It's worth noting that internal population transfers within the Soviet Union ended with Stalin's death, even though his successors often had been involved in implementing them under Stalin. But even Stalin's henchmen didn't feel like starting new ones, and sometimes undid old transfers, like letting the Chechens return from Siberia.
An interesting bit of history is that the Chechens put up much more of a fight against Yeltsin's ineffectual semi-democracy in the 1990s than against Stalin's genocidal dictatorship in the 1940s.
And interesting that Israel's Ashkenazi EHC still opposes forced population transfer. It's the duller, prole Mizrahim that favor it. And of course religious Jews in general. Secular Jews (Israel's EHC) oppose it. And why should I care about what religious Jews when they're all too willing to spit in the faces of people like myself, specifically by aggressively pushing to repeal the Grandchild Clause prior to October 7?
If you want to advocate in favor of mass deportations, try doing it more selectively, such as by stripping people of citizenship--and then deporting them--if they advocate murdering people for "Islamophobic" speech or something like that.
Out of curiosity: How would you respond to the argument that in the (relatively) near-future, AI will make immigrants who are a burden on the social safety net much less costly because AI will simply make up for their lack of productivity? Indeed, we could develop AI that is much smarter than any human within the next 5-25 years.
You draw a distinction between the practical politics and feasibility, but I don't think this is valid. If something is politically impossible, it doesn't matter if it's physically possible. When people say that mass deportations are impossible, I think they're generally saying that they're politically impossible, not that ethnic cleansing is physically impossible. And I think this list of examples is indeed good evidence against the feasibility of remigration.
As you noted, these were virtually all conducted by dictatorships during or immediately after a war. Those aren't particularly relevant to democracies in peacetime. The most relevant cases here are the US' repatriation of Mexican immigrants in the 1930s and 1950s. In both cases, repatriation was likely of a minority of Mexican-Americans (counting native born US citizens), and the majority of those repatriated were not US citizens. The deportations were more controversial in the 50s than the 30s, and they would be incomparably more controversial today than in the 50s.
The Israel example is particularly instructive: if Israel, after 50+ years of terrorism and war, hasn't ethnically cleansed its substantial remaining Arab citizen minority or its subjects in the occupied territories, how likely do you think Sweden or Canada are to become far more extreme in peacetime?
There seems to (thankfully) be no precedent for an industrial democracy conducting mass ethnic cleansing of its own citizens in peacetime. Within Western countries, only a minority, even of the white population, supports a complete immigration moratorium, and presumably only a minority within that would support ethnic cleansing.
So I think it remains entirely valid to say that mass remigration is impossible, in the same sense in which the US nuking Canada or throwing Irish-Americans into death camps is impossible. It would not be physically impossible for the US military to carry out those orders, but no politician or general will ever be appointed who would give them.
You mention the earlier transfer of populations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but it's worth noting the much more recent and even larger movement that occured with the aftermath of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. In 2023 the ethnic Armenian state of Artsakh became defunct with its complete occupation by Azerbaijan, and almost the entire population remigrated to Armenia. Massive population transfers of hundreds of thousands of people are possible in the 2020s, because they have already happened in the 2020s.
Edit: upon a quick Wikipedia search I guess the more recent Artsakh expulsion wasn't larger than the previous expulsions, but it still was very large and occured less than two years ago, so my point remains about contemporary remigration being an actualized reality.
The people of Western nations need to stop the immigration of disparate cultures and remigrate those present. It is a matter of survival for Western civilization.
"I assume you are calling for most Americans to be returned to Europe, whether the Americans or Europeans agree."
That silly assumption has been used numerous times over the years. In your assumption, you are admitting that America is a European-based country. Before Europeans arrived here, there was no country.
I would not use that term. The concept of country did not exist for what is now known as the United States. There was no sovereign. The sovereign was established by mostly Europeans
In the best analysis, you don't mind alien cultures occupying "unclaimed" territory a long time ago, but you don't like the legal immigration of people who labor within and contribute to your local economy.
I'll grant that the pace of change can feel overwhelming. But any difficulties are economic, not the result of "disparate cultures".
"In the best analysis, you don't mind alien cultures occupying "unclaimed" territory a long time ago, but you don't like the legal immigration of people who labor within and contribute to your local economy."
Unfortunately, the leadership of most Western nations has strongly promoted the mass immigration of third-world people against the wishes of the populace. But if Western Civilization (the best civilization ever formed), it must not be diluted.
"But any difficulties are economic, not the result of "disparate cultures"."
There are ways of making population transfers in a viable way, but that will only happen if the issues are recognised sooner than later and without that, dragging the feet will make future population movements damaging.
My paternal grandparents were transferred to Hungary in 1945 from a village just north of the Danube to central-southern Hungary. I think it happened because they claimed to be Hungarians, i.e. they weren't keen on being a Czechoslovakian subject (although I never discussed the issue with them, only heard a few words from my father).
You guys need to say fuck it and just start mass schwacking these vermin. Who cares what the treaty says these people are raping your kids at scale. It's time to rip the Band-Aid off. It's time for Germany to do what Germany does best 💕
It's worth noting that internal population transfers within the Soviet Union ended with Stalin's death, even though his successors often had been involved in implementing them under Stalin. But even Stalin's henchmen didn't feel like starting new ones, and sometimes undid old transfers, like letting the Chechens return from Siberia.
An interesting bit of history is that the Chechens put up much more of a fight against Yeltsin's ineffectual semi-democracy in the 1990s than against Stalin's genocidal dictatorship in the 1940s.
Ethics, not ethnics.
And interesting that Israel's Ashkenazi EHC still opposes forced population transfer. It's the duller, prole Mizrahim that favor it. And of course religious Jews in general. Secular Jews (Israel's EHC) oppose it. And why should I care about what religious Jews when they're all too willing to spit in the faces of people like myself, specifically by aggressively pushing to repeal the Grandchild Clause prior to October 7?
If you want to advocate in favor of mass deportations, try doing it more selectively, such as by stripping people of citizenship--and then deporting them--if they advocate murdering people for "Islamophobic" speech or something like that.
>Ethics, not ethnics.
Funny error!
Out of curiosity: How would you respond to the argument that in the (relatively) near-future, AI will make immigrants who are a burden on the social safety net much less costly because AI will simply make up for their lack of productivity? Indeed, we could develop AI that is much smarter than any human within the next 5-25 years.
You draw a distinction between the practical politics and feasibility, but I don't think this is valid. If something is politically impossible, it doesn't matter if it's physically possible. When people say that mass deportations are impossible, I think they're generally saying that they're politically impossible, not that ethnic cleansing is physically impossible. And I think this list of examples is indeed good evidence against the feasibility of remigration.
As you noted, these were virtually all conducted by dictatorships during or immediately after a war. Those aren't particularly relevant to democracies in peacetime. The most relevant cases here are the US' repatriation of Mexican immigrants in the 1930s and 1950s. In both cases, repatriation was likely of a minority of Mexican-Americans (counting native born US citizens), and the majority of those repatriated were not US citizens. The deportations were more controversial in the 50s than the 30s, and they would be incomparably more controversial today than in the 50s.
The Israel example is particularly instructive: if Israel, after 50+ years of terrorism and war, hasn't ethnically cleansed its substantial remaining Arab citizen minority or its subjects in the occupied territories, how likely do you think Sweden or Canada are to become far more extreme in peacetime?
There seems to (thankfully) be no precedent for an industrial democracy conducting mass ethnic cleansing of its own citizens in peacetime. Within Western countries, only a minority, even of the white population, supports a complete immigration moratorium, and presumably only a minority within that would support ethnic cleansing.
So I think it remains entirely valid to say that mass remigration is impossible, in the same sense in which the US nuking Canada or throwing Irish-Americans into death camps is impossible. It would not be physically impossible for the US military to carry out those orders, but no politician or general will ever be appointed who would give them.
You mention the earlier transfer of populations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but it's worth noting the much more recent and even larger movement that occured with the aftermath of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. In 2023 the ethnic Armenian state of Artsakh became defunct with its complete occupation by Azerbaijan, and almost the entire population remigrated to Armenia. Massive population transfers of hundreds of thousands of people are possible in the 2020s, because they have already happened in the 2020s.
Edit: upon a quick Wikipedia search I guess the more recent Artsakh expulsion wasn't larger than the previous expulsions, but it still was very large and occured less than two years ago, so my point remains about contemporary remigration being an actualized reality.
That was done in the aftermath of a war, and by an authoritarian/dictatorial regime, though.
The people of Western nations need to stop the immigration of disparate cultures and remigrate those present. It is a matter of survival for Western civilization.
I assume you are calling for most Americans to be returned to Europe, whether the Americans or Europeans agree.
"I assume you are calling for most Americans to be returned to Europe, whether the Americans or Europeans agree."
That silly assumption has been used numerous times over the years. In your assumption, you are admitting that America is a European-based country. Before Europeans arrived here, there was no country.
Are you making a blood and soil argument?
"Are you making a blood and soil argument?"
I would not use that term. The concept of country did not exist for what is now known as the United States. There was no sovereign. The sovereign was established by mostly Europeans
In the best analysis, you don't mind alien cultures occupying "unclaimed" territory a long time ago, but you don't like the legal immigration of people who labor within and contribute to your local economy.
I'll grant that the pace of change can feel overwhelming. But any difficulties are economic, not the result of "disparate cultures".
"In the best analysis, you don't mind alien cultures occupying "unclaimed" territory a long time ago, but you don't like the legal immigration of people who labor within and contribute to your local economy."
Unfortunately, the leadership of most Western nations has strongly promoted the mass immigration of third-world people against the wishes of the populace. But if Western Civilization (the best civilization ever formed), it must not be diluted.
"But any difficulties are economic, not the result of "disparate cultures"."
We disagree, let it go.
There are ways of making population transfers in a viable way, but that will only happen if the issues are recognised sooner than later and without that, dragging the feet will make future population movements damaging.
Looks like people can just do things.
Wikipedia LOL
Time for the 50-50-50 Plan.
3 steps:
1) Conquer 50 miles into Mexico to create a DMZ and deportation center.
2) Process and deport 50 million illegals going all the way back to the 1960’s.
3) Finish this in 50 months. One million deportations a month.
My paternal grandparents were transferred to Hungary in 1945 from a village just north of the Danube to central-southern Hungary. I think it happened because they claimed to be Hungarians, i.e. they weren't keen on being a Czechoslovakian subject (although I never discussed the issue with them, only heard a few words from my father).
You forgot 2020-now Brits out of Britain 😜
You guys need to say fuck it and just start mass schwacking these vermin. Who cares what the treaty says these people are raping your kids at scale. It's time to rip the Band-Aid off. It's time for Germany to do what Germany does best 💕