Return to the NeoEugenics' Web Site

Review of World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability by Amy Chua, 2003.

Chua's new book is an excellent overview of just how common it is for a country to be economically dominated by a racial minority. She takes us into the workings of many countries, providing numbers, how the races interact, and surprisingly she has provided a substantial amount of data that supports alternative theories from her own.

She doesn't deal directly with why a minority can dominate the majority, but a careful reading of this book supports two alternative hypotheses. First, it supports the work by Kevin MacDonald on how group evolutionary strategies, along with differences in innate levels of ethnocentrism, can lead to racial boundary maintenance and racial conflict. Second, it supports Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's observations that it is the level of average intelligence that determines what groups will prosper and which ones will be subordinated (IQ and the Wealth of Nations, 2002 - see for a listing of an estimated average intelligences in 189 nations).

Her book is not very organized, but her thoughts and opinions do jump out at the reader who is not willing to swallow her simplistic assumptions. Her book is useful primarily for the support it lends to group evolutionary strategies. In addition, it reinforces the contention of evolutionists that when it comes to human behavior, social scientists and political scientists are still bogged down in just-so stories. They have no empirical program for analyzing human behavior that is falsifiable and therefore scientific.

This review, or perhaps more correctly critique, of Chua's more egregious biases and distortions, will follow the book page by page to keep things simple. Even though I do not agree with her reasoning, aside from perhaps agreeing that the West should not meddle in other nation's concerns, her observations provide a much-needed look at how racial conflict is endemic around the world.

Chua starts out explaining how her aunt had her throat slit in the Philippines, by a Filipino employee, because of racial hatred, and she quickly exposes East Asian's racism: "The murder of a relative is horrible for anyone, anywhere. My father's grief was impenetrable; to this day, he has not broken his silence on the subject. For the rest of the family, though, there was an added element of disgrace. For the Chinese, luck is a moral attribute, and a lucky person would never be murdered. Like having a birth defect, or marrying a Filipino, being murdered is shameful…. My family is part of the Philippines' tiny but entrepreneurial, economically powerful Chinese minority. Just 1 percent of the population, Chinese Filipinos control as much as 60 percent of the private economy, including the country's four major airlines and almost all of the country's banks, hotels, shopping malls, and major conglomerates."

She goes on to explain how the East Asian Chinese think Filipinos are lazy, unintelligent, and really don't want to work. Then she says that they are also suffering extreme poverty, indignity, and hopelessness. So why are such a desperate people also so lazy? She never gets beyond these simplistic explanations and she is unable to accept that the East Asian Chinese have an average IQ of about 105 versus an average IQ among South Asians of about 90. Once intelligence and ethnocentrism are taken into account, World on Fire starts making sense.

She then states what the book is all about, "a phenomenon - pervasive outside the West yet rarely acknowledged, indeed often viewed as taboo - that turns free market democracy into an engine of ethnic conflagration. The phenomenon I refer to is that of market-dominant minorities: ethnic minorities who, for widely varying reasons, tend under market conditions to dominate economically, often to a startling extent, the 'indigenous' majorities around them."

"Market-dominant minorities can be found in every corner of the world. The Chinese are a market-dominant minority not just in the Philippines but throughout Southeast Asia. In 1998, Chinese Indonesians, only 3 percent of the population, controlled roughly 70 percent of Indonesia's private economy, including all of the country's largest conglomerates. More recently, in Burma, entrepreneurial Chinese have literally taken over the economies of Mandalay and Rangoon. Whites are a market-dominant minority in South Africa - and, in a more complicated sense, in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, and much of Latin America. Lebanese are a market-dominant minority in West Africa. Ibo are a market-dominant minority in Nigeria. Croats were a market-dominant minority in the former Yugoslavia. And Jews are almost certainly a market-dominant minority in post-Communist Russia."

To understand the true causes of ethnic conflict in this book only two primary concepts need to be kept in mind that Chua fails to consider: the difference in average intelligence between the groups being discussed, and the level of ethnocentrism between different races. These two factors play out differently for different races. The East Asians, Semites (Lebanese and Jews), and Asian Indians for example seem to have high levels of ethnocentrism or xenophobia. When they dominate a society, they also maintain racial boundaries as well as engage in kinship cooperation to advance their goals across borders. That is, they cooperate between racial kin groups all over the globe where they reside.

In contrast, where Whites have dominated, they are more individualistic - they lack high levels of ethnocentrism. For example, in Latin America, they are far more likely to marry outside their race, and they cooperate less with other Whites in other countries. They follow an individualistic elitism, making alliances with whoever will advance their status, regardless of race. One could make the case that this is not so in sub-Saharan Africa, where Whites would never consider marrying Blacks. However, I would argue that this is not due to high levels of ethnocentrism but rather to the extreme differences in average intelligence - about 100 for Whites and only 70 for Blacks. This much of a gap in intelligence is too large for any two groups to mix socially - much less to marry each other.

"By contrast, the sobering thesis of this book is that the global spread of markets and democracy is a principal, aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world. In the numerous societies around the world that have a market-dominant minority, markets and democracy are not mutually reinforcing. Because markets and democracy benefit different ethnic groups in such societies, the pursuit of free market democracy produces highly unstable and combustible conditions. Markets concentrate enormous wealth in the hands of an 'outsider' minority, fomenting ethnic envy and hatred among often chronically poor majorities."

True, our current promotion of democracy, globalization, free markets, etc. may be destabilizing, situations that would not be as violent had we not pursued these global programs - but that does not detract from the fact that the ethnic violence is due primarily to differences in the average intelligences of different racial groups. I can't blame Chua individually for this lack of insight, because almost universally the egalitarian stance is to never mention this as a cause of economic disparity. And this ban on intelligence being factored in is upheld by conservatives as well as liberals.

"Just 1 percent of the population, they have for generations controlled 70 percent of the country's best land, largely in the form of highly productive three-thousand-acre tobacco and sugar farms. Watching Zimbabwe's economy take a free fall as a result of the mass landgrab, the United States and United Kingdom together with dozens of human rights groups urged President Mugabe to step down, calling resoundingly for free and fair elections. But the idea that democracy is the answer to Zimbabwe's problems is breathtakingly naive."

It seems to me the best way to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe is to just relocate the Whites back to the West. And the same goes for South Africa. The area will never see peace with such a wide gap in abilities and intelligence between Blacks and Whites.

"Indeed, this book will show that the world's most notorious cases of 'crony capitalism' all involve a market-dominant ethnic minority - from Ferdinand Marcos's Chinese-protective dictatorship in the Philippines to President Siaka Stevens's shadow alliance with five Lebanese diamond dealers in Sierra Leone to President Daniel Arap Moi's 'business arrangements' with a handful of Indian tycoons in Kenya today…."

"More fundamentally, however, like their pro-globalization counterparts, Western critics of globalization have overlooked the ethnic dimension of market disparities. They tend to see wealth and poverty in terms of class conflict, not ethnic conflict. This perspective might make sense in the advanced Western societies, but the ethnic realities of the developing world are completely different from those of the West. As a result, the solutions that globalization's critics propose are often shortsighted and even dangerous when applied to non-Western societies."

Chua is rather vague with the above statement. There are of course differences between countries - in fact every country is unique. But ethnic conflict does have some universals that we could use - universals that are a result of a great deal of research using ethnographic databases by evolutionary psychologists and behavior geneticists. I do agree however that class conflict, as a Marxist tenet of all conflict is getting very stale. It is time to move on using empirical methods of analysis.

"'Markets,' 'democracy,' and 'ethnicity' are notoriously difficult concepts to define. In part this is because there is no single correct interpretation of any of these terms. Indeed, I hope precisely to show in this book that the 'market systems' currently being urged on developing and post-Communist countries are very different from the ones now in place in contemporary Western nations; that the process of 'democratization' currently being promoted in the non-Western world is not the same as the one that the Western countries themselves went through; and that 'ethnicity' is a fluid, artificial, and dangerously manipulable concept."

The above is very typical for Chua - she makes vague statements several times but never goes beyond the infuriatingly simplistic. How is ethnicity fluid, artificial - and dangerous? Why make such a statement when you never follow up on what you mean by it? The few times that Chua deviates from a just-so story however, allow us to peek in on her extreme bias - they are scattered about like the above in one-liners that just seem to fall from nowhere.

"It is striking to note that at no point in history did any Western nation ever implement laissez-faire capitalism and overnight universal suffrage at the same time - the precise formula of free market democracy currently being pressed on developing countries around the world." On this I agree - democracy has many contradictions and to say the least, it is not a coherent concept.

"Ethnicity is another controversial concept that has generated much debate. For purposes of this book, I will assume that 'ethnicity' is not a scientifically determinable status. Rather, 'ethnicity' will refer to a kind of group identification, a sense of belonging to a people, that is experienced 'as a greatly extended form of kinship.' This definition of ethnicity is intended to be very broad, acknowledging the importance of subjective perceptions. It encompasses differences along racial lines (for example, blacks and whites in the United States), lines of geographic origin (for example, Malays, Chinese, and Indians in Malaysia), as well as linguistic, religious, tribal, or other cultural lines (for example, Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes in Kenya or Jews and Muslims in the Middle East)."

Even though the definition of race is rather straight forward (see for the scientific explanation of race), the race deniers have been active recently as the Human Genome Project has been getting a great deal of press. Forensic scientists can now determine a person's race from DNA, and a recent article on using DNA for determining a mixed breed dog's genetic lineage shows how far we have come in using genetics to determine ancestry. Race as just a social construct is pure egalitarian dogma with no standing in genetics. 

"Ethnic identity is not static but shifting and highly malleable. In Rwanda, for example, the 14 percent Tutsi minority dominated the Hutu majority economically and politically for four centuries, as a kind of cattle-owning aristocracy. But for most of this period the lines between Hutus and Tutsi were permeable. The two groups spoke the same language, intermarriage occurred, and successful Hutus could 'become Tutsi.' This was no longer true after the Belgians arrived and, steeped in specious theories of racial superiority, issued ethnic identity cards on the basis of nose length and cranial circumference. The resulting much sharper ethnic divisions were later exploited by the leaders of Hutu Power. Along similar lines, all over Latin America today - where it is often said that there are no 'ethnic divisions' because everyone is 'mixed-blooded' - large numbers of impoverished Bolivians, Chileans, and Peruvians are suddenly being told that they are Aymaras, Incas, or just indios, whatever identity best resonates and mobilizes. These indigenization movements are not necessarily good or bad, but they are contagiously potent."

This is incredibly revealing. Here we have two races, one dominating the other for 400 years, and the dominant one looks different and has a larger brain! Brain size is correlated with intelligence - about 0.4 - which is quite significant. So what we really have, are two races with some mixing. This would be analogous to the difference between Whites and Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe. Some permeability did occur, but genetically Ashkenazi Jews are closer to other Semites than to Caucasians, and yet some genetic admixture from Caucasians, followed by selection for Caucasian facial features, makes the Ashkenazi Jews look more Western than the Sephardim Jews, who look more like their Arab kin (Chua points this out when discussing Israel). But my point here is that the Tutsi dominated over the Hutus because they were a different race - and they were more intelligent. That is the only reading I can make of the above statement, but Chua prefers to make the point that the Belgians were a bunch of racists, rather than explain away a far more parsimonious explanation - the Belgians recognized the two races even though there was some admixture between the two groups.

"Since Burma's [1989] shift to a market-oriented, open-door economy, both Rangoon, the modern capital, and Mandalay, the ancient City of Gems and royal seat of the last two Burmese kings, have been taken over by ethnic Chinese…. In Burma's new market economy, the Sino-Burmese minority have been transformed almost overnight into a garishly prosperous business community…."

"The magnitude of the Chinese minority's economic power was astounding. Constituting just 1 percent of Vietnam's population, the Chinese controlled an estimated 90 percent of non-European private capital in the mid-1950s and dominated Vietnam's retail trade, its financial, manufacturing, and transportation sectors, and all aspects of the country's rice economy…. Today in Vietnam, both markets and the Chinese are back. The government's post-1988 shift to market liberalization, or doi moi ("renovation"), has led to an astounding resurgence of Chinese commercial dominance in the country's urban areas. Vietnam's 3 percent Chinese minority cluster in Ho Chi Minh City (still Saigon to most Vietnamese), where they control roughly 50 percent of that city's market activity and overwhelmingly dominate light industry, import-export, shopping malls, and private banking. Once again, resentment among the indigenous Vietnamese is building…."

"Indeed, a recent survey of Thailand's roughly seventy most powerful business groups found that all but three were owned by Thai Chinese…."

"In Malaysia, too, privatization and other market policies have starkly magnified the economic dominance of the country's Chinese minority. This is true despite extensive affirmative action policies for the indigenous Malay majority, which have been in place ever since bloody anti-Chinese riots in 1969 left nearly a thousand dead in Kuala Lumpur. Today, the Malaysian Chinese - the largest Chinese minority in Southeast Asia, representing about a third of the population - account for 70 percent of the country's market capitalization."

"It seems safe to say that this entrepreneurial dynamism [of East Asian Chinese] - together with frugality, hard work, willingness to delay gratification, and intense desire to accumulate wealth almost as an end in itself - cannot be traced to any single cultural, much less genetic source."

However, we do know that the average intelligence of East Asians is 105, and all of the above countries are South Asian countries where the average intelligence is around 90. I think it is obvious - market-dominant minorities are more intelligent by some significant amount. And since intelligence is about 80% genetic, then it is in fact the genetic differences that explain widely disparate outcomes in wealth - on average.

Of course, the ethnocentrism does enter in to increase the wealth of East Asians: "The Chinese minorities have a worldwide head start advantage of roughly $2 trillion in assets, not to mention their famous 'social networks' of business connections, which are not merely intraethnic but include Western and Japanese foreign investors as well."

"Characterizing Bolivia's ethnic makeup is tricky, given the high historical rates of 'racial mixing' and phenomena such as 'encholamiento,' in which a white man and an Amerindian or mestiza woman (a chola) have a son, who, if successful, marks his success by marrying a white woman. Today, Bolivian society is loosely divisible into three layers. To use the terminology of Bolivia's census as late as 1976, 'whites' make up 5 to 15 percent of the population, 'mestizos' make up 20 to 30 percent, and 'Indians' 6o to 65 percent. These classifications are of course highly artificial; wealth can turn a 'mestizo' or even an 'Indian' into a white. As the Bolivian intellectual Tristan Marof wrote decades ago, 'Whites' are all that have fortune in Bolivia, those that exercise influence and occupy high positions. A rich mestizo or Indian, although he has dark skin, considers himself white."

"Nevertheless, the bottom line in Bolivia is this. The country's Amerindian majority, many of whom lived as serfs until 1952, are largely excluded from the modern economy. Most live in poverty, with no secondary education, no access to sanitation, and terrible teeth. According to the government's own statistics, 90 percent of rural Bolivians - overwhelmingly Amerindians - cannot satisfy basic necessities. Among the 'mestizo' group, economic success is more mixed. But Bolivia's whites enjoy wildly disproportionate wealth and status."

Elementary really - Amerindians have an average intelligence of 90, while Whites have an average intelligence of 100, and those between the extremes have whatever wealth they have based on their intelligence (and conscientiousness, the second most important trait that determines wealth), on average of course. Luck always plays a part in the fortunes of individuals, but for group averages we know that IQ and some behavioral traits - also genetically based to a large degree - are the leading predictors of success.

"With the exception of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay (where from early on indigenous peoples were largely extinguished), Latin American society is fundamentally pigmentocratic: characterized by a social spectrum with taller, lighter-skinned, European-blooded elites at one end; shorter, darker, Indian-blooded masses at the other end; and a great deal of 'passing' in between. The roots of pigmentocracy are traceable to the colonial era. Unlike their (evidently more repressed) British counterparts in, say, India or Malaysia, the Spanish colonialists freely and prolifically procreated with indigenous women. From the outset, Spanish and Portuguese chroniclers waxed enthusiastic about the charms of Amerindian women, who were 'beautiful, and not a little lascivious, and fond of the Spaniards' by one account and 'very handsome and great lovers, affectionate and with ardent bodies' by another. In an important sense, the Spanish Conquest of the Americas was a conquest of women. The Spanish obtained Amerindian girls both by force and by peaceful means - sometimes, for example, as tokens of friendship from the Indian caciques. Intermarriage, concubinage, and polygamy were common."

So the Spanish colonialists were typically horny men! Chua makes this sound unusual, but it is a theme throughout her book - where males venture without their women, they are forced to interbreed with the natives. What is interesting is the fact that Whites again show far less ethnocentrism than other races that dominate - Whites are far more individualistic. They care more about their own success and show little interest in forming global networks with their "racial kin" that is found in other races. Predictably, White domination will eventually decline in all of the American nations as more intelligent or ethnocentric races displace them. For example: "Needless to say, Slim has no Amerindian ancestors. As elsewhere in the world, the Lebanese community in Mexico is very tight: Slim's late wife was also Christian Lebanese, and, reportedly, most members of Slim's extended family have married other Christian Lebanese; virtually all are extremely wealthy."

"In Brazil, which I'll say more about in a moment, 50,000 (less than 0.01 percent) of the country's 165 million population still own most of the country's land. Again, the latifundio owners are unmistakably white; the peasants, however, are typically descendants of African slaves…."

"Similarly, a 1965 survey of Bogota executives revealed that although Colombia has had relatively little immigration, 41 percent of the country's leading entrepreneurs were foreign born. Some of Latin America's most stunningly successful immigrant entrepreneurs have been Lebanese or Jewish. In terms of numbers, both groups are tiny, representing almost negligible minorities in their countries of residence. In terms of economic dynamism, however, both groups have been extraordinary. In addition to Slim, a surprising number of Latin America's wealthiest businessmen are Lebanese." It is interesting that Chua would mention the Lebanese as often as she does, but she mentions Jews just a few times (except for the Russian Jews later), such as:

"Jews are no longer peddlers in Latin America today. In a matter of a few generations the Jewish communities of Latin America have transformed themselves from struggling immigrants into financially powerful businessmen and professionals. In 1994 nearly 53 percent of employed Jews in Mexico identified themselves as directors, managers, or administrators while another 26 percent identified themselves as professionals. Throughout Latin America the rate of upward social mobility among Jewish communities has been astounding over the last century. In Brazil, the Jewish Klabin and Lafer families, linked by marriage ties, are among the wealthiest in the country; their jointly owned, diversified industrial firm is the largest newsprint producer in Latin America. More generally, approximately two-thirds of Brazilian Jews belong to the 'elite.' In Panama, the minuscule Jewish minority - only 0.25 percent of the population - disproportionately dominates the country's wholesale, retail, real estate, and services sectors and represents 40 percent of the traders…." Wherever Ashkenazi Jews live, they are in fact the dominant racial group. I know of no country where they are not wealthier on average than all other racial groups.

"Obviously, Latin America differs from Southeast Asia in countless respects. Because of extensive miscegenation, ethnic and racial lines in this region are not nearly as starkly drawn, and Latin America has been able to avoid the extreme ethnic animus and violence seen in Southeast Asia." Yes, so much for the hope that massive miscegenation will solve our racial problems here in America. Racial groupings, as genes get mixed up, just reformulate themselves into new groups. Just like there are many ways of structuring cultures or political systems, those systems create numerous racial groupings. Races are not stagnant, they are constantly in a state of flux - with or without miscegenation.

Jews in Russia:

"Instead of dispersing ownership [in the 1990s] and creating functioning markets, these reforms had allowed a small group of greedy industrialists and bankers to plunder Russia, turning themselves almost overnight into the billionaire-owners of Russia's crown jewels while the country spiraled into chaos and lawlessness…. As it turns out, six out of seven of Russia's wealthiest and (at least until recently) most powerful oligarchs are Jewish. This fact became public knowledge in the United States just a few months after my conversation with Jerry, when Chrystia Freeland in Sale of the Century offered a journalist's firsthand account of how, without actually breaking the law, a handful of cold-blooded, extraordinarily savvy businessmen - all but one of them Jewish - used the privatization process to become the owners of vast amounts of Russia's mineral wealth and the overwhelming victors in Russia's 'gladiator capitalism….'"

"When I first mentioned to my husband, who is Jewish, that six out of seven of Russia's wealthiest tycoons are Jewish, he raised an eyebrow. 'Just six?' he asked calmly. 'So who's the seventh guy…?'"

"Russia has roughly 147 million inhabitants. The National Conference on Soviet Jewry estimates that Jews make up less than 1 percent of the population. Given these demographics, how is it that six Jewish businessmen came to wield such astounding economic and political power? In general, it is much harder to talk about Jewish economic dominance than that of any other group. This is because of the numerous episodes in which exaggerated or even patently false claims of Jewish economic dominance led to vicious discrimination, ghettoization, and some of the worst atrocities in human history. As a result, whereas one can relatively freely explore and talk about the phenomenon of, say, a 3 percent Chinese minority controlling 70 percent of a country's wealth, it is far more difficult to ascertain or even discuss the extent of Jewish economic influence in any given context. Nevertheless, Jews have been in many ways the quintessential market-dominant minority."

Chua of course had to have at least one part of the book that looked at Jewish domination in one country. Not to do so would have been too obviously biased. But when she does tackle the issue, using a rather weak example because it only includes six individuals, it is one of the most egregious examples of double-speak apologia that I have ever read: "Discussing Jewish economic success in present-day Russia is especially fraught because of the virulent history of Russian anti-Semitism. For centuries, anti-Jewish policies in Russia - expulsions (dating to as early as 1727), harsh economic restrictions, coerced twenty-five-year terms of military service, persecutions, pogroms, and so on - were to a large extent successful in preventing Jews from prospering, let alone being economically dominant."

Is Chua for real!? Of course they were persecuted - Jews are the "quintessential market-dominant minority!" If they were not suppressed, they would have taken over. Isn't that what this book is about? Racial tensions between market-dominant minorities and the majorities!

But the duplicity gets even better: "At one point we asked Sonia [a Russian Jew] if she had any thoughts as to why so many of the oligarchs were Jewish. Sonia shook her head. 'You don't understand,' she said dismissively. 'These oligarchs - they are 95 percent Russian and only 5 percent Jewish. They are fully assimilated, products of the Russian environment. The Jews in Russia, it is not like the Jews in the U.S. In the U.S., there is an active Jewish community, synagogues, organizations. In Russia there is nothing. For most people, it is just something they have stamped on their passport.'"

Oh really? How convenient - after discussing Jews as a market-dominant minority, she tries to rationalize their Jewishness away. Well, if Jews in Russia aren't really Jews at all, at only 1 percent of the population, and fully assimilated, why do they continue to only marry Jews? That is obvious - they are just as Jewish as any other Jew with regards to race. So again I will ask - is anti-Semitism ever justified? Let see how Chua deals with this issue when applied to Whites instead of Jews.

"The problem is starkest in southern Africa. In country after country, a handful of whites engorged themselves on natural resources and human labor, creating enclaves of spectacular wealth and modernization, surrounded by mounting, justifiable hatred among the indigenous black majority. The typical result has been horrific violence."

Let me see if I can sort this logic out? When a White minority economically oppresses the Black majority, a reaction against this oppression becomes "justifiable hatred." When Jews economically oppressed the Whites throughout Europe - often with the consent of ruthless monarchies - this becomes "virulent…anti-Semitism." Sorry, it looks all the same to me! When one race oppresses another, look for bad things to happen. (See MacDonald and Lindemann listed at my web site bibliography for books on the history of Jewish market-dominant minority involvement in Europe.)

"Under the Portuguese, Angola suffered from one of the most oppressive forms of colonial rule: Until the nineteenth century, Portugal used the area as a 'slave pool' for its more lucrative colony in Brazil while plundering Angola's precious gemstones and metals. Even just thirty years ago, 335,000 Portuguese colonialists ruthlessly ran and controlled the virtual entirety of Angola's economy. In Another Day of Life, Ryszard Kapuscinski describes their almost overnight departure in 1975, when Angola was granted independence in the midst of rising chaos and violence…."

In the United States, Portuguese are considered Hispanic, so are Hispanics oppressing Blacks in Angola or is this White oppression? It gets so confusing when so much of one's intent is to make Whites more evil than other market-dominant minority races.

For example, of all the stories one could tell about any group of people, that seems like a replay of Jim Balushi's "Animal House," Chua includes just one such story in her book:

"Meanwhile, the so-called 'Kenyan Cowboys,' or 'KCs,' try to maintain the legacy of Happy Valley. Fun-loving, decadent, bafflingly immature, these young men and women are stuck in a time warp, somewhere in the heyday of British colonialism. While the great majority of Kenya's roughly 3 million blacks struggle to survive on less than two dollars a day - 45 percent are unemployed - the KCs spend their days sipping tea and playing bridge, polo, or cricket. Weekends, they go on safari. In the summer they jet set to Europe. The rest of the time they frequent anachronistic private clubs like Nairobi's Muthaiga Country Club, where their predecessors amused themselves in the 1930s by swapping wives, throwing gramophones out the window, or shooting bullets into the stuffed lion still displayed in the hallway. The KCs strive to carry on this tradition, mainly through drinking and such activities as putting 'butter pats on the carnations on the dinner table and throw[ing] them up at the ceiling to see if they will stick.' Although discrimination against Africans and Asians officially ended in the 196os, the Muthaiga Club's membership remains predominantly white. All the staff are black."

This bizarre sidebar of a story can only be explained as Chua's way of belittling Whites as if they are a bunch of morons. It jumps out at the reader - showing the extreme hostility she has towards Whites in general, While acting as an apologist for all other races except for her own Chinese. The Chinese are treated in a straightforward manner, as if they are not really a people but a phenomenon, more of statistical interest rather than anything else. Chua shows her true racialism by the way she treats different races under identical circumstances. Hatred, fear and disgust are meted out according to her hierarchy of evil racial essences. How charming Amy - but also how transparent.

"However contested the reasons, at least one basic fact is not: Among black Kenyans, deservedly or not, the Kikuyu have for generations been disproportionately wealthy. Even today under President Moi, who has openly pursued pro-Kalenjin policies, the Kikuyu continue to have an unusually solid business and middle class. Kikuyu elite remain the owners of large tracts of valuable land, much of it handed to them under Kenyatta. Of the few black members of the Muthaiga Club, almost all are Kikuyu, who are fighting tooth and nail to keep out the emerging new Kalenjin elite."

I wonder if these Black Kikuyu also like to toss butter dipped carnations at the ceiling to see if they will stick? My guess is the Whites in Kenya don't care about race, and that the Kikuyu are more intelligent than the average Kenyan and therefore welcome were welcomed into the White's clubhouse. Again, it is a matter of intelligence.

"The Kikuyu are by no means an exceptional case. Disproportionately successful African minorities can be found in virtually every corner of the African continent. The Ibo, known as the 'Jews of Nigeria,' for example, are famous the world over for being an unusually driven and enterprising 'trader' minority. Within Nigeria, Ibo subcommunities dominate key economic sectors…. On the other hand, many Nigerians, especially Ibo, believe the explanation is genetic. Some have suggested that the Ibo are a lost tribe of Israel; this theory appears to have been discredited…. In addition, like the Chinese or Koreans, the Ibo have sophisticated social networks that are almost impenetrable by outsiders…. In the United States there are strikingly successful Ibo communities in Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, and other major cities."

It seems like the reputation of the Jews is everywhere! Like the Jews, from what Chua has written, it seems like the Ibo are successful because of their race (their genes). They are more intelligent and more racially cohesive - the two primary factors leading to racial hierarchies.

"Kenya's roughly seventy thousand Indians, less than 2 percent of the population, are in fact dramatically more affluent as a group than the vastly more numerous black Kenyans around them…. It is often suggested - not only by Kenyans but also by Westerners - that Indian economic dominance in Kenya is due to their manipulation of the political process as opposed to any superior entrepreneurialism…. Unlike Africa's white settlers, who came over with guns and the might of Europe behind them, most of Kenya's Indians descend from 'coolie' laborers imported by the British in the late 1800s to build the Uganda-Kenya railway. The descendants of these laborers worked as struggling artisans, clerks, or traders. They rose from destitution not through political favoritism, but rather despite discriminatory restrictions by colonial whites on one side and intense animosity from native Africans on the other. As early as 1924 there were a surprising number of Indian doctors and lawyers, almost all self-made. Indeed, in the same year Indians already controlled a stunning 80 to 90 percent of Kenya's commercial trade. Few of these early Indian businessmen had anything to do with politics."

In reading how Asian Indians (there are many races or castes in India) were brought in by Whites as coolies, my first question is why? Were the Kenyans so backward or of such low intelligence that they couldn't build a railroad? Why would these coolies be imported when so many Blacks were available? It seems obvious that the story told here is incomplete. However, what we can see is that the Asian Indians are dominant because they are smarter than the average Black Kenyan.

"I had the good fortune recently of meeting with a group of five native Sierra Leoneans. The group's leader, whom I'll call Mr. Michaels, was a prominent Freetown lawyer and law professor. The other four were his adulating and exceptionally smart students…. But didn't Sierra Leone still have laws discriminating against Lebanese? I asked them about section 27(4) of their constitution, which essentially authorizes discrimination against 'non-native' citizens of Sierra Leone, including ethnic Lebanese who were born in Sierra Leone and whose families have lived there for four generations. 'It is the Lebanese who discriminate against Sierra Leoneans,' one of the students repeated while the others nodded. 'For example, no Lebanese woman would ever marry a (black) Sierra Leonean man. I have never heard of a single case. Some Lebanese men do marry Sierra Leonean women, but those women are then treated as second-class citizens. Sometimes their children are even taken away from them!'"

My reading of the above is that people from other countries are extremely intolerant of foreign races and have no hesitation of discriminating against them, while expecting the Western nations to open their doors to them when they want to immigrate into our midst. Moreover, there is a great deal of ethnocentrism in the Lebanese (Semites from Lebanon). This theme is played throughout the book. Other nations are extremely intolerant of foreign races, most are extremely xenophobic compared to Whites who are far more individualistic, and it is the difference in the average intelligence of different races that is the primary factor in who is dominant. After that, each nation has its own special story. Did Chua ever get an inkling of the underlying racial message she was writing about? One thing I have learned, deciphering deception from self-deception is extremely difficult. The human social mind evolved to be deceptive. But Chua sticks pretty much to a series of just-so stories:

"The only point I wish to highlight here is that there are important links between colonialism and the phenomenon of market-dominant minorities. Not only were the colonialists themselves market-dominant minorities, but colonial divide-and-conquer policies favored certain groups over others, exacerbating ethnic wealth imbalances and fomenting group tensions. Indeed, in some cases these policies may have created 'ethnic identities' and 'ethnic differences' where they previously did not exist. Today, moreover, most starkly in southern Africa but also in Latin America and elsewhere, many market-dominant minorities are the descendants of former colonizers. Thus, the pervasive existence of market-dominant minorities throughout the developing world is one of colonialism's most overlooked and most destructive legacies."

Is there any real correlation between the history of colonialism and market-dominant minorities? I can't find any though she seems to think there is one. This book does not even attempt to use empirical analyses to make conclusions - the whole book is just a series of stories with Chua's fabricated conclusions. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, only once does she make mention of a social science perspective before moving on to more stories.

"In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto won the support of the impoverished masses (as well as members of his own, landowning zamindaar class) through rousing public speeches that accused 'Twenty-Two Families' - almost all Mohajir immigrants from India - of stealing the nation's wealth." Was this theft also a legacy of earlier colonialism, or due to the unique innate intelligence and behavioral traits of the Mohajir?

"When a poor democratic majority collides with a market dominant minority, the majority does not always prevail. Instead of a backlash against the market, there is a backlash against democracy. Often, this antidemocracy backlash takes the form of 'crony capitalism': corrupt, symbiotic alliances between indigenous leaders and a market-dominant minority. For the global marketplace, this is a cozy solution. The indigenous regime protects the market-dominant minority's wealth and businesses. In turn, the World Bank and IMF supply loans. In the short run the result is a boom in foreign investment, economic growth, and riches for the rulers and their cronies. At the same time, however, the country's inner furies begin to boil. Sooner or later - and it is usually sooner - the situation explodes."

Chua again has just describe the hundreds of years of gentile-Jewish conflict in Europe. Whether under feudalism or democracy, market-dominant minorities have insinuated themselves between the rulers and the ruled. Not much has changed in this regard over the last 10,000 years since we left our hunter-gather ways. And why is it so easy to have a market-dominant minority between the elite and the ruled?

"Even today, many poor and lower-middle-class whites feel more solidarity with Bill Gates or George W Bush than with African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans of comparable economic status. Indeed, as many have observed, large numbers of working-class whites in the United States oppose welfare and increased government spending on social services, often voting against what might be expected to be their economic self-interest. It is widely suspected that racism (together with a thriving ideology of upward mobility) plays a role in this pattern."

Sorry Amy, but this arrangement, like I stated above, has been in existence forever. Simply stated, most people look up to their racial-kin elite-rulers, expecting some solidarity, while the elite do not reciprocate. In terms of group evolutionary strategies, once a person becomes powerful enough, they no longer need the collective protection of racial solidarity and they return to a much narrower form of self-interested nepotism. In short, the elite very often will bail on their own kind. Instead, they form alliances with other elites, for the benefit of their own group of 'crony capitalists' or 'crony politicians,' etc. Class conflict is a Marxist dream that does not exist in real human behavior.

"In Ethiopia, where members of the Eritrean minority have long dominated business, especially in key sectors such as transportation, construction, and electronics, the government took a more direct approach. Between 1998 and 1999 the Ethiopian government deported en masse 52,000 Eritrean-Ethiopians - almost the entire Eritrean community - as part of a larger war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In classic ethnonationalist fashion, the expelled Eritreans - most of whom thought of themselves as Ethiopians - were first stripped of their citizenship…. Although Eritreans have lived in Ethiopia as long as either country has existed within defined boundaries, the Ethiopian government subsequently declared all Eritreans to be 'non-Ethiopian,' then 'non-citizens,' and ultimately 'aggressors.'"

So much for racial tolerance by Africans! What would happen if say England tried to expel all of the Jews because they were a market-dominant minority?

"In the spring and early summer of 1994, Hutu Power began broadcasting nationwide calls for the slaughter of Rwanda's Tutsis. In Gourevitch's words, 'Hutus young and old rose to the task.' In just one hundred days, ordinary Hutus killed approximately eight hundred thousand Tutsis, mostly with machetes: 'Neighbors hacked neighbors to death in their homes, and colleagues hacked colleagues to death in their workplaces. Doctors killed their patients, and schoolteachers killed their pupils. Within days, the Tutsi populations of many villages were all but eliminated, and in Kigali prisoners were released in work gangs to collect the corpses that lined the roadsides. Throughout Rwanda, mass rape and looting accompanied the slaughter.…' Undoubtedly, Belgian racism and favoritism and decades of corrupt dictatorship laid the groundwork for the genocide that followed."

Yup, back to the evil White man! Actually, I have a different take on the situation. Rather than blaming the long-gone Belgians for the slaughter of 800,000 people in just 100 days, it was the Radios! That's right, there is no way that the such a coordinated effort of human annihilation could have been carried out if it wasn't for the use of the radio to direct the action. Again, I would suspect Chua would blame the West for inventing the radio and bringing it to Africa. Never blame the poor lowly African for their savage behavior.

"A more complicated example is the former Yugoslavia, where among many other dynamics, the Croats and Slovenes have always been, and continue to be, disproportionately prosperous vis-a-vis the more populous Serbs…. Moreover, Croats and Slovenes have their cultural roots in Western Europe: They are almost all Catholic, were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and have traditionally used the Roman alphabet. As a result, Croats and Slovenians have long had important business and trade ties with the Western European nations, including Germany, which has been a major foreign investment partner. The south, by contrast, was part of the Ottoman Empire; Serbia borders Romania and Bulgaria on the east. The Dinaric Alps cover most of Bosnia, Montenegro, and western Serbia, which made communications between regions historically very difficult. Most Serbs belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church and favor the Cyrillic script. Serbia suffered economically under Turkish rule. Infrastructure and industry were neglected, and the majority of Serbs continued to engage in low-technology agriculture, although oppressive rural taxes drove many farmers to the cities and neighboring states."

Or it could be that the Croats and the Slovenes are just more intelligent than the Serbs.

"With China's astounding growth rates over the last decades, many have suggested that China will soon join the ranks of the 'Asian Tigers' - Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore - none of which is considered 'developing' anymore. Along these lines it is striking to note that none of the Asian Tigers has ever had a market-dominant minority. In all the Asian Tigers, the ethnic majority - the Japanese in Japan, the Koreans in South Korea, and the Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore - is both economically and politically dominant."

And the East Asians above are far more intelligent than South Asians, and are racially very different. Using genetic studies, if the world was divided into four major races, they would include in order of average intelligence: sub-Saharan Africans (70), South Asians (90), Caucasians (100) and East Asians (105). With regards to racial differences, some genetic maps have placed East Asians closer to Caucasians than to South Asians. Therefore, the control of South Asian economies by East Asians is very similar to Caucasian control of sub-Saharan Africa. 

"In Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, rates of intermarriage between the Chinese and the indigenous majority are close to zero…."

"The Chinese were not always so welcome in Thailand. After 1842 in Thailand (then known as Siam), large numbers of immigrants arrived from China. These principally male immigrants typically married Thai women and prospered. Indeed, the Chinese in this early wave of immigration were more or less completely absorbed into the Thai population."

"Discord between the two peoples began after 1910, with the rise of nationalism in both China and Thailand. In 1909 the Chinese government passed a nationality law proclaiming that all persons with Chinese fathers were Chinese, no matter where they were born. This included most Thai Chinese, who suddenly found themselves with an identity crisis. There was another critical factor: After about 1910, Chinese women began accompanying their husbands and sons in significant numbers to Thailand, raising a barrier to intermarriage and assimilation. In any event, by the early twentieth century it was the strong opinion of the nationalist Thai king Vajiravudh, also known as Rama VI, that the Chinese were a 'problem' for Thailand, because they remained stubbornly 'ethnic Chinese,' insultingly refusing to take on Thai national identity."

"Thus, in his famous tract The Jews of the East, King Vajiravudh compared his country's Chinese minority to the European Jews. His main arguments, summarized by historian Victor Purcell, are as follows: 'In Siam . . . there exists a situation analogous to the Jewish question in countries of the West. This is The Yellow Peril. The danger arises solely from the Chinese from whom the Siamese are even more different than Europeans are from the Jews. The first similarity between the Chinese and the Jews is in the matter of racial loyalty. No matter where they live, what nationality they assume, Chinese remain essentially Chinese. But theirs is race loyalty, not love of country. . . .It is argued that Chinese intermarry with the people of the country: so do the Jews. But when a Chinese man marries a Thai woman, the woman becomes a Chinese and adopts Chinese customs in every detail. Their children become Chinese also….'"

Increasingly as we analyze Chua's book with an evolutionary perspective, Jewish anti-Semitism looks an awful lot like plain ordinary hostility towards real or potential market-dominant minorities - it is simple racial intolerance towards an oppressor. It feels good to be on top, but it can also be hazardous. Peaceful separation of the races seems to be the only real lasting solution. Chua then goes off again into one of her apologias:

"Take the United States. While some ethnic minorities have outperformed others, the United States economy is absolutely not controlled by any ethnic minority. On the contrary, if any group can be said to dominate our economy, it is the 'white' majority. Generally speaking, Caucasians dominate every major economic sector: finance, technology, real estate, professions, corporate ownership and leadership, and so on. The ten richest Americans in 2001 - Microsoft's Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer [is half-Jewish]; Oracle's Lawrence Ellison [is Jewish]; Warren Buffett; and five members of the Wal-Mart-founding Walton family - are all white. (Incidentally, if Jewish-Americans are viewed as an ethnic minority in the United States, they do not remotely dominate the U.S. economy; unlike in Russia, for example, none of the ten wealthiest Americans is Jewish.)"

Chua goes out on a limb here and it has broken. First, let's look, since she brought it up, at the ten richest Americans. (Note by the way how she now uses the term 'White' to refer to only Caucasians - for clarity I use the term White to refer to Caucasians.) She made an error with regards to Ballmer and Ellison (in square brackets above) that she says she will correct in the paperback edition of her book. So let's look at the numbers again. If we include the Wal-Mart-family as one unit, the five richest families in the United states are then 30% Jewish and 70% White (1.5/5=0.30). Since Jews are only about 2~3% of the population, they are over-represented by a factor of at least ten. They are therefore on this basis alone, a market-dominant minority. In fact, on a whole list of criteria supplied by Jews, Jews outperform Whites by a large margin (as do East Asians in the United States - see for data).

After skirting over the Jewish issue, Chua again has to get a dig in at Caucasians: "Nonetheless, the core ethnic problem in the United States, as experienced by ordinary Americans, is one that pits an economically and politically dominant 'white' majority against economically and politically weaker ethnic minorities." Beautifully done don't you think? Apparently, she has learned the skill of Jewish apologia from her husband very well.

Like many Americans, growing up in the North, I was aghast at the way Blacks were treated in the South as portrayed on television during the 60s. Even here, Chua has provided us with a new perspective on Jim Crow:

"After the Second World War, with the rise of the civil rights movement in the United States, the paths of the American South and South Africa dramatically diverged. Nevertheless, the bottom line remains. After the Civil War, whites in a number of Southern states suddenly found themselves in the position of a starkly market-dominant minority, fearful of 'black domination,' revenge, confiscation, and radical redistribution at the hands of a newly empowered black majority. Facing what it saw as the unresolvable conflict between a black-dominated democracy and the maintenance of their own wealth and status, Southern whites opted aggressively for the latter, doing everything in their power to undercut the former…. Thus, along with the developing-world illustrations I gave in chapter 6, the American South during the Jim Crow era is a classic example of a backlash against democracy, in which a market-dominant minority, fearful of confiscation and redistribution, seizes political power. Unfortunately, the historical record of the West is darker still."

Ergo, they were only human. Any other group would have done the same, and if it weren't for White guilt, we would be shutting down immigration before we find ourselves in a similar situation in a few decades.

"First, the Jews in Weimar Germany were not an economically dominant minority in the sense that, say, the Chinese are economically dominant in most Southeast Asian countries. Claims that 'Jews ran the German economy' were patently false. Second, I am distinctly not suggesting that the roots of anti-Semitism in Weimar Germany, or anywhere else for that matter, were economic in nature. Anti-Semitism in Germany, as elsewhere in the world, existed long before Jews were particularly successful economically. (Economic grievances certainly had nothing to do with the numerous pogroms directed at poor shtetls in Russia and Eastern Europe.) Third, Weimar Germany obviously differed in profound respects from most of today's developing countries. For example, Germany was a former imperial power, with colonies and protectorates all over Africa and a formidable naval fleet and army. Weimar Germans, including women, were far more educated than the average inhabitant of the developing world today. Commentators have described Weimar Germany as 'a cradle of modernity.' Moreover, Weimar Germany had a powerful industrial base, an impressive network of railways and infrastructure, and a highly sophisticated banking system…. On the other hand, almost no Jews were peasants, farmers, or members of the urban proletariat, and the average income of Jews was 3.2 times that of the general Weimar population."

Chua makes several errors above. First, if any racial group made "3.2" times the income of another group living side-by-side, there will probably be animosity. After all, that is where the ethnic animosity quite often comes from - the hostility of just being aware of differences. Chua feels free to condemn Whites in the United States for making somewhat more money on average than Blacks. What does she think it would be like if Whites made 3.2 times the average income of Blacks? Absolute outrage under our current egalitarian principles! Even today, small disparities in income between men and women is considered anathema to liberal society. To the contrary, even though Jews were suppressed throughout Europe for hundreds of years, it was their recurrent ability to re-emerge again and again as a market-dominant minority that was the salient feature of anti-Semitism. Ashkenazi Jews, having an average intelligence of 108, and having a high level of conscientiousness (drive to get ahead) as well as maintaining impermeable racial boundaries - or failing to fully assimilate in any country they lived in, was the basis for anti-Semitism. Racial hostilities towards Jews is very similar to racial hostilities towards the East Asians - and includes economic dominance and xenophobia or a refusal to identify with the host nation, a refusal to assimilate. (Jews do differ from East Asians in one major dimension. The Jews see persecution and victimhood everywhere, whereas the East Asians accept misfortune without the cacophony of despair and the blaming of others for their often unfortunate predicaments.)

"As I have repeatedly stressed, ethnic identity turns not on 'biology' but on subjective perceptions, which are in turn the product of prevailing ideologies in part constructed by elites and politicians. In Israel, the powerful official ideology is that Jews - whatever their social origins - are one people, and thus one 'ethnicity.' When I ask Israelis whether the difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews might be seen as an ethnic difference, roughly half of them answer, 'Of course it's an ethnic difference,' while the other half respond with an annoyed 'Of course not, that's ridiculous.'"

The above is a fantastic example of duplicitous logic. Notice how she creeps up to the 'race as biology' question, and then tries to dodge the issue. Notice how half of those she asked believed that Judaism is an ethnicity and half didn't - but what does that mean? In fact, what she really found out is that half the Jews believe that being a Jew means being a member of a racial tribe. For Jews, it is all about race and at least half of them will tell you so. That is why there is a lot of work by Jews in genetic testing - they want to be able to tell who is genetically a Jew so they can determine by DNA who have a 'right of return' to Israel. She goes on:

"Israel is a Jewish state - this is just the problem for the country's Palestinians. As a matter of official policy, every Jew has an automatic right of admission to Israel, the famous Jewish 'right of return.' Judaism is the official, established state religion. Every Jewish immigrant, whether from Russia or Iraq, is subjected to strong ideological pressures to learn Hebrew as quickly as possible, to 'assimilate' into mainstream Israeli society, and to make a total commitment to the Israeli state."

What she fails to mention however is that Jewish atheists are as welcome as Orthodox Jews. The 'right of return' is based on race, not religion. Judaism in fact is considered to be an earthly religion, one based on blood, not redemption. It is a racialist religion - not unlike what passes for a religion among the East Asians. It is religion that is more based on ancestor worship and genealogy. As she observes in her book: "Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew recently explained in an interview in Foreign Affairs that 'Asian societies are unlike Western ones. The fundamental difference between Western concepts of society and government and East Asian concepts' - referring to China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, as distinct from Southeast Asia - 'is that Eastern societies believe that the individual exists in the context of the family.'" My interpretation then is that East Asians and Jews have these two commonalities - they are both highly intelligent and their cultures or religions are racialist or perhaps even more narrowly particularistic nepotism. Their morality stops at the borders of the tribe or even the family. That is why it is so easy for them to take advantage of other races without remorse or compassion.

So, does Chua think that family values, culture or some other environmental factor is responsible for economic success? It doesn't appear so, even though many Jewish apologists like to say that Jews are so successful because of Jewish culture (whatever that is).

"To the extent that religion and other cultural factors play a significant role in producing the market dominance of certain groups, the appropriate policy implications are by no means clear. Even if there were a demonstrable relationship between certain religions and economic success, an effort to instill 'entrepreneurialism' through, say, group conversions to Protestantism (or Judaism or Confucianism, depending on the theory) would seem unpromising. Attempts to inculcate a 'work ethic' may seem more attractive, but have not proved any more effective. Indigenous elites in developing countries have frequently encouraged their fellow citizens to emulate market-dominant minorities and to become more 'diligent' and 'motivated.' Malaysia's prime minister Mahathir, for example, has often urged his Malay constituents to model themselves on their more 'hardworking' and commercially 'astute' Chinese counterparts. Not surprisingly, such governmental 'cultural revolutions' - attempting to change culture from the top down - have been notoriously unsuccessful.'"

Of course Amy, because races differ in their economic success because they are genetically different - intelligence, behavioral traits, and NOT skin color are the determining factors. Finally, she shows what can happen anywhere by using affirmative action quotas:

"In many respects the results of the NEP have been impressive. While the NEP has not lifted the great majority of Malays (particularly in the rural areas) out of poverty, it has helped to create a substantial Malay middle class. Between 1970 and 1992 the percentage of Malays occupying the country's most lucrative professional positions went from 6 percent to 32 percent. The proportion of bumiputra doctors rose from 4 percent to 28 percent; dentists from 3 percent to 24 percent; architects from 4 percent to 24 percent; and engineers from 7 percent to 35 percent. In the corporate sector the bumiputra ownership share of corporate stock at par values jumped from 1.5 percent in 1969 to 15.6 percent in 1982 to 20.6 percent in 1995. There is no possibility that free markets could have produced such results."

Nor could fairness produce such results. After years of trying, just like in the United States, the only way equal outcomes can be achieved is by coercion. Individualism is swept away, and group rights become paramount. Every group must be equal by transferring by force property from one group to another. If this was fair for the Malays to do to the East Asians, then it was fair for the Germans to do to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

I hope reading this review of Chua's book does not prevent anyone from reading it. By understanding the fundamentals of group evolutionary strategies, the difference in average intelligence of races, and other essential aspects of evolutionary psychology, this book is a delightful reading of the racialist perspective. It is rare indeed that we get a committed antiracist to publish a book that goes a long way in showing just how relevant race is all over the world - and in the end how it is always the same.

Matt Nuenke, June 2003.