A new “comic series”:http://accstudios.com/f/synopsis1.htm looks to be a must-buy (Preview available “here”:http://accstudios.com/f/comicpreview_page_covera.htm):
bq. America’s future has become an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism. Beginning with the Gore Presidency, the government has become increasingly dominated by liberal extremists. In 2004, Muslim terrorists stopped viewing the weakened American government as a threat; instead they set their sites on their true enemies, vocal American conservatives. On one dark day, in 2006, many conservative voices went forever silent at the hands of terrorist assassins. Those which survived joined forces and formed a powerful covert conservative organization called “The Freedom of Information League”, aka F.O.I.L. The F.O.I.L. Organization is forced underground by the “Coulter Laws” of 2007; these hate speech legislations have made right-wing talk shows, and conservative-slanted media, illegal. … Rupert Murdoch’s decision to defy the “Coulter Laws” hate speech legislations, has bankrupted News Corporation. George Soros has bought all of News Corps assets and changed its name to Liberty International Broadcasting. LIB’s networks have flourished and circle the globe with a series of satellites beaming liberal & U.N. propaganda worldwide. The New York City faction of F.O.I.L. is lead by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, each uniquely endowed with special abilities devised by a bio mechanical engineer affectionately nicknamed “Oscar”. F.O.I.L. is soon to be joined by a young man named Reagan McGee.
Meanwhile, a mechanically enhanced Glenn Reynolds is presumably heading up F.O.I.L’s Tennessee branch.
via “Jesse Walker”:http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/08/but_will_we_eve.shtml at Hit and Run (whose post has one of the most disturbing titles I’ve ever seen).
{ 1 trackback }
{ 44 comments }
washerdreyer 08.01.05 at 2:37 pm
I had no idea conservatives were so opposed to anti-vandalism laws.
Paul M. Martin 08.01.05 at 4:01 pm
Talk about sci-fi – the terrorist taking out one of their biggest recruiters!
jdw 08.01.05 at 4:01 pm
This is a little bit of background. The comic series seems to be either completely cynical, or composed in some sort of weird pre-ironic state.
yabonn 08.01.05 at 4:08 pm
I bet on a prank. Good one, too.
Hodgepodge 08.01.05 at 5:46 pm
So, the premise is that of conservitives weren’t in power, they’d be terrorists too? But you know, heroic good terrotists. Because their cause is just!
It actually looks like it might be amusing, so long as the author doesn’t get too preachy. From the smaple provided, it’s hard to tell what degree of irony is being employed.
Hodgepodge 08.01.05 at 5:48 pm
Apologies for the typos in that last post.
Jared 08.01.05 at 5:54 pm
I’ll buy it if they make Giblets a character.
Tom Hilton 08.01.05 at 6:37 pm
Warning: do not, repeat, do not click on the ‘Jesse Walker’ link above. “One of the most disturbing post titles” understates the case by several orders of magnitude; we’re talking permanent emotional scarring, possible post-traumatic stress syndrome, maybe brain damage even. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Bostoniangirl 08.01.05 at 7:40 pm
Why are you spelling sacre with an ‘a’ at the end?
Henry 08.01.05 at 9:48 pm
The “sacra bleu” line is a direct quote from the strip – page 5 I think.
TonyB 08.01.05 at 10:06 pm
“Sacra Blue” was the title of the monthly magazine of the Sacramento PC Users Group, a computer club in California. I was its editor at one time. We were being cutesy when we named it. The writers who used “Sacra Bleu” in the comic book are probably just illiterate. Heh.
Dæn 08.01.05 at 10:30 pm
Yeah, I thought it was a joke at first too. Sadly, this is not the case. From the author:
God, the whole thing is beyond sophomoric. Literally. It sounds like something a 10th-grader would come up with.
lemuel pitkin 08.01.05 at 10:59 pm
This is copied almost panel for panel from the opening of Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.
(I am so ashamed to know this…)
dglp 08.01.05 at 11:52 pm
This is what’s interesting about the archived Byrne conversation about the current US political landscape:
dglp 08.01.05 at 11:53 pm
Oops. Forgot the closing blockquote.
Fledermaus 08.02.05 at 12:41 am
Yeah, I thought it was a joke at first too. Sadly, this is not the case. From the author: . . .
I’m not so sure. I’ve been thinking about how to hop on this conservative gravy train for a while now. The first rule seems to be always play the part. I mean C’mon Hannity, North and Liddy??!!? Step one, pick some lamebrained GOP apologists with an audience and get free publicity. Step two: write some crap cribbed from GOP talking points and old Rush transcripts (e.g. Left Behind). Step three: kick back and wait for the moolah to roll in.
I’m going with hoax.
Alan K. Henderson 08.02.05 at 12:47 am
So the future dystopic America essenitally becomes a big giant elite university campus, huh?
I wonder what David Horowitz’s superhero costume looks like…
Alan K. Henderson 08.02.05 at 1:10 am
Yeah, I know Dave isn’t in the comic, but he certainly belongs in a story about a Berkeley-ized America.
Come to think of it, doesn’t Canada already have something resembling the Coulter Laws?
If the plot centers around a plot to nuke NYC, UN headquarters must have relocated out of Manhattan – Bin Laden would never be rash enough to place a nuke in range of such a valuable source of lapdog appeaseniks.
R.Mutt 08.02.05 at 2:27 am
It’s fascinating this obsession with victimhood. Your people control the world and all you can do is dream up some fantastic scenario in which you are a repressed minority…
strewelpeter 08.02.05 at 2:55 am
This reminds me of the thread on bland Christian rock music yesterday.
Its kinda funny until you realise that, no, its not ironic this is how the world is seen in some quarters. Then it seems rather scary.
Actually this thing is still really funny whether intentional or not you just have to laugh.
schwa 08.02.05 at 4:48 am
Well, I suppose if your criteria for a “conservative” comic book seriously have anything to do with G. Gordon Liddy, there really are none out there — and worst of all, the sales figures for Ann Coulter’s books suggest there really is a market for this sort of rubbish.*
But really… Watchmen isn’t conservative? (It’s certainly got the most unpleasant and, for a liberal reader, discomforting liberal villain ever.) TDKR? Hell, the basic morality of the entire superhero genre?†
*. Wasn’t there a spoof ad for the iPod a while back which said something like “Steve Jobs could take a dump in a white plastic case and stick four buttons on it, and you’d buy it”?
†. Well, except that bizarrely lurid Green Lantern gay-bashing storyline.
bad Jim 08.02.05 at 5:17 am
I see this concern expressed over and over, and it makes me wonder, have none of you ever read any Victorian pornography? (You may reciprocally wonder if I’ve read too much, but I can’t offer a coherent response.)
To those who don’t find this sort of setup to a fantasy necessary, I can only suggest invading another country. Or spinning classes or Pilates. Whatever floats your boat.
What’s really going on is the normal human response to an unfamiliar situation: this cannot be my fault. Someone else must be to blame for my predicament. Who is it?
I find the image of all-powerful liberals immensely enjoyable. May I see you in my box at the opera tomorrow, then?
Hodgepodge 08.02.05 at 5:24 am
“But really… Watchmen isn’t conservative?”
If I had to peg Moore, I’d say he’s a libertarian. It comes out a lot more strongly in V For Vendetta.
schwa 08.02.05 at 5:35 am
hodgepodge —
I’m not saying Moore himself is a conservative, but I can’t see much in Watchmen that, say, Pat Buchanan would object to. It’s too short on the God to please our new Christian Right overlords, but I think it’s entirely compatible with paleocon morality.
bad jim — are you offering recommendations?
Sam Dodsworth 08.02.05 at 7:46 am
I’m not saying Moore himself is a conservative, but I can’t see much in Watchmen that, say, Pat Buchanan would object to.
That’s because Pat Buchanan would miss the irony (although he’d probably find Dr Manhatten blasphemous). The structure of the story defines some characters as heroes and others as villains, but they don’t actually divide neatly into good guys and bad guys. And which of the two possible endings implied in the last panel is the ‘good’ one?
From interviews and his other work, I’d peg Moore as a classic left-wing hippy anarchist. Don’t forget the default form of anarchism on this side of the Atlantic is anarcho-socialism, not libertarianism.
Ted 08.02.05 at 9:00 am
You notice how, in the future, no one seems to age except Chelsea Clinton? What is the UN putting in the water?
Also, CyberHannity uses a Mac laptop. This means something.
Dæn 08.02.05 at 9:01 am
One thing seems clear: Mike Mackey is either profoundly irony-impaired or a marketing genius specifically counting on the viral spread of this kind of public speculation.
neil 08.02.05 at 9:53 am
My favorite line from the synopsis was this:
Reagan has grown to manhood in an ultra-liberal educational system: being told, not asked, what to think.
Whaaaaa?
Ray 08.02.05 at 10:03 am
Yeah, he’s told evolution is right, not presented with the ‘theories’ of evolution and intelligent design and invited to choose between them. Damn librulls!
washerdreyer 08.02.05 at 10:44 am
How does this “Watchmen is very conservative” theory deal with Rorschach being a conservative (I’m tempted to say Buchananite) nut-job? You can’t imagine he’s vindicated by the ending?
Tim 08.02.05 at 10:53 am
Victimhood gives you the moral excuse to do horrible violent (or, in Victorian pornography, sexually depraved) things that some deep dark part of you wants to do. And, of course, those things (sexy or violent) are what sell books.
Bruce Baugh 08.02.05 at 11:04 am
Moore has said in interviews that Rorschach was supposed to be a straight-forward nut job who acquired some virtues very much to Moore’s own surprise. But his personal courage and dedication and peculiarly focused honor don’t excuse his faults or make him admirable, at least not as far as Moore is concerned. They simply show that it’s hard to be all bad and that virtue can turn up in the most surprising places.
And yes, Moore is very much in the left-wing anarchist tradition. He’s skeptical of power in every form beyond the personal. For him, the good is always individual and local. (He also had a very funny line in explaining why he’d never go to Hollywood, and it largely came down to preferring to be where he is. “I’m really a very at-home sort. For me, the other end of the living room is a strange land where they do some things differently.”)
st 08.02.05 at 12:51 pm
You can’t imagine he’s vindicated by the ending?
Sure I can – but only in the highly personal way that B. Baugh mentions. Rorshach is, whatever else you say, the only one with the integrity to look at Ozymandias’ plan and say – “No. What you have done is evil.” The rest, even the freaking godlike Dr. Manhattan, just do the math and shrug, accepting the cost/benefit analysis and agreeing to keep their mouths shut. I may be wrong, but this is meant to demonstrate something powerful (and, in its way, honorable) in his character. Rorshach’s subsequent death (and his unmasked howl of “Do it!”) is classically tragic for that reason. At least I found it so.
Jeez, I’m a geek.
Back on topic, I bet a million billion dollars that the secret hideout of the conservative resistance is in the Statue of Liberty.
Kriston 08.02.05 at 1:05 pm
The G. Gordon Liddy Web site doesn’t show the radio show schedule or feature any archives, but the writer of the comic claims to have been interviewed yesterday on the air. One way to verify whether it’s a hoax.
I hope everyone notes that once you excise the “ali” (over which the UN is transposed) from “liberality” you get back your “liberty for all.” That’s quite clever.
Shelby 08.02.05 at 3:38 pm
Re Watchmen, I always thought the only classically conservative character was The Comedian. He’s the one who seems so gung-ho on Vietnam, supporting the administration, never asking questions, etc. Rorschach was a moral or social conservative, but didn’t translate that into politics; he just thought certain acts and mindsets were vile. Plus, of course, the whole “World is Coming to an End” signboard schtick.
Really, Ozymandias was the only politically-minded character, hence schwa’s discomfort above. But overall the comic doesn’t come out in favor of any political viewpoint — it’s more an examination of individual choice in a social world.
lillemask 08.02.05 at 5:06 pm
Also, one of the points of the ending of Watchmen is that Ozymandias’ plan isn’t obviously evil. Possibly his was the only way to avert the nuclear destruction of mankind.
st 08.02.05 at 5:45 pm
Ozymandias’ plan isn’t obviously evil.
Sure it was. At the time it was being discussed and Rorshach made his stand, Ozymandias had already killed thousands of people, both in the incident in NYC and the multiple murders (by defenestration, intentional infliction of cancer, and explosives) leading up to the final bloody show. Oz’s plan could never be proven to be “the only way to avert the nuclear destruction of mankind,” but as it had already been carried out, public disclosure of the real nature of the incident in NYC would pointlessly undo its apparent success. There may well have been other ways to avert nuclear catastrophe, most of them involving Dr. Manhattan, but Oz’s plan itself included sidelining Dr. M. until the deed was done.
The decision faced by the heroes was not “do I support Oz’s plan” but rather, “now that this mass-murder has occurred, does the fact of its evil outweigh the far greater evil it has, apparently, averted.” The heroes say yes, Rorshach says no. To Rorshach, Ozymandias is just another killer.
st 08.02.05 at 5:49 pm
rereading, I realize I meant:
“is the fact of its evil outweighed by the far greater evil it has, apparently, averted.”
Oh, well.
Matt 08.02.05 at 6:16 pm
I hate to let the discussion be side-tracked from the point that the creator of this comic has, quite obviously, a deeply confused view of the world if this is anything more than just a way to make money, but it should be pointed out that the real goal of Ozymandias wasn’t to prevent nuclear war (Dr. Manhattan was doing that just fine until Ozymandias got rid of him) but rather to “unite” mankind in some deeper way by giving them a common enemy. Merely preventing war wasn’t enough to do this. He had to start a sort of war for it. It was the unity of man-kind, not protection from war, that he wanted most. (That might make him a “liberal” in the bizzare dream world of this comic’s author, or of Hannity, but not in relationship to many real liberals.)
Ray 08.03.05 at 3:54 am
Dr Manhattan was preventing nuclear war, but there were dozens of proxy wars going on around the world, IIRC. And Ozymandias reckoned Dr Manhattan was increasingly disconnected from the rest of the world, and was going to go sometime anyway, at which point nuclear war would break out.
Why do you think Moore has a deeply confused view of the world? Do you think he agress with Ozymandias? Do you think he believes Ozymandias’ plan will be a success in the long-term?
lillemask 08.03.05 at 8:42 am
I’m sorry to keep side-tracking the discussion, but Watchmen certainly is more worthy of discussion than Liberality.
As several people have pointed out, the the 9/11 attacks were eerily reminiscent of the ending of Watchmen.
Post 9/11 there also was a global sentiment of unity in sympathy with the victims and the American people.
Unfortunately, this plan of the great peace-loving liberal Ozyma bin-Ladin didn’t work out so well in the long run.
Matt 08.03.05 at 9:41 am
It was the creator of this awful right-wing comic that I meant to say had a “deeply confused” view of the world. (Interviews I’ve read w/ Moore make me think he also does, but in a totally different and more or less harmless way. A way involving ancient Roman snake gods and the like.)
Ray 08.03.05 at 10:09 am
Ah, sorry, my misreading. Its hard to know what exactly Moore’s up to with Glaucon, since he does describe it as a Roman sock-puppet…
LamontCranston 08.04.05 at 12:34 am
How does the author of “Liberality for All” reconcile his political beliefs with the fact that Liddy & North are criminals? Legally, morally and figeratively
Liddy: A certain well known hotel and everything surrounding that, breaking into a physiatrists office to obtain information to use against a political enemy, planning to assassinate journalist Jack Anderson* and on and on.
North: a certain well-documented incident involving military equipment & Iran and money & South-American rebels, not to mention well documented [John Kerry 1987, Gary Webb 1996, CIA 1998] involvement in narco-traffiking.
Perhaps he likes to play the macho chestbeating “ends justify the means†game?
*[if they hadn’t been found in the hotel, they would have aprox. one week later]
Comments on this entry are closed.