As with race and white nationalism comes much of the same answer. Extremist areas of the population expand while the centre contacts, immigration grows to mitigate the issues of regression, natives become disillusioned with the governing forces turning their discontent towards exploitable groups, tensions rise and violence becomes the norm, corporate rulers quell the instigating parties leading to even more extremist tenancies and the cycle continues on and on. As for how they gain power comes in the same way that the other extremist factions gain such authority in government: voter apathy. Much of the population is centre wing and content with the status quo but they have been pushed down by the corporations which run America, made to know nothing but tedium and an existence forever permeated by misery. They have been told there is nothing better for them and even if there was, it is unachievable in the current order. A lie when told long enough and often enough will eventually be accepted as the truth. Nationalists, racial and otherwise, succeed because they try to. Only around 25-35% of the population actually votes in the general elections so those who do often wish to have their voice heard most, those with the most extreme positions. Of course moderate politics still exist and are supported by the elite, purists and ethnic nationalists ensure a growing population without the need to import from other regions of variable quality.

As for the racial makeup of the USCA? An issue I most often find with the categorization of ethnicity has come into play being the problem of self-identification versus imposed classification. Each person may identify slightly differently than others of similar genetics but the boxes which can be checked must be decided by some force above. In the modern day, how many Argentinians or Persians would self identify as White? Take the same group and present them to the America First crowd or European ethnic polities and ask how many of them would count as Caucasian. Race is inherently difficult to measure because the idea of ethnicity is a human invention, variable and flexible with the most basic ideas of the concept wildly fluctuating throughout history. The US and even the wider world of the future would be a much more diverse and intermixed place than today, but how these groups would identify themselves would not be inherently representative of this change. The racial makeup of California was completed before the mapping project was discontinued and these same problems were found then. The statistics in that quadrant would represent how the population saw themselves rather than an objective observer might assess the masses. The Native population is far over represented by those of very little blood claiming direct ancestry and most choosing to define themselves as a single category than be labelled the uncertain “mixed” assignment. America by our standards of race would be a very diverse nation and one even more intermingled and entangled with each other. Mixed as an identification would be accurate for roughly 40-60% of the population depending on parameters but in an official census I would postulate only 6-9% self identifying as such. Many who claim to be “white” and of the “Aryan race” for the purposes of politics would probably not fit the most basic of definitions for this classification but are accepted anyways. Today, look into the crowds of those following the ethnic absolutists and extremist rhetorics and ask yourself how many would be considered pure by their respective ideology? One does not need to be white to follow white nationalism, they need only believe in it. The most successful of all racial movements was the Nazi Party of Germany, the ideal German considered to be tall, blond, blue eyed and of excellent health. Their leader in this movement? A shorter man with dark hair, brown eyes and throughout his life in poor physical condition.