Racism

Camp of Saints Is a Sick Racist Dystopia and Conservatives Shouldn't Have Anything to Do With It

Restrictionists should try making their case without reviving this vile French book

|

Barbed Wire Fence
U.S. Army (Historical Image Archive) via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

There are many things to mourn about the rise of Donald Trump. One such thing is the cover he is providing for even respectable conservatives to air racist ideas. A case in point is the revival of interest in a sick dystopia called the Camp of Saints penned by a French writer Jean Raspail in 1975. A perennial cult classic among white supremacist groups, this book, in recent months has been hailed as "prescient" by conservative outfits such as American Conservative and The Federalist.

The book's central purpose is to show how liberalism has weakened France's resolve to defend its racial/cultural purity, I note in my column at The Week. It creates a scenario in which a flotilla of a million leprous, lecherous Indian's arrives at the French Rivera seeking refuge. But instead of slaughtering them all as Raspail would have wanted, France welcomes them with open arms and gets obliterated by the sheer demographic onslaught.

But the book's problem is not only that it sets up a denouement so cartoonish that even Mad Max writers would cringe. It is that The Camp of the Saints is spectacularly wrong at nearly every level.

Go here to read how.

Advertisement

NEXT: Good and Bad in New State Sexual-Assault Bills

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It creates a scenario in which a flotilla of a million leprous, lecherous Indian’s arrives at the French Rivera seeking refuge. But instead of slaughtering them all as Raspail would have wanted, France welcomes them with open arms and gets obliterated by the sheer demographic onslaught.

    Not having read this book, I look forward to the board explaining how Shikha oversimplified and/or completely misread the details of this scenario and the author’s intentions, as per usual.

    1. It’s impossible to misread the author’s intentions since it’s impossible to read the author’s intentions in the first place.

      1. What if the author wrote, “By writing work X, I intended Y.”

        The meta-questions – What are intentions? Do they exist? If so, what are they? And if they don’t exist, how do you deal with institutions and behaviors that seem to require them (e.g., legislation, criminal/tort law, common human interactions involving “doing things on purpose” as opposed to “doing them by accident”)?

        Discuss.

        1. What if the author wrote, “By writing work X, I intended Y.”

          There’s no way to be sure what the author’s intentions are in writing that explanatory statement. It’s the opacity of other minds and the imprecision of language all the way down.

                1. That two faced bastard!

          1. The Beetle in the Box in the head of the Super Spartan.

          2. What do we do about criminal and tort law now? Or poker?

            1. Poker? I barely know ‘er.

              1. Week. This. Are you here all of?

      1. “Gamboling?”

        And capering. Don’t forget the capering.

    2. Not having read this book, I look forward to the board explaining how Shikha oversimplified and/or completely misread the details of this scenario and the author’s intentions, as per usual.

      Not having read the book and knowing that the opinion originated in academic circles and was cemented by the FBI and Southern Poverty Law Center around the time any group of more than four (white) men in America who owned guns and could spell the word Constitution was being regarded as a homegrown terrorist cell, I certainly have my doubts.

      Somewhat OT: The Bard’s The Book of Sir Thomas More where Thomas More is hanged for defending a London mob that wanted to burn French Christian Immigrants alive is being touted as a defense of immigration rather than an indictment of government so why not?

      1. Shit, this almost makes me want to read the damn book just to see what it really is.

    3. KDN,

      I have read about this book on a few conservo sights, and it seems like the writer saw the growing PC of his time and didn’t realize a version of his plot would actually come true. Also, his book almost got blocked by a PC “you cant print offensive books” law in France. He got published because his publisher completed its process far enough to get in under the wire. So while others may have immitated his genre, nobody could.

      Truly ironically, refugees from the same area as his book, India, have turned up in the foot migration from the Turkey origin source. And of course, rather than a rickety old steamer from India, the current mess started with a mass of rickety small boats from Libya that get picked up and taken to Europe by European ships.

      The book got the elite welcome, and street level mess of the current situation very well. It also describes the bizarre “Muslim importation” policy that France has had since then from its old colony of Algeria that has been a problem ignored by PC elites from his time to today.

      And I’m confident that due to my content and word choices, the article author would call me a racist xenophobe.

  2. I like the sci-fi version with the Borg.

    1. Resistance is futile.

    2. LOL

  3. The first thing that strikes me reading the lead-in is the common misconception that the movie ‘Mad Max’ is an unrealistic, over the top scenario. It is not. Not in the least bit.

    1. Yeah, it’s not Waterworld.

      1. The Postman should have been titled “Dirtworld”.

        1. Nightsoilworld

  4. The book’s central purpose is to show how liberalism has weakened France’s resolve to defend its racial/cultural purity, I

    Mock scenario: France bans the Hijab.

  5. “flotilla of a million leprous”

    Good album title

    1. from a band of the same name?

  6. Yeaaaaa!! A Shikha post!! A deluge of Trumplinks can’t be far behyind!

  7. A perennial cult classic among white supremacist groups, this book, in recent months has been hailed as “prescient” by conservative outfits such as American Conservative and The Federalist.

    Is Shikha implying that Mollie Hemingway is a Lady of the Invisible Empire?

  8. You know who else wrote a book that is considered racist?

    1. J K Rowling?

    2. Samuel Clemens?

      Harriet Beecher Stowe?

    3. Ta Nehisi Coates?

      1. The guy does an excellent job explaining the economics of prohibition. I asked him why he didn’t apply that kind of economic thinking to everything else.

        Crickets.

  9. Salman Rushdie?

  10. Everywhere, rivers of sperm. Streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers? [E]verywhere, a mass of hands and mounts, of phalluses and rumps….Young boys, passed from hand to hand. Young girls, barely ripe? walking to the silent play of eager lips?Men with women, men with men, women with women, men with children, children with each other?

    Reads like a collaboration between SugarFree, Agile Cyborg and Plopper.

    1. Sounds like SugarFree’s last story about Congess. Or maybe it was one of the conventions.

    2. This one time at Saint Camp….

    3. I’ll be in my bunk.

  11. Wait, what? I have to click on a link to continue the article? Technology is hard! I just wanted to scroll down, damn it! Now I’ll never know if I should be outraged or not. I’ll wait for the rest of you to comment so I can form my opinion. Thanks!

    1. It’s a Shikha article. They don’t end well.

  12. Everywhere, rivers of sperm. Streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers? [E]verywhere, a mass of hands and mounts, of phalluses and rumps….Young boys, passed from hand to hand. Young girls, barely ripe? walking to the silent play of eager lips?Men with women, men with men, women with women, men with children, children with each other? [Raspail]

    Is Raspail Sugarfree?

    1. What is it with the soi-disant “traditionalist” or “alt-” right and their weird obsession with lurid sexual fantasies that reflect their anxieties over their own barely sublimated homosexuality and/or pedophilia?

      SMDH.

      1. I think there really is something to the idea that repression is suppression of the self. And that moral panics are driven largely by projection.

      2. I think this is why someone thought it was provocative to show their tits and carry dildos at a gun rights rally. Because everyone who owns a gun is Raspail. I think.

        1. Some people just like tits.

          Why do I have to look for a hidden meaning?

          1. There are no boobs at the link. Well maybe a few. Depending on what you mean by boobs.

  13. “A case in point is the revival of interest in a sick dystopia called the Camp of Saints penned by a French writer Jean Raspail in 1975. A perennial cult classic among white supremacist groups, this book, in recent months has been hailed as “prescient” by conservative outfits such as American Conservative and The Federalist.”

    I don’t know if we’re trying to make Camp of Saints guilty by associating it with white supremacists or if we’re trying to make The American Conservative and The Federalist guilty by association with a white supremacist book–but somebody’s trying to smear somebody with an awful broad brush.

    Tell me, is it possible to oppose immigration from the developing world for any reason without being called a white supremacist by somebody? And if it isn’t, then why should anybody be bothered by being called a white supremacist?

    Back in the day, I had numerous altercations with white supremacists. I could tell they were white supremacists because they had Nazi tattoos and referred to themselves as Nazis. Believe me, there was more to them than simply opposing immigration from the developing world.

    Bonus Question: If resisting immigration by people who don’t share our values is white supremacy, is wanting to impose our democratic values on the developing world also an example of white supremacy? Or is that just an example of people being wrong about technique?

    1. Your mom is an example of people being wrong about technique.

      1. She makes up for it with her enthusiasm, though.

        1. +45 minutes of unlubricated handjob

    2. “Tell me, is it possible to oppose immigration from the developing world for any reason without being called a white supremacist by somebody?”

      When you don’t have a good case to make you make ad hominems. It is that simple. I don’t give a shit what they call me, I ignore them until they can come up with a decent argument, something besides the argle barge like “they deserve a chance at the good life” or “mass rape is just the price we pay for progress”.

    3. Tell me, is it possible to oppose immigration from the developing world for any reason without being called a white supremacist by somebody?

      No!

    4. This was also my sentiment.

    5. Tell me, is it possible to oppose immigration from the developing world for any reason without being called a white supremacist by somebody?

      Not by Shikha, no; this is her entire MO. Anyone who is not loud and proud about open borders is a nativist/racist/xenophobe.

    6. Bonus Question: If resisting immigration by people who don’t share our values is white supremacy, is wanting to impose our democratic values on the developing world also an example of white supremacy? Or is that just an example of people being wrong about technique?

      How about – simply *imposing* our democratic ideals on the developing world at the point of a gun is an example of White Supremacy. Which is a completely separate question from resisting immigration by peoples who don’t share our values.

      Constantly asserting that a people don’t share our values despite a shit-ton of evidence that they do, simply because they’re not from here – *that’s* white supremacy. Forgetting that there’s a difference between *Mexico* and *Mexicans*, just as the United States is not the same thing as Americans and American covers a broooooooad swath of very different cultures and philosphies – that’s just unlibertarian.

      1. How about – simply *imposing* our democratic ideals on the developing world at the point of a gun is an example of White Supremacy.

        why is it white supremacy? Are blacks or Asians or others incapable of holding these ideals, or at least a version of them?

        1. Whites imposing their current cultural ideal on others by force.

          NOT other cultures coming around to agree that what we’re doing is the current best way to do things.

          1. NOT other cultures coming around to agree that what we’re doing is the current best way to do things.

            Not sure that’s exactly the case. ‘What we’re currently doing’ is not what produced the wealth and productive institutions we now enjoy. Presently, capital consumption is increasing at a higher and higher rates, the only saving grace thus far being that the entrepreneurial system built by long dead people better than you or I, has allowed our productive capacity to outpace capital consumption. But that should not be taken for granted, civilization hangs by a thread that present day society would probably not be able to reproduce if needed. Almost certainly not after the next generation reaches their zenith of power and property ownership.

            The rest of the world has had several generations to look to the example of the west and follow suit, and now the west is taking massive amounts of immigrants from those parts of the world that have most decidedly not followed that example.

            1. So its the worst of all worlds – we’re trying to impose our way of life by sword and fire *and* that way of life is just more SJW bullshit that is wrecking everything we’ve built up.

              1. I do try to be optimistic. Some days it’s easier to do that than others.

      2. Are you referring to these shared values?


        Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

        Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

        1. Sadly, Ken, that is a shared value with most Americans, at least going by the election returns of the last 80 years.

          1. How do Americans feel about the equality of women, and the separation of church and state?

            1. They’re pretty sure that not all women are equally beautiful, and they think they remember that other thing from civics class – maybe one of the questions they got wrong on the final?

            2. They aren’t exactly *for* the first and pretty damn opposed to the second.

              1. I disagree.

          2. Sadly, Ken, that is a shared value with most Americans, at least going by the election returns of the last 80 years.

            Immigrants are the naiive ones who vote.

        2. Sounds like the vast majority of Americans to me.

          As I said – America covers a large variety of beliefs. And the small government belief that *we* share is the minority. You could just as well prepare for the rest of the US to deliberately exclude foreigners because they are insufficiently subservient and thus insufficiently ‘American’.

          1. Political philosophy aside, what about basic moral philosophy? How do Americans feel about terrorist attacks on Americans? Do between 30-80% of them think it’s okay just like Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Morrocans, and Turks do?

            If you have a bowl of MMs, and 80% 30% 1% of them are cyanide, are you going to say “we shouldn’t avoid eating from this bowl or take any steps to filter them because only 1% of it is cyanide?”

            Every individual is different. But among aggregates of individuals there do exist patterns, patterns that ought to be changed through cultural exchange sure, but we shouldn’t pretend they don’t exist or are meaningless where is concerns safety and prosperity of society as a whole.

            1. If you have a bowl of MMs, and 80% 30% 1% of them are cyanide, are you going to say “we shouldn’t avoid eating from this bowl or take any steps to filter them because only 1% of it is cyanide?”

              Get a load of Nassim Taleb over here!

              1. Oh shit good answer. The options being: Yes, No, Maybe, Sometimes or Nassim Taleb

              2. Come to think of it, i’m pretty sure i’ve seen Free Society call Ron Bailey an idiot, too… Hmm.

                1. I’ve vehemently disagreed with him on the issue of legal liability for the spread of pathogens, never called him an idiot to my recollection. But your point stands, add it to the pile.

                  1. Let’s settle this. What is your opinion of fat-tailed distributions?

                    1. 10% of my customers account for 90% of my workload.

                    2. Hang on to those customers or your hours will be reduced.

                    3. What is your opinion of fat-tailed distributions?

                      John is into that.

            2. How do Americans feel about the terrorist attacks that are committed on Americans *by Americans*?

              Which is a greater number than attacks by foreigners in general let alone Muslims in particular (so far).

              1. And you trot out that 1% poisoned M&M bit to justify eliminating *all* immigration.

                Its more like saying you have a bowl of M&M’s and 1% of the *green* one’s are poisoned. That justifies a certain level of caution when dealing with the other colors, it doesn’t justify throwing the whole bowl out when there’s no other food available.

                1. And you trot out that 1% poisoned M&M bit to justify eliminating *all* immigration.

                  I most certainly did not.

                  Its more like saying you have a bowl of M&M’s and 1% of the *green* one’s are poisoned. That justifies a certain level of caution when dealing with the other colors, it doesn’t justify throwing the whole bowl out when there’s no other food available.

                  No, the bowl of MMs represent Islamic immigrants specifically. The other various groups have there own bowls, with markedly lower levels of cyanide.

                  it doesn’t justify throwing the whole bowl out when there’s no other food available.

                  Since I am not now, nor have I ever, nor will I ever advocate for the elimination of immigration, I am not proposing to through out the whole bowl. I’m proposing that there exist some sort of mechanism for discriminating between immigrants. I prefer that mechanism be purely social in the form of absolute property rights and absolute free association. But those things are illegal under present circumstances.

                  1. This is a very good analogy, Free Society, which I have made in different forms elsewhere. Libertarians are often willfully blind to all this because they think paying attention to statistics is somehow “collectivizing.” Unfortunately, statistics show that Muslims are a big terror risk. And if not a particular Muslim, then his or her children or grandchildren. “Vetting” is problematic because it can’t predict which Muslim (or descendant) is going to get really, really devout and start killing people.

                    And of course, our general Enlightenment values prevent us from seeing that the problem of Islamic terror goes along with increased devotion.

        3. Are you referring to these shared values?

          When the Hard Hat Mafia is flocking to Trump, whose entire platform is merely the redistribution of goodies from the “undeserving” to the “deserving”, as well as swelling the ranks of DHS, you bet your sweet fucking bippy those are “shared values”.

          1. No, not his entire platform. I think there are numerous parts that libertarians could get behind.

    7. Yep. Gang fights at punk shows between Nazi skinheads and, well, the rest of us. Fun times.

      1. Raiders having a great week.

        1. I haven’t been following at all. Thanx for the heads up.

    8. resisting immigration by people who don’t share our values is white supremacy

      I’m sure that’s what the French thought in 1940 and was why they lost – they realized they were wrong! The same with the North American Indians, etc., etc.

      Personally, if Europe doesn’t want to defend its cultural heritage, that’s their problem. But calling those that defend it against people that don’t want to assimilate racists is just stupid.

      1. I’m sure that’s what the French thought in 1940 and was why they lost

        This has to be the most absurd thing I have yet seen said about immigration that did not come from Dalmia or Richman.

      2. Did you put the wrong year in your post? Please tell me that you are not so egregiously disingenuous as to conflate the invasion of France by the Nazis with immigration.

        1. That was not an invasion – it was aggressive immigration. The French border should have been more open to their eastern neighbors.

          /sarc

        2. Don’t you understand kbolino, by defining “immigration” as “any movement of a human outside of the boundaries of his or her own bedroom”, one can employ reductio ad absurdum every time!

        3. Of course it’s absurd. So is Shikha’s post. I though that was the theme?

    9. If resisting immigration by people who don’t share our values is white supremacy, is wanting to impose our democratic values on the developing world also an example of white supremacy?

      It has been suggested that it is in fact a form of neo-colonialism.

      1. Yeah, I’ve basically called it that myself. And imperialism certainly could and did feature racism.

        Certainly, British imperialism in Africa started with all sorts of good intentions–much of it abolitionist. They wanted to stamp out the slave trade at its source.

        Of course, it all ended in tears, but the British were bringing civilization to the heathen much like Bush was pushing Democracy.

        I opposed our adventure in Iraq, but I don’t think it was racist. I think it was wrong. Our original goals may have been lofty, but so were British goals originally.

        And the point I was trying to get across with that is that if trying to impose our values on other people isn’t necessarily racist–just the way people are going about it is wrong–then it’s entirely possible that opposing other people coming here who don’t share our value might not be racist either. It may be wrongheaded, like the Iraq War was wrongheaded, but that doesn’t mean it’s racist.

        I’ve been to Montana, Idaho, Western Washington State, Wyoming. Beautiful places. Nice people. I know enough about them to know that they don’t want Southern Californians moving into their communities there by the thousands. People from Southern California don’t necessarily share their northwestern values and they’d want to change their northwestern way of life.

        I don’t think that means they’re racists. In fact, I’m sure it doesn’t.

        1. I kinda think the Second Iraq War was racist.

          Outside the whole ‘they got WMD’s and are 15 minutes away from launching them at the guys we deliberately put in range of their WMD’s’ there’s the whole ‘all the ME needs is just *one more* ‘El Aurens’ to lead them to prosperity and peace’.

  14. I guess Shikha probably isn’t a fan of Naked Lunch or Tropic of Cancer, either.

    1. Should she pack her ermines?

    1. In 2002 Lionel Shriver described the novel as “both prescient and appalling,” certainly “racist” but “written with tremendous verbal energy and passion.” Shriver writes that the book “gives bilious voice to an emotion whose expression is increasingly taboo in the West, but that can grow only more virulent when suppressed: the fierce resentment felt by majority populations when that status seems threatened.”[8]

      William F. Buckley, Jr. praised the book in 2004 as “a great novel” which raised questions on how to respond to massive illegal immigration.[9] In 2005 the conservative Chilton Williamson praised the book as “one of the most uncompromising works of literary reaction in the 20th century.”

  15. Raspail also attributes to them values that are the exact opposite of Indian culture. India is an extremely prudish country. Chastity and virginity are prized virtues. Even married couples holding hands in public is widely considered a taboo. Hindu nationalists, in fact, constantly rail against the West’s sexual debauchery. Depicting Indian people as horny beasts would be hilariously dumb if it weren’t so offensive.

    Huh, I’ve read stuff about Indian culture where historically where what were described as ‘sexual prostitutes’ would have sex for the Gods. Or something. And what about the Kama Sutra?

    1. This is largely the same sentiment in the Middle East. I wonder how well that’s working out for them…

    2. Both you and Dalmia are correct.

    3. You should read up on the KS – its not actually a manual for getting your rocks off, its a meditation technique. You’re not supposed to orgasm. And there’s a difference between what a small percentage of religious fanatics get into and what the general population would support.

      Mortification is a popular religious pastime among Christians fanatics – not so much among the laity.

      1. Apparently, opinion is divided as to whether the KS is a technique manual for ‘Tantric sex’. I’ll not wade into that.

      2. Mortification is a popular religious pastime among Christians fanatics – not so much among the laity.

        Voting for Democrats or Republicans IS mortification. Very popular among the laity.

        1. Mortification of the *self*. People love voting because they think its the *other guy* who gets the board to the head.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4q6eaLn2mY

    4. That’s a facet common to Indo-European religion in general, as well as certain Semitic religions. It wouldn’t have been that uncommon during the time of Christ to encounter sacral prostitution and fertility cults. “Hinduism” essentially being an umbrella term for various religions practices of the Indian subcontinent not unlike “Greco-Roman paganism”, there’s a little something for everyone there and practice isn’t as uniform as the Abrahamic religions or something like Buddhism.

    5. Thinking of Indian culture as monolithic is a mistake. Like ‘Africa’ it is a huge place with lots of people, lots of tribes and different cultures.

      HM, how many languages are spoken in Africa? How many in India?

      1. HM, how many languages are spoken in Africa? How many in India?

        I don’t know if it can be counted. It’s my understanding that Swahili is sometimes considered a kind of pan-African language, but I believe that’s largely a political construct.

        1. I don’t know if it can be counted. It’s my understanding that Swahili is sometimes considered a kind of pan-African language, but I believe that’s largely a political construct.

          Well, again, as they say in the original Yiddish: A sprach iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot. (A language is a dialect with an army and navy.)

          I do see the argument that Swahili (the language and people) is a political construct as the Swahili are basically Islamized Bantu.

      2. Africa is the most linguistically diverse places on Earth. You can literally have one village speaking one language and 20 miles away, another village speaking a completely unintelligible language. I looked up India:

        India has 122 major languages and 1599 other languages

        That having been said, in India, at least, most people speak some dialect of Hindi or Tamil. A lot of these languages have only 500 speakers in an isolated village in the mountains somewhere.

  16. Shikha’s playing the old identity politics card again. She is OUTRAGED!!! about this book because it specifically mentions a million leprosy ridden Indians. Had it been a million leprous Albanians, I’m sure this column would never have been written.

    She’s pretty consistent. Consistently bad. What the fuck, Reason? Where my libertarians at?

  17. So here’s my cri de couer to fellow conservatives: Banish this book from your library. Purge it from your consciousness. This book should never have been admitted into civilized company, but especially not now ,when America is a polyglot, multi-ethnic ? and, yes ? multicultural country where Indian folks like us are likely to be your friends and family.

    Let there be no dissent! All questionable material must be purged and never considered!

    Way to completely contradict yourself regarding isolated societies being more prone to regression. God forbid we should ever read opposing views (especially absurd ones). Argue from emotion much?

    1. Some things just need to be censored.

    2. You know who else demanded a purge of certain books?

      1. Arthur Andersen, LLP?

          1. I think you mean

            – 1 audit

            1. *flails wildly while choking and laughing, drops coffee mug*

      2. My Catechism teacher, Sister Helena?

      3. Capt. Montag’s boss?

        1. Nice. Book of matches for you?

    3. Let there be no dissent! All questionable material must be purged and never considered!

      Wait one. fucking. minute.

      Camp of Saints, “one white man’s lament of the fall of (white) Western society in the face of Malthusianism” has *has!* to be purged from our consciousness, but the mountain of Malthusianism that it draws from and walks in fine company with is something else entirely?

      Assuming zero literary or political value, which doesn’t appear to be the case, the work should stand on the shelf next to (e.g.) Bernard Shaw’s work as an example of “Here’s good writing from a batshit crazy social moralizer.”

      If Raspail’s book is beyond the pale, where do we stop? I hear Atticus Finch has become decidely less… ‘sterling’ recently. Overpopulation and culture clash is a critical portion of Heinlein’s ‘The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress’. Do we set purge these books as well?

      Fuck that!

      1. Well in the Moon is Harsh Mistress, there was the overpopulation in regards to the Moon depleting it’s water resources by shipping it’s limited water supplies Earthside at grossly discounted rates (realistic-ish), and there was the overpopulation Earth he talked about where cities were so crowded that home ownership meant bare patches of concrete being bought and sold and passed down through family lines (not realistic).

        1. . . . the Moon depleting it’s water resources by shipping it’s limited water supplies Earthside at grossly discounted rates (realistic-ish),

          As a space nerd – that’s *not* realistic. Am I misunderstanding you?

          1. As a space nerd – that’s *not* realistic. Am I misunderstanding you?

            Maybe you didn’t read the book? Basically the lunar colonies were shipping grain to the Earth, grain grown with water ice mined from the interior of the Moon, with the easily accessible water being harder and more expensive to come by. And the natural water cycle on the Moon being many orders of magnitude slower than the Earth, every shipment of grain was launched to the Earth via catapult, taking the moisture contained in that grain with it. For the Lunar colonies at the time to procure water from Earth, it would need to be launched via rocket, which is costly.

            As a space nerd I’m sure you’re aware that the material costs of shipping goods to the Moon from the Earth are much more expensive than shipping away goods from the Moon to the Earth. Over time, under the contemporary circumstances, water was on a path to becoming prohibitively expensive and scarce from those under priced grain shipments that the Lunar colonies were, in part, fighting a war to set higher prices for, against the interests of the Federation. It was surmised that the Lunar population would soon be unsustainable

            *spoiler*

            Eventually specially designed Earth-side catapults and the destruction of the Federation cartel, aka the Lunar Authority, ameliorated the unsustainability of agricultural trade with the Moon. Freedom was the cure

        2. So, the Moon was dumping its water on earth at artificially low prices? Why not just slap a big fat tariff on the cheap water?

          1. Or eliminate the artificially low prices by abolishing the cartel and forget about artificially inflating prices altogether.

      2. I’ll be honest, I’m a bit of a moron and will need some help understanding what exactly you’re trying to say. I think it’s sarcasm?

  18. LOL – you stupid dinosaurs with your tiny little reptile brains and your precious morals and principles and “reasons” for shit. You don’t even understand what’s happening to you, do you? You can’t grasp with your feeble little intelligence the nature of the beast that is even now devouring you from the inside out. None of that matters for, as our Lord and Savior The Donald has taught us, all that matters is winning and losing. You think the GOP is in the trouble they’re in because they failed to live up to their ideals, that they betrayed their own principles, that they were exposed as the lying sacks of shit that they are? No, they are in trouble because despite all their unprincipled lying and dissembling and betraying they failed to win. Winning justifies everything, for Winning is Good. His Trumpness knows this, He knows that to have shame, to have humility, to have honor, to have principles, to have any decency, to feel any need to explain or to justify or to excuse or to even be logical, consistent or coherent is to have Weakness – and Weakness is for Losers. Losing is the one inexcusable sin, for Losing is Bad. Donald J. Trump (Tbuh) knows this, Their Most Excellent Holinesses Bill Belichik and Tom Brady know this, all right-knowing Trumpistas know this to be so. Winning is not the most important thing, it is the only thing.

  19. Raspail is wrong about most things. That said, the part where millions of poor and dispossessed immigrants arrive abruptly in France is not far from what many studies estimating the effects of open borders in the west would cause. For example, the rather infamous study estimating that open borders would double world GDP also supposes that this doubling would be the result of over 2 billion immigrants to the West over a 30-year period. That is to say, a wave of immigration that would literally leave the current inhabitants of Europe and the US as minorities within their own countries.

    The lurid descriptions of immigrants aside, I cannot imagine how this would result in a freer world, or how the current institutions of the West could survive such a massive wave of immigrants as that. It is no less rational to stand against this than any other misuse of public goods, IMO.

    1. Double the world GDP and distribute it equally, and everyone can live the comfortable life of a Chinese factory-worker. 4 billion people’s lives get markedly better 2 billion people’s lives get markedly worse. Unfortunately, most of those 2B people live in North America and Europe. You can see why they are resistant to this proposal.

  20. One of my wife’s grad school professors once told the class “find a cause” as it could be perpetual source of grant funds for research, etc. I doubt Shikha was in that class but damn is she has not glommed onto that lesson.

  21. Raspail wrote his book more than 40 years ago to exploit Malthusian fears that the global population explosion would threaten the West

    You know who else bitches about over-population?

    1. My brother who is also a science teacher at a private Christian school?

      1. Well it’s good to know the progressives and Christians are finally coming together.

        1. He’s an atheist to boot.

          Believes man-made global warming is dooming us all.

          Believes GMOs are safe and better for the world’s population, and therefore opposes them because they’ll allow for more overpopulation, which in turn creates more global warming.

          We’re somehow polar opposites on the scale of everything.

          1. Believes GMOs are safe and better for the world’s population, and therefore opposes them because they’ll allow for more overpopulation, which in turn creates more global warming.

            I… can’t… even believe someone could formulate that idea. Wow.

            1. Paul Ehrlich did. I believe he was deeply concerned about the development of a cheap, endless source of energy for these very reasons.

          2. So your brother supports beliefs responsible for deaths of millions of malnourished, starving and diseased children over the last decade or so of the third world’s prohibitions against GMO crops. see golden rice. And worse he not only knows they’re safe and would help, he directly supports their death to stave off overpopulation. Sounds like your brother is a real shitbag.

            1. Well, his brother is Hitler, so…..

          3. He at least acknowledges all this. Most progressives willfully blind themselves to the logical conclusion that their opposition to GMOs and support for global warming brings them to.

            1. It’s worse that he acknowledges. The progressives are a slave to their ignorance, albeit willful ignorance much of the time, whereas your brother is fully aware of the human cost of unscientific opposition to GMOs, but not only does he not care, he considers it a feature not a bug.

              1. Yeah I know, but he’s my brother so I hold out hope. I’m slowly beating him over the head with logic. My parents and I have talked him back from the Communist indoctrination he received at his college. He was a lot worse. It’s a long game, but I think I’ll have him tolerable before he blossoms into the next Stalin.

                1. He may be immune to logic, since he clearly arrived at his positions by something other than logic. Try applying some consistent moral arguments instead. Hopefully he arrived at his positions by way of misguided morality, not emotion. If he got there by emotion, you may as well throw in the towel, or try for a lobotomy.

                  1. He’s not dumb, but when you’re in the echo chamber of a liberal arts college with no dissenting views during your formative years, you only learn one thing. His logic isn’t faulty if he was only presented the viewpoints that he was. Slowly appealing to his logic seems to have done a good job of bringing him back from the edge now that he’s not locked in an echo chamber and is out in the real world.

                    I’m not an emotional person. Appealing to his emotions would be a lie and he can spot that. Best to stick with what I know.

                    Come to think of it, I think this is rather good strategy for Libertarians as a whole. It’s all about the long game and patience is key.

                    1. He’s not dumb, but when you’re in the echo chamber of a liberal arts college with no dissenting views during your formative years, you only learn one thing.

                      I didn’t say he was dumb, though at the moment he seems to think his brand of evil is actually good. But smart people seldom know “how to think” which you don’t necessarily need high intelligence to accomplish. There’s no shortage of people on these very message boards that were passed through a liberal arts college and didn’t come out socialist on the other side because libertarians tend to know “how to think” which makes them less prone to adopting stupid ideas that sound smart.

                    2. Your guess is as good as mine. We’re polar opposites raised by parents who could probably be classified as Libertarians. Maybe he’s just acting out against mom and dad.

  22. Indian’s is possessive, Indians is plural.

      1. I’ve got your independent clauses right here….

    1. Indians’ is plural possessive.

      Indians is Cleveland’s baseball team.

    2. Dude, “Indians” is not the preferred nomenclature. “Native Americans,” please.

      1. They prefer to be called “Feather, Not Dot Indians”, shitlord.

          1. ha ha yes. That injun has the right of it.

  23. “The dystopian, anti-immigration book The Camp of the Saints is really racist. So why are a bunch of smart conservatives praising it?”

    I suspect they haven’t read it and all they know is that the central thesis of the book is awfully similar to what’s happening with the refugee crisis.

  24. “The real reason [Raspail] chose Indians is that they served a convenient purpose for him: The French are familiar enough with them to make his lurid depiction of them plausible, but not so familiar as to question it.

    People could speculate about why Dalmia chose Raspail’s “Camp of Saints rather than Houellebecq’s recent Submission.

    http://tinyurl.com/zyxb744

    Is it because in Submission the French people capitulate to Islam, and the protagonist comes to accept the Islamic way of life as superior to Christianity?

    1. No offense, but did you even read the article?

      1. Yeah, I read it.

        Did I miss something?

        1. People could speculate about why Dalmia chose Raspail’s “Camp of Saints

          this book, in recent months has been hailed as “prescient” by conservative outfits such as American Conservative and The Federalist.

          She chose it as other people have recently wrote about it.

          1. Yeah, we can speculate–just like Dalmia did.

            Maybe he used Indians as a stand in for North Africans in the aftermath of the Algeria War.

            Meanwhile, wasn’t the famine in Bangladesh going on about that time?

            We can speculate about why Raspail did this or that. Why Dalmia did this or that.

            We can speculate about whether Donald Trump supporters are a bunch of racists.

            “There are many things to mourn about the rise of Donald Trump. One such thing is the cover he is providing for even respectable conservatives to air racist ideas”

            Anybody can speculate, and when we do, somehow we tend to see what we’re looking for.

            1. One such thing is the cover he is providing for even respectable conservatives to air racist ideas

              What fascinates me about this sentence is the way it associates Trump, conservatives, and racists with each other, with little to no factual basis to believe these associations are valid.

              Its a variation on the Big Lie technique. Put words in close association with each other, and do it often enough, and it soaks into people’s brains and they believe that the associations are real.

              1. “What fascinates me about this sentence is the way it associates Trump, conservatives, and racists with each other, with little to no factual basis to believe these associations are valid.”

                It looks like guilt by association wrapped up in assuming the consequent . . .

                You put it more elegantly than I did.

                Meanwhile, one of the reasons Trump is doing so well is because people are sick and tired of being called racist for every little thing. Now Trump and his supporters are giving cover for racism becasue some people are hyping a French book from 40 years ago?

                Like I keep saying, if you really want to cut the support out from under Trump, don’t tell people he’s a racist. Tell them he’s respectful towards African-Americans. Progressives calling the blue collar, white, middle class racist all the time is half of what’s driving that demographic (which has historically been Democrat) into Trump’s arms.

                Dalmia is just throwing fuel on the fire with a piece like this.

    2. She actually probably didn’t choose Submission because Submission isn’t racist and raises reasonable concerns about immigration in a way that doesn’t include massive pedophile orgies among leprous Indian heathens.

      1. But doesn’t speculating about why Raspail chose Indians (or did something) open up speculation about why Dalmia did (or didn’t do) something?

        1. “But doesn’t speculating about why Raspail chose Indians (or did something) open up speculation about why Dalmia did (or didn’t do) something?”

          Sure and I’m speculating it’s because Submission is not a racist book.

          Since her article is attacking a racist book, why would she have written about a book that isn’t racist?

          1. But if we speculate about our speculation concerning her speculations, it might trigger the speculapocolypse.

      2. reasonable concerns about immigration

        Yes, the concern that France will elect itself into a sharia state is as reasonable as the concern that an Irish-American president would be beholden to the Vatican. Absolutely.

        1. Eh. Assuming a selective policy of open or near-open borders with the Middle East without the same for other parts of the world (say, the Christian parts of sub-Saharan Africa or non-Islamic eastern Asia), it’s not that unreasonable to suppose that the Islamic population will become politically influential and that some form of moderate Islamism would be embarked upon by that population.

          Of course, such an immigration policy would be insane.

          1. 25% of French teenagers are already Muslims. If that population doesn’t drastically secularize within the next 30 years, you could be looking at a gargantuan percentage of French voters who are totally okay with an Islamist government.

            In which case all Submission got wrong is that the date was a little too early.

            1. While I agree with you about the need for secularization, I’m not hyper-ventilating yet. 25 percent is just about the percentage of Catholics we have here in America. Even assuming if all of them were Eddie, we’re still seeing stuff like the legalization of gay marriage spread throughout the country. I’m not saying religious Muslims wouldn’t try to establish a political voice for themselves, but France is already pushing back at far, far less.

              1. 25 percent is just about the percentage of Catholics we have here in America.

                Any analogy between Catholics in the US, who are very heavily assimilated, and Muslims in France, many of who are defiantly unassimilated, is weak. Especially considering that, unlike in America, assimilation doesn’t seem to be increased in the second and third generations in France.

                I suspect that in 50 years, unless something changes pretty drastically, people will look back on that 25% number as indicating that it was way too late to prevent the Islamization of France as early as 2016.

                Demographics is destiny, and is also extraordinarily hard to change. We’ll see, but that percentage should scare the crap out of anyone who doesn’t want to see France Islamicized.

                1. Demographics is destiny, and is also extraordinarily hard to change.

                  Well, native European birthrates are so far below replacement they may never recover. So, if you have anything in Europe on your bucket list…

                  1. Does banging a hot Eastern European chick count? Because that is on my bucket list, and several other lists.

                2. Any analogy between Catholics in the US, who are very heavily assimilated, and Muslims in France, many of who are defiantly unassimilated, is weak

                  Why did you see it fit answer 2/3rds of what I wrote?

                  I’m not saying religious Muslims wouldn’t try to establish a political voice for themselves, but France is already pushing back at far, far less.

                  Ms. Le Pen is rising in popularity now, what makes you think the Franco-Caliphate will ever get off the ground?

                3. Seems like circular reasoning. Any feminist nation will eventually commit suicide, because birthrates cannot survive the deranged rejection of the biological differences between male and female. Feminist societies are just Shakers in slo mo.

                  Muslims can hardly be blamed for moving into a country that will empty itself out in a few generations. It’s not like the French are going to need it.

          2. such an immigration policy would be insane.

            And currently doesn’t exist.

        2. The idea that Western leftists would choose an alliance with Islamists over Western right-wingers is not far fetched at all.

          They’ve basically already done it in Britain given that the British leftists don’t have much of a problem hanging out with supporters of an Islamic caliphate without even bothering to mention his unfortunate love of theocracies.

  25. Can someone cite me to exactly where and when Trump endorsed this book, urged anyone to read it, or quoted it as the source of his thoughts on policy?

    There are many, many reasons to oppose Trump without this sort of unsubstantiated smear that I would expect from publications like Rolling Stone, not Reason.

    1. That’s a very good point. I would think what’s caused the growing recognition of Camp of Saints is the European refugee crisis, not the rise of Trump.

      1. Trump’s rise is in no small part a result of the same.

      2. Top of the day to you, Irish!

        I will not be wearing green today however. I do not wish to oppress Irishmen by misappropriating their culture.

  26. This book is now next on my reading list, with many thanks to Shika D.

    I don’t know, I just have this thing about reading the material myself and forming my own opinions.

    1. Now I have to read this stupid book cause people are denouncing it as evil. I hope its better than most of the “This book is so evil no one should ever read it” books.

      1. It’s not.

    2. You’re racist!

  27. So here’s my cri de couer to fellow conservatives

    Wait, Shikha is a conservative? Really?

    1. And, I see she’s doing a cultural appropriation. Cri de couer? Seriously.

      Although, I suppose if she refrained from such cultural appropriation, nobody would read her articles outside of India, so there’s that.

      1. nobody would read her articles outside of India, so there’s that.

        I am interested in your proposal, do you have greater details in your plan?

    1. Is there an illustrated version?

      1. Not that I could find. But the author’s photo has Raspail sporting fine moustache.

    2. Life’s too short to waste reading fiction. Like Dalmia articles.

    3. I heard a story the other day about any review is good for sales ? whether the book is panned or praised. SugarFree (and I) both went and found? how many people do you think are going to read it because of Dalmia’s panning of it?

  28. Shikha, please send this to Slate as an example of your work. Hopefully they’ll pick you up.

  29. “Good question,” replied Sollacaro. “That’s how come I’m here. I managed to get them all out of the place in a nice fancy bus, and we started up north. No problems, not a hitch. Until we got to Mont?limar. Then the roof fell in. We ran across this regiment… I mean, what used to be a regiment, before they went wild. You wouldn’t believe it. Like a great big pigpen. And all kinds of people. Trash.Nothing but trash. Arabs, criminals, tramps from the street … My girls had a time, believe me! Every one of them. And when I say they had a time.. . My girls, with those animals! My gorgeous girls, doing it in a place like that! And for free, God help us! I’m telling you, it turned my stomach. You wonder how low the human race can sink … Well, then and there I knew it was war. Between me and that madhouse. Believe me, I know how to get even when I have to. I stole myself a car, turned around, and here I am. So make me what you want. Minister, chaplain … Anything you like, as long as Monsieur Hamadura here lets me hold on to two of his beautiful rifles…”

    1. The high-class pimp’s profession of faith burst the group’s nostalgia. First they smiled. Then they laughed. The likes of Sollacaro, damning that “madhouse” to the bestial depths in the name of his “cathouse”! One house for another! What a delightful thought! Though much deeper, in fact, than first met the eye. And they all seemed to feel it — The Camp of the Saints, p. 101

      Yes, I think this is the book you should hang your hats on.

      1. What a coincidence, The High-Class Pimp’s Profession of Faith is the title of my forthcoming memoir.

        1. *waits for eBook ordering info*

      2. That’s less coherent than Celine on a bad-day.

      3. You had me at “high-class pimp”.

  30. I just filled my pants!

    1. You are providing food for these invaders?

  31. I have not read the book

    that said, the fact that “Racists oppose immigration” is not proof that “opposing certain immigration policies are therefore Racist”

    Im mostly pro-immigration for practical reasons and am interested in the issue because over-reactions to the issue here in the US have been used to justify encroachments on the liberties of citizens.

    That said = i don’t see why anyone who doesn’t live in Europe feels compelled to argue what Europeans do about immigration. I think they are better suited to determine their own self-interests

  32. COTS is a very over-rated book. It is obviously sensationalist and over-the-top. However, I believe Dalmia misses the point.

    Among the members of the small resistance group led by the French Colonel is a French male citizen of Indian heritage. When asked (I am paraphrasing from memory; I read the book almost 20 years ago) why he is a member of the resistance and not joining “his people” (i.e., the invading army), his answer is that he stands with Western civilization, and doesn’t base his allegiance on race or ethnicity.

    Doesn’t this character by himself destroy Dalmia’s whole article? Isn’t the point of COTS that unfettered immigration will have an impact on the foundations of Western civilization? Do the people of a nation have no right to determine the levels and type of immigration that they will allow? Or is the answer because Dalmia, Nick, and crew believe immigration is good (no caveats), then to limit it is to be xenophobic and silly at best, and racist and evil at worst. Somewhere in her article she delivers a sop to the idea of debate on immigration issues, but that is misleading. She will brook no debate, and she, and other Reasoners, will attack anyone who wants to discuss it.

    BTW, before you imagine what my attitudes are about immigration, please notice I haven’t provided them. I am just stumped that we can never debate it without the race-card being immediately drawn.

    1. Isn’t it fascinating that they’ve adopted an Alinsky-esque tactic to try and shout down any discussion of immigration?

  33. race-card

    Is its value higher than Kings or lower than deuces?

    1. It all depends on what is Trump.

  34. Way late to come back, but I had to leave the office and was thinking about this whole Raspail book while I was driving. Now, admittedly I’m speaking purely from reading Shikha’s linked article and the excerpts within, but I’m wondering if Raspail himself is less White Supremacist than he is French Supremacist.

    The French have quite a long history of being very nationalistic about all things French and this comes in many forms. From the government’s demands that a French search engine be available returning more French-centric results, to the Intellectual whinging that went on in the 90s when Disney World opened up their French operation thus diluting French Culture and essentially being an “American Cultural Occupation” of the Homeland, to French officials worrying about French Childrens’ lack of exposure to authentically French food due to the unseemly influences of foreign chains and prepackaged dinners available at French supermarkets everywhere. Add into this the Quebec Language Laws– again, worrying that those things ‘authentically French’ are under constant assault from the non-French.

    Raspail, to me, seems less white than he does… French.

    I’m not saying this is better or, perhaps less worse, but just my own observation about the nuances at work.

    1. Now, admittedly I’m speaking purely from reading Shikha’s linked article and the excerpts within, but I’m wondering if Raspail himself is less White Supremacist than he is French Supremacist.

      It’s ridiculous. Dahlmia rather explicitly Godwins herself. It’s the exact sort of thing that Raspail is complaining about.

      One of the closing paragraphs in the book two Frenchmen lament the fact that the French passed a law explicitly punishing people for racism without mentioning the specific races involved or specific acts to be prevented. The law is encompassing enough that pretty much any act, including huge swaths of art and speech fit and it includes guilt by association. Pretty textbook totalitarianism and it winds up being the undoing of the people who installed it.

      But Dalmia only appears to be able to read it through a single hyper-contemporary lens. So, according to her, you end up with a work of fiction (written 40 yrs. ago) where a bunch of Indians get killed is, itself, a vile despicable act and an ethnic reporter saying *we* should purge it from *our* culture as an example of ‘rightthink’.

      It’s too ironic.

      1. From the preface

        I HAD WANTED TO WRITE a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem farfetched, the fact
        remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e., twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people, only nine hundred million of whom will be white

        1. Chapter 48:

          From that point on it was simplicity itself to take in the whole of
          the West in one glance. The boundaries were clear. One look at the vultures circling the cadavers, hovering in a curtain of black against the sky … “That should make them feel right at home!” said the colonel. In his mind they were hunting, not fighting a war. The Village was out to hunt down the black, the way you shoot rabbit in a game preserve. …

          1. The first two days’ hunt produced eloquent figures. And the sergeant of the hussars applied all his talent to keeping them in order?four vertical lines, neatly crossed by a fifth, drawn over and over?biting his tongue in rapt perseverance. A fine old tradition: the notches scratched into the butt of the rifle, the bombs painted on the rudders of the plane, the tank turrets covered with the silhouettes of tanks! Tally: Ganges, one hundred seventy-seven. Fellow travelers, sixteen. “Just what do you mean by ‘fellow travelers,’ Sergeant?” “Any white that’s gone over to the black side, Colonel. When I served in Chad I knew a few that would shoot us in the back. We called them ‘nigger-lovers.'” “Nasty business!” the colonel replied. “But what’s the difference between the two?” “Very simple, Colonel. ‘Nigger-lovers’ are what they start out as. They wind up as ‘fellow travelers’ later, when there’s no more white left in them at all. Sort of the final stage, I guess. So as long as we’re going to kill them, I figure at least we should call them what
            they are. Anyhow, we picked off nine of them today, all with one round. Not to mention the forty-two Ganges bastards. The rest of them grabbed up the wounded and beat it.”

            1. Well, I guess that wraps it up for that, then. My chin-scratching appears wholly unfounded. That all sounds pretty white-supremacist to me. Thanks HM.

      2. Yes. It’s just a commentary on free speech, just like the Turner Diaries are just a travelogue.

        1. I’m not saying it’s just a commentary on free speech, but it’s the classic example/litmus test of it and Dalmia is pretty decidedly on the fail side. I could completely understand if she thought it was in bad taste and/or that holding it up in the current era strikes a very wrong key, but saying we should purge it is like saying we should purge Nietzsche because Hitler or the Bible because Crusades happen. The fact that Dalmia, in an op-ed, acts like it’s Mein Kampf or Das Kapital only elevates it’s cultural status and says as much or more about the bigotry of the person making the claim.

          More relevant to Dalmia’s commentary about purging it from our conservative culture, how do we sort the vile, despicable Raspails from the maybe/considerably more benign but similarly xenophobic (but notably more libertarian) Matthew Bracken, John Rosses, or even the somewhat whimsically irrelevant Boston T. Partys? Plenty of people in very recent history embraced H.L. Mencken. Do we assume them all to be a part of an anti-Semitic/anti-Black cabal? Fuck no.

          1. Timothy McVeigh read the novel while awaiting his trial for the Oklahoma City bombing. He loved the book, and noted that if it had come out a few years earlier, he would have given serious consideration to using sniper attacks in a war of attrition against the government instead of bombing a federal building:

            “If people say The Turner Diaries was my Bible, Unintended Consequences would be my New Testament. I think Unintended Consequences is a better book. It might have changed my whole plan of operation if I’d read that one first. ”

            John Ross has posted a response to Timothy McVeigh’s comments on his website:

            “First of all, authors have no control over who decides to admire their work. Remember that when the FBI searched Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s shack (after his brother turned him in), they found only a handful of personal items and just a single, well-read book. What was the one title that the Unabomber felt was so important it was his only reading material? Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore.”

          2. Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
            Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
            Door Gunner: ‘Cuz I’m so fuckin’ good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo, too! Them’s all confirmed!
            Private Joker: Any women or children?
            Door Gunner: Sometimes!
            Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
            Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?

            Kubrik goes too, right?

        2. I don’t think it’s ever been debated that some of the *characters* in the book are rabid racists, but I would argue that the book itself doesn’t depict things that way. The narrator is quite dismayed that things have come to progressed to such an extent that the vast majority of the populace essentially rolls over in the face of an unstoppable tide of unarmed people and that the government has basically turned the final “defense” of the republic to a racist nutjob and the better part of a platoon of commandos – the only unit that doesn’t abandon their position (perhaps unsurprisingly a unit recently returned from an overseas posting, not a home-guard unit).

          The entire scenario begins with the Belgian consulate announcing in India that for logistical purposes they’re going to cut back the total number of babies they allow for adoption – not exactly a horrific statement – and under normal circumstances, far less of an initiating act than something like the wars we’ve been seeing in N. Africa/Syria and the resulting immigration across the Mediterranean.

          I’d say far more telling throughout the book are the various portrayals of the leftist government/public/media figures and their misguided and vain actions. And in the end of course, everyone winds up worse off as a result.

  35. Shikha Dalmia notes that “The Camp of the Saints” represents the Indians has having bad sexual mores that are not typical of Hindu society. I recall reports of a particularly horrific gang rape on a bus in India that was also not typical of Hindu society values. I can imagine a flotilla of Americans, or Indians, or Russians, or Chinese that other Americans, or Indians, or Russians, or Chinese would not mind meeting the fate of the Spanish Armada lost at sea.

    I found this quote from Salman Rushdie in Shika Dalmia’s article “The Iconoclast”, Reason, Aug/Sep 2005, on his book “Step Across This Line”:
    “I think we live in a bad age for the free speech argument. Many of us have internalized the censorship argument, which is that it is better to shut people up than to let them say things that we don’t like.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.