Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The scientific evidence marshaled forth in this book is not only a scathing attack on the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Stephen Gould, Jared Diamond, Leon Kamin and the like, but an implicit denunciation of the political tendencies of the past thirty years that have elevated race-centric policies to a national obsession. Like all great scientific works of unimpeachable integrity, this book is apolitical, but it would be naive and simplistic to presume that this work carries no social or political implications. Rushton makes this point in the introduction of the book when he quotes a famous sociologist who openly admits sociology does not exist as a value-free science, but to push an agenda. Rushton's book is "controversial" and "incendiary" only because it conflicts with the aims of leftist politics. The science itself is solid and indisputable. Underlying Rushton's explication of empirical race differences is what population geneticists refer to as the r-K continuum. Without going into too much detail, the idea is that in order to cope with different environments species adapt specific reproductive strategies to maximize gene-flow into the next generation. K-selected species devote more energy to nurturing and less to reproduction, while r-selected species tradeoff parental support in favor of reproducing. While humans are at the K end of the spectrum, it is possible to differentiate among separate human populations (races). Rushton provides an overwhelming amount of empirical support -- everything from brain size, maturation rates, dizygotic twinning, age of menarche, gestation periods, frequency of sexual intercourse -- that shows the races consistently lining-up in the following order: Africans, Europeans, and East Asians, with East Asians being the most K-selected and Africans the least. The data ably refutes the two theological premises of egalitarianism: 1) race is not a valid scientific category and 2) races differences are due to environmental factors, not nature. Let's push the argument some more and think about it this way: either the races are equal or they are not. Now, what evidence can an egalitarian put forth that makes racial equality more plausible than racial inequality? Since the world conforms quite perfectly to the theory of raical inequality -- compare and contrast the history of the European race with the African race -- from what evidence does it make sense to infer that the races are equal? Since the facts directly contradict the theory of race equality the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of egalitarians. To those who still shutter at the prospect however, I pose a simple question: If race equality is true, then why don't we observe it? Many critics here and elsewhere seemed upset that Rushton did not provide a stark and clear dividing line between the races. This however confuses the scientific concept of race. Is there a Siberian Husky gene that differentiates it from a Pit Bull gene? Is there a lion gene that differentiates it from a tiger gene? Of course not, yet no one has any intellectual confusion when thinking of dogs in terms of breeds, so why can't they think of human in terms of race? (Politics). Additionally, the critics bring up the fact the many Europeans have some African blood in them, and many Africans have European blood. Entirely true, but this in no way nullifies the concept of race -- in fact it strengthens it. The fact that black-white hybrids have on average higher intelligence than full-blooded Africans proves that race is real, and not a social construction. The critics suffer from the misnomer that race is an essentialist definition and are therefore only successful in shooting down their own strawmen. Rushton's work is remarkable and the attempt to try to silence him only reflects the fact that academia no longer embraces the unfettered pursuit of science, but wishes to restrict whatever conflicts with their (leftist) political aims. The growth of political liberalism over the last thirty years has been tied in some form or another to racial egalitarianism -- civil-rights law, voting rights, school integration, affirmative action, massive immigration, diversity is a strength, reparations -- and could not exist without it. The false doctrine of egalitarianism is the oxygen that keeps liberalism pushing forward and advancing. While conservatives might make legitimate arguments against affirmative action or uncontrolled immigration, they are conceding too much ground to liberalism. Rushton's work shows definitively that equality is a lie and (hence) liberalism a fraud.