It's certainly an appealing message, and this guy seems like a totally decent guy, but long term, over generations...it just doesn't work. There are several reasons why, but think of it in terms of Game Theory: Everyone does better in a truly Cooperate/Cooperate world where everyone is totally colorblind, universalist, and abandons in group preference. But any group that chooses the 'cheat' option will come out even more ahead, because they can then parasite off the 'cooperate' parties. For instance, in a system where most people make political decisions based on thought and contemplation, a group that pursues pure in group preference and solidarity can gain power far, far beyond its numbers. Similar in economics - a group that prefers its own will eventually do vastly better than members of groups that are universalist. Eventually, the political/social/economic incentives to do so will be too much, and one party will choose to 'cheat.' And then others will see it, and they will be forced to choose the 'cheat' option as well. And then your multicultural utopian becomes either a low-trust dystopia in the best case, or a civil war in the worst case. This is, in short, why the idealistic Ron Paul libertarianism of the early 2000s gave way to the modern ethnonationalist bent. Because during the Obama years so many idealistic, race blind libertarians saw other groups openly 'cheating' and not wanting to compete fairly in this race blind, idealistic playing field. There are other reasons, but this is a key one why ethno-nationalism for everyone is a better solution for everyone long term; it removes this enticing and dangerous 'we cheat while they cooperate' incentive.