Hardly a Debate

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)

Kent made some excellent responses to the guilt-by-association smears that are typical of the attacks aimed at Counterjihad activists. But that’s only one interesting aspect of this clip; other parts of it are also worth looking at.

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?

4 thoughts on “Hardly a Debate”

  1. Dangerous, Terrible mohammad uses these words a lot…….. islam is dangerous, terrible. muslims are dangerous for harmony and peace period mr.mohammad ramadan foundation.

  2. 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.

  3. Let’s not forget that as regards to Nazism; just like Islam, there were the extremist and moderate Nazi elements.

Comments are closed.