In the newspaper article cited in my last blog, John Ivison says the “populism” that has dragged “conservatism” away from the center is rooted in a disdain for both “science and reason.” Mentioning a couple of “progressive” Conservatives he would like to see lead their party into the next election, he says he doubts they will be able to do so given the prevalence on the Right of a “headlong charge towards dogmatism.”
It is “dogmatism,” no doubt, which he sees as the cause of the recent removal of Erin O’Toole from the leadership of the Conservative Party. O’Toole, either on principle or in a cynical attempt to pander to the biases of a predominantly “progressive” Canadian public, seemed barely distinguishable from Trudeau on a number of major issues. Perhaps he was Ivison’s ideal of a “Progressive Conservative.” But that term to me is a meaningless oxymoron and O’Toole’s politics a betrayal of the very essence of “conservatism.” Does this mean I’m a dogmatist incapable of compromise or are certain principles unassailable and beyond dispute. If one is confronted by an Ideology that literally denies the Facts of Empirical Reality, ought one to kindly compromise with it or, as an intelligent being, carry on in defense of the Truth? If one’s “dogmatism” is rooted in “science and reason,” is it not those who would contest it that are in fact beleaguered by a “tribal” mentality?
A “truth” almost universally accepted on the Left is that differences amongst people formerly attributed to Biology are really the result of “social constructs.” Women, feminists argue, are barely represented in certain technological fields because the “patriarchy” has conspired to exclude them. But in The Sexual Paradox Susan Pinker cites extensive evidence that little boys and girls, in the first months of their lives, well before society could have invaded their minds, tend to respond in radically different ways to the same sets of circumstances, implying therefore that Biology has much to do with the choices they make later in life. This is not to suggest there are not arrogant Male jerks out there who feel that Women “ought” to conform to certain stereotypes, but rather that the statistical differences in the numbers of Men and Women in various professions are absolutely, unequivocally, the result of very real biological factors. And yet I have before me a stack of newspaper articles culled over the last several years arguing passionately that Women are under-represented in various professions because of their oppression by Men. No evidence of that oppression is ever given because the statistics apparently speak for themselves. But they do not. It is an argument that brazenly ignores the facts of Human Biology. It is an argument typical of the disconnect from Reality that pervades the irrational Left. Yet those of that mind-set never cease mocking the ignorance of the “populist” Right!
Are there religious fundamentalists on the Right convinced the Universe was created in 6 days by a Deity who rested on the 7th? Of course there are. But while they are constantly invoked by the Left as typical of the unscientific dementia that informs “conservative” politics, they are given no credence whatsoever by the various rational, intelligent “classical liberals” cited in my last blog. The “conservatism” defended here is in fact devoted to both Science and Reason while the mainstream Left violates those Enlightenment values daily at the behest of their “feelings.”
And so Lia Thomas, a biological male who now identifies as a female, has been allowed, not by some extremist fringe but by a major American University, to compete as a woman on Penn State’s swim team. That she/he was unable to have much of an impact when competing against males while now dominating those of his newly assumed gender, is unequivocal evidence of the significant biological differences between Men and Women. Yes, some on the Left have spoken out in defense of the millions of females whose athletic careers might be compromised should transgenders be universally entitled to compete against them. But given that minorities are sacrosanct to the Left, no matter the integrity of their behavior, the silence from that quarter on Lia’s dominance over her competition has been deafening. No one is demonizing transgenders. I do not care how you “identify.” But a sane society, a rational society, must demand that those such as Thomas accept that they are not in fact indistinguishable from biological females and have no right to expect to be treated as such.
While the mainstream culture disparages as “deniers” those who dare question the narrative of our radical environmentalists, that narrative is, to anyone not crippled by bias, no more than a hypothesis. Research the subject and you will learn that the geological record unequivocally shows the planet’s climate has fluctuated wildly throughout its history. At the same time Man is responsible for an insignificantly minor percentage of the carbon emissions that are apparently warming the earth. I cannot possibly engage in a detailed discussion of this subject at this time. But as the Left hates Capitalism, so also it hates the Industrialization it promoted. It’s not complicated. Ironically, of course, sanctimonious jerks such as Al Gore, David Suzuki and a host of Hollywood hypocrites have carbon footprints a thousand times greater than that of the average person. Investigate the academic career of American climatologist Judith Curry to see what happens to those who, in good conscience, dare question what are being presented to the mindless public as absolute certitudes. Science, Curry discovered, cannot compete with religious fanaticism. And it is that which best describes the mind-set of most on the contemporary Left, those who acknowledge Science and Reason when they validate their agenda while conveniently ignoring them when they do not, or, heaven forbid, might hurt someone’s feelings.