Yes, but that includes everyone except the pure-bred races (in the context of 1925 Europe). It's not really a race (and redgreen-blue is not a color, but all of them). It's what you get when you mix up all the races and make them disappear, which is why the real racists object to it.
UNESCO's 1951 update to the 1950 document titled Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences artculates (p. 11)
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".
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi never puts down "well-developed and primarily heritable physical differences from other groups".
You're also reversing his logic, I believe: if you note that the best sprinters are African, that doesn't mean Africans are better at sprinting than others, only that some of them are; possibly due to greater variation. And Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi makes this variation argument directly!
He defines a category of mongrel-inbred hybrids (these are heritable physical differences) and not-too-subtly regards a certain group of Jews to fit the bill. Nowhere does the UNESCO definition imply "well-developed" means 'inbred/non-mixed' as you seem to imply as a brute fact that everyone must accept without rational justification.
Yes, but that includes everyone except the pure-bred races (in the context of 1925 Europe). It's not really a race (and redgreen-blue is not a color, but all of them). It's what you get when you mix up all the races and make them disappear, which is why the real racists object to it.
This discussion is getting way off topic. I approved it because it is a fairly easy quote to debunk, giving that the claim includes the supposed source.
Regardless of the modern interpretation of century-old racial views, the source does not contain the claimed quote in either text or spirit. I think that is clear.
I’m locking the thread now.
Edit: @Mendel sent me a link to a translation of the PDF mentioned by @deirdre in posts #37 and #38.
The 2015 version that deirdre quoted is a translation of what I found in the "Deutschland Report" that attributes it to the Viennese freemason publication:
"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
Content from External Source
The PDF deirdre posted is authored by a neonazi, and it states the quote is fake (Fälschung). It then correctly quotes the same section that Trailblazer bolded in post #2.
