See Part 1/3 of this post for more information.
The “multiculturalist” states will echo the America we are all familiar with and which many of us have come to resent: the America of affirmative action, white privilege, non-white immigration, political gridlock, Jewish lobbyists, rent-seeking, and so forth. These successor republics are welcome to continue their social experiment and see where it leads them. I’m sure they’ll do really well since discrimination is economically harmful and all people are capable of being equal consumers if that’s all you care about in your national ideology. In the event that they do poorly, the multicultural states will be a solid source of immigrants for the nationalist states, which will, of course, restrict immigration based on blood and ancestry.
The nationalist states will take a different approach. These countries will have large ethnic majorities, which are legally favored in state ideology and policy, which is the inverse of the multiculturalist states. Nativism and pro-natalist policies will be enacted, border patrols will be created, and there may be a tendency toward autarky. This would be economically inefficient, but the modus operandi of nationalism is not profit maximization but ethnic preservation and growth. Should conditions deteriorate enough to drive emigration, the governments will have to allow those who want out to leave, which is a way of solving the pluralism question. In turn, nationalist states will be a source of immigrants for multicultural states.
Ethnic minorities will inevitably exist in nationalist countries, having ended up on the wrong side of the partition through no fault of their own, as it is difficult to draw ethnically conscious and concise borders. While their rights will not be molested, they cannot expect any further rights, privileges, guarantees, or preferences that they would under their own nation states, or the multiculturalist states. Self-deportation and emigration ought to be encouraged through financial incentives that could perhaps be covered by a fund set up as one of the last acts of the unitary United States government.
The nationalist countries could make up their losses from emigration through immigration of their ethnic kin. For example, millions of American whites will be left outside the borders of a White American Republic. While some of them will chose to stay “abroad” for whatever reasons they may have, some will ultimately move. White flight already exists internally and if the contemporary white flight phenomenon is any indicator of privately-held racial attitudes of whites, they probably will move. In the short term, partition might create housing shortages or surpluses in some parts of the old United States, but this will work itself out. The free market will literally fix it. People need homes and people need jobs; boom, you have a contruction industry. Government intervention may be likely to assist home-buyers and renters, and as home ownership is a prerequisite for having a higher standard of living, and a higher standard of living promotes better education, which improves many aspects of our lives; nationalist countries ought to do this for the benefit of their own people. Generous social policies are, of course, more common in homogenous societies since you are basically taxed to help your extended family. Diverse societies, on the other hand, are low-trust and require an excessive amount of resources devoted to stability and security relative to more homogenous societies.
Growth is not necessarily going to be central to nationalists as it is to capitalists/multiculturalists. Sustainable populations are much more important. Nobody rightfully would want to create a “white Africa” with birthrates double or triple of 2.1—that would promote societal decay and degeneracy, i.e. dysgenics, poverty, sexual crime and abuse, unrest, etc. What is important is to both invest in white human capital and also secure a homeland to promote human flourishing.
READ MORE: Part 3/3