Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - May 20, 2010


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

No one, anywhere, seems to be mentioning the fact that Objectivist loose cannon, publicity whore, and amateurish artist, Botch Fawstin, won the cartoon contest.

J

A "recovering Muslim?" Born in Albania.

While in another post, he said: "They came to kill us and died for it. Justice. #‎GarlandAttack." Fawstin, who is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist, is currently working on a graphic novel, titled "THE INFIDEL" (featuring Pigman).

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/who-bosch-fawstin-former-muslim-who-won-texas-draw-prophet-mohammad-event-631378

The Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards, commonly shortened to the Eisner Awards, are prizes given for creative achievement in American comic books, sometimes referred to as the Comics Industry's equivalent of the Oscar Awards.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisner_Award

The specific award that Fawstin was nominated for -- and which he did not win -- was not the comics equivalent of an Oscar. He wasn't nominated for best writer, or inker, or colorist, or anything at that level. Rather, he received a "Russ Manning Most Promising Newcomer award nomination, an Eisner Award nomination for Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.

J,

There is much subculture chat of Mr. Fawstin’s win in the contest on Facebook, which is where most subculture chat seems to be now, rather than on these public posting boards. His interview with Greta on Fox concerning his participation and win and concerning the attack is here.

Thanks for the info and link, Stephen.

"I understand the threat that we face and that's why I do what I do," Fawstin said. "I do it because we're being threatened. This has to be fought head-on."

I think that's only part of why Fawstin does what he does. The other, bigger part is that he craves attention. I think that he loves public attention even more than he loves drawing, which is why he focuses so much more of his efforts on getting into the spotlight than on improving his drawing skills. The Promising Newcomer nomination was about a decade ago, and, talent-wise, he's still at that same level, while skyrocketing in the category of public attention.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know, Bosch has gotten death threats, too. It doesn't matter what his art or personality are like in terms of death threats. He does not deserve to be murdered for his opinions and artwork.

I totally agree.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Hannity is good, he is great.
 
This is a perfect example of show more than tell persuasion.
 

 

There is nothing better than a smug sanctimonious asshole saying stupid crap on the other side to shine a bright light on your point.

 

I've read comments in several places on the web by people wanting to punch Choudary when they see this video. 

:)

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let these people know that if they go and murder in the name of their religion they will be relentlessly hunted down and killed or subject to justice which might include execution. Then do it.

--Brant

and advocacy = criminal intent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read comments in several places on the web by people wanting to punch Choudary when they see this video.

I have always wanted to punch Anjem Choudary in the face. In the British media he is almost always introduced as "Hate Preacher," and I say for good reason. He has no mosque, he has trivial support from Muslim leaders and congregations. He is a self-promoter and a zealot. This doesn't mean he should go on a No-Fly list or be banged up on shoddy 'hate speech' grounds**, but I think he is not the kind of preacher one finds on every streetcorner, expressing a majority opinion.

What I would wonder is why Hannity had to reach overseas for a counterpoint to Geller. Doesn't the USA have a crop of equally odious 'hate preachers'? I would think an encounter with an American who defends the strictest sharia (like Choudary) would make for a more relevant face-off. Who are the American Muslims or American Muslim leaders who oppose Geller's projects, but do not countenance the idiotisms of Choudary?

I loathe most things about Geller and the gang she peforms with as they pertain to squaring the circle of Islam/Islamists/Radical Islamists/Jihadis/Stone Killers. I have zero interest or respect for one-note Fawstin. But of course, I condemn the attempted murder of her and him and the other attendants. I condemn the notion that some religious rule can trump the right to free expression.

The winning Mohammed qua Wolverine cartoon is shit, in my opinion.

_________________________

** Choudary has a travel ban imposed on him by the UK government. and faces charges related to terrorism-support.

Geller has also a kind of travel ban, at least for the UK, which denies her entrance on the grounds of 'setting up an "anti-Muslim hate group."'

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would wonder is why Hannity had to reach overseas for a counterpoint to Geller. Doesn't the USA have a crop of equally odious 'hate preachers'?

William,

There are plenty here, but none that can put on a show like Choudary. Not for the covert persuasion vibes Hannity seeks. And, to boot, one who is deluded enough to believe his presence on Hannity will strike a blow for Allah.

If, for the purposes of propaganda, Robert Spencer himself tried to make a perfect foil for Pamela out of whole cloth and he hired both COBS (the consortium of behavioral scientists) and top Hollywood talent to help craft the character, all of them together would not touch the hem of Choudary.

The man is perfect--and in perfect balance--in all the markers to stomp all over the most buttons of the most Americans in the shortest amount of time.

I literally stand in awe that such a creature exists.

:smile:

btw - I am sure you will be heartwarmed to know that Bosch Fawstin's Facebook page is back up.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always wanted to punch Anjem Choudary in the face. In the British media he is almost always introduced as "Hate Preacher," and I say for good reason. He has no mosque, he has trivial support from Muslim leaders and congregations. He is a self-promoter and a zealot. This doesn't mean he should go on a No-Fly list or be banged up on shoddy 'hate speech' grounds**, but I think he is not the kind of preacher one finds on every street corner, expressing a majority opinion.

William:

I have never understood why this caricature is permitted to stay in Britain and banned Michael Savage from travelling to Britain.

I have noy ever looked into that case.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always wanted to punch Anjem Choudary in the face. In the British media he is almost always introduced as "Hate Preacher," and I say for good reason. He has no mosque, he has trivial support from Muslim leaders and congregations. He is a self-promoter and a zealot. This doesn't mean he should go on a No-Fly list or be banged up on shoddy 'hate speech' grounds**, but I think he is not the kind of preacher one finds on every street corner, expressing a majority opinion.

William:

I have never understood why this caricature is permitted to stay in Britain and banned Michael Savage from travelling to Britain.

Follow the link above for the answer. He was born in Welling, in Greater London. He has no other nationality.

In a perfect world, he could take up with IS in Syria/Iraq, and get what he happily approves of in others, death/martyrdom. I am sure there are a few suicide belts laying around over there. Or he could wait for an RCAF bomb for killing irony. But the awful truth is that he would take his family to their deaths and contribute to the deaths of other innocents, and it is more prudent to keep him under supervision at home. Not a single Middle East country would accept him otherwise, anyway.

All his warmongering and death wishes later, the only job he can get is as a guest mouthpiece on Fox.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting duel on Fox. Both top stars are using their programs as megaphones.

 

Bill O'Reilly thinks the issue involving the Geller incident is what kind of people we are going to be and has no room in that view for taunters of religion. He outright said the First Amendment issue is bogus with Geller and her people. He said mocking Muhammad will turn off potential allies like Jordan and Egypt in the Middle East who are fighting ISIS.

 

Megyn Kelly said the issue most definitely is the First Amendment and that Geller's provocation was the kind of thing that was necessary to allow the world to see the issue clearly by flushing some of the evil kooks out. She had Alan Dershowitz on and he even likened Geller's tactics to those used by Martin Luther King when he would go into the most racist areas for his demonstrations. (He qualified this by saying his lens was strictly freedom and he was not making any other kind of comparison.) She thinks the argument that allies in the Middle East will stop helping us to fight ISIS because some people here mock Muhammad is bogus.

 

This is the first major rift between the two I know of. I wonder how it is going to play out. (Probably eating a pizza together, like they say in Brazil, but there should be some fireworks until then.)

 

btw - I side with Kelly, I am pissed at O'Reilly for his stupidity (since he is calling those who disagree with him stupid), but I definitely don't like to be a part of demonstrations that mock entire cultures as their theme. I can support their freedom rights and stand with them without participating in their focus on mockery.

 

Michael

 

 

EDIT: O'Reilly's position:

 

 

Kelly's position:

 

 

Go Kelly! (Helluva last name, too. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geller, and others like Pipes, are starting to sound increasingly sane and reasonable as atrocities in the Arab and Muslim world mount up. For every one of the thousands of killings reported, there are certainly tens of thousands more cases of suffering perpetrated behind closed doors that are never heard of in thousands of cities and villages. There is something obviously rotten in the state of Islam and its adjunct, Shariah, which lends itself to being represented or misrepresented (whichever you select) by Jihadis, frothing imams and abusive husbands - to their desired ends.

I've been looking to the silent majority of Muslims to speak out, to say: this is not Islam as it is, or should be. Apart from single and courageous voices here and there, there's nothing on the scale it should by the billion plus who supposedly worship their religion. So the majority stay silent, therefore giving complicit, if not moral support - and because they aren't personally killing anyone, we call them 'moderates'.

Asked of Muslims I know, a few replies have been ambivalent and disingenuous:

"Islam is a religion of peace and I don't believe it's right to kill people ... BUT - they did offend the Prophet..."

These but-ers implicitly condone what they apparently condemn. They tend to be wealthy professionals, many of whom I know finance terrorists like Hamas. Only one (pretty much lapsed) Muslim I'm friendly with - and an outstanding individual - has told me categorically, "There can never be justification for killing or dying in the name of religion". Full stop.

A Progressive and unprincipled West hasn't an answer to such extremism and is wilting before it. It always seems defining of Leftist thinking to reverse cause and effect, as well as, of course, ethically enshrining self-sacrifice. Too often we see the blame is levelled at the victims. Like a mother with her Johnny who has been beaten up once again by the school bully, and responds - "And what did you do to deserve it this time? I told you to be nice and share your sandwiches with him and I am sure he'll leave you be and become your best friend!" Liberal "tolerance", the notion that love conquers all and the obsessive fear of being seen as anything '-phobic' has brought the media and several societies to weak-kneed 'understanding' and acceptance of what is unacceptable and vile.

It's past time for Islam as religion to be called out and held to account, until either it is ideologically reformed from within, or at least until a mass of individual Muslims forthrightly condemn all violence and rights' abuses commited in its name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it's quite interesting to see the complete reversal of attitude among Objectivists and Objectivish-types on the issue of art which is intentionally provocative, shocking, offensive, ugly, disgusting, etc. During the past decade and a half I've observed that the consensus in O-land has been that intentionally using art to provoke and offend is an act of viciously evil postmodernist destruction of civilization! Cultural giants and blazing luminaries like Kamhi and Torres, Stephen Hicks, Pigero, Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia PhD, Cresswell, Newberry, Gregster, Olivia, Tony whYNOT, Jameson, DeSalvo and several of the children over at OO have all expressed frantic, enraged panic about the idea of artists creating art for the purpose of intentionally shocking or offending others, as have many of the nameless lesser rabble of Rand-followers who inhabit O-land.

But, now, suddenly shock and provocation are not only acceptable modes of legitimate artistic expression, but very heroic ones?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing what getting shot at can do for your sense of what constitutes liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's past time for Islam as religion to be called out and held to account, until either it is ideologically reformed from within, or at least until a mass of individual Muslims forthrightly condemn all violence and rights' abuses commited in its name.

Yoda says do not your breath hold until Islam itself reforms else blue turn you will....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael reports in #36: “Bill O'Reilly thinks the issue involving the Geller incident is what kind of people we are going to be and has no room in that view for taunters of religion. He outright said the First Amendment issue is bogus with Geller and her people.”

The remark from O’Reilly is not surprising. He is Catholic and, like William Buckley and Rick Santorum, not genuinely in favor of individual liberty, including liberty of conscience for atheists. I had always suspected that Buckley’s hatred of Rand was mainly due to her championing atheism. Barbara Branden confirmed that through her interview with him, as she reports in the 1996 presentation that Michael recently posted here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred

From Moses to Salman Rushdie

Leonard Levy (1995)

From Publishers Weekly:

Socrates, Jesus, Renaissance philosopher Giordano Bruno, Quakers George Fox and William Penn, Daniel Defoe and Thomas Paine were all condemned for blasphemy. In a tour de force of lively writing and keen historical interpretation, prolific legal historian Levy shows that the charge of blasphemy has served as a means to besmirch opinions or people held objectionable to those in positions of authority. For centuries the Catholic Church persecuted blasphemers and heretics for their divergent views. Protestant reformers adopted the epithet "blasphemer" to castigate dissidents within their own ranks. Proceeding from fifth century B.C. Athens to medieval persecution of the Jews to the "hysteria" over Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, this work is both an essential casebook and an outspoken, feisty, important study of the struggle for intellectual and religious liberties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Isn't that Bosch, not Botch?

:smile:

(I know you were quipping. :smile: )

From what I know, Bosch has gotten death threats, too. It doesn't matter what his art or personality are like in terms of death threats. He does not deserve to be murdered for his opinions and artwork. It is outrageous some people want to murder him for them.

Commentary-wise, if his intent was to stick a barb in the sore of the fundamentalists, he really did it, especially for fanatical Islamists.

Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1_zpskp

I don't believe this resonates well with Westerners (kind of like, who cares?), but it drives Islamist fanatics apeshit. That's probably why it won first prize.

btw - If anyone wants to see all the entries in Pamela's event, they can at this Breitbart link:

Exclusive–Pamela Geller Calls Out Cowardly Conservatives, Says She’ll Organize Another Free Speech Event In Near Future **Full Image Gallery**

As of this post, there are about 200.

Michael

Bosch and Pamela are heroes.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael reports in #36: “Bill O'Reilly thinks the issue involving the Geller incident is what kind of people we are going to be and has no room in that view for taunters of religion. He outright said the First Amendment issue is bogus with Geller and her people.”

The remark from O’Reilly is not surprising. He is Catholic and, like William Buckley and Rick Santorum, not genuinely in favor of individual liberty, including liberty of conscience for atheists. I had always suspected that Buckley’s hatred of Rand was mainly due to her championing atheism. Barbara Branden confirmed that through her interview with him, as she reports in the 1996 presentation that Michael recently posted here.

. . .

Pope Francis says there are limits on free speech. Some things do not change.

I am not myself of personality who would desecrate what various religious people hold sacred. I openly and firmly oppose their beliefs where they are wrong, but that’s it. In the sweep of drawings such as Mr. Fawstin's, there is offense to genuinely religious Muslims, not only “offense” to the violent, political power-seeking faux Muslims. I don’t mean the drawing of their founder Mohammed per se (it is unknown to me whether it is offensive to genuine Muslims that non-believers draw him). I mean what is in this drawing, how it represents the person of Mohammed. Religions include peoples’ personifications of goodness and meaning of their existence, and that is what I do not attack and make clear I do not attack in confronting them with errors in their understanding of those things. The legal right to make such attacks, such as in Mr. Fawstin's drawing, is another issue and is to be supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - If anyone wants to see all the entries in Pamela's event, they can at this Breitbart link:

Exclusive–Pamela Geller Calls Out Cowardly Conservatives, Says She’ll Organize Another Free Speech Event In Near Future **Full Image Gallery**

As of this post, there are about 200.

The photobucket gallery featured in the Breitbart story linked above has disappeared. So have the individual images in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

Islam was stopped militarily in France. Now recall what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

Islam was stopped militarily in France. Now recall what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

And at the gates of Vienna also I believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bastards will respect you if you've got balls and act accordingly. That's why Obama's approach to Iran is so contemptible. He's the anti-Reagan. You civilize jihadists "with a Craig."

--Brant

no other way, Jose, there just isn't any; they demand to see their own blood on your knife for only then will they know you're a man--they ain't going to be dominated or conquered by any pussy, for if they are anything they are warriors--such is the place they've parked their self esteem, not truly creative and productive activity and competence therein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bastards will respect you if you've got balls and act accordingly. That's why Obama's approach to Iran is so contemptible. He's the anti-Reagan. You civilize jihadists "with a Craig."

"with a Craig" = ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now