i gotta ask you, can you provide even a single link which would lend your support to the contention that the imagery of the movie "v" for vendetta
has ever been in common use amongst the right; ron paul, alex jones wing or any wing?
knowing that you cannot, may i suggest that you are erroneously conflating libertarianism with the internet-based phenomenon of "Anonymous
," of which little can be said with consistency about their politics apart from the fact that progressive netizens have attempted to coopt it
at various times and that it's most recent activities have been in the service of
martyr-hero, julian assange.
apart from the fact that you can cite no evidence for it, your "supporting" contention that "v" for vendetta
is a right-wing movie capitalizing on rightwing themes of revolution and oppression is flat nonsense in both it's broad and specific implications. the broad implication that anti-government = rightwing
in absolute, exclusive terms, is hard to take seriously, yet it's been substituted for substance in many of the inductive fantasies of progressives attempting to frame, for instance, joseph stack as a rightwinger. it's use in this fashion is so obtuse as to make emma goldman out to be a prototype of glenn beck. as for the specific error of the contention, one needs to look no further than "v" for vendetta
's author, allen moore:
(The movie) has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England.
conservatives, for their own part, agreed with moore's assessment of the film and hated
The Wachowski brothers, who previously made the "Matrix" films, feel such hatred for the film's fictional government — described as both conservative and Christian, persecuting Muslims and gays — that they treat V's anti-government mayhem as heroic.
"Blowing up a building can change the world," V proudly declares, while his police adversary discovers that previous terrorist outrages were actually staged by the government in order to seize more power.
Regarding this irresponsible, poisonously pro-terrorist fantasy, USA TODAY fatuously declares that "Vendetta examines the balance between national security and personal freedom" — as if its comic book romanticization of leftist lunacy constituted serious intellectual inquiry.
in fact, the film is itself another representative example of the left's roiling, violent derangement during the bush presidency and it's hateful rhetoric of eliminationist vitriol. (thanks for jogging our memories. conservatives just don't have the same quality of cataloging and regurgitating their opponents peccadilloes. the anti-pluralistic obsession just isn't there, for better or for worse.)
perhaps that sort of thing was what was on clay duke's mind when he sprayed the "v" logo on the wall before opening fire. we know he was a julian assange fan, and we have a pretty good idea what was going on in his head before the shooting, because he left behind a "why i did it" post on his facebook profile
. it consisted of video links to three documentaries by the leftwing film coop, metanoia films
. one representative example is a film called psywar
which is described by the filmakers as "explor(ing) the rise of mechanistic philosphy and the exploitation of human beings under modern hierarhical systems" but is more sufficiently described as a paranoid, leftwing, pseudoacademic screed about how the reactionary capitalist overlords control the minds of the masses with bread and circuses. the film draws on interviews with michael parenti, noam chomsky, naoimi klein, alex cockburn and howard zinn, amongst other diminaries of the left and is approvingly blurbed by dissident voice, the society for responsible social science, guerrilla news network, monthly review and the chairman of the liberal party of america. he three documentaries were accompanied by a list of suggested reading which consisted of a list of links to only
so, yea. he was that
kind of "wingnut".
but, you know, it's not my place nor in my interest to point out how clownishly you're expending your credibility with this sort of thing. suffice it to say that there is nothing in what you just wrote which is unlike the strained attempts by some on the right to cast von brunn as a "lefty" because some antisemitism comes from the left and the nazis were socialists.
but that risible display of desperation aside, perhaps we can get back to my original point by way of what you attempted:
of the dozens of incidents which progressives have attempted to cast as examples of "a rising tide of rightwing extremist violence" since 2008, perhaps two have turned out to have been committed by people with identifiable conservative political motives. two of the last three such incidents have had identifiably progressive political leanings. you and other progressives may not want to see it that way and that's your business, but, just for kicks, answer me this: if progressives really believed that clay duke was another example of this "teabagger terrorism", why was that incident quietly dropped from the national conversation rather than made the object of the sort of fulsome display of inductive fantasy from all corners of the progressive corpus we see in the case of the loughtner shooting?