The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Free Speech & Civil Soc

Information

Free Speech & Civil Soc

Civil society has many benefits we take for granted, so these are being eroded by a process often called "soft jihad".  For example: 

  • loss of free speech, via increased legal or media censorship and speaker intimidation
  • loss of equality in law, via special treatment for Muslims
  • loss of community policing, via  acceptance of self-regulating Islamic zones
  • loss of justice, via decadent judges and witness intimidation
  • loss of fair elections, via false voter registration and voter intimidation
  • loss of safe employment, via media directed vilification and employer intimidation (as performed e.g. by the Animal Rights movement)
  • costs and burden of security checks due to terrorism
  • burden of admin and security checks due to fraud by criminal communities
  • loss of a polite society, because some of the public are hostile and un-approachable, with hidden faces and threatening dress

Clearly Infiltration, Parasitism and Segregation also degrade Civil Society - however they are in 2 separate victim rooms.

Also, Crime and Terrorism cover the initial costs of the acts, but even if brought under control, the whole society is left with the administrative burden of extra security checks, as has happened with car insurance and aircraft journeys.

Search Site: http://4freedoms.ning.com/main/search/search?q=Zcensorship
Members: 16
Latest Activity: 4 hours ago

Key Info

Anyone curious as to why there aren't more Gay spokesmen to speak about Gay ethnic cleansing in Tower Hamlets, or Women to speak against FGM, need only look to this room for the reasons.

Self importance is man's greatest enemy. What weakens him is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of his fellow man. Self importance requires that one spends most of one's life offended by someone or something - Carlos Castenada


http://4freedoms.ning.com/video/buried-chest-high

Discussion Forum

Civil War

Started by Joe. Last reply by Alan Lake 19 hours ago. 46 Replies

BBC Bias

Started by paul collings. Last reply by Kinana Oct 16. 7 Replies

UK: The Telegraph: Friend or Foe? - by P A Murphy

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Paul Austin Murphy Jun 23. 11 Replies

UK: Brian Eno - the perfect Dhimmi

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by shiva Feb 20. 2 Replies

Muslims Abuse Race Relations Law

Started by Paul Austin Murphy. Last reply by Paul Austin Murphy Feb 8. 4 Replies

The Socialist Workers Party/SWP (now Unite Against Fascism/UAF)

Started by Paul Austin Murphy. Last reply by Paul Austin Murphy Jan 10. 4 Replies

Sweden's Progressive Surveillance Society

Started by Paul Austin Murphy Dec 22, 2013. 0 Replies

Today Everything & Anything is "Racist"!

Started by Paul Austin Murphy. Last reply by Paul Austin Murphy Dec 10, 2013. 7 Replies

Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Free Speech & Civil Soc to add comments!

Comment by Antony 7 hours ago
Comment by Philip Smeeton on October 15, 2014 at 16:02

What Osama in fact says is:

“Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission [conversion]; or payment of the jizya, though physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

Sorry to confuse, but I rewrote Sam Harris in an attempt to compare attitudes to when it was right to kill someone.

" Some propositions(beliefs) are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for believing them." -Osama bin Laden. (be killed for believing in Democratic Liberty and Equality).

Another way of looking at it is that Sam says its okay to kill people for believing something, Osama says its okay to kill people for not believing something.

Comment by Alan Lake on October 15, 2014 at 15:32

That's an interesting contrast of statements, Philip.  I'm just checking, but is the one from OBL defniite?  Because it doesn't sound like the kind of thing he would say.

But in any case, that whole line of thinking is a dead end.  We have to distinguish between universal frames of reference, and personal frames of reference.  For example, we can all agree on using the meter and gram to measure things, so that's a universal frame of reference.  But we have to be careful not to assume that all our frames are universally applicable.  

This is the mistake that Christians constantly make, when they seek to justify their beliefs (to a non-Christian) by using the bible.  The bible is a frame of reference that is only applicable within the sphere of Christian people - and of course, it works really well in that area.  But it should not be used in arguments with non-Christians.  For that, one needs to find another common frame, like for example, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, otherwise the discussion will be like that between someone speaking Swahili and someone speaking Latin - none of the messages connect.

The same is true with the use of the word 'ethical' by Sam Harris and bin Laden.  It doesn't help.  You can also see it as a form of begging the question, or tautological (circular) argument, because when asked what he means by 'ethical', the speaker will give exactly the set of beliefs he is seeking to justify or warrant.

So what Sam Harris is trying to say is:

"Our common belief system rejects as unethical the killing of other people, in nearly all circumstances (or for some people, all circumstances).  However, I identify an exception, in that It is permissible to kill people that make statements that threaten the very existence of our free and democratic society.  I prove that this is a valid exception, by reference to the fact that it is ethical to protect a free and democratic society from extinction"

But what he is actually saying, when you break down the language, is simple assertion of belief, not a reasoned justification of belief:

"In my belief system, I mandate that it is reasonable to kill people who make certain statements.  Those statements are the ones which threaten the very existence of our democratic and free society"

So is there a place for the word 'ethical'?  Yes, certainly.  We can use it as a shorthand, to communicate to the listener that that 'ethical' act is one that is approved of in our frame of reference.  That will help him to understand exactly what our frame of reference belief system is.  However, this must not be confused with communicating the justification of that belief system.  That has to be done by a far more rigorous method than simply attaching the label 'ethical' to its assertions.

In this particular case, it would be more sensible for Sam to first ask:

"Do you believe there are any circumstances in which the state may execute people?"

If the answer is 'no', then he may as well stop there.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on October 13, 2014 at 10:41

" Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." -Sam Harris.

" Some propositions are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for believing them." -Osama bin Laden.

Is there any difference between Sam Harris and Osama?

Sam says we have to kill the killers to stop them killing again (because we can't capture them all, and they will continue to kill because of their beliefs).

Osama says we must kill those that do not agree with us (because we can't convert them all, and our beliefs tell us to exterminate everything that is not Muslim).

Comment by Antony on October 12, 2014 at 22:26

Sam Harris - the mechanics of defamation ; http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

Comment by Philip Smeeton on October 11, 2014 at 15:58

Intellectual suicide. When Ayatollah Khomeini could say, "We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention. What we are afraid of is Western universities".

Why do the leftist liberal intellectuals not fear Islam? Islam is fundamentally opposed to freedom, science and reason.

But Muslims no longer have anything to fear, the universities capitulated at the first accusation of bigotry. So who rules the university campus now? Try to exercise your democratic right to voice your opinion at a university.

Comment by Antony on October 1, 2014 at 11:27

Joe - I guess they would also have to ban the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution - the right to keep and bear arms - as inciting terrorism, contrary to what dolts like Obama etc say, it is'nt there so farmers can shoot crows, or even to stop armed burglars etc - it is there to enable the citizenry to form militias et al to overthrow tyranny... obviously any tyrant in power would not refer to pro-democracy/anti-dictatorship popular movements as freedom fighters, but as "hate groups" and "terrorists" !

Comment by Joe on October 1, 2014 at 11:16

Antony, they would need to ban/censor the koran, hadiths, and other books (such as Ibn Ishaq).  It must be going on 10 years now that Geert Wilders has called for the koran to be banned following the consistent application of Dutch laws prohibiting anti-semitism.  Wilders was considered extremist for calling for the existing law to be consistently applied; yet UK governments can ban all criticism of islam, or ban all "extremism", rather than focus on islam.

Whilst any chronological koran shows Mohammed ended his life saying "kill the unbelievers", there is no point in banning anything else.  But we can be sure that these proposed laws will be used to silence the likes of Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, etc.  Meanwhile Anjem Choudary (and 1000 imams) will be able to direct muslims to the relevant parts of the (unbanned & uncensored) islamic texts.

Whether or not the elite have deliberately planned to islamise Europe in order to destroy (the semplance of) democracy we have is irrelevant: the end result will be the same thing.

Comment by Antony on October 1, 2014 at 10:59
Comment by Antony on September 30, 2014 at 9:17

UK Govt to restrict free speech under the cover of restricting islamic extremism ; http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-ban-extr... , so not only do the elite get to import cheap labour and a strategy of tension, they can use it to restrict free speech, I'd say much of the islamist propaganda over the web comes from abroad anyway (apart from Anjem Chouhury ...) so you can bet you're bottom dollar this will be used to silence groups such as EDL etc

 

Members (16)

 
 
 

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

The threats to Secular Democracy (SD) arise due to fundamental vulnerabilities (or bugs) in its constitutional model. Hence the 4 Freedoms definitions give 4 corrections to those constitutions.

We are not hopeful of those corrections being adopted, because SD rests on an even more fundamental fallacy: that it is similar to Adam Smith's free marketplace of prices - which leads to a successful economy.

Therefore, The 'open marketplace' of ideas driven by an invisible hand of rational self interest, is thought to lead to successful government.  But ideological faction is not equivalent to economic grouping, because the rational self interest of ideological actors performs differently to that of economic actors. Consequently, the open society of SD, will succumb gradually to any strong, unified gang, of which, Islam is one example.

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 4F gives only a sample view of how far it has advanced and by what methods. We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and will force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow Muslims the possibility of escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close the 4 vulnerabilities in the standard model of Western Secular Democracy.
1. Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of free speech and democracy
2. Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed -except one advocating the end of free speech and democracy
3. Freedom from Religion
Religion & culture operate freely in the private sphere, but are regulated by law in the public sphere, which is kept completely secular
4. Freedom of Resources
The government is not allowed to control resources which can just as well be directed by individual choices

© 2014   Created by Netcon.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service