the world’s population considers white presence in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. The question then becomes: can the will of the global majority be thwarted indefinitely?

In theory, all it would take for the global majority to get into a position to expel whites from Australia and New Zealand would be continued immigration from non-white countries. This would eventually lead to white people becoming a minority, at which point they could be kicked out democratically, as they were in Rhodesia and as they are being in South Africa.

This might sound unlikely right now, but it sounded extremely unlikely in Rhodesia and South Africa once too. Power is fickle.

According to the 2023 Census, 67.8% of New Zealand is white. This is roughly 3.4 million out of five million people. New Zealand is currently taking in 100,000 or so non-white immigrants per year. The ruling class appears to believe, with good reason, that Kiwis won’t fight back against this immigration no matter how high it is. So they might even open up the immigration floodgates further.

If New Zealand took in 120,000 non-white immigrants a year, and only 30,000 white ones, the total population would be close to eight million within 20 years (i.e. by 2046), with about four million whites and four million others. Under this scenario, whites would already be a minority within 20 years.

From there, it’s just a matter of exactly what “kicked out” means. It’s not necessary for whites to be forcibly deported. A non-white majority will be able to vote the white minority into an ever-worsening state of subjugation until white people start leaving on their own free will. This can be done fully legally and cannot be stopped without overthrowing the democratic system.

For example, the non-white global majority, upon becoming the majority in New Zealand, could simply vote themselves more government largesse at the expense of whites. They could vote themselves more diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives such as non-white scholarships, preferential housing for non-whites, increased welfare access for non-whites, increased healthcare for non-whites, mandated non-white quotas on boardrooms etc. They could vote, as in South Africa, for economic empowerment initiatives that forced whites to hire non-whites and appoint them as owners and leaders. They could influence the Police, as in Britain, to focus on crimes with white perpetrators and non-white victims, and ignore crimes with non-white perpetrators and white victims.

After becoming the demographic majority, non-whites could just keep ratcheting up the pressure in this manner until whites were slowly destroyed.

It might be countered here that whites could flee the cities and return to countryside villages. But even this would not be enough. As the examples of France and England prove, the ruling class will force non-whites into the remotest village. Whites in Australia and New Zealand will not be able to escape by going innawoods.

Eventually the white population will tire of the burden and seek better opportunities in other countries, as the Southern Africans did. As whites continue to get pushed out of the more recent colonies, they will withdraw to North America and then to Europe, if there is anything left of either place by then. Thus, it won’t be necessary to pass a law deporting white people or anything similar. South Africa proved that non-whites can simply take power through demographics, pass laws favouring themselves, and then the whites will just leave.

In fact, white people have already been kicked out of parts of Australia and New Zealand. South Auckland, in the 1950s, was a thriving working-class white community. Lakemba in Sydney is another example, but there are dozens. Then mass immigration started, and the whites were slowly driven out by crime and obnoxious, hostile behaviour. If this exact process was replicated nationwide, the ethnic cleansing of whites could be easily accomplished over the next few decades.

I concede that this analysis lazily dumps Maori people into the non-white team. In actuality, the vast majority of Maori people would take the side of white Kiwis over random brown or black foreigners. But the proportion that wouldn’t is ever-increasing, thanks to Communist and anti-white propaganda. And in any case, that could only delay things. As long as mass immigration exists, a Third World alliance will eventually come to power that could simply dispossess both white Kiwis and Maoris alike. The laws of democracy, in fact, make this outcome unavoidable.

In any case, nothing about the Maori factor changes the basic analysis. Democracy plus mass immigration will mean that white people eventually lose Australia and New Zealand the same way they lost Rhodesia and South Africa. It’s simply the will of the global majority. The faster the immigration, the sooner this happens.

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 Rejection Of Alternative Centrism

The Fifth Rejection of alternative centrism is the rejection of stupidity. The Fifth Rejection is the contention that an excessive focus on justice leads to stupidity.

The great justice debate in the Western World today is about equality. The Left insists that all human groups are equal in actual fact, which brings with it some conceptual difficulties. The Left reasons from this assumption of equality that all observed differences must be due to discrimination of some kind, usually structural discrimination by Big, Bad Whitey.

Some of the Alternative Left will insist that justice means exact equality of outcome, and so as long as there are disparities in e.g. academic achievement or income, then this is proof of injustice. Observers of the Alternative Left will have noted their uniform acceptance of Blank Slate Theory. These two are related: Blank Slate Theory claims that all human differences come down to how those humans have been treated earlier in life. Thus, poor outcomes are down to mistreatment.

To deny the equality of all human groups, we are told, is a great injustice. It’s unthinkable to say that some groups have poor outcomes because of innately lower intelligence. This is tantamount to saying that some groups are inferior to others – an attitude adjacent to Nazism. Anyone claiming that Australian Aborigines are any less intelligent than Singaporean Chinese is taking the first step on the slippery slope to gas chambers.

The stupidity of this insistence has led to people on the Alternative Left claiming that all immigration is good. Because all human groups are precisely equal on all intellectual measures, immigration cannot lower GDP per capita. It only makes the big line go up.

To the Alternative Centrist, the insistence that all human populations are exactly the same on all intellectual measures is stupid. To insist that everyone else must go along with this or face abuse is double stupid. To continue to insist on both of these things while refusing to look at any of the scientific evidence is triply stupid. The Alternative Centrist rejects all of this stupidity with the Fifth Rejection.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it: “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” Forced uniformity might be incredibly stupid, not least because it contradicts other leftist aims such as maximising freedom, but the Alternative Left just can’t give up on the idea. For them, any disparity in outcome between two different groups is proof of discrimination, and they will not hear otherwise.

The Alternative Left, however, don’t realise how this attitude sabotages their own position. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that letting hordes of Somalis into an area will have different outcomes to letting in large numbers of Japanese, because the two groups are extremely different. So when the Alternative Left (and the Left in general) act like all the murders and rapes committed by Somalis weren’t a predictable outcome, they make themselves look stupid to followers of the other positions.

Like most stupidities, there are all manner of moral justifications for claiming all populations are intellectually the same.

The usual justification is that it’s preventing another World War Two. The mainstream narrative is that the perception of differences between races led to the supremacist Nazis trying to take over the world for lebensraum. Therefore, if we concede that any difference between races exists, we risk the chance of the Nazis coming back and plunging the world into war again.

In actuality, the supposedly race-blind position enables a great deal of anti-working class prejudice, and is seldom less bigoted than the position of outright racists.

One notices plenty of this prejudice on the Alternative Left. This is because the Western working classes did not support the prophecised Marxist revolution. The Left, out of narcissism and resentment, interprets this refusal as a betrayal. It’s possible to detect enormous spite on the part of the Alternative Left with regards to its immigration policy and the harms caused by it. Many on the Alternative Left behave as if these harms punish the Western working classes for their betrayal.

The sneering indifference of the Alternative Left to the suffering of the Western working classes is a major factor in their rejection by the Alternative Centre. The Fourth Acceptance is the acceptance of truth, and the truth is that the Marxist prophecies of capitalism leading to the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie failed. It’s time to acknowledge this and move on.

The stupidity of the Alternative Left is best summarised by the above quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This emphasis on moral rectitude rather than factual correctness is an extreme form of virtue signalling, especially when considering the near-complete absence of that rectitude among politicians like Ocasio-Cortez. It’s a grossly stupid approach borne of shallow and narcissistic thinking.

The Alternative Centre rejects all low IQ, unscientific, feel-good narratives.

Science is paramount. The Fourth Acceptance emphasises the value of truth, and the Fifth Rejection stands against all delusion and intellectual weakness likewise. Putting these two together gives us an unyielding commitment to learning and applying methods of truth determination. The truth is accepted and stupidity rejected.

The Establishment Left may be flawed in the sense they cause too much chaos, but they aren’t stupid. They understand that class solidarity is necessary to have any leverage over our rulers. The Alternative Left rejects this simple truth for a hodgepodge of incoherent ideologies that contradict each other at every turn. Because of their tendency to stupidity, they haven’t thought rationally about what they believe. Incoherence is the result.

The Alternative Left are so concerned with what makes them look morally superior that they have neglected what would have made them look intellectually superior. Or, at least, not inferior – a person who speaks to an Alternative Leftist is often struck by how poorly-educated they are in comparison to Establishment Leftists, who have always seen educational opportunities as the main way out of poverty. Many Alternative Leftists outright decry education as fascist, on the grounds that it suggests a will to self-improvement and therefore self-aggrandisement, which is considered unjust.

Everything downstream of stupidity – like shallow thinking, incoherence, anti-intellectualism – is all rejected under the Fifth Rejection.

Also rejected are all of the counter-productive stupidities the Alternative Left likes to engage in and call political activism, such as pointlessly antagonising people.

The Left gifts their opponents tremendous political capital by pushing diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives. The net effect of these initiatives is to stir up distrust between various demographics, rendering genuine solidarity impossible. Any working-class white person, upon hearing the word “inclusion”, knows they are being excluded. “Diversity”, likewise, seems to amount to fewer white people. But the Alternative Left, seemingly, can’t help itself from pushing this sort of rubbish. This has caused some to ask if the Alternative Left aren’t, in fact, working on behalf of the Establishment. But no, they’re just dumb.

In summary, the Alternative Centre rejects the stupidity of the Alternative Left, recognising that it makes all political objectives harder to achieve: it loses friends, it gains enemies, it saps internal cohesion, it emboldens the opposition and leads directly to stagnation, chaos, degeneracy and cruelty.

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!