The “Great Replacement” theory alleges a deliberate plan to replace European culture with immigrant populations.  Some argue this theory is supported by figures like Renaud Camus and Peter Sutherland however Iain Davis argues their words are often taken out of context and used to fuel xenophobic fears to the benefit of those who are pushing the world towards becoming a Technate.

The following is a précis of Iain Davis’ article ‘Sutherland, Kalergi, Camus, Replacism and Technocracy’.  You can read the full article HERE.

Left-wing identity politics largely holds that states foist structural inequality of opportunity upon people based on their personal characteristics – such as their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability.

Identitarianism broadly stands in opposition to identity politics.  Those who oppose multiculturalism perceive identity politics as a deliberate attempt to dilute or even eradicate their culture.  And so identitarianism is perceived as right-wing.

These sociopolitical and philosophical concepts have a massive “influence” on our polity, public discourse and society. The right versus left paradigm is thereby created and perpetuated through the constantly reported clash between the identitarian movement and identity politics.

In the UK, the so-called far-right’s stance on immigration is said to be driven by “the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.”  According to the influential global think tank the Institute for Strategic Studies (“ISD”), “The Great Replacement” theory was first coined by French writer Renaud Camus.

Those who espouse the Great Replacement theory often cite the comments of Peter Sutherland as evidence that there is a cohesive “plan” to replace European culture. Sunderland was a banker, businessman, lawyer and politician. He sat on the Bilderberg steering committee and was chairman of the Trilateral Commission European division and the European Round Table movement.

Sutherland was a member of the “Superclass,” according to David Rothkopf of the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”). This group influences millions globally. Rothkopf’s opinion is aligned with a branch of political science called “elite theory” which argues that wealthy oligarchs benefit society, a theory that is refuted by many.

In the House of Lords in 2012, Sutherland spoke about the need for inward migration to boost Europe’s declining population. He believed multiculturalism was necessary for society to evolve. He also noted that countries like the US and Australia better integrate migrants due to their history of being migrants themselves.

The BBC reported on Sutherland’s views, “EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief,” and atypically noted that Sutherland “has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group.” For the identitarian movement, this was “proof” of the EU’s plan to eradicate their culture.

On the flip side, Hope Not Hate (“HNH”) espouses:

The so-called “Kalergi plan” is an increasingly popular strain of the white genocide conspiracy theory, which alleges that there is a deliberate plan to undermine European white society by a campaign of mass immigration, integration and miscegenation conducted by sinister (and often Jewish) elites.

Exposed: For Britain and the “White Genocide” Conspiracy Theory, Hope Not Hate, 18 April 2019

The purported foundation of this, even more “extreme” strain of the Great Replacement theory is the collection of essays published in 1925 by Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Davis examines the work of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-Europa movement, noting that while some of his writings are used to support the Great Replacement theory, he was a product of his time, notably eccentric and influenced by eugenics.

“Those who highlight the alleged “Great Replacement,” as the intentional dissolution of their culture through multiculturalism, cherry pick excerpts from Kalergi’s writing and ignore others,” Davis wrote.

Adding, “Think tanks, like the ISD, and NGO’ ‘charities’, like HNH, also ignore most of Kalergi’s and Camus’s ideas. If they reference them at all, they tend only to highlight the treatise that appear to be racist or bigoted and ignore the rest.”

Kalergi was mixed race and his vision of a European utopia was largely based upon his interpretation of the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics. He envisaged a classless society where a “natural hierarchy of human perfection” replaces traditional hierarchies, enabled by technology and led by a technological elite.

“While the identitarian movement alleges the so-called ‘Kalergi Plan’ is further evidence supporting its notion of ethno-cultural replacement, Kalergi – perhaps unknowingly – actually pre-empted the envisaged transition to a continental Technocracy,” Davis wrote.

Technocracy is a system where technical experts govern society based on their skills, potentially on a global scale, using technology for control and surveillance.  Davis argues that events like the covid pandemic and the notion of a “polycrisis” are being used to justify a transition to Technocracy, with organisations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum promoting this shift. Technocracy appeals to the oligarch class – Rothkopf’s “Superclass” – because it is the most comprehensive system of social control ever devised.

Technocracy became popular in the US during the Progressive Era (1901-1929). More than three decades later, in 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder alongside David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission – of which Sutherland and Keir Starmer have been prominent members – wrote ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era’. Brzezinski and the Trilateralists accelerated the transition to Technocracy.

While Camus doesn’t explicitly mention Technocracy, Davis suggests Camus’ criticism of “hyperdemocracy” and Taylorism, also known as scientific management, aligns with criticisms of Technocracy’s emphasis on efficiency and control.

“The allegation against Renaud Camus, made by think tanks like the ISD, are accurate only to a limited extent. The global think tanks omit Camus’ criticisms of, essentially, Technocracy,” Davis wrote.

Camus’ central thesis is better described as “replacism.” He criticised what he called “hyperdemocracy” which he characterised as the obsessive enforcement of “equality” that leads to the eradication of “all” culture.  He saw mass migration to Europe from the Global South as the cause of hyperdemocracy.  He referred to this as “genocide by substitution.”

Camus viewed the mechanisms of “replacism,” binding humanity to the status of a replaceable resource to be used by the system, as a form of sociopolitical violence he called “nocence.” Camus observed that “nocence” is the enforcement of “replacism,” effectively dehumanising us all.

The misinterpretation of Camus and Kalergi’s ideas by the real far-right as well as the dominant advocates of identity politics allows the framing of dissent against the emerging Technate as “extremism” by global think tanks and the global public-private partnership.  Davis wrote:

The real “far-right,” though largely ineffective and mostly irrelevant, sees what it wants to see in the words of Sutherland, the writings of Kalergi and the philosophy of Camus. It uses its misinterpretation of these ideas to justify its racism and religious bigotry.

Equally, the advocates of identity politics – who are socially and politically dominant – focus exclusively on the “Great replacement conspiracy theory.” They completely ignore the more rational concerns of the identitarian movement described by Camus and others. Thus, labelling any criticism of their own ethos “far-right” and stumbling blindly towards Technocracy.

Similarly, global think tanks, like the ISD and the CEIP, who undoubtedly understand that Kalergi foresaw and supported the transition to Technocracy and that Camus warned against it, also mischaracterise such ideas as nothing more than a “far-right conspiracy theory.” The oligarchs that wish to see Technocracy established can capitalise on the ramblings of the real far-right minority by framing all dissent against the emerging Technate as “extremism.”

For the global public-private partnership, coalescing around the global governance systems of the UN, that seeks to use “nocence” to facilitate the “replacism” necessary for Technocracy, the racist bigotry of the genuine “far-right” is a gift. It is certainly in their interests to promote the so-called far-right threat.

Sutherland, Kalergi, Camus, Replacism and Technocracy, Iain Davis, 15 September 2024

Featured image: Technocracy movement, Wikipedia via EncycloReader