Like the works of David Irving, you will never find Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints on one of those Banned Books displays so beloved of the women (and it always seems to be women) who run bookstores and libraries. And the reason is simple: these books have been banned.
Something that has worried me for some time is hearing online comments by those who insist U.S. military personnel will never fire on Americans from the political right, in the event of great unrest. That anyone could still have faith in such a scenario after what we have been seeing for years now ... is nothing short of amazing. And dismaying.
You may find an analysis as good as this one, but you can rest assured that it will be 8,000+ words and full of those cloying conditionals (should, would, could). We are in an existential battle. The time demands short sentences using transitive verbs. To the verbal barricades!
Also immediately brings to mind the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles about 30 years ago, and the ominous signal sent by the government and law enforcement authorities that did not immediately move to crush the horrifying shit that went on.
I am the fortunate owner of a hard copy of this book, which I read with interest years ago. I suspect the reason it has been "disappeared" is because a few overly-sensitive critics object to what they view as derogatory descriptions of the immigrants. Clearly they couldn't get past that and understand the greater theme of the book.
I think David Irving, who you also mention, is a better example of an author being banned because certain (influential?) people want to discredit his version of history. I've read half a dozen of Irving's books, and his research talents are formidable. His take on history is one perspective, which he supports with exhaustive research, and at the very least deserves to be considered along with all the others.
This is my first visit to this blog, referred by Simplicius--very interesting piece! Now subscribing.
Our fate well expressed in a nutshell. The United States stands in the queue of failed nations and empires who learned nothing from history. We are not up to the standards required in the constitution, i.e. A moral and righteous people for which it was written.
In the heat of the moment and at the risk of hasty judgment, this may prove to be an essay read for many years to come. By virtue of your succinct and compelling description of exactly what we are facing in this perilous moment.
Pretty much the same response as the Turner Diaries.
Both books were worth reading.
Both are overtaken by events and no longer pose a realistic scenario.
Farting against thunder is a waste of effort, walk away and find a better place to spend your efforts.
Any one under 40 who is not learning Mandarin and/or Russian is a fool. At 40 (1986) I could never have imagined the world of 2024, nonetheless, I left the 'West' and am extremely glad that I did.
Interesting. I would observe that the courage/fear to open fire, and the courage/fear *not* to open fire, are inextricably linked in every scenario.
The problem we face in evaluating these for any given scenario is that the choice between the one we applaud, and the one we scorn, is entirely ex post facto; or, to continue the Napoleonic theme, the fiction agreed-upon. ;)
The book was hard to find back in the late 90s / early 2000s when I tracked it down and read it at the behest of Atlanta's own syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz. I might need to dig into storage and read it again.
The premise is that the armed forces only obey orders. They don't improvise or take decisions, ever.
If they don't shoot, if they fail to defend the border, it's because there is an active order to stand down.
The people who give such orders are more culpable than any trespasser or invader, or any number of them.
The trespassers are a bullet. The people who shot the bullet are the heads of state and of government of each country. They are shooting immigrants-bullets against the deer in headlights who are the citizens.
And maybe the politicians in charge are receiving orders from supranational organizations, including banks. Perhaps the orders are simply by omission: "you know what to do."
Another page in the book of democide, which many refuse to believe is real.
The premise describes the problem. The armed forces should have intervened civil governments long ago. Perhaps in the banking crisis of 2007/08. End globalism then, by force.
I guess the globalists pay better than the people.
Something that has worried me for some time is hearing online comments by those who insist U.S. military personnel will never fire on Americans from the political right, in the event of great unrest. That anyone could still have faith in such a scenario after what we have been seeing for years now ... is nothing short of amazing. And dismaying.
Thank you.
You may find an analysis as good as this one, but you can rest assured that it will be 8,000+ words and full of those cloying conditionals (should, would, could). We are in an existential battle. The time demands short sentences using transitive verbs. To the verbal barricades!
Also immediately brings to mind the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles about 30 years ago, and the ominous signal sent by the government and law enforcement authorities that did not immediately move to crush the horrifying shit that went on.
I am the fortunate owner of a hard copy of this book, which I read with interest years ago. I suspect the reason it has been "disappeared" is because a few overly-sensitive critics object to what they view as derogatory descriptions of the immigrants. Clearly they couldn't get past that and understand the greater theme of the book.
I think David Irving, who you also mention, is a better example of an author being banned because certain (influential?) people want to discredit his version of history. I've read half a dozen of Irving's books, and his research talents are formidable. His take on history is one perspective, which he supports with exhaustive research, and at the very least deserves to be considered along with all the others.
This is my first visit to this blog, referred by Simplicius--very interesting piece! Now subscribing.
Our fate well expressed in a nutshell. The United States stands in the queue of failed nations and empires who learned nothing from history. We are not up to the standards required in the constitution, i.e. A moral and righteous people for which it was written.
The first reviewer (Hayward) may be referring to this when he writes ‘they are all hollow men’. In any case it seems to fit.
https://allpoetry.com/The-Hollow-Men
In the heat of the moment and at the risk of hasty judgment, this may prove to be an essay read for many years to come. By virtue of your succinct and compelling description of exactly what we are facing in this perilous moment.
Pretty much the same response as the Turner Diaries.
Both books were worth reading.
Both are overtaken by events and no longer pose a realistic scenario.
Farting against thunder is a waste of effort, walk away and find a better place to spend your efforts.
Any one under 40 who is not learning Mandarin and/or Russian is a fool. At 40 (1986) I could never have imagined the world of 2024, nonetheless, I left the 'West' and am extremely glad that I did.
Meanwhile back on earth…
If we take it we deserve it.
Interesting. I would observe that the courage/fear to open fire, and the courage/fear *not* to open fire, are inextricably linked in every scenario.
The problem we face in evaluating these for any given scenario is that the choice between the one we applaud, and the one we scorn, is entirely ex post facto; or, to continue the Napoleonic theme, the fiction agreed-upon. ;)
The book was hard to find back in the late 90s / early 2000s when I tracked it down and read it at the behest of Atlanta's own syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz. I might need to dig into storage and read it again.
Would bet Elon Musk has seen When Worlds Collide.
The premise is that the armed forces only obey orders. They don't improvise or take decisions, ever.
If they don't shoot, if they fail to defend the border, it's because there is an active order to stand down.
The people who give such orders are more culpable than any trespasser or invader, or any number of them.
The trespassers are a bullet. The people who shot the bullet are the heads of state and of government of each country. They are shooting immigrants-bullets against the deer in headlights who are the citizens.
And maybe the politicians in charge are receiving orders from supranational organizations, including banks. Perhaps the orders are simply by omission: "you know what to do."
Another page in the book of democide, which many refuse to believe is real.
The premise describes the problem. The armed forces should have intervened civil governments long ago. Perhaps in the banking crisis of 2007/08. End globalism then, by force.
I guess the globalists pay better than the people.
Terrific piece. I will share.
Thought provoking.
Want the border fixed overnight? The answer is clear and simple:
Beltfeds heated up.