Print this post Print this post

Drieu on the Failure of the Third Reich

Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, January 3, – March 15, 19451,829 words

The powers threatening our people became hegemonic in May 1945, when the liberal-Communist coalition known as the “United Nations” imposed its dictatorship on defeated Germany.

This dictatorship—whose defining characteristic, East and West, is its techno-economic worship of the Jewish Moloch—was subsequently imposed on the rest of Europe and, in the form of globalization, now holds the whole world in its grip.

For white nationalists, the defeat of National Socialist Germany is both the pivotal event of the twentieth century and the origin of their own movement—to save the white race from the rising tide of color.

White nationalists resume, in effect, the struggle of the defeated Germans. But they do so not uncritically.

As an idea and a movement, National Socialism (like Fascism) was a product of the late nineteenth-century political convergence that brought together elements from the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the labor movement and elements from the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the nationalist right. Hitler’s NSDAP was the most imposing historical offshoot of this anti-liberal convergence, but one not always faithful to its origins—which bears on the fact that Hitler shares at least part of the responsibility for the most devastating defeat ever experienced by the white race.

It’s not enough, then, for the present generation of white nationalists to honor his heroic resistance to the anti-Aryan forces.

Of greater need, it seems to me, is to identify and come to terms with his failings, for these, more than his triumphs, now effect our survival as a people.

The following is an excerpt from a piece that Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote in the dark days after August 1944, after the so-called “Liberation” of Paris and before the suicide that “saved” him from De Gaulle’s hangman.

It was written in haste, on the run, and never completed, but is nevertheless an illuminating examination of Hitler’s shortcomings (even where incorrect).

The central point of Drieu’s piece (and it should be remembered that he, like many of France’s most talented thinkers and artists, collaborated with the Germans in the hope of creating a new European order) is that Germany alone was no match for the combined powers of the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

Only a Europe recast on the basis of National Socialist principles, he believed, could triumph against this coalition and the Jews who inspired and guided it.

Hitler’s petty bourgeois nationalism, critiqued here by Drieu, prevented him from mobilizing the various national families of Europe in a common front, proving that his distillation of the anti-liberal project was inadequate to the great tasks facing the white man in this period.

* * *

From Drieu’s “Notes sur l’Allemagne”:

I was shocked by the extreme political incompetence of the Germans in 1939, 1940, and 1941, after the victories [which made them Europe’s master]. It was in this period that their political failings sealed the fate of their future military defeat.

These failings seem even greater than those committed under Napoleon [in the period 1799-1815, when the French had mastered Europe]. The Germans obviously drew none of the lessons from the Napoleonic adventure.

Was German incompetence the incompetence of fascism in general? This is the question.

The imbecilic maxim guiding Hitler was: “First, wage and win the war; then, reorganize Europe.” This maxim contradicted all the lessons of history, all the teachings of Europe’s greatest statesmen, particularly those of the Germans, like Frederick and Bismarck. It was Clausewitz who said war is only the extension of politics.

But even if one accepts Hitler’s maxim, the German dictator committed a number of military mistakes:

1. Why did he wait six months between the Polish campaign and the French campaign?

2. Why did he squander another ten months after the French campaign?

3. Why in late 1940 did he wage a futile aerial assault on England, instead of striking the British Empire at its most accessible point, Gibraltar?

After July 1940 [when no European power opposed him on the continent], he could have crossed Spain, destroyed the [English] naval base at Gibraltar, and closed off the Mediterranean.

The armistice with Pétain [which led to the establishment of the Vichy regime] was [another] German disaster. If the French had followed [Paul] Reynaud [the last Premier of the Third Republic who advocated continued resistance from France’s North African colonies], the Germans would have been forced to do what was [militarily] necessary to win the war.

For once master of Gibraltar, Hitler would have rendered [the English base at] Malta useless, avoided the Italian folly in the Balkans [which doomed Operation Barbarosa in Russia], and assured the possibility of an immediate and relatively uncostly campaign against [English occupied] Egypt. Instead of bombing London, he should, have seized Alexandria, Cairo, and Suez.

This would have settled the peace in the Balkans, avoiding the exhausting occupations of Greece and Yugoslavia, [it would have cut England off from her overseas empire, and guaranteed Europe’s Middle Eastern energy sources].

These military failings followed from Hitler’s total lack of imagination outside of Germany.

He was [essentially] a German politician; good for Germany, but only there.

Lacking political culture, education, and a larger tradition, having never traveled, being a xenophobe like many popular demagogues, he did not possess an understanding of what was necessary to make his strategy and diplomacy work outside Germany.

All his dreams, all his talents, were devoted to winning the war of 1914, as if conditions [in 1940] were still those of 1914. . . He thus underestimated Russian developments and totally ignored American power, which had already made itself felt in the Great War.

He did understand the importance of the tank and the airplane [whose military possibility came into their own after 1918], but not in relationship to the enormous industrial potential of Russia and America.

He neglected [the role of] artillery, which was a step back from 1916-1918.

He is least reproachable in his estimation of submarine warfare, whose significance was already evident in 1916. But even here, the Anglo-Saxons [i.e., the Anglo-Americans] deployed their maritime genius in a way difficult for a European continental to anticipate.

Hitler’s political errors [, however,] were far worse and more thorough-going than his military errors. He hardly comprehended the problem, seeing it in terms of 1914—in terms, that is, of diplomacy, national states, cabinet politics, and [rival] chancelleries. His understanding of Europe did not even measure up to that of old aristocrats like Bismarck and Wilhelm II, who never forgot the tradition of solidarity that united Europe’s dynasties, courts, and nobilities. . .

It’s curious that this man who knew how to inspire the masses in his own country, who always maintained the closest contact with his people, never, not for a second, thought of extending his [successful] German policies to the rest of Europe. He [simply] did not understand the necessity of forging a policy to address Europe domestically and not just internationally.

Diplomats and ambassadors had lost command of the stage after 1940—it was now in the hands of political leaders capable of winning the masses with the kind of social policies that had succeeded in Germany and could succeed elsewhere.

Hitler didn’t understand this. After his armies invaded Poland, France, and elsewhere, he never thought of implementing the social and political practices that had worked in Germany . . . He never thought of carrying out policies that would have forged bonds of solidarity between the occupied and the occupiers. . .

These failures lead me to suspect that the Germans’ political stupidity . . . owed something to fascism—that political and social system awkwardly situated between liberal democracy and Communist totalitarianism.

In the fascist system there was something of the “juste milieu” that could only lead to the miserable failure awaiting the Germans. [A French term meaning a “golden mean” or a “happy medium,” “juste milieu” is historically associated with the moderate centrist politics (or anti-politics) of bourgeois constitutionalists—first exemplified by France’s July Monarchy (1830-48) and subsequently perfected in the American party system].

The Germans have no political tradition. For centuries, most of them inhabited small principalities or cities where larger political forces had no part to play.

However, there was Vienna and Berlin. In these two capitals, politics was the province of a small [aristocratic] caste. The events of 1918 [i.e., the liberal revolutions that led to the Weimar and Viennese republics] abruptly dislodged this caste, severing its ties from the new governing class.

Everything that has transpired in the last few years suggests that Germany remains what it was in the eighteenth century . . . a land unable to anchor its warrior virtues in politically sound principles . . .

[Part of this seems due to the fact that] the German is no psychologist. He is too much a theoretician, too intellectually speculative, for that. He lacks psychology in the way a mathematician or metaphysician does. German literature is rarely psychological; it develops ideas, not characters. The sole German psychologist is Nietzsche [and] he was basically one of a kind. . . Politically, the Germans [like the French] are less subtle and plastic than the English or the Russians, who have the best psychological literature and hence the best diplomacy and politics.

Hitler’s behavior reflected the backward state of German, and beyond that, European attitudes.

This son of an Austrian custom official inherited all the prejudices of his father’s generation (as had Napoleon). And like every German nationalist of Austrian extraction, he had an unshakable respect for the German Army and the Prussian aristocracy. Despite everything that disposed him against it, he remained the loyal Reichwehr agent he was in Munich [in 1919]. . . If he subsequently became a member of a socialist party [Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party]—of which he promptly became the leader—it was above all because this party was a nationalist one. Nationalism was always more important to him than socialism—even if his early years should have inclined him to think otherwise . . .

Like Mussolini, Hitler had no heartfelt commitment to socialism. [Drieu refers here not to the Semitic socialism of Marx, with its materialism, collectivism, and internationalism, but rather to the older European corporate socialism, which privileges the needs of family, community, and nation over those of the economy] . . . That’s why he so readily sacrificed the [socialist] dynamism of his movement for the sake of what the Wehrmacht aristocracy and the barons of heavy industry were willing to concede. He thought these alone would suffice in furnishing him with what was needed for his war of European conquest. . .

Fascism failed to organize Europe because it was essentially a system of the “juste milieu” —a system seeking a middle way between communism and capitalism. . .

Fascism failed because it did not become explicitly socialist. The narrowness of its nationalist base prevented it from becoming a European socialism . . .

Action and reaction: On the one side, the weakness of Hitlerian and Mussolinian socialism prevented it from crossing national borders and becoming a European nationalism; on the other, the narrowness of Mussolinian and Hitlerian nationalism stifled its socialism, reducing it to a form of military statism. . .

Source: Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Textes retrouvées (Paris: Eds. du Rocher, 1992).


  1. Posted January 3, 2011 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    Thank you for publishing this text. The introduction of Mr. O’ Meara shows a real knowledge of the French and European context at the time.
    Drieu’s thoughts are very interesting although one could argue that they are only afterthoughts. Drieu exposes many failures which are now commonly pointed out to explain Germany’s defeat. However things were far from simple for the German army. Attacking Gilbratar, to take one exemple, was made particularly difficult as général Franco forbade the access of Spain to the German army – even the mere crossing of the territory to get to North Afrika.
    On the political front, one should read the beginning of Leon Degrelle’s “La campagne de Russie”, in which he explains why and how the various nationalist forces of Europe joined the German army in the fight against bolchevism – the book is forbidden since its first publishing in 1949.

  2. Posted January 3, 2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    @ “White nationalists resume, in effect, the struggle of the defeated Germans. But they do so not uncritically.”

    Absolutely true. Thanks for this article, Michael. We must not be uncritical of the Germans’ gross mistakes. Personally, I find more awesome the Anglo-Saxons’ mistakes. The photos of the Yalta Conference with the British prime minister and the American president beside a monster strike me as the most notorious useful idiots of Western history ever.

    What Churchill and Roosevelt did was nothing less that the most catastrophic political blunder in the entire history of the West since Constantine handed over the empire to the bishops at the dawn of the Age of Darkness.

    So let’s critique Hitler and the Nazis. But never forget that the really treasonous blunders came from the Anglo-Saxon world.

    What shocked me the most of The Gulag Archipelago is that in Yalta Churchill and Roosevelt had signed the agreement to involuntary repatriate thousands upon thousands of Soviet citizens after the war. No Hollywood film has been made of this darkest page of the Allied forces sins. The fact that once in the Soviet Union Stalin sent all of these soldiers and families to the killing camps makes the UK and the USA at least as criminal as the willing executioners who shipped non-gentiles to the camps.

    • White Republican
      Posted January 4, 2011 at 4:27 am | Permalink

      You might like to know that Peter J. Huxley-Blythe, who was a member of Francis Parker Yockey’s European Liberation Front, wrote a book on “Operation Keelhaul” titled The East Came West. Of course, no Hollywood film will be made of Operation Keelhaul because the victims were anti-communist goyim.

  3. Posted January 3, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    ” That’s why he so readily sacrificed the [socialist] dynamism of his movement for the sake of what the Wehrmacht aristocracy and the barons of heavy industry were willing to concede. He thought these alone would suffice in furnishing him with what was needed for his war of European conquest. . ”

    As I have argued on my blog, Hitler forfeited the role of Aryan revolutionary when he sold out Rohm’s SA Mannerbund to gain the support of the Wehrmacht. becoming culturally uninteresting and ultimately a military failure.

    • Michael O'Meara
      Posted January 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

      You of my name sake (from Tipperary?):

      Yes. Even Hitler himself in the closing days of the Reich came to think that he had blundered in purging the NSDAP’s revolutionary wing.

      For those who read French, the key book here is Jean Mabire’s “Rohm, L’homme qui inventa Hitler” (1995).

      • Posted January 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Alas, hard work and hard drinking killed off all my grandparents decades ago, and I’ve never been able to trace their exact lineage [I tried, when interested in getting an Irish, i.e. EU passport]. I’m happy to claim Tipperary with you.

        “Hitler’s blunder” sounds like material for one of those YouTube videos taking scenes from a recent Hitler movie and redubbing them: Hitler the teaching assistant getting an 8am section, Hitler the mortgage banker realizing Bank of America screwed him, etc. “Where are my bullyboys!?”

  4. Posted January 3, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Europe was caught in a pincer movement. On one side the jewish bankers of the City and the U.S., and on the other one the bolshevik monsters financed by the formers. The aim was, as it has been for the past 20 centuries, to destroy the heart of christianity and the european culture, its tradition and its heritage.
    Most French intellectuals and artists understood the equation and saw Germany’s fight as the only way to escape falling under the claws of both evils.
    Official history today in France presents the WWII conflict as a shock between the liberal West and the communist East – they deliberatly omit that the fight was between european nationalists and international sionism.

    • Michael O'Meara
      Posted January 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      If Hitler — certainly “the most extraordinary figure in the history of the 20th century” (as the demi-Jewish historian John Lucas writes) — had been less of a German nationalist and more of a European nationalist (as Drieu wanted), he would have appointed General Haushoffer as his Foreign Minister, stopped his flirtation with the money-grubbing English, and sought an alliance with National Communist Russia against the plutocratic democracies of the West. But like most anti-Semitic reductionists, who see a Jew under every bed, he thought the great Slavic peoples of the East were simply Jewish pawns.

      Whoever fails to see that the greatest danger to European peoples is the Western plutocracy (led often by Jews) — not Slavic Communists — fails to draw the key lesson of modern history.

      Yockey and, more recently, Kerry Bolton, have been almost alone in understanding this.

      • Posted January 3, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        Well said. And this makes me think again in Wagner, Tolkien and the temptation of one ring. Is it really the culprit, that temptation of unlimited power to rule the world for the one who forges it out of gold (corporate capitalism) on the condition of renouncing forever the power of love?

        The contents of page 91 of your book published by C-C provide a very vivid illustration of how this capitalism destroyed far more our traditional culture than the terrible totalitarian regimes that the people of the Eastern bloc endured:

        When Thomas Molnar, who played an important role in the US conservative movement of the 1960s and ’70s, returned to his native Hungary after the collapse of the Soviet empire, he found, to his astonishment, that traditional culture and education, which had virtually disappeared in the West, were still very much alive in the former Soviet bloc.

        Are there articles by Yockey and Bolton on this very subject already published in C-C?

        • Edgardus de la Vega
          Posted January 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

          I’d like to read more about Molnar’s realisation of his homeland experience; Interesting indeed.

          • Michael O'Meara
            Posted January 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

            I encountered these Molnar articles in the paleocon journal “Chronicle” in the early 1990s.

        • Michael O'Meara
          Posted January 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink


          Yockey’s position on Russia can be found in his “The Enemy of Europe” (1953) — one of the great works of anti-liberal geopolitics (more advanced in its understanding of Russia than his “Imperium”). It’s published along with a long essay by Revilo Oliver, “The Enemy of Our Enemies” (1981) — which exudes all the usual numskull conservatism of most American racialists.

          Several of Bolton’s essays on the subject are:

          •”Yockey and Russia,”

          • “America’s ‘World Revolution:’ Neo-Trotskyite Foundations of US Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010.

          •”Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a ‘New World Order’”

          The last piece begins with this revealing paragraph: ”A fact most uncongenial for many conservative-minded folk, especially in the USA, is that it was the USSR under Stalin that thwarted a world order, without which we would have very possibly been subjugated by a global central authority immediately following World War II. This matter of realpolitik stands alongside another factor in political realism: that New York and Washington have historically been the capitals of world revolution, with the globalist elites pumping money into revolutionary movements whilst Stalin was busily eliminating international bolshevism as a Trotskyite menace, and reversing many aspects of the Bolshevik social experiments at home.”

      • White Republican
        Posted January 3, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

        “Whoever fails to see that the greatest danger to European peoples is the Western plutocracy (led often by Jews) — not Slavic Communists — fails to draw the key lesson of modern history.”

        Indeed, what makes contemporary conservatism both useless and dangerous for our people is that it supports what Guillaume Faye has called “the system that kills people” and “Western civilisation.”

      • Posted January 4, 2011 at 4:48 am | Permalink

        “the greatest danger to European peoples is the Western plutocracy (led often by Jews)”


  5. Posted January 3, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Obviously Drieu was writing without hindsight, but a lot of what he said is nonsensical. If Spain had been Germany’s ally, Germany would have been responsible for supplying it and defending its lengthy coastline. An assault on Gibraltar would have been difficult, and Drieu was apparently not aware that the UK was already denied the use of the Mediterranean for shipping until the Allies conquered part of Italy. The main consequence of capturing Gibraltar would have been to make it difficult for the British to supply Malta, but it would have been easier just to conquer Malta (nearly undefended in Fall 1940).

    In hindsight it was a mistake for Hitler to wait for the Italians to screw things up in the Mediterranean, but it was not obvious that they would be so weak, and the Mediterranean was supposed to be their sphere of influence. The impact of the Balkan/Mediterranean campaigns on the campaign in Russia is questionable, because only a small fraction of the German military was tied down there, and the weather in Russia is such that Barbarossa couldn’t have started much earlier than it did even if the Germans hadn’t had to bail out the Italians. The big German summer offensive in 1942 actually began later in the year than Barborossa did in 1941.

    I agree with him that Germany would have been better off to conquer Egypt and the Levant in 1940, but they wouldn’t have been able to go much further east for logistical reasons, they wouldn’t have been able to get much oil back to Europe for the same reasons, even if the British didn’t burn the oil fields, which they would have, so it wouldn’t really have made much difference in the long run.

    I don’t see how anything that happened in France would have made much of a difference in favor of the Germans. Things already went about as well as they could have there.

    He says Germany took submarine warfare seriously, but actually they did not even build as many submarines as their treaty with Britain had allowed before the war, something like 1/3 of the torpedoes were duds, the submarine designs were barely improved over WWI models, and they squandered loads of money on battleships and cruisers, which had already been shown to be easily sunk by aircraft in the early 1920s by Billy Mitchell. If they had really taken submarine warfare seriously, they could have easily had 2-3X as many more advanced submarines, like the Type XXI, with torpedoes that worked, instead of useless battleships, and that might have actually changed the outcome of the war.

    • Michael O'Meara
      Posted January 3, 2011 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      “… a lot of what he said is nonsensical.”


      Militarily, we’re all Monday-morning quarterbacks — and your argument here isn’t especially convincing.

      The importance of Drieu’s article is his political critique — that Hitler remained too much a 19th-century nationalist. This is the question that needs to be addressed.

  6. Junghans
    Posted January 3, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Well said, Chechar. We do indeed need to learn from our mistakes, whoever may have made them. The English speaking White world needs lots of critiquing, and also needs to be informed about their terrible blunders, misperceptions, delusions and foibles. The tough part is, (besides trying to work around the Jewish dominated media preventing this), how to get them to see sweet reason, without offending them. Perhaps we can only do it one word, one sentence, one article and one book at a time.

  7. Posted January 4, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink
  8. White Republican
    Posted January 6, 2011 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Some miscellaneous comments:

    1. I rarely take issue with Michael O’Meara’s articles and comments, but I will make an exception for his remark that Revilo P. Oliver’s work “exudes all the usual numskull conservatism of most American racialists.” As an admirer of Oliver’s work, I find this remark intemperate and abusive. It is tantamount to calling Oliver an idiot, which he definitely was not. Oliver’s work is incisive, erudite, and elegantly written. To be sure, The Enemy of Our Enemies is not really about The Enemy of Europe, and O’Meara may regard Oliver as enthralled to the “nineteenth-century Anglo-American scientific materialism” that he rejects. But these do not warrant cheap shots against Oliver.

    It may be worth noting that Oliver was invited, no doubt by Alain de Benoist, to contribute to the landmark issue of Nouvelle École on America. He declined to do this because he doubted that could write with the necessary objectivity and because he could not write about America without violating Nouvelle École’s editorial policy of saying nothing about the Jews.

    2. Michael O’Meara has elsewhere criticized the anti-liberal and anti-system Right in America as being steeped in the American ideology of rationalism and materialism. Perhaps O’Meara should elaborate upon this thesis, for it is an important and radical one, and one liable to be misunderstood.

    Perhaps the question that should be posed is not the extent to which Adolf Hitler was a “nineteenth-century nationalist” — a question which, however interesting, relates to the past — but the extent to which contemporary Rightists in America and elsewhere are “nineteenth-century nationalists” or are otherwise impolitique (in Julien Freund’s sense of the word) — a question which relates to the future. Of course, both questions can be addressed, but the latter is surely more important than the former.

    During the Cold War, European neo-fascists were divided as to whether the United States or the Soviet Union was the greater enemy of Europe, but at least both sides in this dispute recognized that both the United States and the Soviet Union were enemies of Europe. To what extent does the anti-liberal and anti-system Right in America recognize the American system as its enemy? I have the impression that many people counted on our side effectively want the American system minus non-Whites. They do not recognize the American system as an enemy.

    3. Neo-fascist views on geopolitics appear to be addressed in Nicolas Lebourg’s new book, Le monde vu de la plus extrême droite: Du fascisme au nationalisme-révolutionnaire, which I expect to receive this month. Lebourg is not on our side, but his writings are very well researched, and I will definitely get his forthcoming biography of François Duprat.

    4. As Philippe Régniez modestly does not say, he has reprinted Léon Degrelle’s La campagne de Russie. I hope that the Noontide Press will reprint the English translation, for a reprint is long overdue. The anti-Bolshevik crusade is addressed in François Duprat’s La croisade antibolchévique. It is still in print, but its current publisher (Les Editions de l’Homme Libre) has a bad reputation, and I would prefer not to patronise them.

    • Michael O'Meara
      Posted January 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      White Republican,

      I’ve read most of Oliver’s writings and have learned a great deal from them. I also consider him one of the masters of the ‘footnote’ — true treasure troves for our generation. My characterization is indeed abusive. Oliver was a very learned man and has much still to teach us. But there was also much in his work that is numskull — like his biological reductionism and scientism. My remark, as usual, was provocative — like the above translation.

  9. Armor
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    According to Michael O’Meara’s article :

    National Socialism = a convergence of elements from Labor Movement + from Nationalist Right

    White nationalism = a resumption of the struggle of the defeated Germans, so as to survive the rising tide of color

    I haven’t read Drieu, but I know he lived in less disastrous times than we do. It was easier for him to be intellectual and have lofty ideals. He worried about French decadence, but how much did he worry about the rising tide of color? Probably not as much as Stoddard and Hitler. For example, Hitler wrote this: “If France develops along the lines it has taken in our day, and should that development continue for the next three hundred years, all traces of French blood will finally be submerged in the formation of a Euro-African Mulatto State. This would represent a formidable and compact colonial territory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo”. I think it may have been Drieu who thought like a man from the 19th century. Hitler was more down to earth.

    By contrast to Drieu’s intellectualism, today’s “white nationalism” simply boils down to an opposition to race-replacement. It is no longer about repairing Western civilization. The priority is to expel the non-whites or get racial separation in some way. Hopefully, it should be easier today to unite those who still see themselves as members of the working class with those who see themselves as heirs to the old right. Both groups should agree that they are Whites first. The left-right divide keeps us from protecting our racial interests. A long time ago, left-wing used to mean kind-hearted and pro-labor, but now, it means semitically correct and mostly anti-white.

    • Michael O'Meara
      Posted January 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Permalink


      My view of both “Drieu’s intellectualism” and WN are quite different from yours.

      To get a better understanding of Drieu, you might want to consult my “The European Revolution of Drieu la Rochelle” archived at this site. Drieu’s critique was something more than an expression of his “intellectualism,” as you contend.

      WN, as I see it, is not simply anti-immigrationism, though I realize that a great many so-called WN think that it is. If WN isn’t a radical critique of the liberal modern civilization born in 1789/1776, if it’s not something more than a racially-conscious Americanism, then I don’t see the point of the WN struggle.

      Most WN simplistically think that the desperate situation we’re in today is due solely to those demonic Jews.

      My critique of the Jews is fundamental — I see them as the antithesis of the “Aryan” spirit (see my piece on Evola’s Anti-Semitism” also archived here). Only an ignorance of history (and we Americans are the most historically unconscious people in the modern world) could lead one to think that they bear the sole or principal responsibility for the present war on Whites.

      Whites have become Jewish in spirit not simply because Jews control the media and the major institutions (though, of course, that has a lot to do with it). Rather, the liberal modern counter-civilization born in 1789/1776 is Jewish in essence; if there weren’t a single Jew in America, I suspect our situation wouldn’t be much different than it is.

      WN, as I see it is, is not just anti-immigration and pro-White. It’s anti-liberal and identitarian, it’s revolutionary and “Aryan” — it seeks not just to restore the White man to his rightful place in North America and Europe, but to restore the primordial European spirit he has lost.

      The values and institutions of America — even the old White-dominated America — are our enemy because they war on everything that has historically defined Whites — in Europe and in the New World. The New America will be “anti-American” — or it will not be.

      • Posted January 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        Badly hurt but phoenix-like, later in this century the westerners will not only revert to the ethical values before the 1960s, but in other aspects to the values cherished by us before World War I and even before the French Revolution and Christendom (I for one admire the hard ethos of the ancient Romans; that’s why I was baptized as “Cesar” : )

        After the current paradigm collapses, people in the Third World should be left to die—as they were left to die due to natural causes: epidemics, hygienics, infant mortality, etc., before the deranged altruism took hold of the Western psyche (cf. what Wm. Pierce said in today’s featured C-C article about Uncle Tom’s Cabin-like sentimentalities). Otherwise westerners only worsen the suffering of the billions of people in the Third World. For the current meta-ethical standards, the mere thought of this proposal is monstrous. But the real monstrosity is to allow these poor bastards to breed into runaway poverty and misery (tell me, who live in Mexico City!). Overseas this situation creates hordes of “orcs” that have invaded our sacred Western soil.

        Yes: the New America will be anti-American (like Covington’s The Hill of the Ravens) or a sterile Luna Park.

  10. Armor
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Drieu: “[Hitler] never thought of carrying out policies that would have forged bonds of solidarity between the occupied and the occupiers. . .”

    The job of the French “resistance”, especially after Germany attacked Russia, was to prevent that. I wonder if raising a large French army to fight along the Germans against Stalin was a realistic idea. It isn’t surprising that Hitler’s priority was to win the war. Drieu’s frustration is understandable, but it confirms my opinion that he was too interested in intellectual pursuits.

    Today’s Germany won’t save Europe. I wish Russia would do something to help a white revolution occur in Western European countries.

    • Posted September 25, 2015 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      Russia is clearly committed to internationalist modernism, even if in a Slavophile Crypto-Soviet way.

  11. Richard Edmonds
    Posted January 4, 2016 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    How could National Socialist Germany but avoid defeat with the whole of the White world ranged in madness against it ?

    The question is, What persuaded the stupid, criminally irresponsible British Establishment to launch a second world war twenty years after the first ? For the inevitable consequences of such insane folly, just look around you.

Post a Reply to Philippe Régniez Cancel reply

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace