Multiculturalism, outcasts, and ethnopluralism

All my heroes seem to be outsiders who predicted or called for things that came to pass ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred or more years from their own times. One outcast prediction which still holds true today relates to melting-pots, multiculturalism, polyglot nations, cosmopolitanism, and globalism: they do not succeed and inevitably bring about breakdown or civil war. Attempts by modern liberals and neoconservatives, even some traditional conservatives, to bypass this realistic truth, such as defining nations only culturally or trying to teach patriotism to one and all is untruthful and often deceitful.

Alas, present outsiders who declare that ethnic bonds are what hold nations together usually go on to declare one race and culture as superior and all others as inferior or evil, thereby further damaging the truths of ethnopluralism. The realistic position to take is to defend the ethnic and cultural integrity of each group living within their own regions and states, ideally protected by a light federalism. This remains the long-term solution to many of our problems.  This is where we can defend ourselves with the moral high ground.

Eventually nations do break down into ethnic territories, informally or formally---the Soviet Union and the Middle-East being recent examples. Demanding impossible assimilation into multi-ethnic, multicultural states ends up causing far more pain and suffering.

But this continues to be the outcast position, even though in the United States at least, the Constitution in its original form, with its separation of powers and states could be workable with a more realistic ethnopluralism of ethnostates, avoiding future breakdown or civil war. Who benefits from being against this at the great cost of everyone else, and eventually at the cost of themselves?