Prior to joining the White House personnel, Steve Bannon has been the executive seat of Breitbart News, the alt-right (euphemism for white-nationalist) media outlet known for breathlessly circulating conspiracy theories. In his current position as chief strategist into the President of the United States, Bannon is currently in a place to whisper sweet-supremacist-nothings to the ear of (deep breath) that the chief of the free world. Last weekend discovered a peculiar and disturbing tidbit concerning Bannon’s intellectual background: his abiding love for the French book, The Camp of the Saints.
HuffPo‘s Paul Blumenthal and JM Rieger discovered that if Bannon discussed immigration problems on Breitbart podcasts and radio programs, he always appealed to the widely-despised 1973 book. The terrorists put a chunk of the references of Bannon together. In addressing a perceived “invasion” of immigrants into the US and other western nations, Bannon consistently characterizes the situation with exhausted phrases such as, “I call it the Camp of the Saints.”
If you’ve never heard of The Camp of the Saints earlier, it is likely because you are not a bigot. The publication never gained traction past the far-right in circles. As soon as an English version was released in 1975, Kirkus took no offenders, concluding: “The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a significant occasion, and it likely is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf proved to be a significant occasion”
You may be wondering “Could it actually be Mein Kampf poor?” Well, let us just Have a Look at the book’s assumption, as outlined by HuffPo:
The storyline of The Camp of the Saints follows a poor Indian demagogue, called “the turd-eater” since he literally eats shit, and the deformed, seemingly psychic child who sits on his shoulders. Together, they lead an “armada” of all 800,000 impoverished Indians drifting into France. Dithering European politicians, bureaucrats and spiritual leaders, including a liberal pope from Latin America, disagreement whether to let the ships land and accept the Indians or to get the right thing – from the publication’s eyesight – by recognizing that the threat that the migrants pose and murdering them all.
This paragraph speaks for itself.
The novel was penned by Jean Raspail, a man Wikipedia describes, in high apocalyptic style, as an “author, explorer and traveller.” He has produced an extensive body of work within his lifetime and has received accolades for his contributions to analysis. Oh, and in 2004 he had been sued by the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism for inciting racial hatred, even although the petition was reversed by the court.
The publication has gone into reprint a couple of times from the U.S. Scribner has been the first American publishing house to have the manuscript that was interpreted, but following weak sales the torch has been handed to Cordelia Scaife May, sister of the conservative benefactor, Richard Mellon Scaife. The next time that the publication went into print was by John Tanton’s small publishing house, Social Contract Press, that urges for intense population management and has bothering historic connections to white nationalist groups; it’s been termed a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The most recent series of the book was in 2001; we wouldn’t be shocked if a new variant is soon encouraged by Bannon.
The entire post is well worth a look. But yet another question for our own readership? Writers and readers know better than most just how much our personal proclivities show.