Hey, Muslim! Are you paying too much for YOUR car insurance? If so, call ‘Starmer Direct’, and try yelling the magic word “Racism!!!” down the phone.
This would appear to be the advice of The Muslim Vote (TMV), a newly-formed religio-political pressure group who, ahead of the U.K. General Election called for 4 July, issued Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer with a list of 18 demands for Islam-friendly policy-changes if he wanted to retain or regain the ballots of Britain’s estimated four million or so Muslim voters, whom TMV were seemingly claiming to represent.
The most comical of these demands was number 15, which ordered Starmer to “Ensure insurance quotes don’t cost more for someone called Muhammad”. This request-cum-order was seemingly based on a 2018 investigation by the Sun, amusingly headlined ‘Mo Compare’, which purported to find that, if you applied for a new car insurance policy under the false name ‘Muhammad Ali’ rather than ‘John Smith’, you might be quoted a premium of up to £919 more. Bosses denied this represented racism, however, saying insurance firms used anti-fraud software to calculate premiums automatically, to detect “inaccurate details” or “implausibly changed” ones – maybe the computers just thought ‘Muhammad Ali’ sounded like a made-up name? If the Sun had tried applying for quotes under the pseudonym Cassius Clay instead, I’m sure everything would have been fine.
Is this discrepancy in fees really true? Maybe it was back then, but according to a new replication of the Sun’s 2018 investigation performed by the Daily Mail following TMV’s recent petitioning of Starmer, it isn’t now. Earlier this month, the Mail ran “dozens of quotes” on leading price-comparison website GoCompare finding that, on average, people with the white kuffar-sounding names ‘John Smith’ and ‘Darren Smith’ now paid higher premiums than people named ‘Muhammad Smith’: in one case, £553.89 higher. Why could this be? Had standards of Islamic road-safety for some reason increased exponentially in the interim?
Possibly not. According to sensible commentator Rakib Ehsan, who wants his fellow Muslims to integrate into British society, not pose as perpetual victims in an attempt to dominate it from within:
Yes, insurance costs more, on average, for British Muslims. But only because of the community’s relatively youthful population, which is disproportionately located in denser, inner-city areas. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these two factors are strongly associated with a higher incidence of road accidents [and car-thefts], and therefore irritatingly higher insurance quotes.
Hello Jihadi John, Got a New Motor?
My mother was once ferried back home from a railway station by a Muslim taxi-driver who insisted upon driving part of the way along a motorway with his eyes closed tight-shut and his hands completely off the wheel whilst he offered up muttered devotions to Allah via the use of Tasbih prayer-beads. If this pattern of low regard for road-safety is replicated elsewhere across the Muslim community in Great Britain, perhaps their insurance premiums should be higher. And yet, according to the Daily Mail, they aren’t, at least not any more. How come?
Could it perhaps be that, following public pressure being placed upon them after the Sun’s 2018 investigation, insurance companies quietly tweaked their algorithms so that, rather than Muslims being discriminated against when it came to paying high premiums, they were instead discriminated in favour of? I’ve no idea, because I am not skilled enough to be able to hack their computers and find out, but certain Left-wing commentators back in 2018 certainly seemed to be calling for something broadly like this to occur, at least between the lines. Here is journalist Ruqaya Izzidien, whose name tragically means she probably can’t even afford to drive a car at all, writing in Left-wing house-journal the New Statesman in light of the Sun’s findings:
Perhaps Mohammeds live in high-crime areas… as the benefit-of-the-doubters on social media claim. But in that case, how is this anything more than a poverty tax? And if so, shouldn’t we contest it?… If Mohammeds are being quoted a higher premium than John it would simply be a symptom of the structural biases and discrimination that permeate throughout the commercial and corporate worlds. If Mohammed can’t get a foot in the ladder at work, or can’t rent a flat in a better postcode, then he will be paying a discriminatory premium his entire life – or until this unethical and illogical insurance practice is outlawed. It should not be the responsibility of marginalised communities to hold companies to account for their discriminatory practices… Mohammeds don’t get to choose their name or ethnicity.
This is presented as simply a benign means of levelling out an uneven playing field, but in fact it is not. Ultimately, insurance companies exist purely to make money for their shareholders, and if they feel forced by social or political pressure to lower premiums for one high-risk group in an unwarranted fashion, then they will simply make up for this by passing on costs to an alternative, lower-risk group in compensation – i.e., non-Muslims, primarily white people with names like ‘Smith’. John Smiths “don’t get to choose their name or ethnicity” either, you know, Ruqaya.
Charity Begins At Home
Artificially subsiding Muslims’ car insurance isn’t the end of it, however. The Muslim Vote’s demand number 12 to Keir Starmer was as follows:
Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 years later.
How generous-sounding of them! Well, charity towards the poor is one of the traditional Five Pillars of Islam. But is it really charity at all, if what you are actually giving away is other people’s money? According to 2022 analysis by the good folk at MEND – Muslim ENgagement & Development, a controversial pressure-group and backer of TMV decried as “Islamists masquerading as civil libertarians” in a 2017 report by the Henry Jackson Society – “nearly half of British Muslims (46%) live in the poorest 10% of local authority districts. They also earn the least of any religious group and have experienced poverty at a rate 10 times higher than the general population since the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Appallingly, “nearly one-third of Muslims in the U.K. have had to skip meals” due to poverty, says MEND – still, helps keep them on the straight and narrow during Ramadan.
So, the actual true nature of TMV’s demand 12 of Keir Starmer, stripped of any camouflaging language of ‘charitable’ intent, is that more government money should be funnelled into various Muslim-dominated areas on the grounds that they are more deprived financially.
But ‘government money’, of course, is simply an obfuscatory euphemism for ‘taxpayers’ money’: here, mainly that of non-Muslims. Taken together, it sounds an awful lot like such demands are in effect simply for a ‘non-believer tax’ to be placed upon all U.K. taxpayers who are unfortunate enough not to have been either born or received into the ever-growing ummah of Islam. In other words, it is a form of jizya.
No Taxation Without Dhimmification
What is jizya? According to wikiIslam, whose definition seems a little more honest than that of the ordinary Wikipedia (which is possibly why the ordinary Wikipedia presents the site as being ideologically biased in nature, completely unlike Wikipedia itself, of course):
Jizyah or jizya is the extra, lunar-yearly taximposed on Dhimmis, that is non-Muslims who live [as inferior, second-class citizens] under Muslim rule … It is the linchpin of the system of religious apartheid and Islamic supremacism which is the dhimma. Its payment is both a payment for the cessation of the state of Jihad upon the dhimmi, as well as a sign of the humiliation and degradation of the dhimmi before the authority of Islamic religion. The jizya itself was only one of many special taxes paid by non-Muslims to their Muslim governments, but amongst them it is the only one which was specifically delineated in the Qur’an … various other traditions of humiliation and abuse accompanied the jizya; the dhimmi was required to pay it … “an yadin” that is “by hand” and “saaghiruun” that is “humiliated/lowered/in subjugation.” As such … while paying the tax the dhimmi must [traditionally] receive blows about the head and/or neck from the Muslim collecting it to symbolize his humiliated state … Upon payment of the tax the dhimmi would receive a receipt of payment, either in the form of a piece of paper or parchment or as a seal humiliatingly placed upon their neck, and was thereafter compelled to carry this receipt wherever he went within the realms of Islam. Failure to produce an up-to-date jizya receipt on the request of a Muslim could result in death or forced conversion to Islam of the dhimmi in question.
An organisation like The Muslim Vote would not be so stupid as to openly come out and demand that the jizya tax be introduced in (currently) white-majority Christian or post-Christian lands like the United Kingdom. Instead, it would be far more practical to exploit the ostensibly non-religious language of social justice, financial equity, redistribution of wealth, and institutionalised victimology to get such a thing introduced under no particular name instead, by purest stealth.
In fact, the more you look, the more you see ordinary taxpayers’ cash being systematically siphoned away from them and used to subsidise Islam in any number of ways. This March, the U.K. Government (again, that’s a euphemism for ‘you, the taxpayer’), guaranteed £117 million of ‘their’ money to provide security arrangements for mosques and suchlike, while leading dhimmi Jeremy Hunt notoriously opened his last (in both senses of the word) Budget by announcing a new £1m war memorial for all those Muslims who fought for Britain in WWI and WWII (apparently including all those who were descendants of the Ottomans, one of our main military foes in WWI, but hopefully most people were too historically illiterate to notice that awkward little fact).
According to a 2022 assessment from MigrationWatch, meanwhile, the estimated cost of keeping an asylum seeker in a U.K. hotel was £4,300 per migrant, per month – 1.5 times the average monthly salary of a nurse (who, unlike the asylum seekers, actually pays tax) at £2,782 per month. By 2023, even the BBC admitted this had risen to a total cost of £8 million per day. During this same year, the top five nations asylum seekers entered the U.K. from were Afghanistan, Iran, India, Pakistan and Turkey. As most of these settler-colonialist agents of the neo-Ottoman Empire will by definition have been Muslims, does this not essentially mean that a native non-Muslim nurse will be paying at least part of her taxes purely in order to put random Mohammedans up in four-star accommodation?
Islamic (Welfare) State
It’s not just car insurance ‘redistribution’ in the name of ‘social justice’, then, but a thousand more things besides. Jizya by stealth represents a bigger potential jackpot for Islamists than a full-house at Mecca Bingo. I wouldn’t suggest that the average Muslim in Britain necessarily consciously views matters in this way, but some certainly do: remember Anjem Choudary’s notorious old definition of welfare benefits for unemployed Islamists as “Jihad-Seekers’ Allowance”? Reporting on this in 2013, the Daily Mail claimed the leading radical Mr. Choudary lived in a £320,000 house in East London and raked in £25,000 a year in benefits. The Mail said he justified this fact in various speeches to followers thus:
People will say, “Ah, but you are not working.” But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. So we take jihad seeker’s allowance. You need to get support… The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS listening to this.
Tabloid investigators were listening, though, and recorded Choudary saying it, too. But the preacher claimed he was only “joking” and so escaped any action. By 2021, Anjem told the Sun he had finally given up the dole and managed to find gainful employment, however… as a work-from-home book-keeper for a charity.
Forget Suleiman the Magnificent knocking at the Gates of Vienna back in 1529. This is what jihad actually looks like in modern-day Europe – invisible, fundamentally boring, bureaucratic, low-key and immensely ignorable, at least for now. Terrorism is not necessary to achieve the Islamists’ wider aims of total societal domination, and is indeed rather counterproductive, as, unlike quiet manipulation of the welfare-system, unknowing dhimmis do tend to notice that kind of highly visible outrage, and to object most vociferously. Perhaps T.S. Eliot was correct: this is how the (Western) world ends after all, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
In the meantime, I have but one small consolation available to me: I can’t drive, so at least I’m not subsidising Anjem Choudary’s no-claims bonus premiums myself personally.
Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No contribution should mean no benifits ..simple !
No. I do not want to see us (the UK) descend to this. Certainly there should be minimum benefits. We should provide some alternative to missing meals and sleeping rough.
A minimum level of support with additional support for those willing to put some effort into trying to rise out of poverty.
Updated to add: something like an updated version of the old workhouse system. Not something you’d want unless you were desperate.
The UK benefits system is the problem. In order to discourage the third world invaders we should simply refuse access to the benefits system in total – no free housing, no free health care, no jihadi allowance.
We have to reclaim our country. It is not the responsibility of hard working, indigenous British people to subsidise the third world. Our ancestors worked hard to make this country a world leader and we should not allow treasonous politicians to take it from us nor gift it to muslims.
The UK benefits system is the problem.
Yes.
Our benefits system should not attract anyone to get into a boat in France to get to the UK.
Well, it certainly doesn’t, as people who’d go to Germany instead would get more money (and generally, more of everything else as well) and would need to spend significantly less of it to cover their daily needs. It’s probably more people desiring to get to West Pakistan because this seems more congenial to them.
But they are fleeing a Warzone….France!
I agree totally. But are we clinging to the lifeboat called Britain that is sinking under the weight of mass migration? ——-I am almost accepting my fate. Britain is not a Nation anymore. It is simply a Region.
If you force your way into this country and then expect to be fed, watered and housed it amounts to breaking and entering and theft and includes extortion with the examples above. If there were no benefits from forcing your way in, this Trojan Horse of humanity would stop. We are not responsible for Islamic countries being poor.
Another disincentive would be remove any chance of gaining British citizenship (for life) if you force your way in from a safe neighbouring country especially one that borders another safe country. However, we are up against the UN.
Open borders satisfy Article 13 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all people have the inherent the right to enter, exit, move around in, and live in any country they choose.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-open-borders
And…
“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
UN’s Commission on Global Governance
And…
REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO
DECLINING AND AGEING POPULATION?
United Nations Population Division
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf
Here is one particular paragraph from this uninvited ‘solutioning’ from the UN:
“Except for the United States, the numbers of migrants needed to maintain the size of the total population (scenario III) are considerably larger than those assumed in the medium variant of the United Nations projections (scenario I). In Italy, for example, the total number of migrants is 12.6 million (or 251 thousand per year) in scenario III versus 0.3 million (or 6 thousand per year) in scenario I. For the European Union, the respective numbers are 47 million versus 13 million (or 949 thousand per year versus 270 thousand per year).”
The issue for many third world countries is lack of power and specifically electricity. If poor countries could provide their populations with electricity it would allow them to modernise and industrialise. They could produce clean water on tap – literally. They could build factories and take people off subsistence living. They could provide medical care and not the sort inflicted on us these last four years.
God knows where our Foreign Aid budget goes because significantly we never here stories of the benefits to local peoples of all this taxpayer cash but it sure as hell isn’t building power stations. Why is this the case? The short, brutal answer is that poverty and hunger provides for a more productive labour force. Mines are not going to be dug if nice factory jobs become available which pay living wages.
As a compliance model hunger and poverty work a treat and clearly the DD’s have decided that the model needs to be reintroduced to the Developed world after some population reduction measures have been implemented.
Understandably Third World citizens have decided that they have had enough of their own shit holes and will move to countries which have decided to give them money, housing and health care simply as a thank you for turning up and no questions asked. Hence, as I have stated previously, we must turn the benefits tap off.
It would be nice to imagine that soon a western politician would speak on these issues and positive measures could be taken to stop the mass movement of people because the longer it continues the greater the disasters and miseries that will ensue.
The foreign aid budget is abused just as much as other projects paid out of our taxes. I read in here the other day about either India or Pakistan receiving foreign aid from the U.K. whilst they are squandering money on their space projects. Ridiculous.
Your first paragraph is exactly what I have been saying on DS since I joined here nearly 2 years ago. What you say is totally correct, but the reason the third world is not getting electricity is because there is nothing more horrifying to western “environmentalists”, politicians etc than people in the third world having the same standard of living as us, because to do that they would need to use the same fuels as we did —-coal oil and gas, and this is a finite resource. So we fob them off with some money for turbines and solar panels and build them a school or a water facility to keep their mouths shut. There are still one billion people in the world with no electricity and telling them they cannot use their coal and gas is really telling them they cannot have electricity.—-This is a diabolical disgrace and it shames the GREEN parasites. It also means these people will do anything to get away from a life of abject misery and getting to Europe and the UK is their main goal in life.
The number of people with access to electricity has been steadily increasing so that over 90% of the World is now connected in some way. The UN points out that 675 million people still lacked access to electricity in 2021, mostly located in Low Development Countries.
(https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/Goal-07/#:~:text=The%20global%20electricity%20access%20rate,2021%2C%20mostly%20located%20in%20LDCs.)
However, there is this paragraph:
“The world continues to advance towards sustainable energy targets – but not fast enough. At the current pace, about 660 million people will still lack access to electricity and close to 2 billion people will still rely on polluting fuels and technologies for cooking by 2030.”
The UN have cleverly tied access to electricity with renewables as if that is where everyone else gets their electricity while the last sentence unsubtly implies that the polluting fuels and technologies must be non renewables. I’m sure you know that those polluting fuels and technologies are wood and dung, often burnt indoors and that are responsible for most of the world’s deaths from poor air quality.
Also all the pandemic measures had hugely detrimental effects on poorer countries particularly in Africa. And the UN/WHO would be quite happy to do it all again, as well as pushing expensive energy to meet Net-Zero targets.
How about this gem?
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/05/25/solar-showdown-indian-villagers-reject-greenpeaces-useless-fake-electricity/
“The wind and solar obsessed in the first world are quite prepared to ensure the World’s poorest stay that way. With economic development agencies peddling ridiculously expensive solar panels – seen as ‘fake electricity’ by those lumbered with it – and forcing tinpot governments to sign up to costly and pointless wind and/or solar power schemes, the ratio of haves to have-nots is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Eco-zealots have attempted to ram wind and solar power down the throats of Third World governments under the auspices of saving the planet and purportedly with the purpose of dragging millions out of poverty. But it never takes their targets long to work out that wind and solar power are both insanely expensive and hopelessly unreliable; sitting in the dark, night after night, generally does the trick…
While some villagers expressed optimism about Dharnai, India, solar facility in 2014, others protested it saying they didn’t want “fake” electricity, according to Mongabay-India. At the time, Nitish Kumar, the chief minister of Bihar, applauded the project and told locals that coal power would diminish over time while solar power would always be around.
“In the first three years, it worked well and people were using it. But after three years the batteries were exhausted and it was never repaired,” Ravi Kumar, a local shopkeeper, told Mongabay-India. “So now, while the solar rooftops, CCTV cameras and other infrastructure are intact, the whole system has become a showpiece for us.”
“No one uses solar power anymore here,” he continued. “The glory of Dharnai has ended.”
The number of solar connections in Dharnai and surrounding neighborhoods with access to the solar grid fell from 255 in 2014 to 120 in 2016, a Nalanda University study published in 2020 concluded. The study blamed high prices associated with solar power and the grid’s unreliability — villagers were warned not to use high power appliances like televisions and refrigerators — on the decreasing connections.
“We left solar connection after using it for one year. How can poor people like us pay such amounts of money?” an anonymous local told Nalanda University. “They used to give electricity only for two hours. During rain, they do not use to give electric supply and so does during the fog in the winter.”
Dharnai was eventually connected to the region’s coal-powered grid in 2016, giving villagers access to a much cheaper and more reliable power source, Mongabay-India reported. Coal power also allowed them to use high-power appliances.
Greenpeace apparently stopped posting about the Dharnai solar farm on social media and in blog posts back in 2015. The group didn’t respond to requests for comment from TheDCNF.
Very good and extensive comment. I have also been making similar comments over the last 2 years here on the DS and for longer periods of time elsewhere. In a world of 8 billion people and finite fossil fuel resources in the ground the UN takes it upon itself to control the worlds wealth and resources, but people should not just take your word or my word for it. We remember the words of Ottmar Edenhoffer of the UN who said a few years ago “One has to free oneself from the illusion that climate polices are environmental policies anymore. We redistribute the worlds wealth by climate policy”. ——–So the wealthy west has to cease using fossil fuels and the developing world might not get them at all. ——-We are to be coerced into Net Zero, costing us astronomical sums of money with the junk science of a climate crisis as the excuse and the third world are to be fobbed off with turbines and solar panels as if we are doing them a favour.
Quite. You must be aware of the extensive collection of comments on this topic here?
https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Here are just four examples.
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.
Michael Oppenheimer Major environmentalist
The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.’
Louis Proyect Columbia University:
However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.
Walden Bello Leftist and founding director of Focus on the Global South:
The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization…Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.
Keith Farnish Environmental writer, philosopher and activist:
And then there is ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ which ‘calculates’ each year the month when we have used up Earth’s resources – each year!!! Last year Earth Overshoot Day was August 2nd and this year the ‘day’ will be announced on June 5th. Currently we are ‘using’ 1.7 earths per year. Where to begin?
I think we should turn to Julian Simon for a breakdown of this absurdity.
Thank you Varmint. I wasn’t aware of Julian Simon (probably many others as well). I’ll add him to my growing list of optimists. I first came across such thinking in the 1970s with Buckminster Fuller, although he was of the opinion we should stop burning fossil fuels and we should construct giant solar collectors in space. However, his view was that we are a success but we insist on not acknowledging that. More recently there is Hans Rosling. The big disappointment (and related to your comment below) is how some friends seem almost hostile to what Hans explained, or are not interested in hearing his perspective. One friend handed the book back unfinished and seemed somewhat dismissive of what he had read.
We cannot use “1.7 earths per yer” because there’s only one. This is absurd nonsense published for political reasons.
It is hugely disappointing that supposedly educated adults are pushing this absurdity and why is it necessary to point out why.
..to them.
Thanks for all of that which I am more or less aware of and much more. ———-I feel sorry for the general public who switch on their 6 0’clock News to be treated like simpletons allowing themselves to be fed politicised weather stories day in day out. They go and spend their own money on solar panels, and heat pumps, and let the energy company in to install a smart meter because they think it will maybe save them money, when infact it is there to ration energy use because as my next door neighbour said to me when he had one installed “We are all to get them”.
They are completely oblivious to the motivation that drives all of the Eco fundamentalist energy policy or where it all comes from. Infact they don’t even know there is an energy policy. They think wind turbines and solar panels are just “the latest thing”.
Because the weather in the UK is so changeable the government can tell them anything they want about the climate and they will mostly believe it, because they cannot comprehend why anyone would say there is a climate crisis if there isn’t one.
You and I and many other can come to websites like this and make the comments we are making but I reckon 95% of the pubic will never see what we are writing, because they are tuned into Mainstream News who sanitise every bit of information and nothing that you wrote above will ever be allowed to appear.
What I find most disappointing is that the quotes I have shown above, for example, are accepted as reasonable and plausible by many people, especially those uttering them, and yet I would have thought they are self evidently very bad. However, it wasn’t that long ago that we hanged, drowned and burned thousands of mostly women for being witches and no one ever stepped forward to stop that cruelty or point out witches don’t exist. Not sure if it is significant that the last person burned as a witch was around the same time as the first Newcomen engine – a mere 300 years ago. The modern equivalent is Daesh and Hamas and the progressives in the West commit obstructive and violent demonstrations in favour of such barbarity. Queers for Palestine come to mind and all supported by Greta.
Seconded
A reminder of the filth that has been allowed and encouraged to pollute our supposedly Christian, democratic and civilized countries. Support for the would-be psychopathic murderer, but not a whole lot of condemnation from the Muslim community, that’s for sure. I wonder if this bloke is a so-called ‘moderate’. They’re not really big on tolerance or freedom of speech/expression, are they? No wonder their values fit with the Leftards’, like hand in glove;
”Muslims are celebrating the jihad migrant Terror Attack on Politician Michael Stürzenberger today in Germany…
Remember, these are the “peaceful enrichers” flooding into your communities!
Not only was Stürzenberger a victim of Islam, but the German government should be held responsible for allowing an Afghan terrorist into their country. Never forget that the government wasted resources trying to imprison Stürzenberger for exposing the threats Islam poses to the West instead of deporting the terrorists who threatened his life and attacked him constantly.”
https://x.com/AmyMek/status/1796715396462194959
I haven’t heard any update on how the policeman is doing. His condition yesterday was described as ”critical”, as he was stabbed twice in the neck. But speak out against Islam and you automatically end up with a target on your back. Huge respect for these people who continue to do so and exercise their right to free speech, despite the inevitable consequences that this evidently entails;
”Update!
From his hospital bed, Michael Stürzenberger released the following information about his condition via a message posted to Telegram:
“It was really close yesterday. Four doctors had just arrived for their rounds.
The stab wound to the side of my chest, which went towards my lungs, could have been life-threatening.
The stab wound to my thigh hit veins and caused considerable blood loss. There was a second stab wound to my leg above the knee, fortunately without injuring the tendon.
The injury to my upper arm is relatively minor.
The stabs to my face were different. I have staples in the side of my jaw. My upper lip was stitched up, and I had a gaping open wound right up to my teeth.
A big thank you to all the doctors and the facial surgeons who came all the way from a specialist clinic.
What a single Afghan ‘refugee’ can do with a knife...”
https://x.com/AmyMek/status/1796846896293757118
Defo cultural enrichment!
What a single Afghan ‘refugee’ can do with a knife...”
This is a really bad summary. This was a premediated, politically motivated attack which started with some bearded guy (read: muslim) approaching the organizers and shouting at them that they’d be “worse than the AfD” (Ever heard that rethoric before?) and that their event “really needs to be prohibited”. It’s also noteworthy that there was apparently plenty of police on the scene but they didn’t interfere while only Stürzenberger and his team were being attacked. The moment the assassin targetted a fellow policemen, they quickly ‘remembered’ that they were all armed and shot him.
The cluelessness of these people is also remarkable: They had the attacker down on the ground but let him get up again. In case this ever happens to someone reading this: If you ever find yourself in such a situation, make sure the guy doesn’t get up by any available means as absolute, first priority. For as long as he’s wielding a knive and hasn’t been incapitated, he’s a mortal danger to anyone around. It’s better to end up in a German cangaroo court (as right-wing extremist, obviously) for “willful murder” of a “traumatized” refugee than six feet under a headstone.
The video is confusing because you think the attacker is the one the Police are holding, turns out they had hold of the victim!
That’s not at all confusing. They actually even arrested (God only knows why) at least on the the “evil islamophobes” who got attacked and hadn’t “our islamic hero” been so completely braindead to attack a police officer, he’d certainly have left the scene unharmed, although maybe in police custody.
For the German home secretary, the group which got attacked at the ultra-bad bad guys who endanger all that is good, just, beautiful and democratic and whom the state needs to persecute with all the vigor it can muster.
It is actually confusing because the real sequence of event was as follows: The guy attacked Stürzenbacher and fell to the ground with him. Two from the organizers then pinned the attacker on the ground. At this point, a policemen intervened, tore one of the guys holding the assassin away from him, threw him to the ground and then jumped onto him in order to fixate him, ie, the police was actually attacking the people trying to hold the original attacker down. They guy with the knife then attacked the policemen who had just freed him(!) and thus, got shot by another police officer.
Presumably, that’s also the person who got arrested. Imagine this: Get attacked by a knife wielding Islamist and while trying to defend yourself, the police intervenes against you.
Truly unspeakable.
The police actions at the London Bridge attack, involving a van, was exemplary as they dealt with the attackers within seconds of getting out of their car.
The German police intervened in order to protect the attacker(!).
JFTR: The translation is a correct rendition of the German original.
I hear this—“Not all Muslims are terrorists”. ——Yes but we know what the reply to that is don’t we?
I was once overtaken by a gentleman driving hands free, to enable extravagantly devout prayer gestures, his open copy of the Koran resting on the steering wheel, steering with his knees. I was doing the speed limit of 120km/hr. He clearly needed all the help that divine providence could bestow, and an understanding insurance broker.
“overtaken by a gentleman”
Gilding the lily there. Surely the wording should read
…overtaken by a third world heathen with no inkling of manners or decency.
The gentleman in question was a very well turned out individual with an immaculately ironed headdress. Given the brisk pace at which he was proceeding, and the observances that he was conducting, conversation proved impossible so I accord him due respect as a matter of basic courtesy, none the wiser really as to whether he merited it.
Nevertheless, the manners of many individuals in that country (UAE) often put our own to shame, as does their decency.
I’m not too sure what a heathen is but Islam, itself, is, historically, generally rather tolerant of other religions.
There are extremists, of course, to be found within all strongly held belief systems. I’m not sure that Islam is any worse in that regard than the covid or ‘climate crisis’ fanatics.
Yr correct at present. Climate crisis fanatics are actually more dangerous than Muhammad ‘s cult followers to ordinary ppl. That said it’s rather likely to change as demographics shift.
Climate fanatics so far do not blow people up at pop concerts so they are currently not “more dangerous”. ——That may change but it is not the case at the moment.
Both wish to bring down the West – one via Intifada and subjugation (violent in both cases) and the other by destroying the vital underpinnings that allow 8 billion people on the planet to stay alive.
“No worse in that record”——Yes we hear endless reports of Protestant and Catholic terrorist attacks don’t we? Oh and by the way Islam is not just a religion, it is a political and legal system as well. In the west religion and politics are separated.
I have, personally, been attacked by both Catholics and Protestants, and, indeed, by Moslems.
I am not able to separate out my feelings on each different occasion.
It is not the belief system that is the problem, it is the people, as we all discovered in 2020.
Just a bunch of monkeys…..
How many Protestants or Catholics drive vans into people on a bridge? How many Protestants or Catholics run about stabbing people shouting that god is great? How may Protestants and Catholics target Christmas markets to blow people up? How may Protestants or Catholics run grooming gangs? ——–You are trying to cloud the issue, but the issue is crystal clear.
I recall a documentary about the Kray twins and how they were characterized as being well mannered, such as opening the doors for ‘the ladies’ and looking after their mum, or something equivalent.
Remember an article in the paper about a Muslim School Bus driver, parking up with a Bus full of kids and praying on his special rug in the layby.
The religion of peace in which the prophet commanded his men that when committing mass rape they should “finish off” inside their victim. Hardly surprising we have a grooming gang problem when their prophet was a paedophile child rapist who encouraged his followers to rape non Muslim women. Before we get the Christians blah blah relativism, there isnt a bit in the new testament where jesus tells his disciples to rape Mary Magdalene or other women.
‘…leading radical Mr. Choudary…(said) “But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. So we take jihad seeker’s allowance. You need to get support… The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar.”
This makes my blood boil
Courageous, honest, eye-opening article by Steven Tucker, defying the attempts by Humza the Brief up north, and the Unholy Muslim-Marxist Alliance worldwide, to criminalise all criticism of Islam.
Well done to the Daily Sceptic team for printing this article, telling the truth that westerners need to know.
By the way, I wonder what the new SNP leader John Swinney is doing about the Hate Crime/Sharia Act nonsense in Scotland? It’s all gone quiet…
Some years ago a friend of mine worked for a finance company. He told me standard practice was not to grant loans to people whose surname began with a vowel, they were likely to either be Muslim or Irish.
What is the “Muslim Vote”? Are Muslims a separate entity that speak with one voice, and all vote for the same politicians (other Muslims)? Do all Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindu’s and Buddhists do the same? ——-I don’t think so. So are Muslims voting for good policies they think are good for the country or are they voting for them because they are only perceived to be good for Muslims? Where is the “integration”?
Despite this article being responsible for significantly raising my blood pressure, I’m pleased to see it in a perverse way. It just reinforces my contempt of politicians and government departments.
“Britain’s estimated four million or so Muslim voters”
Wow. That is scary.
Look how many demonstrate all the time in London.
How many are peace loving and how many are not?
This changes the UK social structure dramatically for one with conflicting moral and social perspectives.
So much for multiculturalism.
Look at what is happening in Yemen right now with the Houthis. Let alone Gaza with Hamas.