The End Times of Albion: Will the Green Flag of Islam and the Black Flag of Jihad Soon Fly Over Downing Street?

The essay below by Seneca III is the first in a series of follow-ups to his recent piece on “The End Times of Albion”.

Will the Green Flag of Islam and the Black Flag of Jihad Soon Fly Over Downing Street?

The End Times of Albion, Part 2

by Seneca III

The recent furor over the immigration status of some of the Windrush generation and the subsequent humiliating resignation of Home Secretary Amber Rudd has thrown up a disturbing scenario with the appointment of Sajid Javid as the replacement Home Secretary.

Sajid Javid is a one-time significant player in the 2008 global financial collapse where, as a senior investment banker, he was at the heart of the credit trading business and was responsible for structuring an emerging-market synthetic CDO as well (allegedly) as junk mortgages that incurred millions of dollars’ worth of losses for investors. He is extremely intelligent, well-educated, financially astute, presentable, experienced in public office and a real master of the four pillars of Islamic deception — taqiyya, tamriya, maruna and kitman.

Unlike the wretched, semi-literate, affirmative-actioned, linguistically challenged and grandstanding Sadiq Khan whose only talent is an ability to take a modern, culturally advanced metropolis and turn it into a third world hell-hole, he is not an also-ran when it comes to a Muslim power grab but a real and present danger to the UK.

Note his over-exaggerated ‘Power Stance’ as adopted by so many of the arrogant scum we have elected to govern us:

Thus, in brief, consider this: Jeremy Corbyn, whether he remains leader or otherwise, has shown us where the rancid soul of the modern Labour Party abides, and it is not a pretty sight. Theresa May likewise for the Conservative party, as the Brexit debacle has so painfully demonstrated. Consequently, both having alienated a significant percentage of their faithful, neither party has much hope of forming a majority government. Hence Corbyn and May have a very limited time left before their desperate apparatchiks will be done with them and look elsewhere in order to keep their collective Gadarene snouts deep in the public trough. This begs the question as to who will replace both of them, either soon or, perhaps, the second time around after another failed ‘Buggins’ turn’ hopeful has been summarily ejected from the hot seat.

With that thought in mind I must admit that I have no idea as to who is standing hopefully in the Labour Party wings awaiting the moment of their political sanctification; nor do I care. That Party, for which my working-class parents voted most of their lives until it became so unrepresentative of their hopes and dreams that they simply walked away in tears, left me with a consummate anger and, other than during the Blair-Brown interregnum , I have paid little attention to them beyond a nodding acknowledgement of their most frequently headlined outrages.

However, the Conservative Party is another matter entirely. I became a Tory voter and even a card-carrying member and remained so until 1990 when the Party committed regicide and shattered my dreams, as those of my parents had been shattered before me, but I have been keeping a close eye on them ever since whilst carrying two suitcases filled with despair; I have watched them circle around the drain and then commit ethno-cultural treason on a near biblical scale… all of which brings me back to Sajid Javid, who now appears on their horizon as the newly-anointed one. There can be little doubt that as a Muslim, Javid will be appointed in the expectation that he will garner the majority vote of the now huge and electorally corrupt Muslim demographic in the UK, as Cameron so yearned for in 2014…

David Cameron has said he wants to see a British Asian Prime Minister in his lifetime. Mr. Cameron made the remarks at an awards dinner in central London where Sajid Javid, the Culture secretary who is widely tipped as his successor, topped a power list of the most influential Asians in the UK.

Mr Cameron told the GG2 Leadership Awards: “Let us think big about what Britons of all backgrounds can achieve. “When I hear ‘sir’, ‘your honour’ or ‘right honourable’, I want them to be followed by a British Asian name.” To cheers he added: “One day I want to hear that title ‘Prime Minister’ followed by a British Asian name.”

Earlier Mr Cameron had described Mr Javid, who was in the audience, as “brilliant” during his 10 minute speech, which celebrates achievement among Britain’s Asian community.” — Daily Telegraph, 05 November2014

…and then step into Downing Street where — metaphorically speaking in the beginning at least — will fly the green flag of Islam alongside the black flag of Jihad?

Interlude — The Sukuk scam

2nd July 2014 — London Stock Exchange today welcomes the listing of the UK Government’s first Islamic bond, or Sukuk. The listing is the first for a country outside the Islamic world and raised £200m on orders totalling more than £2billion. To mark the occasion, Government Ministers Sajid Javid MP — Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and Minister for Equalities! (note that this Ministry had nothing to do with government finances or the markets beyond the use of its own budget), and Andrea Leadsom MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury opened trading in a special Market Open Ceremony at London Stock Exchange this morning.

“We’re delighted to welcome the UK Government ministers to open our markets this morning. The fact that the UK is the first country in the Western world to launch a Sukuk bond, and the exceptional demand for the bond highlights London’s standing as the world’s leading international financial centre. It also shows that confirms the UK as a key destination for foreign, Shariah-compliant financial products and institutions.”

The UK sovereign Sukuk will have a maturity of 5 years and use the Al-Ijara structure, the most common structure for sovereign Sukuk. The Sukuk will be underpinned by rental income from three central government office properties, which will remain in government ownership during the lifetime of the Sukuk.

More than $38 billion has been raised through 54 Islamic Sukuk issues — including four this year — in London, which is also home to six Islamic banks. — The London Stock Exchange, 2nd July 2014.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (Cameron’s Bullingdon Buddy) followed up with:

Today’s issuance of Britain’s first sovereign Sukuk delivers on the government’s commitment to become the western hub of Islamic finance and is part of our long term economic plan to make Britain the undisputed centre of the global financial system.

We have seen very strong demand for the Sukuk, resulting in a price that delivers good value for money for the taxpayer. I hope that the success of this government issuance will encourage further private sector issuances of Sukuk in the UK.

By issuing sovereign Sukuk, the government has demonstrated that it is possible to create a successful British base for Islamic finance.

Britain’s sovereign Sukuk uses the Al-Ijara structure, the most common structure for sovereign Sukuk, with rental payments on property providing the income for investors. The Sukuk is underpinned by three central government properties. Today’s issue will settle on 2 July 2019, and will be listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Short Analysis

First, a question to which I cannot find an answer: “Is 100 Parliament St, Westminster, London SW1A 2BQ, home of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, one of these three government properties?

Secondly, and very roughly, here is how this scam works and to whose benefit:

1.   Public properties, government owned but paid for from public taxes, some of them centuries ago, and without any capital debt against them, are effectively sold at a substantial price and these monies go to the Treasury. One function this serves, temporarily, is to appear to reduce the national debt, thus giving the Chancellor of the day and the political party to which he belongs an aura of efficiency and fiscal rectitude to parade at the next General Election.
2.   However, when Islam and the British establishment are in it together you can bet that there will be no benefit for taxpaying Joe Citizen, and likely as not a bill will be incurred that he or his children will have to foot, and this is how it has shaped up.
3.   First, the British Government sells these properties to an investor or a trustee functioning on behalf of a consortium of investors (predominantly Muslim) and then becomes the lessee by leasing them back and paying a sum of money from the public purse to the lessor (an Islamic bank or other Islamic financial institution) in increments over a fixed number years. That money, collectively far in excess of what the government received for the sale, is paid out of current annual tax income and effectively the taxpayer is paying for rightful ownership of that property at least twice plus some and then some more, as the government effectively kicks the tax can further down the road. The lessor, of course, makes a handsome profit and that money disappears overseas without being taxed at source in the UK.
4.   But that is not all. There are other provisions, such as the lessee’s having to pay for maintenance and insurance of the property and taxes on assets, plus a potential real backbreaker such as I quote here:

“Upon: An event of default or at maturity (at the option of Trustee under the Purchase Undertaking); or the exercise of an optional call (if applicable to the sukuk) or the occurrence of a tax event (both at the option of Originator under the Sale Undertaking), Trustee will sell, and Originator will buy-back, the Assets at the applicable Exercise Price, which will be equal to the Principal Amount plus any accrued but unpaid Periodic Distribution Amounts owing to the Investors.” — Shari’a Standard No. 9 (Ijarah and Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek)

5.   To this cynical old mind there seems to be a lot of room here for a certain amount of, shall we say, financial jiggery-pokery beyond the government’s usual hidden machinations, but I am by no means an expert in financial matters. If there is anyone out there who is I would welcome being corrected if anything in this short analysis is incorrect, and for that reason a full description of how Al-Ijara Sukuk works can be found as an annex to this monologue — straight from the devil’s mouth, so to speak.


It is important to understand and remember that Sajid Javid is the man who, without having any ministerial remit in the area of government finances, organised and introduced the sale of toxic, Sharia-compliant Sukuk Bonds backed up by UK government mortgages on the London Stock Exchange when no other non-Muslim country in the world would touch them with a barge pole.

Methinks Sajid has an agenda and an ambition more far-reaching and dangerous than it appears to be on the surface. Having achieved one of the highest offices of State, does he intend to stop there?

No, and there’s a damn sight more to this appointment than just the future of Brexit, and by that I mean the future of the whole of the UK or, as I put it in the partially paraphrased Edmund Burke quotation immediately below…

…”A stable homogenous culture is a partnership in all science and all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.”

That is logical, and I would suggest that…

…what is happening now is a betrayal of the dead who gave us such a firm foundation to destroy at our affluent leisure and a condemnation of those yet to be born who will spend their short, brutal lives in the chains we are permitting primitive alien cultures to forge for them. We are the damned if we continue in this vein, and history will record us as such.
That is perspective.

Sajid Javid could be the UK’s Obama in the making.

That is prognosis.

Victory belongs to the ruthless. Losers cease to exist.

That is fact.

To survive, be utterly ruthless.

That is advice.

— Seneca III, wondering how long we have left as a culture on a glorious spring morning in Middle England on this 9th day of May 2018.

Annex: Overview of Al-Ijara Sukuk

Issuer SPV issues sukuk, which represent an undivided ownership interest in an underlying asset or transaction. They also represent a right against Issuer SPV to payment of the Periodic Distribution Amount and the Dissolution Amount.

The Investors subscribe for sukuk and pay the proceeds to Issuer SPV (the “Principal Amount”). Issuer SPV declares a trust over the proceeds (and any assets acquired using the proceeds — see paragraph 3 below) and thereby acts as Trustee on behalf of the Investors.

Originator enters into a sale and purchase arrangement with Trustee, pursuant to which Originator agrees to sell, and Trustee agrees to purchase, certain assets (the “Assets”) from Originator.

Trustee pays the purchase price to Originator as consideration for its purchase of the Assets in an amount equal to the Principal Amount.

Trustee leases the Assets back to Originator under a lease arrangement (ijara) for a term that reflects the maturity of the sukuk.

Originator (as Lessee) makes Rental payments at regular intervals to Trustee (as Lessor). The amount of each Rental is equal to the Periodic Distribution Amount payable under the sukuk at that time. This amount may be calculated by reference to a fixed rate or variable rate (e.g. LIBOR or EIBOR) depending on the denomination of sukuk issued and subject to mutual agreement of the parties in advance.

Issuer SPV pays each Periodic Distribution Amount to the Investors using the Rental it has received from Originator.


an event of default or at maturity (at the option of Trustee under the Purchase Undertaking); or

the exercise of an optional call (if applicable to the sukuk) or the occurrence of a tax event (both at the option of Originator under the Sale Undertaking),

Trustee will sell, and Originator will buy-back, the Assets at the applicable Exercise Price, which will be equal to the Principal Amount plus any accrued but unpaid Periodic Distribution Amounts owing to the Investors.

Payment of Exercise Price by Originator (as Obligor).

Issuer SPV pays the Dissolution Amount to the Investors using the Exercise Price it has received from Originator.

Trustee and Originator will enter into a service agency agreement whereby Trustee will appoint Originator as its Servicing Agent to carry out certain of its obligations under the lease arrangement, namely the obligation to undertake any major maintenance, insurance (or takaful) and payment of taxes in connection with the Assets. To the extent that Originator (as Servicing Agent) claims any costs and expenses for performing these obligations (the “Servicing Costs”) the Rental for the subsequent lease period under the lease arrangement will be increased by an equivalent amount (a “Supplemental Rental”). This Supplemental Rental due from Originator (as Lessee) will be set off against the obligation of Trustee to pay the Servicing Costs.

Key Features of the Underlying Structure

Set out below is a summary of the basic requirements that should be considered when using ijara as the underlying structure for the issuance of sukuk:

The consideration (Rentals) must be at an agreed rate and for an agreed period;

The subject of the ijara must have a valuable use (i.e. things without a usufruct cannot be leased);

The ownership of the asset(s) must remain with the Trustee and only the usufruct right may be transferred to the originator (therefore anything which can be consumed cannot be leased by way of an ijara);

As ownership of the asset(s) must remain with the Trustee, the liabilities arising from the ownership must also rest with the Trustee (as owner) — an asset remains the risk of the Trustee throughout the lease period (in the sense that any harm or loss caused by the factors beyond the control of the Originator is borne by the Trustee);

Any liabilities relating to the use of the asset(s), however, rest with the Originator (as lessee);

The Originator (as lessee) cannot use an asset for any purpose other than the purpose specified in the ijara (or lease) agreement (if no purpose is specified, the Originator can use such asset for the purpose it would be used for in the normal course of its business);

The asset(s) must be clearly identified in the ijara (and identifiable in practice);

Rental must be determined at the time of contract for the whole period of the ijara. Although it is possible to split the term of the ijara into smaller rental periods where different amounts of rent may be calculated for each such rental period, the amount of rental must be fixed at the start of each such rental period and Shari’a will consider each rental period as a separate lease;

If an asset has totally lost the function for which it was leased, and no repair is possible, the ijara shall terminate on the day on which such loss (a “Total Loss”) has been caused. If there has been a Total Loss, the Trustee may have the right/ability to substitute or replace the affected asset — although, in reality, it would only look to do so if the Originator (as service agent) is able to use the insurance (or takaful) or any other total loss proceeds to procure substitute or replacement assets;

If a Total Loss is caused by the misuse or negligence of the Originator, the Originator will be liable to compensate the Trustee for depreciation in the value of the affected asset, as it was immediately before such Total Loss; and

In the event that an asset has only suffered partial loss or damage, the ijara will continue to survive with respect to that asset.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The above requirements are based on the principles set out in Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (the “AAOIFI”) Shari’a Standard No. 9 (Ijarah and Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek) and other established principles relating to Ijara. — S III.

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

46 thoughts on “The End Times of Albion: Will the Green Flag of Islam and the Black Flag of Jihad Soon Fly Over Downing Street?

  1. Sajid Javid has said that he is totally opposed to identity politics which is what we want to hear, but is that lying by omission on his part? Apparently he doesn’t attend the mosque services so is he a ‘lapsed muslim’, I really don’t know but during his tirade against Dianne Abbott he explained that he himself had been exposed to racism and called a ‘coconut’ and ‘Uncle Tom’ by his coreligionists. His wife is a white Roman Catholic and his children are of no denomination.

    If he wants to make a name for himself he needs to propose legislation that will outlaw anti-white racism and deal with political correctness as well as rooting out cultural marxism. The fact that he hasn’t speaks volumes and shows where his heart is and it is not with the indigenous Britons either.

    This is probably taqiyya supreme, the most effective version of it be warned and beware.

    • Trouble with being opposed to identity politics is that it denies identity. British identity is (or was) a product of British LONG tradition and societal understanding, and in the UK it SHOULD beat foreign identity of influence EVERY TIME.

      Naturalisation ( without parliamentary or ministry approval) only started in the mid 19th century. Since then it has been downhill, including limiting British by descent but co-opting whoever or whichever group according to political flavour by birth. It is a disastrous policy the government has followed, aimed mostly at gaining influence in Europe (now EU), or merging into the continent. Its effects have been to close the door on continuity of British origin, and while placing a barrier to returns from the previous empire, has opened the UK to the kind of immigration we have seen over the last half century.

      So yes, identity MATTERS, I invite the named politician to dispose of his British nationality, and that of his offspring.

      I am in a position to speak this way:

      He is a hypocrite.

      • We live in a world of double standards.

        It’s acceptable to bash a Christian Australian Rules player for his religiously informed beliefs about gay marriage.

        But it’s unacceptable to point out that homosexuality is punishable by death in the United Arab Emirates and 9 other Muslim countries.

        It’s unacceptable to point out that Australian imams have preached in favour of the death penalty for homosexuals ,as a kindness designed to prevent them from continuing to commit sinful sexual acts.

        Israel Folau is being roundly condemned for his views on gay marriage.Views which he keeps to himself unless directly asked for them.

        Quantas led by an openly gay Irish CEO ,is threatening to withdraw sponsorship if Israel stays on the team.I might add that since they got a gay CEO , Quantas staff members have been forced to wear a special ring as part of their uniform signalling support for gay marriage.

        And yet in a stunning act of hypocrisy the CEO threatens to withdraw sponsorship for the rugby team on account of one of its player’s religious beliefs while partnering as an airline with Emirates.

        What spite what animus ,comes Israel’s way because he is a Christian.While Muslim sportsmen who agree with their imams on the death penalty for homosexuality are allowed to continue unchallenged on the grounds of religious freedom and tolerance.

        Muslim are all for identity politics because by painting themselves as eternal victims they can extract more concessions from the gullible Westerners.

        Muslims vote as a bloc ,they come out in protest against the country of Israel when it acts in self defense and whenever in fact they can find a real or imagined grievance on which to hang a demonstration of their huge numbers ,their group identity ,their unity and their thirst for violence.

        The identity politics of the left is not about compassion ,it is not about justice ,it is not about equality.

        Those are fig leafs the left adorns it with to hide the naked truth ,it’s all about power.The power to dominate ,humiliate ,ruin lives ,curtail freedom of speech and thought and prevent the ordinary man from defending himself against groups hostile to ,his views ,rights and existence and culture.

          • Good link.

            Classic liberal, libertarian, moving towards ultimately (true meaning) anarchy, are not the enemies to my view. They are a regression towards a world of natural values, which WILL by force of survival arrange into a hierarchy which most closely represents the family and local trust and loyalty.

            Why ? Because those that do not structure in that way will fail in comparison to those that do.

            Christian religion demonstrates a moral code or societal example that represents an evolution, a wider compact, an open acceptance of rational cooperation and mutual respect.

            The frankfurters, and I have met a lot in that article face to face, are not true to their beliefs. They use the concept of an end justifying a means. That is to say they do not simply go ahead and live to their thesis. No, theirs is an objective that would forcefully include all, and the further hypocrisy is that they are enabled in that by the misuse of pre-existing public force and hierarchy, the structure they criticise. I am not just talking of helping corrupt it, they will and do actually direct it against the innocent when given the opportunity. Vile.

            So from my view, having no official public archy is better than that, as a person would react as best suits without fear of wider condemnation, and the fittest would survive. I dont proclaim any superhuman ability, but those manipulators are unfit, they are even too unfit to merely sit at desks and order those who are fit that volunteer to serve their nations.

            Theirs is of organising chaos and destruction, they have never understood traditional values, they think they will escape their own plight by destroying that which others value.

            Maybe traditional society had already become conceited or misguided, and this therefore being its due – you can count on progressive thinking to exaggerate every difference and error to the point of annihilation.

            Are we that stupid to play someone else’s game or to not recognise when they are taking over our own ?

            How innocent is trust, how evil those that abuse it.

    • Is it likely that Theresa May understands the concept and practice of taqiyya, or has heard of it? Are such matters discussed within government? What do you think?

      • They are certainly never discussed where they can be heard. Not ever. Major Steve Coughlin learned that when he served in the Pentagon and was summarily “retired”.

      • She’d possibly have heard it heard it from retired Colonel Richard Kemp, who was a member of COBR (the UK Cabinet’s emergency committee). He’s an expert on counterterrorism, believes returning jihadis should be deported, and is a staunch supporter of Israel.

        • What a hero you have in Colonel Kemp. His wiki is a pleasure to read:

          Richard Kemp led a campaign in 2007 and 2008 to recognise the sacrifice of British troops killed and wounded in action by the award of a medal similar to the US Purple Heart.[15] The campaign gained the support of the majority of Members of Parliament, through an Early Day Motion in the 2008–2009 parliamentary session;[16] as well as widespread support among serving and retired military ranging from Private Harry Patch, last survivor of the Battle of Passchendaele to Field Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall, former Chief of Defence Staff.

          The campaign also prompted specific debates in the House of Commons [17] and the House of Lords,[18] and led to the MOD announcement in 2008[19] of a new award to be made to the next of kin of British soldiers killed in action, which was launched in July 2009.[20] The award, called the Elizabeth Cross, is the first decoration to be named after a reigning monarch since the institution of the George Cross in 1941. The award was back-dated to the end of the Second World War. The Government has so far rejected calls for a new medal.[21]

          And this is particularly apropos as Israel is currently being condemned (again) because of thing the Palestinians do. It gets even more interesting and non-PC:

          In June 2009, Kemp wrote “HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW” for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.[23] In this paper, Kemp accused Hamas of deploying women and children as suicide attackers, and wrote that “women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect intelligence and ferry arms and ammunition between battles”.[23]

          In October 2009, Kemp made a presentation to the United Nations Human Rights Council in response to the introduction of the Goldstone report in which Israel and Hamas were accused of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the Gaza War. Kemp spoke to the UN HRC on behalf of UN Watch.[24] Kemp said: “Of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes…Based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare”.[24][25]

          Kemp also claimed to have relied on Israeli expertise in Afghanistan. He said he received help from an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) anti-suicide bombing expert and the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, following the 2005 London bombings. Kemp was highly critical of the “automatic assumption that everything the IDF does is illegal.” He said “there is harsh criticism against the US and British armies as well, but they are given the benefit of the doubt. Israel is always automatically condemned, no matter what. It’s a joke. Even the conspiracy theory that the one responsible for the 11 September attacks is not al-Qaeda but Israel refuses to die out, it’s unbelievable”.[22]

          Thank you for mentioning him…gotta go find his book.

  2. This from a friend who travels mideast, business in Saudi:

    Me innocently – ” In the west interest rate manipulation and FRL are tools of power and manipulation, Islamic finance is more straightforward and not open to that kind of distortion….? ”

    He in disbelief “It is run by (hence allows) a completely corrupt system that has full control to manipulate and extort at will ”

    (Not the exact words but summarised result of the conversation)

  3. @Seneca 3: Is this toxic sukuk scheme a way for those in charge to grow London as a major financial center, thus giving it more clout than Germany? Is this what gives Brexit its motive possibility?

  4. What you see looking back at you when you look in the mirror is what you are.

    Does anyone think Javid sees an Englishman, a Brit even?

    • Wrong. You see you in the past. We can’t process the present time. Think like that…speed of light…light hit the face….then the mirror…then you retina…retina react, generate electro stimuli…then they travel to the brain…the brain process the information….bingooo…your hair is ok.

      • In that case, surely you should have written, “…your hair *was* ok.” Anyway, cheers, I’m off to the pub for two or three pints before the sun goes down, to sit in the beer garden and watch the river in the hope that I see the herons that frequent this area.

  5. 1. Who is pulling Mr. Javid’s strings? Who is pulling Mrs May’s strings?
    2. Why do Englishmen and women vote for foreigners; ie. non-indigenous candidates?
    3. Why should we believe a muslim when he says he’s a lapsed muslim when their book says it’s ok to lie?
    4. Why does anyone think muslim methods of finance are better than those that we have developed during our time as a Christian nation?
    5. What will it take for us to regain control of our country?
    6. Who is going to drain our very extensive swamp?

  6. Re “over-exaggerated power stance”, may I be pedantic? “Over-exaggerated” is a tautology. Otherwise, good (and scary) article.

    • Ahh, yes, ’tis indeed – probably the subconscious result of my long years as an angler where I have noticed that my arms get wider with every telling of a particular tale 😊😊😊 😉

  7. Reading the description of the Sukuk bonds, it’s quite obvious that it is a license for the bond-holders to steal…and I mean that literally. Seneca appears quite correct to claim that this is a rotten deal to transfer tax money to Islamic bond holders. I’m sure there will be ample reward for the non-Muslims who worked on the deal from the government end, and the brokers who put the structure of the bonds together. The only one not profiting is that taxpayer hiding behind the tree.

    Having said that, I have one caveat: this is an Islamic scheme, no doubt, but you have exactly the same abuses whenever you have government trying to slap together a moneymaking or financial deal. Government is an asset consumer; government cannot create value. Government has absolutely no business trying to cobble together a financial transaction for profit.

    The provisions of the sukuk are so obviously a soak-the-taxpayer scheme that one wonders if anybody is home at all. But, consider if you have the power to tax and absolutely no oversight, you can cook up virtually any scheme to transfer money to yourself. If you can get government agencies to approve the sukuk provisions, I guarantee you I could whip up a set of provisions just as bad and just as obvious.

    Government consumes money. If you want to pay for police or roads, just pay. Don’t create the fiction that you can create the police with a surplus protection power that you can rent out. Let the private security agencies address the private market.

    I’ll say again: the sukuk scheme is a particularly odious formal way of fleecing the public, but given the caliber of British politicians, I have not the least doubt that any scheme that provides a sweetener to politicians has a more-than-fighting chance.

    • What should be understood is this :

      In western finance, if a person owns a property, they might remortgage it. They remain owners, they get given a cash sum, they have to repay with interest. If it all goes down, the lender has a right to claim that the property be sold to repay.

      In Islamic finance there is no direct profit on money (interest) allowed – you cannot give cash and ask for a greater amount back. It is called usury, Christian practice also has banned it at intervals.

      So what is allowed (in very rough translation), is that the owner of a property transfers it to the lender (sells it) , with a provision that he can buy it back for the same price after a certain amount of time, and in the meantime pays rent. The rent is the profit for the lender, ownership is the security of the lender.

      In the above case (in the article) , there is an intermediary trust set up that owns the property, a government plc I think, and that guarantee of ownership (in the form of 99 year lease only – I think but it may be outright ownership) plus rent ( for further use of the property) is what the buyers of the sukuk obtain. Repayment is guaranteed also, because it is a government plc, by the treasury – but though that is a safeguard to continued eventual ownership by the government, to the sukuk buyers, as far as they are concerned, during the period of the sukuk, the property is theirs as per a lease of 99 years ( but with whatever other built in provisions come with that, e.g. rental to government).

      The lease on the properties that underpins the sukuk is for 99 yrs, but the sukuk is for five years, hence after five years the government either pays back the initial amount and stops renting back their own property, or they roll it all over for a further five years (which is what they plan to do).

      Of the UK government this is very crooked, it is something like renting the pavements to another country, then charging the public to pay for the use of the pavements so as to pay that rent.

      • Explained:

        The government inc. rents the pavements to investors for a fixed sum (£200 000 000 of the sukuk). Do you decide how that is spent… I thought not…you get to put a cross in a voting booth every four years as recompense…oh look, there goes so many millions on bombing an empty site in Syria or towards paying for thought police to make sure you are thinking right, right?

        In the meantime, during this, you now have to pay the rent for using the pavements. You pay, out of your pocket directly, in taxes or new fees.

        That is not a good bargain for the average person.

        • It is not a good bargain because that rent YOU are paying goes straight into the pockets of the investors, the ones who are paying your corrupt government to allow them to rent out YOUR pavements to you.

          And if the government just puts that initial £200 000 000 aside so as to finalise the contract and revert to the old way after five years, or 99 years even – well think about it, what is the whole point? All that will have happened is for some f******* odd reason you will have had to pay foreign investors for use of the pavements for five or 99 yrs.

          Get it?

      • Anon,

        Thanks for the additional explanation. I fail to see any substantive difference between the Goldberg arrangements of the sukuk, and the sale of government bonds. The bonds allow the government to go into debt to fund their operating expenses and liabilities, and pay interest on the debt. After the money is spent, the benefits are forgotten and all that remains, to paraphrase the Godfather, is our debt and interest.

        The sukuk, like government bonds, is subject to corruption, but why bother? There is money for everyone involved, and it’s all part of the contract. The bond issuer, the bond broker, the bond bankers: all get a slice. At the tail end is the investor, who periodically gets creamed by crooked brokerage houses who are well-represented on government “oversight” bodies.

        I repeat my previous assertion: the government has no business whatsoever as guarantor of any private bond or sukuk arrangements. As for the issuance of bonds, or the sales of government property to mask what is, in effect, a loan for interest: the only real discipline I can think of is to denationalize the issuance of currency and allow private banks to issue their own currency and bonds. Of course, this would blow the deficit-laden US bond system completely out of the water.

        I have no objection to a private bank diving into the murky waters of Islamic-approved finance, as long as there are no public monies or guarantees involved. Perhaps there’s a profit to be made in catering to the need of Saudi billionaires to display their Islamic piety.

        Of course, what is happening now is that Muslims are moving to co-opt the present government intrusion into finance so as to advance Islamic sharia.

        • Welcome – it is an explanation from someone who has studied these themes extensively but privately, hence unencumbered… but due diligence always.

          I agree with all you are saying there, the point as to why bother going this way about it :

          Firstly Islamic finance, in the global picture, is not a deal breaker… it will represent a very small fraction of available funding, in fact with the existing central bank framework is not necessary for government funding…

          So, it is a simple political choice. Is that based on kickbacks and corruption, buddying up for strategic interests? If we look at a broader picture we might imagine a shift to a hybrid internation global system of finance beyond what we know today.

          The difference is, as you assert at the end, the acceptance of foreign ground level intrusion in national affairs. Could you imagine the whitehouse being on lease from Saudi, or even JP Morgan? That is a blatant and profound shift of perception being placed on the public as to the idea of what their government and country stand for.

          • That is a blatant and profound shift of perception being placed on the public as to the idea of what their government and country stand for.

            What is more worrisome in the long run is the humungous amounts of real estate being acquired throughout the West by non-citizens. In London, it’s Saudis and Russians (sounds like an eventual shoot-out at the OK Corral). In the U.S. and Canada, it’s Chinese nationals’ ownership of large properties. China in Oz. I think these purchases skew real estate prices and drive the market out of range for average folks.

          • To me it is all part of the same same, global finance and influence that concentrates wealth and power. The average person MUST in most countries now go heavily into debt just to access housing, it is a competion that pits all against all in mortgage backed price competion to the profit mainly of the banking fraternity, hence the global elite. It used not to be this way, not so long ago the eq. of yearly wages required to pay off a property was much lower.

            This is a main structure of modern power elites – the ability to assign credit in a ponzi fashion, choosing the winners, lowering rates to compensate with liquidity where repayment was not possible due to the corrupt economic mis-allocation.

            So many people are in debt, or claim inequality, that they cheer this monetary expansion on, never realising that it is part of what is being used to manage them and keep a small percent in the clear on top.

    • Hard to believe this is really happening. U.K. govt. buildings adhering to sharia … Albion truly is done. Full submission is the next step.

      • I get the impression it is a trial balloon, designed to familiarise people with the concept, designed to show there are no major drawbacks – at least not enough to get people out on the street over, designed to use as a demonstration that the public have generally accepted the format and that protest is therefore not welcome or worthwhile.

        The irony is that it is the corrupt western dynamic that is at fault, the muslim investors are just using their sound and powerful financial methodology to dominate western laxity and corrupt tendency… high level corrupt, but corrupt all the same.

        The only saving grace is that a western country like the UK has final sovereign power to anul all agreements, but that is not likely and no recompense for actually ceding national power in the meantime. You could compare that with the Euro – sure countries have a right to go back to own currency, but they dare not for the responsibility that will fall, and the decision makers are in the pockets of EU power before they are allowed to position also.

        When I have time I will write to briefly explain in lay terms the base difference between western banking practice and Islamic finance, and why Islamic finance is so compact and powerful at “street level” – the short of it being that it is based on arrangements of real and tangible wealth as opposed to speculative management that feeds pre-existing wealth into new hypothesis, and where profit is distributed before it is truly earned, so encouraging corrupt practice.

  8. From that standpoint of an appraiser who is somewhat familiar with real estate law as pertains for income properties, what is described by Seneca III is a lease-back to a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). However, it seems to me that certain aspects of the Trust’s operation would not be allowed under United States Code unless business insurance was procured to protect the investors. The arrangement doesn’t quite pass the sniff test.
    If I understand correctly, what Seneca III described in his eulogy over England in which politics have been bought and paid for was warned about by Ian Anderson about 35-40 years ago in his Steel Money album that wasn’t really published here, for some rather obvious reasons.

    • Doesn’t pass the sniff test :

      “Hello, I’m British and I lease my country from Saudi, who do you lease yours from ? “

    • I have the opportunity to invest in a very well-managed REIT, and declined, because I don’t want to bother. But, the people who have invested in it really like it.

      The big difference between investing in a REIT and buying the sukuk bonds, as described by Seneca, is that there is no government guarantee of success. You’d darn well better investigate the heck out of the management and history of the company.

      With a sukuk backed up by the government, using government properties, who cares? They can have lousy management and worse business practices: the taxpayer will make up any shortcomings.

      I repeat: what stinks about the arrangement is the penetration of the government. If it were private investors on their own dime, nobody would care.

  9. Sorry, Seneca 3, for ignoring your sukuk tutorial and being completely sidetracked and beguiled by your photograph of four British politicians in a childish pose with their feet wider apart than their shoulders. Is standing like this a “thing” in modern Britain? (I have never noticed this in the United States.) Maybe some pop psychologist has written a bestseller titled “Posture Power: Getting Ahead in Business and Politics by Standing as if You’re in a Hurricane”.

  10. This gentleman has explained the cause of why the Daily Mail journalistically depicts quite regularly the preponderance of youthful public drunkenness plaguing cities and townships throughout the UK and why it exists. Their leaders have left them without hope. Now, can someone explain why UKIP has had no traction?

    • UKIP has no discernible project other than to get the UK out of Brexit.

      One could say that (on paper) The Conservatives stood for resisting change and that Labour existed to fight for the workers. Those ideals are almost 100% opposed to what these parties are really about. As Hayek pointed out in 1960, the Conservatives are socialists (just slightly less socialist than Labour). And Labour is the party of ambitious, conniving middle-class missionaries, who think that the missionary work helping the scum of the earth reflects well on them and dazzles those who would otherwise notice that the Left are really just ambitious and conniving, people who want to impose their values on everyone else, whilst pretending they are committed to the working-class.

      UKIP doesn’t have a clearly communicated concept of what it thinks it is. And UKIP appears to have exhausted itself in its attempt to achieve Brexit.

      Should Brexit happen, then the elite in the UK will simply intensify the speed of immigration from the third world (the measure of “economic growth” is functionally dependent on ever-increasing numbers of people of tax-paying age in the UK). It’s a Ponzi scheme that will come crashing down, probably within the next decade. All the problems the UK has seen with terrorism, rape gangs, racist violence from immigrants, fraud, etc. will just increase.

  11. Well written Seneca3. Congratulations. Being utterly ruthless is something Britons have long-forgotten. The East Europeans still understand. The more Poles we can retain in Albion the better. Since the traitorous overthrow of Thatcher Britons have gained only expertise in being utterly useless. The Brexit vote was, perhaps, the final flickering of the old light.

  12. Too bad it’s so difficult to emigrate to the US. I fear Europe will be a very difficult place to live in a few years.

    • Sorry. I would like to help, but I’m unwilling to agree to the immigration of millions of Europeans who voted in governments that encouraged the immigration of low-IQ, violent sub-Saharans and Middle Easterners.

      I think a values filter is perfectly appropriate for immigration, if an accurate filter can be found. Of course, the Supreme Court invalidated the McCarren Act, that denied entry of Communists to the US. One is tempted to say the Supreme Court should have no jurisdiction over legislation. But, then again, the Supreme Court pretty much saved the US from the fascist NRA legislation of the Roosevelt administration.

      I guess one solution is to have Congress routinely remove Supreme Court ability to rule on their legislation, as permitted in the Constitution.

      • Or the legislative branch (if they could ever manage to cooperate with one another) could pass alternate legislation, sculpted to meet the Court’s objections. That used to be a work-around.

  13. Power stance? Looks more like the are auditioning for Footloose 2.

      • I had to look it up and that triggered a laughing/cough fit. I guess couldn’t see the forest through the trees. It was a potty dance.

        • Perfect description, Quiet One. Maybe they’ll start a fad. As for “scatological” and such like, those are words we’ve come up with to make sure GoV’s comment threads stay child-friendly.

Comments are closed.