The Bicycle Thief's Victim

One (of many, if not an infinity) from the "St. Nick on a stick, would you just shut the fuck up already, you inane droning cretin?" file.

When the left finally completes its revolution in America, one of the final* things to go will be comic books. The art form is just too conservative to survive once everything else has been banned. In fact, a Marxist did attempt to suppress comics once before, in the 1950s. (I know, I know liberals, I’m overreacting — the next thing you know I’ll claim they would ban a rodeo clown.)

Remember the clown? What we're excerpting here was typed about six wks. ago, & Mark Judge probably still resents the firing of the poor rodeo clown. After all, Mr. Judge has been resenting that colored person (No evidence, therefore the thief must have been black.) who stole his bicycle for a while now. And the evidence that the bicycle thief was a Negro comes from the same dark (mental) recess where he found an already-in-progress leftist revolution in America & the resultant eventual banning of the graphic novel.

We're sticking w/ three contradictions; feel more than free to look for the other howlers. Meanwhile, the Judge is back on the Wertham wagon.

Liberalism’s distrust of comics goes back to Fredric Wertham, a psychiatrist who launched a crusade in the 1950s against the ill effects of comic books, even writing a book about it, Seduction of the Innocent. Liberals love to finger Wertham as a typical 1950s McCarthyite tight ass, but in fact he was a Marxist and Freudian who thought comics were sexual and political propaganda for the West.

(Speaking of Freudians, what's this "fingering" Wertham? And his "tight ass?" Hey, now everyone can be a Freudian!)

Remember the doctor's searing critique of capitalism, Seduction of the Innocent Petit Bourgeoisie? And while the Wart is best known for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, if he were such a fucking pinko why didn't the House Un-American Activities Committee call him?

Then a windmill tilt at today's Werthams:

Liberals in academia and the culture at large love to claim that there is ambiguity in some superheroes — Superman is an illegal immigrant! Batman hates guns! — but these are usually just weak attempts to claim ownership of something whose primal appeal cannot be denied.

You know he means it; he set his projector to 11 & pointed it directly at the (uncited, ahem) liberal scarecrows in his mental cornfield.

I grew up on Marvel and DC comics in the 1970s, and I still keep a toe in that world to keep up with the latest movies and story lines.

Are these "latest movies" the popular-as-all-get-out comic book movies that are blathered about everywhere, all the time? Just asking; were one to believe ol' Judgey, oppressive political correctness forces him to see these unpopular money-losers at secret showings in abandoned warehouses in bad parts of town or, perhaps, in the screening rooms of wealthy Galtian conservatives.

In our age of oppressive political correctness, superheroes retain a purity that even academics find difficult to co-opt or dismantle. The male heroes are turbo jocks, muscular and graceful as they leap between buildings. The female heroes are are [sic] pure adolescent id sex fantasy, from the classic Wonder Woman’s curves to Power Girl’s massive chest.

How difficult it must be for the creatorsThe Walt Disney Company to make millions upon millions in profit from superheroes who, Judge fears, are about to be politically corrected from "turbo jocks" & pneumatic sex goddesses to flabby latte-drinkers & fat femiNazis? And all while struggling under a viciously oppressive political correctness that barely allows these movies to be seen on more than a few thousand screens in these United Snakes during any given wk.

How Big Is It, Marky?

So big that:

Over the last year I started hearing about a new book about comic books that was roughly the size of a small car. There were stories of UPS people getting hospitalized trying to deliver the thing, and of dogs (and not even small ones) getting crushed when it tipped over.

Is this conservative humor, for lack of a better word? Not the pain & suffering (although ...) just the sheer apparently (Because who can fucking tell any more?) unironic banality of "it's so big that?" Unless he was establishing his final sentence & ultimate proof:

And, of course, there is the very existence of the environmental nightmare that is 75 Years of DC Comics. They must have felled half the rain forest to publish it.

Irony? You bet! Conservatives no longer conserve. If anyone to the left of Attila the Hun thinks not using it all up & throwing the wrappers out the window is the way to go, well, bedrock conservative principles say do the opposite, whatever the consequences. It's really about the only principle left for them.

Added oddity: We clicked a link & were led to this opus of the Judge's. Creepy, & peculiar. Another one for Dr. Freud.Ouch: Judge? Mental.

---

*Say huh? How can he know the order in which the left will be banning all that is good, pure, White, Catholic & American?