The Basic Logic Of Alternative Centrism

The basic logic of alternative centrism is that all other political positions have failed, but that they were tried for logical reasons, and that if those reasons are understood a composite political philosophy can be created that preserves the good aspects of all the previous positions, while avoiding the bad aspects.

The first part of alternative centrism is alternative. This means alternative to The Establishment: in this context the globalist political establishment that has ruled the world since 1945. According to this view, the mainstream left and right parties are just wings of one Establishment that co-operates with itself while creating the illusion of competing.

The reason why the Establishment is opposed is simply because it has failed. The standard of living inherited by the younger generations today is far, far lower than that enjoyed by the Boomers. As such, the younger generations feel no need to be grateful for the status quo. To the contrary – they seek to dismantle it. Sometimes this means to reduce the Establishment to zero; sometimes this means to reverse what the Establishment has done to the people. In either case it means seeking an alternative to how things are usually done.

The second part of alternative centrism is centrism. This means centrist in comparison to the left and the right.

This centrism is – and this must be understood – an alternative centrism, not an establishment centrism. In other words, it’s not an insipid compromise between two weak and irrational positions. The alternative centrist is happy to have left-wing attitudes more extreme than the leftists, or right-wing attitudes more extreme than the rightists. The most important thing is not whether an attitude is consistent with a position on a wing, but whether it is consistent with reason and with the logic of the situation at hand.

A person is an alternative centrist, then, if they can answer Yes to two questions: Do you think the political establishment has failed and needs to be replaced? Do you think the alternative left and alternative right are both dangerous extremists?

The existing political establishment is understood to be comprised of the winners of World War Two, i.e. mostly capitalists and communists. This means that the political establishment is understood to consist of right-wing elements and left-wing elements in roughly equal measure. A person cannot be an alternative centrist if their struggle is against one of rightism or leftism exclusively, or even predominately. It has to be appreciated that both sides contain evil. Alternative centrism embodies Solzhenitsyn when he wrote “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart.”

The alternative centrist understanding of history is elaborated upon in other chapters. Here, it’s enough to say that the alternative centrist considers modern political history to have tried five political positions, all of which have failed: establishment right, establishment left, establishment centre, alternative right and alternative left. However, these positions have not been tried and failed because they were completely false, or because their proponents were stupid and evil.

Alternative centrism holds that each of the previous five positions has an internal logic suited for specific circumstances. The error lies in assuming that this logic applies to all circumstances.

The basic logic of alternative centrism is that one can apply the logic of any of the previous five positions, in whole or in part, in combination or individually, if the specific circumstances permit. Therefore, the alternative centrist seeks to understand the motivations, intentions and aspirations of those who promulgate the previous five positions. Knowing this, they can fluidly switch mindset to whatever is appropriate at the time.

Much of the rest of the first part of this book, then, examines the other five political positions from an alternative centrist point of view. This means from a point of view that sees both the strengths and the weaknesses of all five positions, and the psychology of the supporters of each of those positions.

The second part of this book examines the various policy areas that are influenced by political position, and the alternative centrist view on each of these. In principle, the details of every policy area vary depending on the underlying political position taken. As such, this second part of the book covers a wide range of topics.

The third part of the book deals with the realpolitik of alternative centrism, in particular who constitutes the ingroup and who the outgroup, and how to deal with both. This part explains that alternative centrism is necessarily a revolutionary libertarian nationalist movement, by virtue of its being anti-establishment, the establishment being a status-quo-supporting authoritarian globalist movement.

The ultimate aim of this book is to elucidate a political philosophy fit for the 21st Century and beyond. The belief is that alternative centrism can not only meet the political desires of the vast majority of the population, but also provide a methodology for managing society without the volatility of the previous five positions.

The approach detailed above ought to lead to order, freedom, peace, truth and justice and avoid stagnation, chaos, degeneracy, cruelty and stupidity more effectively than any of the five previous positions could ever hope to do.

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 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!

VJMP Predicts 2025!

Another calendar year ends; it’s time for VJM Publishing to predict the next one. Our predictions for last year went reasonably well – maybe we can do better?

It’s easy to predict that the world, especially the Western World, keeps going down the toilet. This is hardly a prediction and more of an extrapolation of trends that we’re all familiar with. Thus, this article will make some more specific predictions.

Most specifically, these predictions suggest that the biggest changes in 2025 will be inside people’s minds more than outside in the world.

VJMP predicts a massive increase in the use of alternatives to alcohol in 2025. This has already been hinted at with the ‘California Sober‘ phenomenon. At least some major Hollywood or other celebrities will come out and say they have given up alcohol for cannabis. Alcohol will come to be seen as trashy by many, especially young people.

Alternatives to pharmaceuticals will generally become popular, following from increasing awareness of the side-effects of antidepressants and antipsychotics. Many will realise that, against received wisdom, cannabis is actually good for most mental illnesses, especially when taken in the form of CBD (cannabidiol) oil.

We can also predict a massive decrease in support for Establishment parties in the West. So much so that the Establishment takes measures to crack down on free speech. Specifically, we predict that some major European countries (probably Britain) will ban X and other free-speech platforms, rather than continue to face criticisms.

Related to this, we predict mass demonstrations against the Establishment in 2025. At least one of these demonstrations will spiral out of control and lead to government crackdowns. Rioting will paralyse some major cities in America and Europe for days.

In general, politics will return to the streets. The tendency since the Howard Dean primary campaign of 2004 has been for ever more online politics. But, in recent years, online spaces have been censored so hard that only approved messages get through. This will mean that people return to meatspace. Politics will go back to town halls, rallies and info stalls on major shopping streets.

Perhaps our grimmest prediction is that suicides will hit record highs in 2025. This will be a function of a low value placed on life, economic malaise and general existential angst. The night is darkest before the dawn, and the Sun isn’t rising just yet. This record suicide rate will particularly afflict the under-35s, who will be driven even further into despair by housing unaffordability.

Some more specific predictions can be made.

We can predict at least one major assassination. Assassinations were a feature of the end of the Roman Empire, with the degenerate nature of Roman society causing a lack of appreciation for the value of life. There’s also such a lack of appreciation in the Clown World of 2025. We have already seen the lionisation of Luigi Mangione after his shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. An assassination of a major industrialist, on the Musk/Zuckerberg/Gates/Brin/Page level, is more possible in 2025 than at any time after the Gilded Age.

Related to this loss in appreciation for the value of life, we predict America to go to war against Iran in some form. This will not be because Trump wants it, but because America gets drawn in by the realities of power. America might get tricked into it by Israel. It might be that Israel bombs themselves and blames Iran for it.

We predict Trump to take office without incident, but for the fireworks to begin after this. There will be a return of Black Lives Matter and other leftist authoritarian movements. They will play a major role in the rioting predicted above, and may also be involved in the assassination. In either case, the masses will start noticing the globalist hands pulling the Antifa strings.

In the tech world, we predict the demise of Google Search, replaced by relatively uncensored AI alternatives such as Grok. FaceBook will also die, for similar reasons. Censorship – and having a reputation for censorship – will kill several billion-dollar platforms as genuine free-speech alternatives become popular. A free-speech alternative to Amazon, carrying thousands of books that Amazon refuses to sell, may arise.

AI will become powerful enough that 15-year olds can make movies good enough to earn millions (hat tip: JR Mooneyham). People that young will also make some influential video clips and music.

In New Zealand, we predict that the Sixth National Government will collapse due to a falling out between New Zealand First and ACT along nationalist-globalist lines. Winston Peters will realise that 2025 is his last chance to take a stand against globalist encroachment, and will force a snap election. Despite this skullduggery, New Zealand First will get voted out. A new populist nationalist movement will take this space in Parliament.

In Europe, we predict the ongoing rise of left-wing nationalism along the Sahra Wagenknecht model. This will rise not at the expense of right-wing nationalists, who will continue to support parties like the AfD, but of left-wing globalists like the SPD and the Greens. These left-wing globalist parties will suffer from a strong shift towards anti-immigration sentiments.

In Asia, we predict a minor military incident to be blown out of proportion by Western media in an effort to manufacture consent for a war against China. This warmongering will be a feature of Western media propaganda for the whole of 2025, as European powers look to take down Russia and the Anglo colonies look to take down China.

On top of all this, we predict general weirdness to increase. Highly surreal occurrences will make billions of people question their grip on reality. Undiagnosed schizophrenia will hit levels unprecedented in modern history.

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 Harvester Judgement And How Much Has Been Stolen From Us

Mainstream media propaganda would have us all believe that the West has never been wealthier. Our glorious leaders have led us into an unparalleled age of prosperity. Never before have the lives of everyday Westerners overflowed with such abundance. Apparently, even the lowliest Westerner has easy access to luxuries that kings could not have dreamed of in ages past.

If you don’t agree, the media tells us, you’re a terrorist. A filthy, ungrateful reprobate whose resentment endangers the entire project of civilisation itself. How could a person not be grateful for the beneficence shown by our ruling classes? Just how?

As it turns out, anyone with a solid knowledge of history has reason to feel ripped off at their current treatment.

In 1907, the idea of a minimum wage was introduced in Australia. In a case relating to the Sunshine Harvester Company of Victoria, Justice Henry Higgins determined that a “fair and reasonable” wage for a manual labourer was that which could support a family of five. A skilled worker should receive even more. This was later known as the “Harvester Judgement“.

Because people higher up the social ladder would make more money than manual labourers, the Harvester Judgement created a floor underneath which no full-time worker could fall. It therefore ensured a decent quality of life for everyone in Australian society, not just the rich. This judgement became a core principle of Australian employment law and is one of the main reasons why the Australian worker’s standard of living has been so high until recently, and why Australia is known as “The Lucky Country”.

According to Grok, a family of five living in Auckland requires some $7,000 per month to meet housing, food, utilities, transportation and other costs. This means some $84,000 per year – after tax. Before tax, it’s $112,963 per year. Less than that means a family of five has to start going without some things.

This is the income necessary to have a similar quality of life to a labouring family in 1907. This means nothing extravagant – just basic housing, decent food, the lights on, the ability to get to work and visit some people etc. It doesn’t include luxury travel or building an investment portfolio.

Also according to Grok, fewer than 8% of New Zealand workers earn $112,000 or more. Because some 10% of the population has an honours degree or higher, this means the top 8% of the workforce will be mostly professionals and managers, i.e. highly qualified, highly experienced people. Those few in the top 8% without an honours degree or higher will mostly be top managers.

$112,000 is about 70% higher than the median New Zealand wage of $66,000. What’s more, that median wage figure itself includes those highly-paid professional and managerial jobs, which means that the median manual labourer’s wage is even lower still. The minimum wage in New Zealand is currently $23.15 per hour, which works out to $46,300 per annum if one works 50 weeks of 40 hours, and many manual labourers will be close to this.

In practice, therefore, almost none of the people working in manual labour positions in New Zealand are paid enough for their wage to be considered “fair and reasonable” under the Harvester Judgement. The entire idea that a wage ought to pay enough to raise a family has been abandoned, seemingly by the employees as well as the employers.

Our wages are now less than half of what is needed to support a family of five. But the quality of life promised by the Harvester Judgement has not simply been lost, it has been stolen from us.

It has been stolen from us in a number of ways, but the mass importation of cheap labour is the foremost of these. The explanation for how full-time manual labourer wages were decoupled from the requirement that they could support a family of five is simple: employers have undercut local workers by importing cheaper ones from overseas.

The Neoliberal Era normalised this practice, so that it become ideologically impossible to even object to the imports. Anyone who did so was smeared as a racist acting out of pure hate. Several decades of this allowed the employer class to drive wages down so far that they’re now about half of what they need to be, as per the Harvester Judgement.

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!

Why The Establishment Smashed The Vaccine Mandate Protesters But Supported The Hikoi Protesters

The hikoi protests to Wellington earlier this month were astonishing for several reasons. The foremost of these was the reaction of the political establishment, who came out in full support. Members of Parliament, media and academics all voiced support for the hikoi protests. This caused some to wonder why the Covid mandate protests of 2022 didn’t get the same treatment.

The hikoi protests had a lot in common with the Covid mandate protests of 2022 – and there were some major differences as well.

The commonalities were mostly on the surface.

Both protests attracted large numbers of people. The hikoi protests got 42,000 attendees, according to RNZ. The Covid mandate protests might not have got so many, perhaps closer to 1,000 at peak, but these attracted many of the same people on multiple days, for a cumulative total in five figures. Both protests were the biggest political event in the country at the time.

Both protests also attracted a diverse cross-section of the New Zealand public. The Covid mandate protests were decried as “white supremacist”, but in one poll 27.2% of them were found to be Maori. The hikoi protests were heavily Maori, but a high proportion of them were white. Both attracted a range of ages. Men and women were roughly equally present in both.

The differences went much deeper.

One of the primary differences was that the hikoi protests were against David Seymour in particular, who was seen as the figurehead behind the Treaty Principles Bill. The Covid mandate protests were against the Sixth Labour Government in general. Another major difference was that the hikoi protests were organised by The Maori Party, whereas the Covid mandate protests were organised in a grassroots manner.

Both of these feed into the most striking and obvious difference, which was how the Establishment reacted to the protests.

The Covid mandate protests were heavily opposed from the beginning. Even during the convoy phase, Establishment media figures decried the events, smearing the protesters as “cookers” and “white supremacists”. NPC spaces such as Reddit declared the protesters to be the enemies of the New Zealand people.

When the Covid mandate protesters got to Wellington, they were met by Trevor Mallard turning on the lawn sprinklers and blaring obnoxious music over loudspeakers. The propaganda campaign against them intensified, with news reports breathlessly accusing them of multiple property and violence crimes. A whirlwind of hate against them was whipped up by the mainstream media.

No sitting MPs met with the Covid mandate protesters (Winston Peters did, but he was not then an MP). The closest any of them came was watching from the Beehive. Eventually, the Establishment set the Police on the protesters, using violence to break up the encampment and arrest anyone remaining.

The hikoi protests, by contrast, were heavily supported. Smiling Police officers hongied with gang members on the hikoi. The mainstream media fell over itself to promote the hikoi in the most positive possible way. Hikoi organisers were given primetime slots and softball questions, and their opponents slandered.

This disparity in treatment can be readily explained by considering the agenda of the ruling class, which is principally to divide and conquer the masses.

The Covid mandate protests saw several sections of the New Zealand public come together to oppose the ruling class. Honest observers were astonished by how friendly the protesters were, and how little animosity there was between various groups. The intense feelings of solidarity at the Parliament lawn encampment was like nothing seen in New Zealand political space this century. Those present described it as being like a festival.

This is the last thing the Establishment wants.

The hikoi protests, by contrast, sought to divide New Zealand into two opposing groups: indigenous and settlers. The indigenous are the good guys, the settlers the bad guys. This narrative of division sows distrust and resentment.

This is exactly what the Establishment wants.

The New Zealand political establishment wants the New Zealand people at each other’s throats, too busy fighting each other to realise their common enemy. To that end, they will support any narrative that seeks to divide the New Zealand people into warring sub-groups, and will reject any narrative that seeks to bring the New Zealand people together.

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!