Lion of the Blogosphere

The just-world fallacy and immigration (and abortion)

Part of a comment left about immigration and Democrats:

“At some point eventually Democrats will have to realize that illegal immigration is ruinous for everything they hold dear…”

The ruinous nature of illegal immigration (and of a lot of legal immigration) to America’s future could hardly be more obvious now. WTF are these people thinking?

No, they won’t see the ruinous nature because of the just-world fallacy. As explained at the RationalWiki:

The just world hypothesis, also known as the just world fallacy, is the idea that all actions have predictable and just consequences. The hypothesis implies (although sometimes only subconsciously) a belief in some sort of universal force that ensures moral balance in the world, in such a way that a person who exhibits good and moral behavior will eventually be rewarded, while evil and immoral actions will eventually be punished. It is both a concept in theology and considered to be a cognitive bias in psychology.

Because liberals believe that allowing immigration is morally just, and restricting immigration is evil, they will NEVER believe that bad things can happen by doing the morally just thing.

We see the same fallacy in effect on this blog whenever I point out that abortion brings good results for society. Anti-abortion evangelists refuse to believe any of the statistics or evidence about abortion that disagrees with their worldview that God or some universal force or whatever will reward us for restricting abortion and punish us for allowing it.

The commenter ends by alleging that liberals have an “insane hatred of normal white people.” But liberals believe that pro-life people have an insane hatred of women. According to an article in NY Magazine, “the prevailing sentiment among abortion rights activists is that the anti-abortion movement is just applied misogyny.” So there’s a second fallacy in misattributing your ideological enemies’ motivations.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 18, 2019 at 12:37 PM

Posted in Immigration

39 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Correct; when bad things happen as a result of liberal policies, liberals just attribute those things to conservative policies. They concoct some ex post facto explanation in their heads about how the bad things must have happened as the result of conservative policies and it never even crosses their mind to contemplate that those things might have actually resulted from liberal policies.


    June 18, 2019 at 1:14 PM

    • Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9-11 on pagans abortionists feminists gays lesbians and the ACLU for making God angry by secularizing America.

      Fundamentalist Christian Republicans and 21st Century far left Cultural Marxists will blame literally every problem in the world on each other.


      June 18, 2019 at 5:43 PM

      • Even if 9/11 wasn’t the direct result of God’s anger at America, it was the result of liberal policies (Muslim immigration.)


        June 19, 2019 at 12:21 AM

  2. The more self-aware liberals understand that immigration may have negative consequences, but they assume (probably correctly) that they will use their brains, money and connections to avoid those consequences.

    Justice Duvall

    June 18, 2019 at 1:45 PM

    • Also, the most wealthy, well-connected, and astute of the elite have already presumably prepared bolt-holes for their escape should the United States collapse completely.

      Oswald Spengler

      June 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM

    • Yes, uncontrolled immigration may have negative consequences for people who don’t have the brains, money and connections to avoid those consequences. But this is a small price to pay for people who can avoid those consequences to know that they did the right thing.


      June 18, 2019 at 5:36 PM

    • The Swedish elite are in denial about some of appallingly awful immigrants they invited in. Throwing grenades is now a thing. Now there’s been a bombing.

      Can someone tell me how you load photos to a comment (without creating a tweet)?

      They’re in denial about the poor overall quality of the Syrians too. There will be lots of exceptions, but this is an awfully poor way to bring in migrants: just let in any Syrian who shows up, no questions asked.

      I read an article about a man running a Syrian refugee camp. He said it was the worst he’d seen and he’d seen a lot. Organized crime was running the place. Some people were leaving the camp, preferring to take their chances back in Syria.

      And why do refugees get to stay on? Why don’t they have go back when things calm down?

      Frau Katze

      June 18, 2019 at 8:43 PM

    • This paragraph sums it up

      According to the prevailing ideology of the Swedish political establishment, this wave of violence, which is baffling to many European neighbours, should not be happening. A longstanding cornerstone of the country’s political conversation dictates that crime must be understood in socio-economic terms, and that welfare provisions are a cure-all against violence and social unrest. Yet Sweden is one of Europe’s most generous welfare states.

      Frau Katze

      June 18, 2019 at 8:48 PM

      • The Swedes are a high-trust, high-IQ people. Their high levels of trust make them easy to manipulate, both by low-trust outsiders and by their own government. Their high-IQ’s make it easy for them to rationalize their subversion. Thus, you have the mess engineered by their government.


        June 19, 2019 at 12:33 AM

      • Plenty of Swedes opposed to immigration though. I’ve encountered them online.

        It also doesn’t explain why Danes have been much stricter. Norwegians aren’t quite the same pushovers either.

        I have a theory that’s it’s because Sweden sat out both world wars and sold iron ore to Hitler happily (that doesn’t mean that every Swede agreed with that policy of course.)

        By contrast, Hitler invaded both Denmark and Norway. After being finally chased out of Norway, the Germans used scorched earth tactics as they withdrew.

        Sweden ended the war prosperous and with no damage.

        Frau Katze

        June 19, 2019 at 6:31 PM

  3. I don’t know if it’s the Just-World fallacy but you see this all this all the time where people’s beliefs are remarkably aligned. For example vegans will tell you that their diet is 1) better for the animals, 2) much healthier, 3) better for the planet, 4) less expensive, 5) easier to prepare, and 6) tastes better. According to them there are no drawbacks whatsoever.

    Cognitive Miser

    June 18, 2019 at 2:16 PM

    • That’s called choice-supportive bias. I’ve heard observant Jews doing basically the same thing to try and justify their diet.


      June 18, 2019 at 5:31 PM

    • Cognitive miser,

      People who have to make such rationalizations for their diets means their diets don’t actually work.

      And the joke is on the vegans. The vegans are massive consumers of sugars and carbs. They are like the other sugartarian group…the vegetarians.

      Heck, the paleo people eat more fruits and vegetables than the vegans/vegetarians.


      June 19, 2019 at 12:36 AM

  4. There are also the people who are happy when their schemes end in disaster. The resultant suffering just proves how much they are willing to sacrifice for the cause. I’ve seen this among two groups: Christian missionary types, and hippie protestor types. It’s honestly scary because sometimes they want to drag others with them when they go down.

    This is different than what Lion is talking about, but it falls on a spectrum. My experience has been that most overly moralistic people believe in the just-world fallacy either explicitly or implicitly, and with various caveats. When they’re closer to the middle of the spectrum they may dismiss the obvious negative consequences of poor decisions using phrases like “everything happens for a reason”. When they get out closer to the end of the spectrum, they can dismiss fatally bad consequences with talk about being “rewarded in heaven”.

    There’s a smooth progression and the last stop for deontological extremism is knowingly doing things that harm everyone and benefit no one because those things are inherently “right”. Even on this last stop, there are shades and degrees. Some people try to avoid those situations, others try a little less hard. Still others subconsciously seek them out, while the most extreme schedule them.

    Some of the hippie types I knew would arrange for friends to take care of their pets weeks before they got arrested. There’s a masochistic streak in these people. I’ve never met Megan Rice, who broke into Oak Ridge Laboratories in 2012 and spent years in prison for a single act of trespassing and vandalism with red pain, but I’ve known people who were very much like her.

    The ones I’ve known started out in Christian religious groups that instilled children with lots of guilt and a sense of their own sinfulness. Rice herself was a nun and a missionary to Africa decades before she became a peacenik. These people who started out with more traditional views of what constituted sinfulness later adopted modern left-wing dogma about sin, and plugged it into their existing framework for understanding guilt, sin, behavior, and consequences.

    Instead of ranting about “fornication” “idolatry” and “drunkenness”, their moral language concerns itself with “profits” and “racism”. “Mother earth” who had been heavily demoted under Christianity started getting promoted back to full goddesshood.

    In 1996 Chris Rock joked that a black man gets more love coming out of jail than coming out of college. His complaint was that someone who is a failure is seen as being more ‘authentic’ than another person who is a success. The greatest heroes in Christianity were martyrs. The more quixotic they were, the greater their faith. Most of these people lived and died long long ago, although I personally met a Christian missionary who went on to be martyred for his faith. I had deep reservations about his life decisions. Leftist heroes are more recent, less peaceful, just as quixotic, and more prone to forcing the consequences for their decisions on others.

    I don’t think we should attack the just-world fallacy. Puritans, Mennonites, and everyone in a monastic order expects to live a life of self denial and then be rewarded in the afterlife. Televangelists and people in Mega Churches expect to be rewarded in the afterlife, but they also think God will make them rich successful, and healthy in this life. Between these two extremes lie all the rest of the Christians, who account for 75% of all Americans.

    If we look at the remaining 25% of Americans, we have some avowed atheists who feel guilty for their “environmental impact”, and who carry signs that say “You will die of old age. We will die of climate change”. This is an apocalyptic world view that’s largely a rip off of older apocalyptic thinking, mostly coming from Christianity.

    Any time you try to stamp out all superstation, the best you can hope for is that it will rear its head in a new form. Before the first leftie started “eating organic to be more sustainable”, there were Protestant denominations associated with the temperance movement preaching against the consumption of even one drop of “the demon alcohol”. Before they existed there were Catholics abstaining from eating meat on Lent. Before that there were first century Christians worried about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Before them, the Jews had dietary prohibitions no less complicated than any of the ones that followed. Do you think food taboos might be caused by innate human thinking about purity?

    The just-world fallacy in all its forms is not going away. Both the extremist self-denial Christians, and the extremist prosperity gospel Christians, hate abortion because they define it as sinful. The second group don’t believe that abortion lowers crime, and the first wouldn’t care if it did. Your only hope is to change their definition of what’s `really sinful`, and what isn’t.

    The leftists are more confused about the relative sinfulness of various activities and attitudes. They don’t have a holy bible or thousands of years of tradition to call on. They’re heavily reliant on fashion trends and outrage mobs to tell them what to think. That should make them easier to manipulate by anyone who controls the source of their propaganda.

    Most leftists genuinely believe that implementing their ideas, will make the world better for all future generations of humanity. Some leftists don’t even want humans to exist (for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). What unites them isn’t a shared vision of the future, it’s belief in sin and atonement. Change their idea of what sin is, and they will change their idea of how we must atone for it.


    June 18, 2019 at 5:27 PM

    • This is largely incorrect.

      Religious belief, true religious belief, comes from faith, the acceptance of the transcendent agency that built the world. Everything else is secondary. Nobody becomes holy through good works. Nobody becomes holy through studying religious texts. Nobody becomes holy through sacrifice or martyrdom. To say otherwise is a massive lie.

      Take martyrdom. The martyrs are sainted because, under the unrelenting pressure of the anti-Gods, they refused to recant their religion. They refused to denounce Christ. They refused to put any other Gods before them, including themselves. They died precisely when living for them would have been easy. That is why they are honored martyrs.

      A former nun running off to Africa to dig wells for the natives because she’s convinced herself that no one there knows how to dig a hole, is not a martyr. She is a fool who did not understand her religion to begin with.

      Seriously, traditional Christianity teaches that one must not be “of the world” because it belongs to the Devil. It teaches the temptations of the Flesh and the nature of original sin. Why would “environmentalism” or “dietary restrictions” be interpreted as holy? Why would sacrifice absent faith be valued? Well, it wouldn’t.

      Sometimes honoring God is not engaging in pagan practices like abortion. The Romans used to expose unwanted children to the elements. You know who was scooping up those kids? The early Christians, so much so that their example eventually converted all of Rome. All of the early “abortions” practiced by the Romans altered the demographics of Rome in time.

      Avoiding pagan practices like abortion, human sacrifice, earth-worshiping, and others is perfectly in-keeping with the Christian faith. It’s the least it can do.

      No, navel-gazing narcissism and neo-paganism and devil-worship is what motivates the Left. Abortion, as I have demonstrated, does bring any of the stated benefits, yet it is supported for these reasons.


      June 19, 2019 at 1:21 AM

      • does not bring any of the benefits.


        June 19, 2019 at 1:22 AM

      • What you’ve written demonstrates a hegemonic Eurocentric worldview which denies the lived experiences of POC. The patriarchy has used these structures of oppression to subjugate women of all genders. You clearly benefit from the patriarchy and have a vested interest in perpetuating cis-white structures of oppression.

        This is a form of othering; and as a cornerstone of whiteness it emboldens apologists for Islamophobia to instigate wars for blood and oil. In the past this othering led to the genocide of Latinx and other indigenous peoples. Dismantling these structures of whiteness is the most important thing humankind can do, and will be necessary before the planet can guarantee the rights of all global citizens and achieve sustainability by going carbon neutral.

        I’d like to hear where you stand on LGBTQIA+ rights. Are you an ally of these oppressed people who were denied a voice, and who continue to be unsafe in most of America? Will you stand up and help trans, gender non-conforming, and self-identified two spirit children to get life saving medical treatments like hormone blockers?

        That’s not ideology. That’s science. You’re the one who’s religious. I’m rational. This is not a debate.


        June 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM

      • MoreSigmasThanYou,

        And….so what?

        All of these people can go back to their own countries where they do not have to worry about “othering.”


        June 19, 2019 at 9:28 PM

      • MoreSigmasThanYou,

        Here is a good question to ask anyone who makes these statements:

        Do people who make this kind of argument really want to give you free healthcare, free college and good jobs…especially if you are white?


        June 19, 2019 at 9:32 PM

      • “Do people who make this kind of argument really want to give you free healthcare, free college and good jobs…especially if you are white?”

        Yes they do, because they have that in Europe, and liberals have massive Europe-envy.

      • Lion,

        If they have Europe envy then they would emulate Europe’s demographics.


        June 22, 2019 at 9:07 PM

  5. “The commenter ends by alleging that liberals have an “insane hatred of normal white people.” But liberals believe that pro-life people have an insane hatred of women. According to an article in NY Magazine, “the prevailing sentiment among abortion rights activists is that the anti-abortion movement is just applied misogyny.” So there’s a second fallacy in misattributing your ideological enemies’ motivations.”

    White liberals actually do have an anti-white animus though. Greater than White non-liberals pro-white animus. -13.7 vs 11.62.


    June 18, 2019 at 5:37 PM

  6. I am anti abortion not because I think it is not useful or might have bad consequences but because I think it is not moral to kill someone which I consider a human being. Same thing goes for people who believe that it is god commandment, it is not about whether it is good or not, you are not suppose to be smarter than god, just obey because you believe it is a higher entity which knows better than you. I think you are projecting here something on anti abortionists which is simply not there.


    June 18, 2019 at 7:54 PM

    • I can go either way, because you and Lion are both correct. Abortion is inarguably a form of homicide, but objectively serves a eugenic function. Like wise with the death penalty; Though killing the guilty is a far easier call than killing the innocent and helpless. God might even approve.

      Peyton Farquahr

      June 19, 2019 at 7:31 AM

  7. I’ve noticed a “we’re good people!” fallacy. I first noticed this with people who would say “we’re good people” and such and such were “bad people”. Is there anyone who thinks they’re not a “good” person? I’m sure there are a few but certainly not many. The reason is simple. Everyone has beliefs, values, etc of some sort. And, of course, people are going to think they’re good for believing in what they believe in and others are bad for not believing in what they believe in.


    June 19, 2019 at 12:12 AM

    • Destructure,

      A Democrat does not believe in truth. But, the Democrat wants to be convincing. The only way to be convincing when you don’t believe in truth is to make arguments that appear to go against your own interest. That’s why you see white people talking how evil white people are, the proverbial, “hello, fellow white people” that are common among the Left


      June 19, 2019 at 9:17 PM

  8. So now liberals are religious? They believe in some kind of karmic morality, which means the world is now filled with deities openly weighing the balance of positive-negative energy? I thought everything was random and godless.

    The liberal is a a drug-addled r-selected rabbit. They operate under the assumption that the world is boundless in its resources, like rabbits on open fields.


    June 19, 2019 at 12:13 AM

    • You can’t have it both ways. How can they be both non-religious and pagans at the same time? How can they operate under the assumption that the world is boundless in its resources while at the same time constantly screaming about how rich people hoarding all the wealth is what causes poor people to be poor?


      June 19, 2019 at 11:32 AM

      • The two are not mutually exclusive. Boundless resources exist but it is only the rich that are preventing the magic of this boundlessness from being utilized. It’s like the conspiracy that oil companies are preventing free energy from being developed.

        A pagan is someone non-religious to any Christian.


        June 19, 2019 at 9:13 PM

  9. Liberal immigration enthusiasm didn’t start as an anti-white thing, however, it necessarily entailed being indulgent towards people who really are anti-white (both various POCs and white far leftists) and this sentiment slowly seeps in to mainstream liberal consciousness. This leads to a bubbling off effect in which marginal white liberals become moderate conservatives, further decreasing the incentives to crack down on anti-white racism etc.

    This is a fairly representative example of the relationship between liberalism and leftism in general over the past century. It’s hard to define exactly what the relationship is exactly between the two parts, but the general phenomenon of well-intentioned, functional, intelligent people progressively taking on board the idea of deranged antisocial freaks is well established.

    Gabriel M

    June 19, 2019 at 3:35 AM

    • Which is why Biden is a threat in 2020. If the Democrats nominate an old white man with conventional political views, they can get back some of the votes that SJWs have been costing them.


      June 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM

  10. A good post by Lion. But I think the majority of folks would understand and believe that immigration is bad for social cohesion, wages, and the environment, were it to be clearly explained, but would still be afraid to openly oppose it because they fear being called out as a “bad person”.

    My goal, as an active member of an immigration restrictionist group, is to try to get people to articulate their opposition to immigration in “good person” terms: Hurts the poor, overcrowding, congestion, social unrest, hurtful to harmonious and inclusive communities… That also allows one to engage the issue in the public square without being subject of an auto-da-fe.

    Peyton Farquahr

    June 19, 2019 at 7:20 AM

  11. It’s also that for the people who favour immigration, it rarely has any adverse consequences for their own environnement. And, by endorsing a moral stance of empathy in general, people extracts a special self exonération to be selfish and mean in particular when it suits them.

    White people have not had a time when they were a substantial minority and they accepted to be treated like inferiors by other race.

    Their have been cases of Jews trading white slaves for Muslims (the radhavites jews from Bagdad trading blond european in Spain and jews from Samarkand trading non muslim oriental in China). But it was really small numbers. There is something like this with South African farmers offered to blacks. That’s anecdotical.

    So my prediction is that when the top 5% starts to feel some pain because of migrants, the tune will change completely and the actual alt right will sound liberal. I believe White people will make the blood flood the streets. Extermination is part of human DNA (or mammals). And it appears – when I read Reich books – that whites are the biggest predator Maybe that’s what justify the media attitude. Liberals are right when they notice Trump rallies are >90% whites and there is a racial component to the political stance. It’s still in embryonic stage.


    June 19, 2019 at 9:40 AM

  12. Great blog post, Lion, especially because of all the insightful comments it provoked.

    Yogi Berra famously said that you can observe a lot by watching.

    The flip side is that you can choose not to see what you don’t want to see. And maybe sometimes “not seeing” isn’t even a conscious choice. If “seeing” certain aspects of reality conflicts enough with hardwired human tendencies like status-seeking and tribal identity, then maybe the hardwiring causes you not to see those things without the need to make a conscious decision about it.

    Greg Cochran had a fascinating short blog post six years ago illustrating just how crazy human societies can get:

    “Just in case you might be thinking that the United States is the craziest country that has ever existed, I thought I would mention the Xhosa famine.”

    We’re still not up to that level of crazy, but I think we are quite a bit crazier than we were six years ago.

    Charles Littlewood

    June 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM

    • Imposing “Immigration as Vengeance” upon America might still be quite as crazy as the Xhosa famine, but we’re getting there.

      Charles Littlewood

      June 19, 2019 at 3:24 PM

      • Yes…and people who believe this have no intention of giving you free healthcare, free college or good jobs.


        June 19, 2019 at 9:34 PM

  13. Are you saying your position on abortion is that you concede it’s wrong… but it saves money and we’ll probably get away with it?


    June 19, 2019 at 3:46 PM

    • don’t ask him a direct question, nobody ever gets a direct answer from him on this question, maybe he is some kind of atheist who thinks this is all fun and games.

      if we had restricted abortion 30 years ago when the baby boomers were all so pro-abortion, the baby boomers would have had more kids, and would not for a second have allowed people like Carter and Clinton and Obama to run the country for the relative benefit of people who were born in other countries at the expense of people born here. Trump-style Presidents would have been elected every 4 years beginning in 1976.

      Lion has not thought this through, he just likes to make fun of people who are against abortion.
      Maybe he has a pro-choice girlfriend who has had a couple of shameful abortions and wants him to make illogical and untrue pro-abortion posts.
      That is as good an explanation as any.

      howitzer Daniel

      June 21, 2019 at 10:03 PM

  14. “liberals have an “insane hatred of normal white people.” But liberals believe that pro-life people have an insane hatred of women”

    “Insane hatred of white people” is a viewpoint. “Insane hatred of women” is a motivation, so the comparison is meaningless.


    June 19, 2019 at 5:13 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: