an anti-war leftist want to read comics about patriotism and
June 10, 2009
By Avi Green
In the past few years, something has really, and I mean REALLY,
baffled me. Itís how some left-wing supporters can possibly ever
want to read comic books about patriotism, heroism, selflessness and
other positive aspects if theyíre opposed to such values. At least
according to how they perceive it (and how you and me perceive it
too). And this can certainly relate to older material from years
Even now I canít be sure, though I will say that this could explain
why comics of recent have been so turned inside-out, if we were to
take DC and Marvelís output ever since Identity Crisis and Avengers:
Disassembled as examples. By that I mean that a lot of their output
has become so devoid of true heroism, and even rife with examples of
either evil de-facto winning, or the heroes fighting amongst each
other. And thatís also because many of the people who mystify me are
now in charge of the publishing companies Ė theyíre the inmates
running the asylum.
Perhaps I should take a moment to present but one
example of someone who turned out to be a leftist, who opposed the
war in Iraq, yet seems to enjoy comics with heroic themes, which
would surely contradict his political positions. In fairness, the
man I speak of will not be identified clearly, undeserving as he is,
but his words will decidedly make for good research. He turned out
to be a poster whom I found on the Captain Comics website, which I
have since felt the need to distance myself from because of its
severe leftist slant, and the manís comments may or may not indicate
his actual stance, but anyway, hereís
The thing (no pun intended) that most strikes me in this
storyline is how close it is to what's happening in the real
The US deposes Saddam. The FF depose Doom.
The US tries to find Iraq's supposed
weapons of mass destruction. The FF find and disarm Latveria's
weapons of mass destruction.
The US occupies Iraq for the good of the populace. The FF occupy
Latveria for the good of the populace.
People of Iraq respond to the US occupation with rebellion,
killing many soldiers. People of Latveria respond to the FF
occupation with rebellion.
Just to throw in my 2 cents worth, I don't think that Reed &
the Doombots were there to attack Ben & Johnny. I'm confident
that the attack was directed against the rebels...not that such an action is
necessarily a good thing.
Thatís what he says, and at
first glance, I for one certainly canít be sure if heís given his
exact positions on the war in Iraq, a war whose purpose was to bring
down a savage dictator, and a creature who was EVIL. Then again, I
notice that he uses the word supposed
in his item, and my eyebrows begin to rise. And then, quite by
coincidence or sheer curiosity, since I sometimes like to study
personalities, I took a look at a blog the leftist maintained, and
made some fascinating discoveries. I will not be linking to this
specific blog, mostly because itís hosted on MySpace, a network Iíve
been offended by due to how itís been riddled with cases of children
who endangered themselves to criminals (for more on that, hereís
as well as one
from Debbie Schlussel that I strongly recommend reading), but
I will feature the text from the leftist that raised my eyebrows.
First, he quotes from Peter David, whoís unfortunately a leftist
himself who opposed the war in Iraq, and whom the leftist used as
support for his own standings:
I recently sent out the following email. I was mainly
quoting Peter David from his blog.
"In case you're still on the fence as to whether the Iraqi
war--which between the efforts of ourselves and the insurgents has
resulted in the deaths of sixty thousand Iraqis--is worth it,
consider this tidbit from the book "The 3 Trillion Dollar War":
The billions spent thus far by the United States in Bush's war, if
spent instead upon domestic concerns, would have been enough to
fix Social Security for seventy-five years or provide health
insurance for every child in the United States." --Peter David
Oh, sure. It'd still mean debt we can't repay but at least it'd be
debt for something CONSTRUCTIVE instead of something DESTRUCTIVE.
First off, let me note how Iím
very sad at Davidís own standing today. And this was someone who
wrote a story in X-Factor
and the Incredible Hulk
back in 1992 where the mutant team and the green goliath ultimately
bring down a Saddam-ish dictator in a country not unlike Iraq. How
things have changed, and the mighty have fallen.
The leftist then quotes an uncle of his whoís a conservative:
One reply I received--the shorter one--was from my Mom's
brother, my Uncle [name withheld]. He's a very smart man and a
very important businessman. That's why it's surprising when he
makes such a poorly informed reply:
"The fact we are fighting the terrorists on foreign soil instead
of here is good enough for me to support President Bush.
We have no idea that "Peter David's" claim has any validity."
The leftist then cites his
response to his uncle:
I've sent him the following reply:
We are only fighting terrorists on foreign soil because we made
them terrorists. Iraq didn't declare war on the US. Iraq did not
have--despite the claims of the Bush administration--weapons of
mass destruction. Al Quida wasn't in Iraq because Saddam would not
allow them to. There are now terrorists in Iraq because the US
declared war on a country that wasn't threatening us and deposed
the leader (yes, a despotic leader but still a leader) who kept
his citizenry under control. Iraq is worse off for our actions and
we are worse off for our actions.
I support our actions in Afghanistan. That was a country from
which Al Quida was based and we had every moral and legal right to
invade there. Iraq was a foolish action that has cost thousands of
lives with no good cause.
I should've added that this wasn't Peter David making up facts. It
was--as Peter said--a quote from The 3 Trillion Dollar War (by
Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes).
And this is when I realized
that the leftist whose words I cite was Ė what else? Ė anti-war, and
tolerant of evil. Yes, the al Qaeda is evil, but then if they are,
Saddam could be too, and was. I see whatís wrong with this picture:
the leftist in question seem to think that, if a specific evil
entity hasnít attacked the United States, then thereís no need for
concern. Just think, if this kind of mindset had prevailed during
I suppose one could assume that, because most mainstream superhero
comics involving war against dictatorships usually involve small
groups of heroes battling thousands of enemy troops but not usually
suffering serious casualties in the end, that this is why some
left-liberals like to read them, while opposing the wars against
evil in real life because itís not the same as fiction. Can we make
it clear here that, while itís true that reality is far different
from fiction, and while itís sad that the lives of good men end up
being lost, that does not mean we can allow evil to continue its
existence, or else it might end up hurting many more people than
just the soldiers themselves? Even Captain America couldíve made
this argument, had he existed in real life.
I might also note that even right-conservatives like myself who
support the war on terror do not want superhero comics to be exactly
like the ugly reality we must face. But at the same time, that
doesnít mean Iím opposed to battling against evil in real life
simply because the outcome is far different from what usually occurs
in a fictional world. And Iím certainly appalled at how some of
these aspects of reality have been leaking into superhero comics in
the past several years, very disgustingly too at that, yet,
depending on the circumstances, some of these very leftists donít
seem to have a problem with that either.
And as I discovered, the left-liberal I cite may have even embraced
Identity Crisis, misogyny and all, those 5 years ago too, maybe
because of the subtle leftist, anti-war and blame-game messages
hidden inside. Howís that then for supposed common sense on his
The leftist went on to quote another relative of his, a cousin who
also supported the war in Iraq:
Again, her reply is surprising to me in many ways.
I LOVE YOU BUT BOTTOM LINE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WILL BE
DESTOYED PROBABLY BY IRAN OR COUNTRY ON THERE SIDE. HOWEVER I DO
LIKE THE WAR BEING FOUGHT OVER THERE INSTEAD OF HERE. 9/11 WAS
PRETTY DESTRUCTIVE HOW ABOUT THAT. I'M SURE THOSE FAMILYS HAVE
QUITE A BIT TO SAY ABOUT THE MATTER AT HAND. I WOULD RATHER BE IN
DEBT FOR HELPING OTHER COUNTRIES FEED AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR
PEOPLE AND TO KEEP VIOLENCE AT A DISTANCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAN
SIT ON MY --- AND AS FAR AS SPENDING MONEY ON OUR OWN SITUATIONS
WE ARE A SPOILED COUNTRY AND IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT ANYONE CAN AGREE
ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE HERE AT HOME. OKAY SO THAT'S THE SHORT
VERSION. LOVE YA I HAVE TO FIX DINNER NOW
And my response:
I debated on whether or not to reply. Replying (obviously) won. I
love you too much not to reply.
1) We've invaded Iraq, not Iran. If Iran is the danger then we
missed the target. Well, we missed the target anyway since Al
Quida wasn't in Iraq while Saddam was in charge. The unstable
situation that the US created gave the terrorists the "in" they
needed. (Yes, Saddam was a terrible person but he was also the
only person keeping the many factions in Iraq in line. It's been
chaos without him.) To the people of Iraq, WE are the terrorists.
We're the reason they don't have working utilities 24/7 and the
reason that bombs are now an unfortunate way of life. We did that
to them. They didn't do it to themselves. It was the US.
2) It's "their side," not "there side."
3) Yes, 9/11 was very destructive. Now we've gone and made that
part of the world hate us even more.
4) Do you REALLY think that the families of those killed on 9/11
are happy that more Americans are being killed in a country that
had NOTHING to do with 9/11? There have been far more deaths in
Iraq than in New York on 9/11.
5) You'd rather help other countries than your own? Really? Social
Security probably won't be there when you & I reach retirement
age and unless something drastic happens it definately won't be
there for our children. And, yes. Your kids our healthy and my kid
is healthy but there are too many American children who don't have
the health care they need. Should they suffer just because
Americans are "spoiled?" We need to fix our home before we
interfere with the homes of others.
6) If you truly believe the world is going to be destroyed by
"their side," then why make your kids go to school? Why do
anything productive if it is all going to be destroyed anyway?
Education, jobs...whatever. It doesn't matter if the world ends.
That's why I don't have that attitude. I don't believe we're going
to be bombed back to the dark ages. If history has taught us
anything, it is that a major civilization is more likely to be
destroyed from within, not without. Remember Oklahoma City? That
was an American terrorist targeting Americans.
The left-liberal, or, should I
say, moonbat, because by
now heís brought me to the brink of disgust, misses a lot of boats,
and not just the motorized ones, even the slow, tortoise-paced
rowboats. Hereís some of my replies to his sheer naivity:
1) Did Saddam really keep the al Qaeda ďoutĒ of Iraq while he was in
charge? How does he know that there wasnít any de-facto agreement
between the two that the latter would not operate directly on Iraqi
soil but just keep a main HQ in their vicinity? Has the moonbat ever
considered that some Iraqis are grateful to America for freeing them
from the tyranny of that monster, as the execution of Saddam ought
to tell? And isnít he being more than a bit excusing of the actions
of those suicide bombers and their directors who carried out their
barbaric actions against civilians and soldiers? Why does he blame
the US yet not condemn the terrorists conducting suicide bombings
for taking the lives of innocents? Regardless of whether the US was
right to invade Iraq, do those Islamofascist vermin who committed
those savage acts have the right to murder innocent people at the
flick of a switch?
2) Shut up about the spelling mistakes, itís really petty compared
to the issues at stake. And besides, what about your ownÖ
3) Is he implying that the US was to blame? Or is he trying to draw
attention away from the al Qaedaís actions, and say that the
American people donít want justice?
4) Do you REALLY think that the families of 9-11 victims approve of
the very existence of a tyrant who condoned these acts of barbarism,
rooms and suppressed free speech? And, what if he allowed
Muslim families to commit ďhonor
killingsĒ against daughters who wanted the freedom of choice
in how to lead their lives?
5) You disapprove of the position of a lot of superheroes, which is
to help other countries as much as their own place of residence?
Does that mean that Captain America was wrong to help Europe during
WW2? And here I thought the whole message of superhero comics was in
helping others in need, and not just in your own country, but in
others as well!
6) Ever heard of ďhomegrown jihadistsĒ? Well youíre going to sooner
or later, because thatís what not only a lot of Islamists in the US
have been creating, but even those whoíve infiltrated the US from
beyond its borders.
Wow, I must say, we have met the enemy and itís those who play the
ostrich act. The leftist whose writings I cite here is clearly a man
whoís never been moved or influenced in any way by the comic books
heís read. And why? One reason could be that the schools,
universities and other places of education heís attended have
Nevertheless, itís really mysterious how some of these anti-war
leftists remain some of comicdomís most reliable readers and buyers.
Why would they even remotely want to support something whose core
values when first conceieved go against everything they stand for?
Actually, thatís exactly why now, the leftists who are in charge of
running the store behind the scenes are trying to change everything
Ė just look at how, back in 2002, Joe Quesada turned Capt. America
into an anti-war diatribe, wrecking everything the Star-Spangled
Avenger ever stood for, and later foisting similar problems upon
much of the rest of the Marvel Universe as well in Civil War. And
look at how the DC Universe has suffered much of the same, even
before Identity Crisis was conceieved. Yet curiously enough, some,
if not all, of these leftists find the approach appalling. And those
leftists who do are the ones who mystify me.
If theyíre anti-war, and they flat-out oppose defeating evil like
Saddam in any way, and the leftists running Marvel, DC, and various
other comic companies notice and are influenced by this, do they
realize that it is that exact sentiment they express thatís going to
find its way into the comics they allegedly profess to love so much?
Alan Moore once spoke about how appalled he was that Watchmen led to a whole genre
of miserable comics, to which Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters
responded that he should consider that itís his political beliefs
that lead to such misery. The same can be said for any leftist whoís
appalled at the sorry state of superhero comics today, and come to
think of it, just about any comics today.
And so you see, this is why I find it most truly mysterious how many
of todayís leftists remain some of comicdomís most reliable
supporters and customers. Itís a question that I may not even find
the answer to within my entire lifetime, but is still worth
And why would
they want to watch TV shows like these?
I had another facinating thought partly related to this subject. Do
any of these anti-war leftists who oppose patriotism watch TV crime
series like The Equalizer?
For those who aren't familiar, The
Equalizer was an action/crime series that ran during
1985-89 on CBS-TV, starring Edward Woodward as
Robert McCall, a former government agent who quit the service and
became a vigilante for hire to atone for past sins and errors,
helping people in trouble with dangerous criminals and such, free of
charge (he made a nice good fortune in his previous job, so it
wasn't that hard!). He would trip around New York City meting out
vigilante justice against hoodlums, murderers, rapists, racists,
kidnappers, drug dealers, ganglords, and other most truly deserving
criminals. One could say that the series owed a bit to Batman, who,
while he usually doesn't use deadly force, is still more or less a
vigilante as well who could hand criminal scum some real bruises,
and the TV series was very much a reflection of the mood that may
have existed at the time, when crime was running seriously rampant
in New York. As a former government agent, McCall still kept in good
relations with his former colleages and bosses, including his former
director known as "Control" (Robert Lansing), and another agent by
the name of Mickey Kostmeyer (Keith Szarabajka) served as his
closest ally. He also had an estranged son, Scott (William Zabka),
who returned in his adult life and occasionally became involved in
his dangerous career as well. Next to Miami Vice, it was often one of the most violent
shows of its kind on American TV at the time, and even featured
several notable guest stars who became more recognizable as time
I get this weird idea that some of the leftists like
those I cite might watch - or have watched - series like these in
past years, or would be willing to even today. But why? Surely a
series like The Equalizer
doesn't contradict what they stand for, in its standings on
I'd have to wonder then if the real reason they'd take to watching
some of these more mayhem-filled adventure series, including, but
not limited to, Miami Vice,
is because they're more interested in the violence, without any
interest in the more in depth issues that accompany them. Which is a
very stupid way of thinking, if you ask me. But now that I've
brought up the subject, one can almost wonder if this'll end up
changing the minds of leftists who watched the show at the time!
In fact, why would any leftists be fans of Wolverine, given that his
personality could be very right wing? This is something even I
hadn't given enough thought to for many years now. But there is
something to it, that Wolverine, with his willingness to use deadly
force against truly deserving villians in certain cases, could just
as well be "right-wing". How come Wolvie fans, regardless of their
political standings, never considered that?
Due to Wolverine's popularity through his longtime membership with
the X-Men, that's one of the reasons why, unlike the Punisher, he
hasn't been subjected to quite the same misuse as Frank Castle has
under such moonbat writers as Garth Ennis, surely the worst writer
whom any character in either Marvel or DC's universes could be
victimized by since the turn of the century. Ennis has been long
known to have a disliking for superheroes, which is why it's
mysterious how he'd be willing to write anything for the big two, or
why they'd want to hire him to begin with. Actually, given how much
dislike they have for their own properties now, that could partly
explain why. And while Wolverine still hasn't been victimized as
badly as the Punisher has in recent years, he might still have
undergone serious misuse under some of the other liberal writers who
now comprise almost 99 percent of the contributors at both the big
In any case, just like how it's truly strange how any leftist who's
anti-war and perhaps even anti-2nd Amendment would ever want to read
comics about patriotism or the importance of being allowed to act in
self-defense, or watch TV shows of the same, or even be a fan of
characters whose very philosophy could be contrary to what they
stand for. Even though that's the exact reason why some are actively
trying to warp and rewrite all that even as we speak.
Copyright 2009 Avi Green. All rights reserved.
Home FAQ Columns Reviews Links Favorite Characters
Blog Food Blog