The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

God help us.  This book was recommended to me.

Before I bought a copy, I wanted to find out if it was worthwhile.  Here's the bottom line:

Wiktorowicz interviewed hundreds of Islamists in the United Kingdom. After compiling his interviews he came to the conclusion that — contrary to popular belief — very religious Muslims were in fact the people who ended up being the most resistant to radicalization.

Fair, who has done a great deal of work on radicalization in Pakistan, said Wiktorowicz's work stayed with her forever. "It really was revelatory for me," she says.

Revelatory because, as it turns out, Wiktorowicz found that it was people who did not have a good grounding in the religion who were the most likely to be attracted by radical Islam.

So, some guy who knows nothing about islam goes to study in the UK, and gets the idea to interview Anjem Choudary and his unrepresentative bunch of monkeys.

From that, he concludes that (all over the world) those who are truly versed in islam are resistant to becoming terrorists.

How does that fit with the 22,000 islamically-inspired terrorist attacks across the world since 9/11?  Were they all novice converts to islam?  Was Bin Laden? Abu Hamza? Abu Qatada?  How does that fit with Anwal Al Awlaki, Sheikh Qaradawi, Mawdudi, Qutb, etc. ?

I can see what shred of evidence this "researcher" Wiktorowicz grasped onto.  He met those in British mosques who are acculturated as muslims.  It is blindingly obvious, that in their cultural tradition, they are not given to terrorism (if not, Britain would have seen its first muslim terrorists in the 1950s, when muslims began to arrive).

But after the events of 1979, islamic terrorism has spread out of the environs of Israel and across the world.  Obviously, those who have a cultural tradition in islam of not being terrorists are going to take some time for that culture to adapt.  But adapt it will.  Witness the way the burka from Riyadh has swept Bengali muslims in Britain; it's rarely seen in Bangladesh. Wahhabism and Bannaism are no doubt being exported across the world.  We have some kind of sociologist/political scientist living in an ahistorical bubble of the permanent now, this place is every place.

You can see from the above quotation, that Fair was desperate to believe this tosh.  She'd spent years studying "radicalisation" in Pakistan, and was surprised by these findings, but is gushing with enthusiasm.  Normally in academia, when someone proffers an account that goes against one's research, it results in a bitch-fight.

Clearly this was not what here research in Pakistan led her to conclude.  But she was delighted to be able to abandon that knowledge, so that she too could be granted entry into the Church of Political Correctness.

Views: 786

Replies to This Discussion

Doesn't this belong in the humour room?

The academic who recommended this book was talking to me as he observed an EDL demo.  I threw out some fairly common-place observations.  He got out a pen and notebook, and said the "those are brilliant observations, can I use them?"  

I shrugged (as they were things I'd said 100 times in the past 3 year). He started writing down what I was saying, getting me to repeat what I'd said.  No doubt they will be the cornerstone of some book he's writing.  They are so utterly clueless, as the above example of Fair and Wiktorowicz shows.

Kinana said:

Doesn't this belong in the humour room?

Priest spent 4 hours refusing to provide police with video evidence which shows terrorist fleeing in disguise.

Note how the priest says that this terrorist spent hours loudly and visibly reading religious texts for hours every day.

What a devious man.  You are right, a lot of his comments are obfuscation and manipulation.

The video says that the terrorist's behaviour was totally normal: not working, just reading the Quran by himself for 9 hours every day!

The imam has discussions with "officers of the Muslim faith", i.e. he wouldn't have taken that same opinion if given by a Kafir.

The Imam wouldn't give up the tapes, because he was worried about his Muslim women.  But he wasn't worried about the risk to them form a Terrorist (or lunatic) being in the mosque every day all day.  And he wasn't worried about the reputational damage to them and his Command Center, by not coming clean over the incident, helping the authorities, and clearly rejecting the terrorist.

The police were first sent on a wild goose chase to a sports club.  Who told them that, the imam?  Then arrest him for collusion.  Then the police were mislead in another way.  I'm sure there's a lot we haven't been told here, but its enough to know that it all stinks.

I do agree with the Imam's final point thought, oddly enough.  Because the government just pussy foots around and is a coward, it cannot and did not tell the mosque what kind of threat the terrorist posed.  I think in this case, the UK Govt is using a Have-it-both-ways argument.  They need to man up.

It does seem that people set themselves up as experts, and provided they follow the agreed narrative that Islam is the religion of peace, and that its only those that mis-understand Islam are the most likely to become terrorist's, they get a free pass.

If your a stupid Kaffir and you go with the approved version of Islam, your an enlightened intellectual, welcome to scrape your worthless arse around any mosque. If you say other wise, your a thick twat right wing nut job, who needs a fatwa.

Agree or die is the choice. People are not looking at the evidence that is plain to see about Islam. Look at Pakistan, if theres a riot where people are killed embassies attacked ect, then you won't hear the government condemning them, or the police bashing in to many heads in. All you'll hear is how insensitive the west and its army of islamophobes are.

Every action taken around the world where islam is involved is designed to appease it. All conversations are coded so as not to cause offence, which would result in riots and death.

Whilst islam turns everything it touch's into a model of 7th century Arabian life, WE are being forced to shut up and ignore it. Or we'll be subject to a bit of 7th century justice.

The government needs to understand that the public believe the problem IS Islam. And people are fed up with the people we vote into power telling us we're racist and stupid. I don't know anyone who doesn't think that Islam is a problem. Even if they only whisper it, they know it.

With holding evidence is a crime, the police should be prosecuting someone, or the public will be left to make their own mind up as to why.

That's exactly the point Robert Spencer makes.  

Say that islam encourages terrorism, homophobia, jew-hatred, misogyny, and condemn these things, and you will be barred from speaking (as Spencer often is).

Say those same things approvingly as a muslim, and you will be treated as an expert.

The double standards are so baroque that the establishment are tying themselves in knots.  In Denmark several ex-muslims have been accused of racism for criticising islam.

paul collings said:

It does seem that people set themselves up as experts, and provided they follow the agreed narrative that Islam is the religion of peace, and that its only those that mis-understand Islam are the most likely to become terrorist's, they get a free pass.

If your a stupid Kaffir and you go with the approved version of Islam, your an enlightened intellectual, welcome to scrape your worthless arse around any mosque. If you say other wise, your a thick twat right wing nut job, who needs a fatwa.

David Cameron proposing to legally to designate "islamic extremism" as being "not islam".

They're emphasizing that it has nothing to do with genuine Islam. How they will explain why "Islamist extremists" move freely among authentic Muslims without being rebuked, repudiated, rejected or reported remains to be seen. And how far they will get in tackling this ideology while maintaining the falsehood that there is no justification in Islam for it is unclear. It would be more truthful for them to be honest about its Islamic derivation and challenge the Muslim community in the UK to reform and to work with law enforcement, but truth is at a premium in the UK these days.

Will those in the UK who have spoken more or less honestly about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism now be fined? Imprisoned? Expelled from the country?

"Britain to tackle 'Islamist extremism' after soldier's murder," by Andrew Osborn for Reuters, December 4:

Dec 4 (Reuters) - Britain plans to classify "Islamist extremism" as a distinct ideology, British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday, as part the government's response to the murder of a soldier on a busy London street.

Cameron said he would implement recommendations he had received from a task force he set up after the murder of Lee Rigby in May, to try to stop people being radicalised by "hate preachers".

Two men are on trial for the killing. A court heard that one of them said it was an "eye for an eye" and revenge for what they considered to be Britain's wars against Muslims. Both have pleaded not guilty.

"This summer we saw events that shocked the nation," Cameron, who is in China on a trade trip, told reporters.

"These tragedies were a wakeup call for government and wider society to take action to confront extremism in all its forms, whether in our communities, schools, prisons, Islamic centres or universities."

"Islamist extremism" would, for the first time, be classified as a distinct ideology to guard against it being confused with traditional religious practice, he said.

Cameron wants to tackle violent ideologies that claim Islamic justification but by doing so in a way that does not alienate Britain's 2.7 million Muslims.

The new definition would make it clear that "Islamist extremism" was a distorted interpretation of Islam that betrayed the religion's principles and tried to sow division.

Britain will also draw on techniques it has used to fight online pornography to make it easier for people to report material deemed extremist and work with Internet providers to create filters to allow people to block such content.

Officials said the police could be given new powers to target "extremism" and that the government would consider introducing a new type of ban to outlaw radical groups.

"There are just too many people who have been radicalised at Islamic centres, who have been in contact with extremist preachers, who have come across material on the Internet who haven't been sufficiently challenged," Cameron said.

"I want to see an end to hate preaching in Britain."

I can't wait for someone to ask Cameron whether or not the murderous founder of islam should be classed as a muslim or a non-muslim.  Are we going to have Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Hisham all classified as non-muslim extremists?

How Cameron managed to drag himself away from his koranic studies long enough to visit China I just don't know. He's such a martyr. I suppose he's so busy he won't have time to sniff around the Dali lama this year. Still the Dali's no better, he hasn't bothered going home for Christmas in years.

I wonder if Britain is going to officially launch this new religion in the new year. I wonder if they've got a few members of the Taliban to come along. Oh I do hope Hamas are there, mix that in with a few members of Irans revolutionary guard and we're sure to have a good day out.  

I'm sure Cameron will go after those radical Ahmadiyya muslims first. Then the Shia Muslims. Everyone knows they're not Muslims at all. The Sunni's told us.  YeP, its good to know our leaders are on the case. 

I am  interested to know how they are going to define radical.  Will it be people with big beards, or people who wear sandals to the unemployment office.

Lets hope they don't think people who burn western flags, call for sharia law in our country, and wave signs calling our service personnel murder's are radical. Our prisons 'aint big enough!!! 

How about "radical = those who attend Hizb ut Tahrir conferences" i.e. around 10,000 muslims

How about "radical = those who want sharia law" i.e. 40% of British muslims

How about "radical = those muslims who want gay people punished" i.e. around 60% of British muslims

I bet that in the end, any new powers are mostly used to silence any critics of Islam.  Our spineless leaders will just take the easiest way out they can find.  

They can stop the UK pot from boiling over if they stop us blowing a whistle about it, and they can shut us up without guns and bombs going off (yet), so its a no-brainer from their cowardly point of view.

Of cause any new powers will apply to everyone in the country, and of cause they will be used to silence the troublesome whistleblowers who have noticed the country is heading for trouble.

We can't call them cowards or appeasers because that would suggest they knew something was  happening that they opposed but were just to weak to stop it.

They know what's happening and its all going to plan, apart from people like us who have decided to speak out against them.

Son of an imam becomes suicide bomber.  How is it he could have misunderstood The Religion of Peace so badly?  Was his father away from home for 10 years?


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)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service