I'm glad you asked! Yes, there
are people who advocate for genocide. Here's a recent example of such rhetoric from a well-established blog that I'd prefer not to link to here:
Genocide necessarily involves either suppression of fertility or active or passive killing, or some combination of methods. Passive killing might include the refusal to supply aid such as food or medical care, preferring to just let Nature run her course, or refusal to come to the rescue when brown tribes genocide each other. The passive method would cause greater suffering and would not finish the job, as there will always be a remnant population to rebound in time. Clearly, an active genocide using white man methods would be more humane than passively letting Nature or savage tribes to do a much sloppier and less complete job. In the same way that animal lovers cannot adopt and care for every stray, but must accept that many be euthanized or sterilized, so it must be with the lower races of humanity.
Having been studying the far right for a good many years now, I'm quite comfortable about my ability to distinguish between anodyne center-right policies and a small but well-organized and funded cadre of honest-to-goodness extremists, thanks. I hope you're not going to come back with some hair-splitting argument about the exact position of any given proponent of genocide in your political calculus.