Principles don't care about your facts

I have no love of Ben Shapiro nor of Ayn Rand. The first is a Zionist shill for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the second founded a literal Gospel of Greed. But each of them articulated a different version of the same idea. Shapiro likes to say "facts don't care about your feelings" while Rand once said "nature to be commanded must be obeyed." 

Both phrases are overplayed, both use facts to conceal the principles of their advocates (barbaric principles), and both also articulate a truth. 

Buy something terrible has happened in western civilization: ought became is. Let me explain. 

First there was tradition, it said "things are certain way therefore they ought to be that way." Usually the phrasing for this logic went something like "but that's the way it has always been!" 

Then both Hume's guillotine and the Industrial Revolution came along and said "just because things are a certain way does not mean they ought to be that way." 

For those who don't know the Scottish philosopher David Hume came up with a principal known as Hume's guillotine, a principle which says that the fact that things are a certain way does not establish that they ought to be that way. Hence the break with tradition. It is called a guillotine because it slices a traditional premise in half. Tradition says is therefore ought, Hume's principle separates the is from the ought. 

If you ask any liberal educated in philosophy they will tell you that they believe in Hume's principle, but they do not, and they don't know it. Because what they actually believe in is ought therefore is. For example; 

• It ought to be possible to create a democracy in Afghanistan, therefore it is 
• Trans women ought to be women, therefore they are
• Biological women should have the same capabilities as men, therefore they do
• Biological women should be able to keep up with trans women in sports, therefore they can
• Any society ought to be able to win a mathematics Fields medal, therefore they can 
• Putting black kids in white schools should raise their achievement, therefore it will 
• Homeless people ought to have high levels of agency just like us, therefore we should be able to make them functional addicts by giving them needles
• NASA should not need white male engineers, therefore it doesn't 
• Chinese should not be better at capitalism, therefore we can compete with them in manufacturing 
• Because global warming is a problem you should be able to live with less energy 
• Degrowth ought to be a successful electoral platform, therefore it is 
• We ought to be able to when elections while hating men, therefore we can

The basic leftist principle could be principles don't care about your facts.

Somehow Western Civilization went from tradition to Hume's guillotine to delusion. Why?

Because people got so used to technology overthrowing society's values they just adopted revolution in values as a value itself. Now they think they can just make the revolution happen without a corresponding previous revolution in technology. And because the human mind is bad at understanding the fundamental principles behind what is going on this takes the most crass form of ideological rationalization. In essence, the demand for change gets well ahead of the technological facilitation of that change. This is a sort of wishing makes it so way of thinking. These people write vast ideological tracts to cast a spell and turn a wish into a reality. Progressive spell casting is basically most PhD thesis in non-STEM subjects. Change became the tradition, so change must occur regardless of whether it is possible or founded on a material basis. 

People don't believe me when I say that science has mostly exhausted itself. All the low-hanging fruit has been picked, meaning that if there is technology to develop it is typically already been developed. It is far easier to build an engine in your garage than a self-driving car. Technologies progress thru a simple to synthetic process.

First simple technologies are developed. Then those technologies are synthesized (combined) into more complex technologies. The computer for example is a synthesis of integrated circuits, LED lights, battery technology, plastic technology, and many others I'm not thinking of. 

The automobile is a synthetic technology composed of machined parts, rubber tires, alloy wheels, windshield glass technology, motors that raise and lower the windows, battery technology, computer technology.

First all the simple technologies get developed, then they get combined into more and more complex configurations. 

Physics has mostly stalled and this is because technological and scientific revolution is a curve and as you go up that curve for the cost of discovery becomes more and more expensive. Or to put in another way, the cost of cracking particles requires a bigger and bigger accelerator. Without increase in fundamental scientific knowledge there is no corresponding increase in technology. A lot of racism is directed towards minorities for "compromising"  the sciences but science hit the beginning of the hockey stick curve before minorities were welcomed into the universities. Basically, they ran out of new science so they hired and recruited brown people to keep the institutions growing.

To circle back to the previous discussion on how ought becomes is, liberalism is destined to die because the very nature of science and the increase in cost of new science means technological revolutions will occur farther and farther apart. It will take more time in between revolutions, and that means it will take more time for new values to be realized and become permanent. In the meantime the left will get way ahead of the process, it's revolutions will fail, and it will be continuously discredited by jumping the gun. It will also attack the very science necessary for its own values revolution, and attack the white males who have been the most valuable players in that revolution. 

It's going to slow down if not stop entirely, it's going to alienate the core group necessary for technological revolution. It's going to slow or stall new values revolution, and it's old values revolutions are going to continue to fail since they were never substantiated by technological change. They never actually made everyone the same. The technology allowed some surface level changes but vast differences still remained. The gulf between this anticipation and reality is the failure of the left.