Exploring the Nouvelle Droite

European Apostasy: The Role of Religion in the European New Right
Pawel Bielawski
Arktos, 2025

In 1990 Tom Sunic published Against Democracy and Equality.^[1] It was the first book-length study of the European New Right in English, and it generated considerable interest among those on the American Right who had nothing but disdain for the Reagan-Bush conservatism of the time. Since then a wealth of Anglophone literature on the subject has become available. A worthy addition to this bibliography is Europe’s Heretics by Polish academic Pawel Bielawski. The book focuses on the intellectual leader of the New Right Alain de Benoist (b. 1943), with an emphasis on the sociology of religion, though Bielawski prefers phrasing it as the political science of religion. In any case there is not much theology in this study of religion.

Bielawski begins by stating that the Nouvelle Droite (ND) New Right is a metapolitical, not a political movement, and neo-paganism is at its heart. There were predecessor organizations, but the ND’s birth can be dated to January 1968 with the founding of the Research and Study Group of European Civilization (GRECE). De Benoist does not like the term Nouvelle Droite coined by the French media, but common usage has made the label stick, and like it or not, the ND is on the Right. What was new in the European New Right was its focus on cultural and philosophical ideas rather than political activism. When Andrew Breitbart informed the mainstream American Right that politics was downstream from culture, he was relaying what the ND had proposed 35 years earlier. Yet the ND readily concedes that it was adopting “Gramscianism from the right.” Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was an Italian Marxist theoretician who stressed changing cultural norms and values as the route to political power.

As Prof. Sunic noted in the work cited above, the Right has not “successfully infiltrated the cultural level of society in order to introduce another ‘counter ideology’ to the masses.” The Right has had disappointing results trying to turn electoral gains into cultural change. History seems to show a reciprocal relationship between culture and politics, they move side by side, but not in lockstep. One cannot proceed too much ahead of the other. Though they tout deeply flawed doctrines, the Left has proven over the last century to be more agile and innovative than the Right in the cultural sphere.

So de Benoist seeks to change society through ideas, ideology, and culture because “there is no effective action without a well-structured theory.” Yet the ND itself “has undergone fundamental changes over the course of its existence” leading to criticism that it lacks clarity and consistency. One example is de Benoist’s conversion to anti- racism. While he supports the ethnic and cultural integrity of European peoples and opposes further mass migration, he also opposes remigration and accepts the right of Afro-Asian migrants already settled in Europe to preserve their own ethnicities and cultures, and to have a “presence in the public space.”  How can any nationalist acquiesce to the colonization of his homeland by aliens? Well, de Benoist is not a nationalist, he is a regionalist, a federalist, Europe of 100 flags.

As its title and subtitle make clear, the book largely deals with religious issues. The ND has engaged in a harsh and comprehensive critique of Christianity which it believes has “alienated European peoples from their authentic, indigenous spirituality.” Christianity is individualistic, it seeks salvation for the individual soul. It is egalitarian—all are equal before God, and all are made in His image. And it is universal, there is neither Jew nor Greek, so go forth to all nations. In contrast, pre-Christian European religions were communal, hierarchical, and particular to a specific people. According to the ND, the Left, especially the liberal Left, is secularized Christianity.

The Nouvelle Droite would like to see a neo-paganism emerge to replace Christianity, but what would this twenty-first-century version look like? De Benoist is clear about what it would not be. It would not be an attempt to resurrect the old faiths, no worship of Zeus or Odin. It would not be New Age spiritualism with magic runes, etc. It would not even be a revival of existing folk customs and beliefs, even though some of these are authentic remnants of an old faith. Such cultural tenets survive in places like the Baltic States, once the last refuge of pagan Europe. Monsieur de Benoist sees these expressions as embodying peasant culture, part of the Third Order rather than the sacred First Order. More about that below. More telling is de Benoist’s rejection of naturalistic science-based belief systems advocated over the past 150 years by some of our best minds: Monism, German PhD zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919); Beyondism, British-born PhD psychologist Raymond Cattell (1905–1998); Cosmotheism, American PhD physicist William Pierce (1933–2002).[2]

A hint of an outline for the New Right’s neo-paganism comes from Georges Dumézil (1898–1986). Dumézil and his tripartite ideology are mentioned at least nine times in European Apostasy including in the conclusion which states: “Dumézil’s trifunctional structure occupies a symbolic and central place in the Nouvelle Droite system.”  Yet nowhere in the book is Dumézil’s trifunctional model explained.[3] Perhaps Bielawski thought his readers were already familiar with the three functions. Or perhaps he felt he could not do justice to this nuanced topic with a brief digression, but a brief digression is in order.

In the 1930s Dumézil, a renowned French philologist and anthropologist, hypothesized that from Asia to Éire all ancient Indo-European societies organized themselves into three orders or functions: the sacred, the martial, and the material.  The first order was characterized by divinity and sovereignty, and included priests, sages, wise men, and lawgivers. The second order were warriors, knights, sentinels, and guardians of the people. The third order, which included most of society, were the people, the folk, and the community. There is a question as to how open these orders were: rigid castes or fluid classes? There might also have been an element of the “ages of man.” In this arrangement all men were born into the third order, the sphere of the economy and domesticity, of production and reproduction. Men of the third order were husbands and fathers. The third order was also at times associated with happiness and material wellbeing—jovial burghers and prosperous peasants. The second order is associated with youth, often seen as comprising young, unmarried men, bands of brothers, and is also linked to tumult, violence, berserkers, etc. The first order can be seen as the elders, associated with order, stability, and maturity.  A reoccurring theme within the first and second orders was the resurrection of heroes, palingenesis, and heroic rebirth. Leaders such as King Arthur and Emperor Barbarossa are not dead, but only dormant or sleeping and will awake in a time of crisis to save their people. There were also tales of ghost armies, fallen warriors who rise to fight again. The Reconstruction Klan was imaged as Confederate war dead summoned to save the South.

Dumézil research created some controversy. In 1939 he published Mythes et dieux des Germains in which he noted some continuity between ancient Germanic myths and aspects of National Socialism Germany. Most scholars saw the book as an objective study. But decades later, Jewish Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg, writing in the journal Annales, accused Dumézil of “Nazi sympathies” based in part on the 1939 book. There might also have been an element of guilt by association. Dumézil was a personal friend and intellectual collaborator with Otto Höfler a member of the research organization SS Ahnenrbe. The Austrian Höfler was a respected academic not to be confused with fellow Austrian Karl Wiligut, SS RuSHA. Wiligut, a retired army officer and purported authority on ancient Germanic culture, turned out to be a fraud and an embarrassment to Himmler. The salient point is that although Dumézil was interested in the new Germany of the 1930s he was no national socialist. He was a French conservative nationalist with monarchist leanings.

All of the above is of some interest, but how Dumézil’s tripartite model would translate to twenty-first-century societies is open to different interpretations. It is definitely hierarchical and it values wisdom and courage over happiness and material comfort. Such an ideology is a tough sell to today’s Western populations. Yet the ND asserts: “The only way for Europe to regain its spiritual strength and overcome the present civilisational-spiritual crisis is to rediscover the pagan Indo-European roots of European culture.”

As mentioned there are seeming contradictions in the Nouvelle Droite. It laments the lack of collective identity in the West, yet rules out racialism and nationalism as sources for that identity. At present these are the only two ideologies with the potential strength to displace the globalist neo-liberal order. The ND sets up straw-men arguments to dismiss racial realities while claiming “that the very idea of internally homogeneous nation-states is an anachronism from the 19th century.” But the heterogeneous US is not to be emulated either.

Second only to his animosity towards Christianity is de Benoist’s antipathy towards American culture—political, social, and economic. For the ND, the U.S. is “an anti-Europe.” From the beginning “America took shape in opposition to Europe.” While there is much to criticize about contemporary America, these characterizations of our origins are not entirely accurate. The very name America comes from the European the explorer and chronicler Amerigo Vespucci. The seventeenth-century English colonists did not “go native,” but called their region New England, and strove to establish the old country’s social and economic system in a new land.[4] History and geography determined that America was never going to be a replica of Europe, but DNA determined that it would be Europe’s offspring. It appears that de Benoist’s negative assessment of America has clouded his judgment. He would rather see a mosque built in his town than a McDonalds. A fast-food joint is easily replaced, while a mosque once established might require violence to remove. To counter the pernicious American hegemony, the ND proposes Europe ally with Russia and the Third World. Russia’s neighbors, including Bielawski’s Poland, know that it is best to keep Russia at arm’s length rather than receive a bear hug. And are closer ties to the Third World a good idea?

Regarding Islam, de Benoist has relatively little to say. Doesn’t Islam possess many of the same characteristics—foreign origin, monotheistic, universal, and potentially totalitarian faith—that he finds objectionable about Christianity? But Islam opposes US hegemony, so it gets a partial pass. Bielawski turns to Guillaume Faye (1949–2019) for commentary on Islam. Next to de Benoist, Faye is the most widely known figure in the French New Right. He had an off again on again relationship with GRECE. He was a race realist. Though cognizant of America’s negative influence on Europe, he didn’t share de Benoist’s anti-Americanism. And he saw Islam as an existential threat to the West.   Faye characterized Third World migration as an “anthropological disfiguring” and “a demographic and ethno-cultural tragedy.”

The book does not deal with the Jewish question other than to point to Judaism as the source of the much maligned Christianity. The term “Judeo-Christianity” is often used to highlight the latter’s foreignness.

Bielawski identifies some sources that provided ideas and inspiration to the ND. Many of them are German: philosophers Nietzsche and Heidegger; conservative revolutionaries Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, and Carl Schmitt, along with the Italian Julius Evola. For more recent influence,s Bielawski states: “Third Positionism and Nouvelle Droite come very close to each other in terms of doctrine.” But the Third Position has taken several iterations so it is difficult to precisely define it. Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory is also mentioned, however Dugin’s support for the fratricidal Russo-Ukrainian War may have lessened his prestige and influence.  In perhaps another inconsistency, some see the ND embracing sociobiology and human ethology, yet the movement also appears to reject the role of human biodiversity on cultural development.

European Apostasy can serve as either as an excellent primer to the Nouvelle Droite, or as an interesting synthesis for those with more background. The useful bibliography even references a few Americans such as James C. Russell (The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, 1994) and Michael O’Meara (New Culture, New Right, 2013).

It is easy to criticize the Nouvelle Droite for its ambiguities and contradictions, and to question how culturally influential they have actually been. But they are correct on the very broad issues. The West is in a spiritual crisis. Revolutionary change, a culture revolution, is required. The extreme alienation felt by many can be, in large measure, attributed to a lack of firm collective identities—family, community, church, and nation. As usual it is easier to identify problems than to solve them.

How applicable is the French New Right ideology to the American situation? Should we be informed about the ND, rather than informed by it? Christianity is so embedded within the American Right that it is likely to remain a strong influence for the foreseeable future. Considering the religious conflicts our people have had in the past, true religious toleration is needed, with the caveat that no religion should be permitted to further a socially destructive creed. The ND’s anti-Americanism, while understandable, is not helpful. It would be better to accentuate our similarities rather than our differences. Looking to the future, it is likely that Europeans and European Americans will stand or fall together.

[1] Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right: (Peter Lang, 1990).

[2] For more on this topic see: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered” The Occidental Quarterly 15, no. 2(Summer 2015): 81–96.

[3] See: C. Scott Littleton, The New Comparative Mythology: An Anthropological Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumézil (University of California Press, 1982).

For a beautifully written description of the three orders in medieval France see: Georges Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, tr. Arthur Goldhammer (University of Chicago Press, 1980). Duby was a member of the Annales School whose interest in mentalities complements Dumézil’s research.

[4] Herbert Baxter Adams, probably the foremost American historian of the late nineteenth century and founding member of the American Historical Association, noted the cultural continuities between the English colonies and ancient Germanic communities in The Germanic Origins of the New England Town (Johns Hopkins University, 1882).