Keith identifies "capitalism" with the system itself, claiming that it requires endless growth, and that this will eventually hit a wall as we run into environmental problems, because capitalists are more interested in short-term profits than long-term sustainability. The issue in my view is therefore the time preference of those in power (it's too high).

This period of unprecedented growth has also coincided with an unprecedented growth in the size of the state. In fact, a major reason given by globalists that we have to bring in migrants from the 3rd world is that "we need them to pay our seniors' state pensions," because social security is unsustainable with an ageing population. If those seniors had not expected a pension, they would have planned more for the future; i.e. lower time preference.

Arguing for social policy, at least in the current climate, is arguing for white dispossession, regardless of if you think it's a good idea "in theory" or not. Most of the "working class" in Western countries are really part of the global elite; median household income in the US is around $60,000 compared to $10,000 world average. And do these social programs that help the poor live a $30,000 income-equivalent lifestyle actually help whites? No - they incentivize those living on the $10,000 world average to come to America for "a better life", subsidized by the taxes of white people.

Economic inequality is inevitable between, for example, whites and blacks, if we aren't going to subsidize blacks with endless aid programs and welfare checks. Well I for one don't want to subsidize population growth for Africans; that sounds like exactly the problem of endless growth that Keith described. The same goes for the poor and unsuccessful in Western countries - too large a social safety net is simply dysgenic in the long run.