Yeah, I'd suggest rereading that article Fasces. It's fascinating, well written and makes a very strong point, which is largely that "scientific" debates over race actually reflect social and political realities rather than empirical scientific ones.
"Monkeys can solve basic math faster then humans...
Monkeys have opposable thumbs as do humans...
the list goes on" - That but that doesn't mean that any person is more genetically similar to a monkey. Genetics does not work that way, goodnight!

Then explain why Mongoloids, who generally have poorer upbringings the Caucasians have higher IQs... (101 v 106, its within the margin of error but still)
social-economic upbringing doesn't account for everything... - If it's within the margin of error then you can't say it's higher. If it's within the margin of error then any difference is officially just a fluke. And I do have a explanation for that. Even within a single class East Asian and White students will receive better education, more encouragement and more support from teachers than black students due to unconscious biases on the part of the teachers. In other words, teachers are conditioned to think more highly of White and Asian students regardless of actual academic performance. Essentially I'd extend Fausto-Sterling's argument from that article you linked one step further. Academic performance and performance on IQ tests and so on all reflect the changing popular perception of racial differences rather than any actual biological or psychological difference. A century ago it wasn't commonly thought that Asians were smarter than white people and existing measures of intelligence found that that was the case. Whites did better than Asians. Now we expect that Asians are smarter than Whites, and so we see the test results all prove that Asians are as smart or smarter than Whites. The so-called "empirical evidence" for intelligence changes to fit our preconceptions of racial differences rather than the other way round.