Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail

I keep seeing references to The Camp of the Saints, and so I figured I should find out what it was about. Rule 1: read it with my own eyes first, before seeing what other people have to say.

I'm about a fifth of the way through, and unlikely to ever read any further. For those who don't trust Wikipedia, here are my observations.

Thesis: The Third World (including China! written in '73) have noticed that the West's altruism is not accompanied by any love for their own culture or own people anymore, and are staging non-violent invasions. Violence would be met by overwhelming violence, but the rulers of the West have no answer for peaceful invasion--their ideologies make the invaders sacrosanct. You don't shoot women and children, or defenseless men.

With this bit of ethical jujitsu, the invaders win and, linking up with foreigners already in the West, turn and destroy the remnants of the West. Part of this is my reading, and part summary from elsewhere. As I said, I won't be finishing the book.

Notes:

• The author seems to hate Christians. So far all of them are slimy and all in favor of the poor elsewhere destroying the West. It isn't too hard to find such characters here, but they're not the majority. He is called a "traditional Catholic," so possibly he was reacting to popular ideas among clerics in France--maybe liberation theology?
• The rulers of the West are feckless and more interested in looking virtuous than in actually taking care of their citizens. I would have thought this overblown, that when danger threatened they'd wise up, but Angela Merkel is a real-life example--and it isn't hard to find politicians here who have similar attitudes. Though what they'd really do with power is fortunately not known. Yet, or, God willing, ever.
• The citizens of the West are mostly helpless sheep, more interested in their comforts and in looking virtuous than in standing up for anything. This may change over the course of the book, but I'm not sure. One early character kills a looter, but after that bit of useful effort spends the rest of the chapter savoring a leisurely dinner while thinking about how everything will be destroyed.
• The foreigners within the West do not love the West, and are willing to join in attacking it. Again, it isn't hard to find examples of this. It is also possible to find counter-examples. By and large, "blood is thicker than water" is a solid rule around the world. We like to think of the USA as an ideology-based country and an exception to the rule, but the astute observer will have noticed that identity-based politics is a big thing here.
• People value their tribe and their culture more than they do yours.
• Although the point hasn't arisen in the book (so far), the position of supplicant is a bitter one. Gratitude isn't one of humanity's strong suits. People resent being the beggars, and the attitude the author assigns the Third World masses seems natural.

Controversy: The book is asserted by many to be racist. The accusation might be justified, although it might also just be character viewpoint-based. I haven't read far enough to be sure, but I have read enough for it to make me very tired.

Some of the characters seem rather wooden to me--in some ways this reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. There's lots of introspection, at least from the Westerners. So far there's no viewpoint except that of Westerners, whether in India or France or New York. Probably won't be, either, given the style.

Summary: Meh to the book. Takeaways from the book: other tribes don't like you much, and sometimes hate you. Your leaders are often more interested in looking good than doing good. Peaceful is not always friendly. Non-violent can be extremely dangerous.

And, as Germany shows, the book is timely.