why nationalism has no electoral appeal

I’ve been having an intriguing debate on immigration with a Finn at Unz Review. He was crowing over the magnificent success of the anti-immigration party in the recent Finnish election. That party got a massive 17.5% of the vote. I tried to gently point out that since all the other parties are rabidly pro-immigration that result actually means that 82.5% of Finns voted in effect for pro-immigration policies. He tried to counter that by arguing that a recent survey showed that 74% of Finns opposed immigration. My reply was that such a survey isn’t very comforting when 82.5% of Finns proceeded to vote for parties with explicitly pro-immigration policies.

This all seems consistent with the situation in other countries. Polls show that people do not want immigration but they still vote for parties that they know are in favour of massive immigration.

So what is the answer to this mystery? Why is it that nationalist and anti-immigration parties just don’t attract the level of electoral support that would be expected?

I can suggest a few possible explanations.

Firstly, opinion polls and surveys are not especially reliable when it comes to social attitudes. Results can vary enormously depending on how questions are phrased. Opinion polls can be manipulated to provide particular results. The problem with this explanation is that you would expect opinion polls to underestimate support for immigration restrictionism.

Secondly, it may be that these parties are remarkably poor at selling their message. That sounds plausible but can we really believe that all these parties are incompetent when it comes to selling themselves?

Thirdly, it may be that many of the leaders of anti-immigration parties rub people up the wrong way – they seem autistic or weird, or more to the point they can easily be portrayed by the media as autistic and weird and socially undesirable.

Fourthly, it may be that while a very large number of people are anti-immigration it’s not really a very important issue for most of them. When it comes to voting they’re more interested in bread-and-butter issues. They’re more interested in voting for the party that will put the most money in their pockets right now. That’s much more important than the future of our society.

Fifthly, it may be that nationalist and anti-immigration parties are too much associated in the public mind with ideas that are so deeply unpopular and socially unacceptable that any party even vaguely linked with such ideas will fail to win votes. I’m talking about ideas such as HBD (human biodiversity) which its proponents claim to be a scientifically proven recognition of inherited differences (particularly in intelligence) between races. The problem with stuff like HBD is that firstly the science behind them is very very dubious and secondly there is no way you can avoid having such ideas labelled as white supremacism or Nazi science. So you end up with nationalist/anti-immigration parties being tainted with racism and that’s going to scare off 80% of your potential voters.

Sixthly, such parties can come across as being very negative. Concentrating too much on what you’re against without articulating what you’re for is a major political mistake.

I’m inclined to think that the fourth, fifth and sixth explanations are by far the most likely. So what is the answer to this problem? Obviously nationalist parties have to offer a lot more than anti-immigration rhetoric. They have to offer an economic alternative to globalism. They have to offer hope and inspiration. They have to get people excited about the possibility of having a future again. They have to be wary of obvious vote-losing stuff like HBD.

Whether any of this would actually work, whether nationalist parties would ever be allowed to govern, is another matter. It’s possible that even if they won they’d be targeted for destruction by the United States. I’m not even sure it would necessarily be a good thing if they won – I have expressed my reservations about nationalism in other posts. I’m simply pointing out why the current strategies of nationalists seem doomed to failure.

And it is worth pointing out that one of the reasons nationalists and other dissidents are such easy targets is that they have no real base of popular support.

the dangers of IQ fetishism

I occasionally read various HBD blogs and I’m always bemused by the IQ fetishism. Now I’m not denying that IQ is important and I think it is likely that genetics is the major (but not sole) factor in determining a person’s IQ. I just don’t think it’s as all-important as the HBD crowd thinks.

On such blogs you will always find commenters solemnly intoning the mantra that only a high IQ population can create and maintain a functional society. Now it’s certainly true that high IQ populations have been quite successful in building functional societies. Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia are obvious examples. The problem is that once they’ve built those functional societies high IQ people seem to be overcome by an overwhelming desire to destroy them.

So what is going on? My personal belief is that part of the explanation is that that IQ tests do measure something real but the quality that they measure is only a component of overall intelligence but not the totality. To be a “smart” person requires more than just IQ. Unfortunately the other components of “smartness” are not easily measurable. Those other components include what is usually referred to as common sense. And there is not necessarily a correlation between IQ and common sense.

There’s also the problem that a high IQ can be an actual disadvantage. It seems to make people more inclined to believe things based on theory rather than experience, and often to believe things based on fanciful theories that make no actual sense.

The other part of the explanation is that maintaining functional societies requires a lot more than just being smart. An instinct for self-preservation is necessary. Some degree of self-confidence is required as well. For a society to survive the members of that society have to believe that they have a right to survive and that their society is worth preserving.

Some moral sense is required. Without that moral sense civilisation soon declines into decadence. The family decays. Degeneracy becomes more and more the norm. Society rots from within.

It’s unfortunate that these other very necessary qualities do not seem to be at all well correlated with high IQ. In some cases there may well be a negative correlation.

When you look at countries like Sweden, Germany, the United States and Britain (all countries bent on self-destruction) it becomes painfully obvious that high IQ is not much help in maintaining functional societies in the long term. Japan, with an average IQ slightly higher than those countries, seems to be much less interested in destroying itself. On the other hand Taiwan, with about the same average IQ as Japan, seems to be enthusiastically embarking on a program of national self-destruction. Russia, with average IQ comparable to the US, seems to have very little interest in destroying itself.

China’s average IQ seems to be roughly equal to that of Japan and they have no interest whatsoever in national suicide.

When it comes to national survival IQ does not seem to be terribly important.