The Four Color Media Monitor

How many more articles will turn up in the MSM belittling Captain America? The latest one I found doing that is on Australian Broadcasting Corp, where the staff made sure there'd be some subtle negativity included, tearing down on everything Cap's about, and Tom Brevoort made sure to provide them with some fishy comments that are equally sickening. At the beginning, for example, they tell the following about the famous premiere cover for Cap's Golden Age series:

While punching Nazis is as relevant today as it ever was, that striking image helped set the tone for Marvel Comics' "star-spangled sentinel of liberty" through to today.

But only white supremacists who aren't Islamic jihadists are valid for punching, isn't that right? So what's their point? Apparently, it's the following:

Often dismissed as a jingoistic patriot, Captain America's relationship with his own country's government over the past 80 years has been complex.

Far from being an attack dog for the US government, Captain America has often been a staunch critic of the White House, holding up a mirror to America amid the "crash" and "pow" of a comic book.

Only the most anti-American ideologues and people against freedom could truly dismiss Steve Rogers, and no matter how far to the left the writers veer, chances are highly likely they don't spend a penny on the stories. Those ideologues could easily include the very journalists who published this subtle propaganda for the TV network.

As for being critical of the White House? Fine. But if only right-wingers are permitted to undergo censure, that's hypocritical, and ruins whatever valid argument you could get out of a superhero willing to speak his mind. And now, here's Brevoort, acting reprehensible as usual, while talking about the premiere cover where Cap smashed Hitler in the jaw:

Some members of the public were less enthused.

"It's kind of difficult in the context of today to remember what a provocative image [that front cover] was," Marvel Comics senior vice-president of publishing Tom Brevoort recently told a panel to mark Cap's 80th anniversary.

"In a modern-day context this is like Cap punching [Angela] Merkel in the face — this was a sitting head of state of another country.

"But both Simon and Kirby and Martin Goodman … were aware of the things that were going on in Europe with the rise of Hitler and Nazism and in their way they wanted to proselytise that the United States should probably be involved in that conflict and on the right side of that conflict.

What a peculiar thing to say, alright. Comparing Hitler to Merkel? She may be one of the worst politicians in modern Germany, but it's not for the reasons Brevoort must think. It's because she's allowed the new fascism to take root in the country, namely, Islamofascism, and it certainly led to as many horrors there as it did in the rest of Europe. Actually, what's disturbing here is Brevoort appears to be minimizing the seriousness of the era, pretending it was entirely wrong to raid Germany and defeat the National Socialist monster built there at the time. His stealth propaganda is offensive.

Simon and Kirby got death threats from American Nazi sympathisers, and extra security had to be arranged for them.

"But that didn't stop us," Simon said.

"If anything, it added fuel to the fire."

But as I may have noted before in past years, there's no chance today they'd get that kind of protection, and possibly less than Charlie Hebdo's staff actually did, nor would Kirby/Simon be allowed to write stories combatting Islamic jihadism. As seen in Jon Ney Reiber's 2003 Marvel Knights run, only stories apologizing for it are actually allowed. When the Silver/Bronze Ages come up:

Brevoort said Lee "had figured out what a modern take on Captain America was going to be" — a combination of a man living in a time he didn't understand while haunted by the war he had somehow survived.

Big talk from somebody who doesn't understand anything about any era. His comments involving Hitler and Merkel were offensive, and suggest something very unbearably grimy abound. Let's remember Brevoort was somebody who downplayed communism a number of years ago.

As Marvel Comics editor-in-chief C.B. Cebulski noted at the 80th-anniversary panel, Lee kept Simon and Kirby's notion of Captain America battling the social injustices of the day.

"Captain America is a reflection of the world outside your window … always tied around what was going on in the world at the time," Cebulski said.

Brevoort noted that timeliness had a strong impact on the character, especially in the late '60s – early '70s.

"[That was] not a great period for Captain America, largely because of what was going on in the country [with] the Vietnam War and the opposition to that war," Brevoort said.

"So while Captain America on the surface seemed to be a very 'ra-ra, my country right or wrong' sort of a figure, Stan [Lee] and the people he was working with … began to try to add a little bit more nuance … to make him question whether his country was always right.

And men like Brevoort took that angle way too far years later, when they made it far more of a case where he'd question right-leaning governments, or worse, whether Islamic terrorists were literally funded by and working for the US government, in one of the worst cases of 9-11 Trutherism when the Knights imprint came about (I seem to recall the 2008 Iron Man movie did something vaguely similar). Is that what Cebulski considers the world outside our window? It's one thing to question whether your country is right or wrong. It's another to sugarcoat evil ideologies, communism included. Look what horrible effect it's had on the USA in modern times, not the least being universities that allow partisan politics to be taught on campus. And Brevoort's just carrying it on.

Brevoort said an example of Captain America's "questioning" can be found in issue #130, where Cap is asked to help police quell a demonstration but "actually stands side-by-side with the protesters rather than the establishment".

Well if it was a non-violent demonstration, as opposed to some of the more horrific shows of mayhem seen in recent times by leftist perpetrators, then no problem with Cap siding with protestors. And there is a valid argument that during the Vietnam era, the government wasn't even trying to win the war convincingly. Otherwise, they would've raided northern 'Nam where the Viet Cong's HQ was mainly located. But if a war against evil is either being waged convincingly, or efforts are made, a la the Abraham Accords, to make peace without violence, then surely that's not something to appreciate? Much of the left doesn't seem to have what it takes to answer those kind of queries.

I think it's also worth commenting on what Brevoort says about the time when Cap went through the original Secret Empire storyline, at the time of Watergate:

Soon after, against the backdrop of Watergate, Marvel wrote a storyline that saw Captain America and his African-American partner Sam Wilson (AKA The Falcon) pursue a shadowy organisation called The Secret Empire.

They finally confront the group's leader in the Oval Office in the White House, where Captain America unmasks him dramatically.

"He's never shown, but it's clear from context that he's meant to be Richard Nixon, president of the United States, and to prevent Cap from taking him in and forcing him to be locked up in disgrace, he … [kills] himself," Brevoort explained.

Really? I think there's sufficient room to question this as well, even as Marvel and DC did occasionally feature allusions to real life politicians in their pages. Consider: there were always fictional politicians featured over the years as well - an approach the most notable manga in Japan are surely known for - and how do we know it wasn't meant to be simply a fictional form of premier? Besides, to use real life figures in such context could be considered objectionable even by most leftists. Why does Brevoort think it was truly Nixon in the silhouette? Just because the figure was shrouded doesn't prove indefinitely it was meant to be him.

And then, look what comes next, but Civil War, whose metaphors were in downright poor taste:

The biggest display of this stance in post-9/11 comics came in the Civil War storyline, in which the US government asked superheroes to renounce their independence and to register as government agents in the wake of a tragedy.

The plot began as a metaphor for the Patriot Act and explored the notion of freedom vs security, mirroring a real debate of the time.

Civil War split superheroes into two camps, with Iron Man leading the pro-registration side and Captain America opposing the government.

As Civil War writer Mark Millar put it at the time, "there's a certain amount of political allegory in a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag is in chains as the people swap freedom for security".

Brevoort said it was another opportunity for Captain America to ask whether he could trust his government.

"Captain America had to contemplate what was right and what was wrong, what was being a defender of the nation and what was tyranny, who were the enemies that were around them, and how to deal with battling and fighting a war in this new world," he said.

And this is obscuring the issue of Islamic terrorism, to say nothing of how it led to thousands being murdered in one day. I wonder why, if anything, we're supposed to ignore the seriousness of that issue in favor of the disgust of seeing superheroes on opposing sides regarding the safety of the innocent members of the public they're supposed to protect? Do they also think 9-11 was an "inside job" in every way? And why don't they mention the New Warriors had something to do with the tragedy not specified in the article?

When the Civil War comics inspired the film Captain America: Civil War, elements changed — the United Nations were the ones seeking superhero registration, not the US government — but the core principles remained the same.

Cap, once again, argued he couldn't trust big government-style organisations "run by people with agendas" because "agendas change".

"What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?" he tells Tony Stark AKA Iron Man in the film.

"What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us?

It may make more sense for the UN to serve as the political baddie (and there was a story in the early 90s where the Avengers made a deal with the UN to focus more on cosmic menaces), seeing how they enabled terrorism for years, still are, and had an alarming sex abuse scandal in the past, but I still think basing the film even remotely on such an awful story is in poor taste. You could say the changes were merely done according to how commercial viewpoints were maintained at the time, something which may have since changed for the worse. But the storyline that really went overboard was 2017's Secret Empire crossover, cited toward the end:

When Marvel revealed Captain America as a secret Hydra agent in 2018 (for reasons too crazy, complex and comic-booky to explain here), it angered fans because it stripped Cap of his true superpower — his unwavering dedication to truth, justice, and what is right.

And if they don't find that troubling, what does that say about their respect for the creation and creators? They fail to acknowledge the company's offense to fans was deliberate, and won't ask whether the editors and writers in charge of the awful story should be removed from their posts (even though one of them, former EIC Axel Alonso, was). And they don't ask whether it'd be inspiring if Steve Rogers were to combat Islamic jihadism for a change. Because that's too political for them. Even as they absurdly use all sorts of stories dating back to the Golden Age to claim comics have always been political, yet only select viewpoints are acceptable in their PC-influenced mindsets. And the network repeats the obfuscation of fiction versus reality with the "reveal" nonsense.

Labels: bad editors, Captain America, islam and jihad, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics, terrorism