What do people here think of Alain de Benoist?

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Well do you like Benoist and his ideas then?

Yes, he's an essential figure in the recent history of the European new right, but as with everything, you have to be able to filter out what's interesting from what's not. The mythical rebirth of a pre-Christian Europe is as it implies, a myth. But I understand what he means when he wants to cut with the Christian tradition: he is averse to the idea of egalitarianism, which I also agree with.

[Tradra]

The scourge of globalisation is caused by the "Judeo" part of "Judeo-Christianity".
Mixing Christian values with Jewish values is like mixing oil with water, Satanism and Christ worship is not compatible.

[Tooting Carmen]

The scourge of globalisation is caused by the "Judeo" part of "Judeo-Christianity".
Mixing Christian values with Jewish values is like mixing oil with water, Satanism and Christ worship is not compatible.

Isn't Christianity (like Islam) far more globalist in its outlook than Judaism? The latter is a more ethnic/tribal religion, whereas Christianity and Islam both have universalist aspirations.

[coolfrenchguy]

Extrait d’un entretien pour Eléments, d’Alain de Benoist, de janvier 2023
«»».../...
rares sont désormais les partis politiques qui souhaitent toujours plus d’immigration. Il y a cependant au moins trois milieux qui y sont favorables :
d’abord la majorité des libéraux, qui pratiquent la religion du libre-échange et militent traditionnellement pour la libre circulation des personnes et des biens, et donc pour la suppression des frontières. Le libéralisme n’envisageant les collectivités que comme des regroupements d’individus, l’immigration ne se définit à ses yeux que comme l’entrée sur un territoire donné d’un certain nombre d’individus qui choisissent de rejoindre d’autres individus. C’est ce qui permet aux libéraux d’affirmer que toutes les immigrations sont les mêmes, celles des populations sub-sahariennes comme celles de Italiens ou des Polonais. Le patronat, qui sait bien que l’immigration a toujours été l’armée de réserve du capital, appuie cette position : l’immigration à ses yeux se traduit par une simple augmentation du nombre des consommateurs et par l’arrivée d’une force de travail peu revendicative, ce qui favorise une pression à la baisse sur les salaires.
Le deuxième milieu pro-immigration est celui des « humanitaires », qui pensent qu’il n’y a pas de problèmes que la « générosité » et l’amour désincarné ne puissent résoudre. Aspirant à la « communion universelle » capable de « surmonter toutes les barrières historiques et culturelles » dont parle l’encyclique Fratelli tutti, leurs armes favorites sont l’intimidation morale, l’appel à la repentance, la définition de l’accueil sans conditions comme devoir sacré, la victimologie compassionnelle et lacrymale – ce qui leur permet d’affirmer qu’ils incarnent l’empire du Bien.
Il y a enfin une minorité plus radicale, qui en tient pour une conception « rédemptrice » de l’immigration, censée apporter un « sang neuf » à une société qui aurait besoin de plus « diversité », c’est-à-dire plus de métissage, et qui compte sur les immigrés pour subvertir et régénérer une France historique qui lui fait horreur.
Le point commun de tous ces milieux est une adhésion inconditionnelle à l’idée d’une société « ouverte » (ou « inclusive »), dont l’objectif final est de remplacer un monde diversifié formé de peuples et de cultures relativement homogènes en un monde homogène formé de sociétés radicalement « créolisées ».
Ma position est simple : comme la majorité des Français, je suis résolument hostile à l’immigration. À l’immigration, mais pas aux immigrés. À leur endroit, je n’ai aucune inimitié de principe, pas plus que je n’en ai pour leurs cultures d’origine ou pour les pays d’où ils proviennent. Je ne les tiens pas pour interchangeables, et je ne suis pas de ceux qui se réjouissent de voir un certain nombre d’entre eux se noyer en Méditerranée. Pierre Manent me disait récemment qu’il ne croyait ni à la laïcité, ni à l’assimilation, ni à la remigration. C’est aussi ma position.»»
../...
.





Excerpt from an interview for Elements, by Alain de Benoist, from January 2023

«»».../...

few political parties now still want more immigration. There are, however, at least three quarters that are in favor of it :
first of all, the majority of liberals, who practice the religion of free trade and traditionally campaign for the free movement of people and goods, and therefore for the abolition of borders. Since liberalism considers communities only as groups of individuals, immigration is defined in its eyes only as the entry into a given territory of a certain number of individuals who choose to join other individuals. This is what allows liberals to affirm that all immigrations are the same, those of the sub-Saharan populations as those of Italians or Poles. Employers, who are well aware that immigration has always been the reserve army of capital, support this position: immigration in their eyes translates into a simple increase in the number of consumers and the arrival of a labor force with few demands, which favors downward pressure on wages.

The second pro-immigration milieu is that of the "humanitarians", who think that there are no problems that "generosity" and disembodied love cannot solve. Aspiring to the "universal communion" capable of "overcoming all historical and cultural barriers" of which the encyclical Fratelli tutti speaks, their favorite weapons are moral intimidation, the call to repentance, the definition of unconditional acceptance as a sacred duty, compassionate and tearful victimology – which allows them to affirm that they embody the empire of Good.

Finally, there is a more radical minority, which considers it a "redemptive" conception of immigration, supposed to bring "new blood" to a society that would need more "diversity", that is to say more miscegenation, and which relies on immigrants to subvert and regenerate a historical France that abhors it.

The common point of all these circles is an unconditional adherence to the idea of an "open" (or "inclusive") society, whose ultimate objective is to replace a diverse world formed by relatively homogeneous peoples and cultures in a homogeneous world formed by radically "creolized" societies.

My position is simple: like the majority of French people, I am resolutely hostile to immigration. To immigration, but not to immigrants. I have no principled enmity towards them, any more than I have for their cultures of origin or for the countries from which they come. I do not consider them interchangeable, and I am not one of those who is delighted to see a number of them drown in the Mediterranean. Pierre Manent recently told me that he did not believe in secularism, assimilation or remigration. This is also my position.»»
../...
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrefour_de_l%27Horloge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRECE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnopluralism

i prefer the term ethno-differencialist

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes, he's an essential figure in the recent history of the European new right, but as with everything, you have to be able to filter out what's interesting from what's not. The mythical rebirth of a pre-Christian Europe is as it implies, a myth. But I understand what he means when he wants to cut with the Christian tradition: he is averse to the idea of egalitarianism, which I also agree with.

My main problem with Christianity - along with its secular offshoots liberal-democratic-capitalism and communism - is that it is universalistic and messianic and doesn't respect cultural differences.