The Great Replacement as a Crime (VIII. Updating the Law)

Better definitions and laws

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

Levenshulme Girls’ High School, Manchester, 1943 and 2023

The Great Replacement leads to the same result as genocide, and technically fits most definitions thereof, but we have isolated four reasons why it does not appear to be genocide:

1. It is a process not of mass killing but of mass replacement and absorption.

2. The process (when it is not being denied as a conspiracy theory) is heavily promoted and encouraged, but never enforced (which is what people associate with “genocide”). In theory, Europeans could always “simply” have more babies in order to stave off their absorption into other groups.

3. The process is often celebrated by Europeans themselves, especially the young females who have been thus conditioned. Phrases like “diversity is our strength” are ubiquitous today, as well as a belief that mixed-race children are “better”. This strongly contrasts with people’s mental image of genocide as something that none of the target group could possibly enjoy, celebrate or desire.

4. There is no visible conqueror. To put it another way, the process does not appear set to benefit (in the future) some particular group who are engineering it (in the present).

However, these four factors negate only the appearance of genocide, not the reality of it. The definition of genocide could be expanded¹ to cover these contingencies. The revised UN definition might read:

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.

6. Imposing measures which will cause the group to become, within its homeland, outnumbered or absorbed by another group.

7. Reducing the group’s ability to resist absorption by other groups.

8. Encouraging the group to accept absorption by other groups.

Persisting with or failing to arrest an on-going process after its effect (1-8) has become apparent can be construed as intent and as being an accessory to genocide.

By this definition, the Great Replacement would very clearly be genocide and every government in the West would very clearly be guilty of it. #6 would criminalise every politician who encouraged or enabled mass immigration of non-whites. #7 would criminalise every politician and lobbyist who ever worked towards “hate speech” laws. #8 would criminalise every lecturer, author and celebrity who indoctrinated people to celebrate their own dispossession.

Note that #6 introduces the recognition that a group can be destroyed through swamping and absorption (with no killing involved). This bridges the gap between the Great Replacement and people’s current conception of genocide.

Also note the clause added at the end. It recognises that an effect can be achieved not just by a singular act but by a long-running process. It thereby removes the defences of “it wasn’t deliberate” and “I didn’t start it, I just didn’t stop it”.

---

An alternative way forward would be the creation of a new crime specifically tailored to the Great Replacement. It is historically unique but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again in future, and in any case we need a law to punish everyone responsible for this iteration of it.

However, I think better would be the enshrinement in law of a broad duty of government to maintain, within its country, the wellbeing and primacy (both demographic and cultural) of the majority ethnic group. Said ethnic group could be defined either genetically or using the common sense canvas of history and ancestry, which is what other groups around the world use when asked whether an individual is “of” them or not.

With the ethnic group defined and its absolute and exclusive right to its homeland established in law, all other and future laws should be tested on whether they violate or endanger these things.

I also think there should be a new crime of “ethnic treason”. This would refer to damaging/endangering one’s ethnic group just as the treason law refers to damaging/endangering one’s national state. (Note that it does not refer to criticising or mocking one’s ethnic group.) The punishment for ethnic treason should be at least as severe as that for state treason. After all, a state can be rebuilt, an ethnic group cannot.

Every country should be seen as primarily the home of its historical ethnic majority. Prior to the mid 20th Century, it was never necessary for such a thing to be enshrined in law in European countries because it was unthinkable that their ethnic majorities could ever be threatened. Without it ever being codified, each European country was a de facto ethnostate. Today, in the era of mass transportation and mass communication, such things need to be codified - and must be.

It should be seen as a crime of negligence for a government to do something (or allow other entities to do something) which could demographically transform its country. Maintaining a country’s ethnic identity should be considered just as important as maintaining its border security. In this context, entities perpetrating something like the Great Replacement might not be punished, but the government would be punished for allowing them.

The problem with that idea, of course, is that you can’t force a government to punish itself. Right now, for example, the British government is “investigating” its own conduct during the covid era, and no serious person expects this to be anything but a white-wash.

Since the buck for something like the Great Replacement stops at the government, and since the government is able to rewrite and ignore laws it finds inconvenient, it may be that preventing the Great Replacement simply cannot be done by instruments of law.

Forgive my cynicism, but I speak from an era in which nobody in government ever seems to be held accountable for anything. Corruption is endemic, apparently systemic. Ultimately, what enables the Great Replacement is the complicity and treachery of our politicians and political systems.

Nonetheless, legislation such as I suggest would at least help to prevent politicians from allowing anything like the Great Replacement to happen again.

1. I can imagine the crowing of midwit leftists, “you can’t just change definitions to suit your purposes!” - even though the very term “genocide” didn’t even exist until 80 years ago. Anyway, leftists blithely change definitions when it suits them - eg. Anglo-Saxon, English, European, indigenous, native, ethnicity, etc. At this point there are academics building entire careers on redefining words and concepts so as to make certain things unthinkable, or at least incommunicable.