The Four Color Media Monitor

Until now, DC's own political propaganda may have been overlooked up to a point, demonstrating why I find it bothersome whenever Marvel's the focus of concern on political issues but not DC (and even smaller publishers). But with Action Comics #987, it appears they've boomeranged back on more ultra-leftism, and the worst part is that a writer thought to be conservative gets credit for the script:

Superman saves a group of immigrants from a hate crime in the latest issue of Action Comics, and fans and critics are divided over the message DC Comics is sending.

In Action Comics No. 987, Superman encounters everyday people who commit crimes driven by greed, fear, and pettiness.

In one incident, the Man of Steel comes across a gunman -- an angry, unemployed American -- who opens fire on a group of immigrants because as cheap laborers they stole his job from him. (Two are women wearing Muslim chadors and one of the three men pleads with the gunman in Spanish.)

Superman disarms the gunman, turns him over to the police, and asks that the officers make sure the immigrants are safe and taken care of. There is no mention as to whether they are undocumented or not.

It doesn't make much difference. That a typical white guy is the culprit and at least one of the workers is a Spanish speaker, to say nothing about the Muslim women lumped in with the group, only attests to the propaganda this issue represents. Oh, and if it matters, how come the immigrants are the scapegoats, and company managers never get the blame for ludicrous poor employment choices? Or, has anyone ever found it disturbing how these disenfranchised white workers in stories like these seem to think big money is all that matters? Anyway, here's at least 3 panels I found from the issue:
Obviously, such a story is going to make people wonder if DC's editors have more political horrors in store. But the worst part surely has to be that a writer who's been known to support conservative politics - Dan Jurgens - was behind this monstrosity. In fact, I vaguely recall reading another Superman tale he wrote in 1991, one of several stories from past decades where Superman and Flash competed with each other in terms of speed, that bore a sugarcoated view of Islam.

In fact, if memory serves me here too, Jurgens was the same writer who took the assignment of writing a Superman story in 1993 where Cat Grant's son was murdered by the Toyman, in a blatant example of mishandling supervillains, was a willing partner in the Zero Hour crossover where Hal Jordan was put through one of the worst renditions ever as Parallax, and even wrote one of the earliest stories at the time where Obsidian was implied to be homosexual. This latest story he's penned is just another example of a would-be right-winger putting his credentials in doubt by going in lockstep with his more leftist editors.

A writer on Fox said:

I reckon it's only a matter of time before DC Comics unleashes other superheroes in its corporate quest to defend the alien invaders.

So don't be surprised to see the Flash rushing Mexicans across the border or Wonder Woman using her lasso to round up Texas ranchers trying to defend their property.

It's unfortunate that DC Comics is turning its stable of iconic heroes into political pawns – hell-bent on indoctrinating our kids.

Or, going by how business is run today, ensuring many parents won't want their children reading these new products. When it's not the jarring violence they've become notorious for over the past two decades that's posing a problem, it's their ultra-leftist politics that are.

On the other hand, the Hollywood Reporter - surprise, surprise - is defending the notion of siding with illegal aliens:

It shouldn't come as any surprise that Superman protects an undocumented worker in this week's issue of DC's Action Comics. Beyond the fact that he is the long-standing defender of truth, justice and the American way, he also took a stand against racial intolerance in a recent DC promotion that restored an anti-bigotry image from the 1940s. "THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN," the 1949 image, originally created for an offshoot of the Anti-Defamation League — helpfully explains with appropriate emphasis.

Superman has, of course, literally made a career out of standing up for the little guy — as recently as 2015, the character made headlines for standing with citizens of Metropolis against police brutality. But when it comes to the issue of immigration and racial intolerance, the superhero is almost uniquely placed to offer metaphorical commentary on the subject.

Just another example of moonbats hijacking a famous creation for the sake of their politics, fudging up the fact that Kal-El came to Earth as an infant refugee from an exploded planet with nowhere else to go, and was found/adopted by a couple from a farming community. I guess if Krypton blew up while Kal-El was still on it, they wouldn't care less, right? There's a difference between being an "immigrant" who doesn't care about his/her native country, and a refugee in distress who needs a place to recover, as do many Christians forced to flee from the Islamic dictatorships in the middle east, like Syria, Iran and Egypt.

Superman, as envisioned by his creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel back in 1938, is not only the literal embodiment of the immigrant dream, he's the perfect example of those currently at the center of the decision to rescind the DACA program: someone who arrived in the United States as a child as the result of his parents' actions, without paperwork or going through the right channels, who had dedicated his life to not only fitting into U.S. society, but making U.S. society a better place.

The immigrant part of Superman's origin is often glossed over, or outright ignored, by those who see the hero as being "all-American" in every way — in 1986, his origin was even rewritten, temporarily, so that he was actually "born" in the U.S. with his spaceship being reclassified as a "birthing matrix" because Kryptonians weren't brought to term biologically — but it's an important piece not only of his history, but of the vision of the United States that Superman represents.

Keep going, please. Beyond the destruction of Krypton, Kal-El wasn't in any actual danger of being annihilated by totalitarians during his infancy. That only came during the Silver Age and adulthood, when General Zod turned up and wanted to force all subjects to kneel before him. The dumb reporter who wrote this piece obscures the whole Golden Age premise, to say nothing of the "anchor child" mentality used by infiltrators to undermine rule of law.

And look who's talking about glossing over! By his twisted logic, even nazis would be able to enter the USA. Not to mention he also completely ignores the rules of science fiction. If Clark Kent went through the standard immigration process, he'd surely have to have his superpowers revealed to boot! McMillan is just another moonbat who would doubtless politicize the origins of Martian Manhunter and Starfire at the drop of a hat, and I think he knows perfectly well that if anybody's ignoring precise details, it's him. He even had the gall to say:

For years, Superman was often considered a dull figure, a square representing the establishment who paled in comparison to other superheroes who could stand more easily for counterculture narratives: Batman, with his outsider melancholy, or Green Lantern as he traveled America to find the "real" country in the 1960s.

Today, because of the changes in popular culture in general and political culture in particular, Superman feels more at odds with the mainstream than he has in decades. And, because he has never stopped standing up for tolerance, acceptance and the belief that anyone can succeed no matter where they came from if given the chance, he might be more necessary than at any time since his creation.

Well gee, if Supes seems at odds with anything today, it's because left-wing apologists (and phony conservatives like Jurgens) are doing their damndest to make them wind up outdated, hijacking them solely for their own twisted politics as they see fit today. It's also galling how he insinuates Superman was thought to be "dull", all because he supposedly couldn't represent counterculture. And I don't buy into the notion he was always depicted representing the establishment. On which note, now that I think of it, doesn't that claim contradict the earlier one that he was frequently depicted standing up for the little guy? Let's be clear: a lot of famous creations can be depicted representing the better interests of both sides, and I think it's ideal to point out that if Supes only represented "little guys", he'd wind up being depicted siding with petty thieves, burglars and carjackers to boot. Criminals who aren't usually wealthy by any stretch. Why, what are the odds today's SJWs would be willing to depict Supes representing drug traffickers? Sadly, if it's illegal immigrants today without question, it may be drug pushers tomorrow as well if such bad writers and editors remain.

In recent years, DC's put out apologia for hatemongering movements. So, it's no surprise they could put out a story this horrific now. What makes it disturbing this time around is that a would-be right-winger like Jurgens would take the assignment, putting his understanding of all these issues under a question mark.

Labels: dc comics, islam and jihad, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman