The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Free Speech & Civil Soc


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:
Members: 16
Latest Activity: on Wednesday

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

Discussion Forum

Civil War

Started by Joe. Last reply by Alan Lake Oct 23. 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 paul collings on Wednesday

Not sure if Maher would change his whole mind set because of this, after all he's no David Horowitz, but people do.

At the moment its a case of your with us or against us as far as the progressives are concerned.  people are taking sides. The line in the sand has been drawn.  

Comment by Philip Smeeton on Wednesday

When the facts do not coincide with the beliefs of the Leftist Progressive, an honest one will question his beliefs. It seems like Maher is waking up Paul. It's not easy because truth and belief are so entangled with each other. Some people will stubbornly believe in something, that to another person will seem patently untrue.

Comment by paul collings on Tuesday

As a  lefty he'll believe many things we'd see as falsehoods. But as far as Islam goes I think the rose tinted glasses have come of. Maybe he's a better American than I'd have previously given him credit for.

Islam goes against all those things that the left say they believe in, so maybe he's just a better lefty than those that have their best back stabbing cutlery out for him.  Although a true progressive cares not for anyone. Only the goal matters.

Maher is showing he has some principles. How soon before he losses his chat show?  A lefty chat show host with principles can't be a progressive, and can't be good for the progressive agenda.

Could he end up on Fox!! 

Comment by Philip Smeeton on Tuesday

I guess Maher basically doesn't like lies. So liars and psychopaths see him as an enemy.

Comment by paul collings on Tuesday

Bill Maher once a darling of the left getting himself shoved over to the right.

I'm not sure its the students who are calling for Maher to be replaced, its an Islamic group using the student body to silence any one who has dared speak honestly about the religion of lies, rape and murder.

Its come as no surprise. The take over of places like Berkeley by progressive groups was highlighted years ago by Frank Gaffney in America, and Douglas Murray in Britain.  

Comment by Antony on Tuesday

Berkeley students rally to remove Bill Maher - ahhh - the cream of the intelligentsia in action ;

Comment by Antony on Monday
Comment by Antony on October 24, 2014 at 7:23
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.


Members (16)


Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most prosperous Western societies are based on a model we call the Secular Democratic Marketplace (SDM). 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 principal agents exploiting these defects, is Islam. Therefore, 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 4F gives only a brief overview of how far it has advanced and by what methods.

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 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 SDM, by making them Self-Preserving (SP) according to Hobbes's first law of nature.
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 Religion
Any religious or cultural activity is allowed - except one which intrudes into the public sphere (and thus threatens these freedoms).  The public sphere is kept secular and protected from abuse by legal oversight. 
4. SP Freedom of the Market
Any economic activity is allowed - except one which leads to the destruction of these freedoms. Such activity is subject to government oversight.

© 2014   Created by Netcon.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service