Juan Williams on Mainstream Media Bias, the Entitlement Culture and American Foreign Policy
The Daily Bell is pleased to publish this exclusive interview with Juan Williams (left).
Juan Williams, one of America's leading journalists, is a political analyst for Fox News, a regular panelist on Fox Broadcasting's Sunday-morning public-affairs program Fox News Sunday, and a columnist for FoxNews.com and for The Hill. He hosted NPR's Talk of the Nation and has anchored Fox News Channel's weekend daytime news coverage. A former senior correspondent and political analyst for National Public Radio, he is the author of the bestselling book Enough, the critically acclaimed biography Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary, and the national bestseller Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954–1965, the companion volume to the critically acclaimed television series. His most recent book, Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate, was released by Crown Publishers in late July, 2011, the main topic of which is the muzzling of honest exchange of ideas and search for solutions and compromise in America. During his 21-year career at the Washington Post, Williams served as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist, and White House reporter. His articles have appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Time, Newsweek, Fortune, The Atlantic Monthly, Ebony, Gentlemen's Quarterly, and The New Republic.
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us. Before we get into a discussion about your new book and the premises put forth in it, can you tell us briefly about your background and what led you to a career in journalism and political analysis?
Juan Williams: Sure. My name is Juan Williams and I am the author of a book called Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate. I wanted to be a journalist from the time I was a child. I was born in Panama. Both grandfathers died building the Panama Canal and my father, who was born in Jamaica, went there after his dad died. My mom's dad went there to open a restaurant for workers on the canal and she was born in Panama. That's how their third child ended up being born in Panama. But then my mom brought three kids to Brooklyn, New York when I was four years old, and what is telling is for me growing up in New York, my window on the world was through the eyes of a little boy, through newspapers. There were seven newspapers in New York when I was growing up. My mom was a seamstress in the garment industry and she used to bring them home for me, off the subway. I just loved them. I still love newspapers to this day. Even with the TV, the Internet, the radio, I just have always loved newspapers. My dream from the time I was a little boy was if I could be a newspaper writer, if I could help people to understand the world in the way that newspapers helped me to understand how power works in American society -- who gets the trash picked up, who gets to send their children to good schools, who has a policeman come to the door to help them as opposed to arrest them. That's what I wanted to do, was to tell that story. That's why now, at 57, I am a journalist.
Daily Bell: In the past you have made statements that were critical of black leaders in America, referring to their leadership as creating a "culture of failure." Can you please explain what you meant by this?
Juan Williams: Sure. This was the topic of my last book titled, Enough: the Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That are Undermining Black America – and What We Can Do About It. This book is largely a chronicle of Bill Cosby, the entertainer/ comedian speaking at the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision in Washington DC. Instead of delivering jokes, which is what was expected of him, he said, "Hey, what are we celebrating when half of the black and Hispanic kids in America are dropping out of school? They don't get a high school diploma. What are we saying when 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers? What's going on with our families when you have such tremendous family breakdown and what does it do to the kids? Isn't it obvious that it hurts them in terms of achievement in school and leads to those high dropout rates even more? Even more damaging, isn't it true that that leads to higher rates of incarceration of black and Hispanic children in American society?" For this, Bill Cosby was separated and treated as if he was a leper. He was said to be airing dirty laundry. Bill Cosby has not only been a cultural icon in terms of "The Cosby Show" and "I Spy," but someone who has contributed his time and his money to the civil rights movement, who was absolutely ostracized and treated as if he was now the problem rather than the sociological issue he was talking about. It was so curious to me that the black leadership had no interest in having an honest discussion about the points that Cosby was raising. But then he had become an Uncle Tom, a traitor, and I thought to myself, it's the leadership that has the problem because they're blind and they are not helping their own community. Instead, they're just so busy pointing fingers at everybody else that they have abandoned the best interests in the future of their own community.
Daily Bell: Has Barack Obama becoming president helped the black community in any substantial manner with regard to addressing its "culture of failure"?
Juan Williams: Well, he tried and in some interesting moments he spoke about the importance of dads and being a good father and that it's not just about having a baby, it's about raising a baby. When he did that, you will recall that Jesse Jackson said he deserved to be castrated, that he was talking down to black people. That gives you a sense of how hard black leadership can be when somebody steps out of line. I think Barack Obama has been an inspiring figure for lots of people in the black community because they never thought it was possible that any black person would become president of the United States, or win 43 percent of the white vote in this country, could master the political infighting that is necessary to rise to such a height in American political life. But if you are asking me about actual metrics of making a difference, how could I say he's making a big difference when you look at the 25 percent poverty rate? That hasn't changed. In fact, it's been exacerbated by Obama's presidency to the extent that it has not improved since President Bush left office. Look at the unemployment rate of blacks and Hispanics, and again it has gone up, particularly with young black men. If you look at the efforts of Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of Education, to reform schools you would have to say so far not much has been accomplished. They have not got their legislative agenda called "Race to the Top" through the Congress. There has been no renewal of President Bush's idea, which was called, "No Child Left Behind." So we are stalled on what to me is the key civil rights issue of our time, the education reform agenda.
Daily Bell: In his controversial bestselling book, Bias, Bernie Goldberg asserted that liberal bias dominates the mainstream media world. What is your experience?
Juan Williams: Well, I don't think there's any question. I have been in newsrooms from the Washington Post to CNN to NPR and I have been in and out of so many other newsrooms during my career, and I don't think there is any doubt about it that most reporters are liberals. And at NPR, my most recent experience, they used to complain, "Isn't FOX filled with conservatives?" and I would say, "Excuse me, but at NPR, not only the management but also the people who work there come out of the same liberal mode and are so attached to American leading academic institutions, which are filled again with liberal professors who insist on liberal orthodoxy." But somehow they couldn't see that. They could only see what they perceive to be conservative hires at a place like FOX News.
Daily Bell: Can you briefly give our readers some background on the controversy that led to your dismissal from National Public Radio (NPR)?
Juan Williams: This began with Bill O'Reilly appearing on "The View" and saying that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That prompted Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to walk off the set in protest. They would only return if Bill would say that he was only speaking about RADICAL Muslims, not all Muslims. He didn't think it was necessary to say that but if that's the case, he was willing to say it. But then several days later, he was doing his own show and I was his lead guest and he asked me, Juan, where did I go wrong? And I said, Bill, I am not going to play politically correct games with you. The fact is that Muslims did attack us on 9/11. The fact is that the people who were in those airplanes cited the Islamic faith as justification for that attack. And then I went on to say, even if I am in an airport and I see people dressed in Muslim garb – to my mind, first and foremost as identifying themselves as Muslim – I get nervous. Now, I added, right there and then, that I don't think we should get into any discriminatory policy. We don't categorize Christians because of the terrorist behavior of Timothy McVeigh or the Atlanta Olympics bomber and we don't want to lose America's founding principle of being a land of religious liberty. We invite diversity and tolerance in the way we worship. That has always been who we are as Americans. So all this was said at the time but immediately the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Media Matters launched a campaign against me. They took my comment out of context, isolated it, and said that what I had done was committed an act of bigotry. NPR, which I believe was looking for a reason to fire me, picked up on this and called two days later to tell me that I was a bigot and I was fired.
Daily Bell: After your dismissal, NPR's President and CEO Vivian Schiller offered the following comment: "News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts." Do you agree with her on this?
Juan Williams: Of course not. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So now journalists aren't supposed to tell you what they think? What good is a journalist who's hiding things from you or treats you like you are not a sensitive human being, sufficiently matured to absorb what he or she is telling you about their personal experience? I didn't say something in order to be provocative or call attention to myself. I said something in reference to a larger debate about how we honestly feel about the incontrovertible link between radical Islamic beliefs and terrorism. We as an American society have to be mature and deal with it and also preserve our principle of liberty.
So this was a full-throated, honest debate and she is saying a good journalist can't do that. Well, then I think you're not a journalist. Let me also add here that there is a large piece of hypocrisy involved because other NPR journalists have appeared on opinion shows and have made highly controversial comments, and those people often times are correspondents or reporters, not news analysts. As a news analyst, I should have the additional latitude to express opinions and convey experiences as part of drawing a picture, as a journalist should do, of the reality of our time. Some people call journalism the act of creating a first draft of history. Well, if I am supposed to bite my tongue, close my eyes, pretend that I don't have the experience of anxiety around people in Muslim garb at the airport, then I think I would be a liar and I would be a worthless journalist. So I think she is absolutely wrong.
Daily Bell: Tell us about your new book, Muzzled. What is its basic premise?
Juan Williams: I am glad you asked because so many people think the book is just about my having been fired from NPR. To the contrary, 90 percent of the book is about how difficult it is to have an honest debate at this point in America. There are all these people telling you, you shouldn't say that. Or if you say that you are giving aid and support to people on the far right or people on the far left. You are a crazy right-winger for saying that. You're a bleeding-heart liberal for saying that. You shouldn't be able to say that because someone could misinterpret your words as evidence of racism, bigotry, misogyny, hatred of immigrants – it just goes on and on. You are never allowed to say, listen, here's where I'm coming from, or here's what I am feeling. Let's have an honest discussion. I respect you, I respect your point of view, you're an intellect and I want to engage you. Instead what happens is people bite their tongue. People are told not to say this and then the only people that speak out tend to be the provocateurs at the far end of the political spectrum, far left and far right, and they say all kinds of crazy, obnoxious things. And in terms of our politics, the money then flows to the far poles of a political spectrum, far left and far right. In any case, people in the middle who are trying to engage in honest discussion, people who want to talk about things like, how can we resolve the immigration issue? How can we deal honestly with the budget and raising the debt ceiling? How can we deal logically, rationally with questions about the war in Afghanistan? – those people are ignored, shushed, told to shut up, or in my case, fired.
Daily Bell: Give us some examples of issues that are "muzzled."
Juan Williams: Well, the war in Afghanistan is one I just mentioned. If you ask things like why is it that we have been there ten years and so many young people have died, or why has so much money been spent, and question continuing that military commitment, there are people who will say to you, we have to win that war or else. You are not a patriot or you are someone who doesn't love their country. This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Most Americans have serious questions about why we continue to spend so much money and blood in Afghanistan. You don't see that conversation taking place in Congress. It's almost like it's not allowed.
I will give you another example. Right now, we continue to have 12 or 13 million illegal immigrants in the country. President Bush, when he was in office, made a huge effort to try to achieve immigration reform but when he did so, there are so many people who started shouting, no you can't do that, we don't want to hear about it, we consider any of these efforts to be amnesty for law breakers or you're letting in terrorism, they shut down the conversation. It was impossible to talk about where solutions existed or common ground, and the honest debate was put aside so that even President Obama can't seem to get anything done on the issue.
Speaking of President Obama, let's get back to the discussion about terrorism and the thing that got me in so much trouble. He refuses to call terrorism, terrorism. Instead, he and Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security talk about "man-made disasters." What are you talking about, man-made disasters? They talk about man-made disasters in an effort to say they are trying to remove the stigma from people who might link, again, radical Islam to terrorism. They don't want the Islamic world to think that there's a war going on against Islam? Look, this is ridiculous. Nobody is having a war on Islam. We're having a war on terrorism and if you can't call it what it is, how do you think you are going to successfully protect us? I think, again, this is an exercise in evasion, in euphemism, as opposed to speaking in a mature way and speaking honestly to people that you respect and expect would be able to help you come up with good solutions to major problems.
Daily Bell: How would you propose changing things?
Juan Williams: One of the things we have to do is be honest with each other, listen to each other, treat each other with respect. That's just a start. But I think in a libertarian sense, it's also a matter of being willing to support people who vary from the orthodoxy, like the congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in that horrible incident in Arizona. She said that politicians who are not at the extremes of American life get no reward. Anybody who says, 'I'm a smart person, I'm thoughtful, I care about my community but I don't hold to any liberal orthodoxy or I don't hold to any conservative orthodoxy', those people are treated like a bother. They are not reliable, they are not to be trusted, and they are considered Uncle Toms or traitors to the cause. And she said that's ridiculous. If you want to get your campaign going, attack the other side, demonize them, belittle them and people will come running with money. To me, that, too, corrupts the dialogue. But the key point is if you don't have honest dialogue it's hard to have honest political action that really serves our interests. So what we can all do is one, listen, and two, seek out other points of view respectfully. Try to learn something from others but also support people who act independently in the political sphere. It's not just people that echo pre-existing attitudes and opinions on the far left or the far right.
Daily Bell: With the explosive rise of Internet-based media, which often is outside of the traditional control matrix, isn't the power of mainstream media to control the conversation on major issues failing anyway?
Juan Williams: It is. I think it's a really good thing, but it's still the case that the big brands, even on the Internet, carry such powers. You think about the power of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, NPR for that matter, MSNBC – these are big brands on the Internet. These are where people go for news and information on the Internet. Bloomberg is another one. So these brands do control much of the conversation because when people go to a lot of the Internet sites that are less known or emerging they have to deal with a credibility issue. The big brands are known to be credible but where the big brands can't control the conversation is in terms of opinion and sometimes new information. Look what happened to Dan Rather. CBS might be a great brand but they could not handle the idea that the Internet revealed, that he had fabricated information to make a story.
Daily Bell: Do you think, as we do, that an information-led knowledge revolution is occurring, one that threatens to reshape the entire media and political landscape in the Western world as more and more people simply "tune out"?
Juan Williams: Well, I think this is an interesting moment because more and more people are not reading newspapers, they're not watching evening news. They are turning to places like the Internet, cable news, and turning to each other. There are more news sources now and I think the mainstream media is losing that grip as a result.
Daily Bell: Why do mainstream media commentators, when discussing the ills of the US economy, never open up the debate to discuss the Federal Reserve and the US dollar with respect to an honest look at what really causes monetary inflation? Is questioning the legitimacy of the fiat-dollar and fractional reserve banking a no-no?
Juan Williams: Again, I don't think they make an effort to break through the orthodoxy that says, 'Oh, those people know what they are doing; they are smarter than we are.' It's a very closed club and they allow it to remain closed without challenging and questioning. This is an example of where mainstream media really becomes a lapdog to the powers that be. This is where you have to give thanks for media such as the Internet in that it allows people to challenge this perceived wisdom that we are all supposed to sit down and behave ourselves while the Federal Reserve and the big banks ruin our economy.
Daily Bell: We think that mainstream media and politicians alike utilize a two-sided posturing system, an Hegelian dialectic or process, if you will, to create the illusion of a debate when all they are really doing is limiting the range of discussion to ensure the more "eye opening" debate doesn't happen.
What do you think?
Juan Williams: Too often I think that is the case, and that is why people get frustrated. I think that's why resentments fester. I think that's why people start to believe every conspiracy theory that they hear, because they don't trust whether they are getting the straight story anymore. They don't know whom they can trust but they do know that too often the people with self-serving interests are serving the powers that be.
Daily Bell: Let's talk economy for a bit. Do you think it was the right move for Congress to pass the debt ceiling increase?
Juan Williams: Absolutely. But the deal is not one you can love or wrap your arms around; it's like nobody's child. I just thought it was essential. And given the market reaction even with the deal in place, you get the sense how fragile the recovery is. The idea that it didn't make a difference when the debt ceiling got raised is so erroneous and reckless to me; I think it would have thrown us back into a deep recession if not a depression.
Daily Bell: Do you think that the US debt is unsustainable and that entitlement spending needs to be slashed?
Juan Williams: It needs to be cut. I don't know about slashed, but it needs to be done in a compassionate and sensible way. The question is, how do you do it? But there is no question that you have to do it.
Daily Bell: How about military spending? Why does America feel they should maintain military bases in over 100 countries around the world? Is it making America safer? Isn't it helping to drive up the debt unnecessarily?
Juan Williams: I agree. I make that case all the time with people telling me I'm a nut bag. You have to take into account the history in places like Germany and Japan where we have such heavy presence. To my mind, the notion that we are the world's policemen and the world's military force is not in keeping with America's ideals. I agree that we should be a positive force in the world but to always be bearing the hard share of the burden is a hell of a tax on us every day that nobody ever takes the times to deal with as a tax – not to mention the damper on our economics train.
Daily Bell: Do the American people need to accept more personal responsibility for their own lives and stop buying into the "freebie" mentality?
Juan Williams: I don't think there is any question and this is something that I was shocked about. I discuss this in Muzzled. I was shocked at the high percentage of Americans, and it is over 40 percent, that receive a government cheque every month. They are part of the entitlement culture. So it's either social security, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, disability – it just goes on and on. Can you imagine it's over 40 percent? Then if you look at who pays taxes you see that over 50 percent of Americans don't pay taxes and you can start to understand the danger that we have become an entitlement society rather than a free, capitalistic, entrepreneurial people.
Daily Bell: Do you believe in the accidental version of history or a more directed version of history?
Juan Williams: I am not sure exactly what that means but I do believe we make a difference, that we write the script, if you will. We are writing the script in a story we didn't start so we inherit a lot of chapters and precedents, if you will, that limit what we can say and do in terms of change. But I do believe it is us, not fate, that are the ultimate authors of our history.
Daily Bell: Do you think that there is a global conspiracy to establish a new world political and monetary order to be managed by the UN, IMF, World Bank and other alphabet soup international agencies?
Juan Williams: No, but I think that these organizations are controlled by people who are powerful and who have money and who are, at this point, part of a global economic structure. So the idea of local control can be deceptive because big money moves around the globe so fast and is attracted to cheap labor and to opportunity wherever the growth markets may be. Right now that is places like China, India and Brazil. That has direct impact on the decline of the job market right here in the US. There is no getting away from the idea that we have less control through the US government and the US economy than we have ever had. So is that a result of a grand conspiracy? I don't know if you have to call it that but I think it is a fact that we are losing control.
Daily Bell: Is it a good thing in your opinion?
Juan Williams: No, (laughing). I don't like not having control of my life.
Daily Bell: Finally, in America third parties have been purposefully marginalized or muzzled, if you will. Do you think that it is possible for a third political party to actually win a US federal election?
Juan Williams: This may be a good election cycle to test it. We have had four consecutive seasons of tidal wave type change in American politics. You think about the Democrats coming in and taking over the House and the Senate in 2006, then a liberal Democrat first-term senator, Obama, taking over the White House in 2008. Then you come back and the Republicans come in and sweep the House in 2010. So this will be the fourth cycle that Americans will have the mind to kick out the bums. The problem is, who are the bums? A lot of them look like bums.
So I think one of the things that could happen this time is that the people are not excited by the likes of a Mitt Romney, turned off by the likes of Barack Obama, and maybe will go to someone who launches a third party bid. Now, they would be at a stark disadvantage in terms of a political structure and campaign funding, but remember, this is a lot like the moment when Ross Perot got 19 percent of the vote. So if you get a strong personality, like a Sarah Palin or a Donald Trump, or on the left it could be someone like a Russ Feingold or a Howard Dean – if you get somebody who catches lightning in a bottle, I think this could be the moment when the third party really emerges as a viable alternative for the American voter.
Daily Bell: Any final thoughts you would like to share with our audience?
Juan Williams: No but I really appreciate all your patience today because I was a bit overwhelmed so thank you.
Daily Bell: It's been a pleasure.
We thank Mr. Williams for sharing his views, especially as they relate to mainstream media and its "muzzling" of journalistic opinion on matters deemed untouchable. Certainly anyone who is a regular visitor to the DB knows that we consider mainstream media part of international money power's control structure – one that has a lot more to do with echoing dominant social themes than investigating issues.
There are some areas of this interview where we respectfully depart company with Mr. Williams, though. The first would be related to the war on terrorism. Here is what we have said on this issue previously:
The War on Terror may be said to have begun officially after the attacks on the World Trade Towers known throughout the world by the numerical acronym 9/11. It took very little time for the Bush Administration to identify the supposed culprits and then to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The putative reason to attack in Afghanistan was to rout Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Al Qaeda means "list" in Arabic and the CIA helped form Al Qaeda when Afghans were fighting the occupation of the USSR. There is considerable controversy over whether Al Qaeda existed at the time of 9/11 and, if it existed, whether it was in some sense a captive client of the CIA, which had helped create it.
Today, there is little evidence of Al Qaeda activity and even less significant evidence for its continued existence as a formal, independent fighting force. Its terrorist efforts are often accompanied by significant Western intelligence involvement and given these circumstances, the idea that the West and especially the US is fighting a worldwide "war on terror" is increasingly doubtful. There are "bad guys" in the world that the West intends to face down. But Al Qaeda, as a formal entity, appears less and less to be among them.
We also part company with Mr. Williams on the issue of the debt ceiling increase. We think it was a terrible thing to do and here is what we have previously written:
There is no "cure" here. The "plan" is not going to solve anything because it DOESN'T ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM.
The real problem has to do with a faulty currency that is unrestrained because it is inflatable at the will of politicians and central bankers. And people have been conditioned to believe that there are others out there who can do a better job of looking out for their needs than themselves.
The truth of the matter, as we see it, is ... the Federal Reserve will go about monetizing another couple of trillion and devaluing the purchasing power of the US dollar. Jobs will not be created, the real economy will not grow and another chance to actually address America's monetary problems will pass by. Inevitably, the system, as any PONZI scheme, will collapse and the financial hurricane approaching America's shores will be even more devastating.
Finally, we do feel that international money power seeks control over the world's population via global governance, a single currency and an international military. We also believe that mainstream media isn't silent on the issues related to fiat money fraud and the global governance issue – we think they are a major part of helping to make sure all that the elite wants, happens.
Posted by nervo on 09/24/11 11:38 AM
Astonishing - in the most revealing statement of his interview, Williams equates Palin & Trump with Feingold & Dean. The two democrats are serious, informed, educated, dedicated, hard-working people - serious people, whether you agree with their political philosophy or not.
The two republicans are intellectual and political lightweights - and worse, dishonest panderers and self-promoters, committed, more than anything else, to making money out of every opportunity. Neither Palin nor Trump have any political scruples or abilities, but great and opportunistic savvy when it comes to manipulating their celebrity status to gain public exposure as a means of generating personal wealth.
The problems of this country are serious. Dean & Feingold are serious men. Trump and Palin are cheap hucksters and opportunists doing constant damage to the political intelligence and discourse in this country. Williams inability to differentiate between the two realities tells you pretty much what you need to know about his grip on reality.
Posted by David_Robertson on 08/23/11 05:28 PM
Yes I did understand why you linked to George Galloway who incidentally is a countryman of mine. I just thought that his programme was such a good object lesson in what I was trying to describe. The same could likely be said of the film you linked to of which I watched a little. The young Muslim girl was very brave to do and say what she did and said. It is very sad.
Of course I disagree with using the State Thugocracy to impose rules on what people can wear. It is just the way these situations are manipulated by the State Thugs to divide people and to gain support for their wars of murder and robbery on behalf of the Global Corporate Thugocracy that needs to have the light shone on it so that people can see it. I wish more people could SEE how they are being used and just say no. But that requires a serious wake up call.
Posted by Summer on 08/23/11 04:35 PM
Well Ross, on this issue, I think our views will part, on some of what you have said...
'Not to detract from the absolutely correct "no harm" based arguments, there IS a dark side to the hijaab. It has the effect of standardizing the appearance of those who wear it, a suppression of individuality. It is also a protection of the "property" of Muslim husbands, so others do not covet what is "theirs". Not all Muslims are chauvenistic, but, it is certainly entrenched in the lower level "culture" (as it is in ours). '
Well it depends on the character of the uniform... Dinner ladies uniform, air hostess, nun, lord mayor, police, skull cap... Are trousers a negative 'uniform'? I see many wearing them - definitely no 'dark side', as far as I know! As for 'individuality' there are many styles of hijaab, and even if you think this still suppresses 'individuality' (btw, by this reasoning, similar styles of shirts and ties would suppress individuality too) then who cares as long as those women chose to wear it of their own free wills - not everyone's first priority is individualism.
'the "property" of Muslim husbands, so others do not covet what is "theirs".'
Well this is a common one! Actually the concept of a woman being the 'property' of a man was found in certain Christian perspectives of the wedding ring being symbolic of ownership - no such concept exists in Islam, however CULTURAL customs may include undesirable concepts such as these - having nothing to do with Islam.
'Not all Muslims are chauvenistic, but, it is certainly entrenched in the lower level "culture" (as it is in ours). '
Why thank you! Look, what is 'Muslim'/Islamic and what is culture? There is a massive difference, for example here in the UK there is a custom for people to 'go down the pub' or among the youth ' to go clubbin', someone in an Asian country may think that because the UK is a 'Christian' nation the aforementioned customs are 'Christian' in nature - clearly this is wrong.
'I opine that the hijaab (to wear, or not to wear) is properly the SOLE business of the individual woman pondering the question. It is just as evil to ban the hijaab as it is to insist on it. Only the individual woman is capable of perceiving the purpose that the hijaab serves and, if they want it, or not.'
100% with you on this point.
'A friend once sent me a hilarious photo of a group of fully covered Muslim women, identical in appearance, with the caption: "What's the point?"'
Funny, only they know, eh?!
'But, I have also spent time in the Middle East and, despite their fully covered uniform, Muslim women still manage to be alluring with a twist of an ankle, wrist or, whatever they are "allowed" to show. In fact, wondering regarding the "nature" of the prize is half the allure.'
Ooh alright! You make me laugh!
'Let people live as they freely choose, so long as it is not harmful and, the first line of defense is by those who are actually "harmed".'
Posted by Summer on 08/23/11 04:30 PM
"The Marxists (of whom George Galloway is one) may be successful in quelling (jamming) all the protests arising from the "media hype" that you mention but that simply drives the reactions underground where they can be channelled in ways that suit the Thugocracy (see another post of mine for the meaning of this term in the forum on Hillary Clinton's order to Assad to step aside, I think)."
The purpose of linking to Galloway, was solely for the POINTS he raised in relation to WHY certain dress is found objectionable in certain minds and those he presented were logical and relevant IMO. (As for Galloway I reserve judgement on his character as whatever his leftist leaning may allude to, he does much campaigning that I think has been admirable - notably anti-war and anti-Israeli)
(The following is a link that I found interesting in relation to the French bans, not that you agree with it!):
Click to view link
And thank you for your thoughtful comments :)
Posted by rossbcan on 08/23/11 03:04 PM
"seek to do is dress modestly, in a way that enhances their spirituality by making them focused on more than just beauty in the same way that a nun might do"
Not to detract from the absolutely correct "no harm" based arguments, there IS a dark side to the hijaab. It has the effect of standardizing the appearance of those who wear it, a suppression of individuality. It is also a protection of the "property" of Muslim husbands, so others do not covet what is "theirs". Not all Muslims are chauvenistic, but, it is certainly entrenched in the lower level "culture" (as it is in ours).
I opine that the hijaab (to wear, or not to wear) is properly the SOLE business of the individual woman pondering the question. It is just as evil to ban the hijaab as it is to insist on it. Only the individual woman is capable of perceiving the purpose that the hijaab serves and, if they want it, or not.
A friend once sent me a hilarious photo of a group of fully covered Muslim women, identical in appearance, with the caption: "What's the point?"
But, I have also spent time in the Middle East and, despite their fully covered uniform, Muslim women still manage to be alluring with a twist of an ankle, wrist or, whatever they are "allowed" to show. In fact, wondering regarding the "nature" of the prize is half the allure.
Let people live as they freely choose, so long as it is not harmful and, the first line of defense is by those who are actually "harmed".
Posted by David_Robertson on 08/23/11 01:57 PM
The youtube you linked to from George Galloway's call-in talk show is an object lesson in the way in which these kinds of issues are used to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and the British (and American and European) people at large.
The Marxists (of whom George Galloway is one) may be successful in quelling (jamming) all the protests arising from the "media hype" that you mention but that simply drives the reactions underground where they can be channelled in ways that suit the Thugocracy (see another post of mine for the meaning of this term in the forum on Hillary Clinton's order to Assad to step aside, I think).
If I were teaching how the Thugocray manipulates both the scientific experimenters and the lab rats, I mean no disrespect this is simply how I believe they view us all, I would have no difficulty in showing how Galloway manages in just three minutes to call his first interviewee a racist, a fetishist, a pervert and a coward who is unmanly without blinking an eye or missing a beat. These poisonous seeds were adroitly planted in his subconscious and will no doubt bear rancid fruit in the years to come.
The hapless caller was beaten down skilfully while trying to defend himself with no possible chance of success because he had indeed been unmanned by the education system that had taught him English. He had no way to express or defend his beliefs and become wise in the process because he had been taught that any and all objective judgements he could make on beauty, goodness or moral rights and wrongs were in reality only or merely saying something about his personal subjective feelings and had no other value than that. Having thus been deracinated from the tree of humanity and having had his moral sentiment creating heart removed he had been made the subject of indoctrination experiments to produce in him the results required by the State Thugocracy. It is heart breaking.
Galloway himself is a prisoner of the Marxist ideology that gives us the multi-cultural, anti-racist terminology and its methods of marketing and indoctrination. He plays the role of the scientific experimenter and the caller plays the role of the lab rat.
We live in a truly evil world Summer and the only consolation I have, and it is a great one, is that this evil in men only serves to make the goodness and justice of God shine more clearly into my heart and mind. This I believe is at least one of His purposes, perhaps the most important one, in leading us through this valley of the shadow of death and darkness.
Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by Summer on 08/22/11 05:07 PM
'This is also a VERY sore point in the UK where the use of hijabs and especially burkhas is seen as offensive by the majority of the population, but NOT openly because it has been JAMMED and is therefore more powerful.'
Not that it is your view, but this whole argument is absurd when in reality there should be no issue. And might I add I don't think the majority have a problem with the hijaab. Why is it that suddenly after 9/11 the burqa or even the headscarf for Muslim women is see as 'offensive'. Before this Muslims were seen as passive law-abiding types. It is all media hype.
One may not like the look of a punk, covered with piercings and tattoos or a 'goth' covered in white and black makeup but what right does anyone have to stop them, a re they harming anyone? The same is true when looking at women wearing a burqa, one may not like it but surely a woman has a choice of what to wear?
Now when we look at the hijaab (head covering/scarf) the argument becomes even more lame. Let's not ban hats or masks (a la Francais) but definitely headscarves worn exclusively by Muslim women. No one in the UK seems to have a problem with nuns covering their hair so why Muslim women? The answer is obvious.
All these women seek to do is dress modestly, in a way that enhances their spirituality by making them focused on more than just beauty in the same way that a nun might do. And it is a false notion that covering the head in religious devotion is only an Islamic concept (see Corinthians), it is found in Christianity, Judaism and many other cultures for both men and women as a symbol of dignity, honour and decency (even Mary is always depicted with her head covered) but I guess the age of doffing hats has gone, as has respecting others' sincerely held beliefs and efforts for spiritual advancement. Not that you David, think in this way.
Click to view link
Posted by Summer on 08/22/11 04:27 PM
Your view is plausible IMO...
Posted by Summer on 08/22/11 04:24 PM
I was responding primarily to:
"Now, combine this with the present Western ideological imperative of anti-racism and multi-culturalism which opens the door to mass immigration from Muslim countries (remember it is not permitted to paint all Muslims with the same brush) and since Muslim cultural practices are quite different from Western, both Christian and secular practices, the potential for cultural animosity, branded as "racism", is easily fostered. Augment these Western ideologies with regulated equality commissions and racial sensitivity education and the potential for the growth of anti-Muslim, anti-Islami tendencies in the host nations becomes self evident."
I sought to clarify the terminology, whether you 'approve'/adhere to them or not, whilst stating my position on these 'themes'.
Posted by Henry Pierson on 08/22/11 10:51 AM
There is no error in facts---but the debts in question were created under both Reagan and Bush as stated. Bush as an example only ever vetoed one spending bill and it was a minor bill on stem cell research. Let's not forget Bush passed one of the largest in recent history entitilement bills on prescription drugs and started two unnecessary wars. Of course Obama is following in his footsteps. Yes, we do agree the government is the problem.
Posted by David_Robertson on 08/22/11 10:24 AM
I just wanted to add something to this post about the concepts of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. If indeed they are alien ideas that have been foisted onto Islam by "pseudo-Christian orientalists" or even added by later Muslim religionists and re-interprted by these Western orientalists this would then place them in that category of shadow projections I referred to as being inadvertent revelations of elitist thinking.
This would indicate that this is in fact the way the elites see the world, i.e. divided into nations that they have subdued and control and those that still remain outside the "House of Peace". This then clarifies their declared objective of achieving "world peace" that every contestant for the Miss World title must mention as part of her speech given to outline her personal ambitions. Thanks for that insight Summer.
Posted by David_Robertson on 08/22/11 09:49 AM
Many of the things you have said are indisputable Summer but were not directly addressing the point I was TRYING to make. This is why you say that the terms I used miss the point. Perhaps we are seeing different points. Let me TRY once more to explain the point I was TRYING to make.
We agree I think that religion can be used and is used for their own ends by unscrupulous men, and now women, in positions of power everywhere in the world. It is this abuse of religion that I was addressing and the machinations SPECIFICALLY of the WESTERN ELITES as they seek to advance their objectives by these means.
Personally I find it abhorrent and am simply TRYING to cast some light on the ways in which we are all subjected to their conditioning techniques and how important it is that we recognise the seeds they have planted in our minds so that we might be able to overcome their insidious influence in our thinking and actions.
The point that I was TRYING to make was that the elites have created these ideas of ANTI-RACISM AND MULI-CULTURALISM and inculcated them in the minds and emotions of the populations in the WEST. This was done to reinforce their cultural Marxist concepts of RACIAL INDIFFERENCE and INTERNATIONALISM both of which ideas incidentally are common to both Islam and Christianity. [As I have said before Marxism is simply an atheistic secular Talmudic Judaism. The difference is that in Marxism as in Talmudic Judaism there is planted the notion of a superior elite who direct the development of the state and society. This elitism does not exist in Christianity as Jesus taught it, quite the contrary, nor in Islam as Mohammed taught it as far as I know.]
The way in which these ideas are implemented has the effect of destroying the NATION STATE by creating insuperable tensions amongst the inhabitants while at the same time building a powerful emotional foundation for targeting the "ENEMY" in this case "Islamic extremism" also created by the elites. It is an enormous undertaking and has been accomplished over many many decades, perhaps much longer, by means inter alia of the "Long March" through the institutions envisaged by the Fabian Society.
The "mass immigration" of Muslims into Europe, threatening the foundations of "European Christian Civilisation" IN HIS MIND, was the reason that Anders Breivik slaughtered all these people in Norway on July 22, 2011. This is also a VERY sore point in the UK where the use of hijabs and especially burkhas is seen as offensive by the majority of the population, but NOT openly because it has been JAMMED and is therefore more powerful.
The point I was making once more was that these ideologies, the institutions created to sustain them and the many violent events used to reinforce them have been both directly and indirectly ENGINEERED by the elites through the education systems and the media in order to create the mindsphere in which the phoney "War on Terrorism" can be rationalised and justified and of course by the activities of the intelligence services.
Whether ideas like Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam that are used to create a hostile image of Islam in Western minds are genuinely Muslim or have been accreted or even foisted onto Islam and do not fairly represent the teachings of Mohammed is actually neither here nor there. The fact remains it is what the populations of the West have been conditioned to believe. Orwell's 1984 and how the "ENEMIES" of Oceania were always presented to the people is a case in point.
Orwell was a member of the intelligence services and I imagine had access to their thinking along these lines. His dystopian vision was in my view a picture of his own country and the world in his life time but projected into the future. In other words I believe it was an anachronistic critique of the policies of the United Kingdom that he saw being implemented throughout his life. That it was prophetic also I have no doubt since the conditions he saw in the society around him have simply metastasised and surfaced in many ugly ways today.
I hope this makes it more clear to you what I was aiming at Summer.
Posted by reegje on 08/22/11 05:33 AM
Yes, Kissinger went in the seventies to all the oil producing countries and basically bribed them into buying debt and then he promised that the Americans would not drill in their own backyard. Iraq and Iran refused... ..
Plus they have this huge weapons racket going on, and despite that the Arabs could not defend themselves when the siege of Mecca happened.
In secret French Special Forces had to come in and recapture Mecca.
Posted by R on 08/22/11 01:27 AM
This has been the first interview that has been entirely predictable and not too informative. I have listened to Juan for many years now, and his judgement and even credibility as a "jounalist" is suspect in my view.
He leans heavily to the Left wing Socialist perspective, and some of his arguments in debates are specious, presumptuous and factually incorrect.
I part company with Mr. Williams on many issues including the ones you have cited. He received a taste of his own 'liberalism" when he was fired from NPC.
Posted by R on 08/22/11 01:19 AM
Really?!?!? Sorry, but your facts are in error, and you leave out the Democrat congress that promulgated large debt in the Reagan administration.
But I do agree that we need a radical departure from the corrupt congress the comprises both contrived parties.
Posted by Henry Pierson on 08/22/11 12:57 AM
The Republican party and Republican presidents have been responsible for the creation of over 90% of the national debt. When Reagan took office the entire national debt of all previous administrations was one trillion dollars, by the end of his two terms Reagan had increased it by 400%. When Bush took office the debt had only risen another trillion from Reagan's era. Bush left office with the debt close to eleven trillion. He had more than doubled it. The Democrats, Republican and the corrupt two party monopoly have destroyed our country. Participation in the process through either party is just more of the same. It is time someone took a stand and ran as an Independent not constrained by any particualr party. We need someone who understands the system is broken, soomeone who isn't afraid to say so. Ron Paul could be that someone but not running as a Republican. Paul has proven his convictions will not and cannot be compromised.
Posted by free on 08/21/11 10:26 PM
Posted by Summer on 08/21/11 09:04 PM
Thanks. Much seems 'odd'!
Posted by SoCal fellow on 08/21/11 08:48 PM
Very fine interview, Mr. Wile.
I think your interview illustrates that Mr. Williams correctly sees the problems -- endless wars, economic interference from moneyed interests behind the scenes, incorrect targeting of Muslims.
He does not yet see the truth behind these problems -- evil cabal behind the world's central banks, CIA/Mossad/U.S. military were instruments behind 9/11, etc.
But, he is honest and courageous, and will acknowledge the truth when more folks adopt and proclaim it. He is not a leader, but he will prove to be a useful broadcaster as the wave of truth washes over America.
Posted by DwightMann on 08/21/11 07:53 PM
and they outsmarted about 250 million Americans. . .