> Europe, the document warns, faces “the stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” Why? Because “it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European.” I don’t know why they bothered with the euphemism: “non-European” clearly means “nonwhite.”
Nonwhite is one way to put it, and it's significant enough, but more profoundly they also mean muslim. This has real and extremely far-reaching implications. Possibly the end of the West in the sense of European Christian civilisation. This has significant ramifications for the US, too.
Interesting that this is dismissed and not discussed when this is really the most profound trend on historical scale.
As for the EU, well the US have always been wary of it as a political force so this is nothing new, just more blunt.
IMHO, the assessment of Europe's situation in this National Security Strategy is quite accurate, overall. Perhaps that's why it hurts.
You're framing this as Muslim vs. Christian. Civilization operates best when church and state are separate. That's certainly under threat, and not just from Muslims.
However, the Earth's population is growing, and it's unrealistic (and immoral IMHO) to insist that only certain ethnicities or religions are welcome in certain places. Things change, and any change has good and bad aspects, but even though I'm not Christian, I believe Jesus had some remarks about the proper attitude towards strangers.
No, I am framing it as a cultural and civilisational clash and shift. This is what matters here and it is visible everywhere in Western Europe.
> and it's unrealistic (and immoral IMHO) to insist that only certain ethnicities or religions are welcome in certain places.
That's an important issue. I don't think it is unrealistic or immoral because it is not immoral to want to preserve your people and culture. It's not a question of absolute (outright ban) but of proportion.
Anyway, this is something that cannot be discussed on HN, or actually most places. Debate on any non-trivial issue or any deviation from the herd has become impossible.
> It is unrealistic and immoral to expect people to accept the invasion of their ancestral homelands as some kind of moral good
"Invasion" is somewhat of a Motte-Bailey thing.
"We're being invaded!" "Oh no, how did this happen?" "We literally invited them over to work for us" "And they turned against us?" "No, they settled down and had families" "And became a majority, with their kids working against us?" "No, not yet, we're several generations in to this and the migrants are still a minority, but a large enough minority that they stopped seeming exotic and mysterious. And when they do go into politics, they only win power if they're moderate and friendly, like the Mayor of London, where the Muslim one was pleasantly boring in comparison to his blonde white and very posh predecessor."
Doubly so as one bit of Europe is currently doing a rather more violent invasion of another bit of Europe. The agressor is theoretically Christian.
And for all that I'd be stoned in an actual Sharia Law nation for at least three distinct reasons, medieval Christian values would've burned me at the stake for those same things, and modern American Christian extremism isn't friendly to me either.
Yes, most were "invited". But consider the growing backlash and how it is dismissed by the establishment and one has to wonder what is going on.
> "And they turned against us?" "No, they settled down and had families"
Disingenuous. They settled down and had families and are increasing turning against European values and culture because numbers increasingly allow.
> "No, not yet, we're several generations in to this and the migrants are still a minority, but a large enough minority that they stopped seeming exotic and mysterious"
Large enough that they can push for their culture and values against local ones. Demographic trends are almost unstoppable now, which I think is the raised alarm on the issue (no-one would care much if a small minority remained a small minority).
The rest of your comment is just whataboutism and empty of argument.
Edit: Now I see that the comment you replied to has been flagged. This is really what I mean by suppression of dissenting opinion... really worrying.
> The language is astonishing. Europe, the document warns, faces “the stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” Why? Because “it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European.” I don’t know why they bothered with the euphemism: “non-European” clearly means “nonwhite.”
It is indeed astonishing and pathetic to see the language of the "Great replacement" racist conspiracy theory coming from the highest levels of US government.
These are not the words of an ally. Europe must be clear-eyed about who their allies are and are not.
"Great replacement" is a factual demographic trend in Western Europe. Now, whether it is a conspiracy depends on whether it is orchestrated. On the surface it isn't but then European governments have so far adamantly refused again and again to reduce immigration and indeed branded overt dissent as "racist", which obviously does feed conspiracy theories.
I'm not trying to convince you, because well, you can't reason person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into - this is your ideological conviction, and you should own it and say it clearly rather than trying to slip it in sideways, but for other readers:
> European governments have so far adamantly refused again and again to reduce immigration
I do not recognise this as reality. This is not how these government have behaved, the ones that I have seen.
> indeed branded overt dissent as "racist"
If they keep calling your position racist, then well, it might be. I get that you're a "free thinker", freely falling into well-worn extremist tropes. Complaining about "the herd" where the problem surely lies for not letting you spread your "cultural and civilisational clash" belief.
It is quite an insulting reply especially when my previous comment was factual:
The demographic trend is factual based on data.
The high level of non-European immigration is a fact based on data and so is the refusal of Western European governments to stop it.
What is unreasoned or ideological there?
I am unsure what reality you live in. You can look at the stats in the UK to observe (not interpret) that successive governments have not reduced immigration even when they claimed that that was what their aim was. This holds in all other Western European countries.
Unclear, too, about what is racist in any of that.
Nonwhite is one way to put it, and it's significant enough, but more profoundly they also mean muslim. This has real and extremely far-reaching implications. Possibly the end of the West in the sense of European Christian civilisation. This has significant ramifications for the US, too.
Interesting that this is dismissed and not discussed when this is really the most profound trend on historical scale.
As for the EU, well the US have always been wary of it as a political force so this is nothing new, just more blunt.
IMHO, the assessment of Europe's situation in this National Security Strategy is quite accurate, overall. Perhaps that's why it hurts.
reply