New graphic novel about October 7, 2023 features moral equivalence

The Times of Israel reported about a graphic novel being developed with a Canadian academic, and it looks like this product, unfortunately, relies on moral equivalence, blurring the differences between Jewish victims and Islamic aggressors, despite any claims to the contrary:

In the annals of graphic novels being written about the stories of those affected by the Hamas terror onslaught of October 7, 2023, “Echoes of October” may be the first in which the creators wish to remain mostly anonymous.

The fictional, kids-geared upcoming graphic novel has four child narrators — from Gaza City, Toronto, Tel Aviv, and the Druze town of Daliyat al-Karmel — each one telling their stories leading up until October 7, the day on which each of their fathers was killed.

The Jewish Israeli father from Tel Aviv was killed at the Nova desert rave, where he was working as a DJ, while the Druze boy’s father, an elite IDF soldier, was killed fighting near Gaza, defending the kibbutz communities.

The Palestinian girl’s father was killed as part of the wave of Gazan civilians who entered Israel on that day through the security fence to join the brutal assault, and the Canadian girl’s father — they’re not Jewish — was murdered during the onslaught at the kibbutzim, where he had been staying to help aid Palestinians.

So we're supposed to care about somebody who's father participated in a mass jihadist attack on defenseless women and children, not to mention also men, and, in allusion to what's further discussed below, we're also supposed to believe quite literally that he was dragged into this? I'm sorry, but this entirely obscures what influence the Islamic religion had in the whole tragedy, and how severe its indoctrination was all these years in the Hamas/PLO enclaves. Not to mention how taqqiya (deception) and naive conduct of specific victims made it possible for the jihadists to betray many of said victims.

To that end, and to avoid bias as much as possible, three of the four creators — including one of the two writers, the artist and the colorist — have opted to remain anonymous and together chose a pseudonym, Ami Adan, as the author name.

“We wanted to have as few preconceived notions as possible and we chose the name Ami Adan as an amalgamation of identities,” said Omri Rose, a professional voice actor who is Israeli and is one of the novel’s two writers, the only team member who opted to identify himself.

The idea for the graphic novel came about after October 7, when a Jewish Canadian academic who had previously been in touch with Rose began reaching out to him in solidarity following the Hamas terrorist attack.

“He wanted to do something, especially because things were so tough in Canada,” said Rose.

Rose’s Canadian co-creator particularly wanted to create something that would represent all sides affected by the conflict, but without authors whose names and origins would lead readers to draw their own assumptions.

“He sees this as a labor of importance,” said Rose.

The two began tossing around ideas for a graphic novel based on children, but with the focus on multiple perspectives and authenticity.

“It is pro-peace,” said Rose. “We firmly believe in Israel’s right to exist and also that the Palestinian people deserve respect and their own say, free of Hamas. It is anti-Hamas.”

Unfortunately, this just sounds like another effort to legitimize the whole fabrication of a Palestinian Moslem/Arab state at Israel's expense, obscure that many of the Gazan Islamists had nothing but hatred for the hostages, kept Arabic-translated copies of Mein Kamph in their households, don't accept Israel's existence no matter what they think of the Hamas, and "multiple perspectives" is little more than clue of defeatism involved. Not to mention that again, if they won't question whether the Religion of Peace had any influence in the horror of October 7, 2023, then what good will this GN be? The following notes that:

None of the deaths are explicitly explained, including the Gazan father, who is not a member of Hamas and instead is described as someone pulled into Hamas activities, without much say in the matter. [...]

Rose said that he and the other writer spoke with Gazan journalists and other Palestinians, as well as members of the Druze community, to create authentic storylines.

Umm, is that meant to imply he was merely coerced? Because as surviving hostages have testified, there were even journalists who were involved in the evil, and do the artists and writers of this GN take anything by Islamists in Gaza at face value? I'm sorry, but there's many clues here that this GN, if any, will not offer any meat-and-potatoes perspective, and will toe a PC line that forbids any objective view of the issues involved. Such moral equivalence is simply unacceptable.

Marvel's bizarre combination of Muslim Ms. Marvel with dogs

Recently, Marvel published a special titled "Marvel Mutts", starring the Muslim Ms. Marvel who was created as a propaganda vehicle. Here's the information Comic Book Club Live provides:

Join the Marvel Mutts in their very first comic book adventure! Collecting issues #1-12 of the Friday Funnies series, these heartwarming tales – and wagging tails – are sure to elicit a round of a-paws. Featuring Lockjaw, Lucky, Cosmo, Bats and Ms. Marvel’s dearest doggie, Mittens, this pack is packing the cute. So fetch yourself a copy and have a ball with Marvel’s Mightiest Mutts!

This has the effect of being unintentional comedy, or laughable for all the wrong reasons, because anybody who knows what Islam is like knows the Religion of Peace abhors dogs, and look what trouble it's led to in Britain. In the Arabic language, the synonym for dog "kalb", is even used as a slur. It's clear at this point Marvel's not even trying to draw in the followers of the ummah they supposedly coveted in their bizarre leftist attempts to "please everyone" in the past decade or so, because if they did, they wouldn't have made a character with a Muslim background the star of such a vehicle, nor would they have written her owning a dog for a pet.

In the end, the whole premise first concocted over a decade ago has certainly become very dated at this point, and one must wonder how much longer Marvel's going to keep repeatedly wasting money on a political vehicle that nobody's interested in. The same can be said for DC, if they're still depicting Geoff Johns' own Islamic propaganda concoction, Simon Baz, as such a practitioner. It could actually benefit badly developed characters if they put them in limbo for some time, then wrote out the part about their being Islamists and trying something like depicting them as Arab/Pakistani Christians and/or Buddhists instead. Unfortunately, chances they're willing to do that are very slim.

Israeli animator sugarcoats and ignores the belief system that led to October 7, 2023

The Jerusalem Post recently spoke about animated shorts produced by an Israeli entrepreneur who's worked in animation, and produced a series of short cartoons called "God's Gang", which cannot seem to get its "point" across without including a character representing Islam, and even then, the rest of the cast in the cartoon shorts reeks of stereotypical development:

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s – a group of four superheroes from different religions, all working together to save the world.

That’s the premise of God’s Gang, a series of interfaith cartoons on YouTube that was created by Israeli hi-tech entrepreneur Nimrod-Avraham May, who developed this channel out of a desire to promote tolerance and love.

May said that he was inspired to create this interfaith story when he thought, “I know many people who are not Jews or Israelis who are kind and compassionate and truthful and positive and friendly and loving, and why not build these bridges instead of bombing them?... The show is not a show about religion or faith.... It’s a show [whose] underlying message is promoting coexistence and unity, the teaching of love,” he said. But he chose to convey these messages via children’s action-adventure and comedy cartoons.

The hit success of God's Gang

Since the series began running last September, it has become wildly successful, acquiring 1.5 million subscribers in just a few months. May has added to the YouTube channel, in addition to the cartoons themselves, videos about different aspects of the series, with everything from lessons on how to draw the characters to content about how the series was developed. There is even a video where May reads what he calls the “mean comments” out loud and discusses them.

But the heart of it is the cartoons themselves, which feature the four superheroes – and heroines: Sumuslim, a Muslim who fights sumo-style and whose power is “hypno-storytelling,” with which he mesmerizes listeners with tales from Arab lore; TaekWonHindu, a “big sister” to the group, who loves heavy metal and fights with Taekwondo, and uses “third-eye telepathy” with animals and can multiply her arms like various Hindu gods; Ninjew, a basketball-loving Jew who has a kind of laser vision and employs “special Kabbalah invisibility powder”; and Chris Cross, a Southern Baptist street preacher who uses karate (with an unbeatable flying kick), whose power is that when he turns his cheek, he can deflect anything thrown at it.

Well this is certainly telling, and most pathetic how Mr. May apparently cannot muster the courage to differentiate between religions and make clear there's such a thing as both good and bad religions, and good and bad ways to practice one. And what's this about the Jewish character emphasizing "invisibility"? Even if that alludes to going into combat cloaked, it sounds on the surface like he's written hiding himself based on his ethnic background, which isn't a very healthy idea either. But of course, what's really offensive is Mr. May's apparent sugarcoating of Islam. This is a religion that calls for smiting necks of kuffar (infidels/non-Muslims) in Sura 47:4 of the Koran, approves of sexual violence in Sura 2:223, and many of these verses and other such content of the "religion of peace" played a part last year in the October 7, 2023 bloodbath in southern Israel, yet Mr. May has the chutzpah to shrug all that off by giving Islam a role it doesn't deserve in his cartoon project? Does he even know about the antisemitic verses in the Koran, including 5:60's reference to Jews as "sons of apes and pigs"? What May's doing is perpetuating a vehement refusal by people like him to investigate what could lead to bigoted behavior by anybody, based on selective PC. And that's continuing to seriously harm the world's ability to combat Islamic terrorism.

Depending how you see this, it's funny how an Arab character isn't considered for the role of a Christian, nor does May and his staff think of emphasizing an Armenian for the role, most likely because somebody would want to point out how Christians have been persecuted in Muslim countries, and the Turkish Ottoman empire's slaughter of Armenians during WW1 was motivated by the Religion of Peace. And the sugarcoating of Islam in May's cartoons is also hurtful to Hindus, because in India, there've been only so many horrors perpetrated by Islam in the span of over many years, and that too gets swept under the rug by ignoramuses like May. Does he really think realists are going to appreciate how he creates a moral equivalence between Islam and other religions that're still long persecuted by Islam? Men like May clearly never consider communities like 9-11 Families, Black Christians in Nigeria who've been murdered by jihadists, Israeli victims of Islamic terrorism, victims of the jihadists at the Bataclan in Paris, France, or even apostates from Islam like Rifqa Bary. By whitewashing Islam, men like May marginalize the people who really deserve the spotlight for heroism and appreciation. May continued to reveal the following:

THE IDEA for God’s Gang first came to him in 2006, May said. “I had joined Disney Channel right after they acquired Fox Entertainment from Haim Saban; two months after I joined, we were all invited to the Disney Channel Executive Summit, and I was in the marketing department. We all pitched ideas about what can make Disney great, and I offered them an interfaith Power Rangers.”

But the entertainment giant didn’t go for the idea. “Luckily, they left it for me. I feel it’s my life’s mission.”

A mission to obscure any serious issues that could be raised about the Religion of Peace? Well sadly, that appears to be just it. Most interesting he mentions Saban, whom I don't exactly consider a "national treasure" for Israel, any more than most other leftists of their kind. Saban's been one of the biggest Democrat donors, and while he may have recently been critical of the outgoing POTUS Joe Biden, it doesn't excuse how he's long been the kind of leftist who simply won't stay out of political affairs, among other questionable career specialties. To be sure, Disney was already far gone politically even during the mid-2000s, yet for the time, that didn't convince them to take up the kind of project he sadly crafted, which some Islamists will be quite pleased with, based on how it excuses their religion's dark record.

May said that he had grown up in a liberal, secular home, where his father was a Holocaust survivor and his mother was an orphan, with no family. Being without a family “was a proof for her that there is no God,” he said.

But after life threw some unexpected experiences at him, “I realized that I might have been wrong in thinking that this universe doesn’t have a governing entity, aka creator, source, God, the universe,” he said.

He began exploring his identity and studying Judaism, on his own and with rabbis, and gradually realized, he said, that all the teachings could be summed up in “two simple words: ‘one’ and ‘love.’”

The more he delved into Jewish mysticism, he realized “I had to do a big tikkun.... We were chosen to spread light.... I decided to commit myself to bringing people together. It’s a difficult mission.”

Coming from the world of marketing and entertainment, he said, “I was ready to tell the story of how we can get together.” Keeping in mind The Beatles’ lyrics to the songs “Give Peace a Chance” and “Come Together,” he chose to launch God’s Gang, which he had put aside for over a decade. “I decided to bring them to life during COVID, not knowing what the future would bring.”

Aware of the sensitivity of creating a cartoon with characters from different religions, he appointed a board of advisers, an “interfaith council” from all religious points of view, with whom he consults on every detail of the series, “just to make sure that we’re not harming anyone or touching on any sensitive topics that we shouldn’t get into.”

Among those he has brought on board is Rob Kutner, the head writer, who has won five Primetime Emmys, whose credits include The Daily Show and The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien. He also hired creators from Disney, Netflix, and DreamWorks.

The article is evasive of clearer answers, but it's not hard to guess he hired a committee that's much like the "sensitivity readers" hired by some leftist book publishers to work on the scripting. Even his alleged finding of faith is suspect, as he's clearly left-wing in his viewpoints, and the article largely obscures issues like October 7, 2023. Does he know lyrics like "give peace a chance" have also been exploited by leftists who ignore these serious issues involved? And then he even employed people who worked for one of leftist Steven Spielberg's companies. That's got to be telling too.

May is currently funding God’s Gang himself, and he said he is actively looking for partners, which will enable him to produce more episodes. He hopes to create four new episodes this year.

There is also an online store selling God Gang-themed merchandise, the profits from which May is channeling back into the cartoons: “This logo promotes love, and I want this to be the most recognized trademark in the world associated with the values that we’re promoting.”

In the upcoming episodes, new characters will be added, possibly a Buddhist and an atheist, although May said that the core of God’s Gang would remain the same. So will the message.

Does Mr. May know Muslims have persecuted and attacked Buddhists too? Even atheists aren't immune. Writing up roles for Buddhists in a cartoon like this isn't going to excuse the serious issues occurring in real life. I for one will not be funding his cartoons and merchandise, if he doesn't have the courage to make distinctions between good/bad religions, and ask whether it's possible, in allusion to the 10 Commandments, to use God's name in vain for any particular religion formed. I get the awful feeling that, if National Socialism were a full-fledged religion, ditto communism, he'd blur distinctions between those and other religions too.

Earlier in the year, the JTA had more fascinating details to tell about Mr. May and his propaganda cartoon:

But some Jewish viewers have criticized the creators for showing what they felt was a surprising lack of cultural sensitivity.

“There’s a part where the Muslim character throws a falafel bomb,” Sam Cooper, a Maryland-based pop culture critic, said in an interview. “I assume the goal of the show is to teach tolerance and educate people about other religions, but they don’t seem to be very good at that.” (Kutner said the character, Sumuslim, aspires to be a chef, but in hindsight the decision to have him prepare a big exploding falafel ball was “a little unfortunate.”)

Cooper also lamented that the Jewish character, Ninjew, is short and has big glasses and a nasally voice. “I’ve seen this stereotype in so many shows,” she says in her review. “Jewish guys aren’t allowed to be cool. They’re usually depicted as effeminate, nerdy and weak. And then our boy Ninjew is all that and then some.” (May defended Ninjew, describing him as “a handsome Jew” with non-stereotypical blue eyes and blonde hair.)

Shekhiynah Larks, a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant in the Bay Area and a fan of animated shows, questioned the decision to make Chriscross, the Christian character, a Black Baptist street preacher who wears an Afro and bell-bottoms.

“Conceptually, I really like the interfaith gang, but all of the characters seem like weird stereotypes,” said Larks, who is Black and Jewish. “The Black character made me think the creators haven’t seen a Black person since the Blaxploitation films.” (Kutner said Brandon Jones, a Baptist pastor who serves on the interfaith council and is Black, loved the character.)

Yes, this is pretty troubling alright. The Jewish character is made to look absurdly pious in a way that suggests he'll never be depicted as a ladies man, and one of the commentors at the Post article noted, "Question: why does this self-proclaimed egalitarian cartoonist depict Islam as a gargantuan muscle bound djinn dwarfing the other three religions and looking down on them over his left shoulder, with the Jews getting a pint sized myopic nerd?" Yes, what's with that? Not every Muslim adherent is tall, after all. Is May scared his Muslim audience will be offended? A clue as to the wokeness involved. Interesting a DEI specialist was quoted here, and even he found it appalling. As for the Black character having an Afro hairstyle, it could've been worse - in more recent times, there was a stereotype to depict Black men as bald, as happened to Luke Cage under Brian Bendis when he was at Marvel, IIRC (even Black women were put through humiliating ideas like that, as seen in modern Black Panther comics and even the sequel movie). But, a valid point is made that it's ridiculous to make it look like Blacks should all have Afro hairstyles.

I think the most galling thing about people like May is that they believe their ethnic background will actually keep anybody else from taking serious issue with any and all leftist ideologies they embrace, though as the above makes clear, of course there's also Christians who find it ludicrous, and Judeo-Christian critics certainly did find the part involving falafel used as an explosive weapon by the Islamist disturbing. May, regrettably, is just one in a whole ocean filled with leftist ideologues, mainly because only so many conservatives over the years trashed and threw away serious chances to build their own competition, and now, look where we are. I strongly advise parents who're realists to keep their children away from May's morally equivalent propaganda that clearly whitewashes the Religion of Peace at the expense of other religions with better values.

Joe Sacco's anti-Israeli graphic novel is going back to press

The UK Guardian, a very bad MSM outlet themselves, published a puff piece about Joe Sacco's GN titled "Palestine", which was intended as anti-Israel propaganda, and is now seeing new print, clearly for the sake of obscuring the Hamas' savagery on October 7, and pandering to the crowd of creeps supporting them:

An acclaimed nonfiction graphic novel about Gaza, which pioneered the medium of “comics journalism”, has been rushed back into print after surging demand since the fresh outbreak of the conflict two months ago.

Palestine, by Joe Sacco, was originally released in comic book form by the American publisher Fantagraphics 30 years ago, then published as a single volume by the company, and by Jonathan Cape in the UK in 2003.

It was created by Sacco, a Maltese American journalist and cartoonist from Portland, Oregon, as a record of his own journeys around Gaza in 1991, and has since then won a clutch of awards and been included on university courses as a primer for the whole conflict. Edward Said, the Palestinian American academic and critic, said in his introduction to the book: “With the exception of one or two novelists and poets, no one has ever rendered this terrible state of affairs better than Joe Sacco.”

Gary Groth, the co-founder of Fantagraphics, said that after the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombing of Gaza demand for the book had soared.

He said, “We blew out of our inventory of several thousand copies quickly and are reprinting now. Retailers and wholesalers began ordering the book in far greater quantities than in the recent past, which indicates that every element down the chain – consumers and retailers – are expressing demand for it.”

Well, this is certainly telling about Groth to boot, the same disgrace and shame who did a sugarcoated interview with Maurice Sendak years ago. Of course, one must also wonder where any and all comic retailers stand on a subject involving Stan Lee, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Jack Kirby, Joe Simon, Will Eisner and Gil Kane's Israeli brethren. If any are seeking to capitalize on the tragedy that struck many Jewish women and children in particular, that's offensive in the extreme, and they have no business associating even remotely with the creations of famous Jewish artists. Sacco, along with the article writer, makes clear he remains sympathetic to followers of Islam, and shows no sign of horror over what followers of the Religion of Peace in Gaza did to innocent and defenseless women and children. That's what really makes this Guardian article repulsive. Unshockingly, they didn't even see fit to mention that Edward Said falsified his history. None of which matters to Sacco, sadly, nor to Groth. I absolutely do not want to buy from Fantagraphics if this is the kind of graphic novels they're going to market.

And Sacco's GN didn't so much pioneer comics journalism as it did propaganda, and exploiting the medium for that specific goal. It's sickening to think how many GNs of this sort came down the pike in the past 2 decades that did more harm than good for the comics medium's image overall regarding political issues.

Saladin Ahmed's Daredevil story builds on antisemitic tropes

There've been at least a few other cases of antisemitic imagery turning up in Marvel's stories in recent years, with at least one other example in X-Men produced by a Muslim adherent, Ardian Syaf, and now author Saladin Ahmed, on the week when Israel was struck by a horrific massacre by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, turned out another example, as reported by Religion News Service:

“Daredevil,” the popular Marvel Comics series, was relaunched this month with a new creative team and several innovations, including a new adversary for its swashbuckling blind superhero that has drawn fire from interfaith scholars.

Starting with a new issue #1, Daredevil, whose civilian identity is Matthew Murdock, is now a Catholic priest in New York City. The nameless new villain, meanwhile, has long horns, a long white beard and a hooked nose — imagery straight out of anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda, the commentators say.

“This illustration draws from an ancient tradition of demonizing Jews in literature and art to portray a clash between good and evil,” said Malka Simkovich, director of Catholic-Jewish studies at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.

“The hooked nose and the beard, as well as the weathered and wrinkled forehead, suggest that the antagonist in question is a demonic rabbi.” It doesn’t help, Simkovich added, that Daredevil is shown fending his enemy off with a cross.

Rabbi A. James Rudin, who recently became the first rabbi granted a knighthood by Pope Francis, called it “repulsive.”

“When I first saw the illustration of Daredevil’s opponent in this new iteration of the comic book hero, I was immediately struck by his resemblance to posters advertising a Nazi propaganda film called “Der Ewige Jude” (“The Eternal Jew”),” said Philip A. Cunningham, director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. “One might have hoped that the comic’s creators would have been wary of playing with such hateful imagery in these days of unabashed antisemitic rhetoric.”

Clearly, this guy hasn't paid much attention to Ahmed's own past rhetoric, but what's also offensive here is editor C.B. Cebulski's failure to prevent this. Something tells me Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso wouldn't have taken proper action against Ahmed either, the dismissal of Syaf for his own offenses notwithstanding. Speaking of which, even the artist for this DD tale has blame to shoulder, and, when contacted, defended his approach:

When reached by email on Thursday (Oct. 5), “Daredevil” artist Aaron Kuder vigorously objected to any reading of his art as antisemitic. “If you’re comparing my art to that of Nazi propaganda … Well, that’s just insane. Completely laughably insane. Also extremely and utterly insulting,” he wrote in an email.

“I will point out that in the Nazi propaganda that I’m aware of (I’m no expert) dark hair is also a key component. Also, being short in height is a key visual component. Neither of which are components in the villain design … literally any kind of person can have large facial features and long hair. There is no correlation here.”

Explaining that he never comments on ongoing stories, Kuder said he made an exception because he could not stand by and “be even passively lumped in” with other artists previously disciplined by Marvel who “slipped messages of hate past their editors.”

He may be of Jewish descent himself, but that doesn't make it impossible to be a self-hater who'd rely on vulgar stereotypes, and it doesn't help he's admitting to lack of expertise on the subjects, nor that he didn't make the villain short or have black hair. Even half the details can be pretty bad, to say nothing of subtle.

In 2017, fans discovered antisemitic and anti-Christian messages in the pages of “X-Men Gold” #1, inserted by Indonesian artist Ardian Syaf. The company removed the images from subsequent printings, digital versions and trade paperbacks. In 2021, Marvel removed antisemitic imagery from print and digital editions of its “Immortal Hulk” comic after fans noticed a panel with a jewelry store whose name was rendered as “Cronemberg Jewery” with a reverse Star of David in the window.

Regarding the issue of a Jewish-owned jewelry store in the Hulk, that might've been an overreaction, even if the idea's an easy one. But Syaf's stealthings, that's another matter, and based on his vindictive reactions, that's one more reason why it was offensive, and he thus confirmed something was wrong. Notice, however, that this article makes no serious attempt to ask if Muslim anti-semitism played any part here, nor is there any exploration of how Marvel allowed for anti-white metaphors into the pages of the Hulk, or anti-conservative ones into the pages of X-Men (or even accompanying misogynist allusions).

Some see an irony in Marvel’s history, as the superhero comic book industry was founded by Jewish creators almost a century ago out of necessity, when they were discriminated against from working in the mainstream publishing world.

What's really sad is how Jewish creations and productions were devoured by a mainstream conglomeracy with no genuine respect for their publishers and creators. One that's highly unlikely, even today, to hire right-wing Jews any more than non-Jews of the same political bent.

Gerry Gladston, chief marketing and legal officer for Midtown Comics, the industry’s leading retailer of comic books and graphic novels based in New York City, said this week he was unaware of any complaints about the “Daredevil” issue until contacted by Religion News Service but saw it as an educational opportunity.

Simkovich, meanwhile, expressed concern that without response from Marvel, the antisemitic message will continue to be promoted under the reader’s radar.

“Readers who scan these pages will become inculcated and inured to antisemitic tropes without even knowing that it’s happening,” she said. “They will become desensitized to situations in which such demonization presents an immediate danger to the health and wellbeing of Jewish people.”

At a time when Israel's under attack in many ways, Ahmed's story is practically a gift to antisemites, subtly or otherwise. It remains to be seen if Marvel will take disciplinary action against him for doing something that couldn't have come at a worse time. But back to the main article, they even made sure to inject some kind of moral equivalence:

Not everyone sees the “Daredevil” images as only antisemitic. “The image also seems to pull on anti-Arab imagery,” said Hussein Rashid, an independent scholar whose focus is religion and comics.

“The use of symbols against an adversary or The Adversary is quite common in comics,” said Rashid, adding that “comics, not just Marvel, are replete with images and storylines that continue to reinforce narratives of marginalization.”

This sounds more like somebody trying to imply Ahmed doesn't speak for him, not very convincingly, and simultaneously, he must be alluding to Bill Willingham's Fables, which had a leading villain called The Adversary years before. This strongly suggests the interviewee hated the pro-Israel metaphors in Fables, ditto any pro-conservative ones. Just what's RNS trying to prove here anyway? Also again, no mention of Islam, curiously enough, nor any effort made to explain that Arabic background has nothing to do with this, only the Religion of Peace.

I think Kurt Busiek was once a supporter of Ahmed. It'll remain to be seen if left-wing Busiek's still willing to associate in any with him after this atrocious scandal (I was able to find a result on search engines that gave a clue to Busiek's interactions with Ahmed, seen in the screencap on the side). The same goes for many other comics contributors the industry over. And once again, Marvel's proven they're not honoring the memory of Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Joe Simon, or anybody else who did far more for comicdom than people like Ahmed ever will.

Why is Ben Shapiro adding Islam to the mix here?

While discussing how LGBTQ ideology has replaced Judeo-Christian values as a "religion" in the USA, Ben Shapiro also brought something very problematic into the mix:

The Daily Wire co-founder added that people of faith, particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all held some traditional values that starkly contrasted with the new values being pushed at schools and by corporations across the country.

“There is a common set of values shared by Jews and Christians and Muslims, actually,” Shapiro said. “And that set of values actually makes a difference in American public life. It’s why the notion that we should be posting ‘Pride’ progress flags in classrooms, but not the Ten Commandments is so absurd on its face.”

[...] “We have supplanted one religion for another religion, and the new religion is bad. It is a bad religion. It is a cultish religion that requires not just acceptance and tolerance, but destruction of the traditional forms of morality that used to undergird all of Western civilization,” Shapiro explained.

What he's telling here could easily describe the very religion that nearly resulted in the murder of Salman Rushdie. Yes, LGBTQ ideology is bad, but how isn't Islam just as bad an influence? Including Koranic verses calling for violence? Does Shapiro realize he's running the gauntlet of whitewashing the Religion of Peace? This is very irresponsible of him. How did we get to a point where all of a sudden, Islam's not considered a concern? Realists have known for a long time Islam was ostensibly against homosexual practice between adults, but knew that didn't make it acceptable, based on what the Koran contains about Jews and Christians, in example.

Shapiro might also want to consider the following report from Alberta, Canada, where it would appear LGBTQ ideologues have no opposition to Muslims protesting against their indoctrination:

Hundreds of parents, most of them Muslim, held a protest in front of city hall in Calgary, Alberta on Friday.

The protesters held signs reading “let kids be kids” and “school is not a place for political activism.”

According to The Counter Signal, chants of, “Leave our kids alone,” garnered responses from dozens of passing cars who honked in support.

According to the report on The Counter Signal, LGBT activists decided to refrain from creating a counter protest because, "It would be disrespectful to Muslims to show opposition to the protest."

“Any counter protest to the action at city hall will likely be used as ammunition for this hate group to paint queer folks as racist,” a source told The Counter Signal, who explained that the activists consulted with “queer Muslims.”

Whether or not they really consulted with homosexual Muslims, this is a strong clue that even in Canada, where horror stories have occurred as a result of all this awful garbage, LGBT movements have no serious interest in pushing their beliefs upon the Religion of Peace, and for all we know, it could've all been planned and choreographed for the sake of making Islam look good, right down how they carried picket signs like "let kids be kids". Interesting how the activists may have actually referred to Muslims as a "hate group", yet simultaneously didn't want to be called "racist" by the Islamists. Don't be shocked if the Canadian LGBT activists retract the "hate group" part soon, much like the Maryland Democrat who retracted her statement.

It's really too bad Shapiro's glossing over the badness of the Religion of Peace, and not recognizing how its "values" are incompatible with western values, or even those of far eastern countries like Japan and India, for example. Nobody should have to make a choice when it comes to LGBT ideology and Islam, yet Shapiro suggests he's actually willing to run the gauntlet of that, even if he ends up jeopardizing Jews' safety as a result.

Leo Dee undermines cause by saying he's got "no hatred" for terrorists who murdered daughters and wife

The British-Israeli rabbi whose 2 daughters and wife were tragically murdered earlier this month by jihadists around the Jordan Valley has made a very bizarre and undermining statement about the jihadists themselves:

The Israeli-British rabbi whose wife and two daughters were killed this month in a terror shooting on a West Bank road said he has “no hatred” for the people who gunned down his family, in comments aired on Sunday.

Lucy Dee, 48, and her daughters Maia Dee, 20, and Rina Dee, 15, were killed after Palestinian terrorists opened fire at the car they were in as they drove through the northern Jordan Valley on April 7. The daughters were declared dead at the scene, while Lucy was rushed to a hospital in critical condition but died three days later.

The suspects remain on the loose despite promises from officials that they will be found and brought to justice.

“I have no hatred towards the… terrorists,” Leo Dee told Channel 12. “I obviously would like them to be captured and to be treated with full justice that they deserve, but mostly to stop them from doing anything like this ever again.”

“I’ve had some Palestinian friends of mine from neighboring villages who have left messages in tears, because I’ve known them for many years, they’ve known Lucy, they’ve known the girls,” Leo said, explaining how he developed friendships with builders and gardeners whom he employed to work on his home.

“We’ve spent a lot of time together. Because I never got any guards, I don’t have a gun, and I would spend the day working from home while they came, and we would end up chatting, having coffee, talking about their kids, talking about our kids. We trusted them, I trusted them completely with the family. I still do, more so than any other people I know.

“When I spoke to one of my friends recently, he said ‘Look, we love you,'” Dee said, adding that he believed a majority of Palestinians were “decent people.”

Yikes...and I thought it was bad enough when Linor Abargil said she didn't think rapists were evil people. This is a very defeatist thing to say, and notice how Dee's one of a considerable number of people even here in Israel who doesn't seem to have the guts to clearly denounce Islam, if all's been told and indeed he hasn't? This is very sad. Whatever one may think of "palestinians", what does Dee and others like him think of adherents to the Religion of Peace, along with said ideology itself? He's making a terrible mistake, especially after sources like the New York Times downplayed the seriousness of the issue, along with the UK government themselves. The naive approach he's taking, which likely buys into the Islamic concept of taqqiya (deception), makes it difficult to solve these issues.

What Dee should really be doing is condemning any and all dhimmis who minimize the murder of his family, including those who substitute the word "murder" with "killed". That kind of disturbing mentality and MSM mandates are exactly what enable these tragedies to occur. It's absolutely awful these murders occur. But it's also awful when relatives of the murdered women take the lenient positions Dee is. That really hurts the battle against Islamofascism.

New documentary appears to be a fishy apology for Islam, involving 1973 incident from NYC

There's a new documentary out called "Hold Your Fire", focused on an incident involving a hostage situation in 1973 and the following gushy review suggests it may be a whitewash of Islam:

“Hold Your Fire” uncovers the untold story behind the longest hostage siege in New York Police Department history that also became the origin story of modern hostage negotiation. Director Stefan Forbes’ “Rashomon”-esque examination of policing in America, told from a triad of conflicting perspectives, arrives as the country finds itself amid a relitigating of the historically volatile relationship between police and African American communities.

In January 1973, a fatal 47 hours at John and Al’s Sporting Goods store in Brooklyn began when four young Black men — Shuaib Raheem, Salih Abdullah, Dawud Rahman, and Yusef Almussidig — were cornered by the NYPD after they attempted to steal guns and ammunition. The four men took hostages, a gun battle ensued, and soon police officer Stephen Gilroy lay dead on the sidewalk.

[...] Journalists did misreport that the young Muslim men were members of the Black Liberation Army, an anarchist organization with a goal of armed war against the United States government. In truth, they were comprised of a transit worker (Raheem); a college student (Rahman); a TV repairman (Abdullah); and a carpenter (Almussidig). “Four squares,” as Raheem says in the film.

Forbes’ documentary reveals a more complex background. Earlier that month, seven Muslims were brutally executed in a Washington, DC home owned by former professional basketball player Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The target was Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, leader of the Sunni Islamist Hanafi Movement, who wrote letters highly critical of Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. The murders brought attention to the armed conflict between Sunni Muslims and NOI Muslims.

Raheem, a Sunni who also challenged NOI ideology, was convinced that he was also a target and an assault was imminent. That led him, along with his Muslim brothers, to John and Al’s Sports for a gun and ammunitions heist to protect themselves.

And I'm wondering why it's made to sound as though robbing firearms from a store was acceptable, rather than seek police protection and testify against NOI? So, it's troubling there seems to be an apologist lens this history is being told through by the press. Yet that's long been par for the course over the past 20 years and more. And for all we know, this documentary could also be an insult to law enforcement too. One more reason why it'd be better for realists to avoid this production.

Moral equivalence at a Memorial Day gathering

On the week of Israel's Memorial Day for both terror victims and fallen soldiers, some corrupt excuses for Israelis held a morally equivalent gathering with Islamists:

When the solemn, piercing siren announcing the advent of Israel’s Memorial Day rang through Beit Jala on Tuesday night, both Palestinians and Israelis gathered in a small house in the Palestinian town stood still in respect.

The assembly was part of the controversial annual joint memorial ceremony held by bereaved Palestinian and Israeli families, organized by the Parents Circle and the left-wing Combatants for Peace group, that calls for reconciliation and peace.

About 1,000 Israelis attended a packed theater in Tel Aviv to watch the ceremony, while several dozen Palestinians and Israelis gathered in Beit Jala, which lies just north of Bethlehem. Organizers said that more than 200,000 watched the ceremony, which was live-streamed online in Arabic, Hebrew and English.

What are the chances these people will ever attend a memorial for September 11, 2001 victims from al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center in New York City? Sadly, all signs suggest the answer is close to none. Nor will they ever ask if the Religion of Peace had any responsibility in the murder of Jews, or whether the Muslim families participating in these ceremonies raised any jihadists who'd actually met justice as a result of evil activities. And that's why this "ceremony" is such a disgrace.

Like many of the speakers at the ceremony, Inbar said Israel’s “occupation” of the Palestinians was spurring the cycle of violence between the two peoples.

“It pains me that the sanctification of stones and land, which do not ultimately belong to us, is given precedence over the sanctification of life,” said Inbar. “End the occupation, end the occupation, end the occupation.”

The joint memorial ceremony has been controversial since its inception. Several coalition lawmakers — including Labor’s Ibtisam Mara’ana and Meretz’s Mossi Raz — attended the event, sparking right-wing criticism.

“It is shameful to sit with terrorists. It shows that the left has lost its way, and they don’t have the strength to fight for the just path,” said Religious Zionist party leader Bezalel Smotrich.

Exactly. The left's sold out to evil in the worst ways possible, and it goes without saying they're doing it at the expense of victims of Islamic terrorism in the USA too, right down to how blame-the-victim tactics are employed.

Why far-left reporter Taylor Lorenz needs to be ostracized

Left-wing Wash. Post journalist Taylor Lorenz has quite a history of defaming people on the right she doesn't agree with, which included the daughters of Pamela Geller. Now, the reprehensible Lorenz has gone so far as to doxx another right-winger she despises, based on antisemitic tropes, because this woman was exposing reprehensible leftists on TikTok:

Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz’s hit piece on the popular “Libs of TikTok” Twitter account was not her first foray into doxxing private citizens, but she certainly brought a new twist to the genre when she portrayed the account owner as a “powerful” Orthodox Jew who is “shaping” the media.

[...] Lorenz’s “reporting” is similar to usual corporate media hit pieces on conservatives, with the obvious goal of chilling speech and intimidating anyone who dares to challenge the regime’s narrative, which apparently now includes private citizens. But Lorenz took it a step further by dabbling in the long-held anti-Semitic trope that “Jews control the media.”

The piece is so clearly agenda-driven that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous and appalling. At a time when anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S. are at an all-time high, editors at The Washington Post thought it was a good idea to identify a private citizen as an Orthodox Jew, a detail that is entirely irrelevant to the story, then link to said person’s real estate license, including the person’s name, real estate license number, and physical address. The newspaper only removed the link after public pushback.

More on the topic here. Based on Lorenz's past conduct, this isn't entirely surprising she'd go full-fledged antisemitic, seeing as she's already gone after Geller's family, obviously because Lorenz is against people who object to Islamofascism as well. What Lorenz has done is defamatory and hurtful to people trying to put a stop to evils in the world.

The good news is that Lorenz and the Wash. Post's offensive conduct has actually had the opposite effect of what they wanted, and only helped build up more audience for the Libs of TikTok account:

Because she disagrees with Pamela Gellar’s politics, Lorenz outed Gellar’s daughters, who had developed their own popular, non-political Instagram accounts. She also went after KellyAnne Conway’s daughter. And speaking of Gellar, some people have noted that Lorenz seems to have a real issue with Jews. (LOTT's proprietor is Jewish.)

[...] I sincerely hope that LOTT sues both Lorenz and the WaPo (along with the individual editors involved) and that she gets Nick Sandmann rich off them. Lorenz is a trust fund kid and the WaPo is Jeff Bezo’s private political playground, so there are some mighty deep pockets there. The public should also deride, shame, and shun Lorenz and the WaPo.

But here’s the biggest punishment of all, and it’s a natural consequence of WaPo’s doxing hit piece: Although the purpose was to silence LOTT, it dramatically increased her reach. I don’t know how many followers LOTT had before she was doxed, but I noted about 630,000 on Tuesday morning after the numbers had already begun accruing. As of now 11:45 P.M Eastern Time on Tuesday, the account is at 800,000 followers and it’s increasing, as best as I can tell, by around 2,000 new followers every ten minutes.

This is the Streisand effect on steroids, a term that refers to Barbra Streisand’s attempt to suppress a photo of her Malibu property only to draw massive attention to the photo. With LOTT’s expanded audience, the account had better start going back to its core activity, which was showing to the wider world the bizarre, creepy, even dangerous materials leftists freely promote about themselves.

So now, Lorenz's actions have caught up with her, and she's being noticed for having an antisemitic leaning. If the Wash. Post wants to do a favor, they'll stop employing her, and so will the Daily Beast, where she also worked. People like Lorenz have no place in journalism, which is almost an embarrassing career to be in at this point.

Once again, a phony comics fan talks out of both sides of his mouth

I found some more, quite fascinating drivel and double talk coming out of the mouth of one Andrew Smith, who's written the Captain Comics columns for various newspapers in syndication for a quarter century, and isn't doing any better now. Let's first begin with what he said on a topic about Muslim artist Ardian Syaf, who was caught sticking his subtle propaganda into a new X-Men series:

I'd have fired him, whatever the message, even if it's "Hi, mom." Slip a personal message into a newspaper sometime, and see how fast security is at your desk. Publishers have to have zero tolerance for this sort of thing.

Given the content, though, this is extra wrong. It's exclusionary and offensive to X number of readers, and whatever "X" is, it's too high. The correct number of readers who should be offended by your publication is "zero."

Outside of all that, I was amused at Syaf's response that the insertions were messages of "justice" and "love." The inquisition used love as an excuse for forced conversion to Christianity, as have many other religious movements. And one man's "justice" is another man's "oppression," so Syaf could use a little self-examination.

I think Mr. Smith could use a bit of self-examination himself, after discovering the following retweet he posted on his Twitter page, which can be seen in the following screencap:

So he was casting his support for somebody who believes being a Muslim makes them fully qualified to be in the USA? (His Twitter profile said he's also a Black Lives Matter supporter.) Yawn. What else is new? Why should we believe somebody who's basically giving his approval to the Religion of Rape really has a problem with putting quranic verses into the backgrounds of mainstream comic books?

And note to Mr. Smith: if you really recognize it's not the 1950s anymore, then wake up and smell the coffee. We live in a world where bad ideologies, religious or otherwise, has taken a terrible toll upon the world. Who's really missing the numbers here? On his own site, he continued with:

And that is why, if you're the editor, you have to have a zero-tolerance policy.

Since I've been an editor for 30 years, that's really the only viewpoint I know. I can see as a reader that it might be fun, or funny, to allow inside jokes and the like. But as an editor, you just can't let it happen. You can't open that door, even a smidge.

As soon as you let, say, Neal Adams put in something not approved through editorial process, then it becomes a judgment call. Why can't Adrian Syaf put something in, when Neal Adams can? Why, because what Syaf did is "bad," whereas what Adams did was "funny."

Who says? Well, I'll tell you: a judge. Because if you let Adams do it, then Syaf can do it. If you say Syaf can't but a white guy can (with a wink and a chuckle all 'round), then you've got a lawsuit. And it's a valid one that you will probably lose.

If you're a professional, you can't get sucked into the "subjective" game. Either you allow it, or you don't.

And unfortunately, Marvel did, well before Syaf was discovered. They've allowed not just G. Willow Wilson to push a false portrait of Islam, they've also enabled other writers to do the same (Mark Waid wrote a Daredevil story doing this, and also a book called "Champions", which was just as defeatist). When you have a whole company management allowing taqqiya to prevail in terms of writing, it's no wonder the actual abominations could ultimately find their way into books too. So what's this hypocrite's point? Some of the leftists on his site have been upholding the insults to the intellect as well, and Mr. Smith once wrote a fawning review of the Green Lantern issues introducing the Muslim member named Simon Baz. If they didn't have a problem with Islam before, I doubt they actually have one now. The topic will probably be allowed to slip into the past, and when they think the time is right, Mr. Smith and his fellow leftists in the press will go right back to apologia as before.

I don't see any serious change in Mr. Smith's conduct, and if he really understood why the quran is a bad influence, he wouldn't be going miles out of his way to support its advocates.

Newsweek believes America needs a Muslim superheroine

Newsweek just published this laughable piece arguing that the USA needs the Muslim Ms. Marvel as a "hero", claiming she's "best equipped" for the job:

During the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we’ve seen increased pressure on Muslim and immigrant communities in the United States.

In the face of these threats, which Marvel superhero might be best equipped to defend the people, ideals and institutions under attack? Some comic fans and critics are pointing to Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel.

Some very left-wing "fans/critics" are pointing to a character created more as a political statement than a true entertainment vehicle, and when the moonbats who came up with the idea to characterize her as such whitewash the entire Religion of Peace, and call all dissenters liars, is it any wonder the book doesn't hold up?

Khan, the brainchild of comic writer G. Willow Wilson and editor Sana Amanat, is a revamp of the classic Ms. Marvel character (originally named Carol Danvers and created in 1968). First introduced in early 2014, Khan is a Muslim, Pakistani-American teenager who fights crime in Jersey City and occasionally teams up with the Avengers.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, fans have created images of Khan tearing up a photo of the president, punching him (evoking a famous 1941 cover of Captain America punching Hitler) and grieving in her room. But the new Ms. Marvel’s significance extends beyond symbolism.

Wow...what kind of "fans" are these exactly? They're actually hurting the character they supposedly root for more than helping. It's not just Trump they're being "tolerant" of. Some way to respect at least half the nation too.

In Kamala Khan, Wilson and Amanat have created a superhero whose patriotism and contributions to Jersey City emerge because of her Muslim heritage, not despite it. She challenges the assumptions many Americans have about Muslims and is a radical departure from how the media tend to depict Muslim-Americans. She shows how Muslim-Americans and immigrants are not forces that threaten communities – as some would argue – but are people who can strengthen and preserve them.

Reading this part made me fall to the floor laughing. By their definition, even Daily KOS and the New York Times, some of the most Islamophilic news sources around, would be depicting Islamists in a negative light. This comes from the European division of Newsweek, but even so, I doubt the writer of this silly propaganda believes a word she's saying. And if she won't quote or acknowledge a single verse in the Koran/Hadith, then I just don't see what her point is. Then, as if more proof were needed the series is already politicized, it's noted that:

...Khan cites her family’s safety and her desire to lead a normal life, while also fearing that “the NSA will wiretap our mosque or something.”

What that's de-facto saying is, it's wrong to keep surveillance on any mosque in real life. And if the character's safety matters, what about that of many other US residents?

The comics paint an accurate portrait of Jersey City. Her brother Aamir is a committed Salafi (a conservative and sometimes controversial branch of Sunni Islam) and member of his university’s Muslim Student Association. Her best friend and occasional love interest, Bruno, works at a corner store and comes from Italian roots. The city’s diversity helps Kamala as she learns to be a more effective superhero. But it also rescues her from being a stand-in for all Muslim-American or Jersey City experiences.

An accurate portrayal? No doubt. They certainly don't paint a respectable one, if they even go so far as to attack Bernie Sanders, confirming the writers don't even like their fellow Democrats. And they're whitewashing Salafism, predictably. Just how is Salafism only sometimes controversial?

As one of 3.3 million Muslim-Americans, Khan flips the script on what Moustafa Bayoumi, author of “This Muslim American Life,” calls a “war on terror culture” that sees Muslim-Americans “not as complex human being[s] but only as purveyor[s] of possible future violence.”

Bayoumi’s book echoes other studies that detail the heightened suspicion and racial profiling Muslim-Americans have faced since 9/11, whether it’s in the workplace or interactions with the police. Each time there’s been a high-profile terrorist attack, these experiences, coupled with hate crimes and speech, intensify. Political rhetoric – like Donald Trump’s proposal to have a Muslim registry or his lie that thousands of Muslims cheered from Jersey City rooftops after the Twin Towers fell – only fans the flames.

It's getting pretty obvious at this point this is more an attack on Trump than a sincere argument. What they're doing here is little more than confusing race and religion/ideology. And look how she refuses to acknowledge Trump did have evidence to back up his accusations there were Muslims celebrating: some NJ police witnessed local Islamists doing so, and here's more information that tells even Dan Rather found proof there were Islamists out there who celebrated the acts of evil on 9-11. The writer goes on to give a description of one of the stories in the Marvel series:

...in one of Ms. Marvel’s most powerful narrative arcs, a planet attacks New York, leading to destruction eerily reminiscent of 9/11. Kamala works to protect Jersey City while realizing that her world has changed – and will change – irrevocably.

Gee, a whole planet? And it's probably not even Ego, the living planet seen in the Fantastic Four back in the early 1980s. But what if is a metaphor for right-wingers, and built on Trutherism? If so, it'll only further compound any concerns the book is more a political rant than anything else.

Kamala Khan is precisely the hero America needs today, but not because of a bat sign in the sky or any single definitive image. She is, above all, committed to the idea that every member of her faith, her generation, and her city has value and that their lives should be respected and protected. She demonstrates that the most heroic action is to face even the most despair-inducing challenges of the world head on while standing up for – and empowering – every vulnerable neighbor, classmate or stranger. She shows us how diverse representation can transform into action and organization that connect whole communities “by something you can’t break.”

Except they did break it. They broke the entertainment value of Marvel, and turned it all into a political rant, much like this article. Say, if they really think a character who adheres to Islam is the "hero" America needs today, how come they don't think the same about say, Joe Mannix, who's Armenian? Or if a Canadian resident counts, how about Alpha Flight's Sasquatch/Walter Langkowski, who's got Polish ancestry? This whole article is nothing more than a selfish bit of twaddle by somebody who's simply not being altruistic, and doesn't consider that comics like these are among the reasons why Trump got elected.

EPA HAS A SUGGESTION FOR A MUSLIMA HEROINE:

Give'em hell, Wafa, and make'em, like it

The Muslim Ms. Marvel is being pushed into animation

I'd once heard the claim Marvel's movie/TV division was supposedly independent of what goes on in the comics company. But this news suggests that's a rather farfetched claim, as now, some of the PC diversity tactics already seen in Marvel's recent output is now being forced into their cartoon productions to boot:

Announced at San Diego Comic-Con today, the fourth season of Avengers will focus on a new team of heroes, in the wake of the disappearance of the usual team: Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel, Jane Foster’s Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Wasp, and Vision. [...]

And this page has a picture confirming it's the Kamala Khan character who's taking the Ms. Marvel role, while Carol Danvers is in the Captain role. I wonder who's in the role of Ant-Man? It won't be shocking if that too has been drastically altered so it's not even Scott Lang.

The live action movie screenplays may not have been seriously affected by this contrived propaganda so far. But that doesn't mean it'll stay that way for long. Even they might fall victim to it sooner or later. In fact, as the Verge has just noted, the planned movie starring Carol Danvers is going to be named Captain Marvel, not Ms. Marvel, suggesting the history involving Mar-Vell of the Kree is going to be conveniently obscured, perhaps because the anti-communist metaphors in the original 1967 premise are considered unsuitable by today's leftists who're also prevalent in Marvel's movie production.

In any case, the news about the Avengers cartoon explains why I'm starting to feel uneasy about supporting their movies, because some of the same people working on the comics are involved in some form or other on the films too. Why must we support them even in Hollywood? That may be just what's encouraging them to keep this up.

Man, just look at this hypocrite talking about Tarzan's allegedly dated style

This week, I think I'll comment now on a recent would-be op-ed by Andrew Smith, who writes the Captain Comics column for Tribune News (and has written some apologia for Islam in the past), and what he's saying about the history of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan, which just recently had another motion picture adaptation (not especially successful, but that's beside the point). He starts off with the following:

1 Corinthians 13:11 tells us: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child, now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things."

But Mr. Smith did not, and his dishonest approach to journalism is picture proof of that.

Is Tarzan one of those childish things? Is it time to put away the most famous creation of Edgar Rice Burroughs?

This question is pertinent because the durable Ape-Man returns July in "The Legend of Tarzan," a new big-budget movie, starring Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz. The previews promise a gorgeous and heart-stopping film, where the special effects have finally caught up to the spectacle we could only imagine when reading the books of ERB.

And read him I did. Burroughs was part of the Nerd Canon, the books and authors that were virtually required reading for everyone in my generation who liked science fiction more than sports. I read every single Tarzan book (and every Pellucidar and John Carter of Mars book) one endless summer in junior high, back to back to back. It was glorious.

But even then, there were elements of the Ape-Man's stories that made me a little uncomfortable. As I grew older, the causes of that discomfort swam into focus.

But even then, there were elements of the Ape-Man's stories that made me a little uncomfortable. As I grew older, the causes of that discomfort swam into focus.

For one thing, the subtext of Tarzan is more than a little racist.

Even as a 12 year old, the Li'l Capn wondered why the white guy was better at everything in Africa than the black people who already lived there. Sure, he was raised by apes, so he was swinging around in trees from a young age, developing different muscles and skills than ground-dwelling Africans. But if this is a world where a mother ape might adopt a baby human, is it logical that it only happened the once? And that it happened to the only white baby, one who got there by accident? Seems to me that there are ought to be a few black Ape-Men swinging around the Congo, equal in talent and ability to the transplanted English lord, if not superior.

Oh yeah, look who thinks he's qualified to comment on racial issues. If any of the black protagonists were depicted being raised by apes and calling odd noises while jumping around, people like him would say that was racist. Why, they'd even say it if the black cast members were depicted swinging from trees just like Tarzan! So what's his point? I'd say it's best that Burroughs refrained from trying anything like that, since it would look rather ludicrous if any black Africans were depicted the way he suggests. He goes on to argue:

Also, the Tarzan books were more than a little sexist.

To be fair, Jane Porter showed more agency than most female characters written at the same time. She was shrewd, tough-minded, and not above grabbing a knife and defending herself. But even so, she seemed to spend most of her time in the Tarzan books as a hostage.

And women who weren't Jane ... well, they spent all their time threatened, screaming and/or being captured by bad guys, apes, ant-men, ancient Romans, and a variety of other lost civilizations. They were utterly helpless.

Finally, there was one level of discomfort that was uniquely modern. And that was the awareness dawning on the Li'l Capn -- and much of the world -- that the many animals being killed in various ways in the ERB books were no longer so plentiful. Not only were many of them disappearing, but so were their habitats. So not only was the large-animal population of the African veldt vanishing, so was the possibility that all of those lost civilizations of ant-men and ancient Romans and such could possibly remain lost. As the world kept shrinking, the Tarzan books were becoming both environmentally reckless and laughably implausible.

I don't say all this to savage the Tarzan books. They were written in good faith, with no intent to harm anyone. They were just entertainment, and often joyous, vivid entertainment.

And Burroughs wasn't a bad man. He never wrote anything sexist or racist directly. Women in Tarzan stories didn't suffer sexual violence (although they did get tied up quite a bit), and many black characters were written with nobility, pathos and honor.

Oh, what's this? I'd better take a moment to note that Mr. Smith is one of the same media apologists for DC Comics' Identity Crisis, which featured an obnoxious anal rape (!), illustrated from an almost 1st-person perspective, making it look like the reader was meant to enjoy and/or participate, which makes the miniseries even more revolting and creepy in hindsight. Practically all the women - superheroines or civilian - were ineffective and/or helpless. And the worst part of all was that the story made light of a serious issue. If Mr. Smith's got no issue with that, I don't see why he suggested he'd have one if Tarzan's tales had featured anything similar.

He doesn't even make clear that Jane Porter did evolve over time into a more capable adventuress, suggesting he's trying to omit quite a few times where we could give more credit to Burroughs than he's willing to.

And what if Tarzan's tales were set in a fictionalized African country rather than a real one? You can't really complain then, since that would help alleviate the potential implausibilities posed by the real life modern world that built up some rural parts of Africa over the past century. Don't take anything Mr. Smith say about not wanting to tear down Tarzan off the branch at face value.

But Burroughs was a man of his time. And his time was a century ago. The first Tarzan story was published in "All-Story" magazine in 1912, before either world war -- a time almost unimaginable from the perspective of today.

And Mr. Smith is a propagandist of today, more concerned about alleged biases by flawed but otherwise decent authors than about the most pressing current issues like terrorism and even anti-white racism.

To be clear: This was a time when phrases like "white man's burden," "Manifest Destiny" and "a credit to your race" were used without irony. The entirely imaginary "Yellow Peril" was frightening enough to white men that the U.S. instituted immigration quotas from Asia, and "Buck Rogers" began in a dystopia future with whites conquered by Asians. Jim and Jane Crow were quite healthy across the country, especially in the states of the old Confederacy. As to women, they didn't yet have the right to vote, and were expected to have lots of children, be homemakers and do what their husbands told them to do.

Given all that, Tarzan was practically progressive!

Something Mr. Smith happens to be, in a negative sense. Today you've got "liberation theology" in the form of Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former neighborhood pastor, and the hypocritical, vicious rhetoric of the Black Lives Matter movement, which isn't really concerned for Black Americans at all, and is more hell-bent on harming whites. There's also racism committed by Islamofascists to consider, but does he ever complain about that? Far from it, I'm afraid, so I'm not sure why he's supposedly concerned here.

Now, however, it's 2016. The flaws that alarmed the Li'l Capn decades ago have only gotten more glaring over time.

Trouble is, he doesn't want to notice any of them if they're performed by a modern leftist. He's a man who won't see the forest for the trees.

The movie is taking an easy way out by setting the movie in the early part of the 20th century, when many of the problems listed above were not yet considered problems. (We know this, because "Legend of Tarzan" takes place mostly in the "Free State of Congo," which was essentially a Belgian colony until it ceased to exist in 1908.) And I have no doubt that 21st century environmentalism and racial/sexual sensibilities will be evident in the writing, because that's almost unavoidable.

I further have no doubt that when I settle into my seat at the theater to watch "Legend of Tarzan" -- and I will -- that I will thoroughly enjoy myself. My inner 12 year old has been waiting for "Avengers"-level special effects to be applied to my other childhood favorites for a long time. (Here's hoping modern versions of "King Kong" and the classic Universal monsters aren't far behind.)

But as we all plod into an unknown future, we need to update our myths and legends so that they keep step with us. I don't want to put Tarzan away with other childish things, so future filmmakers, TV producers, comic book writers and prose editors must be mindful of which parts of Tarzan still work, and which don't.

And the latter -- the racism, the sexism, the slaughter of animals -- are the childish things that need to be put away. The rest we can keep. Because as we step into that unknown future, it will be comforting to have Tarzan walking beside us.

And Mr. Smith's long taken the easy ways out himself, after he praised Identity Crisis in 2004, its crude, offensive approach to women notwithstanding. He's never truly put away the sexism, and now that I think of it, he's pretty soft on racial issues too. As for the animals part, it's not often I read something so incredibly laughable: if the animals are violent carnivores like lions and tigers it's inevitable one would have to blast them in self-defense. To act like this is not a worry is just pushing a whole lot of touchy-feely-lefty propaganda upon the audience. Killing animals may be bad, but what about all the slaughter of innocent humans by Islamofacists? Complaining about the termination of animal life is cheap compared to that. And he has the gall to complain about childish things even as he looks the other way when it comes up in modern times.

Anyway, the movie may not have done as badly as Spielberg's movie based on Roald Dahl's overrated book, The BFG, but it wasn't the huge blockbuster it could've been either. Not that I'm complaining, because I think it's better to read the original books than watch a movie that could be stuffed to the brim with too many special effects. One sure thing, nobody should take the word of a propagandist like Mr. Smith at face value on any of this stuff, old or new.

Islam The Fastest Growing Religion In The UK

(hat tip to Mark Alexander of A New Dark Age Is Dawning)

Note the dancing and happy Muslims, particularly in the first minute or so. See how wonderful Islam is?


Frankly, I see no ability to stop the West's slide into the abyss.

The statistics in the video should alarm every lover of Western civilization.

But Westerners are gullible. They love those dancing and happy Muslims.

David Axelrod Outdoes Himself

From Red Alert Politics:

Senior adviser to Obama for America and former White House official David Axelrod blew off criticisms from Republicans Sunday that the Obama administration’s storyline on the Libyan attack had been inconsistent, calling it “nonsense.”

Axelrod claimed the administration had shared everything it knew about the attacks “in real time” and Republicans’ attempts to portray the situation any differently are “disgreaceful.”

“Well, I think it’s nonsense,” Axelrod told “Meet the Press” host David Gregory. “Obviously, this was a tragic event, and the President did call it an act of terror – not just once, but several times – and asked for and ordered an investigation to get to the bottom of what happened, why it happened, and to bring those who committed this act of terror to justice.”...

Expect Obama to mirror this same position in tonight's debate with Mitt Romney.

Obama will say, "Look!" followed by blah, blah, blah. A snow job, in other words.

How gullible is the American voter?

Ben Stein: "Islam is becoming the MSM's official religion of America."

The full essay is HERE. Brief excerpt:

...Have you noticed that in the past few years, and especially in the past few weeks since the murder of the Ambassador and his guards and colleague in Benghazi (a city that Erwin Rommel loved and whose inhabitants he praised), whenever the New York Times refers to Mohammed, they always call him, without quotation marks, The Prophet Mohammed, as if everyone with any sense understands that OF COURSE Mohammed is The One True Prophet and that it's just understood that Mohammed is The Prophet.

I see this in other news outlets and on TV, too. Sober-looking newsmen and newswomen mention Mohammed as The Prophet Mohammed. No ifs, ands or buts. I hear it on the BBC World Service, too....

Read the entire essay HERE.

Some identical is happening in classrooms all across America. Take a look at your child's textbooks and classroom materials. Sit in on a few of your child's classes, and observe for yourself what is going on.

Let's get one thing clear right now: in Judaism and Christianity, Mohammed is NOT a prophet.  Not at all!

And let's get another thing clear, too: We are witnessing a propaganda war in full swing!  Challenge it!

Ohio: High School Assigning Anti-Zionist Palestinian Propaganda ("A Stone In My Hand") as Literature

Allow me to introduce myself. I am the grandmother of new ninth grader, C xxxxx. C, her sister, and her parents live with my husband and myself. I am very involved in the lives of my grandchildren and we regularly discuss educational topics. These girls do not play video games and spend their time texting. We play board games and work together on projects and interact a lot. My husband and I both work full time and invest the rest of our lives in our family.  It is Connie who brought this book to my attention and asked if I would read it to get my opinion.  

A book of historical fiction called "A stone in my hand" was assigned to the class as mandatory reading prior to the first day of school.  It is written in the first person voice of a Muslim Arab child living in the Gaza during the intifada years of 1987 - 1993. I was more than stunned and appalled at this agenda for English and Social studies assigned to ninth graders this year. I have no problem with historically accurate studies, studies of other cultures and religions. But I do have a problem with a slanted presentation that is clearly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-Islam. Not only am I offended at the book, but today I had a chance to review the the worksheets sent home as homework for this 9 week course.  

The worksheet's title is "Islam Project - Growth of Islam". Islam is a very specific religion. So this, in my opinion, is religious indoctrination masked as Social Studies and English. This is not an elective class on world religions.  How in the world did this happen? .I want to know at what level the decision was made to choose this book and this agenda and why there was not also offered an alternative to students whose families may be Jewish or Messianic gentile believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? I instructed my granddaughter not to read out loud the prayer to allah on page 8 of this book. It is a violation of our religion to speak a prayer to another god. I regret she even had to read it in order to comply with this assignment. I certainly hope there are not any children of Jewish origin in the ninth grade there. This course of study is the height of insult to them. The very first page of this book contains a translated "nursery" rhyme, written by a young girl living in the Gaza: 

"I am the child of PalestineI have my cause and I have my rights/When I see my older brother/Taken up into outlaws' hands/I cry out the international cry/That if they shoot me to my death/I'll clutch a stone in my right hand/And never forget the martyrs' cause."

Understand that the "outlaw" is any Jewish person and the "martyr" is an Islamic Arab child who was taught that suicide bombing is a righteous thing to do. 

Go read the whole thing at Atlas Shrugs.