stvle or substance, temperament or tenor, they are far fromrnAmerican political conservatism and light-miles away fromrn”neocons” and the American “new right.” “I do not see anyrnconvergence between the American ‘new right’ and the FrenchrnNew Right,” says Benoist. “The American Right is a fundamentalistrncontraction and a reactionary movement tied to thernfundamental Bible. It stands for the primacv of the individual,rnapology for the market economy, individualism, and utilitarianism.”rnShort of the best common-denominator for the politicalrnand cultural substance that the New Right and Alain dernBenoist try to embody, one could identif them as a revolutionaryrnconservative, a socialist conservative, or better vet arnneo-Nietzschean-national-nihilist current of thought. At thernrisk of simplifying his ideas one could probably depict himrnand his likes as direct heirs of the German conservative revolutionrnof the early 1920’s whose most visible standard-bearersrnwere Werner Sombart in economy, Oswald Spcngler in thernphilosophy of history, and Martin Heidegger in philosophy.rnIn Benoist’s journals Krisis and Nouvelle Ecole one can readrnauthors from all parts of the European political and scientificrnspectrum: from disillusioned leftists who refuse to sell out tornliberalism, such as Regis Debray, to a French Gaullist militaryrnstrategist like Pierre Gallois. h: the New Right journalsrnone can rind articles signed by Roger Garaudv, a former Marxistrnerudite turned Muslim, as well as by famous Catholic conservativernintellectuals of diverse persuasions. The New Rightrncolumns are open to those who challenge the dictatorship ofrneconomic well-being and reject the self-censorship of modernrnliberal democracies. Topics in Krisis and Nouvelle Ecolernrange from sociobiology to linguistics and include lengthyrnseholady pieces on European mctaplnsics and hido-Europcanrnarcheology.rnBenoist stresses that a political movement or a political partyrnhas no chance of success unless it first develops a stratcg’ forrnsophisticated cultural warfare. The reason conservative partiesrnand movements in Europe and America look so emasculatedrnand weak is because of their cultural mediocrity and, above all,rntheir failure to culturally infiltrate aeademia and the media—rntwo real centers of political power. He neatly calls his culturalrnoffensive the “Gramsciism of the right.” Gramsci knewrnall too well that one does not captivate the masses throughrnthe endless regurgitation of economic slogans; rather the massesrnflock to those who best know how to offer attractive politicalrnromanticism, which in the case of neo-Marxism has beenrnpompously propagandized as “leftist sensibility.” Keeping inrnmind Gramsci on the one hand and castrated American conservati’rnes on the other, one will immediately understand whyrnMarxian and egalitarian anthropologics and methodologiesrnare, paradoxically, much more alive today in the Americanrnacademy than anywhere else in the world.rnBenoist has correctly said that French intellectuals are notrnonly arrogant but also corrupt. Until relatively recently,rnFrench intellectuals wallowed in the unabashed praise of longhairedrnMaoism and Stalinism, only to wake up as Yes SaintrnLaurent-two-piece-suited disciples of liberalism. Once uponrna time French intellectuals staged protests against the Americanrninvolvement in Vietnam; today they are urging the UnitedrnStates to impose global democracy in every corner of thernworld. From the pinnacle of Mao to the Rotary Club there is,rnindeed, no distance to travel. The European New Right notesrnthat, morphologically, both liberalism and socialism haverngrown from the same universalist and egalitarian tree, exceptrnthat liberalism has been more successful in providing egalitarianrnfruits. Now, according to the New Right, liberal-socialismrn(or social-liberalism) needs to be overthrown by a returnrnto the roots of the organic concept of the state.rnThe New Right’s criticism of both the modern left andrnright has predictably reduced its visibility in France and inrnthe rest of Europe. Its ideas are not in vogue, and its access tornthe European TV “videosphere” is still hampered by manyrnwho fear losing their pseudo-intellectual aura. Moreover, thernNew Right’s criticism of Hollywood-style political surrealismrnand the one-dimensional American society has significantly deprivedrnit of a transatlantic following, let alone of objectivernscholarly assessment. The New Right may never enter thernAmerican political hit-parade, because its penchant for therntragic and its belief in life as polemos stand in sharp contrast tornthe ideolog of progress and the liberal cult of historical optimism.rnUnlike other eonservatise thinkers, Benoist must receivernsome credit for having remained intellectually untainted. Inrncontrast to other French intellectuals and groupings, his pedigreernpoints to a man who has sternly refused any type of collaboration.rnIn the 1970’s he was the first to lambast Marxismrnand gulag democrac’; today, when European “sixty-eighters”rnare massixelv converting to Milton Friedman and FriedriehrnHayek, he is first to assault the monotheism of the marketrnand American global democracy. Temperamentally, Benoistrnand the European New Right seem to be more on the leftrnthan on the right. Culturally, however, they are at home withrnHomer and Heraclitus. Indeed, the European New Right mayrnbe easily mistaken for a leftist current of thought insofar as itrnhas taken up the case of all threatened cultures and destinies:rnfrom Albanians to Zulus; from Tibetans to Tyrolians. Twornyears ago, the European New Right became an objective ally ofrnthose leftists who criticized George Bush’s crusade againstrnIraq. Benoist is always uneas} with intellectual and academicrnManichaeism, which tries to ram him into one single intellectualrncategory. “Personally, I am totally indifferent to beingrnon the right or the left. At the moment these ideas are on thernright, but not necessarily of the right. I can easily imaginernsiliuations where these ideas could be on the left.” While it isrnintcllectualK commendable today to ridicule Marxism, Benoistrnprefers instead to open up new battlcfronts against one-woddrndcmocraev, anomie, and decadence, whose main carrier hernsees as liberal ideology. And he goes into much detail to explainrnthe origin and the entropy of liberal market democracy.rnBenoist notes that the prime enemy today is not Marxism orrnliberalism; the real enemy is the holy trinity of cgalitarianism,rneeonomism, and universalism. He believes these ideologicalrnsubstrata have filtered out, over thousands of years, direeth’rnfrom the Bible. The moral? One must first demolish biblicalrnmentality and its political-theological dualism before facing offrnits liberal and socialist secular offshoots. In their numerousrnbooks, whose topics range from philosophy to the critique ofrnliterature, Benoist and his confreres use ammunition borrowedrnfrom Spcngler and Heidegger. For him, liberalism and communismrnare basically secular transpositions of Judeo-Christianrnanthropology; once Europe rejects biblical monotheism, itrnwill better learn to appreciate the plurality of ideas and mores,rnas well as come to respect the “polytheism” of different destinies,rnraces, and cultures. In short, Europe will learn how torn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn