Counter-Currents
Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints
Greg Johnson3,735 words
Jean Raspail
Le Camp des Saints
Editions Robert Laffont, 1973
Whenever someone says, “We need a great White Nationalist novel”, I hand them The Camp of the Saints, for as a depiction of white dispossession and a call to racial awareness, Jean Raspail’s 1973 masterpiece has never been equaled or bettered.
The Camp of the Saints is a beautifully written book, filled with aphoristic turns of phrase worthy of Nietzsche. The narrative is gripping. The characters are vividly drawn and feel real. But I don’t want to linger over its literary qualities. I will let you discover those pleasures on your own. Instead, I want to focus on its message.
The Camp of the Saints is obviously a dystopian novel. The purpose of every dystopian novel is to be wrong. Such books are warnings. If they are successful warnings later generations can smugly dismiss them as mistaken. Raspail went to his grave in 2020, at the age of 94, with the gnawing feeling that he had been right. The Camp of the Saints was written as a prophecy, but with each passing year, it reads more like the daily news.
The Camp of the Saints also belongs to another genre: the murder mystery. The victim is the white race. But Raspail leaves it to us to unravel the identity of the killers and figure out how the crime was committed. If we can do so, maybe we can halt the same crime that is happening to our race today.
Initially, The Camp of the Saints is depressing, but its overall effect is to raise your fighting spirit. Still, a fighting spirit means nothing unless you can direct it intelligently. Raspail has much to teach us here. Distilling those lessons is the purpose of this essay.
Here’s the basic story: there is famine in India. About a million starving refugees under the leadership of a massive Hindu known as the “turd eater” and his misshapen dwarf son head for Europe by commandeering a fleet of rusting ships.
In Europe all the leading voices of the churches, the political Left, and the Leftist-dominated establishment frenziedly extend a welcome in the name of human brotherhood, white guilt, and the absurd idea that we get richer by sharing everything with beggars. But perhaps we deserve it for our sins.
As the fleet draws closer, more and more whites have reservations, but they do nothing to stop the migration because they are cowed by the media, the churches, and their own consciences, which have been shaped by nearly 2000 years of Christianity, several centuries of liberal humanism, and several decades of Marxist propaganda.
Nonwhites around the world, and especially in white countries, are also watching the unfolding drama with great excitement, growing bolder as white altruism reaches a crescendo and white resistance fails to materialize.
Of course political leaders realized that you can’t just invite in a million starving beggars who differ profoundly in race, language, religion, and culture without disaster. All it would take is a simple misunderstanding to ignite a race war. Even in the best case scenario, it would be impossible to feed, house, and educate them at a First-World level. They would quickly overwhelm society and bring it down to their level. These people are the refuse of India, not their best. Theft and murder would run amok. Starving people also bring epidemics.
Beyond that, it won’t stop with one fleet; if one fleet is welcomed, others will follow.
Allowing them to set out was a folly. They should have been promptly turned back. But no one would take responsibility for such a decision. They were too afraid of bad press and the scoldings of priests and women. Besides, when the fleet set out, it could have ended up anywhere, including at the bottom of the sea. Why would any political leader risk bad press warding off what will probably be other people’s problems?
When the fleet neared Europe, it should have been sunk. Yes, it would be a terrible loss of life—which India could, by the way, replace in a matter of days—but it would have prevented even worse horrors. Yet no one would take responsibility for such a decision, lest they be pilloried in the press and tried as criminals. And, again, why risk anything when the fleet might still be somebody else’s problem?
When the migrants arrived in Europe, they should not have been allowed to disembark freely. Instead they should have been interned in remote camps to shield the native population from disease and crime. Yet no one would take responsibility for such a decision, for it would trigger neurotics by reminding them of the Nazis.
As the fleet entered the Mediterranean, Spain braced itself for invasion. But the fleet sailed on by, although they left behind a horrifying memento: the corpses of whites and Asians who had embarked with them. The Indians were rejecting all diversity and hardening themselves into a unified invasion force as they prepared to land in Europe. The fist was closing. Obviously, a blow would fall. At this point there was no excuse not to treat the fleet as hostile and repel it with force.
When the fleet approached the French coast, trust in the system evaporated, and millions fled. While their lips paid homage to universal brotherhood, their feet carried them to safety. All of them asked, “Why won’t other people take a stand to protect our lives and property and civilization itself—and, of course, allow the Left to martyr them for doing the right thing?”
The measure of “progress” is the extent to which people can assume that virtue will not merely go unrewarded but will actively be punished—the extent to which they can assume that their neighbors will act from fear and selfishness rather than decency and solidarity. Such a society collapses at the first blow.
The white refugees were met along the way by a flood of people moving south to welcome the invaders: priests, hippies, motorcycle gangsters, escaped convicts, madmen, journalists . . . The traitors’ motives were a brew of ideology, egomania, hatred of their own, and nihilism. They expected to be greeted as saviors and rewarded as turncoats. But although some were raped and others were murdered, most were just brushed aside by the Ganges migrants as irrelevant. None of them got what they wanted, except those who wanted pure destruction.
Once the fleet landed and France descended into chaos, the government was overthrown by a Leftist junta. The new government then used the French military to suppress the resistance of the native French. France was finished as a white society. It became legal to rob Frenchmen and to rape French women.
Millions more Third Worlders swarmed into other European societies, which shared the same fate as France. The last holdout was Switzerland, where the chronicle we are reading has been written. But it too, like South Africa and Rhodesia, has finally succumbed to international pressure.
If whites do not find the will to stem the tide, future historians, no doubt Chinese, will debate why the white race allowed itself to be extinguished. Throughout the book, Raspail invites us to consider different explanations.
Why, on Raspail’s account, is the white race facing extermination? He doesn’t think it is a ghastly misunderstanding. He doesn’t think it is the accidental convergence of different forces. He thinks it is the product of conscious planning on the part of non-whites who hate whites and wish us to perish. If there is an element of accident or coincidence, it is only the meshing together of many independent anti-white conspiracies.
Why are we hated to the point of genocide? It is complicated, but whites are not just hated for our crimes, real and imagined, but also for our virtues. The beauty of our race and our creations; the power of our science, technologies, and armies; our wealthy, free, and orderly societies: all of these inevitably stir feelings of resentment and envy, the desire to take what we have—or, barring that, to make us lose it.
But this sort of evil has always existed. Surely, if we are powerful enough to stir such envy, we are also powerful enough to resist it. So how did the white man become a colossus with feet of clay? Why are we enabling our own genocide? The answer is a spiritual weakness that Raspail attributes primarily to Christianity and its moral offshoots, including secular liberalism and Leftism.
For convenience, I will call this spiritual weakness “white guilt.” White guilt means that whites are somehow responsible for the suffering of non-whites all over the world. To atone for this guilt, we must suffer in turn. We must give up everything that non-whites lack.
Christianity is the root of white guilt, because it teaches that humans can be collectively guilty for things that other people have done. Christianity undermines nationalism, ethnocentrism, and racism by proclaiming the brotherhood of mankind, expanding our moral community and our moral obligations to the ends of the Earth. Christianity also inverts the natural order of values, preaching that those who lack are better than those who have. Want to overthrow society? Just make weakness sacred. Finally, Christianity preaches magical redemption by the imitation of Christ, namely suffering and self-sacrifice by the haves for the have-nots. Without nearly 2,000 years of Christianity shaping white minds, the basic elements of white guilt would never have been plausible.
Raspail seems to be of two minds about Christianity. On the one hand, it is the major source of the moral rot that is destroying the West. Christians, especially clergy, are prominent among the worst traitors and the most useless defenders of the West. On the other hand, he regards Christianity as part of French history and identity and looks back with nostalgia on the times when its most destructive influences were held in check.
Christianity may provide all the necessary conditions for complete racial nihilism, but it also contains two ideas that block its full realization. First is the universality of original sin. If you take Christianity seriously, non-whites and their champions are no less depraved than white colonists and oppressors. Second, the final reckoning with evil is God’s work, which is deferred to the end of the world.
Secular liberal humanitarianism does away with both of these katechons. Original sin is replaced by the natural goodness of mankind, which allows us to believe that the more primitive or immature (viz., “natural”) a person is, the more innocent he is. It also allows the champions of the downtrodden to feel entirely righteous in prosecuting their cause. The removal of the final judgement allows the self-anointed and self-righteous to believe that they can conquer evil and return mankind to innocence within history. These views lead straight to the Left’s strange blend of sentimentalism and savagery.
Intellectually speaking, Marxism adds almost nothing to liberal humanitarianism, save perhaps the idea that white saviors should not be the only agents of global justice. Non-whites too should work for their own liberation, primarily through crime and parasitism, which whites should accept because we deserve it for our sins. But in terms of political organization, no force on Earth was better than Marxism at unleashing savagery and destruction.
During the Cold War, however, Marxism went underground in the West, penetrating educational, cultural, charitable, and political institutions and promoting the inclusion and upward mobility of “marginalized” groups: women, sexual minorities, and especially non-whites.
Raspail is masterful at chronicling how a network of churches and secular charities (what we today call “Non-Governmental Organizations,” or NGOs) worked to move non-whites into Europe by such means as promoting adoptions. The NGOs were also there to facilitate the sailing of the flotilla, even though it was an act of mass piracy.
Once the fleet was launched, the presses and pulpits of the white world sprang into action to welcome them and browbeat any resistance. One day, every child in every elementary school in France was made to write a report on the poor migrants and why they should be welcomed. The rest of the education system also promoted the same message in lock-step. Politicians, prelates, celebrities, and Nobel laureates competed with one another to get the most screen time and deliver the most fulsome welcomes. Perhaps the most nauseating claim was that the boatloads of emaciated Hindus were more than a million Christs coming to redeem the West for the sins of racism, colonialism, and cleanliness.
Readers of the The Camp of the Saints found the “Migrant Crisis” of 2015 eerily foreshadowed.
But, as the flotilla neared France, millions of people along the coast—probably almost every actual Frenchman—chose to flee. Most Frenchmen did not wish to destroy their nation, their civilization, and their people.
So how did it happen? If they simply refused to let it happen, it would not have happened. So why didn’t they refuse? Because they were of two minds about their survival. On the one hand, they desired to keep their own lives, families, property, homeland, and future. On the other hand, they felt that this was selfish, because non-whites have less, so their claim was stronger.
It was easy to profess such altruistic views toward non-whites when there was little danger of having to live by them. In fact, in modern society, professing racial altruism is in one’s self-interest. It is so lavishly rewarded that people compete to write ever larger checks that society can never cash.
When, however, the time to pay up loomed, three groups emerged. The first group consisted of those who believed in white guilt and would follow the logic of their ideas into the abyss. These were the people who rushed to the coast. The second and largest group consisted of those who rejected white guilt, or at least rejected its most destructive consequences, but feared to do so openly. These were the people who fled. The third and smallest group consisted of those who openly rejected white guilt root and branch. These were the people who fought, until the French government sent the military to destroy them—while turning a blind eye to murder, rape, and general delinquency, as long as they were committed by non-whites.
Readers of The Camp of the Saints find the two-tier, anti-white justice systems in Western countries quite familiar.
Why did the Leftist minority triumph over the vast majority? Because the Left was organized, the Right was impotent, and the vast majority lacked leadership. They were a panicked rabble, each looking out for himself. Such a rabble can only coalesce into a unified force if a figure with recognized leadership skills takes a stand and demands that others do so as well.
A well-meaning nobody can’t do it, because people will look at him and think, “I might follow him, but others won’t, and if others won’t, then I will step out of the crowd and be exposed and vulnerable. Better to just stay in the crowd.” It is safer as an individual. But if every individual does the same, then none of them are safe. They are all counting on someone else to save them, someone else to be brave, so they don’t have to.
But modern society does not breed and elevate natural leaders. Instead, it elevates celebrities. But nobody will follow pop stars, actors, or football players into battle.
How did the Left gain so much power? Basically, because the Right—the natural guardians of order—gave it away. The Right fell into the hands of unserious, anti-intellectual men who thought that power lies in arms and money, not in the ideas that guide their use. But, as the French discovered in The Camp of the Saints, their military was of no use when their men were too demoralized and mutinous to repel an unarmed invasion of starving beggars.
The Right foolishly allowed the Left to take over religious, cultural, and educational institutions as platforms to preach white guilt. To the Right, such ideas seemed at best high-minded and impracticable, at worst stupid, crazy, and evil. But never for a minute did they take them seriously and think that they might matter someday.
But what about intellectuals of the Right? Surely some men of the Right understood the importance of ideas and the true goals of the Left. Surely someone understood the magnitude of the crisis and what was necessary to avert it. Such men exist in The Camp of the Saints, just as they exist today, but in the novel, as in today’s world, such voices are marginalized and impoverished: driven out of academia, the churches, and the mainstream media and forced to beg for subsistence from equally marginalized patrons.
In The Camp of the Saints, the Right-wing intellectual is Jules Machefer, publisher of La Pensée Nationale, a tiny, ill-funded daily paper. As the migrant fleet approaches, the president of the republic himself tries to get Machefer to speak out. Yes, even the president—who could unleash nuclear weapons, if he so wished—is desperate for someone else to be brave so he doesn’t have to, an attitude that should immediately impeach any political leader. Large cash donations suddenly appear. But Machefer is too embittered and pessimistic to act. He thinks it is too little, too late. Maybe it is.
What could have halted this disaster, saving France and ultimately the whole white world? A leader brave and ruthless enough to do whatever it took to stop the fleet. The sooner the better. Simply sending warships to escort the fleet back to India would have prevented the crisis with little or no loss of life. The only cost would be enduring some squawking from priests and journalists.
When the fleet entered the Mediterranean, it was already clear that it was a hostile invasion force. It should simply have been sunk. If the military mutinied, the mutineers should have been stood against the wall and shot until the survivors complied. Interestingly, Raspail says nothing about mutiny when the Left orders the military to suppress the resistance of the native French. But the Left has leaders.
Such a leader would, of course, have been execrated by “world opinion,” but in secret, most people would have been relieved. Democracy means giving the people what they really want, and when they are too weak or stupid to choose it for themselves, it sometimes takes a dictator to enact the people’s will. This is why most societies have constitutional measures to grant the chief executive broad emergency powers as well as immunity from prosecution for using them. Using such powers is simply a matter of will, which the Left has and the Right lacks. But will needs a moral sanction, which the ideology of white guilt denies.
What if an ungrateful world wishes to martyr the man who saved it? It would not be the first time. But whoever said that heroism was easy? Every soldier and statesman should be willing to lay down his life for the salvation of his people.
Again, this is ultimately a question of moral character, but modern society does not breed such men. Thus, the appearance of such a leader is basically a deus ex machina, a miracle, and no serious society should depend on miracles to survive. So it is worth asking: how could we prevent such a crisis from taking place to begin with?
Raspail is right: the ultimate cause of the crisis is moral. Therefore, it must be fought primarily on moral grounds. If we are to overthrow the false premises of white guilt, then we must defend these ideas instead:
- White people do not bear collective guilt for the acts of others. But collective pride in our race and nations is perfectly healthy and moral.
- We have obligations to other human beings. But our obligations to others are not equal. We owe more to people who are biologically and culturally close to us than to those who are biologically and culturally remote. Preferences for one’s own are natural, normal, and right. The political system most consistent with human biological and cultural diversity, as well as ingroup preferences, is nationalism for all nations, a world with borders.
- The classical rather than the Christian scale of values is correct. Merit is based on virtue, not need; strength, not weakness.
- We are not magically redeemed from fake guilt through suffering and self-sacrifice.
- Human beings are not naturally good or innocent. Human goodness is rare and requires cultivation. Nobody attains virtue merely by professing the right ideas or championing the people who lack.
- Suffering and weakness do not entitle you to victimize others.
If these views are widely accepted, white guilt will simply be inconceivable. This is an immense task. Our enemies have a two thousand year head start. But that’s just an argument for getting started right away.
To overthrow white guilt is to elevate white pride and self-assertion in its place. A pro-white moral revolution would make a political revolution unnecessary. If white identity and interests become sacrosanct, then we need not tear down old institutions or found new ones. Instead, all existing institutions would simply become pro-white—universities, churches, the media, and every political party, Right, Left, and center—just as today all of these institutions are anti-white.
Of course, pursuing a long-term metapolitical strategy does not prevent us from seizing whatever political gains might present themselves in the short term. We must, of course, close our borders, eliminate all laws and treaties that promote migration, then begin mass remigration of non-whites. Moreover, whenever possible, the Right must destroy the institutions of the Left and replace them with pro-white institutions. Anti-white organizations must be shut down. Anti-whites must be purged from academia, the media, and all branches of government, and pro-whites must be put in their places. Churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t crack down on Leftist clergy. They need to be reminded that their kingdom is not of this world.
Archimedes once said that if he had a lever and a place to stand, he could move the entire world. That’s our goal: nothing less than to change the course of world history. Our lever is pro-white ideas. The place we stand is our movement and its institutions. In the last half-century, both awareness of our ideas and the size and power of our movement have grown enormously, in part because of The Camp of the Saints. When white people win back our future, we will owe a great debt to Jean Raspail.
Enjoyed this article?
Leave a tip in the jar!
So far we have a running amount of $15,00
| 1 | $15,00 |
110 comments
Great review Greg! The last paragraph was inspirational.
Thank you so much.
I read about Camp of the Saints back in the 90’s in The Atlantic, when it was worth reading. Shook me then and I have never forgotten it. I had no idea it was a prophecy.
Written as a prophecy, reads like today’s news.
Having NOT read this book, only the review, I see specific parallels. We Whites are cowards! I honestly thought that “We The People” would bear arms and undo an obviously stolen election to a political party with a history of misdeeds, lying cheating lining their pockets.
As I prepared my response to this theft of a presidential election, I quickly started to hear the Deafening silence from men and women I foolishly assumed were “ Just Like Me” not going to allow such a travesty!
I was wrong, not a peep, O sure the Blog Daddy’s of the Right spoke louder more boldly pounding their chests in fits offering even more moral advise,,,,but didn’t lift a finger to fix it!.
Life IS The Lesson! Realizing the men the women I assumed would rise up, stand tall didn’t. When challenged about their lack of mobilization I was told, “ The Time IS Not Now!.
I hate cowards, more than anything on this planet. In my mind these men and women are just that cowards. I put myself in that crew aswell. We all agreed, The Election was stolen right out from under us. Went to sleep with Republicans well out front. And in the morning a land slide occurred. The communist crime family leader Joe Biden had won with more votes than anybody ever before! Yea right.
A-lot has happened in the past four years, for me perhaps the most important thing is, I no longer believe in these men and women I once called Brother and Sister, friend.
Is it not clear to all this nation is coming apart, Donald Trump will do his part, but vast communist forces are pulling the very fabric of our society 100s of different directions. Pluard @ Cleven wrote in the early 60s that by overwhelming the system at every level, in every state the system SHALL collapse under its own wait. Guess what we are seeing exactly that.
I Digress, if you are counting on anybody who pens a blog or sells trinkets on there right wing blogs, you are foolish they are in it for themselves! If you are not prepared to care for your family alone, maybe help others as you can, you’re a fool. Nobody’s coming to help.
We are a dying nation, we have been destroyed inside out, top to bottom by communist imbedded within the system.
Books such as this review have always been a window into our own destruction. One only has to review our very own history to understand We The People are literally eating ourselves, We are being poisoned by media, and our very own govt.
collectively we deep down tell ourselves, O the other guys will fix it! Sure!
Take the time read the definition of “ Coward”. Then go have a look at yourself in the mirror. As I age, almost 70, I seem to better understand that complacency is away of life, we are a soft and we are not bold and brave like our fore fathers.
My time here on earth will come to an end in the next 30 years. I hope, and I pray that my generation will stand together and address these issues before our great great grand children answer for our cowardice, our inability to meet and find Frank honest answer that meet my white upbringing, our American values and protect my people.
I firmly believe the Grand racial experiment is and has been a colossal failure from its inception.
Sounds like a racist rant, it’s not, I am white, I am an American I didn’t give our native Americans disease infected blankets, I don’t wipe out tribes.
Right or wrong survival of the fittest Darwinism is how ever species lives and evolves. we just witnessed four years of the weakest of our species run our govt. corruption grift graft faggots, he she’s, greed, and perhaps the worst the selling of this nation to the highest bidder. Sadly these people are selling out this nation for Pennie’s on the dollar. Flushing all of our futures knowing they will face zero accountability.
Dirk Williams
It doesn’t make sense under present circumstances to be boasting about how you wanted to take action after the 2020 election but the “cowards” didn’t. It seems to me that the course of events proved the “cowards” correct. Those who offered even symbolic resistance on January 6 were easily crushed and still languish in prison. Those who waited it out just decisively voted Trump back into office.
Yes, and this is exactly what would have been predicted from a reading of George Lincoln Rockwell’s Legal, Psychological, and Political Warfare, which is a booklet that dates from sixty years ago (1965).
This, or an updated version written by an experienced lawyer, should be taken as mandatory White Nationalist scripture.
🙂
There was a great deal of Truth and what you have written. I have been there. Well hitchhiking in Chicago in the early seventies I was picked up by someone who might appear to be ” country ” but he complained to me about going to the beach with his girlfriend and how the blacks came on to her and nobody would help him. He also talked about blacks having a bad case of the “gimmes”. It made a real impression on me. But not until recently have I come to understand that there is something to being a decent white person and being proud of it. I’m ready to embrace anyone white person who thinks exactly like I do, with the same basic values. I watched a movie last night that I would recommend to everyone, a 1933 movie with the title something like Angel Gabriel over Washington DC. Interestingly the movie basically directly advocated a takeover of the country just like Hitler accomplished through the enabling act. Crazy but everyone who can should watch it. It’s available on ok.ru.
This is a motivating, inspired review, Greg. I appreciate how the same article can be used to both share our beliefs and make others aware of a great, relevant novel (something I intend to do myself, and encourage all C-C readers to do, too).
Also, I’ve always considered “turd eater” so satisfyingly contemptful.
I’m pretty sure I have mentioned it here before but I was super lucky to find a copy of the 2018 Social Contract edition at Half Price Books for $6.99 last year. I have a feeling that they had no idea what it was because it would’ve either been behind the counter, behind glass or they wouldn’t have been selling it at all. Well worth the read but a little slow and nerve wracking at times. I do look forward to reading it again in the near future, especially the forward that I skipped the first time. But first I am going to check out Confederacy Of Dunces after your recent review. Thanks for all of your recommendations Greg, they are always worth consideration.
Thank you. Let me know what you think of Confederacy.
Wasn’t Raspail a believing Catholic?
I honestly don’t know. If he was, he clearly had a love-hate relationship with the church.
The novel couldn’t be more anti-clerical if it were written by a complete atheist.
Wouldn’t be unusual for a Catholic to have a love-hate relationship with the Church.
It’s been a long time since I re-read this great novel but my recollection is that the book’s attitude towards Christianity is better described as being properly contemptuous of the modern church’s one-worlder leftism, as opposed to hostile to the Faith in its metaphysical essence. As I never tire of reminding people here, it is a weird presentist fallacy to assume that the Church’s modern iteration (wrt its globalism and seeming embrace of white guiltism – which is hardly universal amongst all clergy, btw) somehow correctly embodies its timeless, essential message, as opposed to being a contemporary theological perversion, and perhaps even heresy. For most of those 2000 years the Church(es) did not preach against borders and ethnonational sovereignty. Nor, I submit, is there anything in the Bible or serious theology that condemns these natural divisions and limits (of course, the Bible is a big collection of works in which one can find some verse supporting nearly any side in a modern political conflict).
WN leaders should avoid conflating Christianity and globalism for two reasons: first, it’s theologically inaccurate; and second, as I again never tire of noting, if WNs intellectually force Christians to choose between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to race, the Christians will choose loyalty to their personal Savior every time. Who wouldn’t? If personal immortality is achieved only via Christ, and He demands white guilt and support for opened borders, the conservative white Christian might regret the ruin this will bring upon his descendants, but will nevertheless “place trust in Christ for all things” (as I’ve heard it phrased at past church services I’ve attended) and assume some greater, divine good will come out of the racial destruction of his people.
Such an attitude might seem mad to CC readers, but I assure you, this is what a huge number of your fellow (decent, good quality, not leftist or self-hating or freakish) whites truly believe.
So by hewing to, effectively proselytizing on behalf of, a merely leftist interpretation of Christianity (that it necessarily inculcates white guilt, supports open borders, and demands a “give it away / give it away / give it away NOW!” approach to race relations), WNs end up alienating a huge chunk of their fellow whites (perhaps the largest group of potential converts to race realism and white preservationism [WP]), as well as ceding the moral high ground to the globalists (who, not accidentally, are deeply hostile to Christianity themselves). Morality demands some grounding other than mere assertions, even if those assertions are transcendently correct (and not simply moral-sounding statements masking a substantive racialist agenda). “White guilt is wrong”; “white pride is moral”; “harsh actions taken to preserve our race are justified” – according to whom, and by what objective standard?
I hold that Christianity, properly theologized, could provide a moral foundation for WP. I mean that a Christian case for WP could be developed that a large number, perhaps even a majority, of Christian whites would find acceptable and persuasive. At the very least, given that mankind might never wholly grasp ultimate moral truths, and that the entirety of humanity (intraracially as well as interracially) will never reach complete moral agreement (especially, it seems, wrt inter-tribal relations), our intellectual efforts need only be persuasive to a majority of our own race (whether or not we should come to discern ultimate moral truth).
Given that many high quality whites are Christians, and that – as Dr. Johnson himself acknowledges and disparages – our people have been saturated for two millennia with Christian and (allegedly) Christian-derived modes of moral thinking, it surely makes more sense to expend our energies on deconstructing and delegitimating Christian temporal and political universalism (which are not at all necessarily implied by Christian spiritual universalism), than agreeing with Christian (and other) leftists as to the secular requirements of Christian morality, but then attempting to persuade our white Christian brethren to sacrifice their beliefs (and personal salvation) because those beliefs are either a) just cosmically wrong, or b) harmful to WP.
WNs should be focused on taking back and purging the Christian churches (as with all other Western institutions), not attacking Christianity per se. Raspail and Greg Johnson are absolutely correct that the West’s downfall is ultimately caused by false conceptions of morality too widely held, especially among the more powerful of our race (many of whom, however, are motivated less by ethical philosophy than greed and fear). The questions facing us are 1) what is the proper morality, and, more importantly, 2) how can it be inculcated in a policy-determining majority of our people.
I listed some Christian dogmas that Raspail puts in the mouths of race traitors, dogmas from which the white guilt ideology follows logically. If you think I am wrong, kindly explain which of these ideas is not really Christian, and where my leaps in logic are.
Raspail was “not a Christian, but a Catholic” similar to Maurras, believing in the unity of Church and Altar, in order, tradition, beauty and ritual. The church he is showing in his novel is a corrupted, “progressive”, ethno-masochist, anti-traditional, third-worldism, post-Vatican-II church, a church overtaken by the spirit as seen in the novel/movie “The Shoes of the Fisherman” – as opposed to the church of the Kings of France.
Raspail’s stance towards traditional, pre-Vatican-II-catholicism however is much more ambivalent in “Camp of Saints” than it appeared later in his life. This is clearly the case in the macabre episode about the geriatric monks heading for the sea to dutifully face the Anti-Christ, who end up baptising the dying, deformed Indian dwarves and cripples so they can go to heaven. At one point the abbot confesses to a younger priest not yet senile, that he never had the faith, but that he truly believes in being faithful to the tradition, even if nobody else is left anymore to do so (a frequent theme in many Raspail novels). This scene was cut from later editions by the author himself, but it remains in the 1976 english translation by Norman Shapiro.
(It also remarkable that the final “dirty dozen” of defenders of the West does not seem particularily Christian or even heroic. They are men with many faults (including an assimilated Indian and a bordello owner from Corsica), but they do what they think is honorable and the right thing, even if it means their sure death.)
Raspail put Christian dogmas, prophecies and justifications into the mouths of race traitors, leftists and lunatics not because he thinks they are being truthful to them but rather perverting them in a diabolical, blasphemous way. The whole novel is a sort of parody of the Book of Revelations, with the turd prophet carrying a demonic Anti-Christ, supported by the vengeful Gods of the East. There is in old tradition in Christian theology that the Anti-Christ will appear as a parody, a satanic imitation of Christ, as you can see depicted in the frescos by Signorelli in the cathedral of Orvieto. Raspail follows precisely that line of interpretation.
After “Camp of the Saints” Raspail took increasingly refuge in a romantic monarchism, as seen in his novel “Sire”, in which a secret monarchist society works towards a traditional “sacred” coronation at the cathedral of Reims to (symbolically!) undermine a dystopian secular socialist state. His idea of Kingship was inseparable from a sort of chivalrous medieval christianity.
So I’d say, later in his life, his actual religious beliefs were more sincere (he was a great admirer of the catholic-traditionalist reformer Dom Gérard Calmet), but not clearly so when he wrote “Camp of the Saints”.
Nothing to add to Petronius comment.
For all its corruptions and inconsistencies Roman Catholicism offered a life filled from birth with meaningful rituals shared with neighbours. There was opportunity for the brightest minds to be educated, some to the point where they might come to doubt the truth of the Platonic “noble lie” of the miracles and the resurrection. At that point it was to be hoped that the scholar would understand that the church itself and the succour it offered to the faithful were preferable to any alternative. How different was this system to the ignoble lies which maintain the current order?
I’ll grant all that. But the Middle Ages are over now.
@ Petronius : excellent comment, showing your deep understanding of Jean Raspail’ s personality, evolution and work.
I read the novel long ago in a rare German translation and this review is spot on. However, again, Greg is too harsh on Christianity(=entire cultural history of Europe) and Marxism (socialism, etatism, enlightment). They are both in deepest decay, yet in their original form they are very important part of what makes us White.
I can’t tell if this comment is ignorance or trolling. Either way,it is nonsense. What makes us white is shared genetics and a shared history that stretches back thousands of years before Christianity or Marxism were conceived of. Christianity’s net effect has been to transfer our natural national/tribal allegiances to a foreign religion, from a conception of ourselves as a unique people with a bond of blood and history to membership in a brotherhood of man that transcends race and erases the past. And to change us from proud conquerors to submissive “lambs.” Ditto for Marxism, which substitutes economic class allegiance for national. For both, the unifying force is a set of ideas, not racial identity. The Bible might have a few conflicting passages regarding race, but the main thrust has been to break down the natural ties between our European brethren.
Of course, what makes us Huwhite is our genetics. The same genetics also predisposed us to create Christian civilization. Indians or blacks couldn’t have done it. Christianity (and its secular offshoot, socialism) are White creations. The fact that Christianity originally appeared in the Levant cannot change the fact that it was shaped by Huwhite men. Christianity was quite instrumental in the creation of European monarchies and thus European nations. The original paganism was more or less a nature religion and would not allow for the creation of more organized societies (unlike Christianity that made centralized states possible).
Or, Christianity was a foreign import, imposed by force, and whites are slowly liberating ourselves from it.
Oy vey! Still can’t tell what you are. Your use of “Huwhite” certainly suggests a troll-like attempt to ingratiate yourself with the readers. But you may also be a kid who thinks he can just pull stuff out of his ___ and impress people. If any religion was a genetic inevitability, wouldn’t it be the one that came to a people from the start and accorded with their natures? Instead of one conceived by a generically different people whose beliefs invert the natural order? The Jews don’t call themselves “those who wrestle with God” for nothing.
And suggesting that the pagan Romans lacked organizational ability is absurd. Organization was their thing. You can’t compare 300 AD Rome to today; Europe would likely have progressed just as much or more had it remained pagan.
If you are a young person trying to sound smart, this may be a good time in life to focus on input rather than output. And if you are a troll, maybe you should consider trolling a web site where the readers are not as knowledgeable as they are on this one.
I have great distrust of white nationalists who display this fussy allergy towards Christianity. It usually goes hand in hand with resentful moral negativity, which is typical of quarrelsome, stubborn, oddball characters. These people have come into conflict with the mainstream primarily because of their selfish unfriendly nature, and not because of their love for their fellow-Huwhites.. Very often they adhere to some weird individualistic philosophy for mean people like that of Russian Jewess Ayn Rand. Or they’re low class with tattoos who saw Nazis in Hollywood movies and decided to be “like Hitler” because he was supposedly the meanest bully.
unlike Christianity that made centralized states possible
Oh, really? And how could ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, later Türks, and Mongols, and also Japanese create centralized states, all of them without Christianity?
Christianity was not the entire cultural history of Europe. This is the most profoundly ignorant thing I see Christian nationalists say, an unquestioned platitude completely unsupported by the historical record.
Do we exclude the Ancient Greeks and the Romans from the cultural history of Europe? Christianity was a marginal force until the final century of the Roman Empire. Even after Constantine, it didn’t take hold immediately. If you were to flash to Europe in the year 800 AD, the bulk of the continent was not Christian. There are parts of Europe that were not Christianized until the fifteenth century. During the fourteenth century Renaissance, the cultural leaders of Europe looked to antiquity more than Christianity for inspiration. By the late seventeenth century, the intellectual and cultural torchbearers of Europe were already beyond Christianity and into pseudo atheism with the Enlightenment.
The most prominent artistic movement of the nineteenth century, Romanticism, again took European folk tradition as its inspiration, not Christianity. By the late nineteenth century, atheism was on the rise throughout Europe and it grew to overtake Christianity in significance during the twentieth century.
We might say that Christianity was the leading cultural force in Europe from about the late eighth century, dating to the reign of Charlemagne, until about the early fourteenth century, with the onset of the Renaissance. That’s a little over 500 years of a roughly 6000 year recorded history. Even then, I’m being overly generous, because at the time of Charlemagne’s crowning even the British Isles still had pagan monarchs.
I’m not denying that. I was referring to northern Europe rather than the Mediterranean. Everywhere in Western, Central and Eastern Europe nation states are unthinkable without strong Christian monarchies. Those who clung to pagan gods have disappeared, those who invoked Christ are still around after a thousand of years. The Christian monarchy of the 10th-15th centuries is the most natural environment for the genius of the white peoples. It is the habitat in which we are most ourselves.
But also everything that came after somehow drew on the Christian tradition. The Renaissance may have been possible only due to the fact that Greco-Roman learning survived in the monasteries and medieval universities. As for antiquity and the Renaissance, they certainly produced great works of art, architecture and philosophy. However, the emphasis on antiquity is inappropriate for today because of the lax sexual morals of the ancient Greeks and Romans. We don’t need naked goddesses. We need chaste women. We must ween off our youth from all addictions including pornography and masturbation.
Your point about people wanting someone else to save them is spot on. While it is narrowly in an individual White person’s interest to avoid these topics, it certainly won’t be good for their grandchildren. There’s no way to avoid what’s coming by avoiding these topics.
My favorite part of Camp of the Saints is relatively early in the novel where there’s a French cabinet meeting to discuss the coming fleet. One minister suggests that they send UN aid to sustain the fleet at sea permanently, effectively turning this fleet into a new nation, as a way to keep it out of Europe humanely. This is biting satire of how modern Europeans will come up with the most nonsensical ideas just so they can avoid appearing inhumane.
Later on, Raspail goes into graphic detail about how the fleet is basically a giant orgy-at-sea – these Indians are going to breed like rabbits, and it probably will not take long for them to exceed carrying capacity on these ships. What to do then?
At some point, you just have to say “no” and draw the line. If I could distill what I learned from this novel into one line, it would be that Europeans just have to learn to say “no”.
Europeans just have to learn to say “no”
They cannot, because… Well, because of “Umerziehung”? Europeans who could say no were burned under the bombs, and the rest were “umerzogen”.
The author of the book knows naught of Christianity. If he would actually READ the Bible as opposed to just taking what the antiChrist catholics say, he would see that the Bible itself teaches nationalism, strong borders, strict separation of the races AND describes who the Biblical people are, and most importantly (((who))) they are not.
The author is right about the demographic invasion, but completely wrong as to its cause and backing.
You seem to be mistaking Christianity for Old Testament Judaism.
I’ve read the book – the writing is simply amazing, by the way. As I recall, there’s a distinction between the healthy sort of Christianity that once was a bedrock institution of Europe versus the bleeding-hearted mush after the doctrines were corrupted by modernity. Other than virtue-signaling clerics, the book also takes on journalists, politicians, non-Whites seething with envy, etc.
Precisely, friend. The Bible is a racialist book from start to finish, and it does not belong to the imposters who’ve fraudulently laid claim to its first half.
As we know, even in the New Testament race-mixing is explicitly condemned (Jude 1:7). Sadly the Jews exclusively have shaped the way white nationalists view the Bible and Christianity. It’s ironic that a group of people who reflexively disbelieve whatever the Jews say about any subject, in this particular case take the word of the Jews as irrefutably true.
Was practically every pope and theologian of the 20th century a Jew?
What the difference between boat loads of street-shitters vs illegal migrant caravans swarming our southern border. I mean this as no disrespect to GJ, the author of this article; but the fictional foreign invasion depicted in The Camp of Saints actually hit America during the Biden admin. Biden allowed Haitians to be airlifted to heartland Ohio and his Exec orders castrated our Border Patrol. But they cannot hide all the chaos of their anti-White actions. If we can just get our fellow White males to be as interested and enthusiastic about saving our race and homelands as they are for f*cking football, we will prevail. Our tribe is confused about priorities.
You are correct, its sports, movies, videogames, and pop culture in general.
“How did the Left gain so much power? Basically, because the Right—the natural guardians of order—gave it away.”
Nicely dovetails with your Xmas shopping essay:
“The worst kind of evil is not merely harming people, but harming people by exploiting their goodness.”
Worse still when, more often than not, that knife thrust by a nominal ally.
First heard about The Camp Of Saints on The David Brudnoy Program on WBZ in the 1990s, and was able to get a copy from the A.I.C.F The other great White Nationalist Novel I have encountered is Leslie Donaldson’s 2019 From Her Eyes: A Doctrine, about a girl in 2107 Minneapolis, who is rescued from an Anti-White dystopia, and taken to a hidden White Redoubt on Lake Superior. It is the most clear eyed vision of the future we face in the broader culture, and a call to action on what we can do to separate ourselves and our posterity from the coming White Erasure.
I have never heard of the Donaldson book. Thanks for the recommendation. Has anyone reading this ever heard of the Donaldson book?
It was reviewed here on Counter-Currents: https://counter-currents.com/2019/09/ash-donaldsons-from-her-eyes-a-doctrine/
How embarrassing. We have now published so much over the years that I have even forgotten about some of my own pieces.
We should not forget the response of the military and the political leadership when BLM and Antifa were burning Minneapolis and other cities during the summer of Floyd. Remember also that George Bush marched in solidarity for George Floyd showing his true colors. Some of our institutions don’t inspire much trust.
When I left New York City in 1990 – the real world “Taxi Driver “, “ Bonfire of the Vanities “ Al Sharpton Cntral Park wilding gang rape of the White jogger , Tawana Brawley etc
I came upon this novel the Camp of the Saints by Jean Respail. In this case , fiction was more true than non fiction .
I bought dozens of these books in hopes of “ waking up America “ to what I saw in New York City as was coming everywhere …
most readers I lent the novel to were Black pilled , admitting it was probably true . But there was nothing anyone would do about it – sane as in the novel where there were ~ 6 Whites and one Indian POC that resisted the mass Shudra migrant refugee invasions .
anybody want to write an updated one where the Whites , especially the Russians sink all the boats ?
This is a thorough inventory of how and why whites have entered a death spiral, cleverly disguised as a simple book review. Of course it helps that it is the seminal tome on le grand replacement. The piece itself is as much required reading as the book. It belongs in the classics corner. Well done, Greg.
Thank you. I’m flattered. I hope this essay will get a lot more people to read the book.
..this book is very prophetic, and just go to Toronto to witness it! Whites can NO longer obtain employment for City of Toronto hiring….call centres, city/municipal/federal jobs go exclusively to these “visible” minorities! Even the banks hire only “visible” minorities and their mannerisms, apathy, accents are atrocious. Retail, security guard companies, VIA Rail, Costco, Walmart, Burger King, hire ONLY the “visible” ones, mostly Sikhs/East Indians. At Pearson International Airport, as Air India flights arrive daily, you will see an entourage of buses, bringing arranged marriages to take the bride & groom to their banquet halls. TDSB (Toronto District School Board) has pupils which are 85% visible minority and white teachers are being replaced with Muslim ones that are versed in Sharia law.
Demographers are claiming that by 2050, Canada will be a majority Muslim country!
By this time Canada and the United States will join in an,”North American Union” just to survive..!
Don’t forget what Trudeau did to Canadian truck drivers during the truckers strike.
Interesting summary. The author does not state whether he agrees with Raspail’s conclusions for the strange death of Europe. We assume he does.
I don’t think nonwhites hate whites, necessarily. I think they lack the intelligence to comprehend the superiority of white culture and technology. They simply want a “better life,” to escape the privation and population pressures of their homelands to the easy welfare of the west. They are galvanized by false ideologies created by our own intellectuals and oligarchs, convincing them that they are equal to whites, if not superior, and that our splendors were somehow stolen from them by us, hence they are entitled. Our own elites are pulling the castle doors open for the invaders, like biden did, who acted to please those who put him in power. The enemy is within, the third worlders are merely responding to economic forces, doing just what we would do in their situations. That’s my thinking. It’s more complex, of course, but in outline.
What do you guys think?
No, they don’t all necessarily hate us and want us to die. But the ones who are organizing the great replacement certainly do.
That’s what I mean. The foot soldiers and migrants are like algae or something, just moving where there’s nutrients. It’s top down. Does raspail confront that? That’s why I find those European rightists so milquetoast most of the time.
It doesn’t seem so. It’s been a while since I read it, but here’s what I recall. In the beginning, the Turd Eater guy with the mutant baby starts preaching sermons encouraging the masses to take over a fleet of ships. It seems he got the idea himself to do all that, though he certainly absorbed lots of leftist ideology from do-gooder foundations operating in India. The ones who board the ships with him are out to get to the promised land of milk and honey – basically the opportunistic algae then.
After the ships set sail, this galvanizes the leftist pukes across the Western world. Minority populations are galvanized too. (If I recall, it wasn’t so much about incitement, but rather that they were perceiving an opportunity to take over). Meanwhile, green marches began assembling in border areas.
Yes, as I discuss in the essay above.
ICYMI this year Pete Quinones dedicated several episodes to reading it on his show.
John 844 is right. Jean Raspail knows nothing of Biblical Christianity and its teachings. France is predominantly Catholic, a religion of works, and as a Frenchman Catholicism is all he knows. I was born in France and brought up Catholic. Later on, living in the US, in mid-age God saved me and I now know my Bible and the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Furthermore, liberalism holding onto the delusion that human beings are born innocent is wrong. All human beings of any race are born equally totally depraved. There is absolutely no raison for the white race to feel guilty for its achievements because people of any race, provided a decent IQ and willingness to work may become achievers too.
I have effectively deleted the overly long (“too long / didn’t read”) version of my comment. The shorter version is this: we have had brave leaders and impressive leaders; what we have gravely lacked is leaders with correct pro-White doctrine.
Amazing that Raspail passed away in 2020, the same year the Biden administration took over and flung open the gates to any and all of our enemies.
What is needed now, as Biden withers, is barricades, not fences, and mounted police to corral the mess. The do-gooders shrieked the first time that mounted police appeared, so it is clear that it is effective. Local ranchers can help out to save their homes and livestock and provide courage to the rest of us. We have to get tough this time.
In 1913, half a century before Raspail’s wonderful book, G.K. Chesterton wrote The Flying Inn which foretold how England would lose it’s national soul through the unintended integration of its culture through the absorption of the cultures it had conquered.
America today is suffering the same fate by employing those it had previously conquered i.e. Mexicans. To integrate the conquered nations the American government handed out free programs such as education and medication to aide the absorption while freezing out the old stock Americans and as in the UK to refer to anyone as an “illegal alien” is worthy of a jail sentence. So too, as Chesterton saw, the end result of assimilation would be to establish the barbarians as a privileged class. Every virtuous tradition of the previously great nations are constantly criticized while the cultural traditions of the barbarians are praised to the rooftops. And here we are.
We have to take our own side and it has to start with talk. We have to name ourselves, the White race, the subjects of our own history, and say that we aim to preserve this race. If we can’t do that because, as in The Camp of the Saints, those willing to say and hear the vital words are too few, then we’re stupid and we’ll die.
This essay reminds me of certain real-life examples. It mentions celebrities, their opinion, and influence in society. Bono comes to mind because he advocates much of this. Years ago, when Sweden voted to scale back immigration, he got on stage during a concert, I don’t remember where and went on a tirade against it. He has also advocated unrealistic policies for various countries in Africa in a misguided attempt to save the continent. He is just one of many, though. There are numerous other celebrities who do similar things.
Where the Pajeets Have No Name
I also recall Sting playing at the Bataclan club at its reopening spouting vile platitudes.
In the 1970s, the Norman writer Jean Mabire was already stigmatizing Jean Raspail’s defeatism in the columns of the neo-right-wing magazine Eléments. I had to read the last few chapters of the book, and then again, at full speed, and it’s been ten years since I read it, as it would have had a disastrous effect on my morale. For me, it’s an ideal book for lighting a campfire, and I much prefer William L. Pierce’s “Turner Diaries” and “Hunter”. If it’s true that Marxists infiltrated the world of culture and education in France after May ’68, it’s equally true that the French people had the opportunity, on 5 occasions (1974, 1988, 1995, 2002, 2007), to elect Jean-Marie Le Pen as President of the French Republic. As for the rest, I find your article fascinating. In particular, the inability of modern society to produce righteous men and women, the need to win the battle of ideas and the moral battle. We also need a change of generation, because in France, the incessant historical reminder of the past of the Second World War has dissuaded generations of French people from voting for the Front National, or from opening up to right-wing ideas.
“…the incessant historical reminder of the past of the Second World War has dissuaded generations of French people from voting for the Front National”
Monsieur le Fauconnier touches the elephant in the room, which neither Raspail nor this article dare to mention, when analyzing the forces behind the third world invasion.
No, it is neither the “leftists/communists” and much less the “Church” (in which nobody believes anyway) which could have triggered a sudden surge of “collective white guilt”.
This “collective white guilt” was carefully manufactured by (((powerful forces))) and maintained after WWII in France.
We should not expect the victors of WWII to point to their destruction of the only white tribe who defended the White Race, as the reason of our current disaster.
By the way, it is pretty unclear why Raspail chose Indians, which don’t play any role in France, and not the problem immigrants from Africa.
Raspail mentions one Ginzburg and one Vilsberg among the anti-whites, but he certainly doesn’t reduce the problem to Jews.
Greg Johnson: November 30, 202 Raspail mentions one Ginzburg and one Vilsberg among the anti-whites, but he certainly doesn’t reduce the problem to Jews.
—
Wow, two Jews! Raspail rally went far out on a limb with that. I recall C-C did a tribute to Raspail in July of this year: Unfortunately, there was no byline. Remembering Jean Raspail: July 5, 1925–June 13, 2020
Saints… certainly far exceeds in quality, message, and prophetic accuracy that other infamous Right-wing novel of the 1970s that had a much more unfortunate and self-destructive impact on those who read it: William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries…
Why would the unnamed author say something so negative like that about Pierce and his novel? Her opinion sucks. I found this more balanced comparison of Raspail and Pierce in a search:
Jean Raspail and William Pierce are two novelists with different styles and themes. Raspail’s novel “The Camp of the Saints” explores the collapse of western civilization due to third world refugees, while Pierce’s work is more American and optimistic.
Our Cause, though Pan Aryan, is primarily American and optimistic. Count me in Le Fauconnier’s camp, preferring optimism over defeatism.
—
Le Fauconnier: November 30, 2024 In the 1970s, the Norman writer Jean Mabire was already stigmatizing Jean Raspail’s defeatism in the columns of the neo-right-wing magazine Eléments… For me, it’s an ideal book for lighting a campfire, and I much prefer William L. Pierce’s “Turner Diaries” and “Hunter”.
—
There is no better man to explain this blockbuster novel, and what motivated him to write it, than William Pierce himself. Listen to him explain it on today’s American Dissident Voices broadcast, here: The Order 2024, part 2 | National Vanguard
William Pierce on The Turner Diaries: What Are They Afraid of?
In 1975, I wrote The Turner Diaries under the nom de guerre Andrew Macdonald. It’s a novel about life in the United States as I imagined it might be in the 1990s, if some of the trends I could see in the 1970s continued for another 20 years. I imagined that the government would become more repressive, and it has. I imagined that most of the people would react in a sheeplike way to government repression and would not complain as long as they could still be comfortable and feel good, and that’s the way it’s turned out. And I imagined that a few people would not react like sheep, but instead would fight back violently — and a few have. In writing my novel, I really tried to be realistic, and to speak my mind completely. I didn’t rewrite any part of my book or leave out any part because I thought it might be offensive to some people — and, of course, it has been.
I have been very gratified by the many people who have written to me and told me that their eyes were first opened when they read The Turner Diaries: that after reading the book they not only could understand what is happening now but also could have some inkling of what will happen next. These people who had read my book weren’t surprised by the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and other acts of terrorism which have occurred. They had seen these things coming from reading my book….
More of Pierce’s speech at the link above.
To E_Perez and Will Williams: thank you for your reactions to my publication and your congratulations! In addition, to my first comment, I would like to say to American readers of Jean Raspail, that his entire body of work exudes nostalgia and can only make you feel doom and gloom.
It’s a pity because Jean Raspail is one of the last great French writers, but, to preserve my sanity, I’ve decided not to read him anymore; and I prefer more optimistic authors like William L. Pierce, Saint-Loup, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Dominique Venner, Guillaume Faye, Roger Holeindre (a former French marine who fought in Indochina and Algeria; one of the founding fathers of the Front National), Jean Mabire, and of course Greg Johnson and the authors published by Counter-Currents.
In his biography of Ernst Jünger, recently translated into English and published by Artkos (https://arktos.com/product/ernst-junger-a-different-european-destiny/), Dominique Venner writes that Europeans emerged exhausted from the slaughter of the two World Wars (40 million dead). So it’s only natural that previous generations (with exceptions like the optimistic authors whose names I’ve cited) should have been made more vulnerable to the propaganda of white guilt. My grandmother, now in her 90s, still blames the Germans for invading France and occupying the country from 1940 to 1944. When the Allies bombed Normandy towns to dislodge Wehrmacht soldiers, she fled to the countryside. It’s a simple example of how difficult it is to let go of the weight of the past. Personally, I’ve never harbored any animosity towards the Germans, nor to Americans.
As a child, I loved the world of the Second World War because of the warlike aspect of the period. I had memorized all the firearms used by the European soldiers in that war, and at school we were made to memorize the names of the beaches (Omaha Beach, Sword Beach, etc.) where the Allied armies landed, as well as the names of the politicians and generals who commanded those armies (Einsenhower, De Gaulle, etc.). Of course, I visited these beaches, especially the one with the remains of the Mulbery artificial harbor, near the Normandy village of Arromanches-les-Bains. I also played a lot of World War II video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Sudden Strike”. The American-British TV series “Band of Brothers” (broadcast in France in 2002) really impressed me.
At school, I was made aware very early on of the theme of Franco-German reconciliation, and the European Union has served this purpose well, I must admit. However, while I welcome the rise of German nationalism and the end of the culture of guilt in this great European country (the most toxic propaganda in the white world. A German once told me that in his country, patriotism was taboo), I wish Germans would not return to Pangermanism, which was a Francophobic, anti-Slav nationalism. Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), who was not a pangermanist, considered France to be populated by “thirty million servile negroes” (you can read this quote in the biography of Bismarck written by French historian Jean-Paul Bled:https://www.lisez.com/livre-de-poche/bismarck/9782262042745)
But as I’ve written before, we just need time to do its work, and Greg Johnson has said it: as healthy organisms, we will eventually eliminate the toxins of anti-white propaganda, which, by the way, feeds no grandiose political Weltanschauung in return. The future belongs to White Nationalists, not to our Marxist enemies.
Many people think that Jews stay behind the Great Replacement, but who stays behind the Great Replacement in ISRAEL, where white European Ashkenazi Jews are massively replaced by Moroccan savages and black Ethiopian Falashas.
All that’s been pretty unpopular in Israel and hasn’t gotten too far. There was resistance to letting in the Falashas back in the 1980s. Even though it came to pass, they were given contraceptive shots, and there was a big hoopla about it. Come to think of it, though, I can hardly blame the Israelis for that much…
That’s indeed curious. It’s not clear how Jew-aware Raspail was then. Even so, there was no shortage of leftist whack-jobs who were real Frenchmen back then to inform his imagination.
Other than that, India was in notoriously terrible shape in the 1970s. This was before they started taking our jobs and got an economic recovery on our dime.
I read Camp five years ago. Raspail has mentioned that he chose India to avoid controversy. In a foreword he writes something like “I was sitting on the French southern coast looking out to Africa, when it dawned on me: what if they all come here? It’s only a small body of water in the way…” something like that.
That was the idea but he made it India to avoid the extreme controversy the Africa narrative would’ve had. Ironically this situation further belies the depth of the problem.
I thought that too; he probably chose India to avoid controversy and confounders. It’s more toxic to criticize blacks with our history of slavery yada yada, and to confront Muslims would add the additional confounder of religion to the issue, and he wanted it to be clearly about race. As the satanic verses guy found out, it can be costly to criticize Muslims in print! On the other hand I don’t think there has been a single case of Hindu religious or political violence in the west.
“he made it India to avoid the extreme controversy the Africa narrative would’ve had”
“he probably chose India to avoid controversy and confounders”
Funny to compare these comments to the adulation/praise heaped onto the courage of Raspail.
Wasn’t Brigitte Bardot more courageous denouncing the barbaric Jewish and Muslim slaughter of animals?
At least she was unequivocal putting the blame on the correct ethnicities instead of hiding behind “Indians”, who were never menacing to mass immigrate in France – contrary to the Arabs and Africans.
“Jean Raspail’s 1973 masterpiece has never been equaled or bettered.”
Maybe, but it needs to be.
Odd then that blacks and Maghrebis are important antwhite fifth columnists in France. Blacks plau the same role in America. Also the same sorts of people rush Europe and South Africa at the end of the book. Also Chinese overwhelm Siberia. He’s not avoiding controversy, then.
I should clarify that the copy I had of the book had a green cover , the Social Contract Press edition, I think the 1994 reprint.
In my edition of the book I had , before and after the text of the novel there were several forewords, a couple of reviews, and some letters by Raspail. I don’t remember the wording and I no longer have the book but he clearly stated he deliberately made it India to avoid the flak of having it be Africa, which was his original intention. This letter is probably available online somewhere, but I can’t find it just now.
In any case “Camp” is a must-read for anyone in this sphere, as is this review. This was a very succinct and stirring article. I hope it gathers steam and makes more people seek out the novel.
“Camp of the Saints” by Jean Respail is….
AMAZING
I also highly recommend The Atlantic Magazine discussion of COTS back in the early 1990s “Must it Be the Rest Against the West” – Vdare’s Peter Brimelow is interviewed about this end of the White world novel. The hard copy “The Atlantic Magazine” was amazing in the early 1990s. But then the usual suspects Js took it over, including “Axis of Evil” Grima Wormtounge Je* David From. Now it’s just a blog “We Hate Trump”, “We Hate MAGA”, Vladimir Putin Is Hitler”, The Atlantic Magazine even ended reader comments (I had a comment that got over 500 likes) because sensible White people were making comments disputing the J* anti White propaganda such as:
“Border Walls never work” (except Israel’s border wall is OK, but that’s different)
The Atlantic writers and editors sited Hadrian’s Wall on the border between Roman England and wild, barbarian Scotland that was built in AD 122.
I and some other readers, commenters noted that the Roman Empire had another 300 years in the West after Hadrian’s Wall was built which was longer than the entire history of the United States as a country.
Well, the Js running The Atlantic, same as the Jonah Goldberg Neo Con, Zionist Js that took over the National Review and purged all the honest, White gentiles (Peter Brimlow, John “the Derb Derbyshire”, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan) – they don’t allow comments to question their narratives.
An important, yet overlooked aspect of the book is the fact that it is essentially a satire, a very dark comedy with a grim and macabre sense of humour, mixed with tragedy and an almost supernatural horror. Some scenes in the book are wickedly funny and full of bitter irony. Others almost literally happened during the 2015 “refugee crisis” in Germany; it was a truly uncanny sight to behold.
It is also noteworthy that Raspail wrote a sort of reverse “Camp of the Saints” in the 1980s: “Qui se souvient des Hommes” (Who Will Remember the People…”) is a story about the destruction of the indigenous sea nomads of Patagonia (a place on earth Raspail was very fond of). Doom is brought again by invading ships, but this time from Europe, and without comedy and dark humour. In fact it was the sight of an empty Alacaluf boat in a snow storm early in his life that left a haunting impression on Raspail’s mind. By 1971, when he started working on “Camp…”, it had nightmarishly dawned on him that our own race might suffer a similar fate as those tribes some day.
Raspail was also ambivalent about colonialism. On one hand, he loved the spirit of exploration, adventure and conquest, on the other hand he deplored sincerely the destruction of indigenous peoples. “Camp of Saints” indeed does show an understanding that the accusers of the West are not completely wrong and do bear serious grudges. Raspail wrote extensively about lost and dying cultures and tribes around the world (including Ainu in Japan and Germans in Russia) in “The Axe of the Steppes” (1974), one of his most beautiful books, and a testament to his heart-felt “ethnopluralist” attitude.
Petronius, you display a good grasp of Raspail. Apparently you’re the 14th highest commenter on this site, who knew.
I would like to ask you am I right in my assessment that Raspail the man was not particularly political? I believe he may have had some limited correspondence with GRECE: (French Nouvelle Droit – New Right – Counter Currents itself is named similarly, ‘North American New Right’) the likes of Guillame Faye and Alain de Benoist.
Is it correct to say Raspail started out as a travel writer and wasn’t “racist” in the terms the left would define but more had a healthy, classic acknowledgement of race and the differences between the races? He was born in 1925 after all so this kind of attitude would be common. I believe he did a lot of travelling and spent much time around other races. He warns us from a viewpoint of experience. I think he’s also in two minds about colonialism. I think ethnonationalist is a good way to describe him.
I also think you touched on something when you said Camp is a black humor satire. Camp is funny, in the way that Morrissey lyrics are funny. “If a ten ton truck crashes into us to die by your side is such a heavenly way to die” is grim, but it’s also hilarious, when viewed in the correct way (a cynical sense of humor).
I believe also Camp is a warning in the way that let’s say someone enters a room and there’s a glass of water precariously sitting over an expensive electrical device. They might urge the others to move the glass, but they all dismiss him as a paranoid loon.
Naturally, the glass tipples over and renders the device useless.
We must be mindful to heed warnings, even if they seem paranoid or are deemed as such by most people.
In this sense Camp is a general sort of warning and not strictly a ‘racial’ work; however, the book pulls no punches when it comes to race.
It seems to me Raspail did not set out to create a specifically racialist work; it isn’t analogous to the Turner Diaries for instance. However I’m not taking anything away from the fact that the book chimes with our views and is in my view essential reading. I believe it is the foremost White Nationalist novel.
Camp is deeply racist by any reasonable definition of the word. It explicitly argues for racial preferences and xenophobia and describes Indians as filthy, depraved, and subhuman so stridently that it actually undermines his case.
Well it’s been a while since I read it.
But im asking: how political was Jean Raspail? How redpilled was he?
It’s just academic really, but in my view it should be part of any serious discussion of the man
Another thing: it seems that if someone fully redpilled wrote such a book that the Whites would win in the end. In Camp, they don’t, and our civilization basically peters out. This furthers my thought that he wasn’t as deeply political as people here are, or perhaps, as we would like him to be.
Just a theory I’ve gleaned from what I’ve seen. I’m probably wrong, I’m no expert. I would be interested to see Petronious response
I can’t think of a more political set of lessons than those offered by Camp, whether or not the author followed the news cycle and voted in French elections.
I don’t accept your premise that a political writer would necessarily write a happy ending.
Guest: November 30, 2024 I have great distrust of white [sic] nationalists who display this fussy allergy towards Christianity. It usually goes hand in hand with resentful moral negativity, which is typical of quarrelsome, stubborn, oddball characters. These people have come into conflict with the mainstream primarily because of their selfish unfriendly nature, and not because of their love for their fellow-Huwhites [sic]. Very often they adhere to some weird individualistic philosophy for mean people like that of Russian Jewess Ayn Rand…
—
You are a mainstream nut full of beans, Guest. Get down on your knees, close your eyes, bare your neck and pray to Yahweh that we enlightened few White loyalists will accept your Jesus as our personal savior. Good luck with that.
As for the Jewess Ayn Rand, you might learn something about her individualism when compared to our racially loyal group think by searching her name at nationalvanguard.org. David sims writes about her often. Race is a collective. Fact!
Instead of anyone white person that was supposed to be any non-white person
How can it be, that Spain, still under Franco, welcomed refugees in the book?
And what did the Soviet Union do? The French were very pro-Sovietic in 1970’s.
I can’t recall what Spain does in the book, but as for Russia : the book is mostly focused on the situation in France and that on the flotilla, but occasionally it cuts to Russia.
The scene in Russia is mostly set in Russian east, the Mongolian or Chinese borders. The Chinese or Koreans (can’t remember which) are amassing their army just across the border defences of a lonely Russian outpost of one soldier and his commander. They’re both just drunk the whole time and , spurred on by events in France, the Chinese simply invade and conquer Eastern Russia easily.
It’s a military invasion iirc and the soviets in the book are too drunk to bother fighting back and have basically given up.
Their fate beyond that is not revealed.
It’s been a while since I read it but it’s something like that
The scene in Russia is mostly set in Russian east, the Mongolian or Chinese borders. The Chinese or Koreans (can’t remember which) are amassing their army just across the border defences of a lonely Russian outpost of one soldier and his commander.
Yes, the Chinese aggression was a real danger for the SU in 70’s since border conflicts on Damansky Island and by the Jalanashkol Lake in 1969. We Soviet children grow under the fear of the war with China and were afraid of the Chinese more than of the Americans.
There would have also been the memory of the 1905 defeat by Japan. The 1905 war is an interesting and overlooked topic. I recommend people sympathetic to our views learn about the 1905 war. Another must read text IMO is “The Rising tide of Color against White World Supremacy” by Lothrop Stoddard.
Stoddard correctly identifies 1905 as a warning flare that the White world was not invincible. (Of course, in Stoddard’s day (1920s) 1905 was recent. It was overshadowed by other things: the world wars but least of all the reclassification of the Japanese as honorary Whites in the postwar decades. Prior to this they were considered Yellow Peril along with the Chinese: seen as somewhat barbarous and cruel. Now we see the Japs (rightly, in my view) as fellow upholders of high civilization.
In another related point, Raspail touches on something prophetic a la Stoddard and the White global dominion: the frailty of the Soviet Union. Hitler claimed the USSR was a rotting structure and “we only need to kick the door in and the whole rotting structure will fall down.” But to most mainstream analyists the USSR was invincible and its unravelling in 1990 took most by surprise.
But if you’d been paying attention, you’d correctly identify the USSR in 1975 (when Camp was written) as being on borrowed time.
People in our sphere now identify the West (North America Europe and Australasia) as being on borrowed time / last legs / etc.
Most mainstreamers dismiss this analysis – but “we” were right in 1920 when “ourguy” Stoddard called out the West and right in 1975 when our man Raspail called out the USSR.
He called them out albeit indirectly in terms of a collapse but the main thrust of his point stands. The USSR was a house of cards that would topple with a strong wind or one card too many on the pile. The west is this today.
Will we be ignored as we were in ’20 and ’75? Or will we have the phyrric victory of vindication once more?
Great review. I was able to get an article, “Diverse New World,” published in an academic volume, Utopia and Dystopia in the Age of Trump: Images from Literature and Visual Arts (2018), in which I argued that Camp was compatible with the major themes of Albert Camus’s novel, The Plague. I advocated race realism and ethnonationalism and cited CC and other DR sources. It was reprinted at Unz Review. I suffered no career consequences. Mine was the only article in the book that was pro-Trump, pro-nationalism. I am grateful to one internal editor at my university who promoted viewpoint diversity. The editors at the press were also very cooperative.
Great review. I want to point out some points that I think they are not accurate. The rest is completely accurate.
“Christianity is the root of white guilt, because it teaches that humans can be collectively guilty for things that other people have done.”
I think this is not accurate. In fact, Christianity is the opposite. It is the individualization of morality. Yes, there is an exception: original sin, but this is a very specific exception and it is not related to anything else. In addition, there is Matthew 27:25, about the collective guilt of the people for killing Jesus. But this is also an exception and very specific: you don’t kill the Son of God every day.
While other peoples in the Ancient World believed in collective guilt and punishment (including the people of the Old Testament), Christianity is a step towards Western individualism. In Christianity, guilt and punishment belong to the individual, who is rewarded or punished regardless of the behavior of his people. Compare to the Old Testament, where God punishes Sodom and Gomorrah because of their collective guilt, punishes Israel multiple times because of their collective guilt, punishes the Egyptian people because of the behavior of their king…
This is why you say that Christianity is not a faith that promotes nationalism and you are right. But you cannot have it both ways. Christianity does not promote collective guilt either. It is an entirely individualistic religion. Christianity is agnostic about nationalism. This is why it has been combined with nationalism through most of its history. The last time ended with the Francoist regime in 1975, which was national-catholic with the slogan “Through [Spanish] empire to God”. When Spanish people fought against Muslim people, they fought because of Jesus but also because of Spain (the Gothic reminders). Their battle cry was: “Santiago y cierra España” (“For Saint James, let us attack together in defense of Spain!”) There has been no incompatibility until recently.
“Christianity may provide all the necessary conditions for complete racial nihilism, but it also contains two ideas that block its full realization. ”
You are right that Christianity is nihilistic about ethnic morality. This does not prevent that you are nationalistic in everything except morality and this has been the case for most of Christian history. Buddhism is also a non-ethnic religion. In fact, except some tribal religions, only Judaism, Shintoism and Hinduism are truly nationalistic religions, but most people in history have been able to be nationalistic without a nationalistic religion. Religion is not the entirety of culture.
In addition, there are more than two ideas that block “racial nihilism” in Christianity:
3) As I have said in the above comment, the fact that there is no collective guilt. Christianity is completely individualistic, like Buddhism.
4) The goods of Christianity are different from the ones of leftism. So you are not more virtuous because you are against xenophobia, for example. Being very simplistic, you must pray and help your neighbor. So you don’t get extra points for helping foreigners instead of helping your neighbor. In fact, in Christianity, you have to help first to the ones close to you: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8) This led to Saint Thomas Aquinas (the official philosopher of the Catholic faith) to explain in Summa Theologica that the charity is like concentric circles: “First, your family. Second, your neighbors. Then, your town. Then your nation. Then the rest of humanity”. You have to concentrate on the circles closer to you. The wider and more external the circle, the less obligations you have towards them.
5) Most importantly, Christianity prevents virtue signaling (of course, it does not destroy it completely because it is a human trait). Virtue signaling is trying to appear as a virtuous person only to get a higher status in the community, instead of trying to be virtuous in reality. You see virtue signaling everywhere in their world. Everybody is against racism, sexism, LGBTIfobia, etc. Everybody puts some words in their social networks to look good, without doing anything to be good . Virtue signaling is destroying the West. The behavior of people in The Camp of Saints is explained by virtue signaling. Nobody wants to fight the ships because they want to “look good”. They want anybody else to fight the ships and then, condemn this guy to look good in comparison. People prefer virtue signaling to survival. This is hardwired in the human brain: the need for status is the most pressing need after breathing, drinking, eating and reproducing. This is because people with status reproduce more and are selected by natural selection, as scientific studies have proven.
Jesus spoke more against virtue signaling that about any other topic. This was his problem against the Pharisees: they virtue signaled as hell. Bible verses abound. Only one example: “When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get.” (Matthew 6:2)
In addition, in Christianity, the more holy a person is, the more aware is of his own sinfulness. So the way of appearing holy is to say “I am a sinner! I have to repent!”. This short-circuits the mechanism of virtue signaling.
only Judaism, Shintoism and Hinduism are truly nationalistic religions
Türkic Tengrism (Tengricilik) is truly nationalistic religion too, that’s why Imams do not lik it and do not like even our national symbols, like the Heavenly Wolf (Kök Böri/Bozkurt Asena) as Tugut (Idol).
Finally, I want to say that you give liberalism and Marxism a bad rap. I am as anti-Marxist as it gets, but, like Christianity, liberalism and Marxism have existed for most of his history without ethnic masochism. I think that you fail to name the real ideology to blame, called cultural Marxism, political correctness or woke ideology. They extend the oppressor-oppressed Marxist idea from the economic area to the cultural, ethnic and sexual area.
It’s sort of a matter of perspective. I’ll concur that classical liberalism does have some good points, as long as you don’t get too carried away with it. Also, back in the 1970s, there were Russian Communists who were very practically oriented, trying to keep their economy on track, which turned out to be remarkably difficult. They even liked ballet and classical music.
First World Marxists were (and are) much different, influenced by the Frankfurt School types you mentioned. These were dirty hippies and coffee shop radicals imagining some unrealistic utopia where they get free shit just for existing, and don’t have to follow society’s rules. As for France’s radical scene, I could hardly imagine that Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Tartre, or his girlfriend Simone the Beaver would last even a week on a collective farm.
back in the 1970s, there were Russian Communists
Soviet Communists of 1970’s were mostly only formal Communists, with only lip service to Marxist dogmas.
It is known that when one of Brezhnev’s speechwriters inserted a quote from Marx into his speech, Brezhnev asked that this phrase be crossed out. “Well, no one will believe that Lenya Brezhnev read Marx.” By that time, the Soviet communists were in reality just moderate imperialists, their desire was to preserve their power, and, unlike Stalin’s time, they also wanted to more or less improve the lives of ordinary people.
What I mean is that they had to be practical, since they had a country to run. This is quite different from the silly coffee shop radicals in the West who get lesbian ninja studies degrees in college, think they know everything, but couldn’t mop a floor to save their lives.
Anyway, what do you think? I bet we can get to 100 comments on this article…
What I mean is that they had to be practical, since they had a country to run.
Yes. I also do not think Soviet leaders after Stalin were bad. I was a schoolboy, a student in the Soviet Union, and then a young military interpreter in the Soviet Forces in Germany. I still think the Soviet Union should and could be reformed, but not destroyed. Only Baltic States should get full independence, but another republics could stay in a reformed, softer kind of a Union on the social-democratic basis with private property. And I still respect Gorbachov, but I did not and do not respect Yeltsin and Putin, and almost all post-Soviet dictators. There were much more civil rights and freedoms under Gorbachov than there are in all post-Soviet states now.
This is quite different from the silly coffee shop radicals in the West
Absolutely. And the same could be said also about the “Greens” of any kind in the West. Even if I do not stress that “Die Gruenen” in Germany were supported and financed by the East German intelligence service (Stasi), I also can say that all those “fighters for nature” did not do anything good. All these environmentalists and nature defenders have never planted a single tree, cleaned up a single dump, or fed a single stray cat. All these loudmouthed idiots like Greta Thunberg are of no use to nature at all.
I bet we can get to 100 comments on this article…
Yes, we can.
Paraphrasing R.P. Oliver, communist doctrine is just what is useful to the conspiracy at any given time, Marx was writing in the 1840s as a converso Jewish revolutionary (tactically disavowing his own people) and his doctrines were those calculated to be as harmful to the gentile upper classes and as seductive to the proletariat as possible. Seventy years on, the Soviet regime had to strike a balance between weakening white Russians and defending its empire. Putin carries on this tradition.
Much the same phenomenon can be seen in the capitalist-communist West today with the sudden about-face in nation-wrecking diversity-in-the-military propaganda as our rulers prepare us for war.
Le Fauconnier: December 1, 2024 To E_Perez and Will Williams: thank you for your reactions to my publication and your congratulations!… I would like to say to American readers of Jean Raspail, that his entire body of work exudes nostalgia and can only make you feel doom and gloom.
It’s a pity because Jean Raspail is one of the last great French writers, but, to preserve my sanity, I’ve decided not to read him anymore; and I prefer more optimistic authors like William L. Pierce [et al].
—
I don’t know about those other writers you list. I don’t read much from them. but when I compare other pro-White authors to Pierce’s solution of strict separation of eligible Whites from non-Whites and from Whites who would compromise with multiracialist Democrats, Marxists and Christians, they all tend to come up short.
A few of us constitute a small minority of the racially conscious White minority. Our racially responsible movement will grow from that core.
Back on the topic of Raspail and comparing his novel to Pierce’s Diaries. What I wrote on that subject under this C-C article in July may be forgotten but still stands: Remembering Jean Raspail: July 5, 1925–June 13, 2020
Did Raspail really prophesize accurately what would happen to France all these years later? Did he inspire resistance? Tell that to the new Parisians today: [see the eye-opening 2-minute video from Rebel News, here] “Street Impressions, Paris, France” at WhiteBiocentrism.com.
With Diaries, Pierce looked around the U.S. at trends in 1975 and predicted the racial mess today with amazing accuracy. He awakened and inspired hundreds of thousands of White Americans to organize to fight for our race with the ideas, albeit though fiction, in that novel — and scared the Hell out of our Jewish masters.
Did Raspail inform his countrymen how powerful Jews were and would continue to be since then, like their implementing Europe’s “race laws,” for example? Pierce predicted those in the U.S. and so much more that have come to pass.
Pierce courageously followed up his Diaries predictions as a courageous man of his race for another 27 years until his last dying breath. Did Raspail? Not so much. Seriously compare Pierce’s relatively minor body of non-fiction work since Diaries to Raspail’s since Saints.
Is Diaries “Right-Wing”? No, it is not. It is racist, anti-Jew, radical and revolutionary. Many Right-wingers would describe its impact as unfortunate and destructive.
Your journey is an interesting one, Le Fauconnier. However, must say that I had no interest whatsoever in The Band of Brothers TV series, especially since Jew propagandist Spielberg had a hand in it.
I’ll cut to your optimistic conclusion. How to go about successfully achieving our White future is the primary challenge. The simpler, the better; half measures won’t do it. May the best plan prevail.
[A]s I’ve written before, we just need time to do its work, and Greg Johnson has said it: as healthy organisms, we will eventually eliminate the toxins of anti-white propaganda, which, by the way, feeds no grandiose political Weltanschauung in return. The future belongs to White Nationalists, not to our Marxist enemies.
Great article, Greg. I think this was one of the more important parts:
Why did the Leftist minority triumph over the vast majority? Because the Left was organized, the Right was impotent, and the vast majority lacked leadership. They were a panicked rabble, each looking out for himself. Such a rabble can only coalesce into a unified force if a figure with recognized leadership skills takes a stand and demands that others do so as well.
A well-meaning nobody can’t do it, because people will look at him and think, “I might follow him, but others won’t, and if others won’t, then I will step out of the crowd and be exposed and vulnerable. Better to just stay in the crowd.” It is safer as an individual. But if every individual does the same, then none of them are safe. They are all counting on someone else to save them, someone else to be brave, so they don’t have to.
As I indicated in my recently submitted CC article, I believe that there needs to be a more centralized element to White Nationalism, so that a spokesperson can be appointed, invested with the will of the majority. We need more than disconnected wannabe celebrities fighting for attention. We need someone with the weight of collective backing to brute force our will onto the public stage.
This is a depressingly superficial analysis.
Please deign to enlighten us.
I think some of us should consider publishing underground bootleg editions of this AMAZING novel.
Camp of the Saints IMO is a sacred text, similar to the NT Bible for early Christians living underground in the Roman Empire.
The Original White French guy that wrote this AMAZING novel Jean Respail isn’t alive to get any royalties, same as the Original JQ aware Walt Disney isn’t alive to get royalties from Classic Disney movies like Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Dumbo – the royalties on classic Disney now go to the loathsome Je* Bob Iger.
What do others here think about just thinking about doing things like this?
JR
Camp is a relatively hard book to get ahold of. If someone were to publish it, we’d want a good translation (i havent read the original French so cant comment, but the Shapiro (Jew? Shapiro means Sapphire) translation was excellent in my view, and all the best relevant foreword/s, afterword, etc. Frankly we’d want this review by Greg Johnson there too.
But it’s much easier to make a PDF or something. Someone should do this and then spam it as a file on the likes of 4chan.org/pol/ and X.com.
Thanks for your comment.
I’m pretty sure Camp of the Saints Shapiro English translation is online for free at Aryan Archive or something like that.
I prefer real world, hard copy books, magazines, flies, posters.
IMO it’s time we got off the internet, stopped just typing on a computer key board and re engaged with our real people in the real world.
Raspail’s novel reminded me of Dostoyevsky’s: it was a gripping novel of ideas that could and should have been half as long, maybe less.
I have no idea how it reads in French, but reading the English translation felt at times like trying to wade through peanut butter.
All that’s been pretty unpopular in Israel and hasn’t gotten too far.
It was and it is not popular in Israel, but it is still going on. The white European Jews, particularly from the Soviet Union, you know, we all Soviet people of every ethnic group lived under the “real socialism” and that’s why we are mostly strong anti-Left, protest against the importation of the Moroccan Jews, which main habit is to burn puppies and kittens in bonfires, and also of Ethiopian Falasha, but the government still import the savages. In last two years the situation worsened.
I wouldn’t say that “our lever is pro-white ideas”. I think our lever is the public defense of pro-white POSITIONS. And it doesn’t require original IDEAS.
Our levers:
– Speaking out in the face of intimidation and persecution
– Saying out loud what most White people already think
– Making obvious logical arguments
– JQ awareness campaigns
– Spreading information
It’s not a battle of ideas, it’s a battle of speaking out and being heard.
“The Right foolishly allowed the Left to take over religious, cultural, and educational institutions as platforms to preach white guilt.”
When the Jewish-led far-left takes over the institutions, and when they buy the media and the politicians, it’s not the importance of ideas that is demonstrated, but the power of Jewish money and intimidation tactics!
The truth is that White people strongly feel the intimidation coming from the government, the media, the institutions, and the pro-vaccine conformists. It’s a soft dictatorship. The government carries a big stick and doesn’t rely on soft persuasion.
You are pushing a false and subversive argument: “It isn’t ideas that matter, it is money, because our enemy uses money to buy platforms to promote . . . their ideas.” If ideas don’t matter, only money, then why are they not spending money to corner the cheap hotel industry? Why do they spend money to own the news and entertainment media? Because ideas matter.
Unfortunately, the English translation of this epic novel is no longer being published in America. This happened only several years ago, however copies of the book now fetch sky high prices. Hopefully the book will be published again one day in English so that it may continue to be read.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment