Rudy Reichstadt Interview | Alex Gilbert #270

Conspiracy Watch chasing conspiracists, Holocaust deniers and antisemites was founded by Rudy Reichstadt in 2007. He published L’Opium des imbéciles : essai sur la question complotiste (2019) and Au cœur du complot, (2023).

In 2014, Marine Le Pen stated: “The concept of the Great Replacement implies an established plan. I do not subscribe to this conspiratorial vision.” Is this a conspiracy theory without conspirators?
Rudy Reichstadt: Conspiracy theories always involve the implicit or explicit designation of a scapegoat, a moral condemnation, and a punishment in some way. It’s about stopping them, neutralizing them, punishing them, etc. That’s what makes conspiracy theories so toxic. They aren’t just questionable beliefs—they are harmful because they involve the search for a scapegoat. In conspiracy theories, there is always the idea of a secret agreement. Why secret? Because there is a plan, an intention. And an intention that is, at the very least, reprehensible—if not legally, then morally.

So, I make a slight distinction between “conspirationnisme” and “complotisme.” When we talk in french about a plot (“complot”) and when we talk about a conspiracy (“conspiration”), we are not talking about exactly the same thing. Etymologically, “conspiration” emphasizes… Breathing together. “Conspiring” together. So, it moves in the same direction. Right? “Conjuration” is different. It involves the idea of an oath. It’s about swearing an oath together. That’s where the emphasis is placed. A plot (“complot”) is defined by its objective—it is confined in time and space. You plot to seize power, to assassinate someone, to carry out a coup, to commit an attack, etc. The idea of conspiracy (“conspiration”) is less confined in time and space.It emphasizes an agreement rather than the goal of the plot. You see what I mean?

It’s the idea that things align, that people move in the same direction. And actually, there’s a non-conspiratorial meaning to “conspire.” It doesn’t necessarily mean that agents have secretly agreed to go in a certain direction. It can simply mean that, in practice, things move in that direction. So when we talk about “conspirationnism,” we are referring to a type of discourse that denounces conspiracies. “Complotisme” aligns more with the French idea of “conspiracy theory.” For me, it’s more precise.

Because another challenge is that we translate “conspiracy theory” as “théorie du complot.” But we don’t emphasize the same things when talking about “conspiration” or “complot.” In American law, “conspiracy” refers to something like criminal conspiracy (“association de malfaiteurs” in French). So it really aligns with the idea of a plot. But in French, the term “conspiration” is looser. It’s more vague. A plot has much clearer boundaries.

“Theories” including the Great Replacement “theory” are flawed assumptions… In 2017, Marine Le Pen claimed, “France is not responsible for the Vel d’Hiv roundup.” Isn’t that pure conspiracy?
Rudy Reichstadt: Isn’t this more a form of revisionism, almost unintentionally? Because I think it’s mainly due to her lack of historical knowledge. What she meant was that not all of France was responsible. Because when people claim that a law didn’t exist, Holocaust denial is specifically about denying the existence of gas chambers. Of course, we should call Holocaust deniers what they are: deniers. People like Faurisson, who claim that gas chambers never existed, are Holocaust deniers. For them, the Holocaust didn’t happen—Faurisson even wrote in a pamphlet that the number of Jewish victims of Hitler was “fortunately zero.” That is denial. That is Holocaust denial. And we are absolutely right to call them deniers. Revising history in a biased way is not Holocaust denial. If, like Zemmour in one of his books, you say you’re not sure if Alfred Dreyfus was innocent, Or if you claim that Pétain saved Jews—it’s a historically debatable claim, but in light of what we know today, it’s historical revisionism, not Holocaust denial.

So, Robert Aron and Alain Michel were not deniers?
Rudy Reichstadt: No, I don’t think so. At least, not Holocaust deniers. Now, to be precise, do they contradict the current historiographical consensus? What makes it fair to label them as revisionists ?

In 2019, Marine Le Pen backed Didier Raoult on hydroxychloroquine, Sputnik vaccine, and opposed mandates, lockdowns, and vaccine passports. Why ?
Rudy Reichstadt: I think she was tapping into a certain sentiment… She capitalized on it, and within the RN, some figures, like Virginie Joron, built their careers on this. She became the spokesperson for anti-vaxxers. And she was never disavowed by the RN for it. Even though RN leadership didn’t make it a core issue. Philippot did. The RN, not so much. But they were still very present in that space.

In 2019, Marine Le Pen told Anna Cabana on i24 that Alain Soral, promoted first “left of labor, right of values” before making unacceptable remarks.
Rudy Reichstadt: In 2019?! That’s absurd! She talks about the time when she met Soral. She is already speaking about the past. She says this in 2019. I think he was involved until 2008 or 2009, right? Actually, I know that in December 2008, Dieudonné brought Faurisson on stage. I don’t remember if Marine Le Pen was in the audience or not. But in any case, from that point on, FN members started to be cautious. Not Gollnisch, but Marine Le Pen, at least. The thing is, Soral and Châtillon are part of the same group.

Her ties to Châtillon remain strong, though she now tries to downplay them.
Rudy Reichstadt: Yes, in 2019, she says that back then, when Soral talked about “right-wing values and left-wing labor,” it was already the time of “égalité et réconciliation.” That was already 2007. “Égalité et réconciliation” started in 2007. And Soral had clearly gone off the rails since at least 2002. He is antisemitic.

Since September 11.
Rudy Reichstadt: Yes, very clearly. There’s a sequence, I think about him, maybe in a special report, where he explains that Jews are responsible for the things that happen to them. Yes, of course. And then, it shifts to Châtillon. So yes, since the early 2000s, there is no doubt that Soral is antisemitic. She took a long time to realize it.

In 2022, she makes a sharp U-turn, pushing for an indirect reference to the “great replacement” in the Constitution, opposing the settlement of foreigners in a way that could change France’s composition and identity. Looks like it’s back in vogue.
Rudy Reichstadt: Yes, actually, it’s funny because when Marine Le Pen says in 2014 that she doesn’t believe in that, that it’s a conspiracy theory, she is in a phase of respectability, media strategy, and normalization of the FN. It’s not yet the RN. So, Renaud Camus’s “great replacement” idea pulls her toward conspiracy theories. She doesn’t want that label. So, she says, “No, no, it’s a conspiracy theory. I don’t adopt this terminology.”

Between 2014 and 2022, the term “great replacement” went mainstream. And she keeps orbiting around it.
Rudy Reichstadt: As far as I know, she hasn’t used it again. But it has become a coded term. Because, in reality, the people who defended this idea have partly won the battle of ideas.

So did Éric Zemmour, Marion Maréchal, Robert Ménard, Tucker Carlson—thanks to Russia Today—managed in about two weeks to transfer the concept of the “great replacement” to the United States ?
Rudy Reichstadt: That’s not the real turning point. For example, in 2019, there was the Christchurch attack in New Zealand, with Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto. So, already in 2019. And actually, “great replacement” is almost an understatement compared to another, more American-centric concept: “white genocide.” “White genocide” is the equivalent of what is called the “great replacement.” But it carries stronger neo-Nazi connotations. It’s really striking. Maybe that explains it.

Then, in November 2023, Bardella claims the RN is “the best shield for Jews”—a phrase from Robert Aron, echoing Pétainist ideology.
Rudy Reichstadt: I don’t know if it’s a deliberate reference to Robert Aron. Probably not, since they don’t read much. But what they say is so simplistic.

We know their texts and talking points are scripted for them. Could this be a strategy to rehabilitate Pétain once more?
Rudy Reichstadt: I don’t think so. No, but… I don’t think so. I respect intellectual rigor. Those who want to rehabilitate Pétain are the hardliners. That’s very clear. They are carrying out ideological and “metapolitical” work that ultimately benefits the RN, distorting Gramsci’s thought. Zemmour’s rehabilitation of Pétain is a necessary step for a policy of “remigration.” If the goal is remigration—literally rounding people up and deporting them by plane, train, or boat—then the only regime that has ever done that in France is Vichy. So, they need to break the taboo around Vichy.

Why is Vichy taboo? Because of its collaboration with Nazism—its alliance with absolute evil. Even Bardella and Marine Le Pen acknowledge that Nazism represents the height of barbarism. So, they have to dismantle the symbolic association between Pétain and Nazism. That’s why they say, “Look, he saved Jews.” Fewer French Jews were deported compared to other German-occupied countries. Which is true, for many reasons. (75%) So, there’s an opening for the argument that “it wasn’t that bad.” In its own way, at its own level.

In Germany, 75% survived too, which is understandable, since they mostly left in 1932.
Rudy Reichstadt: What do you mean?

It’s clear that it wasn’t Pétain’s doing, but we don’t know why 75% survived in France.
Rudy Reichstadt: Yes, it’s fascinating. Laurent Joly has done work on this. Yes, of course. But the Church, too, played a role. There are many factors. Many Jews were in rural areas. They were mostly saved by French society. By the French people. Many Jews. I think it was more complicated. And above all, foreign Jews did not share the same fate as French Jews. Foreign Jews were largely deported. It’s a very complex issue.

In July 2024, Bardella withdrew the RN candidate against Meyer Habib, who got under 10%. Maréchal did slightly better. This debunks the fake news of a strong Jewish vote for the RN, spread by antisemites.
Rudy Reichstadt: If we look at the results from French citizens abroad, in polling stations in Israel, yes, they are French. And yes, they are Jewish. Zemmour got much higher scores there. Much higher than 7%. Nationally, he got 7% overall. There, he got a huge score. But that’s just there. These are French people who chose to live in Israel. They represent only 1% of French Jews. It’s not representative. It’s not a mirror of French Jews.

CNews say French Jews now vote for Bardella.
Rudy Reichstadt: There has definitely been a rightward shift among Jewish voters. I think, rather, that a dam has broken. A normal dam. I think there are more Jews voting far-right today than before. Then, I think there used to be a real form of left-wing antisemitism that existed in that way before. A complacency and tolerance for antisemitism that didn’t exist before.

A few days ago, Jordan Bardella and Marion Maréchal were invited to Israël. She declared, with an unsettling smile, “We have common enemies.”
Rudy Reichstadt: That’s what I was going to say. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. It’s still one of the worst sayings. We have common enemies. After all, that’s what Churchill and Roosevelt did. I think, in my opinion, what she means very simply, very candidly, is… What you can blame us for is still in the past. What matters is the here and now. Above all that.

On the RN website, there’s a petition denouncing the fact that Emmanuel Macron automatically excludes any reconsideration of the 1968 agreements. That’s another huge fake news story, the 1968 agreements.
Rudy Reichstadt: I haven’t looked into it. But regarding great replacement theory, Camus made very openly conspiratorial statements, saying it’s a plan, a project, etc. In my opinion, it’s primarily a racist theory rather than a conspiratorial one. Why racist? Because it assumes this idea of replacement, that human populations are like oil and water, that they can’t mix.

De Gaulle’s quote.
But that’s not true. People meet, they have kids, they mix. And there’s really a fear of mixing on the far-right. There’s this idea that something is lost in it. And so, there’s that. The first lie, if you will, is that… As if people couldn’t meet and have children. And then, what are you? Are you from the replaced population or the replacing population? And then, the whole idea… It’s false. The idea of replacement, it’s the idea of erasing, eliminating, and replacing. But that’s not the case here. Here, we have an addition. And then, people, if native French people have fewer children for other reasons, others have the right to have more children. Don’t they ?

And then, there’s this idea of dramatizing things with the adjective “great.” Great Replacement. It sounds scary. But demographic replacement phenomena, territorial ones, all demographers know about that, all urban planners too. I used to work in Levallois-Perret. In 40 years, we’ve had the replacement of a working-class population that was rather socially disadvantaged, by a bourgeois population. So does that mean we killed the workers? No, we didn’t prevent them, in fact, they left. It’s called gentrification, a replacement phenomenon. But it’s social, it’s not ethnic, the idea that a foreign population would replace the national population, that, in my opinion, is a fantasy.