A proposed experiment on liberals

In an exchange with a reader, the idea emerges for an easy-to-perform study we could do on liberals’ attitudes about race, namely by observing how a liberal responds to the mention of one of the news stories about the gratuitous, savage black-on-white attacks that are occurring every day in this country, such as the cold-cocking of high school English teacher James Addlespurger in Pittsburgh. The thing to be studied is, when a liberal is told of such a black-on-white assault or murder, how many seconds will pass before he brings the conversation around to the subject of white racism? To conduct the experiment, all you need is a liberal with whom you are on conversational terms.

This is the kind of experiment that could be carried out on a professional basis, if my proposed Institute for the Study of Liberal Society ever came into existence.

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

I’ve told you about a college professor with whom I’m on conversational terms. A few years ago when I told him about the Christian-Newsom torture-murders in Knoxville, Tennessee, it took Professor F. one second to say: “Have you ever seen the movie Deliverance?’

Another time I mentioned the high number of black on white crimes and he said: “I’m more concerned about blacks hanging from trees in the 1920’s.”

Professor F.’s excuse for any black dysfunction is basically “white people are also bad.” In conversation with me he acknowledged white people have higher IQ’s, but “some blacks are smarter than some whites.” About black-run cities and countries being hopelessly corrupt, he said “Boston has always been corrupt.”

That being said, Professor F. had no sympathy whatsoever for the Knoxville killers and thought they deserved the death penalty.

James P. writes:

David B.’s college professor’s response to a tale of black violence against whites has an analogy in the typical liberal response to stories about Muslim violence against non-Muslims. When confronted with such stories, liberals immediately call attention to past “injustices” against Muslims, such as the Crusades, and argue that the possibility of imaginary non-Muslim attacks on Muslims (“backlash”) is of far greater concern than actual Muslim attacks on non-Muslims. And of course, the liberal prescription in both cases is the same — if Muslims or blacks become violent, then we must intensify the struggle against the white racism that caused the violence, and we must appease them with material resources and extravagant displays of regret for their justified grievances.

Ed H. writes:

Your proposed Institute for the Study of Liberal Society is a first rate idea. A formal institute whose existence is devoted to exposing Liberalism as nothing more than a set of unquestioned assumptions and preconditioned responses. It would have a devastating effect on Liberals who assume that their opinions are based in the natural order of things. The entire “progressive” notion of history would be deconstructed as nothing more political power seeking. The use of scientific studies of Liberals’ preconditioned responses would also be devastating. It would be effective because Liberals simply do not understand their own assumptions, and have no way of even contemplating what traditional Conservatism is about. We understand them, they have no way of understanding us The fact that a real institute exists and has meetings, and engages ideas on a high level without partisan affiliation would be a great corrective.

October 13

James P. writes:

David B.’s college professor’s response to a tale of black violence against whites has an analogy in the typical liberal response to stories about Muslim violence against non-Muslims. When confronted with such stories, liberals immediately call attention to past “injustices” against Muslims, such as the Crusades, and argue that the possibility of imaginary non-Muslim attacks on Muslims (“backlash”) is of far greater concern than Muslim attacks on non-Muslims that have actually occurred. And of course, the liberal prescription in both cases is the same—if Muslims or blacks become violent, then we must intensify the struggle against the white racism that caused the violence, and we must appease them with material resources and extravagant displays of regret for their justified grievances.

Earl writes:

As a control, you would need to ask the liberal friend about some terrible atrocity committed by a white against a black.

James P. writes:

How long do you think it would take for the Institute for the Study of Liberal Society to become left-wing in accordance with Conquest’s Law? =)

LA replies:

Presumably it wouldn’t happen, because under Conquest’s (or O’Sullivan’s) Law that only happens to organizations that are not explicitly non-liberal.

Gintas writes:

“The thing to be studied is, when a liberal is told of such a black-on-white assault or murder, how many seconds will pass before he brings the conversation around to the subject of white racism?”

You could do this with mainstream conservatives, too; what differentiates them is how long before they add some form of “I’m not a racist.”

Gintas writes:

The notion of putting liberalism itself, and liberals, formally under the microscope intrigues me immensely. Are there any wealthy men who would fund this? I could only think of Taki, and so we’d need to put “Liberalism and Celebrity Gossip” as a research subject in our proposal to get him on board.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 11, 2012 09:56 AM | Send