Article here.
My response:
There need not be incompatibility between a racial preservationist approach per se and a forward-thinking approach to race. One can draw a line at certain maladaptive scenarios that imperil preservationism and EGI: miscegenation, mass immigration, dysgenics, too-rapid changes in genotype/phenotype even if “positive” and within a homogenous population. As long as certain requirements are met, as long as a foundation of genetic continuity is in place, then one can pursue prudent eugenic goals and one call follow an upward path to racial progress. One cannot forego progress in the name of static conservative preservationism; on the other hand, one cannot dispense with continuity and genetic interests in order to pursue ‘transhumanist” objectives that would radically alter racial identity and the genetic interests of generations of a population with their posterity.
The same applies to “spiritual race” concepts. One can identify with, and value, such traits only insofar as one has first taken care of the material, biological, “zoological” aspects of race. True enough, biology alone is “sterile zoology” - but spirit without physical form is a self-destructive and self-defeating abstraction. You need both.
