I.Q and Human Intelligence

Introduction: The Worldwide Biocracy

1. Intellectual Hierarchy in Canada

2. Intellectual Hierarchy in Brazil

3. Intellectual Hierarchy in England

4. Intellectual Hierarchy in The Netherlands

5. Intellectual Hierarchy in the United States

6. Intellectual Hierarchy in Australia

7. Intellectual Hierarchy in Africa

8. Intellectual Hierarchy in Southeast Asia

Conclusion

Introduction

Whatever the country in the world, the hierarchy in social stratification remains strictly identical, with an order dictated by the racial IQ:

1. Ashkenazi Jews (110)
2. East Asians (105)
3. Europeans (100)
4. Southeast Asians (92)
5. Arctic People (91)
6. European-African hybrids (81-90)
7. Native Americans (86)
8. North African and South Asian (84-88)
9. Africans (71-80)
10. Australian Aborigines (62)

The differences are of course more marked between the races whose IQ differs appreciably and are more tenuous between the races of near intelligence.

This hierarchy is inevitable for:

1. Education
2. Average wages
3. Crime rate (inversely proportional to IQ)
4. Socio-economic status
5. Fertility (inversely proportional to IQ). However, there are exceptions in this fertility rate, showing the place of certain cultural factors such as the high fertility rate of Hispanics of the Catholic religion.
6. Mental retardation (increases while IQ decreases)
7. Academic achievement
8. Juvenile delinquency (increases while IQ decreases)
9. The percentage of single mothers (increases while IQ decreases)
10. Unemployment rate (increases while IQ decreases)
11. Success at the SAT (entrance test of most American universities)
12. The prevalence of talented people.

These differences all derive from the intellectual inequalities between the  races/populations of homo sapiens. Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians and Europeans (the First World) are genetically more intelligent, distinguished by higher rates of cultural achievement, higher wages, lower crime rate, higher socio-economic status, lower fertility rate, good academic achievements, low juvenile delinquency, low single mothers rate, limited unemployment rate, high THS achievement and high prevalence of gifted individuals.

Conversely, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Africans and Aborigines in Australia are characterized by lower intellectual ability, and as a result they reach lower education level, they get lower wages, they have an higher crime rate, lower socio-economic status , higher fertility, lower academic achievement with more juvenile disorders, a high percentage of single mothers, high unemployment, lower SAT scores, and lower gifted prevalence.

All data below are taken from ‘The global bell curve’ (2008) Richard Lynn. This book is available in pdf.

This unchanged hierarchy is the consequence of the highly genetic causality of intelligence. Regardless of the country, populations with a higher frequency of high intelligence alleles (Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians, Europeans) are better off than less intelligent populations with lower frequency of these alleles for a high intelligence and a smaller and less powerful brain (North African, Middle Easterners, African and Australian aborigines).

1. Intellectual Hierarchy in Canada

1.1 The Hierarchy Remains Dictated by I.Q for Education 

                                           Table 6.8. Race and ethnic differences in educational attainment

	Measure	Year	jews	Chinese	British	French	European	Native American	Black
1	Illiterate %	1921	7	27	1	8	14	–	8
2	Illiterate %	1931	4	15	1	6	8	–	8
3	10th grade %	1951	53	31	55	30	35	6	–
4	10th grade %	1961	64	45	63	38	31	9	–
5	10th grade %	1971	80	75	77	59	58	38	–
6	10th grade %	1981	85	80	84	77	72	55	88
7	Years-NB	1981	13.5	13.1	11.7	11.1	11.9	–	11.8
8	Years-FB	1981	12.7	11.9	12.7	12.4	10.7	–	12.4
9	Years-M	1991	15.0	14.7	12.3	11.7	12.4	9.5	12.8
10	Years-W	1991	14.6	14.6	12.6	12.2	12.5	10.4	13.0
Sources: rows 1-6: Herberg, 1990b; rows 7-8: Li, 1988; rows 9-10: Sweetman & Dicks, 2000.

1.2 The Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for the Salaries

                                     Table 6.11. Race and ethnic differences in annual earnings, 1941-2001

	Year	Jews	Chinese	British	French	European	Native American	Black	Southeast Asian
1	1941	1,327	931	1,515	1,007	1,115	802	–	–
2	1951	2,619	2,100	2,481	2,150	2,232	1,404	–	–
3	1961	7,426	3,895	4,852	3,872	3,319	–	–	–
4	1971	12,368	6,668	8,500	7,307	7,846	–	–
5	1981	21,349	13,292	15,100	13,831	13,367	9,032	13,029	–
6	1991	50,100	34,570	34,660	31,615	33,100	27,535	28,495	35,615
7	2001	73,928	40,817	43,398	–	–	32,176	35,100	34,100
Sources: 1941-1981: Herberg (1990b). 1981-2001: Statistics Canada.

1.3 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Crime Rates

  Table 6.16. Race differences in crime (per 1,000 population)

Year	Sex	White	Black	Indian	South Asian	Chinese
1992	M/F	7.1	36.9	19.9	4.6	3.5

2. Intellectual Hierarchy in Brazil

2.1 Hierarchy Remains Dectated by IQ for Education

                Table 4.3. Race and ethnie differences in educational attainment and literacy (percentages)

	Measure	Year	japanese	Whites	Mulattos	Blacks
1	High school	1950	–	4.9	0.5	0.2
2	Literate	1950	–	59.3	31.1	26.7
3	Degree	1980	10.0	6.4	1.9	1.0
4	Literate	1991	–	84.3	66.6	65.3
5	High school-M	1996	–	56.5	39.3	28.0
6	High school-F	1996	–	64.9	48.1	45.4
7	Literate	1999	–	91.7	80.4	79.0
8	Degree	1996	–	10.0	2.4	1.8

 2.2 Hierarchy Remains Dectated by IQ for Salaries and Socioeconomic Status 

           Table 4.4. Race and ethnic differences in earnings and socioeconomic status

	Measure	japanese	Europeans	Mulattos	Blacks
1	Income, 1960	–	11,601	6,492	5,444
2	Income, 1980	35,610	21,867	11,053	9,004
3	Income, 1991	–	224,752	132,400	129,165
4	Poverty, 1987	–	24%	44%	46%
5	Professionals, 1950	–	4.5%	2.4%	2.1%
6	Professionals, 1980	–	9.0%	3.8%	2.5%
7	Professionals, 1991	–	27.5%	15.8%	12.1%
8	Unemployment: M	–	3.5%	4.1%	4.8%
9	Unemployment: F	–	3.3%	3.6%	4.4%
Sources: 1: Marx, 1998; 2-3, 6-7: Lovell, 1993; 4-5 Andrews, 1992; 8-9: PNAD, 1997

2.3 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 4. 10. Percentages of races in population and convictions for homicide, 2003

Race	% Population	% Homicide
White	53	39.7
Mulatto	40	49.9
Blacks	6	9.8
Asians	1	0.4

2.4 About Mothers

Table 4.12 Race differences among mothers in Rio de Janeiro in 2000

Measure	Whites	Mulattos	Blacks
Age <20 years	16.3	22.3	24.5
Education <4 years	5.8	10.6	13.9
Higher education	13.1	2.8	1.3
Smoked while pregnant	10.3	14.9	18.5
Baby syphilitic	0.8	1.9	3.0

3. Intellectual Hierarchy in England

 3.1 Racial Composition of England (table 5.1 and 5.2)

Table 5. Nomber of non-europeans in England, 1951-2001

Year	Blacks	Indians	Pak./Ban.	Chinese
1951	16,000	111,000	11,000	–
1961	172,000	157,000	31,000	–
1971	302,000	313,000	136,000	–
1991	890,000	840,000	640,000	157,000
2001	1,100,000	1,100,00	1,000,000	209,000

Table 5. Race and Proportion of the English Population

Year	Whites	Blacks	Indians	Pak./Ban.	Chinese
1991	94.5	1.6	1.5	1.2	0.3
2001	92.4	2.1	1.9	1.4	0.4

3.2 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Salaries

 Average weekly earnings of racial groups

	Year	White	Black	Indian	Pak./Ban.	Chinese
1	1994	331	311	317	220	368
2	1995	309	268	279	230	342
3	2001	332	225	327	182	–

 

3.3 Inverse Relation between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 5. 7. Incidence of mental retardation and backwardness (percentage)

	Date	Condition	Whites	Blacks	S. Asians
1	1970	Retardation	0.68	2.33	0.40
2	1972	Retardation	0.66	2.90	–
3	1980	Backwardness	8.00	19.00	12.00

3.4 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Education (tableau 5.8, 5.9 et 5.10)

Table 5.8. Race differences in educational attainment at age 7 (percentage passes)

Group	Reading	Writing	Arithmetic
Chinese	90	88	96
Whites	85	82	91
Mixed	85	82	91
Asians	80	78	86
Blacks	78	74	84

Table 5.9. Race differences in educational attainment (Percentage passes)

	Age 11			Age 14
Group	English	Math	Science	English	Math	Science
Chinese	82	88	90	80	90	82
Whites	76	73	87	70	72	70
Mixed	77	72	87	69	69	67
Asians	69	67	79	66	66	59
Blacks	68	60	77	56	54	51

Table 5. 10. Race differences in educational attainment for 11 -year olds (percentage)

Group	N	English	Math	Science
jews	905	92	91	95
Chinese	1,938	81	89	89
Whites	489,887	78	74	87
South Asians	38,721	74	69	79
Indian	12,725	83	80	87
Pakistani	16,307	68	61	72
Bangladeshi	5,979	71	66	77
Other Asian	3,710	75	77	82
Blacks	21,575	70	63	77
Caribbean	8,739	70	61	78
African	10,617	69	64	75
Other Blacks	2,219	71	64	80
Others	4,804	66	70	76
Unclassified	18,530	71	68	81
Total	592,163	77	73	86

3.5 Inverse Relation between IQ and Delinquency 

Table 5. 19. Race differences in conduct disorders in children (odds ratios)

	Sex	White	Black	Chinese	S. Asian
1	M/F	1.0	1.4
2	M	1.0	3.9
3	F	1.0	2.3	–	?
4	M/F	1.0	4.4	0.18	0.92
Sources: 1: Goodman & Richards, 1995; 2-3: Tizard et al., 1988; 4: Gillborn and Gipps, 1996.

3.6 Inverse Relation between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 5.20. Race différences in crime (odds ratios)

	Year	Sex	White	Black	Indian	Pak./Ban.	Chinese
1	1993	M	1.00	6.10	0.87	0.87	?
2	1995	M	0.88	7.12	0.87	1.42	0.66
3	1995	F	0.80	12.19	0.60	0.50	0.66
Sources: 1: Smith, 1997; 2-3: Home Office, 1998.

3.7 Inverse Relation between IQ and Single Teenage Mothers 

Table 5.22. Race differences in single teenage mothers (percentages)

	Year	White	Black	S. Asian	Reference
1	1980	7	27	2	Brewer & Haslum, 1986
2	1994	6	21	6	Modood & Berthoud, 1997

3.8 Inverse Relation between IQ and Fertility Rates

Table 5.23. Race différences in fertility (TFR)

	Year	White	Black	Chinese	Indian	Pak./Ban.
1	1988	1.8	2.8	1.3	4.3	6.1
2	1991	1.8	2.7	–	2.5	5.0
3	2001	1.6	2.2	–	2.3	4.3

4. Intellectual Hierarchy in The Netherlands

Composition of the population of the Netherlands around 1995

Dutch	Antilles	China	Indonesia	Morocco	Surinam	Turkey
14.6m	93,000	50,000	75,000	203,000	275,000	247,000

4.1 Hierachy Remainds Dictated by IQ for Education

Table 10.8. Race differences in educational attainment, 1998 (percentages)

	Dutch	Surinamese	Turks	Moroccans
Primary only	20	30	70	80
Some High school	18	29	–	–
Competed High school	54	56
University Degree	28	15	?
Sources: row 1: Hagendoorn et al., 2003; rows 2-4: van Niekerk, 2000.

 

4.2 Hierarchy Remains Dictacted by IQ for Socioeconomic Status 

Table 10.9. Race Differences in socioeconomic status (percentages)

SES
Race	1	2	3	4	5
Dutch	5.3	8.4	30.1	24.4	31.9
Turk/Moroccans	–	–	9.2	20.0	70.8

4.3 Inverse Relation between IQ and Unemployment Rates

Table 10.10. Race différences in unemployment (percentages)

Year	Indigenous	Antilleans	Moroccans	Surinamese	Turks	Europeans
1979	6	–	–	25	–	–
1989	13	24	44	23	42	?
1995	8	23	27	25	22	18

4.4 Inverse Relation between IQ and Crime Rates 

Table 10.11. Race and ethnic differences in juvenile crime (odds ratios)

	Dutch	Creoles	Indians	Moroccans	Turks
1	1.0	1.9	0.9	–	?
2	1.0	2.7	–	3.8	1.4
Sources: row 1: Junger and Polder, 1993; row2: Junger-Tas, 1997.

5. Intellectual Hierarchy in the United States

5.1 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Education (tables 13.3 et 13.6)

Table 13.3. Race and ethnic differences on the SAT in 2003

Race	Verbal	Math	Total
Asians	508	575	1083
Blacks	431	426	857
Hispanics	457	464	921
Native Americans	480	482	962
Whites	529	534	1063
SD	113	115	–

Note that the policy of “positive discrimination” is precisely intended to equalize racial differences by artificially increasing the scores of African-Americans and withdrawing points from East Asians. How does positive discrimination work?

Table 13.6. Race and ethnic differences in high school diploma and college degree, 1980-1990 (percentages)

	Group	H.S. Diploma, 1980	H.S. Diploma, 1990	Degree 1990
1	Blacks	62	75	13
2	East Asians	86	91	37
3	Hispanics	43	51	10
4	jews	92	97	?
5	Native Americans	62	75	?
6	S.E. Asians	–	–	20
7	Whites	79	91	26
Source: Darity, Dietrich, & Guilkey, 1997

5.2 Inverse Relation between IQ and Mental Retardation

Table 13.4. Prevalence of mental retardation (MR) and learning disability (LR) (percentages)

	Condition	Asian	Black	White	Hispanic	Native American
1	MR	–	5.3	1.7	–	?
2	MR	0.5	2.1	1.0	1.0	1.2
3	LD	2.0	7.0	6.0	5.4	6.3
4	LD	–	18.6	9.7	15.0	?
Sources: 1: Broman, Nichols, Shaughnessy & Wallace, 1987; 2-3: Zhang and Katsiyannis, 2002; 4: Office of Civil Rights, US Dept of Education.

5.3 Hierarchy Remains Dictacted by IQ for Salaries 

Table 13. 10 Race and etbnic differences in average annual earnings ($1000) for men aged 25-54

Group	1980	1990
Asians	23.5	46.4
East Asians	26.6	–
Southeast Asians	20.3	–
Blacks	18.6	24.5
Hispanics	19.3	–
jews	32.4	–
Native Americans	19.1	–
whites	23.4	46.4

5.4 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Socioeconomic Status 

The socio-economic status is calculated by Duncan’s index, which gives a score to each occupation (for example to a physicist 100, to a worker 1). An average of these results is then made.

Table 13.14. Race and ethnic differences in socioeconomic status, 1880-1990

Group	1880	1900	1910	1980	1990
Blacks	11.70	13.03	13.65	29.19	30.81
East Asians	13.41	13.36	17.63	49.32	51.75
English	24.38	28.14	30.39	45.17	47.61
Scots-Irish	22.57	27.62	31.64	46.09	46.73
Europeans	21.39	19.36	24.78	43.93	44.67
Hispanics	13.60	11.54	12.54	27.85	27.48

5.5 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for the Frequency of the Gifted

Table 13.17. Prevalence of the gifted (rows 1 and 2: odds ratios; row 3: percentages)

	Years	Asian	Black	Hispanic	Native American	White
1	1984-1993	1.80	0.45	0.45	0.90	1.60
2	1988	2.17	0.37	0.45	0.17	1.86
3	UC Eligible	32	2.5	3.5	–	12.4

Table 13.19. Rates of inclusion in ‘Whos Who in America (per 10,000 population)

Group	1924-25	1944-45	1974-75	1994-95	% change 1975-95
Black	0.06	0.07	0.37	0.53	43
English	3.74	3.74	3.88	2.83	-27
Italian	0.09	0.33	1.31	2.72	108
Jewish	1.59	1.97	8.39	16.62	98
Scandinavian	0.42	1.29	3.57	4.79	34
Slavic	0.16	0.29	1.48	3.52	138
Total	2.27	2.48	3.42	3.55	4

5.6 Inverse Relation between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 13.20. Race différences in rates of crime in 1994 (odds ratios)

Group	Prison	Assault	Homicide	Rape	Robbery
Black	8.1	5.0	11.0	5.5	11.2
East Asian	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.8
Hispanic	3.6	3.0	2.5	3.0	3.0
Native American	2.7	2.0	2.0	1.7	2.1
White	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0

6. Intellectual Hierarchy in Australia

6.1 Intelligence of Australian Aborigines

The median value is 62 and can be seen as the best estimate of Australian Aboriginal intelligence.

 Table 3. 1. Studies of the intelligence of Australien Aborigines

Age	N	Test	IQ	Reference
Adults	56	PM	66	Porteus, 1931
Adults	24	PM	59	Piddington & Piddington, 1932
Adults	268	Varions	58	Porteus, 1933a, 1933b
Adults	31	AA/PF	69	Fowler, 1940
Adults	87	PM	70	Porteus & Gregor, 1963
11	101	QT	58	Hart, 1965
Adults	103	PM	74	Porteus et al., 1967
5	24	PPVT	62	De Lacey, 1971a, 1971b
6-12	40	PPVT	64	De Lacey, 1971a, 1971b
Adults	60	CPM	53	Berry, 1971
3-4	22	PPVT	64	Nurcombe & Moffit, 1973
6-14	55	PPVT	52	Dasen et al., 1973
9	458	QT	58	McElwain & Kearney, 1973
13	42	SOT	62	Waldron & Gallimore, 1973
6-10	30	PPVT	59	De Lacey, 1976
25	22	CPM/ KB	60	Binnie-Dawson, 1984 Nurcombe et al., 1999
4	55	PPVT	61

6.2 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Education

Table 3.2. Educational attainment of Australien Aborigines and Europeans in 1996 (percentages)

	Qualification	Sex	Aborigines	Europeans	Ratio
1	Skilled vocational	M	16.3	23.8	0.68
2	Skilled vocational	F	3.3	4.1	0.81
3	Bachelor degree	M	2.6	10.1	0.26
4	Bachelor degree	F	4.3	11.4	0.38
5	Higher degree	m	0,3	2,4	0,13
6	Higher degree	f	0,4	1,4	0,29

Table 3.3. Educational attainment of Australian Aborigines and Europeans in 1996

Subject	Aborigines	Europeans	d
Reading	440	531	1.82
Math	450	530	1.60
Science	445	525	1.60

Table 3.4. Intelligence and homework of Chinese and Vietnamese

Group	N	IQ	Homework/Week
Chinese	29	106	12.0 hours
Vietnamese	56	100	8.5 hours
Europeans	75	100	5.1 hours

Table 3.5. Proportions of students enrolled in higher education (odds ratios)

Group		OR
Europeans	Native	1.11
Europeans	Foreign-ES	0.73
Europeans	Foreign-SEE	0.21
East Asians	Hong Kong	2.40
East Asians	Malaysia	1.94
East Asians	Vietnam	1.43

Foreign-SEE : southest europe (grece et yougoslavie)

Foreign-ES (eglish speaking from britain and ireland)

6.3 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Salaries

Table 3.7. Incomes of Aboriginal men as percentages of Europeans

Year	Group	Aborigines	Europeans
1980	Ail	50.5	100
1990	All	55.5	100
1980	Employed	65.2	100
1990	Employed	66.7	100
1996	All	65.1	100

6.4 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Unemployment Rates

Table 3.8. Unemployment rates of Aborigines and Europeans (percentages)

Year	Aborigines	Europeans
1981	25.1	6.1
1986	35.0	9.0
1991	30.1	11.3
1996	22.7	9.0

Table 3.9. Unemployment of Aborigines and immigrants, 1985-1988

	Group	Weeks Unemployed
1	Australien Aborigines	39.80
2	1st generation immigrants-ES	0.13
3	1st generation immigrants-ENES	7.67
4	1st generation immigrants-Asian	12.61
5	2nd generation immigrants-ES	1.75
6	2nd generation immigrants-ENES	3.64
7	2nd generation immigrants-Asian	0.06

ES : english speaking (from britain and ireland)

ENBS: European non british speaking

6.5 Inverse Relation between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 3. 10. Imprisonment rates of Aborigines and Europeans per 1,000 population, 1990s

Crime	Aborigines	Europeans	Ratio
juvenfles	–	–	48
Adults	28.0	1.1	26

6.6 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by I.Q for Life Expectancy and General Health

Table 3.11. Infant mortality per 1,000 population and life expectancy of Aborigines and Europeans

	Mortality	Year	Aborigines	Europeans
1	Infant mortality	1976	51.6	13.0
2	Infant mortality	1980	33.1	10.2
3	Infant mortality	1996	12.7	5.0
4	Life expectancy	1978	53.0	73.0
5	Life expectancy-M	1996	57.0	75.0
6	Life expectancy-F	1996	64.0	81.0

7. Intellectual Hierarchy in Africa

7.1 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Education

Table 2.3. IQs of university students in South Africa

	Test	N	Africans	Indians	Europeans	Reference
1	APM	80	84		103	Poortinga, 1971 Poortinga & Foden, 1975
2	Blox	97	72	–	100
3	Blox	600	79	–	100	Taylor & Radford, 1986
4	WISC-R	63	75	–	–	Avenant, 1988
5	SPM	147	100	–		Zaaiman, 1998
6	SPM	30	77	–	–	Grieve & Viljoen, 2000
7	SPM	309	83	–	103	Rushton & Skuy, 2000
8	SPM	60	82	–	105	Sonke, 2001
9	SPM	70	81	–	–	Skuy et al., 2002
10	SPM	342	93	98	106	Rushton et al., 2002
11	APM	294	99	102	113	Rushton et al., 2003
12	APM	306	101	106	116	Rushton et al., 2004

Table 2.4. Race differences in educational attainment in South Africa (percentages)

	Year	Measure	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
1	1980	Primary	15	33	44	37
2	1980	Secondary	57	38	23	14
3	1980	University	4.2	0.26	0.15	0.05
4	1991	Matric.	23.4	19.2	4.8	2.8
5	1991	University	3.6	2.5	0.7	0.6
6	2004	University	29.8	14.9	4.9	5.2
Sources. 1-3: Mickelson et al., 2001. 4: Census, 1991 5: Richardson et al., 1996. 6: www.SouthAfricaninfo.com..

Table 2.5. Race differences in mathematics attainment

	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
Number	831	199	1,172	5,412
Score	373	341	339	254
S. Error	4.9	8.6	2.9	1.2

Table 2.6. Education (number of years) of blacks and Indians in Tanzania

Year	Blacks	Indians
1971	3.6	8.3
1980	6.2	11.1

Table 2.7. Examination attainment of blacks and Indians in East Africa (percentage)

	Country	Division	Blacks	Indians
1	Kenya	1	12.2	40.0
2	Kenya	2	23.0	40.0
3	Tanzania	1	9.4	12.9
4	Tanzania	2	35.4	45.2

7.2 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Salaries

Table 2.8. Race and ethnic differences in South Africa in earnings

	Year	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
1	1936	129.6	27.6	18.8	12.8
2	1946	238.1	45.7	34.1	23.2
3	1995	103,000	71,000	32,000	23,000
4	2000	158,000	85,000	51,000	26,000
Sources: rows 1 and 2: Reynders, 1963; rows 3 and 4: Earning and Spending in South Africa: Selected findings and comparisons from the income and expenditure surveys of October 1995 and October 2000. www.statssa.gov.za.

Table 2.9. Earnings of Indians and Europeans in Kenya expressed as Multiples of earnings of blacks

Year	Blacks	Indians	europeans
1914	1	26	144
1927	1	25	107
1946	1	22	84
1960	1	20	57
1971	1	24	42

Table 2. 10. Earnings per month (Sb) of blacks and Indians in Tanzania

Year	Blacks	Indians	Reference
1971	273	829	Armitage & Sabot, 1991
1980	1584	668	Armitage & Sabot, 1991

7.3 Hierarchy Remains Dictated by IQ for Socioeconomic Status

Table 2.11. Race difference in socioeconomic status in South Africa in 1980 (percentages)

	Measure	Whites	Indians	coloreds	Blacks	Reference
1	Professional	20.0	10.0	6.0	4.0	Mickelson et al., 2001
2	Administrators	5.0	2.5	0.2	0.1	Mickelson et al., 2001

Table 2.12. Socioeconomic status differences between blacks and Indians in Tanzania (percentages)

Country	Blacks	Indians
White collar	11	59
Skilled	29	31
Semi-skilled	40	9
Unskilled	20	1

7.4 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Poverty

Table 2.13. Race differences in poverty and malnutrition in South Africa

Measure	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks	Reference
Poverty	12.0	21.0	34.0	52.0	Hirschowitz & Orkin, 1997
Malnutrition	5.7	–	18.0	32.0	Burgard, 2002

7.5 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Crime Rates

Table 2.14. Race differences in homicide per 100,000 population in South Africa

Year	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
1978	3.8	4.4	26.5	23.9
1981	6.8	10.0	76.6	24.5
1984	5.8	9.9	58.0	34.5

7.6 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Infant Mortality

Table 2.15. Race differences in infant mortality per 1,000 live births

Year	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
1945	40.3	82.5	151.0	190.0
1987-89	7.9	14.4	33.4	61.0

7.7 Inverse Relationship between IQ and Fertility Rate

Table 2.16. Race differences in fertility (TFR) in South Africa

Year	Whites	Indians	Coloreds	Blacks
1945-50	3.4	6.5	6.2	6.1
1965-70	3.1	4.2	6.1	5.8
1987-89	2.0	2.4	2.9	4.1

8. Intellectual Hierarchy in Southeast Asia

Chinese communities live throughout Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, etc.). These small minorities are significantly more intelligent than Southeast Asians and socio-economically dominate the majority indigenous populations. The Chinese are also called the “Jews of the East” by several sociologists. They also capture a very significant share of places in universities, as a result of which quotas and restrictions have been put in place against them in almost all South Asian countries. As in other multi-ethnic countries, the socio-economic hierarchy is dictated by IQ. East Asians form a distinct race (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc.), their brain is larger than that of South-East Asians. , they have a higher frequency of genes increasing intelligence and their average IQ is significantly higher (105 compared to 89 for Southeast Asians). This 16-point difference is almost identical to the 15-point difference between African-Americans and Europeans in the USA. It explains Chinese domination.

In all Southeast Asian countries, the Chinese capture a share of wealth far greater than their proportion in the population. The ‘Control of Wealth’ in the table below indicates the share of capitalization of East Asian companies owned by Chinese. In Indonesia, for example, the Chinese are only 3.8% of the population but own 73% of the companies.

In Indonesia, the IQ difference between the indigenous and the Chinese is 18 points. The Chinese are much more intelligent and do better on university entrance tests. In 1982, the Indonesian government introduced quotas limiting the share of Chinese in universities to 6%. Southeast Asians with lower scores were admitted instead of Chinese (very similar to what happens in the USA with “positive discrimination” allowing African-Americans and Hispanics to enter universities with lower scores than Europeans and East Asians).
Representing only 3.8% of Indonesia, the Chinese own 78% of the national wealth (Rigg, 2003). Similar figures have been given by Gooszen (2002) who estimates that in the first half of the twentieth century the Chinese controlled 90% of the economy, while Mosher (2000) states that they owned 110 of the 140 largest corporate conglomerates.
In multiracial societies, successful minorities arouse envy, resentment, and frequently hatred from underperforming majorities. This can escalate into violence in which underperforming majorities attack, expropriate, or even kill higher IQ minorities. Throughout history, gentiles have persecuted Ashkenazi Jews, who with their high IQs have generally been successful and envious. The Chinese have attracted similar hostility in Indonesia. They were safe during the period of Dutch rule when law and order were maintained, but during the civil disorder of 1945-47 and the Indonesian takeover of political power, the Chinese were harassed in many ways. They were denied the right to property. Confiscation and acquisition of their property was common, as was looting and pillaging; Chinese businessmen received “black bills” from Indonesian armed groups demanding huge sums. In 1945, there was extensive looting of Chinese and Eurasians; several hundred Chinese were killed. Twang Peck Yang (author of “The Chinese Business Elite in Indonesia and the Transition to Independence 1940-1950” 1998) explains that the Indonesian government opted for a socialist economy after independence because the ruling Indonesians realized that they “would probably lose to the Chinese in a free market economy” while “they could prosper in a controlled economy where large businesses were administered by the Indonesian government. In this way the Indonesians who had political power were able to appoint their own friends and relations and exclude the Chinese. ‘Thus, from 1945 onwards a controlled economy was introduced in which large businesses were administered by the government while many Chinese businesses were destroyed and their business opportunities taken over, the Indonesian business class consolidated its position in domestic trade with the help of the state’ (Twang, 1998, p.163). Between 1945 and 1949, harassment of the Chinese increased, and a number of them left for Singapore. In 1965, widespread attacks on the Chinese left half a million dead and prompted tens of thousands to flee the country. There were further attacks on the Chinese in 1974 and 1998.
Candidates taking university entrance examinations in Indonesia were required to give their ethnic identity. To prevent the Chinese from trying to pass themselves off as indigenous Indonesians, “observers were instructed to examine their physical characteristics in order to confirm their racial self-identification” (Klitgaard, 1986, p. 121). The result of this discriminatory procedure was that a number of ethnic Chinese were rejected, while indigenous Indonesians with lower scores than the Chinese were admitted. Indonesia’s political elite operated a controlled economy to promote its own advantage during the second half of the 20th century. In 1999, it was observed that “the Indonesian regulatory environment is characterized by bribery and other types of corruption. Many regulations are applied arbitrarily, and payments may be required to obtain ‘waivers’ from government regulation” (Johnson, Holmes, and Kirkpatrick 1999, p. 218). In a similar vein, the U.S. Department of Commerce (1998) reported that in the 1990s, “Indonesia continued to be a difficult place to do business; corruption is rife. The Chinese have fared much better economically in Indonesia than the indigenous peoples. How can this be explained? This question has often been asked. Perhaps Linda Lim (1997, 288) hint at the answer when they write “The Chinese are the best endowed and most competitive members of the private sector.” What do they mean by best endowed? Is it possible that they suspect that the Chinese may be smarter than the Indonesians? If they harbor this suspicion, they have not developed it.

Cambodia gained independence in 1947. At that time, there was a Chinese minority that comprised 4% of the population. Nevertheless, “in the cities, retail trade is dominated by the Chinese, as are catering, hotels, export, import, and light manufacturing, including food processing, beverages, printing and machine shops; as much as 95% of the commercial class is Chinese; the wealthiest and most educated men during this period were Chinese (Pan, 1998, p. 146).

In Malaysia, just like in Indonesia, the high intelligence of the Chinese created resentment in the majority population. Quotas were established in 1980 by the Malaysian government to limit the massive over-representation of the Chinese in universities. A differential grading policy (!) was put in place. The Chinese and the Malays were thus graded separately in order to equalize the results of the two groups. Many Chinese went to study in Singapore, Australia or England. The Malaysian government also imposed that 4/5 of public sector jobs be reserved for Malays.

In the Philippines, the first Chinese immigrants arrived around 1570. They quickly dominated economically. “The Chinese established new occupations and services, in addition to establishing a significant trade between China and the Philippines. They managed most of the trade, services and intellectual occupations, quickly establishing a monopoly. The entire Spanish colony was economically dependent on the Chinese” (Wickberg, 1997, p.155). Manila’s Chinatown became “the business center of the entire city” (Wickberg, 1997, p. 159). In the second half of the 19th century, “the Spanish decided to make their colony in the Philippines profitable. One of the key measures was the unrestricted immigration of hard-working Chinese” (Wickberg, 1997). It also created a population of Filipino-Chinese hybrids who performed significantly better than the native Filipinos and formed, along with the pure Chinese, the elite. After independence in 1946, the government took steps to restrict the economic dominance of the Chinese (who owned 55% of the businesses while representing only 1.3% of the population) in order to give Filipinos more opportunities. Many Chinese migrants had not acquired citizenship, and the government restricted employment in many sectors to nationals only. The Chinese then moved into wholesale trade, light manufacturing, and financial services. They quickly dominated these sectors and “became more prosperous than ever” (Wickberg, 1997, p. 168). Edgar Wickberg, a leading scholar of the Philippines, wrote that “the Han Chinese outperformed the Filipinos in virtually every field.” Why? He offers no suggestions…

In Thailand, the Chinese represented 12% of the population in 1990. A community of Chinese traders has been present in Thailand since the 14th century. In Bangkok, the Chinese were the pioneers of the first publishing and press houses and cinemas. In 1987, a study was made of the 70 largest Thai companies. 67 were run by Chinese and only 3 by Thais. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Chinese owned the main banks and “the king used Chinese capital and know-how to set up businesses”. In 1927, the Thai King Prajadhipok wrote a pamphlet entitled “Democracy in Siam” which examined the advantages and disadvantages of introducing democracy. He first argued that the Chinese were more successful than the Thais in business: “there are many reasons why the Chinese are able to make money more quickly than other people; According to Chinese thought, money is the beginning and end of all good. The Chinese seem to want to do everything for money” (Reid, 1997, p. 5-6). He went on to argue that if democracy were introduced, the Chinese would inevitably take control of the country by applying the same motivations and skills that have made them dominant in business, and the parliament would be completely dominated by the Chinese. Even if the Chinese were excluded from all political rights, they would still dominate since they have the money. Any party that tried not to depend on Chinese funds could not succeed, so politics in Siam would be dominated and dictated by Chinese merchants (Tejapira, 1997, p. 80). He concluded that the best course was to keep political and military control of the country in Thai hands. As two American sociologists write, “the Chinese have been prosperous in Thailand for centuries” (Hamilton and Waters, 1997). As we have seen, throughout Southeast Asia the indigenous people realized that they could not compete with the Chinese in a free society. Southeast Asians solved the problem by dictatorships or authoritarian regimes giving privileges to the indigenous people and discriminating against the Chinese. We have seen that this was the case in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. It was also the case in Thailand where, during the second half of the 20th century, the Chinese were banned from the officers of the armed forces and had reduced voting rights and political candidacy rights (Tejapira, 1997).

The high achievement of East Asians throughout East Asia should not surprise us. It is identical to the high socio-economic and educational achievements of East Asians in Europe, the USA, Canada, Brazil or Australia.

Conclusion

Whatever the multiracial country in the world, the hierarchy remains remarkably unchanged (Africa, Australia, Brazil, England, Canada, Caribbean, Hawaii, Latin America, Holland, New Zealand, Southeast Asia). Social sedimentation is dictated by intelligence. IQ is a physiological parameter essentially dictated by genes.

All data are available in The Global Bell Curve, 2009, Richard Lynn, Washington Summit Publishers.