A review of Benoist and Champetier

Here’s a slightly improved and corrected version of a lengthy comment that I left at AltRight in response to Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier’s The French New Right in the Year 2000, because the comment was already turning into an article-length review as I typed it on the fly.

The French New Right in the Year 2000
Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier

Link

“People like Alain De Benoist and Charles Champetier are, like politicians such as Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, merely enemies who accept the language of the liberals, despite referring to liberalism as “the main enemy”, and use such terms to damn or dismiss everyone to the right of themselves – let alone people who are actually taking action or making a stand.

Yet only extremism and revolution could ever stand a chance of creating the kind of society they seek – how else could it be possible to get from the present French society to the principles they describes in ‘Against Gigantism’ or ‘Against Megalopolis’? (Benoist and Champetier actually dismiss the seizure of power as ‘leading to nothing’.)

Anyone who can spot the obvious will realise from the start that there’s more Enlightenment nonsense in their writing than they like to think – just as misty-eyed American paleoconservatives are drawn towards libertarian poisoning because of the Enlightenment roots of the USA and its odious ‘freedom’, so the post-revolutionary French are afflicted with a similar problem through those three deadly words – liberté! égalité! fraternité!.

Regardless of their political orientation, people like Benoist and Champetier are actually no different from the multitude of philanthropic leftists, lassez faire libertarians and religious utopians because they choose to inhabit a deluded world of abstract thought in which everything fits into some appealing web of logic or other, yet everything still manages to slip through the most basic reality check and their whole philosophy doesn’t even fit together consistently if you think about what they say or write – they’re just trying to use obtuse and verbose language as a superglue and praying that no one notices the cracks. Whenever such philosophically minded people do have a good point, which the authors actually do, they still manage to warp it and twist it into meaninglessness until agreeing with them on anything, such as immigration, actually feels embarrassing.

Anyone who knows the history of anthropology should look at what Benoist and Champetier write in ‘Against Racism’, in which they repeat the infamous straw man that was created by the Boasians to discredit inconvenient anthropological truths. What would be the point of going to all that effort refuting Jewish anti-science and promoting HBD awareness, just to take sides with two Frenchmen repeating the same attacks upon real anthropology as Boas and Montagu, for god knows what reason? Do they really know nothing about the history of anthropology, and how Boasians infamously smeared their opponents and the entire science? If Benoist and Champetier do know this, and I’m sure they do because most people on the right did by the year 2000, shouldn’t we ask why they still repeated such pseudo-anthropology? But if they deserve the benefit of the doubt and they honestly didn’t know this, then why were they writing about a subject they didn’t remotely understand and using it as a basis for their political argument? Wouldn’t this be a fair question to put to their faces?

Next after embracing the Newspeak term ‘racism’, which is a codeword for anything anti-white, the Frenchmen take aim ‘Against Sexism’ and immediately abase themselves before radicalised wymyn. Did you know that Christianity ‘considered women as incomplete men’? Whatever that means, though such a claim would nowadays be laughed at even by more moderate feminists. Although no one who is intelligent yet not brainwashed could ever take such an insane assertion seriously, Benoist and Champetier still chose to present it as a valid opinion, just because they don’t like Christianity. Do they really believe that western society ever “excluded women from the arena of public life”? This is just a rehash of hateful, misandric claims that women had no rights to own property before feminism, or that women used to be kept ‘barefoot and pregnant’ by force. A good read of websites like The Spearhead might do the authors some good, instead of swallowing the venomous feminist tracts they’ve obviously been internalising more than they let on before they pretend to refute them. They even mention the right to abortion as a ‘specifically feminine’ right – since this is in the context of differential rights, presumably, the man gets no say in what happens to his own child or even a right to know of the pregnancy because this would surely violate a ‘specifically feminine right’. I guess it’s too bad unfortunate fathers aren’t born with ennobling vaginas, and I can’t help but suspect that Benoist and Champetier support chasing honest men as ‘deadbeat dads’, although they might only refuse to pay child support because some bitch trapped him by lying about taking the contraceptive pill – after all, motherhood is a ‘specifically feminine right’ but its one that costs money which has to be sourced from somewhere. Of course, you might already have guessed no specifically masculine rights would be mentioned anywhere at all in ‘Against Sexism’.

Benoist and Champetier consistently take the side of the Cultural Marxists over positions they admit to be genuinely traditional, purely out of some childish, kneejerk anti-Christianity dressed up as real philosophy (and no, I’m not a Christian either). Still more pseudo-intellectual is their silly argument in ‘Against Productivism’ that contrasts work with freedom – this comes across as very childish and idealistic anarchist stuff (SmAsH ThE sYStEm!!!!!!). I’d like to know more about these pre-modern societies Benoist and Champetier think had no work ethic, as such claims are up there with the pseudo-history goddess worshippers and their feminist fictions about Old European matriarchies in the Neolithic. (And no, I’m not defending the modern work ethic either, its just that no real life society known to anthropology fits Benoist and Champetier’s idealised past which he uses to critique modern civilisation… its obviously just another version of the ‘noble savage’ myth that was created to critique the west, but no one calls them out on it.)

Shouldn’t we ask how nonsense like this passes itself off as a serious alternative to mainstream politics, when its obviously more of the same we’re used to and appeals only at the emotional level? What is the use of ideas even supposed to be, beyond their obvious usefulness as propaganda anyway? Why bother with think tanks?

Something about Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier’s arguments remind me of the think tank associated with Spiked/Living Marxism, the infamous British circlejerk of political writers who present themselves as radical free thinkers and claim to lay waste to the current sociopolitical system, but are ever so careful to present all their most valid criticisms of the present pig system within such a context as simultaneously validates its underlying beliefs and principles.

Ridiculous.”

Advertisements

About skadhitheraverner
I'm a young freelance writer from the UK, with an interest in anthropology, the outdoors and rightist politics.

29 Responses to A review of Benoist and Champetier

  1. Swiss Mister says:

    Benoist is not stupid, so he’s pandering for a reason.

    In America the only motivation to do that would be to make money, because over here there is not such thing as an intellectual in-crowd to pander to.

    You live in Europe… so I’m guessing you could figure out his motivation better than I.

    • Yea, he’s no idiot. it’s just that like too many intelligent people he prefers words to realities and thoughts over the facts. Its harder to give him the benefit of the doubt like that when he repeats things like Boasian nonsense, though.

      The irony is the success of the new Front National in France isn’t because some French New Right think tank is grovelling to the social/cultural left, but for the same reasons Chrysi Agni and Jobbik are successful – its the winning combination of conservative social mores and patriotism with socialism in the sense of social mindedness (as in National Socialism) which naturally leads to ethnicity-first politics. If anything the youth movement Generation Identitaire and the rise in support for FN over there is in spite of certain French people selling their souls to Cultural Marxism for a respectability they don’t really deserve.

      The proof of what i’m saying is a comparison of France to England – Nick Griffin’s BNP was killed partly by their selling out to Zionists and their accepting black members – sure that last bit wasn’t their own decision, but it still demonstrates how white knightin’ is a turn-off for ordinary whites. If French kids are becoming more patriotic, and if more people are voting for Marine, it isn’t because of ‘immigrants for Front National’ and it sure as hell isn’t because of some obtuse and barely penetrable, postmodernist think tank no one in France has even heard of in the first place.

      • Mr. Swiss says:

        It hurts my feelings to put faith in people who don’t live up to the ideal they sell you on.

        You can tell that when you read or listen to Evola or Bowden you aren’t dealing with men who are willing to sell out for a comfortable life, social acceptance, money, or fame.

  2. SM: The French New Right are a dead movement anyway, they peaked in like the 1970s. They’re a classic example of how people on the right internalise the language and concepts of their opponents, whilst distancing themselves from those making a stand, and yet getting nowhere by doing all this.

    Compare these spineless creeps to what the Golden Dawn are achieving in Greece by having a backbone and strength of spirit.

    Bowden and Evola were awesome, though I get the impression people selectively use Evola like they do with Nietzsche and I roll my eyes up when I hear ‘Evolians’. But I don’t see anything worth defending in most of Europe west of the Slavs, Finns, Greeks and Hungarians. I really would be better off under the Moslems than under people like the British Freedom Party or the new Front National (so called to distance themselves from the old Front National which was free of liberal entryists and their pet ‘immigrants for Front National’). Its because the ‘far right’ have shifted too far towards liberalism (in every sense of the word) I speak out for Islamic virtues so much, and the smart people can see it, even if the paranoid grunts with their red and white face paint can’t.

    I want nothing to do with any movement that isn’t going to purge white traitors instead of accepting them inside the big tent, where they immediately start pushing us out and slammin’ the door, just like the Jews do. And at least you can’t blame the Jews or immigrants for acting in their own ethnic and self-interests by entering a political party, but what about those white, ‘patriotic’ subversives within Front National who decided to actively seek support among them? What about their comrades in the BNP who sought Zionist Jewish support and started waving Israeli flags around? Even when the law prevents a party from accepting only white goyim members, there’s surely no need to be so bloody enthusiastic about the soddin’ fact.

    Its about time someone started talking about the punishments we’ll hand out to them when the time comes.

    Look to Chrysi Agni, Jobbik, and Perussuomalaiset for examples of what to follow, for what works. Or better still, look at the Fascists, the Falangists and the NSDAP.

    I don’t get the obsession people have with defending our ‘freedom’ which we lose out under, or democratic systems that are rotted and corrupt.

    • Deutsch says:

      Your love of Muslims isn’t unique, I’ve heard other Traditional women say the same thing, so don’t feel weird about that, despite what commenter on alt right say.

      Evola was a creative genius. The greatest modern thinker, outside of Schmitt, that the Far Right has ever had.

      Give Eastern Europe three more decades, they will be just like us. McDonalds is coming to Romania, get ready!

      • The only commenters on AR who objected where the people who think Islam is ‘homophobic’ and ‘sexist’, so no, I’m not weird on there – I’m sure most people don’t worry what’s ‘sexist’ or ‘homophobic’. White knights make the most noise against something they hate (ie. ‘Muslamic’ people, especially the ‘paedophile’ ones). And you know my reasons for giving them the middle finger, they’re either entryists or useful idiots, because they validate the terms set by the opposition.

  3. non-Aryan Aryan says:

    You have disappeared. Did ZOG take you?

    • Nope, the comic book anti-Moslem types aren’t so lucky though I’m sure they’d still defend Israel if they’d done that.

      I’m just busy and depressed, as I usually am when I’m a little ill, because you probably guessed I’m independent and don’t like the feeling of illness. For me, being stuck in beds only fun if I’m cuddling with you-know-who.

      Though this could be the opportunity to post more stuff on this blog I don’t feel like I have the energy to blog vast articles right now and I’m still pissed off I was threatened and investigated by knuckle dragging British halfwits, even if they misidentified me (doh). Like most recluses I don’t like idiots, and it seems like most of the internet has reasoning impairments.

      How come you’re a ‘non-Aryan Aryan’ today anyway? Italians are white, you’re just on a different branch of the white race (Tuscans are something like 25% North African but unmixed North Africans are white), and in the strictest sense only the Indo-Iranian peoples (Ossetians, Persians, Zazakis, Nuristanis etc) are true Aryans in the traditional sense.

      People forget the white race is really the olive race in terms of human skin colour, depigmented Nordics are really outliers from other Caucasians at one extreme. Though of course my Celtic skins beautiful and milky white so I’ve got nothing to worry about there, its usually the racially insecure who worry about defining ‘whiteness’ and who is or isn’t ‘white’ according to some arbitrary standard. For most people there’s a commonsense heirarchy of racial and cultural distance, related to our genetic interests (you know about Frank Salter right?), not some black-and-white line of whiteness some net warrior decided upon.

      • Mr. Deutsch says:

        I hope you suffer through you illness like a true Aryan. May your critics suffer a worse fate.

        Moderns are ugly, weak, stupid, and pathetic. I personally think that the past WAS better.

        Salter is interesting, but behavioral psychology as it relates to genetics depresses me (which is odd because I’m a Bio major).

        I like pseudo-scientific racial theories, close to what Evola postulated.

  4. SM: Good job you thought to say ” like a true Aryan” after those first seven words or I’d have taken that first sentence as an insult lol, and you know how I flare up.

    But yea the past really was better, it had its problems but whats better nowadays? What use was ending starvation, only to have so many people die of obesity? A study found British children have worse nutrition than black kids in the slums of Soweto, in Africa. This is absolutely revolting, both society and the parents are disgusting for letting that happen – unlike the kids of South Africa, you can’t say these people are in poverty because they own things like televisions in their houses. Its not even that they can’t afford good food because the fast food is more expensive than home made food. Its because society denigrating motherhood and failing to pass on housewife and mother skills to females, with the result that many mothers don’t even know how to cook.

    Can you prepare food? Cause everyone should know how to cook, even boys. I have some kitchen training, don’t you know? Its the washing up that’s boring…

    Oh yea, if you’re studying biology, I’d do physical anthro.

    • Mr. Deutsch says:

      "What use was ending starvation, only to have so many people die of obesity?"

      I'm going to use that quote myself one day, if you permit. I don't need to cook, because I eat very simply. Raw food, mostly vegan; sometimes cheese and bread.

      I wish you the best having children in this society. It's a tough task, but for a true woman there is no greater fulfillment than motherhood.

      • Raw food only is pretty hardcore, you already know I abstain from meat but I love cooking too much to give up warm meals lol.

        Shame about the false alarm SM, or I’d be living in a granny annex now. He’s not bothered with condoms, he agrees what happens, happens.

  5. “Benoist and Champetier actually dismiss the seizure of power as ‘leading to nothing’”

    I don’t know anything of Champetier, but such a position proves Benoist to be a fool. Why should he even talk about an alternative if power is so pointless? Furthermore, your analysis of their positions confirms the things I already suspected: the Western European, and particularly French, “far-right” have absorbed too much modernist influence. It is something I have suspected to be behind their radical anti-Americanism. Such a sentiment could not stem from “anti-globalization” principles, but only from a hatred shared with their socialist/leftist enemies: we are too Christian, too well-armed, too barbaric, too free, and too numerous.

    • Well I’m fairly anti-American as in when Evola spoke of ‘Americanism’, but I only oppose white Americans to the degree they’ve embraced decay, same as with the French or anyone else. People knock North American WNists but really, for all their problems, their house is far more in order than British nationalism is.

      • Mr. John Deutsch says:

        I don’t think so, at least you guys have a party and public platform. You have a history to be proud of.

        No offense, but from my observations I think the British are more degenerate than the Americans at this stage (that’s saying a lot because I fucking hate this country) … but you have a greater chance of revival because you actually have art, history, a pagan identity, and something absolute to base your civil standards on.

        Granted, you have to get rid of all that empiricism, apologetic British tone, and materialism. There’s a possibility a young British kid could run into BNP material or Jonathan Bowden and ‘get it’.

        Here in the states we have nothing. I read Pat Buchanan at 13, and although I was desperately searching, my intellectual development flat-lined (outside of Nietzsche) until I turned 20 and discovered Evola.

        I give Europe a chance. America deserves to be destroyed.

      • The sense that conservative/traditional White Americans get, regarding the “anti-Americanism” from across the pond, is that it is mostly targeted at them rather than anything a European traditionalist or nationalist should be concerned about. The best parts of the American character stem from traditions originating in Europe, and which were brought here but which in time were rejected and vilified there.

        There is so much to dislike about this country, so much. But a typical European does not hate those things: he hates the true American because the true American has not yet thoroughly discarded the culture of Old Europe. He hates the redneck man because he knows his ancestors were once like them, and he hates his ancestors because they were better than him.

        A substance portion of American Whites have embraced decay, but tens of millions have not, and more are working their way away from it each day. Out in middle America, the lifestyle(s) of modern Western Europe are seen as the lowest, darkest pit of decline ever to have been stumbled into by a civilization. We see in the place of our heritage the birth of a second Babylon.

        North America has never been a perfect place, and never in our short history have Americans achieved glory on the level with the great European nations when they were at their peak.

        “Americanism” is a baffling concept for true Americans. If one of our commoners were asked to explain it, he’d probably list a few things related to off-roading, keeping and bearing arms, eating “White-people food”, American football (>_<), chewing tobacco, whiskey, and spending a few minutes every now and again reading part of the Bible. Are any of those things part of contemporary Western-European culture, beyond whiskey in the Celtic nations? It certainly does not seem that way.

        The "Americanism" against which Europeans (leftist or nationalist) rage against has nothing to do with real Americans: it is a totally misleading label for what is correctly a globalist movement.

      • It doesn’t seem that comments can be deleted or edited on your blog. I noticed a bunch of grammar mistakes in my previous comment. I beg that you ignore them.

  6. SM: Do you believe the British really have a consciousness of possessing a history to be proud of whilst you Americans don’t? American identity itself might be an inorganic construct based on an idea, but by descent you share heritage with Europeans because you’re descended from European colonists. Depending on where your ancestors were from. And in most of Europe west of the Slavs and north of the Mediterranean countries, people are deracinated like white North Americans, especially in Britain.

    In your case your heritage is Italian, but if you can’t feel Italian because you weren’t born into and raised immersed into an Italian culture, well that’s how I feel about Britishness and Englishness. I’m not surrounded by the Englishness you read about in books, which is something dead, here and now ‘Englishness’ means the obnoxious drunken behaviours I see from a herd of people who rally round the flag of a pig system.

    The whole point of saying a culture is organic is its continuous with the past, and once that connection is gone you can only replace it with something that’s new (though perhaps clinging to the outward form of what was lost, like the Byzantines famously clung to dead Rome). And what’s needed in England is to make it something worth preserving, an end to the bloody knuckle dragging ‘British’ drink culture…

    • Swiss Mister says:

      Yes, but here in America we are HAPPY robots.

      In Europe there seems to be a sense of the tragic that is commonly understood. The fact that you have men like Jonathan Bowden is quite impressive.

      I feel myself to be Roman, not Italian; I can live by the cosmology of Julian/Evola, study Mithraism, do martial arts, and learn latin and greek. That’s the best I can make out of my life culturally speaking.

  7. Mr. Deutsch says:

    I do JKD developed by Bruce Lee.

    Actually a ton of betas and short guys do martial arts. Its an inferiority thing.

    MMA is for alphas.

  8. Mr. Deutsch says:

    What do you do to preserve your cultural heritage?

    • Unless you’re lucky enough to live where particular old folk customs are preserved, its been lost. That’s why for the most part you have to look forward, informed by tradition (both ones own ancestral traditions and more broadly from ie. the Aztecs, Arabs, Japanese etc) without the kneejerk rejection of past orthodoxies that is the lefts own undoing. If a value or principle held true for so many people at different times, for thousands of years, and in different places, then it must have great pragmatic value.

      What do you preserve? (I don’t count things like modern Asataru or Religio Romana as preservation in themselves because there’s no direct continuity, so they’re nostalgia. They are however creating something new, whilst using the imagery of the past to appeal to people’s need for tradition.)

      • Mr. Deutsch says:

        Its a good idea to preserve the high cultural (as opposed to common or modern) language, myths/metaphysical motifs, and distinct forms of art of your people.

        There’s no question in my mind that White people need a faith system and that’s something you have to research intensely.

  9. SM: its actually the common dialects of English that are the most conservative if you compare them to older forms of the English language. And all the world should listen to neofolk, that goes without saying. I’m listening to Blood Axis right now but I was enjoying some Fire + Ice before. Neofolk’s important because its a new cultural form linked to our heritage and traditions, and at least loosely to rightist politics.

    Have you seen my other blog? It hasn’t been updated for a while, but there’s some excerpts there.

    Link

    There’s great materials online about the religions of the IE peoples if you know where to look. But even though you’re into Nordicism you should think most about the early Classical and Indo-Iranian religions first as a framework to understand sources like Snorri.

    • Mr. Deutsch says:

      Are you studying any other forms of language?

      You linked me to your Mithraic post a while ago. Are you trying to develop your own cosmology or are you interested in comparative mythology like a Joseph Campbell type?

      I’m a very spiritual person (not a Nietzschean) as I’ve always felt that I was a spirit first and an animal second.

      • Its mostly because I have an interest in world mythologies, you know I like learning about world cultures SM.

        I only speak English properly. Can you read Old English? If you can understand some of it then understanding other Germanic languages becomes a lot easier, and it becomes clearer that the boundaries between a language and a dialect are blurred even if you can’t really understand the Continental and Scandinavian languages properly.

  10. Regulus, I don’t mind a few grammar mistakes and mine isn’t perfect either lol.

    But as Evola used the term ‘Americanism’, he was only seeking to label the western form of anti-tradition and globalism as distinct from the Communism of the Soviets (it can be hard to tell at times, but there was a difference lol). In that sense it wasn’t misleading, or at least it was no worse than using ‘Islamism’ to describe political trends in the Moslem world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: