Link to Preface

Link to Part 1

Anyone who is interested in economics or politics is aware of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. “The economy” is a major subject in election cycles, and the economy is measured by GDP and made better by policies that increase it. As such, it must be a miracle measure of societal health. Right?

This is the definition for GDP:¬¬

Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a period time.

That’s it. GDP is a measure of total economic throughput in a given time. It doesn’t say anything about the state of a country, what kinds of goods the country produces, or any other useful information. Usually we divide GDP by the population to get “GDP per capita.” This might allow us to compare “rich” and “poor” countries – but even this could be misleading.

Imagine this: You are an aspiring immigrant and big-brained neoliberal who must choose between two countries. You know the GDP of Country A is $6000 and Country B is $5000, and you know the population is 1000 in both. You calculate the GDP per capita and conclude that it is $6 in country A and $5 in country B. You choose A because it is the wealthier country, because you are a smart neoliberal. However, when you arrive you are dismayed to find that $5999 out $6000 dollars in Country A are owned by masochistic hypersexual transgender overlord. The economy is not diversified, and this overlord forces xe’s subjects into slavery working in one of Country A’s many dildo factories - its only export - with mandatory quarterly anal penetration meetings. During one of these solidarity sessions, you learn from a fellow slave that country B is actually a paradisiacal land where people live harmoniously - and each has exactly $5, an equal split. You wonder where your big-brained ideology led you astray.

See, the answer to your question is that you failed to properly contextualize the economy you were moving to, and to understand is that GDP per capita is just a measure. It alone it does not convey that much useful information, including who has the money or resources. Notice also in this example, that any increase in GDP doesn’t mean the typical citizen gets anything. This is because GDP is not distributed evenly among the population. But even this doesn’t mean you get proportional increases either - because any potential increases to GDP could come from mostly one industry or mostly affect one individual. One measure of wealth disparity is the Gini coefficient. Here’s what that looks like by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2014_Gini_Index_World_Map,_income_inequality_distribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg). You can also use other metrics besides GDP per capita, such as net income or some index of “living standards” to compare countries. We’ll return to wealth disparity later, but the point here is to demonstrate GDP, in isolation, can be a somewhat useless metric. Some countries are corrupt, some suffer from violent crime (South Africa), some governments are oppressive and have almost no consideration for “human rights” (China). Most people would obviously rather live in Ireland than Qatar – and they probably wouldn’t even consider GDP per capita at all. To make GDP relatable over time we use “real GDP” to correct for changes in the price level (de/in-flation). When we want to compare countries, sometimes we create a “basket” of goods in each and compare the prices of those which allows us to assess relative “purchasing power” by country, and allow us to create an index to calculate the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). between countries. This is usually what people mean when they say “GDP” and since I am not interested in saying “real GDP PPP” I will just say “GDP” always and you can infer what I mean in context.

Many socioeconomic effects also compound over time. Think about the building of infrastructure or effects on the environment. The US could almost certainly increase GDP now if they removed restrictions on coal today (this is just an example) because it is cheaper than alternatives, but some people would develop cancer from the sulfur dioxide in the future (among other effects), and so this would impose a future cost on society. For this and other reasons, the GDP of a country right now might not be a good prediction at all of where that country’s GDP will be in the future.

THE SHORT AND LONG RUN

In Economics, there are generally two important to be made in time - the short run and the long run. Economists have some unhelpful definitions for distinguishing between these two “officially,” the line is blurred, but in practice everyone knows what the difference is. In the short run, you can discard all dietary advice and eat only donuts, greatly increasing your immediate satisfaction. However, you will experience negative satisfaction when you complete your landwhale transformation three months later (the long run). Notice that the long run and the short run were both very short in this example, but they can both be fairly long as well. Imagine you were born an ape-like creature that must endure a lifetime of straining to stand up on two legs to get food off trees and look out for predators. In the short run, you suffered because you had to spend calories and endure physical suffering on this energy-expending activity. However, you did at least manage to reproduce (in the long run). In the even longer run, these actions started a chain of events that culminated in the creation of the human race over the course two million years of evolution.

Here is one formulation of the GDP equation:

GDP (Y) is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M). Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

For my points I am most interested in Consumption and Investment.

Consumption = spending on goods and services to be used now (food, rent, jewelry, clothes, gas, vacations, and any other “stuff” for your enjoyment)

Investment = Purchase on assets to be used to generate value in the future. Examples include construction of a new mine, purchase of software, or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory and research into new technologies.

Government Spending and Net Exports are basically irrelevant for our purposes here, but just to close the loop - consider an economy that has no government and does not trade with outside nations (or is just trade-neutral i.e. “exports = imports”). Such an economy would consist of only Consumption and Investment.

Any increases in Consumption and Investment increase GDP. However, as you might surmise, increasing Investment is the key to long-term growth. Boosts to Investment increase the factors of production (factories, machines, farming methods) that allow you to produce more things. However, some investments do not pay off over time and you would’ve been better off Consuming such dollars instead. Long term GDP growth therefore depends on a healthy balance between Consumption and Investment, and the trick is to figure out what the right amount of Investment vs. Consumption should be. Even if this could be precisely calculated in the present or in advance (it can’t) the ideal amount of Investment vs. Consumption is disrupted in real life by many factors. These can include ineffective governments or institutions (i.e., corruption), the behavior of individual powerful agents (monopolists, lobbyists, etc), or just poor expectations made on “imperfect information.” These influences change how much and what investments are made and this has an impact on future GDP.

”Economics” is full of trade-off scenarios. Not only do trade-offs exist in the in the present - but they also exist over time in ways that cannot be perfectly known, although some can be predicted in advance. Pollution could be considered one such trade-off. When you pollute, you are basically impairing the future value of the environment to reap the benefits of it in the present. All else equal, the environment will get worse and future generations will suffer from (expected) lower future GDP, owing to environmental damage. However, it is possible that economic growth enabled by pollution today could offset the pollution tomorrow in a variety of ways. For example, it could enable the development of new technologies to clean up the pollution or mitigate its effects on humans.

INVESTMENT VS CONSUMPTION - THE ENVIRONMENT

Take the example of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide pollution (for sake of argument, we’ll agree that global warming is real and mostly man-made). It is known that burning (Consuming) fossil fuels for power creates carbon dioxide pollution that contributes to global warming. Global warming we expect will cause flooding, general environmental instability, and potentially disastrous feedback loops that could greatly upset the biosphere of our planet. These effects would decrease future GDP - but we do not know how much. We could Invest in other green technologies to avoid polluting – but these are more expensive, so using these would lower our productivity (and GDP) today. Plus, we cannot expect companies to use these on their own initiative because they do not directly bear the cost of polluting, and so are not adequately incentivized (without government action) to fund Investments in green technologies.

As long as firms that pollute do not have to directly pay for their pollution, pollution represents a kind of market failure called an externality. In order to reduce pollution, we could impose a tax on carbon dioxide producers (polluters) based on emissions called a Pigouvian tax (or a “carbon tax” in this specific instance). Such a policy is generally agreed upon as a relatively efficient market solution to pollution – and one that libertarians, neoliberals, social democrats, and others could agree on. In fact, correcting market failures like pollution externalities and monopoly power are usually among the libertarian’s main justifications for government. As a bonus, the government could tax fossil fuels but also reinvest the proceeds in research into “green” technologies (“subsidize” green energy). However, even if the government was committed to such a plan and put all of this revenue into green technology research, there is no guarantee that it will be an efficient use of resources or produce any useful results.

Suppose Country A could make some almost perfect tradeoff between taxing the Consumption of fossil fuels and Investing these proceeds in new technologies. There is obviously some level of Consumption of fossil fuels and Investment in new technologies that is optimal for society over time (lets ignore externalities or who is polluting). However, the ideal tradeoff between Consumption and Investment can never be known for sure in advance. This is because:

1) We do not know how bad global warming will be.

a. It possible we could pump infinite carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this would just spur more tree and oceanic algal growth (carbon sinks) such that after a few years of slight discomfort and no cleanup, a new balance is struck between man and nature and there is almost no suffering at all

b. Perhaps instead the increase in temperature unleashes reserves of hypergreenhouse gases, like methane from arctic regions, that accelerate global warming exponentially such that oceans rapidly acidify, temperatures quickly rise, and our planet achieves Venusian-levels of cataclysm in just a few centuries. In such a scenario, humanity may be lucky to escape the planet at all – perhaps as a few exiled refugees on The Moon or Mars

2) We do not know how affordably new technologies could be developed to clean up the pollution or mitigate the effects, or how effective they will be.

a. It could be that a slight offset from Consumption to Investment now could result in some revolutionary new technology being developed in a single year that could filter all the atmosphere and remove carbon dioxide extremely cheaply. In which case, the cost of polluting is made almost zero in the future, and so the global warming problem is solved by hardly reducing our carbon footprint (or short-term GDP) at all.

b. However, it could turn out that removing carbon dioxide is infinitely expensive and that adequate technologies could never be developed to deal with even the levels we already have today – no matter how much investment we make.

Note that any combination of technological affordability/effectiveness and global warming severity can be true to any degree, and the reality is almost certainly somewhere in-between these extremes – but we cannot know for sure in advance. For instance, if scenario 1b) were true, humanity would be best served by building spaceships now instead of trying to cleanup or halt pollution. They might even use fossil fuels to power machines to build the spaceships - since marginal increases to CO2 from these vehicles won’t make much of a difference at this point. The planet is already doomed and it is just a matter of time before the effects fully manifest to destroy most forms of life.

In the present time in Country A, the citizens are aware of the negative effects of carbon dioxide pollution. All of society can agree that some tradeoff between Consumption and Investment should be made - but no one knows for sure what the ideal amount is. Country A can assemble its best economists and environmentalists together to try and come with a calculation that serves as the “best guess” for society – but even under ideal conditions and best intentions, the miscalculation of a single variable could make their recommendation disastrously wrong. In the real world, these calculations are also doubtless to be influenced by different groups and competing interests. Liberals often assert that the fossil fuel lobby, poor education, or a destructive consumerist culture leads to lack of support for environmental policies. While many of these are probably true to some degree, the basic fact is that the more divisions in society that exist, the more competing interests there are, and the less likely long-term decisions can be made with clarity and broad agreement.

Imagine at you are a reluctant, competent, and benevolent politician (being of any conviction) who has finally struck a deal with the opposition in Country A after a heated and protracted debate. In this deal, there will be some carbon tax and some green technology investment, and you are satisfied with this deal. Now, a leconomist comes to you that you have made a mistake - because taxing fossil fuels creates a deadweight loss that will decrease GDP. What do you even say to this person? Obviously it will decrease GDP, to some degree – but you’ve spent years debating the costs and benefits using complicated economic and environmental models, and dealing personally with all the competing interests in order to come to the best solution for society. Did this person even consider that the survival of our species and the future of our entire planet was at stake? What about the potential benefits of green technologies on GDP in the future? You might even decide not to engage this person at all - since they are probably just an idiot and not worth your time.

The amount of environmental damage worth making is actually calculated quite often for environmental and construction projects. This is the realm of time discounting and is critical to environmental economics, among other fields like finance (this is similar to “Net Present Value;” or “NPV”). To better demonstrate the idea of time discounting, consider another situation. Perhaps pollution was justified because the country in question had to manufacture war machines quickly to fight off invaders. In this case, the future could be considered infinitely discounted as the people in question fight for their immediate survival. In the future, their descendants will have to deal with the negative effects of the pollution – *but they will be thankful to exist at all**. You can likewise imagine many ways that other policies that exist that could benefit the population today but also impose future costs on the population tomorrow (and these do not have to be environmental).

YOUR GOVERNMENT MATTERS (A LOT)

This kind of goes without saying – and this matters for much more than strictly “Economic” effects. Unless you are a genuine anarchist (who don’t bother to ground their theories in reality), you need an effective government to collect taxes, provision public resources, and enforce the law. Even if you are a hardcore libertarian you still need a good government to provide for self-defense and enforce property rights. You also need a good government to correct for market failures (as aforementioned) – like pollution, monopolies, and other common goods to prevent “tragedy of the commons” (again, this is even true of libertarians). If the government is polarized, corrupt, oppressive, or otherwise inefficient then your economy (and society) will suffer. Often when economists bring up “policy,” it is often just assumed that the government is capable and functional. This is not the case for many countries much of the time. We sometimes also forget that even the best of governments and programs can’t ensure good outcomes – as they say, policy is a “blunt instrument.”

Your government type matters as well. Without making a presupposition that any one type is better than another, everyone can agree each type has its unique benefits and drawbacks. Aristocracies tend to be decent for economic growth - but also make laws that benefit the ruling class and neglect/abuse the lower ones. Monarchies and autocrats are very concerned about succession and control and can be inhumane, corrupt, and tyrannical in the pursuit of these things - but the “Philosopher King” is often recognized as an ideal form of government (if it can be safely achieved). Democracies may be a safeguard against tyranny and “representative” of the population - but they are politically inefficient, are easily usurped by moneyed interests, and tend to work best when most people agree. When serious internal conflicts arise, sometimes democracies can agree to just split apart (like Czechoslovakia). Other times democracies collapse into violence and civil war (like Yugoslavia). If you pursued any policy because it “increased GDP” but created some kind of sociopolitical instability, then you would essentially be committing to trade GDP growth in the present for socioeconomic problems down the road – or you bet on the chance that this instability would be “solved” in the future by some mechanism or another. For instance, if you started importing a bunch of people into your democracy that didn’t share your values and voted differently than you - but you thought were “good for the economy” – then you essentially bet on the idea that they would adopt your values at some point (“they’ll assimilate!”). The reality is, we would never know for sure whether such new citizens will integrate, or not, until they did or didn’t at some point in time, according to arbitrary metrics that measured “assimilability” – perhaps crime rates or income.

Environmental effects might fairly predictable, even quantifiable to some degree – but this isn’t as true of others. We could easily be more or less sure of human behavior based on things like IQ than we are of say, carbon dioxide being a “greenhouse gas” that could destroy the environment.

Let’s say our previously mentioned country survives the war. Its descendants, victorious, have a newfound sense of confidence and collective story of heroism. However, a new enemy appears on the horizon, threatening their future sovereignty. We could imagine this optimism combined with a new threat might galvanize them into activities that would boost economic output – including accelerated industry, fixing environmental issues, and the pursuit of scientific achievements like weapons research or space exploration. This basically describes the US after WWII. Of course, there are many factors that contributed to the US postwar economic boom (“pent up” demand, industry not destroyed, etc.) but doubtless there were positive cultural effects resulting from the victory that contributed to this boom. In fact, many aspects of this conflict are still highly ingrained in American culture and mythology (although these have been greatly warped over time). Notice that measuring the degree to which strictly economic or strictly cultural effects contributed is not obviously possible - but it is well known that both exist.

CULTURE AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

Culture can affect GDP in a variety of ways that are predictable. If your culture promotes traditional values with women in the household, you might have lower GDP because you have less workers. That might be fairly easy to quantify and predict. However, maybe having women in the home fosters a more nurturing environment for children that makes these children more productive in the future. This is a long-term effect that would be hard to predict and measure. However, we know that neglect has negative effects on children - society is often critical of parents who sacrifice too much time with their children in pursuit of a “career.” So while we can speculate and be certain there is some trade-off at play, we’ll probably never know what an “ideal” amount of adult child-rearing vs. working is - and it probably varies a lot based on individuals and circumstance. Sometimes empiricism or theory isn’t as useful common sense.

Lets imagine a more extreme example. Consider two cultures that attempt to instill their children with different values. One promotes hard working-ness, education, athleticism, and “”heteronormative”” values, and the other promotes eating fast food, playing video games, as well as homosexuality and child sexualization. Such a society might seem extreme (or it used to be) – but we can almost be certain that one of these hypothetically cultures is “better for the economy” than the other (and almost no one would disagree). It’s also kind of absurd to even think of such things in economic terms - although we can, if we so chose. US teenagers are now significantly less employed than they were in the 1970s or 1980s. Is it better that teenagers study more for college, play more sports, or have more free time now than they did when they were employed and getting real-world job experience? Or are they now actually more indolent, irresponsible and ill-prepared? In other words, have we made poor trade-offs in investments towards human capital? Its hard to say. While the economic effects stemming from different cultures are hard to quantify, there are undoubtedly costs and benefits to sociocultural health. Some of these costs are obvious AND they are high - but they cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms or GDP.

THE VALUE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

We also value relationships and networks of people in our lives. This includes friends and family, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms and values, trust, cooperation, and general reciprocity. This is social capital. Social capital is affected both by culture and GDP since all peoples’ relationships exist in a cultural context at a certain level of economic development. Does social capital itself influence GDP? Undoubtedly - because people greatly influence the behaviors and actions of other people they know and love. Social capital has immense value, but it cannot be measured in dollars – it is priceless. It is these sociocultural effects that cannot be adequately quantified in GDP - but it would be extremely foolish to ignore them. A reckless pursuit of “increasing GDP” on a strictly empirical basis at the expense of sacrificing social capital is not a great idea.

CULTURE CAN SUPPLANT POLICY

Poor cultural values can manifest in bad economic outcomes. Since governments are not perfect, we cannot trust that they will make good policies to intervene if culture fails. Child sexual prostitution is illegal in almost all countries - but it might be profitable if it weren’t. Should society start tolerating child sex because if it were made legal and was “good for the economy?” Probably not – because it is morally abhorrent and we would not culturally accept such a thing.

Perhaps such an example is too ludicrously immoral to be taken seriously (or, it used to be) – but the same has been said for many other things are are now widely accepted. As a totay different example - take the tendency for the US to import skilled computer programmers. Most white Americans are very capable of computer programming, but they don't choose this field because they want to engage in degenerate behavior at uni and/or pursue an ill-advised career of their ~dreams~ like art or humanities. A lot of this reflects poor public-school systems, (and delusions of merit of college degrees on the part of firms) but it also reflects our decaying values more generally.

We mentioned public schools and higher education as salient failures (posts all on their own), but we can find other examples as well. Take American obesity. Obesity is the result of a myopic choice on the part of individuals – cheap food in the short run that imposes a greater cost (in the form of healthcare expenses) in the long run. Some of the problems of obesity are cultural, and some reflect systemic economic issues. Regardless, obesity imposes a negative cost to the country’s economy in the form of healthcare expenses, no matter who is paying. There really is no way around it - being obese is obviously “bad for the economy.”

The government could create incentives to prevent obesity. It could impose taxes on sugary drinks, high-calorie meals, or restrict certain preservatives. It could even subsidize gym memberships or pay people under a certain BMI at yearly doctor checkups. Whatever your opinions on government intervention, it is clear that the combination public policy and culture have failed in addressing the obesity epidemic in the US. The “body acceptance” movement explicitly intends to have the opposite effect of “fat shaming” - creating cultural justifications for obesity as opposed to negative reinforcement for healthy lifestyles. Think about other movements that are “bad for the economy” in a similar vein – like the anti-vaxxer movement, for instance. Bringing plagues back from extinction imposes costs on the economy. There are many other social problems that are not adequately addressed - like opioid addiction, teenage pregnancy, or psychological issues. Perhaps if we fostered a culture of being fit or had stronger religious convictions, these problems could be avoided. This is why having cultural norms and enforcing these norms (culturally or otherwise) makes sense. It helps us build and maintain valuable social and human capital.

Notice I just brought up the subject of religion for the first time. Religion is a very powerful force in human societies. Imagine trying to convince an Islamic fundamentalist that women should be given equal treatment and pay so that they can enter the workforce and “improve the economy” by increasing GDP. Go to your local mosque and give it a shot. You won’t of course – because it’s a ridiculous proposition. Clearly the value of religion and morality transcends any value of material goods to most of these people. Imagine even trying to assess the value of something like the crusades using GDP. It’s an absurd basis for evaluating the whole of human society or people’s life goals. How much gold was Jerusalem worth to the Crusaders?

UTILITY

Economists (like most people) are not so naïve that they believe people to be fulfilled simply by acquiring more money. People get a certain level of satisfaction from goods and services they spend money on. For this idea, Economists have the concept of utility

Utility is defined as “the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service.” Economists have various ways they attempt to measure and quantify this, but just consider it “satisfaction.” People have “diminishing marginal utility” (read: “decreasing additional satisfaction”) when it comes to almost everything. All this means is that any additional thing you get makes you more satisfied, but each incremental thing satisfies you slightly less more. This is a concept so basic that everyone lives it and knows it but it is harder to explain than to actually experience. Imagine you like ice cream and don’t really get full or care about calories (again, these are the kinds of hypothetical absurdities you have to endure in this discipline). If I give you an ice cream, you will be satisfied. If I give two ice creams you will probably even more satisfied - but the second ice cream wasn’t quite as satisfying as the first. If I give you a third, you will probably eat it, and its more than you need, but at any rate you are still more satisfied with three ice creams than one or two ice creams.

This has important implications when applied to incomes in advanced, Western economies. The average growth rate of Western countries is somewhere between 0-2% per year Marginal increases to our already very high incomes does not produce significant increases in satisfaction - because we have already met all of our basic needs and can afford so many things. If anything, the hard choice to make in modern economies is what to spend your money on. Even if we pretended everyone got a 0-2% increase in income per year, and that “immigration is good for the economy,” the idea that you would continue to accept sweeping and irreversible demographic and cultural changes to your countries for this marginal increase in income is not a trade-off most people would probably choose to make (absent aggressive propaganda and conditioning). If one considers all of the other factors that contribute to an individual’s socioeconomic situation, (like employment rate, lifestyle, family, etc.) and a person understands what GDP actually is, it is not rational to have such an obsession with increasing GDP.

Consider again the definition of utility:

the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service

People might be temporarily satisfied by a good or a service – but they are not FULFILLED by goods and services. They are fulfilled by the people in their lives and their perception of self within their communities (and perhaps “experiences” - to whatever degree that is meaningful). Goods and services are ACCESSORIES to fulfillment, but not the main goal or truly fulfilling aspect of most people’s life.

To contextualize this in regards to our goals - I would easily give up more than half of my income to get “The Ethnostate” to live and raise a family in. Such a statement probably describes the sentiment of most people here. It would give me infinitely more utility to simply give up money to get the sociopolitical and cultural outcomes I want – and this is probably true of most people of any serious sociopolitical convictions.

”CHANGE” IS COSTLY - ACCEPT THIS

Most of the market is based on future expectations. People’s expectations are very often wrong and can change very suddenly given new information (look at 2008). Likewise, the belief in fundamental human equality (or “sameness”) and an ignorance of demographic trends is essential to the functioning of the globalist socioeconomic system –it is a bubble in its own right. Consider the possibility the Alt-Right succeeds in red pilling more people. Maybe this would initially manifest in minor demonstrations, and perhaps the creation of fringe media entertainment and isolated online communities that slowly grow and become almost mainstream - but eventually this accomplishment would manifest in real effects - like “impossible” candidates winning elections. As we progress, we could see increasing non-compliance or abuse of government benefits. This would make bureaucracies inefficient and strain public resources. People might save more to safeguard against economic crisis, they might move across the country to join and expand homogeneous communities. All of this would create political pressure and be disruptive to market expectations - but change is disruptive, and it’s anyone's guess how things would turn out as we transition. We will have to incur costs in the short-run to make the changes necessary for our survival in the long-run.

Our proposals represent a major departure from the status quo. Immigration reform, deportations, financial and trade law changes, political reform, diplomatic sanctions, and the restructuring of the entire economic sector are bound to create high levels of uncertainty, market fluctuations, and (some degree) of unrest and conflict. These might inhibit growth or decrease GDP - but this does not matter. We are not interested in growing short-term GDP. We do not care about incurring short-run costs because we are interested in the *long-term survival of our nation and communities. Remember the views held by the “Alt-Right” are really not radical at all in the grand scheme of history. Instead, it is a pseudo-religious obsession with global human equality that took hold in the last 50 years in our countries that has produced most of the abnormalities in politics and society today. A departure from the radical and unfounded beliefs of the current leftist orthodoxy would actually just be a return to more normal human behavior – and in the US, the true intentions of our founders.

CONSIDER THE EXAMPLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Imagine if an entire society that had been conditioned to believe that oil was the greatest resource ever and was completely non-polluting - and that the only naysayers were demonized in the media as environmentalist “extremists” who’s nefarious activities stemmed from their “hatred” of modern technology – and they tried to influence the public by propagating “pseudoscience” on the effects of burning fossil fuels. Imagine how disastrous the consequences of such conditioning could be. Now consider the fact that this nation would almost certainly have a higher GDP per capita than yours today.

Like the environment, there are things that are known and not known about human genetics, and there are things that can and cannot be predicted about the future of human populations. However, the biggest difference between climate change and human biology is that we probably better understand the heritability of psychometrics than the environment, and thus we can better predict the consequences of human migrations than the impact of greenhouse gases on the biosphere of our planet. Even worse is the fact that most of the population is completely unaware - or just straight-up lied to - about the findings of race, genetics, and human behavior.

People might not like the solutions white nationalists or the Alt-Right propose - but at least we are willing to engage with the reality of human societies and demographic trends, have the boldness to confront these things and the dominant social narratives, and propose something. Neoliberals, lolberts, and leconomist types offer nothing in the way of solutions except denialism and more aggressive prescriptions of the status quo that will obviously not solve anything and make sense only to themselves in their detached universe and not to anyone else. It is a fact that, if demographic trends continue, our nations as we know them will be destroyed. Our people will be left marginalized and powerless in their own homelands at the mercy of the “democratic” governments that supposedly represent them - but then take away all their rights, ignore their votes, and suppress their dissent. We will have to sacrifice an abundance of useless and excessive material goods and services to reverse these trends and secure our future – and if you are unwilling to do this, then you do not actually care.

THE LECONOMIST STRIKES BACK

Suppose Alt-Right/WNs succeed in their short-term goals, and this results in disruption that lowers GDP. Maybe incomes will go down - but maybe at the same time whites will also start working out, end obesity, put down opiates, turn off the TV, and spend more time with their families. Maybe the subsequent hardship would even beat the soy out of most pathetic leftist “men.” What would the value of this cultural shift be? The leconomist would tell you this is not worthwhile – because GDP growth has now fallen. Hopefully you can now see what a stupid argument this is.

All this talk on GDP may have come off a bit deconstructionist - perhaps even giving the impression of lending tacit support to the leconomist for some of their points on immigration. However, maybe such an interpretation is too generous to the leconomist. Does immigration even have the miracle effects that they claim? Lets find out