Honestly, you seem to be the only one playing games here, trying to dance around the formal aspects of debatery as you do. It's especially both egregious and hilarious when you do so whilst trying to maintain the presentation of a superior intellect. Rather than trying to further any kind of knowledge or understanding, you're engaging in rhetorical masturbation.

Should inferiors on the bell curve bow down and accept their superiors, or should the superiors be overthrown?

This is the closest you get to making any worthwhile contribution here, if only because you shine light on a valuable and often-missed point in the whole ethno-nationalistic debate. GTP hits the nail on the head with thier answer:

We just want a white ethnostate free from all others.

This is the core of the issue; if we are to maintain any degree of consistency in our principles, then upholding the right for any one people to their homeland must entail upholding that same right for all peoples. Our modern world culture has failed in this. Not only has it failed this, it has actively worked to demonise any notion of national or ethnic pride, for white people, and white people alone. Only a fool, or an intentionally malicious individual, would deny the rank unfairness of this.

It's just not cricket. And we think ourselves civilised beasts?

I'll quote you one last time, because I want to kick at your central thesis a little.

You want to believe the races you hate are inferior.

There's a real possibility that all peoples are equally "smart"; that the tests just don't easily span the differences in thinking and that attempts to generalise them have only distorted whatever they may reflect; this could all be a plot by the lizardmen (they want our precious protium); there's so many possibilites that considering them all would just take too long.

What we know - and we can know we know because the same observations can be seen throughout history and into the present day, and any man who denies the truth of a self-evident thing is a knave, is that different peoples think differently, structure their societies differently, and want for different things to different degrees. And also that every attempt to broadly blend these disparate modes of thought leads to internal strife, social collapse, and civilisational downfall.

If there is to be any degree of brotherhood between peoples, then it must be predicated first on an understanding that as each man may keep his house in the order he wishes, so too may each people keep their land in the manner that pleases them. We have seen the results of the alternative, and we do not like them.

And before you get the wrong idea, this is not an invitation to debate me instead. I won't play this game with you. As a matter of fact, I won't play this game at all! This is just me as a bystander, in my own excessively verbose way, telling you that from where I'm sitting, the other guy won.

What are you? You know about me I know notning about you