^You're instinct for self-preservation is fine, but it doesn't override the instinct of others to flee danger. Protecting the ambiguous idea of culture over the tangible, concrete reality of fleeing humans in danger is immoral.
No, it is not. Ignoring the suffering of others is immoral, for certain, on that we are agreed, although as to what to do about it, this is a difficult question. Opening our borders inflicts danger on ourselves, our culture, and our descendants. A middle ground needs to be found, so we can retain our own identities (and this is not just about a pan-European identity or a USA identity, but identities much more local than that, say Northern Ireland, Texas, Sicily, whatever ...)
I don't think many religions are a real friend to us these days. So much of this nonsense has emerged from essentially power struggles between denominations. If anything, I hope that the current wave of religious extremism helps us move away from such irrationality.
Well, wars have been fought over or more or less fine points of theology for a long time. I think the Shi'a-Sunni conflict has a good potential to become a rough 21st century analogue to the 30 years war. As far Islam and Christianity, geography and demography, more than theology. Commerce could happen and indeed was essential in the development of East and West, but cultural encroachment has inevitably lead to wars, Charles Martel at Tours, Don Juan at Lepanto, and many other conflicts both east, west, and south. We have our own ways, some of us can assimilate to other ways, and otherwise we had ought to stick to our own. It is better for all involved.
Identifying with a subjective, invented "race" is pointless. You are identifying with something that has no real tangible markers or reality. Just because you have white skin is nor eason for you to consider yourself kin to other white people. No offense, but I don't look at other whites like you and consider yourself kin or connected with me at all, and I hope you don't see me as your white-brother. I would never help you over any other person because you are white. I guess I am saying that your faux-racial heritage is not going to be of any use to you in reality.
Europeans are not a single ethnic group. Look at people in Greece, people in Norway, people in Romania. All have distinct ethnic heritage, all of them are on the continent called Europe. The mediterranean countries have had huge input from Africa for many many years. There's really very few true "white" people in Europe. I wonder if you are trying to defend or identify a subset that doesn't exist.
"White" is a subjective category, socially constructed, although of course there are genetic markers for different kinds of heritage which in turn are correlated with a variety of characteristics, physical, psychical, behavioural. Europe has always had some inward and outward migration with considerable ethnocultural diversity, but what we're now looking at seems to rapidly be evolving into a
Le Camp des Saints type situation, and every European and everyone who identifies themselves with the European cause should pay attention to this, probably the most pressing issue our generation.
Now, speaking of identity, the U.S. "melting pot" project as I've spoken about before is something of a special case, given that we were multicultural from our inception even though even moderate
soi-disant "white nationalists" ignore this fact. That's why I said above that we aren't really a "nation" in the sense of being able to have an authentic "nationalism." Our rough equivalent we call "patriotism" which is something of a different animal. "White nationalism" is a problematic term, I'd prefer to speak of a "pan-European nationalism," but that in turn sounds too much like the leftist "postnationalism" of the EU, etc. Terminology is difficult.
Inuit and Eskimo have been in Europe for longer then white germanic peoples. There is evidence of them in Euope (Greenland, Siberia) over 4000 years ago. Are they not more European then most Europeans? But the truth is, inhabitants of a land change often, and there is little point in claiming history as a reason to avoid changing the present. No culture has ever been truly static.
Culture isn't static and culture from 4,000 years ago isn't relevant to culture today, but demographic changes on the scope being contemplated at the present time are unprecedented and will almost certainly ensure the total destruction of our shared traditional culture in favour of, I can't really predict the future, but increasingly atomised and probably mutually hostile communities and civil chaos? It is almost certainly sure to be ugly. We owe it to one another to rescue ourselves from this. My heart breaks that this will cause suffering to migrants and refugees, but we have other modes to aid them, and we cannot do so at the expensive of our civilization.
I suspect that the reason is twofold. One, geographically Syrians are closer to Northern Europe, and there is (was) a relatively direct route for them to take to get to Northern Europe. Secondly, I think most of these asylum seekers have chosen to go to Europe. There's no point in forcing people fleeing their homes to go somewhere else against there will.
Geography and the ease of obtaining benefits, yes. Forcing people to go somewhere against their will, well, I hope it doesn't end this way, but I'm mainly just pointing out that Japan sees no real criticism for being a monoethnic and ethnic supremacist society but such criticism was and is flung at Rhodesia, South Africa, even the U.S. Israel is a special case and would probably be beter left out of this discussion because of the tangents it tends to bring up.
I personally think that all nations are obligated to help those seeking protection. I think that affluent countries like Japan should certainly be hlpeing out and it is an indictment of their society if they are not doing so. Its probably a bad example though, because Japan is historically quite monocultural; look at the
Ainu.
I'm not hearing anything about a statement I made, which is that a lot fo the asylum seekers I have heard talk about fleeing temporarily to Europe. It seems quite a few wish to return when their country is safe. That appears to be a fact that the fear mongers are unwilling to discuss.
I think the principle of reciprocity needs to be invoked here to. Wouldn't we expect help if/when we need it?
You and I agree we are obligated to help, but not in terms of opening borders. I suspect a lot of the temporary resettlement won't be so temporary - this has been our experience in the U.S. by a ngreat measure. And plus the risk, nay practical certainty, of the infilitration of hostile elements. We should with the UN be setting up and administering humane refugee camps in the appropriate eras and managing the crisis. Offering military or political assistance sounds good but it was our political machinations and military misadventures that caused the current situation so the best that we can do would I guess be classed as species of "harm reduction."
BY THE WAY, I'd like to thank my leftist threads in this thread for by and large being respectful, if in my personal perception hard-headed, over the course of this discussion. Not too much slinging of labels like "racist," "fascist," although I did catch "a right wing asshole" on one occasion, but that's OK, that's a label I can live with because I am, in fact, both right-wing and something of an asshole. But yeah, cheers to pretty much everyone involved that we've kept it civil, reasonably educated, and hopefully mutually enriching. I like this kind of conversation.