We Might Not Always Have Paris
The novel The Camp of the Saints, first published in France in 1973, forecasts a cataclysmic invasion in which novelist Jean Raspail depicted a fictional last stand of Western Civilization as over 800,000 immigrant East Indians descend upon the beaches of Southern France.
The central theme of the book rests upon this question: will the West use violence to save itself when (not if) it is confronted with a de facto occupation by Third World people who've come to live, but not to assimilate, within their boundaries? Is there a will to live that is strong enough in Western Judeo-Christian civilization that would countenance to pull a trigger in defense of its cultural existence?
Critics of the novel declare it as a racist polemic and a frightening vision of white nationalism, but a good number of others (such as Professor Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth, a literary historian and columnist, who claimed that "Raspail is not writing about race, he is writing about civilization...") see The Camp of the Saints for what it actually is -- a treatise on the impact of unchecked immigration and subsequent lack of cultural integration upon the host country, and an exploration of the philosophy that being a Westerner is more about a state of mind than it is about nationality or skin color.
While Camp of the Saints was intended as a satire of liberal multiculturalism ("Is your culture worth defending?' the book asks; "Would France be just as French if a million East Indian immigrants poured through its borders and continued to live their lives as East Indians instead of assimilated immigrants eager for a new cultural experience -- and should anyone even care?"), recent events in Paris have made such questions less abstract.
In his analysis of The Camp of the Saints, Michael W. Masters states that "The standards that govern (current) public debate are reminiscent of the Dark Ages in that they have no basis in science or in human experience . . . a deep misconception about nature and morality (...) arises from the mistaken, sentimental belief that altruism can be extended beyond its evolutionary origin--kinship and within-group altruism--to the whole of humanity."
While Masters makes arguments about racial identity that I wouldn't, his analysis of the origins of altruism ring true, and help explain why unassimilated immigrants in present day Paris are content to destroy the host city in which they live while wailing about being victims themselves. Kinship is key, and when one has refused a connection to the country he or she lives in -- repudiated the language, traditions and values -- then destruction is sure to follow.
But what would be the loss of Western Civilization? Without the persistent role of the west in pursuing and encouraging democracy, would objective law, progressive technology, international compassion and the concept of individual liberty survive?
These questions animate the present U.S. debate over illegal immigration across the Mexican border into the United States. Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, says, "If over one million Mexican soldiers crossed the border, Americans would treat it as a major threat to their national security and react accordingly. Why then do we not react as vigorously to the invasion of one million Mexican civilians?"
The answer, he says, lies in the half-truths of multiculturalism. Huntington notes a fundamental difference between settlers and immigrants, explaining that the United States originated as a settler nation, composed of Anglo-Protestants who fled their home countries to cross the waters and create a nation where none had before existed. Immigrants are different than settlers in that they come to an established nation to take advantage of the opportunities that settlers created. Paul Craig Roberts states that "Until 1965, immigration worked, because it was European, and immigrants assimilated to the settlers' culture. Now the question is, "What do immigrants assimilate to?"
Anyone questioning the role of immigration in modern cultures has become the latest target of racist accusations flung about by leftist fashionistas who take no pride in Western accomplishments and see no point in attempting to preserve a tradition that has nonetheless brought more progress and liberty to the globe than any other cultural or philosophical movement in the history of mankind (take that, communism). As Jean Raspail cleverly noted in The Camp of the Saints, it is "a known fact that racism comes in two forms: that practiced by whites -heinous and inexcusable, whatever its motives -and that practiced by blacks (or Muslims -- ed.) -quite justified, whatever its excess, since it's merely the expression of a righteous revenge . . . ."
In his preface to the 1985 French edition of his controversial novel, Raspail observed: "[T]he West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilization, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left. At every level —nations, race, cultures as well as individuals— it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles."
In a 1993 interview, Raspail explained that, in one sense, the West is more triumphant than ever, but in its conception of the rights of man, it adopted the Jeffersonian "all men are equal" mantra rather than the Masonian "all men are equally free" philosophy. There is a subtle, though highly distinctive, difference. In its original form, the equality of all men and cultures was an excellent idea, but it has now been misappropriated and misapplied to the extent that this same philosophy is being used like a cudgel against the very values and interests of the civilization that first conceived it.
For instance, why assimilate or integrate when the culture you've immigrated into has no superior value or higher degree of worth in comparison to the culture you fled?
Huntington makes this salient point: "A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Wests that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways . . . This is no less than a clash of civilizations--the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both."
We in the West have become accustomed to an international stage in which the West sets the rules, and the non-West are merely objects in the game. Yet as economic power has increased among non-Western states, a result of the globalization of trade, cheap labor in densely populated non-Western states and the vast amount of oil resources in the Middle East, the same non-Western states seek to be actors rather than mere pawns in the game, influencing their own outcomes and imposing their own rules. This is a new challenge for a civilization that's used to being the only show in town, and can we find enough commonality with the non-West to coexist while still treasuring and promoting our own unique accomplishments, or will we simply collapse in a heap of pathetic self-loathing?
In an excerpt from a 1995 translation of Jean Raspail's foreword to his novel, there's this apt depiction of the forces of modern liberalism which Raspail believed were so damaging to the West's chances for survival: "But the petty bourgeois, deaf and blind, continues to play the buffoon without knowing it. Still miraculously comfortable in his lush fields, he cries out while glancing toward his nearest neighbor: "Make the rich pay!" Does he know, does he finally know that it is he who is the rich one, and that the cry for justice, that cry of all revolutions, projected by millions of voices, is rising soon against him, and only against him."
The cultural clashes we see occurring in France and in the United States due to the massive amount of immigration and the refusal of the immigrants to integrate into what they see as a Western civilization with values and interests that are significantly different from their own, is only the rumbling beginnings of a wider, and undoubtedly much more intense, future conflict between disparate civilizations, a conflict in which the West may have already lost its will to fight.
That is, unless we decisively repudiate "white guilt", embrace our past achievements in moving beyond slavery, monarchy, violent superstitions and class-hierarchies, build on our notable social and technological progresses, portray our values of democracy and individualism as proudly Western rather than this nonsense about them being "universal", and therein regain our soul.
Comments
The United States has allowed Mexico suffer from extreme poverty for decades. The Mexicans therefore have taken matters into their own hands by crossing the border and enjoy some measure of the United States' prosperity. Who can blame them? What right does anyone have to forbid them from coming here?
The Mexicans flooding into the Southwest are actually returning to their own land. The United States engaged in an immoral and unlawful war with Mexico in order to acquire the territory from Texas to California. This land possessed a wealth of natural resources which are largely responsible for the prosperity and power of the United States: Oil in Texas, Silver in Nevada and Gold in California.
If the United States did not steal this land from Mexico that nation would not suffer such poverty as exist today. A more prosperous Mexico would not generate the number of immigrants as Third World Mexico.
So in large measure the United States' crimes of the 19th century are coming back to haunt us today. The Mexicans are not obligated to assimilate into a culture which has oppressed them.
_______________
Homocon sez:
See above for object lesson #1 in "pathetic self-loathing" . . .
Mexico has a $600 billion dollar economy, which makes it the world's 9th largest economy, yet half its population lives in poverty. This is not the fault of the United States, who, with the 1994 Free-Trade agreement, has placed Mexico ahead of even Britain as a trading partner.
Mexico's natural resources include petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, more petroleum and timber, as well as strong agricultural potential that's unfortunately hampered by poor land management.
Mexico's weak public education system condemns workers to low salaries in a global economy where skills count (compare this to India, a former colony of Britain, whose educational system is producing consistently desirable and valuable graduates), and Mexico's inability to enforce the rule of law, as well as system-wide political corruption, also discourages the investment needed to create jobs. These problems are entirely the problems of Mexico itself, and indulging in your personal version of "white guilt" neither improves Mexico's corrupt political system, nor addresses the educational disparity that keeps Mexican workers from excelling in a global marketplace.
Besides which, your interpretation of immigration policy (Mexicans are simply coming back to land that was stolen from them, and who are we to keep them out?) is truly bizarre.
Posted by: David Mathews | November 4, 2005 4:01 PM
Hi Dave... you're WRONG.
Mexico has plenty of oil; exporting 3.46 million bbl/day with proved reserves of 18 billion bbl and is a leading member of OPEC.
Mexico has an enviable amount of natural resources with 256,431 sq km of its over 1.2 mil sq km of land producing a world-class amount of corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, and various fruits (along with beef, poultry, and dairy products from livestock).
From an historical perspective, it's important for you to see this timeline:
You have apparently heard the joke "America stole the part of Mexico with the paved roads" and believed it to be fact. The fact is, you've been lied to for a long time.
Posted by: Scott | November 4, 2005 5:11 PM
All right, you are correct ... the Mexicans should continue to starve in Mexico while the Americans become obese. Their problems are not our problems. If they die that is just their own poor luck.
I don't want the Mexicans to die. If they are starving or poor they ought to come to America where life is easy and wealth is available to those who are willing to work.
Those who would prefer that Mexicans remain in Mexico ought to advocate the investment of billions of dollars into Mexico's economy in order to establish a stable government, provide the basic necessities of life, and increase their standard of living. No ... make that trillions of dollars.
The United States should invest an amount of money into Mexico which would equal the value of all the natural resources of the Southwest. Such is a small price to pay on behalf of the poor.
Posted by: David Mathews | November 5, 2005 12:54 PM
Is there a way to get a more objective sense of Western power and influence in the world, one that's less dominated by fear? Or, to put it another way, are there only two possible narratives: "America: Evil Empire" and "America: Endangered Species"?
Posted by: Lavell | November 5, 2005 5:01 PM
Many thanks to those endeavoring to correct the leftist propaganda that was palmed off here as the first comment.
It seems clear to anyone paying attention that the recent events in France will be played out here in the States, if we continue our current open southern border policy. Citizenship as a gift, which is what the much-touted Amnesty for Illegal Aliens foolishness is, will be taken like all other forms of welfare as a right, by those getting something for nothing, and they will demand more handed to them without earning it.
If you give a rat a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk, then a flop, then (fill in the blank).
Posted by: Ted | November 5, 2005 7:54 PM
The problem with illegal aliens was first noticed in Florida, the Southwest, and southern California at least a decade before it was noticed anywhere else. They talked about it, and were ignored. The remainder of the Southeast began to notice the problem with "migrant workers" starting about ten years ago (based on my experience - I'm a Southern boy myself). We talked about it - sometimes very loudly - and were ignored. Now that the illegal aliens are clogging the public services in the southern half of this country, and beginning to be noticed in other parts, everybody seems to be talking about it off and on... finally. How long do we wait to take action? Do we wait until there are entire towns where speaking English is a liability? Do we wait until large chunks of our major cities look more like Guadalajara, Beijing, Calcutta, or Islamabad? Will we take action before the illegals and unassimilated children of illegals outnumber the rest of us? I'm hoping so.
It is not immoral to demand that my government enforce the law. It is not racist to demand that my government defend our borders. It is not being selfish to ask that others work hard to make their own little corner of the planet as prosperous as we have sacrificed to make ours.
I agree with this post whole-heartedly, our very culture is under attack. Those subtle nuances that make Americans uniquely American are slowly being chipped away in the name of "multiculturalism". Just saying the word makes me gag - after all, for the vast majority of us who are at least 3rd generation American, what culture do they really know, and claim as their own, except the American culture? Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else." (source) Everybody should look up quotations from Teddy Roosevelt, especially since in some things he seemed ahead of his time.
I've been saying since I first read about the problems in France that I thought they were a warning to the rest of us about being lax with immigration. Unfortunately, if history is any indication, we may not take action until all of the stuff I said before happens, or another 9/11 attack happens. By then, it would probably be too late to do a damned thing about it...
(A note to all the bobble-headed lefties out there: they are not "undocumented workers", "migrant workers", "illegal immigrants", or any of the other contrived ways you use to try to justify their illegal behavior. They are classified as "illegal aliens" by the US Government, and that seems as accurate a description as I've ever heard. Besides, "illegal aliens" covers people of all races and is not a synonym for "Mexicans", no matter what the screaming meanies say.)
Posted by: Phillip | November 5, 2005 11:39 PM
Turned on the news last night to see a report about some "non-profit" agency called Padres, that was whining about the language, cultural and economic barriers the poor illegals face in this country. I would dare to speculate if we were to limit public benefits and social programs to citizens only, make English our official language, and/or (heaven forbid) have the guts to eliminate the welfare state altogether, half of them would go home, and those who actually came here to contribute, produce and grow with the country instead of against it would be free to do so and help us curtail the robbery and crime being committed by the fringe.
Encourage strength and the nation grows stronger.
Cater to weakness (like we've been doing) and invite cultural death.
Posted by: Ted | November 7, 2005 4:16 AM
so glad to find that I'm not the only one who's heard of "The Camp of the Saints...." I don't usually mention it in polite company, however, because of the glares and hot air coming from people who think like poster #1.
Posted by: libertarian observer | November 7, 2005 8:04 AM