Thanks for posting. First, if you want to stamp out "racism" or "tribalism," you should probably start with the groups are the most ethnocentric. White people are the least racist of all groups and white liberals even show negative ethnocentrism. If white people are supposed to "not be racist", then you need to convince all other groups to not be racist/tribalistic too - otherwise, whites would just be taken advantage of by other groups who don't subscribe to the "individualism" of white people. In other words, not being tribalistic/racist is a prisoners dilemma that white people are currently losing because they are being chumps and allowing themselves to be abused by nonwhite tribalism. Islam and BLM are examples of this. Nonwhites also overwhleming vote for democrats[1][2] who impose anti-white policies, more immigration, and give them special priveleges - e.g., affirmative action and welfare.

When you can convince sufficient numbers of blacks, hispanics and other groups to give up thier racial identities, not vote democrat en masse (A task libertarians and the GOP have tried and failed at for at least 60 years), vote to end welfare and antiwhite discrimination (no easy task, given their low IQs) and for Jews to dissolve their ethnostate, Israel, then maybe we would be amenable to "not being racist." Until then however, your proposal is a bad deal and we reject it because we have to continue to defend white people from being abused by other groups like we are today.

Tribalism is an inferior human condition that only leads to chaos and misery.

Tribalism is simply a group evolutionary strategy that evolved because negative and positive ethnocentrism are what worked for passing on genes. If whites were "racist" but there were no nonwhites in their countries, then would be no chaos or misery from racism. By contrast, inviting low-IQ, highly tribalistic religious fundamentalists (like Muslims) into white countries to satisfy some lofty "universal morality" has objectively caused choas and misery.

If you are a racialist and a tribalist, you are rejecting the universal morality (for example, Christian morality) that allowed humans to flourish in favour of a system of thought that is inferior and primitive

A lot of problems I see with this. First, the same people who came up with these enlightenment ideas and were christians were also racists who owned slaves - e.g., our founding fathers. So this supposed "christian morality" or "universal morality" they allegedly held was apparently not a serious contradiction for most of these people. There is also nothing "primitive" about acknowledging racial differences in psychological and other traits. Ignoring them however would be unscientific (and primitive). Segregation in the US wasn't ended until the mid 1960s - so the vast majority of European success occured under a "racist" worldview - an apparent rejection of what you call "universal morality"

The civilizations that were on the winning side of history had all gotten over old blood rivalries

This is obviously not true - e.g. Romans and Carthaginians, Romans and Jews, British Empire was very racist. All of these groups dominated other ethnic groups and were often very racist about it. Jews now are sort of an international ruling class - and they are very tribalistic and successful. Also civilizations are only on the "winning side of history" for so long. If anything, I would argue a loss of tribalism and maladaptive ideas like anti-racism and "universal morality" seem to cause decline (e.g. US, British Empire).

in favour of the advancement of ideas and the pursuit of universal truth.

Ironic that you make appeals to religion and "universal morality" but then want to talk about "universal truth." If you're interested in "truth" why don't you look into things like race and IQ, or race and crime?

Slavery is the founding sin of the New World

Slavery has been around since the dawn of humanity and has been practiced by almost all cultures and races at some point or another

and the scars that it left on us are now being exploited by the international revolutionary movement in order to topple what is left of traditional western civilization.

I agree our problems seemed to largely be caused by multiracialism (partially a legacy of slavery) and the ethnocentrism of nonwhites. When you can convince these people to stop being so vindictive and exploitive of whites, then maybe we would have an interest in listening to you and not being racist

Nazis were obliterated because they were absolutely repulsive to the civilized, christian world

Ignoring your various presuppositions on what Nazis thought about race, the Nazis lost because they were outmanned and outgunned and made enough tactical mistakes to lose. There is no reason to ascribe a military defeat to lofty ideological flaws. It is also a great con that people today think the Allies were very repulsed by the Nazis on an ideological level. Both sides were "racist," but disagreed on the particulars and with Nazi totalitarianism. Britain still had almost all its colonies, the US was segregated (including the military), and Nazi eugenics programs were inspired by American ones. The Allies had way more in common ideologically with the Nazis than they did with people like you today. Most probably would never have gone to war with the Nazis if they knew what would happen to their countries would become. For instance - a 1943 survey indicated 90% of US whites would have rather lost the war to Hitler than end segregation.. Even people like Winston Chruchill held what people would call "anti-semitic" views. So, the idea that the Nazis were "absolutely repulsive" to the Allies or that the Allies were super anti-racist are both obviously false. The beaches of Normandy weren't stormed by people who wanted transgender bathrooms or a Black president.