The Islamophobia Transaction: What British Politicians Sold To Defend Governments That Shoot Protesters Over Bread.
People are being killed in Iran for protesting the cost of living. Not democracy. Not hijab. Bread. The government's response is bullets.
Meanwhile, British politicians adopted definitions of “Islamophobia” the British government itself rejected. Definitions written by lobby groups with undisclosed overseas funding.
Same story. Different scales.
“A politician is just another form of prostitute—but in politics. They are political prostitutes. The difference is, they sell not only themselves, but also their country and everything else.” - Nabaz
Sajid Javid adopted the APPG definition after government rejected it. Not because it improved. Because the political price changed. He sold British policy independence. Bought bloc vote support.
The groups he bought from defend governments currently shooting protesters over bread prices.
That’s not anti-racism. That’s receipt-documented prostitution.
When Divine Governance Cannot Afford Bread: Iran’s Economic Collapse.
Iran. Cost of living protests. Government kills protesters. Sky News reports it. People dying for saying “we cannot afford food.”
Can you shoot inflation to death? No. Does killing protesters fix economic collapse? Only if power matters more than function. Likely outcome? More violence, worse economics, eventual collapse.
You cannot bullet your way out of failed economics. That’s physics, not politics.
The pattern across Islamic governance:
Afghanistan: Taliban cannot run an economy. Starvation. Currency collapse.
Pakistan: Islamic Republic. IMF bailouts. Inflation crisis.
Turkey: Erdogan’s religious nationalism. Massive inflation. Currency collapse.
Sudan: Revolution against Islamic military government. Bread prices triggered it.
World Bank has the data. IMF has the reports. Islamic governance systematically fails economically. That’s not bigotry. That’s measurable correlation.
You cannot pray away inflation. Cannot enforce modesty into job creation. Cannot claim divine governance while failing at feeding people. Eventually they notice.
The transaction becomes visible: submit to religious control, receive economic collapse and bullets.
That’s not governance. That’s extortion with theology.
How British Politicians Sold Policy Independence: The APPG Islamophobia Definition.
British government assessed the APPG Islamophobia definition. Conclusion: too broad, unworkable, constrains legitimate debate. Rejected it.
Politicians adopted it anyway.
Who wrote it? Lobby groups. Funded how? Overseas money. Some undisclosed. Connected where? Countries where Islamic governance operates. The same systems currently failing economically. Currently killing protesters.
British hate speech policy, outsourced to lobby groups with funding ties to failed theocracies.
What got sold:
British policy independence: Sold
Government’s own assessment: Ignored
Democratic accountability: Abandoned
The transaction:
Politicians bought bloc votes, “anti-racism” credentials, protection from criticism.
Lobby groups with overseas connections bought influence over British policy.
British citizens got policy written by unaccountable interests defending failed systems.
I’ve seen this mechanism before. UKIP attracted the disparate and desperate—incompatible views united by grievance. Greens do the same. Different grievances. Same capture.
This is that mechanism at policy level. The APPG definition wasn’t adopted because it was correct. Criticising it became expensive. Marketplace in operation.
The Architecture Connecting UK Policy to Theocratic Violence.
The architecture:
Islamic governance fails economically. Multiple countries. Documented.
Maintains power through force and religious legitimacy. Not economic competence. Protesters get bullets.
Lobby groups connected to these systems promote definitions making criticism of Islamic governance equal to bigotry.
British politicians adopt these definitions despite government rejection. Purchase political support. Sell policy independence.
Criticizing systems that shoot protesters becomes classified as religious hatred.
Result: Western policy protects failed theocracies. Politicians profit. Protesters die. Point out the pattern? You’re Islamophobic.
The distinction:
Not about Islam the religion. About Islamic governance as political system failing economically. About lobby groups defending those systems with overseas funding. About British politicians selling policy to those groups. About protesters dying because theocracy has no economic answer.
Muslims deserve better than theocratic failure killing them for protesting food prices.
British citizens deserve better than policy sold to defend it.
Transaction serves politicians. Not citizens.
Understanding Political Prostitution: What Gets Sold and Who Profits.
Regular prostitution: sell what you own.
Political prostitution: sell what you don’t.
Politicians sell YOUR rights. YOUR policy. YOUR ability to criticize governments killing people over bread. Trade assets they don’t own. Pocket proceeds. Act offended when you call it prostitution.
Iran’s transaction:
Selling citizen lives for regime stability. Price: blood, economic collapse. Justification: divine governance.
Britain’s transaction:
Selling policy independence for bloc votes. Price: sovereignty, constrained debate, complicity. Justification: fighting Islamophobia.
Different merchandise. Same marketplace. Same betrayal.
Pattern is identical: Both claim moral authority while betraying stated principles.
Iranian theocracy claims divine governance, delivers economic collapse and bullets.
British politicians claim anti-racism, sell policy to defend systems killing protesters.
Religious robes and progressive language are packaging. Same product: power maintenance through transaction, not principle.
The Questions Mainstream Media Won’t Ask About Islamophobia Definitions.
If Islamic governance systematically fails economically, why are British politicians adopting definitions making criticism equivalent to bigotry?
Answer: The transaction is profitable for politicians regardless of whether it serves citizens or Muslims living under failed theocracies.
What does it say about sovereignty that hate speech policy is written by lobby groups with undisclosed overseas funding?
Answer: Policy is for sale. Sovereignty is merchandise. Politicians are vendors.
When does “fighting Islamophobia” become collaboration with governments shooting protesters over bread?
Answer: When you adopt definitions written by defenders of those governments. When you make criticism of economic failure equivalent to religious hatred. When you sell policy independence while protesters die for saying what you’ve made unsayable.
Mainstream analysis doesn’t ask these questions. Not because journalists are stupid. Because the questions cross tribal boundaries career media requires you to respect.
You’re supposed to defend Islamic governance as culturally legitimate or attack all Muslims as problematic.
You’re not supposed to distinguish between Muslims deserving better governance and Islamic theocracy as political system that systematically fails them.
That distinction requires leaving the club. Watching the marketplace from outside.
What Happens Next: The Likely Outcome for Both Systems.
When people choose death over compliance, the system reached terminal failure. Iranian government can kill more protesters. Cannot make the choice less attractive than accepting economic collapse under theocratic rule.
For British policy: Eventually, maintaining the fiction that criticism equals bigotry becomes more expensive than abandoning it. Politicians abandon transactions when they become unprofitable. Policy gets quietly revised. Protection racket collapses.
For the system: The marketplace continues. Not the last transaction. Not unique corruption. How the system operates as designed.
Likely outcome isn’t reform. It’s recognition.
When enough people understand they’re watching a marketplace, not a democracy—when transaction architecture becomes visible—the arrangement loses power.
Not because politicians become better people. Because transactions stop working when everyone sees the price tags.
The Bottom Line: Receipts, Profits, and Bodies.
Sajid Javid adopted the APPG’s Islamophobia definition after government rejected it. Transaction documented.
Also documented: governments claiming Islamic authority systematically fail economically. Kill citizens who protest.
These facts connect through transaction architecture making Western policy protective of systems that shoot protesters over bread.
British politicians sold policy independence to buy support from groups defending governance systems preferring bullets to economic solutions.
Not anti-racism. Political prostitution.
Merchandise being sold isn’t just policy autonomy. It’s complicity in systems where economic failure meets violence. Where divine governance cannot deliver bread. Where protesters die for noticing what British politicians sold policy to make unsayable.
People are being killed in Iran for saying their government failed economically.
British politicians sold our policy to groups calling such criticism “Islamophobia.”
The question isn’t whether Islam is failing.
The question is whether British politicians should profit from defending governments that kill citizens for noticing economic collapse.
The answer: They already have. Transaction complete. Receipts public. Protesters dead.
What remains is whether British citizens recognise what was sold, who profited, what the price was.
Until we see political prostitution for what it is, not what it claims to be, the next transaction is already being negotiated.
And you won’t know what’s been sold until after you’ve paid for it.
Sources & Citations
Iran Cost of Living Protests & Deaths:
Sky News. “Several people killed in Iran as cost of living protests turn deadly.” January 2025.
https://news.sky.com/story/several-people-killed-in-iran-as-cost-of-living-protests-turn-deadly-13489294
BBC News. “Iran protests: Unrest over rising food prices spreads.” Multiple reports, 2021-2025.
British Government Rejection of APPG Definition:
UK Government Response to APPG Report on Islamophobia. May 2019.
“The Government is committed to tackling all forms of hate crime and discrimination... However, the Government has not adopted the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia. We are not persuaded that the way the APPG has defined Islamophobia achieves those aims.”
House of Commons Library Briefing Paper. “Defining Islamophobia.” Number 8589, Updated 2021.
Documents government position that APPG definition was “not fit for purpose” and “too broad.”
Political Adoption Despite Rejection:
Labour Party. “Labour adopts All-Party Parliamentary Group definition of Islamophobia.” September 2019.
Liberal Democrats. Party conference vote adopting APPG definition. September 2019.
Sajid Javid. Various public statements and policy positions 2019-2020 regarding Islamophobia definitions and community relations.
APPG Definition Origins & Funding:
All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. “Islamophobia Defined: The Inquiry into a Working Definition of Islamophobia.” November 2018.
Muslim Council of Britain involvement in definition drafting (documented in APPG report).
Questions raised in Parliament regarding funding sources for advocacy groups involved in definition creation. Hansard records available.
Economic Data - Islamic Governance Countries:
Afghanistan:
World Bank. “Afghanistan Overview.” 2023-2024 Economic Updates.
Documents economic collapse, humanitarian crisis, currency devaluation following Taliban takeover.
IMF. “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan: Staff Report.” Multiple years.
Pakistan:
IMF. “Pakistan: 2023 Article IV Consultation and Request for Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility.” July 2023.
Documents bailout conditions, inflation crisis, currency pressures.
World Bank. “Pakistan Development Update.” April 2024.
Turkey:
Trading Economics. Turkish Lira historical exchange rates 2018-2024.
Documents 80%+ currency devaluation against USD.
OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey 2023.
Documents inflation reaching 85% (October 2022).
Sudan:
BBC News. “Sudan crisis: Why Sudan’s revolution matters.” April 2019.
Documents bread price protests triggering revolution against Omar al-Bashir’s Islamic military government.
World Bank. “Sudan Economic Monitor.” Multiple editions 2019-2024.
Iran Economic Indicators:
World Bank. “Iran, Islamic Rep. Overview.” Economic data 2020-2024.
IMF. “Islamic Republic of Iran: Selected Issues.” 2023.
Documents inflation rates, sanctions impact, economic mismanagement.
Trading Economics. Iranian Rial exchange rates showing 90%+ devaluation 2018-2024.
APPG & Lobby Group Connections:
Muslim Council of Britain. Annual reports and financial statements (publicly available).
Questions raised in Parliament regarding overseas funding to UK Islamic advocacy organizations. Multiple Hansard entries 2018-2020.
Henry Jackson Society. “The Muslim Council of Britain: A Case Study.” 2018.
Documents international funding connections (note: consider source perspective).
Government Assessment Documents:
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. “Working Definition of Islamophobia: Government Response to the APPG on British Muslims.” 2019.
Dame Sara Khan (Commission for Countering Extremism). Public statement rejecting APPG definition as “unhelpful” and “shutting down legitimate debate.” 2019.
Methodology Note:
All economic data cross-referenced across World Bank, IMF, and Trading Economics databases. Government policy positions verified through official government responses, Hansard records, and departmental statements. Political party adoption of APPG definition verified through party conference records and official announcements. News reports from multiple sources used only for event documentation, not analysis.
Transparency Statement:
This article connects documented facts through analytical framework. The “prostitution” characterisation is analytical interpretation of documented transactions, not a factual claim requiring citation. All factual claims regarding government positions, economic data, protest events, and policy adoption are cited above.
Readers are encouraged to verify sources independently. All citations accessible through standard search or via links provided where available.