The narrative that Europe is somehow a “continent of refugees” is a popular method of anti-white signaling. Proponents frame the migrant/refugee crisis as a case of nihil sub sole novum: Europe should let in refugees because Europe has a history of refugees. No one has done a better job of regurgitating this half- or rather quarter-truth than the New York Times. The linked article hits on all the main cucking points, presenting a repurposed European history—taken out of the context of its deeply nationalist era—in the contemporary language of moral universalism and deracination. Everything is equal across past, present and future. Refugees fleeing war or redrawn national borders in Europe is somehow exactly the same as Muslims marching across hundreds of miles of safe territory to reach Germany and apply for asylum. And as always, guilt, shame and signaling reign supreme:
There is hardly a corner of Europe that has not been torn to pieces by massacres, the flights of whole populations and violent resettlements, all fueled by ideologies every bit as violent and nihilistic as those of the Islamic State. Europeans love to imagine that ferocity and unreason are somehow, like Syria, “far away” — and yet if ever there was a part of the world that should feel a deep-rooted empathy for the plight of ordinary Syrians, it ought to be Europe.
This really doesn’t prove Europe should let in millions of Muslims, but you feel bad, right goy? This line of reasoning is very basic and uninteresting, and by itself wouldn’t be worth the pixels. What I want to address is the plain misinformation about historical refugee populations and conflicts in Europe. We shall soon see that there were contextual reasons for these and all the populations exchanged or deported were received by host countries that essentially shared ethnic, religious or historical ties to the expellees, unlike Afro-Islamic migrants and say, Germany. According to the UN’s refugee agency, which lobbies on behalf of the third world:
- 53% of the migrants are from Syria,
- 14% from Afghanistan,
- 7% from Eritrea
- 3% each from Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq and Somalia.
- 72% are men, 13% women and 15% children.
This is a very different dynamic than the wholesale uprooting and movement of entire European families and villages to other European countries that characterized the continent’s most chaotic periods during the last century. It is out of that era that the groundwork for the European Union was ultimately laid, and from which it has degenerated into a staunchly anti-European institution, with Germany at the helm. The NYT article, a case study on the leftist Europe-as-a-continent-of-refugees narrative, gives us a series of examples the author wishes to present as the same as the current Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung, while they are evidently not. Let’s try to dispel some of this vast historic amnesia.
In the last 100 years Greece itself and the rest of the southern Balkans have undergone civil war, military regimes and catastrophic change, and… would be almost unrecognizable to a traveler trudging northward a little more than a century ago. This was a world that was, in many areas, heavily and deeply Islamic. But in a series of devastating wars before, during and after World War I, this all changed. Every group suffered, but from Greece alone in the early 1920s some half a million surviving Muslims were expelled eastward. Their disappearance was accompanied by the ruthless destruction of almost every trace of Islamic architecture.
Woah there. Someone is cucking for Islam in Europe really hard, like sephardim in Al-Andalus hard. And what a shame the monuments and mosques erected by the Islamic occupiers have been repurposed or dismantled! Why would the Greeks do something so mean? While I cannot confirm it for certain, I feel the author, ((((Simon Winder)))), has earned his echo. The only reason Islam made it into Greece and the Balkans was because of a violent Islamic conquest and colonization under the Ottoman Turks. Parts of or the entirety of modern-day Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary—to name a few—were under Ottoman rule at some point or another from the 14th century to the 20th, with most of occupied Europe becoming independent in the 19th century. The Muslim population of early 20th century Greece, for example, was a legacy of this conquest that lingered after Greek independence in the 1830s and the subsequent Balkan wars in which the Ottomans lost territory after territory to various European kingdoms, which fought among each other as well. This process could be described as the Turkish decolonization of Greece, akin to the European decolonization of Africa—more on that later. But I know the author doesn’t think evicting non-white or Muslim invaders is a good thing, so I will try to meet him on his own terms.
The hundreds of thousands “expelled eastward” from Greece in the mid-twenties were in fact part of a population transfer agreement between Greece and Turkey in which Greece deported (mostly Turkish) Muslims to Turkey, and Turkey deported (mostly Greek) Christians to Greece. In other words, a Christian-majority country exchanged minorities with a Muslim-majority country, and many if not most the populations transferred spoke the language of the receiving country as well. Oh and by the way, it was 500k Muslims that were expelled from Greece while 1.5M Christians were expelled from Turkey. So who won the oppression olympics here, hmmm? Remember that the first cause of all this is the Islamic invasion of Europe. Would it have been good to leave such a minority behind? Even though the axiom of human history is that diversity and proximity leads to conflict? Should we be recreating this minority in Europe? Let’s ask the former Yugoslavia.
As today’s refugees head into Serbia, they find themselves in a country once eviscerated by two world wars. Following the invasion of Serbia by the Hapsburg armies in 1914, it is reckoned that at least half of all Serbian men died, either in combat or through starvation or terror reprisals. For years much of the country was almost empty. Next door, Bosnia-Herzegovina became another disaster area in the 1990s, a wilderness of camps, ethnic cleansing and ideological terror.
How did that war start? Was it a Serbian nationalist assassinating the heir-apparent of Austria-Hungary in the ethno-religiously mixed province of Bosnia? Holy multiculturalism, Batman! Was going to war part of your plan? Why would Orthodox Serbs be at odds with Catholic Austrians in a mostly Orthodox/Muslim part of the empire? Bosnia-Herzegovina had “another disaster” for nearly the same reason in the 1990s, as the multi-ethnic and multi-faith Yugoslavia collapsed into the nation states of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, later Montenegro and sometimes Kosovo. Now that I think about it, maybe we shouldn’t import diversity—I mean settle millions of refugees in Europe—if the Balkans are any example of what will happen.
In Hungary, today’s refugees enter a country itself entirely shaped and created by refugees. The grim scenes at the Keleti train station in Budapest could not have happened at a more appropriate place… Following Hungary’s defeat in 1918 and the implosion of the Hapsburg Empire, of which it had been a vital part, Keleti station filled up with thousands of Hungarian refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing by vengeful Serbian and Romanian troops. And they stayed: Despite the collapse of Central Europe’s economy after 1918, the permanent population of Budapest grew substantially because there were so many terrified incomers.
While the complexities and administrative quirks of the Habsburg Empire, more accurately Austria-Hungary, are beyond the scope of this article, even survey-scope knowledge of Central European history would reveal how misleading the author of this article is being here. The medieval Kingdom of Hungary, which was completely absorbed into the Habsburg realm, was much larger than modern-day Hungary, which is merely a product of the Allied dismemberment of Austria-Hungary after the first world war. Like so many treaties of that period, it caused as many problems as it purported to fix. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon (1920), Hungary lost 72% of its territory, access to the sea, half of its ten largest cities and 3,425,000 ethnic Hungarians outside the new nation-state’s borders. The example of Hungary does not lend support to the idea that the Afro-Islamic invasion of Europe is part of a European historical trend. Ethnic Hungarians migrating to the Hungarian nation-state as a result of war and new borders is not the same thing as Muslims migrating to Europe from outside of Europe for gibsmedats. The Syrian “migrants” have more in common with the Moors or the Turks or the Mongols.
Germany & Austria
And once the refugees make it to Austria and Germany, they are of course in countries which once conjured up the most ferocious, demonic ideologies of all, with the Holocaust towering over everything. These countries should be absolutely sympathetic to the refugees’ plight.
Yawn; nothing new here. As a corollary to the ad Hitlerum fallacy of likening your opponent to the former fascist Fuhrer, the muh shoah fallacy justifies an action or condemns an inaction because of the holocaust. Because of the holocaust, Germany should let in more Muslims. Germany is eternally and collectively guilty under this ideology, and can only atone by destroying itself piece by piece. In reality, West Germany already paid reparations to Israel and as of today Germany is already home to millions of Muslims. But the author remains steadfast in believing that European migration in the past mandates that the the present be tolerated and enabled:
Postwar Europe was shaped by waves of migration on a scale vastly greater than in the current crisis. In 1947 all German speakers were expelled from Czechoslovakia, and in a few weeks well over a million arrived in the American zone of occupied Germany alone. Despite entering a country mostly reduced to rubble and with a barely ticking economy, they were settled across southern Germany.
I wonder what Sudetenland Germans had in common with West Germans. Why would the latter be so accepting of the former as refugees despite their poverty and postwar disruption. What could possibly explain this? I can’t put my finger on it.
It’s essentially the same dynamic as the Hungarian refugee crisis of the post-WW1 period. Hungary or Germany welcoming in their own people as refugees is fundamentally different from letting in a wandering horde of foreign people with a different language, culture, religion and the like. Europe is a continent of nations, not a continent of deracinated and vague refugees.
In just a few weeks in 1962, some three-quarters of a million Europeans arrived in France following Algerian independence and were settled.
Decolonization, especially in Africa, was not merely the end of European administration and rule over non-European countries, but typically the repatriation of almost the entire European settler population, if it existed in a given colony. So again we have another case of Europeans moving to European countries held up as an example of why millions of Muslims should be let in. Also, I’m actually pretty surprised the author didn’t mention all the sephardim who evacuated Algeria along with the French colonial settlers. Maybe he genuinely doesn’t know that’s why France has the largest continental jewish population. In any event, these three-quarters of a million Europeans, mostly French and to a lesser extent Italian, were essentially returning home to Europe. I suppose it only relates to the current situation in that Muslim-majority countries, such as post-colonial Algeria or contemporary Syria, produce refugees who do not want to live there but the irony is that today’s “refugees” are Muslim. Decolonizing their lands and giving them countries was not enough for them, they want Europe too.
Immigration from outside Europe is common, too — consider the millions of Britons of South Asian descent who moved in the 1960s and ’70s, or the millions of German Turks.
BRITONS OF SOUTH ASIAN DESCENT!
See, look how well that immigration went. Those populations are totally integrated into Britain and Germany and there are no problems associated with them. We should let in more. If something is common, it is good!
The current wave of migration to Europe, an Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung, is not going to end well for anyone involved, nor is it analogous to the European refugee crises of the last century. The latest and most salient moment of this period is the wave of able-bodied men looking to colonize Europe after destroying their homelands of Syria, Eritrea, Libya, Afghanistan and the like, but there are precedents of mass non-white migration to Europe since World War II, e.g. Turks, “South Asians,” Algerians, etc. None of these populations ever became European—they can’t—but that hasn’t stopped the cucked elites of the European Union from opening the gates to most prosperous society on earth to those from among the worst. Even homo economicus should be able to realize that this is a disaster; to nationalists or anyone with a sense of concrete identity and history it is readily obvious, e.g Viktor Orban. European countries have a right to control their borders and deny entry to preserve their majorities. As I have written before:
…the UN charter, by the way, is racist, because it thinks that all peoples, typically interpreted as nations, have the right to self-determination and also equal rights. Self-determination means creating your own country, usually based on the overlapping of ethnicity and geography. That means drawing a border to exclude people from your new state, by the way. Examples of countries created this way include most of post-colonial Africa and Asia, many of the smaller European nations that were part of contiguous land empires, and most of the Arab nations that were under Ottoman Turkish rule. If it’s racist for Whites to assert their group interests in such a way, I would argue it is racist for everyone else by the principles of equality to do the same.
“Refugees,” go home.