mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
The Bigger Truth
Norway Builds a Fence
Features Icon
show comments
  • Pete

    1. “Many liberals and human rights activists want to ignore this truth about human nature,”

    No, these elitists want to remake human nature into something it is not.

    2. ” … that the only really effective way to deal with refugee problems is to deal with their causes.”

    Wrong again. It is not the responsibility of the West to solve the problems of the backward parts of the world.
    The most effective way to deal with the invasion of refugees is to firmly and unapologetically close the borders to them.

    • Dale Fayda

      Very well put.

      Altering human nature is the essence of progressivism.

    • Beauceron

      Absolutely correct in theory– but you forget the army of Leftists. They will constantly beat the drums about white supremacy and racism and colonialism, about how cruel a country Norway is, filled with bigots and narrow minded provincials.
      In the end, Norway will let millions of people in. Of course they will. It would be unkind to do otherwise. That’s not Norwegian values is it?

  • Jim__L

    Yes, but did they get the Russians to pay for it?

    • Kev

      I’d like to see them try. lol

      • Jim__L

        Norway is such a small country, and there are so many Russians… where would the Norwegians bury them all? 😉

        (With apologies to the Finns)

        • Kev

          It’s more likely that Norwegians would readily welcome their new Russian overlords. They made an entire TV series about life under (fictional) Russian occupation.

          It’s also worth mentioning that the country did not put much of a fight last time it faced an invasion.

          • Jim__L

            Right, which is why Quisling is now a term of honor and glory among the Norwegians.

          • Kev

            If anything this shows their tendency to always side with winner. Hating the Nazis would have mattered in 1940, not 2016.

            A lot of small countries in Europe are like that. It’s not like former Soviet satellites suddenly fell in love with democracy and “Western values” in early 1990s. They simply recognized which way the wind was blowing.

          • Jim__L

            Are you sure that former Soviet satellites were ever in love with being Soviet satellites?

  • Nevis07

    Of course there’s another way to interpret this. Those that push for immigration don’t appreciate the limited willingness of a native population to accept immigrants (especially those of vastly different cultural/society backgrounds). There’s only so much compassion to start with and when you have a situation where it’s effectively open border policy even before a migration surge in immigration. If politicians and the media want to call domestic populations ‘ignorant, racist, xenophobes’ at the very mention of border security, it only reduces the compassion of that population even more – as we’ve recently seen ourselves. A better approach is to acknowledge and balance native population concerns with that of compassion for immigrants. Dismissing outright that there is any danger of ISIS operatives in these migrant flows for example is a slap in the face of anyone with more than a few brain cells. Show that you can take those concerns into account and plan a way to screen people and you build some trust. Thus-far, we’ve not see much trust building on the part of the political elite.

  • Beauceron

    It’s all too late now.
    The so-called “West” is dead, murdered by its own elite. The US will be around 30% white in just 20 years. Europe is headed in the same direction, only I think their collapse will be very rapid, precipitated by massive waves of migration that will make last year look small.
    It’s sad. The people did not want this– we just became, to be honest, incredibly cowardly and allowed ourselves to be cowed by judgmental words fired at us like arrows. But it IS over. People need to accept that. The only thing that can save the US is armed, violent insurrection, and I don’t think we have the guts for that sort of thing. We’re too afraid.

    • rpabate

      You may be right. The parallels with Imperial Rome are chilling. According to Gibbons, the decline in civic virtue played a large role in the decline. Two differences, history never repeats exactly; the Romans had slaves to take care of them while they declined into a life of depravity, the Europeans and Americans have their welfare state. The Romans were overrun by barbarians, and many today would classify immigrants as the new barbarians.

    • Jim__L

      Beauceron, could you please stop making this a “white” issue? It does a lot of harm, including to your own outlook.

      The simple fact is that assimilation is the key here. Race is irrelevant. Churchill’s “blood” or “stock” ideas are nonsense.

      I consider the values and history of the Roman Republic to be part of my birthright — but my people during this period were the devils of Teutobergerwald who busied themselves nailing legionnaire’s heads to trees. I consider the values and history of England to be part of my birthright — but my own ancestors were not English, but axe-murdering pirates who (allegedly) enjoyed seeing if they could keep people alive while removing their lungs (with the aforementioned axes). My religion is (by “blood”) of Jewish extraction… and it declares that “with Christ there is neither slave nor free, neither Jew nor Greek… all are one”.

      Are we outnumbered? On the Web, yes. Does our enemy occupy the commanding heights of media, academia, and the judicial system? Yes.

      Is that the time to give up? Not hardly.

      Remember Omdurman. Remember Plassey. Remember Rourke’s Drift, if you really think that’s where we’re at. Remember the Alamo, if you think there have been defeats already (and there have.) We will prevail because our real opponents, past and present (see, Japan and China) know that the only way they have to catch up, to move forward at all, is to mimic *US* — not us as the Leftists would have us be today, but us as we are when we allow ourselves to be dynamic and powerful.

      Guess what? Other people DO catch up when they imitate us. They DO win — at Pearl Harbor, at Singapore. It is a matter of historical record, ingrained in too many sources to be wiped away, even if the media and the academy hates it. But would you really say that because the Pride of the Pacific Fleet was sunk, we should have just surrendered? Would you say that because Singapore fell, we should have crawled into a hole to die?

      The fact is that the only real “white privilege”, the only legacy that matters, is the inheritance of the cultural assets of the last 500 years, the last 2500 years, known as Western Civilization. We are paying reparations when we teach real, Euro-centric, here’s-why-white-people-won-so-much-and-so-can-you-if-you-pay-attention history. We owe it to people whose ancestors our ancestors mistreated, to share those lessons as we should with our own children — no more, no less.

      The complexion of the country will be more tanned. So what? (Americans will sunburn less easily, is that a bad thing?) Blue and green eyes will pop up in unusual faces. Redheads may get more scarce. (I’m ambivalent on that one, at this point in my life.)

      The important thing is not to give up what’s truly important — the lessons of the past. And there is nothing stopping us from passing those on, one-on-one, sharing with people we meet, showing that we are willing to work for their good and our own. The Left wants to replace us wholesale, but hustle at the retail level will make more of a difference.

      Maybe it’s over for you, if you quit.

      Not for the rest of us.


      • Beauceron

        “could you please stop making this a “white” issue? ”

        I am not saying it’s a white thing. I am not even saying it’s a race thing. It IS a cultural thing. And I am not making it that. It simply IS that. The move on the Left from class to identity as the wedge-point of their politics made it that– it is foolish and self-defeating to pretend that it is not.

        “The simple fact is that assimilation is the key here”

        Where are you from? England? “Assimilation” is a banned term here in the US. Indeed it is racist to even use the word anymore. You have absolutely no right to demand or expect people from a different cultural tradition to bend to the will of a set of dominant cultural mores. That is bigoted and racist and it is forbidden. Numerous college campuses have banned even referencing such terms– for example, University of California schools, and Wisconsin and Florida universities have banned terms like “melting pot” (see, for example: We in the US lead on these sort of things, but you can be assured it is coming to Europe, just as BLM has reared its ugly head in the UK.

        So don’t go on about how assimilation is key. Assimilation is racism. You are not even allowed to even mention the word, much less use it as some form of cultural colonialism to wipe out the traditions and beliefs of your fellow citizens.

        “The fact is that the only real “white privilege”, the only legacy that matters, is the inheritance of the cultural assets of the last 500 years, the last 2500 years, known as Western Civilization.”

        Again, you are simply completely out of touch with what is happening in the US. Western civilization is racism and colonialism. That’s it. That is all it is. There is nothing else.It has no other qualities– and it is racist to expect People Of Color to study the writings and theories of white people. By way of an example, in most major US universities, if you’re an English major, you no longer have to study masters of English literature like Shakespeare. It used to be a requirement for any English major– but he’s white and it is oppressive and racist to expect People Of Color to relate to these dead white males (see, as one example, here: ). And if you disagree, by the way, and argue there is more to Western civilization than racism and colonialism, well that is itself evidence of your racism and white privilege. All whites are racist. All of them. No exceptions. Got a black wife and mixed-race kids? Tough, you’re a racist (for just one example, see

        I think you’re in a bubble and don’t actually understand what’s happening around you. This is the world that has been created for us. I will not be pollyannish about it– I will look at it directly and call it as I see it.

        • Tom

          Beauceron, not to put to fine a point on it, but the fact that you’re tracking the “decline of America” with “lack of white people” would seem to put the lie to your first paragraph.

          • Beauceron

            That is not the fine point– I am straight up saying that and underlining it in bold. You have flooded the country with third worlders– “the Browning of America” or ” the brown wave” as the NY Times lies to crow, and that has precipitated the decline and fall of my country. That act was intentional, done with forethought and malice. You have destroyed my country. That is not a subtly drawn statement, I hope.

            But– and this is the fine point– that doesn’t HAVE to be the case. It is not, for example, the fact that you have fought for anywhere from between 11 and 30 million illegals from Latin America to come into the country and eventually be granted citizenship even thought they violated the law and you violated the morals of decent citizenry. It’s that you fought to make assimilation a banned principle, it’s that diversity now trumps common identity and purpose, and multiculturalism placed over a national culture. It’s that you have fought for the fetishizing of People Of Color and the condemnation of all whites as racists and privileged. It’s that you fought for special rights and privileges based on race and identity through affirmative action and disparate impact schemes. It’s that we now live in a society where the very term “melting pot” is banned from use at many major universities, and simply ordering Chinese food is now considered cultural appropriation and racist, where whites are banned from having any sort of identity or group representation even as they rapidly become a minority, while at the very same time turning the identity rights and privileges of People Of Color into a cottage industry. That is what has been so destructive and harmful. That is what has destroyed my country.

            Even assuming the country HAD to undergo the rapid and forced massive shift in demographics we have seen over the past 40 years, it didn’t have to be this way. But it is this way, and it is this way because of the conscious choices of our political, academic and cultural elites.

            I object to those things. That objection makes me a racist– or extra racist, I guess. I am white and so I am racist to begin with.

          • Tom

            Could you at least try to pretend that you don’t think political opinions are genetic?

          • Beauceron

            You have not managed to understand any of this.
            It’s not about political opinion. It’s about culture. Fools like you think that, as an example, Germany can let in millions of muslim immigrants from the arab muslim middle east and it’s just a matter of trying to get them to obey German customs, mores and laws. Why should they obey German customs, mores and laws? They are not German. Muslims in France have not assimilated– they are not going to assimilate in Germany either. They do not want to be German– and why should they? They like being arabs and muslim– and it’s a fine thing to be. Why should they give up their culture and become Germans?
            You let in millions of people from other cultures and you change your culture. It’s not complicated. It’s just that people like you have been incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing. You pretend it’s about “political opinion,” when in fact the currents run far deeper than that.

          • Tom

            Yes, given that we managed to pull it off during the early 1900s.

          • Beauceron


            It’s impossible, given the current discussion and the state of affairs in the world, that you’re actually talking about the mass immigration to the US of Irish/Italians, etc. I mean the huge gulf between accepting people from the same broader European culture (in the case of the Irish the very same language) and religion and the very, very different arab culture and religion is so vast and so patently obvious even you couldn’t be so disingenuous.

            Since that’s clearly the case, I must be missing something here. What are you referring to re “the early 1900s”?

          • Tom

            That last paragraph you quoted, aside from the ease of communications, could have easily been said–and was said–about the Southern and Eastern European immigrants who came to America. For that matter, so were the complaints about the cultural gulf between the “old” immmigrants and the “new.”

        • Jim__L

          Whether or not the UC thinks “assimilation” should be said just shows that how desperately stupid the UC system is. It is also completely irrelevant to me.

          I have no problem saying that assimilation is key — assimilation to the values that made America (and Europe before us) great. It is critical that we keep saying it, and we’re not beaten until we stop. Being cowed by what Leftists at the UC happen to want is beneath you, Beauceron.

          I know the odds. I’m no Polyanna, I just know that the values of Western Civilization in its prime (particularly the 19th century) are demonstrably superior to any others the world has ever come up with, and that that has been recognized by leaders around the world in the 20th century and the 21st century who have successfully led hundreds of millions of people (going on billions) out of technological backwardness and abject poverty.

          There is no longer even any question as to what the goal is. It looks like Westernization — with our prosperity, science and technology, though without the “values” (which is a euphemism for “baser urges”) of today’s cultural Leftists, which most of humanity still refers to as perversions (and frankly, is the main thing standing in the way of lasting peace and understanding between the postmodern West and the rest of the world.)

          Westernization is happening globally. The idea that it should not happen within the US itself is absurd, and hitting the Leftist rock with the hammer of Western Civ will, if you keep at it, shatter what looks so solid now. That’s why the Leftists want to shut down even any whisper of it. Their worldview is so fragile that if even a whisper of the truth remains, they will fall.

          As far as Israel goes — I happen to have a problem with their laws against Christians proselytizing there (especially when atheist proselytizing is just fine), and I think that people whose families have been Christian since roughly 30 AD should not be second-class citizens, either. But that’s a tangent we don’t need to discuss.

          This is all worth fighting for, and despairing is the only sure way to defeat. “Calling it like [you think] it is” has no positive value, and in fact is actively destructive.

          Please stop doing it.

          • Beauceron

            I think it’s easier if I respond to this piece by piece.

            “Whether or not the UC thinks “assimilation” should be said just shows that how desperately stupid the UC system is. It is also completely irrelevant to me.”

            You may think it stupid and irrelevant, but the educational system is one of our primary forming institutions. They control what we think and how we think, and are a major conduit for the dissemination of the rules of our societies. They are vitally important institutions– that they have forbidden words like assimilation to even be used is highly relevant and incredibly important.

            “I have no problem saying that assimilation is key — assimilation to the values that made America (and Europe before us) great. It is critical that we keep saying it, and we’re not beaten until we stop. Being cowed by what Leftists at the UC happen to want is beneath you, Beauceron.”

            Thanks for the vote of confidence. I use UC as an example– it is largely society wide however. This stance has permeated most of our education and media complexes. You may not have a problem with it, but you’re an individual, not an institution. And the institutions have decreed that you simply cannot argue for assimilation. It is bigoted and racist. I’m sorry, but that battle is over. You cannot say it in polite society, much less act on it as a policy. To pretend that it is something we must keep saying ignores reality– you can’t say it anywhere now except amongst the privacy of a social group or the anonymous internet.

            “Westernization is happening globally”

            What do you mean by “Westernization” here? I am focusing on immigration and rapidly shifting demographics in my comments– and that is absolutely not happening globally. Mexico prevents illegal immigrants with a ferocity that borders on human rights violations; China and Japan and Korea aren’t permitting millions of low wage workers to flood their economies and change their cultures; the notion that Islamic countries in the middle east will allow large numbers of non-muslim immigrants is laughable. No one else is doing this. You only see this in Western countries. The world is not, in that sense, Westernizing at all.

            “As far as Israel goes — I happen to have a problem with their laws against Christians proselytizing there (especially when atheist proselytizing is just fine), and I think that people whose families have been Christian since roughly 30 AD should not be second-class citizens, either. But that’s a tangent we don’t need to discuss.”

            I don’t mean allowing people in to proselytize and I suspect you know that. I mean open the borders to allow anyone who wants to become a citizen in regardless of their race, ethnicity or creed. You are essentially arguing that it is a Western obligation to allow all peoples into their countries, regardless of their race, ethnicity or creed. Do you feel that all countries should do the same, or is it only Western countries that must do so? It’s a tangent I wanted to go down because many people I know from diverse backgrounds want to preserve and protect their own cultures, but don’t think any Western country should do so. For example, a Korean-American friend is an open borders advocate. He wants lots more asian immigration into the US and thinks all opposition to it is racist and bigoted. He adamantly believes, however, that Korea must retain its tight immigration controls to that Korean culture and traditions are preserved. He sees absolutely no contradiction or philosophical dilemma in holding those views.

            “This is all worth fighting for, and despairing is the only sure way to defeat. “Calling it like [you think] it is” has no positive value, and in fact is actively destructive.”

            I think it’s worth fighting for– but I think it foolish not to recognize where the battle lines are.They are not drawn along arguing for assimilation. That is past. We lost. You may not even use the word.The battle lines right now are arguing for the following topics: 1) not all whites in the US are racist and supremacists just because they are white 2) not all whites are born to privilege 3) People Of Color can be bigoted and racist too, every human can, it is not only a white thing 4) while European civilization engaged in colonialism and oppressed other cultures and peoples, colonialism and oppression are not its defining characteristics– and many other cultures and peoples throughout history oppressed and colonized other peoples. 5) individuals are not responsible for the actions of their group, and especially not those actions that took place hundreds of years ago 7) presentism is a fundamental violation of respectable intellectual discourse.

            That is where the battle is now.

          • Jim__L

            You might want to review your post for “presentism”, Beauceron.

            Don’t let the set the terms of the debate. Their entire premise is wrong, not just the details. It’s demonstrably wrong.

            Never mind the maneuvers, go straight at ’em!

          • Beauceron

            Where are you seeing presentism in my post? If you could help me out a bit, I’d appreciate it.

          • Jim__L

            You see the situation today as inevitable or in any way “correct”. Letting them set the terms of debate is presentism.

            You’re ceding the initiative to the other side. You can’t win that way.

          • Beauceron

            Ah, I see the fly in the ointment.

            “Presentism” is defined as : “the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.”

            That is, it’s looking at the past and making judgments about the actions of peoples, nations or specific historical figures based on the mores of the present.

            It’s not about seeing the situation today as inevitable.

            That would be, I suppose, a bit of fatalism on my part, and I confess when I look at what is going on and our feeble reactions to it, I do become a bit fatalistic– and desperately sad.

            I’d also add that I (and we) have no choice but to let the Left “set the terms of debate.” They own the forming institutions, the educational and media complexes. The people who own those control the terms of the debate and even the language permitted to debate. We see that today.

            Which is why I would much prefer American conservatives spend time, money and effort trying to take back at least a slice of the universities and media rather than winning elections. Culture is upstream of politics. I am far less interested in putting Republicans in office than I am in getting conservative professors and administrators on campus and in mainstream media centers. Conceding defeat to the Left and permitting their long march through our national institutions has done far more harm to the country than having Obama or Hillary in the White House.

  • Sean

    “If the West can’t or won’t help locals stabilize these countries”… the West caused the destabilization in the first place. So yes, let’s get back in there and meddle some more. Much better to let some banana dictator abuse his own population than to deal with the aftereffects of “democracy”

    • Kevin

      They unstable long before the West showed up.

      • Sean

        Egypt, Syria and Iraq were a lot more stable before “we” helped oust their dictators.

        • champ

          which dictator did “we” oust in Syria?

        • Jim__L

          Egypt destabilized on its own. Syria too.

          As far as Iraq goes, you could also say that post-Surge Iraq was a lot more stable before we abandoned it to its fate.

  • Anthony

    Institutions, Values, and Ideologies.

    “We have moved beyond character and morals in American society to an entirely ‘transactional’ kind of politics. Not only do people no longer value character and integrity, but we have also become almost hostile to the proposition ‘that they matter at all’. If these values still matter to American voters, we would not have the two least-favorable candidates in either party as nominees for the presidency.” Wow!!

    In other words, we (perhaps) rather agitate about Walls, BLM, Red/Blue so-called governance, Faux Nationalism, Right/Left (though right/left split has origin in Revolutionary France), Progressivism (whatever term means to various people), etc. Perhaps, the old Napoleonic strategy of conquer and divide suits human nature better than cognitive science concludes. Ubi est mea.

    • Jim__L

      Didn’t Right / Left begin in the House of Commons?

      As far as values go, I think it’s informative to note that the weakening of churchgoing Christianity contributed greatly to Trump’s rise. Also, it’s tough to see abortion supporters as anything other than those who value transaction over principle.

      In the Culture War, Leftists have been largely successful in weakening Institutions, Values, and any Ideology other than their own.

      This is where that leads.

  • Gary Hemminger

    It seems to me that Western political leaders will not change their minds and all of a sudden become anti-immigration, no matter what the cost. Even if it means they become unelectable or quit politics altogether. I believe that the vast majority of sanctuary city supporting progressives would rather lose elections and maintain their ideology than change and accept some sort of more restrictive immigration policy.

    I think this goes for a host of ideological issues for the progressives. Staring with Global Warming, then immigration, then transgender bathroom rights, and it goes on and on. Their way is right. Every other way is wrong. That is it. It is “settled science” as they say.

  • Comrade Pootie

    It’s simply because ever since the sanctions were put on Russia, Putin has been trying to punish us by flooding our shared border with migrants and refuse to let them back.

  • adk

    As usual, Mead doesn’t go far enough — it’s not simply the sheer numbers of refugees (and “refugees”) although even that is already intolerable,but also the fact that most of them are uneducated Muslims from most backward countries and cultures on Earth. It just boggles the mind how blind the Western so-called leaders are. More of the same, and they all will be swept away soon, and replaced not with some common-sense centrist democrats, I’m afraid, but something far more to the right.

    “If the West can’t or won’t help locals stabilize these countries…”
    The West absolutely can’t, especially now when the chaos in the Muslim and Arab Muslim world spread so far and wide. The West failed spectacularly trying to solve the single isolated problem of Palestinians, after decades of effort and countless billions spent, so now the call is what, “let’s fix the whole Middle East”??? The US sort of stabilized Iraq in 2007-2008 by occupying and basically running it, but the price was so high (and then came Obama and threw it all away anyway) that nobody in the West will ever try to repeat that for at least a generation.

  • panarchist

    Human nature seems rather young, as before the First World War there had been no immigration restrictions, yet somehow humanity perdured.

    • LarryD

      The cultures, countries and nations on the receiving end of the migrations didn’t always survive, though. Need I give examples? Never mind, I will regardless. Numerous native tribes of the American hemisphere, north and south. The South African tribe exterminated by the whites emigrating to their land (all the blacks living in South Africa are descended from later immigrants, and that’s another example). The remains of the Western Roman Empire, the Britons driven away by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

  • Rogerjb

    These Arab/Islamic refugees bring no good and do much harm. They have turned their own countries into hellholes and now they want to do the same thing to Judeo-Christian countries. Western countries are insane to allow even small numbers of these miscreants to enter.

  • FluffyFooFoo

    Trump supporters are “Trumpkins”, but Norwegians keeping out foreigners (refugees or otherwise) are just human beings? What?

  • ttaerum

    It is easy to be a noble left leaning Nobel prize giving nation when it has immigration laws that rival Japan’s in terms of requirements and narrowness. It’s far easier to be judgmental of other nation’s race riots when it is very, very careful about who it lets in. It is a beautiful country with a wonderful heritage but there is a reason.

  • HolylandIsraelTours

    Hahahaa Norway becomes an Apartheid State.

  • זאב ברנזון

    demographics is destiny sub replacement fertility is long term death

    Europe is a demographic dead horse all other European problems originate from this core issue

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service