> Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.

Yes it is. However those examples will nearly always be specific instances and special circumstances with a few exceptions like the Hapsburgs.

What I see now is sustained transnational political collaboration. That suggests the formation of a larger political unit based on shared ideals and an external threat (this is always true). I don't mean that this networking is equivalent to the EU's attempts, it is more organic than that.

The analogy I would use is TCP/IP vs the OSI. The EU is doing OSI. The nationalists are doing TCP/IP.

> As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value.

Right. And/or ideological terminal goal continuity. The Sikh and western Chinese are very much aligned with us, they are almost never a problem. This is one of the problems with the 'integration narrative' the center-left/right don't want to consider. There exist examples of non-integration and zero conflict.

The American experiment proves that Europeans can work together. That's the good news. After centuries of ethic and religious warfare no less. A larger political unit was successfully forged, which is still remarkable in historical context. Australia is another example just to show it isn't luck.

I also foresee no real political problems with Hispanics and Asians, I think this election has shown that.

The problem is that, especially in Europe, large portions of some subgroups have decided to reject the West and desire to establish a parallel state. The evidence for this is overwhelming, everything from secret courts to large caches of guns being discovered.

There is also a considerable number of native born citizens who are a real problem. To understand why take a look at this article by Charlie Stross:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/11/playtime...

In my view they are like RINOs, except that they are Westerners In Name Only. These people are contributing to a very dangerous polarization between the Muslims and other inhabitants of our territories. I believe that if civil conflict breaks out they will work against attempts to unify and establish civil order and this shall have horrifying consequences. The blunt end of the State, the army, the police, the intelligence, are all right wing to a man. I've seen sectarianism before, it's not a pretty sight.

> It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed ... What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)

I know that, but the newspapers are very attached to their caricature of reality and that exerts influence. In Germany and Sweden the Pravda-ization is out of control. There is 'progress' and there is 'hitler'.

> Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile ... Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.

I think America will have indigestion but ultimately be fine. I cannot say the same about Europe. It is a horror show unfolding in front of us, a few more attacks and reprisals are sure to start.

The only solutions that would prevent this are deemed politically impossible and so we shall deal with the political inevitable.