The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

We talk a lot about how prejudiced the other side is, how unfair their media are, and how unbalanced their presentation of the facts is.  And they say the same thing about us.  So how bad is it?  How easy is it to mis-cast someone?

To answer this question, its best to go somewhere where neither us Westerners nor our enemies know what is going on.  We don't have any Martian politics yet, but as it happened, a good example just cropped up in Brazil - which I basically know nothing about.

So, Bolsonaro just got elected, and I heard all sorts of dreadful quotes from him during the election, which made me think he must be a bad guy. Surely those quotes can't be explained in context can they?  And I vaguely remember that he got stabbed, but the fact that his enemies resort to street violence has got washed away so we don't have any sense of a double standard.

Just like Theo van Gogh, Pym Fortyn, Charlie Hebdo staff, and all the others, we are supposed to forget our dead and let our enemies hold us to the highest standards of morality and justice - no matter how dirty this fight gets, and no matter how many brave speakers we lose. The double standard must be upheld even as Pakistani gangs rape our children and Nigerian fascists behead soldiers on the streets of London; because we are so, so morally superior you see? But now watch this video which explains the context behind the remarks of the "far right extremist" Bolsonaro, and it becomes scarily obvious just how easy it is to mislead people, once you have control of most of the media.

Tags: How, easy, is, it, leaders?, political, to, vilify

Views: 43

Replies to This Discussion

When our TV proclaimed he was a fascist who was sexist, racist, homophobic, they did this over images of non-white Brazilians partying to Bolsanoro's victory.  I was with my mother at the time, and had to point out to her the mis-match between the vilification and the evidence of her own eyes.  TV news then proceeded to "prove" he was homophobic, by interviewing a Brazilian christian radio host who supported him.  I thought to myself "if guilt by association is their best evidence, then there is no evidence". 

Although in the latter case, its not even guilt by association, since the connection was one way only (as presented). We need another, even weaker, English expression for guilt-by-random-other-person-supporting-you-but-you-don't-know-it-or-haven't-checked-them.

The moral of the story is that the media on both sides will tend to construct in our heads a model of an opponent that just brings up a visceral reaction of hate when we see them. It is a pure emotional reaction and altho it may have begun with a rational justification, it ends by existing in its own right, with all the reasons forgotten.

You can see this clearly when leftists in demos are asked to justify their hatred of Trump or Tommy Robinson, and they can't pull up a single fact or a single true quote to do that. All they can do is repeat the ad hominem accusations like "But he's a racist" or "He's a fascist" etc.

So we all have to fight this tendency, on both sides of the divide. We have to avoid, for example, just lapsing into hatred of Obama, but remember the things he did that we hate (like more debt than all previous presidents combined, or the Obamacare lies, or the poisoning of race relations).

A BBC report on the mid-terms told us with all the objectivity of the BBC that Trump voters voted out of hatred rather than hope.  Never mind that Obama was a race-baiter unlike Trump who is the opposite.  

Everything about Obama (and Macron, etc) is about "hope" according to our media.  Never mind that Trump voters HOPE that Trump is going to build the wall.  Their hope is only allowed to be seen as hatred.  Of course, the Vatican being protected by a wall, and Obama building a huge wall around his post-presidential home are all about "hope".  The French don't vote for Le Pen in the hope to preserve France as France; no, they vote for her out of hatred, but people who want to destroy France are voting for Macron out of hope.

Leftism is founded on the politics of hate.  Yet they usurp the term "hope" and pretend that's what they are about.  It's all about how things are framed.  And this is why the media are desperate that only their approved shills get a voice - for them social media must be destroyed, because that's a way for the public to see things framed differently.  Just like the Left trumpet the value of diversity, and then close down any diversity in viewpoint or framing.

Theresa May snubbed Bolsanaro, proving once more that she's a Leftist.

I was watching a very insightful video on YouTube by Mark Steyn.  But in a year it had only 43,000 views.  I was astonished.  How is it that someone who is so well-informed and witty, someone who's had two books in the best-seller list, someone who only makes a video every couple of weeks... should get only 43k views in a year?

I'm guessing that without the kind of "tabloid" headlines that groups like Rebel Media put on their videos, then people don't watch them.  I'm guessing also that people don't watch something that is just some author talking to camera for 15 minutes.  They'd prefer something that's only 5 minutes, and that has lots of images inserted over the voice.

True, but to put a less pessimistic slant on it, altho Mark hasn't a lot of viewers, they are dedicated, and support him financially. Better 1 person funding you than 100 or even 1000 just watching your videos.

Absolutely.  I don't doubt that.

It just depresses me that someone so on-the-ball isn't getting a million views on a video over a 12 month period.  I would think there's barely a day goes by where Steyn couldn't just be interviewed about the day's events and talk eloquently and interestingly about those events.  I'd like to see him on Newsnight every day of the week.

Alan Lake said:

True, but to put a less pessimistic slant on it, altho Mark hasn't a lot of viewers, they are dedicated, and support him financially. Better 1 person funding you than 100 or even 1000 just watching your videos.


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

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)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service