Christopher Caldwell`s Reflections on the Revolution: Read The Book—Ignore The Pamphlet!

Christopher Caldwell, who writes
for

The Weekly
Standard
and
The Financial
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 w:st="on">Europe. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Caldwell did not stop there. He
included a pamphlet`s worth of foolish optimism about
immigration to the w:st="on">United States—so foolish that it is
hard to believe the same man who so neatly dissects the
delusions and weaknesses of Europeans does not realize
he is also describing

American policy-makers.

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
have the


same Europe
with

different people
" and
tells us "the
answer is no"
.

Caldwell points out that in 1950
there were practically no Muslims in
Europe
. By 2000 there were an estimated 15
to 17 million, with 5 million in

France
, 4 million in

Germany
, and 2 million in

Britain
. Like

immigrants to the United States
, they are

young, urban, prolific, and crime-prone.
Forty
percent of the children living in
Paris

have immigrant parents, and

London`s
one million Muslims are one eighth of the
city`s population. Fifty percent of French prisoners are
Muslims. In

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

observable
with
Mexicans
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,
"Western Europe
became a multiethnic society in

a fit of absence of mind
".
A defeated w:st="on">Germany got back
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
their

villages
.
Caldwell cites amazing statistics: From 1971 to
2000, the number of immigrants living in w:st="on">Germany grew from 3 million to 7.5
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
"like a


seizure of
territory

rather than a
multicolored enrichment".

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
"Nazis," and
that Muslims quickly learned to use this powerful
weapon. At the beginning of

Alien Nation,
Peter
Brimelow called
this phenomenon


"Hitler`s Revenge".

These were elite concerns, however.
Like Americans, ordinary Europeans
would
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
Europe
with every new generation. When the
French police arrest an Arab, it is common for other
Muslims to start chanting

"Nique la France"

"F–k 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 w:st="on">Germany
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
"in
complete sympathy
"
with the
attacks of September 11
. Thirty-seven percent of
British Muslims say apostates from Islam deserve death.
Sixty years
after they started coming to
Britain
, three quarters of (what
are now) Bangladeshis still import their wives from the
subcontinent rather than marry co-ethnics tainted by
living in Europe.

As Caldwell
points out, these people have no intention of
assimilating; they expect Europe
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
term "Islamic
terrorism"
and started talking about
"anti-Islamic
activity
"
instead. The famous

Macpherson Report
of

1999
defined a
"racist"
incident as one the victim—or anyone else—thought was
"racist".
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
for

"hymen
reconstruction surgery"
so

Muslim brides
could fool their husbands.

In 2006, despite warnings from free
speech activists, w:st="on">Britain passed a
general ban on

"incitement of
religious hatred"
. Why? Muslims—but no one
else—wanted it.

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
"balanced"
the report, according to Caldwell, by issuing a
disingenuous press release saying most of the perps were
disaffected whites.

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
bomb-throwers are
"poorly educated in extremist madrassas"
and that
violence is
"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
"nativism"
and "extremism". Whenever
Muslims riot, steal, throw bricks at firemen, or wreck
housing projects, politicians blame themselves for not
doing enough.

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
"asylum". w:st="on">Caldwell quotes one
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
human rights"
.

The Dutch were notoriously easy
touches, and at one time w:st="on">Sweden was
adding one percent a year to its population just through
asylum—not counting family members. (Both countries
later tightened up the rules.)

One of Caldwell`s
most poignant examples of subservience to outsiders
comes from w:st="on">Britain. A 2008 poll found that
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
"their aspiration
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

"interreligious
dialogue"
Christians always crave usually means
"discussing how
Christians can make life easier for Muslims"
.

As
Caldwell

observes, the only reason the term
"moderate Islam"
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
moderate.

Europeans are on a snipe hunt for
"moderates", just as the

Republicans
are for

"black
conservatives"
,
but whenever the French or
British find a tame cleric he turns out to have no
constituency.

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
"large
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
young spouses
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
country,

argued for mandatory checkups for
every Swedish
girl.

Surprisingly, Caldwell falls for
the silly idea that you can`t have free flow of capital
without free flow of people—the
Japanese
and

Koreans
have proven the two are unrelated. But he is
good on arguments against w:st="on">Third World immigration in general. He points out, for
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
"the immigrant
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
pondering: "When
people start doing out of


fear

what they previously did out of conviction or generosity, they often do
not notice the transition."

This is good, too:
"One 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."

Alas, when
Caldwell
writes about
America

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
more, they

volunteer for the military
, have

babies
, take
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

crime
,

illegitimacy
,
welfare
use
,

poverty
,

school failure
, and

radical disaffection
is nothing like Grandma`s
generation.

How can a man who sees so clearly
what is happening across the Atlantic pretend that none
of the following applies to the w:st="on">United States?

  • "For all the lip
    service paid to


    diversity
    , people tend to
    flee it."


  • "Real
    discussions—about the increasing `diversity` of European
    society and whether it was a


    good or a bad
    thing
    —were
    all but


    shut down.
    "



  • "To express
    misgivings about immigration was to


    confess racist
    inclinations
    ."




  • "Immigrants and
    their children were at liberty to express politically
    their wishes as a
    people
    , in a way that European natives were not."




  • Europe is
    "not dealing with
    an ordinary immigration problem at all, but with an
    adversary culture."




  • After the 2005 French
    riots "there was a desire, verging on desperation, to explain the riots as
    being due to


    some misconduct
    of the majority society
    ."





  • "Europeans fear
    their

    individual countries are slowly escaping their political
    control
    ,
    and they are right, although they can seldom spell out
    precisely how."




  • Europeans live in
    internal exile,
    "cut off by economic and cultural changes from the world
    they thought they would inhabit."




  • Immigration
    "means importing
    not just factors of production but factors of


    social change.
    "





  • "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,
Caldwell
refused to recognize that Europe and
America

face the same crisis. Whatever he learned in
Europe

he seems to have forgotten when he stepped off the
plane.

There is worse.
Caldwell
sees as clearly as anyone sees
anything that immigration is a disaster for w:st="on">Europe. But he dismisses as moral inferiors the men who
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
knee britches.
Caldwell

admits that Powell`s predictions were
factually correct
—"beyond
any shadow of a doubt"
—but says, without
explanation, that Powell was
"morally wrong".
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
"tirade".

And what about people who are

actually trying to defend Europe
against the threat w:st="on">Caldwell so clearly spells out?

Jean-Marie Le Pen
is a
"fear-mongering
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
"immigrant
obsessed"
.

Why does
Caldwell

abuse his elders and betters? Is he afraid
he will be
called a
"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,
Caldwell

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.


Jared
Taylor (
email
him) is editor of


American Renaissance
and the author of Paved
With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in
Contemporary America
.

(For
Peter Brimelow`s review, click


here
.)