The Republican party operates almost entirely in dog-whistle by now.  Abraham Lincoln knew about liars and treason!  He got killed for standing up to it!  And wasn’t V for Vendetta cool, where the guy planted bombs to overthrow a tyrannical government?

I don’t think it’s about Guy Fawkes so much as it’s about the movie, which portrayed the terrorist protagonist in a much more sympathetic light than the comic.

I’m sure Alan Moore’s laughing at this somewhere, though.

My favorite thing about that article is its complete lack of awareness that the Wachowskis did not create V for Vendetta.

Alan Moore? Who’s that?

Amanda didn’t these assclowns freak over Bill Ayers, who attempted to bomb Congress but not to kill anyone, since he sponsored a fundraiser in Chicago for Obama?  Seriously, do people have this much amnesia?

What makes it even better is that, in true right-wing fashion, they know basically nothing about history. “Remember remember the 5th of November” was an ANTI-Fawkes poem meant to commemorate his execution and remind Englishmen to be on the look out for treasonous activity.

I wonder if anybody realizes that V for Vendetta is exactly what it was about.  It wasn’t so much a political act as a personal VENDETTA against the individuals who did it to him.  They took control of the government after destroying his identity, mind, and “soul.”  Guy Fawkes was in a similar boat, brought to his knees over personal losses he sought to kill the rich leaders of parliament with a bomb.  Both of their fights were apolitical, they were personal hate filled attacks on personal perpetrators of crime. 

If anything, it’s about chest beating now.  Just get angrier and angrier until they burst into hate crimes or win an election.  Since the latter is less likely, I suspect hate crimes will eventually explode (I give it another election cycle.) 

To go back to the V for Vendetta reference, their government in the movie represents the right-wing authoritarian ideal.  Ron Paul would fit right in with that group just replacing absolute authority of the government with that of the corporation.  It’s ironic how clueless they are.

Man, they are gonna lose their shiznit if they don’t take back either the House or the Senate.

Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Then again, are the teabaggers likely to question it? Of course not. that’s why you can have the most ridiculous, disjointed crap come out of the mouths of those winding up the crazies. The guys in charge know full well that their base has apparently infinite space in their heads for a dozen, at least, conflicting ideas being fed to them, and not a lick of space for a single thought of their own. They know that when the winds change, they can change their propaganda just like that, and the mob will go along without a thought.

The teabaggers are frightening in their senseless anger, their gunwaving and threats, but you know what really scares the hell out of me? Their wilful stupidity. In these crowds, there have to be a few people that have the grey matter to get from point A to point B, but the fact os that they don’t care. They don’t care how stupid they sound, and that scares the hell out of me.

Somehow, I don’t think this is how all those futurologists predicting the breakup of the US into a bunch of separate countries thought it would go down. But when you’ve got wingnuts celebrating a plot to blow up congress and the president, at least one state organizing a militia to oppose “federal encroachment” and another state gearing up to violate the Civil Rights Act on a massive scale,

and an army full of christianists and white supremacists who are already starting to deny the authority of their commander in chief,

you do not have a recipe for good things happening.

“I see no reason why gunpowder TREASON should ever be forgot.”

Because treason IS a fucking high crime and attacking the government (Parliament or our own elected officials) is attacking the people’s choice of representatives, trying to force the views of an angry minority (sometimes of one) against the majority.

I would guess its far more likely they are ripping off 4chan\anonymous and a bad movie than they have any clue about Guy Fawkes.

On the upside the clip looked professionally made so it wasn’t the usual torture of watching angry elderly white people saying stupid shit.

On the downside they are thinking in movie trailers. If someone made a summer blockbuster about patriots taking out a negro tyrant of america a lot of this might go away because their fantasy problems would be solved in fantasy space. The ensuing circle jerk could then take place outside the public sphere.

I remember an interview with Moore where he said “I was too naive when I wrote V for Vendetta, I had assumed it would take something like a near miss nuclear war, that people would have to be beaten and brutalized into fascism… This was before Thatcher, we’ll be lead into fascism with one gold ring through our nose, and another through our scrotum.” In case anyone was wondering what the author’s thoughts on politics were, and how he’d feel about the tea party yahoos.

Alan Moore seems to have an incredible knack for creating art that is completely misappropriated, he’s only rivaled by Robert Crumb in that respect.

Guy Fawkes masks just remind me of the group “anonymous” from 4chan.

“I don’t think it’s about Guy Fawkes so much as it’s about the movie, which portrayed the terrorist protagonist in a much more sympathetic light than the comic.”

The movie portrayed the terrorist protagonist more sympathetically than a concentration camp survivor leading the justified overthrow of a brutal Nazi-clone regime?  Or more sympathetically than the embodied idea that citizenry deserves freedom and justice?  I mean, the guy was trying to undermine an unabashedly vicious totalitarian regime.  I think the bigger problem is the people equating the government we have with a government that’s literally death-camping undesirables.

Man, they are gonna lose their shiznit if they don’t take back either the House or the Senate.

And that’s a really tall order even if they’re completely organized and not turning off independents at every turn. They’ve really set themselves up for potential disappointment this November, because it’s always been a longshot that they’d take back either House, but they seem to think it’s a given they’ll get both.

I’m pretty much Amanda’s biggest fan. But from what I remember, “V for Vendetta” was popular on the left—not the right—when it came out. I was in college, and a bunch of fellow students embraced it as an anti-Bush narrative. I especially remember some very far-left classmates adding “V for Vendetta” to their list of favorite movies on Facebook. Anyone else remember this?

“I especially remember some very far-left classmates adding “V for Vendetta” to their list of favorite movies on Facebook. Anyone else remember this? “

Would that be because students are more into graphic novels than most?
I would say that even back in the 90’s when I was in art school - ANY comic that got made into a movie would have been added as a “favourite”.

It’s been awhile since I watched that movie, and I never read the graphic novel, but from what I remember the politics were extremely leftist.  There were very clear parallels drawn between the movie’s fascist regime and the Bush government (although apparently in the GN it was more about Thatcher).  Am I remembering wrong, or are these people just stupider than I ever gave them credit for?

V for Vendetta was wholeheartedly adopted by most of my Progressive friends when it came out. (Movie, not book.) Many commented on how they were sad they would never really storm the government and blow things up that way. (More a lament for just not being more active in an effective way.)

That doesn’t change the fact that now there are Democrats in the White House, the “oppressed man who strikes back violently” narrative would appeal to the teabaggers and such. Artist’s intent counts for little here.

As for the April 19th thing, I’m a little more forgiving. I mean, MA has been celebrating Patriots’ Day for at least 40 or 50 years now, probably much longer.

Damnit, fuck you Repubes! The Guy Fawkes mask was an anti-Scientology symbol. Oh well, that’ll probably come back to bite them in the ass anyway.

If the right wing do adopt Guy Fawkes as some kind of mascot, it’ll be one of modern politics funniest moments f’sure. Other posters on this article have drawn comparisions to Anon, who’s ethos (if it has one) aren’t right wing so much anti-everything. I think they’ve even had several dissaproving mentions on Fox News (which, in turn, may have led to a small spike in dog ownership). A gathering of the Republican Party where everyone’s wearing Guy Fawkes masks would be a very epic case of reverse-trolling indeed.

Nico:  liberal rather than leftist, IIRC—the movie changed Alan Moore’s soi disant anarchist into a fighter for democracy and civil liberties. 

I don’t get the “more sympathetic” claim either—in both book and movie, V tortured his protegée and casually killed a number of people who were not directly responsible for, and perhaps not voluntarily complicit with, his own suffering and the tyranny he lived under.  Indeed, as Xeranar points out, V is pretty much grinding his own axe, for all that he dresses his rebellion up in political rhetoric:  the irony is that he makes a true believer out of his disciple.

When the movie came out it was criticized by right winger for being anti-Bush and anti-American.  Joe Scarborough said it, “seemed to spew hatred towards this president, this country, Christianity—I mean, you name it.”  The prevailing view on the right was that the film was pro-terrorist.  Now it’s suddenly a patriotic fable?  The ability of these people to twist their own minds into whatever spiral the Lords of Hate demand is remarkable.  I am losing hope fast.

As a resident of northern Minnesota, I am always amused and a little confused when I see Confederate flags on the bumper stickers of cars with MN license plates.  The other day I was behind a pickup with a tailgate painted like the Confederate flag with the slogan “The South shall rise again” written across it.  Yeah, the truck had MN plates.  Is that flag now just code for “racist” or “ignorant hillbilly” or something?

@#15 Incertus, I’m thinking that they’re setting themselves up to claim that the Democrats won through fraud. They keep ringing that “SEIU Thugs” bell and that “ACORN” bell and you know what it means when Democratic constituencies are actually allowed to vote. I mean duh, the country’s obviously on the side of the teabaggers so Democrats can only win by fraud. And remember that Obama is a “Chicago political gangster.”

@24 BadKitty: Yes.

A Briton here. Yes, the Fawkes I grew up with was every inch a villain—a Catholic and a terrorist. At a time when bombings and slayings were regular events in my country, it was easy to think of him as an analogue of an IRA hit man. Of course I have no way of measuring what a young or foreign audience makes of him now. I suspect the movie has changed the meaning and I may not be in touch any more.

The movie portrayed the terrorist protagonist more sympathetically than a concentration camp survivor leading the justified overthrow of a brutal Nazi-clone regime?  Or more sympathetically than the embodied idea that citizenry deserves freedom and justice?  I mean, the guy was trying to undermine an unabashedly vicious totalitarian regime.  I think the bigger problem is the people equating the government we have with a government that’s literally death-camping undesirables.

The graphic novel was much more nuanced.  While the government was just as bad, they hadn’t faked a bioterror attack to gain power (as they did in the film): Norsefire gained power because the entire planet was going to hell, a nuclear conflict had broken out between the US and USSR, and people in the UK were desperate for anyone trying and hold society together.  They ended up with bastards in charge, but the bastards in charge kept the power on and food being delivered while much of the rest of the world was going to hell.

V was also an outright anarchist terrorist.  He didn’t have goals of restoring liberty and democracy, he just wanted to pull everything down and damn the consequences.  You’d not be far off thinking of him as a slightly less gratuitously homicidal version of the Joker.

What Moore did with the story was create a very uncomfortable world of gray and gray morality.  There really are no good guys and bad guys, just people in situations where “good’ and “bad” are contextual.

The graphic novel, to me, was about the way fascism utterly destroys morality for both its practitioners and its opponents.  The movie wanted a good guy.  What KeithM said above, pretty much.

I think it’s also the same thing that happened to Rorschach in the Watchmen movie: having a flesh-and-blood actor portraying a psychopath makes the psychopath more likeable.  Even if we never saw Hugo Weaving’s damn face, he humanized V just by playing him straight.

Things I resent the hell out of:
the inability of so many people, including the Wachoski brothers, to recognize a villain protagonist. Alan Moore has written many of those. He has a rather startling habit of getting you to cheer for someone, only to remind you exactly what you’re cheering for.
Michael Scherer here, for referring to the film V as a “reference” to the comic in his appendix. An adaptation is not a reference, and it reeks of his attempt to hid his inability to realize the film was an adaptation by making it seem as if it were only obliquely related, thus excusing his ignorance.

The graphic novel was much more nuanced.  While the government was just as bad, they hadn’t faked a bioterror attack to gain power (as they did in the film): Norsefire gained power because the entire planet was going to hell, a nuclear conflict had broken out between the US and USSR, and people in the UK were desperate for anyone trying and hold society together.  They ended up with bastards in charge, but the bastards in charge kept the power on and food being delivered while much of the rest of the world was going to hell.

What I liked about how the book vs. film showed Norsefire coming to power was that in the book, Norsefire didn’t need to lie to the people to get them to support a fascist government. It was a much more powerful message.

The US is a fascist oligarchy. It was heading that way even before George W. Bush didn’t get elected President and got in anyway.

Bush claimed and got the power to wiretap your phonecalls without getting a warrant: with an eye on the future when he planned to be President, Obama voted to make those powers legal.

Bush claimed and got the power to name anyone in the world a terrorist or an “illegal combatant” and have them kidnapped, caged, and tortured at his pleasure. Obama confirmed that he did not consider this a crime (merely a matter of Presidential preference) and asserted his right as President to kill anyone in the world at his pleasure, without needing to go through any legal process.

You have a mainstream media that functions to support your government’s powers.

You are, in fact, a society such as Moore describes in V for Vendetta.

These people are absurd not because they claim to be living in an oppressive state, but because they had no problem with any of it so long as it was a white Republican guy doing it.

V for Vendetta as the comic stood would have been terrible to watch.  Just as the Watchmen which was far closer to the book was fairly close to unwatchable.  The reality of gray world where nobody is good or bad wholly is not something that plays well in a visual context without the inclusion of inner-thoughts.  Thus the need to turn V into some a/political creature somewhere between personal vendetta and political upheaval.  If you take it on a strictly psychological level, V’s end goal of destroying the government was a manifestation of his desire to kill his tormentors.  The “dream sequence” that incites mob violence is the far more real variation of how such an event would play out.  But it was placed in there to satisfy the realists.  They go with the storybook ending of somehow killing the top leaders and leaving a mid-level detective for a nose for snooping alive will somehow bring order once more to a fascist society. 

If the republicans wish to use him as their identity they can do so, it is all about promoting that visceral feeling.  The loss of power for the white man.  The slipping away of Ozzie & Harriet.  The world is changing and leaving the Euro-centric hegemony in the dust and it’s time to move on.

What a nice, slick video. I’m always amazed, the fine work that’s created in support of dangerous horseshit.

V for Vendetta is a lot of things, but it’s not a re-imagining of the Guy Fawkes story. I mean, does Scherer know much about either? Damn.

V for Vendetta, the movie, is sort of a cop out. Is V a terrorist? I suppose, but his violence is fairly restrained. He blows up Old Bailey in the middle of the night, and announces well in advance when he’s going to blow up Parliament. The people he’s targeting to kill were directly involved in the barbaric acts of the regime, and the incidental people he kills on the way are all agents of the state. And it papers over the moral dilemna of his actions by making it completely unambiguous that the government is unswervingly fascistic and brutalizing its citizens. And where the comic still leaves some gray area by the fact that the people enthusiastically welcomed the fascist for order’s sake, in the movie, Norsefire launches a bioterror attack against the country, then comes up with the vaccine to win support. It basically takes all of the gray out of the story, save for the part where V tortures Evy I suppose.

Also, I don’t know that I’d analogize Fawkes to McVeigh. Without condoning his plans, it really was the case that 16th-17th century Britain was plagued with religious conflicts and that, at the time, Catholics were being oppressed by the government. Again, not to condone mass casualty violence, but violence against the state is different when you’re actually part of an oppressed group, not a white, Christian, heterosexual wingnut who likes to make believe you’re persecuted.

No Ashley you are not wrong, V for Vendetta was a big hit with the left.  My friends in the anti-war movement practically worshipped the movie and I have friends on the left who changed their email signatures to quotes from the film.

The film was taken as analogous to the bush adminstration by many on the left.  Now, to be fair, most, maybe all, of those people were completely ignorant of the actual history of Fawkes.  The film itself gave him questionable morals, but the fact is he was fighting against a horrific totalitarian state to restore freedom to its terrorized citizens. 

Here is the problem:  anybody believe these teabaggers know any of this either?  Or are they too, just going by the film?

The movie was a very heavy-handed rebuke of the Bush Administration and the neocons, stretching into Truther territory it is so left-leaning. And yes, sometimes it depressed me that citizens were so complacent about the Bush Administration’s blatant abuse of power and flaunting of the laws that we didn’t storm the white house. But I was hardly in my basement making bombs. But it amazes me that the teabaggers watch the movie and get all hard about revolution but pretty much ignore :

a) A ideological government dedicated to the idea of theocratic dictatorship which specifically punished gays and muslims, that staged a terrorist attack as a means of grabbing power.

b) Complicit church leaders whose silence was bought by providing them the means to satisfy their pedophilic urges

c) A leader brought in largely as a means of painting a pious face on the political party, but with actual control being mostly in the hands of his ruthless second-in-command.

d) Secret rendition, incarceration without trial, torture

e) A bully-pulpit media figure whose angry rants against muslims and homosexuals and dissenters are punctuated by swaggering machismo power fantasies.

It was definitely a breath of fresh air at the time of its release (it could have happened a little earlier afaic) but it’s definitely stuck in its spot in history. I watched it as the Bush Administration was coming to a close and it wasn’t as enjoyable.

#39

But it amazes me that the teabaggers watch the movie and get all hard about revolution but pretty much ignore

I think folks forget that, when looking at the Tea-Baggers, you’re looking at a bunch of unusually stupid people. Richer than average, yes, older and whiter than the nation as a whole, yes, but stupider. So they like “V for Vendetta” because it seems badass. I think they simply do not understand the more considered issues you list, in any way shape or form.

Ashley @16: I don’t disagree that this happened.  It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.  Then again, I really have a serious problem backing the Catholic church as some kind of liberty-oriented organization.

‘Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot’ by Antonia Fraser is the work to consult on the subject, for those who are interested.

Guy Fawkes did not work alone, nor was he even the most prominent actor in the Gunpowder Plot. It is best to remember that The Gunpowder conspirators were indeed members of an oppressed minority lashing out against a government that had promised them clemency and then reneged on that promise. Whether or not you have sympathy for their cause, if not their actions, then becomes a matter of personal opinion.

Where it all breaks down with the Republicans is that they are not, in fact, members of an oppressed class who must fear being round up, tortured, and publicly executed, but rather members of a political party that enjoy considerable power and influence in this country. Then again, I never did imagine that history was their strongest subject, given how eager they usually are to rewrite it in their favor.

Without condoning his plans, it really was the case that 16th-17th century Britain was plagued with religious conflicts and that, at the time, Catholics were being oppressed by the government.

Very true. Although, to be fair, the Vatican genuinely DID have agents and armies at its disposal whose avowed purpose was to topple Britain’s Protestant state. Catholic butchery and depredations of settlers in Ireland prior to the civil wars may have been inflated by propaganda and the stories of refugees desperate for alms, but were nonetheless genuine and engendered much popular fear in England, Scotland and Wales.

The civil wars were, in large part, wars for freedom of religion, in which Catholicism was seen by the majority of English and Scots as a vile tyranny. Even the watered-down ceremony and prayer books of the established Church of England was regarded by influential sectaries as a wedge for Romish influence. (Not helped by the fact that Maria Henrietta flaunted her Papistry at every opportunity.)

Guy Fawkes is one of those people with whom, like John Brown and Nat Turner, one can genuinely debate whether violence was justified. But I think we should leave those taking up their respective mantles to fringe groups, not having a major political party start implicitly endorsing violence over… Well, I’m not sure what, but it has something to do with returning the government to the hands of its supposed rightful owners,  I think.

And my British friend explained to be that Guy Fawkes day is basically a compromise: the public reason is to celebrate the stopping of the Gunpowder plot and a final blow to Catholocism in Britain, but they’ll look the other way if the personal commemorations of Guy Fawkes day by Catholic sympathizers are really just praising someone they consider to be a hero.

the public reason is to celebrate the stopping of the Gunpowder plot and a final blow to Catholocism in Britain

Only in the sense that Christmas exists to celebrate the birth of Christ. Bonfire Night involves fireworks, bonfires, sparklers, and mulled wine. In primary school we learned that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament. In high school I studied Tudor and Stuart history (like many, many others), and the difficulties of untangling the claims and counter-claims of a febrile period in English religious history seem obvious, particularly when torture was the most prominent investigatory tool.

Although the Gunpowder Plot provided the space for anti-Catholic legislation, there were prominent Catholics that served in James I & VI’s court. Indeed, it struck me when I was at school that almost nothing that seemed to be about religion actually was, in the sense of being about the beliefs of individuals, but rather religion served as an identifying label for specific political and transnational groupings. (Usually consolidated with a handy marriage or two.)

Bonfire Night today is only really ‘about’ sectarianism, in areas that have pre-existing sectarian tensions. I’ve never met a single person who thinks it’s about terrorism.

Mightponygirl you, for me, summed up perfectly the film, and the moment.  Thanks.

I learned a lot on this thread.  I personally plead ignorance to a lot of that history myself.

Isn’t Guy Fawkes the Tudor equivalent of the underpants bomber?

Guy Fawkes is one of those people with whom, like John Brown and Nat Turner, one can genuinely debate whether violence was justified.

I don’t think so. Harsh though the treatment of recusancy may seem, things were never simple. James I was sufficiently tolerant that many Catholics served at court and could be prominent in public life. The richer families simply paid the recusancy fines and were let be. The plotters triggered a backlash that effectively put back the cause of religious tolerance by 200 years. They are not figures to be romanticised. They were dangerous fanatics.

As Elle notes, the problem with Catholicism was political rather than religious. To be a papist was to be loyal to Rome before your sovereign. And Rome DID plot against the British crown. The agitations of Papal envoys in Ireland during the civil wars was proof of the very real threat the Holy See presented to the state and one reason why English fought the Irish with great ferocity.

#45:  This is why I think so many people cottoned onto the Enlightenment.  Tudor/Stuart political “thought” was often a couple notches below Whargarblll.  If you could string together enough button-pushing nonsense, you too could get the ear of some Crown official with an axe to grind, even if your writing made no logical sense whatsoever. “Dandelions grow in the dirt, and Catholics stand on the earth, which is dirt, and The Earl of Leicester had dirt on his cuff last week, so the Earl of Leicester is a raisin”.  The idea of people writing about politics using big-person words, and making a fucking point through something in the realm of logic and reason must have been a relief after a couple of centuries of complete idiocy.

Tudor/Stuart political “thought” was often a couple notches below Whargarblll.

No. Read Wolsey, More, Queen Elizabeth, Thos. Cromwell and Starkey for some fairly sophisticated thought.

And then go read what the majority of the English “intelligentsia” wrote: it was complete horse-shit.  My wife does Tudor-Stuart history, and I had to listen to her read some of this stuff out loud from time to time.  Half the time, I was pointing out glaring errors before she would be half done - the other half I was sitting in slack-jawed amazement that someone could write such drivel without the wonders of modern lobotomies and electro-shock therapy.  Imagine Michelle Bachman, but with less self-critique.  I want to invent a time machine for the express purpose of going back to 1600s England with a grammar book, a dictionary, and a brick-bat - those bastards owe me for the brain cells of mine that committed suicide rather than process the Conformist/Non-Conformist “debates”.

Isn’t Guy Fawkes the Tudor equivalent of the underpants bomber?

The Stuart equivalent.

Tudor/Stuart political “thought” was often a couple notches below Whargarblll.

I don’t really know how to respond to the idea that 200 years and change worth of thinkers were 4chan-esque morons. As criticism, it lacks a certain amount of subtlety.

As Elle notes, the problem with Catholicism was political rather than religious. To be a papist was to be loyal to Rome before your sovereign. And Rome DID plot against the British crown. The agitations of Papal envoys in Ireland during the civil wars was proof of the very real threat the Holy See presented to the state and one reason why English fought the Irish with great ferocity.
Comment #48: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood on 04/25 at 11:17 AM

Sort of like modern day RCC who think priests shouldn’t be subject to the laws of the state and keep the pedophilia investigations and non-punishment in house.

The civil wars were, in large part, wars for freedom of religion

No, no, they weren’t. Not unless you consider “I should be free to practice my religion, but if your religion is different from mine, you shouldn’t be” to be freedom of religion. Which a lot of people on the right do, if one goes by their rhetoric. It’s a long time before freedom of religion is a mainstream position in English politics.

Now this is an interesting, nuanced and educational discussion on Fawkes, Catholics and the Gunpowder plot.  Whatever the heck those teabaggers are doing with V for Vendetta, ain’t.

Also, in Britain “Guy Fawkes Night” is now really called “Fireworks Night” and is about the big bangs.  I’ve been going to various fireworks shindigs all my life, and I can count the number of Guy burnings I’ve witnessed on one hand.  That just isn’t the main attraction any more.

<blockquote>Not unless you consider “I should be free to practice my religion, but if your religion is different from mine, you shouldn’t be” to be freedom of religion.<blockquote>

There was an element of that, undoubtedly. Particularly in the Church’s reaction against the sectaries, and in the Scots attempts to impose the Covenant upon England. But the English sectaries were, in the main, rebelling against established religion, for freedom from prayer book and clergy, for freedom from the taint of Romanism. It was a cause that eventually brought on board others with even more radical views, such as the Levellers.

Michael Braddick’s ‘God’s Fury, England’s Fire’ has a beautiful summary of the many forces animating the Church, Kirk and sectaries.

It’s a long time before freedom of religion is a mainstream position in English politics.

Well, kind of. I always liked that Elizabeth I quote: “I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls”. She also said “There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.”

There was an element of that, undoubtedly. Particularly in the Church’s reaction against the sectaries, and in the Scots attempts to impose the Covenant upon England. But the English sectaries were, in the main, rebelling against established religion, for freedom from prayer book and clergy, for freedom from the taint of Romanism. It was a cause that eventually brought on board others with even more radical views, such as the Levellers.

Except that when the dissenters got into power they banned other religions. Not all, but some - I don’t think we’d say that, for example, a country that let you choose between Shia or Sunni Islam had freedom of religion, so why would we say that a country where you could choose to be a Protestant Dissenter if you wanted civil rights or another religion if you didn’t want civil rights had freedom of religion?

Catholic butchery and depredations of settlers in Ireland prior to the civil wars ...
The agitations of Papal envoys in Ireland during the civil wars was proof of the very real threat the Holy See presented to the state and one reason why English fought the Irish

FFS. Yes, it is true that the English used anti-Catholicism as a way to further colonialism in Ireland as well as all the other ways it was used for political purposes. But your comments seem to be justifying and excusing that!

Colonising another country against the will of its population is pretty generally recognised as a bad thing to do, these days.

<blockquote>Guy Fawkes is one of those people with whom, like John Brown and Nat Turner, one can genuinely debate whether violence was justified.

I don’t think so. Harsh though the treatment of recusancy may seem, things were never simple.</blocklquote>Look, I agree that one side of the debate can perfectly validly (and convincingly) argue that the answer to whether violence was justified in those cases is an emphatic no. In all those cases, violence hurt a lot more than it helped. But don’t make the case using what was basically a heck of a lot of English Protestant propaganda.

First chickens, now Fawkes ... don’t they realize that his mask is worn by the anti-scientology crowd?

But the left would say Evy was the hero, not V.  V’s methods were wrong - Evy said so - and really care not about someone’s motives in hindsight when the results are positive.

Do we arrest people for breaking and entering when they stumble upon another crime and report it, saving lives?  No, that’d be silly.

V for Vendetta was horrible.

No one should be for this tripe.  It completely used the Guy Fawkes history for it’s own twisted ends.  Fawkes and V were not of the same philosophy.  I suppose the only trait they shared in common was an affinity for terrorism.

His torture of Evy completely negates his jackass argument that he is fighting for the people.

I’m not surprised that Vendetta is inspiring confused people.  This is what happens when our schools no longer teach civics and ethics.

Melponeme_k, I don’t think Moore ever implied that V had the same philosophy as Fawkes. He blows up the Houses of Parliament, and he needs a mask. Fawkes was there. And yes, he is not a good person. We know that.

Except that when the dissenters got into power they banned other religions. Not all, but some

Well, Catholicism was certainly restricted and Anglicanism censured, but again even there things were complex. For example, Oliver Cromwell treated with the Catholics via Sir Kenelm Digby. But as for the other sects, Cromwell’s republic was remarkably tolerant. It even permitted Jews to settle in England, for example. A pushback against nonconformism didn’t come until the Restoration.

Yes, it is true that the English used anti-Catholicism as a way to further colonialism in Ireland as well as all the other ways it was used for political purposes. But your comments seem to be justifying and excusing that!

Not justifying at all, just saying what happened and why. There was a political context for these events that goes beyond simple religious bigotry.

Rebecca, I don’t think people do know that V is not a good person.  Especially when I see all this adulation over a character and a film that is nihilistically celebrating a psychopath.

As far as Evy and the Warrior hookers in Moore’s other worlds, I suppose they can be considered heros if that includes being tortured.  But none of them came out of that tribulation with deeper understanding.  They just embrace violence and become honorary men.

Scratch the reference to the many female characters.  I got Moore mixed up with Miller.  Darn graphic novels.

I agree with you, Melk. Ethics classes.

Not justifying at all, just saying what happened and why. There was a political context for these events that goes beyond simple religious bigotry.
Comment #66: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood on 04/25 at 08:52 PM

Indeed. I think it’s pretty obvious that religious sectarianism is pretty much always a vehicle for basically secular politics.

The question is whether, if we can neutralize religion as the dominant metaphor for thinking about secular issues, whether anything is left of religion as such. Once upon a time, around when I first started hanging around here (late 2005 and some time after) I’d have assumed that “yes, of course there is another, enduring, dimension to religiousity/spirituality.” Later, that idea seems more and more hollow and meaningless to me.

Certainly it seems that if any sect persists in fanatical, eliminationist rhetoric and actual violence against others, that they are not paying attention to this hypothetical deep content of religion and emphasizing their disguised secular issues, which would always be better dealt with from a rational, frank rephrasing in worldly terms.

But then again, there is a reason why, as society develops the option of a purely secular frame, it is increasingly reactionary sectarians who cling to metaphysical ones. Such are the tactics of distraction which keep people from observing clearly how deeply they are motivated by ignoble concerns, chiefly among them fear. It makes sense that people would fight largely against their own interests, if it is understood they see themselves as trapped and powerless against different sets of equally cruel, ruthless oppressors, and can only choose which set of vicious thugs they will submit to. But clearly seeing that is a formula for endless social turmoil. Only a system that is committed to general fair play can endure a clear, honest look at itself.

Mind you, I think even the best examples of this sort of socio-political progress one can point to in history have advanced so only to a limited degree. Thus we still have a lot of metaphysical woo to deal with!

And we can look back on just about any movement, no matter how god-struck and wacky, and see potential elements of progress.

As Marx pointed out in the same essay—indeed nearly the same paragraph—as his famous/infamous declaration that “Religion is the opiate of the people,” he also said that it had been the repository of their deepest hopes. He understood that on this metaphorical battlefield, all sides were having it out.

I’ve never understood the appropriation of V as a heroic figure. It’s always been my take that V is Moore’s political version of Frankenstein’s creature. V is only able to interact with other people in ways that are violent and abusive, and his most moral impulse is the realization that a true anarchist society requires the elimination of monsters like him. V is arguably a cautionary tale regarding hate as a motivator of political change, and we are left with Evey and Finch arguably as the moral heroes of the story attempting to negotiate a new path.

Of course, I could be beanplating Moore in a way that’s a bit too favorable to him. His treatments of sex and sexuality generally struck me as being weird and problematic.

His torture of Evy completely negates his jackass argument that he is fighting for the people.

His torture of Evey was the only way he knew to force her to realize her own power as a free person.  That no matter what was done to her, she could always say ‘no’ and accept the consequences.  And through Evey, to show all of us that we have the same power to refuse to go along with what we know in our hearts is wrong.  That’s how I read it, anyway.

V wasn’t fighting for the people when he tortured Evey; he was fighting for her, to overcome her fear of fighting for what she believed in.  Indirectly he was trying to find some validation for his own course of action, that all the killing and destruction had a chance of resulting in a better world because there were people who still had a strong sense of right and wrong, and if those people were only given a chance they might be able to put things right.  Again, that’s my reading.

The right wing/tea partier appropriation of V as a hero is very simple to understand:  they embrace his violent action against an oppressive regime as a model for their own.  The fact that they can equate the fascist authoritarian regime of V’s world with the Obama Administration, while the “left” equated the same authoritarian regime with the Bush Administration, reveals all you need to know.  I would love to see Fawkes-mask-wearing militias of right and left orientation facing off against each other, each secure in their belief that V was on their side.  The ultimate irony.

His torture of Evey was the only way he knew to force her to realize her own power as a free person.

V for Vendetta is not an ethics handbook to revolutionary praxis. It’s an thematic exploration of different political philosophies.

This scene is about the anarchist understanding that the possibility of resistance can only come from a shared experience of suffering. Empathy is not sufficient. One must experience oppression directly to be an effective agent of revolutionary change. There are no (sincere) bourgeois socialists.

One must experience oppression directly to be an effective agent of revolutionary change. There are no (sincere) bourgeois socialists.

That sounds rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Che Guevara was a medical student, Fidel Castro came from a rich family and had a law degree (and of course his brother Raul had the same family background), Lenin’s family was solidly Russian upper middle class (if socially discriminated against because of their ancestory), Trotsky’s father was a well-off farmer.

Mao was born in a genuine peasant family but managed an academic position for himself while studying communist thought, Ho Chi Minh’s father was a magistrate (he was set up and demoted because of his sons’ political activities), Zhou Enlai didn’t come from a notable background but there’s no evidence of significant personal oppression before he got political,

There’s a long history of revolutions being started and controlled by middle and even sometimes upper class individuals.  That, of course, is something revolutionaries don’t necessarily like dwelling upon.

I thought it strange when the right insisted V was about Bush, seeing as the story adapted and the real history used as a touch stone were British.  One could make broader claims as to a political narrative, but not compairing directly to Bush.  I liked the movie, but certainly did not see V as a hero.

So, if enough right-wingers take an interest in “V” does that mean that we’ll have a “Storm Saxon” show on Fox before too much longer?  You know that it would be a hit with that crowd.

@KeithM: And here is where I get all sectarian and remind you that this is anarchist theory and that the keyword was *effective*. If you think the USSR was effective in bringing about international, classless society, well I guess we’ll have to disagree…

We don’t define revolution as a mere change of the ruling class, we use the term to refer only to the dissolution of class society. Neither Russia or China ever liberated its masses or eliminated class society. And both Castro and Ho Chi Minh were national liberationists, not communists (they were forced into alliance with the USSR because of the United States’ aversion to national liberation in general and not just Marxist revolutionaries).

All they did was create objectively counter-revolutionary state capitalist regimes. I could mention how Lenin and Trotsky massacred the Krondstadt sailors (who were actively revolutionary) as direct evidence that this tendency was present prior to Stalin. The subversion of the revolutionary impulse into counter-revolutionary rule by petit bourgeois intellectuals instead of the old capitalist class occured precisely because these people were not genuine socialists, being motivated only by mere ideology rather than their actual, objective material conditions. As much as you want to convince yourself that you’re genuinely interested in the fate of the poor, once the gloves come down and class struggle comes to a head, people will always end up making decisions based on their own selfish class interests, if only because as they try to help others they will do so by following their class prejudices.

TL;DR: the fall of the USSR and its inability to usher in worldwide abolition of class society is a direct result of the fact that the Bolsheviks were part of the petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie instead of genuine, working class socialists.

The pro-Fawkes narrative has been part of New Zealand and Australian culture since before I was a small child- over here, Guy Fawkes Day, the 5th of November, is explicitly a party to celebrate what Fawkes ALMOST did- blow up the Houses of Parliament. In the colonies we very much consider this an act of defiance worth celebrating. Sure it’s horrible to contemplate that happening now, but you’re talking about cultures which celebrate outlaw anti-heroes like Ned Kelly and Te Wheke. It wasn’t too long ago a good chunk of the world populations wished that Americans WOULD be more angry about what their government was doing.