So-called comics news writers insult the honor of rape victims and minorities in their hostility to Frank Miller

Before I fully begin with this post, I want to present two important videos featured on Breitbart and Big Government:


Now, onto the main subject: this past week, comics writing veteran Frank Miller, who took the bold path of writing Holy Terror, spoke out against the Occupy hoodlums on his site. His statement included:

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently - must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh - out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

He may have a point there. Why wouldn't a jihadist get a kick out of seeing such vulgar monsters causing everyone such disturbing problems as they have, and the news in the 2 above videos is just the tip of the iceberg?

Soon after he made that statement, the very same leftists who never cared what non-comics subject say, Peter David ever spoke about, attacked him in some way or other. But the only mistake Miller may have made is that he didn't provide any links to videos or news articles like what I've posted, though if he had, would they have said anything? It's probably yes and no.

Following this very galling reaction on the left, I've decided to draw up a list of as many leftist contributors to comics news sites I can find who are writing themselves down in disgrace and shame for acting as though Miller's condemnation has no base.

For example, there's leftist AOL's Comics Alliance and its head honcho, Laura Hudson: she spoke about how Mark Millar, though a leftist who sees nothing wrong with the OWS, was willing to come to Miller's defense. Unfortunately, not only does she call Miller's statement a "screed", when there just happens to be evidence to support what he's offended by, she also says:

Apologism is a common reaction, or tactic, by the supporters of great men and women whose profound personal flaws or misdeeds have been exposed, and an understandable one. It's difficult to watch your heroes fall, especially by their own hand. But let's get real: the problem here is Miller and the things he has said and done, not the fact that other people have failed to protect him from the consequences of his very public and deliberate actions.

Millar's defense confuses the symptom with the disease, and the sadness of seeing a very gifted creator's reputation dragged through the mud with the even sadder truth: that he did it to himself, and that it has made many people realize he is not the man they thought he was.

In other words, Hudson is blaming the victim, not anybody who may be reacting offensively to his statement like herself, nor is she willing to recognize the nihilism the Occupy movement is allowing.

And what's this about realization? That depends. Miller, for better or worse, was once pretty leftist himself; that's hardly a secret, and he wrote at least one Batman story in the late 1980s that contained a swipe at Ronald Reagan. He also did some of the scripting for the Robocop sequels, a movie series which, as Paul Verhoeven later claimed, were meant as anti-capitalist assaults. And if it matters, it's not like his recent work is anything to write home about. But he's right if anything, that the Occupy movement for example, is a most utterly destructive one, and the Islamic religion is built upon very grisly concepts.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, a supporter of the Occupy movement or a critic, it's hard to read Miller's comments and not feel let down. These aren't thoughtful critiques; they're crude, verbally abusive expressions of rage that lash out wildly at his perceived enemies: Muslims, liberals, protesters, and strangely, the people he believes "live in [their] mommas' basements" playing "Lords of Warcraft."

Boy, look who's playing sainthood here and acting as though the Religion of Rape itself hasn't a thing wrong with it. Let us be clear: Miller isn't perfect, and he can make mistakes. So too in fact can I. It's all part of being human. Too bad Hudson's too holier-than-thou to admit the same, and would rather exploit Miller's weaknesses - and ours - instead of check to see if there's any backing for them.

Saying that the negative reactions or personal choices of readers somehow amount to "silencing" Miller not only fundamentally misunderstands the principle of free speech, it attempts to delegitimize critics who exercise their right to express themselves by portraying them as authoritarian censors rather than opinionated individuals. Disagreeing with someone -- no matter how sharply -- isn't censorship; it is itself free speech. And free speech isn't always nice. But then, Miller should know that better than anyone else.

So should jihadists, the Occupiers and even Hudson herself, but alas...

Hudson once wrote an item where she panned DC's abominable Identity Crisis, which trivializes rape, naming it one of the worst comics of the past decade. After her distasteful attack on Miller, however, I'm no longer convinced she really meant what she said if she's going to turn her back, selectively or otherwise, on women who were victimized at a left-wing movement.

Another moonbat voicing negativity to Miller is none other than our old friend Andy Khouri, who once signaled hostility to Israel and admitted he doesn't know squat about Arabic. He does this by writing about webcomics published by other galling cartoonists in response to Miller. I hope little Mr. Khouri is still reading the creations of my Jewish bloodbrothers and making a joke out of himself; it only makes him all the more funny.

Then, there's Chris Sims, who goes out of his way to say that Miller was always a cranky old man, but never considers that maybe some of that crankiness derived from leftist politics? And since Sims has been only so kind as to oblige, in response to his earlier act of foolishness, is this what he doesn't think exists?

Then, there's CBR's Kevin Melrose. As I recall, he once implied that I "manufactured" the news, and now he's going along calling Miller a liar too, I notice, and declaring his statement a "tirade". I feel sorry for Melrose. Like Hudson and a few others, he too is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye at women and others who were assaulted and raped and had their businesses damaged by those hoodlums the protests were drawing, mainly because the "organizers" would not act responsibly or recognize how their ideologies create golems. Why, he's even ignoring how their anti-capitalist platform is practically hostile even to people like Stan Lee and the late Julius Schwartz, who made it big and it was no crime to do so. (Update: and since Lee and Schwartz are both Jewish, I think that's why the following article by Phyllis Chesler is also important to mention, because the anti-semitic incidents at OWS are as much an attack on them as any other person of Jewish descent.)

But at least he's willing to say something we can all agree with:

Although I’ve not seen the calls for boycotts, I’m sure they’re out there; the Internet is a greenhouse for boycotts and petitions. However, like so many other online protests, a movement against Miller’s body of work will fizzle, if it even gets off the ground. Readers outraged by the writer’s views about the Occupy movement likely weren’t ordering Holy Terror, tracking down 300 or counting the days until Xerxes. And few, if any, are going to stop reading or buying such seminal works as Batman: Year One or The Dark Knight Returns because, after a quarter-century, they conclude Miller is a crackpot whose views differ radically from their own. Odds are, both collections are already on their shelves anyway.

No, I don't suppose so. And maybe they won't stop reading Bill Willingham's Fables series either despite its fairly pro-Israel stance.

One more example who's not a comics news writer per se is moonbat Andrew Belonsky, whom I recall also once did me the flattering honor of attacking one of my posts about the Islamic propaganda in Batman and acting as though the character in itself is what we think is the problem, not the religion he's written going by. Belonsky says of Miller:

Many of Miller’s long-time readers are surprised and upset by his clear dismissal and disrespect for a populist movement.

Well gee, populism has long taken on a negative meaning, and the main thing wrong with the Occupy movement is how they show almost zero respect for anyone else. Since when aren't they accountable?

Bleeding Cool points to another comment reminding Miller that he once left mega-publishers like DC and Marvel to work with independent house Dark Horse, “Remember the Frank Miller who donated to groups that supported creator-owned companies? The guy who printed “Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a Mile” in big bold letters on the back cover of one of his books? He was talking about CORPORATIONS, not big government. He was protesting corporations that exploit their workers.” Miller, who has made bank adapting his work into movies, has sold out.

Very funny, because big guv is just what a lot on the left embrace, whereas it's the right that's been trying to advocate the opposite. And he's still writing indie books even today, including Holy Terror. This dummy sure is nearsighted. (By the way, is he also attacking Miller's capitalizing on adaptations of his work and stuff like that and saying it was wrong of him to make money on even his comics? Tsk tsk.)

Could a team-up with Sarah Palin, Karl Rove and the Koch Bros. be far behind? Will our hero become like the fictional villain he created, super-soldier gone wrong, Nuke, seen below, or will he have a change of heart? And more immediately: will Batman, an Occupy ally, fight one of his most famous writers?

If a moonbat of a writer forces such a view upon him, unfortunately. This is a pure disgrace that Belonsky acts like Batman is a real person, which he sure ain't. What they just don't seem to recognize is how, since 9-11, Miller's changed in some ways if not all, and has offered some more positive viewpoints in that time.

Anyway, that's about all I can provide for now of how some leftists just simply don't have what it takes to avoid making a big deal out of when somebody decides to break ranks with their collective mindset. I'd suggest that Miller probably grew so disgusted with what people of his former mindset were advocating, he decided they're not people he should endeavor to please at all costs, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was well aware of what their reaction would be. If he knew the costs, then what we can say is that he's a very bold man to tell it like it is. And that's why he's to be admired, which is more than can be said for any of the clueless apologists for marxism in comics industry.