Stunning phone call from Iranian tyrant’s daughter, and a hard look at media tactics and UK acceleration of tyranny and communism: Links 1 for January 16, 2026

1. This is a truly stunning phone call received by a Persian language talk show in the UK yesterday from a woman who claims to be the daughter of one of the regime’s most tyrannical apparatchiks. There is a write up at RAIR with some explanations of Persian expressions that do not translate literally but matter to the meaning of the video.

2. For many years now, we have attempted to describe the process by which a Republic (more or less) slides into a totalitarian and communist nation using extrajudicial means to enforce non-laws to repress counter-narrative positions.

This article at the Western Standard is just a run of the mill example of this process. But it is critically important that people understand that it is a process. That ANTIFA and groups that move the culture to the left in all case, (And by the left we do mean away from individualism and liberty and towards collectivism and authoritarianism which is narrative driven and anti-objective truth) are state sponsored, or sponsored by an agency that intends to guide the state such as the UN, EU, WEF, and shadowy groups like Runnymede, The Fabian Society etc.

This woman who owns this restaurant was subject to fairly hostile ‘cancel-culture’ tactics for the trivial crime of allowing an anonymous booking of her venue for what turned out to be a celebration of sorts of the Conservative Party of Canada of which Pierre Poilievre attended. The owner, in typical and traditional restaurant fashion asked for a selfie with the PM. This was situ-normal not long ago where restaurants always put up photos of celebrity guests. Like because it’s fun, and adds cache to the venue to know these people ate there. But that was before the communist revolution.

Other examples of these dialectical agencies in Canada would include the various national and provincial levels, “Human Rights Tribunals” or “Human Rights Courts” all of which always adjudicate to the left except on the one extremely rare condition where Ezra Levant managed to shine one of those carbon rod special event spotlights at one and force a reality based judgement. The point of posting this isolated case it is in fact nothing whatsoever of an Isolated case. For those who have not seen the Danish American film called, Oh Canada, here it is again where many examples are given, even if it isn’t fleshed out in exactly this way.

3. Leftists are using bluesky, a leftist only social media platform created as a response to X allowing non-leftist counter narratives, to suggest that federal law enforcement in the US should be murdered on site.

3. Canada has basically 4 parties, all of which are communist. The Liberal Party, no need to explain to anyone who reads this site, but bills C4, C8 and C9 I think they are, should be enough to cement it as fact, let alone the communist revolution of 2020 with the vaxx and covid policies. The Conservative Party, which supports Liberal Party policies by demanding they do more and harder to the Canadian people. The Green Party, which of course is communist cause green is the new red everywhere in the West, and the NDP.

The NDP hit a new low in dialectical weaponry with this poster.

The NDP has always been communist or quasi communist though. The leader of that party for very many years was Jack Layton. HIs wife was a Chinese woman who’s policies certainly seem to align with the CCP as well as Western dialectical communist attacks on our culture, and is currently the mayor of Canada’s most industrial city Toronto.

4. Dialectics, Not Hypocrisy: Why These (UK) Bans Are Always One-Way

Remember when Geert Wilders was barred from entering the United Kingdom?

Not merely barred — detained at Heathrow Airport and placed on the next flight back to the Netherlands, without ever being allowed to enter the country.

This occurred in February 2009, at a time when the UK was still a member of the European Union. Wilders was not a private citizen, but a sitting Member of Parliament in another EU state. Under EU norms and regulations then in force, there were clear expectations — and in some cases explicit obligations — that member states would admit elected representatives of other member states, particularly when invited for lawful political speech.

Wilders had been formally invited to the House of Lords by Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
(As a personal aside: Lord Pearson was the first person I ever interviewed when I began this work.)

There was no criminal charge.
No incitement conviction.
No due process.

And yet the exclusion occurred.

Many people interpret this — then and now — as hypocrisy, selective enforcement, or even bureaucratic incompetence.

That interpretation is wrong.

This Is Not Hypocrisy. It Is Dialectics.

To understand what is happening, one must abandon the assumption that the system is trying to be neutral and failing.

What we are witnessing instead is perfect consistency — not at the level of stated principles, but at the level of directional outcome. (Telos)

Every one of these decisions:

• suppresses counter-narrative speech,

• advances cultural and legal asymmetry,

• and moves institutions in one direction only.

That direction is always leftward.
Always destructive to the current culture and individualism.
Always hostile to national sovereignty, tradition, and continuity.

This is not hypocrisy.
It is dialectical strategy.

Each exclusion is not an isolated act, but a thesis–antithesis maneuver designed to:

• provoke reaction,

• delegitimize resistance,

• normalize asymmetry,

• and advance revolutionary change incrementally.

Calling it “selective enforcement” ignores the intent.
Calling it incompetence misunderstands the method and removes culpability from those who execute these policies. (Hanlon’s Razor)

It is purposeful.

One might even be forgiven, occasionally, for a Freudian slip — calling it diabolical instead of dialectical — especially given Karl Marx’s own writings and influences such as poetry to Satan and dedicating books to the Devil. But the mechanism is political, not metaphysical.

The Pattern Repeats: 2013 and After

Fast-forward a few years.

In June 2013, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were formally barred from entering the United Kingdom.

Here is the key detail most people miss:

Neither of them was planning to travel to the UK at the time.

The ban was pre-emptive.
Declarative.
Symbolic.

It was not about managing an imminent risk.
It was about marking certain kinds of speech (counter-narrative) as illegitimate in advance.

During this same period — and continuously since — Islamist preachers, Muslim Brotherhood-aligned figures, and open advocates of revolutionary ideology were not merely tolerated in the UK, but invited, hosted, and platformed.

Many delivered material that would:

• plainly violate hate-speech laws if uttered in reverse,

• meet classic definitions of incitement,

• and, under older legal frameworks, raise questions of sedition or treason.

Again: this is not oversight.

It is dialectical asymmetry.

The Present Case Is Not New — It Is the Continuation

Which brings us to the present.

The images above show the UK government invoking the same phrase used in all prior cases:

“Your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.”

That phrase has a history.
A lineage.
A function.

And now it is being applied to Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a legal scholar and political commentator whose views run counter to the prevailing narrative architecture.

Here is an interview with Eva from December 1 2023 in Ottawa. So you know who the UK has banned from entry. (Click the little gear and dial it up to full quality for best viewing)

More: British Parliament:

5. I know I put this tweet in the last post as well. but frankly something this big should be seen repeatedly till the full gravitas of it sinks in.

You cannot hate the CBC enough. That goes nearly as much for Global, CTV and Bel Media in general.

This speech, which yes we have posted before, but the purpose of this site is not news. It is trying to scrape off the layers of propaganda to understand what is actually happening behind the matrix. The speech is about the CBC’s methods of propaganda and is from January 2023 in front of the CBC building, Sparks St. Ottawa

Thank you all for checking out this site.