The definition of conservatism

[Caesar Princeps]

I already said that I did not refer to UE or similar organization, such as PanEuropean Society is.

About Friedrich II von Hohenstaufen, Evola did speak about "l'incipiente umanismo, liberalismo e razionalismo della corte siciliana" (Rivolta contro il Mondo Moderno, cap. XII) but he also said that Friedrich II fight against the Church to establish the indipendence of the Empire and the temporal power, as well as being the most evident example of the traditional divine, solar monarchy in Middle-Age (ibidem, passim).

As for what concern multiculturalism, it depends on the definition. This society is dangerously multiculturalist, but would you use the same definition about Austro-Ungaric Empire or Tsarist Empire or Holy Roman Empire?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

I already said that I did not refer to UE or similar organization, such as PanEuropean Society is.

It is the idea of a Pan-Europa, wherever it comes from, that is Universalist in one way or another.

As for what concern multiculturalism, it depends on the definition. This society is dangerously multiculturalist, but would you use the same definition about Austro-Ungaric Empire or Tsarist Empire or Holy Roman Empire?

Yes.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

Anyway, I still do not comprehend this aprioristic hate of PanEuropeism. It is clear that UE and every similar liberalistic or marxist organization is horrible. By the way, I think that European Nations won't be able to stand alone against the advance of Superpowers and the pressure of the Third World. A confederation or federation should be worked, based on traditional and supernational ties between European Nations, able to build a united strength maintaining at the same time large autonomies for Nations. I refer, for example, to medieval institutions such as the Empire, Chivalry, the Church, Latin language.
The aim should be to balance autonomy and cooperation in an efficacious way.

I am aprioristically opposed to pan-Eruopeanism because it ususally means a concept according to which all European nations should be amalgamated into one super-nation. I think this is monstruous. I don't like any conseravtive or liberal-marxist who would promote such idea. Beauty of Europe consists in its variety of nations, of identities. Pan-European nation would be some kind of monstrosity like USA.

Fostering artificial super-identities can be very dangerous. Take the example of Yugoslavia. You know how it ended...

I would propose some kind of society of European nations instead. That would be an informal international body that would have the task to administer some common things for all European nations. Sovereignity of individual states should be preserved, there should be no coercion. A common defense policy maybe (in form of an international force, composed of units from different European countries, but every country would keep its own army as well), protection from immigration...

As for the Latin language, well, not a bad idea of Latin being a language of communication between different European nations, while everyone should retain his national language(s) and cultures at home.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by prometheus

I am aprioristically opposed to pan-Eruopeanism because it ususally means a concept according to which all European nations should be amalgamated into one super-nation. I think this is monstruous. I don't like any conseravtive or liberal-marxist who would promote such idea.

Agreed. It doesn't matter in itself. Europe matters for what it is, that is the nations that compose Europe. Any move towards amalgamation is negative.

Beauty of Europe consists in its variety of nations, of identities.

I usually say that the uniqueness of Europe is in the rich diversity of its nations. Same idea. Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Pan-European nation would be some kind of monstrosity like USA.

Absolutely. In order to achieve a United States of Europe one must first erase the national identities. Which is one thing that is going on with the European Union.

I would propose some kind of society of European nations instead.

This is a long due debate on Stirpes.

That would be an informal international body that would have the task to administer some common things for all European nations.

It should be just a matter to have a balance between national interests and common interests. Common interests should also be divided in degrees of importance.

Sovereignity of individual states should be preserved, there should be no coercion. A common defense policy maybe (in form of an international force, composed of units from different European countries, but every country would keep its own army as well), protection from immigration...

Common defense is important in a future world divided in blocs of influence fighting for hegemony. However, this does not necessarily imply an amalgamated army. Also, common policies on R&D in the military field is important.

As for the Latin languge, well, not a bad idea of Latin being a language of communication between different European nations, while everyone should retain his national language(s) and cultures at home.

It is a nice thought, but not very realistic.