Often, and this goes unquestioned, the mix-up of practicality and ideal are debated as the same. In terms of the practicality of people-propagation against a world of antinatalism, it makes sense to justify extreme in-group to preference. I'f argue this is still manageable without the racial aspect. If we get onto the issue of it being national, then we have the whole issue of the US being extremely multiracial, and the definition of "white" being very much up in the air. So up in the air it would be impossible to come to a conclusion that wasn't harebrained.
The ideal shouldn't be about racial homogeneity, but the propagation of traditional Christianity - at least speaking from an ecumenical position (gotta have grounding somewhere).
For most rightists their grounding in race becomes silly. Is it because of survival they must act in such an extreme way? If so, how? Who is white? What is the telos of this supposed ideal white society? Once again, seems to br grasping for straws.
Extreme in-group preference has no bearing on how society functions for the betterment of peoples. The most practical and traditionally-oriented solution is decentralization, and respectable society arising from communities that develop with firm vetting and rigid morally-informed laws. This will happen, in a way is already forming, and should continue to happen. My bet is the ones to survive will put the racial meme a bit further down the totem pole than the "can you abide by these laws and live in our nice society with the consequence being banishment or execution?" bit.
Once again, lots of ways this will play out practicallt, but the racial issue is pretty clearly born from an issue of insecurity and spiritual inmaturity.
Philosophy of Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs
Have you considered moving to South Africa and applying your ideas in that environment?
That would be a fine opportunity to refute the DRs Race Realism narrative. If they work there, they can work anywhere.
Often, and this goes unquestioned, the mix-up of practicality and ideal are debated as the same. In terms of the practicality of people-propagation against a world of antinatalism, it makes sense to justify extreme in-group to preference. I'f argue this is still manageable without the racial aspect. If we get onto the issue of it being national, then we have the whole issue of the US being extremely multiracial, and the definition of "white" being very much up in the air. So up in the air it would be impossible to come to a conclusion that wasn't harebrained.
The ideal shouldn't be about racial homogeneity, but the propagation of traditional Christianity - at least speaking from an ecumenical position (gotta have grounding somewhere).
For most rightists their grounding in race becomes silly. Is it because of survival they must act in such an extreme way? If so, how? Who is white? What is the telos of this supposed ideal white society? Once again, seems to br grasping for straws.
Extreme in-group preference has no bearing on how society functions for the betterment of peoples. The most practical and traditionally-oriented solution is decentralization, and respectable society arising from communities that develop with firm vetting and rigid morally-informed laws. This will happen, in a way is already forming, and should continue to happen. My bet is the ones to survive will put the racial meme a bit further down the totem pole than the "can you abide by these laws and live in our nice society with the consequence being banishment or execution?" bit.
Once again, lots of ways this will play out practicallt, but the racial issue is pretty clearly born from an issue of insecurity and spiritual inmaturity.
Christianity should definitely be basis of any community that wants to survive the storms of modernity.