HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why do so many people ido...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:38 PM

 

Why do so many people idolize V for vendetta's anarchy? It is not democratic to blow up buildings

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:02 AM - Edit history (1)

it is a fictional character, having no relationship to the USA and promotes violence and anarchy
and the destruction costing billions of dollars.
One could say OBL would have idolized that character, or Tim McVeigh. or Zimmerman.
or the NRA.

It does not seem to be a democratic voters character to idolize.

Blow it up and burn it down? Why???

19 terrorists and OBL did that to the WTC and for 10 years there was a hole in the ground
and a bankrupt country because of it.

Weird IMHO.

(edit to add, edited title of thread, apologies to Sue Grafton for my wrong wording of title, Brain fart.
I know the difference)
(though vendetta/vengence/vigilante all describe the same V book).

127 replies, 6461 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why do so many people idolize V for vendetta's anarchy? It is not democratic to blow up buildings (Original post)
graham4anything Jan 2013 OP
Recursion Jan 2013 #1
Marr Jan 2013 #65
Recursion Jan 2013 #66
Marr Jan 2013 #71
Recursion Jan 2013 #72
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #106
MattBaggins Jan 2013 #69
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #2
sendero Jan 2013 #31
Chathamization Jan 2013 #59
sendero Jan 2013 #70
Chathamization Jan 2013 #76
krispos42 Jan 2013 #34
theKed Jan 2013 #49
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #3
Marengo Jan 2013 #40
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #42
XemaSab Jan 2013 #4
riqster Jan 2013 #32
XemaSab Jan 2013 #82
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2013 #5
a la izquierda Jan 2013 #75
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2013 #92
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #6
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #9
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #78
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #81
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #94
frazzled Jan 2013 #14
MADem Jan 2013 #24
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #83
Moonwalk Jan 2013 #103
tama Jan 2013 #27
frazzled Jan 2013 #41
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #85
frazzled Jan 2013 #93
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #101
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #57
frazzled Jan 2013 #64
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #99
frazzled Jan 2013 #100
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #102
enlightenment Jan 2013 #52
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #61
DerekG Jan 2013 #7
graham4anything Jan 2013 #26
a la izquierda Jan 2013 #73
graham4anything Jan 2013 #110
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #105
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #8
Recursion Jan 2013 #11
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #12
hfojvt Jan 2013 #15
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #16
hfojvt Jan 2013 #18
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #68
hfojvt Jan 2013 #74
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #112
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #62
Hippo_Tron Jan 2013 #97
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #115
randome Jan 2013 #10
Scootaloo Jan 2013 #13
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #17
Matariki Jan 2013 #19
ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2013 #54
hfojvt Jan 2013 #20
graham4anything Jan 2013 #25
hfojvt Jan 2013 #39
tama Jan 2013 #28
hfojvt Jan 2013 #43
tama Jan 2013 #44
hfojvt Jan 2013 #46
tama Jan 2013 #48
hfojvt Jan 2013 #58
tama Jan 2013 #67
hfojvt Jan 2013 #116
tama Jan 2013 #119
intaglio Jan 2013 #21
Rex Jan 2013 #22
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #23
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #29
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #47
ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2013 #55
tama Jan 2013 #30
graham4anything Jan 2013 #33
tama Jan 2013 #35
Harmony Blue Jan 2013 #36
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #50
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #51
graham4anything Jan 2013 #84
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #90
graham4anything Jan 2013 #108
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #125
Downtown Hound Jan 2013 #98
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #86
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #91
fishwax Jan 2013 #111
Paladin Jan 2013 #37
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #88
Nevernose Jan 2013 #38
marmar Jan 2013 #45
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #114
arcane1 Jan 2013 #53
Deep13 Jan 2013 #56
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #60
patrice Jan 2013 #63
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #107
tama Jan 2013 #120
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #77
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #79
dwp6577 Jan 2013 #80
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #87
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #89
graham4anything Jan 2013 #109
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #118
graham4anything Jan 2013 #121
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #123
graham4anything Jan 2013 #124
tama Jan 2013 #122
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #95
Downtown Hound Jan 2013 #96
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #117
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #104
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #113
deathrind Jan 2013 #126
bowens43 Jan 2013 #127

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:42 PM

1. Moore himself is troubled by that

He saw V and the Leader as two sides of the same coin; ideology taken past compassion.

Sort of like how one of the most popular movie franchises is about a pirate who sticks it to global corporations. It's made by Disney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:06 PM

65. What franchise is that?

I honestly have no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:07 PM

66. Pirates of the Caribbean

At least in the sequels, the enemy is the East India Company (the first multinational)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:20 PM

71. Ah, I never saw the ones with the East India Company.

Saw the first one and enjoyed it a lot, but there were no corporate bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:25 PM

72. Yeah it's only alluded to in the first one

They gave jack the brand that lets the Commodore recognize him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:09 PM

106. The third film has the greatest negotiation scene.



They snipped out about half of it here, it only shows the Captain Jack parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:10 PM

69. Let me help you with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:42 PM

2. You mean "Vendetta".

But yes, in a democracy where people get to pick their President every 4 years and Congress every 2 years in a peaceful non-violent manner, there is no justification for blowing stuff up just because the people didn't choose the way you wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:42 AM

31. Even if choice A and choice B..

... are essentially the same?

Well, I'm not for any kind of violence ever, but if you think that elections mean much any more I'd have to disagree with you.

Politicians don't work for voters, they work for contributors. And finally with Citizens United the last stage of the game is in place, you as a voter really don't matter that much.

If you think there is no reason why not a single bankster was prosecuted or why Medicare can't negotiate a price for pharmaceuticals or oil companies get massive subsidies in the face of generous profits, well you need to look closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:19 PM

59. Politicians work for what gets them elected

they'd work for "the people" if they saw that as the road to power (or road out of power). The reason they're often helping out those that donated the most is because there usually isn't much in the way of people power. If there was, candidates would quickly start to swivel towards them.

And remember, it's not just a choice between A and B - that's only the final vote. But when there aren't enough people working to make sure candidates C through K get on the ballot, we shouldn't be so surprised that we're only left with A and B.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chathamization (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:17 PM

70. I vacillate...

.. between blaming the apathy of the American people and blaming the fact that the game is so rigged it's almost hopeless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:47 PM

76. Apathy's a problem

though I think that there are also enough people out there that want to do something, but aren't being engaged (and find it difficult to start things on their own). I'm pretty sure there's enough people out there to push for real change, but getting organized and connected is the hard part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:25 AM

34. Except when "the people" include corporations.

Or when political money trumps "the people".



If the system is a democracy in name only... what do you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:33 AM

49. Because of the perception

That those two candidates are chosen and installed by an undemocratic corporate plutocracy that wants little more tham to strip the "little people" of every cent, work them till they drop dead, and leave immense debt behind when they do. And its basically impossible to field a candidate that isnt beholden to that plutocracy. Yay democracy?

Popular confidence in Congress is in single digits...what does that tell you?

Because flowers and drum circles and tents in parks make you fell good but don't really change the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:43 PM

3. Wasn't the building filled with bad guys? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:37 AM

40. Well, bad only if you're Catholic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:45 AM

42. I think the OP was referring to the movie

Rather than Guy Fawkes' actual plot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:46 PM

4. Random thought I had yesterday:

In the film "Office Space," Peter is working on the Y2K bug.

In the film "Fight Club," their eventual goal was a collapse of the global financial system.

Even though Y2K turned out to be a nonissue, Peter not going to work and Jack starting a blue-collar terror cell were kinda also two sides of the same coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:19 AM

32. One quibble

Y2K was not a non-issue. It seemed one to the general public because a lot of people busted our asses to make it so.

The analogy I use is: a huge flood was coming, and workers did amazing things with sandbags, levees, and such. They did such a good job, in fact, that the city escaped damage from the flood. Afterwards, the people said, "that flood was no big deal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:14 PM

82. Which makes the film even more like Fight Club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:59 PM

5. I agree...

Guy Fawkes (who is represented by mask in the film/comic) was a right-wing extremist if there ever was one. I don't get the idolization of the film, either. And I read the comic (which makes me naturally hate the film) well before the film was released. Anarchy, IMHO, is a FAR right view. I grew up with punk rock, which proliferated the anarchy viewpoint in the 80s and 90s, and all I have to say was that is was a further right view of the utopian society Libertarians tend to dream of. Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:45 PM

75. Uh, anarchists punks are not right wingers..,

Don't know where you grew up punk, but I grew up punk as well...and there were zero right wing anarchists.
Political theory is an important thing to understand when you're throwing around political terms. For instance, liberal and conservative meant something very different in other parts of the world and at different times.

Precision in terms is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a la izquierda (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:14 PM

92. Anarchists punks

devolved into Libertarians. Not saying they all did, but a lot did. All the "punks" I grew up with in school are Libertarians these days. It was the next logical step for them. I grew up punk in the south. Central Florida. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:03 AM

6. Reread the Declaration of Independence. Our country was founded on treason and anarchy.

Our founders struck back at tyranny. Today we do not have democracy by anyone's definition. We have a republic where the representatives honor the elite and not We The People. Some think it's time for a new Declaration of Independence and to strike back at the tyranny of corporatism/fascism. I dont agree but understand their frustration.

The 19 terrorists that destroyed the WTC did not cause our bankruptcy. The oligarchy elites stole our money and the lives of our loved ones on the pretense of fighting terrorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:27 AM

9. So President Obama did not win two democratic elections?

He was installed by the fascist elites?

The whole election process was a sham? The campaigning, the debates, the opinion polls, etc.? Because all of that sure looked like a "democracy" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:55 PM

78. Bringing up the "debates" to provide evidence of legitimacy is indicative of missing the point

If you don't think those rehearsed into the ground and carefully (and mutually) limited farces are a joke "won" by body language, tone, and placement of witty retort then I don't know what to really even tell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:12 PM

81. Obama was chosen well before the elections

The primary system has become a tool for the elites to decide amongst themselves which of the (acceptable) candidates should be nominated.

That's why we have no alternative media in a country of 300 million. More people =/= more choice in how you live your life, as China proves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:06 PM

94. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. By-the-way look up the definition of

democracy and then explain how we have it in the good ole USofA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:44 AM

14. It was hardly anarchy

Certainly you know of the long and arduous debates of the Continental Congress, among elected leaders from the colonies, and all the negotiation and horse trading that finally led to the Declaration of Independence. And then Washington, who as leader of the Continental Army, chose his generals wisely and turned the colonial forces into an ordered military force. And even the Minutemen in Lexington and Concord, at the outbreak of hostilities, had formed a highly systematized form of communication and strategy.

This was not anarchy. It was the beginnings of a very ordered, and orderly, government and its nascent military power. It was Revolutionary, yes; anarchist? no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:32 AM

24. Exactly--the colonists really did try to reason with the crown. King George put his boot up their

asses, though, and decided to lay down the law. But they tried for a long time to come to a peaceful accord and make the leadership across the pond understand their issues. The King didn't give a shit--he regarded the colonists as his serfs, the individual colonies as his patronage positions for his pals, and the land as a source of enrichment. He didn't care about the people one whit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:16 PM

83. Well, he seemed pretty fond of the conquired Quebecois

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:44 PM

103. That's something of a simplification. Both sides misunderstood what the other was aiming at....

...King George and Parliament, for example, were trying to get the Colonists to pay their share of the bill for protection from the Native Americans and for the French-Indian wars with the taxes--and you'd think that'd be reasonable because people had been protected and such, and the taxes on colonists was actually lower than that on citizens in England. But the message came out all wrong--especially with the Tea Tax which was supposed to actually give everyone a win-win situation.

On the other side, Parliament and then the King totally misunderstood the Colonists p.o.v. in asking to be treated like the English citizens they assumed they were. Which is not to say, by the way, that the colonial grievances were not just and valid. The English Parliament, King and even down to British merchants selling the colonies goods treated the colonists as red-headed step-children, abusing them shamelessly. There was no way for a colonist to get a fair shake even at representation.

But it's not quite right to think the misunderstanding that, like dominos falling, led to the American Revolution was that one-sided or simple.

I highly recommend listening to Professor Freeman's lecture from Yale University on the American Revolution (found on iTunes-U under American History). It will change everything you thought you knew about the American Revolution--especially the relationship between the Colonies and Britain. It's a great lecture series, fun and funny and eye-opening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:28 AM

27. Common misconception

 

that anarchy equals chaos, lack of order and organization. More accurately it refers to freedom from and opposition to institutionalized power hierarchies and top-down coercion, and horizontal and democratic forms of bottom-up self-organization. For example, Occupy Sandy is highly organized and effective organization of voluntary mutual aid without hierarchic central top-down leadership (as FEMA and Red Cross do). With highly systematized form of communication and strategy.

Anarchism as European political philosophy didn't exist at that time, but because of his anti-authoritarian ideas and ideals Jefferson is often called "philosophical anarchist". By rule of thumb all revolutions start as bottom-up decentralized anarchic processes, but often turn into or become co-opted by hierarchic power structures.

PS: as for wisely chosen generals of Continental Army, the naturally hierarchic officer cader strongly demanded at some point that Washington is declared king. Washington was "anarchist" and democrat enough to refuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:40 AM

41. I think perhaps the misconception is yours

Anarchism refers to the philosophy that subscribes to one (or both) of two notions: either that the state is unnecessary or undesirable; or that authority or hierarchical structures are to be eschewed in social relationships. Thus, for example, the anarchists of the French revolutionary period "opposed revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms."

Neither of these things obtained in the Revolutionary program. There was both hierarchical organization in the colonial government: the colonies provided duly elected representatives to represent their interests to a governmental body, the Continental Congress; and the goal was the establishment of a new federal government, separate from the British crown. That is as far from anarchism as you can get.

And although there are many strains of anarchism, none of them fits the mold of the American Revolutionary movement. It wasn't anti-statist; it wasn't anti-hierarchical (anything but); it wasn't collectivist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:55 PM

85. There were plenty of radicals at the time of the American Revolution. They didn't win the debate

But you and everyone else were brought up to root against them.

Look at the history of the British social justice movement (1300s-1900s)

And no, Guy Fawkes was not a symbol of the British socialist movement.

The Guy Fawkes mask was made into a symbol of the radical populist movement
by online activists who were fans of (respected graphic novelist) Alan Moore.

Why? Because Guy Fawkes symbology became incorporated into British pop culture centuries ago thanks to Guy Fawkes day.

tl;dr it has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes, the man. In fact, Guy Fawkes Day is an officially-sanctioned British holiday where celebrants were encouraged to burn Catholics in the streets. It gradually obtained class overtones.

GUY FAWKES?

A TERRORIST!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:22 PM

93. Huh?

Where did I ever say, or even imply, that "Guy Fawkes" was a symbol of the British socialist movement? I wasn't even talking about Guy Fawkes, only responding to the idea that the American Revolution was somehow an anarchist movement/event.

Secondly, yes, Guy Fawkes Day does have to do with Guy Fawkes: it celebrates the failure of his plot to blow up the House of Lords and kill King James. Because this was done in the name of Catholicism and against Protestantism, yes, for a while the celebration day did have an anti-Catholic cast, but that has all but disappeared since the 19th century. Jeebus.

But again, my intervention in this thread had nothing to do with Guy Fawkes in the least, though I do find the use of the mask today unsavory. Why would one want to revere or emulate someone who wanted to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne ... and would plant gunpowder and plan an assassination in order to do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #93)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:23 PM

101. I don't think you quite grok the intent of the mask.

I'll post some history in another thread.

No one who is credibly sincere about their opposition to the current anti-democratic system of corporate rule (which has hollowed out our republican system of government -- which was never intended to be a direct democracy) would hold the opinions you guys allege anti-authoritarians of being in favor of terrorism and violence.

But many people seem to be happy about the status quo so long as their preferred ruler is in power. It was much the same in the time of King James. You think if they had elections for King, the British system of government of that era would be at all different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:16 PM

57. The colonists were British subjects and even some of the representatives at the Continental Congress

understood that to revolt was an act of treason. I would say an armed revolt is the epitome of anarchy. I am not saying it was a bad thing, what I am saying is that it does not good to sugar coat it. And some think we may need to do it again. I dont but some do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:04 PM

64. Organized armed revolt is not the same as anarchism

Please do not conflate terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:12 PM

99. I stand corrected. I check the internets and see what you are saying.

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #99)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:22 PM

100. Thanks for the thanks!

It's so nice to have an actual exchange of ideas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:30 PM

102. Shhh, dont spread it around. Not sure it's legal. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:57 AM

52. Do you understand the meaning of anarchy?

If so, how can you apply it in any way to what the colonies did? That was rebellion - revolution - treason, yes. But it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enlightenment (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:23 PM

61. Yes I think I do

Here is a couple of definitions:

Anarchy is:
1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Both of these applied to the colonists. A revolution is the ultimate state of anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:15 AM

7. That's true, but your avatar blew up Indochina

Isn't there a happy-medium, between V the fictional terrorist and Lyndon Johnson, the real-world terrorist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DerekG (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:59 AM

26. I proudly wear my avitar to remember the actual good that was done in America.

 

any president (and it was IKE that started the war, and anyone else would have done the same.

Matter of fact, it was Nixon who sabatoged(proven) the peace talks years earlier and let the war last another, was it 6 years because of that???

So I am wearing my avitar proudly.

and LBJ was a democratic LIBERAL president

Guy Fawkes and the fictional book/movie was a way to the right(perhaps Naderite or Ron or Rand Paul fan type if you want to compare and NOT a democratic person

I thought we were on a democratic board here, not a 3rd party one???

BTW, I am a big fan of Lana Wachowski and her personal story.And a big fan of Cloud Atlas,
IMHO the best thing the Starship has done so far.
Not a big fan of the Matrix, and not a big V fan

Vendetta/Vengence/Vigilante (3 V's) seems one and the same to me
(and then there was Willie from V the tv shows).(who later became Freddie Kruger).

but there goes my aged mind again with titles.
Vengence was a mystery book by Sue Grafton.
Also read that along with most but not all of the rest of her LONG series.
I must say, like her book more than V the movie and I will edit the title

and as someone said the last time I messed a title up, brain fart.

Though Hugo Weaving was great as he always is (though he was not the first choice there for that role).Natalie Portman was great later on, and she is Jewish too!
The irony of the leader in the end leading an anonymous revolution being a Jewish person.
(note that i am personally Jewish).
Some would say Natalie's role is a copy of the Les Miz role

but anarchy is still death and destruction and V could be for vigilante too.
The NRA folk might say their Guy Fawkes is Zimmerman in Florida.
Now, I myself don't see the valor and honor of someone being judge jury executioner on a private level like that, do you? Shooting an unarmed man eating skittles?

No, makes for a good special effects movie, but it is wrong in about 1000 different ways.

And I stand by my avitar of LBJ.
now, I never mentioned aviatars in this thread, you brought it up.


and I stand by my thinking that Lincoln the movie was alot more realistic and wanting to emmulate, than V was.

of course the same people that nitpick LBJ probably nitpick Lincoln, but then hate it if you
bring up the fact that Jefferson himself was 100% a fraud in his real life from the bullshit he wrote but did not mean (all are created equal, except anyone that didn't look or act like he did.) Yet Jefferson is vastly admired by those on all sides.
Ever wonder why the other side admires him so much?
I bet its that he didn't include Blacks and women in his writing and never intended either to have any right whatsoever so the rightwing and the libertarians love Jefferson.

but I meander.(going to edit title).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:37 PM

73. Well, I guess it was a good thing to be an American under LbJ...

But it sure as hell sucked to be a Guatemalan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a la izquierda (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:23 PM

110. Wasn't good to be anyone in the way of V who was in Big Ben at the time

 

this thread is about V
the other poster wrote a distraction that i should not have fallen for mentioning LBJ

without LBJ, it still wouldn't be good to be black in America either, nor would President Obama be President and MLK would have died in vain too without LBJ

because no one else would have done what LBJ did.

whereas V just blew things up and killed people and wasted billions in today's money.
He had ZERO redeeming values altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:03 PM

105. Interesting thoughts... I will say this

Of course, Jefferson was a complete hypocrite... that is why it doesn't do good to expect purity from the people you look up to, or the symbols you put on your banners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:25 AM

8. At least get the movie's title right.

Oh, and why did V for Vendetta strike a chord with so many people?

Because it was a story of a struggle between a corrupt and murderous authoritarian dictatorship that engaged in horrific oppression of the people, and regular folks that wanted to be able to speak out, and have a voice in how they're governed.

Because the Norsefire regime echoed so much of the authoritarian oppression that our own government was engaging in - remember the black-bagging of dissidents, straight out of Abu Ghraib, the persecution of the GLBT community, the Rush Limbaugh-like character Prothero, the blatant profiteering from the misery of the people. Sutler's regime, like Bush's fueled itself on lies and moral panics - for us, it was 9/11, for the Britons of V for Vendetta, it was the St. Mary's plague (which was engineered by Sutler's thugs as a Reichstag fire).

Sure, V was as much villain as hero, but he was also a victim of the Norsefire's oppression - he was turned into a human guinea pig, and became the only survivor of Mengele-style medical experimentation in a concentration camp. Sutler's thugs stripped V of everything including his own identity down to his name and his face.

Who wouldn't want the victims of Auschwitz to be able to take revenge on the Nazis? The irony is that V's quest for revenge made him as cruel as the government he fought against.

Really the symbolism of V for Vendetta (the graphic novel and the movie) is part of its genius. V himself referred to the Parliament building and the Old Bailey as symbols, as well as the act of destroying them, illustrating the power of symbols to shape the human psyche and define society itself. His face was a symbol - he took on the persona of Guy Fawkes, who mutated from the historical figure to something akin to Kali - one who destroys for the sake of rebirth. His mask was such a potent symbol that it was used by Occupy, by Anonymous, by so many other activists, as a symbol of resistance to tyranny. This is a story that uses many other stories, and weaves them in, from the Count of Monte Cristo to Shakespeare to the story of Guy Fawkes.

No, I don't use the movie as the core of my political philosophy, but I do think it's a good movie, worth enjoying. And it's one that resonates with a lot of people, and inspires them to stand up when their governments are treating them unfairly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:30 AM

11. Fawkes wanted to make it illegal to be a Protestant

I don't get choosing him in particular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:37 AM

12. The creation and use of symbols doesn't always make sense.

Fawkes is a symbol of rebellion. Catholicism vs. the Church of England and the Crown, anarchism vs. authoritarianism, democracy vs. kleptocracy.

Moore didn't pick George Washington - he wanted a symbol that got under people's skins, put them on edge. Guy Fawkes does that nicely - after all, V is both hero and villain.

Here in America, we celebrate Thanksgiving, and laud the Puritans for their role in creating American society, escaping from religious persecution. But the Puritans didn't believe in religious freedom - they wanted freedom of THEIR religion, and nobody else's, and were particularly nasty, to the point of torture and executions, to people who didn't conform to their religious norms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:56 AM

15. I don't think V was very much of a villain

Sure, what he did to Evie, a woman he saved from being gang raped by government thugs, was pretty awful, but it was also the same thing that the government of Sutler would have done for real had they caught her.

Otherwise, what, he killed a few evil leaders and some of their hired goons. That makes him a villain? He blew up some buildings. So what? I am not a fan of destruction, but the buildings were just empty buildings.

And besides "this country needs more than a building right now. It need hope." In the end it was both Evie and Finch who decided to blow up the parliament.

What I wonder though, is who gave the order to the troops to "stand down"? That person right there is an unsung, and unknown, hero.

Now Guy Fawkes, on the other hand, does seem like a villain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:06 AM

16. He was very much an anti-hero, and at times, he was incredibly cruel.

Remember how he escaped from Jordan Tower - he made all his hostages dress up in black cloaks and Guy Fawkes masks, and sent them at the cops, who shot one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:31 AM

18. so it's his fault that the cops will shoot somebody who is not threatening them?

their reaction was predictable, but it hardly seems to me like evidence of HIS villainy or cruelty.

He's an anti-hero only if you expect somebody to fight against a powerful and evil entity without shedding any blood at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:09 PM

68. V knew perfectly well the cops were looking for a guy in a black cloak and a Guy Fawkes mask.

And he knew the cops would be on a hair trigger if they saw black cloaks and Guy Fawkes masks coming at them.

Yes, I'd say V was pretty cold blooded using that tactic.

And then there's what he did to Evey. But what's a little torture among friends?

Both hero and villain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:37 PM

74. what did he do to Evey?

He saved her from being gang raped.

He saved her from being captured by Sutler/Creedy.

A little torture?

Maybe a kind of harsh blue pill. She had just got done trying to turn herself in to the Sutler government, with apparently no clue as to what they would do to her. If the priest had escaped with her, she would have fared far worse.

In the torture from V, she could have actually stopped it simply by giving in. She would have gotten no such deal from Sutler. And then she walked away free. Again, she would have gotten no such deal from Sutler. And torture? Her head was shaved, she was locked in a cold cell, and dunked in a bucket. She was not 1) shocked, 2) beaten, 3) had teeth or fingernails ripped out, 4) injected with drugs, 5) deprived of sleep, 6) hung from a wall. When I think of real torture, I think of things that actualy cause permanent damage. Broken fingers, being cut or bruised. She did not face that level of torture.

And she probably would have from Sutler.

As for friends, they were not friends. They had just barely met and he was keeping her prisoner for a year in order to keep her and also himself, from being captured by Sutler. She was not working with him willingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:10 PM

112. Ah, then the scalding with hot steam must have been good clean fun...

As was the dunking her head in water until she almost drowned, and the starvation.

Oh, wait, let me guess - you don't think waterboarding is torture! Am I right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #15)


Response to hfojvt (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:38 PM

97. I think the guy ordering the troops to stand down was likely following protocol

The guy didn't know that V had killed Creedy and the Chancellor. Without their order to fire on the protestors, he probably wasn't authorized to do so and may have lost his job (or worse) because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:45 PM

115. why does he seem like a villain? he was an ordinary soldier, & as such, unlikely to have been

 

'leading' landed aristocrats like the catesbys & treshams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:30 AM

10. Because there are a hell of a lot of angry people on both sides of the political spectrum.

All this anger and wanting the system to collapse no matter who gets hurt in the process is counter-productive, IMO. Even though the anger is often justified, violence should never be the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:41 AM

13. I don't see many people "idolizing" it

Beyond the usual bevy of 15 year old anarchists on allowance.

The reason anonymous uses the Guy Fawkes mask is because of the role it plays in that film - the idea that anonymity grants the power to challenge authority. It could just as easily be a Richard Nixon mask or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:13 AM

17. I don't appreciate being likened to those monsters...

 

Just because of one of my favorite movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:39 AM

19. If you're going to get your panties in a knot over a COMIC BOOK

at least get the name right, LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:59 AM

54. you mean . . . Batman and Superman are fictional?!? That hurts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:42 AM

20. Where is the anarchy?

V was not promoting anarchy, he was fighting against tyrrany. Anarchy and tyrrany are not the only two options.

And OBL and McVeigh did not just blow up buildings, They blew up buildings that were full of people.

V's buildings were empty - unoccupied

except for one chemistry grad student who was working late.

And probably a few janitors.

The janitors always suffer. Probably blew up the parliament right after some janitor had just finished waxing the floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:41 AM

25. except for one chemistry grad student and a few unimportant janitors you are saying???

 

wtf is that mean?

OBL and the 19 could have waited 2 hours later, and 100,000 people could have died including thousands of school kids that took class trips to the WTC later.
McVeigh fans claim he didn't know the kids were there.(bullshit to Tim who was a terrorist and any other who think violence in the last 20 years is the remedy to something political.

(like that terrorist who killed Dr. Tiller in Kansas to exact political change. NO sympathy for the terrorist whatsoever just because the rightwing has a cause that defies belief(life by taking life).

this is not the 1700s.
And some textbook fantasy.

and the destruction in 2013 dollars of the fantasy fiction would be billions of wasted taxpayer dollars and more, as copycats then do more and more death and destruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:34 AM

39. I work as a janitor myself

and probably a janitor would be in an otherwise empty building, cleaning up at night.

But considering that everybody was warned, the janitors probably would have called in sick that night, just to be safe.

As for the chemistry grad student, that is from history. Robert Fassnacht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing

As for the wasted taxpayer dollars, presumably that parliament building was built a long time ago.

And the point of that cathartic explosion was to "start over" with a new and better government, not for moronic copycats to run around blowing things up. All those thousands of people came to watch, to "stand beside" V and to "seek, as (he) seek(s)" to put an end to the crimes of the Sutler regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:34 AM

28. Alan Moore is anarchist

 

Anarchism
Moore politically identifies as an anarchist, and outlined his interpretation of anarchist philosophy, and its application to fiction writing in an interview with Margaret Killjoy, collected in the 2009 book, Mythmakers and Lawbreakers:
I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice.
In December 2011 Moore responded to Frank Miller's attack on the Occupy movement, calling his more recent work misogynistic, homophobic and misguided. Worldwide, Occupy protesters have adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta. The mask has also been adopted by Anonymous, WikiLeaks, Egyptian revolutionaries , and anti-globalization demonstrators. Moore described Occupy as "ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs" and added:
I can't think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it they've certainly not been punished in any way because they're too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who's too big to fail. As an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people whose lives this is actually affecting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore#Anarchism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:46 AM

43. maybe Chevy Chase is too

and I am not.

If the movie was spreading a message of anarchy, then I would turn it off in disgust. I say that message is not there, although maybe people who are anarchists will believe that it is. Show me where that is, and I might believe it, but as it stands now, I am not seeing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:55 AM

44. You are free

 

to view and interpret the movie as you like. I liked the book better than the movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:18 AM

46. actually, not really

If, for example, I write an essay denouncing tyranny, then the "view and interpretation" would be "he really does not like tyranny". If, on the other hand, I write an essay promoting anarchy, then the "view and interpretation" would be "he likes anarchy".

Now, the fact that an anarchist writes an essay denouncing tyranny does not suddenly make that essay an argument in favor of anarchy. The essay says what the essay says. Show me where the essay makes the argument, because pointing to the ideology of the author does not change what was written.

A two hour movie, of course, is a lot trickier to interpret than a short essay, but the point remains. The movie says what the movie says, irregardless of ideology of the author. I say there is not a message of anarchy in the movie, except for the one armed robber who shouts "anarchy in the UK", but to me, armed robbery by violent morons is an argument AGAINST anarchy, not one in favor of it. The hero V is no more of an anarchist because he used violence against a tryant than Alexander Hamilton is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:31 AM

48. What makes art art

 

is that it's open to interpretation. That said, the original book represents Moore's political philosophy at least better than Hollywood film. Is there anything left of it in the movie? That's for each viewer to decide, there is no objective truth to decide that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:16 PM

58. to me that sounds like

another way of saying "I cannot make my case."

Clearly, writing is an "art" too. So you might as well say my essay is also "open to interpretation" that it is therefore "true" if somebody interprets my written words which say "anarchy sucks" to actually mean "anarchy is great" since, after all, it is art and there is no objective truth in art.

Presumably we are talking about the movie, whch most of us have seen, and not the book, which most of us have not read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:08 PM

67. To me that sounds

 

that you are looking for a battle of (s)words. That you are more interested in the art of appearing right than dialogue for mutual benefit. Which is not uncommon in human relations and each get their kicks as they do.

You have already stated strong hostility towards your perception of anarchy, and it seems now that it's not worth the effort to try to brake that emotional barrier.

PS: I've both red to the book and seen the movie, and OP referred to the OWS/Anonymous etc. V meme that originates to Alan Moore's artistic imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:05 AM

116. dialogue would involve

you explaining your POV. Not saying "you are free to think what you want, because anything can be true with art". And now attacking me as somebody not interested in communicating and with some sort of emotional barrier.

My hostility towards anarchy really has nothing to do with the question at hand. The OP says that the movie, the leading character V, promotes anarchy. My position was that it does not, that V was fighting tyranny and not promoting anarchy.

It was you who engaged in the battle by refudiating me with the fact that Alan Moore is an anarchist.

And I countered that by explaining why I don't think that fact matters.

And I state my hostility towards anarchy because if I had perceived that the movie was promoting anarchy, I would have been pretty quick to say "this movie sucks".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #116)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:09 AM

119. No intention to attack, quite the opposite

 

My point of view is very similar to Alan Moore's, that anarchy is most natural state of social order and it is based on love and compassion and friendship, which is our most natural state and inner truth (which is the anarchist credo from which rest of the anarchist political philosophies follow). Sometimes fear gets the better of us and we form tyrannies of various degrees trying to control misplaced worries - that originate from love that becomes attached and possessive.

And so, anarchy means to me also respect for other points of view and connotations attached e.g. to the word 'anarchy'. The word is not important, or less important than trying to impose my interpretation of it on others. But I'm happy to share my point of view and thanks for asking and listening, friend.

So, interpreting the movie from this point of view, the main character is very conflicted (anti)hero, which creates the psychological drama and tension of the narrative. But with all his struggle and (self)destruction people identify with him or rather his anonymity in the final "I am Spartacus" scene and pull down the collective structures of tyranny or super-ego. And then they take of their masks and look at you without fear.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:04 AM

21. In the film - which is what most people know

The point is that V is only the trigger. The real heroes are the thousands upon thousands who arrive at the building to protest and the countless victims of the "Norsefire" dictatorship - some of whom also appear in the crowd at the end. In thefilm only two buildings are destroyed and both are empty.

V is not a good person , indeed the only thing that redeems V is Evey who V tortures.

The graphic novel is different and darker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:07 AM

22. Wow, can you get anymore apples to oranges with a post?

I suppose next you will worry over Fight Club or some other fantasy made into a movie? I've never seen any of these people you speak of, have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:11 AM

23. Because V was fighting what was basically, a neo-Nazi government.

Not to mention that this country was founded on the principle of resistance, am I right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:12 AM

29. The American Revolution was not very Democratic either

 

Would you like a list of all the Democratically Elected leaders in other countries who the USA removed because they did not like who the PEOPLE elected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stultusporcos (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:20 AM

47. Oh, but that was a GOOD revolution! So many are BAD (Cuba, e.g.)! *sarcasm*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:00 PM

55. and what of China?

How dare Mao repeatedly contact the US, in hopes of earning our support!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:22 AM

30. Anarchy is democracy

 

given that democracy means self-rule by the people, for the people. But is representative hierarchic system democracy, how well it functions as form of self-rule?

Sociopsychological studies show that people who fill up hierarchic power positions tend to be sociopaths and psychopaths in much higher concentration than in general population, and that hierarchic power positions strengthen the individual potential for sociopathic behavior. As the maxim says, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Studies show that people who make rules from top down positions tend to consider that their rules don't apply to themselves, only to subordinate masses.

Given these facts of human social psychology, purely representative system is not functioning for the benefit of community as whole but for a small elite, and if you take a look, it's de facto tyranny ruled by banks that have monopoly of money creation out of thin air - with which they can buy all the sociopathic and corrupted politicians they need. And it's highly destructive.

Money is just a symbol of power, and the blowing up of parliament in a comic book and movie is just symbolic act. We are ruled by symbols, and there are lot's of revolutionary symbols and symbolic acts against symbols of power. And we get easily lost in the worlds of symbols and loose touch with concrete reality and simple facts of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:20 AM

33. anarchy is NOT the democratic party, which this particular site is

 

there are plenty though anarchy and Ron Paul and Nader and third party and other non democratic sites though
Alex Jones is always looking for fellow psychophants for instance

what is more tyranny like than Zimmerman in Florida.
Killing for sport a black person, like Johnny Cash said, just to watch him die.
That is anarchy at its fullest.

Money is good or bad
depending who has the money
long as they have money, I want $1 more on my side
I am not one of those purist absolutists that want to give up, throw up my hands and say we are pure, and cede the next 100 elections
especially now

Every 10% gain is compounded upward like interest, into someday being 100% better.
But 100% of nothing is actually going backwards, and leads to 10% loss over and over

If one is for anarchy and burning it down, and not wanting a continuation of President Obama,
then one is not for the democratic party.

and btw, above, someone questioned my aviatar and it distracted me.

I do NOT have to defend a democratic president, any of them.
Good or bad, the worst democratic president is 100x better than the best republican president except for Lincoln (who would now be a democratic president.
and oddly enough, the best republican president probably was Nixon of all people, and that is why the Bush's took him down in Watergate.
Not admiring Nixon over any democratic candidate, just saying it like it is.

anarchists and absolutists will lead to Bushists.

and tell me how Ron Paul is not a fraud, as he is now collecting (or trying to) $50 grand a speech off the cultists who worship him and his son Ayn Rand Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:14 AM

35. Do you have problem

 

with self-identified anarchist like Chomsky voting Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:42 AM

36. You simply don't understand what anarchy is all about

Libertarians are the right wing anarchists while there are leftist anarchists. Libertarians believe the free market solves all problems while anarchist believe that not even corporations are able to solve our problems.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard use the term anarchy as right wing only....but I am not surprised because I heard from many conservatives that the NAZI party in Germany was "left wing". When I quickly pointed out that the NAZI party stomped the leftist Weimar Republic and the NAZI rise to power came to be because of the fear of the "atheistic" Communists to the east (Germany a very Christian Protestant/Catholic nation at the time) they simply don't have a retort.

If you are not convinced look up the history of the Tea Party. It was more than a rebellion against tyranny of a government..but also a global corporation or the begginings of a proto-facisim.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:50 AM

50. There has been a meme floated about lately......

(I first noticed it last summer) conflating RW militias, specifically the military plot that was busted in Georgia, with anarchists. I figured the RWers wanted to discredit anarchy as a philosophy by confusing violent libertarians with anarchists ESPECIALLY since this was at the height of the Occupy movement which included a lot of anarchists in it's ranks. It's actually just a takeoff on the meme that the RW uses per your second paragraph. Just an updated one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:55 AM

51. BTW, there's a pretty good discussion in the Socialist Progressives group.......

on this meme. I can't figure out how to link on this new computer of mine, but it's still on the first page. It was my post and the title was, "A question for the anarchist contingent" or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:54 PM

84. anarchy on either side is not the democratic way. It is anarchy

 

I did not differentiate either, I said v himself was rightwing, the tea party is rightwing

those extremists on either side are wanting absolutism, and you can't get that.

and 9-11 happened, no matter which cause you believe it was from
but it was misguided

anarchy=chaos, mischief, death, destruction and things get out of hand,
then there is the woe is me attitude when protesters go too far, then blame the gov't
(i.e.=Janet Reno was more than patient at Waco before THEY set themselves on fire in the chaos that ensured after THEY killed federal agents just doing their job

anarchy=Zimmerman and vigilantes judge jury executioner

why have any authority at all, and let the strongest survive, at which point of course,
that means those with the most
That certainly does NOT get anyone what they want here (assuming everyone here is on the same side, of which sorry, but there are 2 sides.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:07 PM

90. Precisely the opposite problem. What the ancient Greeks called democracy is now labeled anarchy

Direct democracy is frequently labeled anarchy and proponents of our current system of representative democracy (which is thoroughly corrupted from the intentions of the founders -- and most of them were no anarchists) dismiss the idea of direct democracy which is why we don't have it even at the local municipal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:17 PM

108. We don't live in ancient greece though. And the founders did not set up one person/one vote

 

and again, slaves and blacks and women were not part of Thomas Jefferson's views.

and well, women in Kansas are constitutionally allowed to have choice, yet an rightwing extremist anarchist took away that right.
Thanks but no thanks to anarchy.

Blowing up buildings and doctors in churches is NOT democratic party to me.
(or anyone)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #108)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:50 PM

125. Blowing up buildings is not anarchism, that was a right wing theocrat

Same as Guy Fawkes or certain other terrorists. I think you're mixing apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:40 PM

98. Libertarians are NOT anarchists

True anarchists are against ANY authority, and that includes the workplace. Libertarians accept and even idolize the capitalist system, and accept the hierarchical structure of it. Anarchists believe in employee ownership of production and that all decisions should be made by group consensus rather than one person or a small group at the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:57 PM

86. LBJ was infinitely more liberal than Obama. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:08 PM

91. This site is not the democratic party.

You should re-read the statements of the admins in this matter.

Also, in case you don't know: You don't get to decide what this site is or isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:27 PM

111. this particular site is not the democratic party n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:45 AM

37. I Dunno---Maybe Because It Was Just A Fucking Movie?


Although a pretty good movie, in my opinion.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:03 PM

88. Based on a well respected graphic novel

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Just wanted to point that out.

Anti-authoritarian activists were fans of Alan Moore years before the movie came out.

The fact that Moore is a self-described anarchist is irrelevant; his political ideas and characterizations were far more complex than any of the literally fascist claptrap that comes from rival cartoonist Frank Miller (an admitted fascist who meets the definition of the ideas described by graham4everything about libertarian objectivists, and yet Americans everywhere celebrate films like 300) or Katheryn Bigelow (director of Zero Dark Thirty and Hurt Locker (NYTimes critic AO Scott declared that he admired Zero Dark Thirty despite the fact that it was essentially fascist in character, a sentiment one might say about 300 or Triumph of the Will -- well-directed movies that were essentially fascist.)

That's why Alan Moore's on the list of top 100 novels of the 20th Century and Frank Miller is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:56 AM

38. The book is brilliant

And so were the thoughts presented -- the violence had more to do with that media's tropes at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:03 AM

45. I think someone is metaphorically challenged.


nt







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:33 PM

114. Ya think?

 

I usually enjoy both the OP's absurdly transparent posts and the equally inane replies in support, but this one has the potential to become golden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:58 AM

53. I've never seen the movie or read the book, but I'm tired of seeing those masks everywhere n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:07 PM

56. Well, institutional democracy is one form...

...but other mass actions can also be democratic. Liberal democracy institutionalizes class conflict within a legal framework. Nationalist democracy involves a consensus of similar people. Such consensus can be an impetus for violence or even ethnic cleansing. (Do I have to say that I'm against violence as a means of social change? Well, I am.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:21 PM

60. .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:58 PM

63. Immediate gratification, instead of disciplined and work-wo/manly commitment to change of the

sort that is closest to building a shared vision of what is closest to best for the most people possible.

It's easier and quicker and, sorry, more satisfying to some "to blow them (that's other PERSONS) all up, so we can start over". One of the biggest problems with this is pretending that the effects of this behavior will 1. be under your power to control & 2. anywhere near what you are representing to others as what you intend.

Personally, I think it is a very histrionic juvenile self-absorbed narrow minded and dishonest position characterized by infantile heroic bathos and fascist tendencies.

If you can't/WON'T put your name and your face on it, perhaps it's something the rest of us ought to regard with more honest skepticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:12 PM

107. Within the context of the movie, what the hell else was to be done?

There is no model of other gratification be it instant or delayed for generation on end.

This is a government who mass murdered their own citizens in a power grab and instituted a police state that disappeared, abused, and murdered not only any opposition but even reached to the thought crime level.

They weren't about to be shamed from power and as they increased in control of bureaucracy and technology develops the inertia, control, and knowing nothing different but the cry from ones own heart for a different life sets in and grows.

The desire not to be under thumb of a ruthless authoritarian regime is a bizarre and well beyond strained definition of fascism.

Actually arguing in favor of the monstrosity masquerading as a government in this movie is a form of sickness, in my mind.
Yes, when you build up that level of entropy it is time to blow it up and take your chances. One better is to never allow it to reach such a place and mitigate both future harms. The tricky part is most people are unlikely to notice exactly when they passed from citizen to subject to eternal suspect and servant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:55 AM

120. What are you talking about?

 

Immediate gratification is what life fulfilling it's needs is very much about, and donkey and carrot is metaphor of human stupidity, not animal instincts of eating when hungry, drinking when thirsty, fucking when horny.

Who is blowing up other HUMAN BEINGS? Anonymous anarchists or Obama? Blowing up MASKS of personhood that cover our fragile and loving humanity is very different, but closely related issue, as it is actually very difficult to blow up other human beings being a human being, and you need to cover and hide behind some legal and political mask of person (such as President) to be able to do that. And the symbolism of V masks and taking them of is and has become collective art performance of revealing our masks and taking them of to reveal our humanity.

OP is obviously very conflicted with his consciousness telling that it's not OK to blow up other human beings, as his President is doing, and his narrative of his political identity and person mask as Democrat and Obama supporter, that needs to attack and demonize anarchists by projecting what his President is doing to anarchists. And we can sympathize with that conflict, each having worn our own masks.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:49 PM

77. Thanks for the timely post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:58 PM

79. v is an anti-hero part of a long tradition in superhero comic books

 

dating back to the golden age. some titles started getting too edgy for the times and eventually the comics code authority was invented to censor comics and for decades they were until marvel started breaking the rules in the 80s. vertigo comics spinoff of d.c. comics brought english writers and artists in the 'british invasion' of the 90s led by alan moore, neil gaiman, grant morrison, dave mckean, and so forth. vertigo comics didn't have the seal of the c.c.a. and underground comics merged with the mainstream making possible a much more creative artistic and literary field the graphic novel.

v is one of those characters who is a product of his environment and 2-dimensional in that regard. he isn't the real hero of the story because he doesn't change. we see this 'rise of the sidekick' theme in other british invasion graphic novels from the period 'the dark knight' springs to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:08 PM

80. suttler is bush; creedy is cheney and

st.mary's & 3 waters are 9/11.

that's what it looks like to me.

one of my very favorite movies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:02 PM

87. It's like when the Rebel Alliance blew up the Death Star in Star Wars.

It's a movie. Fiction. It's about a rebel force fighting against a dictatorship.

Fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:05 PM

89. Using violence against tyranny is justified. Using violence against a democracy isn't.

The United States is a democracy. A dysfunctional one, but still a democracy. Therefore using violence against the government is not justified. The government in the movie is an actual dictatorship. Therefore overthrowing it by force is legitimate.

Simple, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #89)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:20 PM

109. that sounds like the NRA simplicity.

 

when they realized their meme about hunting, about collecting, about shooting galleries was shot full of holes, they changed it to the tyranny.

to the NRA tyranny is just another word for nothing left to lose I guess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:00 AM

118. Words have meanings.

Tyranny means something. Apparantly not what you, or the NRA, think it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:59 AM

121. sheesh, complain, complain, yet you are free/open to write on a board google searched worldwide

 

if there was tyranny, you would not have that freedom.
wake up.

the internet is one thing that is 100% open and honest.

anyone, anywhere, rich or poor can find a computer and log on.
one can go to a library anywhere and log on
one can have zero money yet still have a friend he can borrow a computer
schools nation wide have computers(though all students should each have their own in school and home), but students have access

give me a freakin' break about tyranny.

Hell, Jefferson and the boys didn't want one person one vote from the first git-go anyhow
and half the country or more couldn't vote.

Now anyone can (except those ONE PARTY ALONE(THE RPUBLICANTEALIBERTARIANS) have caged or stoped from voting.

Tyranny?
What freakin' hyperbole it is.

When you have the honor of being able to in public board that is 100% googled or searched
worldwide the ability to say it

And you don't have to be annonymous to say it either should one choose not to.

You can go in the street and hold a sign up
(but you can't overstay your welcome or do a crime in the process

Freedom does NOT allow you yelling fire in a theatre that is not on fire.
or creating a panic stampede that leads to deaths
or saying something in an airport
zero tolerance is zero tolerance
and everyone has the freedom to know that

ANARCHY is NOT democracy NOR is it freedom.
Because it like guns itself, take away freedom from anyone it negatively effects.

IE-my right to assemble freely is 100% contradicted by an anarchist trouble maker who would happen to be in same place.

NO, V is NOT someone to emmulate in 2013.
Might as well emmulate the spider that Little Miss Muffet had.


to me, anarchists are bullies
and V hid behind a mask
Batman hid behind a mask too
earth to the world, Batman was FICTIONAL.
Though Batman made a great point in the final Dark Knight movie last year.

the last Batman movie showed the situation perfectly and was perhaps the best costumed movie hero/anti-hero of all time.
You go Batman!

the last Batman moved the field from the old days to 2013 perfectly.

And showed as much as Waco showed, what was really going on and who was the hero
(Janet Reno in Waco) and who was the villians(the people other than Koresh in Waco, plus Koresh himself, but the others more so because taking Koresh separate would have led to far worse for anyone outside the compound). imho

I will take Batman or Superman over V any day.

(though as said, I love Hugo Weaving and hope as he is part of an immortal trilogy hopefully will reap a millions of dollars reward for the Hobbit series.)

repeat V is just a movie just a comic and has NOTHING to do with life in America in 2013.
imho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:10 AM

123. Point to where I said that the USA is a tyranny?

The USA is a dysfunctional democracy, not a tyranny.

No, V does not portray life in America in 2013. If anything at all, one may consider it a warning as to what America might become in, say, 2030.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #123)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:25 AM

124. Don't vote for Jeb Bush and it never will. Don't vote 3rd party and it never will.

 

Don't like where America went 2000-Jan.2009?

You have the power right in you to make sure it don't happen.

Just by voting for the democratic candidate and moving 10% forward instead of 100% backward

Or as the Wizard told the four friends when he gave them nothing any of them didn't already have.

Tyranny? far from it

and more and more, Kris Kristofferson's words that some take one way, some take another,
are now more and more meaning
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose

the anarchists and the tea party have made that statement mean the exact opposite.
They wish to take away freedom, and both have NOTHING to lose by attempting to take that freedom away.

ironic in a way.
But then Kristofferson himself never really said which meaning it is

(much like the old statement millions like us, now ironic, especially in the facebook age.
Which of the two meaning it is, depends on who is saying it.)
Do millions like us? Or are millions like us?

would rather NOT have the freedom to tear down every good thing, that the anarchists and the tea party/libertarians/3rdpartyites and the repubs are looking to tear down those freedoms.

I will choose the democratIC way. Always have always will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:09 AM

122. US

 

is global militaristic empire ruled by WS and MIC consuming quarter of natural resources of planet and destroying human communities and the whole ecosystem that we depend from in the process. Jefferson, who wrote Declaration of Independence, would not hesitate to call what US has become, a tyranny.

But I also understand that is not easy call to make, especially for those living in US and being dependent from the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:16 PM

95. That is easy to answer.

However you need to go back in history to for a better picture.

The base for that movie is the plot to blow up King James I of England during the opening of Parliament back on November 5, 1605 . It was a time that being Catholic was... not healthy.

Now we take a look at the movie story line.. It is a time where all the simple rights, right many of us are still fighting for, are so illegal that it meant imprisonment. There is a scene where Evey is reading a letter from a woman that is imprisoned for being lesbian. The scene is on YouTube. I placed it here for it to give you an idea of what a lot of it is about. They clean what they think is bad, not just this, but many rights we take for granted is not in this post world epidemic portrayal.



Now let's bring this into the real world ( or in the case of Guy Fox, up to our time). Many are seeing that many little rights are being pushed aside. Just little ones that our forefathers took for granted, like the pursuit of happiness. They also see people being pushed down and are being used due to it. They have been trying to say something, but the ones that are making a profit with this happening have been doing their best to use different ways to get them to shut up.

That is where bringing up history and stories like this are useful. It is not so much as to idolize as to keep it in the thoughts of those that want to revisit the past. That past being the one where workhouses and little pay to get ahead was offered.

As for your use of Osama Bin Laden, well that is different. He was after people to fear HIM. Showing his power to control the masses. Much like the bad guy in "V" does. Guy Fox and company wanted the killing of priest to stop. The persecution of Catholics to stop. OBL didn't want that. The Taliban does not want to stop persecution, but to do persecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:36 PM

96. It wasn't very democratic for the American colonists

to cut down waves of attacking Redcoats at Bunker Hill, or take pot shots at them at Lexington and Concorde, or dump British Tea into Boston Harbor. But their actions paved the way for democracy.

Violence against murderous tyranny is justified, and the government in V For Vendetta certainly fit that description. And the country didn't go bankrupt because of 9-11. It went bankrupt because Bush led us down a path of lies that caused a totally unrelated and unnecessary war in Iraq, cut taxes for the rich running up huge deficits, and let Wall Street run amok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 AM

117. Thank you for pointing this out(+1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:54 PM

104. Here's some interesting Guy Fawkes Day poems from the era before Guy Fawkes became "safe"

Part of the original goal in making Guy Fawkes a "safe" figure of fun, as opposed to an object of hatred,
was not so much anarchy (although Anglo-Saxons in general have a long tradition of being notoriously
skeptical of authority) to tamp down on the following state sanctioned sentiment of the 1600s-1800s:

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's providence he was catch'd
(or by God's mercy*)
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holla boys, Holla boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
And what should we do with him? Burn him!

In more common use the "bonfire cry" is occasionally altered with the last three lines (after "burning match") being supplanted by the following;

A traitor to the Crown by his action,
No Parli'ment mercy from any faction,
His just end should'st be grim,
What should we do? Burn him!
Holla boys, holla boys, let the bells ring,
Holla boys, holla boys, God save the King!


A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A fagot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

Thank God they were Law-Abiding Brits!

A variant on the foregoing:

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot!
A stick or a stake for King James' sake
Will you please to give us a fagot
If you can't give us one, we'll take two;
The better for us and the worse for you!

Note that the emphasis is on treason to the British monarchy, not on his anti-authoritarian sentiments or lack thereof; this makes sense, for in fact Guy Fawkes was merely a pop culture symbol. The only anti-authoritarians of the time were radical Protestants who opposed the monarchy, opposed the aristocratic system, and opposed the Church of England.

Many of these moved to the United States, where their descendants have sadly betrayed their centuries-old quest to create a better world free of corporate and state oppression. In the American colonies, great divide was between the Puritans and Roundheads of the North (commoners, merchants, and opponents of the Crown who fled to the colonies) versus the Cavaliers of the South (landed gentry and their Scotch-Irish slaves indentured servants.)

Another piece of popular doggerel:

Guy, guy, guy
Poke him in the eye,
Put him on the bonfire,
And there let him die

Or, today used frequently, instead of "Put him on the bonfire", "Hang him on a lamppost".

No Terrorist Appeasement Here...

"Death For You... Life For Our Crop!"

Suddenly beggars started dressing up as Guy Fawkes in the 19th century...

...a variant, sung by children in Lancashire whilst begging "A Penny For The Guy":

Remember, remember the fifth of November
It's Gunpowder Plot, we never forgot
Put your hand in your pocket and pull out your purse
A ha'penny or a penny will do you no harm
Who's that knocking at the window?
Who's that knocking at the door?

The following is a song sung when knocking on doors asking for money to buy fireworks, or combustibles for a bonfire (known as "Cob-coaling"). There are many variations,

Here comes three jolly rovers, all in one row.
We're coming a cob-coiling for t' Bon Fire Plot.
Bon Fire Plot from morning till night !
If you'll give us owt, we'll steal nowt, but bid you goodnight.

They also burned (the considerably more respectable, albeit no less violent in his youth) George Washington in effigy for some time period around after the Revolutionary War, so I regret to report that morality does not seem to be the operating excuse for determining who gets condemned and/or burned at the stake in popular celebrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:11 PM

113. Our founding fathers were at one time traitors

And dystopian fiction is a very, very popular genre.

As Americans, we seem to have a general distrust of government. We want to keep it weak. We think our politicians are all corrupt. Lots of people dont like the police. etc..

It's just our culture. We don't particularly like authority very much. And it's in our literature and movies. The government in our entertainment is always portrayed as evil or corrupt or stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:20 PM

126. I would...

Recommend reading Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" or watching the documentary "Inside Job" or an older documentary called "The Corporation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:23 PM

127. Sometimes the only viable solution is to blow shit up.

what does being democratic or not democratic have to do with anything? We are not a democracy, that is one of the few things the right wingers get right.

Motive is everything.

Blow shit up to save the people and freedom is good , blow shit up to harm the people and take away freedom is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread