This pattern of writing has been used for hundreds of years. It starts with a base mostly detached description dividing people into groups. The groups begin m

This pattern of writing has been used for hundreds of years. It starts with a base mostly detached description dividing people into groups. The groups begin mundane or at least non-threatening. The idea is the reader will attach themselves to one of those groups so that they are insulated from what is to come. The writing here even helps you with this, "G2 is my native social class, and probably that of most of my readers.". A flattering upper-middling position in the hierarchy just defined. But past this point the article takes a hateful turn. The description of the previous groups existed merely so that the reader could ensure they personally don't exist as part of the target. Here the perpetrators are not people, they are rapists, war lords, and gamblers. There is nothing virtuous about this group, "they’re the ugliest and most broken of each nation". In effect there are really only two groups, that of the good and that of the evil. At this point, the reader is supposed to have two conclusions, 1. there exists a group of bad people we must do something about, and 2. they personally are one of the "good guys". The group descriptions merely exist to justify collective action against of group of "bad people" who are not bad because of actions but because of who they are intrinsically. They cannot be saved. What action is to happen varies, this form of argument has been used to justify everything from the taking of land and property to outright genocide. They always target a small minority of the population and assure the reader the violence will not be directed at them.