Religion

Scam Alert: Bacon Bullets

Revised to add in the information about the Sepoys.

It has come to my attention that there exists a company called Jihawg Ammo (and no, I’m not linking them. you know what to do).

If you happen upon their site, you will notice some pretty, ahem, questionable rhetoric. Some of it’s paranoid, at the very least. Is there really an “ever growing threat of radical Islam and Sharia Law” in the United States? I mean, the last I heard, it wasn’t Muslims who were making a concerted effort to impose their religious views on the American people.

"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."
“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.” — Michele Bachmann

Ahem.

But hey, what do I know about how dangerous American Muslims could be? I’m just someone who was born into and raised within a Muslim community in the United States.

What I’m here to talk about is the product claim central to Jihawg’s marketing strategy: that it is a deterrent against violence for terrorists of the Muslim persuasion.

Jihawg Ammo is certified “Haraam” or unclean. According to the belief system of the radical Islamist becoming “unclean” during Jihad will prevent their attaining entrance into heaven. Jihawg Ammo is a natural deterrent to radical and suicidal acts of violence.

To break down their claim in (sloppy) syllogistic fashion.

  1. Pork is haraam.
  2. “Radical Islamists” think that they won’t go to Jannah (Islamic heaven) during their “Jihad” if something haraam is in their bodies.
  3. Therefore, pork-laced bullets will give “radical Islamists” who intend to commit “Jihad” pause.

Right off the bat, we have a problem: haraam does not mean “unclean.” Think of the word “harem” as in women’s quarters or the term “Masjid al-Haram” as in the mosque that houses the Kaaba in Makkah — would Muslims really call Muslim women or their holiest site “unclean?” Haraam means forbidden and/or off-limits (as opposed to halaal, which means permitted without reservation). Just as pork (and, according to many Muslim scholars, pork products of any kind) is off-limits for the consumption of Muslims, a harem is a space that is off-limits to men and Masjid al-Haram is off-limits to non-Muslims.

8642403964_e3a7df3188_b

Because I recall just how much my non-Muslim/non-Desi friends loved to learn bad words from other languages, here are some fun ones related to the word “haraam.” Urdu and Hindi have two choice insults based on the concept of the forbidden: “haramzada,” as in “bastard,” as in “someone born as a result of off-limits (i.e. out of marriage) sex”; and “haramkhor,” which has no direct English equivalent and means someone who obtains their sustenance/income from forbidden sources.

As for the premises, the first is correct. Pork is forbidden in Islam. And, to throw them a (ham?)bone, pig skin is indeed considered naajis, which does mean impure or unclean, in Islam. The second is where the assertions fall apart. Only pig skin is naajis; pork fat, on the other hand, is off-limits for Muslim consumption. Embedding a bullet that has traces of pork product on it isn’t exactly getting them to willingly consume it. Furthermore, pork products are not considered so unclean to Muslims that they aren’t allowed for Muslims in emergency situations; they indeed are. Sins in Islam have to be deliberately committed and prohibitions are often considered flexible in emergency situations.

7382484406_33b4643dec_b

There is absolutely nothing in Islamic theology that would lead to the belief or even the implication that being shot by bullets greased in pork fat would ensure that a Muslim wouldn’t be able to enter Jannah. Even if you are paranoid enough to worry about the brown hordes, Jihawg Ammo won’t help deter anything. By the company’s own arguments for its existence, the product is a rip-off, pure and simple.

Aside from being a rip-off, if history is any indication, such measures would backfire, not prevent violence. The British imperialists in India had native units whom they called the Sepoys. When a rumor circulated among the Sepoys that pork and beef fat was being used in their ammunition, the response was not for the beef-averse Hindus and pork-shunning Muslims to cease committing violence. Au contrairethere was a rebellion.

Oh, and for the record? Halaal certification exists, but not Haraam certification. Perhaps I, as the most haraam kind of person of all, could start up the service. Why not profit from the ignorance of racists?

Tags

Heina Dadabhoy

Heina Dadabhoy [hee-na dad-uh-boy] spent her childhood as a practicing Muslim who never in her right mind would have believed that she would grow up to be an atheist feminist secular humanist, or, in other words, a Skepchick. She has been an active participant in atheist organizations and events in and around Orange County, CA since 2007. She is currently writing A Skeptic's Guide to Islam. You can follow her on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+.

Related Articles

77 Comments

  1. I seem to remember that one of the triggers of the Sepoy Rebellion was the rumor that the ammunition for the muzzle-loading rifles the British were equipping the Sepoys with used cartridges packed/lubricated with a mix of tallow and lard. Since the standard operating procedure was to bite the end off the cartridge to dump the contents down the muzzle, this meant that the Hindu and Muslim Sepoys had unwittingly been consuming both cow and pig during their training and exercises. This did not go down well with the Sepoys.

    So there may be some historical precedent for haraam ammunition.

    1. During the Clinton impeachment it appeared to me that the GOP was attempting a repeat of watergate as if it was merely a matter of repeating the correct rituals in the right order. They were doing the same in their Benghazi and IRS hearings this year. I suspect that the racist ammo has a similar origin.

      The origins of the Rebellion are a lot more complex than just the ammunition issue though. The East India company had understood the potential for religious objections early on and attempted an accommodation before the first mutiny by allowing the soldiers to choose their own grease. But then the rumor that pork or beef was used transformed into a rumor that the paper was impregnated.

      The real issue was that the British were coming to be seen as a foreign occupying force. When the East India company first showed up, accepting the offer of troops from the East India company no doubt looked like a better choice than hosting battles for the looming civil war. So the rulers of the middle third or so of India mostly signed up with the East India company voluntarily. The result was the type of colonialism that Bush tried to establish in Iraq known as ‘informal empire’. Basically the British got to make all the decisions that they cared about while titular authority was vested in a regime that was entirely dependent on them for its existence. This allowed the occupiers even greater opportunity for personal self enrichment than direct rule as they were insulated from accountability at home or abroad. The East India company was essentially the Victorian version of Blackwater and Haliburton all rolled into one.

      Of course admitting that the locals objected to foreign rule was not something that could be admitted in public so it was easier to focus on the role of the cartridges. The establishment did however take note of the possibilities of wider causes which is why direct rule was imposed and the new administration started building things like railways. Not that doing so had much more than cosmetic effect. An empire is only actually profitable if it is exploiting people.

      1. As I said, “one of the triggers”, not even a root cause.

        I don’t believe that the British being seen as a foreign occupying force was “the” real issue. It was probably one of many real issues, as major events rarely have a single identifiable cause or issue — which is why silver bullet solutions don’t work, as even if they solve one real issue, they leave untouched the others unidentified by the firer of the silver bullet.

  2. “Why not profit from the ignorance of racists?”
    How, pray tell, are bacon bullets “racist”?

    “Even if you are paranoid enough to worry about the brown hordes.”
    Given the demographic trends in Europe, at least, it’s not paranoid at all to worry about the brown hordes.

    1. I never said a product was racist. Their copy is pretty racist, though.

      Also: Europe is not the US. I’ve written extensively on this very matter but the tl;dr is that American Muslims are quite a different group, demographically speaking, from European ones.

      1. Having looked at the site.

        First of all, it’s a joke!. You’re taking it too seriously. Second, there’s nothing “racist” on the site. Can you point out, in particular, the racist content?

        One might say that in image of a Jihadist as swine is “dehumanizing”. But in the “About” section, they refer specifically to “radical Islam”. So they are not painting all Muslims with the same brush. Furthermore, one of the t-shirts portrays a white American as swine. He’s in a patriot’s outfit.

        Pretty good price on the 9mm, by the way, which is hard to come by these days.

          1. Pig in an Uncle Sam outfit … deadly serious.

            So you’re saying it is very racist to irrationally fear Jihad and Sharia. But the fear is of a fundamentalist religion. It’s religion, a cultural trait. How is that about race? Are you saying that only non-whites can be Muslim? Jihadists fear and hate the West. Are they racist? You might fear fundamentalist Christians. Is that racist? As for the mosque, it’s a question of symbolism. It’s not anti-Muslim in a general sense. But in any case, it has nothing to do with race.

          2. Technically it’s a pig in an Uncle Sam outfit on a box of bullets sold specifically for use against a racial minority. We all know who they’re talking about when they talk about “Muslims”. Believing that Sharia will or even may become law in the United States is being so racist you don’t mind saying things that are absolutely ridiculous.

            So what do you think an anti-arab racist looks and sounds like? How would their opinions differ from yours? If you think religious people should be respectful do you think it’s reasonable to hold Christians to the same standard? The Catholic Church has been building churches within 1,000 feet from schools, which is pretty really offensive symbolism, too. Where’s the outrage about about that?

    2. Edgar Lee,

      If you’re referring to the claim ( often referred to as Eurabia ) that Muslims are destined to take over Europe and turn the continent into an Islamic State, within the next fifty years, all the evidence suggests that’s not exactly happening.

      Islamification Myth
      http://www.yellow-stars.com/p/delusions-of-eurabia-islamification.html

      Debunking the myth of a ‘Eurabia’
      http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Debunking-the-myth-of-a-Eurabia-2460503.php

      Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/10/why-fears-of-a-muslim-takeover-are-all-wrong.html

      Debunking “Muslim Demographics” and “Eurabia”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfY3LqOpTLc

      Plus, how is the statement, “Given the demographic trends in Europe, at least, it’s not paranoid at all to worry about the brown hordes.” not racists?

      1. Thank God, someone who can give a reasoned response. I’ll look at your links. But in reference to “brown hordes” I was just repeating Heina’s phrase. The concern is mass immigration of non-Europeans into Europe and nations of the diaspora (i.e. US, Australia, etc).

        1. I guess you’ve never read any other post of mine, so let me spell it out: I am actually a member of said “brown horde” (I am the ex-Muslim daughter of Indian Muslim immigrants) so there’s no way that I was using the term not sarcastically.

          1. Yes, I know your ethnicity and that you were being facetious. But note that by using that phrase you are taking a jab at a particular group. You seem to be saying, in effect, that if a white person opposes mass immigration he is “a racist idiot who conceives of non-white immigrants as a brown horde”. The phrase was not meant to label, for instance, black Americans that might oppose immigration. So you have a double standard. When the ammo site makes facetious products, they make a statement about all Muslims and it’s racist. But if you apply a facetious label, it’s limited, not racist.

      2. I’ve given the links a once-over. There are two separate issues here: 1) Islamification 2) racial replacement. My concern is not Islamification per se. It’s a danger, but quibbling about the numbers is moot. The real problem is complete ethnic replacement of indigenous Europeans. There’s no question this is taking place. Sources only differ on how fast it’s happening. In the youtube video they cite figures on fertility. For instance, the fertility of Italy: 1995, 1.19; 2006, 1.35; 2013, 1.41. I’d have to look up more points, but these say the rate of increase is decreasing. Also, the video doesn’t say whose fertility. Is the increase due to non-European immigrants? And 1.41 is significantly below the 2.1 required to maintain the population. The second link references a Pew Forum study, (http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx). It predicts a large increase (570 million) in the world Muslim population in a mere 20 years. That doesn’t exactly allay fears of increased extremism. A certain percentage of those will be fundamentalists. Also, it shows how the non-white population of the world is growing. Meanwhile, the white population is shrinking. It’s not unreasonable to expect that this will only increase immigration pressure. Take Britain as an example:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317624/Changing-face-Britain-By-2050-UK-overtake-United-States-ethnically-diverse-Western-nation.html

        The article says, “… white British people will be a minority in the population by about 2066, in just over 50 years.” Who are these non-whites replacing the British? Aren’t most of them Muslim? There’s a disconnect between the Islamification deniers and the fact of ethnic replacement. They could be right, but it doesn’t change the real moral atrocity, which is the elimination of indigenous Europeans.

        1. Edgar Lee

          You wrote,
          “My concern is not Islamification per se. It’s a danger, but quibbling about the numbers is moot. The real problem is complete ethnic replacement of indigenous Europeans.”

          Which isn’t exactly happening either, contrary to what you claim.

          You also wrote,
          “There’s a disconnect between the Islamification deniers and the fact of ethnic replacement. They could be right, but it doesn’t change the real moral atrocity, which is the elimination of indigenous Europeans.”

          No there’s a disconnect between you and reality.

          Also, why should we care if Europe ends up having a non white majority? Just as why should we care if America ends up having a non white majority? What if those non whites assimilate into those countries? Are you going to tell us you’re not a racist now?

          Plus the Daily Mail is hardly one of the best sources out there.

          Why The Daily Mail is Evil (at The @PodDelusion’s 3rd birthday do)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY

          The Daily Mail Song

          1. “Which isn’t exactly happening either”
            How do you figure? I come across articles all the time that support the replacement thesis.

            “Also, why should we care if Europe ends up having a non white majority? Just as why should we care if America ends up having a non white majority?”
            You got me there. If you don’t care, you don’t care. But this modern not caring is unprecedented in world history.

            “Are you going to tell us you’re not a racist now?”
            lol. I don’t even know what you mean by “racist”. Caring if my ethnic group disappears?

            “Plus the Daily Mail is hardly one of the best sources out there.”
            Those videos say nothing about the study referenced. Therefore, they don’t support your argument.

          2. Edgar Lee

            Being white is meaningless. Skin tone is as meaningless as hair color. If you are not a racist, why would you even write a statement like this.

            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
            I’ve given the links a once-over. There are two separate issues here: 1) Islamification 2) racial replacement. It’s a danger, but quibbling about the numbers is moot. The real problem is complete ethnic replacement of indigenous Europeans.
            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

            Or this,

            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
            It predicts a large increase (570 million) in the world Muslim population in a mere 20 years. That doesn’t exactly allay fears of increased extremism. A certain percentage of those will be fundamentalists. Also, it shows how the non-white population of the world is growing. Meanwhile, the white population is shrinking. It’s not unreasonable to expect that this will only increase immigration pressure. Take Britain as an example:
            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

            You view things in terms of race and think we ought to care about what race is the majority. You are a racist period.

            Also, the links in my last comment do discredit you, because they showed proved that the only source other than that pew study you sited to discredit me, is untrustworthy.

            Also, that pew study in no way says that white Europeans are going to become extinct with the next century if trends continue nor does it say that Muslims will become the majority in Europe. You are making a positive claim which requires evidence, and you have failed to provide it. In fact the fourth chart shows birthrates world wide decreasing, including the birthrates in majority non white countries, so its pretty safe to say if that chart is correct the birthrates of none whites in Europe, as well as Muslims is also going to decrease. Also if you look at the second chart, it basically doesn’t show an increase in the percentage of Europeans who are Muslims at all. If Pew’s estimations are correct, if they somehow happen to turn out to be one hundred percent accurate Europe will still have a majority non Muslim population in 2030. The only countries that will have a Muslim majority in Europe in 2030 according to them are the ones that already have a Muslim majority. It also states that only an estimate 28.1% of immigrants to the UK in 2010 were Muslims. By the way thanks for mentioning the Pew Study again in last reply to me. I forgot to mention it in my last reply to you. Anyway it really doesn’t help you prove your point. One of the countries, Russia for it example, it predicts will have a 14.4% Muslim population. Russia right now according to the CIA world fact book 10 to 15% of all Russians are Muslims. Not much of an increase.
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

            Right now, the CIA world fact book also estimates that the percentage of the population in France that is Muslim is 5%-10%. If Pew’s estimates are correct, it will be about 10.3% in 2030. Not much higher than the highest estimate for what it is now.

            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

          3. Edgar Lee

            Oh and just to make it clear to you, I could have done a better job with my last comment. The way I wrote it, was rather confusing. I read the part where it said that the percentage of the European population that is Muslim is estimated to be more than ten percent by 2030, in fact I sited statistics But if you read it very carefully, its really not that big of an increase.

          4. Edgar Lee

            Sorry, let me rewrite my last comment, I made a mistake, that I didn’t correct before publishing it.

            “Oh and just to make it clear to you, I could have done a better job with my last comment. The way I wrote it, was rather confusing. I read the part where it said that the percentage of the European population that is Muslim is estimated to be more than ten percent by 2030, in fact I sited statistics from that part of the article written by pew But if you read it very carefully, its really not that big of an increase.”

          5. “But this modern not caring is unprecedented in world history.”

            Hahaha! Holy balls, guy. Isn’t that a good thing? Not that I agree that your assessment reflects the real turn of the tide (yet), but shouldn’t everyone, as human beings, recognize other people as human beings regardless of their pigmentation and address one another based on their agency and character?

      1. Nope. Not racist at all.
        Maybe he’s worried about too many brown tourists.
        He could be talking about very tan Australians.
        Perfectly cromulent statement, see?
        No way he’s comparing human beings to vermin based on the color of their skin. Ya’ll are just jumping to conclusions.

          1. No, it got worse and more blatant.
            I thought it was bad earlier, but he was just scratching the surface.
            THE WHITE RACE IS IN DANGER
            REVERSE DISCRIMINATION
            IT’S THE COLOREDS WHO ARE THE REAL RACISTS

            Straight up and unapologetic. Fella, just shave your head and get it over with.
            I would invite him to talk to my Cherokee family about genocide and racism and cultural practices, but I like most of my family.

            The white race is in danger – I hadn’t heard that one since I stopped talking to skinheads. It’s still funny. Classic.

          2. Marilove,
            Punchdrunk,

            Given his rhetoric I wouldn’t be surprised if Edgar Lee is one of those “racial realist” types. Don’t be surprised if he says “Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.” at some point.

      2. Well he was just repeating the term originally used by Heina. But the context does seem to have changed from a sarcastic reference to racist prejudice to actual prejudice.

        Scare stories about Europe turning Muslim tend to be based on very faulty statistics. I have seen Murdoch press stories that compare a contemporary measure of ethnic Muslims with a survey of religious adherence ten or twenty years earlier. Since religious adherents seem to number about 10% of pretty much any population, comparing studies can lead to wildly inaccurate derivatives.

        When the press tells lies, people end up believing them.

    3. It’s not merely paranoid to worry about The Brown Hordes in Europe – it’s delusional and frankly stupid.
      It’s just a thinly veiled rationalisation for outright racism, which is why the only people worried about it are, in fact, racist shitbags.

        1. If your ethnic group was disappearing because it was being systematically murdered or economically repressed such that its members could not afford to have children, then you would have the right to fear it. But if your ethnic group is simply becoming a smaller percentage of the total population because it is voluntarily reducing its own rate of reproduction (as wealthier, more successful groups tend to do), immigration, and intermixing with other ethnic groups, resulting in descendents who no longer qualify as members of your arbitrarily selected ethnic group, and you fear that, then “racist shitbag” is entirely deserved.

          1. Splendid. But please do be consistent. Apply that mindless epithet to the Japanese, Mexicans, Native Americans, Amazonian tribesmen, the Chinese, Gujaratis, Tamils, the Vietnamese, Egyptians, Jews, Palestinians, Tibetans, Zulus, etc. etc. Indeed, you’re safe to apply it to all non-white ethnic groups in the world (>5.7 billion people) who actively preserve their ancestry and ethnic heritage, and would not make your fine distinctions, since the final result (extinction) would be the same.

          2. Furthermore, I’d have to say that your comments and those of others are so filled with irrational hate and murderous venom, it rivals that of a genocidal Hutu or the most brutal Nazi. This liberal site is not a hate free zone. I don’t fear Islamification. I don’t fear the Jihadist. I fear you.

          3. Edgar Lee

            No, people being replaced by other people because they’re not having children is not genocide. Also the fact that you would basically compare that to what the Nazis did, shows how unreasonable you are. Oh and the fact that you would call Skepchick a hate site, when it does nothing to promote hate, also shows us how unreasonable you actually are.

            A hate site would be one that talked about evil Muslims are. It wouldn’t be talking about how ridiculous the idea of “pork bullets” would be when it comes to fighting Muslim terrorists. In fact if this was a site like Jihad Watch, it would probably be praising the idea. Someone like Heina wouldn’t even be welcome on a site like that despite the fact that she’s an apostate from Islam. She’s too good of skeptic to buy into any of their bigoted conspiracy theories.

            Also a hate site would be one that makes ridiculous baseless “white genocide” claims and talks about how bad it is that minorities are having more kids than whites in countries that holistically had a white majority. Which is exactly what you are doing.

            Hate sites demonize entire racial, ethnic or religious groups. Show me where Skepchick has done that? Show me where anyone who writes for this site has demonized any racial, ethnic or religious group, including the white race.

            If anyone here is a hate monger it is you.

          4. crit-drag
            You totally missed the point. The hate toward ME is Nazi-like. Jesus. Just look at the fucking comments. I was using hyperbole. But more literally, the hate towards me is “rather extreme”. Is that not obvious? In the past I’ve argued with the far right white nationalist types, you know, the ones that are supposed to be “haters”. That was like a chat with Mr. Rogers compared to the commenters here. Liberals are supposed to be against hate. Unless it’s good hate, that is, hate against the “racist”. I could respond to your comments, but that would only serve to unleash further torrents of withering, close-minded contempt.

          5. No one is hating on Maine, Edgar. It is called Vacationland for a reason.

            (But seriously, are you going for, like, a reverse-Godwin? What’s happening here?)

          6. Edgar Lee,

            The hate towards you is not Nazi like. No one is calling for you to be killed or even have your rights taken away. In fact if we’re going to make comparisons to the Nazis, given your views on race, you’re more similar to a Nazi than anyone else here. The way we’re treating you is perfectly justified. The reason why people are reacting the way they are towards what you’re saying is because of what attitudes like yours have led to in the past.

          7. “Liberals are supposed to be against hate.”

            What you’ve so far been subjected to are accusations of racism and rude comments based on a misunderstanding of your repetition of the term that Heina originally used in her article (setting aside for a moment Phillip’s interpretation of the differences in how you would or were both using it). Otherwise the most vicious comments have been from punchdrunk, who at worst interpretation with the “but I like most of my family” comment was suggesting you would harm them. These comments perhaps stem from a misunderstanding of how you were using the phrase “brown hordes,” but considering your own relative politeness in this discussion, such ridicule was of yet uncalled for.

            Perhaps though you would have learned your lesson from your hyperbole of “brown hordes,” now with this topic of Naziism. Are you not able to comprehend the difference between being called a racist and being forced to stand at an open pit of dead fellow-Jews waiting for a soldier to shoot you in the head? Are you not able to comprehend the difference between people laughing at you, and people dragging you from your home and putting you in a camp? Are you not able to comprehend the difference between contempt for your stated beliefs and contempt for your ethnic and cultural association? Or do you just not care? It is the ULTIMATE irony that you are here trying to convince us that you only care about Islamic extremism, about “stated beliefs.”

            Preservation of your heritage, when effected at the expense of truth and at the spearhead of fear of extinction, is irrational. Preservation of your ethnicity because you *like* your heritage, because you’re *proud* of your ethnicity, is not. But that’s not what you’ve been arguing. You’ve been arguing that whites should be the majority, regardless of their own willing choice to decrease their reproductive rates. You’ve been arguing that you care about the white ethnicity beyond the years that you’ll be around to give a fuck about it. You’ve been arguing that the white ethnicity is under attack from lesser ethnicities; that in order to preserve the white ethnicity, you need to limit the tide of other ethnicities.

            You’re not arguing that you like your ethnicity. You’re arguing that your ethnicity is intrinsically good, and that other ethnicities are intrinsically bad, and I would also bet that we should effect policy based on that principle. That’s racism. And yes, that deserves contempt. From LIBERALS.

          8. @ Richard Sympson
            Just to clarify, I don’t especially think Mr. Lee would hurt anyone, more that I wouldn’t subject people I like to his racist bullshit.
            And, I was aware that he was quoting the ham bullet website, the ‘he’ I was referring to there was the author of the copy on the website. It was confusing, the way I combined it with responding to the commenter, apologies.

          9. Richard Sympson

            “such ridicule was of yet uncalled for.” Thank you! Really, I’m just expressing ideas. You would think that on a “skeptic” site people would be able to reason and say “yes I agree with that” or “no I don’t agree and here’s why” without going directly to spittle-flecked invective.

            “open pit of dead fellow-Jews waiting for a soldier to shoot you in the head”
            You are misinterpreting. I did not say being called names was the same as the ACTS committed at Babi Yar, etc. That would be grotesque. I said the emotion, the state of mind, is Nazi-like. I used Nazi as hyperbole to defend against the immoderate responses. Perhaps a better comparison is the mindset in Communist regimes. But to elaborate: before violence you have propaganda, the vilification and dehumanization that allows people to do harm: Der Sturmer (Jews), Marxist ideology (enemy of the people) , etc. etc. The target is the “out group”, whatever that might be. There is a viciousness in the liberal denunciation people in the out group that promotes violence. The hate I’ve experiencing here is remarkable. I wouldn’t want to be caught in a dark alley with Buzz, Rei, or punkdrunk. My original argument was directed at Heina’s use of the word “racist”. It’s meaningless. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEHD5kaOhoQ. There’s a racial element in the label because it’s always applied to whites. It’s similar, though not as intense, to the n-word. It implies violence — “racist shitbag” even more so.

            In the defense of my own ethnic group, I am fully aware of the risk of generating hate for the other. But there is nothing innately hateful in that defense. If it is, then you have to apply the same standard to all ethnic groups.

          10. Richard Sympson
            1) “Preservation of your heritage … at the spearhead of fear of extinction, is irrational.” — Why is fear of extinction irrational? The desire to preserve is based on love of one’s people, the whole thing that is our culture and ancestry. Of course if you love something you fear its annihilation.

            2) “You’ve been arguing that whites should be the majority, regardless of their own willing choice to decrease their reproductive rates.” — Not quite. Yes, white ethnic groups are freely choosing annihilation. That doesn’t mean it’s good. There are certain ideas behind this bad choice. Liberal ideology or Cultural Marxism is part of the problem. Therefore, I argue against it in an attempt to educate my fellow white men. Through education, propaganda, media bias, whites have been brainwashed into passively accepting their own demise. Yet, they do act of their own free will. It’s bizarre.

            3) “… beyond the years that you’ll be around to give a fuck about it.” — Well, that brings up all sorts of issues. Why do anything?

            4) “You’ve been arguing that the white ethnicity is under attack from lesser ethnicities; that in order to preserve the white ethnicity, you need to limit the tide of other ethnicities.” — Attack? Where did I say attack? And where did I say “lesser”? Why are you reading this into my statements? Non-white people want to come to white countries for economic reasons. I would want to do the same. I don’t dislike, hate, or condemn them for it. Once here, they do advocate for their ethnic interests. Those interests are contrary to mine. For instance, La Raze (The Race) advocates for unlimited immigration. Of course. That’s what ethic groups do. A lot of black Americans oppose mass immigration: http://www.examiner.com/article/black-leaders-fed-up-with-obama-s-amnesty-schemes-will-march-on-d-c Are they racist?

            5) “You’re not arguing that you like your ethnicity.” — I didn’t say that specifically, but that is the motive. You did not get that implication. But you derived other implications. Why?

            6) “You’re arguing that your ethnicity is intrinsically good, and that other ethnicities are intrinsically bad” — Wow! Where the hell did that come from? Please, point out where I said other ethnic groups are intrinsically bad. Isn’t part of being a “skeptic” having the ability to see your own mindset, assumptions, and biases and how they influence your perception? One take home from commenting on this site is how liberals misconstrue. It’s weird.

          11. So wait, you go to far right nationalist websites to debate stuff and they’re nice to you and it doesn’t occur to you you might be a racist? Pretend to be a girl and say something nice about Anita Sarkeesian if you want to know what people not being civil and politely correcting you looks like.

          12. criticaldragon
            “No one is calling for you to be killed or even have your rights taken away.” — See my other response on epithets and hate leading to violence. As for rights, you are not totally correct. In some European countries people can be arrested and imprisoned for “hate speech” if they oppose mass immigration or criticize Islam. In the US, we have a “soft” totalitarian system. You’re not going to be arrested, but you can easily lose your job. If you criticize “diversity” or advocate for white ethnostates, or talk about racial differences, then you can be fired, suffer ostracism, etc. This happens all the time. It has nothing to do with hate or advocating harm. It’s just thought crime, pure and simple.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

            “In fact if we’re going to make comparisons to the Nazis, given your views on race, you’re more similar to a Nazi than anyone else here.” — lol. Well since everyone here seems to be 3 standard deviations to the left of Herbert Marcuse, that’s not saying much.

            “The way we’re treating you is perfectly justified. The reason why people are reacting the way they are towards what you’re saying is because of what attitudes like yours have led to in the past.”

            No. Nazism was not pro-white. It was German supremacism propped up with some stupid ideas about the “Aryan race”, social Darwinism, and insane Antisemitism. What I’m arguing for has nothing to do with that crap. Ideas like mine would never lead to the Holocaust or anything similar. That you would think so due (at least in part) to your liberal conditioning.

          13. “debate stuff and they’re nice to you and it doesn’t occur to you you might be a racist”

            No they’re not nice to me. But this site is much worse. Which is saying something. And your use of the word “racist” is meaningless here.

          14. Edgar Lee,

            Every single argument you’ve come up with has done nothing to prove your point, its either baseless, irrelevant or in the case of that pew forum article you linked to actually said, didn’t support what you were saying at all. Muslims are not destined to take over Europe, and race is a social, not a biological construct, end of story. And if you want people to stop calling you a racist, stop viewing things in terms of race.

            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
            No. Nazism was not pro-white. It was German supremacism propped up with some stupid ideas about the “Aryan race”, social Darwinism, and insane Antisemitism. What I’m arguing for has nothing to do with that crap. Ideas like mine would never lead to the Holocaust or anything similar. That you would think so due (at least in part) to your liberal conditioning.
            ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

            No, they would and they have. Look at what the Nazis believed and look at the justifications they had for what they did. The shear idea that one ought to care about ones’ race is immoral and stupid. We have about as much reason to think the “white race” exists as the “Aryan Race” exists and if you want to insist the Nazis were not “pro white” read about what Hitler and the other Nazis said about blacks.

            Also, why don’t you talk to some modern Nazis and ask them what they think of non whites?

            James Watson also deserved to be condemned for his comments on race and intelligence, because he ought to have known better. Not only are they based on racism and pseudoscience, but the idea that people of other races are inherently less intelligent than white people in addition to being utterly baseless, is harmful. People used the idea that blacks were less intelligent than whites as a basis for discrimination and slavery.

            I’d recommend that you watch videos by Evogen Videos, because he has done an excellent job debunking the idea that intelligence is connected to race, and that race even exists as scientific concept, except I doubt that you will and you’d complain about how insults “racial realists” like you. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields, reject the notion of race altogether.

            Here’s some links to his channel for anyone who would like to see some of his videos on race.

            http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL79BDE5D4C107A875

            http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHd2gcHvwosrcP0jrOnvOAUc7R_E5VsEa

            The Use of the word racist is not meaningless and, because racism is a very real thing. “Race” as a biological construct is nonsense.

          15. I have to commend you, criticaldragon1177. I don’t think I’d have the patience to put up with someone routinely failing to address my points, consistently form tempered arguments against someone obviously fishing for name-calling*, and just in general deal with someone willfully ignoring everything else. There’s only so much of that I can take. You’re like a saint only if any of the saints had actually bothered to be good people.

            *As an apparent attempt to discredit your arguments without addressing them. I guess? I dunno.

          16. I’ve come up with a tl;dr version of this thread:

            “I’m not racist, I’m just xenophobic, and I think other races are out to get my race. It’s not racist to resent other races.”
            “Why is xenophobia a virtue?”
            “You’re exactly as vile as genocidal horrors from history to me for that!”
            “No, but seriously, how is this a thing that’s a problem?”
            “Murderers!”

          17. Miserlyoldman,

            You wrote,
            —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
            I have to commend you, criticaldragon1177. I don’t think I’d have the patience to put up with someone routinely failing to address my points, consistently form tempered arguments against someone obviously fishing for name-calling*, and just in general deal with someone willfully ignoring everything else. There’s only so much of that I can take. You’re like a saint only if any of the saints had actually bothered to be good people.

            *As an apparent attempt to discredit your arguments without addressing them. I guess? I dunno.
            —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

            Thanks for the nice words! I have a feeling Edgar Lee won’t listen anyway. I’m probably not going to keep this up too much longer. Arguing with people like him, is like arguing with creationists about evolution.

          18. criticaldragon
            To sum up.
            1) I shouldn’t have invoked the Nazis. But I explained that in detail above. It was hyperbole provoked by the name calling. Can anti-white rhetoric lead to violence against whites? Sure, why not? The constant, knee-jerk charge of “racism” is part of the problem.
            2) I neglected to agree that, looking at your links, the Eurabia fear doesn’t look plausible, at least in the short term — e.g. France will not become a Islamic republic. However, I thought we moved on to the idea of mass immigration and ethnic replacement in Europe. That is taking place. You don’t care, I do.
            3) To say that race is “social construct” or just a matter of “the color of your skin” is false. It’s silly and uninformed. Some dude on a youtube video (who is he? does he have a Ph.D. in a relevant field?) making assertions does not refute the many peer-reviewed journal papers on IQ studies. You should learn more before just dismissing them out of hand. Not to mention scientific papers on genetic differences between human populations (aside from IQ studies). But then, there’s probably no amount of data or explanation that would convince you, so the point is moot. It’s like trying to convince a Christian his faith is wrong.

          19. I’ve come up with a tl;dr version of this thread:
            “I’m not racist, I’m just xenophobic, and I think other races are out to get my race. It’s not racist to resent other races.”
            “Why is xenophobia a virtue?”
            “You’re exactly as vile as genocidal horrors from history to me for that!”
            “No, but seriously, how is this a thing that’s a problem?”
            “Murderers!”

            Lame. Clearly haven’t read my comments. Or you’re filtering out 80% of what you read. Or both.

          20. Pithy rebuttal. I particularly liked that you again didn’t bother with the content of someone else’s post.

            Let’s try yet another question. At what point, since you’re so very worried about white culture disappearing, do you think there will be fewer white characters than non-white characters in TV and cinema? When do you think there will be a non-white James Bond? Ever? Sherlock? The Doctor (arguably the most likely to change)? How many lead characters are white and how many are non-white in cinema? TV?

          21. cd,
            “Arguing with people like him, is like arguing with creationists about evolution.”
            No. I answered a lot of your points and those of other comments, despite the misinterpretations, name calling, and and general animosity. I read your links, watched some of that video (which was rather unbearable). We don’t agree on the reality of race, but that’s your denial of science, not mine.

          22. miserlyoldman
            Jesus dude, I can’t respond to every frickin sentence (but I almost did with Richard Sympson’s comment). But to respond to your questions on TV, media etc: Hell, I don’t know. When? Next week? Or 200 years from now? The point, which you seem not to grasp, is ethnic replacement; the demographic transformation of Europe, and the eventual disappearance of the indigenous Europeans through low fertility rates and being absorbed in a sea of non-European immigrants. That is a bad thing. It could take 2 or 3 hundred years for the final result. At that point, no, there won’t be any white people on TV.

          23. Edgar Lee

            If you think that “race denial” is so unscientific, read what the American Anthropological Association has to say on the subject.

            American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race”
            http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

            Also,

            American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race” and Intelligence
            http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm

            And no one here actually misrepresented what you were saying, including myself. You won’t change your position despite the overwhelming evidence against it. That’s what makes you like a creationist.

          24. criticaldragon
            I read the links. I read the arguments of race deniers and try to understand them and respond to them. Here you are simply citing authority, without looking into the arguments. If you think those links constitute sufficient reason to dismiss arguments for differences in human populations, you clearly don’t understand them. You’re simply dismissing them out of hand. At least read up on the IQ differences evidence (again, in a large number of peer-reviewed journal articles) and attempt to understand it. If you don’t, then your thinking is like the creationists, not mine. Relevant reply to your video:

          25. WOW. Edgar won’t take the research of people who actually study this shit for a living seriously, but wants us all to watch a comments disabled youtube video of a guy who thinks that violence is a unique genetic attribute of black people. That we’re all supposed to take into open minded consideration, but not the possibility that dear Edgar here is a flaming racist, nope, that’s just going too far.

        2. Edgar Lee,

          You are a horrible skeptic. MrHerrIQi3 has been debunked repeatedly. As for all the peer reviewed papers about “racial” differences, they don’t exist. They could never get published in a peer reviewed academic Journal. “Scientists” who study “racial” differences, have more in common with creationists than genuine scientists. “scientists” belonging to groups like the Pioneer Fund are motive not by the search for knowledge and improving our understanding of how the world, but political ideology.

          Stefan Kühl’s Examination of Pioneer Fund Tactics
          Chapter 1: The “New” Scientific Racism
          http://www.ferris.edu/isar/tanton/connection.pdf

          Pioneer Fund
          http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/pioneer-fund

  3. This is kind of off topic, but I’m curious:

    So, I used to work with a Jewish guy who was raised orthodox and kosher and even the thought of eating a ham sandwich would turn his stomach (let alone if you put cheese on it too) even though he had become”mostly” non-religious as an adult. He said it was so ingrained that even if he didn’t believe in the dietary laws, he had trouble eating foods that were blatantly against them.

    Heina, or anyone else who was raised with similar religious dietary restrictions who wants to chime it. When you became less/non-religious, did you still have problems eating things you’d been taught were “forbidden”? Or was it easy to adopt a more secular approach to food?

    1. The short answer is that it took me a while to get into pork. I’d been raised to not only think of pork as off-limits, but also as morally inferior. A lot of Muslims will harp on about the alleged objective unhealthiness of swine-flesh in order to show that Allah’s commandments are logical; they’ll point to the risk of trichinosis, the high fat content of pork, the perceived “dirtiness” of pigs (the claim being that pigs wallow in their own excrement), or even the allegedly sordid swinger lifestyle that pigs lead (not even kidding or exaggerating). The first time I ate pork, it was out of carelessness. I had picked up a deli combo sandwich that contained ham and hadn’t realized it, but when I read the label and realized what was in it, I shrugged and kept eating. As it was a crappy pre-packaged cheap sandwich, I wasn’t impressed. My first boyfriend was the person who got me to really try pork, as he made incredibly delicious breaded porkchops for me. After that, I tried thick-cut hickory-smoked bacon and the rest was history.

      My story doesn’t necessarily represent the majority of experiences, though. In fact, I’d guess that I’m the exception, as I know lots of ex-Muslims and atheist Jews who won’t eat pork. Indeed, I know plenty of Muslims who will engage in pre-marital sex, drink alcohol, and so on, but would never touch pork. I’d imagine it’s disgust/conditioning combined with habituation and the lack of reward. You can eat a lot of tasty foods without eating pork products (and if you’ve never had them, you can’t know what you’re missing), but it’s hard to get drunk without alcohol or enjoy sex without, well, actually having sex.

      1. Thanks!

        It sounds like you had an easier time than most of the people I’ve known who grew up with conditioned beliefs about certain foods.

        For my part, I can’t deal with eating insects or organs no matter how they taste, but I’m good with sausage (even though the casing in some cases is intestine) or sea bugs (shrimp, lobster, crab) because I grew up eating them.

      2. I got so distracted on the justification of polygyny over polyandry that I completely forgot why I followed the link and had to double back! I laughed at the idea that there are 25 million gay men in NYC and no lesbians, or women happy to be single!

      3. Archeologists seem to have found a general prohibition on pig meat in the general area of the Levant. For years they equated ‘lack o pig bones’ with ‘Jewish settlement’. But it seems to have been a widespread taboo. One theory is that pigs require rather a lot of water and that this is is simply reflecting a general ecological concern.

        Right now the pork thing is one of the driving factors behind the revolt against the Morsi government. The Christian community keep pigs which are actually vital to the ecology of Cairo because they eat parts of the garbage. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has been on an anti-pig thing.

        Paul had to drop the pork prohibition to sell his religion to franchises in Greece. So they obviously thought bacon tasty. Its just rather unfortunate they don’t sell real bacon in the US. What gets sold here is either Canadian bacon which I would consider to be ham or American bacon which I would call ‘lard’. Imported Irish bacon costs me $14 a lb.

        The core architecture of the Internet is based on two core principles: That pictures of cats are cute and everything tastes better with bacon.

  4. I looked at the site that is selling these bullets, and they appear to me to be hollow points and so to use them in military action would be to commit a war crime. But the numbers of Muslim terrorists in the US that would be stopped by these bullets seems to be pretty small. It seems that what we need is something that will stop NRA nut-jobs. Maybe bullets that have atheist DNA on them? Or maybe gay DNA? The homophobes are absolutely apoplectic that marriage is not contaminated by the gay.

    What we need to do is “contaminate” voting booths with the gay and atheists and all that liberal open mindedness and skepticism. The tea partiers will be afraid it will rub off on them.

      1. Hollow point ammunition is pretty standard for hunting and according to Wikipedia for a lot of other completely legal uses: “Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police, which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.”

  5. There is absolutely nothing in Islamic theology that would lead to the belief or even the implication that being shot by bullets greased in pork fat would ensure that a Muslim wouldn’t be able to enter Jannah.

    This may be correct, but we are talking about Christians trying to find some “magic” way to scare Muslims, and.. they are the ones that managed to invent all sorts of “you will go to hell, if you do/eat/say/think these things, even if it is an emergency.”, as well as, in some cases, silliness like “magic underwear”. I am sure if any of them thought “gay” really was contagious, and could be smeared on bullets, half the wackos in the US would immediately surrender, in abject terror. Its hardly a surprise that they imagine the whole Middle East falling to a BLT – Bacon Laced Turret.

  6. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who hasn’t missed the irony in selling bullets laced with pork matter, with the end goal not to *kill* a jihadist, but to make him change his mind. Like it’s ever going to be the situation where anyone crazy enough to buy these is going to see a soon-to-be suicide bomber and shoot once just so they can wait and see what’ll happen next.

  7. Edgar Lee: “In some European countries people can be arrested and imprisoned for “hate speech” if they oppose mass immigration or criticize Islam.”
    Evidence for this assertion? And note that they need to have been arrested and imprisoned specifically for opposing mass immigration or criticizing Islam, if you do that and also shoot people you’ll be arrested and imprisoned in the US as well.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close