Julien Rochedy, a French intellectual, has moved between political commitment, entrepreneurship and international experience. A former leader of the Youth Front National. After living in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Rome. Today, he dedicates himself to intellectual pursuits and sharing his analyses on YouTube, X, and Instagram.
Could you introduce yourself to our readers?
I am an essayist and publisher. Over the past four years, I have written four books, plus one in collaboration, and I am preparing to publish, through my publishing house, not only French authors who bring something new to the debate but also relatively unknown Anglo-Saxon authors in Europe who are nonetheless highly respected across the Atlantic. I also seek to publish other European authors in French. On this note, if you know of any German-speaking authors who deserve recognition here, feel free to suggest them to me! I would love to connect European and American intellectual traditions that belong to a broadly "identitarian" movement, which still needs to be developed into a proper school of thought.
How can we defend and sustain European heritage?
By shedding a number of misconceptions within our own camp. For instance, I am currently studying the principle of the nation-state, and the more I explore it, the more I realize that it has been quite destructive to European heritage and civilization as a whole. Yet, many of us still define ourselves as "nationalists" and think solely within the administrative framework of our nations—an inheritance that is actually quite recent in our history, as it can primarily be dated to the 19th century.
Our European heritage is a blend of the local and the civilizational; it means being both localist and imperialist at the same time, provincial and European, belonging both to a village and to a civilization. I believe we are entering a neo-feudal era that will see the return of this dual affiliation. In the Middle Ages, it was the allegiance to fiefdoms and Christendom. One way or another, we are returning to these forms of political mediation, balancing the smallest and the grandest scales.
What is your view on Remigration?
In an ideal world, all peoples would have their own lands, and those living on others’ lands without a right of conquest should return to their ancestral homelands. Unfortunately, while an incentive-based policy should be implemented to encourage Africans and Muslims to return to their countries of origin, I do not believe a large-scale remigration is entirely possible within one or even two generations—perhaps even more. I therefore believe that secession, separation, and territorial partition are much more feasible. In fact, geographical separation is already taking shape naturally, with Whites moving to rural areas and small towns, while immigrants remain in the larger cities. Once again, it is often the state that seeks to disperse them everywhere to prevent or delay a partition that, in my opinion, is inevitable.
What does it mean to be "identitarian"?
I recently stated in a video that an identitarian is, above all, a heretic against the prevailing Western religion—the one that has replaced Christianity and is based on three grand myths:
Egalitarianism – The belief that all men are equal and that all peoples are the same.
Universalism – A belief derived from the first myth: if we are all equal, we can all live together under the same rules and values.
Globalism – The logical consequence of the first two myths: if we are all equal and can all live together, then we must do so and abolish all borders.
Thus, an identitarian is someone who rejects all these myths and is therefore seen as a blasphemer or a pagan in the eyes of the great religion of the "universal man." Instead of these absurd postmodern beliefs, the identitarian holds that man remains a tribal being as a member of a social species. He therefore needs to be born and raised in culturally homogeneous and familiar environments to develop and perform at his best. That is why he fights against the ethnic heterogeneity of our societies, which he sees as the gravest danger—since no political future or resilience is possible in the framework of excessive ethnic heterogeneity.
As a former leader of the National Front Youth, what lessons have you learned from your political experience, and how does it influence your current work ?
The main lesson I learned is that we should not expect everything from national politics. Societies change primarily through long-term societal processes that require significant cultural investment to influence them. Politics is usually just the outcome of a long-term influence strategy. That is why I now focus more on influencing politicians and, more broadly, decision-making centers. This is what we must all do: create forces of attraction, forces without which politics is impossible—forcing politicians to take us, our interests, our desires, and our will into account. We must operate like lobbies, as a trade union for native peoples. Our ideas must spread everywhere. Our businesses must become essential. Our presence within institutions—police, military, judiciary, media, etc.—must be deep. In short, we must seize power at every level if we truly wish to remain in history, rather than simply "winning an election," which is merely the icing on the cake.
What are the main challenges you have faced in openly sharing your ideas and knowledge on potentially controversial topics ?
I have held these views for so long that I no longer notice the problems they cause me! For example, I am completely banned from obtaining a bank loan in my own country, even though my business is doing well and I comply with all laws. High-level insiders have confirmed to me that this is solely due to my political beliefs and activism. There are other such inconveniences in daily life, but I do not want to dwell on them. After all, in another era, I could have been summarily executed or sent to a gulag to die. So we are not in such a bad situation!
In truth, what bothers me more are my controversial views within my own ideological camp. For instance, this camp is typically sovereigntist, nationalist, anti-European, conspiratorial, anti-environmentalist, pro-Russian, hysterically anti-American, and many other things that I am not at all. This often puts me in uncomfortable positions and alienates the support of many who should otherwise be my allies! But I like it because I do not appreciate conformity, whether it comes from the system or from the so-called "dissidence," which indeed has its own rigid orthodoxy.
What are your intellectual and literary inspirations? Are there any authors or thinkers, particularly German ones, who have influenced your work ?
Of course! The most important of them is Nietzsche. He was my true intellectual master during my adolescence, even though I have since learned to maintain some distance from his ideas. The thinkers of the Conservative Revolution also shaped my youth—I was captivated by Jünger and von Salomon, like many young men on the right. However, I must admit that I was never a great fan of Spengler. One of the authors who most influenced my latest book was Werner Jaeger—his Paideia is essential reading. As for contemporary philosophy, the thinker I admire the most today is a German who, though he does not share "our ideas," is, in my opinion, absolutely brilliant and intellectually stimulating: Peter Sloterdijk. Every one of his books brings a whirlwind of new ideas and fresh perspectives on the world and its problems. He truly honors Germany’s great philosophical tradition.
How has your experience abroad—in Africa, Russia, and the Middle East—enriched your understanding of global issues and international politics?
I have realized that we have entered the era of "civilizational continents." In the past, we felt like we were leaving our country when traveling from one village to another, from one province to another, or from one nation to another. Today, that feeling only truly arises when we leave our continent—when we leave our civilization. If I am in Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, or Asia and my flight to Paris is diverted to Vienna, Rome, or Copenhagen for a 24-hour layover, I still feel like I have "returned home" in some way. I am in the West, in Europe, in my cultural sphere. This realization carries deep meaning and, I believe, should compel us to rethink our political organization. With global giants like Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the United States—states that operate on a continental or near-continental scale—we Europeans must unite if we want to continue existing in the 21st century.
How should Europeans position themselves in relation to global conflicts?
By clearly defining their interests and acting accordingly.
First, regarding our borders: I consider our borders to extend to Russia. Ukraine is part of Europe, so we should be capable of defending it without relying on American support. However, this is currently unrealistic. Without a strong and independent European military, the Americans will remain on our territory—which I do not want (and, in reality, neither do the Americans anymore).
We must also defend our southern and southeastern borders against migratory movements that are only just beginning and that will be utterly catastrophic for our civilization. We will need a comprehensive Mediterranean policy to ensure the stability of states south of the Mediterranean, so they serve as a buffer between Africa and us.
Next, we must address what will be our most significant challenge in the 21st century: energy independence, along with securing access to essential raw materials. These concerns will dictate our alliances and interventions.
Finally, we must pursue a large-scale reindustrialization policy to guarantee our autonomy across nearly all sectors. However, such a policy can only be implemented at the European level.
France and Germany are the two largest European nations. For Europe to function properly, they must move in the same direction. In your view, how can France and Germany collaborate?
First, by remembering history: 90% of the problems we face today stem, directly or indirectly, from the conflicts and rivalries between France and Germany—dating back to the Treaty of Verdun (843)! ;Our fixation on strictly national interests has only weakened Europe and, ultimately, our own "national" interests. Our nations resemble the ancient Greek city-states, which were incapable of uniting (except during the Persian Wars—something worth reflecting on). They spent their time waging war against each other, despite recognizing that they belonged to the same Hellenic civilization.
Since they failed to achieve unity, they were eventually subjugated by the Roman Empire, and all of them gradually and collectively declined—until they faded from history entirely.
I hope we can avoid becoming like the ancient Greek city-states. I hope we learn from the past and do not repeat the same mistakes out of sheer foolishness. France and Germany have everything to gain from political, military, economic, energy, and ecological cooperation. If we fail due to outdated nationalist pettiness and lingering national egos, then what else can I say? We will share the fate of Athens and Sparta after their golden age—we will disappear together, quite simply.
In the German-speaking world, there is a strong link between metapolitics and electoral politics, as demonstrated by various associations and fraternities, largely thanks to the work of German intellectuals like Benedikt Kaiser. How can we take inspiration from the German model?
The Germans have this culture more deeply ingrained because, unlike us French, they were a genuine nation before the rise of the nation-state. As a result, they have a much stronger tradition of local initiative, whereas in France, politics tends to mean expecting everything from the state. We must completely "de-statize" our minds in France. We need to think in terms of localism, provinces, rural areas, associations, lobbying groups, clubs, think tanks—all of which are much more natural structures for Germans or Anglo-Saxons. This is a difficult shift for us because, after centuries of sterile and stifling statism, we are simply not accustomed to it. That is why I believe European integration—by "de-Frenchifying" us in the worst aspects of our national character—could paradoxically help strengthen, protect, and highlight the best of what France has to offer for our shared civilization.
Do you believe we should build a European "Vorfeld" of the right—that is, a set of structures aimed at strengthening ties, particularly through culture and metapolitics?
Yes. I would very much like to see European structures emerge.
I have been discussing this with French-speaking identitarian and conservative intellectuals like David Engels and Antoine Dresse (Ego Non), who are also very open to the European idea. We need an organization that allows us to meet regularly, coordinate our actions, and think together. I hope such a structure will be established soon!
Thank you Julien !
Voxeuropa Herald is an initiative that shares the voices shaping Europe today: elected officials, essayists, philosophers, activists, artists and influencers. These portraits are collective responses to the crises shaking our Europe. Faced with the major upheavals of our times, Voxeuropa Herald gives a voice to those who, throughout Europe, share solutions and visions for the future. The message is clear : European realities call for European responses.
🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok
🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.