The video below is a segment from the “Crosstalk” program that aired on RT the other day. In it you’ll hear Kent Ekeroth of the Sweden Democrats debating the significance of the “extreme right” in Europe in the wake of the Toulouse killings.
As always: defending Mohammedanism consists of accusing the accuser, ad hominem attacks, absurdities, threats and pathetic innuendo. Telling the truth about Islam is “dangerous”- for whom? For the infidels or for the soldiers of allah?
When the soldiers of allah move in, infidels are being raped, mugged and driven from their homes. Churches and synagogues go up in flames and mountains of skeletons are the only thing remaining.
The Abyss Between Fact and Fantasy (GoV)
First of all, consider the role of RT — Russia Today — in the alternative media on the Internet.European opponents of Islamization may now be classified as dissidents. They are pariahs in their own countries. RT provides a welcome alternative media venue for them. It treats the European Counterjihad much more fairly than any major media outlet in Western Europe.
However, this friendly treatment comes at a price: RT is owned and funded by the Russian government, and consequently serves the interests of the Russian state. One of the primary goals of Russian foreign policy in Europe is to reduce the power and effectiveness of the European Union. For that reason, showcasing the “Islamophobes” makes sense — most of them are strong opponents of the EU.
However, it’s not in Russia’s interests to strengthen the traditional nation-states of Europe as they existed before the EUSSR was created. Thus the EU must be weakened without promoting nationalist movements in Europe — a difficult tightrope walk for the Russian state media.
Kent’s performance in a generally hostile environment was commendable. Other European opponents of Islamization will want to emulate his responses when they have to face the media.
Now let’s take a closer look at what the Oxford don had to say.
Roger Griffin is Professor in Modern History at Oxford Brookes University. According to his Blogger profile, he “lectures principally on aspects of the History of Ideas relating to ideologies and values that have shaped the modern world.”
The man is a historian. In other words, one may presume he has some idea of what “facts in evidence” are, as opposed to speculation or mere assertion.
So how does Mr. Griffin justify the following statement?
From Hurriyet Daily News: An Istanbul court has sentenced Turkish-Arme 
The Economist finally corrected their online article where they had fa 
The Color Preposterous. Based, of course, on my earlier post: 
A 'human rights watch' official, and several foreign corresp 
Heh (Hat Tip: Bernie K). 
In February, a prominent study funded by the US State Department concl 
It's been... for me personally... one of those days... which expl 
As if we needed another reason to hate the New York Jets.... Their tea 
Likud MK Moshe Feiglin has told The New American that it's immora 
The IDF has released a video of the destruction of a Syrian position o 
Ben & Jerry's has a new ice cream flavor.... Heh. (Hat Tip: S 
I'll admit that I was surprised to hear that any Israeli newspape 
Here's a talkback from YNet (sorry, I don't have a link) in 
{ 4 comments }
Dangerous, Terrible mohammad uses these words a lot…….. islam is dangerous, terrible. muslims are dangerous for harmony and peace period mr.mohammad ramadan foundation.
Kent did well until the very end. What he should have pointed out is the obvious: muslims bearing down on non-muslims, creating no gozones…etc.
Put up the latest 2 videos on the BBC’s Tommy Robinson interview. Tommy does an excellent job in rubbing the slime off the fishy characters in both of those debates.
Let’s not forget that as regards to Nazism; just like Islam, there were the extremist and moderate Nazi elements.
Comments on this entry are closed.