5 ms·

Obligatory quote from the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 There are o

by kqr2 15y ago

Obligatory quote from the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

arethuza 15y ago
As an extremely unpleasant man once said: "...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." He was wrong about just about everything else, but in this one statement I fear he may have told the truth.
- Helianthus 15y ago
  It is all too easy to pretend that people have no say in the actions of their commonwealth, and much too difficult to believe that patriotism, pacifism, idealism, and conservatism each have something important to say. I am unimpressed with your cynicism.
  - yaix 15y ago
    "Cynic" is what the idealist calls the realist.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      The capacity for accurate observation is often called, "cynicism" by those who haven't got it.
  - aptwebapps 15y ago
    The quote is fine as long as you don't take as an absolute statement of the only way things can be. It is a fact that the outlined strategy is almost always effective.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      Thanks, that's what I meant by including it this discussion. Personally, I would hope we could raise the general level of skepticism and equip ourselves with a Sagan-like "Baloney Detection Kit" so that everyone is aware of this technique for motivating populations towards conflict and that this hopefully makes us all more immune to it.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    As a liberal, I'd like to thank you for invoking conservatism in defense of fascism. It's very satisfying for me.
    - irishcoffee 15y ago
      As someone who doesn't pick a party but rather considers each issue without the taint of party lines, I think labels are hilarious... and stupid.
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        "liberal" and "conservative" are not party lines - they are methods of thought. Fascists generally aren't liberal, and vice versa.
- dhimes 15y ago
  For others who are curious and don't recognize this: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Some may find the comment which precedes this interesting as well: Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Alas, the conflict setting the context for these comments was the last time the US Congress declared war (WWII). Fearful of the political consequences of taking responsibility of such actions, Congress has consented to letting subsequent Presidents (including our current administrator) initiate ill-defined actions. We, the people, no longer have a say in the matter as our elected representatives will not take a stand one way or another; they will chatter at great length, but will not declare a beginning nor end to hostilities. ETA: emphasis is "declare war". Consent to fund POTUS-initiated actions is missing the point.
  - sigzero 15y ago
    Except the military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress by H.J. Res. 114, March 3, 2003. Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power.
    - sequoia 15y ago
      >Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power. I think that brings us full circle: "...and denounce the pacifists [or legislators who might defund unpopular military actions] for lack of patriotism [being 'weak on defense'] and exposing the country to danger."
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- saraid216 15y ago
  So do something about it. If you don't know what to do, figure out what to do.
  - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
    The problem is, how do you tell whether you're brainwashed or not?
neilk 15y ago
Alan Moore refuses to have anything to do with the movies, and true to his predictions they seriously butchered the character.In the movie incarnation, very little remains of Alan Moore's V, except his hacker/trickster nature and a certain panache. The literary V is an anarchist, somewhat disdainful of ordinary people's subservience, and decides to destroy the apparatus of the state whether the people want it or not. The book ends with England in chaos. The book hints that a figure like V is always needed, no matter what kind of government you live under. The movie V is an outlaw, but he's still more of a liberal reformer. He gets rid of the bad leaders, while leaving the state intact, and then gathers people together to witness a symbolic action. In the movie, it's clear that being V is only necessary when you have a bad government, then you can get on with your normal life. Nevertheless, Moore believes that truly iconic characters take on a life of their own and become humanity's "gods". And in some ways the V-figure is evolving beyond the media portrayals. Not as prickly and disengaged from humanity as the book, while jettisoning the 9-11 truther nonsense of the movie. Maybe heading for true "trickster god" status; a friend of humanity that destroys structures that constrain natural developments.
- Joakal 15y ago
  V was a product of government abuse from experimentation. After escaping, he decides to destroy the state in a cold calculated manner. There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.

by kqr2 15y ago

arethuza 15y ago

As an extremely unpleasant man once said: "...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." He was wrong about just about everything else, but in this one statement I fear he may have told the truth.

Helianthus 15y ago
It is all too easy to pretend that people have no say in the actions of their commonwealth, and much too difficult to believe that patriotism, pacifism, idealism, and conservatism each have something important to say. I am unimpressed with your cynicism.
- yaix 15y ago
  "Cynic" is what the idealist calls the realist.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    The capacity for accurate observation is often called, "cynicism" by those who haven't got it.
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  The quote is fine as long as you don't take as an absolute statement of the only way things can be. It is a fact that the outlined strategy is almost always effective.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Thanks, that's what I meant by including it this discussion. Personally, I would hope we could raise the general level of skepticism and equip ourselves with a Sagan-like "Baloney Detection Kit" so that everyone is aware of this technique for motivating populations towards conflict and that this hopefully makes us all more immune to it.
- jbooth 15y ago
  As a liberal, I'd like to thank you for invoking conservatism in defense of fascism. It's very satisfying for me.
  - irishcoffee 15y ago
    As someone who doesn't pick a party but rather considers each issue without the taint of party lines, I think labels are hilarious... and stupid.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      "liberal" and "conservative" are not party lines - they are methods of thought. Fascists generally aren't liberal, and vice versa.
dhimes 15y ago
For others who are curious and don't recognize this: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html
ctdonath 15y ago
Some may find the comment which precedes this interesting as well: Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Alas, the conflict setting the context for these comments was the last time the US Congress declared war (WWII). Fearful of the political consequences of taking responsibility of such actions, Congress has consented to letting subsequent Presidents (including our current administrator) initiate ill-defined actions. We, the people, no longer have a say in the matter as our elected representatives will not take a stand one way or another; they will chatter at great length, but will not declare a beginning nor end to hostilities. ETA: emphasis is "declare war". Consent to fund POTUS-initiated actions is missing the point.
- sigzero 15y ago
  Except the military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress by H.J. Res. 114, March 3, 2003. Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power.
  - sequoia 15y ago
    >Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power. I think that brings us full circle: "...and denounce the pacifists [or legislators who might defund unpopular military actions] for lack of patriotism [being 'weak on defense'] and exposing the country to danger."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
saraid216 15y ago
So do something about it. If you don't know what to do, figure out what to do.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  The problem is, how do you tell whether you're brainwashed or not?

neilk 15y ago

Alan Moore refuses to have anything to do with the movies, and true to his predictions they seriously butchered the character.In the movie incarnation, very little remains of Alan Moore's V, except his hacker/trickster nature and a certain panache. The literary V is an anarchist, somewhat disdainful of ordinary people's subservience, and decides to destroy the apparatus of the state whether the people want it or not. The book ends with England in chaos. The book hints that a figure like V is always needed, no matter what kind of government you live under. The movie V is an outlaw, but he's still more of a liberal reformer. He gets rid of the bad leaders, while leaving the state intact, and then gathers people together to witness a symbolic action. In the movie, it's clear that being V is only necessary when you have a bad government, then you can get on with your normal life. Nevertheless, Moore believes that truly iconic characters take on a life of their own and become humanity's "gods". And in some ways the V-figure is evolving beyond the media portrayals. Not as prickly and disengaged from humanity as the book, while jettisoning the 9-11 truther nonsense of the movie. Maybe heading for true "trickster god" status; a friend of humanity that destroys structures that constrain natural developments.

Joakal 15y ago
V was a product of government abuse from experimentation. After escaping, he decides to destroy the state in a cold calculated manner. There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.