The Great Replacement as a Crime (V. Is It Genocide?)

Examining whether the Great Replacement is a genocide

(Note: this essay is part of a series.)

One of my very earliest videos discussed whether White identitarians should use the term “White genocide”. There I was concerned with pragmatism¹, not truth. But here I would like to examine the latter. Does the Great Replacement fit the definition of genocide?

The short answer is “yes”. For the long answer, read on.

---

The first thing to deal with is the fact that the Great Replacement does not kill the White race, but rather alters it out of recognition so that it is no longer itself, literally no longer White. It is not immediate or even long-term destruction of A, but gradual transformation of A into B. This can be illustrated quite literally:

A racial group is not defined by its physical traits but can be visually recognised by them. The physical traits of the White race are light skin pigmentation, blue eyes, green eyes, and a range of hair colours but uniquely blond and red. Mass race-mixing, enabled by mass immigration and encouraged by multicultural propaganda, will destroy every trait of the White race, both physical and otherwise.

It is important to emphasise the latter, since we are not merely talking about appearances. However, we don’t need to explain any of this, because the United Nations has already affirmed that race is real, that racial groups can be targeted for genocide, that their loss has cultural ramifications, and that engineering their loss is a moral outrage.

In short, the Great Replacement will alter the White race out of recognition. At the end of the process, there simply will not be a White race, certainly not one that is a visible continuation of that which existed before the process. Nobody will have been killed, but a racial group will have been destroyed.

---

There is no single definition of genocide. (Wikipedia has a page listing no fewer than 40 definitions²!) But this isn’t much of a problem, because the definitions are generally very similar. To illustrate, compare the oldest (Lemkin, 1944) with the newest (Porter, 2024):

By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group... Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

Genocide is the purposeful attempt to destroy any human group as defined by the genocidists. It is an effort to disrupt that group’s social cohesion, thereby preventing its ability to maintain its cultural identity, and thus, its very existence as a group.

(England today, like many European countries, is replete with efforts to disrupt the English group’s social cohesion and explicitly deny its cultural identity. That alone would constitute genocide as defined by Porter in 2024.)

We should also acknowledge the 1948 definition from the United Nations, which is most commonly cited and is the “official” definition used in international legal cases:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As a historical curio, we might also look at the UN’s first definition, from 1946:

Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations.

Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part.

Notice that the UN mentions “racial” groups. As far as they are concerned, race is real. That is important in this day and age when the first obstacle erected against the idea of the Great Replacement is that the White race doesn’t actually exist, being merely a “social construct” or “fiction”, and therefore can’t possibly be replaced.

Bear in mind also that the UN consider an act to be genocide even if it only partially wipes out the target group, and regardless of whether said group is defined nationally, ethnically, racially or religiously. In its 1946 definition, genocide is also possible against a political group.

Crucially, in its 1948 definition, the UN considers an act to be genocide even if no actual killing is done.

In theory, then, if someone deliberately sterilised (not killed) a fraction (not all) of English Methodists, he would be considered guilty of genocide. Perhaps it would depend on how large a fraction of the total he sterilised; 20% might be regarded as genocide, 2% might not - though, in terms of culpability, his intent might eclipse his achievement.

Intent is a necessary part of the crime. The intent must not be merely to harm or distress the group, but to destroy it, even if only “in part”. You must actively intend to, if not completely eradicate the group, reduce it in size. Perhaps the threshold is some arbitrary percentage that would hamper the group’s long-term survival. In that regard, sterilising 10% of its young women would be worse than killing 100% of its elderly women.

When all is said and done, we are talking about an act that deliberately reduces a group’s size (not necessarily immediately), in a way that will be, if not permanent, difficult for the group to overcome and may threaten its long-term survival. If the act certainly makes the group’s long-term survival impossible, then it is undoubtedly genocide. But certainty of long-term eradication is not required.

There are three components that must be satisfied:

1. Is it being done deliberately (ie. is there intent)?

2. Does it reduce the group in size, either immediately or over time?

3. Is this size reduction enough to threaten the group’s long-term survival?

I believe all three of these components are seen in the Great Replacement.

For brevity, we will return to our Norweden/Bomalian analogy.

#1 Is there intent?

This was addressed in a previous chapter. There is clearly intent. It could be argued that the intent is not to destroy the Norweden race but just to harmlessly augment its homelands with limitless millions of Bomalians, but, given what we know, that assertion is beneath contempt. Moreover, consider that, while supplementing Norweden with fertile Bomalians, the government has done nothing to raise Norweden birthrates, but in fact has done various things to further lower them. At this point, if you don’t think there is a conscious intent at a very high level to destroy the Norweden race, you are asleep.

#2 Does it reduce the Norweden ethnic group in size?

Illustrating this component is the most involved.

Does engineering mass Bomalian immigration into Norweden reduce the size of the Norweden ethnic group, thus constituting genocide?

First we need to consider a trait of Norwedens. Being K-selected by evolution, they shy from reproducing in times of uncertainty or stress, both of which are caused by the presence of large numbers of foreigners because this disrupts Norweden culture and destroys the social cohesion that was enjoyed in the homogeneous Norweden. Therefore, promoting mass immigration into Norweden will, even without any other factors, lower Norweden birth rates. Of course, I don’t assume that politicians and officials had any idea in 1945 about r/K selection theory, but it has long been very widely understood that “Africans breed like rabbits”.

Now we need to consider two traits of Bomalians:

• They are known to be R-selected and to have a higher fertility rate than Norwedens. This fact alone means that encouraging mass Bomalian immigration into Norweden constitutes attempted genocide of the Norwedens. To add (in large numbers) a more fertile group into the midst of a less fertile group is to endanger the survival of the latter group.

• Bomalian men are known to be more sexually aggressive and less burdened with self-doubt (because less intelligent) than Norweden men. This gives them an automatic advantage in “the sexual marketplace”, where male confidence is crucial. This fact alone means that encouraging mass Bomalian immigration into Norweden constitutes attempted genocide of the Norwedens. To add (in large numbers) a sexually aggressive group into the midst of a sexually docile group is to endanger the survival of the latter group.

If the respective natures of Bomalian people and Norweden people were being acknowledged, then encouraging mass Bomalian immigration into Norweden would alone have to be considered a genocidal act.

Now we must recall that the Great Replacement is not just the mass immigration itself, but also a large number of artificial conditions that have been implemented in every European country. These were listed here. The presence of these artificial conditions, which serve to weaken the Norwedens and encourage their absorption by the Bomalians, indicates that Norweden extinction is “not a bug but a feature” of what is happening.

I believe it is also relevant that all of these artificial conditions were implemented after mass immigration began, but long before it reached “industrial” levels circa 2015. There seems, then, to be a sequence of events:

1. homogeneous Norweden

2. tiny numbers of Bomalians immigrate (1948-1960)

3. Norwedens resist. Their feelings are first pandered to by government/media, then ignored, then shamed, then criminalised

4. increased Bomalian immigration (1960-1995)

5. using the presence of Bomalians as justification, conditions are implemented to weaken Norweden resistance and enable increased immigration (1965-1995)

6. mass Bomalian immigration (1995-2015)

7. using the mass presence of Bomalians as justification, more conditions are implemented to criminalise Norweden resistance and enable vastly increased immigration (2000-2015)

8. industrial Bomalian immigration (2015-2025)

At each stage, the Bomalian presence was used to justify measures that would, in turn, increase the Bomalian presence further. At no point were the feelings of Norwedens taken seriously, except by a few lone politicians who got severely punished for doing so - reputations trashed, careers ruined, relatives harassed, bank accounts shut down, and in some cases actual imprisonment.

#3 Is the size reduction of the Norweden group enough to threaten its survival?

This component of genocide is easily dealt with. The result is admittedly speculative for now, but the more immigration there is, the more certain the result becomes. Given that, in the 2000s and 2010s, our governments and NGOs appeared to want maximum immigration, we have to assume that they wanted to maximise this result which they knew immigration would have (reducing the size of European ethnic groups). This effect is observable in various countries and is even occasionally acknowledged. In England, if current trends continue, less than 50% of children will be native by 2060. Without remigration, each decade thereafter will see the percentage decline further. At what point do we declare that the percentage is so low as to threaten the very survival of the English ethnic group? Would even 50% have been acceptable to our ancestors a century ago, or would they have been horrified by the prospect?

---

It could be argued that native European populations were already shrinking prior to mass immigration, which therefore cannot be blamed for it. It is undoubtedly true that atheism, consumerism, feminism and simple material wealth reduce a group’s fertility. However…

• it is reduced further by all the artificial conditions I mentioned above. If our governments are concerned by population shrinkage, as they claim to be (hence they favour mass immigration), why do they maintain the various conditions which are causing population shrinkage? Promoting native fertility might not be simple but it could be done, yet instead everything is done to further reduce it.

• a group’s fertility rate falling does not, in itself, threaten its survival. However, if there are other groups present who will, in a group’s “fallow” period, out-breed, absorb and replace it, then clearly its survival is threatened. In other words, mass immigration responds to a non-problem by converting it into a very serious problem.

In summary, Europeans having fewer children would not be an existential problem at all, except for the mass immigration which both intensifies and exploits that phenomenon.

---

What I have done here is analyse this question to the Nth degree in order to “steelman” and leave no possibility for doubt. I will end by reaffirming: regardless of the caveats and even though the Great Replacement is a novel and insidious form of genocide… it is absolutely a genocide. It fits most definitions, including the “official” one from the UN. To the extent that it does not, that only means that the definition needs to be updated.

Douglas Murray speaks of “the strange death of Europe”. It would be more true to say “the strange murder of Europe”. But, though it is strange, it is genocide.

1. I still believe what I said in that 2014 video. Even though the term “White genocide” is accurate, it is probably not useful in “normie outreach”. This is because the definition of genocide in most people’s minds (violent mass slaughter) simply does not match what is happening “on the ground” in Europe, so the speaker will be seen as wildly sensationalising matters and therefore assumed to be untrustworthy. (Were this not so, it would be unnecessary to write this essay series.)

2. The fact that there are (at least) 40 different definitions suggests that we shouldn’t have to worry much about whether the Great Replacement matches any particular definition, since we can simply add a new one to cover it. But of course, we can’t, because today’s academia would vehemently oppose any such effort. Ironically this fact is, itself, a sign that we are being genocided, since a key component of genocide is depriving a group of the institutional infrastructure it needs to protect its existence. Why is it that virtually no White academic will decry the Great Replacement, which is obviously occurring? Why is it that virtually every White academic will deny there is even a White race to be replaced, when there obviously is?