The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

How to humiliate the Guardian newspaper?

Journalist Andrew Brown has mad a disgraceful attack on Pamela Gellor and Robert Spencer claiming they are racist and bigots in an article in the Guardian August the 18th. They are doing an excellent job for the American Defence League and are relentlessly fighting against islamic supremicism in America. Good news in a Guardian polll concerning the ground zero mosque, even 64% of Guardian readers are against it dispite the propaganda against anti jihadists pouring out of this politically correct puke.

Anyhow I think we should form a campaign against the Guardian. Any ideas anyone?

Views: 68

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The 4 Freedoms Library to add comments!

Comment by Joe on January 24, 2021 at 23:45

I love using Brave to look at what the Quisling media are saying. Not an advert in sight. If  just1 million people were using Brave, I think The Guardian and Independent would fold.

For the past 5 years there have been numerous reports of pay cuts, sackings, redundancies at The Guardian.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/70727/the-guardian-job-cuts-worrying-for-...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/06/18/guardian-accepts-257-volunt...

https://www.ft.com/content/0069d422-da44-4d06-ae5b-766836bfda6e

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/guardian-job-cuts-losses-c...

It would be so sweet to see Guardian/Independent close down.

Comment by Alan Lake on January 24, 2021 at 18:21

I'm really hoping that within 5 years the Guardian will be gone. Probably replaced by something like the Muslim Community Times though.

Comment by Joe on January 24, 2021 at 12:19

Something I've noticed recently is the death of comments on newspapers. Go back a decade and they were all allowing comments, indeed welcoming them. 

I remember around 2011 The Telegraph started NOT having comments on the subjects were the public were proving to be far more "right wing" than The Torygraph.

Now I would estimate that The Guardian only permits commenting on about 1 in 20 items, and these are generally not the subjects marked as being of national or international politics.  Here's 2 screenshots which illustrated this death of user comments.

You can see from the blue circle, only 1 story allowed comments.

Comment by Richard Londonbourne on August 30, 2010 at 7:43
Annoying as this is, I would be inclined to leave the Guardian alone and press on with the work in hand. Dont waste time getting involved in 'punch ups' with the media. If Robert Spencer and Pam Geller are aware of this article they should also be aware of the laws of libel and take matters from there. Unless, you are willing to be a witness to a lawsuit, it is unwise to mix yourselves up with this business.

Like every other newspaper, the Guardian has to pander to the prejudices of its readers and advertisers. But we do not have to rely upon the Guardian or the BBC or any other part of the media for their goodwill. Let us stage our own demonstrations - quietly but effectively - film them on YouTube and broadcast the message to the whole world.
Comment by adrian panthers on August 27, 2010 at 2:08
Dear Alan
I think a little research in to the finances of the Guardian may find results!
Comment by Alan Lake on August 25, 2010 at 23:48
Those articles plumb new depths for poor journalism. Take this for example:
"She has allied herself with racist extremists in South Africa in promoting a claim that the black population is carrying out a "genocide" of whites." - Chris McGreal in 'The US Blogger on a Mission".

Well, the Guardian can now also proudly proclaim that I have allied myself with Marxist Stalinist mass murderers, because I also promote a claim that "2+2=4", just like Stalin did, so I am clearly allied with him, after all, we've made the same statement haven't we?

Or perhaps this poor child Chris McGreal does not wish to show guilt by association, but wishes to prove it independently because of the content of the statement? So the naming of the South African extremists is not relevant but just put in to add colour to the sentence? In that case shouldn't there be some analysis of the statement? But there is none, sadly. These infants have learned to read, but not much beyond that. You will struggle to find a single attempt to address a single substantive argument in either of those articles. All you will find is an attempt to denigrate the character or slander the movement or appeal to some apparently already proven allegation - although where those allegations are proven is never said. There's a word for the latter isn't there, what is it? Oh yes, critical opinions without any knowledge of their source or justification are called prejudices. The Guardian just loves to feed the ready made prejudices of its readers. Perhaps it hopes that by feeding them what they like, they won't end their subscription!

So back to the statement "the black population is carrying out a "genocide" of whites". Is this statement necessarily always logically false? If not, i.e. if it has a possibility to be true, then it is not necessarily racist to state it. Then it needs to be verified. Are we allowed to investigate this claim, or have the liberal fascists already got this declared illegal?

Wikipedia says: "The South African farming community has suffered from attacks for many years.[1] The majority of the victims have been white farmers, with claims of death tolls of up to 3,000 cited in the national and international media"

The Times Online says "White farmers 'being wiped out'. Over 3,000 have been killed since 1994. Now the ANC is accused of fanning the hate."

World Net Daily says "There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa. Over 1200 have been brutally murdered since 1994. Add to this another 6,000 attacks and the white Boer Afrikaner farmer is easily the highest at-risk murder group on Earth. The ANC has responded to this crisis by ... putting a ban on crime statistics because they scare off foreign investment."

I remember another statistic that 2 white farmers are being murdered on average, every week.

Wasn't there a news report recently showing that a majority of South Africans black people believe they were better off under Apartheid? Several African people have told me the same thing.

Oh my God, the Guardian is now going to have me down as an Apartheid supporter! The logic of the discussion is just too hard for them to follow isn't it?

So I'll summarize, for their benefit.
(1) Just because A makes the same statement S as B, it does not mean that A has the same belief set as B.
(2) Just because a statement S is offensive to you, does not mean it is automatically wrong.
(3) Just because you are offended by a statement, it does not mean you are relieved of the obligation to provide evidence for your disbelief.

Just as there is no attempt by the Guardian to investigate the facts behind this issue of "White farmers being wiped out" as the Times says, there is no attempt to investigate any of the Islamic issues which are raised by Geller or Spencer; all you get is a puerile attempt at character assassination.
Comment by Kinana on August 25, 2010 at 9:39
The Guardian certainly has got these two in their sites.

first one on 18 Aug
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/aug/18/poi...

then one on 20 Aug (re P Geller -- the only thing good about this article is the picture)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-a...

re the first one of 18 Aug there is this paragraph:

'But Spencer was invited to supper by Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion when he visited England last autumn, only for the evening to break up before it had even started when a bunch of EDL skinheads turned up at the restaurant, invited along by a supporter of Spencer who was making a video about him and had been interviewing them, too.'

This proves that the internet never forgets and if it gets it wrong it is wrong forever!
Comment by Alan Lake on August 25, 2010 at 5:29
Thats a good reference website, so I've added it to the "Allies and Partners" list which is under the dropdown menu labelled "Global [A-G]"
Comment by brad pitt on August 25, 2010 at 3:52
this site says it all, as it really is, about the leftish-biased Beeb
http://biasedbbc.proboards.com/index.cgi

or in biblical terms ~ "the Beast with a LION's Mouthpiece" Rev13
Comment by Kinana on August 23, 2010 at 14:12
could we have a link?
the more lies printed by the media the more we need to tell the truth.
the media go after people and orgs who do not have the resources to defend themselves through the court.
so it boils down to a constant up hill battle to tell the truth.

the good side of this is that it is an indication that real waves are being made by ourside and the good ship guardian (and their passengers) are getting nervous!

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)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service