Gibson clears up that racist unpleasantness

May 19, 2006

A week ago, Fox News’ John Gibson raised a few eyebrows when he seemed to encourage white people to do their “duty” and “make more babies.” Yesterday, Gibson tried to explain what he meant and respond to the criticisms.

During his May 16 “My Word” segment, Gibson claimed there are “[s]ome misunderstandings” regarding his May 11 comments, adding that he’s “been accused of being a racist.” Gibson explained: “My concern was simply that I didn’t want America to become Europe, where the birth rate is so low the continent is fast being populated by immigrants, mainly from Muslim countries, whose birth rate is very high.”

Of course, now I understand. Gibson wasn’t being bigoted, he simply didn’t want white people in the United States to be outnumbered by people from Muslim countries. How could anyone find prejudice in such a sensible concern?

Gibson added, “I said … it was also a good idea if people other than Hispanics also got busy and have more babies. Those people would include both blacks and whites. I suppose Asians, too.”

“Suppose”? Unbelievable.

That’s FOX News — Focus on Xenophobia.

So Gibson’s bigotry has more to do with religion than with race.

Nice to know. Thanks John.

  • This guy still has a job, how? I want Al Sharpton on Air America immedately declaring that all black people will now be required to have 3 children so that in 25 years they can vote out all teh white people and take over the country. I wonder how that would go over?

  • [blurt!] Gibson should have quit while he was ahead! His “clarification” is even worse!

    At least those Asians grudingly squeak in…must do a good job on his shirts.

  • Wow, that’s just………….., wow.

    Your next Secretary of Health and Human Services, ladies and gentlemen

  • All of us infidels should be very afraid if adherents of Islam become the majority. If this happens, we will be given the alternative of conversion to Islam or the payment of a tax to Islam — that is, if we keep our heads.

  • Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and I will show them the way.” The ones with the little children will win in the end while those without them will lose. It’s not race. It’s religion. We are what we are taught as absolute truths while we are still mentally malable children. The struggle is for the minds of the children. Right now the Muslims are winning big time acccording to what Gibson said. That’s why he still has a job. Black people, as longh as they are Christians or Jews are just as vulnerable as white. He should have made that point.

    Can anything be done to stem the religious tide that insists on installing a king of earth? Not the way things are going. It’s not a choice of religion or no religion. It is a choice of kingdom of God or democracy. God is winning in spite of being everywhere yet nowhere to be found. God has many representatives all pushing their version of what God wants. The ones with the children will win according to Jesus. But only if they are suffered to Jesus while they are children. Gibson wants more children to suffer to Jesus no doubt. His philosophy suffers the children. Should children be forced to suffer? We can expect he thinks that’s the right thing to do. Does he have the mental power to understand he’s promoting kingdom over democracy?

    http://www.hoax-buster.org

    The struggle is and has been for at least, 5,000 years the rights of ordinary people to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness rather than the dictates of any king. Suffering the little children defeats democracy.

  • Fallenwoman

    So the majority of Hispanics, the fastest growing population, are Muslim?

    Did not know that, thanks

  • Ah, Bill,

    The Kingdom of God is rather overdue. Jesus told his disciples that before the last of them died, God would overthrow death and sin and establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

    Hasn’t happened. Not going to happen. Don’t get crazy.

    Now, a Theocracy, that might happen!

  • It scares me that in a time of severe environmental crisis, primarily due to the overpopulation of the Earth, by ALL humans, that these tactics of out-breeding each other have any merit at all. To me , it just shows the ignorance and arrogance of thinking that we(humans) have absolutly no effect on this planet, that everything will last forever, green and clean.
    Wake the f*** up. Man’s belief that his penis will solve everything is as ridiculous as believing a giant fairy in the sky will take us all to heaven.
    Make love, not babies.
    It is interesting that Zero Population Growth, a basic environmental issue of the past( and right now!), has been lost, or at least forgotten, by the environmental movement.
    Playing into the PC of the religious faithful, my guess.
    The intentional underfunding of public education has come to fruition.

  • Al B. Tross is right.

    It took till somewhere around 1800 AD for the planetary population of humans to reach 1 billion. Somewhere around 1900 AD it hit 2 billion. Somewhere around 1970 or so it hit 4 billion. Right now we are hitting close to 6.5 billion and counting. Anybody who passed 7th grade math can graph that one out and it’s a parabola.

    The truth is, humans have become a cancer on the planet, with their numbers metastasizing like terminal lung cancer. We’re the deer who have overpopulated the meadow, and everyone knows what happens to the deer when that occurs.

    You cannot sustain limitless growth with limited resources.

  • Birth rates are complex matters. EDUCATION of women is known to be a factor in lowering the birth rate. Anybody favor policies designed to increase educational attainment in the Muslim world? Anybody favor policies designed to decrease educational attainment among American women? PAID EMPLOYMENT of women, outside the family/home, is known to be a factor in lowering the birth rate. Anybody favor policites designed to increase employment of Muslim women? Anybody favor policies designed to decrease employment of American women? Availability of BIRTH CONTROL materials and methods is known to be a factor in lowering the birth rate. Anybody favor policies designed to make birth control more available to Muslim world? Anybody favor policies designed to make birth control less available to American women?

  • Bravo, Ed.

    IIRC, education of women is the single biggest factor in lowering birth rates.

    Another one, I should mention, is urban living, and the high cost thereof. In third world countries, when people move from villages to cities, and live in cramped quarters and have to scrounge around for money to live, they are no longer able to use their kids as farm labour, and stop having so many. The moms are need to go out and get jobs along with the dads; leaving them home with the kids would be financial suicide– grandma gets that job. Kids who in the country are an asset, are a liability in the cities. They just can’t afford any more of them.

    Similar economics have been true for a while in Europe, and, increasingly, the USA. What’s the median house price now? In the Bay Area it is 10 times the median income– guess what? Educated people who have lived in the cities/suburbs for more than one or two generations aren’t having babies, because we can’t *afford* it. You either have to be loaded with money, or willing to live in squalor, in order to have lots of kids. The more educated you are, and the longer you’ve acclimated to urban life, the less willing you are to do that. And in Europe the cost of living is so high that even out in the country people can’t afford to have tons of babies. That’s starting to become true of our own rural areas too: if the farm work is done by oil-belching (and money-sucking) machines, kids aren’t an asset, but are instead just as much a liability as in cities.

    The education of women is also related to city living: there are far more career opportunities for women in cities than in rural areas, and once they get here the economics preclude them from having that many kids even if they want them. Obviously if you actively educate and provide opportunies for disadvantaged girls in cities, you’ll send that birthrate down even further.

    So I’ll argue that the birthrate has less to do with ethnicity than with education levels and country/city economics. Immigrants usually come from rural areas in their home country and are relatively uneducated. My own grandparents each had roughly the equivalent of middle-school educations and came from villages that are still to this day smaller than the corporate headquarters of a medium-sized company.

    Regardless of people’s ethnicity or country of origin– whether from the mid-west or the mid-east or the far south or far east– when people move from the country to the cities, they keep their country traditions for a generation or two, even though it’s economically crazy. Over time, they lose the traditions that don’t make economic sense anymore.

    A friend of mine had a biking buddy who was a Mormon. Only had two kids. Why only two? Don’t they have clans of 5+ kids? Cost of living is a *lot* higher here in San Francisco than in Utah. Just because the guy was religious, didn’t mean he was stupid.

  • Those nativist types like Mark Steyn all have their knickers in twist about Europe “turning muslim”, but I think it is bullshit. Here in Holland there are approx. 1m Muslims out of 15m. Sure, their birthrate is higher, but the 2nd generation is already far more secular than the first, most of whom came from the impoverished hinterlands of Morocco and Turkey. As the subsequent generations become more cosmopolitan they will become more secular — and have fewer babies. Immigration and integration remains a hot-button issue, but it is far from the “clash of civilizations” the xenophobes would have you believe.

    • Comments are closed.