Putting aside minor issues such as a misunderstanding of fascism, I see two major problems with that essay.
1. Pan-Europeanism. Of course, there is no "official" definition of "pan-Europeanism" so people are in theory able to define it as they wish, even to the extent of a straw man definition. That said, it probably is useful to have actual pan-Europeanists contribute to the discussion.
Murray and others define "pan-European" as a set of policy prescriptions, such as a "European super-state." That's a very narrow viewpoint, which does not encompass what I see as the reality of what is meant by "pan-European."
In my view, pan-European (no scare quotes) is more of an attitude, a meme, an ideology, rather than any specific policy initiative. I would define pan-Europeanism as:
A meme that asserts that the interests and well-being of ALL peoples of European descent are of importance, and should be equally pursued.
That contrasts to Der Movement, which restricts its interest only to those peoples whose origins are to the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.
The exact approach used to achieve the objectives of pursuing pan-European interests may vary.
2. The idea that we can have significant populations of non-White minorities in at least some areas of a "White ethnostate." That's the Michael Hart ideal of multiracial "White separatism" and I reject that. There is no reason why "ports" or "coastal cities" in any White state have to contain any non-White minorities whatsoever. Why must Whites always accommodate the other, even in the context of racial nationalism? Is this "cuck-racialism?"