On Civilization And Savagery

I don’t care if I am called a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe for this for one primary reason: I don’t care what color a savage is, my concern is what the savage does when he encounters a permissive, free, civil society, one far more productive, successful, and far softer than the savage is programmed to accept.

I am as concerned about how that permissive, free, civil society reacts when it comes into direct contact with the savage.

There are savages of all colors, races, ethnicities and national origin – both foreign AND native born. It is a description of an ethos and culture, one that rejects moral and intellectual advancement and invokes the idea embodied in the ancient right of conquest, that anyone has a right to something they have the power and the will to take.

Might makes right. I keep what I conquer. Only the strong survive, the weak are to be subjugated or destroyed.

Our peaceful existence (rooted in Western civilization) has been a relative aberration of history, mankind has been significantly more visceral and violent in the past – and we have taken the peace and security for granted for so long, we no longer recognize the risks to it – or even understand how to fight the enemies of it – and as I have said many times, there are no innocent bystanders this time around, the fight is coming to us, the same way it is coming to the people of Paris.

Here is something I believe is an irrefutable truth: any civilization that ceases to believe it has a moral right to exist will eventually become incapable of defending its existence.

There is no better illustration than these two stories, one from Sweden, where a woman was raped by an Iraqi asylum seeker on a train and initially resisted involving police because she felt sorry for him, fearing he would be deported, and the other from Germany in which the rape victim allegedly concealed her attacker’s refugee/ethnic identity because she feared appearing to perpetuate racism.

The global left has been doing two things for the past 50 years, 1) they have been working to delegitimize the moral right to exist for every country in the West and 2) they have been allying with savages, in some cases bribing them with welfare programs to act as mercenaries to fight in their stead when countries refuse to defend their people and culture.

I’ve been urging people who haven’t read The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des Saints), the 1973 dystopian novel by French writer Jean Raspail, to look it up, get a copy, and read it.

Because the 53-year-old novel is playing out in real time in Paris.

The plot begins in India, where an enormous fleet of decrepit ships sets sail for Europe carrying roughly one million impoverished migrants. The flotilla eventually heads toward the Mediterranean coast of France.

The French government knows it is coming and possesses the military capability to prevent the landing. The real conflict of the novel, however, isn’t military. It is moral and psychological.

As the fleet approaches, France becomes paralyzed by arguments over humanitarianism, racism, colonial guilt, Christianity, human rights, and Western responsibility for global poverty. Journalists, intellectuals, clergy, activists, and political figures increasingly portray resistance to the migrants as immoral. Government officials fear that using force will make France guilty of atrocities.

Raspail depicts this as a kind of cascading loss of confidence. Soldiers ordered to defend the coast begin questioning whether they have the moral authority to do so. Civilians evacuate southern France. Political leaders hesitate. Institutions that theoretically exist to defend the country become incapable of acting because the society no longer agrees that defending itself is morally legitimate.

Eventually the migrant fleet lands essentially unopposed. The French state begins to collapse, and similar migrations occur elsewhere. By the end, Raspail presents Western civilization as being overwhelmed less because it lacked military or economic power than because it lost the will to preserve itself.

If that sounds familiar, it should. We have been witness to about three decades of exactly that plot.

The enduring influence and notoriety of Camp of the Saints is largely because of its prophetic foretelling of mass migration, the resulting European demographic change, and the conflicts that arise.

Critics regard it as racist, xenophobic, and dehumanizing because Raspail frequently portrays the migrants collectively and grotesquely rather than as fully developed individuals – but as they say, “if the shoe fits, one must wear it.”

It isn’t racist because, as I noted, savagery isn’t dependent upon race. It is cultural.

I think it was Ann Coulter who said that in the fight between the civilized man and the uncivilized man, side with the civilized man.

There is an interesting connection to the line of thought I’ve been exploring around Popper’s paradox of tolerance because The Camp of the Saints is essentially an extreme fictional thought experiment asking what happens when a society decides that virtually every act of self-preservation is morally suspect.

Its deeper question isn’t simply “What happens if millions of “migrants” and “refugees” are imported?”

The real question is what happens when a civilization can no longer articulate why it is entitled to say no to the invasion that is being sponsored by its own governments.