There was a time I believed that those on the right, or conservatives, were the anti-science party. I felt that their denial of obvious scientific reality clearly made the right wing the anti-science party. For the most part, a lot of conservatives believe in God, and their religion would come into conflict with science. In short, for someone to deny elements of science almost requires a higher being or calling that one believes supersedes science.
The left, for years, has claimed a monopoly on scientific reasoning. I have now found what I believe the analog is to the religious right in regards to science on the left. The left does have a higher belief that supersedes science. It’s not an actual deity, it is in altruism and benevolence, AT ANY COST, but more importantly, the need to have others SEE your altruism. You see, for evangelical conservatives, they believe in God, and every belief in their life works down from there. It’s their filter on the perception of life. God trumps everything, so anything in conflict with God must conform to their belief in Him, including science. For the left, in the absence of God, the primary need in life is to feel like a good, benevolent person and be acknowledged as such. I addressed this in my article the Anti-Progressive. Modern leftism is basically a religion, a religion wherein everything must conform to a higher principle. For a left winger, everything must make them feel like a good person, no matter how ridiculous that thing is.
I sent out a tweet the morning of Hurricane Irma. The tweet was a response to a New York Times article calling President Trump a science denier in regards to the Hurricanes. The claim is that hurricanes are clear proof of climate change (which they aren’t), and so any denial of that fact is heresy and labels one a science denier. In the tweet, I stated, “The party that can’t even tell you how many genders there are thinks President Trump is at war with science.” This tweet is, of course, a result of the recent leftist orthodoxy that gender is a choice. I immediately received several responses, but a couple stuck with me.
“Gender isn’t biology, sex is.”
A second tweet read as follows:
“You are ill-informed. Sex is what chromosomes you have, and Gender is how you feel.”
Gender is how you feel. Gender isn’t biology. Up until today, I could never understand how the party that claims it’s all about science could say patently idiotic things like this that are so detached from reality it defies description. Then I remembered the primary tenant of the left: One must feel like a good person, at any cost. This is their religion. As Christians start from God and work their way down from there, so too do progressives. When you start from the tenant that “I am, and must be a good person” and work down from there, it really explains a lot. The irony is that is something we should all strive for. Of course we should all strive to be good people, however, most of us operate within the confines of reality. For the left, however, this is orthodoxy and should be enforced as they see fit, science be damned. So, since someone who is a man feels like a girl, all of society and science should conform to their belief, because to do otherwise would not make one a good person. I’ll be patiently waiting for the girl that FEELS like a man to make an NFL team and be introduced to biology.
We see the same detachment from reality in climate change. The earth, and the people on it are their god. Without the actual God, they have made the earth their god, and by extension all of the people on it. Climate change threatens the earth, and all of the people on it, so therefore in order to be a good person, one must fight climate change. When you start from the premise that one must be a good person, then accept that climate change is true, anything is permitted to stop it. This is why they have no compunctions about globalist wealth redistribution as we saw in the Paris Accords. You see, even the well being of one’s own nation is below being a good person and climate change in the hierarchy of left wing orthodoxy. In a way, I find it admirable how progressives want so badly to be good people. Unfortunately, they lose the argument about being good people the minute they decided to thought police and assault those who dissent. It’s interesting how being a good person doesn’t apply when experiencing dissent. Of course, this is understandable because, from their point of view, we are standing in the way of their fantasy utopian society. We are evil because we accept reality as it is, not as we’d like it to be.
The problem the left cannot, and will never address until it’s too late, is they cannot account for human nature. They actually believe that because they are good, so too must everyone else have innate goodness. Anyone who has any semblance of historical knowledge or even current events knows this to be false. This also explains their overwhelming desire to have unlimited immigration. When you believe restricting immigration to millions of third world migrants makes you a bad person, then borders become unacceptable. Take any modern progressive issue, be it immigration, health care, climate, or gender, they all start from the same premise: I have to be a good person at any cost, and I will destroy those who stand in the way of me being a good person. In addition, with social media being so pervasive these days, the need for others to see you being a good person, even if it’s just virtue signaling, becomes paramount. The left competes in a sort of Altruism Olympics, competing to see who can be the most virtuous, a game that usually ends with them eating their own since no one can be virtuous enough.
Whether it be Hitler, Stalin, Mao, warlords, or radical Islam, they cannot come to the truth that there are always going to be bad people and degenerate cultures. They believe that if they just love hard enough, the bad people will change their ways. We see this in the wake of every terrorist attack, where they are all about hope and love, yet not about any measures that solve the underlying issue. I actually think that’s a noble feeling, but noble feelings don’t build long term, stable, exceptional civilizations. Laws, Science, Morality, Values, and Freedom do. This is why Western Civilization is the greatest example of civilization on the planet, and the principles have been adopted virtually everywhere. Conservatives are overwhelmingly altruistic, but they generally believe in building one’s own country first, to enable being more generous to others. If America is powerful and wealthy, then we have the ability to help more people globally. Take a look at Africa. Americans have poured billions into that continent, and now life expectancy and populations are booming. Could we have done that as a weak and poor nation? Imagine if you will, America absorbs all of the African population that is worse off than us. That’s probably on the order of a Billion plus. Now put them all on universal healthcare, free college, and welfare. This country would be dead within a year, and that’s without considering cultural assimilation. Now consider the alternative, we build our strength and wealth, then pump billions into Africa, which is exactly what we’ve done.
The reality is, conservatives generally take the world as it is, and work to improve it. Progressives have a fantasy that bears no resemblance to actual reality, that has no chance of success, yet they work tirelessly for it.
Their god is altruism, and they worship it, even if it gets us all killed.