The Transformation of Europe as an Elite Project: Review of The Blackening of Europe, by Clare Ellis

Clare Ellis
The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments
Arktos, 2020.

“When this majority-minority shift occurs, there will be an unprecedented transfer of political power from European peoples to non-Europeans, essentially signalling the final endpoint of Europeans’ sovereignty over their ancestral homelands.”

One of the great tragedies of modern times has been the warped and perverse bureaucratic and institutional form taken by the noble idea of European brotherhood. Once promoted by figures like Sir Oswald Mosley as a means to European resurgence, the unity of Europe in recent decades has instead become a byword for mass migration, repressive speech laws, “human rights” insanity, and ethnocultural suicide. How did it happen? The common understanding in our circles is often very simplistic, relying heavily on caricatures of what has become known as the Kalergi Plan. The Kalergi Plan narrative, as we will discuss below, of course has its merits, and its simplicity is one of them. But for some time I’ve been hoping for the arrival of a text that could be considered the definitive, nuanced, and comprehensive account of how the notion of European unity became a vehicle for European destruction. While Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe was a useful step in the right direction, I believe that it is only with the publication of the first volume of Clare Ellis’s The Blackening of Europe that we finally have the account we deserve. And while I have yet to read the second and third volumes, I eagerly await them in the belief that, taken together, this trilogy will represent one of the seminal ‘Third Positionist’ works of the last two decades.

I have to be honest that prior to the publication of The Blackening of Europe I hadn’t heard of Clare Ellis. This is due more to my own ignorance than any lack of activity on her part, and Clare’s credentials really do speak for themselves. A close associate and former PhD student of Ricardo Duchesne, Clare has written for both the Council of European Canadians and The Occidental Quarterly. I think The Blackening of Europe will, and should, raise her profile considerably. Clare’s research at the University of New Brunswick concerned the demographic and political decline of native Europeans in their own homelands. How much of her PhD material made it into the book isn’t immediately clear, but there certainly seems to be a strong crossover in thematic content.

In brief, the first volume of The Blackening of Europe ambitiously attempts to map the various strands of ideological, political, economic, and social thought and action that combined to warp, define, and pervert the idea of European unity, from its inception to its most modern incarnation. The text features a wide range of information I was familiar with, and very much that I wasn’t, including early eighteenth-century concepts of European unity, the ideas of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, the European-Israel relationship, Arab oil embargoes, theories on cosmopolitanism from Kant and Marx to Habermas and Nussbaum, a critical micro-history of Liberalism, Jewish hypocrisy, and an examination of Conservatism and neoconservatism. Fortunately, given the dizzying array of information being offered for consideration, Ellis is a capable guide, structuring the book is a sensible, well-organised manner, and writing in a clear, insistent, and authoritative style.

Ellis begins the book with a familiar, but no less stark and disturbing, fact: “Indigenous Europeans are becoming demographic and political minorities in European nation-states.” There’s a brief discussion of the collapse in European birth rates, but Ellis is clear on the real disaster unfolding before our eyes: “It is not the low fertility rate of Europeans that renders them ethnic minorities within their own nations, but elite-sanctioned large-scale non-European immigration, which began about sixty years ago and which is now integral to the cosmopolitan EU project.” In the context of this project,

indigenous Europeans and their political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of erasure — stigmatisation, marginalisation, deprivation, and replacement — by mandated immigrationism, multiculturalism, and other methods of forced diversification, while resistance to their political and cultural marginalisation and demographic dispossession is criminalised.

Implicit in Ellis’s account is the accusation both that the decline of Europeans is deliberately engineered and that it violates “various rights of native Europeans as well as international laws that prohibit genocide in any form.”

The book is divided into two parts. The first is “Central Influences on the Formation of the European Union,” which is a mixture of history, politics, and economics. Part II of the book is titled “Deep Ideological Currents,” and is predominantly philosophical and political. The first part of the book is further divided into three sections: “Early European Integration,” “The Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School,” and “International Geopolitical Developments.” In “Early European Integration” we are introduced to the growth of pan-European thought in the middle of the Enlightenment, with references to a European union found in the writings of George Washington, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. These figures promoted unity and cosmopolitanism as a means to bringing peace to a continent long-steeped in almost perpetual war, and Kant’s ideas were particularly influential in the rise of “Peace Leagues” at the start of the nineteenth century. What we see even at these very early stages, however, was a mingling of intentions and differing interpretations of cosmopolitanism. The cosmopolitanism of Kant retained a national character, and was predominantly geared towards the achievement of peace. Europeans within the peace leagues, such as the Union for Democratic Control (UDC, 1914) more or less echoed the same sentiments, but they unwittingly provided cover for those possessing ulterior motives and radically different ideas about cosmopolitanism. Although not mentioned by Ellis, the British Jewish intellectual Israel Zangwill was a co-founder and key figure on the executive of the Union for Democratic Control, and from October 1914 it was Zangwill who provided the UDC with its headquarters.[1] From this base, Zangwill pumped out European “unity” propaganda that attacked what Ellis calls “the nationalist canon,” not with the sole focus of achieving European peace but of promoting feminism and his own idea of “the melting pot” or widespread mixing of peoples and the end of national identity. As is common with such Jewish activists, however, Zangwill was reluctant to live out his own philosophy, marrying within his ethnic group (Jewish feminist Edith Ayrton) and spending most of his life promoting Jewish causes.

Zangwill was probably a key influence on Count Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894–1972), the cosmopolitan geopolitician and philosopher whose name has become synonymous with the worst of the European Union project. Kalergi was himself the product of miscegenation, having an Austro-Hungarian father and a Japanese mother, and he spent much of his life producing a blend of pacifist and European integrationist literature. Ellis carefully contextualises Kalergi, once described by Hitler as a “cosmopolitan bastard,” over the course of some 25 pages, and examines his thought in detail. There were some novel revelations for me, including his self-conscious participation in Freemasonry, his quite extensive reliance upon Jewish finance, and his extremely strange and dangerous fantasy that Jews were the ideal leaders of the future European state. That being said, Ellis provides enough information on Kalergi’s thought to cast doubt on the existence of a clearly-defined “Kalergi Plan.” Much of Kalergi’s work promoted European unity under three banners—peace, civilization (including renewed European colonization of Africa), and trade. Kalergi believed that Europeans shared a common cultural destiny and that Europe should be a world power on the same level as the United States and the Soviet Union. And while he eulogized the notion that the European man of the future would be of mixed race, he does not appear anywhere to have actively promoted immigration to Europe and in fact wrote: “Europe must at all costs prevent that great number of black workers and soldiers from immigrating to Europe.” Ellis comments that although Kalergi was wrong to reduce European identity to a matter of “morals and of style,” he “did not intend for large-scale immigration into Europe from non-European peoples, especially from Africa and the Muslim Middle-East.”

As in the Union of Democratic Control, which housed different goals, interests and ideological trajectories, Kalergi emerges from Ellis’s account as an ideologically and racially confused individual, in possession of eccentric, irrational, and often contradictory theories, and acting often at the hands of much more powerful forces with ulterior motives. By far the strangest of Kalergi’s theories was the idea that the new united Europe should be governed by a “spiritual aristocratic leadership” that “can only be found in the Jewish people.” These traits, according to Kalergi, “predestine Jews to be leaders of urban humanity, the protagonists of capitalism as well as the revolution.” As Ellis puts it:

It would not be the European aristocrats that would lead the new Europe to unification and finally world federation; rather it would be the interplay of the leaders of both Jewish capitalism and Jewish socialism alone who would take over and dominate the forces of European power and determine its destiny.

That Kalergi was probably directly influenced by the work of Zangwill in this regard is almost beyond doubt, and Jewish influence here is compounded by the fact Kalergi was funded by his friend Louis Nathaniel de Rothschild, and the Jewish bankers Max Warburg, Felix Warburg, Paul Warburg, and Bernard Baruch. As well as receiving financial backing, Kalergi was in “constant intellectual dialogue” with Max Warburg, who may have shaped some of Kalergi’s ideas on putative Jewish supremacy. Ellis points out that after World War II, when the first steps towards a unified European bureaucratic structure were being taken, some scholars have argued that “the Pan European Movement and Union were appropriated by people who wished to use it for their own ends.”

These “people,” essentially technocrats, politicians and lawyers, are situated by Ellis within the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School. The Fabian Society, which aimed for a slow and steady socialist revolution in society, is explained as more or less a club of well-intention British utopian socialist eccentrics until it merged in the 1920s with Rothschild finance and received the generous backing of British Jewish banker Sir Ernest Cassel; it also enjoyed the backing of the Rockefeller Foundation and J.P. Morgan. All were involved in the founding of the London School of Economics (LSE) which was intended to train up activists, bureaucrats, politicians for the revolution. Ellis comments:

So here we have a socialist-capitalist alliance whereby Big Business elites utilise socialist institutions to nurture their own aims. This obviously begs a particular question: Why do major capitalists and international finance organizations want to train the bureaucracy for the creation of a future socialist state? Isn’t socialism, in its very essence, antithetical to capitalism? H.G. Wells explained this apparent paradox in 1920: “Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”

Ellis adds that it became the strategy of Fabian socialism to “prefer wealthy elites (intellectual, political, economic) rather than the proletariat (working class) as the source of revolutionary potential.” By 1945, the Fabian Society had taken over the British House of Commons, since more than half of the ruling Labour party’s MPs were paid-up Fabians. The same trends are prominent today, most notably in the example of the Fabian Tony Blair, whose Labour Party during his decade of power (1997–2007) ushered in the biggest ever acceleration of immigration to Britain, and who maintains strong links to Jewish international finance in the form of his close friend and ally Moshe Kantor.

Ellis has a very interesting section demonstrating organic links between the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School, especially in their early stages, and cross-pollination of ideas between British and German socialists. There are clear parallels in the way both groupings set about their destructive tasks with the tactic of gradual infiltration. Permeation, or “honeycombing,” of existing institutions with committed activists and intellectuals was the preferred methodology of bringing about large-scale societal change, and both groupings eschewed the notion of the working class as a viable source for revolutionary socialism. Ellis lists the “products” of Fabian and Frankfurt School activism as:

feminism; affirmative action; deconstruction; the transformation of the traditional family, church, education, and morals; Third-World opposition movements; anti-nationalism; cultural contempt; anti-discrimination; liberal immigration reforms; ‘White Privilege;’ White Guilt; “Diversity is Strength”; ‘tolerance’; Political Correctness; and multiculturalism.

The dramatic changes witnessed in Western society over the last 70 years have been, argues Ellis, wrought by the activity of a “New Class” composed of university-educated, liberal, cosmopolitans who have gained support from financial elites, thus increasing their social capital and expanding their capacity for political action. Both Fabianism and the Frankfurt School are

elite forms of socialism, whether in intellectual political, cultural, or economic terms, as they no longer focus on the working classes. They are bourgeois revolutionary theories that instigate revolutions from above, not below; they are not grassroots or democratic; they are plutocratic, oligarchic, and dictatorial. These socialist intellectuals ‘march through the institutions’ to effect a ‘gradual’ revolution from above and are sponsored by the capitalist forces they supposedly oppose.

The third section of part I, “International and Geopolitical Developments,” is one of the more factually dense elements of the book, but is worth persevering with. The chapter highlights the ways in which early diplomatic support for Israel (led by the United States and Britain) brought Europe into conflict with oil producers in the Middle East, necessitating not only closer economic ties within Europe but also sowing the seeds for the future Islamization of the continent. Ellis dissects the ways in which American imperialism, international finance, and monopoly capitalism influenced post-war European diplomacy and economic recovery strategies (mainly the importation of supposedly “temporary” foreign labor), and links it to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the creation of global institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and NATO — all of which “influenced the opening of Europe and Western nations to non-European immigration from the Third World.”

By a small margin, I found Part II to be more interesting than the first. It’s comprised of a very ambitious survey of the origins and trajectory of all the contemporary ideological currents underpinning the European Union we see today. There are no less than eleven small chapters critically exploring the evolution of cosmopolitanism (including Kantian, proletarian, critical, universal, liberal and pluralistic variants). The text then moves to a three-chapter exploration liberalism, before ending with a three-chapter exploration of conservatism, including a critique of neoconservatism.

I found Ellis’s treatment of the origins of cosmopolitanism to be very interesting, though I felt that something important had been missed in the absence of any mention that Kant had obviously been influenced in his attitudes to tolerance and cosmopolitanism by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the Jewish intellectual activist most responsible for initiating pluralism, multiculturalism, and even “open borders” as political ideologies in Europe. As one scholar has remarked, “there is every indication that Kant read everything Mendelssohn wrote,” and the pair often exchanged letters and books.[2] In other words, Mendelssohn was, in a form of intellectual parasitism or symbiosis, the “Zangwill” to Kant’s “UDC”. Ellis may have been helped to improve this already excellent section with at least some reference to Mendelssohn and the ideologies of his co-ethnics among the maskilim, or even with some information from Cathy Gelbin and Sander Gilman’s 2017 Cosmopolitanisms and the Jews. The latter is, given its authors, far from perfect, but is a good introduction to the ways in which Jews have gone about promoting cosmopolitanism and its offshoots in European society for the last three centuries. In making such a suggestion I am, perhaps, playing to my own strengths, but I nevertheless feel that the Jewish influence in the origins of the most pernicious elements of this strain of thought merits at least some attention in a book like The Blackening of Europe. Jewish influence in modern cosmopolitan theories is, of course, treated in Ellis’s analysis of the thought of Martha Nussbaum, who “advocates world citizenship and internationalism” and “criticised patriotic pride.”

The result of centuries of cosmopolitan thought is devastating:

Identity for Europeans is [today] about legal proceedings, universal abstractions, and individual interests rather than substantial and meaningful bonds that are in the interests of a community of people united by ancestral, cultural, and other ties. … The majority population lose their particular ethnocultural identity in their accommodation of all other ethnocultural identities in a pluralistic and ethnically diverse constitutional liberal democracy. European majorities do not even become a minority amongst other minorities with the right to self-determination, for what determines their identity is solely in terms of rational universal rights and legal procedures; they have a post-national identity only. … It is clear that many cosmopolitanists perceive all European-based countries of the world and, by extension, all European peoples, to be guilty of something or other: Nazism, colonialism, slavery, Eurocentrism or Westerncentrism, global capitalism, being White etc. It is through this narrative that the radical transformation of European societies and European peoples to align with the dictates of some form of cosmopolitanism is justified.

Ellis’s treatment of cosmopolitanism ends with an extremely interesting profile of the modern-day cosmopolitan class, including reflections on their mental health. They are composed of

wealthy and influential elites who are either neoliberals motivated by global capitalism, or else some form of socialist (Leftist, cultural Marxists) motivated by universal values and societal transformation, or they are both neoliberal and socialist: a socialist-capitalist alliance. In either case, their primary identity is global or cosmopolitan, which is completely independent from geography, nation, ethnicity, or religion, and they seek to change the world according to their elite visions and ideals of humanity, the future, and the global economy.

I concur with all the above, my only caveat being that there’s an obvious exception to this rule and that’s “the Jewish cosmopolitan,” who can be socialist-capitalist while maintaining an intense attachment to geography and nation (Israel), ethnicity (Jewishness), and religion (Judaism). One need only look at figures like Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Moshe Kantor, along with the vast majority of the Jewish Big Tech CEOs, hedge fund bosses, bankers, media barons, consumer culture despots, and loan merchants, etc., to see that this is plainly and inarguably the case. What we therefore see in the ongoing story of European cosmopolitanism is the confluence of two separate strains of activism — the generally well-meaning European variant peopled by Kant, the UDC, and some of the non-Jewish utopians; and the Jewish one featuring Mendelssohn, the Frankfurt School, and Jewish Capital. It is the latter that has attached itself to the former, perverting and distorting its vision for their own ends. The present-day European Union is the disfigured and defective offspring of this sinister congress.

Ellis’s analysis of the mental health of the average member of the cosmopolitan elite is excellent. Her assertion that they “have a combined sense of intellectual superiority, moral arrogance, and existential insecurity, often involving fear of ‘natural groups,’” couldn’t be more aptly applied to Jewish activists. One is also reminded of the infamous 2010 confrontation between the Fabian British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy, one of his own voters. Duffy had mentioned a lack of jobs in the context of ongoing mass immigration, prompting Brown to quickly abandon the exchange and get into a departing car. Unaware that his microphone was still on, a horrified Brown was recorded by the media talking to his aides: “That was a disaster—they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? Ridiculous!” Asked what she had said, he replied: “Everything, she was just a bigoted woman.” The cosmopolitan elite in a nutshell — fleeing from reality and full of moral and dehumanizing condemnations of those members of the “natural group” who dissent.

The book’s treatment of Liberalism and Conservatism is equally masterful, and includes a powerful critique of neoconservatism that includes references to, and quotes from, such figures as Sam Francis. It sets the stage nicely for Volume II of the trilogy, which will deal exclusively with the aftermath of Zionist neocon wars in the Middle East, in the form of mass migration and the acceleration of the Islamization of Europe. The volume concludes with an Afterword offering a summary of findings, and a helpful guide to what can be expected in Volumes II (Immigration, Islam and the Migrant Crisis) and III (Critical Views) of the trilogy.

Clare Ellis is to be commended for producing what is sure to be the definitive work on the co-option of the European unity project from its beginning by hostile forces, and for setting down for all time one of the clearest records yet written of the ideological, financial, political, and ethnic interests behind them.

[1] S. Kadish, Bolsheviks and British Jews: The Anglo-Jewish Community, Britain and the Russian Revolution (Frank Cass, 1992), 62.

[2] J. Schmidt, Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 75.

28 replies
  1. Sean McManus
    Sean McManus says:

    Patrick Buchanan’s “Suicide of a Superpower “is the United States version .The chapter on ” diversity ” is brilliant.

  2. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    In any world that remains sane, there will one day be treason trials for “crimes against the nation-state.” The trials will immediately be followed by public executions, after which the criminals will be buried in unmarked graves and all historical references to them deleted.

    Alas, I fear it is the stubbornly politically incorrect who will more likely occupy those resting places.

    • Aitch.
      Aitch. says:

      I read in ‘New American’ that self-styled ‘progressives and leftists’ are launching a campaign called ‘Vote Trump Out’. Claiming that ‘the survival of organised human society is at risk’, they intend, once they’ve prevented Trump from being re-elected, to apply extreme pressure to Biden to pursue their insane policies. They apparently believe in the reality and importance of something called ‘LGBTQIA+ people’, amongst other things. It may or may not come as a surprise to everyone that the prime movers of this campaign are called Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon. ‘Surely not?’ I thought to myself. ‘Not again?’

      • Heretic
        Heretic says:

        It seems unlikely that Joe Biden has anything to do with ‘his’ campaign; its programs, policies or plans. Slow Joe is suffering from terminal dementia, that’s an obvious conclusion from the way Old Joe is hidden from public scrutiny, only makes rare public appearances and then under carefully controlled circumstances with only a friendly press to assist in the deception that the man is still compos mentis. Although I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh I was told by someone who is a fan that Rush believes on some authority, Rush did not say what, that the 22 minute acceptance speech Slow Joe gave when nominated was actually a taped composite edited expertly into one long speech to try to put to bed talk of Joe being non compos mentis. The very fact that the speech was flawless from an idiot like Joe with his history of gaffes lends credence to the idea that the beneficial owners of the Democrat Party are committing another massive fraud to try to seize power, once and for all.

    • Hans Frank
      Hans Frank says:

      Interesting that Treason has basically been stricken from the legal register in both the US and UK since Jonathan Pollard. Now if you are stealing intellectual property or silly things like yellow cake uranium from the US for Israel the court would need to show that you intended to do harm to the US by doing so. Honk honk!

      • Heretic
        Heretic says:

        I would suggest that Jonathan Pollard and his misbegotten ilk are not guilty of treason, they served their true country well. US citizenship or being a British Subject is merely a convenient legal fiction for living the good life but blood is thicker than water and their actions show their true country, not some piece of paper. Perhaps they are guilty of espionage instead of treason the way Chinese students in the U.S. go to work for defence contractors then the same weapons systems magically appear in China a few years later after the former students pay a visit to the home country.

        If one is looking for the true source of treachery look closer to home at government officials and their compatriots in business and academia who perpetuate the fraud that mumbling an oath and a piece of paper make the Jonathan Pollards of the world loyal citizens/subjects. They have done the same damn thing with Chinese “students” now enmeshed in corporate America with the same results only China benefits this time from their actions. The ruling class has sold their countries out for thirty pieces of silver, every single time.

  3. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    “There were some novel revelations for me, including his self-conscious participation in Freemasonry, his quite extensive reliance upon Jewish finance, and his extremely strange and dangerous fantasy that Jews were the ideal leaders of the future European state”

    David Cameron was filmed in March 2016 getting out of car for a Brussels summit sporting the reg plate “1 god 794”. The year 1794 was when the cult of the supreme being was declared during the French Revolution which I think resonates with masons today.

    It caught my attention through a letter I received from a local council organisation in response to litany of complaints I made about their tax payer EU funded shoddy service and my dislike for being given symbolic handshakes by their rep who advised me at one point “its the devil” over my concern about coincidences relating to IT security breaches. I couldn’t help remember that when my sister died suddenly on the day his organisation purported to reply to my complaint.

    To cut a long story short I turned against the EU because I believe its the powers of evil who are in control of it and the One World movement which is echoed in what Jesus declared in the NT i.e. who their father is.

    P.S I had trouble finding a ref to the above car reg (an incredible amount of data seems to have completely disappeared from search results in recent years and I could only find the following citation on the twitter site:

  4. John
    John says:

    The “Sexual Revolution” may also play a role.

    White people get married much later and often have few or no children.

    This may create a need for young, imported laborers from the Third World.

    White people have also largely lost their identity, pride, and courage.

    For example: Look at the White and Christian majority who don’t dare comment on the power of the Jewish lobby in the United States.

    They’re afraid or dependent, in some way or another, on Jewish money. This is especially true of some “Evangelicals.”

    The entire US Congress is afraid of Jews too. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who knows better. I don’t think Jews rule just by money. They rule by fear and intimidation.

    There is not even one person in Congress who has the courage to blow the whistle on the Jewish lobby.

    How pathetic is this?

    And now we see Whites – especially Democrats – actually approving of Black, BLM, and Antifa riots.

    American Whites are headed downhill, even if Trump is re-elected. We are losing our country.

    One has to wonder if Anerican Jews really want a country dominated by rioting Blacks.

    Blacks often do not even like Jews. One has to wonder what Jews are thinking. Will they all move to Israel when things get worse? Do they have Israeli bank accounts?

    • Heretic
      Heretic says:

      ” . . . One has to wonder what Jews are thinking. Will they all move to Israel when things get worse? . . . “

      Most likely their next host is China with India the second choice.

    • Rachel
      Rachel says:

      You are mistaken. Cynthia McKinney exposed the fact that anyone running for Congress has to write out a statement explicitly stating thier future support of Israel if you want funding. She said what happens is these very nice people come to you and provide you with money for.your campaign and then you get a request to write iut the statement. If you do not write out the statement they not only withdraw the funds but they will fund your opposition. She also spoke out against 911 and she was on that boat bringing aid to Gaza that got sent away and rammed to the point it took on water.. Look her up..

    • W. Poe White
      W. Poe White says:

      You say “One has to wonder if American Jews really want a country dominated by rioting Blacks.” Once the danger of organized White resistance is past and the Jewish led Globalist class is securely in power they will not tolerate Black rioting. Blacks are being encouraged to riot as a means of preventing White people from waking up en masse and organizing to take back America.

      What is in the offing is technocracy. We can already see the broad lineaments of the coming Brave New World Order society: Automated electronic AI panoptical surveillance with automated AI psychological evaluation and social credit scoring; digital currency; mass dependency on UBI; AI police and surveillance robots; automated AI censorship; disinformation and suppression of factual information; technocratic planning; Agenda 21 corralling of the masses in “smart city” megaurban zones; GMO crops grown hydroponically in vertical farming high rises and artificial foodstuffs industrially manufactured in vats; authoritarian imposition of medical treatments such as vaccines; among other technocratic futurist horrors yet to be developed (think transhumanism).

      The drowning of the White race in a Zangwillian/Kalergian melting pot is one more feature of this coming technocracy. The Globalist technocrats have decided that racial difference and racial preference are obstacles to building their Brave New World Order. They see the opportunity to build their utopia in the White Western countries first. Homogeneous White populations stand in the way. Engineered mass non-White immigration into all the White homelands is their technocratic solution. In the future the other Gentile races will no doubt undergo the same thorough miscegenation. Miscegenation is merely the prelude to the transhumanist transformation of the human organism which will come in due course as biotechnology and AI advance.

      The Jews play a special role in this process. They are the self chosen Moshiachs of technocratic Globalism. They – or rather their leadership – have embraced the infinitely radical and infinitely destructive project of technocratic Globalism as the concrete form their tikkun olam will take. Their leaders see technocratic Globalism as the fulfillment of their long projected “perfection of the world.” They – alone among ethnic peoples – see the cosmopolitan merger of all Gentile peoples into one consolidated polity, society and breeding population as being in their group interest. They calculate that they alone among peoples can retain their peoplehood in the Globalist cosmopolitan mix – analogous to intelligent amphibians plotting to takeover humanity by flooding all human lands a la Karel Capek’s early science fiction novel “War with the Newts.” They further expect that Jews can remain first among equals within the global rainbow elite class indefintely.

      The Jews are deluding themselves. Technocracy will end up being their doom along with the rest of us. But they are too short-sighted and obsessed with the opportunities for power near at hand to trouble themselves thinking about what it will lead to by and by.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Good comment; thank you.

        You say, “One has to wonder if American Jews really want a country dominated by rioting Blacks.” Once the danger of organized White resistance is past and the Jewish-led Globalist class is securely in power they will not tolerate Black rioting.

        I’d say that the fix is already in, the odd miscalculation or fragment of youthful excess notwithstanding.

        … they are too short-sighted and obsessed with the opportunities for power near at hand to trouble themselves thinking about what it will lead to by and by.

        Agreed. Even so, barring a calamitous misstep on their part, “by and by” is likely to be a century—at the very least.

        • W. Poe White
          W. Poe White says:

          You linked to a blog discussing an incident in which an Antifa rioter smashed a Synagogue window by mistake and was horrified when he was informed of the fact. There was a Synagogue with adjacent Masonic temple a stone’s throw from where Kyle Rittenhouse successfully defended himself against Antifa attackers in Kenosha. The three Antifa who Kyle shot in self defense were all Jews. You can be sure that there will be no damage to the Beth Hillel Synagogue and the Order of the Eastern Star Masonic temple. I wonder if one of these buildings was used by Antifa to gather to plan the night’s rioting?

  5. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    Why does the book not mention the American occupation of Europe since WW2? It was not the communists who forced the Europeans to leave Africa, but the Americans. This caused the death of millions of men, women and children. Stalin made very sensible suggestions to the American President ( the shopkeeper, not the cripple), but the Americans used their stooges in Europe to set up NATO, cause trouble and obey the East Europeans who call themselves Jews, but are not Jews.
    When you add together the murder of Native Americans, the support of both sides in the World Wars, their support for communism and all the other wars they have caused,the Americans have caused the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of millions of human beings.
    There is good news and bad news.
    The good news is that the USA is destroying itself.
    The bad news is that Europe will never survive the American occupation.
    All civilised nations must have African immigration to keep the Uncle Toms in the American Congress happy.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “American” government has been run by communists for at least 107 years.
      Therefore the occupation of Europe was done by communists

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      And the article also doesn’t appear to mention the domination of finance by Jews, as exemplified by the 1913 Federal Reserve (and the consequent currency inflation, providing a very rough indication of Jewish waste). And it seems Ellis didn’t even mention the Talmud, which seems likely to be a main source of ‘Jewish’ attitudes. The author sounds to me (I haven’t seen the book) overconcerned with ‘ideas’, and their ‘origins and trajectories’, of the sort which Jews have funded as long as they existed, Christianity being an example. It’s a standing temptation for academics to consult reference books for strands of belief, many of which were directed by Jews with Jews in mind. And this helps to muddy the waters, and in fact invent new irrelevancies.
      There are many examples in this piece and the comments; I wish these people were less naive. Joyce doesn’t specifically say so, but it seems Ellis doesn’t even discuss ‘Jewish cosmopolitans’. A commenter says ‘There is not even one person in Congress who has the courage to blow the whistle on the Jewish lobby.’ – They’re paid by Jews to do that! And people are paid to pretend BLM people actually believe their rubbish! Someone says Churchill didn’t want race mixing, presumably on the basis of a well-known marginal scribble; but who knows what he really believed? Some says Trump is opposed – and for evidence they quote Jews, known to tell lie about everything! I’d guess the opposite is true – they’re happy with the ‘achievements’ attributed to Trump, but want to pretend the opposite, and put up the ridiculous Biden and running mate to underline the point.
      May I just make a point on ‘nations’ which I fear are largely another Jewish fake to suit themselves. Italy, Germany, and Japan (I think) were only unified in the late 19th century; and many countries have areas (Basques, Brittany, Andalusia – just three) which don’t really fit the scheme. Whites referred to themselves as ‘Europeans’.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        It’s a standing temptation for academics to consult reference books for strands of belief, many of which were directed by Jews with Jews in mind. And this helps to muddy the waters, and in fact invent new irrelevancies.

        What you outline is the precise modus operandi of Wikipedia.

        … a point on ‘nations’[:] … Italy, Germany, and Japan (I think) were only unified in the late 19th century; and many countries have areas (Basques, Brittany, Andalusia – just three) which don’t really fit the scheme.

        I am not aware of a single English-language academic historian, major or minor, of the past 150 years who does not treat as eminently desirable all movements, tendencies, events, and personalities that bring about or aim toward ever more comprehensive political unification. It is a mind-set I first noticed in the eighties with regard to historians of ancient China, all of whom treat centripetal tendencies—an ever larger, ever more unitary China—as positive and centrifugal, fragmentative tendencies as negative. The relationship of power and centralization to the ordinary Chinaman’s quality of life in any given epoch is never discussed. Much the same may be said for historians of the Holy Roman Empire, for all of whom Napoléon is a hero for having destroyed its remaining several dozen kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and even more marginal independencies.

        This inculcated bias to admire the imperial, the unitary, and the centralized and to mistrust the local, the marginal, and the independent invariably works to the benefit of the Jews—and to our harm.

        • Rerevisionist
          Rerevisionist says:

          Hi, Pierre. Yes, of course there is that. But also there’s an amorphous, fungal, aimless, timewasting temptation – as shown in ‘postmodernism’ for example – where strands of thought don’t even have a hidden purpose, but simply waste time and effort. May such practitioners wate their lives – but since they get paid for it, they don’t mind. Clare Ellis’s material sounds as though it leans that way.

  6. 9593
    9593 says:

    “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” in America are playing out ow with the culture of looting, arson and hate crimes against the police – and randomly-selected white people. Surely, not what was intended. The controlled media and the Democratic Party are in denial. One could call the situation to be another impending denouement, come November.

  7. Mark Chess
    Mark Chess says:

    A great article very concise and clear.

    I think he text makes it clear that a lot of jews in Europe have deliberatly participated in a huge FRAUD. While these individuals have supported the etno state Israel or a jewish etno state and married within their own people in a traditional way, they have pushed for racemixing and universialism, no borders, anti etno culture of others anti people being allowed to have an identity with the region they live in or an ethnic identity.

    This is something they have reserved for their own people.

    And in effect almost forbidden for others.

    The holocaust has certainly made this madness and massimmigration something that has been harder to argue against.

    Pushing the meltingpot mixing of “races” while maintaining a clear racial ethnic identity and belonging to a peoiple for themselves.

    And jews aint even the people they used to be in the bible anymore according to studies.

    I read DNA studies and there were blue eyed people in northern Israel 6’500 years ago. Most jews used to be related to 4 Italian women (European white women are between 40 % and 80 % of their DNA on the female side). Then they were probably white levians, like there was also in Egypt or the like to some part, but it seems clear to me they used to be white most of them. Then they mixed with arabs (3 % to 8 % on the averege), but I read that 75 % of jews have origin in the middle east of some kind, but then 25 % has no origin in the middle east. So no middle eastern DNA there supposedly. And then they mixed with sub saharian africans and are on the averege like 3 % to 5 % sub saharian african.

    And some jewish king, was in David cursed the subsaharian africans and the syrians, so the arabs, syrains and subsharains are cursed races.

    I don’t think it was GOD’s intention for whites to mix like this.

    And now some racemixed idiot doctors claim it’s good with racial mixture because the offspring can be taller.

    I know mulattos they are often short. Jews tend to be short.

    Jews were smarter before they mixed, hence at the time GOD’s chosen people. Jews continue to make good things in the industry and science.

    But their cousin in politics and many of them in IT and the type of “intellectuals” and politicians mentioned are truly a plague.

  8. jimmie Moglia
    jimmie Moglia says:

    If I may, it’s all very well to dismiss the importance or influence of Kalergi on the current blackening of Europe as ‘simplistic.’ But it’s fair to say that every massive or revolutionary movement has a beginning, a core idea and someone, or some organization proposing it – accompanied by sufficient clout, money, charisma and luck. Kalergi may not have had charisma, but he had money, generously supplied by two Jewish bankers, plus support from major Masonic cells and influential Masonic politicians and personalities in Europe and America, throughout his career. I finished translating into English Prof. Simonetti’s book, “Kalergy and The Disappearance of the Europeans.”
    It is of course difficult to weigh Kalergi’s influence on the mass-migrations into Europe from Africa and Asia. His writing is occasionally contradictory and/or confused, but his statement about limiting black workers should be compared with his other statements on migration. Such as the proposition that the Europeans of the future will be of mixed breed – brown men similar to the Egyptians painted in the Pyramids. A miscegenated inferior breed performing whatever manual labor is necessary, and that will reproduce via ‘free love.’ This same breed will be ruled by a class composed of Jews married to the heirs of European nobility – the ‘mixed’ marriage of Jews with European nobles being necessary to overcome the effects of millenarian inbreeding.
    Kalergi’s efforts were interrupted by WWII but took off again soon after. It is historically interesting that in 1962 the Vatican II triggered the current Judaeization of the Catholic Church, and that in 1965 the United States opened the borders to third world immigration.
    While in a recent statement Pope Bergoglio promoted the copulation between Africans and Europeans on the ground that the Madonna was of mixed breed. And in 2016 he was the recipient of the Kalergi/Charlemagne award. Maybe they are all coincidences. For there is indeed a coincidence of interests between and among economy, finance, official and criminal enterprises, mob, cliques, politicians, Zionists, marauders and plunderers in the global cupola. Where ‘cupola’, a metaphor mediated from architecture, meaning ‘dome’, perfectly conveys the sense of a comprehensive protective environment. An environment that erases the very notion of crime and makes it a property indistinguishable and consubstantial with the business of living.

  9. Philip Smeeton
    Philip Smeeton says:

    To every thing there is a season
    A time to be born, and a time to live; a time to plant, a time to reap
    A time for revenge, and a time to kill,
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
    a time to stand up, and a time to speak;
    A time of love, and a time of hate; a time of war, and a time to kill.

  10. Mark Chess
    Mark Chess says:

    Kalergi was married to a jewish woman hence his wife was probably part arab and small part subsaharan african.

    On race he surely wanted races to mix, in wikipedia it sais that he wrote:

    “In his 1925 book Practical Idealism, Coudenhove-Kalergi envisioned an all-encompassing race of the future made up of “Eurasian-subsaharan-afdricans[s],” replacing “the diversity of peoples” and “[t]oday’s races and classes” with a “diversity of individuals.”

    He used the n-word commonly used at the time and due to censorship/banning issues from IT companies, I changed it above.

    So he wanted a racial mixture of whites, asians (where east indians and supposedly arabs count as asian) and sub saharian africans.

    So it seems he wanted to kill the white race.

    Then e wanted people that were like his own children part nobility and part jewish to control the continent. So essentially pushing his own offspring aswell as his sponsors.

    But painting the EU as only this is simplistic. It has certainly been used to try to do this but there are other views in the EU project. A leading figure was Winston Churchill who wanted to keep Brittain white. Which is of course why the subsaharians afros wanna tear down statues of him.

  11. katana
    katana says:

    Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

    [The is the 8th video in the Talmud & Taboo series from The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

    Here Joyce discusses the origins of the terms “semitism” and “anti-semitism“, or as the jews would prefer the un-hyphenated version “antisemitism“, as it hides the existence of something to be “anti” against.

    He then goes on to discuss the nature of semitism and its anti-European nature, using Ireland as an example and the jewish academic Ronit Lentin and her deceptive version of recent history and how Ireland needs more non-Whites. She cites how Ireland’s poor record of accepting jews into Ireland whilst they were being “burnt” in Europe during WW2 is evidence supporting her promotion of more non-White intake.

    Joyce then talks about how “semitism” is not only about jews who support semitism, but also non-jews, like Christian Zionists, who carry water for jews.

    He then cuts to the chase. Those who support semitism are anti-European, while anti-semites support Europe and Europeans.

    And never the twain shall meet.

    — KATANA]

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Thank you, Katana, for a terrific précis of episode 8 of AJ’s commentary on the Talmudic enemy. You haven’t neglected a single important point, and that is far from an easy trick to turn. What’s more, your summarized transcript doesn’t compel one to wrestle with a Belfast accent [wink].

Comments are closed.