Wednesday, 3 April 2013

My advice to Muslims in the West about how to become less hated: by not fearing to be hated even more

Write to your MP and others regarding the potential threat from the far-right
by Yamin Zakaria (Notes) on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 18:17
Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to my local and European MPs, maybe you can alter it and send it to your local MPs (  and create a certain level of public opinion.


Dear Sir/Madam

In light of recent events in Norway, and the subsequent revelations of Anders Breivik’s link with the far-right movement (EDL), we are naturally worried about a potential terrorist act in the United Kingdom.

We would urge the government to take pre-emptive measures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and curtail the activities of movements like the EDL. This is an excellent opportunity to show that such legislation (PTA) was not construed to be applied selectively against Muslims in the UK. This will help to build bridges and marginalise the radicals on both sides.

The government should look for signs of radicalisation and its sources; hence, those who are particularly violent and vocal in the EDL should be detained in Belmarsh. It might be better to hand them over to the Americans who have acquired a certain level of expertise in interrogation (‘torture’); water-boarding may indeed prove to be useful in saving innocent British lives.

This would send a message that any terrorist or potential terrorist would be subjected to these sorts of preventative measures. In addition, it would be prudent to take measures against the conveyor belt of far-right terrorism by monitoring the voices of BNP, UKIP and other commentators who stoke hate towards the Muslim community. For example, Melanie Phillips is well-known for her venomous comments, and such hate will eventually translate into violence. Would nasty comments towards the black community be tolerated? Hence, why are the Muslims selectively subjected to this kind of treatment?

In this recent case in Norway as well as the Oklahoma bombings, the media initially speculated that the act was the work of the Muslims, tarring the entire community, creating suspicion and doubt. Therefore, the media should also be given clear directives how to deal with sensitive topics so that communities are not divided and ethnic minorities are not marginalised and subjected to verbal assault; the need for this has become self-evident in the light of the recent scandals (hack-gate).

 Yours sincerely

Yamin Zakaria (

Below is my response to this Muslim proposal to put the Far Right under observation as stringent as Muslims are currently being subjected to.

Breivik was a loner concerned about immigration, knowing that it would irretrievably change Norway. He did it all himself after he decided that participating in the political process was futile. Writing to your MP or even monitoring the activities of the Far Right won't help either, since Breivik did it ALL BY HIMSELF as did the others who joined a political party, left it, and then went on to plan and commit acts of terrorism ALL BY THEMSELVES.

We are not even allowed to ask what else he could have done to make his point, are we?

I created a Facebook group asking precisely that question and it was deleted. 

As for the parties you call Far Right, they cannot manage a piss-up in a brewery. Nick Griffin exists to make money out of the white working classes who dislike immigration and do not see why they cannot complain about it without being called evil racist Fascist Nazi extremists. 

If you were white working class and not very educated you might even be a member of the BNP because you wish to assert your right to complain about immigration. 

How would Muslims like their homelands to be full of immigrants while being forbidden to complain about them?

I have already come to the conclusion that the reason why Britain is full of immigrants is simply because if feminism resulting in white British women not having enough children who are brought up by their mothers or taught in their schools to become productive citizens and employees a sane employer might wish to hire. 

Instead of addressing the problems of education and widespread illegitimacy (which would mean

(1) dealing with the teaching unions and perhaps shooting them in front of their families, as Jeremy Clarkson once suggested 

(2) criticising the Feminazis such as Dame Jenni Murray (possibly the most evil woman in Britain) as well as her sidekick Jane Garvey at as well as Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton of Mumsnet successive governments have in fact conspired to facilitate yet more immigration to appease their voters who are employers who need labour NOW. They cannot wait until after feminism is discredited, or when white British women decide to have enough children and bring them up properly, or when the education system is sorted out.  Michael Gove has been defeated on his proposals to raise standards of education, has he not?

The government already know that five years - which is the length of a term in office - is not enough to sort that mess out. So they continue to sweep the dust under the carpet.

The white working classes hate Muslims because Muslims are visible and obviously different, while it is not immediately obvious that one of their own is a promiscuous woman and a mother of illegitimate variously-fathered feral children who go to sink schools and leave without qualifications making them unemployable and only fit for a life of crime and welfare dependency.

It is feminism which has created the need for immigrant labour, by lowering the standards of mothering and education in our Culture of Excuses and Entitlement.

It is easier for the white working classes to hate Muslims than to hate their own women -  however promiscuous - because most men who are not in a position to support a wife or are too mean to pay a prostitute will always welcome a cheap source of sex from any promiscuous female minded to give it to them cheap or free.  Men are only after one thing, after all!

The BNP are not prepared to criticise SSMs because most of their membership are the sons of SSMs. 

It would of course help if Muslims are prepared to criticise SSMs, but I have a feeling most Muslims do not want to be even more disliked than they are already. In this way, Muslims are slowly becoming like Jews, who want to prove that they are superior to every race because they are the only ones who follow the commandments of a moral and omnipotent God. Those who do not follow what their God commands will soon find themselves becoming weak and degenerate, in just the same way that a bright student who is not studious will inevitably fall behind to even an average student who is studious.  In the same way, Muslims will also eventually lose their traditions in an environment that is so clearly hostile to social conservatism ie the institutions of marriage and the family, that British Muslims too will be mocked for coming from the land that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. 

While Muslims who now have the protection of their religion think gay marriage and being unmarried mothers will never happen to them, are they so sure it will not happen to their children and grandchildren? Most Muslims go to the same schools as the white non-Muslims  who are so gay, so promiscuous, so sexually liberated and welfare-dependent after all.

If Muslims want to be less disliked, they will have to demonstrate to the white working classes that it is their lack of religion and family values that makes them weaker than the newly-arrived Muslim immigrant. In short, they will have to warn the people whom they know hate and fear Muslims about the destructiveness of feminism to the institutions of marriage and the family.

However, I am sure no Muslim is prepared to do that. 

I am sure that the instinct of most Muslims is to say of the white non-Muslims whom they know  hate them: "Let them get weaker and more morally rotten, since they hate us so much. Nothing would please us more than to see them rot before our eyes in their stew of moral corruption of alcoholism, sexual liberation and gay marriage - all fueled by liberalism and feminism", while entirely forgetting their duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.  

It should be noted that Breivik has been identified as anti-feminist at  It is interesting that Muslims refuse to integrate into Western society because they don't want their children and grandchildren to end up as sexually liberated SSMs nor their sons gaily marrying each other nor ending up being divorced and homeless and having to return to live with their parents while deprived of access to their grandchildren by a spiteful ex-daughter-in-law.  The Far Right and Muslims face a common enemy: extremist feminism that desecrates the institutions of marriage and family.  It is the dead weight of feminism (which supports the right of women to be as promiscuous as men) that prevents frightened white men from criticising the worst of their women, who are promiscuous, parasitical and degenerate,even if they are in government and a member of the Cabinet.   The condition of the married white middle class liberal male politician is indeed pitiable and contemptible, for we now have politicians who are these days too afraid of discussing politics.   British Muslims may be forgiven, perhaps, for indulging in what the Germans would call  schadenfreude, and wishing to see the white man, who has bombed and invaded their countries and stolen their oil suffer just a little bit more.  However, what hurts the white man will eventually hurt them too, for they too live in the land of white people.    

I really do not think calling for more restrictions on the free speech of both Muslims and anyone who wishes to complain about immigration is going to help Muslims.  The white working classes need someone to hate for being overtaken and replaced by immigrants.  They need to hate someone whom their own government actually prefers to them.   After all, their own government cares so little about them that it refuses to even warn or advise them for their own good.   The political classes have so much contempt for the white working classes that they would rather throw money at them than tell them a few home truths or risk their careers by offending their slut and bastard voters whom no sane British employer would hire as an employee.

If Muslims want to improve things in Britain rather than merely have their revenge of the Far Right, they should point to the cause of Western malaise, instead of encouraging the government to impose more restrictions on all our freedoms - talk about going native!

Why should Muslims be afraid of offending the worst of women - the unmarried mothers of illegitimate offspring whose children are not a credit to them?  

They have gone native, or forgotten their Islamic duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.   Perhaps it is right that Muslims who neglect their duty to Allah do not prosper.  

Or they would go and like


Anonymous said...


You linked to an article by that Jane Clare Jones. Now I'd been meaning to discuss some of her work.

"The feminine is a threat to this economy because it – both literally and figuratively – lets the other inside it, and thereby blurs the boundaries between the inside and the outside."

She's basically saying:

I'm Big Sister!
I'm a Cultural Marxist!
I only get wet for black/Muslim cock! No whiteboys allowed! Fuck you tiny dick losers! You are not worthy!

Seriously, she should get her own site and do erotic humiliation. I hear it pays better than university philosophy departments.

And that's not the end of her, see this article:

"the connection between death and women's sexuality is far from incidental. For as certainly as the bodies of women bring life, they also, in that very beginning, bring the end. We enter the world through women's bodies in a state of profound dependence and vulnerability and need, and we continue, throughout our lives, to be dependent and vulnerable and needy - for food, for belonging, for care, and for the bodies of other people. And it is in that dependency and vulnerability and need that we find the fragile fact of our mortality, and the chance and the risk of life."

"There is nothing that can be done about this. You can rage, and project, and resent the shit out of those that you love and need and desire. You can fantasize about replacing them with robots and artificial wombs, or get yourself off using rubber lined holes. You can imagine cutting off the head of the beast and freeing yourself from all that pesky pain and longing and lust. But it will make no difference. You are going to die. And on the way there, you will be made of nothing but flesh and blood and need and want."

She's basically saying:

You white, straight males have no right to have sex or reproduce.
I have the pussy, I make the rules!
You are going to die, loser!

She is basically the human personification (tautology much, lol) of this:

What an evil fucking leftist witch - I mean, she's getting into almost Andrea Dworkin, Susan Sontag, Valerie Solanas territory. She's gloating, taking extreme pleasure, delight even, in taunting white heterosexual males. Which is fine, because Cultural Marxism is basically a religious-like belief in which white heterosexual males assume the role of being the ultimate source of all evil.

I am not a "men's rights activist" and never will be. That being said, Ms. Jones will be glad to know that I will die before I ever accept her leftist scum religion as valid.

(P.S. It's interesting to note that leftists, in a way, are actually really white supremacist and male supremacist because they can't get away from the spurious dogmatic notion that white people and men intrinsically hold 'power' and 'privilege'.)

Is my analysis correct Claire? What do you think?

Claire Khaw said...

I was more taken by Jane Clare Jones' inability to defend feminism with anything like rational argument. She seems to acknowledge the truth of Breivik's points too, while incoherently and ineffectually saying they do not amount to much.