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.
Bearing these subtleties in mind, watch this 25-minute video:
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?
“There is a deep divide or profound gap or abyss between moderate Islam and Islamism, and there is an opportunity created by all such incidents for people to think more clearly about the distinction between Islam and Islamism.”
Answer: He doesn’t justify it. He can’t.
Like all other apologists for Multiculturalism, Mr. Griffin makes his statement as an article of faith. It cannot be deduced from evidence, because there is no evidence to support it. In fact, one of the most prominent Muslim public figures of the 21st century, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, contradicts it — he has publicly stated that there is no “moderate” Islam or “radical” Islam; there is only Islam.
Mr. Griffin makes another questionable assertion when he says, “I don’t represent a party nor a faith community. I’m just an academic…”
The academic community is a faith community. Its adherents are staunch believers in the orthodoxy of Secular Humanism. Faith in “moderate Islam” is part of the catechism.
One other thing to point out: Roger Griffin asserts that it is “dangerous” to say the sorts of things that Kent Ekeroth says.
What is the danger?
Where does that danger originate?
Of whom should Kent be afraid?
I think we all know the answer to that. But don’t expect Roger Griffin to acknowledge it.