Finally, I might point out the silliness of your getting so bent out of shape over my posting of the IQ Bell Curve... such that you emotionally suggest above that I "should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests." Why? The 1790 criteria was sufficient - "free white persons of good moral character." What an individual's particular intelligence is is irrelevant. We're talking big numbers here. Limit citizenship to Europeans - who are of comparable overall intelligence, look more or less alike, have more or less comparable temperaments, have a shared history and shared spiritual, philosophical, and spiritual grounding and outlook - and that provides sufficient overall homogeneity to make the foreseen pan-European American ethnostate work.

Building on the above point - and to allay any scruples about my "basing" anything on racial IQ data - I might point out that I defer to the 1790 criteria even when the racial IQ data might (were I to exaggerate its importance as the poster above seems to want me to) impel me otherwise. For, in the case of East Asians, who consistently score higher than whites in IQ tests (though not by the full standard deviation gulf that separates whites and blacks - something also in accord with observable objective facts), I would stand by the 1790 standards, and would not grant them citizenship. Despite their high average intelligence and competence, despite the fact that they are more closely related to Europeans than either are to Negroes, despite their very low rates of violent crime (lower than whites), and despite the fact that some - the Japanese, for example - come from very highly developed civilizations and cultures which I personally respect, they still do not belong in what is, essentially, a pan-European nation. They look starkly different from us, they have a very different overall temperament, and a very different spiritual, moral, and philosophical grounding and outlook.

Ditto for Poche's precious Red Indians, though he seems to be too stupid - or dishonest (this is Poche we're talking about, so take your pick) - to realize that, in arguing for the "right" of the Red Indians to American land, he is arguing for ethnic nationalism, and is recognizing the basic, common sense fact that the Indian Nations are distinct nations, apart from and outside of, the American (pan-European) nation. Everyone once understood this implicitly - the Indians no less than anyone else. No amount of living on the same magic American dirt made General Custer and Sitting Bull members of the same nation.

The only state in which all the land was legitimately bought was Rhode Island.

That was me.

They were there first.

Spoken like a 4-year-old.

Who is "they?" The Indian tribes and nations were at perpetual war with one another, slaughtering and conquering each other. It wasn't the peaceful hippie commune you see in your mind's eye. Why is conquest only illegitimate when whites do it? 

This cartoon illustrates my point: