Cold Genocide

File: 1483003010555.jpg (41KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x600px

People have been using the term White Genocide to describe the process of flooding western countries with foreign and distinctly non-European people in order to replace people of European descent demographically.

The reason this fails is because the term focuses on the ethnicity undergoing it and not the fact that demographic replacement still counts as genocide. When people think genocide, they think of violent genocide. The idea of "peaceful genocide" may seem absurd at first but can easily be argued to them if one were to maintain their attention.

In addition, the natural resentment towards "white + anything" just creates an emotional response of backlash and offensiveness towards liberal cucks, much how like you hear about the Armenian genocide you feel nothing but the holocaust makes you feel "cold and guilty" thanks to thousands of movies and general social engineering since grade school. They're going to denounce it on the terms that it's spearheaded by being "white" as if to garner sympathy because it's white, the anti-thesis of white-guilt thinking.

Therefore, a better term to use when trying to explain a genocide that can happen without violence, is cold genocide. Like a Cold War, it's something that is occurring without direct confrontation. It's more accurate to what it is describing (a genocide without violence) rather than trying to explain a genocide without violence by naming the victim like with White Genocide. That is to say, it would hold more credibility in any conversation if you were to say "People of European descent are undergoing a cold genocide" rather than saying "The west is experiencing white genocide".