It is easy to destroy a population: demoralize it. Induce it into degenerate behavior. Replace images of it with the Other, idealize the Other. Then they self-destruct and you can escape guilt. What no one realizes: this is not being done to whites alone, but to every ethnic group imported into diversity. None will win, and none will remain.
I am told that killing a human individual is more difficult than people anticipate, at least. It takes more effort than expected, the sounds and smells are worse, and the cleanup is far more involved, at least according to local officers who track down first-time murderers. But killing off a whole ethnic group might be even easier.
It seems like something that should be done in some old-fashioned manner, like the British with their Boer concentration camps, the open pit executions in Eastern Europe, or the Communists starving whole regions into submission. In reality, it is more like hacking a computer: you just have to hack minds and lead them, in pursuit of some illusion, over a cliff and to their deaths.
We can be hacked through mental viruses, or even just deceptive language, because humans have programmable minds that respond more intensely to symbolic data than to direction perception of their surroundings, mainly because the latter requires much effort:
Book One, first verse, of the Book of John in the New Testament says cryptically: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This has baffled Biblical scholars, but I interpret it as follows: Until there was speech, the human beast could have no religion, and consequently no God. In the beginning was the Word. Speech gave the beast its first ability to ask questions, and undoubtedly one of the first expressed his sudden but insatiable anxiety as to how he got here and what this agonizing struggle called life is all about. To this day, the beast needs, can’t live without, some explanation as the basis of whatever status he may think he possesses. For that reason, extraordinary individuals have been able to change history with their words alone, without the assistance of followers, money, or politicians.
This means that if you find a way to put into people’s heads that their demise is the right thing to do, or provides the best life possible for them, they will follow their doom as if it were their salvation. This reminds us of a great metaphor but also great hoax, the parable of the lemming, in which we were programmed to think ill of a species of small rodents purely by media manipulation:
So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.
But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.
When you think about the news media or entertainment, most of what it shows us is people who are engaging in self-destructive behavior and having fun or at least seeming important for doing so. And there is no mention of the cliff, as if it did not exist at all.
We tend to think of violent genocide as occurring at the hands of jackbooted thugs from one extremist political movement or another. The reality is often more prosaic: goaded by the pains of diversity, locals take it upon themselves to remove the Other, as happened in the formerly Russian-occupied Polish village of Jedwabne:
After being controlled by Russia for two years, Jedwabne, a small town in northeastern Poland, was captured by Germany on June 22, 1941. One of the first questions the Poles asked the Nazis, their new rulers, was if it was permitted to kill the Jews.
According to Jan Gross’s book, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, the Nazis tried to persuade the Poles to keep at least one Jewish family from each profession, but the Poles responded, “We have enough of our own craftsmen, we have to destroy all the Jews, none should stay alive.”
Gross writes that Jedwabne’s mayor agreed to help facilitate a massacre and that Poles from local villages came in to watch and celebrate the event as a holiday. About half the men of Jedwabne’s 1,600 Catholic community participated in torturing Jedwabne’s 1,600 member Jewish community, corralling them into a barn, which was then set ablaze.
In future times, people may see genocide and democide as the complex monsters that they are: driven not so much by political reality but by day-to-day frustrations and the tendency of different groups to behave in different ways, causing resentment. In many Russian-occupied areas, the natives identified Jews with the Communist party, in part because so many Jews were Communists:
While in 1934 38.5% of the top officials in the NKVD were Jews, this number was decreased to 31.9% in July 1937, 3.9% in September 1938 and 3.5% in January 1940.
This may simply reflect cultural differences: for most of the world, Communism is a tempting ideology, although traditional European cultures have resisted it, and so members of foreign groups would be more prone to join those parties. In addition, as minority groups, they cannot identify with the majority and so are drawn to anti-majoritarian politics such as socialism and its parent, egalitarianism.
Very rarely do you spend your time thinking about an invasion of mutant crayfish, but you might, as it provides a potent metaphor:
Every marbled crayfish, known as a marmorkreb in German, is female — and they reproduce by cloning themselves. Frank Lyko, a biologist at the German Cancer Research Center, first heard about the marbled crayfish from a hobbyist aquarium owner, who picked up some “Texas crayfish” at a pet shop in 1995. They were strikingly large, and they laid enormous batches of eggs — hundreds, in a single go. Soon, the New York Times reports, the hobbyist was beset with so many crayfish he was giving them away to his friends. And soon after that, marmorkrebs were showing up in pet stores upon Europe.
There was something very strange about these crayfish. They were all female, and they all laid hundreds of eggs without mating. These eggs, in turn, hatched into hundreds more females — with each one growing up fully able to reproduce by herself. In 2003, scientists sequenced their DNA and confirmed what many owners already believed to be the case: Each baby crayfish was a clone of its mother, and they were filling Europe’s fishtanks at alarming speed. Just 25 years ago, the marbled crayfish did not exist at all. Now, they can be found in the wild by the millions in Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, the Ukraine, Japan, and Madagascar.
Invasive species, like generalists or people after too much civilization, are simpler and therefore adapt more easily to a new place, at first. Over time their lack of specialization causes them to become more specialized, and they branch off into local species, but first, they have a much easier time of reproducing and displacing any native species that compete with them.
The same is true of government-sponsored immigration. The newcomers have fewer concerns about upholding the civilization and maintaining it, and only need to follow a basic model of feeding and reproducing. Over time, they displace the natives, who then pass into genetic history and are forgotten.
Although the scientists tell you not to rely on anecdotal data, there is a certain role for stories. These show us the arc of events from distant causes through results and then aftermath. Often they are symbolic, meaning that we can derive a great deal of understanding from seeing one event this way. In fact, history and literature are based on that notion.
This week, Poland is struggling to come to terms with genocide. Specifically, it is trying to accept its own role not as a government, but as a people, in murdering Jews. The most shocking and also most revealing story about this is from a little village that developed its own final solution in a story that could come straight from Hollywood:
By the time the sun set on July 10, 1941, all 1,600 of Jedwabne’s Jews had been killed — shot, bludgeoned, knifed, and drowned, some tortured first — the last 340 of them locked in a barn and burned alive. Similar horrors occurred in other nearby villages, not by German occupiers, although certainly with their approval.
Driving all of the town’s Jews into a barn and burning it seems to be a trope that appears multiple times. It probably reflects how one would deal with a plague of zombies, rats, or alien attackers. It enables a straight clean-up in a symbolic way, since fire is associated with permanence and cleansing. It slams shut one chapter of history and opens another.
This shows us the nature of genocide. It is not caused solely by government action; rather, it arises from resentment. Whether right or wrong, Poles perceived Jews to be associated with nepotism, organized crime, and Communism. That would be consistent with the immigrant group working toward its own supremacy, which is what always happens with diversity.
Diversity naturally causes genocide because each ethnic/religious group acts in its own interests only. This means that it seeks to dominate other before it can be dominated. That in turn causes friction, especially as smaller groups engage in passive aggressive activity because they do not have the numbers for outright conflict. Majority versus minority results.
In the case of Europe, the tragedy of the Holocaust came about because everyone was too oblivious to note that diversity is paradoxical and will result in a massive conflict at some point. Thinking themselves clever, they denied the association between Jews and Communism (quoting (this source), itself associated with organized crime, but the ordinary people did not, and when given an excuse, took their revenge.
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
As those who seek to avoid genocide ever again, our focus targets avoiding the pattern of events that sets up the conditions for genocide more than vainly crusading against genocide itself, like trying to ban any other human impulse. When the conditions are right, genocide appears like fire in a locked room, and humans shrug and seem helpless to stop it, although they easily could have stopped its genesis.
Trying to make sense of the complex coalition of grievances — feminism, minorities, youth, disabled, criminals — that they have assembled, the Left came right out and accused president Donald Trump of majoritarianism. This is a typical stage in diversity where, since the society is divided, one group forms a coalition of the discontented and the other aims for protection of the historical majority.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of waging an “unmistakable campaign to make America white again”:
Trump’s proposal would offer a path to citizenship for 1.8 million so-called “Dreamers.” He would insist on $25 billion in funding for a border wall and security. The proposal also called for a crackdown on chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program.
Pelosi wrote in a statement on Friday that the 50 percent cut to legal immigration and the “recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda. They are part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”
At this point in the diversity game, the social breakdown predicted by Plato and Aristotle, and documented by Robert Putnam, has occurred. Putnam found that diversity causes people to become alienated from one another; Haidt follows up on this by pointing out that diversity erodes culture. This begins with the lack of a sense of what the society is, since it no longer means a tribe and now relies on amorphous financial, legal, and socioeconomic definitions.
If Donald Trump defends the majority, he will be accused of racism because that is how his actions appear to a coalition of those who want to remove the majority from power; if he defends the coalition, he will be seen as participating in the ongoing genocide of the majority (frequently called “white genocide” despite the murkiness of the term “white”) and his base will abandon him.
As usual, diversity becomes genocide when the instability of diversity becomes clear. We are at a fork in the road: either we admit that diversity has failed, at which point we become “racists” arguing for a monotribalist American ethnostate, or we double down on diversity, at which point we signal that we are in favor of the ethnic destruction of the majority.
Over at Legitimate Grievances, a site whose tagline is “the only way to win the war on racism will be to end it,” Al Stankard points out that the war on racism is a death spiral because it perpetuates the problem it seeks to solve:
As the war on racism wears on intractably, as it has our whole lives and with the mirage of success receding perpetually from view, the alt-right has descended onto the scene like a black swan. While for many of us it serves as a convenient scapegoat for the ongoing failure of the war on racism, it could just as well be interpreted as a by-product of that same war on racism, and a sign that we are at an historical crossroads and that there may well be more black swans to come. When an ideology, such as Antiracism, creates its own bogeyman, then it has entered into a negative feedback loop that ensures its own demise.
Most people prefer to live with those like them, not just in terms of race but ethnic group, caste, religion, culture, class, and even political orientation. To make us all get along, we have to abolish those things, but they are also the parts of hierarchy and social order necessary to keep a first world society — as opposed to a third world style one — operating.
The war on racism throws us into a doom loop. The more we crusade against racism, the more we find, and the more we create racial animus through clumsy and unjust attempts to equalize. This will only end when any groups that have risen above the level of equal — high Asians, whites, and Jews — are eliminated and we are all a uniform brown with an average IQ in the mid-90s, at which point social Darwinism will end because competition will end and pacifism will rule.
Even The Atlantic has noticed the autumnal death cycle of diversity which plays out through Leftist desires for funding for their socialist-style entitlements programs:
As the birth rate has declined in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and Japan, the immigrant share of their populations has increased…These countries have high median incomes, which are attractive to international migrants, plus their economies need new humans to sustain both GDP growth and government services…as the children of immigrants find jobs and pay taxes, immigrant families wind up being a net contributor to the government over many decades, according to a 2016 report from the National Academy of Sciences.
…But there is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election.
This is where the story finally connects with welfare and the future of liberalism. Rich countries tend to redistribute wealth from the rich few to the less-rich multitude. But when that multitude suddenly includes minorities who are seen as outsiders, the white majority can turn resentful and take back their egalitarian promises. Take, for example, the Twin Cities of Minnesota. They were once revered for their liberal local policies—like corporate-tax redistribution from rich areas to poor neighborhoods and low-income housing construction near business districts. But since the 1980s, as the metro area attracted more nonwhite immigrants, the metro has become deeply segregated by income and race and affordable-housing construction has backtracked. Or take Finland, that renowned “Santa Claus State” of cradle-to-grave social services, where the welfare state is being “systematically dismantled.” The far right has emerged in the last few decades, just as foreign-born population has suddenly grown.
…But an unavoidable lesson of the last few years, from both inside and outside the U.S., is that cultural heterogeneity and egalitarianism often cut against each other. Pluralist social democracy is stuck in a finger trap of math and bigotry, where to pull on one end (support for diversity) seems to naturally strain the other (support for equality).
This remarkably blunt article exists to conceal a simple truth: when people experience diversity, they do not like it, despite the happy faces of celebrities and professors telling us that we should eat our damn vegetables and start appreciating diversity already. In fact, this is the classic feedback loop. As diversity grows, so does opposition to diversity, mainly because diversity is having negative effects. What are those? Think about the inverse relationship between “equality” and “diversity” when you read Robert Putnam’s research findings:
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
…Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.
…Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.
Further research has shown stronger connections between diversity and social collapse, including the role of diversity as division in American politics. Some have looked further into why diversity is so destructive, finding a number of reasons from antiquity onward suggesting that not just racial but ethnic diversity is destructive to social order and precedes civilizational collapse.
From over at Truth Over Tradition, a stunning analysis of how interracial marriage is causing a de facto genocide of the African-American ethnic group in the United States:
According to all the latest marriage statistics here in the U.S., there are more black people marrying out-side of their race than ever before. Research shows that there are well over 500,000 interracial marriages between black and whites today. Research also shows that about 3 in every 10 new black marriages are with someone outside of their race, with most of them being white. And out of all of the interracial marriages today, it is discovered that black men marry outside of their race almost three times as much as black women do.
The increasing numbers of interracial marriages among our people today is a clear sign that the black family in America is slowly dying out and on record to become extinct. Today, Black America is only 13% of the U.S. population. And when you take into account that the majority of our brothers are locked up in prison, dead, or gay; then you can easily see how our men choosing to marry our oppressor’s women instead of our own women, can completely blot out the black race. But this is NOT a coincidence; this is America’s plan to white us out of existence. It’s called Blanqueamiento [which] is the racial whitening of a dark population of people by mating with them to dissolve their race.
Genocide can take many forms. Any deliberate activity to displace or remove an ethnic group is a form of genocide, even if done through “soft” methods like economic or cultural pressure, or through decentralized methods like people independently obeying ideology instead of a centralized command or law. As time goes on, it becomes clear that diversity will bring genocide to all groups under its control.
In the Northern Indian state of Punjab and its environs, an ethnic population known as Sikhs are attempting to survive despite government attempts to integrate them into a secular, materialistic and bureaucratic state.
Most of the Sikhs belong to the ethnic group of the Jatts, who are by lore a mix of Scythian and Northern Indian, something borne out by the number of infants born there with hazel eyes and light skin. Local histories hold that some Jatt tribes migrated from Europe and some came with Alexander the Great, such as the Gill and Mann tribes.
Sikhs have endured the attempts at their conquest by numerous empires. The Moghuls wanted to convert them to Islam, which caused the Sikhs to take an appropriately militarized and somewhat xenophobic attitude toward nearby tribes. Currently, the Indian government wants to mainstream Sikhs into what Indian “culture” has become, which is more globalist than localist.
Conflict continues to the present day between Sikhs and those who support integration into broader India:
At least eleven people were injured as dozens of Sikh radicals clashed with supporters of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) at the revered Golden Temple, in Amritsar, Punjab.
It is understood the scuffle erupted over who would speak first at the service, held to remember victims of military offensive Operation Blue Star that left hundreds dead on June 6, 1984, when soldiers stormed the compound in a bid to flush out separatist insurgents holed up in the temple.
As globalism winds down with the failure of the modern subsidy state, localist communities and cultures are resisting it, leading to these types of clashes in which anti-integration and pro-integration forces fight for control of the institutions that regulate the local community, either aiding its independence or threatening to obliterate it through uniformity.
We are accustomed to thinking of genocide as what happens when men in snappy uniforms lock up certain races in concentration camps and work them to death. But what if a company bought up an entire country, then introduced new cultural practices that replaced the people there, and imported foreign workers to mix genetically with the population, so that in two generations the original population no longer existed?
Sadly, this condition is the norm around most of the world, only it is not a single corporation or dictator doing it, but the force of globalism itself. International commerce buys up the land, hires the people, changes local government, and imports its own labor force which genetically replaces the original population. Soon the values, culture, folkways and tribe itself have vanished, replaced by generic modern people.
Native Planet gives us a good synopsis of why this type of genocide is so prevalent:
The future of our planet depends on saving both the remaining biologically diverse ecosystems and the cultural, credible diversity of the tribal peoples of the world. The ancient cultures of native peoples, threatened by modern assimilation, are the only known, proven time-tested models for the sustainable consumption of the Earth’s threatened natural resources.
The new ways replace the old. The more convenient modern methods sweep in and drive out the old ways. Soon they are forgotten and, when the genetic stock that created them is gone, they will never be rediscovered. Cultural Survival writes about the destructive effects of this process:
What are the rights that indigenous peoples seek?
First, they want to be recognized for who they are: distinct groups with their own unique cultures. Indigenous peoples want to enjoy and pass on to their children their histories, languages, traditions, modes of internal governance, spiritual practices, and all else that makes them who they are. They want to be able to pray on their ancestral lands without finding that those lands have been dug up to construct a gold mine, fenced off to create a safari park, or watered with sewage effluent pumped from a nearby city.
Second, they want the governments of the countries in which they live to respect their ability to determine for themselves their own destinies. For indigenous peoples, “self-determination” has a different meaning than it did for colonial-dominated nations in the mid-20th century. Self-determination relates to autonomy, not the right to secede from the state. It means the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development inside the country in which they live. They want to govern themselves in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, and to retain their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions. They want to educate their children in their own languages, and about their own traditions; to worship in their own ways; to establish media in their languages; to retain their traditional modes of resolving internal disputes; and to fully participate in any outside decision-making that could have an impact on their lives. At the same time, recognizing their interdependence with the country in which they live, they want to be able to participate in the political and economic life of that country, if they so choose.
Third, indigenous peoples want to enjoy the same rights as all other people without discrimination of any kind. They want to be regarded by everyone as full and equal human beings. They want to be protected from genocide, arbitrary execution, torture, forced relocation, or assimilation, and they want to enjoy their rights to freedom of expression, association, and religion. They want to be treated equally with respect to opportunities for education, health care, work, and other basic needs.
The United Nations codified a recognition of the need for indigenous peoples to be free from assimilation, including by globalism, with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples issued in 2007. It reads in part:
Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,
Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,
Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,
What makes the globalist genocide difficult to recognize is that it occurs through a type of inverse racial superiority: in their desire to be diverse, globalist entities create a mixed-heritage group which assimilates and replaces the indigenous group. This is genocide through genetic discrimination in favor of the mixed-heritage by global industry and governments.
The Commission on Legal Pluralism issued a study which revealed that genetic assimilation of indigenous peoples occurs through the expansion of global industry, which by its lack of inherent culture is biased against indigenous culture and the genetics of those people, replacing both permanently altering their local ecosystem:
Industrial civilization destroys natural environment and, hence, the basis for traditional resource use, by destroying the mechanism that supports the peoples’ ethnic identity and by stimulating total assimilation of the nations into a demographically uniform conglomeration.
As part of this industrial expansion, the use of diversity to undermine social trust enables the destruction of local culture and encourages its replacement with universal modern anti-culture. As Robert Putnam observed with a statistical study, introduction of ethnic diversity destroys the sense of commonality and shared values required for culture:
New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.
The same procedure is enacted with plant biology: new crops are imported, which breaks up the functioning of the local ecosystem in a process which is akin to a loss of social trust, and then this new universal crop makes the native biology irrelevant along with the cultural methods of using it. As the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism writes:
As indigenous people have taken a more critical look at genetics, many have voiced their concern and have started to speak out against some of the negative aspects of biotechnology. In fact, a widespread movement against genetic theft, or biopiracy, has started to build around the world. Many of the protesters at the World Trade Organization meeting in late 1999 in Seattle were opposed to the negative impacts biotechnology can have when the interests of corporations are favored over societal needs. Those opposed to the control corporations have over science and genetic resources include a broad range of people, from indigenous peoples to shareholder activists, from students to tenured professors.
This biological assimilation replaces the native ecosystem and population, destroying the indigenous group and its culture in the same motion that genetically obliterates both its traditional food sources and the ethnic group itself. In this way, the group is destroyed just as thoroughly as if its people were executed en masse. It just takes longer and happens through indirect methods instead of tyrannical power.
The United Nations defines genocide as:
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The authors of this statement included the language “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” in order to cover all methods of genocide, and by using the “in part” language, they indicated that incremental genocide of the type described in this article was covered as well.
Biocolonialism, or replacing indigenous ecosystems and peoples with plants, animals and people from afar, qualifies under the UN definition of genocide. As more interest occurs in the protection of indigenous peoples against assimilation and displacement, the globalist method of biological replacement will become seen as the genocide that it is.
