Skip to content 
America and Britain’s Hidden Tax on Whiteness
In racialized tax systems, minorities must remain forever in the black, and whites forever in the red.
Imagine if American Jews started demanding all other taxpayers (including Muslim ones) begin handing over an extra cent for every dollar earned to buy Israel more bombs to blast Gaza with. Unless you were Jared Kushner, you’d say no.
Now imagine if American Muslims began demanding, in their turn, that all other taxpayers (including Jewish ones) begin handing over the exact same extra tax, but for the diametrically reversed purpose of buying Hamas some cement to reconstruct Gaza with, after Israel had finished bombing it into dust in the first place. Imagine no more: Just swap dollars for pounds, and cents for pence, and head towards Great Britain.
A disturbing new survey of British Muslims has caused either disorienting surprise or a complete lack of surprise with its findings, depending on how naïve you are.
Ahead of the nation’s local council elections earlier this month, respondents were asked to identify which issue, from a list including the economy, crime, education, etc., was the most important in determining their vote. The most popular answer was “the situation in Gaza,” something the average municipal council in England has approximately zero influence over.
Especially interesting was the response to one particular question, namely, whether an extra penny in income tax per pound should be imposed on every single taxpayer in the country, and pumped into a “new UK Government fund dedicated to the reconstruction of Gaza.”
Fifty-nine percent of Muslim quiz-takers responded in the affirmative to this expensive idea, compared to only 20 percent of non-Muslims amongst the general UK population. If enacted, this would represent an emboldened minority imposing what amounts to an extra form of racialized or religious taxation upon an enfeebled majority population. There ought to be a word for that kind of thing—and there is: jizya, the traditional “infidel tax” in Muslim countries.
Does the West still have a hidden form of jizya in place today? Go to Minnesota and take one quick look at the number of imported Somalis living on free welfare checks (81 percent of such households!) at the direct expense of the taxpaying old Scandinavian-stock residents who toil to fund them, and you could well argue that we do. Of course, the Muslims aren’t stupid enough to go around openly calling it jizya. Instead, they borrow from the woke left, calling it “equity,” “redistribution,” or “socialism.”
With this in mind, consider that the British government recently announced a £40 million kitty to provide security services to the country’s own modern-day mosques—mainly funded by non-Muslim taxpayers, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and all. (And Jews as well, even though their synagogues are much more likely to require protection from radical Muslims than mosques are to require protection from radical Jews.)
Also in the UK, there has even been a movement to get non-Muslims to subsidize Muslims’ car-insurance, because—well, just because. The notorious Anjem Choudary, who received £25,000 a year in state welfare benefits, called such “free” (to him) cash “Jihad-Seekers’ Allowance” mocking the more usual British term “Job-Seekers’ Allowance.” Jihad-Seekers’ “Jizya” would have been even more accurate. From this April, husbands with more than one wife — i.e., Muslims — are to be given even more welfare benefits, even though having more than one wife is meant to be illegal under UK law. That’s all jizya, too.
As British high-streets have been taken over of late by largely Muslim-run fake vape-shops, takeaways, and Turkish barbers which operate as clandestine money-laundering hubs, I do wonder if the government’s oppressive and compulsory new Making Tax Digital (MTD) online tax-monitoring scheme, which I have complained about on this site previously, might be another, more accidental, variant of jizya.
Digital monitoring of previously cash-only transactions will make Muslim high-street money-laundering harder, but only at the cost of vast amounts of time and money wasted for all other, perfectly law-abiding, self-employed businessmen. Rather than employing MTD solely against this kind of suspicious business, as this would make the government look “racist,” bean-counters decide to spread the financial misery around instead, making all voters poorer.
The shakedown, verbally camouflaged by emotionally manipulative terms like “uplifting traditionally minoritized communities,” is at work across America as well.
New York’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani openly promised to “shift the burden” of taxation from the city’s poorer, immigrant-filled boroughs, like the aptly-named Jamaica and Brownsville, and onto what he unambiguously called the “richer” and “whiter” neighborhoods instead. Mamdani later backtracked and said his plan was “not driven by race” after all: It was just a simple data-led fact that the areas he was targeting for fleecing were the richer ones, the “coincidental” skin color of their majority white inhabitants being completely irrelevant to him. If that’s really so, why did he specifically identify them as being the “whiter” suburbs in the first place?
Some subsidy-seekers are more honest in their racial animus. One far-left Green Party candidate in Britain’s May local elections was Antoinette Fernandez, who campaigns for white Western nations like Britain to hand out trillions of free compensation money to victims of African slavery.
Far from being the poverty-stricken spawn of slaves, Antoinette Fernandez is in fact the descendant of slave-drivers. A literal Nigerian princess, “Marie” Antoinette has an African petrochemicals billionaire father and a royal mother descended from the ancient kings of Lagos, monarchs who made their own fortunes from enslaving and selling their fellow blacks; one of the family personally owned 1,400 units of exploited human cattle.
When this hypocrisy was pointed out, the Green Party responded on behalf of the princess that anyone reporting her lineage was “racist” and engaging in a “bad-faith attempt to undermine the case for reparative justice.” But trying to extract trillions from innocent average-wage people who never even did anything bad, to hand out to random rich people who equally never even had anything bad done to them, isn’t “reparative.” It is extractive—jizya, once again.
In America, another non-Muslim jizya-seeker is Dorothy A. Brown, the black writer of the 2022 book The Whiteness of Wealth: How the Tax System Impoverishes Black Americans—and How We Can Fix It. And how can we fix it, then? By placing a special extra fee on white people to subsidize the welfare lifestyles of poor blacks.
Not unlike Mamdani’s scheme, the specific way Brown advocates doing so is not technically racially discriminatory; she wants Washington to implement a generous nationwide tax-credit targeting the lowest-wealth Americans who, on average, will just happen to be more likely to be non-white than white. Yet, if you read her book, Brown openly says she would prefer the tax credit to explicitly apply only to blacks, but that would be unconstitutional and thus illegal—at least for now. Who’s to say the laws won’t change as demographics continue changing to the political benefit of progressives and the Democratic Party?
As classic EU-type welfarist nations are now finding, eventually such welfare states steal so much cash from the actual welfare creators that they tend to go bust, as Minnesota, New York, and Britain one day surely will. Maybe the welfare state is actually worse than the jizya state in this respect. One gainfully employed Indonesian Muslim working in the UK and appalled by how much tax he had to pay to the white man sat down and worked out that, if he were a Jew or a Christian in medieval Islamic Al-Andalus, he would have been better off! Back then, a middle-income dhimmi was obliged to pay jizya of two dinars a year, a dinar being a unit of Islamic currency traditionally calculated as the price of an average sheep, which at the time of the Indonesian’s writing stood at £215 in the UK, or £430 for the jizya-specified two animals. The Indonesian earned a middle-income wage of £25,000, on which he had to pay the Whitehall taxman £4,617.32, thereby making the British Treasury over 10 times as greedy as the Treasurer of the Umayyad Islamic Caliphate would once have been.
So, on second thoughts, Islam may yet save us after all. Or at least save us all some money.
The post America and Britain’s Hidden Tax on Whiteness appeared first on The American Conservative.
