Take a look at how the US is dealing with the deportation rioting in cities that are 50% non-white and you see the big looming problem for any government that wants to crack down hard on immigrants and drag them screaming out of their house.
There is absolutely no fucking way they'd be able to put a dent in Wakefield, Blackburn, Burnley or Bradford before a bobby is beheaded in the streets. It's over, we have left it far too late and there are genuine enclaves that will take hundreds of years to cleanse. The best you can do it buy as big a detached house you can get (so no chance of Pakis moving in next door) and riding it out.
I hate to sound defeatist but if Trump with a huge fucking majority, the majority of the nation on his side and literally going after people who genuinely shouldn't be in the country results in this much carnage then I can't imagine how much shit we'd get if we decide to send the family of a rapist back to Bangladesh.
The big issue is traitors and the various people vested (or forced to be) in their continued staying here. Whenever X-nation expelled Y-minority from their nations in times past, the people of X-nation did not protest in any great capacity to prevent the minority from being removed. Now, we have people both in government and in commerce who wish that they remain out of self-interest. If the minority knows it'll be crushed by the majority, then they'd be meek, but they have the combined decades of social fluffing and domestic backers behind them which has them feel secure. It won't be a problem that'll take centuries to fix on its own, it can be ameliorated rather quickly once all pillars supporting them up are knocked down.
List of supports:
1. The "Politicians": Those who see the minority group as a valued bloc of voters. Them remaining aids them in keeping their position of power and income --> Solved cynically by said politician realising said bloc will no longer be of any use to them (helped if said bloc begins voting for people belonging to their in-group a la Independents stealing seats from Labour) and if continued support is
detrimental (pro-immigrant sentiment damaging viability of party) then they'd be forced to change gear.
2. The "Corporate": Those who see the minority group as a financial boon, split into both international and domestic groups --> Arguably the hardest to solve given how intertwined we are with liberal approaches to the economy and thus this group is similarly being
supported themselves. They would become more a problem if people are removed, important jobs become available in excess, and they'd be forced offer higher than minimum wage. Some entities, like ASM or wholesale suppliers to takeaway food places, also rely on certain on minority groups as their primary consumer base. I'm not sure if you can "solve" this one without radical shifts to how the economy is handled, not just domestically but internationally too. Removing the mandated diversity rules in advertising and programs should help alleviate the issue of propaganda and other drivel at least.
3. The "Captured": Those who are compelled ideologically to support minority groups and thus support them in principle --> Young people usually who've been influenced via education, content online, or their parents into the mantra of "minority good", making excused constantly on their behalf. Typically young people. Largely hot air and could be acted over in theory, but their presence gives them (minority) a lot of power projection.
Solved via reworking the education system to dislodge anything that might instil self-hatred at their race/people at the Primary school and High School/Sixth form level curriculum (which is done at the national level so it's feasible). At the University level without going full-on totalitarian, you limit or cease all non-native students from attendance and restrict the state offering of student loans (the generous ones with plenty of leeway we have currently) to students taking part in useful degrees like medicine whilst forcing those taking superfluous degrees in some drivel relating to Theory (feminist, queer, and so on) pay. Alternatively, and as a way to bribe some of the young 'uns, make useful degrees paid for by the state (free) but useless ones require payment. This'll incentivise Universities to axe unprofitable classes in favour of those which people actually do, which might solve certain issues in the long-term.
Liberals will still be a thing, but hopefully Marxists and their derivatives will disappear over time.
4. The "Reluctant": Those who feel compelled to not voice their opposition to minority groups thus self-feeding into continued stagnation on the issue --> Solved by assuring these reluctance that they're not alone, which is in the process of happening as we speak if you use Reform as a measurement of this. Long-term it's helped by a lack of censorship, proliferation of free speech and observable metrics of something not being a taboo opinion via polls and election results. The lack of internet censorship coupled with Southport let a lot of people know that, yeah, they're not alone in their views.
5. The "Minorities": Those who feel compelled to help their fellow minority --> Solved by reducing their collective numbers. In theory the easiest looking at the sheer simplicity of it but the hardest in practice. You can break the bloc apart by seizing on tensions between said groups (as Britain did for centuries during the Empire), such as between the Indians and Pakistanis, or the Sikhs and Hindus.
Also one of the only truly effective uses of Civic Nationalism, since it can also sunder a group with itself by having one group be the "assimilated" and another being the "defiant". For instance: Pakistanis/Muslims are the problem. So you constantly stress why
they are the issue, which soothes the worries of other minority groups. Once they're soothed, you enflame them by emphasising the problems said group does to the others by merely remaining here — "They'll get us
all removed at this rate." — thus either isolating that particular group or causing other members of the minority to support your cause of removing them. There's also anti-minority policies, such as a hijab ban, halal ban, and so on, which can make some leave on their own.
The biggest hurdle is probably the politicians and then corporations in that order (it's reversed in America). However, despite Farage cuckoldry on certain matters, there's no way he can shackle every Reform MP to his viewpoints. It was one such MP who voiced her displeasure at the hijab against Starmer, something Farage or Reform never made official party policy, and it quickly got supported by other Reform MPs and the overall party base, forcing Yusuf out of his chairman position. It's very possible that if enough actual right-leaning politicians bolster Reform's ranks and the number of MPs of actual value outnumber Farage, he could very well be forced to follow the whims of his party, much like Starmer was when he conceded on PIP and relief for new workers on benefits.
So yeah, my main contention is that it won't take
hundreds of years, but assuming we're on the correct path now, if Reform get in and opinions are allowed to be more free-flowing without fear of arrest, it might take a couple decades.
