sam

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

Sam Harris has written the best thing you’ll read today.

https://t.co/gI0wZZNH4m

[Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio @LeoKearse]

Pakistani Muslim nonces a girl, gets two years.
21 year old British kid angry that police helped kill a British kid throws a traffic cone, it hits nobody, gets 3-5 years.
But remember, there's no two-tier policing.

[Liza Rosen @LizaRosen0000]

Rape victims are often accused of adultery under Sharia law if they report being raped by married Muslim men.
Here is a shocking example:

A 13-year-old girl in Somalia was raped by a married Muslim man. Instead of punishing the rapist, an Islamic Sharia court sentenced the little girl to death. The Muslim rapist accused her of “seducing” him by appearing in public, and the court agreed — convicting her of adultery.

Hundreds of Muslim men gathered to stone her to death as an offering to Allah.

They laughed, cheered and shouted “Allahu Akbar” as she screamed in agony until her last breath. Not one man stepped forward to save the 13-year-old rape victim.

Everyone in the village heard her cries for help before the execution. Instead of intervening, they tied her hands behind her back and chained her feet. The local imam directed the men to dig a hole and bury her up to her waist so she could not move or dodge the stones aimed at her head.

For hours before and during the stoning she begged for mercy, looking toward her neighbors, her father, and every Muslim man taking part. Until her final breath she cried out, but no one rescued her. Of the hundreds of men present, none showed compassion.

The participants gladly joined this Islamic act of worship, ignoring her pleas and rejoicing with “Allahu Akbar” while brutally killing her.
This is not an isolated barbaric act.
This is Sharia law in practice — where the victim is punished and the rapist protected if he is married.

Not all cultures are equal.
Some protect the innocent.
Islam punishes the raped girl and calls it justice.

The West keeps importing this ideology while pretending it is compatible with our values.
It is not.

Share this. The world must see the true face of Sharia and stop the denial.

[Æthelstan @TheHauskarl]

You can walk down a random street in Britain and find a man who will articulate what has ruined your country more eloquently than anyone in Westminster.

That is the vitality, the power of the human capital, embedded within and borne of England.

He accuses the cushy status quo of systematically stymying and excluding people with his views, and that rather than delivering a utopia in exchange for globalism — it has delivered a self-perpetuating nightmare where nothing works and no one cares.

They say you need to import the world to replenish and revitalise a decaying England.

No, they are systematically neglecting England then pointing at it - at us - and deciding, declaring in fact, that there is nothing to be done, and that your destiny is this; that you should be a Fungible Unit of Exchange living within the confines of an arbitrary Economic Zone, afforded the company of a revolving door of strangers.

The post war liberal consensus has waged an oppressive and suffocating campaign to deconstruct their identity that has been indulged with magnanimity for decades; and yet the Progressive Blob has failed to construct anything seaworthy in its stead.

The project has already failed, they just haven't realised it yet - and the character of the past 20 years might best be described as denialism; as the progressive blob sits atop the ashes and declares that everything is OK.

Everything is not OK. I'm tired of being told who I am, I'm not a Fungible Economic Unit, I'm not fish & chips — the destiny of the English is greater than this.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

A farmer dies in April 2026.

His son inherits the farm. The farm has been in the family since 1847.

The farm consists of: 300 acres of grazing pasture, a farmhouse built in 1892, a barn, a milking parlour, two tractors of varying ages, a Land Rover that runs about 70% of the time, and a herd of 180 Hereford-cross cattle.

On paper, the farm is worth approximately £3.2 million. This is because land near him has been bought recently by a London hedge fund looking for carbon credits, which has dragged the comparable value of every field within forty miles upward to a number nobody local can justify.

In cash, the farm produces a profit of about £28,000 a year in a good year. In a bad year it loses money. The son also works as a fencing contractor three days a week to keep the operation viable.

The inheritance tax bill on a £3.2 million estate, even at the reduced 20% rate, comes to approximately £140,000 after the increased threshold is applied. The son does not have £140,000. The son has never had £140,000. The son has £4,200 in his current account and an overdraft.

The son sells 60 acres to a developer to pay the tax. The developer puts solar panels on the 60 acres. The remaining herd cannot be sustained on the reduced land. The herd is sold. The barn becomes a holiday let.

A different family eats Brazilian beef this Christmas without knowing why the price went up.

The Treasury collects £140,000.

The land never produces British food again.

[Donna-Louise @NoLongerTheFuzz]

1/ In January 2008, PC Neil Sampson walked towards a man with a knife. He took seven stab wounds doing it.
His dog Anya, already bleeding, kept hold of the attacker so her handler could live.

That same man, Essa Suleiman stabbed two people yesterday in a terror attack in Golders Green.

Here’s what happened next. 🧵

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital.

Cette phrase change tout.

L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ?

Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible.

Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur.

Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé.

Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire.

L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants.

Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution.

Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain.

Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée.

Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien.

La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose.

Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins.

Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires.

La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

[Adam Wren @aswren]

It’s not about “stealing oil”, the US is energy independent. It IS about restricting the supply of oil to import dependent China.

The ‘internal law based order’ did and does exist. The UN has power, international courts have power, but as the hegemon it’s contingent on US hardware.
There is no ‘global policeman’ you can call.
For decades that policeman was the US, and though it obviously made mistakes with Iraq, Libya and so on, but we have had a remarkably peaceful century.

The ‘rules based order’ hit bumps in the road with state sponsored terrorism, with proxy wars conducted by paramilitary organisations and no effective tools to bring those regimes to heel.

But where it really eroded was with the emergence of Russia/China as contending powers, with the many failings of the UN. For decades this ‘multipolar’ world was cheered on by western leftists in the hopes it might topple capitalism.

We now face constant, barely deniable cyberattacks against western organisations, spying & stealing have become normal. I spent half a decade tracking supply chain attacks against western institutions and every year they got more sophisticated and more audacious. The Russians even unleashed a nerve agent on British soil.

Don’t listen to pearl clutching about the ‘illegality’ of limited strikes against Chinese aligned dictators when these people are silent about the threats we’re facing.

Toppling the maduro regime (if that’s what happens) it’s a strategic victory. It’s also moral, since he was killing and starving his own people in an attempt to make communism work.

Burgon et al will decry the end of the ‘rules based order’ while saying nothing about why it’s ending and opposing the US that upheld it all this time.

They’ll call the west imperialist and colonialist while ignoring China and Russia raping africa for its minerals, exterminating its wildlife and killing its rivers. They are hypocrites and their only principle is supporting anything and anyone they deem to be anti-western

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

I have been monitoring the Venezuela issue all day long, and there are so many questions yet to be answered (thanks to great Pentagon OPSEC), but the strategic reason for bringing down Maduro has become abundantly clear.

While we ostensibly captured Maduro based on legitimate, outstanding US drug charges from 2020, the real reason for the military operations early this morning is that neutralizing Maduro's Venezuela had become a strategic imperative for the USA.

Under Maduro, Venezuela had become the Latin American crossroads for all of the USA's principal enemies. Maduro was nurturing relationships with Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. Worst of all, Venezuela was eagerly becoming a part of Red China's Belt & Road initiative.

As America's enemies were lining up Venezuela as their base of operations in the Western Hemisphere to cause mischief and destruction for the USA, Maduro was at the same time making Venezuela a crossroads, safe haven and enabler for all manner of narcoterrorist operations, ranging from Colombia's FARC to Mexico's Sinaloa cartel.

On top of all that, Venezuela had become a key player in the illegal alien invasion of the USA, shipping its very worst to the USA in a deliberate and comprehensive destabilizing operation that might have worked had Donald Trump not won in 2024.

Next in importance: oil. The global and regional ambitions of both China and Russia are in large part dependent on the politics of petroleum, and the USA just deprived both of the cudgel afforded by friendly Venezuelan oil. Trump opponents say "It's about oil" as if that was a bad thing. Yeah, it's about oil.

Finally, all of this was in keeping with the most essential and fundamental foreign policy mandate of the USA almost since the nation's inception: the Monroe Doctrine. Operations like what Maduro was running simply cannot be allowed in the Western Hemisphere. Trump was right for falling back on this most basic of doctrines that protects the USA's sovereignty.

So was Maduro seized because of some five year-old drug charges? Yes. Legally--yes. However, like so many strategic issues in the world today, an action needed to be backed by the fine points of law, and it was. But the reality is that the Maduro takedown was a Monroe Doctrine-driven necessity that has greatly enhanced the power and national security of the USA.

Congratulations, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and the rest of the Trump national security team: you boldly took the steps necessary to defend the USA.

Well done.

[Chris Littlewood @chrislittlewoo8]

Here is what directors now face under the government’s new One Login digital ID mandate.

This is an actual screenshot from @garfen, a director who tried to verify his identity:

If you fail the automated One Login identity check:

You are locked out.
You get no explanation.
You get no appeal.
You get no human review.
You are given no alternative way to prove your identity.

Support cannot help you and cannot override the process.

You are told to contact the service you need but the digital ID barrier remains.

And this is not a rare bug.

This is the official process.

You risk being fined or struck off as a director for failing to comply with a system that gives you no recourse if it gets it wrong.

This is a fundamental breach of data protection and human rights laws:

GDPR Article 12 requires an effective remedy and clear information.

GDPR Article 22 gives you the right to human intervention and an explanation for automated decisions.

The Human Rights Act guarantees a fair process and effective remedy for decisions that affect your rights and livelihood.

Yet the government is forcing everyone to use this broken system with known, unresolved security holes and no route for appeal or redress.

This is reckless.

This is unlawful.

And it is already locking people out of their legal obligations as company directors.

It is time to demand answers from @CompaniesHouse, @GDSTeam, and @ICOnews

Not Safe, Not Secure

#NoToDigitalID

[William M Briggs - Statistician to the Stars! @FamedCelebrity]

The Lancet’s New Push To Ban Meat🧵

Science is not the answer. It cannot be “because Science” that you ought to give up meat. Which Harvard scientists want you to do in the name of “justice”. And, of course, to save the planet. Which is in no danger and does not need saving.

[Chris Littlewood @chrislittlewoo8]

Digital ID for every adult is not progress. It is the end of a free society dressed up as convenience.

I am a cyber security specialist. This is my take.

They are selling it as a fix for illegal migration. That is bollocks.

We spend hundreds of billions a year on cyber security and yet the volume of breaches is breaking records. The threat is growing faster than the spend.

Digital ID will not stop boats. It will not stop trafficking gangs. It will not fix a broken border.

Criminals will work around it.

Honest citizens will pay the price.

It builds giant data banks that track where you go, what you buy, what you read and who you speak to.

It links your identity to every checkpoint in daily life.

One breach and your life is exposed.

Look at Jaguar Land Rover and the airports in recent weeks. Now imagine that at national scale on an ID system tied to everything you need to live your daily life.

Here is the risk that ministers will not admit.

Ransomware seeded through a supplier or an insider:

It lies quiet for months.
It rolls through the backups.
On trigger day the register and the recovery sets are both encrypted.

Payments fail. Health and benefits stall. Borders slow. Citizens are frozen out until a ransom is paid or the state rebuilds from scratch.

Centralise identity and you centralise failure.

Do not fall for the pitch.
Function creep is certain.
It starts as login.

It becomes access to money, travel, speech and public services.

It turns rights into permissions controlled by the state and its contractors.

It creates a single point of failure for criminals, insiders and hostile states to target.

It will punish the elderly, the poor and anyone who is not always online.

It will centralise risk and outsource blame.

It will not stop fraud.

It will not stop illegal migration.

It will build the machinery for a social credit system by stealth.

If ministers cared about the border, they would enforce current laws, resource patrols and processing, close loopholes and remove those with no right to stay.

You do not need a national ID to do any of that.

We scrapped ID cards in 2010 for a reason.

Britain does not need a central register to prove age or status.

Yes to privacy first proofs. No to a database state.

[William @WilliamofKent]

We're getting digital ID because you're all a bunch of contemptible freaks who made it abundantly clear that you don't value liberty at all and think the government should micromanage your life. They're delivering what you asked for.

I hate you.

[James Graham @jamesnigraham]

Legal & General manage over £1 trillion.

If you have a workplace pension, they likely manage it.

Last week, I attended their AGM to find out if your retirement is their sole priority...

The answer was a resounding NO 🧵

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

5 years ago, we couldn’t even mourn our loved ones properly.

A reminder when a son moved his chair next to his mother to comfort her at the funeral of her late husband. He was told to distance from her. This sort of horrendous inhumanity must never happen again.

[Collingwood 🇬🇧 @admcollingwood]

The New York Times unintentionally but beautifully demonstrates the problem with the media narrative that the JD Vance speech was somehow so unfair as to be beyond the pale -- and with the entire European narrative about 'protecting' 'Our Democracy' and 'Our Values'.

The European/US Liberal Establishment argument, as exemplified in the NYT article, is that Mr Vance was factually incorrect to claim that "Romania cancelled an election because the wrong candidate won." Instead, they say, it was cancelled because there was evidence of Russian interference. In fact -- and I can't emphasise this enough -- no such evidence exists. The election was cancelled by decision of the Romanian Supreme Court based on a single document from the Romanian intelligence service which asserted that unusual social media activity had been detected. In other words, there is no publicly available evidence whatsoever to back the NYT's claims. Worse, the authors of the article know it: as @aaronjmate shows below, the article links to another NYT article which says precisely "there is no evidence." As do the European establishment figures -- like the comical @guyverhofstadt -- who cheered the decision as vital for protecting democracy (one assumes he typed that from the Ministry of Truth.)

Is this not the misinformation (or even disinformation) about which the NYT and European establishment complain so bitterly? And it's not as if any European country actually cares about foreign interference. As @elonmusk and @DOGE have shown, the US massively interferes in European politics, from literally seeding and then funding LGBTQ+networks in Ireland, to funding 90% of media in Ukraine and calling it 'independent'. Our elites don't care on principle that foreign countries intervene, as long as they peddle narratives our elites like.

It is the same with being against so called misinformation and disinformation and extremism. The establishment will not call out articles like the one Mr Mate highlights; they'll not clamp down on ANTIFA, or Muslims who say that women who wear short skirts are literal whores. But they will clamp down on their political opposition; they will hold articles with which they disagree to the very highest of imaginable standards. But it's now expanding. Only selected politicians may run deficits. Those who are not favoured by the establishment face Excessive Debt Investigations through the EU Stability and Growth Pact enforcement -- or worse, a Central Bank orchestrated run on your country's bond market. Meanwhile, countries that do not toe the EU line can expect EU Rule of Law investigations, while those who are favoured in Brussels may annul elections that the wrong candidate wins or lock up political opponents.

Whether Vance was right to intervene from a diplomatic point of view (and I am not a fan of America putting its big clumsy paws on the scale, even when its in my favour), the Europeans have no real recourse to complain because (1) they're not in principle against foreign interference, and in fact support it; and (2) the fact and spirit of what he said was right.

Rather than weeping into the podium, they might take it as a reality check. (But won't.)

[jean-claude perez @JCPEREZCODEX]

The way from #MRNA JABS TOWARDS #PRIONdiseases & #turboCANCERS

[J Kerner @JKernerOT]

🧵THREAD
This is a long but highly informative documentary proving there is NO climate "crisis," and that the entire climate agenda is a fraud.

[Bruce Pardy @PardyBruce]

The political landscape is not left vs right.
There are three main persuasions, not two.

Collectivist left (progressives and socialists)
vs
Collectivist right (conservatives)
vs
Individualists (classical liberals and libertarians)

[Robert Colvile @rcolvile]

‘No business can survive Reeves’s 20 per cent tax grab. It will be the death of entrepreneurship.’ James Dyson on how the Budget will kill family businesses. https://t.co/AmswKz7iRu