The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

I've been protesting/challenging the gay hatred on some counter-jihad sites for years.  But it carries on regardless.  So clearly, the people who run these sites don't care to restrain/censor this manifestation of Nazism (they block postings by jew-haters/anti-jewish conspiracy theories).

So there's nothing to do but to start to document the frequency of these incidents which promote hatred of gay people.  I've seen several cases of people in the counter-jihad movement saying "the islamisation of the west is the fault of gays".  Never mind that the vast majority of gay people in the west recognise that islam is fundamentally anti-gay, and that ALL the evidence points to gays being the group who muslims hate most (more than jews).

I'll post the links, and people who are interested can visit the page and search for the word "gay".  Perhaps after 100 or so of these links mount up, others in the counter-jihad movement will begin to recognise just how many Nazis there are following such sites.

Those who think that such counter-jihad sites do not have a crypto-Nazi agenda can explain why it is that they would block such posts if they were about some supposed jewish conspiracy, but not when it is about a supposed gay conspiracy.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/02/gates-of-vienna-news-feed-2112014/...

If it wasn't for jews/Leftists having done such a good job of making the world aware of the Nazi persecution of jews, I see no reason to think that the counter-jihad movement wouldn't be pinning the islamisation of the west on jews as well as gays.  But the people who are so ready to keep promoting the persecution of gays know that they would be easily cast in the role of Nazi if they were to do the same with jews, so that acts as a brake on them publishing stories which invoke anti-jewish conspiracy theories as the explanation for the islamisation of the west.

That gays were hated and persecuted by Nazis seems to be generally forgotten.  And these defenders of western civilisation who criticise islam are perfectly ready to blame/persecute gays too. The question they should be asking themselves is: "what has this story got to do with stopping islam?"  And if it hasn't got anything to do with it, then they should ask themselves why they are publishing it.

Views: 382

Replies to This Discussion

Here's another example.  Tundra Tabloids unproblematically re-posts a Dispatch International article.  The article contrasts a jew-hating march in Paris, with a gay-hating march in Paris.  

http://www.d-intl.com/2014/02/10/frances-united-front-of-jew-hatred...

http://tundratabloids.com/2014/02/nidra-poller-frances-united-front...

For the counter-jihad movement, jew-hatred = bad, gay-hatred = good.

Just what has hating gays or discriminating against gays got to do with fighting islam?

I should say, that this tendency to use islam to attack gay people is not something that I find with Geller and Spencer (and it's not something to be found in 4F or with EDL).  But elsewhere it is prevalent.

In case people cannot see what I'm talking about, here's an analysis of the Dispatch International article. (I find it very depressing that the editors of DI cannot see what is going on here).

One week later, on February 2nd, a far larger crowd marched peacefully for five hours with absolutely no violence, anti-Semitism, or disrespect for the République. The Manif’ pour tous [Everyone’s protest march] is a movement created last year in an attempt to block the passage of the mariage pour tous [marriage for everyone] Bill.

The author/editors seem to be utterly oblivious to the contradiction that the movement they are extolling as "Everyone's protest" singles out gay people for discrimination.  The article goes on to justify why there is something evil/sinister about gay people wanting equality:

Ten days before the Day of Rage, in a debate with Pierre Cassen of the anti-Islamization site Riposte Laïque, Béatrice Bourges presented her analysis of same-sex marriage and parenthood, by adoption and eventually artificial insemination and womb rental, as part of a global project of “transhumanism.” The plan is to create a New Man hors sol [without national identity] and hors sexe [without sexual identity], a slave of an oligarchy determined to rule the world by turning people into featureless units of production and consumption. Her choice of villains and vocabulary ring with the familiar string of adjectives often associated, in times of trouble, with Jews: “stateless cosmopolitan unscrupulous money-grubbing demons of finance …”

So here we have some barking, insane speaker (who in no way speaks for all or even most gay people).  This speaker's vision is equated with Nazism/jew-hatred. Supposedly she has some vision of people with no sexual identity, no national identity.  And her vision is counter-posed with that of some anti-islamization group.

But what Dispatch International are doing here, is they are taking the repugnant vision of one person, and assuming that that is the vision shared by all gay people.  If this person was the elected representative of all gay people in the world, or all gay people in France, maybe this vision could be pinned on gay people.  But she's not our representative, and I don't know a single gay person who shares her vision.  Moreover, her vision is an anti-gay vision: gay men do not want to have no sexual identity, lesbians do not want to have no sexual identity.  (I'll leave aside the issue as to whether gay people want no national identity - many of the nationalist leaders in Europe have been gay e.g. Jorge Haider, Pim Fortuyn - which shows immediately that her vision does NOT represent the vision of all gay people).  Most people who identify as "gay" or "lesbian" like that identity, and don't want to lose it.  In fact, I'm rather shocked (and disappointed) by how conservative and traditional most gay people are - the majority seem to want to ape heterosexuality, and to be recognised as not significantly different from their heterosexual friends, family, colleagues, neighbours.

Let's counterpose this: Let's make Ms. Bourges into a jew who hates Israel and wants to see Israel destroyed.  Would the author of this article, would the editors of Dispatch International, would Tundra Tabloids think that this one bizarre jew was actually speaking for all jews, more particularly, speaking for all Israeli jews?

Whilst the Leftist "Day of Rage" is characterised as being jew-hating, it turns out that even the DI author must admit that in fact it was a bizarre collection of bizarre viewpoints:

This justified accusations that the protest movement is aimed at destroying the République. But nothing can hide the Left’s paternity of a movement that coalesces dark forces from all extremes of the political spectrum. It would be impossible within the limits of this article to give an idea of the pot pourri of participating groups listed on the Jour de Colère site. Splinters, split-offs, offshoots of multiple varieties–anti-Islamization, Muslims against gender theory, anti-globalization, anti-population replacement, Catholic fundamentalists, old fashioned neo-Nazis, small businessmen, freelancers, nationalists, royalists, farmers… An undercurrent of the Jew hatred that emerged on the Day of Rage can be discerned here and there..


So, the "left-wing" Day of Rage was a mixed bag, and "an undercurrent" of "jew hatred" could be "discerned here and there".  Thus, jew-hatred was NOT the central theme of this Day of Rage.  And the destruction of sexual identity (a supposed gay conspiracy) was also NOT the central theme of this Day of Rage.

Yet, the entire focus of the right-wing demo, "the good demo", was to gather together "Everyone" to oppose the extension of the right to marry to everyone i.e. to gay people.  

The blindness and hypocrisy of much of the counter-jihad movement is astonishing.  The counter-jihad movement is full of people who are content (or even delighted) to blame gay people and the attempt by gay people to extend our civil rights.

The DI article goes on to ask: "Will the coalition of united rage, fired by the weakness of the French government, find Jew hatred as its common denominator?"

Yet this is precisely what the counter-jihad movement is in danger of doing: blaming gay people for the islamisation of the west.  Already the groups who have splintered off from the EDL have made it clear, they are having nothing to do with gays (nor with jews, for that matter).  Nazis, white supremacists, ethno-nationalists are all drawn to vociferous homophobia.  And there are even instances of these people attempting to unite with muslims around the issue of hating gays (at a 2010 General Election hustings in east London, the BNP's candidate attempted to unite with muslim voters on hostility to homosexuals).

Sorry to bang my own drum again, but this type of event should also be seen as a marker of the defects of the of our current democratic frameworks.  The above conflation of Gay and Semitic issues is too difficult for the average person to grasp in the time available.  Or to put it the other way (as people like Mussolini quickly realised), it is too easy to mislead, obfuscate or even lie to the average reader and get away with it.  So how, in a democracy, are you going to get the average people to come to a reasonable and balanced conclusion?

Just as the issue of debt funded benefits/entitlements in a democratic society is an unsolved problem, so is the issue of complex questions.

And please note that this is a new problem.  Prior to Fiat currencies and the international markets, the debt problem was not so easy to get in to.  And prior to the late 20th century, the political dilemmas were simpler.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that the editors of Dispatch International should be able to grasp this.

Alan Lake said:

Sorry to bang my own drum again, but this type of event should also be seen as a marker of the defects of the of our current democratic frameworks.  The above conflation of Gay and Semitic issues is too difficult for the average person to grasp in the time available.  

Another anti-gay story posted to Gates of Vienna.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/02/gates-of-vienna-news-feed-2122014/

What has gay marriage got to do with the siege of Vienna?

Here's 3 different discussion from the front page of Tundra Tabloids, concerned with anti-semitism. (For some strange reason, I had to visit the Google cache to check the pages are there).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://tundrat...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://tundrat...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://tundrat...

Tundra Tabloids is the site that had no problem promoting that anti-gay article from Dispatch International.

To be sure, I am not excusing the DI writers. I am not even excusing their readers! I'm just making the general point that it is now even easier to befuddle the electorate with non-trivial issues.

and I don't k ow what the answer to that problem would be, except, perhaps, more responsible coverage by the MSM - and that's never going to happen.
Joe said:

I think it is a reasonable expectation that the editors of Dispatch International should be able to grasp this.

Alan Lake said:

Sorry to bang my own drum again, but this type of event should also be seen as a marker of the defects of the of our current democratic frameworks.  The above conflation of Gay and Semitic issues is too difficult for the average person to grasp in the time available.  

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/02/gates-of-vienna-news-feed-2162014/...

What has any supposed "gay lobby" in the Vatican got to do with islam?  Would Gates of Vienna permit a story about some supposed "jewish cabal" to be reproduced by them?  No.

Well that seem s a complicated mess. As usual it looks like the politically motivated preaching to the ill informed.  First i'll say sorry Joe, because I know I'm probably missing the point your trying to make, but I do tend to see this in political terms.

If I can use a rugby analogy, what I see is people looking to whip up trouble as a way of muddying the waters, when your playing Rugby a and going into a ruck, as a forward you put your head down and storm into the opposition, grabbing hold of any one around you as you go, ramming them into the heap any way you can. The logic of weight of numbers being used to stop or push back the other side. You don't care who you grab hold of, and it matters not what damage is done.

You tread on who needs treading on, even your own, as long as the ball is won. This is how politics seems to work. The left has always pulled every body it can to itself, and then rammed them against the enemy. This has included the gay community. People on the right have seen this, although probably not realising that the gay community is used as a political weapon. All they've seen is what appears to be a huge gay army continually attacking them.

Now lets look at the gay community. How many are there? Figures seem to suggest that about 1,5%, maybe 2% of people are gay. Emmm, so its taken all the thousands of years that Britain has been an Island for the gay community to grow to maybe 2%. Not much of a take over. Or they're using the worst battle plan ever devised. ( In comparison in less than 30 years the Islamic community has gone from 0.5% to at least 4%, with the true  percentage almost certainly being higher, if you look at the amount of muslims in prison, the amount of Mosques being built, and the amount of people who refused to say their religion on the last census).

That 2% makes less than a million people. Most of whom would never go near a pride rally or run around demanding that we all be beheaded for insulting them.

The main thing is, the largest majority of gay people are known, and they are members of our society. They are our brothers, sisters sons and Daughters.  And most are not radical. So who is it that makes all the noise on behalf of the gay community.

About 3 years ago I went to Brighton on a gay pride day. Going around the pubs I met a lot of people, many of them asked me if I was gay. It was probably the first question anyone asked to be honest.  So the first thing that came to my mind was, that despite this public perception that all gays must 'look' gay, most people didn't know if I was or wasn't just by looking.  I also found that once I'd said no, most people lost interest in speaking to me. Which I thought was odd. Until as the day went on I meet will some gay lads who were more than happy to stand and drink and chat.

What I found was that it was straight people who didn't want to talk to me, and that the majority of people on the gay pride march were probably straight people, running around showing their tolerant side. Some of the conversation I heard were icky to say the least. As the day went on further I was of the impression most of the crowd were political activists roaming the crowds looking for any sign of homophobia they could pounce on. I'm sure someone will put me right on that if I'm wrong, But what I see is a minority group being used for political means.

Before the world governments suddenly insisted on getting involved in gay marriage, I hadn't seen any mass movement by the gay community in Britain, never mind the rest of the world, demanding on the right to get married in Church by a priest, who would pronounce them man and wife. The drive for gay marriage seems to politically motivated. It seems as though the gay community is getting dragged into any political ruck, whether they like it or not, and so the ill informed members of the public see, what they think is a very large, high profile group making demands and standing with Islam, and so they are starting to attack them.

Most gays I know, long ago learned that Islam will not tolerate them, but the socialists have stood the gay community shoulder to shoulder with its Muslim allies, and as the left control the media, and the political landscape of Britain all minority groups will be banded together and used as a battering ram against right leaning groups, and as the battle lines are drawn and people chose their side, the right side will start drawing in its fair share of extremists, who will, like us write blogs, and gather like minded people to their cause.

Its subtle at the moment, but people are choosing their enemies, and they are also choosing who they expect to be their allies.

RSS

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)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service