Topic: Je suis fini: Charlie Hebdo cartoonist announces retirement (Read 723 times)

You pretty much described postmodernist West, Bryant. Rest of the world works quite differently. Good for them, as both demography and economy suggests, that West is headed for terminal decline and along with it, also its "universal values". Universal values stop being universal, when their upholders isnt able to enforce them anymore. Cant say, I am terribly griefed about that. Last fifty years brought Europe only stagnation, atomization and ageing.

The freedom of speech is under threat from radical Islam, political correctness and the LGBT lobby. In England (which happens to be the political correctness capital of the world), the situation can be summarized as follows:

1. It is OK to discriminate against other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism, but it is not OK to do so against Judaism and Islam.

2. It is OK to discriminate against heterosexuals, but it is not OK to discriminate against homosexuals.

3. It is OK to discriminate against whites, but it is not OK to discriminate against non-whites.

4. It is OK to discriminate against males, but it is not OK to discriminate against females.

I wouldn't say it's dead but its under attack and it varies from country to country. In some countries you can be racist to certain groups but not others. Sometimes it's not ok to discriminate against religion but perfectly fine to discriminate against homosexuals etc.

Fuck Islam.

So.. I think your arguement is invalid.. Ill throw in a Muhammed drawing too if you want me to make one.

LOL

I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.

In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" and another huge group of people to kill you. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.

In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.

Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List.

In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it.

Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.

I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:

Hebdo is not fini.

I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.

So your answer is to cowardly attribute things to people you don't like in their name? Maybe try standing on principle and have the courage to know when you're right. Right message, wrong means.

Freedom of speech is currently dead. The Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly demonstrates that there is an effective death penalty for criticism of Islam. If we cannot freely discuss Islam, there is no free society. We are not living in a free society. To make things worse, many people in the "mainstream" will blame those who are killed for their deaths. They feel more comfortable insulting the dead than insulting their murderers.

I've struggled for months thinking about an appropriate strategy for counteracting this. Obviously we can't deal with the main problem (jihadists who have no concept of freedom in general or freedom of speech in particular) until we deal with their protectors. Their protectors include many people who blamed Benghazi on that youtube video, people who blame Charlie Hebdo, people who are afraid to even show the cartoons not to mention defend the cartoonists. Some examples of these people are Will Saletan, the AP reporters who blamed Pamela Geller for the attack in Texas, the news readers at networks who refuse to even show the cartoons. These cowards, these co-conspirators, these must be our real targets if we are ever to reclaim the freedom required to have a modern civilized liberal society.

A good strategy would lead to these co-conspirators having the same fear of defending jihadis as the obvious fear they have of defending freedom of speech. The problem, obviously, is that we are reasonable people. We are not going to go around randomly killing journalists, and to be very clear: I'm not advocating that.

But we should keep in mind that we do have access to a very powerful weapon: the ignorance of jihadis.

We need a movement of people willing to draw Mohammed cartoons and criticize Islam. But instead of doing it under our own names, we should have a list of "targets." These would be the people who have proven they do not value freedom of speech, those like Will Saletan (/archives/332844.php]ace.m[Suspicious link removed]/archives/332844.php) who refused to stand with the maker of the youtube video Innocence of Muslims, those who condemn Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders for what they say instead of the jihadis for trying to kill them. We should use the names of those "protectors" when we draw Muhammed, when we point out the inherent violence in Islam, in the Quran and in the life of Muhammed.

We should make our targets their targets. This would at least muddy the waters.

I propose "Hebdonymous" as the name for this movement.

It would be very important that the identities of the people actually creating the artwork or writing the prose remain hidden. The best guide I ever read for remaining anonymous on the internet was the "Jolly Roger's Security Guide for Beginners." With Tor, bittorrent, and bitcoin (or altcoins) we could strike back against those protecting Islam in a very effective manner. We would need a method of identifying and distrubting the names of those who make excuses for jihadis and a way of distributing the content we create using their names.

Comments?

Freedom of speech will be there as long as you refrain from criticizing the Muslims and the Jews. Once you overstep the mark, you will be branded as a bigot, who needs a lengthy jail term and re-education classes. Political correctness is going crazy these days. 

Relatedly, I found this explanation interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/index.html

Hahaha, that's a really funny sketch! And the irony is it's only funny because of the power the extremists give the joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhY

He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.

I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.

Freedom of speech: not free.

Cuz if there was any group that would ever let bygones be bygones, it's ISIS. Unfortunately, I think this guy will be a target for the rest of his life.

He is the only cartoonist to survive the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It might be very difficult for him to continue with Charlie Hebdo. I think he want to put everything behind him and move on with something else. We should respect and support his decision. Anyway... I just hope that the Islamic State will leave him alone.

No one is blaming the dude.

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

Last month, Renald “Luz” Luzier announced that he would no longer draw Mohammed for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, saying “it no longer interests me.” Allahpundit found this declaration curious, especially Luz’ contention at the time that “the terrorists did not win,” and Luz’ focus on nationalist exploitation of the attacks rather than the attacks themselves.

It looks like the terrorists did win after all:


Cartoonist Renald Luzier, who drew the newspaper’s first cover after the Jan. 7 attack killed 12 people, said in an interview Tuesday in the daily Liberation that each issue is “torture, because the others are no longer there.” He will leave in September.

“The time came when it was just all too much to bear. There was next to nobody to draw the cartoons… Every print-run was torture because the others are no longer there,” said the cartoonist, who is known widely in France as Luz.


The CBS report also includes a tidbit that might have contributed to Luz’ despair. In the aftermath of the attacks, the magazine got €4.3 million in donations, and there appears to be dissension between staff and management on how to spend it. The publisher has announced that they will have a special commission make that decision, which seems pretty dysfunctional for a relatively small operation that one would expect to have been united in tragedy.

The terrorists got what they wanted out of the attacks, and are still getting what they want. They slaughtered the magazine’s staff and got worldwide attention to their depravity. They got one of the survivors to publicly announce he would no longer draw the cartoons that they dislike, and now they got him to quit altogether.

I don’t blame Luzier a bit for hanging up his pen at Charlie Hebdo, nor for feeling so much pain while trying to continue working with so many of his colleagues gone. But perhaps Luzier would have found it more palatable had he gotten more support from his colleagues and the cognoscenti on the Left, instead of having them rip Luzier and his dead colleagues for having brought it on themselves for the “crime” of offending others. That’s the victory won by terrorists; Charlie Hebdo was the battlefield on which they won it.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/19/je-suis-fini-charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-announces-retirement/