How the Globalists Plan to Disarm the Populations

Historically, authoritarian regimes have often taken steps to disarm specific groups within their population to weaken their ability to resist oppression, and in some tragic cases, these disarmament efforts were followed by genocides or mass persecutions. Disarmament can serve multiple purposes for a regime with authoritarian ambitions: it reduces the likelihood of organized resistance, facilitates tighter control over the population, and sends a message that the regime is the sole arbiter of force. Here are some notable historical examples where disarmament was followed by acts of genocide:

1. The Armenian Genocide (Ottoman Empire, 1915-1917)
Background: In the years leading up to World War I, tensions were already high in the Ottoman Empire due to religious and ethnic divides. The Christian Armenian population faced widespread discrimination in a predominantly Muslim society, and nationalistic Ottoman leaders grew suspicious of their loyalty.
Disarmament: Starting in the early 1900s, the Ottoman government implemented policies to confiscate weapons from the Armenian population. By the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman government ordered Armenians to surrender all firearms, promising protection in return.

Genocide: After Armenians were largely disarmed, the Ottoman government carried out the systematic deportation and killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians. This genocide involved forced marches, starvation, and massacres and was easier for the regime to execute on a population without the means to defend themselves.

2. The Cambodian Genocide (Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979)
Background: When the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia in 1975, they began implementing radical policies aimed at creating an agrarian communist society. The regime, led by Pol Pot, targeted intellectuals, ethnic minorities, and religious groups as threats to this vision.
Disarmament: Upon taking control, the Khmer Rouge confiscated weapons from the civilian population and limited all military power to their own forces. They dissolved existing Cambodian military and police forces, ensuring that only loyal, ideologically aligned members were armed.
Genocide: Over the next four years, the Khmer Rouge killed approximately 1.7 million people—nearly a quarter of Cambodia’s population—through forced labor, starvation, and execution. With no arms or organized military force, civilians had little ability to resist or defend themselves.

3. The Rwandan Genocide (1994)
Background: Rwanda’s ethnic tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi populations were historically complex. In 1994, the death of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu, set off a chain of events that led to a genocide primarily targeting the Tutsi minority.
Disarmament: Although not entirely disarmed, the Tutsi minority was relatively defenseless, as the majority Hutu forces held most of the arms, often distributed by the government itself. Leading up to the genocide, Hutu militia groups, like the Interahamwe, were armed, while most Tutsi civilians were not.
Genocide: Within approximately 100 days, Hutu militias killed around 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu people. The lack of adequate arms among the Tutsi civilians contributed to their vulnerability and inability to defend themselves.

These examples illustrate a troubling pattern in which regimes disarm specific populations, particularly those viewed as threats to the authoritarian order. Once disarmed, these groups often find themselves vulnerable to persecution and violence, with limited means to resist organized state-led or state-endorsed aggression.

In the case of Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, orchestrated one of the 20th century's most brutal genocides. His regime, which held power from 1975 to 1979, pursued radical social engineering policies aimed at transforming Cambodia into a classless agrarian society. Pol Pot's vision was rooted in extreme Maoist and Marxist-Leninist ideologies, leading the Khmer Rouge to target various groups deemed "enemies of the state." Here’s a closer look at how disarmament and subsequent policies led to the Cambodian genocide:

1. Total Disarmament and Control of Weapons
When the Khmer Rouge seized power in April 1975, one of their first actions was to confiscate all weapons from the civilian population. They disbanded Cambodia’s existing military forces, dismantling the structure and leadership of anyone outside of their trusted revolutionary ranks.
Only members of the Khmer Rouge, trusted by Pol Pot and ideologically indoctrinated, were permitted to bear arms. The strict disarmament of the general population ensured that civilians had no means to resist or defend themselves, creating a near-total monopoly of power in the hands of the Khmer Rouge.

2. Isolation and Control through Forced Displacement
After disarming the population, the Khmer Rouge forced millions of Cambodians out of cities and into rural labor camps, severing any social ties that might enable resistance. They labeled educated individuals, intellectuals, religious figures, and ethnic minorities as threats to their agrarian communist vision.
By displacing civilians into isolated work camps, the regime minimized the chances of coordinated opposition or uprisings, which would have been difficult without arms even in more organized communities.

3. Systematic Targeting and Genocide
Over the four years of Khmer Rouge rule, the regime systematically killed an estimated 1.7 million people—roughly 25% of Cambodia's population—through forced labor, starvation, and direct execution. The Khmer Rouge particularly targeted educated people, ethnic minorities (such as Vietnamese and Cham Muslims), religious figures, and anyone suspected of opposition.
The disarmed and dispersed population had virtually no means to resist or protect themselves from Khmer Rouge soldiers who controlled every aspect of their lives. With food shortages and inhumane working conditions enforced at gunpoint, the people endured atrocities they were powerless to stop.

4. Elimination of Religious and Cultural Institutions
The Khmer Rouge viewed Buddhism, traditional culture, and ethnic diversity as threats to their vision, systematically dismantling religious and cultural institutions. By killing religious leaders and intellectuals, they removed influential figures who might have united and organized resistance.
This strategy was effective because the population was disarmed and isolated, with no means to organize a counterforce or even maintain a cultural identity that might have strengthened resilience.