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!

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!

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!

How We Will Lose Our Free Speech Rights

Because we’ve had peace and prosperity for so long now, it’s a common belief that both states are natural and no special effort is required to maintain either. This is a grievous delusion. It’s possible that, as per Phaedrus, the natural state of consciousness is incarnated in a higher dimension where there is no suffering. But down here on Earth, the natural state of life is brutish, nasty and short.

The tribal and violent nature of pre-civilisational life has been ameliorated, post-civilisation, chiefly through the invention of marriage, which has allowed supertribal consciousness to manifest through homogenising existing tribes in their shared offspring. The more tribes that married into each other, the more this higher consciousness was brought into being. Eventually clans formed, and then city-states.

These city-states had plenty of what Aristotle called philia. This was a kind of neighbourly solidarity that served as the mortar holding the edifice of society together. This philia created a sense that people were on the same team, moving in the same direction, and this goodwill allowed them to agree on things, e.g. that free speech would be important.

For most of human history, there has been a widespread understanding that the standard of living afforded by this homogeneity was a good thing, and so that homogeneity ought to be defended. So when new blood was introduced from the outside, it was married in to the existing stock so as to avoid factionalisation. Aristotle wrote, in Politics, that “heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate.”

This factionalisation is what destroys freedoms, as freedoms only exist when everyone can agree on their importance. Absent this agreement, any and all freedoms can and do become banned on the grounds they are destabilising, corruptive or degenerate influences. The sad truth about the human animal is that we are panicky, skittish beings prone to contagions of fear and hysteria. Hence we like to ban things, especially if we don’t understand them. If there isn’t general agreement that a particular freedom is important, it tends to get banned.

The freest country in the world, America, is the way it is because of general agreement on the importance of free speech, free assembly, free trade and various other freedoms. Children are taught at the earliest school that freedom is a foundational American virtue, and that only America’s enemies oppose freedom.

Unfortunately, this mentality is not universal.

New Zealand had a referendum on freedom with the cannabis referendum in 2020. NZ-born voters voted Yes, for freedom. Those born outside of New Zealand voted No. Their cultures don’t have freedom, they don’t understand it. So they voted ours away.

Kiwis responded with a shrug, and just got on with life. Another freedom gone, who cares?

We will lose our free speech rights the same way.

The image at the top of this article is a screenshot of a recent press release from a coalition of religious groups in New Zealand: the highest authorities for each of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs in this country. They have combined forces to agitate for further free speech crackdowns. This is in response to some of the statements made by Brian Tamaki (see 2:00 in this video for examples), in particular claims that Modi was purging India of Christians and that New Zealand ought to retaliate in kind, burning down mosques and temples and purging New Zealand of Hindus, Sihks and Muslims.

Tamaki has said several heinous things, and could rightly be charged with being a nuisance to public order. But if hate speech laws are introduced, they will soon become blasphemy laws. It’s no secret that some religions, particularly the Abrahamisms, would like to make criticising them illegal. Adherents of these religions will tirelessly push to widen any hate speech law that gets passed.

The main long-term danger is that, as New Zealand becomes less Kiwi through mass immigration, the population becomes less interested in freedom.

Free speech became a core Western value in the 1950s, as neither the Nazi opponents in World War II nor the Commie opponents in the Cold War believed in it. We were told that free speech was why our societies were better: it allowed them to self-correct, thereby avoiding the extremes of the totalitarian systems.

This worked out excellently for some decades, up until the end of the 20th Century. After then, there was mass immigration from countries with no traditions of free speech. Consequently, popular support for free speech started to waver. Having little of value to say, the immigrants could not see the value in free speech. So support for free speech is now declining. It will continue to decline as the West continues to muttify.

There might not be a referendum in New Zealand about free speech per se, but about a free speech-related issue. It might be about a proposed hate speech law. In any case, the Chinese, Muslim and Pacific Islander voters who voted away our cannabis freedom will (in all likelihood) vote away our free speech rights as well. They can’t be expected to vote for freedom because it’s not valued in their cultures.

If New Zealanders lose our free speech rights, it will be through the mass immigration of people who don’t value them.

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!

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!