The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

For a while I've been noticing odd use of language by the BBC and others, in order to subtly manipulate the views of their audience.  So now here's a forum to capture all of them.  Please add any you find as you spot them.

Please note, this forum is not for the blatant lies of the BBC - you can put them here:
http://4freedoms.com/group/freespeech/forum/topics/bbc-misbehaviour...

Nor is it for general attempts to smear kuffar etc.  This forum is for the use of just one word or a short phrase, in a way which is barely noticeable, but which has the subtle effect of protecting Islam, Muslims and their interests. 

The point of this exercise is twofold:

  • By pointing out these words just once, I think it is then very easy to police their use ourselves, and ensure that they are not used to colour our own thinking
  • Then, we can use the weasel words themselves, in the same way the media do, to mock them if we are ever in dialogue with them.

Examples are below.

Tags: Language, Mainstream, Media, Tricks, by, used

Views: 107

Replies to This Discussion

'so-called' (used by BBC)

Islamic State foothold in Libya poses threat to Europe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35533787

The so-called Frank Gardner has written another hopeless article about so-called Syria and the so-called Islamic State for the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation.

I wonder if he went there to research the truth? Because some self-imagining so-called Al Qaeda once shot him in the so-called spine, leaving him wheelchair bound.

The BBC says "so-called Islamic State", trying to purport that IS are NTDWI, because IS does not fit their cosy childish narrative about Islam being the Religion of Peace.

What gives them the right to say to IS that they are not IS?  IS would have every right to attack them for that.

And once you start this process, where does it end.  I guess IS report on the UK with "David Cameron, Britain's so-called Prime Minister, today called for more air strikes on our glorious Islamic State".

'allegedly'

Even some terrorists who've shot and blown up people are sometimes called 'alleged terrorists'.  Next time I see it I'll grab it.

'worshippers' (used by BBC)

1. Just look at these pious, compassionate and gentle 'worshippers', as they march thru the streets chanting and waving swords and guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12586099

Of course now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know exactly how respectful of democratic process and civil law those 'worshippers' were, when they murdered Gaddafi in public, like a dog.  But of course, the whole purpose of the MC-BBC calling them 'worshippers', is to make us side with them, and exonerate them from any mis-deeds.

2. How about these worshippers, listening to policy directives during the holy, holy month of Ramadan in their Command and Control Centre, exonerating them from blame if they choose to rape some Australian women?

His comments were delivered in a sermon to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. 

But it was not until they were published in The Australian newspaper last week that a wave of anger was unleashed. 

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" Sheikh Hilali was quoted as asking during the sermon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6097798.stm

3. Or these worshippers, that stream out of their prayer session / military drill practice, to engage in a mass brawl with the local traders:

Kenyan street traders forced to leave 

Kenyan anti-riot police have been stationed in part of central Nairobi after one man was killed in clashes between street traders and Muslim worshippers on Wednesday.

The clashes broke out after the traders tried to rebuild kiosks which had been demolished by the city council.

The kiosks were on land belonging to a mosque, but the traders said they had permission to stay until the end of the year.

Several thousand traders had been making a living from the kiosks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/142604.stm

'sporadically' (used by New York Times)

Obama's lie that his White House iftar dinner follows a tradition dating from Thomas Jefferson,  is exhaustively exposed by Hugh Fitzgerald:

The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White Hosue tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition at all about Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, was not providing the first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an,Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims read, an understanding that many have demonstrated since that they share, not least in the spontaneous celebrations that were immediately held in Cairo, and Riyadh, and Jeddah, and in Ramallah, and Gaza, and Damascus, and Baghdad, and all over the place, where Muslims felt that they had won a victory over those accursed kuffar, those ingrates, those Infidels. And it was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did it, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks prompted by Islamic texts and tenets and attitudes on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is, that ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our cultivated and learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — i.e., never — until George Bush came along, unless we are to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his not-too-honored guest.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/fitzgerald-barack-obama-the-new-y...

An event in 1805 that was not really an iftar dinner, was followed by a regular annual iftar dinner from 2001, and that gap of nearly 200 years is deemed to demonstrate 'sporadic' observance by the white house of the tradition of an annual iftar dinner?

So I suggest that someone arguing with the NY Times, refer to Britains regular, though 'sporadic', wars with the US, since 1857.  Or how about Muslims who are regularly observing their tradition of blowing up of New York skyscrapers each year, even if just 'sporadically' observing it?  Or the Berlin Wall, which has been coming down every year since 1989, sporadically?

Perhaps 'sporadically' is a word like 'lah' in Malay Chinese, or 'nay' in Japanese, that you just stick on the end of any sentence to make it nicer?  So I think I'll end this article now, sporadically :-)

'is that all'

the interviewer of Tim Cook says this after Tim trys to answer the questions put to him.  'is that all' as if to say is that all you got?  so what is the big deal?  But the list could be almost any length.  Tim could have said 10 things and the demeanor and comment from the interviewer could have been the same.  'is that all' - as if to say don't you realise you are being laughed at and wasting people's time.

http://4freedoms.com/group/uk/forum/topics/pegidauk

Ho Ho Ho

The media can be very subtle in its attacks on the right,

If you watch the paper reviews on sky and the Bullshit Beeb i'm sure you'll be familiar with how they like to laugh just before they review a story printed in the Daily Mail or the Express. 

It normally goes,  Ho Ho Ho, and here's a story from the Mail, and they then look at each other knowingly will more delightful chuckles before reading out the story. It wouldn't mater what the story was, it would have already been declared laughable. 

No one ever says Ho Ho HO, and here's a laughable story from the Guardian. 

Its gotten so bad i struggle to watch Sky or BS news. I feel the same way watching sky news as i do watching the bullshit that is question time. But then none of that is meant for us. 

I had someone a couple of nights ago telling me 'facts' about the EU and Islam. When i asked if he'd read the Koran, the answer as expected was NO. And when i asked if he knew what treaties were used to bring the EU together he said no. I asked if he new about the Barcelona  treaty, he said no. When i asked if he knew what language  the Magna  Carta was written in he said no. 

When i asked exactly what he based his extensive knowledge of Europe and Islam on, he told me he listened to the news. The BBC and Sky. 

So that's the problem. People are educated by watching propaganda, and they really believe it. 

'holy'

This one really annoys me.  Why does Islam have the right to say that some of its cities are holy ( Mecca, Medina, Najaf, etc, but Catholic Rome isn't for example), and a month is holy (newscasters talk of the holy month of Ramadan but never holy Christmas), the holy call to prayer, etc.

I'm sure this is symptomatic of a kind of pathetic jealousy by the modern secularist of the tradition of the sacred.  Having abandoned all traces of the sacred in Western culture, and rejecting any Christian manifestation of it, the Leftist is in awe of the "holiness" that Islam is still rich with.  Thus he adulates and respect all things Islamic which are holy, as a substitute for his sacral emptiness, the fact that he has nothing holy in his own life.

By calling so many Islamic things 'holy', they gain an instant moral high ground which protects them from criticism, even where totally warranted.  (It's the converse of the situation we face with the label 'far right', where that puts us on an instant moral low-ground, and perpetually at a disadvantage).

In response, we should start using the word all over then when they try correct it, we correct them.  We can talk about:

  • holy massacres of kuffar (done in accordance with the Quran, like Mohammed's massacre of 700 Qureish)
  • holy suicide bombings (they are the only ones sure to go to a heavenly paradise with women and wine)
  • holy sex slave trading by ISIS (in accordance with the conventions as followed by the Companions of the Prophet)

Well That's Just your Opinion

The media always use that phrase.  I hear all the news readers  Makers say it so often I wonder why they bother having people like Nigel Farage on their programs. But then i remember its to remind him he represents no one, and the 4 million people who vote for his party have no opinions.

It should first be established  who you represent before you answer questions. That should also mean Journalists who don't have 4 million voters explaining who it is they represent. 

Nice one!

Like any animal, unless forced by instinct (like Salmon swimming upstream) we will take the easiest route.

The easiest route to "knowledge" (really, the easiest route to some narrative which explains some subset of social phenomena) is to let the TV/radio "news" wash over one. Think of all the people who have TV on all day long (my mother), or those people who have TV/radio in their kitchen, pub, shop, etc. The narrative peddled that way all day long is what gives most people their understanding of the world. Still, they experience things that often do not make sense within these (sometimes contradictory) narratives.

paul collings said:

Its gotten so bad i struggle to watch Sky or BS news. I feel the same way watching sky news as i do watching the bullshit that is question time. But then none of that is meant for us. 

I had someone a couple of nights ago telling me 'facts' about the EU and Islam. When i asked if he'd read the Koran, the answer as expected was NO. And when i asked if he knew what treaties were used to bring the EU together he said no. I asked if he new about the Barcelona  treaty, he said no. When i asked if he knew what language  the Magna  Carta was written in he said no. 

When i asked exactly what he based his extensive knowledge of Europe and Islam on, he told me he listened to the news. The BBC and Sky. 

So that's the problem. People are educated by watching propaganda, and they really believe it. 

I will try to find the video of such journos on TV sitting around laughing at the victims of the grooming gangs.

paul collings said:

Ho Ho Ho

The media can be very subtle in its attacks on the right,

If you watch the paper reviews on sky and the Bullshit Beeb i'm sure you'll be familiar with how they like to laugh just before they review a story printed in the Daily Mail or the Express. 

It normally goes,  Ho Ho Ho, and here's a story from the Mail, and they then look at each other knowingly will more delightful chuckles before reading out the story. It wouldn't mater what the story was, it would have already been declared laughable. 

No one ever says Ho Ho HO, and here's a laughable story from the Guardian. 

Its gotten so bad i struggle to watch Sky or BS news. I feel the same way watching sky news as i do watching the bullshit that is question time. But then none of that is meant for us. 

The ho ho ho trick/strategy is also used by gesture and facile expression. I remember a friend in the USA saying that once Sarah Palin became a national personality, news readers would always smirk or grimace either before or after saying her name. 

RSS

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 of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service