Why do folks pretend an alternative to this either/or hasn't already been proposed?
The recent Johnson-Spencer dust-up, and the subsequent breathless comments from the peanut gallery commentariat at Counter-Currents, is in a bizarre way fascinating, since this issue has already been discussed by Francis Parker Yockey, Norman Lowell, and I.
The answer to the question: Ethnonationalism or Imperium? - is, simply, both.
A rough analogy would be the pre-Civil War America where a federal structure presided over states that had some degree of autonomy, real differences, and of course, there were strong regional distinctions in culture and the way of life.
To avoid civil wars, Jackson vs. Calhoun stand-offs and creeping centralization, obviously one would not copy the flawed American model. I'm talking about general principle, rather than exact mechanism.
A Europe of individual completely independent states brought us to this sorry mess through the two world wars, that shattered the White World and led to the current EU fraud. On the other hand, that fraud shows us the dangers of mindless homogenizing centralization.
If Whites are the "superior race," then this would be a problem that is solvable, no? I mean, a people that racialists say will "one day reach the stars" should be able to properly arrange a balanced polity. shouldn't they? The question is whether we have the will to do so.