Except when it comes to race, it seems. (North East) Asians > Whites > East Indians (ie from India, the country) > Blacks "Hispanics" fit in there somewhere, but they're racially diverse. The more American Indian ones fit, probably, between East Indians and Blacks. To the poster who asked, 'genetic underclasses' form because welfare enables genetically less capable people, who would be unlikely to be able to support raising children by their own efforts, to pass on their, to put it plainly, inferior genes to their children. (And if you let this class outbreed the more intelligent for too many generations, well, it leads to a virtually inevitable dystopia.) Those who proclaim the 21st the 'Asian Century' are quite right, though they miss the real reason. It's really quite simple: they are smarter (and far less likely to be squeamish about accepting the reasons for their smartness - afterall, they have precious few minority groups to worry about offending) and now that the rules for acquiring wealth (ie 'economics') are more or less well understood and accepted, it is simply a matter of time before they achieve preeminence.
Thanks spect8or. I was particularly interested in your ranking of whites vs. blacks. Among eugenicists like yourself, I have noticed that there is always a fierce debate about the ranking of blacks vs. whites in the hierarchy, and in general about those who lack melanin in their skin vs. those with more melanin. This seems to be the most contentious issue among you. I wonder if you could just address one more point - I noticed that you left Jews off of your list. Or do you not consider Jews a genetic group? It would be helpful if you could provide a hierarchical ranking of all the racial categories so that we can more fully understand your theories of racial primacy.
You can't have been paying very close attention to 'eugenicist debates' then, at least not to the experts who most seriously discuss these things. For if you had, you'd know that there is nothing remotely approaching 'fierce debate' about blacks' and whites' positions in the 'hierarchy' (a concept not even mentioned, btw): there is unanimous agreement that whites are more intelligent than blacks. Likewise, there's hardly anything in the way of 'contentiousness' about melanin levels. Theories of heredity require that, if whites are more intelligent than blacks (as all the evidence indicates they are), then those 'blacks' who have inherited more genes from whites - such as African-Americans - would be more intelligent than pure Africans. Again, the evidence seems to confirm precisely this: African-Americans have a group average IQ of 85, while Sub-Saharan Africans average around 70. My guess is you've been reading some 'watchdog' scare literature that intentionally mischaracterizes both the study of racial differences and the concept of eugenics (not that the latter needs mischaracterization - it's very mention invokes Nazi imagery). I left many groups off the list. I only wanted to give you a brief overview of the major racial groups (Jews, at only some 15 million, are hardly a major group). Jews are genetically diverse group. They have interbred with native populations wherever they have lived and thus resemble those groups more closely than they do each other. One could, however, talk about Askenazi Jews, as they are a genetically very similar group. In terms of intelligence, they rank at the head of the list, to the best of my knowledge. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence and here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ