Sometimes white nationalists describe me as a proponent of 'IQ nationalism', they don't mean it well. It's somewhat of a misnomer of that position but it's kinda catchy so we will stick with it. There doesn't appear to be any post anywhere setting out what this opinion is, so it seemed fitting to do so here. The contrasting view is ethnonationalism of which 'white nationalism', i.e., European nationalism, is an example of. That view is essentially that the country should be an ethnostate, i.e., populated mainly or exclusively by people of some ethnic group. This term is usually used in the American context, where this would be a system where USA
The "slavs" that are cited in the study are mostly of Roma origin and are not Slavic by ethnicity, only by passport. Eastern and Central Europeans aren't low IQ. My country, Bulgaria, for example, has I think, according to the data a national IQ of 98 and also quite unimpressive PISA results, which are below the European standard, yet we have some of the highest medal counts in STEM olympiads in the world(Informatic and math being our strong suit). This discrepancy can be attributed to the Roma population of much lower IQ(same as the Indian one) being mixed together with the rest in the nationwide IQ studies, and not being differentiated as their own proper ethnic group within the country.
Hi Emil, is there a way to allow comments for article on your personal web site? I came here because I usually read on emilkirkegaard.dk. But I cannot comment there.
Anyways, I'm not sure if you know about the case of Jason Richwine. He was fired after a woke mob found out that he wrote his PhD thesis at Harvard on "IQ and immigration policy". He argues (with data of course) that the low Hispanic IQ is having a negative effect on the US economy. You can find his thesis online.
I am fairly with you, having at one time been what could be called an IQ nationalist, but when you add known negative effects of such a policy - the unavoidable emergence of a foreign elite that most probably - At least for countries originally inhabitated by north europeans - are more ethnocentric than the indigenous population, that ethnic and cultural diversity with a high level of confidence is bad for any country per Putnam's study and the Manchester study, greater inequality in-country where the inequality also corresponds with ethnic and cultural dissimilarity which seems to me to be common sense that such a condition breeds resentment between different ethnocultural groups, alienation for the indigenous poulation when they donät feel like hom ein their own country anymore, as well as lots of other external negatives (For instance, immigrants tend to bring with them the corruption patterns of their home countries, although I am not sure if this has been tested with IQ as a variable but it would surprise me greatly if tendency to corruption is not at least significantly non-correspondant with IQ).
So why just not at least be in essence a moderate white nationalist (I e allowing for maybe a low single digit percentage number of non-whites in what used to be but no longer are European nation states) with only high wage needs-based immigration taken from within an immigration quota that leaves most places for immigration open to people as genetically and culturally similar to the indigenous population as possible - plus strict critera for non-criminality, continous economic net contribution and cultural assimilation for being given citizenship (How that last is to be tested I cannot fathom without a totalitarian social credit system per China or similar but where only the indigenous population can give or remove points for immigrants so the indigenous population is not affected) so my ultimate conclusion has been that a strict white nationalist immigration policy is simply the easiest, least bothersome way for all involved to regulate immigration.
When the western world was a sane place - this above stance was in essence expressed in the Nordic agreement that allows Nordic citizens (Who then were extremely genetically similar) to move between Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland to foster brothership, agreement and cooperation between these four brother countries. I am a native swede living in the asylum that Sweden now is, with at least 99,97 % swedish genetic material myself, from what I know about my extended family eight generations back.
With the lunatic asylum that Sweden has become the abovementioned Nordic agreement will with high certainty be impossible to uphold in the future.
Cheers! And thanks for your interesting twitter feed!
PS. Although with the coming wave of automation and the rise of AI and in the end GAI I suspect even many above average IQ jobs (+1 SD for nordic whites) will very soon - In at most two decades be almost totally gone because of automation - but what that means for immigration I am unsure of.
Slightly above average IQ people wouldn't be much of an advantage, however 120+ IQ people that currently don't have any in demand skills could be. Whatever job they end up getting they have a good chance of working themselves up the ladder and improving efficiency of their workplace.
Of course there are problems with importing a foreign elite too, so not necessarily worth it.
It would be an interesting experiment if some country donated a piece of decent uninhabited land that anyone with a high IQ could move to freely.
It would be very helpful if there were a more robust literature on the real costs to importing substandard citizens. In the United States, at least, the field is saturated with rent-seeking studies.
If skilled worker standards are a rough stand-in for IQ standards, what would be a stand-in for Danish cultural compatibility? Ham consumption? You need something that rewards the sober introvert/drunken extrovert phenotype.