The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Gay Victims of Kuffarphobia


Gay Victims of Kuffarphobia

We work to protect Gay people from the neo-fascists of the political left and the religious right.

Search Site:
Members: 17
Latest Activity: on Saturday

Discussion Forum

The Complicity of the Gay Media

Started by Joe. Last reply by Joe Jan 19, 2017. 10 Replies

Forcing People to be Transsexual

Started by Joe. Last reply by Alan Lake Dec 22, 2014. 1 Reply

The new Egypt.

Started by paul collings. Last reply by paul collings Nov 2, 2014. 8 Replies

Why Cameron Disowned Douglas Murray

Started by Joe. Last reply by Alan Lake Dec 22, 2012. 6 Replies

Douglas Murray: What are we to do about Islam

Started by Joe. Last reply by paul collings Dec 21, 2012. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Gay Victims of Kuffarphobia to add comments!

Comment by Alan Lake on January 20, 2012 at 0:20

"Your belief in enlightenment and reason is naive, as is mine."

Hmm, you could be right, unfortunately.


" There are other explanations that are not reasons, and they would come down to some intimate psychological disturbance: she is a repressed lesbian."

Yeah, well that hairstyle is doing her no favours whatsoever :-))

Comment by Joe on January 19, 2012 at 9:44

Let's look at her demographically. She grew up in the 1960s - a time of moral and cultural revolution in Britain.  As a journalist she began her career on the New Statesman and Guardian.  She is a north London jew.  She intensively defends the only country in the middle east with human rights, and were gay people are not criminalized.  In that context, she cannot have not been mixing with gay people for the formative decades of her life.  As an informed jew, she cannot be unaware of the things that jew-haters say about "zionist control" and "jewish conspiracies" and "jewish lobbies" and the immense (world-changing) power yielded by jews in these narratives.  Yet here she is using the same tropes.  Whether she is using them blindly or consciously, it presents as and encourages hatred of homosexuals.  

The jew-haters who act like Ms. Phillips are all, in my opinion, mentally disturbed.

And in my opinion, there is only one reason that could explain her conscious homophobia: she's playing to the gallery (her audience at The Daily Mail and The Spectator).  There are other explanations that are not reasons, and they would come down to some intimate psychological disturbance: she is a repressed lesbian, or some man she loved (husband, father) became gay.  I have seen this latter behaviour before, as a student, where one teacher simply hated (and slated) every piece of work I did.  When I worked with other students on a project, they got the same treatement.  Her husband had left her for a man, and she was morbidly and irrationally homophobic.

I'll bet that in Ms. Phillips dinner-table circuit, she's met many who have argued against her homophobia.  She is getting more shrill, not less.  It doesn't matter if she's taken on in a public meeting, or by the to-and-fro of newspaper columns.  She is now producing arguments that could have come from the Nazis.

And if she was in charge of a political party, I would be getting out of Britain before they started to build gas chambers.  She likes to cast a victimised minority as the arch-enemy.

If some of those gay people who threatened to kill her had done so, then we might at least have a little respect from fear, instead of being seen as weak and an easy target. 

Your belief in enlightenment and reason is naive, as is mine.  There are a slew of psychological factors that stop people from changing their opinions.  As one of my degree-educated, high-flying politically-correct friends says when I destroy her arguments: "just because you can argue logically and have more knowledge then me, it doesn't make you right".  There is no point in further discussion when they have faced their own limitations explicitly like that. 

Comment by Alan Lake on January 19, 2012 at 8:40

As a check, I read that article again. In my opinion, the level of argument was pretty poor. However there were 2 gems quoted:
" Addressing the issue of freedom of speech, Eagle added: “If people feel secure in their place in society then maybe they’ll take less offence to things that are said.”


Another guest told “I think that it is essential that gay people have exactly the same rights as straight people, especially when it comes to things like hospital visitation rights and taxes. I don’t think that Melanie thinks that is the case.”

Comment by Alan Lake on January 19, 2012 at 8:33

Well, I've never met her so I can only guess what she's really like. I like to try get inside peoples heads, and I think she (in part quite rightly) fancies herself as an intellectual luminary, unswayed by politically correct appeals to emotion.
But, whether she likes it or not, she is a child of an age (1960s?), and with it a pre-packaged set of conditioned beliefs. Well, some have slipped thru the net (of critical judgement that we begin to erect in our twenties.

She's making herself look foolish and doing all conservatives a diservice, with these ridiculous statements, which I believe rest on various technical errors and inbuilt prejudices. It ought to be easy to demolish them (altho until I actually try it against her, I could be deluding myself).

So, I don't believe that that video shows that argument against her won't work, it shws that it doesn't work with that protagonist. Also, the format of debate is too lugubrious and clumsy for affecting a mind like hers. Much better would be a tough interview, or an intensive round table dicussion.

Comment by Joe on January 18, 2012 at 12:08

Yes, debate is better than silencing people.

However, that's not what 2009 link you provide proves.  Ms. Phillips continued from then on to make even more stridently homophobic comments, such as her claim last year that "the gay lobby" is responsible for the islamisation of Europe.  There is little point in debating with jew-haters, or gay-haters, particularly when they have spent any amount of time espousing an opinion in public.

I've had success converting quiet racists into being anti-racists.  But they don't have a history of a "public persona" whose integrity/rationality they seek to protect.

Remarks like hers about "lifestyle choice" don't wash well with those lesbian and gay Brits who were given electric-shock treatment in the 1960s and 1970s for being gay.  I met two such people in the 1980s.  They were still gay, and they were furious that they had been tortured by the state.  That is where the deranged illiberal views of Ms. Phillps lead. 

Comment by Alan Lake on January 18, 2012 at 0:42

Surely this proves that debate is better than silencing people?

I find one of her arguments very funny, that being gay is a lifestyle choice. Would she say the same thing about cake, I wonder? For example:
"My friend John, deep down, likes cheese cake, but he persists in eating sponge cake. Its a lifestyle choice"

I think people eat what they want to eat.

Comment by Alan Lake on January 18, 2012 at 0:27
Comment by Alan Lake on January 18, 2012 at 0:19

I don't get the above article.

1. those 2 guys look like bikers, not nazis

2. why would jews be offended by this? christians yes, but not jews.

Comment by Alan Lake on June 28, 2011 at 11:40

Great, a working day, so all the people on benefits or some dumb State/Council job, can get together and plot the destruction of all the other people who are hard at work in the office.

"As Muslims we believe in ... the unacceptability of homosexuality which is often portrayed as a lifestyle choice."

These racist, homophobic bastards get away with anything, while the Cameron coward wets his pants.

Comment by Albert Case on June 27, 2011 at 2:47

East London Mosque breaks its promise on homophobic speakers after just eight days

Earlier this month, reporting the East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre’s latest pledge to ban homophobic preachers, I described how the mosque has repeatedly lied and broken such promises before: waiting a couple of months until the coast is clear, then bringing the extremists back.

This time, however, it has only taken just over a week for the mosque’s bad faith to emerge. The day after tomorrow, 29 June, it welcomes to its premises an organisation called Sex and Relationship Education Islamic (SRE Islamic), one of whose main purposes is to campaign for “the unacceptability of homosexuality which is often portrayed as a ...” That’s a quote from the first sentence of SRE Islamic’s statement of values.

SRE Islamic is run by members of Hizb ut Tahrir, a racist and extremist group which believes that Muslims should not mix with non-Muslims. Hizb ut Tahrir says that Muslims who believe in democracy are “kafir,” or unbelievers. Hizb ut Tahrir works for a worldwide Islamic superstate, or caliphate (as does the Islamic Forum of Europe, which runs the mosque.)

SRE Islamic’s director and Hizb ut Tahrir member, Yusuf Patel, will be speaking at Wednesday’s event, alongside the director of the East London Mosque himself, Dilowar Khan: a clear official endorsement by the mosque. Indeed, the meeting is co-sponsored by the mosque.

Let us remind ourselves what Salman Farsi, the mosque’s PR, said on 9 June, exactly 18 days ago: “Any speaker who is believed to have said something homophobic will not be allowed to use our premises.”

Wednesday’s meeting is not just with someone who has “said something homophobic,” but is organised by a campaign explicitly dedicated to promoting the “unacceptability of homosexuality.” The meeting was first advertised on 17 June, precisely eight days after Mr Farsi’s ringing pledge.

Could there be a clearer indication of just how much an East London Mosque promise is worth?


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