Alright, I have three narratives for you, anons.
1) A general theory of racism. Here we will make no claims of specific races being better, but rather clear up terminology and state obvious facts. While "race" is an overloaded term with too many definitions to be useful outside of cultural contexts, there are in fact subgroups of humans with more genetic similarities than two random people selected from the global population would have. How many subgroups doesn't really matter, and depends upon the context we're speaking in (i.e. in one moment we may speak about differences between roughly French and English people, and at another we may identify different subgroups within the French population). Moreover, traits vary between subgroups. The fact that some human subgroups are taller than others on average is noncontroversial. What exactly constitutes intelligence is controversial, but for practically any criteria you can imagine there will be some subgroups which are more genetically predisposed to that standard of intelligence than others. For all subgroups to evenly tie, we would have to either get incredibly lucky – as lucky as we would need to be for every subgroup to have even average height – or be selecting a standard tailor made to reach equality. Without predicting who is more intelligent or saying what intelligence is, the basic proposition that some subgroups are more intelligent than others on average should be obvious.
2) Now for a special theory of racism. About 500 years ago, Mohammed told a more literate man to write down that marriage between first cousins was perfectly acceptable. Today, about 50% of marriages in northern Pakistan are between first cousins. Similar numbers abound nearby. Here we have an example of a subgroup of humans put in a relatively recent inbreeding experiment. This doesn't apply to the entire Middle East, but a good deal of it. What do you expect such an experiment to produce?
3) Now for another special theory. 90% of human biodiversity resides in Africa; there is more genetic difference between the Bantu and the Pygmy, who share borders, than there is between the French and the Han. It was a small couple of groups who left Subsaharan Africa, and they mixed together afterwards. They also mixed with Neanderthals and (in the case of East Asians, Australian Aboriginies, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders) Denisovans. This is called archaic admixture. Outside of one subgroup that migrated back into Subsaharan Africa in recorded history, there is very little evidence of Neanderthal genes crossing back over the desert, and if they did at all they did so in very small amounts. There is some evidence of another archaic hominid in southern central Africa that mixed with some of the local population, but this is a little bit sketchy (based on reconstructed genetics from living populations – no remains of the proposed hominid have been found, which isn't surprising either way given the climate) and the genes haven't travelled as far. So, why is the fact that literally all subgroups of humans who migrated out of Subsaharan Africa mixed with Neanderthals important? They were separated from us by a great spanse of time (I hesitate to say how much because of some contradictory evidence, but long as fuck). The separation and recombination of genomes is a way of searching the possible space of what an organism can be. The /pol/acks will point out that "race-mixing" brings birth defects, and they're actually a little bit right, but they're not telling the whole story. There are birth defects, and also better recombinations. It's a form of accelerated mutation, in a way. It takes time to sort the good recombinations from the bad, but it can be done. The Askinosie Jews, a hybrid of Jewish and European ancestry that has been allowed to sort itself out for hundreds of years, currently scores higher on IQ tests than even the Denisovan-injected East Asian lines of humanity. A coincidence with superior culture? Perhaps. Regardless, this narrative I'm pitching, which is bad news for Subsaharan Africans, doesn't actually endorse the date-within-muh-haplogroup bit that the /pol/acks love. It also points to the 90% of human biodiversity still stuck in Africa as a goldmine for recombinations, even if the implications for present day individuals in these populations are bleak.