Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:45:57 -0500
Subject: TO V OR NOT TO V...

Okay. Had a chance to read your entire response. Great stuff.

First, let me lay the "eradication" thing to rest. I see your point about subtlety. In fact, we agree on this. Perhaps I should have said that mass extermination of blacks and homosexuals is not conducive to the current trend. Black culture has, thankfully, settled pretty well in our society, becoming less and less "alien" (and therefore more acceptable by even the more closed-minded).

But I think a...vendetta, if you will, exists against blacks who ripple the waters contrary to the politicians' plans. Meaning: outspoken blacks are tolerated only if they march to the appropriate drummer. For a conservative black man or woman is, very obviously, scorned by mainstream media and divisive politicians. Now, if we're all equal, then I should think a black person should have the right to adopt any ideology he/she wishes. That is not the case in PC America. It really isn't. An assertive, responsible black American is a threat to the "order", it seems. Of course the degradation of the culture is accepted by power mongers, because it weakens integrity, worth, and volition! (Screw that.)

Also, I think there exists a sneaky acceptance (even nurturing) of black violence---sort of a "let 'em kill each other off" mentality. That might be understandable if it means that only criminal thugs off themselves (black OR white), but that's not reality. Just because a bunch of rabid dogs are at each other's throats doesn't mean a child won't get bitten. The violence spreads. It leaks into innocent areas, corrupts foundations, pollutes noble cultures. The "inner city" dilemma today is a bleeding (literally) example of a culture assaulted---from within and without: a culture full of wonderful contributions, ideas, and nuances being blown to bits by negativity, thug-worship, perpetual crime, and a political structure based on conflict among peoples. A tragedy, through and through. So, we might agree more than it seems on that issue.

Besides, the bottom line is this: Punish the criminals (of any race or creed) and allow the innocent to protect themselves and pursue better things. The rub is this: crumbling justice ruins this. Only a just law system can (at least satisfactorily) fight crime. And we both know just law is both crumbling AND it's not even believed in by more people every day.

Regardless of the color, we are humans. And as humans, we ALL deserve dignity and justice. So, I'll leave that subject to rest as far as our dialogue goes.

I also agree with your view of the Nazis. They were less political and more...about power and destiny. They mirrored much of Roman imperialism. But I must remain certain that they were socialists who believed in centralized (actually monarchical) rule. And the Jews were their sacrifice. Just as double, triple, quadruple numbers of others were the sacrifices of other sick, hateful demons in history. The scourge in France we touched on was also sick and hateful. Some accounts on the terror are bestial. Murder in the name of movements or cleansing or purging is unjustified as far as I'm concerned.

I understand Moore's implication about Norsefire. I just think it's high time writers migrated from that unlikely formula for the present---because a different (yet frightfully similar) and worse scenario is very possible in the future. I just read an article covering the killings in Angola: butchery of Christians and anti-communists. The photos were...horrific. The bodies looked like battered lumps of old laundry. Now, there isn't a slaughtering of...atheists and communists evident on the world today. I find that interesting. Add China and North Korea and Indonesia and Russia...a storm's brewin'---and it doesn't look like Moore's England anymore.

Remember, this in no way reflects on my love of Moore's work. In fact, I treasure it. His overall themes are the important parts, really.

Earlier I wrote you about the hate thing. Hatred is destructive, but the abuse of the term "hatred" is also destructive. Today, a politician only needs to utter some magic buzz words and the nation flips! Some of the magic terms for manipulation, smearing, or shutting down of real debate are: "racist", "bigot", "homophobe", "redneck", "hate monger", etc. Those in power can exploit the use of these terms to discriminate against a way of thinking, a culture, or a political adversary. It is quite harmful. Just as fake sexual harassment can be brought against a teacher some girls might dislike (or who gave them a bad grade, etc.), so can WORDS be wielded as vengeful tools.

"Hate" trivialized trivializes love. Because in a nation where next to everything is deemed "hate" if it conflicts with either the tyranny of the majority or a political ideology, love becomes a shield against rejection or accusation. So, "love" can also be faked to ensure one's "success" in a nation devoid of honest debate or opinion. Most of the politicians who rave about "caring" and "democracy" and "peace" are part of the machine that causes hatred, totalitarianism, and war. Not since the 1960s has America been so nerve-racked over race. And today's leadership is the possibly the worst yet in this nation. Screw the economy. It's the structure I worry about. Funny how the Bill of Rights has become a flimsy text---with only the 1st amendment as the sacred right (IF it defends the "accepted" agenda). Also, remember what I said about that bum Nero. He spread the lie that early Christians were "hateful" and justified their torture and destruction. This is historically correct. And it's the oldest trick in the despots' book.

I can go on forever. Which I will not do.

I'm afraid I veered from the path once again. But I think it really praises Moore's work each time I do. For this line of discussion stems from V For Vendetta (and Watchmen).

Your thoughts on Delia were insightful . . . and, I think, true. She seems to have wanted to die. But if I were V, I would not have killed her even then. V shouldn't be for vengeance. Then again, V is surely mad in many ways. He'd be a great friend and a terrible enemy.

You also made me think with your theory of V's desire to die also. I always yelled at V when Finch shot him: "You idiot! Why?" I'm reminded of many folk's frustration with the part where Christ allowed himself to be executed in such a degrading way. Or why so many of our movie heroes accept death peacefully while his/her friends moan and cry and don't understand. Or . . . like Frosty the Snowman's acceptance of summer thaws.

But, as you said there's room for expansion on this. I shall respond accordingly later.

I'm enjoying our talks more and...Moore each time. Thanks again. Looking forward to the next round. (And I'll try to expand on the Delia/Finch/V thing you posited.


Previous CorrespondenceReturn to Correspondence listNext Correspondence