Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by James Porrazzo

More info:

Published by: James Porrazzo on Feb 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Bryan Sylvian conducted the following exclusive interview with Alain de Benoist,a prominent intellectual in the European New Right and a founder of the Centrefor Research and Study on European Civilization (Groupement de Rechercheet d’Études sur la Civilisation Européene—GRECE). Mikayel Raffi assisted inthe translation.
Few schools of thought come even close to the range and depth of the European NewRight, from its Indo-European origins to the current biotech revolution and everythought current in between. This holds especially true for the dynamic core personifiedin one of the philosophical prime movers of France’s New Right: Alain de Benoist.The French New Right (hereafter NR) greeted the new century ready for action,and proved it by issuing a manifesto for the whole world to read. Alain de Benoist(b. 1943), along with Charles Champetier, crafted that statement, which took stock of the NR since its birth in 1968 and fashioned a weapon for future intellectual combatin response to its critical assessment of our present predicament. The NR manifesto,“The French New Right in the Year 2000,” along with a biography of Alain de Benoistand a selection of his writings, can be viewed online (“Les Amis d’Alain de Benoist”http://www.alaindebenoist.com).The interview is a snippet from a much larger one that fleshes out the 2000NR manifesto. It may also be the first exposure to the NR’s outlook for many in theEnglish-speaking world, for whom so little of the NR’s output has been translated. Thisinterview may serve as the first exposure of many in the English-speaking world tothe NR’s thought. For further study one might want to consult
New Culture, NewRight: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe
by Michael O’Meara and TomislavSunic’s
Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right
.Readers of 
might want to study the NR manifesto since they too are in pursuit of the perilous Third Way (along third rails?) between “paleoconservatism”and “neoconservatism.”
continues to fashion its own statement of principles(which are up to ten now, many of which, in my opinion, mesh perfectly with NRbeliefs). The NR has over thirty years of experience in avoiding the comfortablebut irrelevant intellectual ghettos occupied by the beautiful losers, Sam Francis’sdescription of the conservative establishment. Thus its evolution can serve as a practical guide.In this time of struggle, the gulf that separates the United States from Europeneeds to be bridged, since we share so much that is both precious and deserving of  passage to future generations. Whatever dialogue results from interviews such asthis one will, one hopes, forge an appreciation for a common effort that acknowl-edges differences (on such topics as nation-state vs. empire, racialism versus
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”
(Nouvelle Droite)
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,
Fall 2005 / de Benoist 9
then, to accept it, although not without a certain reserve. As for myself, I tryto use the term as little as possible.
“Metapolitics” is a term rarely found in American political discourse.The NR manifesto defines it in the following way: “Metapolitics is not politicsby other means. It is neither a ‘strategy’ to impose intellectual hegemony, noran attempt to discredit other possible attitudes or agendas. It rests solely onthe premise that ideas play a fundamental role in the collective consciousnessand, more generally, in human history…. In a world where closed entities havegiven way to interconnected networks with increasingly fuzzy reference points,metapolitical action attempts, beyond political divisions and through a newsynthesis, to renew a transversal mode of thought and ultimately to study allareas of knowledge in order to propose a coherent worldview. Such has beenthe aim for over thirty years” (
115 [Spring 1999]). Is this a Gramscian callfor the cultural revolution, which is seen as requisite for a political revolution?[Antonio Gramsci, the Italian political theorist, lived from 891 to 1937.]
I think too much importance has been given to the expression“metapolitics.” In proposing a metapolitical course of action, the NR sought tocarry out on a more or less collective level what theoreticians and intellectualshave always done individually. In this respect, the NR might be compared tothe Frankfurt School of the 1930s and 1940s. It was also a matter of recallingthat political movements are not the only things that change men’s lives, butthat ideas also affect the evolution of their beliefs and behaviors. The CartesianRevolution and the Kantian Revolution played a historical role at least asimportant as the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution. Of course,metapolitics conceived in this way can also have political consequences. TheFrench Revolution would have undoubtedly been impossible, at least in theform it took, without the work of the Encyclopedists or the Enlightenmentphilosophers. But these always unforeseeable political consequences occurredat a level quite different than ideas. Lenin, for example, would never havebeen a Marxist if Marx had not come before him, though this doesn’t meanMarx would have approved of Lenin! Think tanks, as they exist in the UnitedStates, are something else entirely. They endeavor to elaborate programs orprovide ideas to politicians and political parties, which is not at all what theNR is about. Comparisons with Gramsci, which I myself have made, are alsoof limited value, insofar as Gramsci’s “organic intellectuals” were supposedto act in liaison with a political party (the Italian Communist party). TheNR’s objective is much simpler: It seeks to propagate its ideas as widely aspossible, to make its analyses known, and to facilitate the evolution of beliefsand behaviors.Of course, one might wonder if ideas can play the same sort of role in ourworld as they did in the past. The time when intellectuals possessed a certainmoral authority, at least in countries like France, for example, has obviously

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->