The Four Color Media Monitor

If you're looking for a reason SJW Marvel is bailing out SJW IDW, then I suggest the possibility it is for the greater glory of SJW politics. Sort the same principle when Cuba sends money and troops to Venezuela.

Disney already licenses their own classic cartoon characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc.) to IDW. Could this be a sign that they might intend to do the same with the Marvel superheroes, and that they might just shut down Marvel Comics completely.

The greater glory of SJW politics as a motive for Marvel to outsource YA comics to a competitor sense since both Marvel hires employees who started their writing career at IDW.

The full reason for Marvel licensing deal with IDW may be because they along with many people in corporate American, believe that the future is Female, Brown and Queer. They must really believe that their future customers will be overwhelmingly female, "brown" and not heterosexual. Partially, this is true. Marvel, IDW, etc's ideal audience are people who have disposable income. People with disposable income are in the upper 20% bracket of wage-earners, who are disproportionately, full of white guilt, misandry, and identify as non- straight. "The world outside the window" of many people who work in the arts , and other areas of the professional class is more female dominated, "brown" and have more openly LGBT people than the general human population because feminists, anti-western people, and LGBT people are over-represented among the professional class than the general human population.

Since Marvel and IDW are competing for the same market, hiring IDW creators to help them expand in that market only makes more sense. IDW needs the money since they have lost a few of the licenses that allowed them to offer nostalgia porn to aging fans of old cartoons for boys from the 1980s in the Direct Market. By getting a cash-strapped competitor to offer licensed comics featuring Marvel characters, at a possible at loss,to the YA market, Marvel will neutralize a potential competitor. If IDW is successful with its Marvel and Disney comics, it will become as Disney subsidiary in anything but name that presents nothing that can compete with Disney's IP. IDW will also have the privilege of keeping the lights on.

The comics industry is trying to abandon the Direct Market but in the case of Marvel and IDW, since they hired so many sjws,who they think are the key to cracking untapped markets, they are doing so in the ugliest way possible.

Edit to the first paragraph:

*The greater glory of SJW politics as a motive for Marvel to outsource YA comics to a competitor makes little sense since Marvel hires employees who started their careers at IDW and other indies. The shared political views reflect a similar business stategy...One that that shows that no one has learned anything from the mistake of the Direct Market.
Marvel and IDW want to put all their eggs in one market, and that's the YA market, a market that is defined and gate-kept by sjws.

If you want to live in a society without feminists, brown people, or visible gays, there is a solution. You can emigrate to North Korea.

BUt if you live in most big or medium-sized cities in the U S, a normal day could involve riding a bus downtown with a black bus driver to get money from a gay teller at the bank which you use to buy fruit and vegetables from a hijab wearing grocery clerk and sausages from a Polish-speaking deli owner, and then buying coffee from a Vietnamese barista at the local café, or going for shawarma at a Lebanese fast food joint. This is normal. Not all gay people and Muslim people are doctors and lawyers, not all feminists have Ph.D.s. Most work for a living at ordinary jobs, or hold down two of them. Welcome to America!

What the hell is your point? Everyone knows these people exist. The problem with social justice is the belief that these people should be socially dominant and deserve special treatment because of real and perceived injustices.

They usually begin with this nonsense with coded phrases like " visibility".
and "make our voices heard". They want not only for people to pay attention to them--but to DO WHAT THEY DEMAND, and will get very angry if anyone questions their demands.

They begin by injecting themselves into things that have nothing to do with them, like St. Patrick parades and claim that they are being excluded or discriminated.

This is no different than a group of religious people demanding that a multicultural society acknowledge their religion almost all the time.


The problem with egalitarianism is that it does NOT eliminate social hierarchy, it just changes the basis for social hierarchy. In any [diverse ]society, groups always have and always will compete for dominance. Advocates for "social change" don't want equality, they want power.

"If you want to live in a society without feminists, brown people, or visible gays, there is a solution. You can emigrate to North Korea."

This is a very stupid comment that, I am certain, comes from a very stupid person.
Most countries around the world resemble North Korea, socially.

In most societies around the world. there are no visible feminists or outwardly gay people.
The world outside your window is not a representative of most human societies now or historically. For most of humanity's time on Earth, humans did not live in large numbers in urban areas with a high degree of diversity.


That's what people like you are all about, using aberrations as examples of universal social conditions and historical norms.

No one said the "diverse" people in urban areas all have phds...just that the people clamoring the loudest for "diversity" and social justice ...the ideal audience for sjw themed products... come from the upper echelons of society.

Actually, states like North Korea are very rare in history, and you
will almost never find a large or economically powerful political
entity that is a monoculture. Most states in the world have been
ethnically and culturally diverse and often multi-lingual - North and
South America, always, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, the Roman
Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the world of the old Russian
Empire. The label Chinese covers a lot of different ethnicities, and
several languages mistakenly labelled dialects. Monocultures in
history, when they exist, are largely due to ethnic cleansing or other
kinds of violence, and even then the attempts at uniformity are often
not successful - the French Revolution, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi
Germany, the Arab countries after 1948. Out gay people are a recent
thing, but then gay as an identity, as opposed to a sex act, is a
pretty recent thing too.

But does it matter? American comics are written for people living
today. If they show people living in cities with only white straight
people, or if random accidents give superpowers only to young white
straight men, the stories would just feel phony, like they are serving
a political agenda.

What problem do you think the Super John Wayne guys have with St Paddy's
Day?

Like I said, you're really stupid. Monocultures are NOT rare.
Most states in the world have been
ethnically and culturally diverse and often multi-lingual "
This does not preclude one culture from dominating and everyone subscribing to the dominant social norms to a large degree I would argue that China, Russia, and many parts of Latin America have dominant cultures that define those regions.

Furthermore, Most of the "multicultural" states that you mention were products of military aggression and colonialism (i.e. Iraq--the various sects there have historically preferred self-rule than be dominated by another sect). Muliticultural societies are a major source of social conflict and a lack of cooperation,especially in places where resources are more limited than in developed countries. A LOT of diversity historically has been forced. No wonder contemporary liberals are on the far Left, like yourself, find yourself defending colonialism. Colonialism is evil but colonialism gave you you precious diversity. And you think diversity is going to be a wonderful thing when you become a minority in a country where all the brown people have been taught to resent you for the sins of your fathers, colonialism.

"If they show people living in cities with only white straight
people, or if random accidents give superpowers only to young white
straight men, the stories would just feel phony, like they are serving
a political agenda."


Superhero comics are and identity politics cannot mix.
They would be inherently phony.

It would not be realistic to show a young black man saving white people from imminent destruction since they are taught by their parents and liberal teachers that white people are the enemy. He would only serving non-white people, not everyone.

A feminist hero would be disinclined to save a group of rich men from trouble, she would only be looking out for women and lgbt men only.

Comics about gay superheroes would not show the gay character with anyone who had the prevailing beliefs about homosexuality or who was hostile to it.

Hence the lack of gay muslim superheroes in Muslim countries.

The MAJORITY of non-white male superhero comics have been about stickin it to the Man. White straight men are the villains and there is an explicit political message which I'm sure you agree with.

Example:There's an Silver Sable comic series from the 1990s where a black superhero shows up and claims his purpose is to "fight racism" and they show a latent white supremacist on the team. That is political.


The truth is the majority of people risking their lives to serve the public would be straight men with traditional views. While there are lgbt people and women in the military, the general perception is that they are not patriotic or do not risk their lives, and are admitted under lower standards--and for POLITICAL PURPOSES. Job creation, etc.


There are real world examples of non-straight men, femminists, and brown people in public service and the LIBERAL ONES--THE SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE ONES seem to ONLY CARE about people who are EXACTLY LIKE THEM. They have no concept of serving people who might hate and fear them.

Talk about confusion! There is no such thing as ‘contemporary liberals on the far Left’. The far Left is not liberal, and liberals are centrists. It would be hard to find any liberals or leftists who defend colonialism.

Contemporary America is a country where one culture dominates and others subscribe to the dominant social norms; if that is your
standard, the U S is not multicultural. It depends on how you draw the boundary lines; the South and the North in the U S are culturally different, but we don’t usually think of them as entirely separate cultures, not for over a 150 years. It is hard to think of any country
where diversity was forced. It is usually the other way round. China and Russia have dominant cultures because the dominant culture conquered and ruled over other cultures by force. Tibet does not want to be part of China; the Ukraine and Crimea don't want to be part of Russia. Usually the diversity came first and the nation-state came later.

The price of domination of one culture by another is that the dominant culture always absorbs aspects of the culture it dominates; it becomes something else. Empires are by definition multi-cultural, so the seat of the empire tends to become more diverse. That is the price, or the benefit, of power. Can you give any example of a culture where diversity was forced? Entropy does not require energy.

America had no colonies in Africa. Africans came here because they were purchased. Blame capitalism, not colonialism.

And can someone please explain the part about St Patrick’s day? I know Trump is deporting Irish people who have been here for years without proper papers, but can you not forget about the hostility to diversity for a day and let people have a parade?

It sounds like Saber Tooth Mike has never actually known any black people, gay people or feminist women. Or served in the military.

You really don't know about gay activists who have succeeded in turning Saint Patrick parades into a gay pride parades?

Wow. I don't think you're pretending to be stupid. I think that you really are stupid.


"The price of domination of one culture by another is that the dominant culture always absorbs aspects of the culture"
No, it's not. I don't you understand what domination means. It does not mean compromise.

Must be your liberal education kicking in.
The U.S. does not have to incorporate Islamic culture or Arab culture into its value system, seeing that there are parts of it that a very incompatible with its laws and culture. That is what you want because you are a self-hating white American.

I doubt you know any who are normal people. You're just another isolated white person who thinking giving into any and all whims of hate-filled activists means you know normal gay, brown people and "respect women". You're just another isolated white person who thinking giving into any and all whims of hate-filled activists means ensure a better future because you are in no position to stand up to them when they get out of hand. Appeasement is a weak and cowardly philosophy to take on.

Avi, I think it's time you ban this anonymous commenter. He never adds anything to the discussions.

Yes, you're right. I've certainly erased at least a few messages the anonymous poster wrote already that were just leftist attacks on Donald Trump and conservatives.