Bosch Fawstin

The media is <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/gun-deaths-children-america">pushing</a> this misleading CDC press release because it fits the gun control agenda after the latest school shooting.

<blockquote>
	
		Firearms were the&nbsp;leading cause of death&nbsp;for kids one and older for the first time in 2020, the most recent year for which&nbsp;CDC data&nbsp;is available.

	
		Why it matters:&nbsp;The firearm death rate among children is steadily rising, as more kids are involved in gun-related homicides like Tuesday's&nbsp;mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas,&nbsp;as well as suicides and accidents.
</blockquote>


	Yeah, no.


	The CDC <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761">release</a> to the New England Journal of Medicine, which normally loves to talk up racial demographics in the name of equity, buries them in its appendix. Here's what those look like.


	<img height="519" width="571" class="media-element file-default" data-delta="1" src="https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2022/05/cdc_appendix_1.png" alt="" />


	Those aren't school shootings, they're the black nationalists of Black Lives Matter at work.&nbsp;


	Crime shot up due to pro-crime measures, like police defunding and bail elimination, as well as the massive BLM riots. But the impact among most groups, including white people, was limited.


	There was however a massive increase in the already staggeringly high death rate among black kids.


	But this just means that the CDC's numbers for black kids are in line with <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/09/black-lives-matter-killed-2000-black-people-daniel-greenfield/">black men in general</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Homicide doesn't even make the CDC's&nbsp;top 10 causes&nbsp;of death for men in America, but it's number four for black men. In 2017, it caused 5% of the deaths of black men, more than strokes, diabetes, or most diseases. The only things more likely to kill black men than black-on-black crime are heart disease, cancer, and accidents.

	
		Among black men under the age of 20, homicide is the leading cause of death at 35.3%.

	
		It's also the leading cause of death for black men from 20-44 years old at 27.6%.

	
		Only at the age of 65 does homicide drop out of the top 10 causes of death for black men.
</blockquote>


	Since we can't blame "white supremacy" for this, we also can't talk about it.&nbsp;


	And the CDC buries this data inside the overall numbers for kids and then tries to act like school shootings, a rare event, have suddenly made guns a leading cause of death for kids.


	Look for the media to keep pushing this same lie, blaming guns, instead of crime and its BLM enablers.

CDC Releases Numbers Showing BLM is Killing Black Kids

The media is pushing this misleading CDC press release because it fits the gun control agenda after the latest school shooting.


	
		Firearms were the

CDC Releases Numbers Showing BLM is Killing Black Kids

Why did school shootings go from being a rare horror to an ongoing phenomenon? A big part of the puzzle is the Columbine Massacre.


	While there were school shootings before Columbine, the media frenzy, the live coverage, was a sea change, and police have often found that school shooters studied the Columbine psychos and wanted to be like them.


	We know mass shooters imitate each other and inspire copycat attacks. That's why school shootings<a href="https://www.center4research.org/copy-cats-kill/"> continue to pop up</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		In the month that followed, 400 related incidents were reported across the country. Students called in bomb threats and praised the shooters’ actions. Some schools feared additional shootings and shut down temporarily.

	
		In 2007, a Virginia Tech student killed 32 students and faculty at the university. Prior to the shooting, he expressed a desire in writing to repeat the shooting at Columbine. Since then, many shooters have cited the Virginia Tech gunman as an inspiration and others have threatened to kill more than the 32 victims killed.

	
		Studies indicate that the more media attention a shooter gets, the more likely the event will inspire a future mass shooter. For example, a 2015 study found that after a mass shooting, there was an increased chance of another one occurring in the next 13 days.&nbsp;A 2017 study found that media coverage of a mass shooting may increase the frequency and lethality of future shootings for much longer than two weeks.
</blockquote>


	The media knows perfectly well <a href="http://www.danielgreenfield.org/2013/02/the-wrong-track.html">the impact that it has</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Suicides spike after front page coverage of a suicide. After Marilyn Monroe's death, 197 more people killed themselves than the statistical norm. Suicides rise even after fictional suicides on soap operas. And murders are also influenced by the coverage of real and fictional murders.
</blockquote>


	The internet makes the genie harder to put back in the bottle, but the media doesn't even try.


	Columbine broke the unspoken rule about covering teenage suicides to avoid the copycat effect. The media breaks it every time since while blaming Republicans for not abolishing the Bill of Rights. The media understands perfectly well that it's promoting similar mass killings and it wants that to happen because it helps its agenda.

The Media's Obsession With School Shootings is Killing Kids

Why did school shootings go from being a rare horror to an ongoing phenomenon? A big part of the puzzle is the Columbine Massacre.


	While there were

The Media's Obsession With School Shootings is Killing Kids

“The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn’t own a cannon, you couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons. There’s just always been limitations," Biden <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3501244-the-haunting-reason-congress-wont-pass-sensible-gun-laws/">insisted</a>, during remarks exploiting the mass shooting in Texas.


	The thing about Biden is that he tells the same lies, gets called on it, and does it again.&nbsp;


	He does it when talking about his own made-up biography and when discussing America.&nbsp;


	Biden's dumb "cannon" line has been repeatedly fact-checked to death even by mainstream media outlets.


	Here's Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/">dealing with</a> this same Biden line last year.

<blockquote>
	
		“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
</blockquote>


	As Kessler noted then, "In this case, he repeated a claim — that Americans were prohibited from owning cannons — that has already been&nbsp;fact-checked as false&nbsp;when he made it during the presidential campaign."


	Variations of this same lie had already been fact-checked by lefty fact-checkers like Politifact. That's how completely groundless it is.


	And yet it says something that Biden and, quite likely, his staffers won't stop pushing the same lie. And that there's no actual accountability for it. When the media disagreed with something Trump said, they made a spectacle of it, they would assemble lists of what they claimed were lies and declared that political norms were being violated.


	Nothing like that for Biden, who we're told never lies, just "misspeaks". Again and again and again.

Biden Lies About Gun Control Again

“The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn’t own a cannon, you couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons. There’s just always been

Wokeness is a symptom of brokeness. The harder they virtue signal, the worse they are at doing their jobs.


	Anyone who thought that San Francisco schools were going to dump the absurd wokeness and focus on education has <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/SFUSD-drops-the-word-chief-from-job-titles-17199311.php">another thing</a> coming.

<blockquote>
	
		The word “chief” will no longer be used in reference to job titles in the San Francisco Unified School District in an effort, school officials said, to avoid the word’s connotation with Native Americans.
</blockquote>


	One can only imagine how the parents who watched their children's education<a href="https://sfstandard.com/education/new-data-show-s-f-public-school-students-slipped-further-behind-amid-pandemic/"> get nuked</a> feel about the exciting new SFUSD focus.

<blockquote>
	
		In math, every student group saw a drop in proficiency from the year prior, though some drops were more pronounced. Thirty-eight percent of African American students were marked “Proficient or above” in 2020-21, down from 46% one year earlier. Pacific Islander students with “Proficient of above” math marks dropped to 47% from 60%. District-wide proficiency was at 67%, down from 74%.
</blockquote>


	Now it's fixed though.


	If the scores drop anymore, teachers will get another raise, SFUSD will spend a fortune on equity consultants and rename some schools.&nbsp;


	That's bound to work, chief.

SF School System Solves 38% Black Student Proficiency Problem With Wokeness

Wokeness is a symptom of brokeness. The harder they virtue signal, the worse they are at doing their jobs.


	Anyone who thought that San Francisco schools

SF School System Solves 38% Black Student Proficiency Problem With Wokeness

Another way of reading this is that the majority party has abandoned its legislative agenda and will govern through executive orders while trying to hold test votes on whatever outrage is trending right now.


	Is this supposed to turn the public against Republicans?


	Since no one pays attention to Senate&nbsp;votes, mostly it's a stop-loss effort to placate furious Dem donors.


	Schumer tried this with abortion and it didn't go anywhere. Next up, <a href="https://thehill.com/news/senate/3502557-schumer-vows-to-force-vote-on-gun-control-legislation-after-memorial-day-recess/">guns, guns, guns</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Senate Majority Leader&nbsp;Charles Schumer&nbsp;(D-N.Y.) told colleagues Thursday morning that they should be prepared to vote on gun control legislation when they return to Washington next month after the Memorial Day recess, promising a showdown with Republicans after mass shootings in New York and Texas this month left 31 people dead.
</blockquote>


	Next&nbsp;week, it'll be more BLM or #MeToo or whatever is trending in the media right now.


	This is what virtue signaling defeatism looks like.


	Schumer is announcing his own irrelevance.

Schumer Will Continue Holding Meaningless Votes on Whatever Issue is Trending Right Now

Another way of reading this is that the majority party has abandoned its legislative agenda and will govern through executive orders while trying to hold test

Schumer Will Continue Holding Meaningless Votes on Whatever Issue is Trending Right Now

As we all know by now, Elon Musk bought Twitter, and he’s promising to bring changes to how it does business, with a repeated focus on free speech and how important it is to civilization. And while that sounds good, we’ll see how that manifests itself in the coming months when he takes full charge of its operations. And Musk clearly sees that the way Twitter has done business has been unacceptable, as it’s been a very dirty business, with the leftists and Muslims behind it routinely smearing their non-violent and non-dangerous political and ideological opponents as “dangerous” and “violent,” as a pretext to ban them for good. They removed a sitting president, Trump, from their platform over the left’s Big Lie of “insurrection.” They shadow-banned truth-tellers, while boosting leftist liars. And they often talked about making the platform “safe,” while completely ignoring the Muslims who threaten death as often as Biden lies.


	Writing personally, Twitter always ignored the death threats I got from Muslims over my Mohammad cartoons, yet they banned me for good in 2018 for criticizing Marvel’s Islamophilic Muslim superhero comic book, which ignores the Only reason any of us began to speak about Islam, jihad. But after I heard of Musk buying the platform, I decided to see if I can sign up for an account after four years, and surprisingly, I was able to create one, and I’m back up on it as @TheBoschFawstin. And it’s been fun posting on the platform, as I’ve always liked its forced limitations, as I think concision is a real value in writing.


	But then there’s the left’s insane, unhinged reaction to Musk seizing its weapon, because make no mistake about, that’s exactly how the left viewed Twitter, as a weapon against its enemies, and one which they used to lie about them and to lie about what they’re actually up to. And just as the left has moaned about the existence of Fox News, as even&nbsp;one&nbsp;outlet that’s not under their control is too much for them, they’re telling us in their always indirect way that losing even one social(ist) media platform is catastrophic to their need to propagandize 24/7. So the left is treating this loss as if it were the end of the world and they’re vilifying Musk in the same way that they vilify Trump, calling him every name in the book, and smearing him as if their lives depends on it. And yet they’ve had no problem whatsoever with the fact that the platform had/has a major stockholder who’s as illiberal as it gets, Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud, who no doubt made sure that Twitter has been a shariah-compliant company since he bought his way in. (See my Jack Dorsey&nbsp;<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/09/13/taliban-street-art-denouncing-twitter-censorship-covers-san-francisco/">taliBAN</a>&nbsp;cartoon that I drew for Laura Loomer, ripping Dorsey for allowing Muslim terrorists on his platform.) And of course, the Saudi prince was completely opposed to Musk taking over Twitter, to which Musk challenged his position on free speech by writing him directly:

<blockquote>
	
		Interesting. Just two questions, if I may. How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly &amp; indirectly? What are the Kingdom’s views on journalistic freedom of speech?
</blockquote>


	We all know the answer to Musk’s final question, and I give him credit for asking it, as so few are willing to challenge Muslims, particularly wealthy and powerful ones, about what they really think, as they lie as much as leftists do. So going forward, I can imagine that this Saudi prince will not be part of Musk’s Twitter, if we’re to believe Musk’s claim that he’s a “free speech absolutist.” I even challenged Musk to back his claim&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin/status/1519461276652609539">here</a>.&nbsp;


	We don’t know exactly where this is going, but it is promising that the richest man in the world appears to understand how important free speech is. I can’t help but think that at the least, a major platform that’s been the left’s weapon for years, has a chance at being what it advertised itself as, a platform where all people can have their say, without it favoring certain groups over others, or punishing others, and having a far more healthy exchange of ideas.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	We’ll see what happens, but I have to admit that I’m excited at what the possibilities could be, not only with Twitter, but with other platforms and outlets,&nbsp; particularly because so many were convinced that Musk couldn’t pull it off, that the left’s stranglehold on social(ist) media was impenetrable. Well, a major leftist platform was seized by someone who’s not afraid to be associated with those on the right, such as the Babylon Bee, and who repeatedly speaks of free speech as it should be spoken about, because it IS the most important issue of our time, of any time.


	We’ll see.

Is it the End of Twitterstan?

As we all know by now, Elon Musk bought Twitter, and he’s promising to bring changes to how it does business, with a repeated focus on free speech and how

The murderer of British MP Sir David Amess, Ali Harbi Ali, who’s been described as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/11/ali-harbi-ali-an-academic-high-flyer-who-fell-into-extremism-david-amess">“an academic high-flyer”</a> in a headline of the sleazy rag, the Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/07/ali-harbi-ali-tells-court-he-did-not-feel-shame-after-killing-david-amess" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">told</a> the jury in his trial that he was a “moderate Muslim.” This is just the latest reminder that we never really can know which Muslims are going to go jihad before it’s too late. Some Muslims have no history of violence, and then all of a sudden they commit the most heinous acts imaginable. And after these atrocities, Muslims-turned-jihadists can claim that what they did was not only moral, but religiously righteous. And they can even claim that they’re “moderate.”


	It’s Muslim Roulette. Even the most “moderate” and “peaceful” Muslims can, out of the blue, commit the most obscene acts of violence, but with no prior warning signs. These Muslims may not act outwardly any different than they have before, but internally, they began to take Islam seriously. And the more serious a Muslim takes Islam, the more potentially dangerous he or she is. Here’s what I mean by Muslim Roulette:


	A is A. Islam is Islam. There is no such thing as “Good” Islam or “Bad” Islam. Islam is a totalitarian religion, while Muslims are individual human beings who may or may not practice Islam faithfully. There are active Muslims and passive Muslims, the faithful and the unfaithful, the submitted and the un-submitted in Islam, but there is no obvious way to tell the difference between them, which has its benefits for Muslims who are committed to spreading Islam by any means necessary. Mohammad said “War is deceit” and practiced this, and Muslims have followed their leader in using deception against non-Muslims from the first days of Islam to today. When Islam, the very antithesis of peace, is sold to us by Muslims and their useful idiots as being the very definition of peace, and actually gains traction, that would have made Goebbels blush.&nbsp;


	That Islam must be misrepresented by Muslims in order to appear at all appealing to non-Muslims speaks volumes, and its purpose is to make Islam appear harmless until it’s too late. And the Islamic enemy’s major weapon against us is us. From our multiculturalism, which our unicultural enemy exploits, to our crippling political correctness which “protects” us from the truth we need to know and act upon, to our irrational tolerance of the intolerant. The more intolerant they are, the more tolerant we are.


	Another weapon that the Islamic enemy uses against us is our desire to believe that “Islam means peace,” no matter what it actually means, no matter what it demands from Muslims, and no matter what Islam’s “perfect model,” Mohammad, leads Islam’s true believers to do.


	And then there are those who are moderately Islamic, but who advertise themselves as “Moderate Muslims,” who have hijacked the normatively immoderate Islam, not by admitting and thoroughly repudiating the inherent violence within Islam, but by merely mouthing the words, “Islam means peace,” and again, allowing our desire to believe it to do the rest.


	The widespread usage of the term “Moderate Muslim” is a tacit confession of Islam’s immoderate nature. When’s the last time any of you have heard the terms “Moderate Christians,” “Moderate Jews,” “Moderate Hindus,” “Moderate Buddhists”?


	And while Muslims are individuals who may or may not be following Islam, most Muslims have shown us that when it comes down to it, the majority of them will side with Islam against the non-Muslim world. They’ve made it clear, in their indifferent silence and inaction in the face of the daily horrors committed by their devout coreligionists, that in the end, they don’t give a damn about anything except Islam and its reputation. I can’t count the number of times that so-called “moderate Muslims,” from teachers to engineers to average, everyday Muslims, have threatened me with the most obscene death threats and rape threats. Many of them won’t act on these threats, but they sure as hell wouldn’t mind, and would even celebrate, if jihadists did act on their threats.


	Also, I’ve read one too many accounts of Muslims whose first response to particularly horrific Islamic atrocities was to run to the rescue of Islam, the ideological source of the atrocities. The price we’re paying for denying the truth about what we’re facing is too high. The result of this mass evasion is that the truth about Islam, and any number of truths that we need to expose, is relegated to the underground.


	I used to think that it will simply take more death and destruction for the civilized world to accept the truth about Islam before we’re ready to act on our behalf against it, but now I think that those who need even more death and destruction than we already get, with hundreds of people slaughtered weekly in the name of Islam, can’t be reached through reason, or even through being shaken to their core.


	Some people, far too many people, can simply live with the mass deaths of others. That’s a damning thing to conclude, but it’s true.

Jihad Murderer Tells Jury He’s a ‘Moderate Muslim’

The murderer of British MP Sir David Amess, Ali Harbi Ali, who’s been described as “an academic high-flyer” in a headline of the sleazy rag, the Guardian, told

If it weren’t for a Chris Rock joke, Will Smith’s life would be perfect, and he’d be a happy pacifist.


	At least that’s what Smith and his apologists would like us to believe.


	I’ve thought about the assault since it happened, and I’ve had a number of observations about it, and here they are:


	In slapping Chris Rock in front of the world, over a tepid joke at his wife’s expense, Will Smith brought the spotlight onto him and his wife, and made it even more widely known that he allows his wife to sleep with other men, and that she publicly discusses, it and even parades in public with her lovers. So the thing that really enrages him about his life, the thing that was really behind his profane and violent outburst at the Oscars, is now more known than it’s ever been. So now Will Smith must be slapping the one person he should have slapped in the first place, himself.


	As for the guys defending Will Smith’s alleged “defense” of his wife’s “honor” by slapping Chris Rock over a joke at her expense, I would ask if they and their significant other have an open relationship, and does she publicly discuss her affairs? Because that kind of self-inflicted humiliation can lead weak man to descend into violence at the drop of a joke, and get the support of other weak men.


	That kind of self-inflicted and ongoing humiliation needs to be dealt with, something Smith clearly hasn’t done, and so he’s made himself believe that, because of his triple privilege—leftist privilege/black privilege/celebrity privilege—that he’s entitled to initiate force against others and get away with it. And the Hollywood cowards all around him do nothing but encourage him to do just that, and we saw some of them console him after he assaulted Chris Rock, instead of consoling Chris Rock, a victim who didn’t cry like his assaulter did. So a criminal who should be in jail is home free, with the support of his Hollywood community, whose collective cowardice gave him a standing ovation for winning an Oscar after he ruined the entire evening for everyone by assaulting a presenter. But despite the fact that Chris Rock chose to not press charges, as he was given the opportunity to do so from police who were at the event, Smith still criminally assaulted someone, and violated California law. He shouldn’t be able to walk away from this, but considering the wide support for a racist movement like BLM —which the once mild-mannered Smith has fully embraced, fancying himself to be like Malcolm X—he just might.


	And then I hear talk of how Will Smith’s slap shows that “masculinity is back”. What a sick, twisted idea of the meaning of masculinity. Emotional fragility is not masculine. Sucker-slapping another man is not masculine. Letting your wife sleep with other men is not masculine. A masculine man would have simply taken the joke, just like Chris Rock took the slap. And a masculine man wouldn’t be blubbering after winning an Oscar, and burping out false platitudes about love and protecting people, literally right after acting out rage and violence. Will Smith is an extremely fragile person who needs professional help to deal with his problems. He’s not someone to celebrate.


	As for the popular idea that this was a “stunt”; why the hell would Chris Rock agree to being smacked in front of the world? And why the hell would the Academy sign off on it?


	Consider this scenario:


	Academy: “Hey, Chris, we want you to get slapped by Will so we can increase our ratings.”


	Chris Rock: “Why would I do that? I have no stake in your ratings. What’s in it for me?”


	Academy: “Nothing, but I’m sure others can figure that out after the fact.”


	Chris Rock: “Okay! I’ll Do It!”


	I understand that people are so used to things being faked these days, from all around us in every way, but this is not one of those cases. People are faking themselves out about it to believe it’s fake. If anything, the only stunt-like thing about the slap is that Will Smith, being an actor who lives to play pretend, has likely rehearsed this scene in his weak mind for a while,&nbsp;and acted it out whenever the hell he felt like it, knowing he’d likely get away with it, as he strutted with a grin on his way back to his seat after his assault.


	And for those who’ve made themselves believe that Smith was actually enraged at the joke: He was shown laughing right alongside everyone else who was laughing. And then, off camera, I can imagine that his humorless wife quietly told him that he had better slap Rock over his bald joke about her or she’ll slap him in front of everyone.


	And this wasn’t simply an isolated attack, but something that’s been brewing regarding comedians and truth-tellers in our culture, where they’re physically attacked over words, as if in justified retaliation against them. Will Smith assaulted Chris Rock for exercising his free speech, and then Smith sat back down, consequence-free. Comedians had better be prepared for copycats, more than ever. As one Ross Noble tweeted, “…You are not permitted to get up on stage and hit a comedian unless you are at least Oscar nominated.” Funny, and damning.


	And based on what I’ve been reading online, I wrote out these observations on social media:


	“Making fun of someone’s wife crosses the line.”


	“How about assaulting someone?”


	And


	Are all of Jada Pinkett’s lovers going to slap Chris Rock?


	And then there’s the race issue here, with it being just the latest example of the epidemic of black on black crime, which is rarely broached in polite society, or even by so-called brave pundits, but it spilled over from the street to what is supposed to be the most glamorous stage of all. Those who can’t bring themselves to rightfully condemn Will Smith, no matter what race they are, are the real white supremacists, because they clearly expect nothing of blacks and everything of whites. And yes, if Tom Cruise or any other white move star of Smith’s caliber had done what Smith had done, he’d be in jail over it. We all know that, but that’s only being discussed underground, where the truth is now relegated to.&nbsp;


	And not only leftists are in support of Smith’s unsupportable actions, but some conservatives are as well, with Steve Deace tweeting, “Most biblical moment at the Oscars in recent memory. Will Smith pimp-slaps a punk for dissing his wife…” For a religious conservative like Deace to be so taken by the moment that he overlooks the fact that Smith is dissing himself and his marriage by allowing his wife to sleep with others, and make a public show of it, tells you that emotionalism is run amok, left and right.


	And then there’s the aspect of cancel culture in real time that Jason Whitlock discussed on his show, Fearless, that hit home the fact that Will Smith shut Chris Rock up by smacking him, and further shut him up by cursing him out to keep his wife’s name out of his mouth, to which Rock agreed. And for a big mouth like Chris Rock to be silent since then says a lot.


	And right after the Academy condoned Smith’s violence, it tweeted that it doesn’t condone violence. Here’s how their tweet should have looked:


	“The Academy does <s>not</s> condone violence <s>of any form.”</s>


	And then I see that Will Smith’s son, or daughter, as he’s “gender fluid”, Jaden Smith, tweeted about his father’s assault, “And That’s How We Do It”. Since when is that how the Smith clan does it, as I don’t recall this happening any other time with Will Smith. Unless Jaden invertedly revealed his family’s usual way of dealing with things, through violence.


	And then I hear Will Smith apologists asking, “What would you do in the same situation?” First, many people have been in the exact situation that Smith was, at the Oscars, where their significant others were made fun of by a comedian ontage, and None of them, in the history of the Oscars, walked up and smacked the comedian. Again, I have seen Will Smith, as well as a number of formerly mild-mannered black men, all of a sudden acting like they’re Malcolm X, and it’s embarrassing, particularly coming from very privileged and pampered celebrities. And my point is that the BLM wave has led to weak-minded black men to try to get in on it, to whatever extent that they can, in order to get some form of black street cred. But Will Smith wants it all ways; to act like a thug, and then, within minutes, cry over winning an Oscar, and talk about wanting to be a “vessel of love”, and presuming that he a right to lecture us about how bad violence is.


	And then I see a conservative website called The Right Scoop calling Will Smith’s PR “apology” “sincere”. The violent Hollywood hack started his “apology” by lecturing all of us non-violent people about how “violence in all its forms is poisonous and destructive” and that “There is no place for violence in a world of love and kindness.” Will Smith is a 53 year old man, not a kindergartener, and it’s obscene to see suckers falling for it. Despite the fact that Smith hasn’t paid a price for his crime, there’s clearly a part of him that still thinks that there’s a chance that he might not fully get away with it, so he’s covering his bases, and telling his publicist to send out whatever he thinks he needs to in order to do some damage control.


	This event has only made matters worse for those who tell jokes or who tell uncomfortable truths, and those applauding Smith’s thuggery today will have to remember their support for it when the next person is attacked over words. And they need to be reminded that they did their part to make matters even worse for free speech.

Will Smith Should Be Slapping Himself

If it weren’t for a Chris Rock joke, Will Smith’s life would be perfect, and he’d be a happy pacifist.


	At least that’s what Smith and his apologists

Author's note: This is&nbsp;something I wrote awhile back, and which I published in <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/04/my-mohammad-cartoons-vol-2.html">my second&nbsp;volume of my&nbsp;Mohammad cartoons.</a> It’s an issue that is very important to address and to correct -- if we’re ever going to begin to fight this war&nbsp;honestly.&nbsp;


	9/11: Act of Faith/ Act of War


	I can’t say how many times I’ve heard the words “Islam is NOT a religion!” from hysterical religionists who are more concerned with defending religion than they are of defending the West against a religion. Islam is a religion, and it’s evil, and that’s not a contradiction. There is religion and there is morality, and the two are not the same, even though many conflate the two, particularly those who believe that religion is inherently good, which we all know isn’t true, particularly the religious.&nbsp;


	If your main concern is protecting religion from being associated with something&nbsp;as evil as Islam, then you’re in the way of victory. We’re going to have to deal with&nbsp;the problem of how religion, any religion, gets instant respect by virtue of the fact&nbsp;that it’s a religion. And the way to deal with that is not to pretend that Islam&nbsp;isn’t a religion, but to accept that religion can be evil.


	I read a book years ago entitled Lone Survivor, by a former Navy SEAL named Marcus Luttrell. He was the lone survivor in the title, after he and his four man Navy SEAL team allowed a few Muslim goat herders to go along their way after they were discovered in the woods of Afghanistan, on a mission to kill a jihadist leader. And the decision to let them go was the last decision that three of the Navy SEALs would ever make. And part of what sealed their fate was that Luttrell, in making his decision to allow the Muslims to go their way, invoked his “Christian Soul” in doing so, as opposed to his “Warrior Soul.”&nbsp;


	Luttrell also argued with his unit that if they were to kill the goat herders, that it would be all over CNN. Their lives were in the balance, and he was concerned about what a corrupt, anti-American propaganda “news” channel would report about them. And those Muslim goat-herders ratted out the Navy Seals as soon as they could, leading to a battle to the death that enraged me for days, and still does whenever I think of it.&nbsp;


	It’s religion that fuels the Islamic enemy, and it’s religious altruism and secular altruism, which has allowed this enemy to remain unexamined, and therefore undefeated. Religion is why we’re losing against a very defeatable enemy, from the enemy’s religion, to the West’s inability to take on a religion.&nbsp;


	Some people have told me that Islam is not a religion because it does not contain Christianity’s tenets of “Love your enemy” and “Turn the other cheek,” but instead says “Kill the infidels wherever you find them.” Yet some Christians today understand these precepts in a way that calls for pacifism and surrender, and amounts to suicide, especially in wartime in a nuclear age. This attitude is no more moral than “kill them wherever you find them”; while jihadis follow a homicidal ethic, many in the West follow a suicidal one. And the jihadis love, to the death, that we are such suckers.&nbsp;


	Religion can inspire moral behavior and it can inspire for evil behavior, but the problem is that because Christianity is the dominant religious tradition in the West, most of us believe that religion cannot advocate for anything other then moral behavior, no matter what we all see to be true, that religion can lead some to commit the most obscenely unspeakable acts of evil imaginable, but done in the name of “good.” Christian altruism not only teaches Christians to sacrifice for others and to live for others, but leads to the ultimate form of altruism, which is to die for others. For some Leftist Christians, this means surrender of Europe and North America to Islam. If you think that’s extreme, consider how most of us in the West can live with the deaths of our fellow Westerners, as no matter how many are murdered by jihadists; jihad goes on unabated, with no rallies demanding our leaders to end it once and for all.&nbsp;


	That religious altruism, coupled with the secular altruism of the left, where all others are viewed as better and more important than us, has led to our submission to this enemy, and will ultimately lead to our self-destruction, if it’s not pushed back on in a serious way.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


	In different ways on both sides, religion that’s motivating a war against civilization, and it’s respect for religion&nbsp;that has allowed the religious enemy to get away with mass murder.&nbsp;


	When George Bush lied to himself and the world after 9/11 (he knew that he didn’t know anything about Islam, but he flapped his gums anyway) that “Islam is peace,” what this born-again Christian was really saying was that “religion is peace.” He was unfit to lead us after 9/11, and we’re still paying for his refusal to see reality for what it is. And still there are prominent and influential individuals who bite their tongue about Islam, lest they suffer scrutiny for their own religion. And then there are secular people who condemn Bush, but who believe the same crap, that Islam is not the Islamic enemy’s ideology, and that the problem is a so-called political form of Islam. It’s not politics that leads individuals who kill themselves in order to murder others. Only religion can lead people to do that, and to believe that there’s some heavenly reward for their act of evil.&nbsp;


	After particularly horrific jihadist attacks, as the victims are still dying, callous&nbsp;Muslims run to the rescue of Islam to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with&nbsp;the attacks, and callous religionists run to the rescue of religion, pretending Islam is not a religion.


	Islam is religion, it is politics, and it is a fusion of the two. There is no separation of mosque and state in any Islamic country. Islam uses its religious identity as both a shield and sword. The West’s religious need to protect the very idea of religion has hurt our need to protect ourselves from an enemy who’s motivated by religion. Talk about skewed priorities, but it just goes to show how religion trumps reality and what needs to be done in our defense.&nbsp;


	Someone once argued with me, “When we fight Islam as ideology, we have the chance to win; no one can win with ‘religion.'” (Nigel Farage, whom I call Nigel Mirage because of his refusal to face reality, has peddled the&nbsp;same BS). We’re going to&nbsp;have&nbsp;to win with religion, especially&nbsp;this&nbsp;religion, because it’s the worst and most dangerous of them all, and it motivates a global war against civilization. Denying that fact, for religious reasons, is self-defeating, and is one of the reasons why this enemy remains undefeated so long after 9/11. The only way we’re going to win, in the end, is by recognizing the truth, telling the truth and ultimately acting on the truth. Islam’s religious nature makes it get away with more than any evil secular ideology could, and that fact should make even religionists admit the danger of religion, the danger of placing faith above reason.&nbsp;


	This defense of religion, as if it’s the end all be all, which leads some to&nbsp;deny the reality that Islam is a religion, brings to the forefront the problem with&nbsp;Western civilization’s attitude about religion. It’s our unwillingness to criticize religion or to condemn it (though there are those who condemn “all religions,” while never condemning Islam in particular), or even acknowledge that religion can be evil, and we all know religion can be evil, even the most blinkered religionists, which has made people either praise Islam — because&nbsp;it’s a religion — or condemn it, but only as a non-religion. However much religionists want to deny Islam is a religion, Islam has a prophet, it has a holy book and a God. All Muslims and the vast majority of non-Muslims accept it as a religion. Pretending Islam is not a religion now — in the middle of its religious war against us — does nothing for our efforts in defending ourselves against it, and allows it to get away with even more murder than it has. As I’ve often said: No one would fly planes into buildings if they didn’t believe — religiously — that they were committing a righteous act that would send them to heaven. In the end, when we finally end the Islamic threat, we will be more honest about what role religion played in Islam’s ability to get away with the evil it’s gotten away with for over a thousand years, and of our unwillingness and inability to deal with it when it came for us. If Islam weren’t a religion, then it would not have lasted as long as it has, and it wouldn’t be defended as it is by its would-be victims. And that’s a fact that we need to observe and think about, very seriously, instead of dismissing it as somehow irrelevant.&nbsp;


	As I wrote in my article,&nbsp;My Name is Bosch and I’m a Recovered Muslim:


	Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of “the Muslim world” (as if it’s a different planet) has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “the Muslim world” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s big lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the Islamic enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of the altruistic, and self-defeating, policies that our morally corrupt politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well being at&nbsp;the enemy’s expense for a change.&nbsp;


	Here’s an exchange I just had in the middle of putting together this piece, of&nbsp;someone replying to my article, Muslim Roulette, along with my reply:


	“The author’s otherwise fine article reveals that he has yet to realize that Islam is&nbsp;NOT a religion. Islam is a violently expansionist, totalitarian IDEOLOGY that wraps itself in a facade of religious pretense. Any ideology that demands that non-adherents choose either conversion, enslavement or death is not&nbsp;a religion but a death cult and a cult is not a religion.”


	I replied: “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who want to&nbsp;defend Western civilization, and those who want to defend religion, to the point&nbsp;that they’ll deny Islam its religious identity, in order to protect the reputation of&nbsp;religion. Islam is a religion and it’s evil, and that’s not a contradiction. People like you have done your part to prolong the Islamic enemy’s war on civilization for&nbsp;religious reasons. Until we accept the fact that Islam is a religion, that 9/11 was&nbsp;as much an act of faith as it was an act or war, this war will continue. But&nbsp;people like you wouldn’t mind that, so long as Islam isn’t recognized as the&nbsp;religion it is. Buck up. This is about defending civilization, Not religion.”


	Islam is a religion.

Islam IS a Religion

Author's note: This is&nbsp;something I wrote awhile back, and which I published in my second&nbsp;volume of my&nbsp;Mohammad cartoons. It’s an issue that is

As I often put it, my cartoon speaks for itself, but let’s allow Mad Joe to also speak for himself, as that’s the best way to discredit him. Here are some of his most profound quotes over the years:


	“We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”


	“For too long in this society we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over the common community.”


	“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see ya (to a man in a wheelchair).”


	“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent … I’m not joking.”


	“His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And—Although, she’s—wait—your mom’s still alive.”


	“My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be, I could be vice president!”


	“They’re going to put y’all back in chains (to a mostly black audience).”


	“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television…”


	“I never had an interest in being a mayor ‘cause that’s a real job. You have to produce. That’s why I was able to be senator for 36 years.”


	“I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.” (about Obama, as opposed to what Biden apparently thinks of the usual black candidates, that they’re inarticulate, dull and dirty. Makes sense, as he referred to demoKKKrat Robert Byrd as his “mentor”)


	He has called American troops, who were bored to death of his speeches to them, “stupid bastards” and a “dull bunch”.


	“Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.”


	“You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.” (to a young female voter)


	“You’re full of shit.” (to a construction worker who said that Mad Joe is trying to take away our guns)


	“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”


	“We have over 120 million dead from covid.”


	“I am a gaffe machine.”

MAD Joe

As I often put it, my cartoon speaks for itself, but let’s allow Mad Joe to also speak for himself, as that’s the best way to discredit him. Here are some of

My cartoon speaks for itself, but it’s worth noting that our current president used his political position to get millions of dollars from the Chinese communist party, and in return, the ambitious criminals get to do as they please across the world, with impunity. And while Biden is the most mockable president of all time, and is seen as a joke across the world, it’s also true that he’s evil and has sold out America to our enemies.


	And then there’s the loathsome Mark "white rage" Milley, who thinks his job is to bend over for our enemies in lightning quick fashion and to outwoke the woke. This treasonous bastard <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/09/gen-milley-promised-warn-communist-china-us-attack-daniel-greenfield/">promised to warn communist China of any potential U.S. attack against them</a>, and he told this to that hack, Bob Woodward, for an interview in the latest anti-Trump book, as if it weren’t treasonous, but somehow patriotic.


	I look at the world, and what I see are bad guys running wild, because what passes for ‘the good guys’ today simply aren’t good enough. That’s going to have to change if we’re ever going to be a righteous country again.

China Bitches

My cartoon speaks for itself, but it’s worth noting that our current president used his political position to get millions of dollars from the Chinese

This is a cartoon I was commissioned to draw for <a href="https://loomered.com/">Laura Loomer</a>, and being someone who was banned by Twitter for life for criticizing Islam, as Laura has been, it was a pleasure to take part in it, particularly for the fact that Twitter head Jack Dorsey routinely bans Islam critics, while not banning Islamic terrorists who’ve murdered Americans. As Laura puts it:

<blockquote>
	
		For years, I have been raising awareness about Twitter’s alliance with Islamic terrorist organizations and their willingness to platform enemies of America. This is a concept I have referred to as Silicon Sharia, as Twitter has shown they have no problem banning millions of Americans for their constitutionally protected speech, including myself and sitting President Donald Trump during our elections, while they happily provide a platform for recruitment and propaganda for actual terrorists.
</blockquote>


	And here’s a thought I had on the matter:

<blockquote>
	
		I wonder that if our government ever were to officially declare war on the Islamic enemy, if this aiding and abetting of an enemy in a time of war that Twitter engages in would be legally recognized as such.
</blockquote>


	To read more thoughts from me and Laura Loomer about the free speech campaign, and to see pictures and videos of my cartoon pasted on Twitter HQ in San Francisco, visit the Gateway Pundit story about it&nbsp;<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2021%2F09%2Ftalibanned-laura-loomer-street-art-jack-dorsey-plastered-around-twitter-hq-videos%2F%3Futm_source%3Dadd2any%26utm_medium%3DPostTopSharingButtons%26utm_campaign%3Dwebsitesharingbuttons&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7Cfc79666be39d4bc6ff3308d976db1b77%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637671505693951829%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=ZBb62fL17qrZNU0MXj1ySpRVjS0f8jB6tX0HfPpjSMk%3D&amp;reserved=0">here</a>.

Jack Dorsey: TaliBAN Leader?

This is a cartoon I was commissioned to draw for Laura Loomer, and being someone who was banned by Twitter for life for criticizing Islam, as Laura has been,

If America were “systemically racist” against blacks, there could not be black racists on TV making millions of dollars while telling us how “systemically racist” America is against blacks. They would be shunned, at best, and they would Never be welcome on every single mainstream platform available today. 
	 
	Welcome to the Big Lie of “systemic racism” in America.&nbsp;


	Here’s one of the ways that leftists keep the idea of racism in America alive: when a killer happens to be white, leftist statisticians often list it as a “white” killing, which is how they cook the numbers to try to make it seem as if “white supremacy” is a major threat. At the same time, they downplay the actual threats of leftist supremacy, black supremacy and Islamic supremacy. And part of why leftists play up the non-threat of “white supremacy” is to give black supremacists another excuse to “fight” against it, thus justifying their own racism and anything they do against “white supremacy,” including murder. (Check out a recent discussion I had on&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://rumble.com/vf3pwn-ep.-009-the-bogeyman-of-white-supremacy.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1619721086414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHPOKxzEiOvmvv4OMd9wgqug2NxNw" href="https://rumble.com/vf3pwn-ep.-009-the-bogeyman-of-white-supremacy.html" target="_blank">“The Bogeyman of White Supremacy”</a>)


	Also note that endless attacks by leftist terrorist groups, Antifa and BLM, aren’t listed as attacks by race or by ideology. And there’s no call to round them up as domestic terrorists, which is a designation that leftists&nbsp;reserve only for their non-terrorist political opponents. And when Muslims murder in the name of Islam -- unless it’s too big and too obvious to cover up -- it’s quickly listed as “not terrorism” and as “motive unknown.” This is how we get crooked rats on leftist outlets telling us, with as straight a face as they can maintain, that “white supremacism, right wing terrorism, is the greatest threat we face.”&nbsp;


	I’m sick and tired of America being smeared as “racist” by leftists, but they clearly believe that&nbsp;if they were to simply accept the reality that we are indeed the&nbsp;post-racial country that we are, then their ability to divide us on race would be over, which could then cascade into crippling&nbsp;their ability to divide us on other immutable traits,&nbsp;and so their chance at defeating us from within&nbsp;would be staved off.


	And so leftists continue to work 24/7 to keep their counterfeit “racism” alive by hook or by crook, all in the name of maintaining and acquiring power over America.

Actual Racism in America is Negligible, So Lying Leftists Cry 'RACISM!' 24/7

If America were “systemically racist” against blacks, there could not be black racists on TV making millions of dollars while telling us how “systemically

Racist, anti-American leftist, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who “felt nothing” while watching the Twin Towers burn, and who writes a superhero whom he’s completely unfit to write, Captain America, decided to make Cap’s&nbsp;arch-enemy, the Red Skull, say things similar to what bestselling clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson says. Now, why would Coates do that? For the same reason that leftists NEVER call Nazis by their proper name, National SOCIALISTS. Coates did this in order to perpetuate the 70+-year lie that Nazis were not socialists, but right-wingers.


	The leftist Hitler said, “I have learned a great deal from Marxism.” And differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Hermann Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.


	That’s from a 1998 article that leftists wish didn’t exist, "<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html?fbclid%3DIwAR0o2O30r1QQ7mWm8p4wZ0ajTYohe8sgx3qYlUoJL78a_Y4ok8tZn4tk8EY&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618289164648000&amp;usg=AFQjCNELTcdDjfsSkoY-JarEoFcS2eGczg" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html?fbclid=IwAR0o2O30r1QQ7mWm8p4wZ0ajTYohe8sgx3qYlUoJL78a_Y4ok8tZn4tk8EY" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Hitler and the Socialist Dream</a>."


	And as I’ve put it: Nazism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism all have the same base. They’re all leftist, collectivist, totalitarian, anti-Freedom, anti-Capitalist ideologies. The hatred between Nazis and Communists was a hatred akin to the one between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. It’s all the same base, but each gang thinks that theirs is the best version of totalitarianism, and they can’t live with rivals.


	And of course, according to the “WE’RE Not Nazis, YOU Are!” leftists, the ONLY problem with Ta-Nehisi Coates comparing Peterson to the Nazi Red Skull is that Peterson has taken exception to it.&nbsp;


	Also, it’s bad enough that the leftists at Marvel hired&nbsp;the racist anti-American to write their non-racist patriot, Captain America, but DC has now hired Coates to write its&nbsp;new Superman movie.&nbsp;The only thing I need to know about Coates is that he wrote in his pretentiously-titled, navel-gazing book, Between the World and Me, regarding the heroic police officers and firefighters of the <a dir="ltr">9/11 attacks</a>:&nbsp;

<blockquote>
	
		"They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could- with no justification- shatter my body.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	He had the gall to bitch and moan in his book about how his body could be shattered by those whose bodies were actually&nbsp;shattered while they tried to save lives. And their bodies were shattered by jihadists whom Coates would never utter a negative word against. And how could it be that his editors and publisher would allow such an evil passage to remain in his book? Because of his&nbsp;leftist/black privilege. They were afraid to edit it out because they might be called racist.&nbsp;


	And people still use the phrase "white privilege" with a straight face,&nbsp;when&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/08/anti-white-privilege-bosch-fawstin/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618289164648000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFankqMGCpNOGZiyETfc_CbsuZY-w" href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/08/anti-white-privilege-bosch-fawstin/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">anti-white privilege</a>&nbsp;is the true privilege. It’s&nbsp;a disgrace to have such a moral cretin get his hands on American icons like Captain America and Superman, who represent everything that Coates spends&nbsp;all of&nbsp;his time trying to tear down, all while getting paid for it. A Disgrace. And of course, being a racist who hates whites, rumor is that the Superman Coates is writing about will be black.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	And while Coates is a pro-black/anti-white racist, his true color is red, like the Red Skull. It’s no accident that the color of the National Socialist Red Skull is red, which is the color of socialism, and the color of the ocean of blood it has spilled, and continues to spill, which all socialists, even those who still claim to be benign, are indifferent to.&nbsp;

The Red Coates

Racist, anti-American leftist, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who “felt nothing” while watching the Twin Towers burn, and who writes a superhero whom he’s completely unfit

I was thinking about criminals like New York’s Cuomo and California’s Newsom, and how they now feel that they can do whatever the hell they want, to be as irrational as they want, and do what they forbid others to do, and that led me to think about super villains in comic books, and how they threaten to shut down cities, to everyone’s fear, and I drew up this cartoon. Even the mad Joker thinks that these politicians are crazy, as shutting down cities is his thing. These politicians of ours are now in the habit of doing whatever they want, no matter how destructive it is to Americans.


	And I haven’t forgotten the leftists in politics and media who always fear-monger over impending government shutdowns, with sob stories about how government workers would suffer, which was a Complete Lie, as only about 17% of government is shutdown during government “shutdowns”, and most government workers are paid during them. It further damns the politicians and media who are all for private sector shutdowns, even though the consequences are devastating for business owners, as thousands of businesses have been pummeled out of existence over unnecessary shutdowns. If Walmart and other large stores can remain open through a pandemic, with many people coming in and out, then NO smaller business, with less people, should have ever been shut down.


	At this point, I think many angry Americans are good and ready for a truly necessary shutdown that we can all get behind, and that’s a massive government shutdown.

With Politicians Like These, Who Needs the Joker?

I was thinking about criminals like New York’s Cuomo and California’s Newsom, and how they now feel that they can do whatever the hell they want, to be as

Author's note: This is the full transcript of a radio interview I did with the Danish outlet, DR, about the young reader’s Koran I did drawings for, which was written by Danish writer, Kåre Bluitgen, and titled The Shady Garden. DR told me that they would publish it in their online publication, until some at the outlet decided it was “too controversial” to publish. Well, it was finally <a href="https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/detektor/detektor-her-er-interviewet-med-muhammed-tegneren-som-dr-ikke-ville-skrive-om-0">published this week</a>, a few months later, after some internal pushback. And the full article discusses the internal conflict that the outlet had over the initial decision to not publish it, with a discussion about it, which you should be able to read in English if you <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=bosch+fawstin&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=qdr:w&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjK04uvjbHtAhWDZzABHVhzDbQQpwV6BAgJECI&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=912">click this google search link</a>, and then by clicking the “Translate this page” option in the second link from the top. It should automatically send you to a translated version of the article into English.


	Also, in reading the full transcript, I found a number of errors, as well as words that were attributed to me which simply did not sound like me. So I made some edits in order to clarify my intent in my answers.


	DR: Let’s start with who you are. Why did you decide to leave Islam?


	BF: I was in my mid-teens and the life in my family was very different from the life outside my family at school. I had Jewish friends. I had friends who were girls. I had friends who were basically in happy families. My family was pretty brutal. They were physically abusive whereas my friends' families were not. They were very happy kids and to me that was normal. What we were was abnormal. There was just too much contrast there and I didn’t like it. I didn’t want to be a part of it. And one thing I recognized were the constant lies from my family being told about Jews, about America, about women in particular. And I just didn't want to be a part of it anymore and I left.


	DR: What is your relationship today with your family?


	BF: I don't have a relationship with my family.


	DR: So they cut you off?


	BF: It was a slow mutual break. I don't have any contact with them.


	DR: When did you begin drawing professionally?


	BF: It was 16 years ago, when I published my first book, which was a graphic novel called <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2018/01/pre-order-new-print-edition-of-my-first.html">Table for One</a>. I had worked in the restaurant business for years and I wanted to use my experiences and I decided to write and draw a story about it. I was nominated for two awards for it from the Eisner Awards, which is considered the Oscars of comics. It was in 2004 that I published that.


	DR: One year later, 2005, was the Mohammad crisis, which was sparked here in Denmark. What impact did it have on your cartoonist career?


	BF: 9/11 to me was what brought it all back. I had left Islam. I had no interest in it. I had heard stories about bombings, but 9/11 for me brought it all back and that’s when I wanted to revisit Islam. I had never read the Quran. Most of my family members had never read the Quran. They were just content being part of the ‘atmospherics of Islam’, as Hugh Fitzgerald puts it. They were anti-Jew, they didn't eat pork, but they didn't practice it much. I, on the other hand, have read the Quran twice. I had read every book I could get my hands on and I studied the religion because I knew I would take it on in my work. (that ended up being <a href="https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2018/01/buy-issues-1-2-3-of-infidel-featuring.html">my Pigman comic book</a>) I knew I would be writing a story about it and then, when the cartoon crisis happened in 2005, I had no idea about the prohibition of drawing Mohammad. My family didn't even teach me that, and technically speaking, there really was no prohibition, because even Shiite Muslims drew Mohammad for centuries. To me, the prohibition of drawing Mohammad is really only about Muslims wanting to control the West in this modern era and during this global Jihad. That’s all it’s really about. It is not about this locked-in prohibition. It’s about them trying to control us and trying to make us de facto Muslims. They don't want Mohammad to be drawn anywhere. So that's why in 2005 I said: “Wait a minute, you can be killed for drawing Mohammad?" So what did I do? I drew Mohammad, because that is what a normal person who loves the freedom of speech does. So that's why I began to draw Mohammad in 2005 and then when Charlie Hebdo was fire-bombed in 2011, I drew Mohammad again .. but in 2010 - a little before that, actually - I drew Mohammad more and more, and then, of course, after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, I decided to draw him even more. Do you want me to keep going or do you want me to stop and you can ask a new question?


	DR: No, it is okay. You can just keep on flash-forwarding.


	BF: After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Muslims in Texas got together and had this conference that was basically in defense of the prophet - in defense of Mohammad. They had no concern for those who were slaughtered. They had no concern that free speech was under siege. They only were concerned with their prophet as if he was abused somehow by these cartoonists. So Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer responded to that by having a Mohammad cartoon contest that would be held a the same place as the Muslim conference was, at in the Curtis Culwell Center, on May 3rd in 2015. And I entered the contest. I had a pretty good idea that I would win. I’m not being arrogant about it, but I had been drawing Mohammad for years at that point. I had drawn him a few dozen times by that point in all different kinds of ways, so I said: "Well, I probably will have a good opportunity in winning this". And I entered it, and I was told that there were 350 different entries .. and I was invited to be at the event and I asked: "Did I win?" I wanted to be sure before I went. They said: "Just come and we will see". I said: "Ok". I went there and I was announced as the winner [if you haven’t seen my winning Mohammad cartoon, check it out <a href="https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2018/07/im-offering-limited-number-of-re.html">here</a>] and I delivered a speech, and one of the things I said in my speech was: "Why do you think we have this kind of heavy security? Because Islam does Not mean peace". Within a half hour, two Jihadists from Arizona, who drove to Texas, came out of their car, shooting. Fortunately, they were shot down by a cop who blew their heads off. People tell me it was a bad thing, that night, but it wasn’t terrible. I went to defend free speech and two Jihadists came to murder us and they were killed. To me that is not a bad thing. The bad guys lost. The good guys won and freedom of speech was defended and .. Hello?


	DR: Yes? Sorry, I'm just listening.


	BF: I'm sorry. I just heard a beep.


	DR: Not from here.


	BF: After that, I got more death threats than usual. I took even more precautions. I had to be in touch with local authorities, and with the FBI. But - I will say one more thing - the most threats I have ever gotten in my entire life was two years ago after I was announced as the judge for another Mohammad cartoon contest which Geert Wilders from the Netherlands, was hosting. And for some reason - I don't know why - that got me more death threats that ever. Literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of death threats on every platform possible. I’ve been banned from platforms for criticizing Islam, for drawing Mohammad, for criticizing those who promote Islam. But still they found their way into private messaging, found my blog, and my e-mails. And then what I decided to do was to use those death threats in a book series called <a href="https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/search/label/Peaceful%20Death%20Threats">Peaceful Death Threats</a>. And I have two volumes. I probably will have four. Since they gave me death threats for Mohammad cartoons, I drew new Mohammad cartoons, and I published them, one Mohammad cartoon on each page, with about half a dozen death threats published alongside it, with commentary by me throughout the entire book on the “peaceful” death threats. And the reason why I called my series Peaceful Death Threats is because in some of the death threats they literally tell me: "I'm gonna cut your head off. I'm gonna rape you. I'm gonna murder you. And Islam is a religion of peace." They literally say this. They tell me that Islam means peace and then how much they want to murder me.


	DR: Before we go on to talk about <a href="http://www.bluitgen.dk/de-skyggefulde-haver-2.html">The Shady Garden</a> - do you think these people are representative for Islam because there are so many, there are millions of Muslims in the world. So even though you get thousands of death threats, they are just a marginal part of all the Muslims living in the world.


	BF: Yes, but the problem with that is that the marginal part happens to be the core, meaning that when Mohammad engaged in Jihad, when these Jihadists engage in Jihad, they are following the model of the perfect Muslim. That's the problem. The ones who don't do that - good. I’m happy about that. But they can't tell me that they’re devout Muslims, that they’re practicing Islam the way it was intended to be practiced, because when we have the perfect model who engages in violence - and they don't engage in violence – they’re not following the perfect model. That's the main reason, meaning that the more like Mohammad Muslims are, the more violent they are. So while a lot of Muslims are peaceful, absolutely, they’re not peaceful because of the Quran. They’re peaceful because of themselves, they’re peaceful because they choose not to follow in Mohammad’s footsteps, they want to exist in a world more normalized, they’ve become more Westernized, they’ve become less Islamic. You know, the more Islamic an individual becomes, the more violent they become. So yes, a lot of Muslims are peaceful, but it's not because of Islam that they’re peaceful. It’s in spite of Islam. Islam doesn’t happen to be peaceful. And there’s something in the Islam also, which is called the doctrine of abrogation, which is that there are passages in the Quran which tell Muslims: You have your religion, we have ours. Basically, live and let live. But then there are passages about cutting peoples necks and cutting their finger tips and killing them. And what Islamic experts tell Muslims is that if there are passages later in the Quran that contradict the earlier ones, you go with the later ones. Meaning, that if earlier passages are about peace and later passages are about killing, you go with the later passages. There is a passage called "The Verse of the Sword" and in every chapter of the Quran there is a preamble about the beneficence of Allah, about the mercy of Allah. This sura, chapter, “The Verse of the Sword”, doesn't have that benevolent-sounding preamble, and it is the second or last passage in the Quran which declares war for all time.


	DR: This is a perfect bridge for me somehow. I mean you are obviously very critical of the Quran but then why did you want to be a part of Kåre Bluitgen's project with this - the illustrated Quran?


	BF: Great question. Because visualizing these things basically show you the truth. Regardless of the intent. Meaning, regardless of what Kåre and the publisher and others might believe. Me simply drawing Mohammad, simply drawing Allah, is an act against Islam. It is critical by the nature of that. Simply drawing Allah, to me, is a defiant act, and I think it might be the first time that Allah has been visualized in print. People think that Mohammad is forbidden to be drawn. I imagine they believe the same about Allah. So I don't think an average Muslim who reads the book would think it’s a favorable thing to them, to Islam. And also, there is a double page spread with Mohammad in his harem with his wives and concubines, and a very young Aisha is being brought in. He married her when she was six and raped with her when she was nine.


	DR: That's the blue drawing you are talking about now?


	BF: Yes. Exactly. Regardless of the intent of those that this book originated with, I know that simply visualizing these things would tell a truth that the Quran itself tells, but that Muslims and their apoogists do not want told to most people. People can look at it and say, wait a minute, Mohammad is with an incredibly young girl there, I can’t take that as a positive thing. I’ve been asked that question as well: Why would you draw this book? Because nobody else would do it. Nobody. I assumed Kåre had found another artist because he was looking for one for years to draw his book adapting the koran. I assumed he had found one. So then I saw on a website that he was looking for artists. I said: Is he still looking? I’ll draw it. Then we had a little discussion and that was it. And again, no one else was willing to draw it. I'm willing to draw it. I'm a working artist. I want my work to be out there. <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/search/label/My%20Books">I have eight books on my own</a>, I have a good number of <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/search/?refinementList%5Bauthor_name%5D%5B0%5D=Bosch%20Fawstin">articles</a>, I have thousands of cartoons. I want my work out there as much as it can be. However someone might view this, the fact that Mohammad is drawn in the book which is forbidden for some Muslims, the fact that Allah is drawn, the fact that Aisha is drawn in that kind of situation, I think it's part of Islam. The way I see it, merely telling the truth about Islam, dams it. Same goes for drawing the truth about it. Telling the truth that Mohammad, at fifty three years old, “married” a six year told, is a damning thing. Muslims have no problem with that damning aspect of Mohammad’s life, but in front of outsiders they try to deny the fact that Aisha was as young as she was. She was six years old when he married her and then he raped her when she was nine, according to Islam’s own history. There is no such thing as consent at that point. Those are the things it's important to show. It's not a positive reflection on Islam, no matter what anyone tries to convey. I just think it's important to show these things... The only thing we’re allowed to hear is "oh, Islam is peace - don't say anything else". That's the whole idea. So visualizing these things was, for me, a good reason to be a part of the book.


	DR: Why do you think so many people turned it down?


	BF: Because of the death threats. Because of the fact that they may lose jobs. Personally, I can't even say how many jobs I’ve lost because I’ve not gotten many. I self-publish my comic books and my books, though I've worked for some publications which aren’t afraid to take me on, to my great gratitude. I’ve written am article called <a href="https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/search?q=challenge">The Draw Mohammad Challenge</a>. It’s been referred to as my manifesto for free speech, and I take on all those cartoonists who refuse to draw Mohammad. I don't want my world, Western civilization, to be like the Islamic world. You can't draw Mohammed in the Islamic world, and now you can't draw Mohammad in the Western world. That's unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable. I want to have the freedom to draw what I want and to think what I want. I was very happy to see that Charlie Hebdo republished their cartoons recently, because some years ago they said they were done with Mohammad cartoons. And yes, they’re getting death threats, but free speech is more important than fear. Without free speech, we’re not a civilized society. We cannot argue anymore. We cannot try to persuade people anymore. It is all about force and brutality if free speech goes. And I don't want to live in that world.


	DR: But having freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not necessarily mean that you should use it all the time. It's a privilege that you can, but do you think it's always necessary to use it, if you hurt people in the process?


	BF: Well, how does a cartoon hurt people? How?


	DR: If you feel that your boundaries are being overstepped somehow?


	BF: Well, the way I see it, after human beings were slaughtered for drawing Mohammad cartoons, there should be no more arguments about “hurt feelings”. How about the feelings of the families of those who were murdered? How about their feelings? These people will never see their loved ones again - ever. They were slaughtered over cartoons. So I have no sympathy, no respect, for those who try to cry to me and say: "Hey, you hurt my feelings". Look at those who were slaughtered. What do you say about those people? They were murdered. Their families, their loved ones, their wives, their husbands, their children will never see them again, because you were upset about cartoons? And not only were they murdered. They also had the support of a lot of Muslims. Average Muslims who were weren’t critical of their murderous co-religionists, and who didn't speak out against those massacres. They didn't rally against them. They didn't have protests against them. They were in support of it. I've never had one Muslim ever contacting me with: "I respect your freedom to do what you want. I may be hurt. I may not like it. But you have the right to do it". I've never heard that. Why? My cartoons cannot hurt anyone unless they want to be hurt by them. A cartoon is a cartoon is a cartoon. After people are slaughtered over cartoons, there is no more discussion to me about hurting others with cartoons. They murdered people over cartoons. That to me crossed the line to the point where I have zero sympathy for those who are critical of Mohammad cartoons. They’ve lost their humanity. The only thing they're concerned about is cartoons, not the people who are murdered over cartoons.


	DR: What is your main goal with illustrating the book The Shady Gardens?


	BF: I want to visualize these things. And it's important for me to do that. First of all, because nobody else was willing to do it. As you said, people agreed to do it, and then they decided not to. I am beyond that point. I understand the battle that is being waged here. Without free speech, we are not a civilization. We cannot persuade people. We cannot argue anymore. We cannot discuss issues. We need to know that we can say whatever we want, whenever and wherever we want. And if people’s feelings get hurt, so be it. And not only Muslims hate my Mohammad cartoons. Leftists don't like them. Even people on the right don't like them. Conservatives don't like them. And that's fine. I just know that for my life, for my conscience, it's very important for me to visualize these things that we are told cannot be visualized. It's very important for me because I want to live as a free man until the day I die. That’s it.

My Interview About A Visual Koran I Drew

Author's note: This is the full transcript of a radio interview I did with the Danish outlet, DR, about the young reader’s Koran I did drawings for, which was

Obama never left Washington D.C. He’s been as politically active as he’s ever been, he’s just in the shadows most of the time now. At least when he’s not peddling his latest collection of elaborate lies that he calls “memoirs”, with pompous titles. After trying to cripple the Trump administration before it got on its feet, by spying on it, and trying to attach the Russia hoax onto it, a hoax that Obama and his gang concocted, he now wants his gang back in power, through Joe. And he will do all he can to “help” his “old buddy”, Joe, do exactly what he would do. Exactly. Almost like a third term.

Obama Has 'HOPE' for a Third Term Through Joe

Obama never left Washington D.C. He’s been as politically active as he’s ever been, he’s just in the shadows most of the time now. At least when he’s not

Here’s the latest endorsement for Parler:


	<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/18/bill-gates-comments-on-social-media-platform-parler.html">“If somebody goes to Parler, they are saying, “I like crazy stuff.”</a> -Bill Gates


	Bad enough that leftists like Gates are all for banning those they disagree with, but now they’re targeting a platform that is the first truly viable alternative to the mess that Facebook and Twitter have made of themselves, for not being ban crazy.


	Professional troll Brian Stelter, who tells <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bosch.fawstin/posts/10216342719098979">endless lies through his endless teeth</a>, and one of his CNN colleagues, went so far as hysterically calling Parler “<a href="https://therightscoop.com/lol-cnns-fat-dumb-bald-guy-and-cnns-pamela-brown-afraid-of-parler-its-a-threat-to-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR2pKQjT8277o6vqDxudpF3wejBykcOLHBQDW4K2BvnIssLgoyCh7CI__rw">a threat to democracy”</a>. The left is losing its dominion over social media, and they’re not handling it well.


	As for “crazy stuff”: imagine being bombarded by thousands of death threats on social media, and the platforms tell you repeatedly that those threats didn’t go against their community standards. That’s batshit crazy, Bill, and I have two books worth of those threats, so far, and I know for a fact that more people, even prominent ones, know about me more than they let on, and I haven’t heard anything from any leftist about that, because you’re all fine with it. You have a problem with free speech, with Mohammad cartoons. You have no problem with people having their lives threatened over free speech.


	And that’s why Parler is exploding, because of how much of a mess you leftists made of social media, and why you’re afraid of it enough to smear it, because it’s not only a reproach to you, but it’s actually what you claim to be, a place where people can speak their mind without being constantly harassed for posting “controversial” things such as the truth. I’m sure that Parler removes accounts that cross their lines, but that’s not good enough for you, as you don’t want those who’ve you’ve banned from your platforms to have any place to post. Too bad. I know you hate it, but you’re going to have to live with it. That’s freedom.


	You can follow me on Parler at <a href="https://parler.com/profile/BoschFawstin/posts">@BoschFawstin</a>.

Bill Gates Smears Parler and its Users

Here’s the latest endorsement for Parler:


	“If somebody goes to Parler, they are saying, “I like crazy stuff.” -Bill Gates


	Bad enough that leftists

So how far will maskocrats go? Considering what we’ve seen and experienced this year, here’s my not so far-fetched take….


	&nbsp;

How Far Will the Maskocrats Go?

So how far will maskocrats go? Considering what we’ve seen and experienced this year, here’s my not so far-fetched take….


	&nbsp;

The disinformation media is trying to stop people from exposing their disinformation. But it’s no longer working the way it used to because there are now too many independent journalists who have decided to do the job that journalists are supposed to do, which is to follow the truth to wherever it goes.


	As I wrote on what’s left of my social media platforms, about the “no evidence” media:


	There is “no evidence” that Islam motivates jihad, “no evidence” that antifa are fascists, “no evidence” that “anti-racists” are racist, “no evidence” that “peaceful protests” are murderous riots….


	“This election was completely free of fraud.” -the fraudulent media


	The “Kavanaugh was a gang rapist” media


	The “Trump is an illegitimate president” media


	The “Islam means peace” media


	The “climate change is an existential threat” media


	The “Trump is Hitler” media


	The “Jussie Smollett attack was real” media


	The violent riots are “peaceful protests” media


	Etc.


	Regarding the dominion software that the leftist media is desperately trying to Not Cover, here’s some of what IS being covered about it, from a story at Bongino.com titled <a href="https://bongino.com/scenes-from-a-not-so-free-and-fair-election">Scenes From a Not So Free and Fair Election</a>:


	“Dominion has a software that it gets from a company called SmartMatics. SmartMatics is a Delaware company, but it’s owned by Venezuelans. Venezuelans who are close to Chavez and Maduro. They actually count the vote. They count the vote in Barcelona, Spain. So the vote goes from here to Barcelona, Spain. They count it and then they give it back to us.”


	“Can their software change the vote?” Giuliani asks rhetorically. “Any way they want. Absolutely.”


	He mentions the 6,000-vote flip in Antrim County, Michigan that we’ve heard so much about. Although election officials claim this was an accidental glitch, Giuliani believes otherwise.


	Giuliani provides some background on SmartMatics. The company “was actually established by Chavez. And the whole purpose of it was to&nbsp;steal elections. It’s their expertise. Stealing elections.”


	And this just in, from The Epoch Times, in an article titled <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/whistleblowers-reveal-how-software-manipulates-votes-to-change-election-results_3581769.html">“Whistleblower Alleges Software Manipulated Votes to Change Venezuelan Election Results”</a>


	“I was witness to the creation and operation of a sophisticated electronic voting system that permitted the leaders of the Venezuelan government to manipulate the tabulation of votes for national and local elections and select the winner of those elections in order to gain and maintain their power,” the affidavit states.


	“From that point on, Chavez never lost any election. In fact, he was able to ensure wins for himself, his party, Congress persons and mayors from townships.”


	The whistleblower claimed the “software and fundamental design of the electronic electoral system and software of Dominion and other election tabulating companies relies upon software that is a descendant of the Smartmatic Electoral Management System.”


	“In short, the Smartmatic software is in the DNA of every vote tabulating company’s software and system,” the whistleblower said.


	And I’ll leave you with <a href="https://twitter.com/StateofusAll/status/1328721219970019334?s=20">this passionate woman from Venezuela</a> warning about how Dominion election software, used by 28 states in America, was used to steal elections in Venezuela. And she even notes that –similar to our election—votes changed dramatically in the middle of the night.


	Update: the leftist media is claiming that there’s no connection between the companies, Smartmatic and Dominion, that Guliani cited, but as usual, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG9QzMY8ssk">they’re lying</a>.

Did Dominion Help Hugo Chavez Maintain Dominion Over Venezuela?

The disinformation media is trying to stop people from exposing their disinformation. But it’s no longer working the way it used to because there are now too

[Below is Bosch Fawstin's introduction to his new book, "Peaceful Death Threats Vol. 2". Order it at his store <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/09/peaceful-death-threats-2.html">HERE</a>.]


	Facebook just notified me that I’m suspended for thirty days for an unidentified post of mine from last year, but I’m still able to post for whatever reason. But if you’re Muslim and you threaten to rape and murder me on their platform, Facebook will allow it with impunity. In the summer/fall of 2018, I got thousands of death threats on every platform that I haven't yet been banned from, when I was announced as the judge for another Mohammad cartoon contest (which was unfortunately canceled). After Facebook and Instagram never responded to my reports of the death threats, (I was banned on Twitter by that point for criticizing Marvel’s Islamic propaganda comic book for ignoring the Only reason we discuss Islam, which is jihad) I asked friends if they could help me report the threats, and a good number of them did.


	But there are still people who pretend that those of us who are routinely punished by socialist media for countering their pro-Islam/leftist agenda, somehow deserve to be punished, because we've allegedly gone against their so-called “community standards".


	Well, the screenshots in the following pages (before I get into the actual “peaceful death threats” and the sixty new Mohammad cartoons by me that they inspired) should make even Facebook's biggest apologists lift an eyebrow, at the least. Facebook chooses not to ban Muslims who’ve threatened to rape and murder me on their platform because they "found that it doesn't go against any of our community standards."


	I repeat: Facebook, over and over again, responded to reports of the death threats against me as Not going against ANY of their “community standards”.


	And they have the gall to add that "We keep our review process as fair as possible" and that they "understand" that I may not "like it". I sure as hell don't like it. And for those who would tell me, "What do you expect?" Go to hell. I expect better from those living in a civilized society. The least Facebook could do is have a Zero Tolerance policy against those who threaten the lives of their users, no matter who they are, no matter how “racist” and "islamophobic" they'll be accused of being. If removing the accounts of Muslims who threaten people on socialist media makes one an "islamophobe", then maybe it might make the fools who fall for that smear realize that it's a term that's been made up by an enemy at war with us, in order to keep us in check. This is Unacceptable, and were there any legitimate news organizations left, ones that were run by actual journalists who were objective, this would be a major story. But it goes unreported, and these platforms get away with helping endanger the lives of others by not banning the accounts of savages.

My Introduction to 'Peaceful Death Threats Vol. 2'

[Below is Bosch Fawstin's introduction to his new book, "Peaceful Death Threats Vol. 2". Order it at his store HERE.]


	Facebook just notified me that I’m

I suppose some people need this to be spelled out explicitly, about what really matters to “Black Lives Matter". It's not about blacks, it's not about caring about black lives, it's not about anything that the leftist media, socialist media, and leftist-run corporations who $ponsor this black supremacist terrorist group tell us it's about. It's about cold-blooded Anti-American Marxism, just as its black communist founders explicitly stated. And because they then scrubbed that fact from their official website, after they realized it hurt their "cause", my cartoon is an explicit reminder.

Black Lives Matter = Marxism Matters

I suppose some people need this to be spelled out explicitly, about what really matters to “Black Lives Matter". It's not about blacks, it's not about caring

Kamala Harris, on the eve of the election, released a short <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1322963321994289154?s=20">campaign video</a>, not as a “dog whistle” to leftists, but as a bullhorn to them about how she’s a full-blown Marxist and that they should vote for her, even if Biden is the purported nominee. She also played the race card in her video, which she’s used her entire career. The other day, Harris tried to do what she often does, and cackle her way out of answering uncomfortable questions. In this particular case, she was asked whether her ideas are socialist. But after her cackle died down, and it appeared that the interviewer was not swayed from her usual dirty trick, Harris said in her worst nasally, whiny voice, that she’s a woman of color, etc.


	Harris knows that there are still too many Americans in America who love America, despite the left’s gains, and that she can’t yet come out as the full-blown Marxist that she is, and have a chance at winning. But to those who pay attention, she answered the question that she was asked in that interview, in her new video, by calling for equality, not of opportunity, but of outcome. She basically tells her fellow Marxists that she and Biden are going to put them in position to succeed like other successful Americans, overlooking the fact that truly successful Americans don’t need politicians. Some Americans simply won’t do what is necessary to succeed, and no campaign video can change that. But no matter how many examples one can point to that belie leftist myths, they keep peddling them, aggressively, as lies must be peddled aggressively, all in order to gain political power, for themselves, and over others.


	Whatever our backgrounds, there are countless stories of American individuals of all races achieving great success without the “help” of any rotten power hungry politicians like Kamala Marx.

Kamala Marx

Kamala Harris, on the eve of the election, released a short campaign video, not as a “dog whistle” to leftists, but as a bullhorn to them about how she’s a

I think my cartoon spells out my point, but let me accompany it with these words:


	Everything we’ve seen this past year, from the destructive lockdowns to the destructive race riots, with dozens murdered and billions in damages, has been fully supported by Biden and Harris -- which tells us what they will be up to were they to win. The words that have come to my mind of late when I see Biden constantly fail to string together coherent sentences, and when I see Harris cackle her way out of answering simple questions, is “They cannot win. They cannot win. They cannot win.”

Biden and Harris Lock Up the Nihilist Vote

I think my cartoon spells out my point, but let me accompany it with these words:


	Everything we’ve seen this past year, from the destructive lockdowns to

Editors' note: The following is artist Bosch Fawstin's introduction to his new book on Islamophiles, which he has titled <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/06/islam-bitches.html">Islam Bitches</a>, "as they deserve no respect and full mockery for aiding and abetting an enemy ideology in wartime." <a href="http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/06/islam-bitches.html">Click here to get the book</a>, and meanwhile, check out its intro below:


	We’re often told, by Muslims and by non-Muslims with a severe case of Islamophilia, that “Islamophobia” is the problem, post-9/11. “Islamophobia.” What a word. Its World War Two equivalent would have been Naziphobia. The best quote I’ve read on “Islamophobia”, and often misattributed to Christopher Hitchens, is from Andrew Cummins, who wrote, “Islamophobia. A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”


	To claim that there is some kind of inherent “irrational fear” of Islam within us, independent of what Islam is and what Muslims do, is irrational. To push this myth of “Islamophobia”, one would need to ignore the unignorable and devastating fact that 230,000+ human beings have been murdered in the name of Islam since 9/11/01, that 10,000+ were murdered in 2019, and that 5,271 human beings have been murdered in 2020 so far, with no slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic. (see TheReligionOfPeace.com) It’s callous and evil to continue to peddle the lie of “Islamophobia” as Islam, through its most devout followers, continues its carnage across the world. It’s the global defense of Islam, the praise of this violent religion as the very meaning of “peace” that’s the problem, not the well-earned criticism coming its way that’s made out to be “hateful”, when there’s No hate like Islamic hate.


	The Islamic enemy doesn’t have a propaganda minister like Joseph Goebbels because they have Islam bitches across the West who talk up Islam for free. The “moral” imperative for the immoral Islam bitch is to make sure that no one thinks ill of Islam, and to make Islam out to be peaceful, no matter the mountains of evidence against it.


	These Islam bitches are such irrational cowards that they stay completely clear from studying what Islam actually is, lest they might be tempted to be critical of it. So they knowingly remain ignorant in order to stop themselves from saying anything “negative”/true about Islam. But even though they avoid studying Islam, they know enough, by merely observing aspects of reality, that Islam is up to no good, and they knowingly say things about it that they know not to be true. And these rat bastards need to be exposed and mocked incessantly, and that’s what this book does. I drew Mohammad as a 1970’s era pimp 67 times in this book, with 67 different outfits made up of bell bottoms and big collars and platform shoes, to introduce each Islam bitch in a mocking manner.


	This book is probably the most fun I’ve ever had working on one of my projects, as well as the most infuriating, because it reminded me how long the Western disease of Islamophilia has been around, and how far removed we are from ridding ourselves of it and ending the Islamic threat once and for all, which we desperately need to do, especially in a nuclear age. These Islamophiles -- which is too respectful a term for these sellouts, which is why I prefer to call them Islam bitches -- need to be mocked and shamed, whenever their praise for this evil religion rears its ugly head. That would do wonders towards making them think twice about praising beliefs that are antithetical to everything they purport to value, and which gives the Islamic enemy aid and comfort during wartime.

Islamophilia, Not Islamophobia, is the Problem

Editors' note: The following is artist Bosch Fawstin's introduction to his new book on Islamophiles, which he has titled Islam Bitches, "as they deserve no

Frontpage Mag

Bosch Fawstin

Is it the End of Twitterstan?

Jihad Murderer Tells Jury He’s a ‘Moderate Muslim’

Will Smith Should Be Slapping Himself

Islam IS a Religion

MAD Joe

China Bitches

Jack Dorsey: TaliBAN Leader?

Actual Racism in America is Negligible, So Lying Leftists Cry 'RACISM!' 24/7

The Red Coates

With Politicians Like These, Who Needs the Joker?

My Interview About A Visual Koran I Drew

Obama Has 'HOPE' for a Third Term Through Joe

Bill Gates Smears Parler and its Users

How Far Will the Maskocrats Go?

Did Dominion Help Hugo Chavez Maintain Dominion Over Venezuela?

My Introduction to 'Peaceful Death Threats Vol. 2'

Black Lives Matter = Marxism Matters

Kamala Marx

Biden and Harris Lock Up the Nihilist Vote

Islamophilia, Not Islamophobia, is the Problem

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

CDC Releases Numbers Showing BLM is Killing Black Kids

The Media's Obsession With School Shootings is Killing Kids

Biden Lies About Gun Control Again

SF School System Solves 38% Black Student Proficiency Problem With Wokeness

Schumer Will Continue Holding Meaningless Votes on Whatever Issue is Trending Right Now

Events