Tuesday, April 03, 2012

The Abyss Between Fact and Fantasy

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.

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.


Anonymous said...

Even if it were meant ironically, referring to a professor at Oxford Brookes as an "Oxford don" is absurd. Whatever the faults of contemporary Oxford, there rests a gulf, or an abyss, as it were, between it and an upstart like Brookes. Had an actual Oxford professor made such an illogical statement, it would have been newsworthy; but coming from a member of a relatively undistinguished institution, the importance is, I think, small.

Cyrus said...

Very nice how Mohammed knows all the words to play and the subtle threats to use in 'conversing' with Kent Ekeroth. The man seems disingenuous, while the professor just seems like a useful idiot.

Madpiltzer said...

RT is no friend of the West. This channel is consistent in their siding with the Islamicists and mass immigration into the Western nations. Peter Lavelle, being the voice of RT, is always combative and condescending towards any nationalist they ever allow on their outlet. Although, it was amazing to see him hold back on his usual setup questions and directing of the conversation in this episode as he did “attempt” to give Kent a couple moments between the other’s ranting.
Lavelle knew the opposition guests were clearly able to dominate and block Kent almost entirely (Kent doesn’t seem to understand that these people use very aggressive debating techniques) he had to make it appear “fair” by pulling him in only to be dominated by the attack dog, Mohamed. Kent was not really permitted to make any points without being talked out of audibility by Mohamed.
Griffin used the debating technique of ignoring any real points by the opposition and redirected the conversation to their own agenda talking points.
It kills me whenever I hear of any nationalist promote RT as somehow non-bias or impartial. I’ve been observing RT’s coverage of Nationalist issues for a few years and have found them to be only a less blatant propaganda outlet than our own MSM.

myurbanphilosophy said...

What is quite interesting in all the debates with "far right" politicians groups leaders etc is the same thing happens in every debate.

The commentator even opposition usually don't actually listen to what these guys are saying. This was apparant in the recent big questions debate with Tommy Robinson. Tommy the sweden democrats guy etc represent a large portion of society.

The fact is that on the ground level, things are happening to cause people to turn to groups such as sweden democrats edl etc. The professors, lecturers etc dont live and work within those areas and really have no clue whats going on.

Also in all these interviews, you get a muslim representative which always plays the victim card, appears to be the most liberal of muslims, and again does not listen or counter the arguement the opposition puts across.

Its always the same "your peddling hate" "you spread fear" "you generalise all muslims" "you are dividing communities".

They fail to realise this things already pre-exist, and these groups are actually the reaction to the pre-existing conditions in communities.

Also not once have I ever heard the leader of the EDL, PVV party, Front Nationale, Sweden democrats, DPP etc generalise all muslims.

The oxford don, does have a point in seperating islamism,islam and muslims etc, which all of the above groups have tried to do as best they can.

One thing that needs to be answered is, assume all muslims renounced violence and accepted the western way of life as the rule of law, but still under the process of freedom of religion actively followed their faith. Add the ever increasing demographic balance between muslim and non muslims. You are still bound to see an islamisation of Europe.

But in theory if they reject violence etc and behave in the same manner as sikhs jews hindus etc, then surely most would say there is no problem with this.

But is this only acceptable because the other groups are small minorities? If these minorities were to grow in the same manner as the muslim population, would these groups come under attack.

So for example would Belgians want to live in a society were say 30-50% of the population were peace loving sikhs, and their landscape cities etc dominated by the sikh culture and places of worship?

Assume we go along the tones of new groups such as say British Freedom party, that accepts multi-racialism, but not multiculturalism. Assume we reach the point were we have a multi racial society but a British culture. Would you want to live in a monocultural British society that is 70% non white?

All questions that need to be asked. Strangely enough im actually mixed race. But I would not want to live in a society that is 70% non white. Perhaps that makes me racist I don't know. But as iam mixed race is that even possible, as assumingly I would be racist against my own race?

Need to stay off the coffee methinks.

john in cheshire said...

It is noticeable that the mohammad guy has a very short fuse. He kept on about how people like Kent should be calm and engage in discussion. But as soon as mohammad heard something he didn't like, he started to raise his voice and point his finger. I don't think Kent was given sufficient opportunity to make his points and to be honest, having watched quite a few Cross Talk programmes, I always come away disappointed at how little light is thrown on to any subject in discussion. And Mr Lavelle talks too much and interrupts too much, despite him saying anyone can 'jump in at any time'. In short there was no discussion just a socialist and a muslim ganging up on one of us normal people and trying to silence him.

goethechosemercy said...

They're playing it safe, having this modernist historian speak for the supposed rift within Islam.
If they had brought on a historian with ancient and medieval training as well, the answers would have been different.
Or a modernist with in-depth study about the ancient and medieval worlds.
Winston was right.
The greater your knowledge of ancient and medieval history, the further back you can go, the more depth of understanding you bring to modernity.
Modernity itself is no wonder.
It's time we stopped treating it as if it were.

Anonymous said...

Please don't tar the entire academic community with the same brush. Although there is a distressing number of academics that toe the "moderate Islam" line, there are dissenters among the ranks. Eventually, the '60's and '70's leftovers will retire/die off/depart, and sanity will return.

I hope.

Robert Marchenoir said...

This is a textbook case of Muslim double-talk and intimidation.

Phase 1 : the Peaceful and Reasonable Muslim says terrorism is abhorrent to the vast majority of Muslims, who are peaceful and reasonable and yada yada yada.

Phase 2 : the Islamophobe du Jour attempts to say that maybe Islam and Islamism are not that far apart. As soon as he tries to give evidence of this...

Phase 3 kicks in : the Peaceful and Reasonable Muslim begins to get very agitated, interrupts him, talks over him, says he has no evidence of this, and warns him that it is very dangerous to say such things.

In other words, he openly intimidates and threatens him. He uses verbal violence in order to gag him.

Here, the method is displayed in full view of everybody.

When Phase 1 does not win the day, Phase 3 invariably happens. That's a Muslim law of physics.

Anonymous said...

'academic' - "the 'massacre' as you call it..." Eh?

M.O.B. said...

To be fair, Mr. Griffin did defend Mr. Ekeroth from accusations of being "far right" at some point. It doesn't detract from his lies or self-delusions about Islam and multiculturalism, and it may well be a strategy to make his other points sound more credible and balanced, but credit where it's due.

Anonymous said...

I find it absurd.

When you are in somebody's house you do what they tell you to do. If they don't want you there. They can kick you out for whatever reason. Period.

When you are in another's country/culture/etc YOU ARE THERE OUT OF GOOD GRACES. If you don't like it, as they say, there's the door (don't let it hit you on the way out).

Obviously the "far right" gentleman was very polite and didn't interrupt while the Muslim not only interrupted but was incredibly rude.

He [the muslim] should be thankful that I wasn't the person he was talking to because I would set him straight.