Intelligence and Morality Have Little in Common

By Rich Kozlovich

 

On August 25, 2025 Robert Weissberg posted this article at American Thinker, The Return of Eugenics, saying:

 

If one word is guaranteed to enrage the woke mob, it is eugenics, a term conjuring up images of Hitler, the Holocaust, white supremacy, and sterilizing the feeble-minded. Yet, despite the odium surrounding “eugenics,” it is, paradoxically, making a comeback thanks to medical advances, not the rise of right-wing ideology. Vast sums are currently being invested in firms to promote eugenics, but the term “eugenics” is never uttered. 

However, the real issue in his piece deals with breeding for intelligence.  

 

In contemporary American society, a strong mating preference exists for high intelligence among those in cognitively demanding fields. Here both men and women want high IQ spouses and given IQ’s high hereditability, their children will, on average, will be smart, and after a few generations, overall IQ levels will rise. .........The result is a plethora of smart children thanks to smart genes in both mother and father...........What are the prospects for a future Brave New World dystopia ruled by a genetically engineered super-smart elite?..............

Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time researching information on IQ, and the more I read the more I realized IQ, while important, is highly overrated.  Jayne Mansfield had an IQ of 165, Steven Hawking’s was alleged to have been 160.  

She was an actress much lauded and remembered for her sex appeal.  She was smart enough to know what she was offering had a limited time frame and she once said no matter what happens to her, her children, who adored her, would be taken care of.  Practical smarts goes a long way.

He was a much lauded scientist who made grand pronouncements for which he was lauded, and then proved wrong.  So, did it matter how smart he was?  Most importantly he started pontificating about social issues, and while when it came to physics, I didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but when he entered my arena dealing with social issues, history  and logic, I realized that was an arena where he was dumb as dirt.  That's not practical intelligence.

Einstein, who was considered the smartest man in the world, once said if all the honey bees died mankind would be dead in five years.  He was a brilliant physicist, but he was an idiot as an entomologist.  Most of our food isn't animal pollinated, it's wind pollinated, and if every honey bee on the planet died tomorrow, it would impact no more that four to six percent of our food... and even that's a maybe prediction.  So, did it matter how smart he was. 

I once asked the head of the EPA's pesticide regulation division why our honey bees are called European honey bees?  He didn't know, so I told him it was because European settlers brought them over from Europe.  Then I asked him how did everything get pollinated before that.  And he smiled realizing how foolish all these claims of disaster and honey bees really are.

Here’s the reality of selective breeding. If you have a highly intelligent population breeding in a small population you will get a lot of really intelligent children. If you continue to breed strictly within that population you will end up with a lot of negative genetic issues and a lot of sterility, the Pitcairn Islander story is one example.  

If you breed a lot of really intelligent people from different genetic groups you not only get a lot of really smart people, they're healthier and stronger, it's called hybrid vigor.   However, a former boss with a masters degree in genetics told me, for reasons no one really understands, and there's term in genetics for this which I can never remember, occasionally two really dumb people can produce a genius.  It's still a crap shoot.  

Having said that, make no mistake, gene editing is on the horizon, some of it will be beneficial, especially with dealing with autoimmune diseases, and some of it will not, since intelligence and morality have little in common. 

Calvin Coolidge was the greatest President of the 20th century, and yet few know much about him, which is unfortunate, and I really recommend reading Amity Schlae's book Coolidge.  He once stated:

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

And you can't really breed for that because culture is king, and each generation marinates in it's own culture often abandoning their parents culture.  It’s still a crap shoot.

Margaret Sanger’s Racist Legacy

Her infamous organization has been lying and covering for her for decades.

Fri Apr 30, 2021 Dinesh D'Souza 4 comments Originally posted at The Epoch Times.

In my movies, “Hillary’s America” and “Death of a Nation,” I portrayed Margaret Sanger, the founder and longtime leader of Planned Parenthood, as an out-and-out racist. My evidence for this was overwhelming:

• Sanger was never an advocate of birth control per se; she wanted birth control of the people she considered unwanted people in society, a group she termed “undesirables” and “human weeds.”
• Sanger’s goal was to create “a race of thoroughbreds,” a term evocative of the goals of the Nazis. She drew a sharp line not so much between black and white as between “fit” and “unfit.” By fit she meant whites, but only educated, upper-class whites. By unfit, she meant pretty much everyone else.
• In 1926 Sanger spoke to the Women’s Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in New Jersey about her ideas for reducing the black birthrate. The racists loved it; other speaking invitations followed.
• Sanger also created what she called the Negro Project at Planned Parenthood, designed, in her words, to get rid of “human beings who should never have been born.” She recruited black pastors and activists and paid them to convince black people to reduce their birthrates, by sterilization if necessary.
• In one of her letters, Sanger said, “We do not want word to get out that we are trying to exterminate the Negro population.”
• The Nazis based their racist sterilization laws on American models developed by Sanger and others; Sanger herself praised the Nazi laws as more advanced than anything passed in the United States.

It’s a crushing indictment. Even so, Planned Parenthood portrayed Sanger in glowing terms, downplaying her eugenic and racist positions and insisting she was a progressive champion of women’s rights and human rights. Feminist authors such as Ellen Chesler wrote devotional biographies of Sanger, reinforcing Planned Parenthood’s propaganda line.

But now Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, has decided to fess up. She recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder.”

Johnson gave a partial, though sufficiently damning, list of Sanger’s racist positions and actions, and then concluded, “We must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American and Indigenous people.” In effect, Planned Parenthood has now officially disavowed its own founder and most famous figure.

Interestingly, the groundwork for this was laid around a year ago, when Planned Parenthood of Greater New York removed Sanger’s name from its Manhattan health clinic and also called on city leaders to remove Sanger’s name from a street sign that hung outside its offices.

“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledged Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” remarked Karen Seltzer, chair of the New York affiliate’s board.

What makes the New York group’s, and now the national organization’s, about-turn so significant is that they’re not only changing course but also admitting that they’ve been lying and covering up for a racist founder for decades. In effect, they’re admitting that my portrait of Sanger as a bigot and Nazi apologist was basically right.

Yet some conservatives have ridiculed these apologies, and dubbed them nothing more than a “rebranding strategy” of Planned Parenthood. Roland Warren, CEO of Care Net, said that “for me, this was kind of like changing the name of Auschwitz.”

That’s a harsh analogy, but Warren’s point is that Planned Parenthood still has its clinics concentrated in inner cities and barrios. It disproportionately terminates the lives of black and Latino babies. Although blacks and Latinos make up around 31 percent of the population, more than 40 percent of abortions done by Planned Parenthood end the lives of black and Latino infants.

The good news is that Planned Parenthood is finally being honest about its racist origins. Think how ridiculous this makes previous Planned Parenthood leaders—some of them black—who knowingly protected a vicious racist. Think of where this leaves Ellen Chesler, who pushed the old institutional propaganda and has now been exposed as a fraud. Or Hillary Clinton, who got the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood and gave a disgusting paean to Sanger, saying she regarded her as a mentor and a personal inspiration. She must be feeling very uncomfortable right about now.

The bad news is that Planned Parenthood has no intention of changing its dedication to abortion rights or to making abortion easily available—perhaps even encouraged—in minority communities. So the founder’s racist vision, although no longer pursued under the Margaret Sanger banner, is still being carried out in terms of her organization imposing disproportionate casualties on the very communities Sanger wanted to see shrink and eventually disappear from the face of the earth.

Dinesh D’Souza is an author, filmmaker, and host of the daily Dinesh D’Souza podcast.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, eugenicist

September 21, 2020 By Monica Showalter 

Anyone notice an absence of black faces at the recent Ruth Bader Ginsburg memorials? She's being lionized, though, and several prominent supposed black leaders such as Rep.James Clyburn (the man who brought us Joe Biden) and the Rev. Al Sharpton have sung her praises.

Like the Black Lives Matter protests, though, it's mostly an all-white show with some black people out front. One reason may be that Ginsburg was Jewish, and anti-Semitism in the U.S. is the strongest in the black community. But there's also Ginsburg herself, who had some pretty questionable views about abortion and race.

Here's an actual quote from the New York Times magazine, dating from 2009: 

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. 

It's so bad that I thought it had to be fake when I first saw it I had to look it up to confirm its authenticity.

Who talks like that in 2009? Heck, who talks like that in 1973? Ginsburg herself confirmed to her fawning reporter that it was an accurate quote...............To Read More....

Eugenics: An embarrassed silence and a hidden history

By Jon Ray @ Dissecting Leftism

Eugenics was one of the great enthusiasms of the prewar Left.  In the 1920s and 1930's, Socialists everywhere embraced it, including National Socialists in Germany

The abiding mark of socialists is that they want to change the world -- change it into what they think will be a better place. And eugenics fitted that perfectly.  If they removed the "weeds" from the human race, that would make a greatly improved world.  And Leftist legislatures worldwide passed eugenic laws of varying severity: Sweden, Germany and the United States being prominent examples

The man who took it furthest was however Adolf Hitler. He killed "useless eaters" in droves.  So the military defeat of Hitler led to him and all his works being discredited: So suddenly there were no longer any differences between races and eugenics was immoral.  Hitler had been a such a great menace and ended up such an abject failure that any similarities with him had to be denied.

Leftists everywhere dropped eugenics like a sizzling potato.  They no longer advocated it. More significant, however was that they succeeded in casting a cloak of silence over it.  They succeeded in blanking out all memory  of their association with eugenics. Hardly anyone now knows what a great enthusiasm eugenics once was for the Left.  Were it well known, their great enthusiasms of the present -- such as global warming and transgenderism -- might also be viewed skeptically.

The Journey To Tyannous Inhumanity

By Rich Kozlovich

On April 21st this article Dutch Supreme Court expands euthanasia laws for dementia appeared in The Telegraph saying:

The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness. The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests. This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers.

Although it doesn’t run in my family, I've have had a family member with Alzheimer's, who I was very close to. I can assure you, I'm empathetic to anyone going through it, especially their family.

Dementia or Alzheimer's are terrible afflictions. That movie with James Garner and Gena Rowlands "The Notebook" was really touching. But the last thing I want is for bureaucrats deciding who should live and who should die, including the judiciary.

It never stops at this point, and as soon as it becomes acceptable to society for human beings to decide who should live and who should die, it grows and expands, like an infectious disease. To kill someone is murder, even if its authorized by government.

This goes beyond the slippery slope, it’s now the beginning of a toboggin ride. When we allowed abortion, I predicted they would then want to murder those born found to be unfit, and that’s been touted but not practiced, although aborted babies who lived were allowed to die. That's murder.

I also predicted this misanthropy would expand to the elderly, the infirm and the mentally deficient. That’s where this journey is heading.

We also should remember we were practicing eugenics in the United States up to the 1960’s, where there was the forced sterilization of tens of thousands.  I will admit the reason had to do with genetic disorders they were passing on to their children, which is at least understandable.  But when it starts there where does this all end?

This policy of eugenics was promoted by Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Walter Lippmann, Rexford Tugwell, W.E.B. Dubois, and in Nazi Germany it became policy, only it went beyond forced sterilization, to forced termination.

Margaret Sanger may have been the biggest promoter of eugenics in the world, and even influenced Hitler's thinking.  She wanted to control the "brown" races, and although Sanger was opposed to abortion for that purpose, the organization she founded eventually morphed into Planned Parenthood, which has murdered millions of unborn babies. 

Is eugenics different than murder? Yes, but its part and parcel of the same package, the same mentality, the same moral thread, and the journey eventually leads to the same end.

Once God is out of the equation, everything is acceptable because there’s no longer a moral code that prevents any atrocity conceivable to the human mind. Even with God in the picture, the practices of religious fanatics in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, demonstrate the horrors practiced by tyrants, whether they’re political or religious.

Ideology makes all things possible, and this is an ideological journey to tyrannous inhumanity!

Utopia, eugenics and today's progressives

Ellis Washington About | Email | Archive

“The bride and bridegroom must set their minds to produce for the State children of the greatest possible goodness and beauty.”~ Plato, “The Republic” (c. 360 B.C.

The introduction to “The Faber Book of Utopias,” edited by John Carey, chronicles the methods of creating ideal citizens, which historically have been repeatedly promoted by utopian philosophers via the deconstruction or abolition of the family. Originally proposed by Plato in his magnum opus, “The Republic,” this simple yet dramatic blueprint has influenced a number of social philosophers as diverse as More, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, to Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Freud, B.F. Skinner, to socialist, liberal, progressive thinkers and politicians in modern times. Plato promoted the belief that the family should be completely deconstructed and its component parts used as tools of an omnipotent, leviathan state. This means that children will be taken from parents practically from birth, preventing the parent/child bonding. Children will be raised exclusively by state bureaucrats; the unfit, mentally feeble, undesirables like their fellow Greeks (Spartans) and in modern times under Hitler and the Nazis, summarily aborted…..To Read More…..