The source piece for this post takes a large number of academic racial studies that relate to the alleged superior intelligence of the Oriental.
The only way to do justice to the topic is to sit down for a couple of hours and read the whole paper. The excerpt here covers the introduction plus a few selected ideas relating to the author’s contention that Asians are NOT superior in intelligence to whites.
An easy to read companion piece to this piece is the article at Amren, which lays out Asian cultural failures. It’s a fun piece that should deepen your understanding of the Asian.
Excerpt from The Cross Roads
The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White
Lothrop Stoddard writing in “The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy”, (Charles Scribners, New York, 1920) stated in these terms the threat that now engulfs the White world: “ “Finally perish!” That is the exact alternative which confronts the white race. For white civilisation is today conterminous with the white race. The civilisations of the past were local. They were confined to a particular people or group of peoples. If they failed, there were always some unspoiled, well endowed barbarians to step forward and “carry on”. But today there are no more white barbarians. The earth has grown small, and men are everywhere in close touch. If white civilisation goes down, the white race is irretrievably ruined. It will be swamped by the triumphant coloured races, who will obliterate the white man by elimination or absorption. What has taken place in Central Asia, once a white and now a brown or yellow land, will take place in Australasia, Europe and America. Not today, nor yet tomorrow; perhaps not for generations; but surely in the end. If the present drift be not changed, we whites are all ultimately doomed. Unless we set our house in order, the doom will sooner or later overtake us all.”
This grim prophecy by Lothrop Stoddard is almost fulfilled: countries such as Australia, the United States and Britain will cease to be majority white before 2050 – in the case of the United States, by around 2040 or sooner. In this context it is important for pro-white organisations to tackle and refute ideologies harming white resistance to what is clearly a form of quiet or passive genocide. IQ is one such ideology.
“Racialists” and IQ
White racialists, with a few notable exceptions, have salivated, much like Pavlov’s dogs at the mere mention of IQ. IQ, so scientific and clinical, was typically used to show the intellectual superiority of Whites over Blacks. Such white racialists have been hypnotised by this “crude consumer index”. Fortunately this lack of criticism has not engulfed all conservative groups. For example conservative non-racialists Z. Dobbs and A.B. Roosevelt, “The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences”, (Veritas Foundation, New York, 1964) show how, contrary to many so-called racialists, that IQ tests are a Leftist weapon. Pitirim Sorokin points out that Leo Tolstoi, Pushkin, Hegel, Vico and Sir Isaac Newton (predominately Nordics) would be regarded as inferior by standard IQ tests: P. Sorokin, “Fads and Fables in Modern Sociology” (1956), p.81.
However according to IQ theorist, Jewish psychologist H.J. Eysenck, Asians, (East Asians) are more intelligent than non-Jewish whites, but Jews are the most intelligent people on earth: see H.J. Eysenck and l. Kamin, “Intelligence: The Battle for the Mind”, (Pan, London, 1981), p.85. According to IQ theorist Arthur Jensen, because East Asians have a higher IQ than Whites (i.e., the East Asian mean or average IQ is greater than Whites), Whites and Asians can live side-by-side in multiracial America. Race and colour does not matter to him; all that matters is maximising IQ to preserve the high culture of Wagner, Verdi and Puccini – who are, of course, not Asians! In an interview in the magazine American Renaissance (May 26, 1992) edited by Jared Taylor, who also champions the East Asian superiority thesis), Jensen doesn’t say that Wagner et. al., are “Asians”, but he might as well have: “I think that the Asians [note, not merely East Asians] are capable of preserving that level of civilization, once introduced to it.” No reflection there about the fact that it was the white race who created that “civilization” in the first place.
Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are the main proponents of the East Asian (sometimes just “Asian” is used) superiority thesis. Lynn believes that Asian civilisation was probably more advanced than Europe civilisation until about 500 years ago (which is becoming now an Establishment view). Rushton sees European technological supremacy as a mere blip. Lynne sees China as being the ultimate ruler of the world, not only because of their eugenic practices, but because the Chinese are racially superior to Whites. “Whites” for Lynn include the Indians and Pakistanis, who are “Caucasians” and are not a “genetic problem”.
In a work with Tatu Vanhanen, “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”, (Praeger, Westport, 2002), this theme of Asian racial superiority is continued. (See also J.P. Rushton, Review, “Personality and Individual Differences” vol.34, 2002, pp.367-372.) It is absurd to judge entire nation’s intellectual potential by the crude mechanism of mean IQ scores as Lynn and Vanhanen do. For a start, most nations are now multiracial, and given Lynn’s own assumption that Black IQ scores are lower than Whites, there will hence be a lowering of the means. However Lynn and Vanhanen continue the racial superiority theme. It is claimed that China and Asia’s technology was in advance of Europe’s up until 1500 AD. Such claims are based on dated archaeological and histiographical evidence.
I recommend the abandonment of IQ as some sort of criterion for the assessment of the intellectual superiority of the races. The only real test is that of overall contribution to civilisation. The biological and psychological evidence (especially of identical twins reared apart), indicates that “intelligence” (whatever it is) is primarily determined by heredity, as are many group psychological differences: K. Lamb, “Individual and Group Character in the Social Psychology of William McDougal”, The Mankind Quarterly, vol.39, no.3, 1999, pp.255-308. However, it is quite another matter to suppose that IQ measured by any test (e.g., IPAT, Raven matrices, WAIS, WISC etc.) actually measures “intelligence”. It is highly debateable whether there is a g, a unitary phenomenon accounting for all the multifarious manifestations of common sense intelligence as Jensen and Brand, following Charles Spearman (1883-1945), propose: A.R. Jensen, “The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability”, (Praeger, Westport, 1998); C. Brand, “The g Factor” John Wiley, New York, 1996).
Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.
The Australian Aborigine with an IQ of allegedly 85, according to the race realists, has an extremely high visual acuity, greater than East Asians and Whites, with their visual cortex being larger than these races: M. Kohn, “The Race Gallery”, (Jonathan Cape, London 1995, p.125. Yet on standard IQ theory this race is regarded as intellectually “inferior”, which can hardly be correct since this race has exhibited great survival skills: E.M. Miller, “Paternal Provisioning Versus Mate-Seeking in Human Populations”, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.17, 1994.
Some racial theorists (e.g. Miller as above) hypothesise that climate-based evolution only lifted North East Asian IQ moderately. It was the infusion of White genes during and after the Mesolithic period which lifted Asian IQ to European levels. If this was so then the ground collapses from under the Asian IQ superiority thesis.
Rushton claims that American Asians commit fewer crimes than Whites and he refers to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Victimisation Surveys : J.P. Rushton and G. Whitney, “Cross-National Variation in Crime Rates : Race, r-K Theory and Income”, Population and Environment, vol.23, 2002, pp.501-511.
Such statistics only measure individuals convicted and do not address group/collectivistic crime, such as Asian crime gangs: K-L. Chin, “Chinatown Gangs”, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996). Police find it impossible to penetrate Chinese “Cong Societies” due to group loyalty and the fear instilled in Chinese-Americans: D.D. Daye, “A Law Enforcement Sourcebook on Asian Crime and Cultures”, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1997). Open gang warfare exists across the United States between rival Asian gangs. W. Kleinknecki, “The New Ethnic Mobs: The Changing Face of Organised Crime in America”, (The Free Press, New York, 1996). Further, according to the FBI 1995 Supplementary Homicide Report, which would have been available before the 3rd edition of “Race, Evolution and Behaviour” was available, Asians (including South East Asians) in America committed murder at 1.23 times the White race.
It is impossible to suppose that East Asians commit less crime than Whites given the extent of bribery and “kick-backs” in Asian society, which is a way of life. Tax evasion and the use of a cash economy is also a matter of fact. None of this is considered by Rushton. Nor does he consider “political crimes” which never go into official murder statistics – otherwise the death toll from Chairman Mao’s regime would make nonsense of all cross-national crime comparisons.
Let us now consider the brain size issue. Rushton’s view is that Caucasoids and Mongoloids have evolved a larger brain being at a great distance from the Equator Negroids. Based on magnetic resonance imaging studies of the brain, the averagre overall correlation of 0.44 was allegedly found between brain size measured by MRI and IQ: J.P. Rushton, “Race, Intelligence and Brain”, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.23, 1997, pp.169-180. Lynn cited 16 surveys with correlations between brain size and IQ ranging from 0.14 to 0.23. C. Coon in “Racial Adaptations” (p.174) believed that the correlation was higher at 0.30 citing: L. van Valen, “Brain Size and Intelligence in Man”, American Anthropologist, vol.74, 1976. Pp.425-427. If we take Rushton’s MRI measure and correct for age, the correlation falls to 0.22 and is reduced to negligible when further corrected for sex and head size: N. Raz (et. al.), “Neuroanatomical Correlates of Age-Sensitive and Age-Invariant Cognitive Abilities: An In Vivo Investigation”, Intelligence, vol.17, 1993, pp.407-422.