Supergirl. Wonder Woman. And the Usual Suspects. Heralds of the Luciferian Age?

Surfing the net the other day, I came across a meme that joked "If your story doesn't begin with the Big Bang, it's not the whole story."

I thought that over in relation to this thread, because the recent election has people in disbelief, some even exhibiting weird psychological behavior, and speaking of fascism, and rebellion, and end times and New World order. Trump seems the made-to-order bogeyman of those expecting the coming of an Anti-Christ in the real world, and, of course, though I do not think of comic characters as being real in the way actual people like Donald Trump are real, I do find it amazing how well comic characters and comic book story lines serve as a barometer for what is happening in world affairs and popular culture at any given time.

There is an idea, broadcast more now than ever, generally by alternate media, that there is a kind of "shadow" government at work in world affairs. Generally thought to be comprised of bankers, hereditary members of certain family bloodlines, and the odd, rare, and singularly resourceful initiate.

Does such an organization or network of people exist?
Don't know. That's not REALLY the focus of this thread.
However, there is a fairly well-known language of symbols associated with this group, and the philosophy of the group conforms amazingly well to what Wikipedia will give you if you look up terms like "Gnostic" "Luciferian", etcetera. And much of what we see in comics nowadays and indeed many years before now, perhaps even from the very beginning, reflects that.

You'll have at least a passing familiarity with some of these symbols and themes. Some you can find on the backs of dollar bills. These include the pyramid, the all-seeing eye, the (double-headed?) eagle, the owl, the snake, and stars represented as five-pointed prints and/or pentagrams. Back of alll this, mentioned at least by title is a being called "God".

Most people assume, if they have heard or seen the name at all, that this is the Biblical God whom Christians address as God the Father. A bit of research will reveal that this assumption, at least in the view of the aforementioned symbol makers, is likely incorrect.

I've talked about some of this before. I want to cover some new ground though, something only mentioned to my remembrance once in several dozen threads in various topics I've now created to this point. I do not know if, as a secular explanation, it is correct. Mainstream science says it isn't. However, beliefs don't require an accurate perception of reality, and I think there is evidence that, correct or not, THEY believe the premise to be true.
That belief is that the solar system is younger than we think. That the planets and the sun were worshipped as gods. That the planet Saturn was once aligned in a conjunction of planets that included Venus and Mars. That Saturn, in the earliest recorded traditions of man, was once ITSELF regarded as our sun.

If you are hearing that for the first time, note again that I am not asserting this is 100% true and happened. I was exposed to this via a film called "Remembering the End of the World" and merely thought it the most intriguing theory I have heard in the past 10 years.

For the briefest possible synopsis, check out the 1:06:00 mark and follow for about 3 minutes. If you check it out for a longer period of time, you might find yourself as fascinated as I found myself with their presentation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oophJNlP-fk

I could not believe how well that would explain some things.
If the optical illusion produced by the planets were as those researchers describe,
then it would make sense for Venus to be given the title "morning star".
For it would be lit, presumably by our sun, in such a brilliant way as to be confused with our sun. It would explain why Saturn, a mere speck in the sky today, was regarded once as the Father of gods and kings. It would even, or perhaps the term should be " especially", explain why gods were often conflated with one another.

After watching the film mentioned and linked above, the following seems a remarkable blended illustration of the themes and motifs mentioned before.
If you can understand Kirby on the previous page in that interview, relating how Silver Surfer represented the Fallen Angel (Lucifer) and Galactus the "God of the Bible" (Kirby said this directly, watch the YouTube interview on the previous page) then you should be able to recognize this, from DCnU's Worlds' Finest, #17(?), as the same allegory.

DCnU presents Worlds Finest Karen Starr as Lucifer.
Appears as the Morningstar, bright shining sun, falling like lightning from Heaven. Beautiful, powerful, angelic being, savior to the world, or at least "Hel" (Helena Bertinelli, daughter of Earth-2 Batman, a.k.a. The Huntress).
Note how all motifs are wrapped into one, even the plasma discharges you'll hear mentioned in that "Remembering the End of the World" clip if you watch enough of it.

Parts of the code I have not cracked yet?
Whether Karen also represents the heretofore unmentioned Gnostic figure known as Sophia, whether they're also blending dragon and lady mentioned in the Bible in relation to this theme with the villain of this issue.

I was trying to research the spiritual beliefs of Brian Azzarello today.
I'm trying to be relatively comprehensive in scope. Already, for instance, I've been able to provide fairly solid evidence for what 3 MAJOR players in the comic world over the past several decades believed or still believe and spoken admissions of how this influenced or shaped their work (Grant Morrison, Jack Kirby, and Alan Moore).
Unfortunately, it's proved extremely difficult to find similar proof for Azzarello because the body of his WORK for the past 10 years contains so much material related to religion that it's proven impossible to isolate an interview that talks about HIM as opposed to his story. At best at this point, I can prove that, somewhat similar to Kirby, he IS or was trying to make a new mythology of gods that all of DC might be encouraged to adopt.

----------------------------------

" ... Nrama: We've seen Wonder Woman dealing with the gods before, but it sounds like you're hoping to make this very different?

Azzarello: Yeah, because it kind of feels like the gods have always been somewhat sanitized.

Nrama: I think the difficulty is that these gods existed pretty much only for Wonder Woman. They weren't villains of the DCU. In the Marvel Universe, Loki is the reason the Avengers first teamed up. He was a god, yet he became a central villain and felt like a real threat.

Azzarello: Yeah. And if Cliff and I do our job correctly, people are going to want to use these gods in the DCU These gods will have... what's the word I'm looking for? Legs. They should have legs.

Nrama: You'd told me before that you want this book to have "no cuddly gods." Would it be more accurate to describe the gods as "horrific?" Are they the "horror" in Wonder Woman?

Azzarello: Yes. That's it. Wonder Woman is not horrible. Her villains should be. And she will go up against characters that can take her out. And hopefully there will be a lot of fear in this book because of that.

We're pretty well along now. And there are some really, really jarring moments that happen throughout this book ..."

Looking at this thread, I'm thinking it's s crying shame my exposure to the various supplementary materials I've encountered since post one, weren't known to me from DAY one. But there were, and still are, so many obstacles, that, were they not so frustrating to deal with, I'd be thankful I'd even gotten to this point. For instance, as posters before now mentioned or alluded to, as I myself covered on a previous page, the word "Luciferian" has connotations of evil. Arguably this is rightly so. It is certainly so from a Judeo-Christian perspective.
Unfortunately, such serves as a barrier to communication, especially when simply trying to identify it or illustrate what it actually looks like.
Frustrating for me? I looked up Merriam Webster and presented what is listed there and then busied myself explaining why the dictionary-style entry misleads people. What would have probably been far more helpful would have been to simply type the word "Luciferian" into Wikipedia, and not Merriam-Webster, for the Wikipedia actually describes what I've taken pains to illustrate over the course of many posts, and does so in a few paragraphs. Probably could have saved me a lot of time, even as getting even one or two more posters like Letters could have made this one of the best threads on KMC, organized and authoritative, and not merely informational and/or entertaining.

On the other hand, I've come across some remarkable people on my research journey that I would never have connected with in any meaningful way except through this searching process. A lot goes on in my life after all, apart from this forum, that never gets even hinted at here, as is true for most of you.

I still need to correct the omission of what Wiki has to say on the subject. It will help bridge the gap, no, chasm, between what I knew initially and expressed, and what I've learned in the interim and am in the process of sharing.
It's only a beginning, but is still necessary, and should have been provided long before.

Please note that this is NOT reflective of my own opinion on Luciferianism.
I do NOT, for instance, think it is a mistake to associate Luciferianism with Satanism, EXCEPT in the sense that it can prevent people from understanding how Luciferianism APPEARS. As a description of how Luciferianism APPEARS, however, Wikipedia is a lot more informative than Merriam-Webster:

-------------------
Luciferianism, General Beliefs (from Wikipedia)

"...Sometimes mistakenly associated with Satanism due to the Christian interpretation of the fallen angel, Luciferianism is a wholly different belief system and does not revere the devil figure or most characteristics typically affixed to Satan. Rather, Lucifer in this context is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment, independence and human progression, and is often used interchangeably with similar figures from a range of ancient beliefs, such as the Greek titan Prometheus or the Jewish talmudic figure Lilith.

They support the protection of the natural world. Both the arts and sciences are crucial to human development, and thus both are cherished. Luciferians think that humans should be focused on this life and how to make the most of it every single day. The ability to recognize both good and evil, to accept that all actions have consequences, both positive and negative, and to actively influence one's environment, is a key factor.

For Luciferians, enlightenment is the ultimate goal. The basic Luciferian principles highlight truth and freedom of will, worshipping the inner self and one's ultimate potential. Traditional dogma is shunned as a basis for morality on the grounds that humans should not need deities or fear of eternal punishment to distinguish right from wrong and to do good. All ideas should be tested before being accepted, and even then one should remain skeptical because knowledge and understanding are fluid. Regardless of whether Lucifer is conceived of as a deity or as a mere archetype, he is a representation of ultimate knowledge and exploration: humanity's savior and a champion for continuing personal growth ..."

I need perhaps one to three more posts of supplemental info and then my plan is to resume extensive illustration with specific comic and/or comic based examples.

For instance, just now I covered a few general beliefs of Luciferianism, taken from Wikipedia. It would perhaps have been better, though, to have started with what THEY did, as the specifics they list here are the identifying characteristics I'll need people to recognize before they can really understand what they're looking at, why I no longer think this is MOST closely following Biblical "End Times" literature, and not something else SOME of you know to be well-established ...

-------------------------
Wikipedia

"Luciferianism is a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to Lucifer. The tradition, influenced by Gnosticism, usually reveres Lucifer not as the devil, but as a liberator, a guardian or guiding spirit or even the true god as opposed to Jehovah."

"Lucifer is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlêl or heylel, occurs once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-based Strong's Concordance means "shining one, light-bearer". The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star. The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer, meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".

When I first created this thread, I was shocked at some of the reactions I got.
Part of that was because I assumed a familiarity with Biblical material that KMC readers apparently do NOT have. Comic Books started out as a fairly distinctly American creation, after all, and America is or was known as a primarily Judeo-Christian nation ...

Needless to say, the demographics of KMC challenge those notions and any assumptions that go along with them.

So, I became a frequent visitor to the Religion forum on KMC, to try to learn what KMC posters DO know or believe.

The answers I got convinced me, of course, that I needed to give and illustrate a LOT of background info before I could be understood in any meaningful way whatsoever. Hopefully I've done this to the point that the perspective at least, can now be understood.

I always try to give corroboration for anything I present.
The following exchange should give the last piece of background info needed to understand the visuals of this thread, and confirm, even as Letters did before, even as the interviews with Kirby, Morrison, and Moore support, that there is definitely more than pure profit motive inspiring what we see from DC, that much of the work has mythical and/or religious inspiration, moreover that the narrative often conforms uncannily to Gnostic and or Luciferian beliefs, at least as would be defined by Wikipedia, Gnostics, Luciferians, and Christians.

Read the following with the above in mind:

--------------------------

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

With all due respect to Star, "Greatest I am" is about as atheist as the Pope.

He subscribes instead to something called Gnosticism. It's a form of Luciferianism, and its tenets, having names as exotic as those found in the Bible WITHOUT the name recognition of that work for most people, sounds like something from a bad drug trip.

Have you ever wondered how God could allow bad things to happen?
Have you ever wondered how the Bible could have God speak as if He Himself is the author of calamity in certain places?

Gnostics believe they have the answer.
A being would have to be so conflicted as to be mad in their view, and so the God identified by Christians as Jehovah, Yaweh, God the Father, etcetera IS mad in the Gnostic view, he is, in "fact" a being called the "Demiurge" or, more formally "Yaldabaoth", and is literally insane.

By contrast, however, Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer". The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).

Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.

Re-examine what you see from "Greatest I Am" with this knowledge.

Better yet, examine the first 2 minutes (or as much as you choose) from the 7 minute clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_OZtVxNQtc

Better still, do just a little research on your own by Googling or Wikipedia-ing "demiurge" and Gnosticism.

Greatest I Am is not an atheist. He just believes, or at least claims, that the God of the Bible is the deceiver of mankind, not Satan.

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Some of what you know of Gnostic Christianity is now outdated. As a thinking man's religion, Gnostic Christianity has evolved along with man and God.

You do represent our old myths accurately though except for for your "Luciferianism" comment.

I do agree that we see the bible God as trying to keep man stupid but thank Eve more than the talking serpent from the Christian perspective and we do thank the serpent as you say but have it possessed by Sofia, our personification of wisdom, from our Gnostic Christian perspective.

Those differences is why many do not really understand Gnostic Christians. We have one view when criticizing Christianity and their vile theology and another when we are showing our myths.

Regards
DL

With all the above now out of the way, I think people can understand.
They may or may not agree with the arguments being made, but they should now have some idea of what they're looking at, unlike the poster from several pages back who seemed totally lost.

I'll start/restart with some easier ones. I think most people will have gotten now the
"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" motif.

The Worlds Finest entry at the top of this page featuring Karen Starr as the Lucifer stand-in should be obvious even to people who have only read what is on this page and nothing else.

I'll return now, though to Apollo, for this character, as he's been written in DCnU is even harder to mistake as an allegorical Lucifer stand-in. For starters, as noted before, his appearance is like that of an earlier Destroying Angel:

Amazingly, this reflects not only Satan as a winged angel (and perhaps with the issue of his mouth even as Beezlebub, Lord of the Flies?) but also Apollo as he's apparently been described in ancient texts:

APOLLYON. The Greek name, meaning "Destroyer," given in Revelation 9:11 for "the angel of the bottomless pit" (in Hebrew called Abaddon), also identified as the king of the demonic "locusts" described in Revelation 9:3-10...In one manuscript, instead of Apollyon the text reads "Apollo," the Greek god of death and pestilence as well as of the sun, music, poetry, crops and herds, and medicine. Apollyon is no doubt the correct reading. But the name Apollo (Gk Apollon) was often linked in ancient Greek writings with the verb apollymi or apollyo, "destroy." From this time of Grotius, "Apollyon" has often been taken here to be a play on the name Apollo. The locust was an emblem of this god, who poisoned his victims, and the name "Apollyon" may be used allusively in Revelation to attack the pagan god and so indirectly the Roman emperor Domitian, who liked to be regarded as Apollo incarnate.

(Anchor Bible Dictionary)

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/a009.htm

... and the DCnU rendering of Apollo, unlike previous incarnations of the god in Wonder Woman comics, is decidedly demonic:

Azzarello in his Wonder Woman run managed to make Apollo even more malevolent than his original myths. For all the destruction I've read his causing, in works like the Iliad for instance, quoted on the previous page, where Apollo kills scores of men for an affront to his priest, I've never read of Apollo killing his own oracles. He gets a measure of comeuppance in this series not very long after this story, but Azzarello succeeds in his boast; there is nothing that will fully reinvest Apollo with the sense of benign presence previous incarnations had after scenes like this :

The symbols in this story take on new meaning if radical secular theories like the Electric Universe can be entertained, even if only for a moment.
Note that this theory (provided in the clip entitled "Remembering the End of the World", submitted in this thread a day or so ago), explains the strange persistence and recurrence of sun and crescent and lightning symbols, for instance. And how deity can usurp deity. And how the names of planets can have both male and female trappings.

The Thunderbolts of Jove/Jupiter/Zeus in myth make perfect sense if what people from thousands of years ago were seeing was an interplay of extraordinary plasma discharges. It would explain why Venus was known by so many names, and so many epithets. It would explain why Mars was regarded as both hero and villain. And, of course it would well explain why people like Azzarello, loving all things mythic, and sci-fi, and religious, and obscure, could have Diana supporting a disk-like object or shield that looks like the sun, with Zeus's thunderbolt symbol pictured ...

... and later wield it herself ...

Some of you might be wondering how I could give Electric Universe even a moment's thought.

There are several reasons.

One is that it would explain an INCREDIBLE amount of world myth, including discrepancies with names, the fluidity of deities across cultures, and why people, in eras long before telescopes, gave such inordinate importance to heavenly objects they otherwise should barely have been able to see, let alone develop elaborate rituals of worship for (ie Saturn, etcetera).
Two is the awareness that the only thing we have informing us of anything our probes have not revealed is what we can gather from the various forms of light and electromagnetic energy we receive. And significant dispute from people like Halton Arp that our conclusions are correct.
Three? The proponents of Electric Universe, beginning with Velikovsky, though they may have gotten a few things wrong, have been able to predict things conventional astronomers have been wrong on. First coming to mind is a hot Venus, which was nearly directly opposite what anyone in mainstream science predicted before we actually landed probes there.

There are actually a few more reasons than those, but, ultimately it doesn't matter whether the EU people have everything correct, because my assertion is that the symbolmakers and users using the language we're talking about seem to take EU's conclusions for granted. If so, and their meaning derived from it, it'd be like arguing that Buddhists didn't build temples because Buddha himself didn't really exist or do the things his followers say he did. Buddhist temples exist regardless because people believe in Buddhism. Belief can still coordinate human activity and language communication, even if it isn't based on anything prove-ably tangible.
Star Wars would be another good example of this, by the way.

At any rate, one thing among many others that strikes me from the EU model is that the circle and disc representations we think of as sun and moon, especially, say on Islamic country flags and the like, might, in actuality, be representing ... Venus!

Sounds insane on first run.
But the literature of ancient texts speak of this as a reality.

Could it be? The video "Remembering the End of the World" makes a case for this surprisingly strongly. Myself, I only need wonder if Halton Arp's theory on red shift is right. If it is, if he's right, then our Universe and Solar System could be a LOT younger than most people think, and nearly everything EU posits becomes possible.

That would have interesting implications for the following.

(Notice, by the way, typing in "polar configuration Saturn". will get about the same results "polar configuration Venus" did here.)

Now note this, which works if Diana represents the Moon here, as surely as DC even has Apollo state directly that he IS the Sun, but it works if he is the warlike Mars being kissed by Venus here as well ...

I'm going to try to keep text to a minimum from this point on.
With all the background and explanation given to this point, even just to this page, the visuals and their arrangement should speak for themselves.

For instance, here you can probably gather that the illustration of Diana reminded me of one of those Indian sculptures or prints of those many-handed guys or girls :

... but if you've been paying attention, you also noticed I'm explaining how the many hands is an optical illusion, that the phenomenon of character/gender fluidity very easily occurs here, that the appearance of Venus itself is an optical illusion, that, if EU theory is correct, such stories are actually about the planets,
and that much interpretation of all this depends on your vantage point and perspective.

With no extraordinary commitment to order, the above features:

1. a collage of Google Image results for the search terms: polar configuration Venus,
2. Diana in her newest Rebirth series,
3. the MALE Indian figure, Shukra, who represents the planet Venus,
4. Shukra, again, in a different style, note one of his weapons includes a bow, much like Apollo's in the previous post,
5. the FEMALE goddess Durga, in the famous print "Mahishasura Mardini"
6. Durga, again, same work, see above
7. Durga, again, same work ... note that all works 3-7 look EXTREMELY similar to one another, though they feature different characters
8. dancers performing the 1000 hand illusion
9. Side view of the 1000 hand illusion, showing that it IS merely an illusion
(it looks AMAZING if you see it head-on under the right conditions, though)

The language of symbology is generally not as "precise" as the almost scientific language we use when studying other subjects. There's not always a 1 to 1 correlation where symbol is concrete and discrete and refers to only one thing ever and other things never.

In other words, an ability to discern patterns and clues is necessary.
This is easiest to explain with examples, which is the one reason, as comics all by themselves are generally great visual examples, I think this doable.

Let's start with the idea of the Phoenix. This is a mythical bird-like creature which has a LOT of prevalence in popular culture nowadays. People who read comics or watch X-Men movies will have NO difficulty in recognizing the term.
In fact, one of the first hits Google returns when you type the word in is a picture of Jean Grey. The other image moviegoers among you will recognize is the "Mocking Jay" from the popular series of movies entitled "Hunger Games".

The concept of Phoenix is one of death and rebirth, generally in a very fiery and dramatic fashion, though, as an allegory, that needn't always be the case. In fact, Jean Grey notwithstanding, one of my contentions is that you'll find this motif somewhat sublimated the further back in time you go, and more directly portrayed now.

Take a look at the following, keeping the above in mind.
I'm describing material which is multi-layered, so please take time to notice, too,

1) the Phoenix generally has serpentine or dragon-like aspects to its appearance,
2) you see a fiery angel as one of the Google Image Search Results returns for "Phoenix"

and
3) Supergirl herself appears as a near twin of Jean Gey and that fiery angel:

Wikipedia currently has the following to say about the Phoenix:

----------------

The phoenix is sometimes pictured in ancient and medieval literature and medieval art as endowed with a nimbus, which emphasizes the bird's connection with the Sun.[9] In the oldest images of phoenixes on record these nimbuses often have seven rays, like Helios (the personified sun of Greek mythology).[10] Pliny the Elder[11] also describes the bird as having a crest of feathers on its head,[9] and Ezekiel the Dramatist compared it to a rooster.[12]

----------------

The part Wikipedia mentions about the sun is particularly interesting.

One, it is in accord with the theory set forth by EU proponents that people began these traditions to reflect what they saw in the sky, in terms of stars, sun, moon, and various interplays like eclipses, alignment/conjunction illusions, plasma discharges, and auroras, etcetera.
Two, it ties the Phoenix to the cultures of other people recording nearly exactly the same thing in their language.
Three, it ties the Phoenix to identification with ancient gods.

So we have yet another link between comic characters and distinctly Luciferian myth. Longtime comic book readers, of course, will note another significance of the sun and Phoenix association -- Jean Grey, literally CALLED Phoenix, originally "died" from a trip into the sun.

Cycles repeat, stories get re-told, the DCnU version of Supergirl, active when I first began this thread, transformed herself from the Red Lantern I mentioned she was, back to her "normal" self by taking a "fatal" plunge into Ol Sol:

Readers who note what happened immediately after THAT point may consider how appropriate "dragon" associations are with Phoenix, even if normally "gentle" Supergirl adopts the mantle.

Supergirl-as-Phoenix has been present literally since Day One.
Remember that Phoenix rises from its own ashes, usually in a fiery death, though not always, and often of its own will.

Anybody now recall Supergirl's origin? She arrives on Earth IN A CRASH LANDING THAT DESTROYS HER ROCKET SHIP.

Death in a fiery blaze. "Reborn" as it were from a cracked Phoenix egg.
Note, referring to the picture they list in Wikipedia for the "Phoenix" entry again:

... that Kara's rocket even has the same color of the Phoenix's "egg".

Note what I mentioned before about the comics of the past being at least a tad more subtle. Action Comics 252 shows little in the way of collateral damage that would make the connection as obvious as it should be. Supergirl 58, volume 4 or something I believe, a much later day writing honoring Action 252, Supergirl's debut comic from the year 1959, is more explicit. The disguised vision of fiery death is far less veiled; besides flames all around, the ground shows the evidence of tremendous impact penetrations:

No ordinary human would have survived something like that.
On an allegorical and/or symbolic level, we're probably not "really" meant to think Kara survived either; the superhero story is a disguised re-telling of myth.

Ahk...

Lost a size able chunk of text a few moments ago. It expanded and explained what I meant before. About Phoenix, or characters adopting the Phoenix role not always adopting a fiery "end". In Supergirl's re-intro to the DCU by Jeph Loeb in 2004 or thereabouts, for instance, she meets her "end" in a watery grave. Her ship crash lands into Gotham Harbor. That impact would be more akin to hitting a brick wall, despite what people wrongly think about water landings. There's a reason the old shuttle missions had parachutes for their craft, likewise there's a reason almost no one before Sully managed the trick even for a commercial jet trying to use a river as a runway. Being in a craft full tilt slamming into water head on from great heights is a death sentence. Even surviving parallel skimming contact was rightly called "Miracle on the Hudson" when it happened to Flight 1549. Supergirl experiences that, and drowning hazard, AND the bottom of her bay being littered, apparently, with Kryptonite. Tough intro.

At any rate, watery "death" before "resurrection" is a popular motif in culture.
Man of Steel features Clark experiencing it in a Jesus-Christ-on-the-cross pose; Beyoncé emerges from it at the beginning of the long play Reggae-inspired version of her song "Hold Up", etcetera ...

Thumbnails came out smaller than I wanted for my last submission...
Let me see what this gives me ...

Hmm. Not too bad ...

The "thumbnails" I'm using, at that magnification, are actually better in some cases than what you see linking to the actual picture ...

At any rate, I wanted to show those homage covers as a reminder of the flexibility of vision required to understand some of this symbolism. Each one is different in detail; so different as to be irreconcilable under standard conditions.
Unless you somehow learn what the "original" was like or meant.

Every last variation of Action Comics 252 can be recognized AS a variation of Action Comics 252 -- if you've first been exposed to that comic.

Doesn't matter if you switch the gender of the character.
Doesn't matter if you change the setting.
Doesn't even matter if you change out one or both characters completely.

The allusion is STILL recognize-able ... to those in the know.

Today generally affords people a lot of time they don't normally have. I'm thinking it's a good idea to use some of that time to post some material I've had for awhile in reserve for this thread. I'm going to be exceedingly light on exposition and heavy on supplying visual material and largely letting it speak for itself.

All-Seeing Eye Symbolism

I mentioned this earlier on this page. Been seeing this a lot lately.
Most striking incidents were with the DC Comics character Slade, aka Deathstroke, who has lately been featured at least 2or 3 times with major players like Superman and Wonder Woman, and second most striking, perhaps, with the Marvel Comics character Jane Foster, currently known as Thor.

Not too far behind, though, is Supergirl herself, in fact, according to the author, the original version of Supergirl herself, appearing in Justice League 3000:

All Seeing Eye Symbolism is quite common now in the world of music videos.
I suppose someone could make the argument this is a subtle nod to that.
Possibly somebody just looked at the back of a dollar bill and decided that would serve as a cool visual theme.

Regardless, my purpose is largely to show THAT such symbolism is being used,
NOT to give an authoritative answer on exactly WHY such symbolism is being used. With the enlargements below, you should be able to see quite clearly where the art staff has styled Kara's hair in such a way that, regardless of what she does, only one of her eyes is ever visible to the viewer. After a storyline that JUST featured Supergirl taking on Starro, of all villains, the images register surprisingly powerfully:

Let no one think I don't like Supergirl; my very first thread on all of KMC was an homage to her original 1959-1985 debut.

The fact that I find some things to be very singular about her, her relatively recent treatment in the books and even now on TV puzzling, and the symbolism surrounding her suggestive of an identification of identifications I DON'T particularly like, doesn't mean I don't still get some enjoyment from reading her adventures, though perhaps more her older ones than those of the last few years, at least till just before now, and still does nothing to prevent me from watching every new episode I can catch of Melissa Benoist on the new show.

But, the fact is, that symbolism IS there, and I would challenge anyone familiar with the motifs used in popular fiction to covincingly and logically argue otherwise.