Dear Conservatives: Don't Peddle Racist Garbage If You Are Not Racist

Their growing flirtation with the sick anti-immigration dystopia, Camp of Saints, is disturbing


It was inevitable that the waves of Syrian refugees fleeing a civil war that has submerged their nation for five long years would also create nativist sentiment in Europe and America. Indeed, the rise of Donald Trump is nothing if not

postbear via / CC BY-NC-SA

one big nativist spasm.

What's really disturbing isn't that this nativism exists, but that this spasm is increasingly spreading beyond the fringe into respectable conservative circles. Exhibit A is the rising interest among conservatives in The Camp of the Saints, a sick dystopian book penned by French novelist Jean Raspail in 1973 that predicts the demise of the West by unfettered Third World migration.

Raspail, now a 90-year-old Catholic, has long been on an obsessive quest to defend the West's racial and cultural purity. And The Camp of the Saint's main objective is to jawbone the West into confronting how liberalism, progressive humanism, and Christian meekness are destroying this sacred goal. He sets up a denouement so cartoonish that even Mad Max writers would cringe.

The central plot line of the book involves an armada of "kinky-haired, swarthy-skinned, long-despised" Indians who, exhorted by a "turd eating" god-man to get a piece of the "white man's comfort," board a fleet of rickety ships to France, the land of "milk and honey," to escape poverty and illness.

The sojourners are hungry and diseased. But that evidently does nothing to dull their satyr-like sexual appetite since these are people who, in Raspail's telling, "never found sex to be a sin." So their journey becomes one long orgiastic ride as they hump everything in sight. Here's Raspail in his own words. (And be advised, it's not for the faint of heart.)

"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]

About a quarter of these "Ganges people" succumb in this journey of "dung and debauch," but the rest arrive on the shores of the beautiful French Riviera on Easter Sunday. Unfortunately, mowing them down (Raspail's preferred response) is not an option for the "fragile Western World" reeling from the Holocaust and wracked with liberal guilt over colonization. Instead, the lily-white French, seeking redemption, dispatch rescue crews to bring these grotesque masses to safety like "a million Christs."

Among the few dissenters willing to do what it takes to defend their race and civilization is a Mozart-listening French professor, the book's hero. He lives in his gorgeous ancestral villa, overlooking the shore where the armada is landing. His villa is filled with beautiful artifacts and heirlooms that he can't bear the thought of having sullied by the leprous hands of this lecherous people. He takes it upon himself to personally shoot a few—and assist a ragtag French vigilante group, led by a former French colonel, to kill a few more in a futile resistance effort.

A French bomb destroys these patriotic martyrs while they are standing on the terrace, reducing the villa to rubble, an unsubtle metaphor for the collapse of Western civilization and the white race. But the colonel, who sees his fate coming, has no regrets. "I'd rather be killed by our own," he says just before being blown to smithereens. "It's much cleaner that way."

France's fecklessness encourages more waves of swarthy hordes from over-populated China, Pakistan, and elsewhere to other parts of the West, including America and England, until the white race and its culture is entirely obliterated. Even the queen of England, horror of horrors, is forced to marry her son to a Pakistani woman (clearly prefiguring the seduction of Lady Di by Egyptian magnate Dodi Fayed!).

Unsurprisingly, this book is a perennial cult classic among white supremacists in America and Europe. Every time a refugee crisis, big or small, emerges, they start chattering in dark, apocalyptic tones about the prescience of the book—never mind that countries have been absorbing refugees of famine and war since time immemorial. The National Vanguard Magazine, founded by the notorious neo-Nazi William Pierce (whose novel The Turner Diaries called for a white-led violent revolution in America) routinely whips out characters and scenes from Raspail's magnum opus to explain current events. VDare, a restrictionist website that has long been peddling racist nonsense against immigrants, has a tag named after the book to archive posts. And then there is the race-baiting Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose quasi-white-nationalist founder John Tanton, a Michigan-based ophthalmologist, republished the book in America in 1994. He gushed in his introduction that the book would perform the vital function of evoking "different feelings" toward immigrants from those evoked by bathetic Ellis Island stories that "exalt the immigrant experience."

FAIR's imprimatur likely aborted conservative interest in the book, despite a neutral Atlantic piece examining its Malthusian premise that came out just when it was republished. Indeed, apart from National Review's Bill Buckley who, in a 2004 piece titled "No Irish Need Apply," to his eternal shame, called the book a "great novel," few prominent conservatives rushed to praise it.

Until now, that is.

In the last few years, this vile tract has slowly risen out of the white supremacist ghetto into conservative gutter sites such as American Thinker and Breitbart (which has been running long features every few months drawing ominous parallels between the book and the Western response to the Syrian refugee crisis)—and then to more respectable and mainstream outfits such as the thoughtful, if quirky, American Conservative and the lively and ecumenical The Federalist.

This Federalist piece by John Daniel Davidson is particularly perplexing because, unlike the American Conservative, whose founding editor Pat Buchanan is a known immigration opponent, The Federalist has no restrictionist agenda. To the contrary, in fact.

American Conservative's recent pieces by Rod Dreher don't soft pedal the book's racism or its "moral ugliness." Davidson's glowing portrait, by contrast, dismisses concerns about the book's racism and fascism as so much "handwringing." "Only a reader looking for an easy way to dismiss [Raspail's] larger thesis would find the racism or fascism at the heart of the novel," Davidson declares.

But the fact of the matter is that Raspail's "larger thesis" is just that: racist and fascist.

Davidson believes that Raspail's main concern is about the impossibility of truly assimilating immigrants, not anything intrinsic about their race. In fact, it's the opposite. Raspail isn't worried that immigrants won't assimilate but that they will. Davidson frets that Muslims in Europe don't marry native Europeans (as if white Europeans are waiting in line, rings in hand, to marry Muslims). But Raspail worries that they will, as his scenario about the pedigreed English queen's son marrying a Pakistani suggests. Raspail is a big opponent of miscegenation, and the whole project of The Camp of the Saints is to evoke horror at it.

Assimilation is, of course, a two-way street. I believe that it generally produces a higher synthesis, just as interracial marriage produces healthier progeny. But the process is neither easy nor without its downsides. It is totally natural that its pros and cons will always be fiercely debated along with the appropriate levels of immigration.

But Raspail is not interested in earnest debate, only sensationalistic propaganda. His book goes to elaborate lengths to present us with a scenario in which immigration could only result in the destruction of everything good and noble. He depicts Indians as so subhuman that even the mildest contact with them would risk pollution.

And why does he choose Indians in the first place?

Because, avers Raspail, using "nearby North Africans or Arabs" would have meant getting involved in a "false debate about racism and anti-racism in French daily life." That's laughable. The real reason he 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.

Thus he can strip Indians of their seven-millennia-old civilization—with its high culture of dance, music, architecture, silks, and spices—and present them as an invasive species worthy of mass slaughter, without straining reader credulity or offending their humanity.

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.

Raspail wrote his book more than 40 years ago to exploit Malthusian fears that the global population explosion would threaten the West and its inhabitants. It is now clear that the societies more in jeopardy are those confronting demographic decline, not demographic explosion. Just ask Japan and Italy. Historically, insulated societies have become less innovative and perished more quickly. Purity comes with a huge price tag. My friend and British author Matt Ridley likes to tell the story of Tasmania, whose technology regressed to Neanderthal times after rising sea levels isolated it from the world 10,000 years ago. In small isolated populations that Raspail covets, good ideas die faster than new ones are born. Cuba, North Korea, anyone?

Far from being prophetic, The Camp of the Saints is spectacularly wrong at nearly every level.

So here's my cri de coeur to my conservative friends: 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.

You can still stand athwart the Statue of Liberty and yell stop to the huddled masses. Just don't do it while waving this scatological screed—lest it besmirch you.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Possessing Air Pellet Gun During Film Shoot Can Get You Many Years in Prison in Jersey

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t I read this tripe earlier this week?

    1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

      1. The question stands. How many times are they going to post this?

      2. I thought I was Tulpa?

        1. Is this going to become an “I’m Spartacus” moment?

          1. May be you can try for “I am David Duke,” or another one of your heros. Spartacus is taken.

            1. Not into racists. The Klan are democrats, and the Nazi’s are far left socialists. But it’s ok for you to worship them.

        2. I’m confident that half of everyone is Tulpa.

          1. Kind of like Composite Superman or Composite Santa?

        3. You know who else was raised Catholic and opposed immigration on racial grounds?

    2. This article reads like an expanded version of the first. I had d?j? vu reading it.

  2. Shikha, of course.


    1. It was inevitable that the waves of Syrian refugees fleeing a civil war that has submerged their nation for five long years would also create nativist sentiment in Europe and America.

      Shorter version: “MUHHHHH FEEELLLLZZZZ!!!”

      The very first sentence is dishonest. A significant portion of the migrant flooding into Europe aren’t Syrian. They’re economic migrants from other areas of the ME.

      1. Hey! She has her cross to bear.

      2. and the part about “nativist sentiment” purposely ignores some of the problems these areas have experienced with Muslim criminals.

        1. “and the part about “nativist sentiment” purposely ignores some of the problems these areas have experienced with Muslim criminals.”

          And your comment ignores the fact that most brown-skinned Hindus and Buddhists are no more pleased with the Islamist barbarians then anybody else.

          1. No one enjoys being around Islamist barbarians. Most frequently other Muslims.

        2. …and American bombings…

      3. Let’s be fair. She’s feelin’ it.

  3. Shikha I apologize in advance for every comment posted below this one.

    1. I appologise for Hugh’s appology.

        1. Putting the White, in White Knighting.

      1. I apologize for the apology about the apology………..oh, fuck it…….

      2. I apologize for Lord Rollingpin’s misspelling of “apology.”

    2. Too late! I got there first, sucka.

    3. Why does the man in the picture have two black penises growing from his temples?

      1. Because Radical Islam.

      2. Because he’s a dick head? [ducks]

        1. Totally hot guy, but I can’t see any relevance to the article.

          1. Diff’rent strokes I guess

        2. I laughed. And feel just a little embarrassed about it. But not enough to prevent laughing a second time.

  4. I apologize for every comment posted above this one. Especially Hugh’s.

    1. The people responsible for those comments have been sacked.

      1. The commentors hired to continue the comments after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked. The comments have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.

    2. It was 1930 when a skinny Indian lawyer marched to the sea to score some illegal white powder and undermine the British Empire’s taxing power–all the while refraining from the initiation of force. A newlywed immigrant in America observed all this, discarded the superstition and racial collectivism and in less than a decade published Anthem–a book about the exact same societies those pathetic starving superstitious wretches are fleeing to get into Europe today. Seems to me libertarians are at the forefront when it comes to profiting from good ideas Indians put forth. We offer ideology. Looking for racial collectivism? Try the Republican Party or the Tea Party down the street…

      1. Oh, fuck off. I’m surprised you din’t try and make this about abortion.

  5. Doubling down I see.

  6. First off, I’m not sure that Shikha is quite grasping that the new-found popularity of this book has nothing, zip, zero, nada, to do with Indian immigrants. Rather, it has everything to do with Methodist immigrants, those famously disruptive religious adherents whose arrival in significant numbers is causing a spot of bother for some of our European friends. This is basically being reinterpreted as a roman-a-clef of Methodist immigration, so you can relax, Shikha – the evil white man is coming after Indian immigrants.

    While this all sounds like a dank and noisome little tome, there might be another lesson to be drawn, namely, the positive view of, and experiences of, Asian and Indian immigrants might be a clue that people are less concerned about your race, than they are about your behavior. Work hard, try to be a good citizen, etc., and people care less about where you are from. Lay about, suck up welfare checks, bitch about how bad you have it and how mean your hosts are, and generally be an asshole, and yeah, you’re not going to get a good reaction.

    1. Remember: it is racist to believe that there are differences between cultures and religions, and that you can judge cultures and religions by these differences.

      1. “and that you can judge cultures and religions by these differences.”

        Sure, if you are a collectivist. Libertarians judge individuals, and believe that individuals can and do overcome the limitations placed on them by the circumstances of their birth.

    2. positive view of, and experiences of, Asian and Indian immigrants might be a clue that people are less concerned about your race, than they are about your behavior. Work hard, try to be a good citizen, etc., and people care less about where you are from.

      *raucous applause*

      Seriously, I have no problem with immigrants and immigration. My best friend growing up was an immigrant from Spain, so I have no preconceptions that immigrants are in any way “different” or “inferior” to natives.

      However, I do have a problem with welfare leaches and miscreants, and I have even more of a problem with importing miscreants and welfare leaches from halfway across the world to become our welfare leaches and miscreants. To the extent that immigration can be separated from crime and welfare abuse, I’m radically open borders. To the extent that (legal or illegal) immigration contributes to the inner cities being shitholes and my tax money being used by people who game the system, I’m the biggest fucking nativist.

      1. To the extent that (legal or illegal) immigration contributes to the inner cities being shitholes and my tax money being used by people who game the system, I’m the biggest fucking nativist.

        Being a nativist would still leave lots of natives doing this too.

        1. As someone said on an earlier thread, we aren’t allowed to kick those guys out of the country though.

      2. Again: Open borders , welfare state.

        Pick only one Dammit!!!

        1. And open borders has lots of other problems beyond welfare. It really doesn’t work unless everyone, or at least most countries, do it

      3. “I’m the biggest fucking nativist.”

        Even bigger than Trump? Interesting to see that Americans, even self-styled Libertarians, boasting of their bigotry as a badge of pride.

        1. What the fuck does bigotry have to do with it? I don’t want the borders of my country to be violated. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. Why do you morons insist that we be the only country on the planet that doesn’t vigorously protect its borders?

  7. so she whines about identity politics while using identity politics.

    1. “He just said Violet while Violet was turning Violet.”

    2. It is pretty ironic. She obviously was angered by its negative portrayal of her race… which indicates she has a pretty strong racial self-identity and a lot of racial pride.

      And her nationality and race are very much *not* being asked to give up their historic homeland to millions of very different newcomers. So she has no clue what it must feel like for Europeans who have a similar level of racial identity to what she has.

      I know, I know. Racial pride is always good except for the Honkey Oppressor.

      1. “So she has no clue what it must feel like for Europeans who have a similar level of racial identity to what she has.”

        And how we Europeans feel about our racial identity is oh so important.

        1. But how Shikha Dalmia feels about her race’s negative portrayal in some decades old book is important? Oh, liberals.

          1. “But how Shikha Dalmia feels about her race’s negative portrayal in some decades old book is important?”

            More to the point, Dalmia’s editors feel it’s important. As you would expect from Libertarians. Portraying a race negatively never plays a big part in their thinking.

      2. But her nationality and race did have to give up their historic homeland to millions of very different (and deeply hostile) newcomers, whose history today erase the civilization and antiquities that pre-existed them. And her race has also welcomed many cultures who were fleeing oppression through the ages; including Jews from the time of the diaspora to the holocaust, Zoroastrians cleansed from their Persian homelands, Syrian Christians (who came in the 3rd century, well before Christianity reached Western Europe), and Armenians fleeing the Turkish genocide, among others. The difference between most immigrants and Muslim immigrants is that the former assimilate and live in symbiosis with their new homeland; be it Europe or India, and the latter don’t.

    Thanks for the tip Shikha, i’ll put the Book on my list

    1. I’m far more interested now than if she gave it a good review.

      1. I had no reason to read it until She went all SJW on it, now I needs to know

    2. Same here; when something sounds like a diatribe/propaganda, along the order of “don’t read this, let me tell you why” images of Michael Moore flash through my mind like a PTSD slide show. And then I am duty bound to do exactly what they exhort me not to do.

  9. How long until Lew Rockwell and his sycophants laud this trash along with their Trumpistry?

    1. Oh no, are they really Trumpeting? I haven’t gone to those sites in a long while.

      1. Look up “Libertarians for Trump”.

        1. I did and it seems like a few of them are they are saying that Trump stinks pretty bad, but is less smelly that his rivals:

          So they are basically saying he’s just better than the alternatives. Also, Trump has ‘all the right enemies’ as the saying goes, meaning that if the neocons and pinkos hate him…maybe he’s doing at least something right.

          (And no, I don’t like Trump :P)

      2. Trumpeting? Like the ‘Green Hornet’ theme song?

    2. They already did:


  10. Sadly, there seem to be as many racist libertarians as conservatives.

    1. Somebody light the SJW social signal! Oh, looks like nicmart already got it!

      1. +1

    2. “Website is called Reason, articles contains feelings.”

      Where we supposed to say, “Good effort! Great article! Lots of big words in there too! Try to lessen the identity politics next time, but good work!”

      Content either withstands scrutiny or it doesn’t. Feelings often cannot withstand scrutiny. Be surprised if you want, be a sycophant if you want.

      1. Hugh is not a sycophant. He just happens to think that every single thing ever written by “reason staff” is absolute truth.

    3. Though not nearly so many as there are racist progressives. which is nearly all of them.

    4. There is definitely a huge overlap between libertarianism and racism. Murray Rothbard was almost cartoonishly racist and it seems to have rubbed off on Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul to a degree. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has also stepped up his racism game, achieving levels of racism even Murray Rothbard would be impressed by. Hayek was also a known racist, though he was fairly subtle about it until his old age.

      1. And yet, they all were avid proponents of individual liberty and limited government. And the nice thing about that is a person can think I’m the most disgusting mud-person he’d ever forbid his sister from dating, but if he also steadfastly refuses to translate that bias into state force, it doesn’t matter.

        Personally, I’d argue that the “white man’s burden” espoused by the left is no less racist. It just couples the perception of racial or socioeconomic inferiority with a belief in state force and government’s benevolence.

      2. Mohammedan brainwashees strike me as pretty much the same as homegrown ku-kluxers. Like our own televangelism Trilbys, they melt into groupthink. There is no rational argument for the importation of ANY brand of religious fanatics. Let them keep creating Paradises where they are. We could even send THEM additional anti-choice bigots to help bully pregnant women and please their Invisible Empire till the Rapture.

        1. There we go! I knew you couldn’t resist trying to make this about abortion.

    5. Yep, as this thread clearly demonstrates. The usual suspects are all here.

  11. I don’t plan to read the book but nor would I ban it. I think it’s important to study these racist screeds to understand what motivates these people. Hitler also feared miscegenation and that the Jews would further corrupt the stupid and lazy German race. The logic is nonsensical, and easy to spot, so I don’t see why it would be such a threat. It is a variation of Stormy’s “They’re rapin our women” even though it’s doubtful he ever even went on a date. It’s a variation of white supremacy which supports slavery so they can kill the men and rape the women and justify it based on ‘racial superiority’ and “States’ right, properly understood.” Ridicule is far more effective against this propaganda than hyperventilating and pearl clutching.

    1. Your comment reads like a class lecture in sensitivity and cultural diversity; in other words progressive propaganda.

      It is important to control immigration, and to maintain the integrity of your nation and culture [and yes, Western culture is worthy of protection, polemics against imperialism notwithstanding]. Advocating unquestioning acceptance of wholesale mass migration is itself worthy of ridicule.

    2. It’s a variation of white supremacy which supports slavery so they can kill the men and rape the women and justify it based on ‘racial superiority’ and “States’ right, properly understood.”

      As long as white supremacists controlled the Federal government, they opposed state’s rights. When they lost control of the Federal government, they supported it.

      The South Carolina Declaration of Secession lists as a grievance several northern states asserting state’s rights to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act and other Federal slavery legislation:

      The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.

      1. State’s rights is always the call of the group out of power. Several years ago, we saw several states assert state’s rights regarding DoMA to legalize gay marriage. Now that DoMA is repealed, we see states asserting state’s rights to prohibit gay marriage.

        Now we states starting to assert state’s rights to legalize marijuana. When the Federal government gets dragged kicking and screaming into legalizing marijuana, we’ll see states assert state’s rights to prohibit marijuana.

    3. Hitler also feared miscegenation

      You know who else feared miscegenation? Ummm, wait, umm, you’re doing it wrong!

  12. I would think an anti-immigrant stance is that of xenophobia…not necessarily racism.

    1. Cripes, it’s not “xenophobia”! A phobia is by definition an irrational fear. There’s nothing irrational about not wanting your country swamped with people who are not only very different from you in culture and language, but are actively hostile to your culture, and want it to be more like the old, failed one they fled from.

      1. But…….but…….open borders!!!!!

      2. Ask the Britons how that Danish immigration turned out post-Roman empire.

        1. Why not simply look at the history of Mexican Texas? It didn’t work out so well for Mexico. Not soon enough? How about the history of Kosovo? A few million “undocumented” “immigrants” and the former citizens are forced to flee or convert.

      3. A living language, such as modern English, is defined as much by how words are *used* as the *roots* of the word. So while a “phobia” is an irrational fear, but not every word that includes “phobia” as part of it is a phobia.

    2. I would think an anti-immigrant stance is that of xenophobia…not necessarily racism.

      Or, not xenophobia, but patriotism.

  13. Well, it was a massive influx of Germans, and to some extent Poles, in the 1850’s that steered this country into the progressivist/socialist pit that it is. Many of these people were intelligent, highly educated people, who brought their radical romanticism to this country, founded the Republican, then the Progressive party, egged on the Civil War, and fought in it on the North’s side.

    I’m from Wisconsin, where the Republican Party, and then the Progressive Party formed, and where the roots of compulsory State education began. With Milwaukee having been the only continuous socialist city for a few decades in the early 1900’s, it’s easy to see where the roots of all this came from – the German immigrants (the 1848’s) who came here and were instrumental in creating the socialist hell this country is.

    So I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be afraid of brown people per se, but why I’m supposed to adore the concept of MIGRATION versus immigration. I have no ill will toward the rational desire for an individual to make a better life for himself. But I have a HUGE problem with a mass of people coming in a horde trying to use Force so that their romanticized ideals hold sway, and who grab guns to point at people already here to act irrationally and against their own interests.

    The application, of course, applies many different ways…

  14. But Raspail’s vile description of Indians is not the only thing that’s wrong with this book. Its fundamental premise?that fast-breeding non-Western races will obliterate Western civilization because liberalism has rendered the West defenseless against unarmed foreign “invaders”?is even more rotten, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia.

    What is this, the 1910s?

    Back then, people responded with programs to pay the right sort of people (think whites) to have children?

  15. Its fundamental premise?that fast-breeding non-Western races will obliterate Western civilization because liberalism has rendered the West defenseless against unarmed foreign “invaders”?is even more rotten

    25% of teenagers in France are now Muslims. Clearly, Raspail’s premise was entirely wrong. Nothing to see here! Move along!

    1. 25% of teenagers are whatever most pisses off their parents.

      1. I think most of those French teens are following their parents, not becoming Muslims to tick them off.

    2. Right, that part is obviously true–Europe is becoming non-European at a very rapid clip. I think Shikha’s point is that they shouldn’t care.

      1. Shikha would have us believe that Western civilization is not a value worth caring for.

      2. “I think Shikha’s point is that they shouldn’t care.”

        If it’s just skin color or cuisine or slang it’s not important. If it turns into a refutation of Western Democratic Capitalistic values then Europeans are screwed. Their economy will stagnate on a GDP basis and shrink on a GDP/capita basis and all the perks of Western civilization (like individual liberties) will start dwindling.

        1. That doesn’t matter if as along as we aren’t racist.

    3. “25% of teenagers in France are now Muslims.”

      So what? Presumably the balance are Christians, yet another religion that didn’t originate in France and came along the backs of foreign invaders. The French are simply displaying the well-established European mania for glomming on to weird religions from the East, as is their right. Your hand-wringing over the issue does nothing of value.

  16. Sounds like I should avoid this book but, then again, I may read it for the same reason I read Dalmia’s articles: I’m a masochist who likes to torture himself. Why else would I come back again and again for her histrionic bullshit? Keep dripping that candle on me Reason-I guess I get off on it somehow.

  17. The book is ranked 25,834 in sales on

    It was written in 1974.

    This is second article in almost a week on this book.

    I’ve never heard of it before.

    Under Google News, this item and the previous article ARE THE ONLY NEWS articles that come up when I do a search under news.


    1. You’re missing something yuge.

    2. What you are not missing is the fact that Reason’s contributors will blow smoke up the readership’s asses just as sure as the contributors to Huffpo or National Review.

      1. I call articles like this grade a click bait.

      1. Trying to get Trump elected too.

      2. In a Machiavellian move, Dalmia purchased the rights to the book in question. and is now writing a series of articles to attract attention to a 40 year old obscure novel. Or something like that.

    3. I get 694 hits for in Google News.


      American Thinker

      Mind you, 45 of those hits are to VDARE and several are to publications like Huffington Post which uses the book to link groups to white nationalism

      1. I was just looking at the first page.

    4. Instapundit has mentioned it a bunch of times when talking about the refuge crisis in Europe

      Usually saying “Camp of Saints is just a novel, right?”

    5. It’s just using some shitty obscure book to attack Trump. Because people like Dalmia are pants shitting anti-Trump open borders nuts. Her shit sounds very progtarded.

    6. Yes you are most definitely “missing something”

      Camp of the Saints by Jean Respail was a book of prophesy about the 3rd world migrant invasion of Europe/the West – this book was written in the 1970s and this prophesy is coming true now in this year 2016. Camp of the Saints is brutal about the reaction to the invasion by corrupt, idiot Europeans. Respail even predicted a CINO (Catholic in Name Only) Pope from South America who would fly his Pope Lear Jet around the Med Sea to welcome/bless the 3rd world migrant invaders. Pope Francis is now doing photo ops licking the boots of Black/Muslim migrant invaders.

      The Atlantic Magazine had an excellent cover story on Respail’s Camp of the Saints in the mid 1990s I suggest you start there

      Must it be the Rest Against the West…../kennf.htm

  18. Banish this book from your library. Purge it from your consciousness.

    The World’s Most Dangerous Book

  19. I’m getting a lot of Streisand effect from Reason on this.

  20. Article about Camp of the Saints from that bastion of conservatism, the Atlantic.

  21. Wow man I never thought about it like that.

  22. Apparently the novel hits a little too close to the truth. Nobody gets that butthurt over totally unrealistic fiction.

  23. And why am I supposed to pretend that immigrants from totalitarian nations, that adhere to a totalitarian religion won’t support a totalitarian ideology when they get here?

    1. A lot of them tend to bring that shit with them.

    2. Because Shikha will call you a Racist Racist Racist!

  24. When is the Reason book burning party?

  25. Do they read it before or after they buy a sixth copy of “Catcher in the Rye”?

  26. It’s so fun reading ethno-centric comments on this website.

  27. India is huge and has a highly stratified society, and the ones immigrating to the US have mostly been from the upper-middle.

    I.E. a well educated minority who had to work extremely hard to get here to get away from the other 700,000,000 are shitting and bathing in the Ganges.

    It’s small wonder they are a ‘model minority’.

    I knew some nice folks from Missouri once. Doesn’t mean I want 1,000 methbillies from the Ozarks moving in next door. Repeat analogy with the uneducated underclass of your choice.

    1. According to national review contributors and their buddies in the MSM, the problem with the Ozark methbillies is that they’re staying put.

    2. Methbillies!!!!


      1. Will that be the follow up to ‘Squibillies’?

  28. For Fuck’s Sake !!! In Europe women are getting raped, people are getting shot, and blown up. Using some crazy bastards sick fantasy to wag your finger at their so called “Nativist” reaction is not going to change their minds.

  29. It was really easy to guess who the idiot who wrote this was from the facebook description

  30. Shikha’s continuing obsession with books I’ve never heard of and won’t ever bother reading is typical. While you’re at it, check out this shocking book, “Protocols of Strawmen of Conservatism”. I don’t remember where I got it, but it’s filthy racist garbage that was written by one of those godawful conservative swines.

    1. There is nothing Conservative about Trump – so I’ve heard.

  31. You can still stand athwart the Statue of Liberty and yell stop to the huddled masses. Just don’t do it while waving this scatological screed?lest it besmirch you.

    Who believes Shikha will stop calling you racist for being against OPEN BORDERZ if only you don’t refer to Camp of the Saints?

    Yeah, me neither.

    The book is fundamentally about asking the following questions, and answering the first two in the affirmative:

    Is Western Civilization a value worth defending?
    Do Westerners have a right to defend it by excluding people from it?
    Will Westerners find the will to do so?

    Those following the plot will notice that despite Shikha’s butt hurt over the racist portrayal of people from the subcontinent, the book isn’t fundamentally about them, but about Westerners and their values.

    Only a racist would write a book asking such questions, as anyone writing it has got to be willing to be villified as a racist by people like Shikha who don’t want the questions asked. The Progressive Theocracy gave us Camp of the Saints, just as they are soon to give us President Small Hands.

    Too damn bad if you don’t like the book. You published it, so it’s the one we’ve got.

    1. Rand still gets hysterical pants shitting denunciations from the Progressive Theocrats because she created a narrative they can’t answer.

      Raspail similarly created a narrative the Progressive Theocrats can’t answer. So it’s “burn the book, or I’ll call you a racist”. The trouble for you, is that a growing segment of the population is entirely indifferent to your moral approval.

      “Denounce the book, or I’ll call you a racist.” Bite me. My moral self worth is not yours to grant or withhold.

    2. Is Western Civilization a value worth defending?

      Please define “Western Civilization.”

      1. “White”

    3. huddled masses yearning to breathe free

      This is the key. If they are not “yearning to breathe free” then they have no business coming here. Why does this part always get omitted? Oh, yeah, intellectual dishonesty.

      1. Free as opposed to coerced slips right past a whole lot of people. American socialists never see “the existence of a Free state” in the Second Amendment, and the last thing a conservative looter will ever notice is “the Free exercise thereof” in the First Amendment.

  32. Yeah, I thought Atlas Shrugged was a pretty awful book, and then Barack Obama started practically quoting the villains in his campaign speeches.

    Anyway, I get it. The official Dalmia (and Reason generally, it seems) stance is that you are either in favor of unrestrained immigration or a racist baby-killer. It’s obviously quite impossible to be in favor of immigration generally but have reservations about its impact on the existing welfare state, or possible security issues, or even issues with regard to social or cultural values. And, of course, one cannot be in favor of immigration and also protective of one’s culture, because it’s a package deal: love me, love my misogynistic theocracy, teetotalism, and abhorrence of pork, apparently.

    Also, why is it that collectivism is bad unless it’s our collective responsibility to Syrian refugees fleeing a civil war inflamed by our idiot President and his bumbling staff? I mean, I never voted for the guy, and have never spoken a word in support of any of those fuckers. Why do I suddenly have a responsibility to accommodate refugees from a situation I had no part in creating?

    1. “Why do I suddenly have a responsibility to accommodate refugees from a situation I had no part in creating?”

      Because you believe in and want to uphold Western Values. It is highly commendable of you. Someone who actions accord with their beliefs is to be praised.

      1. If you voted Republican, Econazi or Democrat you had a hand in creating the mess they are fleeing.

  33. I actually didn’t think books like that could exist.

  34. There seems to be irrationality and hyperbole on both sides. But the fact is: both US and European citizens have a right to exclude people from their countries. Wanting to do so is neither racist nor xenophobic.

    1. “Wanting to do so is neither racist nor xenophobic.”

      Wanting to exclude an individual from entry on the basis of her skin colour is racist.

  35. Dear everyone,
    Stop calling people names, like “racist”, in an effort to shut them up and dismiss their arguments.
    Crying racist, sexist ought to be as dismissed as calling someone Un-American and unpatriotic or a drug user or even socialist/fascist/liberal.

    All these names are used against people so that you can put them down and make others dismiss them without listening to them.

    If you label someone as racist I simply dismiss everything you say because for years that term has been applied to so many people that it is meaningless.

    1. “If you label someone as racist I simply dismiss everything ”

      How about stupid racist? That work any better for you?

    2. Clearly you don’t read the comment section here often.

      Insulting people with labels is a very common pastime.

      1. Fuck off, slaver.

        1. How’d I do?

  36. Wow, is this a silly piece or what?

    The issue is easy,,,, people from a culture so different than the West that they are not interested in assimilating in to cultures that are a 1000 years in the making…

    In fact some of these people despise Western Culture so much that they are willing to blow themselves up to kill the peaceful Europeans.

    Basically we are talking about a people so sick and depraved that they the Western mind does not even understand.

    I mean when Arabs are not killing Jews or Christians,,, they are killing each other over Religion and Tribe…

  37. I never knew about this book, thanks for the plug.

  38. The job of the president is, among other things, to defend the States “from enemies, foreign and domestic.” To disdain the sovereign right of a people to defend its own borders is something you might want to hiss at with a word like “nativist,” which you drag through the filth of a loathsome book I’ve never heard of and never will read, until it stinks as repulsively as your little mind.

    Nativism puts the rights of native-born citizens above those of naturalized citizens. The Constitution does that. Naturalized citizens may not be president, and that’s their only limitation. Those not naturalized, but only permanent residents, lack more rights: like the right to vote, or hold public office. Again, take it up with the Constitution. Those who are visitors, and not permanent residents, have even fewer rights. That’s why they’re asked all those questions at airports: you know the ones. Mr. Trump has never said anything otherwise. An illegal immigrant is not an American, he is an illegal alien. He has a right to a bus ticket home. Those who have not yet received permission to enter the United States, from any port whatsoever, are, likewise, not American, and have no rights whatsoever to enter without consent. Like your front door. 1/2

  39. 2/2 Rape and trespassing are illegal because of a failure to gain consent. This is the basis of civilization: consent. This is what this election is about: whether to reward criminals or to punish, isolate, or send them back.

    Standing against Mr. Trump will be, apparently, a woman who has 200 FBI agents looking at thousands of counts of misdemeanors, felonies, and probably influence-peddling, racketeering, and money-laundering. Or what’s a warrant to search CGI for?

    It is absurd to simply dismiss the voters as if they are a bunch of lunatics because you’re happened upon a loathsome book. This is a disgusting article in what used to be a reasonable journal.

  40. Dear clown,

    It is obvious that it is a terrible idea for a people with a degraded culture that sports violence and poverty to export that degraded poverty. The mid easterners streaming into Europe and America are obviously making Europe and America worse places. There are examples, daily, of such degradation occurring all throughout Europe and America because of these barbaric people.

    To label people “sick” racists for noting the obvious truth serves the purpose of humiliation and demoralization. You are a servant to moral and intellectual corruption for condemning people for noting the obvious truth. Fuck you.

  41. Rarely does one happen upon such a dispassionate and objective book review, but it is entirely possible that a blind spot caused racial collectivism to stand in for altruist mysticism as a substitute culprit. As far back as the Jefferson, then Cleveland administrations the Saracen was perceived as bad news by Christendom (which at the time was not yet incorporated into the Political State). But since the GOP, stunned by its loss of the Prohibition Amendment and FDR’s elevation to President-For-Life, adopted an Americanized version of Germany’s National Socialist Christianity, and has since vigorously exported totalitarianism. So, naturally, economies everywhere are collapsing under the weight of U.S. “mentors” and legislative advisors on the art of prohibitionist looting, and refugees are spewing forth. How could it be otherwise?

    1. Are your comments dome bizarre form of performance art? Or are you this big of a wacko?

  42. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  43. Dear liberals, stop calling everything racist, sexist, homphobic, xenophobic, etc. just because it goes against your incredibly narrow worldview. Do what you accuse conservatives of not doing and open up that tiny little mind of yours.

  44. Shikha and her usual bullshit. Disappointing to see her getting any space in Reason.

    1. I have never seen a libertarian article written by her.

  45. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  46. my roommate’s aunt scored 4208 dollars a week on the internet . She has been unemployed for 7 months but previous month her revenue was 14456 bucks just at work on the MacBook for some hours?AJ!09…..g$98/h.php

  47. And yet another Reason author falls for the Democrat Party’s stereotype that demonizes ALL opposition to government enforced racial favoritism as a bid for white supremacy. Can the turkeys at Reason not figure out that the conflation of racial supremacy with all opposition to racial favoritism is the necessary propaganda that ensures the Democrat’s vote buying election platform of minority favoritism appears to be a necessary protective policy holding off an inevitable (but non-existent) tide of universally racist, oppressive whites.

    What is it with Reason, that unlike real Libertarians, they can’t consistently differentiate between a stereotype and a human being. Just willy nilly toss around universals referencing a reality contradicting omniscient awareness of the thoughts and actions of people they know nothing about, and like the Democrats,(and Republicans) either refusing to admit or unaware, they are using stereotypes to support personally preferred political errors.

  48. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  49. This article references Jean Respail’s Camp of the Saints – one of my favorite books. It’s a bit similar to Thomas Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities”.

    The book is simply brilliant and accurately predicts what is happening now with the mass Muslim male migration invasion of Western Europe. Respail even predicted a Liberation Theology Catholic (in name only) Pope from South America – this latest one Pope Francis likes to do photo ops kissing the feet/licking the boots of invading Black Muslim migrants in Italy.

    The Atlantic Magazine once did excellent commentary on Jean Respail’s Camp of the Saints:

    Must it be the rest against the West…../kennf.htm

  50. White people and whites alone must turn over their homelands and destroy their heritage otherwise they are guilty of racism and white supremacists. No other group is subject to this kind of conditioning. No discussion of human nature is allowed only perfectionist moralizing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.