Christopher Caldwell, who writes
Times, has written Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, a marvelously insightful and even
courageous book about Muslim immigration to
Unfortunately, Mr. Caldwell did not stop there. He
included a pamphlet`s worth of foolish optimism about
immigration to the
hard to believe the same man who so neatly dissects the
delusions and weaknesses of Europeans does not realize
he is also describing
Read the book—ignore the pamphlet.
As his title itself makes clear,
Caldwell believes Europe is in a revolution in which
nothing less that the survival of the West is at stake.
In what is the book`s most memorable passage, he asks
"whether you can
same Europe with
different people" and
tells us "the
answer is no".
Caldwell points out that in 1950
there were practically no Muslims in
to 17 million, with 5 million in
France, 4 million in
Germany, and 2 million in
immigrants to the United States, they are
young, urban, prolific, and crime-prone. Forty
percent of the children living in
have immigrant parents, and
London`s one million Muslims are one eighth of the
city`s population. Fifty percent of French prisoners are
Turin, immigrants are 10 percent of the population
but account for only 0.2 percent of the deaths and
25 percent of the births. Muslims who make it to
Europe celebrate by having even more babies than if they
had stayed home—a pattern
in the U.S.
Europe absorbs 1.7 million
newcomers every year—roughly as many as twice the number
America takes in—and almost all are Muslims. At current
rates, by mid-century, a fifth to a third of most
European countries will be foreign-born.
As Caldwell points out,
became a multiethnic society in
a fit of absence of mind".
on its feet quickly and by 1955 needed more labor.
Desperately poor Turks signed up for two-year stints as
guest workers and kept renewing.
This Third-World influx more or
less repeated itself in all the larger European
countries, but until the 1970s most Europeans still
thought all the foreigners would go home.
They didn`t. Instead, they brought
2000, the number of immigrants living in
million but the number of foreigners in the workforce
stayed the same at 2 million. The huge influx consisted of kinfolk,
loafers, criminals, invalids, etc. Whole neighborhoods
began to look
rather than a
Caldwell argues persuasively that
it was a unique set of circumstances that opened the
continent to a religion that had been Europe`s sworn
enemy for centuries: post-war rebuilding, the Cold War
compulsion to be nice to poor countries, and—perhaps
most important—racial guilt over Nazism, Caldwell notes
that hypersensitivity about the Holocaust made it easy
to blacken defenders of Europe as
that Muslims quickly learned to use this powerful
weapon. At the beginning of
Alien Nation, Peter
These were elite concerns, however.
Like Americans, ordinary Europeans
have rejected mass immigration out of hand if they
could have voted on it.
Caldwell points out that immigrants
did not come because they wanted to be Europeans; they
wanted to remain Turks or Moroccans or Bengalis but with
a European standard of living. They also showed up just
when militant Islam was on the upswing, which shackled
their minds even more tightly to their home countries.
The result is an indigestible mass
of underclass foreigners who are more alienated from
French police arrest an Arab, it is common for other
Muslims to start chanting
"Nique la France" —
When French-Arab students are asked if they are French,
chances are they will say that is impossible because
they are Muslim. Only 5 percent of Turks in
say they can imagine being buried there, and only about
half say the laws of Islam are compatible with German
society. Just under half of Dutch Muslims were
attacks of September 11. Thirty-seven percent of
British Muslims say apostates from Islam deserve death.
after they started coming to
are now) Bangladeshis still import their wives from the
subcontinent rather than marry co-ethnics tainted by
points out, these people have no intention of
assimilating; they expect
to change to suit them.
And how have European governments
reacted to open rejection? By petting the immigrants and
gushing about the equality of all cultures. In 2008,
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stopped using the
terrorism" and started talking about
activity" instead. The famous
Macpherson Report of
1999 defined a
incident as one the victim—or anyone else—thought was
British and French welfare programs started paying extra
benefits for multiple Muslim wives and their children.
Dutch and British public health services have even paid
reconstruction surgery" so
Muslim brides could fool their husbands.
In 2006, despite warnings from free
general ban on
religious hatred". Why? Muslims—but no one
European Union researchers on
anti-Semitism who were supposed to publish a report in
2003 found, of course, that almost all perpetrators were
Muslim immigrants. But they couldn`t bring themselves to
say so. They dithered for a year and finally
the report, according to Caldwell, by issuing a
disingenuous press release saying most of the perps were
Caldwell notes that the more wildly
violent Muslims become, the more theologically learned
European (and American) leaders pretend to be.
Politicians across the continent assure people that the
"poorly educated in extremist madrassas" and that
"un-Islamic". No less a boob than George Bush posed
as an expert in comparative religions by telling us that
Islam is a
"religion of peace".
European elites are afraid that
straightforward condemnation will encourage
and "extremism". Whenever
Muslims riot, steal, throw bricks at firemen, or wreck
housing projects, politicians blame themselves for not
Caldwell is right to attribute this
lick-spittle mentality to a devastating loss of
confidence. European leaders, he writes,
"have tended to
treat immigration to Europe as something immigrants are
simply entitled to, part of an outstanding debt that
Europe owes the rest of the world for
centuries of economic exploitation".
For similar reasons, European
politicians made it matter of pride to let in any
brown-skinned vagabond who could pronounce the word
European minister as actually saying,
"We live in a
borderless world in which our new mission is defending
the border not of our countries but of civility and
The Dutch were notoriously easy
touches, and at one time
adding one percent a year to its population just through
asylum—not counting family members. (Both countries
later tightened up the rules.)
most poignant examples of subservience to outsiders
immigrants were more confident than native Britons that
they could influence decisions at local and national
levels. And why not? Muslims, non-whites, and foreigners
get so much public attention it is natural, as Caldwell
puts it, for whites to think
are not the real subject matter of Britain`s politics".
This book is very good on just how
different Islam is from Christianity, and why that
causes trouble. First, Muslims
know they are right and everyone else is wrong. They have a
muscular, intolerant faith that shocks limp-wristed
Euro-Christians. That is why the
dialogue" Christians always crave usually means
Christians can make life easier for Muslims".
observes, the only reason the term
exists is because there is so much of the other kind.
There are many kinds of Christianity, but no one talks
about "moderate Christians" because, compared to Muslims, they are all
Caldwell reports that Muslims are
very keen on freedom of religion—but only so long as it
means they can open sharia-law courts and
build giant mosques; Euro-imams have openly
proclaimed their goal of stamping out any but The One
True Faith once they get power.
By contrast, Europeans act on
principle. When the French decided they couldn`t have
Arab girls wearing veils to school, they felt compelled
to ban yarmulkes and
crucifixes" as well. Italians and Germans couldn`t
ban veils without taking down classroom crucifixes that
may have been up for centuries.
Europeans therefore cannot bring
themselves to combat alien practices head-on. When the
Danes got sick of Muslims fetching brides from the old
country, they had to ban
rather than illiterate Third Worlders. By forbidding the
import of marriage partners under the age of 24, the
Danes mostly stopped the practice, but they had to
pretend they had an underage-spouse problem rather than
an immigration problem.
Measures like this bother people
who shouldn`t be bothered. If the authorities step up
surveillance on fire-breathing imams, they think
they have to keep tabs on other people, too. If they
cut back on
welfare because of
immigrant chiselers, they have to change the rules
for everyone. Although it came to nothing, one Swedish
bureaucrat, shocked to discover
female genital mutilation was going on in her
argued for mandatory checkups for
Surprisingly, Caldwell falls for
the silly idea that you can`t have free flow of capital
without free flow of people—the
Koreans have proven the two are unrelated. But he is
good on arguments against
example, that peasant labor cannot possibly save
European welfare states. Turks and Tunisians soak up
social services and make such low wages they are a net
drain. He adds that even if, by massaging the numbers,
the boosters can show a slight net benefit to the
native-born due to immigrants—what George Borjas calls
surplus"—this misses the point. Haggling over
plus-or-minus tenths of a percent of GNP completely
ignores the real impact of immigration, which is not
economic at all.
Caldwell can turn a graceful phrase
when he writes about how imperceptibly societies change
as the ethnic mix shifts. Here is a sentence worth
people start doing out of
what they previously did out of conviction or generosity, they often do
not notice the transition."
This is good, too:
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."
he doesn`t just jump the tracks: he does it going over a
trestle. Our Hispanics are not at all like European
immigrants, he says, because they are
Christians and speak a European language. What`s
volunteer for the military, have
blue-collar jobs—why, they`re just like Americans
from 40 years ago!
Practically all of
VDARE.COM is devoted to taking the stuffing out of
stupidity of that kind, but suffice it say that any
group with Hispanic rates of
school failure, and
radical disaffection is nothing like Grandma`s
How can a man who sees so clearly
what is happening across the Atlantic pretend that none
of the following applies to the
"For all the lip
service paid to
diversity, people tend to
misgivings about immigration was to
their children were at liberty to express politically
their wishes as a
people, in a way that European natives were not."
"not dealing with
an ordinary immigration problem at all, but with an
After the 2005 French
riots "there was a desire, verging on desperation, to explain the riots as
being due to
of the majority society."
individual countries are slowly escaping their political
and they are right, although they can seldom spell out
Europeans live in
"cut off by economic and cultural changes from the world
they thought they would inhabit."
not just factors of production but factors of
"In no country in
Europe does the bulk of the population aspire to live in
a bazaar of world cultures."
Whether out of ignorance,
cowardice, or—could it possibly be?—conviction,
face the same crisis. Whatever he learned in
he seems to have forgotten when he stepped off the
There is worse.
anything that immigration is a disaster for
recognized the truth long before he did. The book opens
with an account of
Enoch Powell`s famous so-called
"Rivers of Blood" speech, given in 1968 when Caldwell was in
admits that Powell`s predictions were
any shadow of a doubt"—but says, without
explanation, that Powell was
This is as obtuse as calling the speech a
"rant"—the immensely cultivated Powell was incapable of ranting—but
he also calls Oriana Fallaci`s hugely successful
critique of Islam (The Rage and the Pride) a
And what about people who are
actually trying to defend Europe against the threat
Jean-Marie Le Pen is a
reactionary" and his National Front is
"fascistic". The British National Party is one of those
"extremist parties that
sow hatred" and Pia Kjaersgaard`s
Danish Peoples Party is
abuse his elders and betters? Is he afraid
he will be
"fear-mongering reactionary" and thinks he can
head off charges by redirecting them?
That is a contemptible trick. And
it doesn`t even work.
In his defense,
is writing in an age of terror, in which
telling the truth is a
firing offense. Still, he should have remained
silent rather than denounce patriots who are doing the
work he has the good sense to realize must be done.
This book is like a piece of
Camembert that is just good enough to pick up and eat
after it falls into the dirt. You eat it very carefully.
him) is editor of
American Renaissance and the author of Paved
With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in
Peter Brimelow`s review, click