Stay tuned…

This post originally appeared on I Read Odd Books

I am working on my take on the Norway killer’s manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Even though I am dividing my discussion into three parts, it’s still going to be long. Very long. Probably heinously long. I found it fascinating, tiresome, and infuriating.

But since it may be Friday at the earliest, more likely Monday, before I post the first installment, let me share a few, minor interesting things I have discovered as I read and researched this disjointed, rambling, narcissistic, unorganized mindfuck:

1) Fjordman, real name Peder Jensen, is an asshole and yet I pity him even as I take meticulous joy in mocking his ideas.

2) Little Green Footballs, a site I had not visited in years, no longer appears to be one of the Worst Sites on the Internet. There were moments in 2007 when it was like Stormfront Lite. So good for them, not catering to race haters anymore.

3) Anders Behring Breivik has received praise in parts of the Internet, and I was a much happier person before I knew Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel existed. I almost shouldn’t mention them lest knowing they exist impact the quality of your lives, as well.

4) Anders Behring Breivik, on the basis of my armchair psychiatry, has an interesting mix of personality disorders. Most interesting to me is that he seems so narcissistic that he appears a caricature of self-involved, metrosexuals. All decent people should from this day on never again wear Lacoste clothing just out of the sheer shame that ABB has brought onto the brand.

5) I find it really quite irritating when people use my favorite writers and poets to support twisted ideas that are in direct defiance to purpose behind the literature. Stupid Fjordman…

Anyway, this may be book-length by the time it is over, but once started I have to finish. If anyone has any questions that they have about the manifesto, ask now and I will try to address them where appropriate. I cannot imagine my lovely, sane readers (or even my lovely, less-than-sane readers) would want to slog through this mess so since I’ve already taken the hit for you all, so to speak, I’m happy to address any questions anyone may have about the text.

So hang around just a wee bit longer. I will have far too many words at your disposal in the very near future.

32 thoughts on “Stay tuned…

  1. Greetings, O Queen of Odd Books! Sounds like a fascinating project.

    Your most critical duty, of course, is to analyze Mr. Breivik’s manifesto as a written document without being distracted by his subsequent activities.

    And since you, presumably, still reside in the Republic of Texas, you can always do a thought experiment by reading “Mexican” every time you see the word “Muslim” and insert “Hispanic” whenever you see the author write “Islamic.”

    Ah, the prophetic utterances of 2083!

    1. Your advice is how I am trying to approach this document. I am doing my solid best to examine the text without too much discussion of the terrible events but the first part is to discuss Fjordman’s influence on ABB and the document itself, so there is some overlap.

      And then when I analyze ABB’s words, it occasionally hits me that 77 people died because he wants to live in a 1950s paradise that never really existed. It’s all so banal at times – how could this have led to so much suffering.

      Since both Fjordman and ABB just love Bat Ye’or, she of the books that read like The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca, it’s been instructive to insert the word “Jew” for “Muslim” or “Judaism” for “Islam.” Hate is easy that way – it’s ever so interchangeable.

      1. I hesitate to contradict the Goddess of Odd Books, but we know one thing about the fabled paradise of the 1950’s – that the years of the 1950’s really existed. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate a multicultural paradise that ever survived in any nation ever. If the historical record teaches anything – it is that cultures cannot ever coexist. That, to me, is the message of the 2083 manifesto.

        1. Contradict me all you want. Believe me, when I post the installments, polite contradiction will be the least of my troubles.

          Well, the 1950s did exist. I mean, the decade happened. But at no time was it as bucolic and innocent and well-dressed as ABB seems to think, or in other words, as white and rich as he thinks. There’s a passage in there wherein he sounds like Beaver Cleaver, longing for the days when women always wore suits and gloves when they went to the market and the worst problems kids faced at school was the plague of tardiness and sass. This puerile tendency to paint the past as a time when all was perfect in order to demean the parts of the present that one finds objectionable is tiresome to me. The 1950s were nice in some respects, but in other respects they sucked and the image we have of mom in pearls, dad in his easy chair smoking a pipe and the kids roaming the streets playing marbles doesn’t hold up as a universal historical truth even in the places where it is being touted as being the ideal past.

          I would challenge anyone to show me any culture that is or was a paradise, multicultural or homogeneous. In the absence of The Other, we create our own. Regardless of my sentiment, the message of the 2083 manifesto is not that cultures cannot ever coexist, though it’s implied to be sure. It’s an alarmist document of bigotry, sexism, and historical revisionism. It’s anti-intellectual at best, and at worst it’s conspiracy theory that encourages the worst sort of violence. It’s a tirade against Islam, demonizing the religion and creating a conspiracy theory around Islam that would give Henry Ford an erection. It is an hysterical record of what happens when a few people have some really terrible things happen – what happened to Bat Ye’or was objectively and subjectively terrible – and sanctify it by indicating the bad event was a master plan.

          If the screed had touched on how it is that multiculturalism has failed in all countries, citing any immigration other than just Muslims that irrevocably changed or ended civilizations, it could be a look at how cultures cannot coexist. Rather, it is a look at Muslims and how they have ruined everything that is good, lovely and perfect. And also women are dumb and suck and have helped the Muslims ruin everything that is good, lovely and perfect in Europe.

        2. Out of curiosity, have you read it? I ask not in an argumentative, “Have you even read it, huh, well I have!” manner. I ask because I clearly “interrogated” the text in a manner relative to my interests and beliefs. If you’ve read it, I’d love to know the parts that stood out for you.

          I’m still resisting the urge to find Fjordman’s address and send him hundreds of copies of The Vagina Monologues. I am also still stunned that ABB found it appropriate and merry to disclose his sister and mother’s sexual histories.

          1. I certainly haven’t read all 1,500 pages of Breivik’s “2083.” But what I have perused, I have also done through the lens of “my interests and beliefs” – more specifically, from the perspective of what immigration has done to America (not to Europe). I am, after all, an Evil GRINGO. For those of us in the American borderland, the issue is Mexicans, not Muslims.

            I am fascinated by the text for the same reasons that you dislike the work. Obviously the manifesto is conspiracy theory – but such “revisionism” only flourishes because a multicultural thought police is preventing any serious debate about the future of Western nations. If you don’t go along with diversity, your ideas are instantly demonized as bigoted.

            Naturally the Eisenhower years in the United States had their problems – but for middle-class citizens, the standard of living was far higher than can be found Obama’s America. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how diversity had made this country a better place for the average ANGLO.

            I think that Anders Breivik struggled with the same awareness in his own country. Something has gone seriously wrong with the promises of the multicultural elite.

            Than of Breivik’s writing as a kind of Dan Brown novel – it all goes back to the Templars ….

          2. My personal beliefs are unclear even to me when it comes to much that is political, but I can tell you that I do understand that those with differing opinions can get shouted down and demonized. It’s unpleasant but there you go, and those doing the shouting were those who were once shouted at. This is ultimately why I stayed in college an extra year to get my English Literature degree when I was ready to graduate with my Political Science degree. I just find all sides in the political realm – actual and philosophical – tiresome.

            I suspect you will not like much of what I have to say about it, though I am reserving much of my venom for Fjordman. You don’t have to believe me when I say this because on Monday I will have the entry live, I hope, but Fjordman’s misogyny, rape apology and intellectual arrogance permeate this document to the point that even if I found much use in historical revisionism or held a rabid hatred for Islam, I would have found him detestable.

            But hopefully when you read my discussion, especially the first part, I will at least make my case as to why it is Peder Jensen needs to be losing some sleep for a while. As I always do, I am interacting with the text pretty deeply, so even if we disagree, hopefully you will understand my reactions.

        1. Hey Ted,

          Mr. Oddbooks here. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’ve been drinking? We won’t hold this against you when you sober up.

          1. Hello Mr. Oddbooks
            As I’ve told Anita a while back I don’t know any black people personally because I live in a wild-dog infested shithole by-the-sea(at least its bomb proof) although I did give a Congoleze sailor some directions in a combination of pantomime and “french” and if that isn’t proof of my lack of prejudice then you obviously don’t know how bad my french is. Moreover I am a fan of blues,jazz, and generally regard african-american and black people in a positive and inquisitive manner. Plus I have the hots for Naomi but that’s for another discussion
            Hence the humour(or lack thereof) which was meant to defuse the tense comment battle about the good ol’ days ,It’s like a Martian telling a joke about a polish plumber. But I get why it might not seem that way. So please hold it against me because not only was I sober and alert I spent a good 40-50 seconds finding the most despicable joke involving black people and this seemed like a decent one since it combined race,involuntary confinement to a wheelchair,sexual preference and a disease that not only is more prevalent in gay men but even more so in black people from Africa .In a way I am very flattered that you would think that I could come up with that joke drunk
            And I’ll have you know that I don’t generally make ethnic/racial/sexist comments while drunk, that would make me a xenophobe/racist/misogynist since in vino veritas(even more so cheap beer)

            Anyhow you can delete the comment now ,if you wish Or delete the first 2 and leave this one alone,It would look like a druunken disjointed ramble.
            Ps:love the beard

  2. I disagree with just about everything I read – that is what keeps keep the text so engaging. Talk about “collaborative reading” (to borrow some PC jargon this morning).

    You say that Fjordman’s written work might be characterized by “misogyny, rape apology and intellectual arrogance.” Just to be certain, those are bad things, right? Because one could say exactly the same thing about, say, the texts of William S. Burroghts. Or Paul Bowles. Or Genet. Or Robbe-Grillet. Or Supervert. Or Jim Goad. Indeed, these personality quirks might be seen in the literary products of a good number of “odd-book” authors on the pages of this very website. Why should those writers’ “misogyny & intolerance” be met with more approval – and, say, Fjordman’s misogyny be perceived as somewhat less acceptable?

    1. Fictional looks at misogyny are not universally bad. Context helps but fiction is generally not an advocacy but rather a look at the human condition in all its forms. I know you suggest looking at ABB’s manifesto, the parts he wrote himself, as a sort of Da Vinci Code but aside from some parts toward the end wherein ABB was inserting misinformation into his diaries or when he was postulating about what he thinks may happen, 2083 is a non-fiction advocacy and therefore it is safe to assume that the positions posited by ABB and Fjordman represent their actual outlooks and what they think are ideals.

      (And the value arrogance is contextual, and I think in this context it is definitely a bad thing.)

      I had a conversation with a writer recently wherein I realized that one of the reasons I was never able to stomach Burroughs is because of my various addictions in my life, so I can’t speak to his literature. I’ve only read one play by Genet so I can’t speak to him either. And I’ve never read Robbe-Grillet. But in a comparison of the other authors you have mentioned with Fjordman, it’s not even close.

      Though at this point I can’t recall if I have read Goad’s infamous Rape Issue or if I have just read parts of it piecemeal, I remember Goad explaining the reaction that spawned it. He was reacting to the radical feminist sense that language was becoming more of an assault than sexual attack. Every perceived slight against them became a “rape” while rape itself was demoted to a sort of political statement of misogyny and not the violent, vicious attack it is. Words became rape, rape became a political act. Therefore, the rape issue itself was a rape, and not a political look at the ridiculousness of feminist extremist language. The issue was not an advocacy but an example of the strange world wherein words were rape but actual rape was not rape. That’s not the same as rape apology. I also, in the course of reading him, have understood that Goad, while having had tumultuous relationships with women, does not hate women in general. He hates or dislikes specific women. You can hate a woman without hating women.

      Supervert has never, to my knowledge, written an apology for rape. He, like me, has a decided interest in mental and sexual aberration. Sympathy for the devil does not mean one condones the devil or thinks the devil is correct (I have a definite pity for Fjordman and almost wish I could correspond with him and dig out the entirety of his brain). Everything I have read from him is an examination of the mind, an examination of the act. At no time did I ever read an apology for rape. I can see how using evolutionary biology as an explanation can seem like an apology but even in that context, Supervert was positing it as a potential explanation and not a blanket statement of “Dude’s gonna rape, bitch better get used to it because it’s just evolution, baby.” I’ve never read anything approaching misogyny in his works.

      In terms of Paul Bowles, I assume you are referring to The Sheltering Sky? I have not read his body of work but if that is the novel you are referring to, I see no rape apology in it. Some people look at Kit’s acquiescence when she is repeatedly raped and then eventually becomes emotionally attached to and married to one of her rapists and see the will of the woman to be victimized. I see a deranged woman, a stranger in a strange land, developing PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome. When she is able to return to the USA and instead Kit disappears, presumably back into the belly of the beast, it is due to madness, not an innate desire in the universal woman to be victimized. So I don’t see any apology for the concept of rape itself or the nature of women holding rape as appealing. One can make the case that the abuse of Kit was Bowles’ misogyny coming forth, but in fiction, the examination of the human mind and character takes people into dark places.

      Misogyny and rape exist and discussing them in fiction is not a tacit admission one is a rape apologist and a hater of women. Examining the human condition in fiction is generally not an advocacy. I can think of only a few novels that I would consider an advocacy of the ideas they put forth.

      But even if I am wrong in all my example and refutations, here is why Fjordman’s rape apology is wrong. It is wrong because he sets it up as an advocacy, an inevitable end to behavior he dislikes. Here’s how he did it:

      He believes in a conspiracy theory wherein Muslims, with the aid of cultural Marxists, have permitted Muslim immigration into Norway. Women make up 70% of the Labor Party in Norway, and therefore blame for legislation soft on Muslim immigration is squarely on the shoulders of those stupid women (he attempts to make the case that women are stupider than men a few times). He tries, in what would be some hilarious words if it weren’t so toxic, to explain that women love big, strong men who will treat them like shit, a Nice Guy misogynistic look at women in general, and therefore women are subconsciously letting in Muslims because they want to submit to them (and why women don’t want to submit to the Viking archetype is never fully explained, unless you just take into account how dumb women are and how this stupidity has led them to be used as pawns by the cultural Marxists). The Muslims rape and pillage, and since stupid women who want to be treated barbarically by strong, brown men let them come into the country, when women get raped by all these Muslims, it’s their fault. They asked for it. They wanted violent rape and they got it. Hahaha, all those liberal bitches refused the kindness of Western men and look what happened to them.

      That is rape apology. That is some hard core misogyny. It is not fiction. It is not an examination of the minds of men and women. It is an attempt to demonize women for not doing what Fjordman wants them to do – reject Muslim immigration – and then telling them rape is what they get for not listening to him and people like him. He repeatedly attempts to prove women are stupid, base, evil and unkind – not specific women but womankind in general – and takes an unseemly glee in what he sees as the inevitable end of stupid women not listening to him.

      The chasm between what Fjordman wrote and Goad at his angry worst cannot be measured in words but in miles.

      This conversation is very interesting and if nothing else it is helping me refine what I think about Fjordman’s words. If, as you read the actual analysis on Monday (or possibly Tuesday, as this is becoming a monster that will not die), you have similar questions, please ask them. I think, however, with the text there, in black and white, to show my point, it will become clearer how it is Fjordman is a very different writer than Goad, Bowles and Supervert.

      1. I believe that Fjordman might be on to something. Here’s why:

        I think that what we are witnessing among Western liberals is a sort of ethnic masochism: (1) always complaining about supposed injustices committed by their own white ancestors; (2) desiring large-scale non-European immigration in order to alter national demographics; (3) promoting expensive social welfare programs to financially support their new immigrants; and (4) imposing restrictions on speech that critique the resulting social changes. All of these politically-correct programs actually HURT themselves (increased competition for jobs & housing, increased riots & crime, increased taxes, lack of free speech, & loss of faith in their own cultural heritage).

        It is no wonder that that this ethnic masochism might also be expressed in terms of sexuality. If a liberal woman bends over backwards to help illegal aliens, isn’t it likely that she will also bend over backwards in other areas of her life as well?

        If liberals permit immigrants to take advantage of social programs, is it no surprise that these very same liberals will permit these very same immigrants to take advantage of them sexually as well.

        It is not women who are stupid, but liberals.

        1. As a Western liberal, I tend to speak to my life and experiences in the United States. Not knowing where you are from, your numbered points may be relevant universally in Europe but for me that list means little.

          1) White imperialism has done harm to the world, but that can be filed under the tab of human greed and wickedness rather than any sense that white people suck. I’m sorry extremists say otherwise but those folk are no more representative of the bulk of the liberal experience than Herman Cain is representative of the bulk of conservative thought.

          2) I have to laugh at this in terms of my experience in Texas. My state is gerrymandered during every new legislative session and as a result, conservatives are overrepresented to the point of ludicrousness. And conservative here does not mean white. Plenty of hispanics play their part in the near-conservative hegemony in Texas. This jiggery-pokery sort of machination takes place everywhere there are craven politicians who want power. Unless we get rid of the politicians, political power will continue to try to stack their constituency in their favor, immigration be damned (or banned, as it were).

          3) I am unsure what expensive social programs you are referring to. In a country where my countrymen have a very slender social net, this is not something I worry about. If the US had a massive cradle-to-grave health care program, state-paid maternity leave, state-paid childcare outside of the public school system, extreme tax credits offered for children and similar benefits offered to the citizens of this country, let alone offering them to immigrants, I could maybe buy into this idea. Get back to me long after I am dead because I don’t see this happening in the USA in my lifetime. Europe may be different but most immigrants in the USA are here not to take advantage of our welfare programs but rather to escape political harm or to work themselves to death in our fields. And turning them away leads to issues that harm legal citizens. Ask Georgia how their agri-conomy is doing once they decided to kick out all the illegal immigrants who picked their crops.

          4) What speech can I as an American not engage in anymore? In my article about Fjordman, I discuss how it seems that one of the worst things some whites have experienced is an inability to hurl racial epithets and slurs at will with social impunity and interpret social agendas against such language as a grave imposition to their civil rights. All the slippery-slope fears may have some merit but right here, right now, anyone can call a black man the n-word to his face and no one is going to send that person to jail. Be careful because states that recognize fighting words may have little sympathy if hurling racial abuse ends up in an ass beating but as of right now you can say anything you want and the worst that will happen is that someone like me will think, “Christ, what an asshole.” Americans speak and blog about whatever the hell they want and interpret reactions and backlash as political action. It’s not. When the first American gets sent to jail for using racist or sexist language, or until the first American is jailed for speaking against immigration, at that point I will change my mind. The closest I can even come to such an idea is when Hendrik Mobus was deported on a German warrant because he used hate speech in Germany. It got very little political play but the liberals I know were angry such a thing happened. I can’t speak to politically correct programs that hurt people in the USA because I have read no data on it one way or another.

          If a liberal woman bends over backwards to help illegal aliens, isn’t it likely that she will also bend over backwards in other areas of her life as well?
          No. It isn’t likely. It assumes all kinds of facts that are not in evidence and is a sexist remark that implies that women are so tied to their emotions and sexual feelings that they cannot separate their politics from their crotches. But even if a woman will bend over backwards sexually, meaning she is a sexual submissive, that does not mean she runs her politics the same way. It’s a bizarre idea at best, to be charitable.

          If liberals permit immigrants to take advantage of social programs, is it no surprise that these very same liberals will permit these very same immigrants to take advantage of them sexually as well.
          So, by the same logic, if women lobbied to obtain excellent social programs in the United States that would benefit men, does that mean that in allowing men to take advantage of social programs it is implied the men can rape the women who achieved those programs for them? Of course this logic only applies to The Other, never those of the same color who interact politically.

          Offering social programs to immigrants is not the same as accepting rape from immigrants. I feel like I lost a small piece of my soul typing that sentence, but it bears repeating: Offering social programs for immigrants is not a de facto acceptance of rape. It is not a “permit” to rape. And more importantly, to being this back to Fjordman, who is the focus of what I initially plan to discuss, women who may or may not be to “blame” for immigration policies in Europe did not earn or permit rape to happen to themselves because of a political ideology. Social permissiveness does not equal a desire to be raped. And to make it even more specific, if a woman wants to be raped and gives permission to be raped, it is then a not rape – it is a negotiated act between two consenting individuals. And even that cannot be extrapolated into the results of immigration policy unless one really wants to stretch things beyond their logical limits.

          There is nothing a woman can do to earn or deserve rape. We can get into all kinds of questions about mutual drunkenness, unclear consent, and similar topics, but that is not what is at hand. What is at hand is the idea that feminists would deserve rape for supporting immigration policies.

          1. A point of clarification: I am not arguing that these masochistic tendencies are restricted to females in particular as much as typical of all liberals regardless of sex. Unlike SOME of Fjordman’s writings, my comments can be applied to liberal men as well as women. However, masochistic social policies promoted by women would seem to translate to masochistic sexual practices. (Just as masochistic liberalism by males is indicative of masochistic sexuality by the same men.)

            Liberalism is masochism. If you don’t believe me – tell me exactly how an average liberal personally benefits from third-world immigration. If a feminist does not receive any direct benefit from illegal immigration, why would she promote a policy that would be to her detriment (in terms of increased taxes ALONE), unless she had a tendency toward masochism?

            There is as much Arab or Asian imperialism as White imperialism. However, only Europeans are encouraged to feel guilty about whatever atrocities their ancestors are supposed to have committed. Why is that, if it isn’t cultural masochism?

            If you think that there are no immigrants taking advantage of governmental social programs in the United States, just go to any grocery store and listen to the languages of customers using an EBT card.

            If you think that there are no restrictions on speech, go to a university and try suggesting something as benign and statistical a correlation between intelligence and ethnicity.

            Immigrants come to the US because they perceive the natives to be a bunch of suckers. I think that if you actually listened to the illegal aliens speak among themselves, you would realize that you are only an object to be fleeced. One way that the immigrants take advantage of the natives occurs on a sexual level

            I don’t think anyone (no, not even Fjordman) is suggesting that women deserve to be raped. However, social policies championed by liberal Feminists (such as third-world immigration) increase the likelihood she would be raped. When a woman walks down a street late at night, she knows exactly what situations will increase the possibility of being raped – immigration increases the probability. If you see a bunch of Somali males hanging around in front of a convenience store, there is a greater statistical probability of something unfortunate occurring than there would be in the same situation with, say, a group of Finnish men. Like it or not.

          2. P.S. This whole argument could be solved by looking at the crime statistics from the state of Texas. Is the proportion of illegal aliens convicted of rape in Texas higher than the same percentage of the illegals in the population as a whole? If it is, why would feminists (concerned about rape) then support increasing the number of immigrants?

          3. At this point, all I can do is tell you to read what I have to say about Fjordman and the rest of the manifesto. There will be no way to avoid political discussions where this is concerned but I do want to do my best to focus on the manifesto and my reactions to it, not my political views entirely. Sorry I got sidetracked but I do need to focus on the text and not whether or not I need to be afraid of Hispanic rape. Because while they may be related, if I don’t focus on the text in this, I will be utterly lost in terms of time when comments come in on the entries themselves.

            Feel free, however, to continue this discussion with me on e-mail if you want, though I will have to delay any response until I am finished writing at least the Fjordman section. I don’t want to appear as if I am dodging answering hard questions, though for the life of me I have no idea where I would find rape statistics by race for Texas in a timely manner, let alone the time to determine how sound the data gathering could be. But given that my reaction to the text is my usual reaction to all books, it should be clear I’m not analyzing this by immigration policies, and I am sorry if I gave that impression via my responses to you. I’m reacting to the conspiracy theory, outrageous statements and the plans ABB formed, as well as a knee-jerk desire to psycho-analyze ABB.

            Just out of curiosity so I know what comments may await me when I post the actual discussions, are you in the camp that believes that killing those teenagers was a sound move, via removing young Socialists from future political action that would encourage further immigration? Ultimately this discussion will boil down to that – what it is that people fear and what it is they are willing to do to quell those fears.

          4. masochistic social policies promoted by women would seem to translate to masochistic sexual practices.

            Liberalism is masochism. If you don’t believe me – tell me exactly how an average liberal personally benefits from third-world immigration. If a feminist does not receive any direct benefit from illegal immigration, why would she promote a policy that would be to her detriment (in terms of increased taxes ALONE), unless she had a tendency toward masochism?

            Excuse me sir, what the hell does emigration has to do with masochism? Emigration is a political matter. Masochism is a sexual matter. Only if EVERY non-western male would be a raper, you could claim something like that. But this is clearly not the case.

            I was a radical leftist and a left-party suporter, because i thought it was the right thing to do. Now i don’t see it like that anymore. I still am a feminist but i wouldn’t suport muslim emigration any longer. I did it, because i had no idea and not because i am a masochist. Or devoted. Or any sh** like that.

            I hope i was clearly enough.

    1. Hope you aren’t offended I asked you that. I am slowly discovering there are a fair number of people for whom that question cannot be answered so quickly and, in my opinion, morally. It’s been an interesting time…

  3. Well, if you asked me whether the politicians were fair game, it might take me somewhat longer to answer.

  4. Book suggestion – the novel CAMP OF THE SAINTS by Jean Raspail (“LE CAMP DES SAINTS if you prefer the original French).

      1. Actually CAMP OF THE SAINTS is astonishingly well-written; I’ve only read if once, but I have never forgotten the story. I should also recommend the novel MISTER by Alex Kurtagic, but this book is somewhat tricky to obtain.

          1. If you really must read it for some reason, look up the word thelyphantic on Google. It’s really badly formatted, but at least you know Kurtagic isn’t making any money off of it.

          2. Oh man, I’ll have to buy it used. If this is one of those novels wherein words are made up and a $2 dollar words are slung around, I cannot read it on an e-reader. I’m already scheduling an appointment for the optometrist from 2083.

            I need someone to read all these weird books to me. Surely someone wants that job…

    1. I need English, please. You know us Americans can only know one language at a time. Added the English to my wishlist. Thanks for the rec!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *