The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Sometimes exchanges on the Wall are worthy of a separate forum.  I found this one helpful and one that I think I will visit again as it deals with so many important ideas in a few short exchanges.  Hence the starting of this forum to gather together these ideas and continue this discussion.

Comment by Kinana on Monday 27 October 2014

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams, Founding Father & 2nd U.S. President

Comment by Danny Jeffrey on Monday

I wish that Adams had left 'and religious' out of that statement as moral and religious are not necessarily synonymous.

Comment by Kinana on Monday

John Adams i think was refering to the Christian religion with its various teachings that had helped fashion Western Civilisation up until that time.  I think that him and the rest of the Founding Fathers were also making this assumption when fashioning the Constitution so they did not have to start from scratch in fashioning a morality and a set of ethics about how people should treat each other.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on Monday

Morality and ethics are man made and can apply to anyone that can understand them and agree with them. Religion is an unnecessary factor in human activity.

The followers of Islam will never understand the principle of freedom. one word says it all Islam=submission.

Most of it is variations on the golden rule. But the Muslims have their own take on that one too.

Comment by Alan Lake on Tuesday

I think we should be wary and circumspect about ditching our history and ideological inheritance.  You don't have to be a Christian or a Deist to acknowledge that, in the mindset of the time, the Founding Fathers thinking was inextricably mixed up with, and derived from, the Judeo-Christian tradition.

There is a temptation to think that, like scientists, we can ditch all our current thinking and start again from scratch, repeating all the experiments and data acquisition.  Well, just as its not realistic for scientists to do that, its not realistic for ideologists or philosophers to do that.  What is practical though, is, if in doubt, to go back and verify an inherited result.  So, its not necessary to accept all the Christian beliefs; but equally well, its dangerous to throw them all out on the basis that you can construct a perfectly good new ideology from scratch.  The Secular Humanists did that, and I think the result was flawed. 

By way of further explanation, I should say that I regret the scrapping of the Gods of Greek mythology by (later) Romans.  I don't think it did their civilisation any good, I suspect that it weakened it.  They just needed to accept that those Gods didn't physically exist, but acted as archetypes with which to understand the physical and mental things around us.   And as for us today, I believe we are all poorer for our lack of knowledge of the Greek pantheon.

I am quite happy to accept that I will always be stumbling around with a mixture of freshly researched, derived and proven beliefs, together with some old legacy ones I've inherited from past traditions.  I will never have the perfect master system.  My ideology will always be in a state of change, with my beliefs only partially completed,  but at least they will be the best so far.

Actually, altho I first found this world of partially developed and incomplete ideology disturbing, I now find it reassuring.  If I ever thought that I had found the perfect system, as the Secular Humanists do, perfectly formed and consistent, without any of its ideas needing to borrow from and lean upon unsubstantiated legacy ideas - then I would be worried! 

I am not a Muslim.  I don't need a complete, perfect system which answers all my questions on life and even tells me how to wipe my arse.  I am able to live in the world comfortably, cheek by jowl with unresolved areas, with minor inconsistencies (which I will try resolve some day), and with both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.  It doesn't bother me to have large areas of unknown space.  Having large areas of the unknown and of incompleteness is what being a human being is all about.  I am also suspicious of converts to, say, Islam, that their desire for a "complete system that answers all life's questions", is a sign of a feeble mind.

Just as science is always incomplete and constantly being updated, I am happy that now my ideology is always incomplete and constantly being updated.  Plus it also means that I will never run out of things to do :-))

Comment by Danny Jeffrey on Tuesday

What I like most, and least, about the Judeo-Christian heritage is the Golden Rule. I cannot help but believe that it is the greatest factor that led to today's western civilization, and the benevolence that civilization has added to the world agenda. I find fault, not with the Golden Rule, but from its advocates who fail to realize that Rule was not meant for time of war in which we find ourselves. To that end (Many Christians will damn me for this) I have had the unmitigated gall to rewrite that sacred doctrine...

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2. Then do unto others as they are doing unto you.

3. If they do not unto you at all then do unto them nevermore.

4. If they mean you harm then crush them.

5. Go to Golden Rule, Part One.

The Golden Rule is a civilizing doctrine but not at all suited for war. In times such at these it should be placed with care on a shelf and guarded until the danger is past, then once again brought into the light of day. There can only be one outcome if our society continues practicing the Golden Rule while Islam engages in Jihad. I do not look forward to such an outcome.

Comment by Alan Lake on Tuesday

Yes, I think the Golden Rule is formulated in a somewhat misleading way.  Its also called the principle of reciprocity, but even that's not right.  Maybe theprinciple of equality is more like it, that you treat all people as having equal human rights to each other and yourself.  That highlights Islam as the bogey man of the 21st century, still holding out that the Muslim is superior, and demanding special rights for its master race.

The original definition can be made to work with a bit of a fudge.  So, if some crazed Napoleon took control of the UK and started to conquer Europe, I would want the nations of Europe to counter-attack and bomb us.  Or if I became psychotic and started a mass killing spree, I would want the state to stop me.  So it is still constantly true that I would do unto others as I would want to be treated myself, if  I am considering the situation when I am in a sane and rational state.

BTW, the Golden Rule is a big part of Bill Warner's (Political Islam) critique of Islam.

Comment by Philip Smeeton on Tuesday

It is not a question of ditching our culture and beginning anew Alan. It is about not getting sidetracked into defending Christianity. It is about defending free secular democracy against the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Christianity is irrelevant, we must define and defend our hard won democratic principles. Before this crisis with Islam, Christianity was already in the process of becoming redundant.

We are not starting from scratch all of these ethical moral principles are in place and correspond to reason. We build on what is already there, exactly the way that religions have done. Our laws are a human convenience and invention designed to enable society to function. Everything evolves, it is possible to evolve beyond religion. There is no perfect system, we make it up as we go along. Life, knowledge is "incomplete and constantly being updated" it's called evolution and that's the way it is. There is much we do not know, will never know, but there is never an excuse for making up answers the way that religions do.

As the laws on justifiable homicide tell us Danny, we have the right to defend ourselves and well, why should we love our enemies? If some bastard's trying to shoot you, shoot back- do unto others what they are doing to you. It is up to them to stop. You are actually obliged to defend your kin and country.

Comment by Kinana on Tuesday

Danny Jeffery, nothing you say is contrary to Christianity as expressed in history and i think was expressed authentically.  Just do a search on this website in the search box.  type in 'qfightback'

Think Lepanto, Gates of Vienna, Tours, the re-conquest in Spain, etc.

Western Civilisation was defended and nurtured in very practical ways by the Christian people of the West, acting as Christians.  It is a history we need to appreciate and reclaim.

Tags: Democracy, Kinana

Views: 49

Replies to This Discussion

Politics and Morality. Political Immorality.

What is right and what wrong for an individual or a society. What policies best serve the common good. What rights is the individual entitled to?

What is best for the individual and society; ethically, mentally and physically.


In stable democratic countries the population can be seen to be divided into two main political groups; left wing liberals and right wing conservatives. Politics is also about morality; what is right or wrong for the nation, and what is right or wrong for the indiviual. Key concerns are; welfare, justice, security, solidarity, tolerance, patriotism, freedom, equality, economy and so on.

Which laws do we need and which laws are excessive and oppressive. What are the moral implications of political action.


Left wing liberals tend to favour theoretical concepts such as multiculturalism and are willing to carry out potentially damaging experiments on society. Maintaining that all cultures are equal (when they patently are not) and that they compliment and enrich each other, resulting in a better society.


Conservatives (ideally) tend to favour a more realistic approach, preserving that which functions and only accepting change if it has practical positive value.


It should be the aim of any faction to maintain stability and affluence in a nation, not to create conflict and expense by pursuing theoretical and impractical policies such as a liberal immigration policy and a welfare system that rewards lethargy. These create ultimately ethnic conflict and increased economic inequality.

The young, the old and the sick must be protected, but able-bodied adults have to contribute to society.


Liberal socialists in their fervour for absolute equality and justice actually take away the rights of the majority by favouring minorities. The natural majority, those that built the nation, feel that an injustice ha been done to them, further widening the gap between ethnic groups. This wrong together with the incompatibility of the imported cultures with the previously dominant culture, result in real ethnic conflict in a country where before there was little or none.

Monocultural, monoethnic, (homogenous) societies function better than multicultural, multiethnic ones.


Immigrants, refugees and asylumseekers are best helped in or near their own homelands. Bringing the poor and oppressed to free and successful democracies in large numbers will destabilise these free democracies and reduce the ability of free wealthy nations to help develope the suffering nations. We cannot take responsibility for their welfare, all that we can do is help them to help themselves. Build their underdeveloped nations without demolishing ours.


Justice. Law.

Everyone answerable to the same laws without exception. No special priviledges such as Sharia Law.

Those not naturally entitled to citizenship and membership of the nation by long ancestry, are to be considered to be on probation. Even those born in the country with foreign ancestry must be liable to deportation for criminal or terrorist activity, and for indulging in treasonous activity, such as plotting to turn the host nation into an Islamic State.


Ultimately it is the Nation, the people that it is comprised of, that decides what morality is, what is right and what is wrong for it.


It is not racist to prefer your own kind, it is practical. The more you have in common with people the more likely it is that you will get along with them. It is more about logic than morality. It is about what works and what does not.

The liberal-left always climb on their high morality horse when their arguments are not logical and they want to beat opponents into submission; by calling them wicked,racist.

The left do much harm by adhering to theoretical principle instead of reality. Equality is a good principle but taken to extremes it turns into discrimination, and denies another basic freedom; the right to choose.


The celebrating of differences in multiculturalism is in fact the wiping out of differences. The differences that define us as individuals and that give us a national identity. In their eagerness to wipe out nationalism the internationalists have forgotten the human need for community and belonging, the right to choose what sort of society you want to live in. Multiculturalism has been forced upon us against our will and wellbeing, by those that have decided that it is for our own good. They allowed mass-immigration, the ideology of integration failed, and they had no other choice than to continue the mistaken course; allow more immigration and constantly invent new concepts to cover their incompetence. The problem is that they genuinely believe that they are working for the common good and that each new political invention is an absolute truth.


Our politicians’ greatest sin is that they have not listened to the nation, they have chosen instead to follow a course of personal spiritual enlightenment where they become unassailably good, infallible with an unblemished conscience. Or to put it another way; they are politically blind, deaf and self-centred saints.

Lots of interesting opinions here.  So I'll add yet another different one!

I wish that Adams had left 'and religious' out of that statement as moral and religious are not necessarily synonymous.

Well, TBH, if we are leaving out religious, I'd rather leave out 'moral' as well, since they are both equally relative, subjective and open to argument.  Unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish between the term 'moral', and the meaning 'the ethical opinion I hold, which is actually the correct one'.  And if that weren't subjective and bad enough, it isn't even valid for one person throughout their lifetime.  It is quite common to reverse beliefs, for example, you could reject euthanasia as a healthy young man, but later accept it when afflicted with a ghastly disease.  You could reject the use of torture for information extraction, but later accept it when 75% of your population has been wiped out by a vicious marauding invader army.

So I would use words like 'upstanding', 'rigourous', 'lawful', 'thoughtful', 'uncowardly', 'clear thinking', 'self-disciplined' instead.  These are all words which can be objectively tested, and which can be applied to good republicans as well as good Marxists and good Islamists.  But the difference is this: Marxism and Islam don't need those qualities in their populations to be self-preserving - since they rule by the jackboot - but democracy does.  So the phrase then becomes:

"Our Constitution was made only for an upstanding, rigourous, lawful, thoughtful, uncowardly, clear thinking, self-disciplined people with probity. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. And when I say 'people', I mean a majority of the people.  It can happily survive as long as most of the people have those qualities"

John Adams (channeled by Alan Lake)

Philip Smeeton: Liberal socialists in their fervour for absolute equality and justice actually take away the rights of the majority by favouring minorities. The natural majority, those that built the nation, feel that an injustice ha been done to them, further widening the gap between ethnic groups.

And I would refine the protagonists somewhat.  The majority that get their rights taken away and get financially exploited, is now the blue and white collar workers, those that have a job with a formal salary, and that have a home in their name with a car registered to that address.  They cannot escape the grasping financial tentacles of the government, as it scrapes off a slice of their income and redistributes it to the privileged ones.  (The very well off may lose money to that process, but they are still able to live a great life.  Perhaps they end up being a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire, but its still OK).

The beneficiaries of this system are those not working, or getting money through black market work, and Burnham's managerial elite, the ones getting money through working for the government directly or indirectly (like social workers).  This new, privileged faction, are getting money from the government either as benefits or as salary.  They are the new parasitic class that live off the backs of the real workers.  Marx was totally wrong.

And the real workers cannot escape, especially the middle class.  Their salary is filched before they even get their hands on it.  If they break the social narrative in the slightest, society can ostracize and fire them, so they are broken.  If they stray into a bus lane or over a limit, they can be tracked down, fined and punished.  If instead you are one of the benefits class making big money from cash only deals, you will operate on the edges of the law, and if you ever do get caught, an army of human rights activists will descend on the police and courts to protect you from the slightest abuse or offence.

Ultimately it is the Nation, the people that it is comprised of, that decides what morality is, what is right and what is wrong for it.

I agree.  It is that arbitrary.  Denying that fact, or conversely attempting to say that that nation's moral code is objectively the best for the whole world, is what causes all the trouble.  That's where Bush's mission to spread democracy, went completely wrong.

Our politicians’ greatest sin is that they have not listened to the nation, they have chosen instead to follow a course of personal spiritual enlightenment where they become unassailably good, infallible with an unblemished conscience. Or to put it another way; they are politically blind, deaf and self-centred pseudo saints.

I added the word 'pseudo' :-)


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

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)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service