Monday, March 14, 2011

Pointing Out the Problems

Below is a two-part video of a debate on Russia Today between Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, and Edward Mortimer, an EU apparatchik and renowned dhimmi.

Mr. Robinson does an excellent job in this debate confronting the absolute incoherence of his opponent. The moderator — supposedly a neutral mediator between two conflicting points of view — repeatedly frames the discussion in orthodox politically correct terms, which obviously favor Mr. Mortimer and stigmatize the English Defence League.

Despite the stacking of the deck, Tommy Robinson’s message gets through loud and clear to his audience. Or at least it’s clear to me — but I’m prejudiced.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing these clips. To circumvent the “Blogger Bug”, both videos have been placed below the jump:

Part 1



Part 2

22 comments:

Blogger said...

What I find frustrating about this interview is that Tommy had so many opportunities to bring up the violent teachings of the Koran, but he didn't! The "muslims as jews" reference could easily have been countered by quoting the Koran. The "how can you demonise all of the muslims because some are violent", quote the Koran! The CORE of Islam is violent, and because the central point of teaching is the violent Koran, those who uphold it as a holy book are a danger to society!

Tommy needs to memorise quotes from the Koran like "mass murder is better than sin" and "slay the infidels wherever you find them" and "do not take christians and jews as friends or you will become like them" or "those who make war on Allah or Muhammad or mischief in the land get tortured and killed", etc. Secondly, he needs to brush up on logic and reasoning skills.

Otherwise I love Tommy. He's only 27 with no higher education, yet he is articulate and knows how to engage with the media. Most importantly he never takes offence. I've seen journalists try to trap him and make fun of him, yet he just keeps going and never loses his temper.

Gary said...

What Tommy should do when he goes to these debates is have an art folder with pictures of amputated hands and women being stoned and gays being hanged from cranes. There are a lot of these pictures in various blogs.

Anonymous said...

Mortimer was just awful! When things really start happening, people like him will have to go into hiding. Tommy won that easily. I don't think he needs to change anything; he can quote the Koran and show the photos, that would help, but Exhibit A will always be people like Mortimer.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

What is the Blogger bug? I've been getting some weird Chinese error messages related to YouTube videos on my site for the last few days. Is that anything to do with it?

S said...

Tommy needs to learn to say w i t h instead of wiff if he expects people to respect his issue. Sorry, thats petty, but true. People who say WIFF when they mean wiTH don't get respect from the broader population.

And to Zakalwe - were you the one who suggested tatoos on the foreheads of muslims on an earlier thread? I doubt this blog would approve of that kind of message.

S said...

And when he says F I N K instead of THINK. The upper class, who is needed in this cause, will just dismiss him! As will the middle. I know it seems petty. Sorry. But it is true.

I love what you are doing Tommy! Keep going! Memorize a few suras. Tell the media people the dispicable life led by Mo and WHY the followers do the same as they try to be like their prophet.

Keep it up!

Baron Bodissey said...

Cheradenine --

The "Blogger bug" is a peculiar quirk in Blogger's post-display scripting that disables YouTube embeds above a "Read More" division.

I can avoid the problem by not having "Read More", or by putting the videos below the jump.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

To S:

"And to Zakalwe - were you the one who suggested tatoos on the foreheads of muslims on an earlier thread? I doubt this blog would approve of that kind of message."

No, I've never suggested placing tattoos on the heads of Muslims. I have suggested branding illegal immigrants on the forehead, although I don't recall having done it here.

In any case, I'm sure the blog owner is perfectly capable of deciding for himself what kind of messages he approves of or doesn't approve of and taking the appropriate action, so why don't you just leave it to him?

EJGB said...

I'm not sure how I feel about branding illegal aliens, or anyone else or that matter. Got any better ideas?

S said...

What kind of difference is there between tattoos on the forehead and branding on the forehead? A thin line indeed at best.

Baron doesn't see every single post most likely, and others would use comments such as that to discredit this blog. I'd like this blog to be respected, wouldn't you?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"What kind of difference is there between tattoos on the forehead and branding on the forehead? A thin line indeed at best."

There's a profound difference between calling for all Muslims to be marked on the forehead and calling for illegal immigrants to be so marked. Illegal immigrants, by definition, are malefactors: people who have broken the rules and therefore merit punishment.

"Baron doesn't see every single post most likely, and others would use comments such as that to discredit this blog. I'd like this blog to be respected, wouldn't you?"

I'd like it to be a place where free speech is honoured, without politically-correct busybodies going around telling other people what they can say and what they can't say.

You seem to be forever lecturing other people, whether it's on elocution or moral etiquette. Maybe it's you that needs to change, not me or the blog.

Baron Bodissey said...

S, people frequently warn me that commenters here will hurt my "reputation", and I just laugh. I spit on the grave of my reputation!

If the comments at Gates of Vienna reflect my own views, then I must be a Zionist, a Nazi, an atheist, a feminist, a fundamentalist Christian, and an anarchist, all at the same time.

What utter bollocks.

Anyone who thinks that the commenters here represent our opinions is too stupid to understand a posted disclaimer, so I don't bother with one.

People who comment here are free to say whatever they like within the rules, which are mostly designed to enforce civility, and to ensure that what they say doesn't induce Blogger to take this blog down.

Other than that, have at it!

Baron Bodissey said...

As for Cheradenine's suggestions about branding and whatnot, I can't help but think that they miss the point.

Any government that was willing to brand illegal aliens would have already closed the borders and deported most of the illegal immigrants.

The lack of any political will for solving the problem precludes branding, tattooing, deportation, or other more draconian solutions. Our leaders are not even willing to enforce the weak and ineffective laws that we already have.

You can dream of branding, but you might as well dream about Desmond the Immigrant Enforcement Wizard, who will cast a spell on the illegals and make them disappear.

Dream on!

sheik yer'mami said...

I wonder if Tommy Robinson knew what he was up against. Edward Mortimer is a nasty piece of work.

And yet, this young man stood his ground remarkably well. Mortimer became increasingly irritated towards the end.

If anyone has Tommy Robinson's e-mail he should sent him the link with Hugh Fitzgerald's essay "a tribute to Edward Mortimer".

Isn't it puzzling that a guy who has done so much damage, a guy who should have learned something, way back when when he was cheerleader for the Ayatollah during the Islamic revolution back in 1979 in Iran, still continues to cause damage to the West?

What motivates Edward Mortimer? How do you explain the the reasons for his subversion?

Is his ideology, his motivation different from the equally malevolent Peanut Khadr, who is finally superseded as America's worst president ever by the Marxist-Muslim Obama?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

@the Baron

"The lack of any political will for solving the problem precludes branding, tattooing, deportation, or other more draconian solutions. Our leaders are not even willing to enforce the weak and ineffective laws that we already have."

This is true, certainly, but one of the arguments the Establishment uses when debating the issue is that there are no effective remedies: that illegal immigration will somehow always be with us and we just have to put up with it, like rain. So formulating alternative policies that have the potential to be effective has to be a part of what we do to challenge them, I think.

S said...

I don't consider permanently scarring someone on the forehead for doing wrong to be any better a punishment than cutting off hands or feet. If that makes me a politically correct busy body for saying so according to anyone, then so be it. I don't think it does.

I'd like to think it makes me humane.

Blogger said...

I agree with you S; it is inhumane. People who argue for such primitive inhumane measures are also a hindrance to our cause.

Michael Servetus said...

Thoughts:
Who defines the far right? The far left? By being so far left they have defined what is to the right of them as far right when it is only moderate even liberal center. What right do they have to put Nazi’s or any other kind of group on the right?
If we once stood in the middle exactly where our ancestors and fathers once stood, our mothers and grandmothers and have not moved but stood, how is that now far right? We haven’t moved to the left or the right, we simply stayed right where we were, so how is that far right? Only if the stage is relative and the defining position is the left, taken for granted! The only way to explain it is to understand that the radicals, the immoderates, the perverts of society have moved away from normalcy(they deny any normal exists) moderation, center and moved far and away to a place unhelpfully called the left. That is no talking point that is fact.

Also, the abuse of this word tolerance and intolerance is sickening. In the beginning of video one, the host called the move to the far right, again no definition of to the far right of what. Far to the right of the extreme left, lands you in center as a moderate not embracing radical anarchical change. He calls it the politics of intolerance. Now that might be ok if people spoke and understood words literally and comprehensively but they do not and so an adjustment must be made. Intolerance of abuse and of immigration is not a hate based intolerance or a short tempered intolerance, or an impatient intolerance or a straitened intolerance, in other words not a ugly intolerance but a virtuous intolerance, the same intolerance as the love of good and the rejection of evil, as health has for sickness, sanity for insanity. An intolerance for abuse, for error, for danger, for folly, in other words intolerant as moderation is intolerant of excess, and to brek it down even further, intolerance as is to be found and expected in the very nature and essence of thihgs. But the left rebels against the most common nature even against male and female and all boundaries and they are finally bringing their soul sickness and psychological madness out to bear in society.

Michael Servetus said...

I think Tommy was great. He really shined in video one at the very beginning giving his introduction and also when questioned about multiculturalsim and generalizing. He responded very effectively by saying that it is not his group which genralizes but the politicians by saying multiculturalsim has failed and thereby not singling out who the problemed child is in the group. He said such a statement is an insult to sikhism, hinduism, judaism, the irish, etc.. who have intergrated well and are good neighbors and fellow citizens. The problem he said is only Islam, Islam alone across the globe is at war with its neighbors and nobody wants to admit that but spread blame to others wrongfully.
This was a brilliant move and strategy that rightfully turns the tables of accussation on the perverts and deranged of society, showing how their politics of ungodly love actually results in injustice, true racism and self deceived pathologies, which are the things they purport to be against.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"I don't consider permanently scarring someone on the forehead for doing wrong to be any better a punishment than cutting off hands or feet."

I think if it came down to a choice, you'd very quickly decide that you'd prefer a little mark on your forehead to having your hands or feet cut off.

"If that makes me a politically correct busy body for saying so according to anyone, then so be it. I don't think it does."

No. It's not expressing your opinion that makes you a politcally correct busybody. It's telling other people they shouldn't express theirs.

"I'd like to think it makes me humane."

It does indeed. Unfortunately, it's being humane and compassionate that got us into the predicament we are now in. We are involved in a mortal struggle for the survival of our civilisation. Being humane is not an advantage. We must be pitiless. If we cannot learn to be pitiless then we will lose.

Hesperado said...

Forehead-branding seems rather old school. I prefer injecting microchip trackers. But only when -- and as a way to aid us when -- we're ready to round up all Muslims and ship them out and drop them in the Dar-al-Islam.

1389 said...

Deportation is NOT a draconian solution, but an eminently reasonable one. Immediately massacring all Muslims wherever, and as soon as, we find them, would be a draconian solution.