Federalist writer Eddie Scarry lets his hostility to Israel poke through the seams

Here's another example of how the Federalist's writers are going downhill, as their contributor Eddie Scarry, in pretending neo-cons are truly the ones against J.D. Vance, goes so far as to attack support for Israel from the right-wing side, and perpetuates the RINO opposition to the war on Iran's dictatorship:

Worth slightly more attention is what Thiessen wrote this week in The Washington Post. Recall that Thiessen is the Post content creator and former George W. Bush speechwriter whom Trump, for inexplicable reasons that may be explained in the future, has reportedly been reading and consulting privately about foreign affairs. Thiessen took an opportunity on Thursday to continue the very obviously coordinated attack on Vance planned by a slimy mix of neocons, lazy Republicans, and Israel Firsters.

Evaluating the Iran war, which has grown increasingly unpopular, even among Republicans, Thiessen wrote, “Perhaps it’s time for the president to take the advice of those who have delivered him success in Iran — not those like Vance who have failed him.”

Thiessen blames the failures in Iran not on what certainly look like short-sighted decisions by the commander in chief, but on Vance, whose primary responsibility in the conflict has been negotiating its end with Iran’s leaders. That’s at least honest. But let’s look at what Thiessen says a real victory, without any negotiation, would look like.

He wrote that the war’s objectives are: “eliminate remaining [Iranian] leadership figures; further entomb Iran’s nuclear sites; take out Iran’s remaining ballistic missile sites; destroy the economic and energy infrastructure that provides the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a financial lifeline, as well as key highways, railroads, airports and seaports by which the regime gets financial assistance from bordering countries; and demolish Iran’s remaining defense industrial base so it cannot rebuild its destroyed capabilities.” Then, with presumably a straight face, Thiessen said, “That’s it.”

Oh, is that all?!

Well, not really. Thiessen, perhaps to his credit, didn’t even pretend to hide the ball. Though having concluded, “That’s it” — just the complete decimation of a global energy supplier’s entire transportation infrastructure and economy — Thiessen went on to do the equivalent of, But wait! There’s more! He then said the U.S. would simply have to commit to keeping American troops just off the shore of Iran in perpetuity and “provide covert support” to Iranian rebels, in hopes that they might fight their own government. You know, just like they are now! Wait, that’s not actually happening, is it? Oh well!

Mr. Scarry ignores so much of previous research it's not even funny. He relies on reports from the otherwise shoddy AP Wire, doesn't pay any attention to the Tea Party Patriots research on the USA public's support for the war, and even ignores that much of the Iranian inhabitants are unarmed, making it difficult to fight against the Iranian government savages. If that's how Scarry's going to act, can somebody like that be counted on to fight against the Islamofascist regime being established in Europe? Or even the USA itself?

With this, the Federalist continues to send troubling signs they're not dedicated to freedom and liberty any more than say, Ron Paul, who was probably the role model for some of their more questionable writers. It's utterly head-shaking as it's sad they're becoming as overrun with phonies like Scarry, much like the Democrats are becoming overrun with Islamists and communists.

Joe Sacco minimizes the seriousness of Islamic terror in India

The Washington Post wrote some fluff-coated takes on GNs published this year, and it includes one by the anti-Israel cartoonist Joe Sacco, who's now apparently trying to downplay the seriousness of Islamic terrorism in India, in the pages of a GN titled "Once and Future Riot":

For decades, Sacco has carved out a space for rigorous, fact-based journalism in comics, with books on the Palestinian territories, the Bosnian war and other topics. Here he examines the Muzaffarnagar riots that tore through Uttar Pradesh, India, in 2013. Interviewing survivors and perpetrators on both sides, he carefully depicts how relations between the region’s Hindu and Muslim communities broke down. In the process of telling the story of these few days of violence and pain, he lays out a larger narrative about the rise of Hindu nationalism that is all the more troubling for the evenhanded way he explains it.

When he attacks Indian nationalism, it's harder to believe his approach is "evenhanded", especially when the following panel suggests otherwise:

So the Muslim figure on the panel is denying there's such a thing as "love jihad", even though there have been cases of this occurring in what could be described as one of the worst forms of coercion, and attempts to force women to convert to Islam. Also notice how the panel depicts non-Muslims attacking one who is Muslim, and it's set up to make it look like they're doing it out of false accusations. What "careful depictions" is Sacco working on here? This is shameful, right down to how the non-Muslims assaulting the Islamist are made to look nasty, while the cleric, by contrast, is depicted as calm and sympathetic. The riots in Muzaffarnagar were sparked by the murder of 2 men by 7 culprits who were Islamists (and certainly had names often used by followers of the Religion of Peace), and were handed down sentences eventually for their repugnant crimes. It won't be shocking if Sacco obfuscated all that. What's drawn in the panel is anything but "fact-based".

Sacco continues to prove he's one of the worst pro-Islam propagandists in the political comics business, and I hesitate to think what disfavors he's done for 9-11 survivors in the USA in the near quarter century since the tragedy in NYC. The Wash. Post is similarly doing disfavors by sugarcoating his works, and only make clear they're one of the worst papers to talk about the comics medium in any format.

Wash. Post admits Hamas is to blame

In a rare instance of willingness to acknowledge savages are to blame for causing a "cease-fire" to collapse, the Washington Post admits the Hamas is the one at fault here, but that's otherwise all:

After just a week, the fragile Gaza peace is fraying. Israel halted the transfer of aid to Gaza on Sunday and launched airstrikes after it said Hamas fighters killed two Israeli soldiers. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have threatened to withhold reconstruction funds so long as Hamas stays in power. Given the continued barbarity of Hamas, a happy future for the people of Gaza is probably out of reach in the near term. Yet full war is also unlikely to resume.

Consider this a win for President Donald Trump, who brought about the ceasefire. It’s also an acceptable outcome for Israel, which has seen the return of all living hostages. And, perhaps most important, this might the best anyone can really hope for in the Middle East.

Naturally, they vehemently refuse to acknowledge Islam's got any accountability here, and if they don't think it should stop being indoctrinated, then no wonder nobody can hope for much in the middle east. And of course, they fail to acknowledge that any crowds in Gaza who cheer when alleged collaborators with Israel are murdered execution style by the Hamas only make clear they're as barbaric as the overlords are. One of the biggest tragedies in this case is that the Gazan Muslims are "happy", but for all the wrong reasons. If any of them are leaving for other countries, hopefully ones like the UAE and even Indonesia, it'll be far better as a result.

The Islamic response to Charlie Kirk's murder was sadly predictable

In the few days now since the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, it's been discovered, far from surprisingly, that Muslim activists have only responded to the terrible incident with nothing but hatred:

The warped but inventive minds that make up the U.S. Islamist movement have been busy the last few days, trying to get some traction on social media and pile on the hate for Charlie Kirk.

It's Islamists, so the very first thing that comes to mind is "conspiracy."

Daniel Haqiqatjou, founder of Muslim Skeptic, blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for Kirk's death.

Haqiqatjou took the standard left-wing line that Trump was going to use Kirk's death as a sort of "Reichstag Fire" to begin a general crackdown.

Haqiqatjou added in another post that Charlie Kirk was murdered as a result of a "Zionist conspiracy." The nutcase failed to explain how Kirk, a huge supporter of Israel, as he pointed out earlier, could be a victim of "Zionists." [...]

The U.K. Islamist news outlet 5Pillars gloated over Kirk's death, criticizing him for his statement that Islamic values are incompatible with Western values, and asserting, “It’s not Islamophobia to notice that Muslims want to import values into the West that seek to destabilize our civilization.”

None of this is surprising, although the idiocy of positing Netanyahu's involvement in the assassination should disabuse those who believe Islamists are rational players who can live in peace with the West. Their notions of individual liberty are either absent or so skewed as to be unrecognizable. Their tolerance of other religions doesn't exist. And let's not even discuss the way they treat women like cattle.

This is all truly obscene, and decidedly calls for a lawsuit by the Kirk family against the Religion of Peace adherents who defamed the poor guy for daring to state facts. There've been a lot of leftists who lost jobs for making offensive comments about the Kirk murder, with one of the most prominent being Matthew Dowd, now formerly of MSNBC news. All responsible businesses in the USA and elsewhere who wish to retain a responsible image should also make sure to distance themselves from any Islamists who've done anything similar.

Hen Mazzig's offensive moral equations

About 2 months ago, the leftist homosexual journalist Hen Mazzig, who already did something bad enough by attacking Abigail Shrier for defending girls, Jewish or otherwise, from LGBT operations similar to the violence Hamas committed on October 7, 2023, wrote apologia for Muslims in Gaza in the Jewish Exponent where he says they shouldn't be "displaced" from the Gaza strip, obscuring that they disqualified themselves of the privilege of remaining:

I grew up on stories of exile. My family was forced out of Iraq and Tunisia for being Jewish — homes stolen, communities erased and history rewritten. To this day, too many people insist it was “voluntary migration,” as if nearly a million Jews in Arab lands simply woke up one morning and decided to leave behind centuries of roots, culture and history.

I’ve spent years pushing back against that erasure, making it clear that my family — and so many others — were forced to leave. And yet, today, I see a disturbing echo of that same denial. The same people who overlooked Mizrahi Jews’ suffering are now casually advocating for the forced displacement of Palestinians as “the only option” to deal with Hamas’ terror.

I get the disgusted feeling he's implying right-wingers "overlooked" eastern Jews' plight? Well that's awfully rich coming from somebody who doesn't seem to have much respect for women. This certainly obscures how the Menachem Begin government did its best to help people of such backgrounds, and suggests Mr. Mazzig's political leanings are impeding his ability to appreciate that. Of course, it's also possible he's implying the left as of now is advocating for moving out what Mazzig blatantly calls "palestianians", and can't stand if anybody on his end of the spectrum is supporting what's best worked on, which is to send away products of Islamic indoctrination who tragically were all on Hamas' side 2 years before, to a distance that would be best remained at.

Reactions to President Donald Trump’s statement last week about removing Palestinians from Gaza ranged from some voices applauding it as a necessary step — one online commentator even told me it was time to “try something new to solve this conflict” — to anti-Israel activists using it as “evidence” of Israeli intentions, to extremists on both sides seizing it to justify their absolutist solutions for this conflict.

I see things differently, because I don’t have to imagine what forced displacement does to a people. I see it in my own family, even 75 years later. My grandmother still speaks of Baghdad — not just as a city, but as her other homeland that was taken from her. The trauma of being uprooted never left her, nor did the deep pain of knowing that an entire world of Jewish life in Iraq was erased in a single generation. Yes, we rebuilt. Yes, Israel gave my family refuge. But what was lost can never be fully regained.

This is what’s missing from the argument that Palestinians would be “better off” leaving Gaza — that they would have safer, more comfortable lives if they were resettled elsewhere. It’s the same logic that was used to justify the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. And while my family may have found security in Israel, that doesn’t mean the original trauma was justified. Nor does it account for the cultural and communal annihilation that came with it.

This entirely obscures the evils of Islam, which I sadly guess Mr. Mazzig isn't even the slightest bit willing to acknowledge, and even if he studied the Koran's contents, chances are it makes no difference to him. He continues with his shoddy obfuscations:

The destruction of Gaza under Hamas’ rule is undeniable. But forced displacement doesn’t solve that problem — it only ensures that the pain and resentment of this war will last for generations. I am not blind to the fact that anti-Zionists today demand the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. Not only is that hateful, but it fundamentally denies the Jewish people’s historic connection to the land of Israel. That’s racism. And it’s unacceptable.

Indeed, the loudest voices in the “Free Palestine” movement aren’t calling for a two-state solution. They’re not talking about peace. They want Israel gone. They want Jewish sovereignty erased. They don’t see Oct. 7 as an atrocity — they see it as a model.

But you don’t fight anti-Zionist eliminationism with eliminationist rhetoric of your own. You don’t counter the fantasy of erasing Israel by proposing the same for Gaza.

That’s not strength. That’s surrender — to the idea that this is a zero-sum war where one side must be erased for the other to survive.

And I guess it's weakness to look for the cause of the hatred driving Muslim adherents, right?

I am not talking about efforts — if they exist — to give Gazans who wish to seek refuge elsewhere the ability to do so. That is their right. I am talking about the fantasy that all Palestinians in Gaza will be wiped out or relocated to some as-yet-undetermined place, as if that were a serious solution.

Of course, the plan to displace Gazans that Trump floated, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, is unlikely to end up getting carried out.

Let’s be honest: Relocating Palestinians from Gaza is never going to happen. No Arab country will get on board. Saudi Arabia rushed to release a statement making it clear they won’t normalize relations with Israel without a Palestinian state. Egypt and Jordan have always said they won’t take in Palestinians from Gaza. No American administration — least of all one that ran on ending wars and tightening borders — will commit troops to enforce it or open the gates to Palestinian refugees.

This is political theater.

And this is defeatism on Mazzig's part. Mainly because the Jordanian king has so far shown the willingness to take in children of families who need medical care, and there are more who'll be relocating to Indonesia. But Mazzig, in all his moral equivalence, won't show any appreciation, will he? And of course, he avoids any reference to the Religion of Peace. He definitely doesn't speak of it negatively. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in making a case for sending a message to Arab countries that they should take in these so-called palestinians, whose very name draws from one given to Israel by the Roman empire, and Mazzig obscures that entirely.

We’ve seen this play before. Netanyahu and Trump previously dangled West Bank annexation only to “concede” it in exchange for the Abraham Accords. Now, Trump is floating this logistical insanity — likely knowing it will never happen — to position himself as the only one who can “negotiate it down.”

But here’s the real danger: While world leaders understand this is just bluster, the people watching — especially online — think it’s real. And that’s a serious threat to us.

Because Mr. Mazzig wants it to be. He's obviously anti-Trump, just like he's anti-Netanyahu. And if he thinks western conservatives are the root cause of all evil, and can't acknowledge even liberals make mistakes, that's just the problem Mazzig has failed to prove he can rise above.

Because when these extreme ideas enter the mainstream, they don’t just fade away. They stick. They fuel conspiracies. They get used to paint all Jews as complicit in a plan that doesn’t even exist. And once again, we become the scapegoat.

Political leaders pushing these ideas aren’t protecting Jews. They’re making us targets. Jews deserve better than to be associated with unrealistic, cruel proposals that will almost certainly never happen but will absolutely be used against us.

And if there’s one thing I know from my family’s history, it’s that displacement only creates new wounds; it does not heal old ones. The Jews who were expelled from Arab lands never found justice, and Palestinians won’t either if they are forcibly removed from Gaza.

Hamas started this war. Hamas is responsible for this war. But the people in Gaza shouldn’t have to pay for a tyranny that rules over them with an iron fist. Many of them, as we’ve seen from footage throughout this war, oppose Hamas and do not want to live under their control.

And we deserve better than to have leftists like Mazzig lecture us with cowardice. This reeks of blood libels anti-Israel propagandists use, to imply that Israel is literally guilty of tyrannizing Gazans entirely without justification. And ignores all the barbaric acts committed in the name of the Religion of Peace, to say nothing of how many Muslims in Gaza were indoctrinated with Hitler's Mein Kamph, translated into Arabic. That Mazzig apparently obscured such horrific discoveries speaks volumes, and the same goes for how he obscures the celebrations the Gazan Muslims had after October 7, 2023. The Islamofascists in Gaza also celebrated September 11, 2001, and Mazzig doesn't dwell on that either. What does that say about what kind of person Mr. Mazzig is?

The more we entertain the idea that one side must be erased for the other to live, the further we get from any future that isn’t defined by endless war.

There are no magic wands here. No shortcuts. And no amount of forced migration — of Jews or Palestinians — will bring the peace we all deserve.

The only way forward is to dismantle Hamas, empower Palestinian leaders who reject extremism and invest in a long-term solution where both peoples can live with security, dignity and self-determination — without adding to the traumas that must be overcome another episode of ethnic cleansing like what my family experienced.

And the more we vehmently refuse to discuss the content of the Koran/Hadith, and vehemently refuse to acknowledge that the modern claim of a "palestinian state" was an anti-Israel fabrication, the less likely we are to solve a terrible problem. Oh, and has Mr. Mazzig ever spoken in defense of black Africans who were victim of Islamofascism in Africa? Or victims of honor murders? He also doesn't seem particularly concerned about Islamic hostility to homosexuality, this despite Mazzig himself being homosexual. He also obscures how Gaza is really Israeli land, and this makes him no better than say, the phony conservative Ed Morrissey.

Mazzig has only proven himself one of the biggest hinderances to Israel, and if he hasn't apologized to the aforementioned Shrier, that's another serious error he's made.

VanCAF apologizes to artist Miriam Libicki for blacklisting her over her Israeli army service

A few days after the disgusting news that the Vancouver Comic Arts Festival in Canada banned artist Miriam Libicki over her service in the Israeli army, her left-wing positions notwithstanding, the Times of Israel/JTA now reports the convention's apologized for their abominable behavior, which did as much a disfavor to WW2 Holocaust and 9-11 victims as it did to victims of the Hamas on October 7, 2023:

A Vancouver comics festival apologized to a Jewish artist it had banned over her past Israeli military service and a Seattle museum announced it was recommitting to an exhibit on antisemitism that prompted a staff walkout, in two reversals of North American arts-world sanctions connected to the Israel-Hamas war.

Both the Vancouver Comic Arts Festival in Canada and the Wing Luke Museum in the United States had faced significant backlash over the actions they took because of pro-Palestinian activism.

“VanCAF has lost and continues to lose the trust of many we have sought to serve,” the Vancouver festival said in a social media apology late Sunday, days after announcing that it was banning American-Israeli comics artist Miriam Libicki following activist complaints over her past IDF service.

The festival didn’t name Libicki in either its initial statement banning her — which it quickly removed from social media following backlash — or its lengthy new apology. But the ban referenced Libicki’s previous IDF service, which she has turned into a comic, while the apology referenced another specific work of hers: “But I Live,” a collaboration with Holocaust survivors.

After criticism from both Libicki and leaders of major Canadian Jewish institutions, VanCAF said in its apology that “the vast majority” of people involved in the ban have resigned from its board. The group said it was entering a new “transition period” as a result of the fallout, and added that it has no full-time staff and it is entirely volunteer-run.

Those who left the convention's board are no loss, and do not belong in the entertainment business in any way, shape or form. Yet even now, much like Bud Light's transsexual scandal a few years ago, maybe anybody planning to boycott VanCAF should continue to do so, and definitely sit out this year's festival, which, for all we know, could end up being the last, if sponsors wise up and pull funding for them.

“Conflating the political with the practical safety of those attending our festival was the wrong stance to take,” the apology noted. VanCAF said it had issued the ban as a result of safety concerns after deeming that pro-Palestinian backlash to Libicki’s presence at its last two festivals had created a “volatile atmosphere.”

(A synagogue in Vancouver was targeted in an arson attack last week, elevating alarm after shooting attacks on Jewish sites in Toronto and Montreal. Authorities in Vancouver are investigating the arson as a hate crime.)

VanCAF is one of a growing number of arts institutions to face turmoil over the war sparked by Hamas’s October 7 attack, which has left some Jews feeling uncertain about their place in the arts world.

In Seattle, the Wing Luke Museum, an Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander heritage museum in Chinatown, will move forward with an exhibition on how the region’s Asian, Jewish and Black communities have all jointly responded to hate. The announcement came days after several museum staffers walked off the job, objecting to what they said were “Zionist perspectives” in the exhibit; the museum had temporarily shuttered following the walkout.

“We remain committed to the exhibit’s core message of confronting hate,” the museum said in a joint statement with the Washington State Jewish Historical Society, an exhibit partner, and the Black Heritage Society. “We acknowledge the complexity of this deeply challenging work. We understand that the bigotry, bias, and racism that affects our communities goes well beyond us to touch many. Though recent events have caused significant harm, we are undeterred.”

The three groups also said they would make some unspecified changes to the content, “offering additional framing on its genesis, the initial public reaction, and the history of our communities working together” before the exhibit reopens June 30. Staff had objected to some of the exhibit’s descriptions of modern-day antisemitism, including the inclusion of campus protests over October 7, and had demanded that the museum make changes including acknowledging a lack of Palestinian perspectives. The exhibit had been in the works since before October 7.

If the aforementioned pro-palestinians who caused a ruckus were to antagonize early comics contributors like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster (one of whom was Canadian-born), were they still alive today, would that sit well with VanCAF's management, which committed an act of cowardice if the above news is correct? What they should really be doing is hiring security to keep out any and all of these obsessed troublemakers, and should be vetting all workers they hire to make sure they're not obsessed with censoring anything positive in regards to Israel, and/or censoring any objective and critical view of Islam. There's a cartoonist named Bosch Fawstin, who's a former Muslim from regions like Albania, who's bravely criticized the Religion of Peace which he left, and people like him, tragically, are blacklisted by these pretentious festivals. All this cowardly panic is not helping to defeat jihadism at all, and the failure to seriously confront issues like Islamic terrorism have the effect of making movies and comics about the Holocaust look like a joke. If modern showbiz writers won't confront a modern issue, how can we believe they really care about a past one? Also consider issues like the Korean and Vietnam wars practically vanished from entertainment nearly 3 decades ago, are rarely discussed since, and WW1-related issues like the Armenian Genocide by Turkey's Islamic Ottoman empire, are also banned from study, in film, comics and other mediums in the west. This is exactly why the war against terrorism's been lost for many years.

For now, it remains to be seen if the "unspecified changes" the aforementioned groups announced they'd make will be honest ones. And if they continue to tiptoe around serious issues, they've effectively failed their mission, and VanCAF should continue to be boycotted to boot.

Joe Sacco's anti-Israel graphic novel is going back to press

The UK Guardian, a very bad MSM outlet themselves, published a puff piece about Joe Sacco's GN titled "Palestine", which was intended as anti-Israel propaganda, and is now seeing new print, clearly for the sake of obscuring the Hamas' savagery on October 7, and pandering to the crowd of creeps supporting them:

An acclaimed nonfiction graphic novel about Gaza, which pioneered the medium of “comics journalism”, has been rushed back into print after surging demand since the fresh outbreak of the conflict two months ago.

Palestine, by Joe Sacco, was originally released in comic book form by the American publisher Fantagraphics 30 years ago, then published as a single volume by the company, and by Jonathan Cape in the UK in 2003.

It was created by Sacco, a Maltese American journalist and cartoonist from Portland, Oregon, as a record of his own journeys around Gaza in 1991, and has since then won a clutch of awards and been included on university courses as a primer for the whole conflict. Edward Said, the Palestinian American academic and critic, said in his introduction to the book: “With the exception of one or two novelists and poets, no one has ever rendered this terrible state of affairs better than Joe Sacco.”

Gary Groth, the co-founder of Fantagraphics, said that after the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombing of Gaza demand for the book had soared.

He said, “We blew out of our inventory of several thousand copies quickly and are reprinting now. Retailers and wholesalers began ordering the book in far greater quantities than in the recent past, which indicates that every element down the chain – consumers and retailers – are expressing demand for it.”

Well, this is certainly telling about Groth to boot, the same disgrace and shame who did a sugarcoated interview with Maurice Sendak years ago. Of course, one must also wonder where any and all comic retailers stand on a subject involving Stan Lee, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Jack Kirby, Joe Simon, Will Eisner and Gil Kane's Israeli brethren. If any are seeking to capitalize on the tragedy that struck many Jewish women and children in particular, that's offensive in the extreme, and they have no business associating even remotely with the creations of famous Jewish artists. Sacco, along with the article writer, makes clear he remains sympathetic to followers of Islam, and shows no sign of horror over what followers of the Religion of Peace in Gaza did to innocent and defenseless women and children. That's what really makes this Guardian article repulsive. Unshockingly, they didn't even see fit to mention that Edward Said falsified his history. None of which matters to Sacco, sadly, nor to Groth. I absolutely do not want to buy from Fantagraphics if this is the kind of graphic novels they're going to market.

And Sacco's GN didn't so much pioneer comics journalism as it did propaganda, and exploiting the medium for that specific goal. It's sickening to think how many GNs of this sort came down the pike in the past 2 decades that did more harm than good for the comics medium's image overall regarding political issues.

More reasons westerners shouldn't be fooled by Muslim opposition to LGBTQ ideology

Christine Williams and Frank Gaffney spoke about how there's Christians who've partnered with Muslims to oppose LGBTQ indoctrination in USA public schools, and why it's ill-advised to believe the Religion of Peace actually respects values other than its own alleged ones:

As the alliance between opponents of the aggressive LGBTQ++ agenda and Muslims grows, Westerners have been quick to see that Muslim groups get the results that Christians have been unable to gain so effectively on their own. Christians are generally not confrontational and are easy targets, as we saw in Alberta, Canada, when Pastor Derek Reimer was thrown in jail for “hate” after protesting a drag show for kids at a local library. Greater awareness about the alliance with Muslim groups is prudent. While Christians and Muslims can agree about the abhorrent imposition of the trans agenda, as well as the open nudity and vulgarity of some members of the LGBTQ++ community, there are other points of divergence that should be considered.

To start with, in the coverage by mainstream media — which is notorious for its lack of knowledge about Islamic tenets and laws — some have been describing Muslims who oppose the LGBTQ++ agenda as “conservative Muslims.” The term “conservative Muslims” has nothing to do with Western notions of conservatism and/or partisanship; it has everything to do with a Muslims’ level of dedication to Islamic law (the Sharia), and is a term usually reserved for describing the likes of Iranian mullahs, the Taliban and Salafists in general. The misuse of the term “conservative Muslims” in the mainstream media creates the deceptive impression that these Muslims are supporters of Western conservatism or parties that support conservatism. Most of these activist Muslims against the LGBTQ++ agenda are more likely still Democrats or Liberals, given the long established Islamic/Left alliance. There are indeed some Muslims who are aligned with Western conservatism. [...]

But the focus of this Preamble and of the interview below is not the Muslims who stand in unity with non-Muslims for religious freedom and equal rights for all. The focus is on those Muslims who are aligned with Sharia tenets, held by those ranging in beliefs from that of the Iranian regime and the Taliban, to the Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Westerners need to be aware that the LGBTQ++ woke aggression will be used and is being used as a launching pad for the expansion of the scope of the Sharia.

Read the whole item. This is exactly what I'd thought about myself after seeing some of these cases which, to be sure, aren't limited to just the USA-Canada, where Islamists are getting the results Judeo-Christians aren't getting at ease themselves. Those who blindly align with Islam no matter the exact beliefs of specific movements of the Religion of Peace's adherents are running the gauntlet of granting legitimacy to Islam it doesn't deserve, and that's exactly why Judeo-Christian adherents who're realists would do better not to align with Islamists on the LGBTQ issue at all. Glad to see Williams and Gaffney both recognize what's troubling about the situation here.

Islamist in Europe creates transsexual Muslim superhero

In this interview on Yahoo UK, originally from a European LGBT news source, a writer who may be a Muslim came up with something that's unlikely to please all followers of the Religion of Peace, even if it's meant to serve as some kind of bizarre virtue-signaling propaganda for whitewashing Islam:

David Ferguson chatted to Bijhan Agha, creator of the new science-fiction comic Time Wars: the Adventures of Kobra Olympus, which centres around a young gay, trans and Muslim character. He found out more about Agha’s influences, the comic’s story and the Kickstarter campaign to fund the project.

As this is a comic book project, what comics did you like growing up?

You know, I didn’t have a lot of money growing up, and by the ’90s, the cost of comics was quite high relative to the page count. So I didn’t get to read a lot of the comics which were being printed at the time.

But we had a local library, the White Center branch of the King County Library System, where they would have these thick comic book reprints using just the black line artwork on cheap yellow paper. These things had to have at least a hundred issues in each volume.

This is where I experienced the classics. Spider-Man from the 1960s. Justice League from the 1970s. Ninja Turtles and X-Men from the 1980s. But the one that influenced me the most, as a young queer person, was the Wonder Woman comic compendium from the 1940s.

What influenced you about these comics, in a good or possibly bad way?

In all comics, I loved the sense of wonder and imagination. There was no attempt to anchor the storytelling in our own world, allowing for a sophisticated and unpredictable mythology. Yet at the same time, the emotional reality of the characters was crystal clear, allowing you to perfectly understand what they were going through.

In Wonder Woman, in particular, I found a celebration of femininity and a clear thesis on what feminine leadership looks like compared to masculine leadership. This message was planted in me like a seed that wouldn’t sprout until I was much older.

One must wonder what could possibly have impressed upon this writer in WW, seeing how such a classic Golden Age creation didn't emphasize the kind of perversions we see today, where femininity is being villified in women, yet elevated in men. Not to mention that the Religion of Peace practically disrespects femininity when it demands women wear burkas/chadors/abayas at the expense of their health. And the writer of this comic adds insult to injury by emphasizing something WW didn't celebrate decades ago.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with your comic Time Wars: the Adventures of Kobra Olympus, what would be your ‘elevator pitch’ to readers?

Time Wars is a universe in which time travellers from the 161st century are coming back in time to help us in the past wage a covert war against the Vampires who are manipulating history to create inequality and strife. Kobra Olympus is a young gay trans and Muslim woman who has been recruited by a time-travelling agent to use technology from the future to fight literal monsters who live in the shadows of society.

What if it turns out those "monsters" are metaphors for non-Muslims? Then this is a most hypocritical production, because it'd be elevating Islam and transsexuality for sainthood, while making "infidels" out to be the baddies. This reminds me of a report on a Muslim "scholar" who accused Jews of what the comic tells about. In that case, what if it turns out these vampires are metaphors for Jews? Shudder.

I adore cinema and television, and I would love to write for them in the future. But my experience with comic book adaptations and the “cinemafication” of comics leads me to believe that the story being told must fit the medium.

The medium, as they say, often is the message. For that reason, I tried to abstain from channelling the language of cinema into the comic, and focused on literary and comic inspiration.

This sounds like more virtue-signaling from somebody who read Sean Howe's past commentaries on how too much cinematic approach has ruined modern comicdom, and wants to make it sound like a follower of the Religion of Peace actually respects arguments made by people with far better understandings of what went wrong with comicdom. In other words, we're literally supposed to embrace and adore this writer because he/she is an Islamist?

The personal part of Time Wars was really engaging – it felt genuinely character driven. Did you feel any pressure to represent your Muslim culture as well as the trans community?

I hope we someday reach a time when a trans and/or Muslim artist can create artwork which is sincere and true to themselves without feeling like they’re somehow representing others as well.

When a white American man makes an action movie, he doesn’t think about how it will reflect on white people, Americans, or men; he just makes what he likes. But that’s not an option for people who are marginalized by society. When we make art, politics depersonalizes it and makes it either an achievement or a failure of the label we share with others.

When I wanted to make a comic, I decided to emulate the greats. I had two main inspirations for what I wanted to do. On the one hand, outright activism like Dr Marston and Wonder Woman. When he wrote that comic, he did so with the explicit goal of educating young boys on how to accept feminine leadership and treat women with respect.

Then, on the other hand, you have pure self-expression, like Stan Lee and Spider-Man. Peter Parker’s daily misadventures paralleled Stan Lee’s own troubles with women, cars, rent, and more.

Therefore I wanted to tell an exciting and relatable adventure as Stan Lee would, but with the explicit political goal of fostering goodwill for trans and Muslim people in the nerd community, like Dr Marston would. So, my intention was, first and foremost, to make something fun and entertaining but to inject it with my real lived experiences to show how easy it is for everyone to relate to us when given a chance.

Well this sure is classic hypocrisy indeed. All coming from somebody who refuses to acknowledge the verses in the Koran disrespecting women, how honor murders are legitimized under Islam, or how many women in Islamic regimes are forced to wear niqabs, much like the trans-star of the show in focus is, which sure doesn't provide the wearer with an identity. But, this does raise an important point to make: based on Islam's disapproval of homosexuality for starters, a woman pretending to be a man and/or got a sex change operation would not have her claims accepted in a stringent Muslim regime like Iran and Afghanistan, period, and would be forced to wear a niqab, or could be subject to even worse, like execution. Even a male transsexual could experience a horror story under the sword of the ummah.

So this comic project is little more than an insult to the intellect, topped off by how interviewer and interviewee deliberately make an Islamist look like the smart one to be listened to, all through the lensing of hypocritical double-standards. Or, in other words, taqqiya (deception). Yet based on Islam's ostensible abhorrence for homosexuality, that's why there's little chance the Muslim world in its majority would accept such a propaganda product, which may be marketed more for the non-Muslim world, to serve as deceptive propaganda whitewashing a religion that's very contemptible of femininity, and to make the star of the show a transsexual only heaps on the insults in any event.

Leo Dee undermines cause by saying he's got "no hatred" for terrorists who murdered daughters and wife

The British-Israeli rabbi whose 2 daughters and wife were tragically murdered earlier this month by jihadists around the Jordan Valley has made a very bizarre and undermining statement about the jihadists themselves:

The Israeli-British rabbi whose wife and two daughters were killed this month in a terror shooting on a West Bank road said he has “no hatred” for the people who gunned down his family, in comments aired on Sunday.

Lucy Dee, 48, and her daughters Maia Dee, 20, and Rina Dee, 15, were killed after Palestinian terrorists opened fire at the car they were in as they drove through the northern Jordan Valley on April 7. The daughters were declared dead at the scene, while Lucy was rushed to a hospital in critical condition but died three days later.

The suspects remain on the loose despite promises from officials that they will be found and brought to justice.

“I have no hatred towards the… terrorists,” Leo Dee told Channel 12. “I obviously would like them to be captured and to be treated with full justice that they deserve, but mostly to stop them from doing anything like this ever again.”

“I’ve had some Palestinian friends of mine from neighboring villages who have left messages in tears, because I’ve known them for many years, they’ve known Lucy, they’ve known the girls,” Leo said, explaining how he developed friendships with builders and gardeners whom he employed to work on his home.

“We’ve spent a lot of time together. Because I never got any guards, I don’t have a gun, and I would spend the day working from home while they came, and we would end up chatting, having coffee, talking about their kids, talking about our kids. We trusted them, I trusted them completely with the family. I still do, more so than any other people I know.

“When I spoke to one of my friends recently, he said ‘Look, we love you,'” Dee said, adding that he believed a majority of Palestinians were “decent people.”

Yikes...and I thought it was bad enough when Linor Abargil said she didn't think rapists were evil people. This is a very defeatist thing to say, and notice how Dee's one of a considerable number of people even here in Israel who doesn't seem to have the guts to clearly denounce Islam, if all's been told and indeed he hasn't? This is very sad. Whatever one may think of "palestinians", what does Dee and others like him think of adherents to the Religion of Peace, along with said ideology itself? He's making a terrible mistake, especially after sources like the New York Times downplayed the seriousness of the issue, along with the UK government themselves. The naive approach he's taking, which likely buys into the Islamic concept of taqqiya (deception), makes it difficult to solve these issues.

What Dee should really be doing is condemning any and all dhimmis who minimize the murder of his family, including those who substitute the word "murder" with "killed". That kind of disturbing mentality and MSM mandates are exactly what enable these tragedies to occur. It's absolutely awful these murders occur. But it's also awful when relatives of the murdered women take the lenient positions Dee is. That really hurts the battle against Islamofascism.

New Israeli government formed

At nighttime, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his new coalition to president Isaac Herzog:

Israel has a right-wing government: Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu phoned President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday evening and proclaimed, “I have succeeded in forming a government”.

The phone call took place 18 minutes before the extension granted to Netanyahu from Herzog was set to expire at midnight.

Netanyahu told Herzog, "Dear President, thanks to the enormous public support we received in the last elections, I am informing you that I have been able to establish a government that will act in the interest of all the citizens of Israel."

And since we're on the subject, it was shameful how the New York Times predictably assailed Netanhahu and disrespected the electorate, even if it wasn't shocking. The Jerusalem Post editorial said in response that Israel's democracy is vibrant:

It is now bon ton to forecast the demise of Israel’s democracy.

Everyone is doing it: from august forums such as the New York Times editorial board, to blogs run by North American ex-pats now living in Israel, to Facebook groups set up by disgruntled Israelis encouraging emigration.

For instance, the web headline to a Times editorial on Saturday warning of the dangers of presumptive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government read: “The Ideal of Democracy in a Jewish State Is in Jeopardy.” And the headline adequately reflected the spirit of the editorial.

The editorial said that Netanyahu’s government “is a significant threat to the future of Israel – its direction, its security and even the idea of a Jewish homeland.”

The credibility of the editorial was cast in doubt further down in the piece when the renowned paper inexplicably left out Palestinian terrorism as a reason why “hopes for a Palestinian state have dimmed,” writing instead that the reasons are “the combined pressure of Israeli resistance and Palestinian corruption, ineptitude and internal divisions.”

On this, why doesn't anybody call for a boycott of the NYT, and save a lot of money by not subscribing or buying them? They've been such an insufferable paper for decades on end, and are one of the worst of the USA's most dishonest media sources. What's the use? They insult the Israeli electorate along with the USA public, and it's time to stop buying them in any way.

Not improving matters is that fraud-in-chief Joe Biden's pseudo=administration wants to hold Netanyahu accountable for any directions they oppose:

Netanyahu’s successful welding together of Zionist and orthodox parties into a solid Right-Wing coalition was completed two days after Washington wired a warning, via Politico among other media outlets, that it would hold the Israeli leader personally answerable for any decisions or actions his new government might take that the US doesn’t like.

President Joe Biden and his secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, have not hidden their alarm over the political platforms of the most significant coalition partners – the Jewish Strength Party of Itamar Ben-Gvir, who will come in as Minister of National Security, and the Religious Zionist Party of Bezalel Smotrich, slated to receive ministerial authority over Judea and Samaria.

The two men’s combined goals are to strengthen Israel’s character as the Jewish state by taking steps, among others, to increase security against terrorism, as well as criminal violence, open the Temple Mount to Jewish worship and increase and consolidate the presence of Jewish residents in the towns and cities of Israel’s biblical heartland – Samaria and Judea.

All these aims fly in the face of America’s political intent which, along with that of the rest of the world, is to see the Jews removed from the “West Bank” and the Israel-hating Arab populace enabled to establish in their place a new state called Palestine: the “Two State Solution”.

Not just removed from Judea/Samaria/Gaza, but also from Israel entire. To remove Jews from the main biblical areas is just the beginning of the anti-Israelists' twisted goals. And it's shameful as it's repulsive. This is exactly why the Likud was elected.

Black Adam movie's screenplay builds on left-wing metaphors

Overrated wrestler-turned-actor Dwayne Johnson's new Black Adam movie, last time I looked, fell to 40 percent on Rotten Tomatoes' approval ratings. But that aside, when I looked at the reviews so far, Vanity Fair had quite an eye-opener for the political metaphors turning up in screenplay, which surely were to be as expected as what turned up in Wonder Woman 1984. First:

Kahndaq, you see, is a stand-in for not-Iraq/not-Afghanistan under longtime occupation by not-America, but a band of villainous swine called Intergang who plunder the nation’s resources and make the people wait at long checkpoints. They also zoom around on sci-fi skiffs that glow blue (just like Eternium!) and really want that crown.

Soon Adrianna summons the trapped hero, Teth-Adam, who is the gargantuan Johnson wearing a superhero suit and a scowl. Bullets and missiles and grenades can’t stop him, and a mere touch of his hand can turn someone into a skeleton. He goes on a wild PG-13-style kill spree, flinging bodies thousands of yards in the air and ripping off limbs, but without any blood, terror, or agony. [...]

Ah, so that's there excuse for the violence: they didn't add any blood spilling out of severed limbs. Sorry, but doesn't make it any more acceptable, and children shouldn't have to be subject to this kind of mayhem any more than what you see in a Mortal Kombat game. Whether the film lacks terror and agony, however, doesn't really matter when disgust and insult could sum up the proceedings much better. According to the UK Independent, the filmmakers had to remove at least 5 scenes to avoid an R-rating, which confirms just how blatant their vision truly is. And as for the hints given in the above regarding the leftist metaphors, here's that part of it from VF:

There’s not really much to stew on with Black Adam once you’ve left the theater, except to be somewhat amazed at how the story comments-but-doesn’t-comment on the actual political situation in the Middle East. An early checkpoint sequence is clearly meant to mirror the struggles of everyday people crossing from the Palestinian Territories into Israel, and Adrianna’s fed-up line about world powers not doing much for the people after a decades-long presence could be about Iraq or Afghanistan or both. And while there is much reverent talk of Khandaq’s indigenous cultural heritage, there are no Muslim signifiers center stage throughout the picture. Indeed, the Hollywood staple of the muezzin call to prayer is nowhere on the soundtrack, probably a first for a movie set in this part of the world, even when it’s a fictional country. One must marvel at how this massive international project goes out of its way to be even remotely apolitical, taking its cue, perhaps, from the famously politically-unaffiliated Dwayne Johnson. It takes a special kind of movie where the most interesting thing is what’s not in there. During its two-hour runtime, you won’t be asked to exert yourself, either with backstory or political reads. Viewers can just sit back in their cushioned seats, silence all brain functions, and enjoy the CG fireworks.

Oh my, why am I not shocked they could resort to these kind of metaphors, building as they do upon anti-Israel propaganda to boot, with Intergang as the stand-ins? And that's something that'll have to be considered by all concerned when it comes to past and present movies based on DC properties: they may have more leftist metaphors, stealthed or out in the open, than we think. The Marvel movies too, lest we forget. One more reason they're not aging any better than the overload of special effects accompanying the "actors". I hesitate to think what'd a screenplay containing a metaphor for opposing war with Iran's brutal regime would be like, because it's not impossible for these obsessed ideologues to go that far too.

Interesting how the reviewer here seems disappointed specifically because there's little or no serious allusions to Islam, as though this movie couldn't be bad enough. The filmmakers, who should be ashamed of themselves, are already doing enough harm with the metaphors they've injected as it is. The following reviewer from Buzzfeed seems disappointed for similar reasons, and is much more blatant:

It’s too bad that Black Adam ultimately punts on most of the big questions it attempts to raise, because the movie does have something sorely lacking in much of its peers: a willingness, however slight, to engage with the world around it. It’s hard to miss the similarities between Kahndaq, a Middle Eastern country occupied by white military personnel, and a variety of real-world analogs, ranging from the American occupation of Iraq to the ongoing occupation of Palestine. [...]

It’s pretty jarring to see a major superhero movie that even gestures at treating America as the bad guys in anything beyond a “there are a few bad apples in the military” sense. After all, the genre entered its modern era with 2008’s Iron Man, where a weapons contractor is kidnapped by terrorists and escapes captivity in Afghanistan. Black Adam isn’t the movie that’s going to continue exploring that territory, but it’s refreshing to see it try.

So here, the writer is much more hostile to Israel in the sense he won't even mention the country, replacing it as he does with the Roman era name for Israel that's been distorted in modern times for the sake of delegitimizing Israel's claim to Judea/Samaria, by fabricating the lie that there was ever an Islamic/Arabic country there? Now that's even sicker, as is the strong hint his opinions on the USA are extraordinarily hostile too. (Interestingly, the Boston Herald says movie co-star Mohammed Amer is a "Palestinian-American". Could such casting have been intentional, coinciding with the filmmakers' politics?)

I also noticed this review by NPR's terrible writer Glen Weldon, who surprisingly enough actually panned the movie, but, he really screwed up on just who reintroduced Black Adam:

In the early 2000s, writers Geoff Johns and David S. Goyer — with art by Stephen Sadowski and many others — introduced to the comics pages a new version of Black Adam. The character had been around since the 1940s as a supervillain who dogged the family of superheroes that, like him, had been given powers by the wizard Shazam. As such, he came factory-installed with the basic supervillain-threats package: I'll destroy you, I'll rule the world, etc.

Man, is this sloppy, but to be fully expected from such a charlatan who's not a comics fan, no matter how much he insists otherwise. Black Adam was first reintroduced to the DCU proper in 1994, in Jerry Ordway's GN, The Power of Shazam, which later led to an ongoing monthly series for Billy Batson that ran at least a few years. And reprehensible Weldon would rather rob Ordway of the credit, and bestow it upon some of the least deserving of DC's overrated modern writers, Johns and Goyer, instead. As disappointing as I find Ordway's leftism these days, this is still too much. So shame on far-left Weldon for this deception as well.

Now, one more review I checked is from Midwest Film Journal, and in addition to panning the movie, they also make an eyebrow raising note regarding a certain 2013 movie whose star is brought back in this new movie as a special guest for Teth-Adam to clash with:

Man of Steel, which launched the whole misbegotten DCEU in 2013, introduced the world to a darker and more “grounded” take on these heroes. It had its flaws but feels like a masterpiece compared to Black Adam. The two have some very direct points of comparison, too, as supposed launching points for future films. Zack Snyder’s Steel, for example, featured a breathlessly cool prologue on Krypton whereas Adam features an extended sequence narrated by an annoying child. In Snyder’s film, the violence of two Kryptonians battling is destructive and purposely reminiscent (however wrongheadedly so) of 9/11. Here, Adam’s supposed brutal fighting is nowhere near as destructive and, 10 years later, considerably worse-looking. Steel’s fights still inspire awe; Adam‘s are nauseating at best.

Of course, Adam also invites comparison because it delivers on what “fans” have been supposedly clamoring for — the return of Henry Cavill to the role of Superman, a half-decade after his experience filming Justice League turned him off the role and turned Warners off of the franchise he headlined. Bringing Cavill in for a post-credits tease is a Hail Mary by a studio desperate to garner interest in a movie that they clearly know has no interest to any sort of general audience. It’s kind of pathetic, particularly because there’s a blatant joke about Superman being an empty role early on in this film. I’m a fan of Cavill in that role, but there’s no part of me that thinks he deserves to be thrown into more shitty iterations of the character, if Black Adam is any indication of where it will go from here.

Well, like I said, if this new DC movie could be so blatant in its political metaphors, chances are there'd be earlier ones going that route too, and looks like Man of Steel had one that was bound to be troubling. If Batman vs. Superman could boast a scene alluding to protests against illegal immigrants in real life that was insulting to the intellect, we can't be shocked if any 9-11 metaphors Snyder's Man of Steel attached to its screenplay could be just as tasteless. That's why I for one am not pleading for Cavill to resume the role, even in a stand-alone movie for Superman proper, because what if more blatant leftist metaphors seep in? This whole "franchise" of the past decade was decidedly never worth looking forward to in the first place, and the dark angle didn't help matters.

So now, if the above descriptions say anything, I have far less reason to admire Johnson, whom I recall was among several far-leftists who created controversy for the sake of attacking podcaster Joe Rogan over distorted reasons (and Johnson himself wrote extremely crude comments years earlier). And recalling Rogan was just as critical of Hollywood for romanticizing violence as Bill Maher was, he might want to take issue with the Black Adam movie next, because physical/sexual violence has tragically been glorified in Hollywood too over past decades, and this new film is no improvement with its portrayal of Teth-Adam. A most shameless embarrassment it decidedly is, and I wish WB would stop making superhero movies already if this is what it's all coming down to.

Predictably, Marvel studios indicates they'll go the PC route with Sabra

The Times of Israel reported that, as could surely have been expected, Marvel studios went out of their way to answer anti-Israeli activists offended at the inclusion of Bill Mantlo's minor character, Sabra, in the upcoming 4th Captain America movie:

Marvel Studios said it will take “a new approach” to its controversial character Sabra, to be played by Israeli actress Shira Haas, after Palestinian groups criticized the decision to bring the Israeli comic book character to the big screen.

“While our characters and stories are inspired by the comics, they are always freshly imagined for the screen and today’s audience, and the filmmakers are taking a new approach with the character Sabra who was first introduced in the comics over 40 years ago,” Marvel told US media outlet Variety in a statement Friday.

Translation: they'll go so far as to avoid any positive portrayal of Israel, all because they don't have the courage to stand up to Islamic antisemitism. In any case, it was pretty obvious from the start that today's comics publishers and filmmakers wouldn't defend the dignity of the Jewish creators who founded the very industry that today's films are based on. Cartoonist Uri Fink, as noted before, figured this was unlikely to be something admirable, but what's been told now only compounds the impression this'll be something awful when it's ready.

I also discovered the Nerdist website employs a possible Muslim writer who's also a LGBT ideologue(!), and he wrote a smear piece where he said Sabra shouldn't be in the Marvel movieverse. He concludes it like this:

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to put a Jewish hero in the forefront of the MCU; however, putting Sabra, an Israeli government agent, into the world’s biggest blockbuster franchise is a problem. It certainly feels like the powers that be are ignoring the real-life atrocities happening to people. There are already other Jewish heroes that Marvel Studios can include in the MCU. [...]

Ah, so in other words, he's ostensibly saying, "Jewish character = good, Israeli character = bad". But, this kind of shoddy distinction and excuse could easily be used to say, exclude indigenous residents of countries like Holland, who're called Dutch. It could even be used against the Basque of the northern Iberian peninsula where Spain is located. Come to think of it, the approach used in his screed could also be used to say only people of specific ethnicities living in the USA proper are qualified for representation, not foreign-born characters living outside. And he doesn't even care that under the PLO, gays and lesbians are suppressed by their police forces and face terrible persecution. That Nerdist would give a platform to somebody who goes by the kind of ideologies he does is truly despicable, and I will not be linking directly to their site anymore as a result of this disturbing propaganda that entirely omits how "palestinians" are a whole fabrication for the sake of invalidating Israel, and even Newt Gingrich eventually acknowledged this. To think, that nowadays, we have whole sites centered around entertainment topics who actually separate the Jewish creators of comicdom from their homeland origins. This is exactly why old movies like Otto Preminger's Exodus from 1960, based on Leon Uris' book, can no longer be made, because anti-Israelists in Hollywood have almost literally shut the gates to any such projects.

And that's why it's no shock at all when Hollywood kowtows to anti-Israeli movements, with the worst part being whenever those in charge of properties originally created by Jews refuse to defend them, regardless of how specific characters were created in the first place.

Israeli cartoonist warns new Captain America film's portrayal of Sabra could be woke

There's been news - superficial as could be expected - that Israeli actress Shira Haas was cast in the role of the Bill Mantlo/Sal Buscema-created Sabra in Captain America: New World Order. Here's what i24 News is saying about it:

Israeli actress Shira Haas joined the Marvel cast in the fourth "Captain America" film, in which she will play an Israeli superheroine, according to an announcement made Saturday evening at Disney's D23 Expo conference in California.

According to Variety, Haas will play a former spy agent named Ruth Bat-Seraph aka "Sabra," a term used for Israeli-born Jews. She first appeared in the Marvel comics in 1980.

Sabra served in the Mossad and has superpowers, which include extraordinary strength, stamina and speed. She also possesses anti-gravity devices, allowing her to fly through the air faster than 300 miles per hour.

Alas, this alone is not reason enough to watch a film coming at a time when Kevin Feige's turning their screenplays into woke garbage, as the recent Thor installment makes clear. And on that note, YnetNews says veteran Israeli cartoonist Uri Fink is not optimistic. It also tells what he thinks was a case of plagiarism, based on a character he created early in his art career in the late 1970s:

Since Disney announced that Israeli actress Shira Haas will play an Israeli superhero named Sabra in the next installment of the Captain America series, veteran Israeli comic book artist and writer Uri Fink's world went abuzz.

The reason? In 1978, at the tender age of 15, Fink created Sabraman — the first Israeli superhero — who shares some striking similarities with Marvel's heroine, first and foremost, their names.

"I'm getting messages from people who know the character, asking what I'm going to do about it, as if they're encouraging me to sue Marvel and make a killing off the whole thing," Fink tells Ynet.

"It's not the first time. It already happened in 1980 when [Marvel] first created the character, two years after Sabraman, but I didn't think it was right to sue them and I still don't think this is appropriate and that I would make anything out of it. It's just a word. You can't copyright a word. Sabra is just a word."

Sabra is a prickly pear cactus that is very common in Israel and has become a colloquial term used to describe native Israelis — rough and tough on the outside but soft and sweet on the inside.

Fink says it is likely the American comic book publisher drew inspiration from his work back in the day.

"I do believe they saw Sabraman back in the day. There were articles written about it the world over and I gave interviews to various papers, so it is likely they saw it," he says.

"Many guys in DC and Marvel were Jewish back then and the book made it to the Jewish communities abroad too. The comic was in English, and Jewish American guys dug it, it likely reached them, but it wasn't the most polished comic book in the world."

Yes, maybe it's possible, based on how similar their costumes look, although Sabraman appears to have a mask on, while Ruth Bat-Seraph doesn't wear one. That aside, here's where Fink provides a realist view in context of the PC mentality now ruining much of showbiz:

However, Fink voiced pessimism about how the Israeli character would be portrayed by contemporary comic artists.

"Sabra went on to feature in some stories that weren't very pro-Israel, it was already weird back then. So I don't think this would augur well for how she'd be depicted by Marvel now that they've gone woke," he said, using a term that is popularly used to describe people highly alert to social injustices but is also used by some as a derogatory term for a flavor of contemporary progressive leftist ideology which, among other things, is highly critical of Israel.

Sadly, her first official appearance in 1981 is nothing to write home about, because of the troubling moral equivalence and downright sloppy writing that permeated the story, and some of that unfortunately questionable scripting that took place in the original Hulk #256 where Sabra officially debuted (she may have made her first appearance 6 issues prior in a cameo) is further elaborated upon here. First:

In a move that is already thrilling some Jewish audiences and stirring controversy among other international fans and activists, Marvel Studios announced that an Israeli comic book hero will appear in the next installment of its Captain America movie franchise.

Seriously, I find it dismaying, no matter how much it does happen, when audiences just go bonkers over the mere announcement, when the finished product can be anything but a celebration. And the original debut is just why it could be thought otherwise:

Sabra (also the word for an Israeli prickly pear, which has a bristly outside and soft and sweet inside, and is used as a nickname for an Israeli person) is a Mossad agent and police officer with superhuman speed and strength. The 1981 comic that first prominently features her involves multiple quotes and plot points that would be seen as taboo in a contemporary Hollywood blockbuster.

In the comic, the Incredible Hulk mistakenly ends up in Tel Aviv, where he befriends an Arab boy who gets killed in an attack by identifiably Arab terrorists. Sabra — real name Ruth Bat-Seraph — witnesses the attack and assumes Hulk is in cahoots with the terrorists. She attacks Hulk with “energy quills,” weakening him, but the Hulk explains that the boy was his friend — and references the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Boy died because boy’s people and yours want to own land!” the Hulk tells Sabra. “Boy died because you wouldn’t share. Boy died because of two old books that say his people and yours must fight and kill for land!”

This is all delivered without any genuine quotations from the Judaist Bible/Torah or the Islamic Koran/Hadith provided. What Mantlo injected was incredibly embarrassing, and it makes little difference that it's a "product of its time". That doesn't make it any less poor. This is another example where people don't realize that a specific storyline where a character debuted is, unfortunately, the result of bad writing rushed into production. That the sea port in Tel Aviv isn't even portrayed very accurately is the least of the tale's problems.

Things are not getting better when seeing a columnist for the far-left Forward exploit the moment for confusing propaganda:

Even as the MCU has made efforts to stare down institutionalized American racism and overreach of government surveillance a la the Patriot Act, many still view these movies and shows as little more than military propaganda. (The studio has, in fact, partnered with the military quite a bit.)

He makes it sound as though the army's anything but influenced by leftism. That aside, it's loathsomely reprehensible how this puff piece builds on anti-American propaganda of the sort that claims the USA is "systemically racist". And it's just like them to cite Civil War as though it were a positive example, when it was most definitely not. Once, superheroes, if they fought each other in the past century, it wasn't over partisan politics, and IIRC, in the Avengers/Defenders War of 1973, it was over misunderstandings, and communications with a paralyzed Black Knight that got warped by Loki and Dormammu along the way. Yet these propagandists on the left never care.

Introducing the Israeli counterpart to Captain America, then, whose comic origins tie her directly to the Jewish State’s intelligence agency, has raised eyebrows. It’s scarcely surprising, given how over at DC the mere casting of Gal Gadot as an Amazon from a fictional island generates perennial outrage.

A critic on Twitter wrote that Sabra’s powers will include “demolishing Palestinian homes with her mind.” Many others noted how Sabra’s debut, in an issue of “The Incredible Hulk,” featured the killing of an Arab child (the word “Palestinian” is never used) so that Sabra can have a teachable moment. As we delve into the controversy a little more, let’s start there.

At least this is making clear that, no matter the content of the upcoming film, antisemites reject Mantlo's creation from the outset. Then:

She first shows up in 1980’s “Incredible Hulk” No. 256 “Power in the Promised Land!” She mistakenly believes that the Hulk is working with terrorists and the two fight. In their final confrontation, the Hulk cradles the body of Sahad, an Arab boy he befriended who was killed in an explosion caused by terrorists. The Hulk then lectures Sabra about the toll of the ongoing conflict.

“Boy died because boy’s people and yours both want to own land!” the Hulk yells. “Boy died because you wouldn’t share!” (Remember, this is the Hulk talking.)

What makes the Hulk even angrier is that the crux of the conflict is because of “two old books” (i.e., the Quran and Hebrew Bible) and “now boy is dead — but boy didn’t even read books!”

Many online have rightly noted how Sahad, who first tells the Hulk about the “two old books,” is a racist depiction of a Palestinian kid. He is illiterate, steals and lies to tourists for money. The only other sort of Palestinians the issue shows are terrorists. If this is indeed the nuance we can expect from Sabra’s corner of the world, there’s reason for concern.

Now, let's hold on here for a moment. The kid tells Hulk about the books...yet he's illiterate and never actually read either?!? If that's not some of the most slapdash writing, I don't know what is. Of course, why does the columnist keep insisting on referring to the Arab boy in focus as a "palestinian", and not as an Arab or even a Moslem? Funny how the columnist doesn't suggest maybe the boy should've been a Jewish child instead, since that way, Mantlo could've proven he wanted to at least try to provide insight on Jewish society from a child's perspective.

But Sabra has had a few decades to develop and she has gone on other adventures — helping to keep the son of an ambassador to Israel from turning into the next Adolf Hitler; becoming an advocate for mutants; even working alongside a Palestinian teammate called (sigh) Arabian Knight.

Overall, she’s a pretty minor character with just 50 appearances and it’s far too early to tell what her role in the new film may be.

Oh, and what's this here? I thought Arabian Knight, introduced an issue later, was of Egyptian background, and this sorry excuse for a columnist is taking this out of context too? I'm sorry, but this only compounds the perception he's telling all this out of contempt for Israel, to undermine its birthright history, and suggests he doesn't respect Golda Meir, who refuted the "palestianian" propaganda decades ago. He does make one fairly accurate observation, though:

While some will always balk at the idea of featuring an Israeli superhero at all, this may, in fact, not be where much of the world is at, even as many rally behind BDS. That said, it’s more than likely the film will face a ban in the Middle Eastern countries that have yet to normalize relations with Israel.

Even after the Abraham Accords, don’t expect Haas to be walking a red carpet in Saudi Arabia for the premiere. That new world order is still out of reach.

That is bound to be the case, sadly. If a number of Muslim dominated countries wouldn't screen Gal Gadot's movies, there's no reason to assume this'll be any different.

Through this, I found a Twitter thread posted by Simcha Gross, an assistant professor on ancient Jewish history at the University of Pennsylvania, who found the 1st full tale guest starring Sabra cringeworthy after researching it. He describes the following, in example:

Sahad tells Banner "sometimes it is very hard to be an Arab in Israel. Both my people and the Israelis say that this land is theirs. They could share it, but two very old books tell them they must kill each other over it." Some oversimplification for you! 7

— Simcha Gross (@Simcha_Gross) August 24, 2020

Sahad also tells Bruce "Me, I don't read books." In this issue we encounter only two types of Arabs in Israel; terrorists, and a kindhearted illiterate child thief/con-artist. As for Israelis, we only encounter police officers, soldiers, and Sabra. Not good. 8 pic.twitter.com/AIXP1gGgEy

— Simcha Gross (@Simcha_Gross) August 24, 2020

Not quite, in regards to Arabs: the adult marketeers who yell, "stop, thief!" and give chase are not just Arabic, they're clearly identified as Moslems by the keffiyes they wear on their heads. But, the point about the pseudo-citation of the Bible/Koran is well made, mainly because the boy, as indicated, didn't even read books.

The Hulk takes Sahad's body and flees, with Sabra in pursuit. Here comes the denouement of the story, as the savage Hulk informs Sabra that the Israelis and Arabs are the true savages, mimicking Sahad's geo-political analysis: 12 pic.twitter.com/3TjGQVBpbD

— Simcha Gross (@Simcha_Gross) August 24, 2020

I did think it was odd, in addition, that it's made to sound like Sabra never actually cared about the child in the first place. There's many stories built around the problems of misunderstandings. But this, from a political perspective, really takes the cake. The way it's set up also has the effect of watering down the serious issue of Islamic terrorism, which was just as relevant a topic in the early 80s as it is today.

And, just in case we missed the point of the savage hulk pointing out the inhumanity of the various actors in the conflict "It has taken the hulk to make her see this dead arab boy as a human being. It has taken a monster to awaken her own sense of humanity." 16

— Simcha Gross (@Simcha_Gross) August 24, 2020

And here, it is silly and superfluous to use those kind of descriptions for her personality. Now, you could argue it wouldn't be entirely implausible for the Hulk to dish out an ill-informed lecture. There were other times when he was depicted taking questionable positions, and in Hulk form, Bruce Banner could be mentally messed up (let's also note that in later years, around the time Peter David became writer, multiple personality disorder was emphasized circa issue #377). Even so, the script by Mantlo is very slapdash and the product of people who resorted to cheap paths instead of firm challenges. Not many may realize it, but Sabra's early entries, unfortunately, were not very good, as this story suggests.

And considering Hollywood's track record in the past few decades on the subject of Israel's history, that's one more reason why I'm not optimistic this new Capt. America sequel would respect Israel, let alone Sabra herself. Let's remember, Feige is a bad lot, and has already proven so with the most recent Marvel movies containing wokeness.

New Jersey magazine sugarcoats G. Willow Wilson

Last year, the New Jersey Monthly fawned over state native G. Willow Wilson, the Islamic convert propagandist hired by Marvel comics to create the ultimate propaganda product that's really put a stain on their reputation, and predictably, she made use of victimology:

When Marvel Comics approached G. Willow Wilson about creating the first female, Muslim superhero for an ongoing series, Wilson didn’t respond with unbridled enthusiasm. “You’ll have to hire an intern just to open the hate mail,” she warned editors Sana Amanat and Steve Wacker.

Indeed, the 2013 debut of Kamala Khan, aka Ms. Marvel—a Pakistani-American, Urdu-speaking, body-morphing, teenage crime fighter living in Jersey City—raised the ire of Internet trolls and some far-right websites. But it also did something neither Wilson nor her editors anticipated: It marked the beginning of a remarkably successful run that would comprise more than 50 issues and 10 compilations, including Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal and Ms. Marvel Volume 9: Teenage Wasteland, winners of the Hugo and American Book awards, respectively. Ms. Marvel (a cocreation with artists Adrian Alphona and Jamie McKelvie and editors Amanat and Wacker) would gain Wilson accolades for her writing and for the realization of a minority character whose complexity made her much more than a token Muslim in the largely white Marvel universe.

When they speak so snidely and contemptuously of "far-right", you know something's wrong. All they're doing is implying contempt for communities like 911 Families for a Safe & Strong America, along with whites. Indeed, what's skin color got to do with any of this? Are they confusing religion with race to boot? All this does is hurt the reputation of Stan Lee, a white man himself, in the process. No doubt, Wilson also indirectly resorted to the now classic accusations of "islamophobia", which is nothing more than an excuse to avoid serious questions and other issues regarding the Religion of Peace. As expected, no sales figures were given at the time the magazine first wrote this, nor are any questions asked whether the Muslim Ms. Marvel book was kept going as long as it did for the sake of propaganda at all costs.

Wilson’s personal life is similarly unconventional. Brought up by nonreligious, white parents, she converted to Islam at 21. Though she moved to Colorado with her family when she was 14 and currently lives in Seattle with her husband and two school-age children, she continues to be inspired by her New Jersey childhood.

Born in Long Branch, Wilson grew up in Marlboro. The diversity she encountered there had what she describes as “a tremendous impact” on her life and subsequent work. “When I was in elementary and middle school,” she says, “I had classmates from all over the world. I was one of the very few white kids who weren’t also the children of immigrants, and tons of my classmates were South Asian, East Asian—so to me, that’s what normal was.” Moving to Colorado and entering an overwhelmingly white high school, she adds, was “quite a shock.”

What exactly is the big deal for a white person to move to a school where the students are mainly white too? This is peculiar, like somebody's suggesting that being white is synonymous with "wrong". And that's just one of this modern world's problems, where everybody's making whiteness out to be entirely a bad thing. Funny thing about Wilson stressing the students in the former school came worldwide, she doesn't say whether any came from backgrounds like Hungary, Denmark, Uruguay, or even Armenia. As a result, what she says comes off more as superficial talk of a SJW that doesn't add up to much of anything.

Wilson’s first exposure to comics was in fifth-grade health class, via an anti-smoking comic starring Marvel’s X-Men. She was drawn in by the characters, she says, not so much for their superpowers, but because “they always seemed intuitively to know what the right thing to do was.” That was especially appealing to a young woman with a contemplative bent, who would spend much of her life musing over issues of philosophy, spirituality and religion. That she’d become a writer was almost preordained. “I can remember answering, ‘I want to be a writer,’ pretty much as soon as adults started asking me that question,” she says.

As a kid, she recalls, “I thought about things you couldn’t see more than the other kids around me seemed to”—a tendency that came to a head in her late teens. She’d read about Islam in some of her classes and was struck by how the religion’s teachings seemed to reflect her burgeoning worldview—particularly, the idea that neither bad experiences nor good represented God’s judgment, but were simply “part of the challenge of being human, the hurdle that’s put in front of you when you’re born.”

And this is a predictable whitewash, with taqqiya accompanying it. Why no mention, for example, of Sura 19:4294? If she won't be more open about anything in the Religion of Peace, she's not saying anything worth pondering.

She might well have converted then and there, but on the road to Islam, she encountered a major stumbling block: the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists. “It took a couple of years for me to circle back to it after that and grapple with the idea with fresh eyes after this horrible tragedy had happened,” she says.

What's fascinating is how she refused to wake up and acknowledge the more violent themes in the Koran, like Sura 47:3-4. That she remained superficial on the issues involved only compounds the perception she remains dishonest and cryptic about the Religion of Peace's exact content.

Her adopted religion and its Middle Eastern roots inform much of her writing, which has been widely praised for its deft genre blending and its inspired interweaving of mythology, religion, philosophy, folklore, history, technology and current-day politics. Her 2007 graphic novel, Cairo, for instance, sets a drug dealer, an expat, a journalist and an Israeli soldier on a search for a stolen hookah housing a genie. The protagonist of Alif the Unseen, winner of the World Fantasy Award for best novel, is a hacker in an unnamed Arab emirate who’s drawn into a fight against state censorship, aided by a magical manuscript. Her second novel, The Bird King, takes place during the final Spanish emirate and recounts the relationship between a royal courtesan and a mapmaker who possesses supernatural skills.

Considering how much censorship the left's advocated for the sake of defending the Religion of Peace, it sure is weird she'd write a book about the subject, when she herself isn't being open about her belief system. Also, who knows how the Israeli soldier in her book is depicted? What if it's most negative in the extreme?

In spite of her immersion in fantasy, reality is important to Wilson, and depth of character matters to her at least as much as diversity. Initially, she says, the publishing industry’s interest in diversity “was very cosmetic and surface level”—unlike Wilson, whose characters have always been complex, no matter their racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds. “All I really try to do,” she explains, “is tell stories with as much compassion and accuracy as I can.”

Wilson doesn’t see herself as an ambassador for diversity. “I’m a white convert,” she says. “You can’t really take my experience and extrapolate anything meaningful about the American Muslim community from me.” Still, says critic Emily Barton, “her religious background, combined with her apparently natural, boundless empathy, bring a strong moral sensibility to her work.”

Umm, the Arab community, from which the Religion of Peace originated, is by and large white/caucasian, and the way she makes it sound like her alleged experiences don't make her fit to say much based on her background only makes this all the more insulting to the intellect. Why no mention of apostates from Islam, and what they think of the belief system she goes by? And has she ever met with the aforementioned 9-11 Families to understand their viewpoints? Obviously not.

It's good if she's no longer employed by the Big Two (last time I looked though, Saladin Ahmed sadly still was), though even now, they could still be open to employing propagandists like her, no matter how poorly the products she writes actually sell. The damage people like Wilson have caused to the literary industry in general is far reaching, and will take eons to repair.