I started writing this series awhile ago, but never completely finished it. If there’s interest I might continue posting the later parts.

This series is made with the aim to give others the knowledge to address the bad economic arguments we see here at DAR or reddit generally - particularly from the “neoliberal” and libertarian types. These posters often invoke economics to justify their ideological absurdities (e.g. “open borders”) However, usually these claims lack empirical evidence, are overly-simplistic, or have much less support from “experts” than their confidence would suggest. These types also pretend to hold impossibly materialistic world views that are too ridiculous to be taken seriously. For instance, no one goes through life as a totally atomized “individualist” that is completely disengaged from any friends or family, and never rewarded those close to them in a nepotistic way or leveraged their connections at the expense of the “free market.” They cannot hold true to these ostensible values in their day-to-day lives or personal relationships. Since I have no collective name for the types of insufferable autists and globohomo pawns you come across on plebbit pushing their economic BS there and other places, I’m going to give them one: le-conomists. Not everyone who posts about economics on online forums is an overly-educated autistic retard, but hopefully you will in time come to understand who these people are and what kind of arguments they make. Or just browse r/Neoliberal for like, five minutes. While “Economics” can provide valuable insights and help guide policy, it can be very limited in practical application, and it is inadequate to justify the kinds of things these types propose. “Economics” (basically, “materialism”) is not sufficient to be a cornerstone for any ideology. While the field may seem complex and impervious to outsiders, I would argue for most consequential themes, this is actually not true. Employing data and common sense beats long-winded and lofty theoretical debates on most topics that matter to the average person.

When I say that “Economics is dumb” I don’t mean that the field Economics is 100% bullshit or has nothing to offer humanity. Specifically, I mean that popular conceptions of Economic arguments are dumb (e.g. “immigration is good for the economy) – typically these are unfounded, exaggerated, or simply untrue. Many proponents also do not appreciate the limitations of economic theory, nor do they have any real knowledge of the empirical data behind their claims. Economic arguments, like everything else in the media or social sciences, are warped, selectively applied, or ignored in the interest of reinforcing the dominant neoliberal/globalist agenda. It is also deliberately misrepresented and made to appear esoteric and impervious so that people get confused and gaslighted into supporting policies for reasons they do not fully understand.

One salient example of this is Immigration. Public discourse on both sides goes something like this:

Economic “argument”: Immigrants “take our jobs” and drive down wages, and this is bad for the economy - vs. - immigrants fill job vacancies (“jobs americans won’t do”), do not drive down wages, and contribute to GDP growth

Real motivations: “I (instinctively) don’t want to invite invaders here” vs. “I like outsiders and other races for some variety of strange, anti-natalist reasons (or because my professor/media pundit said I should)”

Real Economic Evidence: Very mixed. it depends on where you are in society, what state your country/economy is in, what the time horizon is, and who the immigrants are. Say nothing of IQ, crime rates, or political convictions of such immigrants either.

I’ll cover this specific exchange and the evidence in much more detail later, but the point is that almost no one really gives a shit about the “economics” in this situation - except maybe someone who’s livelihood is immediately threatened by immigration. Most people actually care about immigration for reasons that have little to do with strictly “Economics”.

Here’s another hypothetical tradeoff to illustrate this. Would you rather -

1) Boost the economy and incur short-term profits by importing third-world unskilled labor. But, in the long run, pay more for welfare, endure more crime, and watch your country gradually become Brazil due to more immigration and immigrant birth rates

2) Allow no immigration, and potentially experience some economic stagnation - but stay a white country with a functioning society and a stable government

Obviously all of us would choose #2, if these options were actually ever presented. However, most tradeoffs like this - and the evidence for predicted effects - are never presented in a rational or straightforward way, and most of the time the option is only illusory. A good example of this is Trump who won on the anti-immigrant ticket but is now shilling for “the most legal immigrants ever”.

People also make the mistake to take Economic arguments very seriously. I don’t care whether GDP growth is 0.5% or 1% per year when I would be more than willing to halve my annual income to live in the hypothetical Ethnostate. So, should I care if Indian programmers overstaying their visa contribute to an increase in my income of 0.05% per year? No, I do not give a flying fuck about that. I would happily pay to deport them (and others), and I have my sound reasons for wanting to do so.

In a few lengthy posts, I hope to make the silliness of modern-day “Economics” discussions obvious to the casual lurker, and give substantive arguments as to why this is the case. My hope with this series is to give people who enter into these arguments on the nationalist/identarian side a crash-course and some ammo to use against the better-equipped overly-educated useful idiots (un)wittingly supporting the system with their trite arguments and stupid appeals to “economics.”

As stated, most Economic talking points and mantras (among many others) put forth in the public are usually intended to reinforce the ideology, interest, and control of the ruling international elite class (“globalists”), regardless of whatever economic evidence is supposed to underlie them. So, its important to understand what these people (the elites) actually want – namely, 1) to make more money 2) Maintain Social and political control. Not all of these below examples are strictly “Economic” in nature, but hopefully its intuitive as to how all these themes are inter-related:

1) Pro-Immigration. Actual reasons:

a. To lower wages of native workers (or solve a non-existent “worker shortage”) thereby paying less for labor

b. To disrupt the bargaining power of unions and workers (unions basically have no power today compared to, say, the 1960s)

c. Miscegenation with immigrants disrupts potential ethnic nationalist movements that could threaten the system

d. To prop up demand for housing, goods etc. to keep demand high for the real estate and stock market

2) Economic/Political Stability and Control

a. Maintain reliable sources of income for the elites by promoting stability. This applies to inflation, interest rates, GDP growth, and economic institutions themselves

b. Use central banks to control the money supply, inflation, and interest rates, as well as serve as a ”revolving door” between banking institutions and the central bank

c. Resist/prevent any kind of economically meaningful reform of major extant public-private systems (healthcare, defense, etc.)

d. Create/maintain a large bureaucracy that can serve as revolving door for elites and their associates, and between the government and private sector

e. Demonize people/views that criticize the bureaucracy as corrupt or against the interests of ordinary people

3) Social Stability / minimizing unrest in native populations

a. Economically exploit ordinary people, but only to a point where they will not rebel or do not recognize what is going on

b. Fetishize and shill the purported wonders of “diversity” to prop-up the immigration/miscegenist agenda wherever and whenever possible

c. Aggressively suppress all racial IQ and criminality statistics

d. Increase immigration to divide the population across racial lines, and to erode white populist efforts and chances of revolt

e. Promote consumerism as an ideal at the expense of culture or morality

f. Keep the population sedated and healthy enough, but dependent enough on the system to not fight against it

g. Promote degeneracy (sex, drugs, LGBT) as inevitable and profitable, in order to distract the population and make them indolent

h. Require the population to be indoctrinated at state-funded universities in order to make a decent income such that they absorb the propaganda before they enter the workforce

i. Break down institutions that empower “the family”; turn everyone into an atomized and alienated “individual”

4) International integration a. Treaties/agreements that allow for easy export/import of goods with fewer tariffs

b. Allow for international companies to circumvent national rules and regulation on labor, taxes, environment, etc.

c. Use government sanctions and NGOs like the IMF to enforce desired financial standards and cooperation on local governments

d. Demonize “protectionism” as irrational and inefficient

5) Avoid paying taxes

a. Demonize “socialism”

b. Promote corporate/wealthy tax cuts as a means to boost the economy (“supply-side” economics)

Public disagreements between “economics” and other pundits are allowed for some of these issues - but more or less, the above outcomes are what you will always get in Western nations under the current regime, and most propaganda (including appeals to “”Economics””) reinforces them. Most pundits will try to present/frame all or most of these things economically beneficial to you in some way. When “”Economics”” can be framed to suit these agendas, they will presented as infallible fact. When they do not, they will be ignored or entertained as conspiracy or “fringe” (e.g., race and IQ). Much of these tactics are employed selectively on the population as they align to popular sentiment. For instance, conservatives love “freedom” so they have to be “free-market” too, even if this isn’t actually in their rational self-interests in many cases.

Politicians (serving moneyed elites, not you) may pretend to adopt contrarian stances on some of these - but to no real effect (except to secure votes). For instance - there is some anemic resistance to immigration from the Republicans, but this is a fake virtue Republicans espouse to appeal to their white populist base. Almost no republican politicians want to, or can, stop immigration from happening. Trump is the best example of this. A mirror image of this can be seen from some Democrats on “Socialism” or “healthcare reform.” This rarely or never actually happens (Obamacare was not serious reform, but people pretend it is) and they don’t seriously want this either.

Should you bother to read this series? Don’t know – but here’s a few reasons

For one – I have a bachelors in economics and finance, so I should be able to spar with most contrarian posters (neither of these credentials are very relevant to my current occupation). So if this gets any traction, it should be interesting

Second – I have no personal connections to my username or reputation, and this original writeup has been collecting dust for far too long. I’d rather just set it free and let it catch flame if it has to. If the Alt/Far-Right is to do better, it ought to be able to know the arguments of those in the opposition and be aware of what they are up against. Also my incompleteness opens weakness that are ripe for attack and thus good for fostering discussion.

Third – My intent here is to simply demonstrate why economics, in most respects, is woefully inadequate in explaining the realties we face. Or, having any real predictive validity whatsoever. There are plenty of arguments from an economic perspective that kind of work against the Alt-Right or White Nationalist position, and I’m willing to acknowledge that – but as stated, I don’t think these arguments are very compelling, and I’ve been in these discussions hundreds of times.

I will go over common, popular topics in various sections. Originally, I intended this to be a series of several very large, structured posts in quick succession. Instead, having spent enough time thinking about it,, I think more discussion would come from the posts being chopped up into more digestible bits and posted whenever.

The worst offenders by far when it comes to a misplaced or unearned reverence of “Economics” are the “libertarian” and self-called “neoliberal” types.

Libertarians are at least somewhat rebellious in spirit valuing “freedom”, which partially underlies their “free market” economic beliefs (some arguments for FM being more or less compelling than others). Not all libertarians are so economically-inclined, but those that do tend to make basic textbook cases for “free markets” they picked up either in econ class (citing things like “deadweight loss”, etc.) or through propaganda from globohomo institutions, like CATO. They also agree to allow for social degeneracy (“what you do in the bedroom isn’t the state’s business”), legalizing drugs (weed – “let the market decide/ you can tax it!”) in order to be consistent on an ideological level. However, libertarians are almost always betrayed by the system. At best they get things like weed legalization, gay marriage legalization, and corporate tax cuts - but never a reduction in government intervention or market manipulation (and the gun-grabbers still make rounds every couple years). So, libertarians basically only get the shit they never really wanted, but had to shill for to stay consistent.

If libertarians are unwitting servants of the system, then self-described “Neoliberals” are willing and enthusiastic butt-boys for the great dildo of globogay. Essentially, they outwardly support privatization, corporate plutocracy, “open borders”, and leftish wokeness. However, more likely the people who engage with this kind of shit are just trying to social-signal commitment to the system and what they consider “intelligence.” Since they want to pretend to be intellectuals who are very smart about economics, they have memorized a bunch of no-names and mostly useless theories taught in their propagandic institution of choice, all of which conveniently validate the status quo – i.e., our judeo/neoliberal globohomogayplex. They pride themselves memorizing the “correct” arguments and positions so they can “win” pointless Economic arguments on the internet, mostly appealing to theory, to authority, or studies with extremely unconvincing effect sizes. They also adopt leftist religiosity and some socdem policies (Which makes them not really “neoliberal” in the traditional sense). This activity earns them upcummies and satisfies their need for a sense of false intellectual superiority. Self-professed “Neoliberals” are probably beta, effeminate, speak in uptalk, and unlikeable in person. TRS was just making fun of them and their barely-watched podcast the other day (starts around 1:29:00). While libertarians are more rebellious (or they want to be), “Neoliberals” are essentially self-aware pawns of the system that embrace every aspect of the current globohomo regime, exhibiting no real morality to speak of.

Even though libertarians and neoliberals are fundamentally different, they will often make the same bad economic arguments, and sometimes it can be had to tell them apart. There is a very particular type of poster I have in mind, here.

First, I will use the word ‘economist’ is a person who is educated in Economics, usually holds a degree, and is active in the field. I am almost always referring to actual academics or people in prominent positions like The Fed who actually conduct policy or “inform” society through publications or recommendations. By extension, this sometimes includes intellectuals in other fields like sociologists, political scientists, or historians. I will try to be precise but its not always practical to do so.

As aforementioned, there is a class of autists larping as intellectuals on the internet who pretend to have a very good understanding of “Economics” and make really bad arguments for things like “open borders” using economics as a justification. You can encounter this poster anywhere, but especially on plebbit. I’m not sure what to call these people, but since ‘certain people who post about economics online’ is too long, and ‘internet economist’ is too generous, and the distinction is definitely necessary, the diminutive “le-conomist” suits them best. A leconomist can hold any level of knowledge or be of any conviction (ie, Libertarian or Neoliberal), but the main traits underlying the “le-conomist” are:

1. A complete faith in basic Economic theory, and its relevant application to all situations

2. A consistent use of a specific set of metrics and talking points at the neglect of others (e.g. constantly talking about “GDP” but not crime rates or IQ)

3. A demonstrated reluctance to engage with other real-world facts, or just the lived reality of human existence

4. The inability to consider any trade-offs that could be conceived as “bad for the economy” and they tend to have have a very narrow understanding of what “the economy” is, often equating the term “Economy” with “Society”

Often, but not always, they tend to reveal through conversation that their underlying beliefs actually have nothing to do with “Economics,” which is also true for the vast majority of people. Since this is still an unclear definition, here are some examples of exchanges I’ve had with these types 123

A Layman is any person who engages in politics but who is not too well-educated in economics.

The simplistic assertions of leconomists are not always incorrect in a very strict and narrow sense. For instance – the notion that “free trade is good for the economy” could be true most of the time – but it is probably misleading and lacking proper context. These economic arguments are also not nearly as good as they are meant to seem. In fact, I will argue that the way in which most leconomists use these terms makes them totally useless.

In the next post, I want to establish a baseline on why you should be skeptical of the field of “Economics” and so-called experts and pundits that represent it.