The Fifth Communism

Asia Times considers the significance of the recent plenary assembly of the Chinese Communist Party that elevated Xi Jinping Thought to the highest ideological level:

Marx. Lenin. Mao. Deng. Xi.

Late last week in Beijing, the sixth plenum of the Chinese Communist Party adopted a historic resolution – only the third in its 100-year history – detailing major accomplishments and laying out a vision for the future.

Essentially, the resolution poses three questions. How did we get here? How come we were so successful? And what have we learned to make these successes long-lasting?

The importance of this resolution should not be underestimated. It imprints a major geopolitical fact: China is back. Big time. And doing it their way. No amount of fear and loathing deployed by the declining hegemon will alter this path….

Make Trade, Not War: that would be the motto of a Pax Sinica under Xi. The crucial aspect is that Beijing does not aim to replace Pax Americana, which always relied on the Pentagon’s variant of gunboat diplomacy.

The declaration subtly reinforced that Beijing is not interested in becoming a new hegemon. What matters above all is to remove any possible constraints that the outside world may impose over its own internal decisions, and especially over its unique political setup.

The West may embark on hysteria fits over anything – from Tibet and Hong Kong to Xinjiang and Taiwan. It won’t change a thing.

Concisely, this is how “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – a unique, always mutant economic system – arrived at the Covid-linked techno-feudalist era. But no one knows how long the system will last, and in which mutant form.

Corruption, debt – which tripled in ten years – political infighting – none of that has disappeared in China. To reach 5% annual growth, China would have to recover the growth in productivity comparable to those breakneck times in the 80s and 90s, but that will not happen because a decrease in growth is accompanied by a parallel decrease in productivity.

A final note on terminology. The CCP is always extremely precise. Xi’s two predecessors espoused “perspectives” or “visions.” Deng wrote “theory.” But only Mao was accredited with “thought.” The “new era” has now seen Xi, for all practical purposes, elevated to the status of “thought” – and part of the civilization-state’s constitution.

That’s why the party resolution last week in Beijing could be interpreted as the New Communist Manifesto. And its main author is, without a shadow of a doubt, Xi Jinping. Whether the manifesto will be the ideal road map for a wealthier, more educated and infinitely more complex society than in the times of Deng, all bets are off.

It is vital to accept that one can no more understand the current and future actions of the CPC – and therefore China – while ignoring Xi Jinping Thought than one could have comprehended the development of China since 1978 while attempting to ignore the Dengist revisionism that has completely transformed both China as well as the global order.

One cannot hope to grasp Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Dengist-Xism any better than one could have grasped Marxist-Leninism by reading nothing but Marx. Or than one can anticipate the actions of the fake Biden administration by referring to the US Constitution.

DISCUSS ON SG


The City of the Devil

Archbishop Vigano alludes to the great work of St. Augustine in denouncing the vaccines and the so-called pandemic as an intrinsic part of the satanic global elite’s plan to reset the world in their evil god’s image:

Your Excellency, in recent days you have been the victim of harsh attacks in the Italian media, and the attacks seem to be increasing in intensity. Massimo Giannini, editor of La Stampa of Turin, went so far as to call you a “scoundrel.” Another prominent Italian journalist, Bruno Vespa, said God should “forgive you” for your statements about the vaccines and the so-called pandemic. Could you explain why Italy’s mainstream media increasingly seems to consider you a sort of “public enemy”? Why are they seemingly so afraid of you?

As I have previously noted, it is typical of any totalitarian regime to seek to delegitimize any and every form of dissent, at first by ridiculing the adversary, making him the object of derision so as to discredit him before the eyes of the public opinion. Then, after delegitimizing the person as pathological, or in need of psychiatric care, suggesting that the adversary is mentally unstable who should be hospitalized in a mental institution. Finally, this process ends with the complete criminalization of all dissenters. In this way, the regime creates the necessary premises to separate all its adversaries from civil society.

Lies, insults and personal attacks — like the most recent that I have received from the Italian magazine “Venerdì” — are part of this charade, a type of theatrical production in which the “high priests” of COVID tear their vestments, lamenting every objection to their lies. We should recall that “La Stampa” and “La Repubblica” belong to the Elkann family, a family related to the Rothschilds since the 1500s. As a matter of fact, John Elkann wrote the preface to Klaus Schwab’s book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, in which the WEF chairman describes the “Great Reset” in minute detail. In their adherence to the official narrative, the spokesmen for the elite also end up employing this tactic of discrediting and smearing those who oppose them, a typical practice of conspiratorial groups.

Certainly, given the deafening silence of the bishops and the propaganda of Santa Marta, it is clear that a discordant voice that denounces the ongoing coup d’état being carried out by the globalist élite irritates and seems intolerable for those who ask for an unreasoning approval to their contradictory declarations.

In this context, the Italian media has gone so far as to send spies to attend the Masses celebrated by those priests, like Fr. Giorgio Ghio, who are denouncing the harm caused by the vaccines and the general anti-Christian spirit that seems to becoming ever more to dominate Western society. It seems that the spirit of the real, traditional Church is not only not dead, but even being rekindled. Do you believe that the globalist power is particularly afraid of this renewal of the traditional Catholic faith?

I would like to point out first of all that intrusion by the civil authorities in Church affairs is in direct violation of the Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian Republic. Moreover, the Episcopal Conference of Italy does not have any authority to negotiate with the government protocols and agreements, so such agreements, in so far as agreed to by those who have no right to negotiate or ratify such agreements, have no validity whatsoever. Having said that, I think that every priest has the right, or rather the duty, to warn his faithful about the real danger – not at all merely hypothetical – represented by the inoculation of this experimental medical product. This is especially the case when the entire psycho-pandemic farce clearly aims to lead toward the establishment of a dictatorship, whose purpose is to control the citizens through a violation of their constitutional and natural rights under the guise of a health emergency.

The submission of the Catholic Hierarchy, of the Episcopal Conferences, of the Bishops and the Priests to this official narrative, is so brazen and servile as to make evident that infiltration by the “deep church” that I have denounced many times. This infiltration began at least 70 years ago, and today has become quite obvious due to its arrogance and to its persecution of all dissenting voices concerning both the alleged pandemic emergency and the even graver doctrinal, moral, and disciplinary deviations (of the present Church leadership) and the disturbing complicities of this leadership with the “deep state.”

This blatant betrayal by the Church’s pastors has sparked, as also has occurred in the area of civil government, a spontaneous opposition from the “base,” from the people, both ordinary lay people, and ordinary priests, and this opposition has concerned, significantly, both the response to the pandemic and the crisis of the Church hierarchy. On one hand, we have the promoters of the “Great Reset” with their anti-Catholic and anti-Christic ideology, supported by the Bergoglian church. On the other hand, we have those who are standing against the New World Order and who see their moral values and vision fulfilled in the perennial Catholic magisterium and in the traditional Catholic liturgy. The two cities, the City of the Devil and the City of God: the division is always the same because the opposing forces are drawn up based on positions that are ontologically opposed and inimical to one another.

A Russian Colonel who once served in the Soviet secret services, Vladimir Kvachov, has called the pandemic as a sort of “terrorist operation” that has been expressly conceived to enforce a global population reduction and usher in a global dictatorship. In an article published by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2010 whose title is “Operation Lockstep”, the outbreak of a pandemic is expressly mentioned. This pandemic allows world governments to implement authoritarian and repressive measures against personal freedom that are essential to move toward a one-world government. These restrictive measures are basically the same that we have been seeing enforced during the last year and a half, such as face masks and social distancing, which have brought mass psychosis and social hate seemingly unprecedented in Western societies. Do you think that this entire situation is an engineered crisis conceived by the globalist powers to drag mankind towards a state of constant fear and pave the way for the global Leviathan?

I do think so, and I have been saying this since the beginning of the psycho-pandemic, when in May 2020 I exposed the dangers and the absurdities of this grotesque farce. I am quite familiar with the scenarios of the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as with the ones depicted by the “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF), whose president met the former Italian Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, in November of 2019 and the present Italian Prime Minister, Mario Draghi, just a few days ago. Likewise, I am also aware of the UN plan called Agenda 2030.

This operation required meticulous preparation and needed the participation of large parts of the public institutions and the private sectors, including the complicity of the Judiciary, of law enforcement and the media. These combined efforts are a real coup d’état and the pandemic is just a pretext – the profasis – through which is introduced the seeming inevitability of the violation of fundamental rights and the consequent establishment of the totalitarian regime of the New Order. In this New Order the pandemic superstition reigns supreme, with its magicians, its vaccine temples, its irrational rituals and its excommunications of sinners vitandi (“to be avoided” or “to be shunned”) — those who do not agree to give up their reason even before apostatizing from their Faith in order to embrace this insane ideological madness.

Every Christian leader should be speaking out fearlessly against the City of Satan in the manner of the archbishop. And every so-called Christian leader – be he Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox – who isn’t should be suspected of being part of the converged Deep Church and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is why the governments and institutions of the world, from the Pope and President down to your local pastor, are pushing the vaccines on you. At the very least, they are a symbol of your submission to the Satanic World Order. This is why it is imperative to reject them no matter how much coercion and social pressure is applied to you. Read the whole thing.

DISCUSS ON SG


In Which Scott Adams is Ripped a New One

Karl Denninger doesn’t exactly hold back in pointing out that neither he, nor anyone else who was correct about the lack of safety and effectiveness that is now being admitted by a number of former vaccine enthusiasts were simply “guessing” about it.

Let’s talk facts eh? None of these are in dispute, by the way.

Coronaviruses circulate in humans all the time. Four of them, to be specific. Two are in the same family as Covid-19; they are beta coronaviruses, as is Covid. One of them, OC43, is believed to have caused a pandemic — in the 1890s. Why doesn’t it now? Because it circulates all the time and most kids wind up getting it very young, since the circulation pattern suggests roughly a four year rotation. That’s right — by the time you’re eight you’ve lived through two rotations through the population of this, and the other three, circulating Coronaviruses.

These four almost never produce any serious problems for children. Neither does Covid. On the data thus far, and we knew this before the first shot went into the first arm in December of 2020, if all 60 million kids under 18 got Covid-19 about 500 of them would die. That’s the data. Likewise, the other 4 common coronaviruses almost never produce serious outcomes. They do produce colds and flus — as does Covid-19 in kids.

All four of these, when someone is infected, produce durable protection against serious and fatal outcomes in the future. The exception is the odd person who is old and has damaged immunity, and their former protection becomes worthless. Yes, occasionally an old person gets killed by OC43 as their prior immunity becomes worthless. Are you noting a pattern here yet or do you already suck at logic?

There is no evidence that once infected by Covid-19 and you survive the infection you are at material risk of a second bad infection. There is a small, but non-zero risk, you can get it again, and my presumption is that if it follows the pattern of other coronaviruses, which tend to run in 3-4 year cycles, you will get it again in a few years. But despite this the odds are well under 1 in 1,000 that said second infection will be serious or worse and with each re-challenge your immunity will become broader and deeper, just as occurs with the other four. There are at this point multiple sets of data with confirmed infection counts well over 1,000 in each data set with no critical or fatal outcomes in any of them and several have had zero reinfections of any sort. In other words there is no evidence that the pattern for the other four coronaviruses that circulate among humans is not what we will see here. Gee, are we detecting a pattern yet or do you really suck at logic?

There has never been a successful and safe vaccine against coronaviruses in man or beast. None. Ever. All have either (1) proved to be short-lived protection, (2) backfired spectacularly and enhanced infection on re-challenge including every animal under test dying on re-challenge, (3) produced a really nasty side effect profile that over time is more dangerous than the disease — or some ugly combination of all three. There are no exceptions. A particular example is a chicken coronavirus where vaccination lasts just long enough for a broiler to reach size and be slaughtered — a bit less than two months. Laying hens must be continually re-inoculated to maintain protection. Attempts to vaccinate cats have killed every cat under test. May I note that felines are one of the animal families that can get and transmit Covid-19? Again, perhaps this is the exception but if it is it will be the first success following an extensive set of failures reaching back decades, many of which produced serious and fatal outcomes. Again: Are you detecting a pattern here yet on the waning of immunity from jabs given the history of prior attempts?

There is no evidence that deleting the “N” protein from the in-use US vaccines in fact eliminates the risk of enhanced disease. That’s the hypothesis underlying the decision to do that but there was no evidence for it in actual human testing, which simply was not done in advance and six months — or in fact a year or two — is too short to find out. Indeed most of the mutation in a coronavirus takes place in the “S” protein which is the part we’re using. This would be reasonably expected to produce evasion over time through natural forces. We did it anyway.

We knew prior to release of these vaccines for general use and their “mandates” that the majority of the antibodies produced were not neutralizing; they were binding. A binding antibody can enhance infection. Given that we had decades of history with the non-durability of neutralizing antibodies with attempts to vaccinate against coronaviruses what is the reasonable expectation for what will happen if that occurs this time but binding antibodies are still present? Proof? No; there was no proof. But what evidence existed that this approach was safe? NONE! Indeed, the evidence, such as it was, all ran the other way although it certainly was not conclusive. We did it anyway.

Prior to general release (September of 2020) there was published a paper characterizing pathogenic potential for the spike protein alone, absent the rest of the virus. That paper demonstrated the potential for direct injury, specifically to the endothelium (the layer of cells that is the inner lining of your blood vessels!) This was a theoretical paper and it set off a bevvy of other studies. One of them, appearing to confirm that hypothesis, was published in pre-print in December 2020 before the shots went into arms. It was subsequently peer-reviewed and passed upon during that process, being published on a formal basis early this year. We jabbed people anyway despite, at that point, having in-vitro (lab) evidence that the spike protein we were causing to be produced in the human body was inherently and separately dangerous without the rest of the virus being present. This paper, standing alone, was enough to call into question the safety of these jabs even if there was no virus at all! We proceeded anyway

So no, it is not guessing to take all of these facts, none of which are in dispute, and conclude that:

There is no reason to believe we can successfully, on a long-term basis, vaccinate against a coronavirus since we never have before in either man or beast.

There is no reason to believe attempting to vaccinate against coronaviruses is safe because in many other instances it was proved to be not, and in some it resulted in fatality of many or all the animals under test upon rechallenge. One specific instance of wildly-enhanced disease occurred in cats, which is a species that we know can become infected by this virus.

There is no reason to believe that deliberately inducing the presence of binding antibodies in a person to this virus, which we knew the vaccines did before the EUAs were issued, would be safe on a durable basis. In fact we had every reason to believe that would be unsafe simply based on what that sort of antibody does on a biological basis. You would in fact be crazily homicidal to deliberately infuse only binding antibodies to this or any other virus into a person.

There was plenty of reason to believe the spike protein, alone, was dangerous even without the rest of the virus and this was known prior to mass-distribution of the jabs. While getting infected certainly could lead to trouble in this regard infection is not certain where vaccination, once you do it, is. Further, the dosing for the vaccines is set to produce much higher levels of spike protein (and thus antibodies) in the body than does natural infection, so any such risk from the spike would be logically expected to be higher from vaccination than natural infection.

As regards children there is not now and never has been an argument for giving them a Covid-19 vaccine. They do not require or benefit from any protection that it might afford on a statistical basis and since we know there are dangers, many of which we have no way to quantify and will not be able to do so for ten or more years it is a rank violation of logic and the Hippocratic Oath, never mind gross negligence and malpractice, to administer or permit to be administered same to kids.

So no, if this turns out to be an utterly insane and disastrous choice to so-state doing this was stupid in advance, as I and some others have done, was not a “wild guess.”

One would have thought the self-styled “Great Predictor” could have seen that one coming. And it is worth pointing out that while his predictions have been completely worthless, The Market Ticker has been the best source of facts, observations, and critical thinking about Covid-19 and the vaccines throughout the entire “pandemic”.

DISCUSS ON SG



The Marks of the Beast

A useful essay on the three most common responses by Christian pastors concerning the relationship between eschatological prophecy and the current vaccines and vaccine mandates:

In my observation, there appears to me to be roughly three types of pastors when it comes to whether we are seeing the beginning of the Mark of the Beast in our current day. The first kind is the pastor who is absolutely convinced that this is the Mark, and that this is the beginning of the tribulation. I know good guys who are convinced that this is the case and have been saying so publicly for some time now. Sometimes they are willing to give a little bit and say it may just be a precursor, but they are generally very adamant this is the Mark. The continued Beastly behaviour of our governments is not quickly proving these guys wrong.

The second kind of pastor is the one who wants no talk of the Mark of the Beast around him in relation to our current context. He rejects outright any thought that we may be entering the tribulation. He recognizes that many people have thought many things were the Mark of the Beast in history, and they were all wrong. He is the guy who is quick to point out that this is a healing device, the government may not be handling this situation ideally, but they are seeking to get to people a medical treatment that can end this pandemic. For this pastor, to apply the teaching of the Mark of the Beast here is unnecessary fear mongering. Yes, there is coercion, some of these pastors think the coercion is wrong, others think it a necessary evil to get the vaccine numbers up. These pastors are the most likely to see any talk of the tribulation and Anti-Christ in this time as irresponsible.

The third kind of pastor, and this is the category I would put myself in, is the pastor who is very concerned with the Beast-like behaviour of the government, but also recognizes along with the pastors in the second category that there are countless examples of predictions about the end times being wrong, and so is also hesitant to call this the Mark of the Beast. However, there is another key difference between pastors in this group and the second group. We see many of the hallmarks of the Beast-like behaviour of governments in this time, and from this we observe an old pattern at work. A pattern about how evil works, and a pattern about how we are to find richness and application from Revelation in every era from the time of Nero until now.

I’m not a pastor, but if I were, I would be in the third category myself. Anyhow, I highly recommend the essay as a useful exercise in educated critical thinking about the interaction between theology and quotidian existence.

DISCUSS ON SG


China Claims the Moral High Ground

For more than 100 years, the neo-liberal world order has claimed the international moral high ground on the basis of being “democratic”. The Allies who fought Germany in WWII – France, Britain, and the USA – were often referred to as “the Western democracies”, and “spreading democracy” has been the primary justification for US military invasions for the last three decades.

But now, in the aftermath of the shocking 2020 revelation that US democracy is a massive and fraudulent sham, China has launched a direct rhetorical assault on the West’s primary claim to possess the moral high ground on the international scene. This is a form of unrestricted warfare that strongly suggests Chinese strategists are very familiar with William S. Lind’s concept of 4th Generation Warfare.

China’s democracy is more extensive, more genuine and more effective than the US democracy, as the US politicians represent the interest groups but in China the whole-process democracy ensures implementation of policies that change people’s lives, senior Chinese officials said on Saturday as China issued a white paper titled “China: Democracy That Works.”

Under the US democratic system, politicians are agents of interest groups, rather than representing the interests of the majority of voters and the interests of the country as a whole, Tian Peiyan, Deputy Director of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee, said at a press conference on the launch of the white paper on Saturday.

“Those politicians can make random promises for the sake of elections, but they seldom fulfill their promises after being elected. Superficially they accept voters’ supervision, but in fact as long as they are elected, the voters have no option but to wait for the next election. They are only awakened during voting but become dormant after voting,” Tian said.

US voters listen to those dazzling slogans only during the election, but they have no say after the election, the Chinese official said.

However, China’s democracy is whole process people’s democracy under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese official continued. Party members and leaders at all levels must accept the whole process and all-round supervision of the Party and the people when performing their duties to ensure that the power granted by the people is always used for serving the people’s interest.

And they also maintain a close contact with the public, listening to people’s requests and striving to solve their problems.

The different behavior of US politicians before and after elections is due to the lack of a supervising mechanism for politicians including congressmen after they are elected, Guo Zhenhua, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, told the press conference.

Don’t be surprised if the concept of “whole-process democracy” is successful in superseding the increasingly outmoded concept of “representative democracy” that is neither representative nor democratic, and which completely fails to represent the will of the people in any way, shape, or form. Because it is entirely obvious to any honest observer that the USA and the European Union are not only exhibiting democratic deficits, but now possess overtly anti-democratic regimes.

Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sunday released a report on US democracy, exposing the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of it exporting such democracy…. Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity, said the report. It is a right for all nations, not a prerogative reserved for a few. Democracy takes different forms, and there is no one-size-fits-all model. It would be totally undemocratic to measure the diverse political systems of the world with a single yardstick or examine different political civilizations from a single perspective. The political system of a country should be independently decided by its own people, the report said.

And, of course, all the complaints about China’s social credit scores and violations of human rights sound very thin in light of the bannings, prison terms, deplatformings, lockdowns, disemployments, mandates, and even forced vaccinations presently being imposed throughout the West.

DISCUSS ON SG


When the CYA Fails

Anonymous Conservative sees through Scott Adams’s attempt to preemptively cover his backside and preserve his nonexistent reputation as the Great Predictor:

It kind of looks like Scott is trying to persuade people he wasn’t wrong or shouldn’t be blamed, by framing this as you had to know the vaccine was good or bad, rather than recognize the real question was, do you take the vax immediately without knowing anything about it, or avoid the virus and wait, while you see how the vax works out in the ignorant who took it blindly. This was a bit like being handed one of one hundred revolvers, one of which had a single bullet in it, and being told, you have to wear a mask and glasses, and wash your hands for the next year, or you can put one of these revolvers’ to your head and pull the trigger, and then you can ditch the mask and glasses. Then after you pulled the trigger, they said you had to do it again every few months. And then they told you, you still had to wear the mask and glasses and wash your hands as well. Now it is like Scott is saying, “Well, nobody could have known whether the revolver you picked was loaded or not.” No, you couldn’t but if you were schooled in the art, you could have seen that putting the revolver to your head had enormous potential downside, for very little upside. I’d be surprised if Scott was not plugged in to the network somehow. If he is, I take this to mean he believes that for some reason the reality of the vax is going to come out and predominate soon, and he is trying to get ahead of it now before it affects his reputation as a seer.

That’s why I view this as good news. I could not care less about Adams – he’s a great cartoonist and commenter on the corpocracy, but he’s otherwise irrelevant – but the mere fact that he sees the need to CYA over the vaccines suggests that the truth about them is going to penetrate the mainstream narrative in the reasonably near future.



A Lesson from Comics History

It’s always a good idea to learn from the successes and failures of the past:

1960s Marvel provided verisimilitude and continuity to characters, allowing characters to experience consequences that mattered to the story, and thus to the readers. When Sue and Johnny’s father died in Fantastic Four Issue 32, it was a permanent change for them and the rest of the team. When the Thing crushed Doctor Doom’s hands in Issue 40, it was a driver for Doom’s revenge twenty issues later in Issue 60 — there was memory of the insult and damage, the thirst for Doom’s revenge upon the Thing, creating an element of verisimilitude for the readers. This is how readers expected the arrogant Victor von Doom would behave–it made sense and it felt “real” to them.

Chris’ page on “How to Make Great Comics” highlights this formula, but I believe that Chris, Stan Lee, and Jack Kirby were on the wrong track by calling it “Realism”. I believe the word they wanted was “Verisimilitude”–it needs to feel or appear real enough to generate belief. It does not necessarily need to be “real”, but rather “real enough”. The scientific jargon Reed Richards uses doesn’t have to come from a real-world physics text, but it needs to be believable enough to the reader to give that impression to the story. The verisimilitude benefits from continuity and is reinforced by it. Discontinuity tends to pull the reader out of the story.

What is clear is that when Marvel was sold in 1968, the bonds of continuity and verisimilitude were being damaged and ultimately removed. With that removal, the quality of the books began to suffer. Under the sale, Marvel was no longer under the agreement with National Periodicals to limit the number of its titles, and that number almost doubled in two years. But, the creative engines that built the 1967 Marvel were leaving or had left. Working within those externally imposed limits may have also contributed to the 1960s Marvel’s sharp writing, tight pacing, and innovative art. The quality of the books declined rapidly with the onset of the 1970s, and this was quickly seen in the sales.

I re-created the graph that is on Chris’s page discussing the Marvel Universe and how it lost its way. My version removes some of the sharp peaks and adds a few real-world events against the sales curve. Note that the Marvel upward peak in 1977 is likely from Roy Thomas convincing Marvel senior leadership to allow him to create a 6-issue mini-series of the new movie Star Wars, which is credited with saving the company from bankruptcy.

That 1968 sale and the change in the fortunes of Marvel are well-aligned, though not causally linked via this data. So we have correlation vs causation event here — but correlation is strongly predictive. Stan brought over 35 years of experience managing creative teams and writing dialog for comics to the fore for Marvel’s success. Notice how many people attempted to assume the Editor-in-Chief role after Stan left it, and were only in the job a year or two. It was not until Jim Shooter took the Editor-in-Chief position that Marvel’s sales fortunes began to turn around. Shooter demanded hewing to a universal continuity for Marvel. Though the creative talent chafed against it, sales improved throughout Shooter’s tenure, and declined after his departure.

It is worth observing that the two Editors-in-Chief who practiced or demanded continuity were the most successful in financial benefit to the company.

DISCUSS ON SG