Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Today certain bloggers and readers of blogs have come together in London to boost one man's ego - sorry, I of course mean to march on Parliament. The choice of costume for this occasion is that of Guy Fawkes as a symbol of defeating Parliament and its control in order to gain freedom. Or something.
The same outfit is warn by V in the V for Vendetta series. And some bloke who runs a social networking site via a tax haven of course.
This is something that confuses me for the simple reason that Guy Fawkes represented anything but freedom and V had motives very different from the libertarians that use him as their idol.
The gunpowder plot of 1605 was an orchestrated terrorist action by a group of Catholic fundamentalists. Their goal was to blow up Parliament, the King, his family and the entire aristocracy, the result being a new Catholic Britain led by James I's daughter Elizabeth. In short, a monarchy much like France: absolute and ordained by God.
Although this was all started from the persecution of Catholics at the time (although it is easily forgotten that this was with good reason), it cannot be argued that this had anything to with freedom. You might as well hold up bin Laden as a modern freedom fighter.
In turn this image was used for the character V. V in turn is also held up as a freedom fighting hero, although this is never stated as his intention. V is an anarchist terrorist who rises up against a brutal fascist regime that has taken over the country and he blows up various buildings, including parliament a la Fawkes.
The man is brutal. He tortures and slaughters in the name of bringing down the system. The 'system' he desires is not a libertarian society in any way shape or form, it is a totally anarchist society where there are zero forms of of anything at all.
So, you have one 'hero' that was willing to commit mass slaughter and instigate a revolution in order to create a Catholic dictatorship, and you have another 'hero' who is willing to commit mass slaughter in order to create total chaos (which is exactly what happens at the end of the novel).
And these two figures are being held up by 'libertarians' in their march on parliament as symbols of freedom.
The 5th November is not to be remembered because of a drastic bid for freedom, but as a warning from history of how close this nation came to being turned into a theocratic nightmare.
And by marching about dressed up in a stupid mask and wig, the message is denigrated. It becomes a big jolly, a laugh, a piss up. A few thousand people marching on parliament in a traditional protest, calling for freedom and the reduction of the state would carry real weight.
All you have today is a bunch of egotistical anarchists who don't understand the outfit or the day, mincing about getting drunk and having a laugh. The battle for our liberty is not a laugh, it is serious and real. And that is why I had no intention of going today.
43 comments:
Some interesting points there Mr B
food for thought.
I`m not an expert on English history or politics, I do take an interest but i have been confused by the messages being sent out by some sites...one post Libertarian as i understand it another post Nationalist, hateful and bitter.
I would batten down the hatches..i predict stormy weather coming your way hahahaha
"The battle for our liberty is not a laugh, it is serious and real. And that is why I had no intention of going today."
My mum wouldn't let me go either.
Always nice to see your own V for Vendetta being carried on across this blog.
Whilst accurate about the Catesby plot, the meanings have changed over the years to symbolise a fight against a domineering and authoritarian Parliament and the original meanings change. Bit like Yule or Samhain really. Societies adapt festivals to suit their needs and sometimes to remember. However as much as you dislike what those messing around in Westminster are doing, at least they're doing something even if it is just fun it serves a purpose.
That bruised ego is still hurting I see. Your insightful and informative posts would be so much better without the digs at Guido, etc.
Seriously you two, get over it. We know you don't like certain other bloggers, oh boy do we know that. If you spent more time writing quality articles (and the two of you are definitely capable of that, there's no doubt) and less time bitching about Paul Staines being a cunt, your blog would be so much better.
As for these people dressing up, there's nothing wrong with it at all. They're just dressing up, making a few serious points about civil liberties and having a bit of fun in the process. I fail to see what the problem is.
The man is brutal. He tortures and slaughters in the name of bringing down the system. The 'system' he desires is not a libertarian society in any way shape or form, it is a totally anarchist society where there are zero forms of of anything at all.
This is certainly true in the graphic novel. In the film, it's possibly even worse. He's not an anarchist, he's a self-righteous liberal leftie, and his enemies are obvious caricatures of the "far right".
The messages of the film are, I think, that (1) Lewis Prothero-style Daily Mail politics are the sum total of everything that is wrong in Britain, and (2) liberal socialism is the only alternative to them.
Sorry, but if I want a cheeky dig then I will thank you very much! In the context it is perfectly valid.
Look, if they want to walk about, fine, go for it and I really do wish them the best of luck trying to get attention. But, 1 I don't think that is why they are doing it and 2, I don't think it would work anyway. On top of that the image that is chosen represents something totally opposite to what is aimed for.
"In the context it is perfectly valid".
Not when the context is us sitting at the far end of about 50 fucking posts informing us that "Anna Raccoon is teh evils" and "Old Holborn is a fat cunt", it isn't.
In that context, we might just come to the conclusion you were having yet another pop at a bunch of people you'd never met, for reason losts in the mists of time.
Don't you want those grapes, Foxy?
_
James VI ?
Only in Scotland, surely ?
And Guy Fawkes etc. was in England surely ?
Where he was known as James I.
Kevin & John,
The thing I don't get about B&D is that you both write fantastic posts. Articulate, honest, funny and eye opening (far better than I could ever do) but some times you behave like a pair of drunken chavvy cunts setting about another drunken party goer 'cos she looked at you wrong, like innit'.
I do understand that you can write whatever the fuck you like on your blog, that's every bloggers right, but sadly, for a while now, you appear to have been more intent in slagging off other bloggers than writing the stuff you do best.
Me, I'm the scum of society, I'm a scrounging, welfare dependant, single Mum of three. I am despised by all the Tax Payers of Britain. My opinion counts for nothing. In fact I'm sure that many readers think I don't deserve a voice at all.
I'm fighting a losing battle. You, on the other hand, have everything on your side, and yet you spend your time waging a handbag war against another blogger because you don't like him. Why do you do this?. His opinion is his, yours is yours.
There is no Country Club, unless you define a group of people with similar ideals a Country Club.
I will admit that I missed the whole 'D&B getting banned from Anna Racoon stuff' but my answer has to be -
And?.
For fucks sake, it's her blog and if she doean't want to listen to your opinion, well tough titty to you. End of. And Vice Versa.
I was expecting you guys to come up with a cracking post tonight. Sadly you just polished your handbags and glittered your spittle.
Mummy x
It was fun (as last year) and served a purpose in getting people out and talking about libertarian ideas. Is that such a bad thing?
If obsession with historical and ideological accuracy is a prerequisite to any action/stunt/day out, who would you suggest as a rousing figure to stir people? Hayek? Friedman? Rand?
I'm not sure there are costumes for them. ;-)
Come on Kev, relax a tad, eh? Yes, the battle for liberty is real, but unfortunately we are living in an age where just pulling people from their sofa is almost impossible.
As such ...
"A few thousand people marching on parliament in a traditional protest, calling for freedom and the reduction of the state would carry real weight."
... how exactly would you go about engineering such a thing? Because I'd be there like a shot, but you know very well that most wouldn't and you'd be lucky to get more than a handful.
Something is better than nothing.
(I disagree with your summation of the end of the novel, by the way)
At no point in this article have I said anything about Raccoon or a Club.
That simply isn't what I have done here.
The article is simply about the holding up of a date/event and a fictional character to represent something that they quite simply do not represent.
Yes, there is a sly tongue in cheek dig at Guido (which in the context of Guy Fawkes and V masks is perfectly valid thank you, seeing as he is called fucking Guido and wears a fucking V mask) and yes there is a cheeky dig at Holborn for having an ego boost (which in the context of him having an ego boost, organising the fucking event, posting articles about V, dressing up as V and going on about 5th November is perfectly fucking valid).
I am not attacking bloggers per se, the only people that have said anything about certain bloggers or 'country clubs' are you!
I'm not even getting on about historical accuracy, simply basic fact. The march yesterday is fine if people want to do that, no problem. But I disagree with the context of the fifth and the use of Fawkes or V, that's it. That's all I'm saying and setting out that as the basis for not going yesterday, i.e. I didn't not go because of any issues with people, I didn't go because I didn't agree with the 'setting'.
Dick, Sorry fella but that is the critical take on the end of the novel is it not?
Now I'm going to pick up all my toys and put them back in my pram.
First time visitor. Who says blog bitching doesn't work?
Bob, As we write works of genius people get very upset when we dare to even mention other blogs. Mainly because months ago we were the only ones with the balls to do so.
However, having done a piece that doesn't actually attack other bloggers, I shall return to writing my more usual fantastic material.
"All you have today is a bunch of egotistical anarchists who don't understand the outfit or the day, mincing about getting drunk and having a laugh. The battle for our liberty is not a laugh, it is serious and real. And that is why I had no intention of going today."
Actually, the point of the march was to show that we are not afraid. Many stayed away simply because they have been told that dressing up in a mask and poking fun at authority will get them into trouble.
It doesn't. But the battle is already lost when people believe it will. Any many do.
I'm sure if OH carried advetising, you'd be accusing me of doing it "for the filthy shilling" but alas I don't and never will. So now you must pretend I do it for my "ego".
Tell me, does any one know who I am? Can you spot me in a crowd?
0/10, see teacher
(Ps I doubt you could afford the bus fare from Bradford anyway)
http://dungeekin.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-more-fear.html
For starters I don't live in Bradford. In fact neither does John.
To behonest, I really don't give a shit Holby, I just really don't. You dress up as an anarchist on a day this country was nearly taken over by nutjobs. Great.
My opinion is that you do it for your ego. You say it isn't. Whatever.
Not afraid of what? Not afraid of the police, quite understandly, coming up and asking who the fuck you are because you are wearing a mask and marching on parliament? Aren't you a brave little soldier.
The article is quite correct, except for the purpose of V, which is quite wrong and simply backs up what I have said. You have seen a film and used it, even though you don't understand the character or his motives.
Can anyone explain what it is OH is on about? I haven't a clue, to be honest.
He appears to be attemping a half baked, futile defence of his motives, where it seems blatantly obvious to any sentient being that he is a warped, extremist, arrogant, narcissistic twat who does what he does to big up himself.
He doesn't care about freedom, or liberty. If he did, would he perhaps be less inclined to make derogatory digs towards people for being poor (see the Bradford bus comment). So only rich people are worthy, eh Holby?
You just want a hobby and you want a bit of adrenaline to go with it. Much like bungee jumping, or sky diving, except much cheaper and ends up with you drinking lots in a pub and massaging your ego by checking out how many people read your droll, boring site.
Bravo. You'll be remembered for decades to come, along with your Uber-Troll commandent Paul Staines. The lot of you are hopeless failures. Ne'er do wells, who began life in promising fashion, but due to your own arrogance and egotism, not to mention bumptious public school self-confidence, you pathetically and lazily through it all away.
And wound up writing shit on shit blogs.
Lovely stuff.
* that's 'threw'. Not 'through'. Before some pedantic cunt gets it in first.
http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/11/05/remember-remember/#comment-31560
Your point being? I'm assuming that you are maybe attempting to say that we are in league with an MP and therefore the State?
But he's right isn't he.
"To behonest, I really don't give a shit Holby, I just really don't".
Which is why you blog about it about roughly twice a fucking week, eh?
Clealy fucking don't do I you twat.
You seem to think you are really clever, except you obviously aren't. You would annoy people and get under their skin, which appears to be your one purpose in life, but you just aren't very good at it.
"You would annoy people and get under their skin, which appears to be your one purpose in life, but you just aren't very good at it."
Doing quite well here, I reckon.
BTW CF, as proof of your very low IQ you have taken that quote entirely out of context. I don't give a shit as to Holby's reasons for his march.
Which makes your claim that I blog about Holby's reasons for going on a march twice a week even more moronic.
Whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!
Okay....
JD: Yes, I would have.
You have noticed, of course, that KB has neither replied to nor corrected his confusion regarding James, I of England and VI of Scotland.
It must be because I missed out a comma.
You pedantic fucker!
Just for you, because I'm feeling the love beaming out of your eye pieces...I'll change it.
Come on, big hugs
"Dick, Sorry fella but that is the critical take on the end of the novel is it not?"
It wasn't what I remember as the ending, no. I recall it was a feeling of freedom and relief. But I'll take your word on that - it's been a while since I read it.
Late on parade, but my take on yesterday is here. I even linked to your objections, how fair is that? ;-)
Completely pointless, I agree
The 646 fuckwitt MP's who read my blog, tom harris's blog and Guido Fawkes's blog (wait for Guy TV on Monday) have absolutely no idea who I am
All they know is I have the courage of my convictions. And I'm happy to come to them if they won't come to me. On THEIR turf.
Now put Guidos readership, my readership, Tom's readership, Devils Kitchens readership, Tory Bears readership and the rest of the blogosphere that covered a "silly little walk" together and the people who need to know now know.
And you? What is your contribution?
Oh yeah. You called it pointless.
The bin Laden analogy is misjudged. For a start, the Catholic conspirators didn't carry out terrorist attacks on innocent members of the public.
B&D
(not commenting about this thread - either way. You were clearly trying to keep things on the level (apart from a small dig), but they wouldn't let you! hmmm, maybe I have commented after all)
Thanks for going back to writing interesting stuff again.
I didn't visit for a while after the ranty stuff about clubs etc - I wasn't interested.
But I have started reading your stuff again, because you're back to the stuff I do find interesting
Thanks
Maybe you (plural) should look at:
Guy Fawkes as protector of the English Nation
"As we write works of genius people get very upset when we dare to even mention other blogs. Mainly because months ago we were the only ones with the balls to do so."
Aaaaaahahahahahahaha!
The self-delusion of you two arrogant Johnny-come-latelies is very amusing. Do carry on...
DK
Personally, DK, I see it as a modern version of Bedlam.
On the first Tuesday of every month, I like to dig out a shiny ePenny, then come along here and poke the inmates with a stick.
Oh, their antics are hilarious..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/guy_fawkes_demo/
I like the bit where the editor of the Register says
"Yesterday’s "stroll" went off without intervention, and a hint – but no official view – from the Met that it was not a demonstration. Given the reasons that they have found for intervention over the last few years, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that they know when they are beaten"
Thanks for all your help Guys.
DK, sums up your views on the masses nicely that. Horrid little upstarts that should know their place. How charming.
Holby, I would say the definition of a pointless action is one that achieves nothing. As nothing has been achieved then it was pointless. Has anything changed?
Nope.
"..the definition of a pointless action is one that achieves nothing.".
And that's why you boys need to find a new hobby, to replace your blogging.
Poke, poke
KB:
DK's was more a view of the two Greek cock-wavers than a view of the masses - it was, after all, a quotation from one of the tGcws that he quoted.
Oh, alright. "quoted", "quotation". Tautological.
(Sorry, but I have to preserve my reputation).
I'm not Greek. I do have a gigantic cock.
Post a Comment