As you have pointed out on many of these threads, such reaction is already quite apparent in Europe in general and Britain in particular (e.g., BNP).
Eventually the governments will probably end up confronting the choice of violently suppressing some backlash, or simply letting it happen and hoping it'll all work out in the end. If the former, they will probably lose all legitimacy as governments having the "consent of the governed", and systemic collapse will occur. Apres moi, le deluge...
Indeed, such movements are already prevalent in Europe. However, while the forthcoming American white nationalist movement will share a common ideology with the extreme Right of Europe, I believe it will skip the step of attempts at "legitimacy" a la the BNP or the Front National or the Vlaams Blok and go straight to the street fighting.
Why do I think so? Two reasons. One is the sheer size of the minority population in the United States. Even in the European country with the largest concentration of ethnic minorities--France--such minorities comprise only as much of the population as did non-non-Hispanic whites of the American population in the middle of the twentieth century. Moreover, the minority populations in Western Europe are recent arrivals--within the last few decades. Not so in the United States, where there has always been a significant presence of minorities who were once slaves. To integrate blacks into society, we had to have a "civil rights" movement. Europe, by contrast, skipped this step altogether.
So, unlike in Europe, I think the minority population in the U.S. is too large and holds too much clout to make room for a purely political white supremacist movement on any measurable level. I do not believe we will see the American Nazi Party rise to power; rather, I believe we will see a split in the military and police forces accompanied by a mass recruiting of ethnic militias sparked by gang violence in areas with large concentrations of Mexican immigrants, like Los Angeles.
Not exactly what the Framers had in mind, at least in this country. And strangely, near as I can tell, not what the monarchs and feudal aristocracy had in mind in historical Europe, either. They at least had some sort of fealty to their genetic countrymen, something that appears to have evaporated under "democracy".
You have just struck ideological gold, if I may opine so. I am a Royalist, and for that I am often accused of dictator-style authoritarianism. While the ideals of chivalry and community in Old Europe were sadly often not lived up to, they served as powerful guardians of the societies they permeated. The tales of the duplicity, violence, and cruelty that accompanied the Medieval system are too well-known to bear repeating here. Yet it would be a mistake to attempt to form a social policy that rules out each and every kink of life. Old Europe--and even federal America--knew this and knew it well, because Old Europe and federal America were Christian. They believed in Original Sin: the imperfect condition of man inherited from Adam. And while Baptism into Christ's Church cleans the soul of Original Sin, true Salvation is progressive, and is never finished in this lifetime. That reality must be accomodated by anyone wishing to live on God's Earth.
Liberalism, by contrast, has rejected the concept of Original Sin in its entirety, and substitutes instead
Liberalism, by contrast, has rejected the concept of Original Sin in its entirety, and substitutes instead a firm belief not only in the inherent goodness but in the this-worldly and artificial perfectability of mankind. Such was the belief of the eugenecists who sterilized those who might "contaminate" the gene pool. Such was the belief of the Khmer Rouge and the Viet Cong who slaughtered everyone who might taint their dreams of agrarian utopia. Such is the belief of all those who insist that our carnal desires and behavioral flaws be recognized as marks of beauty rather than sins and moral vices.
Good point. I'd add that in addition to how far things have gotten here since 1965, there is a mechanism which essentially forces violence as the first and only stage: the existence of an unbalanced, politically charged approach to civil rights enforcement, where any overt expression of ethnic nationalism on the part of whites is immediately singled out for legal action, whereas any other "group" may engage in the most overt, even seditionist and illegal, behavior, and not have to worry about really anything. This sets up an unstable situation: there's only a binary situation of no activism at all (out of fear) or all out civil war (might as well go for it, because winning it all is the only option).
Realistic politicians would discreetly seek to rebalance such a social situation. Not ours. Well, a few. But they dare not speak the name of the beast.
I am a Royalist, and for that I am often accused of dictator-style authoritarianism
In the past I would have automatically reacted to that. I'm the 11th generation of Yorkshire men and Scots-Irish from Ulster who came to America in the late 17th, early 18th century. Also Palatinate Germans, Anabaptist millennialists (the "Dunkers"). I can't count my Revolutionary ancestors; it's rending to go to places like King's Mountain and see my name on the memorials. Hard to get a grip on that. Royalism...my families were the people who bucked it off, took the Earl of Granville's land in the Carolina's for their own. And yet....
It appears that a benign Constitutional Monarchy with rigid rights can be stable, and political freedom quite liberal. I think it's because the monarch can be the real court of last resort: the one person with the incentive to do the right thing, and the authority to make it stick.
The American Republic was supposed to have that; the Framers were not unaware of the necessity. "Who will police the police". The answer? It was supposed to be the Congress itself, the people's house. It's not an accident that the Constitution contains the jurisdiction stripping clause, which allows Congress to limit judicial review. They knew there were going to be some things that should be beyond such. But Marbury v. Madison was the first usurpation, and the top of the slippery slope. The judiciary wished to insert itself as the monarchs. That should have prompted another round of the Constitutional Convention, to clarify just what were the roles and the rights. At this point, just such a new convention is needed. Only that will buy the Constitutional Republic a chance to vindicate itself.
As for Christian Europe, and the role of Original Sin, I like to tell this to the 20-somethings I work with about the America I grew up in: everyone, even 12 year olds, had a gun. But...murders and other gun violence were quite low. Why is that? Welllll...everyone believed, really did believe, that if you killed someone unjustly, you'd go to Hell. Oh, yes, the Sophisticates weren't convinced...but they had tenured positions at the local university and weren't about to indulge themselves in an orgy of violence for which they suspected there was no penalty in the afterlife. But most of the ordinary people did, and that's enough. They police themselves. Love They Neighbor As Thyself, and don't blow him away when he forgets to return the lawnmower. (note to Sophisticates: so maybe it is just a stable social code. Wouldn't that be a Natural Law, and...who might have created a Natural Law? Hmmm?).
The Christian West depends on a lot of things. Christianity informing it's people and laws are foremost.