Sunday, March 12, 2006

new liberal film "V for Vendetta" glorifies terrorism












In the Wachowski brother bizarre liberal rag "V for Vendetta", the "hero" wants to blow up London... As NewsWeek points out - "V for Vendetta" will get its share of dismissive reviews—probably more than enough to convince hard-core fans that the movie was simply too smart and dangerous to be given safe passage. In point of fact, though, "Vendetta" is not good. The film may spark interesting debates—about the nature of terrorism and governments, about the inalienable right of artists to shock and provoke—but what we're dealing with is a lackluster comic-book movie that thinks terrorist is a synonym for revolutionary.
This movie advocates terrorism in order to overthrow a government and establish state of Hobbsian anarchy/ State of Nature (as a supposed transitional phase)- in post 9/11 world - where we are in a war against Islamic terrorist killers this seems to be an inappropriate film to release because it coincides with enemy Salafi Islamic ideology. Sedition and insurrection through terrorism and murder of civilians (presented as a moral dilemma?! in the story) as the nation is in war - which I find to be a strong anti-American/ anti-troops message.
Boycott this film!

27 Comments:

Anonymous Cyrus said...

O_o you've got to be kidding me. Have you even read the book, or seen the movie?

He doesn't want to "blow up London", he wants to bring freedom to the people.

Why do you hate freedom?

By the way, the tag-line V uses in the trailers, "People should not be afraid of their government, a government should be afraid of its people." was original said by Thomas Jefferson.

You know? Thomas Jefferson... founding father? A guy we consider a revolutionary, but was (and still is, I hear) considered a terrorist by Great Britain?

Everything V stands for is what America was founded on, but sadly has been lost since being hijacked by people like you…

Why do you hate America?

8:05 PM, March 12, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

but you are evading the main point I was trying to make - rationalization of terrorism, you no there is absolutely NO justification for terrorism and murder of innocents

so you go into this tirade about how much you dislike conservatives

8:36 PM, March 12, 2006  
Anonymous Cyrus said...

People resort to violence, because there are those that words alone will never change.

Like I said, our founding fathers were terrorists in every sense of the word. Can you deny that?

One man’s terrorist is another man’s revolutionary.

Do you condemn the way the founding fathers wrestled this country from the grasp of Great Britain? You would probably say no, but when you say that, “there is absolutely NO justification for terrorism” you are spitting in the faces of those that built this great nation. We had to use violence to get our independence, because the people that ruled over us were too ignorant to listen to reason.

I hate the Islamic terrorists just as much as you, trust me. But there is a time and place for extreme actions, like blowing up buildings and killing people. V is fighting against a totalitarian society that rivals the terror brought by the third Reich. The government in V for Vendetta even has Gestapo and concentration camps. V is us, V is the United States of America, storming the beaches of Normandy to bring down the likes of Hitler and Mussolini… the only difference is that he’s just one man.

Sans using violence, how would you suggest we could have handled the Nazis?

8:58 PM, March 12, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

First of all - don't tell me you just compared American Revolution and WW2 to brutal acts of savagery on 9/11 !

In American Revolution the attacks were carried out against the occupying government with the goal of bringing them down and establishing a better one

However, V's intent, is to create anarchy and chaos - and in my view this fictional message is very similar to the Islamic terrorist's goal to kill as many people as they can - this why I criticize this film

Guy Fawkes was an anarchist and a terrorist, not a revolutionary - once again, because he didn't envision a working system of government after he was supposed to eliminate Charles I and the parliament

That is a difference

10:15 PM, March 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lock also advocated revolution against the government when the people lose influence. I am unsure if he allowed innocents to included in the revolutions attack on the government.

10:53 PM, March 12, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

Locke had a rather satirical approach to the issue of government and people, easy to misquote

11:23 PM, March 12, 2006  
Anonymous Cyrus said...

What you’re saying right now, is the same thing the Brits were saying during the Revolutionary war. That’s all I’m trying to say… it’s all about which side you’re on. I’m on V’s side so I don’t think he’s a terrorist, because I believe he’s justified in trying to bring down a corrupt fascist state. (I don’t believe that what the Islamic terrorists are doing is right or justified.) I think that V is more like our founding fathers than like the Islamic terrorists of today. If anything, today’s terrorists are more like the fascism V is trying to fight. I don’t think you realize that me, you, and V are all on the same side.

V talks about the difference between anarchy and chaos in the book. There is a difference. He doesn’t want to destroy the current government and throw the world into a permanent state of disarray; rather, he wants to tear it down so that something better can be built in its place (though not built by him, but the character he leaves in charge of his quest at the end, and the people he’s set free.) Note: This is exactly how you described America’s role in the revolutionary war.

11:48 PM, March 12, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

no, no - going back to V leaves nation ran by rogue gangs, and in complete state of anarchy, his choice successor might not succeed because of that - as I said before V is an anarchist, like Timothy McVeigh - and in post 9/11 that approach should be construed as terrorism

3:59 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds to me like u could be a neo-nazi, u just dont know it... lol
into conservatism, fighting for the rights of fascist goverments, attacking anyone who tries to challenge the totalitarian state... in fact, u wld probably make the perfect gestapo... hahaha.
1.its just a film, loosen ur y's
2.Its set in F**king BRITAIN!!! if anything its anti-british
3.V is a terrorist... but as many people have said, so were the american revolutionaries.
4.V also exists in a completely different environment than yours, ie a fascist state... i suppose you'd enjoy being watched 24/7, not being able to express your own view and generally not having any freedoms at all.
i wouldn't trust the american government as much as you apparently do... the war in iraq isnt much more than a war for oil. i know its probably quite hard to see in a country that LIES to its people so constantly... a govenment that controls through fear [im rambling now, am'nt i? or is it a rant because it has a point? sorry, mebbe i should get back to the point] a government that rewards the rich and seems to think the poor are just lazy [mebbe having someone shoot at them will wake them up so they can get rich too... so long as they dont have their head blown off first] a country that has a huge ratio of murders but wont outlaw guns so that rich people can go hunting. Anyway, my point is that before you go branding everything anti-american mebbe you should consider the old addage "dont believe everything you read in the papers"

7:32 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Zam said...

"Guy Fawkes was an anarchist and a terrorist, not a revolutionary - once again, because he didn't envision a working system of government after he was supposed to eliminate Charles I and the parliament"

It was 1605, he was trying to blow up James I not Charles I.Fawkes would have been hard pressed to kill Charles I considering he himself had been dead for 19 years by the time Charles took the throne in 1625.
Please if you are going to argue boys get it right.

7:33 PM, March 13, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

there goes liberal name-calling
funny, but it seems that Hitler was more of a liberal than conservative

*no liberal can challenge this quote*

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1937)

8:55 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous kyle said...

So, any movie that shows a guy fighting an oppressive (british) government or institution is inherently anti-american and anti-troops? Thumbs up!

Wait, what about all those movies about the Revolutionary War. Lets go with a blaringly obvious one like the Patriot. Yep, that one was full of terrorists and anti-american, anti-troop propoganda. Oh, wait. What?

It's a f*ckingstory. Set in 2020 Britian. Based on some comics written over two decades ago. That started filming over a year ago.

Stop with your persecution complex already.

9:16 PM, March 13, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

there we go again - movie Patriot - about American Revolution and liberation from foreign occupying usurper - Great Britain - to establish free democratic government - great role model of sacrifice for your nation for our kids

V for Vendetta - movie about a terrorist/anarchist who murders indiscriminately to destabilize and create anarchy - glorification of terrorism and Bolshevik anarchy - nice message in post 9/11 world

9:36 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This shows that you have absolutely NO knowledge WHATSOEVER of the brilliant graphic novel that was V FOR VENDETTA. If you read that, you'll see that it was anything BUT a glorification or rationalization of terrorism. In the book, V is portrayed as just as much of a bastard and a villain as the Leader is. One of the driving themes of the book is the rationalization of atrocities in order to achieve a higher goal. As someone who's for the American war machine, you should be able to completely get behind an idea like that, since that's EXACTLY what's this country is doing in Iraq.

The book was written in 1981 as a response to the success of Margaret Thatcher and the Tory party in England. This was during a time when the Tories were considering internment camps for AIDS patients and even banning homosexuals from the country, so the ideas addressed in the book are very relevant not only in the 80s, but today as well (although now that relevance has shifted from England to the U.S.).

Not only that, but do you know WHY V is trying to create anarchy? Because the government in place IS A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP!! He himself was a prisoner of a concentration camp where countless people were killed, abused and experimented upon. This is far more oppressive than Great Britain's control over the colonies, yet you justify that terrorism but not this kind?

Essentially, you're saying that terrorism, even against a fascist government, is bad. So you're saying fascism should be tolerated even by the people living under it?

How very un-American.

12:27 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and aren't you currently living in canada? you must realize that over half the population of the country housing you, providing you with means to write this whiny blog about a fictional story, is against the 'morals' you are fighting for? terrorizing us with your propaganda inspired views....almost like a revolutionary.

In ignorance, you have become what you hate

Watch Farenheit 9/11

Loser

1:16 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there goes liberal name-calling
funny, but it seems that Hitler was more of a liberal than conservative

*no liberal can challenge this quote*


Golly! How right you are! Let's just list off his very liberal ideals...

- He believed in the rights of minority groups, like Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals.
- He believed in supporting those with mental and physical disabilities.
- He was an ardent peace lover.
- He protected freedom of speech at all costs.
- He hated censorship.
- He believed in freedom of political affiliation.
- He believed in Marxism.
- He always stood up for 'the little guy'.
- He supported unions.
- He believed in freedom of worship.

Yes, Hitler was undeniably liberal. Just look at all that evidence!

...My god you are stupid. Yes, I will admit that fascism and communism are very similar in practice, but are wildly different in theory. Besides, being liberal does not automatically make you a 'commie'. Hitler was about as far right-wing as it gets, which is direction you lean in, incase you hadn't noticed.

1:53 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous kyle said...

Great Britain was not a foreign occupying "usurper". The colonists, by and far, considered themselves British. They just wanted equality in parliment. Since that didn't go well, they revolted against the British. And they hardly had a system of govt setup during the war, and really didn't have a decent government till 1787, the time before that was weak as all hell. Google the Articles of Confederation if you don't know about that. While it WAS something, it was piss poor, and that's why we now have the Constitution.

In every single review of the book/movie I've read, it's never said that V kills "indiscriminately". He merely goes after the guys who ran the internment camp that he was inprisoned in. Something we ourselves did post WW2 in germany, sometimes without trials of any sort. That being said, I haven't read the book, much less seen this movie. But I will read it when it comes in, probably Friday or saturday, and watch the movie shortly thereafter.

Again, it's said time and again in the books that V is hardly sane, or a f*cking angel.

And would you want to live in that British country, as it's depicted? Where you have a curfew, and going out after that is illegal, and you're immediately prosecuted? Where people can eavesdrop on you at will?

Temporary Anarchy vs a fascist tyranical dictatorship? Your choice bud.

10:43 PM, March 14, 2006  
Blogger yugunter said...

all I gather from the liberal posts here is that you guys don't want even to consider an opposing point of few, and look past your sensitivity (hehe) and emotions to evaluate the facts of post-9/11 world, I only hope this little blog, and others like this will make you at least consider an alternative to your maniacal left-wing views

12:38 AM, March 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*no liberal can challenge this quote*

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1937)

No liberal can challenge this quote, eh?

How about I give it a try. Anyone who's ever taken political science 101 knows that fascism is at the far right of the political scale. Anyone who's ever taken History 101 knows that Hitler despised Communists almost as much as Jews.

How can someone who despised Communists (he even put them in concentration camps) also be a socialist? Short answer, he can't. Hitler only said he was a socialist to gain the people's support. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that his policies were as far from socialism as is humanly possible.

Hitler's philosopher of choice was Nietzche not Marx.

12:54 AM, March 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all I gather from the liberal posts here is that you guys don't want even to consider an opposing point of few, and look past your sensitivity (hehe) and emotions to evaluate the facts of post-9/11 world, I only hope this little blog, and others like this will make you at least consider an alternative to your maniacal left-wing views

Your comment here is a perfect instance of the neo-con syndrom of the pot calling the kettle black. You are completely unable to take into account the message this film and the book conveys, in fact you've openly bashed it without even seeing it based on assumptions most-likely ripped from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or some other right-wing nutcase.

3:34 AM, March 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yugunter stop quoting Hitler. At least consider that not everything he said was true.

11:59 AM, March 15, 2006  
Blogger RC said...

I think that figuring out and discussing these concepts of "rational terrorism" is very bizarre...you'd think it'd be a clear cut issue but there are so many people sharing in this discussion...

i guess it just get's complicated.

--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com

6:50 PM, March 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

American style democracy is inherently antidemocratic. When the Founding Fathers wrote, “We, the People,” and used representation by popular election, they ensured that “the People” actually relinquished their power to the abstract federal government, giving it the stamp of popular sovereignty while actually bypassing institutions more immediately accountable to the people, and converting republican into imperial government. The transfer of power from the already exploited lower class to the higher-class citizenry was now seen as the essence of democracy itself – rule by the people, for the people, from the people, as long as the actual people stay out of the way. Democracy without a demos.

Islamist (NOT Islamic) terrorism seeks to establish a global fascist Islamic caliphate, not anarchy. And by the way, training death squads and ordering extrajudicial executions is defined as terrorism as well, but both have been in practice by the CIA in Latin America for over 50 years.

Terrorism has always been in the eye of the beholder, of course, the difference is that State governments get away with it because State governments define what it is.

Anarchy is the belief that people should not be subservient to a State government (and thus has much in common with libertarianism) - it is the idea that people are smart enough to not need someone to tell them what to do all the time, and was remarkably successful as a system of government for 90% of human existence. Why do we think anarchy is scary? Well, perhaps if you knew how to actually think for your self it wouldn't be.

5:50 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a great site »

10:09 AM, February 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! » » »

11:21 PM, April 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ray ban outlet
fitflops clearance
michael kors outlet
ray ban eyeglasses
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban eyeglasses
mulberry handbags
jordan 11 concord
burberry outlet
abercrombie & fitch
abercrombie kids
chanel bags
louboutin
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet online
fitflop footwear
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses uk
lebron shoes
michael kors

9:28 PM, April 06, 2015  
Blogger Dongdong Weng said...

2015618dongdong
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
abercrombie and fitch
michael kors
ray bans
jordan shoes
ray ban outlet
hollister kids
louis vuitton outlet
toms outlet
prada
ralph lauren
mont blanc
michael kors outlet
jordan 11s
polo ralph lauren home
jordan 6
hollister
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
air max 90
coach outlet
true religion
ray ban glasses
oakley sunglasses wholesale
michael kors handbags
coach factorty outlet
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors bag
michael kors handbags
coach factorty outlet
hollister clothing store
nfl jerseys
fitflops
oakley sunglasses outlet

4:44 AM, June 18, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home