Leftists Use Science as Camouflage
Leftists have learned that the ‘science costume’ is their most effective means of propaganda.
Science is supposed to be apolitical. Why is so much of the science news profoundly leftist in view? Do leftists really have science on their side? We think not. Rather, it’s a consequence of political and cultural movements that began in the riots of the 1960s, when radicals crept into the universities and slowly took over. Now, many university departments lack a single conservative, especially in political ‘science,’ psychology and the biological sciences. The materialist aspect of leftist science can be traced back to Darwin and others like Comte du Buffon (16 September 2018).
Liberals are not necessarily leftists, because classical liberals believe in free speech. Leftists are totalitarians. They are pushing right now for a society of uniform acceptance of their goals: global governance, redistribution of wealth (socialism and communism) and radical materialism. Most of them are Darwinists. They advocate unlimited abortion and even infanticide and eugenics. Most of them are atheists who hate religion. Instead of appealing to evidence and logic, they use subversion to undermine traditional values and foment class warfare to increase the ranks of ‘victims’ who can be exploited for a socialist revolution. They engage in punishing those who refuse to kowtow to their redefinition of terms like sex, gender and marriage. They do this by mounting lawsuits, and coercing corporations and governments to make traditional values illegal. These haters accuse their opponents of hate.
Leftists also took over the environmental movement long ago, restructuring it as a communist front. Conservatives love nature, too, but they are often denied a voice in policy negotiations that pit individual freedom against global governance. You can usually detect leftism in science papers and news articles. The password is “climate change.”
So full of intolerance and hate are many leftists, their behavior can only be described as derangement. For instance, leftists cannot bear acknowledging any of the good things the conservative US president has achieved, such as lowering employment for blacks, Hispanics and women to historic levels. He is not with them; therefore, he is the enemy who must be stopped. The current impeachment hearings appear as inconsistent, hypocritical charges that amount to allegations in search of a crime. The goal posts move every month or so, as they search for new grounds on which to lodge impeachment charges that actually began before the President was sworn in. These same leftists overlook similar actions by previous presidents. If George Washington were president today, he might be impeached for “obstruction of Congress” (if Democrats were in the majority) and “abuse of power.”
Leftists have learned a useful propaganda tool: association with the good reputation of ‘science.’ It becomes an effective form of camouflage to hide their true intentions. But does science really support their views? Science would classify humans (and animals) as male and female, but we are seeing leading science journals cave to the LGBT movement, legitimizing transgenderism and homosexuality with a facade of ‘science’ when it is actually anti-science. Here are some examples of ‘science’ as camouflage for leftist propaganda. (Note that leading science news sites like Phys.org, EurekAlert and Medical Xpress just regurgitate press releases from universities uncritically; they are not in the business of balanced reporting.)
‘Doomsday Clock’ closer to midnight than ever (Phys.org). There is nothing scientific about the so-called ‘Doomsday Clock.’ There is no such clock. It’s a leftist propaganda tool that uses visualization and fearmongering to push global governance. Yet science journals and news sites dutifully report on this mythical Doomsday Clock. This week, the leftist scientist cabal moved the minute hand to “100 seconds to midnight,” and media jumped at the chance to scare people again into thinking we need a world government. Is there no skeptical reporter out there calling this stupid? Always look for the password: “the threat posed by climate change and a growing nuclear race loomed large.” Question: which nations pose the biggest nuclear threat these days? Answer: Iran and North Korea, both dictatorships. Yet according to this article, the biggest threat is Donald Trump, who scrapped the Iran Nuclear Deal (which many conservatives strongly opposed as appeasement that would have enabled Iran to obtain nuclear weapons), and whose unprecedented initiatives toward North Korea—not yet completed—have produced “no real results.” It’s always the conservative’s fault.
Trump removes protections for waterways, aiding developers (Phys.org). Notice the loaded words in the headline: “removes protections.” Undoubtedly the issues are complex, but with a few words in a headline, Trump is made to look like the enemy of science and clean water. What if he is simply returning radical policies back toward more sensible policies for all concerned? He is known as the consummate deal-maker, able to bring competing interests together. That should be seen as a good thing. But any move away from radicalism is portrayed in sinister language. And there’s the password again: “the nation’s wetlands, which provide buffers against flooding and climate change….”
Teen transgender access to pubertal suppression lowers suicidality (Medical Xpress). The spin is palpable in this article about transgenders. Numerous conservative sites, parents and pediatricians have warned about irreversible damage to children given puberty-blocking drugs, surgery and other measures before the children are able to grow into their biological nature. But with a pretty picture of a doctor smiling with a woman and her daughter (if that’s what she identifies with), this article says that letting pre-pubescent teens have their dangerous drugs is a good thing! Why? Because it might suppress ‘suicidality’ some day. Who wouldn’t want to lower the risk of teen suicide? You see how the spin works. Leftists are actively working to teach and promote transgenderism to students, and prevent parents from opting out or even knowing about the indoctrination. Some schools prevent parents from intervening in a student’s ‘choice’ to go transgender, denying them any input or even knowledge of life-altering treatments that will change the child’s life forever. This is the manner of totalitarians. They don’t want debate. They don’t want discussion. They don’t want science getting in their way. (For a good source evaluating these complex issues in a compassionate way with well-referenced voices from all sides, see Nancy Pearcey’s book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality.)
Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons (The Conversation). Here’s an example of a ‘professor’ (Wow! A professor!) applying Darwinism to support a leftist goal: the removal of traditional values about human sex roles and responsibilities. What could be more anti-science—anti-Darwinist, even— than endorsing behavior that leaves no offspring? Professor Andrew Barron of Macquarie University dishes out a just-so story about how homosexuality evolved, but then insists in the end that the story doesn’t matter, because everything evolved.
…we think asking how gay sex and attraction evolved is the wrong question.
A more useful question to ask is: how did human sexuality evolve in all its forms?
In doing [so], we acknowledge homosexuality does not present a paradox needing a special explanation. It is simply a result of our species’ recent sociosexual evolution.
Notice the tontological formulation of his questions (“Who’s ‘we,’ paleface?”). Don’t let propagandists draw you into their net.
Can capitalism solve capitalism’s problems? (The Conversation). Don’t be confused by this website’s name. If it were a ‘Conversation’ you would read an occasional conservative point of view and hear an open marketplace of ideas. This is a leftist echo chamber endorsing Darwinism, abortion, radical environmentalism, and all the rest in the camo uniform of ‘Science.’ Notice how ‘Professor’ Elizabeth Schmidt poses the question, focusing on capitalism’s problems—not its many benefits (see Prager U)—and failing to mention socialism’s disasters (Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea). Her only argument for socialism seems to be polls that show a lot of ignorant young people think it would be cool. Of course, they were raised in leftist schools that taught leftist history and never learned about the horrors of socialism wherever it has been tried. (Exercise: Look for the “climate change” password in the article.)
Judges deny abortion care to teens (University of Colorado at Boulder). A more biased headline could hardly be concocted. This far-left university in Colorado omits the fact that abortion kills a human life. How does anyone call that ‘care’? What a mean ol’ judge to deny a teenager an opportunity to kill her baby.
“We found that judges are denying girls abortion care with impunity, potentially based on their own personal political opinions,” said lead author Amanda Stevenson, an assistant professor of sociology who studies reproductive health policies.
Oh, but leftists have such pure motives. They would never base their policy of death on “their own personal political opinions.” Notice the euphemism “reproductive health policies.” The baby girls who never saw the light of day will never have an option for “reproductive health” because their mother killed them (recall that more than half of aborted babies are female). Readers should be celebrating any judge who intervenes in the killing of baby girls and boys. Since Roe v. Wade 47 years ago, some 60 million children in the USA alone have been murdered in abortion centers. One Senator is calling for a “day of tears” for the lost lives, and President Trump will be the first US President to speak at the annual March for Life. To leftists, children are biological waste to be discarded in the garbage. But they have ‘science’ on their side, don’t they?
We’re waiting for readers to show us pro-conservative science articles. No responses yet.