V for Vergil

[Azurel]

Hey, I figured since it was the Fifth of November today, we could all celebrate by posting our rebellious thoughts here.

I'm also posting this because the New Vergil seems to have a lot in common with V... at least on the surface.

Slightly Off Topic:

Why is rebellion necessary? And when does it go too far?

Back On Topic:

This is one of the very important questions posed in DmC. While it unfortunately seems that Vergil has formed the order to meet his own ends, Dante never veers off the path of what's truly important.

At first, it may seem like he's rescuing Kat due to his feelings for her, but I think it's more of a question of guilt. I don't think he could live with himself if he stood by and watched while Kat was suffering. Vergil, on the other hand, was just a little too eager to let her go, all while under the guise of sacrificing the few to help the many.

This is more of a power-grab on Vergil's part than it is justified rebellion, however, the overall intention of the group itself is benevolent, for the most part. It seems that only Vergil himself is planning on taking Mundus' power for his own personal gain.

I know that almost everyone already knows this, but, I think it's important to realize that Dante only helped Vergil in the first place because he thought he was doing some actual good.

And I think that's why rebellion exists. To balance the scale.

Most people dismiss rebellion itself as a mere trend, a cry for attention. It is, in some cases, but in most, it's because the person genuinely finds fault with the opposition, and takes it upon themselves to right whatever qualms they may have with their adversaries, be it another person, or their own personal demons.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. I'm just putting that out there.

Here's a parody of the 'V' speech:

Edit: And, of course, I would be remiss to not include the actual E3 trailer (for the sake of convenience, of course) that was inspired by V in the first place...

 

[EllDawn]

It's not the fifth, yet, where I am. lol.

You actually just made me realize something as to how Vergil and V are alike. They both probably started out with revenge before taking it to the level of trying to make a change in the world.

Anyway, just a few things. I kind of think that Dante wanted to save Kat because she had shown such loyalty to him. It was kind of a way to return the favor. And you're right about Vergil. He didn't want anything to ruin his plans, though I'm not sure if they are to take Mundus' power. For all we know it could be something else.

Rebellion is actually something I tend to encourage, at times. A lot of the things going on now really should be changed.

 

[Azurel]

It's not the fifth, yet, where I am. lol.

You actually just made me realize something as to how Vergil and V are alike. They both probably started out with revenge before taking it to the level of trying to make a change in the world.

Anyway, just a few things. I kind of think that Dante wanted to save Kat because she had shown such loyalty to him. It was kind of a way to return the favor. And you're right about Vergil. He didn't want anything to ruin his plans, though I'm not sure if they are to take Mundus' power. For all we know it could be something else.

Rebellion is actually something I tend to encourage, at times. A lot of the things going on now really should be changed.

Yes, but how to change them? A lack power and an overabundance of fear are usually the main reasons as to why things haven't changed.

Allow me to introduce the Antonovsti ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion




The Tambov Rebellion (Soviet misnomer Antonovshchina) which occurred between 1920 and 1921 was one of the largest and best-organized peasant rebellions challenging the Bolshevik regime during the Russian Civil War.[1][2] The uprising took place in the territories of the modern Tambov Oblast and part of the Voronezh Oblast, less than 300 miles southeast of Moscow.

The rebellion was caused by the forced confiscation of grain by the Bolshevik authorities, a policy known in Russian as "prodrazvyorstka". In 1920, the requisitions were increased from 18 million to 27 million poods in the region. This caused the peasants to reduce their grain production knowing that anything they did not consume themselves would be immediately confiscated. Filling the state quotas meant death for many by starvation.[2]
The revolt began on August 19, 1920 in a small town of Khitrovo where a military requisitioning detachment of the Red Army appropriated everything they could and "beat up elderly men of seventy in full view of the public".[2] The peasant army was known as the Antonovtsi or "Blue Army", as opposed to the "White Army" (anti-communist army), "Red Army" (Bolshevik army), "Green Army" (armed peasant groups) and "Black Army" (anarchists of Ukraine and Russia)—all taking part in the Civil War.



I also like the fact that they called themselves the "Blue Army", seeing as how that's Vergil's preferred overall motif.

Indeed, it took forced confiscation of food to motivate the people into action. They had infiltrated the highest levels of the Bolshevik Party. Indeed, while they had ultimately lost, this movement that ultimately helped end the Cold War and bring down the Berlin Wall. And that, in itself, was probably worth the loss. Heavily crippling the communist party was probably the best results they could have hoped for, under the circumstances.

It makes you think... just how far does the power of authority have to go before people say, "enough"? In my opinion, it's pretty far. Rebellion is usually the very last resort that people are willing to take. In my opinion, however, if it had been the first, then things wouldn't have gotten as bad as they are now.

It's only a matter of time before another uprising happens. The question is, will it be too late?


While I was searching on wikipedia, this was the first entry to pop up on the first page when I clicked the English section.

It's good to see that the efforts of November the Fifth haven't been forgotten entirely....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy_(Gunpowder_Plot)


That being said, it would be a disservice to not include Guy Fawkes in this post--


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawks

 

[Razyel]

There is no certainty only opportunity

Here's another rebel

 

[Azurel]

I have a random question...

Do big, futuristic cities automatically equate to less power on the part of its citizens?

Some people say that big cities equal less farmland, and therefore, less independence for them. I'd like to bring about the idea that cities and farmland don't have to be exclusive to one another. I think you have have both in the same space. Or, at the very least, have the farmland growing outside the city.

That, and people can always make room to have a small garden in whatever apartment they're living in, can't they? I don't see the big deal on having cities exist in the first place.

Cities are a large gathering of people and ideas, therefore, making it all the more likely you can find a group of friends that share your ideas and with whom you can get along with.

I honestly don't think that cities are the bane of humanity that some people claim them to be.

Just my two cents.

 

[Azurel]

There is no certainty only opportunity

Here's another rebel

And there you have it. Joker is portrayed as an anarchist on the surface, but notice how in the movies, they claim that he's "off the grid" and makes his own clothes? That's a sign of a Libertarian, right there.

This movie was just a way to vilify Libertarians and pretty much just make them look bad all around by making the Joker as evil as possible.

But, you see, if backfired on them. People-- good, selfless people-- actually admire the Joker. They know that he's merely a man on a mission, and that sometimes, you have to go to severe lengths to see that mission through.

Everyone knows that Batman is a defender of the Establishment now, and is therefore, very much the bad guy. He was willing to invade other people's privacy just to catch one man.

Of course, the writers make him shut down the machine afterwards, trying to put him in the right and make him look like a self-sacrificing shining knight (ha ha) in armor. But no matter how hard they try to skew other people's perspective on things, they know what's ultimately right and wrong. And this movie, promoting neo-facist invasion-of-privacy policies, is morally wrong on the whole for trying to make political dissenters look bad, and for trying to make the military industrial complex look like heroes.

There's a reason why the Posse Comitatus Act exists in the first place...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land.


Edit: Oh, and the Joker was right about that money. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

http://dollarcollapse.com/

Invest in silver, you'll be ten times better off with even just one coin.

http://www.silver-investor.com/

http://www.silverstrategies.com/defaultNS.aspx

 

[Razyel]

Well sometimes the rebellion is a bad thing, the French revolution was of good intent, but it allowed Napoleon to take control and abuse the situation, becoming the very thing that the rebellion was against: a dictator

The same way that the Bolsheviks took control from Alexander Kerensky's temporary government, in Russia 1917.

The same way Hitler took control of Germany by eliminating all of his major opponents.

Then we have China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... the list just keeps getting worse

The point is that if you don't have a better alternative or you work to satisfy your own ambition, your rebellion will only lead into something worse than what the situation at the moment is...

Edit: I think that the independence of USA is the best example of a rebellion done right

 

[Azurel]

Well sometimes the rebellion is a bad thing, the French revolution was of good intent, but it allowed Napoleon to take control and abuse the situation, becoming the very thing that the rebellion was against: a dictator

The same way that the Bolsheviks took control from Alexander Kerensky's temporary government, in Russia 1917.

The same way Hitler took control of Germany by eliminating all of his major opponents.

Then we have China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... the list just keeps getting worse

The point is that if you don't have a better alternative or you work to satisfy your own ambition, your rebellion will only lead into something worse than what the situation at the moment is...

Edit: I think that the independence of USA is the best example of a rebellion done right

You're right, it is the best example. But that's only because he walked away from power. America was very fortunate in that regard.

However, I will be the first to admit that a revolution doesn't always have to take place before founding and maintaining a good society. Just look at Iceland. They're doing better than ever now. However, this is most likely because they let their banks die instead of bailing them out.

Yes, good societies are simply EVENTUAL human nature. Before that though, there must come much thought, sacrifice, and struggle. Not war, necessarily, but a lot of effort must be put into place before making an efficient, hardworking, and fair society.

 

[Razyel]

Yeah, but revolution cannot bring anything good to the table if it's only meaning is to dethrone the government, you can't fight fire with fire. It's not enough that you take away the bad things, if you don't bring anything good along with you. Opportunists will take advantage of the situation if the rebellion doesn't have good values and leadership.

Same way there are people that always complain about everything, but aren't ready to do anything to make a difference.

America succeeded because it was based on the freedom of the people, it was at the time better alternative than England, a place to start from a clean slate. Their way of restricting the power of the government was extraordinary, and I think it still is compared to the almost totalitaric politics of the European Union...

 

[Azurel]

Yeah, but revolution cannot bring anything good to the table if it's only meaning is to dethrone the government, you can't fight fire with fire. It's not enough that you take away the bad things, if you don't bring anything good along with you. Opportunists will take advantage of the situation if the rebellion doesn't have good values and leadership.

Same way there are people that always complain about everything, but aren't ready to do anything to make a difference.

America succeeded because it was based on the freedom of the people, it was at the time better alternative than England, a place to start from a clean slate. Their way of restricting the power of the government was extraordinary, and I think it still is compared to the almost totalitaric politics of the European Union...

You're right, there are opportunists everywhere. And good values must underlie justified revolutions. Even you said that the power of the government must be restricted.

But remember that most "revolutions" taking place nowadays are actually "counter-revolutions" (fake one) set up by the "hidden shadows" of the West.

"It's all part of the plan... "

The idea of limited government that the Founding Fathers had originally came from Switzerland, I think.

Which is why I'm not worried about totalitarian government. Before the US got involved, almost every country had their own democratically appointed leader.

It was only after interference from the West did they remove the good leaders from power and put the bad ones in their place. It's true, you can look it up. They even said it in the introduction to "Argo", and that movie took MAJOR liberties with the story.

 

[Razyel]

You're right, there are opportunists everywhere. But even you said that the power of the government must be restricted. The idea of limited government that the forefathers had originally came from Switzerland, I think.

Which is why I'm not worried about totalitarian government. Before the US got involved, almost every country had their own democratically appointed leader.

It was only after interference from the West did they remove the good leaders from power and put the bad ones in their place. It's true, you can look it up. They even said it in the introduction to "Argo", and that movie took MAJOR liberties with the story.

I think that Switzerland is probably the wealthiest country in Europe right now and doesn't belong to EU

It's true that the involvement of US did a lot of damage in many of the Middle-East countries, but the alternative would have been USSR, actually the only reason why US got involved was to stop communism from spreading, if you compare Iran under the rule of Shah and now under the rule of extreme islamic party, it's the perfect example of fighting fire with fire, Iran should be more concerned about it's people than starting a nuclear war...

Edit: I'm not defending the unfair oil milking of USA, not at all, but in the 50's there was enough oil for everyone...

 

[mrrandomlulz]

I went as V for halloween this year

but what I wonder is are they taking inspiration from the movie or comic book?

Cuz if they are taking inspiration from the movie, then I'm gonna tell on them, TO ALAN MOORE!

(The main thing Alan Moore didn't like about the movie was it tackled different American issues as opposed to fascism vs anarchy, which was the the whole point of the original comic book )

 

[Razyel]

Now that we got Alan Moore here, what about Watchmen? Do you think they will take something from that too? Vergil being like Ozymandias, maybe?