V for Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous - by Alan Moore
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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."...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.
I am unimpressed with your cynicism.
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.
Fascists generally aren't liberal, and vice versa.
@Karunamon - Sure, but dropping into groupthink in any setting is a dangerous thing to do. The earth is flat, etc.
~George Jean Nathan
~Samuel Johnson
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.
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."
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.
There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.
1. Radical libertarian / anti-government types
2. Tea Partiers
3. The OWS movement
4. Anonymous
The moral of this story may just be that these groups have more in common that you would suspect at first blush.
The latter doesn't much look worth of downvoting to me, in fact I'd go almost so far as to say it's amongst the most vexing problems of humanity at the moment.
Yes, my point (such as it was) is that wedge issues distract from the real "supra-partisan" issues that affect citizens across party lines, like the immunity of bankers from prosecution, how much of a drain military expenditures are on the economy (and therefor quality of life) in the US, the TSA, US foreign policy as a stifle on travel opportunities, and so on.
Oh, but let's talk about some religious people laying a turd of morality on the front page of every newspaper. Birth-control in church insurance? Such a pressing issue!
And as far as I know, OWS was never associated with the Guy Fawkes mask; that was Anonymous showing up in the flesh.
Why does it seem silly to you that the largest and most effective anti-government movement of the modern era would have some sympathizers who adopt the symbol?
And to answer your question, because the Tea Party seemed to be all about being American and Fawkes was not only British but also Catholic. I guess pop culture helps.
Here's a lovely interview with him, from "Mythmakers and Lawbreakers", a work on anarchist fiction writers:
http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/2009/02/mythmakers-lawbre...
The book:
http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/mmlb/
Some of the interviews are better than others, but the Ursula K. Le Guin and Alan Moore ones really stood out for me.
Here is another good and recent interview:
http://www.honestpublishing.com/news/honest-alan-moore-inter...
What, for the better or worse? The comic industry is in no state to be proud of; they sell at least 100 times less than they used to and their entire audience is 30 year old white men because they have no ability to attract new readers.
That's the American-style comic industry; the Japanese one is doing well.
For the better most definitely, and when Moore could still be considered as part of the comic industry. I don't think this has really been the case for a long time now.
I agree with toyg's comment that the industry is in its current state because they don't have enough Moores and Ellises and Gaimans. I'm also very fond of Garth Ennis' and Glenn Fabry's work. It's interesting to note that all these guys and more are considered part of the 'British Invasion'[1] and without them, the US comic industry would be in far worse shape than it is.
I couldn't agree more.
UPDATE: Forget it, the design belongs to Time Warner.
Mass-production, however, has some interesting advantages. It's harder to trace it back to its owner, for instance.
When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen,"
I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked
me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film
gets made or not.
Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous, the disavowal of identity that accompanies taking up the mask: even though _he himself_ demonstrated the succession of V.
But that's perhaps to be expected; the movie necessarily completed the image of the mask by making it abundantly clear that it is when the _group_ takes up the mask that the mask has power. You cannot punish one if you must punish all.
At the same time, he is clearly in tune with the movement. "Today's response to similar oppressions seems to be one that is intelligent, constantly evolving and considerably more humane."
All in all I read (if I may) V for Valediction from a man who thanks the movement for validating his work, and encourages the next generation just as an intellectual parent ought.
And also like a good intellectual parent, he points to his own heritage... "Some ghosts never go away..."
I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it,
and I'm not going to be going to see it.
By “cotton” did you mean “caught on”?
That's mindless twaddle.
"if you must punish all" is never true. In fact, you usually don't want to punish all.
And, you can always punish one.
Even if I support their views, I would never want to be associated with them.
That's rather the idea of being anonymous.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/149/
1) Stole from Symantec and released the code: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253
2) stole from pcanywhere and released the code: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2012/02/07/anon...
Funny thing is, Google does the same thing with the GPL (IE: "theft" of code): http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html and the people here on HN want to crucify them.
It's so easy to hide behind a handle/username online. It takes no balls or courage because you have little to no risk. The mere fact that they do this shows me that they aren't really serious about their views and are most likely anti-social kids (or adults with the maturity of kids).
This is stuff that I would have enjoyed when I was 15.
If a government attacked people they didn't agree with without a trial (Even under the name "Anonymous"), I don't think I would agree with them either.
Anyone using the name "Anonymous" to attack another that they don't agree with is wrong.
I don't like the people the people at the wall street protests so I'm going to steal all their credit card info or fake a police report that they are child molesters. But don't worry, it's all under the name Anonymous...so it's okay!!!!!!!
Not sure if this is a response to the joke or not, though...
It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing.
It's called an opinion. Garbage is spewed about the US government weekly on HN and nobody calles it "ad hominem" (which you also can't just throw around).
I provided proof. Here is another example:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/anonymous-hack...
They sound like terrorists, act like terrorists, so I'm going to call them what they are. I don't care if you disagree.
Christ, I'm so glad nobody here on HN is running a country.