Nationalists, as a general rule, are opposed to immigration. Although nationalists vary on the qualities and quantities of immigrants they would allow into their country, it is safe to say they are much less tolerant of immigration than the Left, where it has become commonplace to openly advocate for no immigration restrictions whatsoever. “No Borders, No Wall, No USA at All!” these traitors confidently chant, emboldened by their sense of moral supremacy. These social justice simps hurl all manner of insults at nationalists, calling them racists and Nazis, even going so far as to invoke the memory of the Holocaust to guilt-trip leaders into capitulating to their open-border objectives. After all, the Left argues, if it weren’t for strict immigration quotas during the 1930s, millions of European Jews might have been saved from the Holocaust. Today they use this fact browbeat western governments into caving to their demands for open borders for “refugees” (broadly defined, of course), as if these modern migrants are in danger of being gassed by the millions if they’re turned away. Besides, they argue, there are so many benefits to immigration; only a cold-hearted bigot would refuse these huddled masses arriving on their shores, yearning to breathe free.
However, typical of Leftist hyperbole, nationalists are not the simplistic, xenophobic bigots they’re made out to be. In fact, there is a considerable body of research favoring nationalist attitudes toward strict immigration controls.
A Primer on Smart Fraction Theory
What sets societies apart? Why do some societies excel in the realms of science, economic output, good government, and the arts while others flounder? Although many factors underlie the differences between states, one idea explains discrepancies in the output of nations in a way that is both intuitively obvious and evidence-based: Smart Fraction Theory (SFT).
The pseudonymous La Griffe du Lion (French for “The Lion’s Claw”) first put forth SFT in March 2002, in an article entitled, The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, in which La Griffe defined SFT as “The assumption that national wealth is determined by the fraction of workers with IQ equal to or greater than some minimum value.” SFT hypothesizes that a sophisticated economy needs a population with a certain, minimum level of cognitive ability to function (what La Griffe calls IQ0); the proportion of the population with a higher IQ than IQ0 La Griffe refers to as the nation’s smart fraction.
The linear relationship between national IQ and a number of positive social outcomes is already well established. SFT takes this relationship one step further to suggest societies can only maintain a given degree of civilizational sophistication if they have a national IQ commensurate with their society’s IQ0. This suggestion is intuitively obvious, in that one cannot have a society flush with scientists and engineers if there are few, if any, people with sufficient cognitive ability to master the skills necessary to infer causation or apply advanced statistical methods. Simply put, the greater a society’s smart fraction, the more technologically, socially, and economically successful it will be.
However, as a society’s complexity increases, IQ0 increases in kind. But there’s a catch … in a society of stable national IQ distribution, increases in IQ0 result in a smaller smart fraction. Therefore, unless the national IQ increases in kind, the progress of a society will stagnate. Worse yet, if the national IQ decreases, then the smart fraction might be all but eliminated until IQ0 recedes (i.e., the society regresses, becoming more primitive).
Why Smart Fraction Matters in the Immigration Debate
SFT would be little more than an interesting way to predict a nation’s achievement if it weren’t for group differences in cognitive ability. The existence of such differences adds a facet of complexity to common debates over immigration policy that is all but ignored and which SFT can elucidate.
To begin, we must establish a fact that the vast majority of people are unaware of. Contrary to popular belief, there is a correlation between race and IQ. The research on the subject is solid and reliable, comprised of tens of millions of data points collected over more than a century, and it all says the same thing: group differences in cognitive ability are consistent, persistent, and resistant to environmental intervention. In spite of decades of research, and untold billions of dollars spent on early intervention and social welfare programs attempting to eliminate these differences, group IQ and achievement gaps remain unchanged.
Although research into the intersection of race, IQ, and genetics is not currently sophisticated enough to pinpoint the precise genetic underpinnings of cognitive ability, decades of research has provided us with reliable estimates of the heritability of IQ (estimates suggest 50-70% of the variance in IQ is explained by genes) However, genome sequencing studies currently underway will provide the statistical power necessary to precisely determine the specific alleles responsible for IQ and their effect sizes, finally laying to rest once and for all whether group differences in cognitive ability are primarily genetic or environmental in origin. No serious researcher in the field is expecting an upset against the hereditarian hypothesis, though, with prominent figures doing their best to gently prime the public for what will likely be, irrefutable evidence for innate racial differences in cognitive ability.
The public will need a soft landing with the data is analyzed, because the results of race and IQ studies have been quietly suppressed for over half a century, to the point that research on race, IQ, and genetics is the biggest open secret in science. The data is there for anyone who asks to review, but the results are rarely discussed outside of academic circles and, when they do achieve popular circulation – as was the case with Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994) – the authors are barraged by such a withering torrent of criticism and negative publicity that they think twice before publishing on the same subject again.
That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is. Science should be driven by logic, theory, and empirical evidence; not death threats and violent mobs. The reason so many people have such a visceral reaction to an honest publication of sound research is because, in the 1960s, media organizations and governments developed narratives and policies around the best research at the time, which was strictly behaviorist. Psychologists at the time were so confident every human trait had an environmental cause, they even thought they could cure Downs Syndrome with the right intervention. The prevailing zeitgeist weighed so heavily in favor of environmental causes for human behavior and cognition that psychologists didn’t even bother to think about the possibility of variance attributable to genetics. That is how the religion of racial equality began. There are no studies demonstrating racial equality. There are no interventions that have been able to achieve it. It was simply a result of the prevailing attitudes about psychological causation in the 1960s. 60 years later, media and governments continue to push the narrative, as if saying it enough will somehow make it so, but the hypothesis of racial equality is not, in any way, supported by the decades of psychometric and behavior genetic research since, which have overwhelmingly favored a hypothesis of racial inequality.
The public desperately needs to be made aware of this information in order to make informed decisions about immigration, for if there are innate differences between human populations, the public might want to modify their government’s immigration policies accordingly. As it stands, our immigration policy is based on the fanciful notion that group differences are entirely attributable to environment, especially in the realm of cognitive ability. But if group differences in IQ are largely explained by genetics, then the public needs to be warned immediately that no amount of wishful thinking or early intervention will make doctors and engineers of waves of African migrants. A century’s worth of data speaks in unison on the subject; even when provided with equal environments, some groups will continue to outperform others due to innate, biological differences.
In light of these facts, if the validity of SFT continues to hold true, western nations currently opening their borders to low-IQ migrants are naively inviting their own destruction. Indiscriminate immigration from regions predominated by low-IQ groups will result in persistent (on the order of centuries to millennia), lower national IQ in the countries they migrate to. This, in turn, will lower the national mean IQ distribution, resulting in a smaller smart fraction. A smaller smart fraction means societal progress will stagnant, at best, or reverse itself at worst, as the new immigrants are incapable of meeting the IQ0 necessary to live as productive members of their new society. Incapable of being productive, they will create a drag on the economy, in the form of increases in crime and dependence on taxpayer-funded social services. Depending on the proportion of migrants admitted, the society may collapse entirely as a surplus of unemployable young males become restless and agitate for socio-political change that is better-suited to their own, limited cognitive capabilities. The research is quite clear on the subject: you simply cannot import enormous numbers of low-IQ people, from radically different cultures, and expect them to integrate as seamlessly into their new home as a Berliner would to Amsterdam.
There are no exceptions to the previous paragraph. It happens every single time the proportion of low-IQ individuals exceeds a society’s carrying capacity for them. The resulting drop in smart fraction causes the society to become less complex (i.e., fall into ruin) until it reaches an IQ0 that matches its population’s average IQ. One need look no further for a good case study on the subject than post-colonial Africa (or any city, region, or country that has gone from White rule to Black rule, for that matter). There are literally no successful Black nations. That’s not because of White Supremacy, systemic racism, or whatever anti-White blaming strategy is being employed by social justice fanatics to deflect attention away from the innate deficiencies of some groups to keep the White Guilt money flowing. No, Black nations fail because Africans don’t have an average IQ high enough to meet the IQ0 necessary to maintain even the most rudimentary cities and economies. In general, Africans build nothing and destroy everything; when left to their own devices, anything resembling modern civilization invariably disintegrates into rubble.
There is no reason to believe this trend will reverse itself if Africans move to Europe. They’ve proven themselves incapable of managing anything resembling a modern society without massive assistance to keep them propped up; we’ve been doing this for decades as if suddenly the lame man will begin to walk. They won’t. It’s time to face the reality of race trends, stop pretending that Africans are our intellectual equals, stop flushing billions of dollars of White Guilt money down the toilet of African aid programs, and sure as hell stop letting wave after wave of this failed race continue to pour into Europe until we’re so overwhelmed by the burden of our hospitality that our generosity becomes a noose around our necks.
If that sounds harsh, if that sounds mean, it’s because we need to start getting mean or we’re gonna start getting dead. Most Whites are lost in some delusional fantasy about racial equality; these naïve Leftists would rather destroy their own people turn away these strangers who pour in. Whether they know it or not, the logical conclusion of their hair-brained, feminized, beta culture policies is the eradication of Whites and everything European. And they’re fine with that, because they’re so removed from reality that they honestly believe we’re the problem. That if all the nasty nationalists would just die, the world would blossom into an Eden of racial harmony and social justice. They are so naïve that they would gladly see us all Whites dead if that’s what it takes to accomplish their deranged objective.
But maybe, just maybe, if we start speaking up and start acting out, we might convince enough people in the middle to turn the tide before it’s too late to save our people, our culture, our history, and the land of our ancestors is conquered by invaders who never had to fire a shot to get us to surrender. If gender-confused faggots can speak truth to power, surely we can too. We must. We have no other choice. For us, it is do or die.
Bringing Balance to the Debate – SFT and Smart Immigration
But don’t start walling off the border just yet. Having established that group differences in cognitive ability exist, and they’re innate to a degree yet to be determined (probably pretty significant), how does SFT inform immigration policy?
The most obvious change to immigration policy, in light of an awareness of group differences and the effect of national IQ on GDP, should be to set minimum IQ standards for prospective immigrants. In spite of subjective, Leftist attacks on intelligence measures, they are “the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments.” (p.13) Likewise, contrary to Leftist propaganda, IQ tests are not culturally-biased; they accurately predict cognitive ability in all English-speaking Americans, regardless of race. In addition, those who do not speak English can be assessed using non-verbal IQ tests or a test in their native language. IQ tests accurately predict not only cognitive ability, but a variety of wide-ranging positive and negative life outcomes, from academic success, to job attainment, job performance, income, health (both mental and physical), and educational attainment; it even predicts (through negative correlation) susceptibility to dropping out of school, chronic welfare dependency, accident proneness, and crime.
In short, there is no measure in existence that comes anywhere close to the ability of IQ tests to reliably predict such a wide-ranging number of personal potentials. One would think these life outcome probabilities would be very important to immigration policymakers; instead, they’re simply ignored. The absence of these tests from current immigrant assessment amounts to nothing short of willful negligence on the part of our lawmakers to ensure our countries accept only the best and brightest applicants for citizenship.
Likewise, the absence of IQ standards in the current immigration policy regime is racially-biased in favor of low-IQ populations. Policymakers are fully aware that minimum IQ standards would favor higher-IQ Europeans, Asians, and Jews over lower-IQ Africans, Latinos, and some other groups. But that’s honestly the fairest method to be employed. As it stands, race and IQ are ignored. However, such a regime unfairly discriminates against higher-IQ races while discriminating against high-IQ individuals from lower-IQ populations. It makes no sense to admit low-IQ individuals just because we don’t want to seem biased in favor of higher-IQ groups; likewise, it makes no sense to admit low-IQ Europeans, Asians, and Jews at the expense of high-IQ Africans, Latinos, and others. Such an asinine policy will always result in lower national IQ over time, resulting in a shrinking smart fraction, and subsequent stifling of national achievement. It is the same policy of racial bias (implemented in the name of “diversity”) used to screen applicants to our top university programs (which have quickly deteriorated into Marxist indoctrination academies) and has all but arrested the considerable IQ gains seen in western nations due to the Flynn Effect, since quotas on low-IQ populations were lifted in the 1960s.
The resulting social, political, and economic decay of western nations should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with this topic. There was simply no other way it could have turned out otherwise. Although immigration skeptics like the UK’s Enoch Powell, and White Nationalists such as Rhodesia’s Ian Smith, had only a reasonable suspicion mass immigration and the end of White rule would destroy their homelands, today we have decades of research sufficient to confidently implicate lower national IQ – due to immigration policies based on ideology and emotion rather than scientific examination and empiricism – in the rapid decline of our once great European empire.
I’m of the opinion that national immigration standards should be modeled after NORSKK’s admission standards. NORSKK is open to people of all races who meet the standards necessary to be considered a Víkingr. There is no such thing as race purity in Norse culture, but we are monocultural, not multicultural. As our Black bros will attest, they are as much members of our tribe as anyone else.
Racial trends exist, but they only matter when assessing phenomena in which individuals can’t be assessed. If you had to choose one country to accept immigrants from, indiscriminately, by all means, choose a European country every time! Statistically, that’s the only sound choice. But if you’re able to set individual IQ standards for immigrants, why limit yourself to only one race, unless perhaps you have concerns about cohesion and maintaining cultural identity.
IQ screening is only the starting point of a new immigration policy. It should be standards- and evidence-based. Selective to the point that many fail and only the best are accepted. A system that promotes the social cohesion necessary to preserve our national integrity and cultural identity, enabling us to resist invasion, poverty, famine, and plague. If our governments were to take our example to heart, our societies wouldn’t be plagued by the division, degeneracy, and outright insanity that is epidemic today. They would be strong again, as we are strong. How strange it is that our organization – so small when compared to Europe at large – has no trouble turning away unsuitable applicants, but our governments lack the willpower to enforce our laws and our borders for fear of offended strangers who wash up on our shores, many of whom despise us, draining our resources and threating our families.
Take our advice to heart. Stand up to this open border boondoggle with courage. Stop allowing poor-quality people, who refuse to integrate, to occupy your lands and rob food from your belly. That would have been cause for war in an earlier time; now Europe is so deranged, invaders can do that and so much more – rape your women, spit in your face – and still you do nothing. A hundred years ago you’d go to war because an Archduke you’d never heard of got shot a thousand miles away; now Paki grooming gangs kidnap and rape your daughters with impunity, and you do nothing.
Why do the descendants of men who literally conquered the world, cower in their own homelands? How did conquers become cows in just three generations? I can only hypothesize that Leftist, anti-White propaganda has burdened you with guilt and you’ve lost your will to live. Well, I’m here to tell you brother, you have value … but not like this. No government program, no group, no hero will save you from what you’ve gotten yourself into. We can help, but you have to meet us half way. You have to reignite the fire in your own belly. When you make the decision to do something rather than nothing, we’ll be here to guide you.
When/if Europa comes to its senses, we’ll stand ready to help take back our lands, rebuild our homes, and restore our people. Like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, we will preserve the pure seed of our culture and people, to be planted and grow again; even if all Europa should turn to ash, we will remain. Our org has existed longer than most European nations. We’ve survived worse. We don’t share Europa’s plague of self-destruction and willful ignorance. We intend to persist. We will replace them. Sooner than later I hope, Norns willing.