Inspector Clouseau strikes again.
So, he is against a “super-state” and for “ethnonationalism,” but still asserts that:
That said, I believe the primacy of European civilizational and genetic interests must be culturally hegemonic across the European World, that a Greater European Commonwealth (perhaps akin to the Arab League) should logically include all the countries of Europe and the European diaspora, and Western/Central European nations should be embedded in some kind of polity, for reasons of interdependence, solidarity, and scale (e.g. a continental-scale market, great cultural, aerospace, and military-industrial projects).
Which is not much different than what many anti-ethnonationalists are proposing anyway.
I like to poke fun at Durocher, but it is richly deserved. Who else can bloviate such a self-contradictory spewing of unnecessary hot air?
But there are things to criticize, besides that some of us would prefer a larger-scale and more integrated polity, however one that would still retain some sovereignty for those nations and peoples that pull their own weight in the enterprise.
For example, the conflation of “pan-Europeanism” with some sort of Imperium, Empire, Super-State. Well, it could mean that, or it could mean what Durocher proposes at the end of his spiel, or it could simply mean completely independent White states that get along well with each other with minimal conflict.
Perhaps pan-Europeanism is best viewed as a flexible meme and not as a rigid set of specific polices; it generally promotes the idea of mutual respect among the varied European peoples, and therefore attempts to search for solutions that will allow for the biological and cultural preservation of all Europeans worldwide.
Pan-Europeanism asserts that all persons of European descent should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the fate of the West and its peoples. Pan-Europeanism, properly considered, can be consistent and compatible with concerns about narrower ingroups: Nordicism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism, or whatever ethnic or subracial nationalism one wishes to consider.
What pan-Europeanism introduces to these other ideologies is an additional concern for the broader European family.
In other words, let us promote, defend, and extend the interests of ALL peoples of European descent worldwide, rather than just a subset of these. That’s it. Exactly how to promote, defend and extend those interests can be a matter of discussion and debate; what pan-Europeanism absolutely asserts is that those interests are important – ALL of them.
Therefore, there is no inherent incompatibility between an enlightened ethnonationalism and pan-Europeanism, despite what “movement” idiots may assert.
One must at this point question - why is the “movement” so stupid and defective?
I propose four reasons that certainly do not constitute a final and/or exhaustive list:
1. Dissident activities tend to attract marginal personalities.
2. These marginal personalities create defective environments that repel quality people.
3. The System’s social pricing reinforces the alienation of quality people from dissident activities.
4. The “movement’s” affirmative action policy elevates mediocrities to leadership positions.
Thus, we need to reject defectives, overcome social pricing, and get rid of the affirmative action policy.