8 Vol. 5, No. 3
The Occidental Quarterly
communitarianism, etc.) but puts them into perspective in this time of both sharedemergency and shared roots.If a manifesto like this one, rooted in a particular civilization at a particular time, outlives the cultures and peoples that helped make its creation possible, thatwill surely be a disaster. If, on the other hand, such a manifesto brings everlasting fame to those who wrote it, to those who spread it, and to those courageous pioneerswhom it helped spur to constructive action, then they would all be acting in thebest of ancient Indo-European tradition
The French New Right, founded in 1968, published its ﬁrst manifestoin 1999. What is the manifesto’s background? Why did you and coauthorCharles Champetier feel the need to publish a manifesto at that time?
Actually, the NR published something like a manifesto in 1977,in the form of a work entitled
Dix ans de combat culturel pour une renaissance
(“Ten years of cultural struggle for a renaissance”). A second, augmentededition appeared in 1979
under the title
Pour une renaissance culturelle
(“For acultural renaissance”). If Charles Champetier and I felt the need to publish anew manifesto, it was mainly because we wanted to draw up a balance sheetof our main theoretical accomplishments over the previous twenty years. Atthe same time, we were conscious that the world had changed. By 2000, notonly had we passed from one century to another, but from the postwar era toa transitional period very unlike the one in which the NR was born. In otherwords, we have left modernity behind us and entered postmodern times.
You seem to have accepted the term “New Right” and used it to identifyyour “metapolitical” think tank, even though it is the designation of your mediacritics and not your own. Why?
The label “New Right”
was actually invented bythe French press in 1979, when we became the focus of an international mediablitz. It is not quite accurate to say that we accepted the label
from that verymoment. We have rather suffered from this term, which for several reasonshas always been a quite inappropriate description. Given its political connota-tion, it hardly does justice to a school of thought that has never sought to be apolitical actor. The vague and varied semantics of the word “right” also imbuesit with a good deal of ambiguity. Finally, it can’t be translated into English,since the “New Right” in England and the United States has really
nothing incommon with our own school of thought. For a time, we tried to substitutethe term “New Culture,” but this equally vague designation never caught on.Once the “New Right” acquired a certain currency, it seemed inescapable,