I was initially attempting to post this as a reply to a comment on one of my other posts, inviting me to participate in another site that is "more structured" than Gates of Vienna. But it is a bit long to fit in the reply section, so I suppose I'll just make it another post.
I tend to be more unstructured in my contributions to the Counter-Jihad, my "structured" thoughts start from the position of examining the essential question of what constitutes existence, and thus would be of limited interest to anyone else who is not interested in the ontological priority of evil relative to good.
Also, the particular structure of the 4freedoms site you mention is entirely incompatible with my thinking. I should not feel free to express myself on such a site. This can be seen at once by a quick examination of where I stand in relation to the four principles which presumably correspond to the site's name.
"1. Freedom of Speech: any speech allowed - except that advocating the end of free speech"
I could never participate in any discussion about free speech that did not allow such a self-contradictory premise to be challenged. For one thing, I do not regard freedom of speech as an end in itself, but merely as a means towards the end of permitting people to be fully accountable for their own opinions. This means that I am not opposed to entertaining arguments over the possibility of any better mechanism to allow people total responsibility for their own beliefs. Also, if freedom of speech is really to be an axiom, then it absolutely must include freedom to advocate the end of free speech, if only to develop the countervailing argument.
"2. Freedom of Election: any party allowed - except one advocating the end of democracy"
This is not completely repugnant on logical grounds, but it is wholly unsatisfactory to me as I regard Rule of Law as infinitely superior to simple democracy as a basis for proper government. From my point of view, democratic processes are simply a means of emulating the outcome of a contest of sovereignty with minimal resort to the chaos and bloodshed which would attend actual war between competing factions. Since any democracy will inevitably come to a violent end when the outcomes of popular elections are sufficiently divorced from the will of those who actually hold the sovereign power of feeding and defending the nation, unlimited commitment to the principle of democracy will inevitably lead to the most sanguinary and destructive kind of conflict. To abandon the freedom to advocate limiting democracy before that point is reached is rather like prohibiting the use of brakes on automobiles...yes, they rather subvert the whole exercise, but they are rather necessary.
"3. Freedom from Discrimination: all citizens are equally protected by secular law"
This is actually not terribly objectionable...so long as citizenship is very narrowly defined to include only those persons who substantially contribute to the sovereignty of the nation by provision of its fundamental needs. But I find such a narrow definition of citizenship to be unsatisfactory and thus would prefer a society in which nearly everyone can be a citizen but where the laws are structured such that those who make significant contributions to the welfare of society are better protected than those who detract from the welfare of society. This may not be what the foregoing freedom means...but it is hard to say what else it might mean. The principle of the Rule of Law helps to protect and ensure freedom (though not equally, the freedom of some need and receive little protection from the Rule of Law, the freedom of others much), but that is evidently not what is meant here. If Rule of Law is applied equally, some will be more protected than others (for instance, laws against murder tend to protect the less physically violent more than they protect those prone to such violence). Anything that would protect everyone equally would have to be applied unequally, and would not be the Rule of Law.
"4. Freedom from Religion: religion is only exempted from legal purview in the private sphere" I cannot see how this principle is even remotely compatible with the other four. Given that I do not wholly accept any of them as far as I can best interpret them, this might not be an absolute rejection in itself. But as it does happen, I fully support the right of people of any religious persuasion (other than Satanism and Atheism, which are both explicitly anti-religious in character) to fully express their own beliefs in the public sphere, form political organizations and vote in elections based on their religious affiliation, and to appeal for the protection of the laws all without any legal discrimination against them as a result of their religious beliefs and affiliations. I do not support unlimited freedom of anyone to violate or denigrate the religious beliefs of others (which is why anti-religions such as Satanism and Atheism cannot receive the same freedoms), but as long as contrary expressions are based on positive beliefs rather than simple denigration of others I would not wish to involve legal distinctions between different opinions regardless of whether they are of a public or private character.
Since I could not possibly feel free to express myself fully under the restrictions imposed by any one of these "freedoms", I seriously doubt I could make any serious contribution to any site that required my compliance with all four of them. Nor would I find much interest in saying anything that I could say without transgressing those "freedoms".