Talk:Kalergi Plan

Looks like Turning Point USA and a website are behind the attempts to rewrite history here
Someone named Peter Meyers is tracking this article using the fake title for the book. Article on Turning Point's involvement. Doug Weller  talk 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be restoring the deleted text, ie conspiracy theory, etc.
These descriptions were all obvious and simply needed better sources, eg:. -- Doug Weller talk 19:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Totally biased presentation
The entire article is devoid of all objectivity. The very term "conspiracy theory" is a subjective value judgment, communicating nothing but the author's own highly biased opinion. None of the sources quoted can be considered impartial. The whole article should either be totally rewritten or scrapped. The entire article is politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelli (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "None of the sources quoted can be considered impartial." Sources are not supposed to be impartial. Per the policy on Biased or opinionated sources:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Nor can they be considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelli (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not change your contribution after someone has responded to it. I dated your text and split off the belated part. You are welcome. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

47.208.75.55 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)What right does Wikipedia have to make value judgements about other peoples beliefs? The Kalergi Plan is taken seriously by all sorts of people and it is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether it is a 'conspiracy theory'. Unbelievable levels of bias here. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and impartial.
 * Taken seriously by all sorts of ignorant people, yes. See WP:YWAB.
 * Wikipedia does not decide that. Reliable sources say that and Wikipedia quotes them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And who is the almighty and all-knowing who decides what is a reliable source or not. And that is the point. Daimler92 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer is here: WP:RS. Maybe you should get a mentor who explains the basics to you.
 * I also suggest that you should adapt the size of your ego to the amount of your knowledge about Wikipedia editing. WP:RS is really, really basic, and everybody who does not know it is very, very green. WP:WAR is also really, really basic. WP:BRD is another page that would help get you up to scratch. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't knew that editing without proof is considered here following the basics, cause that's what users did and therefore attacked me when I asked for this proof. Daimler92 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean editing without proof, what edit are you talking about, as all of the stiff I can see is sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "Proof" is not a concept relevant for Wikipedia. "Asking for proof" is not what you did wrong, edit-warring is what you did wrong.
 * I linked pages where the basics are explained. If you do not want to read them and follow them, that is your problem.
 * Red herrings and other rhetorical tricks will not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Would be a good start when you could hold on the basics by yourself and maybe get a mentor on good manners (see above) Daimler92 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, it's everybody else's fault, not yours.
 * Just stop it. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you try to edit in a way that is not productive, people will tell you. That is what has happened here. Now it's over. Please pout somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You first calling other people ignorant cause they don't share you point of view, then make fun of me just to going over to how this is a page for discussing improvement to the article. What a absolute joke. Daimler92 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are still not contributing to article improvement. You made a mistake, people called you for it, that should have been the end of that. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Sources to suport kalergi-plan
There are sources that support the kalergi-plan on wikipedia itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44d:793f:1:41ca:8e6a:b093:ce98 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * They do not support the conspiracy theory. Red Jay (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It does since the award winners are proponent politicians that support pan-european open borders and miscengetaion of whites. I also have had the pleasure of talking to pro-EU influential people that believe in miscenegation of white people personally. Secondly there are documents from the post-WWII era that show indeed that they would like to islamize europe which is supported by present day pro-immigration treaties and the existance of islamic colonies within europe itself. Or even taking a look at marketing agencies that barely portrait a white family anymore but mixed-race couples at almost every advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44d:793f:1:41da:59a6:49d4:7117 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All that does not matter. Read WP:RS to find out what is needed for material to be added to Wikipedia. Read WP:SIGN to find out how to sign your contributions on Wikipedia Talk pages. Read WP:INDENT to find out how to denote who responded to who. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source wiki deems "reliable"? Considering Baron Louis de Rothschild was a close friend with Kalergi I think you'd bee hard pressed to find a "reliable source" that said "yes please print statements about the internal world views of the Rothschild family on wikipedia that some might find in questionable taste like promotion of miscegenation." 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:30CC:27DC:2154:E0D8 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think youve lost the argument when you just keep telling me to go learn how wikipedia works. When Im telling you how wikipedia works to create a bias platform based on "reliable sources". Here in this other example the conspiracy is Im a nazi because I use my activist investor status to promote nazi ideology in media and all wiki deems "reliable sources" agrees with me Im not a nazi. Also I refuse interviews with hard hitting questions like "what are your opinions on miscegenation"..Also Im heavily invested in "reliable sources". The ones that are not considered reliable by wiki are the ones I dont invest in. Its a double edged sword. Hate the game not the player. 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:30CC:27DC:2154:E0D8 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, it's very simple. This Talk page is for discussions about how to improve the article. Not for you telling us why you are a Nazi or whatever. Go do that somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is "Praktischer Idealismus" a 'reliable source'? Because their he envisions a mixed race future with the replacement of present ethnicities by a globally mixed one. Now while a vision is not a full-blown plan, it still implies one. One can conclude that from other converging evidence as well. --105.12.4.191 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One can conclude Wrong approach. You or other users do not conclude stuff and put the conclusions in articles. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok I just checked to see if Fox news is considered a reliable source. Because that Tucker guy wilds out about replacement theory every Friday, but wiki says: "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics". But if you watch his show his pieces on replacement theory will always cite evidence from sources wiki deems reliable. Reliable sources have been at saying the quiet part at loud for awhile now. But "its opinion pieces by the author, representing the solely an opinion of the author"...That receives a platform..That the Advertisers of the companies have no problem with platforming, along with their activist investors. It's like saying yeah I hang out with Hitler. I introduce him to my friends and financially support his political motivated organizations. But it doesnt mean we share similar world views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:30CC:27DC:2154:E0D8 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tucker is Fox, not Fox News. And reliable sources filtered through a shithead cease to be reliable. Please stop preaching whatever your worldview is here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ANd how is this not related to politics? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Edits without proof
So what to do about users who assume something without any proof and edit the page? One users assumes that the famous quote of Kalergi is a misunderstanding without quoting any parts of his book which should proof this point, then going over to reverting my and others users edits and now I get even threatened to be blocked from Wikipedia. Is this how things work here? Daimler92 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am new to this article, but you have clearly been edit warring on this article, trying to get your preferred version through. Please read the WP:BRD page: when one makes a bold edit to the encyclopaedia, and it is reverted, then a civil discussion should happen on the talk page, rather than reverting edits and forcing your preferred wording into the article – for which you have no consensus. This is why placed the notice on your talk page. Also, vandalising the page, and then undoing your vandalism but still trying to push your edits isn't going to endear you to editors, exactly.
 * But I do agree that the unsourced "misconstrued" comment should be removed unless there is a source saying how this quote was taken out of context. —Bangalamania (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source says White nationalists mine his writings for evidence. In other words, they misconstrue (deliberately or not). See quote mine. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mining for evidence does not necessarily, or even primarily, mean falsely interpreting the material. And it's not clear the WN's are (or aren't) misconstruing Kalergi's text.  The problem is rather that the conspiracy requires a chain of influence going all the way from Kalergi to recent European migration policy. The burden of proof is on those making the (extraordinary) claim, but because it is recent, there are also no sources proving that a previously uninteresting chain of non events never occurred, i.e. Kalergi had nothing to do with migration from outside Europe. The result is that neither the theory nor its refutation are explained properly anywhere that can be cited. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hold a moment, it wasn't me who did revert the edits as first. I edited it and MY EDIT go reversed without any talk or proof. And that's unfortunately very common here. About vandalizing: I reversed my own edit cause my smartphone did an error, which should be logical, else I wouldn't revert my own edit. Daimler92 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, not our own wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Some possible sources
, and in particular  which seems to be written by a reliable source. The author of that source says " This claim was based on a distorted reading of his books combined with outright fabrications. " Doug Weller  talk 11:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is better wording.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The rantt.com post is the most detailed source found thus far (nice catch). Note, though, that the claim it says is distortion and fabrication is the Nazi party daily's summary of Kalergi in 1940, 60 years before the notion of a "Kalergi Plan" existed and before immigration, EU or globalism were on anyone's mind. To get from there to saying the much later idea of a Plan is itself a fabrication would be SYNTH.  All the sources that assert misconstrual do not explain what was misunderstood from Kalergi.  The Irish Times source comes close when it says Kalergi wanted a "heterogeneous" Europe but this appears to contradict his quotation about distinctions between peoples being replaced by distinctions between individuals.  Obviously further analysis of the text can be done but nobody appears to have published such a thing in connection with refuting a "Kalergi Plan".
 * What this article does provide that was not in previously used sources is the chain of Nazi and neoNazi antecedents for the preoccupation with Kalergi. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"stems from a misconstrued section" of one book
The Italian source in Linkiesta names two of Coudenhove Kalergi's books, not one section of one book, as the material used by Honsik in his 2005 book that introduced the phrase "Kalergi Plan". The second Kalergi book is the pan−European manifesto from 1923.

I think the language like "misconstrued" and "fabricated" should be avoided until there is a source stating what is the misinterpretation. Kalergi wrote absolutely seriously about Jews being a superior master race, herrenrasse, due to Darwinian selection (what he calls artificial selection) through historical persecution, forcing the weak to leave and convert to Christianity; and that in the emerging new European elite based on intellect, Jews would be a natural leadership and nobility. Kalergi was an anti−anti−Semite, but how his view differs from the Nazi interpretation of his words is open to debate and no RS has explained it. It is also unclear how his predicted new Eurasian−African man was supposed to arise without large scale population movement.

The correct narrative seems to be:

1. Kalergi denounced by Nazis, and neoNazis after the war

2. Later, far right opponents of non−European immigration mine his writings for material

3. Kalergi and his writing may or may not be misconstrued in steps #1 and #2, but have no known connection to recent immigration policy. That's what makes it a conspiracy theory.

Sesquivalent (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How can someone say Kalergi is an anti semite when he writes that 'jews are the spiritual leaders of europe'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.156.121 (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Most versions of the theory depict Kalergi as being Jewish"
This sentence has no sources, and devalues the article by having it in the opening without a source. Considering the nature of the sentence, I won’t touch it for now. However, if someone could add a reliable source to it as soon as possible, that would be great. I’ll check back in a few days and if there is no opposition on this talk then I’ll remove it. I would like to give an opportunity for the point to remain on the article (if it’s valid).

I have done a little bit of digging on the point raised and have not found any sources that I would consider to be adequate. I feel as if the person who originally wrote the sentence also struggled with this, considering no sources were given.

Cheers Corona1112 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Follow up from yesterday - there has been no objections to this change, so I have removed the sentence. Please discuss here before reverting the edit. I have given appropriate time and consideration to the matter prior to editing, so I would appreciate the same consideration.

Cheers Corona1112 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Elaborate
Could you please elaborate WHY this is a hoax, a far right conspiracy?

The fact that around the time CK wrote Pan Europa, the white European people amounted to 25% of the earth's population. Now, it is significantly less, and will be around 7% in a few years.

Also, the Masonic support & financial backing from them is not mentioned. Why? Murray Butler for example.

If you insist on dismissing the Kalergi Plan as a hoax, an antisemitic conspiracy theory, please provide contrarian evidence.

It seems it is avREAL conspiracy. 103.100.175.176 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * So you think that the decrease of the percentage of Europeans was caused not by simple mathematics (increase of the world population, happening mainly in developing counries, therefore the percentage of Europeans sinks), but by a conspiracy?
 * Weeelll, you should really try other websites for that. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on the weird ideas of random people on the internet.
 * Unless you have reliable sources for whatever ideas you have, we will not consider it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have contrarian evidence in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What is reality and what is conspiracy theory?
We had to make sharp difference between facts and fantasy/conspiracy in this article.

Kalergi Plan was created and it is existing part of the past. Real existing things can not be handled as conspiracy or fantasy. The Conspiracy can be the belief, that leader politicians, economic leaders and media moguls globally and directly support that plan. (There is no proof for that at all) --Allerogen (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are reliable proof/sources that Kalergi imagined a multi-culti future (multi-racial) for Europe. HE expressed it many times. However there are no proof that the global politician economic and media elite conspired to execue that plan. It is important that he imagined it in Europe. However there are no "White nationalism" in Europe, it is an American origin name/phrase for an American social phenomenon. White is not a "nation" especially in European sense, white is a so-called "race". So the white nationalist phrase in this European context is very misleading. We can use racist term i the article, but not white nationalist. Allerogen (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:or, we need sources to support any change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since "White nationalist" was not used in the reference, it is deletable. I'm not supporting the usage of American social phenomenons in an article which is centered around the European continent. "white nationalism" exist in USA, but in Europe White is not a nation just a race. The correct term in the article is racist. Allerogen (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I shall change it to what the source supports. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The beginning of this point seems like a helpful clarification as well: that Kalergi did describe a multiracial, multicultural Europe; and the theorizing comes at the point of speculating that European officials are or were working as a result of/on the basis of Praktischer Idealismus.
 * Also, I’m sure there are better sources than self-described progressive organizations such as Hope Not Hate and Right Wing Watch.
 * I’m too new here to feel comfortable editing such a contested article, but I‘m curious for the thoughts of others Bluetik (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bluetik Please don't reply to a 2 year old post, few will notice it and later posts in this thread may look as though they read yours. Feel free to start a new thread.  Doug Weller  talk 16:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thank you. Any other tips on working helpfully on here are very welcome! Bluetik (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole article is biased. It is focused on calling it a conspiracy, what is not the case. As mentioned; the Kalergi Plan was created and it is existing part of the past. Real existing things can not be handled as conspiracy or fantasy. This clearly attacks the position of Wikipedia being neutral, unbiased and un-political. Guy Sebastiaan (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actualy we can if RS do. WW2 is a fact to claim it was an attempt by the little green men from Alphacenuri to kill of all the blond-haired Aryan sex gods would be a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the Kalergi Plan was created and it is existing part of the past is just your opinion, not a fact. Go get reliable sources that agree with you, then come back here.
 * I changed the title from "What is reality and what is conspiracy?" to "What is reality and what is conspiracy theory?" because a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two very different things, although a lot of lazy bums like to replace one by the other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that you removed that very un-European American phrase:" Wihite nationalist", because it has no meaning in European societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allerogen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Allerogen@Slatersteven strange, see Category:White nationalism in France or even better Category:White nationalism by country Doug Weller  talk 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an RS, as I said if RS say "white genocide" so do we. As I said it seems none of the sources we use say he is a "wgote nationalist", he is. But we still go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven I am not arguing about what we call him, I'm just pointing out to Allerogen that white nationalism exists in Europe. Why do you tell me Wikipedia is not an RS? Do you really think I don't know that? But if all those articles are actually wrong (ie have no reliable sources about white nationalism in Europe) we have a serious problem. But I think that they are sufficient to show other editors that it exists in Europe.  Doug Weller  talk 11:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You pinged me as well, implying you were also talking to me. I was explaining my reasoning. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven pinged you because you were the only other person in the discussion. Doug Weller  talk 12:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Far left have edited page to misrepresent viewpoints
Far left have edited page to misrepresent viewpoints- HJS and other sources at least set put their bias before hand. Not quotable as direct sources 92.16.83.39 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * HJS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what they doing all the time. Adding biased sources like Rightwing-Watch and some few more to shift the article in their favour. Page needs to be kept free from ideological driven sites. Daimler92 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but boas it not a reason to exclude. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
Kalergi was married to a Jewish woman. He was not anti-semetic. There are no grounds for calling him "far-right" either.

You should remove the statement about antisemitism, and replace far-right with his actual political affiliation of the time.

One world government is a leftist idea. 162.250.153.53 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article does not state that Kalergi was antisemitic, feel free to read it and understand what this article is about before making edit requests. Note that Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi is a separate article. Cannolis (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources
"Population Replacement Conspiracy Theories (PRCT) postulating the ‘decline’ and ‘degeneration’ of Europe and the West as the outcome of a deliberate process to replace the white population by non-whites... During the last two decades, these Conspiracy Theories have been primarily ideologically elaborated through the racial conspiratorial names of: Eurabia, Great Replacement, Islamization, White genocide/extinction/suicide, Umvolkung/Omvolking, and the Kalergi-plan... The Kalergi-Plan Conspiracy Theory was penned by Austrian writer Gerd Honsik"

With respect to Europe, the mythology of the “Kalergi plan” plays a similar role in constructing the “white genocide” narrative. Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was an Austrian noble and early advocate of European integration. White nationalists mine his writings for evidence that the European Union is the culmination of a nefarious “plan” for white genocide put into motion decades ago. In an August 2017 thread — one of the 330 threads on The_Donald that mention the “Kalergi plan,” — it is described as a conspiracy to: replace the population of Europe with African migrants who have no ties to the land so they won't fight for it when the leaders of the EU move to take it all over and create one big nation.

Kerry Bolton, a neo-Nazi from New Zealand ... promotes the conspiracy theory known as the Kalergi Plan, which claims that Jews want to encourage mixed-race relationships in order to diminish the influence of, and eventually enslave, non-Jews. The Kalergi Plan is also pushed by the author Clare Ellis, whose book The Blackening of Europe claims that the plot aims to “predestine Jews to be leaders of urban humanity.”

"Lorraine Cullen [a Scottish Conservative Party activist] urged people to read the Kalergi Plan, a far-right, anti-semitic, white nationalist conspiracy theory, which states there is a plot to wipe out white Europeans with other races via immigration"

"Jarrin Jackson, Republican candidate for the Oklahoma state Senate,... supports “a conspiracy theory called the Kalergi Plan which claims that elites, especially Jewish people, are trying to rid the world of white people.'"

"Jackson has also endorsed a white nationalist and neo-Nazi conspiracy theory that is a variation on the so-called “great replacement” theory. The theory, also known as the Kalergi Plan, posits that global elites — especially Jewish people — are trying to rid the world of white people through immigration and interracial breeding."

Turning Point USA’s national Twitter account shared an image of its members last night posing for a photo with TPUSA signage, captioned “Patriots In Action!” One person in the image is holding a yellow beach ball with the words “Google ‘Kalergi Plan’” written on its surface in permanent marker. So, we did a little dig to explore just what might the beach-ball holder be saying. Searching the phrase into Google pulls up a trove of anti-Semitic and white nationalist conspiracy theories published by ideologically aligned outlets like Red Ice, Occidental Dissent, and blogs with names like “The Goy Knows.”...

The Kalergi Plan is an anti-Semitic and white nationalist conspiracy theory revolving around the philosophy and political organizing of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an early 1900s Austrian politician who founded and presided over the Paneuropean Union. Some credit Kalergi for inspiring the later formation of the European Union. Kalergi favored European political integration and was supportive of racial integration in society, viewing it as inevitable, which made him a ripe target for white nationalist ire...

Racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists to this day believe that this outlook made Kalergi a political architect responsible for a plan to systematically destroy the white race in Europe through mass immigration. They also allege that Kalergi wanted his envisioned society to be ruled by Jewish elites. Kalergi’s purported vision, according to extremists, was the destruction of Europe and they say his plan is being implemented today.

These conspiracy theories have their roots in the “white genocide” and “great replacement” conspiracy rhetoric in far-right circles, which allege that a secret ruling class of Jewish elites is using immigration policy to remove European white people from the population. In an article about Kalergi on Red Ice, an author writes, “in the present, demographic engineering characterized by unfettered immigration is used as a weapon by state and non-state liberals, leftists, Jewish groups, Islamists, and Third Worldists to displace ethnic European populations.” Many far-right media operations and extremists echo these claims to this day and use them to urge their audience to engage in politics and violent acts in hopes of “saving” the white race.

The transnational Alt-Right, understood as an umbrella term, uses historical claims as the foundation upon which it constructs its counternarrative about European integration. It connects the alleged attacks on ‘white identity’ with processes of European integration by referring to a plan from 1923 made by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi for a Paneuropean Union. According to the Alt-Right narrative, the secret aim of this plan would have been to intermingle the predominantly white population of Europe with migrants. Although the Alt-Right counternarrative is only believed in its entirety by a small group of people, who do not care that their historical claims are evidently false, elements of this narrative filter down to mainstream political actors... Many supporters of the Alt-Right see the alleged conspiracy for a ‘white genocide’ as the spiritual successor of what they call the ‘Kalergi Plan’ (‘Dr. Eowyn’ Citation2015), an invention of the neo-Nazi Austrian poet Gerd Honsik. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who developed a plan for a pan-European Union in the 1920s, and many other ‘founding fathers’ of today’s EU are depicted on Alt-Right websites and social media as willing instruments in the hands of globalist elites, often equated with ‘global Jewry’, who want to cause the extermination of the ‘white race’...

The architect of the ‘Kalergi Plan’ that Alt-Right supporters see as the original blueprint for the extermination of the white race, the Austro-Japanese Coudenhove-Kalergi, is probably the best example of such a conservative European founding father. In 1923, Coudenhove-Kalergi, a fervent anti-communist, published his famous book Pan-Europa, which contained a plan for the political and economic unification of Europe. This plan was a response to the processes of economic globalisation. In Coudenhove-Kalergi’s eyes the European continent, together with its overseas colonies, would have to form one large economic entity in order to protect the Pan-European agriculture and industry from cheap imported products. This European economic unity would lead to rationalisation, increased production and lower prices, leading to greater prosperity for all. The ‘class struggle’ would be prevented by European unity, and as a result communism would lose its appeal. The reformist nature of his plan for a Pan-Europe went hand-in-hand with the maintenance of ‘white’ European colonial dominance around the globe. He advocated a unification of Europe and Africa (‘Eurafrica’) in which Europe would be ‘Eurafrica’s head’ and Africa ‘its body’. The benefits of a joint exploitation of Africa would make the European continent’s leaders realise the necessity of European integration, Coudenhove-Kalergi argued (Hansen and Jonsson Citation2014, 18 and 38).

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a staunch supporter of European global dominance and his call for a European rebirth also shows a strong similarity with the aims of the Alt-Right. In Pan-Europa, he wrote that Europe’s culture was ‘die Kultur der weißen Rasse’ (‘the culture of the white race’), which was a product of Antiquity and Christianity. As a result of migration within Europe, all the people of Europe were ‘Mischvölker’ (‘people of mixed ethnic background’), he argued (Coudenhove-Kalergi [Citation1923] 1982, 34 and 135). In fact, there was one white European race.

However, as the son of a Japanese mother and an Austro-Hungarian father, and being married to a Jewish Austrian wife, Coudenhove-Kalergi was certainly not a traditional white supremacist. Coudenhove-Kalergi thought that ‘Jewish blood’ should form an important ingredient in the to-be-created European ‘mixed race’ (Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler Citation2004). In his 1925 book Praktischer Idealismus, he wrote that racial groups, like the Jews, and social classes would gradually disappear in the future. An ‘eurasisch-negroide Zukunftsrasse’ (‘Eurasian-Negroid future race’) would replace the existing races. ‘Die Rassen und Klassen im heutigen Sinne werden verschwinden’, he concluded, but ‘die Persönlichkeiten bleiben’ (‘Race and class in today’s understanding will disappear, but the personalities will remain’) (Coudenhove-Kalergi Citation1925, 23 and 55). A few years later, he changed his views and argued that the white race should stand united in case of conflict with the black race (Coudenhove-Kalergi Citation1929, 1; Richard Citation2010). Internal divisions would weaken the European race ‘in the face of the real racial opposition between Whites and Blacks’ (Coudenhove-Kalergi Citation1937, 199; transl. Richard 2010)... oday, representatives of the Alt-Right movement mix up these phrases about these various expectations for the future in an attempt to prove that Coudenhove-Kalergi, as a tool in the hands of Jewish puppet masters, had developed a plan for a large-scale blending of people from Europe with people from Africa. Endless references to this alleged ‘Kalergi Plan’ can be found online, from the Greek neo-Nazis of Golden Dawn to the discussion boards of quality newspapers. In 2017 even a former member of the Dutch Lower House for the Conservative Liberal VVD, who now is an adviser to Thierry Baudet’s FvD, said on Twitter that the European political response to the refugee crisis was apparently meant to bring the aims of this ‘Kalergi Plan’ to fruition (Klei Citation2017). Even those with no sympathy for white supremacists continuously repeat this same meme. The Reddit.com board (or subreddit) for people of mixed ethnic, partly Asian heritage held discussions of Coudenhove-Kalergi in 2017, because 4chan’s ‘/pol/’ board had portrayed the ‘mastermind behind the destruction of the white race’ as a ‘disgruntled WMAF [child of a white male and an Asian female] Eurasian male seeking revenge’... One question that remains puzzling is why the Alt-Right movement is so obsessed with Coudenhove-Kalergi – despite the fact that he could, to some extent, be regarded as a kindred spirit to the sympathisers of the Alt-Right movement (Van Der Horst Citation2017). Why do they focus on conservative figures like Coudenhove-Kalergi rather than left-wing advocates of European federalism such as the Italian Altiero Spinelli?

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Factual and Fictional Books about demographics
if factual demographic book Diversity Explosion doesnt count then neither should fictional demographic books, correct? neither The Camp of the Saints or Miscegenation pamphlet mention kalergi plan. 47.25.190.125 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is to about a social or demographic trend, it is about the claim it is a plan. Do these sources say this is a plan kooked up by von Coudenhove-Kalergi? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven I see another Admin has blocked the IP and protected the page. IP is trying to prove this is really happening.  Doug Weller  talk 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as it is a temporary block, I thought it was a good idea to address this and try to explain why this could not be done. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Kalergi was Austrian-Japanese.
Thus this cannot be "anti-Semitic" as he isn't Jewish. 2001:8003:2953:1900:6905:1E33:2460:B142 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about him, its about the alleged plan, and its use by the far-right. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

anti-semitic because?
Ok, so Kalergi's declaration is not a plot but a prophecy - a prophecy that there will be a "species" called "Eurasian-negroid" that "will replace the diversity of peoples and individuals". Fine, the plot is debunked.

But the article, which is supposed to be about the far-right white genocide etc ANTI-SEMITIC conspiracy theory, does not include any reference to what Kalergi said to be misinterpreted in a way that is anti-semitic by such far-right white genocide etc. groups. Nor does it indicate what Kalergi's text says in so far as Jews are concerned that the groups have wrong. None of this is covered. Here are Kalergi's words, at least in English:

''Instead of destroying Judaism [note this is written in 1920s, so before Hitler's Germany, World War II, etc.], Europe has, against its will, cultivated and empowered these people to form the social elite of the future in this artificially created direction of development. It is not at all surprising that the people freed from the prison of the ghettos have become the new spiritual aristocracy of Europe. The care of Europe thus created a new, modern aristocracy, at a time when the traditional European, feudal aristocracy was finally crushed by Jewish emancipation.''

It sounds to me that Kalergi is saying Jews, for whatever reason he lists, are the "social elite of the future" and "spiritual aristocracy of Europe" after the "Federal aristocracy was finally crushed by Jewish emancipation".

This sounds like a synthesis explaining the Jew's station starting at some point in the past and up to the time of writing; it uses no predictive language, except perhaps the way one could interpret "social elite of the future" not as a remark about a point in the past up to the future which had become Kalergi's present, but our present or future. So what is the contention here that the above groups are laying out and what is the rebuttal to it to debunk?

Please note, if you aren't going to provide such, the article, in its current form, is essentially a tapestry of epithets and outrage on this point (it's like the Protocols! it's anti-semitic!), but nothing in the direction of explaining what Kalergi's ideas were here and what the theory states that is to be debunked to that same end. This is truly bizarre, as there is no other article in this form on Wikipedia.Welllookatthissteamingpile (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by what RS say, RS say "racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories have since developed that allege that Coudenhove-Kalergi". Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you mean this article is really not about the nature and debate over Kalergi's prophecy in the text - based on content, history, writer and interpreter motivations - like, for example, the article on the Protocols? Why isn't it? There should be somewhere where one can find academic arguments pertaining to this on Wiki.
 * It is academically insulting that the article taking the space of such is instead about the fact that "x is what we classify as y and thus similar to z which is bad", citing the same sources calling it this to suggest it is this. A globally-obscure Italian source and two advocacy groups, really? And I note their warning not to take things out of context, although their coverage of this topic egregiously avoids analysis of THE content! Call them RS (reliable sources), but if this is the most they offer, then these "reliable sources" are falling short of what we are supposed to be relying on them for because they aren't providing it.


 * Already, I am wondering if they believe Coudenhove-Kalergi is anti-Semitic or just the interpretations are, because - for example as those who are cited and analyze the Protocols allege - the writer is not a Jew and, in alleging the Jews to be in whatever position in the future, he is making broad accusations even if they seem more of praise. The text offers no analysis of this. The same with the fact that he goes from mentioning Judaism to talking about a social elite. Judaism is a religion, do the so-called "experts" - reliable sources - think he means those who practice it? Again, no analysis in the article. I hope someone can find some reliable sources of substance and add something. Welllookatthissteamingpile (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its about the conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)