How do people react when asked to think logically, and you show them an uncomfortable pairing of facts or positions? Many people react badly. Consider:
Take the idea of Global warming / Climate Change, where human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming and will destroy the planet. It’s a common theme in science text books, and a common item of what is essentially dogma by those on the political left. They use it to demand that we do all sorts of things RIGHT NOW to cut CO2 emissions in order to save the planet!! Do it for THE CHILDREN!
Then there is the position that we should have virtually open borders, that anyone who makes it here should be given asylum / citizenship / etc., that “America” is a proposition nation, and everyone and anyone can come. We have to let them in, so they can have a better, more comfortable life. Do it for The CHILDREN!
Ahem. Really? Put these two things side by side. Note that the US has a carbon footprint of 16.5 tons of carbon a year, and Guatemala has about 1.5, and Haiti has about 0.3 tons. Immigrants almost invariably use considerably more energy in the US than in their home nation. Indeed, lack of relatively cheap and reliable energy is part of what makes their country suck so bad they want to leave. These two positions are diametrically opposed.
So, what must be true of a person who espouses these two conflicting items?
- They might simply be ignorant of how those things interact and work in the real world, and never put them side-by-side. They may reconsider their positions (one or both) in light of this revelation. This is what we can work with.
- They might be to stupid to actually process the ideas, and how the mechanisms of each work enough to actually see the conflict. You can’t fix stupid, but with persistence maybe they can see the light. Pity them.
- They might be insane, and simply refuse to acknowledge or see the conflict. Their brains compartmentalize the two topics so completely they will talk about how much better an immigrant’s life will be with A/C and decent food with a balanced protein-rich diet one minute, and about the need to use less A/C and reduce animal-product consumption the save the planet from climate change the next, and totally miss the disconnected connection.
- They might be a fraud. They may know that the CO2 / Climate Change thing is bull, but push it for various partisan political purposes.
- They might be evil. They KNOW they are in conflict, but they desire the conflict and destruction that results. There are a variety of reasons they might want this, but I’ll leave most of them as an exercise for the reader.
- Genocidal. Several groups or nations might think to flood western nations with low-skill foreigners hoping to “Camp of Saints” them and kill off enough whites in western nations so they cannot oppose said groups / countries. The crushing economic effects of drastically cutting carbon emissions (i.e., energy use) while flooding in more people who will become reliant on handouts and high-tech solutions they cannot create or maintain (or they would have in their home nation), while stoking racial animosity, will combine to bring down western nations. The resulting world-wide die-off would be… almost unimaginable.
- Similar to “evil,” they might be treasonous. That is they know the combination will (eventually) crash our economy and government, and are hoping that when the dust from the civil war settles they’ll be the new leaders on top of the new order. They use the conflict to prep the battle-field, as it were.
So: ignorant, stupid, insane, fraudulent, evil, genocidal, treasonous, evil…. Did I miss any?
So, when you spell it out to someone, how would a rational person react? OTOH, how does your typical left-wing activist react?
And, as a question: I can’t be the first person to juxtapose these two things and notice this, can I?