The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

British newspapers recently featured the case of a Premier League footballer, Nicolas Anelka (his Muslim name is Abdul-Salam Bilal), who gave a “reverse Nazi salute” after scoring a goal a week or so ago. The quenelle, as the salute is called, was invented by the French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala (Anelka's friend). It's claimed by some of its defenders – though not all – to be neither a sign for Jew-hatred nor one of support for National Socialism (Nazism). Instead they say it's an “anti-Zionist salute”. Others say it's an “anti-establishment gesture”.

The thing is, even if the salute is an “anti-establishment gesture”, that is primarily so because that very same (French) “establishment” has prosecuted Dieudonne no less than eight times for his remarks about Jews. So this is equivalent, surely, to a paedophile claiming to be “anti-establishment” because he doesn't like the fact that he has been arrested for his pedophile activities.

Dieudonne started out as Leftist “anti-Zionist”; not as a right-wing Jew-hater. He's now classed, at least by some, as a right-wing anti-Zionist as well as a Jew-hater. All this simply begs the following question:

Are there any real or genuine differences - at least in the Dieudonne's case - between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewism?

Yes, yes! I'm perfectly aware that the terms “anti-Zionism” and “anti-Semitism” are not synonymous (semantically speaking); it's just that I could easily argue that, say, 95% or more of all anti-Zionists are also Jew-haters. That's the brutally simple political – not semantic - point that many defenders of “anti-Zionists” like Dieudonne fail to register. (Or they pretend not to register.)

Anyway, Dieudonne also started out as a Leftist “anti-racist” who was also against, in his own words, the "Zionist-American axis of power". Today he's still against the "Zionist-American axis of power", though, some now argue, as a Nazi, not as a Leftist. (Jean-Marie Le Pen is the godfather of his child.)

It could be argued that Dieudonne got at least some of his anti-Zionist views from such Leftist (as well as Jewish) notables as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein; specifically his view that all holocaust commemorations are "memorial pornography".

Now let's take the case of Dieudonne's fellow anti-Zionist, Professor Shlomo Sand.

Shlomo Sand is a Israeli Marxist who also believes that the Jews, as a people, are a “invention”. Sand began his political life in the 1960s/70s as a member of the fanatical Maoist group, Matzpen (as did fellow anti-Zionist Leftist, Sylvain Cypel, who then went on the establish the Workers' League). Some members of Matzpen then went on to train communist terrorists in Syria at a time when Leftist terrorism was almost in first place to Islamic terrorism. (This, at least in part, explains the Leftist/Islamist love affair.)

Today Professor Shlomo Sand believes that, to use Ayatollah Khamenei's words (of 2000), “Israel must be uprooted from the region”.


So let's put all this in some kind of context.

Leftist, or more specifically Marxist, Jew-Hatred dates back to 1844 when Marx first promulgated his hatred of the Jews in print. Marx, like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Sand later, was only Jewish by blood; not by religion or by culture. In fact not even Marx's father was a Jew by religion. Thus Jew-hatred came easy to Marx.

Nazi Jew-Hatred, on the other hand, only dates back to 1920 (some 70 years later) when the Nazi Party was formed. (This is not to say, of course, that German Jew-hatred didn't predate the Nazis: it did, in Marxism and in much else.)

Leftist/Marxist Jew-hatred continued with the Bolsheviks (which is ironic because Nazis made - and still make - much of the few Bolsheviks who were Jews); to Stalin; then onwards to the “ultra-Leftist” Holocaust-denying tradition of the 1960s/70s (e.g., Pierre Guillaume); and then all the way to today's Leftist boycott-Israel movement.

As for the last link in that chain: what would you expect from contemporary Leftists? After all, Israel is both Jewish and a capitalist democracy! (Incidentally, Dave Duke thinks that Israel is a “Stalinist” state. Many Leftists think Israel is “Nazi” state.)

In terms of detail, what usually happens is that International Socialists (Leftists) pick out the "neo-cons", “neo-Liberals”, “Zionists”, “capitalists”, etc. who are Jewish for extra-special attention/obsession; as well as, of course, Israel itself.

National Socialists (Nazis) pick out Marxist and also - strangely enough - “capitalist” Jews for extra-special attention/obsession; as well as, of course, Israel itself.

In other words, many Leftists think that all Jews are right-wing neo-cons, capitalists and Zionists. There are exceptions of course. The Jewish exceptions are those honourable Leftists who have cleansed themselves of all their Jewishness: save their blood (e.g., Marx, Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, Norman Finkelstein, etc.)

When a white non-Jewish person is a Marxist, or a “neo-con”, the Nazis and Inter-Nazis don't notice. He is ignored. However, when a Jew is a Marxist, the Nazis think that's because “Marxism is essentially Jewish". On the other hand, when a Jew is, say, neo-con, many Leftists believe that's because "neo-conservativism is essentially Zionist".

Again, when a non-Jewish white person is a Marxist, or a neo-con, his being Anglo-Saxon is completely ignored or deemed to be irrelevant.

So why are both International Socialism and National Socialism the locus of Jew-hatred? It has a lot to do with that last word : socialism. Marx's neat fusion of Jewishness and capitalism predates the rise of German National Socialism by around 70 years. This is what Marx wrote - in his 'On the Jewish Question' - in 1844:

What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the world cult of the Jews? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.... It is from its own entrails that civil society ceaselessly engenders the Jew.”

And when Marx, slightly later, wrote about “niggerlike Jews” he offered us two racisms for the price of one However, some Leftists have defended Marx's positions on the Jews with a self-contradictory stance: they claim that it's “wrong to apply retrospective judgments” or “contemporary standards” to “what Marx wrote in the mid-19th century”. Yet Marxists, evidently, apply everything else Marx wrote to virtually every contemporary political and social situation. Such Leftists also fail to recognise the fact that Marx began a Leftist tradition of Jew-hatred which has continued, almost unbroken, until this very day.

So let's take one final example from around 40 years after Marx's death (as well as being in tandem with National Socialism in Germany). Here we have the well-known – at the time - communist and Jew Ruth Fischer writing the following:

Whoever cries out against Jewish capitalists is already a class warrior… Kick down the Jewish capitalists, hang them from the lampposts, and stamp upon them.”

The Nazis own version of revolutionary socialism partly - or even largely - grew out of revolutionary Marxism. Many people believe that there is a contradiction here simply because the Marxists and the Nazis were always enemies. Yes, they were always enemies in terms of being two opposing political power-blocks. Nonetheless, they were never complete ideological opposites. (Check out the Nazi's socialist Twenty-Five Point Programme of 1924.)

Throughout the 20th century and still today both International Socialists and National Socialists believed and still believe that 'Zionists'/'Jews' have superhuman powers. That Jews/Zionists control the thought-processes of the rest of us. Yes, both International Socialists and National Socialists believe in false consciousness. And part of the false-consciousness deal is the very widespread belief that the platonic Media stops all non-Leftists/non-Nazis from realising the true nature of political reality. That is, we are all failing to accept or even acknowledge the uncorrupted truths offered to us by Leftists/Nazis.

Of course some Jews are Marxists. Some Jews are anti-Marxists. Some Jews are Zionists. Some Jews are anti-Zionists. Come to think of it, some Jews are businessmen too. Others are artists, philosophers, scientists, actors, market tradesmen, toilet cleaners...

However, there is one thing that most – though not all - Jewish Europeans and Americans share: a high level of education. (That's a cultural, not a racial, thing.) That high level of education has lead in all sorts of directions (as education always does): towards Zionism and anti-Zionism, Marxism and anti-Marxism, a-politicism, business, philosophy, sport, acting...

Despite all the above, International Socialists and National Socialists fuse on far more than the Jews. They fuse on:

1) totalitarianism
2) collectivism
3) a reliance on conspiracy theories (often the very same ones!)
4) a reliance on the theory of all political enemies have 'false consciousness' and are victims of the 'Zionist' and platonic Media
5) Manichean world-views in which the Good (Nazis/Leftists) battle against Evil (Jews, capitalists, neo-cons, etc.)
6) black-and-whitism: theories and analyses which are of necessity simple and crude.
7) street violence followed (after the revolution) by state violence
8) a strong belief in the need for all-encompassing change
9) racism: Nazi racism against Jews, blacks, etc.
Leftist racism against (non-Leftist) Jews; positive or inverted racism towards Muslims, blacks; racism against (non-Leftist) whites. (There is even a tradition of Leftist Holocaust denial which dates back to the 1960s.

10) sect/cult-like organisations

11) charismatic and dictatorial leaders

12) socialism (national and international)

... and so on.

International Socialists and National Socialists have always fed off each other. Their relationship is almost entirely symbiotic. That's no surprise: under the skin, they are nothing less than estranged brothers fighting over the same political bones.

Views: 649

Replies to This Discussion

Apart from point 9), all the others can be seen unquestionably as stemming from islam.  

The concept of "race" (where biology determines physical, psychological (and perhaps moral) characteristics could also be claimed to stem from islam - muslims clearly did not want to extend islam far into Africa (as they would lose their slave supply if black Africans all became muslims), and muslims placed a higher value on white slaves than they did on black slaves.

I don't think that one could trace the concept of race back to the Roman Empire or to christianity (I could be wrong, maybe someone who knows more about christianity than me could comment).  We can't really expect northern Europeans before 1000AD to have any concept of differences in "race" or skin colour.  Probably Shakespeare's "Othello" is the most famous of the earliest representations of racial difference, maybe Shylock too.  It makes far more sense that an ideology that bordered black Africans, white Europeans, and brown Asians/Chinese should have a view on "racial differences" - especially since even Mohammed makes "racist" references to black people.

Of course, the Left will claim that the concept of race is a capitalist/imperialist construct.  They don't want to give islam credit for anything.

The concept of "race" (where biology determines physical, psychological (and perhaps moral) characteristics could also be claimed to stem from islam - muslims clearly did not want to extend islam far into Africa (as they would lose their slave supply if black Africans all became muslims), and muslims placed a higher value on white slaves than they did on black slaves.” - Joe

I agree that there's always been a degree of racial thinking. Whether you call it “ethnicity” or “race” doesn't seem to matter that much. What the Marxists did was focus on those elements of racism which were specific to capitalist society (such as “scientific racism” and “class power”) and deduce from that, badly, that racism was “invented” by capitalism. But that's retarded thinking. Just because there are elements of modern racism which didn't exist in previous periods, it doesn't follow that racism didn't exist at all.

Marxists use exactly the same argument about which regimes were truly totalitarian. Thus they focus of aspects of Stalin's regimes which distinguished it from both Nazism and fascism and therefore conclude that Stalin's regime, and other socialist states, weren't truly totalitarian. But that argument can easily be reversed. A Nazi can distinguish Hitler's regime from Stalin's and conclude that the Nazi regime wasn't totalitarian.

Differences exist between Nazism and Stalinism, sure, but those differences don't stop either regime from being totalitarian.

The same with race. Islamic racism, or Arabism, is certainly distinguishable from, say, 19th century French racism; but both were examples of racism – just different expressions of racism.

Nazism and Stalinist were two different expressions of totalitarianism. No one claims their exact identity. But, by that argument, because New Labour is different in small respects to Cameron's Conservative Party, then New Labour and the contemporary Conservative Party must be fundamentally and ideologically at odds – but they're not.

You can argue that there are more differences between Italian fascism and German Nazism than between German Nazism and Stalinism. As you said in a previous post, it's certainly the case that Nazism is closer to Stalinism that it is to Franco's fascism.

I'm not sure that there has "always" been "racial thinking" in northern Europe.  For example, my mother tells me the story of the time (around 1940) that the people in her village in Ireland first saw someone with non-white skin.  With no TV, no cinema, probably very few books containing photographs, it didn't even cross their minds that there were people who didn't have white skin.

I think that before 1900 the vast majority of people in the UK (outside maybe London, Bristol, Liverpool) would pass their entire lives without ever seeing someone whose skin was not white.  I think it quite likely that even in the time of Chaucer, there might have been no conception among the people of Britain that there were people without white skin.  Even most educated people might know (from books) that there were people whose skin was not white, but they would almost never given any thought to this, nor would the vast majority ever be in any situation where they would make any decision based on this abstract knowledge that there were people who had skin of a different colour.

To the extent that ordinary people in Britain/Ireleand were aware of people with darker skin before the time of Shakespeare, it would probably have been those people who lived in small coastal villages whose first (and only) experience of people without white skin would have been the sight of Arab slave-takers raiding their villages.  My contention is that the concept of race appears at the start of islam, and forms a fundamental division (Mohammed referring to black people as "raisin-heads").  It is a very late concept in the culture of northern Europe.

To me the whole issue of collectivism/totalitarianism in socialism/communism is just a latter-day ripple of the concepts of collectivism/totalitarianism which Europe acquired from islam.  Historically islam is a far more important and potent force than socialism/communism.  If Mohammed had the technology available to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, then the muslims would have wiped-out/enslaved the entire world. Muslims still managed the greatest genocide in history, even with their limited technology.

I find it very curious that European history has a strange blind-spot when it comes to the changes which 1000 years of attacks by islam wrought on Europe.  That some ideology could lead to christianity losing north Africa, the middle east, the Balkans, Sicily, that the ideology could get to Tours and to Vienna and be turned back, that it could lead its followers to invade Rome itself -- and yet for all these 100s of years of assaults, European history refuses to acknowledge how this relentless violent force could have wrought changes on European thinking, practices, morality, politics, etc.

And to return this to the issue of Dieudonne - the first pogroms against jews in Europe occurred in Spain.  And it was muslims slaughtering jews there.  It was almost 100 years later that christians in Europe followed suit.  Yet European thinking claims that it was the christians who hated jews and targetted them, whilst muslims offered them sanctuary.  It appears to me that the islamisation of the European mind began over 1000 years ago, not just in the last 50 years.

I'm not sure that there has "always" been "racial thinking" in northern Europe.  For example, my mother tells me the story of the time (around 1940) that the people in her village in Ireland first saw someone with non-white skin.  With no TV, no cinema, probably very few books containing photographs, it didn't even cross their minds that there were people who didn't have white skin.” - Joe

That's an interesting point because my mum, from Harlepool and then Bishop Auckland, had never seen an “Asian” until she moved to Bradford. That means that she certainly didn't have a negative view of people with brown skin. She was more surprised or shocked than anything.

Despite that, you kind of answer the point yourself. You say that people didn't have “racial thinking” until they came across other colours/races. But isn't that bound to be the case? You don't formulate views of your own (superior?) ethnicity or race as such until you are aware of (racial) Difference, as some Continental philosophers put it.

Of course it all turns on what you and I mean by “racial thinking”. I don't mean anything sophisticated. In fact, there are some commentators, usually Nazis, on Liberty GB who are always telling me that racial, or proto-racial, thinking has always existed within tribes and then later in villages and towns; it just wasn't scientific as such. I partly agree. But they use that argument to say that racism is “natural” and therefore white racism is the only way the white English can survive. I don't really care about what's “natural”, it's what is politically and morally right that matters (at least in this context). I don't suppose it's “natural” to sustain Nazis – or anyone! - on benefits either or help the sick. Also, disease is the most natural thing on earth.

My point is that the jew-hatred, collectivism, totalitarianism all can be traced back to islam.  Including racism.  

When I got the opportunity, I asked Bat Ye'or if she had any answer for the blindspot in European history/cultural analysis with regard to the transformative effects the 1000 years of violence had upon Europe.  She didn't have an answer.  I'm not sure that she herself fully recognizes how deep and extensive this transformation was.

I assumed that the blindspot only existed in the latter half of the 20th century, so I consulted a 1200pp book on the history of medieval Europe (printed in the 1930s).  Despite the size of the book, and despite the fact that islam occupied Spain for 700 years, there was barely a mention of islam in the book.  There was a chapter on islam, but outside of that chapter, there was no mention of all the things which Europe adopted from islam: heresy trials, slavery, holy war, jew-hatred.  The arrival/return of those things are manifestly correlated with the rise of islam, yet they are not mentioned. Even the Spanish conquest of the Americas can be attributed to them escaping from/preparing for muslims to attempt to re-conquer Spain in the 15th century. (I don't expect a book from the 1930s to recognise that islam probably also gave rise to racism and homophobia in christian Europe.)

My view is that other forms of collectivism (socialism, communism, fascism) are probably also the long-term effect of the impact of islamic collectivism on European thought.

Like the Nazism is collective socialism, your ideas about Islam being both racist and totalitarian (even if true) will be extremely hard to sell even to those on the Right.

The Nazism was collectivist socialism idea has been upheld by critics since, well, the Nazi regime itself. Nonetheless, it is still either flatly rejected or not even known.

Telling the truth about Islam will be even harder. I think this is the case primarily because it is a religion. Not only a religion: a "monotheistic religion"! I am convinced that this is the MAIN reason for people's reticence even when they know, in their heart of hearts, that much of what we say is true.

Religions are often treated with kid gloves. And nowadays because a brown-skinned religion, Islam, has been incorporated into western nations, even Leftists/Marxists now treat religion with kid gloves. Or, more often and correctly, they treat Islam (because brown, or at least not white, and politically useful) with kid gloves. Of course I don't think Islam is brown, white or blue, but the racist Left tends to do so.

It doesn't matter if counter-jihadists don't see Islam as a religion (but as a political ideology): most people still think it is a religion. (It says so in books.) Personally, I don't buy the view that Islam is NOT a religion. Simply because Islam has an explicitly ideological and political complement, as well as being bloodthirsty, that doesn't stop it from being a religion. The only people who can claim that it isn't a religion are those who have necessary and sufficient conditions for something's being a religion. And in most cases of concept or word definition, you will find there is much disagreement.

I don't personally feel the need to deny that Islam is religion in order to criticise it. I don't even accept the "sect"-versus-"religion" argument. All sorts of sects have been harmless and all sorts of religions have been malignant.

I see "ideology" as being a phenomenon that subsumes religion.  And there are certainly religious aspects to various supposedly atheistic ideologies (communism).

I recognise the difficulty of getting people to see fascism and National Socialism as socialism.  But among our rather select circle here, we need to push the envelope on ideas.  There are ideas we've had that seemed bizarre and hard to grasp, but the more we pursue them, the more we start to realise how applicable they are.  

It was great experience when I met Bat Ye'or, as I was able to offer inferences which she had not enunciated, only to have her state her agreement with what I said.  The neglect of academics, and writers and journalists for decades and possibly centuries means there is an incredibly rich vein of history and analysis to be mined.  I'm trying to encourage people to mine this vein and write books, so that these ideas will not be lost to future generations.


How did you get to meet Bat Ye'or? To be honest, I don't know anything about her except she's a she.

I've noted that people cite Oriana Fallaci (the journalist who interviewed the 1979 Ayatollah) as an authority on Islam. I've read her 'The Rage and the Pride'. Personally, I found it hard going. It's very personal and literary; which is fair enough if you like her prose style. Other people may get a lot from it. I couldn't really work out if she has any personal insights into the nature of Islam, or on the contemporary situation, because it's mainly a sequence of anecdotes. That may be a good way of getting the message across. But it's not for me.

What book would you suggest by Bat Ye'or?

Ibn Warraq's 'Why I am Not a Muslim' is OK; but it a bit of a hotchpotch. He covers too much in too small a compass. Still, it's useful factually and in other ways too.

It's a good way of putting it to say that "ideology as being a phenomenon that subsumes religion". Despite that, it could be the other way around in certain cases - even with Islam. In the end, though, it may not matter that much if a religion is subsuming an ideology or an ideology is subsuming a religion. In either case, the results may be the same.

Bat Ye'or was launching her new book.  I went along to one of the meetings in London last year.  Even though the meeting was not that widely advertised, there were Leftist scum who'd paid money to get inside and disrupt it, accusing a tiny, frail 80 year old woman of responsibility for terrorism.  Thankfully the Leftist scum were outnumbered about 20 or 30 to 1.

I didn't buy her latest book, as I have 3 of her books, and it is a collection of essays, and I think I've probably got copies of most of her essays inside other collections.  It's clear that she's got less concerned with proving/justifying her claims in The Dhimmi and Eurabia, about 40% of the books are actual documents (and even then, people claim it's "conspiracy theory", despite her documentary proof).  I think she feels the clock is ticking; she's elderly, and despite her publications in this area starting some 30 or 40 years ago, nothing has been done to stop the trajectory.

This is probably her final word on the subject:

A few years ago (through EDL) I met someone who has been a friend of hers for years.  When that book came out, he said he thought it was her most important work.  Personally, I feel there is more to the story, but I think she felt she needed to get it out before she died.

Eurabia is an earlier version of the thesis in that book (and I think Eurabia is better argued and comes with plenty of documentation). You can get a copy of Eurabia 2nd hand for less than £2.

The next book I will read by her is this:  I had assumed that material was superceded by The Dhimmi, but when I put some questions to her at the meeting, she said that some of my points were documented in that book.

Whilst her work is very important, I think that the work of Andrew Bostom is probably of equal merit (and ranges more widely).

What he does is to uncover historical works (by muslims and non-muslims) and collects them into a thematic volume (and sometimes pays to have the works translated).  As you can imagine, when I set off down this road some years ago I was skeptical of claims I read on the internet.  It was seeing the historical documents that convinced me that the populations of the west have been deceived for decades.

I think this book is very important (not least because it shows that until 1980 historians were divided about how much disaster islam had caused for Europe).

That last book is a bit heavy on historical method/archaeology (even though it's a slim book).  But that is because the silencing of debate over the last 30 years or so has meant there is a generation of academics who would never have heard of Pirenne's claims that islam caused the Dark Ages.  Pirenne's claims were apparently well-known and widely debated in the 20th century, until it was "proved" they could not be true. Emmett Scott examines that proof.



Thanks for all that. I've never used Amazon, but I'm sure it's simple enough.

*) I've just ordered Eurabia.

Amazon seem to know my reading/research habits because when the order was complete, various books were suggested which coincide exactly with what I've been researching on the Internet recently: Zizek, Callinicos, etc. Obviously it's not a coincidence. Is this done via "cookies" or something? How does Amazon know which websites I've visited?

I've assumed Amazon "knows" my interests purely based on the books I've bought from them, from my "wishlist" (which contains about 300 books), and from me just perusing inside books on Amazon.  To hear that they can "know" your interests when you've never visited them before really is creepy.

It will be cookies that enable them to do this.  Effectively Amazon can place a cookie in your browser and that cookie will hold some ID which means every time you revisit them, they look at the cookie and match up your browsing habits.  That they are doing it when you've never been there before suggests they are able to connect to some other website which is tracking your browsing (maybe Google).  Theoretically, only the website who has placed a cookie in your browser is supposed to be able to look at that cookie.

If you are using Google's Chrome web browser, you can choose to open a link to a website in an "incognito" window.  Effectively, that's like opening a browser with no browser history, no cookies, etc. So if you visit Amazon using that "incognito window" then they should know nothing about you.  I think some other browsers have this "incognito" function too.  Thus, it is clearly possible to use the internet without being "tracked", but browser companies and websites think that most people want some degree of tracking on the internet (whenever I go to fill in a form on a website, Chrome asks me if it wants me to fill in all my details e.g. street address, postcode, etc. -- that's how much information one's browser holds about one).  

I'm not sure most people think about the implications of the tracking.  Even if you are using a laptop, and connect from different wifi routers (so, with different IP addresses), there are a range of tell-tale signs that allow "you" to be "fingerprinted" based on your browser's configuration.

BTW, I buy a lot of books from Amazon.  There are some amazing values to be found in the 2nd hand book market there. In fact, doing that has enabled me to identify that the Leftist/muslim staff in British libraries are selling off books that make islam look bad e.g. my copy of Islam's Black Slaves came from a library in London.  The library had only had the book for about 5 years, and it had been taken out about 20 times in that period.  Yet it was sold off.  Mostly when I buy really obscure books which libraries have sold off, the book is 10 years old (or more) and has been taken out only once (or never).

Paul Austin Murphy said:

Amazon seem to know my reading/research habits because when the order was complete, various books were suggested which coincide exactly with what I've been researching on the Internet recently: Zizek, Callinicos, etc. Obviously it's not a coincidence. Is this done via "cookies" or something? How does Amazon know which websites I've visited?

This may not be as sinister as it sounds. Although I've never used Amazon (until today), I have been on various Amazon pages. For example, I linked to Callinicos's 'Against Postmodernism' book (even though I've never read it) on an Amazon page in one of my pieces. So I presume just being on their pages is enough for Aamzon to 'know you'. Still, that's sinister enough to me because I never "allow cookies" - if that makes a difference.


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