It has become almost a new rite of passage for a nationalist on social media or indeed the wider internet to become au fait with IQ statistics. It is a simple thing to understand; East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest on IQ tests, White people score just below them, and Africans score below them. These results are of course averages, and there are dumb Ashkenazi Jews just as there are smart Africans.
This is all well and good as something to take note of, especially when you are trying to explain why the Congo is consistently worse than Northern Europe, or why the European southern part of Brazil is wealthier than the diverse northern parts of the country. However, at the same time, many people on the political right can become unstuck, and indeed outflanked, by making this subject the focus of their ideology.
‘IQ nationalism’ will merely lead to an immigration system that will bring large amounts of tech workers from the Far East and Israel, and put your own middle class out of work. Even white nationalists are focusing too heavily on the IQ debate. By having pride in whites having an IQ higher than sub-Saharan Africans, you are by default excepting that whites have a lower IQ than Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians – not exactly something worth going on about for any significant length of time.
The other problem with IQ is that it lacks an all-encompassing base. Yes, it can show the ability of somebody in areas such as mathematics, pattern recognition and problem-solving; but it misses other crucial qualities. One of the most fundamental qualities it cannot predict is creativity - the ability to produce art, music, architecture, sculptures and new inventions. Some of the most creative and successful people in the history of the European peoples failed miserably at school in academic subjects, yet thrived when they entered the workplace in a vocational environment. Creativity has been fundamental to whites throughout our history; from the Greek City States and Rome to the illustrated manuscripts of the Middle Ages to the culture of the Italian Renaissance, and then on to the inventions of the industrial revolution, before we made the great leap into Outer Space. Whites have been the most creative race - without ever having the highest average IQ.
IQ tests also cannot predict physical coordination (a key asset for playing sports and military combat), and of course, they cannot predict physical appearance. The problem with ‘IQ nationalism’ is that it will, by definition, attract those individuals of any race with a high IQ, without considering the adverse effects that may have on the indigenous population, and their right to continue as an independent genetic sub-group.
To be a true nationalist, you must support the preservation of your own ethnic or racial group – and that includes both the intelligent and dumb members of that group. Indeed, there is some overlap between white and black results with regards to IQ (the higher range of black IQ and the lower range of white IQ overlap, thus forming the ‘bell curve’). So if you want to base your immigration policy on average IQ, a Black African can correctly state: ‘well you have some Whites in your country with a lower IQ, but you won’t allow in Black individuals with a higher IQ’. If you base your immigration policy on race, however, then your argument is sound; you may be called racist, but you are preserving your group interests.
Moreover, this is the inherent problem with people like Stefan Molyneux and Charles Murray. There is no doubt they have introduced millions of people to racial IQ averages, and this should be highly praised. However the problem is that by doing this they have (accidentally) diverted many people’s energy away from genetic preservation, and instead onto ‘IQ nationalism’ – a form of civic nationalism. So many talented individuals on the political right have no doubt wasted years campaigning with the slogan ‘why are we allowing in the third world when we could allow in the Japanese?’, instead of ‘why can’t white people have their own countries and have their own communities?’
Of course, intelligence is both important and observable, but it must not be the center of a nationalist ideology. Putting our people first, whether they are intelligent or dumb, must be at the core of our manifesto and campaigning.