We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
So why was the UK, US and European media so obsessed with this one shooting? Because it was done by an ICE officer, and ICE has been painted as Donald Trump’s personal law enforcement agency, ignoring the fact that it was created by George W Bush in 2002.
I make no defence of Donald Trump. I make no defence of the violent actions of ICE in so many US cities, but to pretend that this one incident was more important than the nascent revolution going on in Iran is laughable. And that’s what too many media organisations were doing.
I can look myself in the eye because almost from the start of the protests, I was covering them on my LBC show. Indeed, we’ve devoted hours and hours to them – more I suspect that any of the 24 hours news channels up until the last couple of days.
If you wanted any real-time coverage of what’s happening in Iran you had to go to live Youtube channels, like Mahyar Tousi’s TOUSI TV, which has been brilliant at informing people about what’s really going on.
– Iain Dale
On January 13th, Donald Trump indicated “Help is on the way” for Iranian protestors. Allegedly tens of thousands (!) of dead protestors later, which would be approaching Nazi-style Babi Yar massacre numbers if correct, what is the POTUS going to do? Help how? Realistically what can he do that would meaningfully change things for the better for the protestors, if anything?
Since Israel’s military response to the October 7th massacre by Hamas, news organisation of the world could not get reporters into Gaza. And yet, we have seen a constant stream of reportage and commentary.
But since the outbreak of mass civil resistance resistance to Iran’s repressive Islamic regime, we have seen an order of magnitude less in the media about the ongoing horrors there. News organisations have often stated this was due to their inability to get reporters into Iran. Strange that.
Truly… no Jews, no news.
“So, where are the chants of ‘From The Gulf to the Caspian Sea, Iran will be free'”?
– Allister Heath, asking a question that sort of gets a natural, logical answer: because Iran’s regime is against Israel and Jews, and against the West more generally. And in the minds of those who used to protest about Israel’s attacks on Hamas/Hezbollah and others, that is what counts. A few thousand people dead in Iran is all about the smashing eggs/omelette equation according to this anti-West calculus. In a way, this plays to the whole “two-tier” issue of the thinking about much of today’s Left (and the barmier forms of it on the Right): If you are on the “right” side of a particular argument (say that you are against Israel’s existence, or at least ambivalent about it), then it creates moral “space” to be indulgent towards regimes that are against Israel, etc. We see this over and over.
(Daily Telegraph link behind paywall.)
Nick Timothy writes in the Telegraph:
It was last summer when Aston Villa drew Maccabi Tel Aviv in the Europa League. Immediately, the local, “Gaza Independent” MP Ayoub Khan launched a campaign to cancel the match. His petition demanded the match be cancelled because Aston is, in his words, a “predominantly Muslim community”.
After police planning started for the match, due to be played on November 6, officers met Birmingham councillors and officials at the Safety Advisory Group meeting on October 7. Two local councillors present said the “community want it stopped”. They met behind closed doors, but the minutes now show the truth. Even in the “absence of intelligence” the “planning assumption” of the police was that no away fans would attend the match.
The chairman of the Safety Advisory Group contacted the police two days later asking for a “more clear rationale”. A position had been reached, but the police were asked retrospectively to drum up a justification. The chairman warned the police to make sure the decision did not look like “anti-Jewish sentiment”.
When the committee met again on October 16, the police magicked their “significant intelligence” about the supposed violence of the Maccabi fans.
The police thought they could get away with it. Instead, their case has utterly collapsed. The “intelligence”, which the Chief Constable said had “changed the assessment”, focused on disorder in Amsterdam in 2024. It said the Maccabi fans were “linked to the Israel Defence Force” and targeted Muslim areas, throwing people into the river. Their report claimed the Dutch police sent 5,000 officers to tackle the violence. But none of it was true.
The fabricated “intelligence” supposedly came from an unminuted meeting between West Midlands Police and Dutch commanders on 1 October. This meeting was held six days before the meeting when the police said there was an “absence of intelligence”.
Amsterdam’s mayor, local police chief, and chief public prosecutor have all contradicted the “intelligence” – even calling it “nonsensical”. The disorder in Amsterdam was in fact violence against the Maccabi fans, which was described as a “Jew hunt”. It was an Israeli who was pushed into the river. Only 1,200 officers were deployed.
And it gets worse. West Midlands Police received intelligence on September 5, before the Safety Advisory Group meetings, saying local Islamists planned to “arm themselves” and attack Maccabi fans. But this information was suppressed, seemingly because the police did not want to admit that the true source of the threat lay closer to home. Instead of confronting the mob, the police gave in and banned the Israelis.
In modern times, the British social contract was meant to be that we, the people, give up the right to use force to protect ourselves in exchange for the police protecting us. Cue Libertarian grumbling “I do not recall signing this contract”, but that is the Britain we used to live in. It wasn’t ideal but it wasn’t bad either. It was one of the better societies that have ever existed.
The social contract relied on the idea that the only people permitted to arm themselves were servants of the state such as police officers or soldiers. If the state got wind that members of any other group – a white nationalist militia for example – were preparing to arm themselves in order to attack their enemies, an armed response unit would be kicking down their doors faster than you can say “Terrorism Act 2000”.
Now that some sections of the police have acquiesced in other groups taking the right to arm themselves, and, worse yet, have covered up their shame by portraying the aggressors as victims and vice versa, what reason do we have to continue to grant them special status as the sole holders of the right and responsibility to bear arms? Without the majestic aura of the law around them, the police are just another gang. They are not even the dominant gang.
Some thoughts about what might happen if the brutes ruling Iran are toppled:
Funding for various Islamist terror networks will decline and that is good for Israel, Lebanon and wider world.
Israel might try and carve out relations with Iran, leading over time to trade and capital flows, development, etc. There are lots of young, smart Iranian people who want something better. Some expat Iranians might return and bring money and investment.
This will hit the Islamists who are allying with the Western hard Left. This is going to badly undermine morale and the sense that their ideology is winning. That is important.
Iran’s relations with Moscow will change, and become more difficult. This might further tilt the scales against Putin, although that is not something I predict with much confidence.
On balance, this is also a negative for China, assuming that Iran moves in a slightly more liberal direction (I use that word with due care and attention).
The Gulf states might benefit in some ways but not in others. Saudi Arabia, UAE etc have benefited in recent years from expanded links with the West, in part because they were seen as the relatively sane folk in the room (particularly, the UAE). If Iran were to turn more friendly, more pro-capitalist, etc, it creates more competition for the Gulf states. Competition is generally a good thing.
Can we call it “Persia” again?
Whilst still agog at the snatch in Venezuela, let’s not forget that Iran remains on the brink.
Might be a good time for the IDF or USAF to JDAM a few HQ buildings or mess with telecommunications 😀
I do not have a good enough grasp of Iran’s internal political and social dynamics to know if this wave of resistance has an real prospect of unseating the ghastly Islamic regime… but that would indeed be a truly wonderous start to 2026 if it was to happen.
This is a real tweet from the European Commission:
https://x.com/EU_Commission/status/2004462313508950137f
One port, one cable, one Europe.
This holiday, unwrap the power of one: USB-C for all.
Yes, not just phones, tablets, and laptops. In three years, every charger will be under the same tree.
Because less waste, smarter choices, mean more for everyone, all year long.
https://link.europa.eu/QDMFTh
This is an excerpt from a scholarly article about the history of Islam:
By the beginning of the fourth century of the hijra (about A.D. 900), however, the point had been reached when scholars of all schools felt that all essential questions had been thoroughly discussed and finally settled, and a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one might be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all. This ‘closing of the door of ijtihad‘, as it was called, amounted to the demand for taklid, a term which had originally denoted the kind of reference to Companions of the Prophet that had been customary in the ancient schools of law, and which now came to mean the unquestioning acceptance of the doctrines of established schools and authorities.
– Joseph Schacht, quoted by Wael B. Hallaq in Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?
If you think that the ability of the European Commission to recognise when something has reached a point where no improvement is possible is good enough to allow it to safely close the door of ijtihad on charger cable design, consider the evident fact that none of the multiple people in the Berlaymont building over whose desks the draft of that tweet must have passed knew enough history to veto that title.
In what might come as a surprise to some, and I would suggest is a counter to a broad narrative, an Employment Tribunal (a form of Labour Court) in England has upheld the principle that criticism of ‘unreformed’ Islam is legally protected. The Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether or not the Claimant (Plaintiff in old, sound [ 🙂 ] money) could in principle bring a claim on the basis that he held a belief that had sufficient cogency as to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. As far as can be discerned from the judgment, there was an issue (which is very much now an issue for a determination on the merits at a later hearing) as to whether the employer was taking action against the Claimant (the circumstances of which we know nothing) because of his manifestation of his belief, (which is permissible) rather than because he simply held those beliefs, which is not permissible; e.g. a nurse who is a devout Christian being sacked for being a Christian rather than specifically, sacked for e.g. saying to a seriously-ill patient ‘Convert or face Hell-fire soon!‘ which could well be a manifestation of a belief at which offence might be taken.
The issue that the Tribunal considered is set out in the judgment (linked above) as follows:
“The belief that Islam, particularly in a traditional form – rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form – is problematic and deserving of criticism in so far as it fails:
(i) To recognise a separation between religion (sacred) and politics (secular) and/or the Church and state,
(ii) To value and respect fundamental human rights such as:
• freedom of conscience and of speech,
• to eschew and condemn violence in the name of religion (Islam),
• to treat and respect women and girls equally when compared to men and boys.”
The Claimant appears to have been ‘hauled up’ by his employer over his Twitter/X usage, there is reference to a file of 141 pages showing his Twitter feed, which the employer sought (at this stage) to use to argue that his belief in the need for a ‘reformation’ of ‘unreformed Islam’ was not genuinely held, i.e. that he was using this ‘belief’ as a shield for views that would not be protected. That is yet to be determined, if it is continued with by the employer.
The main points of the Claimant’s case were the following which he considered problematic were noted at paragraph 13 in the judgment:
‘In his witness statement [C/14], the Claimant has cited the following
“traditional and unreformed Islamic belief[s]” that are that are incompatible with “Western values” in that they:
(i) advocate or justify violence against non-believers or apostates;
(ii) promote unequal legal status for women;
(iii) call for the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality;
(iv) reject the separation of religion and state, and seek to impose religious law;
(v) promote antisemitism or hatred towards groups including reformed Muslims;
(vi) condone child marriage;
(vii) permit forms of slavery or indentured servitude;
(viii) justify domestic violence, including wife-beating and female genital mutilation (“FGM”).’
It is important to note here that the Claimant’s belief isn’t about hostility towards Muslims as such, but to the holding and promotion of the ‘unreformed’ version of Islam that he is objecting to.
The issue for the Tribunal hearing the final case is summed up at paragraph 17:
‘The degree to which the Claimant will be able to establish that these tweets were a manifestation of the pleaded belief or that the Respondent will be able to show that these were inappropriate manifestations of, or otherwise separable from, the belief, are matters which fall to be decided at the final hearing.’
I.e. was the Claimant criticism of the ‘unreformed’ Islam that he weighs in against inappropriate, which takes into account the position that he held in the employer that he worked or works for.
There is nothing in this judgment that surprises me, it seems to be a legally-sound decision that the principle of criticising a belief on the basis of its incompatibility with ‘Western values’ (whatever they might be) is one where not only is it lawful, but an employer who acts against an employee for doing so (unless the manifestation is inappropriate) is itself acting unlawfully. Clearly, given that Courts are holding that such expression is legally-protected in principle, any notion that such comments are criminally unlawful are unfounded so any police action arising from those Tweets would be wholly unlawful.
This tweet from “GnasherJew” includes a video clip from a lecture on “The Birth of Zionism” given by Dr Samar Maqusi for the group “UCL Students for Justice in Palestine” on 11th November 2025. Dr Marqusi is currently Research Associate at University College London’s Person-Environment-Activity Research Laboratory (PEARL). (“Her work looks into the politics of space-making inside the Palestine refugee camps. More recently, she has been investigating modes of sociality and vitality in refugee camps inside a burdened Lebanon. Previously, Samar worked with UNRWA (UN Agency for Palestine refugees) as an Architect/Physical Planner, focusing on programmes of shelter rehabilitation and camp improvement.”)
Update: It looks like I pressed “publish” too soon. Never mind, you can enjoy seeing this post made in real time. Watch the video clip. It shows an academic in University College, London (UCL) spreading the blood libel. For anyone new to the term, a blood libel is a specific sort of anti-Jewish propaganda in which Jews are said to have murdered Christians for ritual purposes, often including baking their blood into bread. The genre goes back to the thirteenth century cult of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln. The spreading of such tales is usually the precursor to a pogrom, as it was in Lincoln in 1255.
Dr Samar Maqusi said this to her students the day before yesterday:
Now 40 years later, in about 1838, there was something called the “Damascus Affair”. Uh, what happened is, there is, um, a priest, a Christian priest called Thomas. He disappears, um, in Damascus during what is called the feast of Tabernacles. So, this is a Jewish feast, and the story goes – and, you know, again, these are things that you read again and again. As I said, do investigate, draw your own narrative. But the story is that during this feast they make this, um, special pancakes, or, um, bread. And part of the holy ceremony is that drops of blood from someone who’s not Jewish, which the term is “gentile”, has to be mixed in that bread. So, the story is that, um, a certain investigation was undergoing to try and find where Father Thomas is. He was found murdered and a group of, of Jews who lived in Syria said that, you know, admitted to kidnapping and murdering him to get the drops of blood for making, uh, the holy bread.
This one is known as “the Damascus Affair” or “the Damascus Blood Libel”. It’s famous enough to appear in lists of historical blood libels. I wasn’t expecting to see it related as fact in 2025 in one of the top ten universities in the world. Like every conspiracy theorist ever born, Dr Maqusi peppers her speech with literal and metaphorical “uptalk”, little get-out clauses such as “the story goes” and “draw your own narrative”, so that if challenged she can claim to be “just asking questions”. But she felt safe enough to speak as she did, and, with the delayed exception of whoever recorded her, her student audience did not challenge her.
As ever, I do not seek to use the law to silence Dr Maqusi. I want it made clear to all how common and accepted her views are among the pro-Palestinian movement, and among Palestinians. I do think that unless UCL takes action their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy will be revealed as an empty sham, but if that is the case I would rather know about it.
Update: Dan Souter points out in the comments that UCL has apologised and Dr Maqusi’s profile has been removed from the UCL website. The link is to an article by David Rose in Unherd. I commend the Provost’s decisive action to protect his university’s reputation, but I do find it disquieting that in just five years universities across the English-speaking world went from beating their breasts in penitence for the most minuscule and indirect manifestations of racism – here is UCL’s 2020 statement on Black Lives Matter and here is an account from its website of how it “denamed” buildings named after a couple of Victorian eugenicists because seeing the old names has “a profound impact on the sense of belonging that we want all of our staff and students to have” – to this.
We must take over the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, the whole of the UK… we will not be taken for granted, and we will win.
– Iqbal Mohamed MP, Jezbollah Party er, I mean “Your Party”
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
