The Four Color Media Monitor: Salon and Darick Robertson bring up his far-left politics

While discussing the new TV show based on The Boys in an interview with far-left Salon, artist Robertson had plenty to say in leftist political terms as much as anything else, and so too does the interviewer, come to think of it:

I recently spoke with Robertson about the creation of "The Boys" TV show and the original comic book series, the obligation and responsibility of artists in the age of Trump to tell the truth, and his choice to be public and vocal about his own liberal and progressive political values in a moment when many other comic book writers and other creators have chosen to be silent.

Robertson also reflects on collaborating with comic book icon Garth Ennis on their celebrated and lauded run on the Marvel Comics series "The Punisher." We also discuss his beloved cult-classic comic book series "Transmetropolitan," his new Image Comics series "Oliver," as well as the challenge of writing an unbelievable real-life character such as Donald Trump.

Well this sure tells much of what we need to know about what these two think, where they stand and where they're going. What makes Trump unbelievable, but not Clinton and Obama, or even Carter? I just don't get it.

Unlike many comic book writers and graphic novelists you are very vocal and outspoken about your politics. How did you make that decision?

A sense of obligation. I'm known for a character in my graphic novel "Transmetropolitan" who is a journalist. Working on that book with Warren Ellis really woke me up to many issues. He knew more about what was going on in American politics than I did — and he was from London — and that made me feel ashamed. This was during the 1990s under Clinton and it was easier then to not pay much attention to politics. But in hindsight I think that was an illusion. It was willful ignorance.

I was very vocal during the Bush years. Obviously, I lean left so I did not have as many problems with Obama. But with Obama I also did not see as many obvious machinations and untruths being circulated as what took place when Cheney and Bush were ginning up war in Iraq. With Trump it feels like we are living in a post-truth society. Am I afraid to speak out? No. I feel like it is my obligation as an American to do so. I think everybody should speak out. That is what freedom of speech is for. Am I going to alienate my audience? Well I think my audience likes "Transmetropolitan" so I doubt it.

Would it have been willful ignorance to remain oblivious to what lay behind the 1993 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center, which was managed by followers of Omar Abdel Rahman, and occurred at the time Bill Clinton was president? The sad thing is that Robertson probably wouldn't think so. I do wonder though, what he ever thought of the disgraced Gerard Jones, since Robertson illustrated a number of issues from at least a few books Jones worked on during the 1990s (Prime, Justice League Europe, Wonder Man). Depending how much anybody working with Jones during that time knew about his personality, it would've been willful ignorance to turn a blind eye to his mindset at the time, and anybody who did should be ashamed of themselves.

Do you believe that artists have an obligation in troubled times to tell the truth?

That goes back to citizenship. It is important to be informed. I work alone most of the day so I enjoy having the opportunity to engage people in conversations about politics on Twitter. I try not to attack people because they disagree with me. I try to keep it focused on the facts: Did this happen or didn't it? If you cannot agree on basic facts then we're lost as a society. As historian Timothy Snyder has been pointing out in his books about authoritarianism the moment we cannot agree on what truth is then all resistance is futile.

If he believes in the vitality of being informed, would he agree it's important to be informed about the contents of the Koran/Hadith, for example? If not, what's the point of arguing on what he describes as "basic facts"? So many leftists like him seem to deliberately ignore many pressing issues, and as a result, the argument on being informed tends to fall flat, because all they care about is what they consider important, which could be the notion only conservatives are the problem, and nobody else.

At what point are the American people complicit? Because Trump is who Trump is. There is nothing subtle about him.

Trump is basically flaunting it all the way. It's amazing to me. I grew up in a home with Reagan Republicans, a Christian evangelical, right-leaning military, law enforcement family. Those are my roots. In the beginning this moment with Trump looked very familiar to me. It was as if my family dysfunction became national dysfunction. But I don't believe my father would have liked Trump. He didn't like Nixon. At the same time, people who claim to be evangelicals are also saying that they don't believe in healthcare or being helpful to the people seeking help at the U.S.-Mexico border. That is contradictory to me. I read the Bible as a kid. I was baptized at 13. I know what is taught in the Bible and what we are seeing now with how right-wing Christians are behaving is not it.

And I guess he fancies himself the black sheep in the family. He blurs the distinctions between actual refugee and actual criminal, and ignores what violent crimes quite a few of the actual interlopers over the USA borders brought in. Yet he slams conservative-leaning Christians as the guilty, and doesn't think anybody believing in civility should take responsible stands. A terrible shame we have here a guy who won't distinguish clearly on serious topics.

Do you think that if you sat down and wrote a fictional story about Trump's America that anyone would even believe it?

I've said this a number of times. If this moment with Donald Trump was fiction you would get laughed out of the room for writing it. The idea that America took a man who pretended to be a success on television, and then put him right in the White House is laughable on its face. But when you see beyond that scenario it is laughable until you start to cry. I guess that's when they win.

My my, so he doesn't believe Trump was ever a success, his background in real estate, hosting The Apprentice on TV and managing showbiz contests like Miss USA notwithstanding? What a shame. That Robertson only sees what he wants to is laughable on its own.

Your work is center left and very pragmatic. How did you break from your family's political views?

I'm not anti-conservative. A lot of those beliefs are ingrained in me. But I have to balance that out with mercy, and in some cases, common sense. We do live in a world where it is not shaped just around your own limited needs and ideals. We all have to share, because whether or not you'd like to live in a world where there are no immigrants, immigrants are still there. Whether or not you'd like to live in a world without Democrats, Democrats are still there. So the idea that you're just going to have it all your way and that might makes right leads to some very ugly outcomes.

What hope is there for us as a society that is supposed to be the "number one country in the world" as so many people like to proclaim, but then you look at the facts, the statistics on issues such as health care and other topics, and America is not doing very well at all?

So in other words, we all have to allow people to just merely enter the country regardless of their personality and whether they have a criminal record of any sort. With no distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, not even real refugees from anti-Christian persecution in Muslim countries and even Europe, for example. He says he respects Christianity, but then he turns a blind eye to the horrors they face today in the Islamic world and even in China? Good grief. Regarding healthcare, does he accept that Obama's policies damaged it, along with the economy at the time? If only Trump matters, then his argument's for naught.

Today's Republican Party and conservative movement are not "conservative." They are destructive, revanchist, and backwards looking radicals in the worst sense. Donald Trump wants to be a tyrant. He has never lied about that fact. America in the age of Trump is in an existential moral and political crisis.

Donald Trump was completely honest when he said, "I'm greedy, greedy, greedy." It all works out for him — and is really the ultimate goal of his machinations. If it's working out for Trump and he is getting away with what he wants to do, then everything's fine in his world. For Donald Trump it really does not matter what is good for America. None of that seems to enter into Trump's plans.

Well in that case, we shouldn't be shocked if he and the interviewer think Obama was the more successful one, even though Trump's policies have improved the economy considerably. And they don't think Trump could possibly be joking either. For them, kidding is a liberal thing only.

If you were going to import Donald Trump into either "Transmetropolitan" or a new comic book series or graphic novel, what would you do with him?

As far as entertainment goes, Donald Trump is definitely the best show in town. I don't know that anybody would believe it. Even during the campaign and up to the election the reporters and journalists and pundits were in denial and laughing about Trump's chances. And yet here we are living in the reality of President Trump.

So as not to demonize people, I would say this, I think that there's a point where everybody who believed what Trump was selling wanted something good for the country. But anybody that really dug a little deeper who wasn't willing to put on a Trump t-shirt or a red "MAGA" hat would see that Trump has been a con man most of his life and it's all unraveling around him as we speak. It's bubbling to the surface so fast. There are some people who are just hateful and Trump speaks their hate for them. I don't want anything to do with those people.

It is like George Orwell's "1984" where Trump's people do not believe in the truth or reality as it actually exists. This is as Orwellian as it gets. People are complacent and we as a country keep rolling along where every norm gets shattered and then by the next news cycle it is all somehow OK. That is the part where it makes it hard to imagine how a writer could take what is happening with Donald Trump and make it into fiction.

But Obama couldn't possibly have been anything of the sort, could he? Not even when it comes to his relations with Jeremiah White? I gotta wonder, have leftists like Robertson ever met other leftists they didn't like? Good question. He won't even ponder whether he's resorting to Orwellianism himself. But pretty amazing if he'd rather not create negative metaphors for Trump in fictional books like Transmetropolitan. Speaking of which, here's where the interview turns to the comic book side of Robertson:

How do you manage being creative for a living?

It's changed over the years. I've done this for a long time. I started drawing comics right out of high school when I was 17, and I've been doing nothing but for most of my life, and I find that creativity ebbs and flows. Tom Petty used to sing, "Some days are diamonds, some days are rocks." I love cinema so I try to draw the movie that I imagine in my head or the comic book I would like to read.

So it helps to be a fan of what I do. I still love comics. I still think they're very underrated and are an art form that's just starting to find its footing. There's a lot to be said for the genre as a medium. A lot of people confuse the superhero genre with being indicative of all comic books. They don't realize that Senator John Lewis did a comic book about his days in the Civil Rights [movement] and won awards for that, and how Art Spiegelman was able to take the story of his father's Holocaust survival and turn it into an incredible graphic novel that won the Pulitzer Prize. And sometimes that nuance can get lost on people who don't understand that words and pictures can work together. As Neil Gaiman said, if you take great writing, it becomes prizewinning literature that you preserve in museums. You take great art, you put it in museums and people line up to see it at the Louvre, but if you put the two together, it's only for children. So it is dismissed.

What if some of these people lean to the left just like him? If it turned out he thought right-wingers were the only ones taking such a narrow view, that'd make his views all the more laughable.

How did you fall in love with comic books?

My dad was an airline mechanic and my mom was a homemaker. I didn't have any kind of clear path into being an artist. I just liked it. I drew since I was little. I got positive attention for my art as a child. At a young age I was able to draw Snoopy and Tweety Bird pretty well, so my cousins or whoever would be like, "Hey, draw me a Tweety Bird," and my mom would have me sign my name to the pictures.

I was around 10 when I think I discovered comics and it was a "Hey Kids!" comics spinner rack at my local pharmacy. Up until then I remember comics coming into my life in a way that people would just give them to you. My dad's barber, for example, would have a stack of comic books and as soon as they started taking up too much room he would pull them off the shelf and just hand me the stack. I would go home and read them. Or I'd inherit my sister's hand me downs which would be like "Richie Rich" or "Archie." And she liked romance comics too, which is interesting because I was too young to care about the romance, but I did love the storytelling. I didn't know at the time that many of the superhero artists were working on those romance comics.

I really just loved how I could follow the pictures and it would create a sense of motion in my mind. I knew that I was doing the work mentally and that those panel gutters were breaking time. Then I discovered George Perez's work early on with "Teen Titans" and he would do incredible things with the page layouts. And then Frank Miller was doing "Daredevil" at the time and also the "Wolverine" series. "Dark Knight Returns" comes out right when I'm 14 or 15. Then I am ready for the mature comics. And then of course "Watchmen" came on the scene.

I wonder what he thinks of the time Miller turned right-wing, at least in theory, and wrote/illustrated Holy Terror? Good question there too. I wouldn't be shocked if he was quite fine with Marvel blacklisting Miller today, as Tom Brevoort once implied.

The Punisher is my favorite comic book character. Your work on "The Punisher" and especially the "Punisher: Born" limited series as well was very special. How did you approach the character?

With "The Punisher" I worked with the best Punisher writer ever, Garth Ennis. What I liked about what Garth brought to "The Punisher" was that his Punisher said very little and did a lot, and I think that that's where the character is the most interesting. The Punisher is a calculating smart guy who goes after his objective without a whole lot of dramatic nonsense in the middle. I approach "The Punisher" the same way that I approach every comic book. I did a little acting when I was 18 and really loved it. But I never saw any future for myself in it. As I said earlier I also love cinema and bring those sensibilities to my comics and graphic novels.

I tried to put my acting into the character. Rather than the Punisher being in the room, I tried to get into the Punisher's head. I try to imagine what he would be thinking or what his facial expressions would be like. I am trying to perform through my pencil.

I did a tremendous amount of research for "Born" to get the backgrounds and the details about the Vietnam war as accurate as I could. I had one of Marvel's assistant editors at the time — his father was a Vietnam vet and actually served on a fire base like the one I drew in "Born" — loan me his father's personal photo albums. So some of the the little details that were in the background are taken from candid personal photos and not documentaries or other traditional reference materials. I wanted to bring that authenticity to the story. It weighed very heavily on me. "Born" was not just entertainment. It was about the Vietnam War. People fought and died and lived in that war. And if we were going to do a Punisher story that dark I wanted it to feel authentic. This was important for me, we had to show the proper respect.

Beyond that, "Born" was also a story about somebody going crazy. The best idea that Garth posited in that story was, "Is the Punisher a regular guy who went crazy when his family was killed or was he a crazy guy that was looking for a reason to become a vigilante?"

Personally, I wonder if he believes Frank Castle's family should've received any kind of justice after losing their lives to mobsters in NYC's Central Park. If any of the other innocent victims of crime Frank avenged deserved justice. Why all the obsession with portraying Frank as just some one-dimensionally insane guy? It's very sad, right down to the almost cliched claim he wanted to "get inside the character's head", which J. Michael Straczynski may have stated for Spider-Man. And if Robertson shares the same despising view of superheroes Ennis has, we can only wonder what more of his books are like.

Your comic book series "The Boys" is now a TV series on Amazon Prime. How do you feel?

"The Boys" has been a really interesting journey. I'm so very excited about the show. The creators have been so great with including me. I have gotten to be on the set and meet the cast. I have seen the scripts. They let me see a rough cut of the pilot early on. Eric Kripke, who is the writer and producer of "The Boys," has been extremely dedicated to making sure that we're happy. He talked to Garth. He talked to me. He asked what was important to me, what I wanted to see in the show and it is in there. They're doing their own thing with the TV show so I have to let go at a certain point. "The Boys" TV series follows a different timeline, but where it counts in terms of adapting the comic book, it is all completely there. The creators of "The Boys" TV series completely understand the property.

When I went to the set, for example, I walked in and the front doors of the offices where they run the whole production were covered in my artwork. I'm walking down the hallways and everybody has got a picture next to their name — and it's a picture from the comic. I meet the cast and they are wearing costumes based on my designs. They hired me to do some artwork for the show. I feel very respected and appreciated as a somebody who created the comic book. Even the viewers who do not know the original comic book are going to love the TV series. It's been very exciting. As a kid, this is what I dreamed of. I had always hoped I'd create something that would grow into something bigger than me and it's happening with "The Boys" for sure.

Of course, given his politics and what the book's built upon, it's no wonder he'd be so excited. By contrast, look at how books with far better ideas like Mike Baron's Nexus haven't been considered great for adapting to the silver screen, if at all.

Do you feel successful?

I think the moment that I really felt it, and it was very emotional moment for me, was they had a chair on the set of "The Boys" for me with my name on it. Seeing my name on a director's chair on an actual sound stage that was built around my comic was a huge experience: wow, OK, I've done something right. But most days I do not feel successful. I'm afraid to let myself ever feel too successful, out of fear of letting it corrupt me. I think creatively, once you feel like you've crossed the finish line, you either get lazy or you stop, and I don't intend to do either anytime soon. I've worked with some amazing writers, publishers, colorists, inkers and editors, all these different people made my life and my creativity possible. So it is hard for me to take a victory lap all by myself.

I don't want it to sound like false modesty. I recognize that I've been successful. But all the things that were successful are the things that were supposed to fail, and all the things that I thought were going to be huge are the things that didn't work out so well. It's been a weird game that fate has played with me.

Umm, if he and his colleagues really were successful, their comics would've been selling in the millions long before. But he has been corrupted by something, and that's leftist propaganda. Heck, he's practically created it in The Boys. The irony is that, despite being adapted to TV, it's still a failure in comics in its own way, if very few actually buy and read it. And from an artistic viewpoint, it's not something that works out so well either.

It's no surprise Robertson could be so cynical, but it's disappointing all the same.

Labels: Europe and Asia, indie publishers, islam and jihad, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics, Punisher, terrorism, violence

Brevort never suggested he was blacklisting Miller. He said that he would like to publish Miller work but did not want to publish a diatribe such as Miller's Holy Terror - originally a Batman project, not a Mavel book - and that it would depend on the specific project Miller wanted to do.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:26 PM

From an Israeli perspective, Trump seems ideal. He moved the embassy and he is never going to criticize a wall. For that, you can forgive him burning an Israeli intelligence source in offhand conversation with Putin, or making anti-Semitic remarks and tweeting anti-Semitic memes.

On the American side of the world, though, he has been a disaster. He is a don't-tax-but-spend-massively Republican, pumping the economy by cutting taxes while increasing spending, borrowing massive amounts to do it while interest rates are low and money is cheap. That is the way he ran his businesses - borrow bigly, skim a lot for yourself, and then have the business go bankrupt. But it saddles the country with a massive deficit that is going to be a disaster when interest goes up. Meanwhile, he has stirred up hatred at home, insulted and alienated allies internationally, and become an apologist for Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

He used to have a sense of humor - remember when he made jokes about the wall having to be made transparent so you could see the drug pusher throwing bags of drugs over from the other side? - but he seems to have lost it as he became president.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:35 AM

Say Green, what's your take on this Twitter thread by Hickman?
https://twitter.com/revel_nir/status/1154075634693476353

Posted by Anonymous | 11:11 AM

The US economy is booming. Unemployment is down, and is at a record low for people of color.

Obama said that 2% economic growth would be impossible. Now he is trying to claim credit for Trump's 4% GDP.

If Obama were negotiating with North Korea, leftists would praise him for "smart diplomacy." But Trump is accused of appeasement. The Left call Trump Hitler one second, and call him Neville Chamberlain the next.

And the leftists were OK with Obama's appeasement policy toward Iran.

The Saudis are not our friends, but they may be needed as an ally against Iran. Just as the Western democracies had to form an alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany in WWII.

If Obama forcibly raped a Girl Scout, leftists would claim that she had a heart attack and that Obama was performing CPR on her.

And if Trump walked on water, the headlines would read: Trump Can't Swim.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:29 PM

"If Obama forcibly raped a Girl Scout, leftists would claim that she had a heart attack and that Obama was performing CPR on her.

And if Trump walked on water, the headlines would read: Trump Can't Swim."

It is really the other way round. Obama presents as an ethical intelligent man and decent husband,, so if he did anything that deviated from that it would devastate his image. With Trump, we know what he is like, so when he does things that would sink any other politician, we slough it off as just Trump being Trump. As he says, he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and his followers would still love him.

And when Trump manages to read a speech from the teleprompter without interjecting his own boastful or offensive comments, without going on about how big his anatomy and his crowds are, the media fawns over him saying how presidential he is starting to sound. The bar is a lot lower for him than for anyone else.

By the way, leftists aren't always that big on Obama these days; he is seen as a middle of the road centrist.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:01 PM

"The Saudis are not our friends, but they may be needed as an ally against Iran. Just as the Western democracies had to form an alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany in WWII."

Well, let's hope that we deal with Saudi Arabia after Iran has been dealt with, and not make the same mistake we made by failing to deal with the USSR shortly after World War II.

"It is really the other way round. Obama presents as an ethical intelligent man and decent husband,, so if he did anything that deviated from that it would devastate his image. With Trump, we know what he is like, so when he does things that would sink any other politician, we slough it off as just Trump being Trump. As he says, he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and his followers would still love him.

"And when Trump manages to read a speech from the teleprompter without interjecting his own boastful or offensive comments, without going on about how big his anatomy and his crowds are, the media fawns over him saying how presidential he is starting to sound. The bar is a lot lower for him than for anyone else."

Yeah, your love for Obama's showing. And make no mistake, Obama's done PLENTY of bad things. And I wouldn't call a guy who is so pro-abortion (which, BTW, means terminating a baby) that he wouldn't stand with "punishing his daughter with a baby", and refusing to even LOOK at the red envelopes as even remotely a decent man. Far from it, I'd call him Moloch, and I clearly don't mean that as a compliment, being that's the name of a demon. At least Trump is doing something about Planned Parenthood and making a firm stand against abortion.

Also, the media actually loving Trump? I don't know about you, but the media if anything utterly hates Donald Trump and is willing to find ANY excuse to tear him down (they didn't even want him in the Presidency and if anything were gunning to make sure Hillary Clinton won).

"By the way, leftists aren't always that big on Obama these days; he is seen as a middle of the road centrist."

Only because leftists have become even more radicalized once he was out of office than when he was in office. Let's not forget that Michel Foucault actually inferred that the Marquis de Sade, aka that philosophing pervert who gave the namesake to sadism and was a key player in the French Revolution, didn't go far enough in his views, and bear in mind that Sade's the guy who, aside from directly inspiring both the murders at Arras and the Republican Marriages, actually advocated that being true Republicans involved legalizing rape.

Posted by eotness | 6:40 PM

Difficult to say that de Sade was a major figure in the French Revolution; he was an aristocrat who was never fully accepted by the revolutionaries and was imprisoned for a year during the Reign of Terror.

Trump was always firmly in favor of abortion throughout the twentieth century, even helping fundraise for an abortion rights organization; he changed his public views to win the vote of the Christian right. Much of the MSM is wildly in favor of him; Fox News is in bed with him and goes through contortions trying to support him, Breitbart is a fan despite his breakup with Steve Bannon, and the media that don't like him give him massive airtime nonetheless. He has a love-hate relationship with the New York Times that goes back decades.

Saudi Arabia has been a love of the US State Department for decades, and people like Bush and Trump have had business and personal ties to the Saudi elite; it is not just a relationship of military expediency.

How should America have dealt with its war-time ally after the War? Invaded and conquered it maybe? Or dropped an atom bomb on Moscow?

Posted by Anonymous | 7:38 AM

"Difficult to say that de Sade was a major figure in the French Revolution; he was an aristocrat who was never fully accepted by the revolutionaries and was imprisoned for a year during the Reign of Terror."

Actually, de Sade was the guy who orchestrated Bastille Day by creating a makeshift microphone and stating the Bastille was torturing prisoners and killing them. A clear lie. Not to mention after his release, he was delegated to the Section des Piques, one of the more radical sects of the revolution before ticking off Robespierre. And he was certainly accepted enough that Joseph LeBon and his wife literally modeled the executions at Arras, or rather, the results, from his illustrations in I think 120 Nights of Sodom at the Batteries Nationales, and that's not even getting into how Jean-Baptiste Carrier described the Republican marriages as "the torch of philosophy", which was one of Sade's sayings.

"Trump was always firmly in favor of abortion throughout the twentieth century, even helping fundraise for an abortion rights organization; he changed his public views to win the vote of the Christian right. Much of the MSM is wildly in favor of him; Fox News is in bed with him and goes through contortions trying to support him, Breitbart is a fan despite his breakup with Steve Bannon, and the media that don't like him give him massive airtime nonetheless. He has a love-hate relationship with the New York Times that goes back decades."

Actually, he changed his views due to one of his fellow employees becoming pregnant and having a child. It had nothing to do with winning votes for the Christian right, since said event occurred BEFORE he considered running for office. As far as the MSM, yeah, last I checked, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and various other networks didn't exactly sing praises to Trump by any stretch. And since when have you guys considered FOX news and Breitbart MSM anyways? Last I checked, you leftists always derided those sources as well as talk radio as fringe and not true news sources, let alone MSM sources. Besides, in FOX News' case, there's little indicating that FOX actually likes Trump, and if anything, there's actually a lot of Never Trumpers on there (and Trump made a tweet indicating that he doubts FOX is actually being conservative). Not to mention the New York Times certainly hates Trump now, not even has a love to hate relationship.

"Saudi Arabia has been a love of the US State Department for decades, and people like Bush and Trump have had business and personal ties to the Saudi elite; it is not just a relationship of military expediency.

How should America have dealt with its war-time ally after the War? Invaded and conquered it maybe? Or dropped an atom bomb on Moscow? "

Well, yeah, drop an atom bomb on Moscow, maybe also prosecute them for war crimes, like the French did with Joan of Arc despite her instrumental role in the French victory. And I know George Patton certainly thought we should have invaded the USSR and stopped them.

Posted by eotness | 7:57 AM

And just as an FYI, the Sade stuff came from Operation Parricide, which you can read here: https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e7/Operation_Parricide_Sade_Robespierre_%26_the_French_Revolution.pdf

Posted by eotness | 7:58 AM

Fox News is as mainstream as you can get; it has a large audience and the ear of the president. Breitbart is more marginal, although it was worth reading when Bannon was its mole in the White House. But neither is a real news-gathering operation; they don't do much investigative work. I would not call MSNBC mainstream; it is more of a specialist taste.

The Fox talking heads love Trump; Hannity talks to Trump every night before they go to bed, and Trump has done him lost of favors. The news operation prides itself as being more independent, but they are still slanted towards him. But he wants absolute devotion, not just support, so he is critical of them when they deviate.

Trump has an an ambiguous relationship with the Times. He knows many of the reporters and they know him. He treats it like he treats women; that is he wants their love and calls them dogs when they reject him. The Times is horrified by him on the one hand, but they love him because he sells papers and increases circulation. Most New Yorkers don't like Trump; they know him too well from when he was a tabloid personality there.

Posted by Anonymous | 1:03 PM

"And just as an FYI, the Sade stuff came from Operation Parricide, which you can read here: https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e7/Operation_Parricide_Sade_Robespierre_%26_the_French_Revolution.pdf"

You are relying for facts on an article from Fidelity Magazine? The one that became renamed Culture Wars? Really?

Posted by Anonymous | 1:07 PM

"Fox News is as mainstream as you can get; it has a large audience and the ear of the president. Breitbart is more marginal, although it was worth reading when Bannon was its mole in the White House. But neither is a real news-gathering operation; they don't do much investigative work. I would not call MSNBC mainstream; it is more of a specialist taste."

Well, guess we can agree on MSNBC not being mainstream, but last I checked, it was leftists such as yourself who utterly rejected Fox News, and even accuse anyone who disagreed with their leftist talking points of having watched Fox News in order to imply that anyone who watched it were fringe and not mainstream. In fact, before Trump and his Trump Derangement Syndrome, Fox had something similar, as you can see here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_Derangement_Syndrome

Also, the heads of Fox, as in, the Rupert Murdoch family, hate Trumps' guts, and aside from that, Megyn Kelly back when she was working on there tried to spin Trump's words to appear misogynistic. Heck, Trump even implied suspicions a little while back about how Fox News wasn't actually conservative, or on his side: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/06/18/nolte-trump-sees-something-weird-going-on-at-fox-news/

"The Fox talking heads love Trump; Hannity talks to Trump every night before they go to bed, and Trump has done him lost of favors. The news operation prides itself as being more independent, but they are still slanted towards him. But he wants absolute devotion, not just support, so he is critical of them when they deviate."

Even so, they're certainly closer to being independent than ABC, CBS, and NBC. And last I checked, those three certainly were mainstream outlets, yet spend a lot of time bashing Trump and not even TRYING to pretend to be objective in their views on Trump. So that proves your claim about the media loving Trump false. Sure, maybe Fox and Breitbart might love him, but ABC, CBS, and NBC doesn't. And CNN certainly isn't, and that's aired around airports and public places like restaurants, thus making it mainstream by default.

"You are relying for facts on an article from Fidelity Magazine? The one that became renamed Culture Wars? Really?"

Why shouldn't I rely on it? Besides, the author of that pieces knows quite a bit about leftism and its connections from back then to today, giving lots of citations.

Posted by eotness | 2:14 PM

Why shouldn't you rely on Fidelity/culture Wars? You have to ask?

Because it is published by E Michael Jones, who writes books about 'jewish science", maintains that it is time to break the Jew Taboo by naming Jews as the enemies of moral and social order, and talks about how Jews rejected Christ in order to support anti-Christian revolutionary movements. He preaches the kind of clerico-fascism that the Catholic Church rejected 80 years ago, so his publications are not a reliable or trustworthy source when it comes to the French Revolution. Generally part of the loony extreme right rejected by conservatives, so the only people who would take him seriously would be --
oh. wait.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:30 PM

First of all, that article in question made absolutely no reference to Judaism at all, let alone painting it as a bad guy, so don't bother with that whole canard. After all, this Russian documentary about the Bolsheviks was supplied by a guy who didn't trust Jews, yet there were no references at all to Jewish people in the documentary itself. Should we dismiss it due to the guy distributing it condemning Jewish people.

Second of all, and forgive me Avi Green if I should mention this, but if I really must be honest, when the Talmud (The Babylonic version, anyway) advocates some of the same crap the Quran does regarding lying, cheating, and stealing people who aren't their own, and even has a passage that strongly implies that God's dumb and weak enough to not only lose a debate against a mortal, but also be restrained by mortals to such an extent that he can't do anything without a majority vote of the Rabbinic council, I'd probably have to agree with E Michael Jones on that one. I'm sorry, but desecrating God the father like that is just plain wrong, making him an idiot and a weakling. He's all powerful and all knowing, he couldn't lose a debate if he tried. If anything, God if he entered a debate with a mortal, even a rabbi, would utterly break the opponent's mind and leave him huddled in a corner crying before the first round had even finished. I could forgive, and have forgiven them for desecrating Jesus and Mary, to say little about putting him to death per God's plan to redeem humanity via Christ, but desecrating his father, the same God who got their sorry butts out of Egypt and made them his chosen people? That's just unforgivable, and quite frankly, they're LUCKY God didn't forget his covenant with them after that. Were it me in his position and they pulled that stunt off regarding that passage, I would have just called the whole thing off in response and wiped them out in anger at their utter disrespect, not even CARING if it sabotaged my plan to redeem humanity (and that's if we go by the actual event of that period). And if you don't believe me about that passage, here's the passage in question, Babylonic Talmud Bava Metzia 59b (and just as an FYI, the guy who wrote that page discussing the passage is a rabbi): http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/salafi/RabbiDebateGodAndGodAdmitsDefeat.htm

Don't get me wrong, I'll ultimately help out the Jewish people if they need it per my duty to Christ (my loyalty to God's borne out of sheer terror, not love), and yes, I'll even stand by Israel, at least until Islam is gone. But that doesn't mean I ought to ignore some really bad elements to their religion and pretend they don't cause problems, especially with passages from the Talmud like in the above link.

Besides, the article also implies that the French Revolution was in fact comparable to Nazi Germany in a very negative light, and even painted the Nazis, Soviets, and Mao's China in the same negative light, so I'm very doubtful that Luddehn cared at all about the Nazis (and just as an FYI, even those so-called "loony extreme right" people utterly reject the Nazis actions to Jewish people). Somehow, I don't think someone who you indicated would want the Jews dead would specifically condemn Nazism as being the same evil as the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, and even Red China.

Posted by eotness | 7:17 PM

And just so we're clear, by until Islam's defeated, I mean, I'll leave them to their own devices, though that being said, if they decide to try and attack Christianity (and I've heard a few rabbis root for the muslims who torched Notre Dame), don't think I'm going to hold back.

Posted by eotness | 7:24 PM

" If anything, God if he entered a debate with a mortal, even a rabbi, would utterly break the opponent's mind and leave him huddled in a corner crying before the first round had even finished."

I doubt God would ever do anything like that! He debates with people in the Bible itself; for example with Abraham over Sodom and Gomorrah. And Jacob, in an ambiguous passage, is said to have wrestled with god and man and won, although that is sometimes explicated as wrestling with an angel.

Overall, the Talmud passage you quote is saying that God gave the law to man, and thereafter it is up to man to understand it without the aid of more divine revelation. It describes God as someone who wants his children to grow up and use their own minds, who does not want to be a dictator over man.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:27 AM

"I doubt God would ever do anything like that! He debates with people in the Bible itself; for example with Abraham over Sodom and Gomorrah. And Jacob, in an ambiguous passage, is said to have wrestled with god and man and won, although that is sometimes explicated as wrestling with an angel."

Regarding the Sodom and Gomorrah passage, I wasn't too fond of that passage due to it effectively implying that God essentially lied to Abraham (especially when he clearly knew since before time itself existed that Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed by his hand and there were no innocents besides Lot and his family), which essentially means God broke his own commandments.

As far as Jacob and his wrestling, quite frankly, I still don't buy that. God is explicitly described as being all-powerful, he would NOT lose to a mortal, period, even if were not to fight seriously. Mortals are weaker than God by virtue of the latter being all-powerful.

Besides, he actually HAD done that kind of thing you denied repeatedly in the Old Testament. Remember the seven plagues he inflicted onto Egypt to release the Hebrew slaves? Or how about his flooding of the Earth?

"Overall, the Talmud passage you quote is saying that God gave the law to man, and thereafter it is up to man to understand it without the aid of more divine revelation. It describes God as someone who wants his children to grow up and use their own minds, who does not want to be a dictator over man."

If that were truly the case, why did God even bother to give us the 10 commandments, or, heck, the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers for that matter? Heck, why did God even bother to ban any eating from the tree of knowledge? After all, if he merely wanted his children to grow up and especially use their own minds, don't limit them with rules or make clear he's in charge. If anything, he'd leave them lawless.

Posted by eotness | 7:44 AM

Now, an angel, I'd be a bit more willing to believe. But God himself? I'm sorry, but God is all-powerful, he simply cannot lose in a wrestling match even if he tried.

Posted by eotness | 7:56 AM

It is as if you are saying you know more about God than the Bible does. How can a Christian not ‘buy’ the word of God?

Whether or not God knows a predestined future is a live issue in theology; and the Bible does not answer that question. Did Jesus know he would be resurrected? If he did, does that lessen the meaning of his sacrifice?

God punishes people, and peoples, in the Bible for actual sins, like with the ten plagues he delivered to the Egyptians. He does not turn them into gibbering idiots because they debate with him. He wants people to debate him.

Nothing contradictory about God the Father giving law, guidance and moral principles and then stepping back; that is what all parents do. They don’t let kids run wild, but they give a good moral foundation and then encourage them to think for themselves.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:06 PM

"It is as if you are saying you know more about God than the Bible does. How can a Christian not ‘buy’ the word of God?"

I never said I don't buy the Bible or think it knows less about God, I just don't buy that particular passage. And as far as knowing more about God, I don't know more about God. He's omniscient and omnipotent, I'm not, that's more than enough to make clear that I can't even begin to grasp him, let alone more about him. But I do know that God specifically made clear in the ten commandments that lying is forbidden, and when he did that barter game with Abraham, whether he was being merciful or not, the fact of the matter is that he knew there was zero chance at Sodom and Gomorrah being redeemable yet STILL let him cling to that false hope that there were even x number of innocents in the city, which last I checked fit the definition of lying precisely, since the definition of lying is knowingly giving false information to someone. And for the record, God knowing far more than me is EXACTLY the reason I'm angered with that passage because it ultimately makes God look like a liar. He would have been a LOT more honest with him if he just did a Penance Stare at Abraham in response for him even daring to try and implement that barter game, and also reject it while citing his omniscient nature as his reason for doing so. Besides, I made clear that I was more willing to buy the idea of him beating an angel in a wrestling match than I am God being beaten by him.

"Whether or not God knows a predestined future is a live issue in theology; and the Bible does not answer that question. Did Jesus know he would be resurrected? If he did, does that lessen the meaning of his sacrifice?"

If he's omniscient, which the bible repeatedly makes clear he is, it's not even a matter of debate as to whether he knows a predestined future, since it would be impossible for an omniscient being to NOT know a predestined future. And as far as Jesus knowing the resurrection, he most likely did. In fact, the only thing he DIDN'T know, such being left to his father, is when his second coming would occur. Being aware of a predestined fate is kind of the entire POINT of being omniscient, as is making sure said fate is met up. To put it another way, omniscience is essentially, to quote Ocelot in Metal Gear Solid 2: "[The mortals'] plan was invalidated even before execution [by God]."

Posted by eotness | 7:33 PM

"God punishes people, and peoples, in the Bible for actual sins, like with the ten plagues he delivered to the Egyptians. He does not turn them into gibbering idiots because they debate with him. He wants people to debate him."

There's a big difference between God wanting people to debate him and actually being BEATEN by inferiors in said debate, and I'm pretty sure God would LOATHE to be beaten by those inferior to him (and yes, even before we ate from the tree of knowledge, we are STILL inferior to him in every way. He saw to it that we be inferior to him. Last I checked, we don't have access to comic book powers barring maybe the saints, who even they have an infinitesimal fraction of God's power, and not even Adam and Eve had access to those kinds of powers, while God most certainly does have access to those kinds of powers. Heck, even the angels have those kinds of powers, while we humans are ultimately powerless. We're his ultimate creation? From what I can tell, since the angels clearly have more access to powers than we do, we're ants compared to the angels.), if such were even possible anyways. You know that omniscient entities can NOT be outsmarted by those dumber than them, right? Same as how omnipotent people can NOT be defeated in a fight with them. It's literally impossible to do so. That's what makes that passage in the Talmud blasphemous ultimately, because a bunch of arrogant mortals just beat God in a debate, and then restrained him to such an extent that he can't do anything without a majority vote. Besides, who says turning them into gibbering idiots contradicts with him wanting them to debate him? I've seen people who genuinely want people to debate them precisely to make them gibbering idiots and relish in taking them down if they even dare try to take them on.

"Nothing contradictory about God the Father giving law, guidance and moral principles and then stepping back; that is what all parents do. They don’t let kids run wild, but they give a good moral foundation and then encourage them to think for themselves."

No, parents generally try to control their kids. And the only real way to have them think for themselves IS to have them run wild. Heck, if I were a parent, I'd give law, guidance, and moral principles to my kids specifically to micromanage their entire lives until the day I die, since the way I see it, I either micromanage my kids, or otherwise leave them to fend for themselves without even giving them any framework due to claiming they can think for themselves.

You are making God sound like an arrogant egotistical bully. And an insecure show-off. A God like that could never have written the moral code and laws of the Bible. And He would not be one deserving of worship.

I understand the desire to protect your children by micromanaging their lives. even after they become adults. But in the natural order of things, children grow up and lose their parents. If your parents had micromanaged your life in order to prevent you from making mistakes, how would you have learned the skills necessary to micromanage your own kids?

Posted by Anonymous | 7:25 PM

"You are making God sound like an arrogant egotistical bully. And an insecure show-off. A God like that could never have written the moral code and laws of the Bible. And He would not be one deserving of worship."

He'd still be deserving of worship, though, largely because we'd be dead if we don't worship Him, or worse (not to mention He really doesn't need any worship anyways, being all powerful and all-knowing without even needing any fuel to be such). Besides, it wouldn't make Him insecure at all, any more than the Patriots from Metal Gear Solid 2 were in any way insecure in this scene (and if anyone came across as insecure in those scenes based on overall behavior, it was Raiden and Solidus, the Patriots themselves in that scene came across as extremely secure in their knowledge and power, even confidently asking if Raiden deciding to choose for himself was actually something he came up on his own or just something Solid Snake told him despite him being established before then to NOT have been part of their plans, though they certainly weren't lacking in being arrogant, egotistical, or a bully): https://youtu.be/RyuquvI9S04

"I understand the desire to protect your children by micromanaging their lives. even after they become adults. But in the natural order of things, children grow up and lose their parents. If your parents had micromanaged your life in order to prevent you from making mistakes, how would you have learned the skills necessary to micromanage your own kids?"

Well, I certainly would have ultimately learned to micromanage them in repeating of what my parents did.

Posted by eotness | 7:44 PM

eotness, if your "loyalty" is borne from fear and not love, can it truly be considered loyalty?

Posted by Anonymous | 10:20 PM

"eotness, if your "loyalty" is borne from fear and not love, can it truly be considered loyalty?"

Ultimately, yes, especially in regards to an omnipotent and omniscient god whose abilities cannot be taken away from Him.

Posted by eotness | 2:15 AM

...what kind of church did you go to to get that warped lesson drilled into your head?

Posted by Anonymous | 11:52 AM

Say, what other passages in the religious texts for both Jews and Christians (of all denominations) do you consider to be either worthless or vile?

Posted by Anonymous | 9:34 PM

You're ignoring Saudi Arabia eotness?

Posted by Anonymous | 5:45 PM