Debunked: Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi said "We [Jews] intend to turnEurope into a mixed race of Asians and Negros ruled over by the Jews"

Status
Not open for further replies.
This quote is easier to debunk than many as it gives the source it is supposed to be from.
The full text of Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism) is available in its original German as a PDF here: https://underinformation.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/praktischeridealismus.pdf

Searching for likely German translations of key words in the supposed quote does not find any close matches. There is only one reference to "Negro" in the whole text as far as I can see.

However, Chapter 4 (Inzucht – Kreuzung, Inbreeding – Crossing) does talk about racial mixing and the future make-up of Europe, and I believe this is where the garbled version of the quote originates.

Inzucht stärkt den Charakter, schwächt den Geist - Kreuzung schwächt den Charakter, stärkt den Geist. Wo Inzucht und Kreuzung unter glücklichen Auspizien zusammentreffen, zeugen sie den höchsten Menschentypus der stärksten Charakter mit schärfstem Geist verbindet. Wo unter unglücklichen Auspizien Inzucht und Mischung sich begegnen, schaffen sie Degenerationstypen mit schwachem Charakter, stumpfem Geist.

Der Mensch der fernen Zukunft wird Mischling sein. Die heutigen Rassen und Kasten werden der zunehmenden Überwindung von Raum, Zeit und Vorurteil zum Opfer fallen. Die eurasisch-negroide Zukunftsrasse, äußerlich der altägyptischen ähnlich, wird die Vielfalt der Völker durch eine Vielfalt der Persönlichkeiten ersetzen.

Denn nach den Vererbungsgesetzen wächst mit der Verschiedenheit der Vorfahren die Verschiedenheit, mit der Einförmigkeit der Vorfahren die
Einförmigkeit der Nachkommen. In Inzuchtfamilien gleicht ein Kind dem anderen: denn alle repräsentieren den einen gemeinsamen Familientypus. In Mischlingsfamilien unterscheiden sich die Kinder stärker voneinander: jedes bildet eine neuartige Variation der divergierenden elterlichen und vorelterlichen Elemente. Inzucht schafft charakteristische Typen - Kreuzung schafft originelle Persönlichkeiten.

Vorläufer des planetaren Menschen der Zukunft ist im modernen Europa der Russe als slawischtatarisch-finnischer Mischling; weil er, unter allen europäischen Völkern, am wenigsten Rasse hat, ist er der typische Mehrseelenmenschen mit der weiten, reichen, allumfassenden Seele. Sein stärkster Antipode ist der insulare Brite, der hochgezüchtete Einseelenmensch, dessen Kraft im Charakter, im Willen, im Einseitigen, Typischen liegt. Ihm verdankt das moderne Europa den geschlossensten, vollendetsten Typus: den Gentleman.
Content from External Source
Translated (using Google, with my own editing to improve clarity - are there any German speakers who could improve this?)

Inbreeding strengthens character, weakens spirit - crossing weakens character, strengthens spirit. Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind. Where inbreeding and mixture meet under unfortunate auspices, they create degenerative types with a weak character and dull spirit.

The man of the distant future will be half-breed. Today's races and castes will fall victim to the increasing conquest of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, externally similar to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities.

For according to the laws of heredity, the diversity of the descendants increases with the diversity of the ancestors, and the uniformity of the descendants with the uniformity of the ancestors. In inbred families, one child is like the other: because they all represent a common family type. In mixed-breed families, the children are more distinct from one another: each forming a novel variation on the divergent parental and ancestral elements. Inbreeding creates characteristic types - crossing creates original personalities.

The forerunner of the planetary man of the future in modern Europe is the Russian as a Slavic-Tatar-Finnish hybrid; because, of all European peoples, he has the least race: he is the typical multi-soul person with the wide, rich, all-encompassing soul. His strongest antipode is the insular Briton, the highly bred single-souled man whose strength lies in character, in will, in what is one-sided, typical. Modern Europe owes him the most closed, most perfect type: the gentleman.
Content from External Source
In summary: Coudenhove-Kalergi was talking about the benefits and drawbacks of both inbreeding and racial mixing, and the inevitability of this "cross-breeding". Nowhere, as far as I can see, does he discuss it as an intention, nor the idea of a racial underclass ruled by Jews. (Indeed, he says that cross-breeding can "produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind".)

And, as a point of fact, Coudenhove-Kalergi was not Jewish, although he did marry a Jewish woman. So it is rather unlikely that he would write "we" when referring to Jews!
 
Could be fabricated but I haven’t gotten around to researching yet.
Could you not have asked your source for the original German?
Could you not have asked your source for a chapter/section/page reference?
Both of those things must exist in order for that quote to be true.

Sigh, I guess you must have seen my post about hunting out quote sources yesterday...

Looking at this fairly faithful-looking OCR of the original German (which is the only source that matters, if it's been mistranslated, then he didn't say it),
https://archive.org/stream/Coudenho...hard - Praktischer Idealismus (1925)_djvu.txt via https://archive.org/details/Coudenhove-Kalergi-Praktischer_Idealismus-1925
none of the 34 instances of 'asien', and none of the 54 instances of 'juden' seem to be anything like that quote. There's only one instance of 'negr' in the whole doc, not a match, and it's not a sloppy translation of African (as not all Africans are "negro"), and the two matches for 'afr' are also not that quote.

The closest to anything inflamatory I could find mentioning both jews and asians was
Europa ist religiös von Juden, — - militärisch von Ger-
manen erobert worden: in Asien siegten die Religionen
Indiens und Arabiens: — während dessen politische
Vormacht Japan ist.
Content from External Source
which clearly isn't the same thing.

Now German's not a language I'm particularly skilled with, but I consider myself a pretty good pattern matcher, and I'm not finding a match.
 
And, as a point of fact, Coudenhove-Kalergi was not Jewish, although he did marry a Jewish woman. So it is rather unlikely that he would write "we" when referring to Jews!

Perhaps that's an even quicker debunk - the editorialising of "We" to "Jews" is false!
 
are there any German speakers who could improve this?
- I'd translate "Geist" as "mind" or "wit" throughout: dull wit, sharp wit, referring to the intellectual qualities and not the character.
- "The man of the distant future will be half-breed." — "mixed-race" is better, I think. Or "multiracial"?
- I'd "surmount" time, space, and prejudice.
- "Inzucht schafft charakteristische Typen - Kreuzung schafft originelle Persönlichkeiten."— 'Inzucht'=inbreeding, 'Kreuzung'=cross-breeding

By and large, your translation works well.
 
The closest to anything inflamatory I could find mentioning both jews and asians was
Europa ist religiös von Juden, — - militärisch von Ger-
manen erobert worden: in Asien siegten die Religionen
Indiens und Arabiens: — während dessen politische
Vormacht Japan ist.
Content from External Source
which clearly isn't the same thing.
Europe was conquered spiritually by the Jews, militarily by the Germans: in Asia the religions of India and Arabia were victorious, while its dominant political power is Japan.
Content from External Source
Cue the idea that Germany+Japan can conquer the world, a plan that failed in 1945.

I think he must be referring to the judao-christian religions with respect to Europe; throwing Islam and Hinduism/Buddhism on the same pile indicates that this statement is very much drawing a big picture with a very broad brush.
 
In summary: Coudenhove-Kalergi was talking about the benefits and drawbacks of both inbreeding and racial mixing, and the inevitability of this "cross-breeding". Nowhere, as far as I can see, does he discuss it as an intention, nor the idea of a racial underclass ruled by Jews. (Indeed, he says that cross-breeding can "produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind".)

To be precise (using your translation), he says "Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind".

He's definitely not a Nazi nor a racial segregation type racist, nor does he explicitly talk about Jews. But he does propose a kind of a racial ideology whereby a group such as the Jews could be implicitly regarded as representative of just the type of 'meeting of inbreeding and crossbreeding' that, in his mind, creates "the highest type of human being".

I'm quite uncomfortable by the fact that he's still a racist in the sense of ranking human beings by their racial characteristics (the highest type being both a little inbred and a little crossbred), but he certainly doesn't state anything even remotely reminiscent to a Jewish master race to rule the rest.
 
I'm quite uncomfortable by the fact that he's still a racist in the sense of ranking human beings by their racial characteristics (the highest type being both a little inbred and a little crossbred), but he certainly doesn't state anything even remotely reminiscent to a Jewish master race to rule the rest.
He's only using the language of the day, which is insensitive from a modern perspective, and he's a lot milder than much that was written at those times.

Last time I was in the UK, there was a lovely pub with some excellent books on its shelves, and I both amused and shocked myself by reading one of Haldane's books from about the same time period as I sipped my beers. It was a different world 100 years ago. (I think I took a photo of some choice pages, I can hunt them out if you like!)
 
He's only using the language of the day, which is insensitive from a modern perspective, and he's a lot milder than much that was written at those times.

Last time I was in the UK, there was a lovely pub with some excellent books on its shelves, and I both amused and shocked myself by reading one of Haldane's books from about the same time period as I sipped my beers. It was a different world 100 years ago. (I think I took a photo of some choice pages, I can hunt them out if you like!)

Not to forget The Famous Five.

As I stated, Coudenhove-Kalergi's racism is mild in his historical context. Even progressive!

But nonetheless racism.
 
So, what evidence do you have that he holds one race superior? as would be required of a racist?

A type of racism is using hereditary characteristics to imply superiority which he does. Not so much 'one race'. Explained earlier and demonstrated by his phraseology.
 
So, what evidence do you have that he holds one race superior? as would be required of a racist?
From his writings, per @Trailblazer : "Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind.", I suspect he is claiming those "happy auspices" for his own particular - and extensive - blend. From his Wikipedia page:

Coudenhove-Kalergi was the second son of Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1859–1906), an Austro-Hungarian count and diplomat. His mother was Mitsuko Aoyama (1874–1941). His father, who spoke sixteen languages and embraced travel as the only means of prolonging life yet died in his forties, had prematurely abandoned a career in the Austrian diplomatic service that took him to Athens, Constantinople, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, to devote himself to study and writing.

Coudenhove-Kalergi's parents met when his mother helped the Austro-Hungarian diplomat after he fell off a horse while riding in Japan. In commenting on their union, Whittaker Chambers described the future originator of Pan-Europe as "practically a Pan-European organization himself." He elaborated: "The Coudenhoves were a wealthy Flemish family that fled to Austria during the French Revolution. The Kalergiswere a wealthy Greek family from Crete. The line has been further crossed with Poles, Norwegians, Balts, French and Germans".[6] The Kalergis family roots claim their descent from Byzantine royalty via Venetianaristocracy, connecting with the Phokas imperial dynasty. In 1300, Coudenhove-Kalergi's ancestor Alexios Phokas-Kalergis signed the treaty that made Crete a dominion of Venice.
Content from External Source
 
From his writings, per @Trailblazer : "Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind.", I suspect he is claiming those "happy auspices" for his own particular - and extensive - blend.
So, can you back that up with evidence?

Racists typically promote the purity of their own race. C.-K. appears to do the oppisite here, by praising cross-breeding, of non-specific races, and he says that the result is a diverse mix of personalities that's going to inevitably dominate the future. It's the opposite of racism.
 
You have no evidence, understood.

So you think it's OK to consider the hybrid of crossbred and inbred people "the highest type" of people as Coudenhove-Kalergi explicitly states?

If you consider it OK, let me know why?

If not, the moral judgment you make against that type of thinking is, for me, equivalent to our moral judgment against all types of racial ideology.

I don't really care if you don't want to call it racism but I care a little bit if we accept that type of thinking at MB as being OK. I suspect you don't and you're just quibbling as per usual.

Where's the 'evidence' for semantic debates anyways.

Why don't you provide evidence that 'racism' as a concept must be restricted to a very limited claim for superior heredity where the heredity cannot be mixed in any way, or may be mixed only to a certain degree? Where do you draw the line? Under the strictest interpretation of your logic white people cannot be racist because they're highly mixed.

Only proverbial Appalachian inbreds mountain folk can. And voila! we've circled back to Deliverance @FatPhil. :p
 
Racists typically promote the purity of their own race. C.-K. appears to do the oppisite here, by praising cross-breeding, of non-specific races, and he says that the result is a diverse mix of personalities that's going to inevitably dominate the future. It's the opposite of racism.
You didn't read @Trailblazer 's translation through, did you.
"Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they produce the highest type of human being who combines the strongest character with the sharpest mind. Where inbreeding and mixture meet under unfortunate auspices, they create degenerative types with a weak character and dull spirit."

He is defining people by attributing their character and intelligence to their racial mixture (the absolute essence of racism), augmented by his own idiosyncratic definitions of "happy" or "unfortunate" auspices. Nothing to do with racial "purity" ...except that since his racial mixture is not pure, it suggests that he has come up with an ad hoc definition that elevates his own mixture above others.
 
So, what evidence do you have that he holds one race superior? as would be required of a racist?

But it isn't, because "race" and thence "racism" are what cultural theorists call floating signifiers, and - weakening your stance and strengthening @LilWabbit's - their recent variance has taken place in different ways and in different directions. "Race", in attempting to find some precision, but failing, has decreased in meaning to almost meaninglessness, but "racism" has expanded in meaning to cover almost anything tribalistic. And I'm sure you won't agree on that point, beacause it weakens your stance. But by disagreeing on those definitions, you've proved that they are indeed floating signifiers, thus weakening your stance. Best to drop it, it's a dead end argument.
 
But it isn't, because "race" and thence "racism" are what cultural theorists call floating signifiers, and - weakening your stance and strengthening @LilWabbit's - their recent variance has taken place in different ways and in different directions. "Race", in attempting to find some precision, but failing, has decreased in meaning to almost meaninglessness, but "racism" has expanded in meaning to cover almost anything tribalistic. And I'm sure you won't agree on that point, beacause it weakens your stance. But by disagreeing on those definitions, you've proved that they are indeed floating signifiers, thus weakening your stance. Best to drop it, it's a dead end argument.

The only thing almost everyone agrees about racism is that the Nazis were racist. Let's call it the lowest common denominator.

Their racism was based on an ideology of there being a superior human, in contrast to others that are inferior humans, detectable by certain inherited and apparent physical characteristics which imply intellectual and spiritual superiority.

What @Ann K and I are saying is that Coudenhove-Kalergi's explicit words are actually, perhaps unwittingly, proposing exactly the same. Like Hitler's race, C-K's notion is also a social construct and completely pseudoscientific. But very different in detail and in the practical execution of their ideologies. What @Mendel is trying to say (and which I obviously agree with) is that Coudenhove-Kalergi's idea is very open to global mixing of people whilst Hitler's idea is dead against it, and hence C-K's idea is essentially positive, non-violent and progressive especially within its historical context.

And yet, were humanity to accept C-K's new age racial ideology, those that are more mixed could justifiably regard themselves superior over those that are less mixed. They have every right to think so even if C-K never intended to replace the received racist ranking of people with a new ranking of people based on genetic mixing, whereby the more mixed you are, the greater is your strength of "character" and higher your "intelligence". As an additional point, a man of mixed-background himself, C-K appears rather narcissistic self-serving in his liberal praise of interracial mixing.

And all of the above is the more generous interpretation of C-K which is not representative of his precise words as I first noted in response to @Trailblazer. C-K is actually saying that a certain amount of inbreeding combined with crossbreeding results in "the highest type" of humans when it happens optimally.

This is precisely the type of language that dog breeders use when they create new breeds and refine old ones in search of 'ideal traits' that satisfy various human aesthetic imaginings. In fact, in some laguages (e.g. Spanish and German, correct me if I'm wrong), the word "breed" for dogs and "race" for men is the same word. C-K is not saying that the mongrels (the most mixed individuals) are the best, although to state that would also be 'breedist'/'racist'.

He's saying that some weird mongrel-inbred hybrids are the best.
 
Last edited:
The only thing almost everyone agrees about racism is that the Nazis were racist. Let's call it the lowest common denominator.

Their racism was based on an ideology of there being a superior human, in contrast to others that are inferior humans, detectable by certain inherited and apparent physical characteristics which imply intellectual and spiritual superiority.
...
He's [RC-K] saying that some weird mongrel-inbred hybrids are the best.
I'm not versed with the exact quotes, but I believe terminology like "purity" and "hygiene" were in the Nazi "aryan" (oh, my, and that's a word we could also dig into) Nordic ideals, so explicitly an exclusive maintainance of a prior line (that wasn't ever even a line). You can easily point the finger at people like Hitler and Gunther for wording things this way, but it's the absolutely standard Scientific Racism playbook that goes back centuries, they came up with nothing new, even selecting the "Nordics" wasn't new, I think Madison Grant invented that - I wonder if Gunther was familiar with Grant's writing? (Apologies to the Germans recoiling at my lack of umlauts, I type only in ASCII.)

And indeed, this RC-K version is very different in means, despite being almost identical in eugenic ends. A curious case. The g/f's an anthropologist, when she's finished whatever she's doing this evening, we'll have a nice long dig around the subject, this wasn't a side of it I was previously familiar with.
 
He's saying that some weird mongrel-inbred hybrids are the best.
...while saying that others are "degenerative types with a weak character and dull spirit."

You could drive a truck through the holes in that. As in Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"
 
The topic is "Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi said "We [Jews] intend to turnEurope into a mixed race of Asians and Negros ruled over by the Jews""

It is clear he did not say it.
 
It is clear he did not say it.
What sometimes happens is that some person B paraphrases and comments on the content of a book that A wrote, and then C sees that and goes, "A writes in his book that..." and goes with the paraphrase.

Die eurasisch-negroide Zukunftsrasse
That misreads as "future race of asians and negroes" if you omit the "eur" in "eurasian".

The jewish leadership is on p.28:
Was die Juden von den Durchschnitts-Städtern hauptsächlich scheidet, ist, daß sie Inzuchtmenschen sind. Charakterstärke verbunden mit Geistesschärfe prädestiniert den Juden in seinen hervorragendsten Exemplaren zum Führer urbaner Menschheit, zum falschen wie zum echten Geistesaristokraten zum Protagonisten des Kapitalismus wie der Revolution. [28]
Content from External Source
What separates the Jews from the average urbanite in the main is that they're an inbred type of person. Strength of character combines with sharpness of wit to predestine the most excellent jewish individuals to be the leaders of urbane mankind, to be the false as well as true nobility of the mind, to be the protagonists of capitalism and the revolution alike.

So there you have it. He may not have said it, but it's not a terrible misreading to think he did.
 
The NWO aspect of "turn Europe into" from the putative quote is alluded to earlier on page 28:
Diesen jüdischen Propheten der Gegenwart, die eine neue Weltepoche vorbereiten, ist in allem das Ethische Primär: in Politik, Religion, Philosophie und Kunst. Von Moses bis Weininger war Ethik Hauptproblem jüdischer Philosophie.
Content from External Source
These jewish prophets of the present, who are preparing a new era of the world, are primarily concerned with ethics in everything: in politics, religion and art. From Moses to Weininger, ethics was the main issue of jewish philosophy.
 
@xxtects

Article:
Although conspiracy theories about "white genocide" are older, the specific claims related to Kalergi have their origins in Nazi Germany, according to historians Roland Clark and Nikolaus Hagen.

They were circulated, among others, by the newspaper of the Nazi Party, which used xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and racist language to describe Kalergi as "the commercial prophet of Pan-Europe" and "a dressed-up, nasty mongrel" who "dreams of a world of Eurasian-Negroid humans, subject to the God-given rule of the Jews."
 
Last edited:
Chapter 10 deals with the "future nobility of the mind"; the author believes this will spring from the jews. However, he is quite clear in the "Ausblick" (outlook) chapter:
Der Adelsmensch der Zukunft wird weder feudal noch jüdisch, weder bürgerlich noch proletarisch: er wird synthetisch sein. Die Rassen und Klassen im heutigen Sinne werden verschwinden, die Persönlichkeiten bleiben.
Content from External Source
The noble-person of the future won't be feudal or jewish, nor burgeois or proletarian: they'll be a synthesis. Today's races and classes will disappear, the personalities will remain.
 
You didn't read @Trailblazer 's translation through, did you.
That's a disingenous assumption when you saw that I corrected his translation. Trust that I can read Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in the original German.
He is defining people by attributing their character and intelligence to their racial mixture (the absolute essence of racism), augmented by his own idiosyncratic definitions of "happy" or "unfortunate" auspices.
No, he doesn't. He doesn't mention race at all, nor does it correspond to the human typology he presents in the previous chapters. In chapter 3, RCK puts forth the gentleman-bohemien personality dimension, and he puts the English and French at opposite extremes while placing Germans in the middle. You notice that all of these people are the same race. His other personality dimensions lack anything race-like.
 
So you think it's OK
Going ad hominem? My opinion hardly matters, we're discussing Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Where's the 'evidence' for semantic debates anyways.
It's not a semantic debate. You need to bring the evidence that a) your criteria for racism are well-chosen, and b) that Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi fulfils them as exemplified by his writing.
Or don't, I don't care.
But unless you do, you don't have evidence.
 
Thanks for your way-better-than-google (techically, I use deepl, but the quality's similar) translations. As I mentioned above, the discussion of what surrounded this non-quote should be kept as close to the original german as possible.
 
But it isn't, because "race" and thence "racism" are what cultural theorists call floating signifiers, and - weakening your stance and strengthening @LilWabbit's - their recent variance has taken place in different ways and in different directions. "Race", in attempting to find some precision, but failing, has decreased in meaning to almost meaninglessness, but "racism" has expanded in meaning to cover almost anything tribalistic. And I'm sure you won't agree on that point, beacause it weakens your stance. But by disagreeing on those definitions, you've proved that they are indeed floating signifiers, thus weakening your stance. Best to drop it, it's a dead end argument.
I think I'd agree if you called Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi a supremacist: he seems to think there's a personality type that's inherently best suited to lead humanity. These leaders are his nobility of the future. But it's hard to pin down what he's a supremacist of, as he's very vague about it (and states clearly that only some jews have it)—he almost defines a meritocracy, as he proposes that the best and most ethical minds should lead.
 
That's a disingenous assumption when you saw that I corrected his translation. Trust that I can read Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in the original German.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't mention race at all, nor does it correspond to the human typology he presents in the previous chapters. In chapter 3, RCK puts forth the gentleman-bohemien personality dimension, and he puts the English and French at opposite extremes while placing Germans in the middle. You notice that all of these people are the same race. His other personality dimensions lack anything race-like.
Now tell me what non-racial things he could possibly mean by "inbreeding" and "crossbreeding", and whether it could have slipped his mind that he himself was half-Japanese.

From @Trailblazer's comment (admittedly translated by Google):

For according to the laws of heredity, the diversity of the descendants increases with the diversity of the ancestors, and the uniformity of the descendants with the uniformity of the ancestors. In inbred families, one child is like the other: because they all represent a common family type. In mixed-breed families, the children are more distinct from one another: each forming a novel variation on the divergent parental and ancestral elements. Inbreeding creates characteristic types - crossing creates original personalities.
Content from External Source
His understanding of genetics is flawed, of course, but he published this a century ago so that's to be expected.
 
@xxtects

Article:
Although conspiracy theories about "white genocide" are older, the specific claims related to Kalergi have their origins in Nazi Germany, according to historians Roland Clark and Nikolaus Hagen.

They were circulated, among others, by the newspaper of the Nazi Party, which used xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and racist language to describe Kalergi as "the commercial prophet of Pan-Europe" and "a dressed-up, nasty mongrel" who "dreams of a world of Eurasian-Negroid humans, subject to the God-given rule of the Jews."
Still being circulated by the new nazis!

Article:
SmartSelect_20230803-235413_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230803-235617_Samsung Notes.jpg
The founder of the Pan-Europa-Union, Coudenhove-Kalergi, ushered in our demise as early as the year 1923. He wrote in the "Viennese freemason bulletin" no. 9/10, 1923: "The coming human of the future is going to be mixed-race. Paneuropa should have a eurasian-negroid race of the future that produces a multitude of diverse personalities. The leaders should be jews, because fate has provided them to Europe as a new noble race of the mind."
A cursory search for the Freimaurer-Zeitung of 1923 produced no useful results.
 
That's a disingenous assumption when you saw that I corrected his translation. Trust that I can read Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in the original German.
Quite - I do not speak more than the most elementary German and I fully appreciate that my machine-aided translation is likely to lack a lot of nuance. Thank you for your input.
 
Now tell me what non-racial things he could possibly mean by "inbreeding" and "crossbreeding", and whether it could have slipped his mind that he himself was half-Japanese.

From @Trailblazer's comment (admittedly translated by Google):

For according to the laws of heredity, the diversity of the descendants increases with the diversity of the ancestors, and the uniformity of the descendants with the uniformity of the ancestors. In inbred families, one child is like the other: because they all represent a common family type. In mixed-breed families, the children are more distinct from one another: each forming a novel variation on the divergent parental and ancestral elements. Inbreeding creates characteristic types - crossing creates original personalities.
Content from External Source
His understanding of genetics is flawed, of course, but he published this a century ago so that's to be expected.
Already told you. The English families inbreed, therefore they're character-bound gentlemen, very ethical; the French cross-breed, and are therefore witty but ethically careless bohemiens. (Chapter 3)

The burden of proof is on you to show that he brings race into it.
 
Already told you. The English families inbreed, therefore they're character-bound gentlemen, very ethical; the French cross-breed, and are therefore witty but ethically careless bohemiens. (Chapter 3)

The burden of proof is on you to show that he brings race into it.
His words: "The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future".
 
A cursory search for the Freimaurer-Zeitung of 1923 produced no useful results.
yea i did a search for "dreams of a world of Eurasian-Negroid humans, subject to the God-given rule of the Jews." since i think that is the closest to the OP quote so far. no luck.

all i found that had "eurasian-negroid was this pdf..but since i cant translate it or copy the text i have no idea what the section says.
 

Attachments

  • 20000_Chronik_Bd 20_01_2023-03_2023 (1).pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 71
  • 20000_Chronik_Bd 20_01_2023-03_2023 (1).pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 65
a slightly different version of the quote seems to circulate as well

2015
Article:
Our personal philosopher Thumalla posted a reference to the high-grade Freemason Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi

<quote>
"We are striving for an oriental Europe with a Eurasian-Negroid
mixed race of the future. This future mixed breed will outwardly be similar to the
ancient Egyptian breed. The leaders will be the Jews, as the
new nobility of spiritual grace."
Count Coudenhove-Kalergi

</quote>

I don't know where he got it from, but you have your hunches like that. In any case, it's pretty gaga.


http://www.neue-ordnung.at/index.php?id=233
By Wolfgang Dvorak-Stocker
<quote>
Again and again I receive letters that point me to the sinister plan of the "high-grade Freemason Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi", which would now obviously be put into practice, whereby the letter writers refer to book publications by quite honorable gentlemen of the right-wing camp. Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European movement, is said to have revealed as early as 1923 that he wished for the future of Europe a Eurasian-Negroid race of the future under the leadership of the Jews, who represented a noble race by spiritual grace. Again and again it is claimed that Coudenhove-Kalergi "promoted" such a Eurasian-Negroid mixed race or at least described it as "desirable". And again and again it is pointed out that he gave the leadership to the Jews.

In the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi, however, there is no such plea, no such demand.
</quote>
 
His words: "The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future".

There we have it. And even if C-K didn't use the word race, all talk of how a certain type of breeding results in the highest type of human is racist insofar as we would define the superiority of a properly-bred Aryan as a racist ideology. It's evident in the translated text by C-K and hence evidence has been provided already in the OP. To remind, "breed" is "race" in many languages.

And yet, his usage, or anyone else's, of the word "race" is not necessary nor even sufficient to render anyone/anything racist. It's the superiority ideology attached to ancestral traits with a pseudobiological rationale. Supremacism is in-built in such a racial ideology and to quibble whether it's a type of supremacism or racism is utterly silly. @Mendel is stuck on Nazi or classic racial ideology notions of "race" denoting pure unmixed races as if they are, as a brute fact, the exclusive usage of "race" in "racism". The burden of proof is squarely on @Mendel in justifying (or providing evidence which is ridiculous in a semantic discussion) why this is a brute fact, and that therefore an ideology that talks about a more mixed race being superior in character and intelligence cannot be racist.

And yet, C-K even mentions certain Jews as the inbred types of urbanite people that are superior in character and intellect, which is even a narrower category than the "race" of Jews to accord a group a superior human quality. Based on what evidence and what logic talk about these types of Jews being superior in intellect and character isn't racist?

Yes, C-K offers the caveat that such people could also be made to do the worst things under the wrong auspices. But they're still the "highest type".

C-K is racist. But that doesn't mean he's Hitler or that one must qualify as a Nazi or the like to be racist.
 
The jewish leadership is on p.28:
Was die Juden von den Durchschnitts-Städtern hauptsächlich scheidet, ist, daß sie Inzuchtmenschen sind. Charakterstärke verbunden mit Geistesschärfe prädestiniert den Juden in seinen hervorragendsten Exemplaren zum Führer urbaner Menschheit, zum falschen wie zum echten Geistesaristokraten zum Protagonisten des Kapitalismus wie der Revolution. [28]
Content from External Source
What separates the Jews from the average urbanite in the main is that they're an inbred type of person. Strength of character combines with sharpness of wit to predestine the most excellent jewish individuals to be the leaders of urbane mankind, to be the false as well as true nobility of the mind, to be the protagonists of capitalism and the revolution alike.

So there you have it. He may not have said it, but it's not a terrible misreading to think he did.

Agreed.

UNESCO's 1950 Statement on Race defines racism as follows (p. 3):

Article:
Racism is a particularly vicious and mean expression of the caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined groups.


UNESCO's 1951 update to the 1950 document titled Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences artculates (p. 11)

Article:
In its anthropological sense, the word “race” should be reserved for groups of mankind possessing well-developed and primarily heritable physical differences from other groups. Many populations can be so classified but, because of the complexity of human history, there are also many populations which cannot easily be fitted into a racial classification.


Your translation of Coudenhove-Kalergi's excerpt quoted in the above, as well as his statement cited in the OP on the inbred-mongrel hybrids being "the highest type" of humans as compared to the other "weaker" types, fit quite nicely the UNESCO definition of "race" and "racism".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top