Renowned Hungarian 19th-century poet Sándor Petőfi has a very famous poem about his plans that, as the famous Hungarian idiomatic expression goes, ‘fell into the well’, meaning came to nothing. Reading about the changing political preferences of the migrant communities in Europe reminds me of the above phrase. It is worth digging deeper into history to understand more about the situation than what is apparent at first sight.
The first masses of migrants from outside Europe arrived after the Second World War in the wake of the devastation that had literally decimated the population in certain areas. They were needed to rebuild the continent from rubble. Their countries of origin were mostly ex-colonies such as Marocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and in the case of Germany, Türkiye.
In Germany they were called by a name almost forgotten today: Gastarbeiter (‘guest worker’). The original idea was that after fulfilling their task they would return to their homeland. For a number of reasons, that hasn’t materialized at all. Obviously, for those who remained in Europe the natural political choice was voting for parties that supported their staying. Since most of them were blue-collar workers from impoverished parts of their own countries, almost all choices available were better for them than returning to their homeland, usually in turmoil after recently achieved independence. Türkiye, a new NATO member state at the time, was no exception, even though for different reasons.
Decades flew by and the idea of open society gained more and more traction and acceptance among political and economic elites, and the return to their countries of origin of these immigrant communities, something that was continually urged by political parties labelled as extreme right, became more and more of a taboo.
The idea of multiculturalism became a fashionable one.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, in the ascendancy of globalism and the changes it brought about, the issue of the Gastarbeiter and migration from former colonies seemed less and less important. The left-wing parties who saw the newly arrived as natural allies in their fight against traditional values put more and more emphasis on them, forgetting about their traditional voters, the native working class, which also began to shrink due to the multiple effects of globalization.
For all of those involved in some way in encouraging migration, this solution seemed like a win-win situation. Legal and later illegal migrants received citizenship without authorities asking about their background, and the parties opposing this process were excoriated as racist and anti-progressive, and at the same time were excluded from the political mainstream and cut off by all possible means from the chance of forming a government—which, by the way, is the ultimate goal of participating in politics.
Economic, security, and social issues arising from the uncontrolled flow of aliens—generally called ‘migrants’ for lack of a better term—were swept under the rug, just as questions and complaints about extreme phenomena supported by some overzealous liberals. Not even the fact that Sharia police patrols appeared in various Western metropolises, clearly violating the monopoly of the state to use legal force, sounded the alarm bell among supporters of immigration, or which is even worse, in the affected communities of the host countries. On most occasions, events that constituted a clear and immediate danger to public order and other standards of the Westphalian international system were discarded as irrelevant.
This calls to mind what István Bethlen, Hungary’s prime minister from 1921 to 1931, said about Arrow Cross leader Ferenc Szálasi’s movement: ‘They think they are going to the right, but they are running in circles, and they go so much to the right that at the end they will suddenly find themselves on the extreme left!’ The proverbial snake has indeed finally bitten its tail. The reverse of the process so eloquently described by Bethlen is unfolding right in front of our eyes.
Recent polls show that migrant, especially Muslim, communities see the current rampage of LGBTQ and other ‘human rights’ ideas sweeping through Western societies as a real danger to their own identity. One of the first signs of this predictable process has been the decision of the Hamtramck, Michigan Muslim majority City Council to block LGBTQ activities in the city. In Europe, there are public polls that show
a growing rejection of these so-called ‘European values’ by the staunchly religious migrants from Muslim countries.
In Germany, support for the anti-establishment Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party is growing among people of migrant origin, as they see this pronouncedly anti-migration(!) movement as the only bulwark against the creeping progressive ideas threatening their values.
One can but wonder what the original idea was of all those who supported large-scale immigration from Muslim countries, being aware of the population’s strict adherence to the rules of the Quran and the Hadith (tradition) in these countries. This is even more of a puzzle considering the obvious failure to educate the newcomers about or to enforce respect among them for ‘European values’.
Whatever the original plan or idea behind promoting, supporting, and organizing uncontrolled migration to Europe (and to the United States) was, social engineering has miserably failed again just as in the case of communism. For once again it failed to take into account nothing less than human nature. And
we conservatives are forced to rebuild our continent (again) from the rubble to which it was reduced by extremist ideologies.
We will happily embrace any help of other conservative, religious communities, yet we will not—and must not —forget who is to blame for the hard times ahead.
