The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Fightback by Ideology, Dialogue & Constitution

Information

Fightback by Ideology, Dialogue & Constitution

Deals with ideological threats to our freedom and society.  

Analyses argument and rhetoric in all its forms: media interview, debate, and oratory.

Also considers fight back by fixing the 4 constitutional vulnerabilities as identified in the principles of 4F.

Members: 42
Latest Activity: 13 hours ago

Key Info

Religious arguments go in the Theology Room, so all the rest (i.e. secular ones) come into this room. One-on-one arguments are treated in the same way as combat skills are treated in the UFC, as a pure skill, unrelated to the truth or falsehood (whatever that is) of the underlying message.

The CODA glossary is here:
http://4freedoms.com/group/argumentation/forum/topics/dialogue-analysis-glossary


Find more photos like this on The 4 Freedoms Library

  • "The strictly leveled playing field is not a level playing field  (it advantages thugs)" - Alan Lake
  • "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments." - Hayek, 1961

Related Sites:
http://www.ethicalsoc.org.uk
http://www.humanism.org.uk
http://www.iransecularsociety.com
http://www.secularism.org.uk

Discussion Forum

The Power Elite

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Antony Nov 10. 409 Replies

Failed Heroes of the Left: Che Guevara

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Nov 3. 10 Replies

Failed Heroes of the Left: Billy Bragg

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Kinana Oct 26. 1 Reply

4 Freedoms - Key Frameworks

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Oct 23. 7 Replies

How to Live as a Dissident

Started by Alan Lake Oct 14. 0 Replies

Jordan Peterson: Top Articles

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Oct 6. 2 Replies

Failed Heroes of the Left: Linda Sarsour

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Sep 25. 8 Replies

Failed Heroes of the Left: Esme Allman

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Sep 10. 2 Replies

Terminal Societal Sickness

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Antony Aug 2. 29 Replies

James Burnham

Started by Joe. Last reply by Joe Jul 7. 6 Replies

The Drag Queen vs. the Burqa

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Jun 21. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Fightback by Ideology, Dialogue & Constitution to add comments!

Comment by Alan Lake on May 18, 2017 at 17:44
"What we are left with Alan is personal interest".

Yes, or as it used to be called, 'enlightened self interest'. Unfortunately now, we seem to have a generation that have lost even that.
Comment by Philip Smeeton on May 18, 2017 at 17:38

Systems of belief require blind faith. Which means they cannot be true, or are only partly true. They are opinion (speculation) and differing systems have conflicting versions of what truth is. Like a political party, you vote for the one that mostly agrees with you. What is it, is it true? is what we have to ask and answer for ourselves.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on May 18, 2017 at 17:12

What we are left with Alan is personal interest. There is no given reason why you cannot kill another human being just because you feel like doing so (or burn down a house, steal and so on). Knowing this does not make it likely that I will kill the next person I encounter on the street. It is a matter of awareness and it is I believe useful to understand what morality and laws are based on. What is right and what is wrong. And in my opinion that they are choices.

The majority do not want to be murdered or to have their property damaged or taken away from them, so we agree that it is better not to do these things and society functions better with reasonable rational laws and codes of behaviour. My point is there is no absolute, godgiven, basis for anything. Walk in the forest and stick old sort of fungus in your mouth and sooner or later one of them will kill you; it is useful to learn the difference between food and poison. Just as in society it is necessary to work out what is beneficial behaviour and what is destructive. It is to our mutual benefit that the society we live in functions and satisfies our needs. Society's view on morality evolves and changes and codes of behaviour vary between nations, what is allowed in one is not allowed in another. This is obvious of course, but one should be aware of and remember it. Laws of morality are not, contrary to what some believe, written in stone. Why were we allowed to kill Germans and Japanese in large numbers in 1916 and 1944 but not now? It is not always wrong to kill and might is right when it comes to invading and permanently occupying land that was once owned by another nation.

Like all of these subjects you could use the rest of your life talking about them, it suffices though with a little awareness when tackling more pressing problems, like someone intent on killing, subduing and taking over our nation. It becomes about survival and anything you do in self-defence is morally justifiable. Especially when the enemy feels completely justified in his aggression.

Comment by Kinana on May 17, 2017 at 13:55

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Comment by Alan Lake on May 16, 2017 at 21:06
Ahh yes Philip, the struggle between Absolutism and Relativism.

An absolute value system is clear and (can be) pretty logical, plus re-assuring and even a comfort. The only pesky little problem is the starting point, that set of axioms you start it off with. You can't establish them by reason, so they just have to be asserted as a given, or article of faith.

In other words, Absolutism goes from un-reason (blind assertion of principles) to reason (building an ideology upon those principles).

A relative value system acknowledges the difficulty of the starting point, so basically says "everything is up for grabs as long as it follows the laws of reason (i.e. non-contradiction)" starting from where we are now. The problem with this approach is that is slowly unravels all your existing ideological framework, till you end up lost, confused, and with what were previously your core, unquestionable values, disappearing by the minute. This is the process of erosion that conservative and traditional values suffer over time, as long as reason is held to be king in this process. I like the way the phrase "hollowed out" expresses this.

Democratic capitalism is hollowed out by the insidious and persistent application of socialism, till eventually it collapses, irrationally, in a sea of debt, like Venezuela. Thus that very reason of "economic equality" to get better positions for the poor, ends up making them worse off.

Conventional notions of male and female behaviour are hollowed out till penis wielding men can legally enter womens bathrooms, and are allowed to compete with them in women's weightlifting championships. Thus that very reason of "gender equality" to get better treatment for women, ends up, irrationally, making them worse off.

In other words, Relativism goes from reason to un-reason (self-contradiction and self-defeat of its original intentions), i.e. the opposite to Absolutism!

It would take hundreds of pages to explore this more thoroughly, so I'll just throw in a model I use to help break it down. I ask the question "Can I find this on Mars?", if you go start a fresh human colony there. This is obviously equivalent to Philip's anthropologists going into the jungles of Borneo. Then you can try, sometimes, to side-step some of the questions. For example, punishment of a criminal is seen as a moral requirement. But you can't discover any moral laws written into the sands of Mars. However, you can find, by experiment, that if you are lax on small misdemeanours, the number of both minor, and major, criminal acts increases, so its best to come down hard on even minor offences. This 'experimental' style of approach will not work in several serious cases though.
Comment by Kinana on May 16, 2017 at 19:31

Heather, just to remind you that everything here is on public view! 

Comment by Philip Smeeton on May 16, 2017 at 17:22

You can use my name.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on May 16, 2017 at 17:21

Cultural relativism, ethics and morality. Human behaviour.

I keep coming back to a book series I read about anthropology 40 years ago Heather. Cannot remember it word perfect (or find it now), but a researcher asked a tribe of cannibals  on Borneo what they called the neighbouring tribe, their answer was "food". Other groups that had no contact with the outside world, when asked what was on the other side of the mountains answered "nothing". 

"Cannibalism has been said to test the bounds of cultural relativism as it challenges anthropologists "to define what is or is not beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

 "... Of course, there are also societies who eat people just because they like the taste. ..."

https://books.google.no/books?id=EoM7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT22&lpg=P...

I try to keep to reality and fact. I may be deluded, but I consider myself to be a perfectly normal person just like you are Heather.

Comment by Heather Gilbert on May 16, 2017 at 9:33

In response to your comments Philip. Got you now. I needed a paradigm shift in my thinking, to get where you are coming from. I put your statement that morality is a fiction on my FB wall (obviously did not name you) and asked for feedback on the statement.  Got very mixed feedback. There were a few who thought that anyone writing that is a sociopath or psychopath. Some got it. 

Very thought provoking.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on May 15, 2017 at 9:58

The sense of right or wrong is I believe not given but learned. Our own self-interest is always underlying.

 

Members (42)

 
 
 

Monitor this Page

You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

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 from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • 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