1. The second paragraph you quoted above supports the claim that Sailer approves of eugenics; he’s just decrying the fact that what he likes to label “political correctness” makes it unlikely Americans will embrace it as a policy.

2. The blog entry you linked to is pretty repulsive, especially in the lengthy quotes from “top scientist” Crick, who in 1971 was still referring to “Japs” and “Negroes” while blithely denying that he had any racial prejudices: “If I have a prejudice it is against the poor, and in favour of the rich, but such an attitude is almost equally unacceptable to most people.”

I also enjoyed this quote: “The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.” One could argue that eugenics already had a “bad name” for anyone with a shred of moral decency because of the program of forced sterilization of the “mentally inferior” conducted in the U.S. in the 20th century.

To try to get back on topic, if Gingrich is a close friend of someone (Jerry Pournelle) who has expressed approval of Sailer’s racist ideas (whether they specifically include advocacy of eugenics or not), it’s sufficient reason to ask Newt to explain the extent to which he approves or disapproves of those ideas.

My view on positive eugenics as a policy is that the Galtonians never had an answer to the challenge posed them in 1922 by G.K. Chesterton, in Eugenics and Other Evils. Chesterton pointed out that the “positive eugenics” of society arranging marriages among the most fit was self-defeating. If arranged marriages actually succeeded in breeding better men and women, the first thing these healthier, smarter, more robust individuals would do would be to tell society to butt out of arranging their marriages, and they’d go back to choosing their own mates!

Still, Chesterton’s objection is far less valid, and Crick’s concerns even more valid, when the question is the impact of immigration. Countries like Canada have a consciously positive selectionist immigration policy of trying to identify applicants who will most benefit the existing population while keeping out people who would be detrimental. In contrast, anybody who advocates that we Americans take a look at the Canadian perspective is likely to get called a Nazi.

Sailer was raised Catholic and there seems to be an undercurrent of Catholic morality in many of his writings. The above quotation is from here: http://isteve.blogspot.com/200.....r-was.html. I recommend reading it in full, it’s an interesting piece detailing the pro-eugenic and/or racialist views of top scientists like Francis Crick and Ernst Mayr.

“Apologist” or “propagandist” might be better words than “activist,” but it scarcely seems to matter when he writes so much stuff like this: http://www.isteve.com/Articles_Genetics.htm

Sailer might not explicitly advocate eugenics, but he consistently leads his readers up to the point where they will inevitably draw the “right” conclusion for themselves.

Eugenics activism? Sailer may be many things, but I don’t see why you would describe him as an eugenics activist.

By funneling money to the AFA, Newt the Brute shows he is a trojan horse for those who want a fascist America under the guise of fundamentalist religion.