The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Kuffarphobia via Free Speech Attack & Deceit


Kuffarphobia via Free Speech Attack & Deceit

Civil society has many benefits we take for granted. 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. The Islamic term for this is riddah
  • 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

This room should be split into two: one for Free Speech and the other for Deceit and False Flag Ops (FFO). This will be done later.  Also, Infiltration, Parasitism and Segregation also degrade Civil Society - however they are in 2 separate victim rooms.

Members: 18
Latest Activity: 22 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

N.B. Nesriin (the poetess) has already closed her channel due to excessive trolling. The above video is from a mirror site.

Discussion Forum

Speaker's Corner: Status and Events

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Kinana Apr 15. 4 Replies

The Muslim Controlled BBC (MC-BBC)

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Apr 3. 75 Replies

Martin Sellner, Tommy Robinson, Speakers Corner.

Started by Philip Smeeton. Last reply by Philip Smeeton Mar 23. 7 Replies

Censorship by Google / Youtube

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Feb 25. 2 Replies

Censorship by Facebook

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Feb 9. 2 Replies

Censorship by Twitter

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Philip Smeeton Jan 13. 1 Reply

The Post-Dialogue World

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Philip Smeeton Oct 25, 2017. 3 Replies

Tim Burton Jailed.

Started by Philip Smeeton. Last reply by Kinana Aug 6, 2017. 5 Replies

Civil War

Started by Joe. Last reply by Antony May 3, 2017. 79 Replies

Geert Wilders: Speeches and Incidents

Started by Alan Lake. Last reply by Alan Lake Mar 3, 2017. 5 Replies

Free speech, free expression.

Started by Philip Smeeton. Last reply by Alan Lake May 2, 2016. 2 Replies


Started by Philip Smeeton. Last reply by Philip Smeeton Apr 25, 2016. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Kuffarphobia via Free Speech Attack & Deceit to add comments!

Comment by Antony on October 28, 2014 at 11:03

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

Comment by Antony on October 27, 2014 at 19:56
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.

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 ;

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.


Members (17)


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)"

© 2018   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service