Manifesto for a European Renaissance

by Alain de Benoist, Charles Champetier

This manifesto remains the only attempt to date by GRECE, the primary New Right organization in France, to summarize its principles and key concepts. It was written in 1999 by Alain de Benoist, GRECE's founder, and Charles Champetier on the occasion of GRECE's thirtieth anniversary. It offers a strong argument in favor of the right to difference among cultures and civilizations, and the right of peoples to defend themselves from cultural homogenization. It also offers a vision of a regenerated Europe which will find its strength in a return to its authentic values and traditions, in opposition to the new imperialism of multiculturalism and the global marketplace. Alain de Benoist (b. 1943) is the primary philosopher of the European 'New Right' movement. He attended the Sorbonne, studying law, philosophy and religion. He is the author of dozens of books, including The Problem of Democracy and Beyond Human Rights, published in English translation by Arktos, and gives frequent lectures around the world. He lives in Paris. Charles Champetier (b. 1968) is the former editor of Éléments, one of GRECE's periodicals. He continues to write on subjects related to the New Right.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Far Right, History

50 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Depuis plus de trente ans, Alain de Benoist poursuit méthodiquement un travail d'analyse et de réflexion dans le domaine des idées. Ecrivain, journaliste, essayiste, conférencier, philosophe, il a publié plus de 50 livres et plus de 3000 articles, aujourd'hui traduits dans une quinzaine de langues différentes.

Ses domaines de prédilection sont la philosophie politique et l'histoire des idées, mais il est aussi l'auteur de nombreux travaux portant notamment sur l'archéologie, les traditions populaires, l'histoire des religions ou les sciences de la vie.

Indifférent aux modes idéologiques, récusant toute forme d'intolérance et d'extrémisme, Alain de Benoist ne cultive pas non plus une quelconque nostalgie «restaurationniste». Lorsqu'il critique la modernité, ce n'est pas au nom d'un passé idéalisé, mais en se préoccupant avant tout des problématiques postmodernes. Les axes principaux de sa pensée sont au nombre de quatre : 1) la critique conjointe de l'individuo-universalisme et du nationalisme (ou de l'ethnocentrisme) en tant que catégories relevant l'une et l'autre de la métaphysique de la subjectivité ; 2) la déconstruction systématique de la raison marchande, de l'axiomatique de l'intérêt et des multiples emprises de la Forme-Capital, dont le déploiement planétaire constitue à ses yeux la menace principale qui pèse aujourd'hui sur le monde ; 3) la lutte en faveur des autonomies locales, liée à la défense des différences et des identités collectives ; 4) une nette prise de position en faveur d'un fédéralisme intégral, fondé sur le principe de subsidiarité et la généralisation à partir de la base des pratiques de la démocratie participative.

Alors que son oeuvre est connue et reconnue dans un nombre grandissant de pays, Alain de Benoist reste largement ostracisé en France, où l'on se borne trop souvent à associer son nom à celui de la « Nouvelle Droite », expression dans laquelle il ne s'est jamais véritablement reconnu.


Biography in English at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_d...

Reviews

[Leonard Gaya]

This is a short political handout, written in the 1990s by French political thinker Alain de Benoist, as a framework for his political ideology. Benoist is, with Guillaume Faye, one of the founders of what has come to be known as the French Nouvelle Droite, a movement started in the late 1960s, that has been advocating communitarianism and anti-immigration, against the French republican, egalitarian and integration-driven model.

This Manifeste is compelling insofar as the ideology set out by Benoist has influenced to a large extent today’s far-right or “alt-right”. The Trump administration in the USA and its associated media outlets (Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News), as well as the European populist parties, radical right -or radical left for that matter-, in different ways: Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, to mention only a few examples.

Some of the ideas in this short “Neo-Right” catechism are, in no particular order: against economic globalisation and cultural homogenisation and in favour of a multipolar world; against mass migration flows and in favour of multiculturalism; against Catholicism, the Enlightenment and human rights (i.e. Western universalism) and in favour of paganism and local laws; against racism and feminism; against free-market, consumerism and materialism; finally, against financial neoliberalism, the political and corporate elite, the welfare state, and in favour of a federal Europe of regions, allied with Russia.

Alain de Benoist is thus in total disagreement with Fukuyama, who argued in The End of History and the Last Man, that the fall of the Soviet Union had marked the triumph of modern liberal democracies and the “end of History”. On the contrary, he would be quite close to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis, who argued that, after the Cold War, the world had entered a period where cultural identities and religious conflicts would become most significant.

Some aspects of Benoist’s diagnosis on modernity bear the stamp of common sense, but the consequences he draws from it, literally sprinkled with philosophical concepts, are at the same time purely theoretical and quite optimistically naive. Contrary to Huntington’s ideas, they present an irenic and utopian world, where liberal capitalism could just disappear into thin air, where xenophobic sentiment wouldn’t exist, and where the different civilisations would live and cooperate peacefully: a sort of Star Trek Federation of Planets... In the end, what Benoist seems to be expressing is the desire for a regeneration of the European culture, and, at the same time, a sullen yearning for an ancestral and mostly idealised world, from before the Babel of modernity. Fundamentally, a set of political positions with a heady neo-fascist whiff indeed, and a dream of making Europe great again.

[Vapula]

It consists of a few pleasant quotations but it's just a piece that sounds more or less the same as the more lukewarm of communitarians. It's not even really rightist in the way some may assume of de Benoist.

[hannah]

Cameron&hannah household right-wing prurience strikes again, he was reading de benoist on being a pagan while we were in korea and i got sucked in. I got to chapter ~6 (after the dualism chapter) of that text and got really puzzled by the project. Dare i say… it does not seem …. very rigorous. I’m either missing something major, or….. dare i say…………. The people who read this and find this intellectually compelling…. may be…. A bit simple-minded………………..…. Cam very sarcastically was like, no…. You’re telling me …. that this racialist right wing project…. Might be for people who are a bit simple-minded😵😵⁉️⁉️

Point taken OK - but i was just trying to understand. And here was an attempt to understand - reading the manifesto to try to help clarify the political project, or at least the rhetoric deployed explicitly in discussing the project. written by de benoist and this other guy (idgaf) in 1999 - supposed to take several decades of writing by the french new right and condense it. the text is divided accordingly into three parts: “Predicaments”; “Foundations”; and “Outlooks” where its supposed to cash everything out

The first section, (predicaments) was fairly interesting, because its familiarity was unexpected; I had read versions of it 100 times before. A huge amount of the diagnosis would be completely familiar to anyone on the left: hostility to the homogenizing effects of modernism - global capitalism, commodification, liberal individualism, the reduction of social life to economic exchange, technocracy, the destruction of local cultures and communities, ecological degradation, etc. ok ok. you me and everyone else brother. The second part whateverburger. follows from the first

part 3 was supposed to be the pay-off — ostensibly the point where the diagnosis is supposed to generate an actual politics. it sort of reads like something i would have written in a college-level political theory class, in its vagueness and kind of simple baseless optimism. there are remarkably few concrete or clear criteria for what would count as successfully realizing the values they keep invoking. also this invocation of ancient greek values as being european drives me genuinely insane (more on this if i ever finish the paganism book).

The rhetorical presentation is really funny. There is something incredible about peddling recognizably reactionary conclusions under subheadings like “against racism” or “against sexism”. Made me ijbol. Also fully just swaddled in twelve layers of qualification. Just be mask off bro. But ok…. the metapolitical project. I get this is the point - to recapture intellectual respectability, a slow infusion into culture, and that these sort of vagueries of pluralism remain attractive abstractions until you ask who exactly white europeans should be staying separate from… lol

Coy vague and shallow — but interesting to read ofc

[Anton Baldinger]

Quick, concise, excellent. De Benoist brilliantly sets in the cornerstones for a post-liberal political theory wtih an amazing show of backbone and clarity of thought. His thinking completely transcends the clichés of the tired contemporary schools of political thinking and he manages to communicate his ideas - even the ones that are more abstract or "un-sexy" in their demand for discipline - in a way that doen't seem coldhearted and makes them very easily understood, yet doesn't lack class or sophistication.
The only mistake I assert him of making is a strategic one; the fact he has seemingly accepted the "New Right" label and continues to attempt the realisation of his concepts through the vehicle of the "European Right". This doesn't only seem misguided due to the aforementioned fact that his theories are anything but exclusively "right wing" (however that term would be defined), but also because I am convinced it turns away a great many people from his work that could otherwise highly benefit from it and bring the movement forward.

[Minotaurochs]

Decent short book, worth reading for anyone not so familiar with late 19th century to now rightism.

Alain de Benoist has the typical shortcoming of many reactionaries, libertarians, and marxists that think very abstractly, and through the lens of ideologies and ideas; that is, he throws the baby out with the bathwater IE he seems to find it impossible to conceive of a positive outcome coming out of something he has decided is bad on principle. In this example we take centralisation of the state.

Benoist wants to have his cake and eat it too; meaning that he wants a multipolar world of states that are each strong enough to not be dominated by the others, this would thus necessitate each of them to have a level of military and economic might about equal to each other obviously. Here is where he starts eating his cake while expecting his cake to still be there, he wants this whilst simultaneously advocating for the decomplexification, derationalisation etc of the proposed new Federation of Europe. How exactly does he expect a localist, highly decentralised Europe to compete with the other civilisation states if they are utilising all of the Power-generating tools of modernity which he wants to relinquish? There isn't an answer in this book, just fantasising about a world which would obviously be much more ethical and better for everyone but isn't tenable unless *The End of History* happened where every state decided to cooperate, end politics, and kumbaya together in the new world based around ecology, respecting differences etc. Ironically he critiques the end of history in this very book, while his proposal necessitates the end of history, otherwise his Europe would be vulnerable to conquest.

If Benoist just accepted that centralisation doesn't have to be detrimental on principle, simply because of the bad examples of Liberalism and Marxism, his ideas would make a lot more sense. For those who want to see an example of an Ethical Socialism that is also centralised, essentially accomplishing everything that Benoist wants, then just read about the proposals, philosophies, enacted policies etc of the 20th century revolutionary nationalists.

Perhaps in another book Benoist goes more in depth on how his federalised and decentralised Europe could possibly work in the real world, but he does not in this book which just gives the impression of him essentially playing a sandbox video game with his political philosophy, IE it's all abstract with no concern for reality. Which is odd considering his critiques, obvious influence of realist thinkers such as Schmitt etc.

[Griffin Wilson]

This work is more or less a manifesto of the European "Nouvelle Droite" (New Right). Of all contemporary political theorists and schools, this is perhaps the one which, at least currently, I have the most sympathy for; however, I have really only read a few works from these thinkers, but I do appreciate their influences (Nietzsche, Spengler, Michels, Gramsci, etc.), so I will probably continue to explore this loose group in the future.

I looked everywhere online for the original French version of this book, but could not find it. Finally, I looked on French Amazon, as I thought they would certainly have such an influential work as this; it seems as if -- at least in French -- this book has been banned(!), just like many other *naughty* "right-wing" books. As de Benoist writes:

"One no longer discusses, one denounces. One no longer reasons, one accuses. One no longer proves, one imposes."

I find it ironic that related ideologies and thinkers mentioned in this pamphlet are decried by leftists as "bourgeois ideology," when it is in fact these books and thinkers that get banned by the various "bourgeois" institutions (YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, etc.); this is then celebrated as a victory. So far as I know, no communist, anarchist, or otherwise leftist thinker or book has been banned as of late -- it is almost as if their cosmopolitan, universalist, and progressive ideology is more in-line with the "bourgeois ideology" than any other.

[Theo Austin-Evans]

Pretty decent post-Heideggerian assessment of alienation and contemporary malaise, basically piggybacking off of certain leftwing communitarian principles that are fairly intuitive (MacIntyre and Taylor, from what I’ve read of them anyway, offer accounts I assent to and find attractive in this regard - and Benoit picks up bits and pieces from them), but then Benoit and the whole New Right gang go and royally screw themselves over by endorsing restrictive immigration policies and various dog whistle-y talking points (I had to write ‘here we go…’ in the margins at a certain point as I had finally got to the part in the manifesto where its ridiculous and frankly off-putting title gets its justification - I knew all this talk of the beauty and wonder of diversity could only lead to segregationist bullshit, even if he tries to cover himself from such an accusation by saying that he endorses neither exclusion or assimilation, and then emphasising the EU's, or a future organisation like it, need to embrace Russia).

Read the first two chapters to satisfy your morbid curiosity when it comes to this New Right movement, or to read a fairly coherent rightwing approach to postmodernity, or skip right to the end to get to some of the fashy repercussions of this kind of talk. Maybe even read it just to enjoy someone dunking on (neo-)liberalism and Western ethnocentrism, because they’re both just the fucking pits. Frankly there’s a lot to chew on, in its criticisms and discussions of the IMF, urban aesthetics, the economic power structures of work, the trend of unbridled technological advancement abstracted from the goals of both concrete individuals and communities, Rawlsian liberalism, human rights, the fear of the Same, the need for the third world's independence and organic growth, women striving for/inhabiting the abstract values of men etc. etc. However I do have to say when it comes to right wing intellectual types worth checking out, just to see what the opposition is up to these days, this guy is certainly no Sloterdijk.

[Alexei]

Thought provoking

Don't let the fact that it’s only 48 pages fool you. This book covers ground far beyond its running time. In a short space the reader gets to examine the crisis facing Europe and the world at large; the antagonists and social, political and economic trends behind these; and, finally, the proposed solutions as presented by the GRECE movement, or the New Right, as its commonly known.

It’s evident, especially from examining part 3, that GRECE takes seriously its stance “beyond Right and Left”. The economic and ecological ideas in particular, having been a poster child of the progressive circles, mark an appearance here, and presented with similar solutions. The presence of these paragraphs alone is food for thought for those identifying with either side. The same, - from the traditionalist perspective, - concerns societal roles, importance of culture and traditions.

For an introduction to a subject as complex and difficult to navigate as the traditionalist and conservative movements - especially in the first quarter of the 21st century - this book does a remarkable job of not only covering a broad range of ideas in surprising amount of depth, it does so in an almost negligible running time.

[Timo]

Wohl niemand hat die Ideologie der Neuen Rechten stärker geprägt als Benoist. Dieses Buch ist  (auch aufgrund seiner Kürze und seines programmatischen Charakters) gut geeignet, um einen Eindruck vom Denken der Neuen Rechten zu gewinnen.

------

Kurzzusammenfassung des Inhalts:

Menschen seien nicht nur vom bloßen Menschsein geprägt, sondern bis ins Innerste hinein von der Kultur determiniert, in die sie hineingeboren werden. Deshalb gebe es nur geringe Intragruppen-Differenzen, aber unüberbrückbar große Intergruppen-Differenzen bei der Frage, wie ein gutes Leben für Menschen aus unterschiedlichen Kulturen auszusehen habe.

Aus diesem Grund sei eine ethnopluralistische Weltordnung erstrebenswert, in der Menschen fein säuberlich nach Kulturen getrennt lebten und jeweils in dem Kulturkreis verbleiben sollten, in den sie hineingeboren wurden, da es dort für sie qua Geburt am besten sei zu leben.

Hauptgegner der Neuen Rechten seien folglich der Liberalismus und "der Westen" sowie alles, was mit diesem verbunden werde: Universalismus, Globalisierung, Individualismus, Aufklärung, Finanzkapitalismus, Menschenrechte usw. Diese seien laut Benoist zu bekämpfen und rassistisch, da sie "natürliche", "ursprüngliche" Kulturen zerstörten und allen Menschen eine westliche Lebensweise aufzwingen würden, die dem innersten Wesen der Menschen fremd sei. 

Ziel sei es daher, sich von diesem westlichen Einfluss (aber auch von allen anderen als „kulturfremd“ geltenden Einflüssen) zu befreien und zu als ursprünglich verstandenen Kulturen zurückzukehren. Diese verschiedenen Kulturen sollen, so die Utopie, friedlich nebeneinander koexistieren - jede Kultur in dem Raum, der ihr naturgemäß zustehen würde.

Für Europa bedeute dies nach Benoist auch, sich vom jüdisch-christlichen Einfluss zu lösen, der Individualismus und Egoismus nach Europa gebracht habe, und zu einer ureuropäischen, heidnischen Kultur zurückzukehren.

Dies sei notwendig, da es im europäischen Wesen liege, nicht individualistisch und egoistisch das eigene Glück ins Zentrum des Lebens zu stellen (wie es in der "westlichen" Kultur so üblich sei), sondern sich altruistisch zurückzunehmen und etwas Höherem zu dienen: dem Gemeinwohl des Kollektivs.

-----

Welche Bedeutung Benoists Denken für die Neue Rechte in Deutschland hat, lässt sich gut am Thema des Islams erkennen.

So legt der AfD-Politiker Krah beispielsweise Wert auf die Feststellung, Rechte seien keine Islamkritiker, sondern lediglich migrationskritisch. Rechte würden zwar darauf bestehen, dass der Islam nicht zu Deutschland gehöre – er sei hier schließlich kulturfremd –, wohl aber zu Saudi-Arabien. Aus rechter Sicht seien tatsächlich rassistisch jene Menschen, die etwa Frauen- oder Homosexuellenrechte im muslimisch geprägten Saudi-Arabien anprangerten, da es sich nicht gehöre, sich von außen in fremde Kulturen einzumischen.

Nicht rassistisch sei hingegen, so die Auffassung vieler Neuer Rechter, der Einsatz für eine sogenannte Remigration kulturfremder Muslime (und jener Menschen, die im rassistischen Weltbild Neuer Rechter eigentlich Muslime sein müssten). Diesen würde es, so das Argument, dort besser gehen, wo sie kulturell qua ihres Wesens am besten hinpassten. 

Für Deutschland sei eine solche Remigration zudem unverzichtbar, um zu einer von kulturfremden Einflüssen befreiten, urdeutschen Kultur zurückzukehren.

Dass man nicht rassistisch sei, wird unter anderem damit zu belegen versucht, dass man sich von Seiten der Neuen Rechten durchaus Positives über einen konservativen Islam äußert: etwa hinsichtlich der Orientierung an Traditionen und "alten" Werten, "klassischer" Geschlechterrollen, der Ablehnung von ausgelebter Homosexualität, der Unterordnung des Einzelnen unter das Wohl der Gemeinschaft bzw. der Umma sowie des Widerstands gegen westliche Kulturhegemonie.

------

Ich sehe mich nicht in der Position, eine immanente Kritik des Buchinhalts zu formulieren, da meine Ausgangspunkte von Grund auf andere sind als die Benoists.

So sehr ich den Status quo der Welt für kritikwürdig halte, so sehr misstraue ich jeder Gesellschaftskritik, die kulturalistisch argumentiert und das Wohl des Einzelnen dem des Kollektivs unterordnet.

Ich halte es mit in dieser Frage mit Marx, dass der Mensch zuvorderst als Gattungswesen zu begreifen ist und nicht in (sei es biologistisch, sei es kulturalistisch determinierte) "Menschenrassen" eingeteilt werden sollte.

Rassismus beginnt aus meiner Sicht nicht erst dort, wo unterschiedlichen "Menschenrassen" unterschiedlicher Wert zugeschrieben wird, sondern bereits dort, wo behauptet wird, man könne aus einer angeblich biologisch oder kulturell determinierten "Rasse" eines Menschen ableiten, was seinem innersten Wesen nach gut für ihn sei.

Ich halte daher nicht nur die Forderung nach Remigration aufgrund des kulturellen Hintergrunds eines Menschen für rassistisch, sondern im Gegensatz zu Benoist auch den Abschied von einem universalistischen Kritikmaßstab für rassistisch und grundfalsch.

Das bedeutet selbstverständlich nicht, dass das Leben überall auf der Welt gleich auszusehen hat. Aber so sollte beispielsweise jeder Mensch, unabhängig von der Kultur, in die er hineingeboren wurde, die Möglichkeit haben, sein Leben nicht durch traditionelle Geschlechterrollen determinieren zu lassen oder nicht nur weil er homosexuell ist in Angst vor homophober Gewalt leben müssen.

Allzu häufig verbirgt sich hinter dem Loblied auf eine vermeintlich "natürliche" oder "ursprüngliche" Kultur und Tradition (sei es die "germanische", die "urdeutsche", die "ureuropäische" oder eine andere) eine Entproblematisierung und Verharmlosung von Gewaltverhältnissen, unter denen konkrete Menschen leiden.

Anstatt Kulturen unter Artenschutz zu stellen und sie als widerspruchsfreies, utopisches Gegenprojekt zum Liberalismus zu idealisieren, gilt es vielmehr, um mit Marx zu sprechen, wirklich "alle Verhältnisse umzuwerfen, in denen der Mensch ein erniedrigtes, ein geknechtetes, ein verlassenes, ein verächtliches Wesen ist".

[polusvijet]

This manifesto is divided into three main parts which is further divded into short, bullet point style subchapters. The first two parts are mostly summaries of de Benoists takes on staple topics such as liberalism, identity, immigration, etc.. In the final part, de Benoist proposes a row of solutions on how to achieve what he believes to be a "European Renaissance". This is where he gets lost between concepts like debt relief, a European federation of sovereign nations as opposed to a Jacobin superstate (but without nationalism?), intercontinental Swiss style democracy, microregionalism, universal basic income, sustainability but also anti-urbanism. The reader is being laid off with a set of vaguely described scenarios which are just as confusing as they are irrational, sometimes resembling Kalergi's utopian Pan-European fever dreams.

Alain de Benoists is one of France's most erudite post-WW2 authors and absolutely worth reading but I would recommend you read some of his other titles such as "Beyond human Rights", "The Problem with Democracy" or his "View from the Right" series, which should be required reading for anybody engaging with the history of political ideas.

[Eduardo]

Manifesto for a European Renaissance de Alain de Benoist es un llamado a la recuperación y fortalecimiento de la identidad cultural y política europea frente a la globalización y las amenazas externas. Benoist propone una Europa que, lejos de diluirse en un sistema multicultural y globalista, recupere sus raíces y valores tradicionales, con un énfasis en la unidad de los pueblos europeos y el rechazo a la homogeneización impuesta por la modernidad. Su crítica a la decadencia cultural y la pérdida de soberanía es contundente, defendiendo una Europa que recupere su independencia económica, política y cultural. El enfoque de Benoist resalta la importancia de las naciones y la diversidad dentro de Europa, mientras rechaza las influencias externas que buscan disolver sus identidades. Es una obra esencial para aquellos que buscan reafirmar una visión de Europa fuerte, unida y fiel a sus tradiciones.

[David]

Pretty hard read. Spot on in some ways, feels extremely theoretical and utopian in other ways. In the end, it doesn't really synthesize a simple and coherent world view beyond criticism of modernity and simpler structures that allow for case-by-case decision making.

But on its own, it's a great way to escape the classical ideological battles between liberalism, communism etc. For right wing ideologies it is easy to get trapped in modernist thinking where the only wiggle room is who to hate.

The new right seems to actually give a shit about the environment, celebrates diversity and tradition.

[Miguel Noronha]

The political manifesto of identitarians or the "new right" by one of its main ideologues. It turns out to be based on shallow, uniformed and unhistoricall. Altought de Benoist claims equal distance from both communism and liberalism it turns out to be mainly an iliberal manifesto which most of the political jargon of the alter-globalists, neo-communists, or (suprise!) the "new left". Regarding the last (Spring 2017) french presidential elections, it comes to no suprise that far-left and far-right candidates were disputing the same electorate.

[Mattjmjmjm]

A weird mixture of marxist critique and call for a return to traditional living, apparently modernity is the start of our misery, universal morality a call to imperialism of the whole world. The author is connected with the french new right which is a far right movement but in this book he dresses up his ideology in not very fascist terms, not sure what to make of this book. He does this traditionalism thing but also argues against capitalism and totalitarian states which doesn't seem to match with classical fascism.

[York]

De Benoist proposes a political system based on subsidiarity, i.e. political units as small as workable for the given role of governance. At the same time he wants to prohibit all International division of labour. So he compounds two errors: the Marxian fundamental misunderstanding of economics together with the reality of an institution that would be capable of prohibiting all division of labour such as trade or travel. Such an institution not even the Soviets were capable of erecting.

[Chris]

Alain De Benoist never disappoints. And this manifesto reads exactly how a good manifesto should. Intriguing, provoking, on point, and direct, Benoist is a writer who understands the European spirit, what has been lost, and what the solution is. You may not agree with all of his points, but no doubt you will be left wondering if perhaps, maybe, it is you who are wrong, and not him.

[Propaganda Enjoyer]

Based but also incredibly retarded.
Also, the parts on racism and sexism reminds me of "the democrats are the real racists".
On a serious note, the book offers a good critique of liberalism as well as a coherent anthropological foundation, but that's about it.
Basically liberalism le bad so based.

[Angel Veliz]

Literate and definitive.

A very forthright book. It critically dissects the truth behind our everyday lives. From the colossal idea of people working together to disregard the poor to slums that are neglected. Its a mission to read this book and a lesson to understand it.

[Bobby Daugherty]

Nothing really new or extreme here. Basically, a call to return to the level of excellence Europe had standardized before the plague of liberalism infected Europe.

[Rui]

Extremly unoriginal

[Roel Peters]

The fundamentals are compelling. Chapter 3-7 are vague. 8-10 are contradictory. Conclusion is downright bland.

[Leonard]

Alain de Benoist presents a worldview that is much more left-leaning than other modern right-wing European movements. Led by ethnopluralism and anti-racism, La Nouvelle Droite has the ability to appeal to a centre-right audience than fascism or Nazism. With the decline of race realism or racial prejudice in general, I would not be surprised if this movement got more traction in France, but I do not see this coming to fruition given that it is too niche of a movement and may be seen as too left-wing for rightists and too right-wing for leftists.

[Diego González]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is a clear look at some of the problems that face Europe, and indeed the world. I respect that the issues are complicated, and treated as such. This is no knee-jerk reactionary trying to get back to the "good old days" though he obviously respects tradition and its lessons greatly.

If I have one critique (and indeed it is the reason I do not give it more stars), it is that I live in the United States, and, being of South American heritage, am a product of European colonialism. de Benoist's arguments, in particular those regarding homelands and cultures, are inapplicable to many of the circumstances in which Americans (North and South) find themselves. Some may lay this at the feet of the lack of a truly American culture in general, but the fact remains that these arguments, while perhaps useful to Europe (and in a broader sense other cultures with deep roots), are not particularly helpful to those 'rootless cosmopolitans' living in a more globalized situation. Extracting ourselves from this is not an option for most.

Besides, hybridization can be just as strong a force as traditionalism.

[Nick]

De Benoist takes positions which to an American seem pretty left wing and doesn’t seem like the kind of nationalist we’re familiar with as he advocates a federal Europe rather than independent nation states and an alternative to multiculturalism he calls “pluriversum”. In general critical of “Judeo-Christian” “bourgeois” values which are at the core of what the American center right considers Western values but are of more recent origin.

[TR]

A concise statement of purpose for a noble cause. There's some good rhetoric in here as well.

Note that it can be found online under its original title, 'The French New Right in the Year 2000'.
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/...

[STAR WARS SEGREDOS]

Very interesting book. Curiously, GRECE's view of the world and it's ideas, are very similar to mine, which made it a fun book to read. Wished it was longer, and also that more people would have interest in genre.

[Horst Walther]

Well, I read this book with mixed feelings.