Letter to a Liberal
by David Sims
IT SOUNDS as though you are what I once was, a liberal socially, a racial egalitarian, and a free-market apologist. My time as a racial egalitarian ended when I lost a debate with some “racists” from Dr. William Pierce’s National Alliance, back in 1995, held in a private chat room on the old intranet of the Microsoft Network. I went into that debate sure that I’d win, but, instead, I lost. My opponents proved to me, with sources of data that neither of us doubted, that they were right and that I was wrong about the idea of “racial equality.”
Blacks and Whites aren’t the same kind of creature; there are differences in the distribution of intelligence, there are differences in the spectrum of behaviors even when environmental circumstances are the same, there are even differences in biochemistry and in nutritional requirements. Race isn’t, I learned, merely about the color of skin. Indeed, it is possible for two different races to overlap considerably in skin color, while being quite different in IQ or in behavior when environmental factors are controlled.
So-called “racist” biological science isn’t merely phrenology. It’s very well supported by peer-reviewed statistical data.
The fact that you can pass for White, despite not being White, does not mean you’re the same as a White person. Many Turks and Ashkenazi Jews can also pass for White, but they are genetically distinct from Whites. The claim that you put forward is similar to the idea that there’s no difference between the truth and lies because people sometimes get fooled by lies.
The political “odor” of right-wing apologists does not arise from error. It is the result of political libels, from leftist misrepresentations of their arguments, from ad hominem attacks from the left. I’ve learned that, most of the time, the [racial] far right is quite right; that, usually, the left is not only wrong, but that it is intentionally duplicitous.
You and I would, I think, agree that traditional socialism is problematic. The chief problem with socialism was described by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin, who gave it the name “The Tragedy of the Commons.” It was noted in the popular fiction of Ayn Rand. You can easily verify the hypothesis that socialism has a failure mode in the collapse of the commons. All you have to do is buy 100 new, hardcover best-selling novels and put them on a store shelf, and then tell the public that these 100 books are a commons, a book-swap, and that the only rule is “leave a book before taking a book,” so that the number of books in the commons remains exactly one hundred. Everyone who engages in book swapping will want to take away at least a little bit better than he leaves, so that over time the books remaining in the commons becomes a little more tattered in physical condition and ever-less desirable in terms of subject matter. Within a month, you are left with junk that nobody wants. That’s how the tragedy of the commons works.
But free market capitalism has a problem too, namely, it doesn’t endure under the inevitable corruption that happens via capitalist instigation. Sooner or later, the capitalists who have become the richest under the laissez faire system find themselves so rich that they can “buy the law,” can corrupt the government with bribes or with financial contributions that might as well be bribes, and thereby recruit the coercive powers of the state to their own purposes. When that happens, you no longer have free market capitalism, but state-sponsored corporate capitalism — which is an entirely different system. In other words, the failure mode of the free market in its late state is the same thing that made it work so well in its early stages: the selfish interests of the capitalists. The moment the most successful capitalists discover that they can boost their gains by subverting the laws, they never hesitate. Free-market capitalism can be relied upon to fail in this manner with the same dependability that doctrinaire socialism can be relied upon to fail via the tragedy of the commons.
There might be a third system that lacks either failure mode. Perhaps that system was National Socialism; or perhaps not. But National Socialism is the economic system that was put into practice, and which seemed to be successful while it lasted, but was shut down by external pressures (military pressures) brought to bear by a very strange alliance between the capitalist West and the communist East. The long term prospects of National Socialism have not yet been observed.
* * *