The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

I think it’s suspicious that almost every article on Bennet avoids citing his actual statement:

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could � if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.�

And oddly enough, Media Matters For America originally posted it and included ALL the informaton, including audio of what he said. So did the author of Freaknomics.

So the bloggers are actually being the most comprehensive? Interesting.

The ethically right thing to do after disasters like this is to apologize to the people and to clarify the bungled statement. Instead, he chose to insist he didn’t say anything wrong and to protest that he was misunderstood. That’s not his brightest hour and it’s the real scandal.

I agree wholeheartedly. He should at least clarify the statement since it was inconsistent.

But the only problem is, the more and more he refuses to clarify, the more and more I feel that he actually meant what he said and doesn’t realize he actually made a mistake.

Anyway, odd to say the least. Great points.

What does that say to us? Sry, but in his wording this is a statement that crime rate would go down if you abort every black baby. He admits that that would be morally wrong, and he says it is ‘tricky’, but he really seems to believe that. He is implying that black babies will probably become criminals. He doesn’t say there is a higher chance that kids from poor families or single mothers will later get a criminal record, he concentrates on the race issue. No, this isn’t a honest way to discuss the lessons from statistics. What would everybody say if he had stated “you could abort every baby in the more christian states, and your homicide rate would go down.” There are statistics to support that view, but it simply isn’t scientifical to interpret the data this way, it is plain demagogy.

Oh, and btw, his attempt at reductio ad absurdum is flawed because he didn’t arrive at an obviously absurd argument. The reaction shows that the broad population doesn’t view racial genocide as absurd, but as a dangerous possibility. An absurd argument would have been to abort all babies, because this obviously would result in mankind to die off.

What should he have said? Maybe something like “The authors of Frewakonomics seem to suggest you could abort every baby of a single mother in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, and this argument ignores the fact that there are a lot of humane ways to fight crime. I think it is a shame that the authors publicly state such idiocy.”

It was a live radio interview and Bennett screwed up badly. Well, shit happens. The ethically right thing to do after disasters like this is to apologize to the people and to clarify the bungled statement. Instead, he chose to insist he didn’t say anything wrong and to protest that he was misunderstood. That’s not his brightest hour and it’s the real scandal.

BTW, Bill Bennett is an honorable man who worked hard in BUSH I to funnel money into the inner city schools. I cannot imagine that he is a racist.

I do not think he should apologize for offending someone. Too many people are just looking to be insulted. I agree with Josh that Bill Bennett should not be held responsible for others using his words out of context to attack him.

That’s basically the issue, that he has refused to accept blame for having his own quotes taken out of context to attack him. This subject really doesn’t affect me very much since I never heard of the guy and he might actually be a racist after all, but if it is true that his statements on his radio show were twisted to make people think he is a horrible person, then I just feel sympathy for him.

That just makes you dumb.

And I mean you must have serious reading comprehension problems if you think that.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Either he’s a moron who agrees with a proposition in one breath and disagrees with it in the next, or he disagreed with the proposition, and to further discredit it he offered a botched example of the proposition taken to an extreme (a logical tactic called reductio ad absurdum). The latter seems to me to be the sensible way to read the transcript.

Looking further at it, this is probably what he meant, but he keeps defending his original position. That’s my main problem with the situation now. Obviously, this position is flawed and I wish he would amend it.

However, I don’t think he will. Personally, that’s troubling.