The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

We begin this discussion with a comment from Paul:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/muslim-prayer-hall-in-corsica-v...

In reference to the attack in Corsica. Other news outlets are reporting it as an Islamophobic attack? Im not posting links to such garbage. 

Its typical of certain media outlets to fail to report the full story. There's no mention of the attacks on the Police and fire fighters, and i bet if someone with even the slightest  of interest would find there's been a long history of irritation between the two communities. Because it doesn't just happen that 600 people go on the rampage over one event. 

I've seen photo's of the so called rampage, and it looks like a small amount of damage has been done compared to similar events involving Muslims. Normally when gangs of Muslims rampage over korans or drawing of Mo or the crusades or something, the scenes normally resemble a war zone, with dead people. 

I agree. I've given up capturing those shitty, Islamophilic reports. Its clear that the quislings see no disparity between the violence, frequency and depravity of Muslim attacks, and the rare, black swan instances of kuffar response.

And you always have to dig to find the underlying truth - normally some Muslim violence finally provoking the exasperated kuffar.

As has been said before, what was the untold story behind the Bradford and Bolton riots of the 1990s? We now know that Muslim grooming gangs have been trashing thousands of underage girls since that time. Was that what provoked the riots? Don't expect the 4th estate to tell you!

The Islamic gang is clearly defined, well organised, fully funded, and totally comitted to the promotion of the gang's interests and the protection of its members. How can a disparate scattering of individuals in a confused and aimless democracy, ever compete with that? And so it is that with a little bit of string pulling here, a little bit of threatening there, combined with a fully compliant BBC, their message will always get out in suppression of the kuffar's perfunctory attempts to set the record straight.

How is this system supposed to work? Well, after incidents like mass grooming and rape of kuffar girls, 5 times normal criminality, officially codified hate speech, extreme violence and terror attacks in this country and abroad and cutting their little girls clits, followed by mealy mouthed excuses and brazen lies from Muslim leaders, people develop a societal memory. People do not create a database to stor and codify all this information, they just develop a general impression that Muslims pose a risk to them and their society. They do this in the same way that we develop a general impression that driving at high speed poses a risk to others, and if performed by a large group of people, to society in general. We dont remember all the news reports and personally known tragedies; we just form a general impression.

So why doesnt that system work anymore? Its because that accumulated societal knowledge is now called 'prejudice'.

Muslim gangocracy will replace secular democracy, and very soon, the canaries in the coalmine like ourselves, will be shut down by the very thing they are trying to protect.

Which leads to the question that Anthony puts: why isn't this blatant kuffarphobic oppression leading to protests and rebellion?

Re Corsica/Bradford etc riots, connected with this, and probably the subject of lengthy discussion, is that it is amazing just how few and far between they have been considering the awfulness of grooming gangs,fgm, heroin pushing etc - back in the day in the 70's and 80's, people used to be kicking off and rioting all the time !, why so infrequent now ? is it because the police have better detection methods, or is it because people have become so browbeaten that they don't riot anymore, or a combination of other reasons ?

I believe its for 4 reasons.

  1. People are more docile now, because there are fewer toughman jobs like coal mining around.
  2. Also, people are nicely made soporific by endless high quality entertainment, and distractions like Facebook and Twitter.
  3. The state has finely honed its control techniques. By infiltrating groups like EDL, March for England, etc, with SDS, and by destroying people like Tommy using the CPS. So that in the end, you are left with a kind of confused hydra, unsure of which way to turn.
  4. Finally, the quisling liberals of the mainstream media, and the fascist left of the social media have finely honed their Alinsky techniques to destroy the life of anyone who stands up against their 'approved' narrative. This applies to everyone, from Nigel Farage, to people like us (if they can identify us), to a random person on a bus that cracks from the kuffarphobic oppression. Thus in the end, every tiny potential leader is squashed at the very beginning, and prevented from growing into something bigger.

The process is fully perfected and very powerful, yet has the advantage of not being identifiable as a formal system, like Stalins secret police, or East Germany's network of informants, so it is much harder for people to rebel against it. How can you fight back against something that doesn't even have a name? Truly, Stalin would have been jealous of our modern systems of political control.

We don't know what Muslim gang members are active within the BBC, the CPS, the Metropolitian Police, the Guardian, Hate not Hope, etc, pulling the strings to crush all opposition.  We don't even know quislings are active in these organisations, promoting their totalitarian kuffarphobic agenda for them. Truly, it is hard to see how individual political activists in an open society, can stand up against this well organised, well funded and thoroughly embedded, Islamic political juggernaut.

Tags: Activism, Gangocracy, Individual, Muslim, Open, Political, Society, of, the, v.

Views: 338

Replies to This Discussion

Comment from Anthony:

Alan - yes - this and more ! ... and it therefore also begs the question as to how people cast off their shackles... I think that existentially, most people have an intuitive gut feeling that they are being force fed a society they don't like, and being made to pay taxes for it to boot, I don't think that "political right wing orthodoxy" will cut the mustard either as it is usually caught up in the paradigm of the establishment control mechanism.

Some eastern methods of meditation such as Daoism,Zen,Dzogchen etc were supposed to try for "instant enlightenment" that broke through social conditioning and propaganda, this is not to say "religion" is good either, but it may very well be that some quantum leap in human consciousness , whereby people have "had enough of the shit" will force things to occur.

very well put, thank you, I was having a discussion recently while visiting in the US about this, and how they are missing any strong leaders who can speak ideologically and intellectually while actually identifying the real issues that we face both in Europe and the US.  We are sitting ducks, most sit watching reality TV with their noses in their smart phones and cannot see or even fathom what is coming.  We are not prepared for what is going to hit us and I don't see how we will convince them to prepare themselves for the shapes that will come from the mist.. 

You are right they are beginning to become alarmed that something bad is down the road, but not alarmed enough to even consider they might need to prepare themselves, as who is going to protect them if the state is supporting the imminent threat against the person on the street?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Another question that must be begged - and this is one that "the right wing" will not like due to their belief in a strong figurehead/leader - is that given the state etc will bugger up any leader, or indeed organisation, it renders this sort of activism increasingly difficult... dare I mention, to put the cat amongst the pigeons, the word "anarchy", in the form of amorphous leaderless resistance and autonomous community groups ?!

Anarchy is a dirty word, as is dictatorship Antony.

Anarchy can be nothing but chaos and dictatorship is the enslavement of the masses. There has to be structure, rules and laws, but these have to be decided by the whole population of each nation.

I propose a truly democratic system where the majority decides all major policy and the government is purely administrative, its function being to implement the political will of the nation on a practical level. Public opinion and majorities will change in a fluid manner. a time limit set on policies and new referendums tailored to different situations.

Like in Switzerland, the population votes no more immigration and no more mosque building, job done, the government and laws passed ensure no more Muslim immigrants or mosques. Right, next question, next problem, new vote, next solution. Purely democratic and proportional representation. A system worked out that functions truly democratically. The strong leaders being those that implement public will most effectively. No more nepotism, no more leaders imposing their beliefs on us. the citizens given real power, and the only religion being that the will of the majority rules. No more warlords and tyrants.

I call myself right-wing because I reject socialism and am a nationalist, that thinks that at this point in history we are best served by persuading unique nations to cooperate together peacefully, than in attempting to force some sort of idealistic internationalism on the human species. 

We do not need political parties, only fluid political movements within the general population. The press should be impartial and informative not indoctrinating as it is now, supporting only one political idea. Schools have to be purely educational and teach factual and useful knowledge, not indoctrinate pupils with only one political perspective.

What will or future gangocracy look like? Well we wont just be terrorised be Sunni and Shia gangs, there'll be ethnic and criminal ones as well, all vying for power.

Gangland terror: Irish police advise journalists to leave homes over underworld threats
https://www.rt.com/news/332291-gangland-terror-ireland-threat/

Another image of how our future gangocracy will be formed.  Would you like to be in prison with this gang?  Would you be able to deal when they are released and buy the house next to yours?

France's Prison Population Estimated to be 70% Muslim

What makes Muslims big in the news are the Jihadist attacks, but not the other crimes. Jihad attacks are not the only harm the Muslim population brings, but crimes in which they get arrested and incarcerated.

France has the highest Muslim population and largest total population of Europe. There are 67.500 people currently behind bars in France, it is estimated that 70% are Muslim. Although Muslims are only eight per cent of the French population. The French government does not collect data on race, religion, or ethnicity on its citizens, making it impossible to get accurate numbers of the prison populations. But demographers, sociologists, and Muslim leaders have compiled an estimate. Muslims in England and Wales account for 14% Muslims of the prison population, according to Home Office statistics.

It is now a common statistic across Europe, especially in France. In these prisons are Jihadists Circles that are recruiting and waiting to get their revenge on the outside.

French arrest records state that 283 people are currently in prison for terrorism, 152 are classified as dangerous Islamists, and 60 of them almost all incarcerated in Paris are deemed particularly dangerous. The rest were simply arrested for non terroristic crimes.

http://www.europeanguardian.com/93-by-country/france/523-france-s-p...

Consider this example, where the muslim soft power gang are able to extort £16m from the UK government, for trained terrorists.  As if that wasn't enough, Moazzem Begg is then loved by the media as some kind of human rights star, yet he advised all Muslims to learn to fight the kuffar.

http://4freedoms.com/group/terrorism/forum/topics/uk-16-guantanamo-...

This is what happens to the kuffar, when they have no gang to represent their interests.

I think the concept of a society which operates according to abstract and egalitarian principles will be abandoned in about 10 years. It just doesn't work when you are up against a strong, violent and well organised gang, which also has an intellectual elite to pursue the soft power options. When that happens, the only way the rest can survive is if they also make their own gang.

We don't have a gang, with its gang leader, to protect us, the white British, and especially white men. Not one single gang. Even women and Sikhs have a gang they can turn to for help and support; some group to petition for their interests in the media and government etc, and form a focus for organisation. I don't think any of the current initiatives, even PEGIDA, will become strong enough to be effective, to the extent necessary. Therefore it will fall to some strong gang emerging, that will be tasked with protecting us.

And what does that remind you of? Hitler, who saved the Germans from the perils of anarchism and bolshevism, as Germany crumbled. Of course, it will be very different this time around - history teaches lessons and does not identically repeat - but the principle is the same.

Kuffar british will be hungry for someone to protect them, to argue their corner, to dish out the goodies to them instead of insisting that it's all dished out fairly. How can that work when the Muslim gang always just dishes out to Muslims? They discriminate very strongly, just like in Tower Hamlets, so the only escape from losing power and control to them, is if the kuffar also discriminate, and hand out the favours and power to fellow kuffar. Do the kuffar do that?

Egalitarian principles don't work, if you deal softly with a non-egalitarian faction. Islam should have been outlawed at the outset, when it first came to the UK, just for whats written in its canonical political manuals. But it wasn't, so it began its process of eroding away power from its opposition. And our adherence to the egalitarian, non-discriminatory application of our laws and principles directly facilitates that. Every time we enforce equality of opportunity to them, we give them ground. For every piece of ground that they control, they will enforce inequality of opportunity on us. Its a no-brainer, its simple game theory, its just a matter of time.

If you are going to have egalitarian principles (the Golden Rule), then you need to be absolutely ruthless with anyone that countermands those principles. For example, with the Salmon Rushdie affair, right at the beginning of our 'modern' stage of this power play, anyone suggesting harm to Rushdie in this country, should have been imprisoned or evicted from the country. And as for Iran that issued the Fatwa: total economic sanctions and lobbying to give it pariah status at the UN. We failed to uphold the Golden Rule, which is the foundational principle of all our other rules.

The moment you tolerate a discriminatory political movement sneaking into the structure, the whole edifice is fundamentally under threat. One has to be completely, ruthlessly intolerant of any non-egalitarian movement. I think this used to work because our parents and grandparents were like that, it was just in their blood as a way of behaving. They didn't know why they behaved like that, but they felt it. They hated Islam as an ideology, and so were wary of Muslims. But, not knowing why they felt that way, not knowing the historical background and ideological justification for that, they were hopelessly vulnerable to accusations of racism, etc, from all the so-called 'free thinking', 'enlightened', 'unprejudiced' graduates, fresh out of the universities. And its at that point that the whole edifice started to crumble.

Anyone suggesting death to apostates should be imprisoned. Anyone threatening Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Geert Wilders, or Tommy, just because of what they say, should be similarly imprisoned by the state, by a criminal prosecution, in order to protect the principle that the state "may not agree with what we say, but will defend to the death our right to say it". How long is it since that principle became a fantasy?  How long is it since we were able to talk freely and draw images freely?

You either have to be ruthless to maintain the egalitarianism, or you just give up and let the whole society revert back to competing factions fighting over distribution of the spoils - just how it used to be, actually, a few hundred years ago, before our modern democracies with powerful civil institutions took shape. When we revert, without any sense of shame about it, it will just be pure pork barrel politics. An Iraqi friend tells me sadly that that is just how it is now throughout the Middle East.

Comment from Joe

We are at a juncture that is like that around the rise of fascism - where fascism was seen as a bundle of fascia (sticks = different 'tribes' in a society, or maybe 'facets' is a better word ), all bound together by rope (the totalitarian leader).  
Have a look at this video of Milo at Rutgers University (one of America's top colleges).  I had to stop watching it: incessant jeering/shouting, and trite theatrics/obscenities from the black/Left/feminists.
 
Ayaan, Germaine Greer, Juile Bindel, UKIP, Tatchell -- all these people are banned from being able to speak at universities. Meanwhile islamo-nazis who say "gay people are to be killed" are allowed to speak (and no-one is to even mount a protest against them).  Fascism/Nazism was a threat to both communist revolution and elite-controlled pseudo-democracy.  Once fascism was destroyed, the battle was then clearer; then communism was destroyed. Leaving only elite-controlled pseudo-democracy. Who was to stop the elite doing whatever they wanted these last 50 years?
 
Direct democracy is the only solution, and it would have been easily achievable from 1995 onwards. The elite can't have that happening, as they would lose control (unless they actually rigged the voting system).
 
My last two trips into London (last Friday and today) I was amazed by how few native English people I encountered. Far, far less than 40% of the people on public transport and in shops/streets (for each trip, I could count them on the fingers of one hand. And I was nowhere near tourist traps. How is it The Demos can simply be replaced, against the wishes of The Demos (according to every survey on the subject for the past 50 years)?
 
The problem is bigger than the importation of Islam. I'm just reading "The Managerial Revolution". I'll let you know if it contains anything of significance.

 I would welcome the rise of ruthless white fascists, and I think that prejudice, and to a degree racism, is a natural social mechanism that is necessary in order that a society can preserve its integrity and survive. The Muslims and other sorts of criminal gangs that have no place in Britain, or any other nation, are absolutely ruthless and murderous. We cannot oppose them merely with rhetoric they have to be opposed with violent force. Tolerance only works between civilized groups, tolerating barbarians will get you enslaved or murdered.

Dialogue does not work against someone that is actively punching you in the face, your only defense is to be better armed.

They must be sent back to where they came from every single one.

Just another small point from a different forum.
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/why-i-stopped-wearing-the-hijab/

Hajer Al-Faham is a doctoral student at Cornell University, where she studies American and comparative politics with an emphasis on race, immigration and Islam.

Gangocracy again. How can lone kuffar activists, working in their spare time after work, compete with a group that begins working on their Islmic political project when they start studying at university, and for all we know, may even receive funding for it?
The fascist left will be violently offended by what you say Philip - ironically.

But I would like to see a simple Game Theory analysis of the outcomes. You can even swap the political designation of the acting groups, so that the modelling can't be accused of being 'racist', etc.

So let's say that group X is kuffar and uses violence to impose its supremacism on the allegedly inferior group Y, which is Muslim in name only. Group Y is strongly egalitarian and treats everyone the same and equally, in law, in employment, in friendship, in society. Then the question is, what is the outcome after several years?

The answer may depend on the starting percentages, but no problem, you can run the simulation as many times as you want. So you try X=10% of population and Y=90%; then X=20% & Y=80%, etc.
I think we will find that group X ends up controlling the society. You would program the simulation with incident frequency and the gaining of power in small units, and the establishment of precedent beneficial to group X, by individual legal cases. This would allow you to give a timescale for the total take-over of the society.

If you ran the model with the group designations reversed, so it tracks against our actual UK society with the Islamic gang promoting their own group interests only, as they do, it would even be possible to calibrate the simulation model against the last 20 years of growing Muslim power in the UK. Then, a projection into the future of the Islamic take-over of the UK would be a much more reliable indicator. Of course, if the idiots at university and in the government were doing their jobs, THEY would be running these simulations already - after all, part of it is a purely apolitical academic exercise. But I guess they are too busy ensuring that Robert Spencer isn't allowed into the country, and distracting the demos with Big Brother, Gay Marriage and Immigration breakdown.

Philip Smeeton said:

 I would welcome the rise of ruthless white fascists, and I think that prejudice, and to a degree racism, is a natural social mechanism that is necessary in order that a society can preserve its integrity and survive. The Muslims and other sorts of criminal gangs that have no place in Britain, or any other nation, are absolutely ruthless and murderous. We cannot oppose them merely with rhetoric they have to be opposed with violent force. Tolerance only works between civilized groups, tolerating barbarians will get you enslaved or murdered.

Dialogue does not work against someone that is actively punching you in the face, your only defense is to be better armed.

They must be sent back to where they came from every single one.

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service