Counter-Currents
Christoper Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe
Morris van de Camp2,572 words
Christopher Caldwell
Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
New York: Random House, 2009
Europe’s immigration problem starts with Nazi Germany’s World War II labor policy. Then, according to Allied propaganda, “slave” laborers were brought in from outside Germany to work the factories and mines while the German laborers who normally worked those jobs went off to fight. When the war ended, Europe’s manpower shortage remained, [1] but the proof-of-concept for “guest workers” was established and it spread to the rest of Europe. By the 1950s a considerable body of Third World “guest workers” had established themselves in various settlements across Europe.
Initially, these colonists were not seen as a threat. Many of the immigrants had served in the militaries of the French or British Empires. [2] Their presence in Europe was seen as temporary. It wasn’t until 1968 when Enoch [3] Powell [4] gave his famous Rivers of Blood speech that immigration as a problem became officially noticed. Enoch Powell [5] was alarmed by the fact that Britain was in the midst of a racial/demographic revolution and he was concerned that Britain would be saddled with an intractable racial problem such as in America. Indeed, this racial revolution had spread across all of Western Europe.
The Empire Windrush brought many Afro-Caribbeans (and Negro street crime) into England in the late 1940s.
Christopher Caldwell wrote about the immigration situation in Europe in 2009. As one can imagine, events have moved along a great deal in the last decade, but on the whole, the book gives an outstanding picture of the foundations of the disaster.
Caldwell writes: “All British discussion since [Rivers of Blood] has been, essentially, an argument over whether or not Enoch Powell was right. It has been a sterile argument because those who engage in it tend to mix up two senses of the word right — the moral sense and the factual sense.” [6] We know that Powell was factually correct. The real question is if he was morally correct.
I’d never heard of this book until Greg Johnson asked me to review it. What is striking is that Christopher Caldwell, until very recently, was the editor for the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatism is a Jewish-led philosophical movement that can be summed up as Israel first and whites last. Members of the Bush II administration who were neoconservatives planned and supported the Iraq War. Neoconservatives also supported high levels of non-white immigration.
Neoconservative propaganda was also supportive of Islam and immigrants in many ways. “Islam,” according to President Bush, “was the religion of peace.” Indeed, many Bush administration officials such as the Jew Paul Wolfowitz were wholly dismissive of European culture in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Caldwell’s book discussing the problem with immigrants in Europe is a defection from that sort of neoconservatism. It is also a foreshadowing of his recent rejection of the morality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in his recent book, The Age of Entitlement. Neoconservatism is indeed dead, at least for non-Jews.
Location of Pakistanis in Greater London (2011 UK Census). [7] The 7/7 bombers used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and chapati flour (traditional flour common in Pakistan).
The reason for this was multifold. One reason was that the Cold War altered everything. Not only was one half of Europe cut off from the other part, the belligerents of the Cold War felt required to help out the Third World in various ways and allowing immigration was one such way. Additionally, the immigrants themselves started to figure out how to game the system. Once they were in, they carried out swindles like “family reunification” and importing “religious workers.”
Most importantly was the “civil rights” situation in the United States. How “civil rights” happened in America is beyond the scope of this article, but because the Americans were the biggest power in Western Europe, American problems transmitted to Europe.
Checkpoint Charlie: American involvement in Europe spread the “civil rights” ideology.
“Civil rights” failed to carry out its promises of equalizing Africans with whites, yet the policy was so powerful a social victory that no person could possibly criticize it even as Africans burned down cities and white liberals fled integration. There are two more issues with “civil rights” that need to be addressed. First, “civil rights” created an ideology of tolerance. This ideology broadened. Under this expanded definition of “civil rights,” any group able to analogize as Africans in the United States became privileged.
“Second,” writes Caldwell, “the ideology hardened. It developed real powers of enforcement, partially because it was codified into law, and partially because non-governmental groups acted as freelance enforcers. Offenses against the ideology of tolerance now not just brought criticism and ostracism but the possibility of lost livelihoods and encounters with public authorities.” [8] Immigrants in Europe, especially non-white ones, easily became privileged by analogies to American “civil rights” policies.
Three of the bombers of the 7/7 bombings in London were men of Pakistani immigrant origins, the fourth was a Jamaican convert to Islam.
Another reason immigration continued to be allowed was that European governments shifted the rationale for allowing it. Immigration was not an economic necessity, but a moral necessity. The immigrants, so the reasoning went, were fleeing “brutal civil wars” or other such problems.
This proved to be a line of reasoning difficult to defeat. Again, the circumstances of the Cold War and American power in Europe respectively were and remain a big part of the problem. America’s founding narrative contains sympathy for refugees. The Pilgrims of the Mayflower were refugees of a sort. Additionally, it was Cold War policy in Western Europe to accept refugees from the Communist Eastern Bloc.
The American and Cold War refugee narratives need to be deconstructed. Most of the early American colonists were seeking refuge, but they were doing it by creating their own society. Much of the idea that refugees are a blessing comes from the story of the Huguenots, who were a blessing to England, America, Holland, and South Africa. Likewise, those fleeing Communism were a blessing, but for the most part, they were fleeing into areas populated by those like themselves and they carried with them considerable skills.
Refugees, though, are a mixed bag. It all depends on the impact they make upon the society that receives them. Huguenots, for example, weren’t a blessing for Spain. Since the end of the Cold War, refugees have become entirely a burden upon their receiving society. Much of the reason for this is the fact that refugees into Europe are from the Third Word and they practice Islam.
Islam: As Dangerous in Europe as Hydrophobia in a Dog
Caldwell is completely frank about the relationship between Islam and Europe. For generations, the Mediterranean Sea was a zone for Islamic slave-catchers and pirates. The Islamic Ottoman Turks threatened Vienna and Islamic Moors occupied Spain. Islamic immigrants entered Europe at a time when Europeans were so distracted by the World Wars and Cold War that they’d forgotten what a danger Muslims were.
The understanding of the problem of Islam was confined to the 1960s political fringe and mostly hypothetical; such as Enoch Powell’s widowed constituent who had “excreta pushed through her letterbox.” The Muslim problem became apparent to the European mainstream the same time year that Communism started to fall apart — in 1989. This is when Islamic clerics issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie — an Indian of Muslim background who lived in Britain and wrote a turgid book that could be seen as anti-Islam called The Satanic Verses. Since then there’s been a steady drip, drip, drip of terrorist attacks and an undeniable spike in crime. Almost all crime in Europe is caused by Muslim immigrants or Muslims of immigrant stock.
Additionally, a bizarre situation has grown up across the continent, from Malmö in Sweden to the suburbs of Paris where large zones of immigrants, nearly all non-white and mostly Muslims, live in modernist buildings designed or inspired by a Swiss architect named Le Corbusier (1887 — 1965). Le Corbusier’s designs are actually pretty functional, beautiful even, but when peopled by Third Worlders these buildings become castles of savagery.
Caldwell uses the “tragic dirt” logical fallacy when describing Le Corbusier-style housing projects and their occupants. The immigrants in these areas are far from places with jobs and the design of things, such as the stairwells and elevators, make natural choke-points for the young and strong to rob their weaker fellow non-whites in the building. In the early 2000s, it was revealed that North African boys often gang-raped the girls of these projects. Of course, the problem is the cultural negatives of the immigrants themselves as well as their low IQs. These immigrants are unemployable. The design and location of their accommodations has nothing to do with anything.
French Ghettos, by Le Corbusier
Meanwhile, the populations of these ghettos are wholly hostile to the European societies which host them. In 2005, a terrible riot developed in a suburb of Paris called Clinchy-sous-Bois. The rioting spread to every non-white area of France and it was characterized by cars being burned by the non-white rioters. Caldwell argues that this rioting was in no small part due to a rising Islamist ideology connected with a deep antipathy to French society. Again with the North American cultural forms; many of the rioters made the same simian gestures that minstrel-show gangsta rappers make.
Caldwell describes the radicalization process for Muslims living in Europe. Essentially, these unfortunate people are adrift in a land that is not their own, and disconnected from their native culture. Meanwhile Western Europe’s pockets of North Africans, Pakistanis, Syrians, etc. are all becoming a new “Muslim” group. Additionally, Caldwell examines Islamic theology, and argues that yes, there is a point to be made that the Koran does indeed call for violence against non-Muslims. In 2009, this was a bold statement for a neoconservative white man in the mainstream to make.
Caldwell, therefore, argues that it is not unreasonable to call for greater caution towards Muslims as a group. It is also not unreasonable to consider white terrorism and spree killings as one-offs. Caldwell writes:
There was no substantial body of white Americans who applauded [Oklahoma City bomber] McVeigh’s act or said that although his means were wrong, the injustices he named were real, and to ignore his message was to invite retribution. [9]
Ten Years On — Europe’s Muslims, The British, & the Obama Administration
Reflections is a book that’s more than a decade old as this article goes to print. What, if anything, has happened, and what, if anything, can be done? First, it is clear that none of the predictions of peace and harmony multicultural advocates — backed by state power — so loudly made occurred. Europe’s Muslims have continued to attack European whites pretty much anywhere they are for almost any reason. Indeed, in the United States, one Muslim terrorist had no trouble murdering Hispanics. (Of course, nearly all Hispanics are Christian and many are white.) The biggest event that Europe’s Muslims participated in since this book was published was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The most vicious of that insane asylum’s killers were foreign-born fighters from Europe.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Europe’s Muslims thus have caused a great many problems, not just in Europe, but in the Middle East also. However, more things have broken than the infrastructure of eastern Syria. One thing I’ve noticed in my career is that a subset of the social victory that was the “civil rights” movement is that a white or group of whites in one organization who notice a problem with the non-whites of another organization disingenuously attack the other whites. In other words, if Section A has a problem with Dindu Nuffins in Section B, Section A’s white leader will make life a living hell for Section B’s white leader until some change comes about. Such a thing has happened in Europe.
One instance of this phenomenon occurred in Norway in 2011. That’s when Anders Breivik murdered white children attending a leftist political camp. The reason? Islamic immigration. More recently, the British voted to leave the European Union — twice — and then left that Union in no small part due to Islamic immigration. While many reading this applaud Brexit, one should reflect that the EU had provided a great deal of prosperity to a continent that a generation ago was very hostile and divided indeed. I propose that honesty is a better policy, but due to “civil rights” and the ideology of tolerance backed by the police, honesty in this matter is difficult.
The Obama administration’s relationship with “civil rights” and Islam is also critical to consider. Although Obama was not an American black in the strictest sense, his wife was and his career’s purpose was to advance the interest of American blacks. One could say Obama was the First Soldier of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was also a Democrat, and since the 1940s, that Party is subject to a protection racket scheme carried out by the African community in the United States. When Democrats own the White House, blacks are tempted to riot to get some payoff.
During Obama’s dismal second term, it was clear that Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and America were tempted to go jihad alongside Negro rioters. After Trump won the election with the promise of a Muslim Travel Ban, Muslim terror slowed considerably and black rioting stopped entirely. Additionally, ISIS folded so fast after Trump’s election that it is not unreasonable to conclude there was some sort of under-the-table support for ISIS or tolerance for those who supported ISIS on the part of members of the Obama administration.
Blacks are an implacable problem in the United States. They don’t fit in, many are unemployable, and nearly all crime is due to their activity. Muslims in Europe occupy the same niche that Negroes occupy in the States. Because the 1964 Civil Rights Act is an illicit second constitution whose ideology is easily transferred to any group that can be analogized as an African in the United States, it is clear that Muslims in Europe will continue to infect that continent until the 1964 Civil Rights Act is struck down.
In the meantime, at a minimum, Europeans need to adopt American-style crime laws where the types of crimes typically carried out by non-whites come with long-term jail sentences. Additionally, Europe needs the ability to trial non-white children as adults with adult-level sentences. Europeans need to make life as difficult for Third World immigrants as they possibly can while they gather strength. Finally, Europe’s whites must organize and Europe’s whites must have children. The game is not over.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation or superchat (paid comment) by going to our Entropy page and selecting “offline super chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All superchats will be read and commented upon in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Notes
[1] The situation was made far worse by Communism. Eastern Germany had a large, underemployed labor force that was trapped by the closing of the Inner German Border.
[2] There is always a problem with diverse militaries. See here for more info: https://counter-currents.com/2017/11/disrespecting-black-soldiers/#more-76526
[3] https://counter-currents.com/2015/09/the-search-for-a-usable-past/
[4] https://counter-currents.com/2020/02/enoch-powells-rivers-of-blood/
[5] https://counter-currents.com/2012/06/the-last-tory/#more-28019
[6] Page 5.
[7] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistani_Greater_London_2011_census.png
[8] Page 74
[9] Page 236
8 comments
A nice strong article. A pleasure to read:
“Europeans need to make life as difficult for Third World immigrants as they possibly can while they gather strength.”
To make life harder for third world immigrants in Europe isn’t enough. We should also help them and make it easier and more attractive to return.
Today it is more profitable for immigrants to live on welfare in Western and Northern Europe than to return to their homelands in Africa and the Middle East. Most politicians still dream of “integration,” while repatriation is a big taboo. But it would be much less expensive to pay the immigrants a decent sum to return home instead of supporting them in our countries.
Hopefully, the post-coronacrisis will favor realism over idealism. More and more people will have to admit that it’s impossible to integrate many millions of muslims in Europe. And that will lead to new solutions.
They have to go back. There is no alternative to a mix of voluntary and mandatory repatriations. Patriotic Alternative in the UK is a budding ethno-political organisation proposing such measures.
Check it out. patrioticalternative.org.uk
Fine essay. I wonder how long Caldwell’s heresy against neoconservatism and Jewish paranoia has been brewing? It seems like it was already present in Reflections. Perhaps it just took time for him to have the courage to say the things he had said about Europe about America.
I really appreciate the work of Morris de Camp, esp when he ferrets out old books still worth reading and remembering. I own this book myself, but many of his other reviews were of much older works I’d never even heard of, so a big thanks. Also, I’m alone in my library room, but this line,
“Neoconservatism is a Jewish-led philosophical movement that can be summed up as Israel first and whites last.”
had me literally laughing out loud. So pungent, so true, despite all possible analytically correct qualifications and equivocations! I wish I had someone else here right now to share it with. Someone, that is, who could appreciate just how true it is (I read way too much neocon / Reaganite stuff in the 1970s-80s-90s until I, too, finally understood that neoconservatism was just a shell game, a cover-rhetoric for patriotic ‘goys’ like me to unknowingly serve Jewish interests).
That said, de Camp makes a number of assertions which are either overbroad, or just too liberal.
MdC: “Neoconservative propaganda was also supportive of Islam and immigrants in many ways. “Islam,” according to President Bush, “was the religion of peace.”
Neocons were rarely supportive of Islam, and many of the harshest critics of Islam (Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Pamela Gellar) have been Jewish neocons. Jewish pseudo-neocon Stephen Steinlight was criticizing Islamic immigration from an openly Ziocentric position (ie, Muslim immigration should be reduced because it threatens Jewish power in America, as well as support for Israel) two decades ago.
I think what the a$$ Bush actually said was that Islam was “A religion of peace”, itself nonsense both theologically and historically. Obsequious as well as ignorant though Bush was, surely even he knows that it is the object of worship of his own ostentatious Christianity who is known as “THE Prince of Peace”, and not Muhammad. I don’t think Bush would have made such an error.
MdC: “Neoconservatism is indeed dead, at least for non-Jews.”
Au contraire, it is the regnant ideology of the Trump Admin, and virtually every major GOP member of Congress, with the possible exception of libertarian Rand Paul. To be fair, Trump’s rhetoric is more “right-neocon” in contrast to Bush’s “left-neoconism”.
MdC: “By the 1970s, it was clear that the economic justification for immigration into Europe no longer applied.”
I question whether there was ever *any* applicable economic justification (as opposed to windy rhetoric disguising selfish interests) for mass nonwhite immigration to Europe. As a matter of strict economic logic, immigration is almost always an economic ‘bad’ for native majorities, esp white ones. It would only ever be a ‘good’ (and then, only an economic one which would have to be weighed against other, non-economic ‘goods’) if a) the immigrants were for some reason economically more valuable than the natives (which in our case only comes about in tiny numbers: eg, importing a nonwhite scientific Nobel Prize winner), or b) native numbers were too small to sustain a modern division of labor.
Imagine 10 million whites scattered across America. Importing 20 million mostly behaviorally neutral nonwhites (so no net-negative criminal blacks or terrorist Muslims) probably would over time amount to a positive for economic growth, and even for the only relevant type of economic growth, which is per capita growth for the original natives. This is because 10 million across a huge landmass like America simply cannot have as dense a level of specialization as 30 million, and progressively deeper specialization is a major factor leading to real economic growth. Of course, that in itself is no reason to surrender racial territory (but we should be conceptually clear that we would be rejecting the additional 20 million for non-economic reasons).
WRT the postwar West European “wirtschaftswunder”, imported Arabs and blacks were obviously not (nor ever have been nor will be) superior as economic value creators to native Europeans! So the only issue would have been whether Western Europe truly lacked sufficient workers to sustain a modern division of labor. Such a claim is nonsense. Many of our people died in the senseless racial civil war, but the aftermath also left many alive from across the pre-war economic and educational spectrums, as well as unimaginable amounts of work to do rebuilding. Indeed, when the horrible ship Windrush arrived with its poison cargo in 1948 Britain was still in the early years of what came to be known as “austerity Britain”. That austerity lasted pretty much up to the 60s. That depressed economy needed … more low wage, unskilled workers??!! The same was true for other European nations. There was high economic growth in the quarter century following the war, but that was mainly due to the high educational (and IQ) levels of the Europeans combined with their a) (re-)starting their economies from such artificially straitened circumstances, and b) relative absence of the level of socialism that came to exist in many forms (high marginal tax rates, copious business regulations, nationalization of industries, gigantic middle class as well as poverty welfare states, central bank monetary policies untethered from the classical gold standard) after the war, and which intensified and worsened across the third quarter of the 20th century (and to some extent ever since).
I strongly suspect that the “justifications” for importing ‘guest workers’ into postwar Europe were of the same type as those offered for high levels of immigration to the US today – ie, total bullshit whose ulterior purpose was to maximize profits for various labor-intensive industries by means of importing cheaper labor, in effect redistributing money from common native workers to the capitalists and the immigrants. Such wealth redistribution does not equal new wealth creation.
MdC: “One reason was that the Cold War altered everything. Not only was one half of Europe cut off from the other part, the belligerents of the Cold War felt required to help out the Third World in various ways and allowing immigration was one such way.”
I don’t think the Cold War altered anything, except that it’s end made the European goofballs even less security conscious, and thus less realistic about everything. It made possible the “Euro-Disney” fantasy, that is, of Europe as some kind of post-tribal “human rights” paradise exempt from hard history and evolutionary reality. But in doing so it only exacerbated existing postwar Euro-utopian tendencies. The immigration invasion long predated 1989. I traveled extensively in Western Europe in the 70s and 80s, and there were already dismayingly large numbers of nonwhites present (I haven’t been back since the mid-90s; I gather it’s astronomically worse, as I predicted it would get, when last there). And Raspail published his great novel in the early 70s, so there was never any excuse for not seeing the racial writing on the wall (esp as the 70s was also the best decade for rationally discussing the problem of Third World overpopulation).
Europe’s immigration problem starts with Nazi Germany’s World War II labor policy.
Funny, there is always a way to put the blame on the Germans. The Anglo-Saxons seem to suck it with the mother milk.
The “Nazis” had a clear distinction of who is part of the “Volksgemeinschaft” and who is not, who is only getting a job when his own country could not provide one and thus is a “guest”.
Guests are welcome but they are supposed to leave after some time. The German “Gastarbeiter” label used until the 70ies was a useful reminder.
But the German concept of “Volksgemeinschaft” defined by blood, inheritance and race was ridiculed and viciously fought by the Allies and their masters.
The French – addicted to 1789 – adopted the principle of “droit du sol” which states that every pregnant Indian crossing the jungle to a hospital in French Guyana, is giving birth to a Frenchman, a European.
The Americans, as the article states, were caught in their “melting pot” rhetoric.
So if the White Race is going down the immigration drain, this is due to the defeat of Nazi Germany, not because of its labor policy.
Islam is a political state:
https://www.culturecritique.com/politics/islam-is-a-political-state-that-seeks-empire/
In reply to E. Perez’ posted reply:
I was an English-Irish orphan born in America in 1943, but I was raised by a strong German immigrant mother. When I saw the words in the post by E. Perez — “Blood, Inheritance and Race” — I realize I’ve lived by those German ideals all my life and they have brought me here, of late, to White Nationalism. Inheritance is especially importance, keeping the financial resources within kith and kin, and granting security to pursue the fulfillment of White talents and aspirations. This is how we ‘rise above’ and stay up there.
No matter what horrors the Nazis wrought in wartime (and every country commits in wartime, if you study closely), their German underlying ideals still stand — certainly in my life, outlook and accomplishments.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment