"I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition...Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words are for 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 depression, 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 suggesting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those who are 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. Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten."
"More than 400 years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than just words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing. If the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgotten."V for Vendetta
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What else can you say about a war started based on false evidence and continued because of the stupidity, complacency, and apathy of the American people.
What else can you say about a war started based on false evidence and continued because of the stupidity, complacency, and apathy of the American people.
About Me
- United We Lay
- "Political Language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Blog Archive
Links
What I'm Talking About...
- 4 Zillion (1)
- al Qaeda (1)
- Alcoholism (1)
- casualties (1)
- children of war (1)
- Civil War (1)
- family (1)
- Fascism (2)
- Great White Bear (1)
- Haditha (1)
- impeachment (1)
- intelligence (1)
- Iran (1)
- Iraq War (20)
- Kurds (1)
- media (2)
- military (1)
- politics (2)
- post-traumaic stress disorder (1)
- President Bush (3)
- Prostest (1)
- Recruiters (2)
- schools (2)
- Senator Rick Santorum (1)
- Shia (1)
- Soldier misconduct (1)
- Sunni (1)
- Walter Reed (1)
- wire tapping (1)
- Woman on the Verge of Thinking (1)
1 comment:
Godwhacker said...
Great quote from a great movie. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
10:40 AM
Len Hart said...
godwhacker, I hate to be picky but that quote belongs to the first inaugural address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he rallied the nation during the Great Depression.
United we lay wrote...
there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and depression, 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 suggesting your submission.
Indeed, the Bush missrule has taken its toll and in ways most of us have yet to write about. Just this evening, in Europe, I watched a BBC docmentary about happiness and the nature of governments in those nations whose people are most happy. The bottom line: happy people are more numerous in Democratic countries which respect privacy, civil liberties, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Another factor -people tend to be happier in wealthier nations though wealth, in and of itself, does not correlate precisely with individual wealth.
Bush, in America, has attacked the very source of our "happiness" --the nation's wealth (the dollar is imperiled), our privacy, our civil liberties and rights, our sense of security. It is difficult to be happy with the knowledge that one's own government has made of itself an enemy of its people.
Still, I urge everyone to make an existentialist choice. Choose to be happy in spite of Bush. It will drive him nuts. I suggest Victor Frankl's "Man Search for Meaning".
Frankl knows what he writes about, having survived a Nazi death camp. The least we can do is survive George W. Bush.
3:46 PM
Godwhacker said...
I stand corrected.
10:37 PM
United We Lay said...
Len,
It's great to choose to be happy, and that is the way I am trying to live. Despondancy comes up on occasion, and this is a great outlet for it, but for the most part, I'm okay. But we cannot allow these things to continue unchecked. Tha's where my fascism post comes from. Were okay right now, but who's to say where we'll be 10 years from now? If we don't fight the apathy, complacancy, and the federal government now, we're going to lose the ability to do so.
6:02 AM
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
I like Len Hart's picture.
Nice hat.
10:31 AM
Laura said...
I think the best line of all from the graphic novel/movie is
"People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people"
7:14 AM
United We Lay said...
That's my favorite quopte as well. I think it's important that people remember that THEY are in charge. There are more of us than there are politicians, so wha are we allso afraid of?
7:55 AM
undergroundlogician said...
What are all you proposing? Anarchy? Mob rule? "V for Vendetta" philosophy?
And you all complain about the growth of Fascism. Do you think domestic terrorism is the answer? It is no wonder why Al Qaida echoes the Democrat party strategies; they are the strategies of terrorists. I'm sorry, you people are way over-the-top in this. If you can't see the error of your ways in this, you are beyond hope.
10:24 AM
Scott said...
What are all you proposing? Anarchy?
Why not?
12:34 PM
undergroundlogician said...
Why not? A civilization built on anarchy is hardly a just society, and with that, hardly a strong society to boot.
Look at history, Scott. Can you see any civilization built on the political fracturing of anarchy? I see civilizations being destroyed by anarchy, only to be replaced by tyrranical rulers. I see anarchy as the cause of human tragedy and suffering. Read "The Republic" if you want a philosophical answer. Look at a prison riot, or the LA riots if you want real life examples.
Why not? I can't believe I have to explain this...
3:46 PM
Scott said...
Never being done before is not a reason it can't be done. We never sent a man to the moon before the 20th century, but some how we figured that out.
Anarchy is not the abscence of order, justice, or even law. It is simply the abscence of a cohersive monopolistic State organization.
6:45 PM
undergroundlogician said...
Never being done before? I'm saying, it has been done with devastating effects. Your analogy of lunar exploration sounds good, but it is false in relation to anarchy. Our landing on the moon is hardly a tribute to anarchical endeavors.
The intent to try anarchy as a means to establish order is contradictory; it requires some level of organization, which implies leadership, which then becomes the antithesis of anarchy. However, if you think you can carry it out, it isn't anarchy you will be attempting, it will be a revolution. All you'll need to do then, once you've established your new order is redefine "revolution" as "anarchy." But it will never be true "anarchy."
8:44 AM
Scott said...
No true Scotsman fallacy.
There are about a dozen or so different adjectives that go before anarchy to describe all the different types there are, so I don't know you can say which is the true form.
10:57 AM
undergroundlogician said...
Scott:
Excellent point about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks for the tip. I do think the term "anarchy" is a bit fuzzy. My definition of anarchy is: "no government," which may be too simplistic. However, your definition is clear, though I wonder if it is workable. You said:
Anarchy is not the abscence of order, justice, or even law. It is simply the abscence of a cohersive monopolistic State organization.
Idealistically, this works, but to achieve "an absence of a monopolistic State organization" would require some prerequisites. First, the willingness of the government to go away concomitant with the people wishing the government to go away. Along with this the people must have the virtue, knowledge--the capacity en toto to establish their individual lives according to justice, order and the rule of law without an external ruling entity. The nature of human beings, their overwhelming and often conflicting self-interests, not to mention their sometimes vile and vicious behavior makes this utopian idea unworkable. Given this state of affairs, it would take a unified, organized and even militarized effort with nothing short of a system of leaders and underlings to carry out a strategy to eliminate the U.S. government; all the while avoiding any Federal retaliation against the insurgents. To me, it would require "another government" to make it work. This is where I see the contradiction. And even if the state of anarchy can be established, is it within man to dissolve the organizations that made the government absent and allow all people to rule themselves? That seems highly improbable. The flaws of mankind are too pervasive to allow for this.
At any rate, in keeping with the post and my previous comment, the suggestion to establish anarchy in light of "V for Vendetta" is nothing short of the use of extreme violence and terror. Is this a serious consideration here?
Post a Comment