The flames spreading across the streets of France reveal something far more significant than yet another eruption of popular rage. Behind the familiar scenes—burning vehicles, shattered storefronts, and police confronting protesters—a political transformation may be taking shape. Similar tensions are manifesting throughout Europe, suggesting that the continent is entering a period of profound instability.
Yet, the consequences of this unrest are proving to be remarkably… convenient for certain powerful interests. Liberal governments are losing what little prestige they have left, the public is demanding decisive action, and right-wing movements are preparing to take the reins of the state. What appears to be the collapse of the existing order could, in fact, evolve into the political mechanism through which that very order renews its power—under a different political banner.
There is something suspiciously theatrical about the sequence of events. Undoubtedly, genuine social grievances exist, and the anger of ordinary people requires no secret organization to explain it. Nevertheless, the possibility that certain aspects of this unrest are being deliberately encouraged, manipulated, or allowed to escalate warrants our serious and careful examination.
A political operation of this nature would certainly not require the fabrication of every social grievance, nor the direct organization of every demonstration. Existing tensions could be exploited through selective provocations, calculated lapses in policing, and the relentless amplification of violence by the media.
Although the existence of a coordinated plan has not yet been proven, the political implications point toward a carefully prepared operation: first chaos, then demands for the restoration of order, and finally the emergence of a new ruling order promising national salvation (recall, in this context, the “conspiratorial” Protocols of Zion!).
The deeper roots of this crisis lie within the liberal system itself. For decades, post-war European governments implemented immigration policies whose social consequences they became increasingly unwilling to address; meanwhile, economic insecurity, the degradation of public services, and the erosion of national cohesion undermined public trust.
The resulting tensions created conditions in which radical movements, criminal elements exploiting the situation, and genuinely aggrieved citizens could find themselves together on the streets. The political establishment then frames this unrest as an “existential crisis” that necessitates emergency measures.
In this way, the very governing system that contributed to the creation of the crisis can claim the authority to resolve it. The public is encouraged to seek protection from forces that may have no genuine intention of altering the fundamental structures of power.
The Liberals
France serves as a particularly striking example. Emmanuel Macron embodies a political order whose power is rooted in technocratic governance, European integration, and close cooperation with the Atlanticist security apparatus.
His failures have bolstered Marine Le Pen and the broader nationalist opposition ahead of the 2027 presidential election. Each new instance of unrest on the streets enhances the appeal of political figures who promise discipline, security, and national restoration. Yet, the critical question concerns the international orientation of the forces that might replace Macron.
A change in government would be of little consequence if France were to continue upholding the same strategic commitments, economic dependencies, and military obligations. Political rhetoric might become intensely nationalist, while the substantive relationship with Washington would remain intact.
The Radical Left
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the radical Left occupy an equally revealing position within this process. While their supporters may view the demonstrations as a struggle against inequality and the failures of the French state, the spectacle of riots and destruction could lead to outcomes entirely contrary to their intended goals.
Every building that burns becomes fodder for the political campaigns of their opponents. Every clash bolsters public sympathy for stricter policing and a tougher government.
The Left risks—inadvertently—contributing to the rise of the Right, by providing the very imagery that could be used to justify a future authoritarian shift.
This does not mean that leftist organizers are secretly colluding with their adversaries. It does, however, illustrate how easily a movement can end up serving political interests that are diametrically opposed to those it believes it is defending.
The (American-Style) Neoconservative Right
The most dangerous outcome would be the emergence of a US-backed neoconservative Right, presenting itself as a “defender of European civilization.” Such a development would constitute a massive political deception. European voters may believe they are rejecting liberal globalism, only to discover subsequently that their new governments remain firmly committed to NATO, to confrontation with Russia, and to American strategic hegemony.
Italy under Giorgia Meloni already serves as an example of how nationalist domestic policy can coexist with strong commitments to an Atlanticist foreign policy. Other European right-wing movements adopt different positions—particularly regarding Russia—and cannot all be placed in the same category.
Nevertheless, the prospect of channeling nationalist discontent into a political bloc that remains loyal to Atlanticism offers an attractive scenario for those determined to preserve Western geopolitical dominance.
The Neoconservative Deception
The thought of Ernst Niekisch serves as an essential analytical tool. His example demonstrates that radical nationalist rhetoric is no guarantee of genuine national independence. A movement may extol the nation while simultaneously pursuing policies that lead, directly or indirectly, to its destruction.
Consequently, from the perspective of the notable Niekisch, the rise of an Atlanticist European Right would constitute a profound historical irony. Parties that invoke national identity, tradition, and sovereignty could end up serving as instruments of a geopolitical order that deprives European nations of an independent strategic existence.
Their opposition to immigration and liberal social policies would provide the emotional impetus required to mobilize the population, while their foreign policy would remain subordinate to a security system controlled by the United States.
Thinking politically and independently, Niekisch would have clearly identified the contradiction between national-revolutionary aspirations and dependence on American power.
The critical issue would concern the direction in which this reawakened national energy is channeled. If its ultimate destination were yet another continental conflict with Russia, then this supposed national rebirth would culminate in a familiar European catastrophe.
The danger intensifies when these political developments are viewed in conjunction with Europe’s accelerating military preparations. Governments are increasing defense spending, bolstering their arms industries, and preparing their societies for the prospect of a protracted conflict.
A nationalist political transformation could provide the popular enthusiasm that technocratic governments struggle to elicit. Demands for stricter borders and greater national discipline could gradually evolve into calls for military sacrifices—all in the name of European security. Furthermore, the modern state possesses sophisticated technological tools for surveillance, coordination, and social control.
The concept of “total mobilization”—coined by the unforgettable Ernst Jünger, another significant contributor to the intellectual sphere of the Conservative Revolution—takes on a new meaning here. A population terrified by internal chaos may become increasingly willing to accept a comprehensive mobilization against a specific external enemy.
The broader geopolitical significance
Unipolar American hegemony has historically been predicated on preventing the emergence of an independent Eurasian concentration of economic, technological, and military power.
A Europe capable of developing a sustained strategic partnership with Russia would command immense industrial capacity, scientific resources, energy reserves, and access to the broader Eurasian continent. Such an arrangement would radically alter the global balance of power.
Consequently, the Atlanticist order abhors the prospect of any new “Rapallo”—any potential Euro-Russian understanding—and maintains a strong strategic interest in preserving European dependency and preventing a viable reconciliation between Berlin, Paris, and Moscow.
Within this framework, the transformation of European politics serves as a tool for sustaining unipolarity through new ideological methods: beware—liberal universalism could give way to a militant nationalism, while the underlying geopolitical structure would remain essentially unchanged.
A truly multipolar European policy
- It would recognize Russia as a significant European and Eurasian power, whose security interests cannot simply be erased from the continental equation.
- It would seek greater strategic autonomy from Washington, while simultaneously establishing independent relations with China, India, and other centers of global power.
Niekisch’s eastward orientation clearly offers a historical precedent for re-examining the relationship between Germany and Russia. The fundamental principle is the independence of Europe’s political destiny.
An authentic European conservatism would defend the historical character of European nations, while rejecting their transformation into instruments of American military strategy.
Sovereignty would need to extend beyond issues of migration, culture, and domestic legislation, reaching into the decisive realms of diplomacy, economic policy, and war.
Therefore, the central risk lies in the possibility that European disorder might lead to a political revolution, the outcomes of which have already been predetermined by existing power centers.
