The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

This forum is for open threats of violence, and actual violence and intimidation of conservative speakers, by Leftist and Progressive accomplices of Islamic fascism.  It is particularly for the brazen calls for death and violence towards conservative speakers, which are accepted by the media without admonishment, and which also do not garner the interest of the police and state prosecutors.

Once again, this category has been active for many years, but I only just realised it needs to be separately identified.

Tags: Intimidation, Kuffarphobia, Leftist, Quislings, Violence, and, by, via

Views: 40

Replies to This Discussion

Why provocateur Katie Hopkins is the perfect symbol for our tribal age

A new play imagines her murder but its real subject is how public debate has been reduced to causing and feeling outrage

 Katie Hopkins: ‘The only choice we seem to have is either to demonise or lionise a figure like her.’ Photograph: Dan Kennedy/Discovery Communications/Dan Ken

Ihave not seen the play, but I am going to write about it. Which seems an apt metaphor for the current state of public debate, an issue that lies at the heart of The Assassination of Katie Hopkins.

It’s a musical, written by Chris Bush and Matt Winkworth, that opens this week at the Theatr Clwyd, in Mold, north Wales. And, even before it opens, it has generated much controversy. Hopkins, as might be expected, is none too pleased. “If you are black you are protected by your colour,” she wrote at the beginning of the year. “If you are Muslim – by your religion... But as a straight, white, conservative I am an acceptable target, unprotected by my honesty, and fair game for physical attack.

“If my name was switched to another – a woman of colour, or a Muslim man,” she wondered, “would [it] still be acceptable and lauded by the left?”

The irony is that the musical itself asks that very question. (I might not have seen the play, but I have viewed some of the rehearsals and read the script.) It might be a clickbait title, but The Assassination of Katie Hopkins is not about Hopkins, but about society’s response to a figure like Hopkins. Its real target is the pettiness of public debate – and the double standards of many liberals.

The play opens with Hopkins’s murder at a public event. A human rights charity, wanting not to look callous, decides it must find something nice to say about Hopkins for her memorial. Kayleigh, who is given the task of compiling a list of Hopkins’s positive qualities, comes to idolise her. Hopkins was, Kayleigh remarks, a “strong, unapologetic woman”, who speaks honestly without “waiting to see which way the wind was blowing”.

Kayleigh ends up starting a new campaign called Justice for Katie. She appears on TV, defending not just Hopkins but also hate speech, which she redefines as “passion”.

The play is a satire on the polarised character of public debate. The only choice we seem to have is either to demonise a figure such as Hopkins or to lionise her as “a strong, unapologetic woman”.

This tribal quality to debate can be seen in almost every sphere of public life, from Brexit to Zionism. The problem is not polarisation as such – politics, after all, is about taking sides – but the shallowness of political debate and attachments. It seems to matter less what people say than to which political or cultural tribe they belong. Inevitably, this has cut against a willingness both to listen to others and to scrutinise our own beliefs. Debate too has often become reduced to a ritual of provoking outrage and of being outraged. The kind of social interaction that began as online trolling seems to have invaded much of the public sphere. And this is as true of the right as it is of the left.



Hopkins is not one of them. She is a provocateur whose aim is to generate outrage. She succeeds because so many liberals rise to the bait, turning a shallow nonentity into a martyr for free speech.

There is a more profound issue, too. In demonising a figure such as Hopkins, we often give a free pass to politicians and institutions that are far more influential in promoting reactionary ideas, both in policy and in shaping public opinion.

Consider one of her most infamous columns for the Sun, in which she described refugees as “cockroaches” and called for gunboats to “drive them back to their shores”. It was an obnoxious, hate-filled piece that drew a torrent of outrage.

Yet I am always struck by how silent liberals are when it comes to the actual use by European nations of gunboats against refugees and the attempt to wall off Europe by paying millions to the most unsavoury regimes from Turkey to Eritrea to Libya to lock up would-be immigrants in hell-hole detention centres just out of sight of Brussels, Paris and London.

If half the energy expended on denouncing Hopkins had been used to challenge European migration policy, migrants might be in a better place now. But, then, to have done so would not have satisfied the demand for cheap outrage.

 Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/15/provocateur-k...

No clear denunciation then, of the play's title.  But apparently we are all deserving of death threats anyway, because

"Yet I am always struck by how silent liberals are when it comes to the actual use by European nations of gunboats against refugees and the attempt to wall off Europe by paying millions to the most unsavoury regimes from Turkey to Eritrea to Libya to lock up would-be immigrants in hell-hole detention centres just out of sight of Brussels, Paris and London."

We need similar calls for assassination to be put up for everyone who thinks this the title of this play is reasonable in a modern democracy.

SHOULD WE KILL LAUREN SOUTHERN?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/aQrnH20sVHk/

RSS

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