One of the things fundamental to science is establishing categories and their clear definitions. In that spirit, I group all the socialists, the communists, the dictators, and the progressives into the anti-liberty crowd. There may be differences among them in terms of degree of collectivist oppression, but they are all arrayed against the founding documents of our country.
Advertisement-content continues below
The anti-liberty crowd has been very vocal about how they are guided by science. They have accused the US of promoting a scientifically unsustainable lifestyle of gluttony of energy and food at the expense of other countries. They promote their top-down policies through the so-called anthropogenic global warming hoax. They have declared that our founding documents are backwards and not suitable for the current high technology environment.
Their climb to power through their declared scientific affinity started with Woodrow Wilson claiming that our Constitution was modeled on outdated Newtonian physics, while Darwinian Theory was being touted at more appropriate. He wanted to get rid of separation of powers and checks and balances under that pretext that they were impediments to his collectivist vision. The anti-liberty crowd then advocated eugenics to eliminate the “weak” races for the good of humanity. Margaret Sanger used the twisted interpretation of the science of the day to set up Planned Parenthood to reduce the “inferior” Negro race. The anti-Liberty crowd in Russia and China wanted to modernize agriculture by establishing scientifically superior collectives and command and control economies. Millions perished under Stalin and Mao. The anti-Liberty crowd chalked that up as an incidental damage necessary for a superior end.
They are now promoting the “renewable” energy, unlimited abortion blurring the infanticide boundary, and gay “marriage,” destroying the family unit necessary for the ideals of founding principles to endure. Each one of those can be shown to be anti-scientific.
The solar and wind energy (or the “renewable” energy) can never economically replace the conventional sources of energy because the former sources are diffused when they need to be highly concentrated. Electrical energy cannot be stored at levels that are practical. No amount of taxpayer subsidy can replace the “renewables” as an alternative to the conventional sources. Just ask yourself this question: If wind power is so great, how come the sailing ships gave way to steam power with coal, oil, and nuclear energy sources?
Advertisement-content continues below
Since the Progressives claim to be followers of the Darwinian theory of evolution, with natural selection underpinning it to perpetuate the species, how could they forego its consistency when it comes to the promotion of homosexual relationships on par with the naturally-favored heterosexual relationship? They say that the theory of creationism was unsupported by science; and yet, they promote homosexuality as value-equivalent. How can there be a homosexual marriage when it can never be consummated? Biologically, anatomically, and emotionally, the male and female of the species have evolved to maximize perpetuation of the human race. Homosexuality cannot be supported on a scientific basis.
How about abortion and the anti-Liberty crowd’s staunch support of it, unlimited right up to birth? Prior to the advent of the Sonogram, they characterized the developing human life in the womb as an accumulation of tissue blobs. With the sonogram, a mother can clearly see the human baby in her womb with heart-beating sounds, limb and body movements, and its ability to experience pain. The once-vague definition of life was put in sharper focus that clearly acknowledges human life in the womb. No longer could any rational person ignore that scientific reality. The anti-Liberty crowd, sensing that their argument of unlimited abortion is falling apart because of science, has assumed their favorite position of demonizing anyone who stands in their way (as science has let them down.)
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.