by Kerry Bolton
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Laure Mandeville, ‘De jeunes rappeurs français “ambassadeurs” des USA,’ Le Figaro, 4 March 2010, http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/03/04/01003-20100304ARTFIG00534-de-jeunes-rappeurs-francais-ambassadeurs-des-usa-.php.
[67] ‘EU Leaders Rejection of “Multiculturalism” Aimed at Far-Right Demagogues,’ European Affairs,’ March 2011, http://72.249.31.51/March-2011/rejection-of-multiculturalism-by-eu-leaders-aimed-at-far-right-demagogues-41.html.
[68] Sherry C. Keneson-Hall, ‘Bridging Culture’s,’ State Magazine, U.S. State Department, Washington, February 2010, p. 13; http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/136475.pdf.
[69] Amy Bracken, ‘Ambassador Charles Rivkin and American Diplomacy in Paris Suburbs,’ The World, 10 January 2013, http://www.theworld.org/2013/01/american-diplomacy-paris/.
[70] Amy Bracken, quoting Kepel, ibid.
[71] Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, ibid.
[72] Benjamin Pelletier, ibid.
[73] Bracken, ibid.
[74] M. Molard, ‘Member of Brigade anti-Negrophobia summoned to Court,’ Street Press, 16 May 2013, www.streetpress.com/tag/brigade-anti-negrophobie.
[75] ‘Solidarity Brigade Anti Negrophobia,’ 14 May 2013, www.convergencedesluttes.fr/index.php?.
[76] Vannessa Thompson, ‘African Liberation Day Paris Unites Africans across Europe in Struggle for African Liberation,’ Burning Spear, 12 June 2012, http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=ald-paris-unites-africans-to-complete-the-struggle-to-liberate-africa-africans-at-home-and-abroad.
[77] ‘Opposition grows against racial violence,’ Fria Tidnigen (Sweden), 15 June 2013, www.fria.nu/.
[78] Sherry C. Keneson-Hall, op. cit.
[79] Rightist parties resisting both globalisation and multiculturalism are significant in Eastern Europe, including the Ataka Party in Bulgaria.
De-Europeanising Europe
The European Union should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of its member states.
—Peter Sutherland, House of Lords, 2012.
The European Union project was from its inception ironically named. This union of Europe was never intended to be anything but a phase towards a Universal Republic (in Masonic terminology) or a ‘new world order,’ as it is now generally called by pundits, politicians, businessmen and diplomats. Grand Orient Freemasonry wanted a secularised Europe, with all the traditions that make Europe what she is, obliterated, in the name of science and ‘enlightenment.’ That is now largely what we have. When these ideas came to bloody fruition in the French Revolution, France was regarded as the herald of a new era, much like some people regarded the USSR, and how many globalists regard the United States. Hence, in 1792 the French Convention called for the creation of ‘La République Universelle.’[1] During the latter part of the 19th century the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’ was revived with renewed impetus, led by a well-funded Freemason named Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who became known as the ‘father of European union.’ The Austrian Masonic magazine, The Beacon, stated of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s programme that ‘it is a Masonic work,’ an opinion reiterated in recent years by high Masonic initiates in Europe.[2] While the early Masonic role in what is now called globalisation and the ‘new world order’ cannot be elaborated here,[3] what is of significance is that Coudenhove-Kalergi’s idea of Europe was multicultural in character. Coudenhove-Kalergi was of Austro-Hungarian and Japanese parentage.[4] Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1925 clearly stated the globalist ideal that is being pursued today,
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians,[5] will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.[6]
Coudenhove-Kalergi added that the Jews would form a ‘new spiritual nobility’ to take over leadership from the old European nobility whose influence had been largely obliterated,[7] and it should be added in significant part through Masonic revolutions such as those in France, Russia and throughout much of the rest of Europe.[8]
This precisely explains the globalist alchemy of multiculturalism: to break down all differences—in the name of promoting ‘differences’—to re-create a formless mass of ‘individuals without bonds to ‘space,’ ‘time’ or ‘prejudice,’ or what we can call one’s rootedness to land, heritage, and destiny, and consciousness of identity. The goal is the elimination of the idea of a collective identity and consciousness, or indeed of community and society. This is what had been unfolding in the United States for decades: a collection of individuals tenuously held together in the name of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the pursuit of the ‘American Dream’ of endless consumption. The glue of money that is supposed to hold the lot together gradually becomes unstuck as ethnic minorities, Blacks, Hispanics, and increasingly others, see the ‘American Dream’ as becoming ever more distant, and resort again to their own ethnic heritages by segregating themselves into their own communities, whether in towns or in jails. This is the ‘Dream’ that U.S. State Department programmes lecture young Europeans that they should adopt as a superior lifestyle choice to their own ancestral traditions.
Also of relevance was that Coudenhove-Kalergi relates that he was funded by Max Warburg of the international banking dynasty, initially with 60,000 gold marks, arranged by their mutual friend Baron Louis Rothschild in 1924. Coudenhove-Kalergi stated that Warburg’s funding of the Pan-European movement ‘contributed decisively to its subsequent success.’[9] A leading Masonic initiate, Dr. Mihaila, has stated that Coudenhove-Kalergi was also funded by ‘American Masons who wanted to create thus according to the American model (the first Masonic state in history) the United States of Europe.’[10] What Mihaila is stating is that united Europe was from the start founded on the Masonic ideals that were at the birth of the United States, and later manifested in the French Revolution. The globalists want to remake the entire world in the image of the United States, although the project is not now solely in the hands of Freemasons, and has picked up its own momentum through the refocusing of international finance, especially since World War II, to New York.
[1] K. R. Bolton, introduction to Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 25.
[2] Marian Mihaila, ‘European Union and Freemasonry,’ Masonic Forum, http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr27european.html#b_22.
[3] See this author’s introduction to Belloc, Europe and the Faith, and a book on the role of secret societies in politics, forthcoming from Arktos Media, London, 2013.
[4] Mihaila, ‘European Union and Freemasonry.’
[5] Coudenhove-Kalergi’s ethnological knowledge is flawed: the dark-skinned Egyptians were predominantly of the Mediterranean sub-branch of the Europoid. John R. Baker, Race (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 518. The ‘black’ presence was primarily through Nubian slaves.
[6] Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, Praktischer Idealismus (Vienna: Paneuropa Verlag, 1925), 20, 23, 50.
[7] Ibid.
[8] See this author’s forthcoming book on secret societies from Arktos Media, London, 2013.
[9] Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan Europe (Vienna: Paneuropa Verlag, 1923), quoted in Kalergi, An Idea Conquers the World (London: Hutchinson, 1953).
[10] Mihaila, ‘European Union and Freemasonry.’
‘Undermining Homogeneity’
Is the push for a multicultural Europe being promoted by influences other than the U.S. State Department? We have seen that it is also an intrinsic part of corporate globalist doctrine, Masonic doctrine, and in general the agenda of sundry organisations and ideologies aiming for a world state. There cannot be ‘one world’ without ‘one race,’ as each distinct entity would inevitably resegregate if left to its own devices.
In 2012 Peter Sutherland stated in an address to the House of Lords EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee inquiry into the EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, that ‘the European Union should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of its member states.’ A ‘key argument . . . for the development of multicultural states’ was the aging of the indigenous European populations, which need replacing by non-European migrants in the interests of economic growth. Sutherland stated that ethnic and cultural homogeneity cannot survive ‘because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them, just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.’[1]
BBC News reported that Sutherland told the committee:
The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.[2]
Here Sutherland is stating that societies such as the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, having been established by colonists from Europe, are considered ‘migrant societies.’ Indeed, a key argument of multiculturalists in defending non-European immigration to these states is that ‘we are all immigrants.’ Therefore Australians and New Zealanders do not have a legitimate right to object to mass Asian immigration for example, or White Americans to mass Hispanic immigration. Further, Australia and New Zealand, having had their roots to Britain in particular and Europe in general, weakened since World War II, with the demise especially of the British connection, have not developed a vigorous European nativist culture with which to resist globalisation. European nations however, with their centuries of tradition for all Europeans to readily see and appreciate if they still have the spirit to do so, have the cultural heritage for a multiplicity of vibrant ethnic nationalisms that are being reasserting in the rise of Rightist parties such as the Front National in France, Jobbik in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece, and Ataka in Bulgaria.
Sutherland states that the EU bureaucracy should wage a culture war against the vestiges of European consciousness in order that Europeans will more readily accept their own demographic displacement by non-European migrants, whose proliferation will mean the demise of future generations whose forebears were born, lived, and died in Europe. Instead, Europe’s future population will increasingly consist of those whose forebears were born, lived and died north and south of the Sahara, Pakistan, India . . . Without roots in the soil of the EU states to which they migrate and breed new generations, ever more rootless, a new ‘Eurasian-Negroid’ non-race of individuals of the type Coudenhove-Kalergi envisioned, will fill the void of the European.
Sutherland speaks with the authority of a globalist that few others possess. A former Attorney General of Ireland, Sutherland has been described by Mickey Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, as ‘the father of globalisation.’[3] Sutherland is the UN’s special representative for migration, head of the Global Forum on Migration, chairman of Goldman Sachs International, and a former chairman of British Petroleum. He has been Director General of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades), now known as the World Trade Organization. He is an attendee of the ultra-secret meetings of the Bilderberg Group,[4] an annual gathering of the world power elite; and according Professor Costa, Sutherland has been a director of the World Economic Forum, is currently Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission,[5] the European Institute, the European Roundtable of Industrialists and the advisory Council of Business for New Europe, Chair of the London School of Economics Council, and what Costa described as the ‘financial adviser’ to the Vatican.[6] In 1998 he was recipient of the David Rockefeller International Leadership Award.[7]
Sutherland has often spoken of a ‘European identity,’ a ‘soul of Europe,’ and the need for a European unity transcending old national rivalries. All are laudable, indeed essential ideas. Yet above them all Sutherland and other globalists who founded and sustain the EU, like Coudenhove-Kalergi, stand for a diversity of ‘individuals’ that define a ‘European identity’ on a wholly bogus globalist conception that is doublespeak for the repudiation of ‘European identity.’ While Sutherland talks of ‘Christianity’ as being the basis of this European ‘individualism,’ along with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, which overthrew the traditional religions and cultures of Europe, Sutherland states: ‘My conclusion is that a European identity exists because of the shared belief in a universal equality that is not defined by race, gender or religion. In particular it is one that provides equal freedom under a shared moral code. It is grounded in the Christian teaching on the brotherhood of man.’[8] Again, it is a universalistic creed, with an appeal to the spiritual universalism of Christianity to break down all distinctions as to ‘race, gender and religion,’ a mass levelling that might better be defined as communism than Christianity, or at least than the Gothic Christianity upon which Europe’s High Culture was founded and for which it fought against Turk and Mongol.[9] Hence the globalist ‘Europe’ as expressed by Sutherland, is one that is open to all and sundry, until she is nothing but a land-mass holding a population-mass of rootless ‘individuals’ who respond to the needs of production and consumption.
In finding a doctrine that can re-create this ‘Europe’ of ‘human rights’ Sutherland has recourse to ‘a conception of solidarity reflected in a commitment to what Ludwig Erhard described as the “social market economy.”’ Again, Sutherland attempts to sell this as a Christian ideal. He quotes Shirley Williams as defining this as ‘a free market curbed and regulated to conform to social goals.’ These social goals are better termed social engineering. Economics is used to impose this restructuring of identity. As we have seen, the character of the global free market is to undermine ethnic and cultural barriers that impede the free flow of labour, money, and technology. The currency speculator George Soros promotes the ‘social market economy’ with his vast fortune through a myriad of NGOs across the world in what he calls the ‘open society.’ It is the means by which the mass of individuals might be integrated into a consumer society peaceably, and indeed become pacified into accepting a state of ‘soft enslavement’ with the enticement of consumer goods, of which Ralph Peters wrote.
It is Sutherland’s views on migration into Europe and its relationship to ‘universalism’ or globalisation that is the primary concern here. Of this Sutherland states:
Migration policies too can only be properly developed through European policies and again these should be influenced by the concept of the equality of man. Without arguing that it is possible to have unrestricted migration we should surely recognise that there is a contradiction between our former condemnation (on grounds of human rights) of the Soviet Union in its refusal to permit people to leave and the case made by some that we have no obligation at all to permit migrants to enter Europe. Globalisation is not just about trade, it is above all about people and our policies should start from a multilateral dialogue that links development with migration and an understanding that migrants have rights including to the maximum extent possible the right to legally enter host countries. On the other hand we must unequivocally also uphold the rights we believe in within our own societies and not permit a mistaken concept of multiculturalism to require us to derogate from them.[10]
This latter matter of multiculturalism actually challenging rather than supporting the concept of
the globalist ‘open society’ is a major dilemma for globalists and the politicians on the ground floor, who must face a volatile electorate that might turn sharply to the Right. Multiculturalism is from the globalist viewpoint a method for the disintegration of traditional concepts. However, what is required is not a multiculturalism where the elders and the religious leaders retain influence over the new generations born in Europe to migrant parents. Rather the aim is for the creation of a deracinated new generation that can be melded into a melting pot culture that serves global marketing needs.
The type of ‘multiculture’ that is sought by the globalists is what we have seen being promoted by the U.S. State Department, forging a generation of hip hoppers, watching MTV, and buying Coca-Cola and Big Macs, instead of reading the Koran, praying to Mecca, and living in stable families in which parents are respected. That is not the ‘Europe’ of ‘universalism and ‘equality’ that Sutherland, Rivkin, Soros, et al. have in mind. They want feminism, where the woman becomes part of the production process; factory fodder. They want youngsters who spend money on the latest fashions and are not constrained by religious modesty. Hence, Sutherland states that Europe must ‘unequivocally also uphold the rights we believe in within our own societies,’ and not allow migrants coming in with traditional moral and religious and social beliefs to undermine the ‘social market economy.’ Therefore the appeal of Sutherland to Catholic traditions is disingenuous. A traditional Catholic of the type whose forebears formed the real Europe prior to the Masonic French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, to which Sutherland et al. appeal, will have more in common with a traditional Muslim than a Rivkin, Sutherland, or a Soros, while there will be a commonality of behaviour between new generations of both migrant and European youth who have become rootless consumers, wearing the same fashions, speaking the same street talk, listening to the same music, eating the same fast food. What is really wanted by the globalists is not multiculturalism in the true sense of self-contained and self-sustaining cultures, but a consumer monoculture. It is a dilemma and paradox.