> 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.
allears•20m ago
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.
mytailorisrich•6m ago
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.
mytailorisrich•34m ago
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.
allears•20m ago
mytailorisrich•6m ago
> 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.