Christopher Caldwell`s Reflection On The Revolution In Europe: Now He Tells Us?

Christopher Caldwell`s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West is an
important and surprising book.

Granted, readers
won`t see much that`s

. In essence, Caldwell`s
Reflections is a
vindication of
Enoch Powell,
the brilliant Tory who warned against immigration in a
prescient (and thus notorious) 1968
that began "The
supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils"

Caldwell points out in his opening pages
(which you can read


"Although at the time Powell`s demographic projections were
much snickered at, they have turned out not just roughly
accurate but as close to perfectly accurate as it is
possible for any such projections to be: In his
Rotary Club
, [November 16 1968] Powell shocked his audience

that the nonwhite population of Britain, barely
over a million at the time, would rise to 4.5 million by
2002. (According to the national census, the actual "ethnic
minority" population of Britain in 2001 was


who get their views from the MainStream Media, though, will
be startled by how gracefully—yet bluntly—Caldwell delivers
an intellectually cohesive assault on the conventional
wisdom of the

diversity dogma


is also a model for how a working journalist can transform
years of old articles researched on scores of trips to
Europe into a stylish book. Caldwell`s solution is to
enhance his prose style with aphorisms worthy of
G.K. Chesterton

example, in Caldwell`s original February 27, 2006
Weekly Standard
article on Nicolas Sarkozy,

The Man Who Would Be

le Président
he discussed Sarkozy`s call for

affirmative action
in France to appease
riotous Muslims

can be argued that France needs such measures desperately, …
but, … Sarkozy shows a bit of the naiveté of, say,

Hubert Humphrey
when he implies the program would be only temporary. … How
long would the program last, then? Twenty years? `No, twenty
years is too long.`"

In his
book, however, Caldwell adds this memorable dictum in reply
to Sarkozy`s Continental innocence about America`s

moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which
affirmative action can`t be ended because its

beneficiaries are too weak
to a world in which it can`t
be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong." 

(I suspect that when
Sen. Lindsey Graham
decided to vote for

Sonia Sotomayor,
he was saying something like this to
himself, just less elegantly.)


logic is
not lost on white people
in the United States, and it
will likely not be lost on

The courage that Caldwell displays in
Reflections is
unexpected. Among conservative literary intellectuals,
Caldwell has pursued mainstream approval with perhaps the
most success. For example, in a June 1998
Atlantic article,

The Southern Captivity of the GOP
, this Harvard
English Lit major argued that the Republican Party appealed
too much to

white Southerners
(whom he described as


two-year-old churches

His dust
jacket biography reads:

"Christopher Caldwell is a columnist for the

Financial Times
, a contributing writer for the
New York Times
, and a senior editor at

The Weekly Standard

(You can`t blame him; he and his wife, who
is Robert
`s daughter, have five kids.)

Unexpectedly, Caldwell takes the arrogant
bluster of
European intellectuals
and patiently and quietly
extracts the simple silly-mindedness at its heart:

"Bizarrely, as immigration began to change Europe at its
economic and
cultural core
, the political vocabulary remained the
same as when immigration had been a fringe phenomenon.
People kept talking about


points out the endless contradictions of the cult of

policing of tolerance had no inbuilt limits and no obvious
logic. Why was `ethnic pride` a virtue and `nationalism` a
sickness? Why was an


legitimate but an

like `white`
out of
Why had it suddenly become criminal to ask
questions today that it was considered a citizen`s duty to
ask ten years ago?"

And yet,
as the
Danish Cartoon Riots
of 2006 showed, the absurdity of
Europe`s ever-growing restrictions on freedom of speech
about immigration—both legalistic (what Caldwell calls

criminalization of opinion
) and vigilante (enforced
by young
Muslim thugs
)—aren`t funny. As Caldwell explains,
"Immigration exacts a steep price in


new, uncompromising ideology was advancing under cover of
its own ridiculousness—not as the
Big Lie
of legend, perhaps, but as something similarly ominous that
might be called the Big Joke."

Caldwell is extremely good at
disentangling the ideological evolutions—the
who says A, must say B
thought processes—that got
Europe into its Muslim mess.

has in recent decades been the cornerstone of the European
moral order. … Under the pressure of mass immigration,
however, post-Holocaust repentance became a template for
regulating the affairs of any minority that could plausibly
present itself as seriously aggrieved. … Once on the
continent, Muslims took up a

privileged position
in any public debate on minority
rights: they, too, were `victims.`"

This, of course, is an unmistakable

Editor Peter
opening to his much-denounced book

Nation: Common Sense About America`s Immigration Disaster

back in 1995:

"There is a sense in which
current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler`s

posthumous revenge
on America. The U.S. political elite
emerged from the war passionately concerned to cleanse
itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia. Eventually,
the epochal Immigration Act (technically, the

Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments
) of

"And this, quite
accidentally, triggered a renewed mass immigration, so huge
and so systematically different from anything that had gone
before as to transform—and ultimately, perhaps,
even to
—the one unquestioned victor of
War II:
the American nation, as it had evolved by the
middle of the 20th century.

"Today, U.S.
government policy is literally
dissolving the
people and electing a new one
. You can be for this or
you can be against it. But the fact is undeniable."

Brimelow, needless to say, goes prudently uncited in
Caldwell`s book.

elites needed a new minority in order to feel morally
superior to European commoners. And the Muslims agreed.

"[M]any Muslims felt
their community offered native Europeans a more appropriate
object than the Jews themselves for moral self-examination
and moral self-flagellation. An increasing number of Muslims
saw themselves, in fact, as the `new Jews.`

Ironically, Europe`s obsession with the Holocaust has
stimulated the outbreak of anti-Semitic violence by European
Muslims in this decade:

the Jews accumulated `rivals` with an interest in dislodging
them from their position as Europe`s top victims, the system
was suddenly turned inside out. The ideology of diversity
and racial harmony … now became the means through which
anti-Jewish fury was reinjected into European life. … If the
Muslims were the

new Jews,
apparently, then the Jews were the new Nazis."

Caldwell sums up with a

from French philosopher

Alain Finkielkraut

"I think that the
lofty idea of `the war on racism` is gradually turning into
a hideously false ideology. … And this anti-racism will be
for the twenty-first century what communism was for the
twentieth century: a source of violence."

It would be interesting to know whether
Caldwell was always a secret


European immigration,
but had his logic emasculated by
his periodical editors.

Or did
he not come to these logical conclusions until he tried to
make sense of his research while writing this book?

either case—welcome aboard!

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is

movie critic

The American Conservative

His website

features his daily blog. His new book,