wow, ok, i spent a bunch of time typing a response, and the page crashed and wiped it out. WHY DOES IT SAY DRAFT SAVED IF IT'S NOT REALLY SAVED?? anyway, this is gonna be shorter and more to the point as a result, so sorry in advance if it comes off as being crass--that's not my intention. these are just a few thoughts in response to your post.

1. i also think that there is good evidence to support the idea that much of what people consider race is actually more of a social construct rather than a biological reality.

2. also agree, IQ definitely isn't the be all end all of intelligence. it seems more like a convenient way to quantify specific characteristics that the "ruling party"/TPTB/elite/whatever deemed desirable/valuable/useful at the time of its conception. this might not hold true into the future. but who knows, i could be totally wrong.

3. still, it seems like there IS SOME connection to biology/chemistry, which definitely should not be ignored for very serious reasons (e.g. pharmaceutical testing yielding different results based on race). and regardless of what it is and whether valid or not, it is a reality in that people choose to self-identify as such. so still worthy of study in my opinion, even if it is made-up and/or wrong (like religion--hah just kidding...)

4. mmk, yea, i totally was not thinking of that dude (richard spencer), i thought you were talking about people like alex jones, stephan molyneux, etc. so i gotta say, i really don't think you should consider him or guys like that to be at all representative of the alt-right, even if he has a following of people that also identify with that label. just because he proclaims himself to be, does not actually make it true. e.g. Hillary Clinton does not represent people who are to left on the political spectrum or liberal ideology; an Islamic suicide bomber does not represent muslims or Islamic ideology; etc.

otherwise, thank you for the very thought-provoking post :)