The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

This shows clearly the treachery of the Tory Party.  Has any Tory MP (or Lord) dared to stand up and speak the way Douglas Murray has?  Nope.

In the early 1970s, the Conservative controlled GLC gave Tower Hamlets to muslims.  The muslims were allowed to mark out the territory they wanted.  White flight and mass immigration into that borough then gave us Lutfur Rahman, and neither Labour nor Tories being able to win unless they did the bidding of muslims.

When the Rushdie affair happened there were 950k muslims in Britain.  And still the government felt they could do nothing to make those muslims behave like civilised people - they marched on the streets, openly threatening to kill Rushdie. Now there are over 200% more muslims than then, and we've had ample evidence that the problems are worsening every few years.

15 years after Rushdie, wave after wave of muslims in Britain were involved in failed, foiled or successful terrorist attacks (in 10 years there were 3 terrorist attacks on the tube: 1 failed, 1 foiled and 1 succeeded, and the tube is as vulnerable now as it was in 2005).  And still the Tories let muslims keep on coming.  By concealing the statistics about prison, by refusing to talk about the racist attacks by gangs of muslims, etc.

Douglas Murray gave the key speech as the 2006 Pim Fortuyn memorial lecture.  http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/gays/forum/topics/douglas-murray-wh...

Here we have an openly gay man who has made a career out of dissecting islam and multiculturalism.  Addressing a conference to remember the gay man assassinated for islam, the first political assassination in the Netherlands in 400 years.  And the talk was given 6 months after 7/7.

Douglas Murray was not a Tory MP.  He was not a Tory candidate.  He was not a Tory councillor.

Muslims know he is gay.  They know he is no ex-soldier.  They know he has criticised them and their religion, and wanted to put stringent measures in place to stop them.  Of course, Douglas Murray has no police guard like Cameron, or Blair still has at our expense.  And rather than reward him for his bravery, his persistence, his temerity, Cameron and the other Tories in LibLabCon punished Murray. Presumably they stopped funding the CSC, leading it to close.

Yet by 2011, David Cameron comes around to admitting that multiculturalism has failed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 

We are at the end of 2012, and 60% more arrests on terrorism charges were made than in the previous year.  Anti-aircraft missiles were stationed on top of residential buildings around the Olympic site.  The entire population is going to be kept under surveillance (both in the UK and the US).  The 5th Amendment to the US Constition is going to be neutered: the American government is going to be able to indefinitely imprison American citizens without charge.

And all because people like Cameron are too cowardly to even allow Douglas Murray to make that kind of speech without him being punished.  Through their fraudulent actions, many MPs brought Parliament into further disrepute, and I doubt they face any kind of chastisement from their party, even over such petty and venal offences.


Well, when the shit hits the fan, the country is going to want Doughlas Murray as our Churchill, and Cameron will be seen as our Chamberlain.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/10/by-paul-goodman-...



Paul Goodman: Why the Conservative frontbench broke off relations with Douglas Murray - and what happened afterwards

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

Islam and Islamism are different

The struggle against Islamist extremism demands the separation of Islam, a complex religion, from Islamism, a political ideology. It also requires other qualities: judgement, self-control, attention to detail, patience and a sense of proportion - plus the acknowledgment that while the ideology is a threat to Muslim and non-Muslim alike, the religion is not. To use words that suggest otherwise is to present some of our fellow citizens as mortal enemies on the basis of their faith.  Were government to take such a view, its political strategy to combat Islamist extremism would start at a disadvantage, since this must attempt to win the support of Muslim minds and hearts.

Readers must judge for themselves whether I have practised what I am preaching above, both in Parliament and out of it - and whether, in turn, my speaking and writing has had any effect in holding Labour's failures to check extremism to account, helping to shape the Government's Prevent Strategy and stopping the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jamaat-e-Islami from infilt....  All I would add is that there is evidence to suggest that I am not exactly the pin-up boy of either.  Perhaps there is a connection between this fact and my part in ensuring that the Conservatives adopted tough rules for dealing with Islamist extremists.  These included not entering into partnership with them, funding them, or speaking from their platforms.

Douglas Murray's Amsterdam speech: "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board"

In 2006, Douglas Murray made a speech in the Dutch Parliament called "What are we to do about Islam?"  His answers were uncompromising.  "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition".  How this was to be done was not set out exhaustively, though Murray suggested demolishing mosques in certain circumstances.  He also said that "all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop" (presumably including that of non-Muslims from those countries, such as atheists and Christians).  Finally, he suggested that European Muslims who "take part in, plot, assist or condone [my italic] violence against the west must be forcibly deported to their place of origin".

Murray explained that by "the west" he meant western troops as well as western countries.  "Where a person was born in the west," he said, "they should be deported to the country of origin of their parent or grandparent".  I take an unyielding view of those who support attacks on our troops, and have campaigned for government to sever all links with groups that do so.  But Murray was making demands less of Islamist extremists than ordinary Muslims.  A reasonable reading of his words is that any British Muslim who opposed whatever war an allied Government was waging at the time should be expelled from his home country.  I was later shown his speech by other members of the Conservative front bench, who were extremely concerned about it.

An early repudiation would have spared Murray time and trouble

I wrote earlier about the virtue of a sense of proportion.  It is important to apply it in this instance.  Murray wasn't trying to subvert the norms of liberal democray, as many Islamists do, let alone seek to destroy them through terror.  But liberal democracy would eat itself were government to seek to make the life of some of its citizens harder because of their religion.  Or to refuse immigrants entry because they came from, say, Bosnia rather than Nigeria.  Or to deport British citizens for opposing wars waged by other governments.  Such views are contempible and reckless.  Contemptible, because of their inhumanity.  Reckless, because of their imprudence: rather than winning hearts and minds, the speech was framed in such a way as to lose them.

The solution seemed to me to be obvious.  Murray should disown his remarks.  He could, for example, say that "I realised some years ago how poorly expressed the speech in question was", and confirm that "my opinions have also altered significantly".  The Conservative front bench would then be able to enjoy normal working relations with his Centre for Social Cohesion, which my colleagues now demanded should be curtailed altogether - reasonably enough.  I went to see Murray and put this suggestion to him.  He would have spared himself a great deal of time and trouble if he had taken it.  And such an apology would have been a sign of strength, not weakness.  But in this case strength was wanting.  Our meeting ended without agreement.

Such a repudiation was not forthcoming - so the Conservative Party broke off relations

The front bench duly severed formal relations with Murray and his centre.  This rankled with him - and as proof of this claim, I cite his article in last October's Spectator, titled "Blackballed by Cameron".  It gave an account of our meeting which was careless with detail but emphatic on essentials: "I refused to change my opinions", he wrote, in relation to the Amsterdam speech.  Readers may have wondered what these were, since he didn't quote from it directly (no doubt wisely).  Instead, he offered a partial summary from which his call for "conditions for Muslims in Europe [to] be made harder across the board" was absent, and which avoided mention of the potential eviction from their own countries of those Muslims who oppose wars waged by our allies.

The courage that had been wanting in our meeting thus failed for a second time. Murray didn't name me in the piece, referring instead to "A Cameroon loyalist" (not a description Downing Street would necessarily recognise).  I decided to take it easy.  After all, Murray hadn't identified me, and it seemed best to let the matter go - and not respond to what may well have been an attempt to provoke that most tiresome of literary endeavours, a feud between writers.  Murray, however, turned out to be less relaxed.  I am no longer a public figure, and my views are therefore of little significance.  But he returned to the attack earlier this month, this time naming me, and misrepresenting remarks about polling that I wrote on this site in ....

Five years on, a repudiation is finally forced

Rightly or wrongly, I felt that this time round there was little alternative but to reply both on ConservativeHome and in the Spectator, spelling out in the latter case the back story behind his articles.  His response on this site this weekend was twofold: to retreat headlong from his previous position, and to hurl new mispresentations while doing so in the hope of disguising his flight.  It also marked the third time he has taken refuge in highly selective quotation.  Just as I have never ascribed a special importance to what Muslims say in opinion polls - and just as he did write that "conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board", before glossing over those words - I have never recommended Islam above Christianity.

But to pause to brush away the mud is to play Murray's game.  So is to linger over the debate over gay marriage, to which his latest article adds nothing.  I argued on this site that once one has opened the door to gay marriage it may not be so easy to close it to multiple sharia marriages. Murray's response is to take more or less the line I anticipated. "Marriage, in our culture, not to mention law, is between two people," he writes.  Not exactly: it is between two people of different genders (or sexes if you prefer).  Once the requirement that the genders be different has been dispensed with, it becomes easier to dispose of others - such as the insistence that polygamous marriages, a custom throughout much of the world, are not recognised by the state.

Some of those who practice a religion and some of those who don't may thus unite around a common secular view: that the state would do best to leave marriage as it stands.  This is mine, and Murray is thus wrong to insinuate that I "believe that laws should be made by divinely-claimed mandate".  But this latest act of disingenousness is only the prelude to one much greater.  He now claims that the quotations from the Amsterdam speech are "not opinions that I hold" and that "I realised some years ago how poorly expressed the speech in question was, had it removed from the website and forbade further requests to publish it because it does not reflect my opinions".  This is his retreat - five years on.

But if Murray disowned his Amsterdam speech "some years go", why was he still championing it as recently as last October?

However, even in surrender he is economical with accuracy.  Murray claims to have realised that the speech was poorly expressed "some years ago". But as I pointed out earlier, he defended it in print only last October: "I refused to change my opinions", he wrote.  Furthermore, he cited the support of others for them. "What I advocated had been argued by members of the conservative party of Holland and was, and is, being argued by mainstream politicians across Europe".  Readers will scour the piece in vain for the slightest hint that the views of the speech are "not opinions I hold", or for the faintest indication that he considered his words "poorly expressed".  In short, Murray praised a speech twelve months ago that he now claims to have disowned for years.

Furthermore, I can find no previous record of him renouncing his Amsterdam speech - the course that I recommended to him when we met before the election.  It is thus reasonable to ask whether he would have done so had I not raised the matter recently.  Readers must decide for themselves whether first surreptitiously to remove a speech from a website, then laud it in print without direct quotation, and finally disown it under pressure - while claiming to have done so long ago - is decent or not.  I believe it is part of a pattern of disingenuousness.  Murray was disingenuous in attacking me without admitting a motive.  Disingenuous in suggesting that I give Muslim opinion a special weight.  And disingenuous in implying a hostility on my part to secular government.

I have supported gays in East London against Islamist violence and hate

Above all, he is disingenuous to present me as conniving in anti-gay Islamist prejudice.  I have supported gay people in East London against Islamist violenc....  By contrast, Murray still has not a kind word to write about Muslims: indeed, his piece suggests that since gays are persecuted by Muslims abroad, the views of their co-religionists on gay marriage must not be sought here.  He presents a partial account of them.  First, he cites a figure for those believing homosexuality should be illegal - quoting the highest one available from the survey in question.  Next, he produces one for those wanting to live under "sharia law" - again, citing the highest figure.  Given this creative use of statistics, he is unwise to throw claims of bigotry around.

Which he has, clearly hoping that I will return the term.  I must disappoint him - opting instead for telling the tale of his speech and what followed, complete with links to original pieces which he has failed to provide, so that readers can make their own judgement.  But it is impossible to conceal my view that he lacks the judgement, self-control, attention to detail, patience and sense of proportion that I listed earlier as essential to any cause, let alone one so important.  I wouldn't dare to draw such a conclusion on the basis of one speech, however rash.  But there is enough of a history of injudiciuous remarks and inflammatory attacks to make it inevitable.  Murray is a weapon that harms rather than helps the causes in which it is deployed.

Murray's words stand, as do mine

He cites the sturdy reports of the Centre for Social Cohesion, of which he is Director, to claim otherwise.  The first three pages of its website list 15 publications.  His name graces only two of them.  I suspect this is an accurate reflection of the glory-to-work ratio.  While the Director was pursuing Tariq Ramadan across the television studios of Europe, the staff were knuckling down to the hard grind. At least one of its former members did not enjoy the experience: his time at the centre, he wrote, was "a constant struggle to 'de-radicalise' Murray and to ensure that the centre's output targeted only Islamists – and not Muslims as a whole".  This may help to explain why the Centre is now inactive and Murray's own influence with government is zero.

I am sorry to have burdened readers with such a long article, for three reasons.  First, because literary disagreements are wearisome (so I won't return to this one at length).  Second, because writing against Islamist extremists is more important than writing about him.  Third, because I should perhaps have dealt with all this before, recognising that the precocious talents of my old friend simply won't grow up.  "My opinions have altered significantly," he writes.  None the less, there is no evidence for such a claim in his piece for this site: he seems to view all Muslims as a potential personal threat.  He seeks to explain away a grotesque lack of judgement.  But his words stand, as do mine.

Views: 2796

Replies to This Discussion

Working out political ideas is just like computer programming.  It takes time to get it right, and you have to make mistakes, and you have to run it thru the machine a few times at least, to understand why it doesn't work how you intended or hoped.

Its ridiculous to obsess about ideological errors in the far past, just as its ridiculous to obsess about program bugs you fixed 6 years ago.

Murray's remarks were clearly wrong because they violated one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual properties but can discriminate based on individual acts) of SD (Secular Democracy). Therefore, he should either have withdrawn his remarks, or shown how a viable SD can be constructed without that principle. Its a no-brainer.

The world is crying out for a more formal 'machine' or system to run these conceptual structures through, instead of endless argy-bargy and recriminations in human writing.  Its pointless and endless.  If I can only live long enough, I'll try construct the beginnings of one.

That's not my point.  I don't expect politicians or most people to be able to produce or work with such a calculus of debate.

My point is that Douglas Murray was addressing a clear and present danger.  He was speaking in the context of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn (and in a country that had then witnessed the assassination of Theo van Gogh two years after that, and a siege in a house opposite the Dutch parliament, where muslim terrorists had been holed up, waiting for their opportunity to assassinate both Geert Wilders AND Ayaan Hirsi Ali).  He was speaking in the context of a successful bombing of the Tube and an unsuccessful bombing of the Tube the previous year.

In that context, what he said was reasonable.  Secular democracy was (and is) under threat from within.  He came up with reasonable propositions of what will need to be done (undoubtedly we will get to the situation Murray describes, but the spineless and treacherous politicians will make sure it takes another 10 or 20 years to get there, by which time it will be so much harder).

For this, he was persecuted and ostracised.  Very likely, the CSC was forced to close.  Despite him stating that his comments were not those of the CSC, but his personally.  Society was further damaged by Cameron's actions.

As for Secular Democracy not being able to discriminate against people on principle, a serving Tory MP has been able to suggest that legislation be re-introduced that permit specific discrimination against gay people: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/07/bob-blackman-section-28_...  Has the Tory party withdrawn the whip?  Have they even commented on his plans to legislate discrimination?

And let's not forget the discrimination that was enshrined in both Britain and the US without anyone saying a word: gay men were BANNED from donating blood.  We are told "everyone is at risk" from HIV, and one of the most common groups to be HIV positive is black people, but they were not banned.  Most people in the world with HIV are black.  Most of the people in HIV clinics in London are black.  But black people were free to contaminate the blood supply - no-one dared say that black people should stop donating blood.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews/2012/08/13/hivaids-rates-ro...  Only gay men.  That ban was in place for 30 years.  No-one quibbled that a Secular Democracy could not do that.

How would Secular Democracy have responded, had gay men been deliberately flouting this ban, with gay leaders telling them to lie about their sexuality to deliberately infect the blood supply, and bring down straight society?  Of course, they did not do that; they barely even complained or mentioned the discriminatory rules put in place to stigmatise them.  If gay men had mounted such a campaign of indiscriminate terrorism, the calls would not be that we be banned from giving blood, the calls from politicians would be that we be incarcerated en masse.

But such malicious, planned contamination would be the equivalent of what muslim terrorists have been doing.  And yet, no discrimination is permitted to stop them.  It cannot even be mentioned as a possible solution.  But when a group who are considered to pose a risk to society are discriminated against, neither the politicians, nor the media, nor the left, nor those who cherish the principles of Secular Democracy think that actual discrimination was such a bad thing.

Almost every Secular Democracy in the world has implemented such discrimination against gay men (or rather, men-who-have-sex-with-men): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy#List_...


Alan Lake said:

Murray's remarks were clearly wrong because they violated one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual properties but can discriminate based on individual acts) of SD (Secular Democracy). Therefore, he should either have withdrawn his remarks, or shown how a viable SD can be constructed without that principle. Its a no-brainer.

The world is crying out for a more formal 'machine' or system to run these conceptual structures through, instead of endless argy-bargy and recriminations in human writing.

To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs

So, Douglas Murray doesn't have to just worry about fighting off muslims, and their inter-National Socialist enablers, he has to watch out for the Tories stabbing him in the back too.

This is a really complex topic. I think "In praise of prejudice (i.e. discrimination)" by Theodore Dalrymple helps.

When I wrote "one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual properties but can discriminate based on individual acts)", I have to admit, it was a super short summary.

The point is that a blanket ban (or discrimination?) against all discrimination is what is wrong.  Discrimination is a necessary and vital part of politics, of ideology, and in fact of all life.  I'm sure that even the most committed Leftist would like to discriminate between faeces and food.  

So, underlying Murray's argument is a set of beliefs about discrimination which was implicit.  It would have been much better to make them explicit and then (in an ideal world) the discussion would morph into one about what kinds of discrimination our ideological system accepts and processes.  Then, if we accept that we discriminate against groups shown to be a risk to society above some defined statistical threshold, we could discriminate against Gays for blood donation and Muslims for entry to an aircraft.

Of course, there's little chance of that discussion metamorphosis taking place, once the hyenas have started baying :-)

As regards the discussion processing system, people now are quite capable of operating within the framework of Facebook, or drive a car within speed limits when monitored by speed cameras, or buy goods and even complex travel tickets on-line.  They are perfectly used to the idea from Game Shows, that there is an arbitrary set of rules and when you break one a gong goes, and if you break too many you are out of the game.  The complexity of Predicate Calculus is not where its at at all. 

The visual cortex is perhaps the most powerful (computationally intensive) part of the human mind, and when people speak, their linguistic acts are incredibly complex and deep, so things are possible based on these two powerful tools. I need to start drawing diagrams here, so I'll stop.

Yes, not good.

Joe said:

To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs

So, Douglas Murray doesn't have to just worry about fighting off muslims, and their inter-National Socialist enablers, he has to watch out for the Tories stabbing him in the back too.

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 of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "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