Has Bond become a bit neo-fascist?

Getafix

I remember reading this when it appeared a couple of years ago and dismissed it as a bit of sour grapes from Le Carre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/7948363/James-Bond-was-a-neo-fascist-gangster-says-John-Le-Carre.html

But aspects of the Craig era had been bugging me for a while and then when SF came out I just found myself wondering whether MI6 hadn't become a little bit too much of a sinister surveillance operation. One of the most obvious changes recently has been the imagery and aura that surrounds MI6 - sinister corporate offices, the all-knowing surveillance equipment, underground dungeons, glass holding cells, institutional arrogance and resentment of democratic accounatbility. It's all become a bit Treadstone/Guantanomo Bay/extraordinary rendition for my liking.

It certainly feels a long way from the cosy old naval officers' club that Bernard Lee oversaw. I guess the irony is that the end of SF suggests we're about to return to the good old days. What I still can't fathom is how intentional it was that MI6 should come across the way it did in SF - a little bit sinister and repressive.

acoppola

Interesting @Getafix and brave of you! :)

I will agree that new Bond definitely shows a more sinister operation. It is definitely in line with a Great Britain that has surveillance cameras everywhere and famous scientists end up dying in very suspicious ways like Dr kelly after he exposed the truth about Iraq.

Dan's Bond would have happily killed him! Tim would have been pissed off at the idea as would Sean. Roger definitely no way! :)

I personally think the Craig films are high quality but to describe them as fun is stretching it. His films are very dark and in a way reflective of the sinister unexpected developments our world faces. We are no longer the black and white good guys but sometimes a corruptive force for our own national interests.

I certainly did not walk out of SF wanting to whistle "Rule Britannia!" :)

BAIN123

Read the second to last chapter of MR. Bond's organisation has always had a rather shady side.

Getafix

I can't quite figure how Mendes wants us to see it all. My view would be that MI6 had become progressively more sinister from GE onwards, but particularly during the Craig era. And M had become increasingly authoritarian. I found her character in SF deeply unsympathetic, particularly the disrespect she shows to the parliamentary committee. She came across a bit like one of the unaccountable CIA suits from the Bourne movies - you could imagine her authorising a Treadstone style operation if she thought it was going to achieve her ends.

I can't believe that this is all accidental and I wonder if Mendes is not making a subtle critique of what happened to Britain and our intelligence services during the Blair era. I mean, MI6 has basically been accused of colluding in illegal activities, including torture. I thought Silva's holding-pen alluded to this and the whole extraordinary rendition thing. He looks like he's on his was to Guantanamo.

And then what happens is that M's way of doing things is exposed as flawed. The whole system comes crashing down around her. Perhaps MI6's over-reliance on technology has been its achillies heel? And the message at the end is that we're actually going back to the more old-fashioned values. Mallory is ex-military, not a bean-counter. Gone is the impersonal grey corporate office and back comes the old wood-panelled office with padded door.

And so 17 years of Dench's way of doing things - the top-down management style, unaccountability and arrogance - is swept aside and the old order is restored...?

Jazz007

I think the entire western world has generally gone more "neo-fascist" - the surveillance/detainment/interventionist state being the primary focus here. Bond himself does not appear to be a neo-fascist, especially ideologically; if he were a private detective he would act the same way (he's always more-or-less simply played by his own rules, often directly defying the orders of his government superiors). But if EON is to put Bond in the modern world, there is going to be the unfortunate big brother setting. One source of grief for me was M's rant about how the terrorism scene scares her these days - I couldn't help but think: well, don't invite blowback (as my country (US) does every day) and terrorism won't be a problem. Then again, maybe Skyfall will alert people to some realities; the ways that the cameras in the subway could spot and identify anyone on the spot should creep out audiences.

You make a great point about how the ending of Skyfall not only alludes to a return to a classic direction as far as cinematic tone goes but may also point to a return to the way Bond's MI6 does business; which is (or was, thinking back on the franchise) largely fantasy, not the big brother reality. Of course, British and American citizens could start rejecting the ways that their governments spy on them.... Wouldn't it be great if THAT could happen before the next Bond film?

Getafix

Yes, you're right, I'm sure MI6 was up to equally bad if not worse antics in the 60s. Like you say the MI6 of Bernard Lee was a fantasy. I think I just preferred it that way - it was easier to overlook Bond's role as a tool of western imperialism!

Am I imagining things or is Silva actually wearing an orange jumpsuit when he's in the glass case - the message is pretty clear I think. Infact the more I think about it, the more I think Mendes is making quite a few astute political observations in this film about what western intelligence gets up to. It's a critique of what happens when powerful people overreach themselves and/or lose their moral compass.

I guess what's interesting is how he's super ambiguous about Bond's role in this world.

acoppola

Jazz007 wrote:

I think the entire western world has generally gone more "neo-fascist" - the surveillance/detainment/interventionist state being the primary focus here. Bond himself does not appear to be a neo-fascist, especially ideologically; if he were a private detective he would act the same way (he's always more-or-less simply played by his own rules, often directly defying the orders of his government superiors). But if EON is to put Bond in the modern world, there is going to be the unfortunate big brother setting. One source of grief for me was M's rant about how the terrorism scene scares her these days - I couldn't help but think: well, don't invite blowback (as my country (US) does every day) and terrorism won't be a problem. Then again, maybe Skyfall will alert people to some realities; the ways that the cameras in the subway could spot and identify anyone on the spot should creep out audiences.

You make a great point about how the ending of Skyfall not only alludes to a return to a classic direction as far as cinematic tone goes but may also point to a return to the way Bond's MI6 does business; which is (or was, thinking back on the franchise) largely fantasy, not the big brother reality. Of course, British and American citizens could start rejecting the ways that their governments spy on them.... Wouldn't it be great if THAT could happen before the next Bond film?

Nicely put about blowback. I hear the UK government now want to arm the Syrian rebels knowing full well some are Al-Qaeda operatives. Libya is a disaster that will haunt us. I guess nothing has been learned as politicians rarely get to suffer the physical consequences of terrorism.

Not that the USA is any better in that region. It does not require a genius to work out that some western policies are wholly contradictory. Just go on Youtube and see these rebels and ask yourself what was the point of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Unfortunately we live in a world where the mass public does not question things or prefers diversions of comfort like X Factor. Even if you highlight some radical truths, the motto of ignorance is bliss prevails.

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

Yes, you're right, I'm sure MI6 was up to equally bad if not worse antics in the 60s. Like you say the MI6 of Bernard Lee was a fantasy. I think I just preferred it that way - it was easier to overlook Bond's role as a tool of western imperialism!

Am I imagining things or is Silva actually wearing an orange jumpsuit when he's in the glass case - the message is pretty clear I think. Infact the more I think about it, the more I think Mendes is making quite a few astute political observations in this film about what western intelligence gets up to. It's a critique of what happens when powerful people overreach themselves and/or lose their moral compass.

I guess what's interesting is how he's super ambiguous about Bond's role in this world.

I have to say that what you wrote is food for thought. But I saw no message about the real world in the film. Yes M's past haunts her but from an ex-MI6 operative. It seems we have villains that are not anything like what we really face. But I guess you can decode the film for hidden meanings.

Intelligence has always been shady and cut throat, but Skyfall if anything shows that if MI6 cannot fully protect themselves then how can they protect the public?. The villain is free to do anything he wishes and there is little that could be done to stop him.

SF if you think about it paints a more unsettling picture of the future world we will live in. It does not leave you with a reassuring thought.

Skyfall certainly shows that intelligence has many errors for every success. Being a Londoner, I did find the tube train sequence unsettling knowing what happened 7 years ago.

Getafix

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

Yes, you're right, I'm sure MI6 was up to equally bad if not worse antics in the 60s. Like you say the MI6 of Bernard Lee was a fantasy. I think I just preferred it that way - it was easier to overlook Bond's role as a tool of western imperialism!

Am I imagining things or is Silva actually wearing an orange jumpsuit when he's in the glass case - the message is pretty clear I think. Infact the more I think about it, the more I think Mendes is making quite a few astute political observations in this film about what western intelligence gets up to. It's a critique of what happens when powerful people overreach themselves and/or lose their moral compass.

I guess what's interesting is how he's super ambiguous about Bond's role in this world.

I have to say that what you wrote is food for thought. But I saw no message about the real world in the film. Yes M's past haunts her but from an ex-MI6 operative. It seems we have villains that are not anything like what we really face. But I guess you can decode the film for hidden meanings.

Intelligence has always been shady and cut throat, but Skyfall if anything shows that if MI6 cannot fully protect themselves then how can they protect the public?. The villain is free to do anything he wishes and there is little that could be done to stop him.

SF if you think about it paints a more unsettling picture of the future world we will live in. It does not leave you with a reassuring thought.

I think Mendes is trying to 'say something' about the world we live in. I believe he has even said as much in interviews - that he wanted the film to have some resonance with the real world.

I think exactly what the message is is up for debate though. Doubtless some will see it as a simple story of patriotism and duty but I think the underlying themes are more complex and much darker. Like you say, it doesn't exactly reassure you about the competency of SIS - they mainly seem to be inept, impotent or arrogant.

actonsteve

Getafix wrote:

I
It certainly feels a long way from the cosy old naval officers' club that Bernard Lee oversaw.

Thats because it is a long way. Its not 1962 anymore. In fact MI6 in 1962 would be up to the same tricks as it is in 2012. The difference is the technology has changed.

You may bemoan the existence of security cameras but they identified the 7/7 bombers quicker then a bobby on the beat would.

Getafix wrote:

IMI6 should come across the way it did in SF - a little bit sinister and repressive.

Espionage is sinister and oppressive. The rights of the individual are supplicant to the needs of the state and that goes back to Sir Francis Walsingham in Elizabethan times.

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

Yes, you're right, I'm sure MI6 was up to equally bad if not worse antics in the 60s. Like you say the MI6 of Bernard Lee was a fantasy. I think I just preferred it that way - it was easier to overlook Bond's role as a tool of western imperialism!

Am I imagining things or is Silva actually wearing an orange jumpsuit when he's in the glass case - the message is pretty clear I think. Infact the more I think about it, the more I think Mendes is making quite a few astute political observations in this film about what western intelligence gets up to. It's a critique of what happens when powerful people overreach themselves and/or lose their moral compass.

I guess what's interesting is how he's super ambiguous about Bond's role in this world.

I have to say that what you wrote is food for thought. But I saw no message about the real world in the film. Yes M's past haunts her but from an ex-MI6 operative. It seems we have villains that are not anything like what we really face. But I guess you can decode the film for hidden meanings.

Intelligence has always been shady and cut throat, but Skyfall if anything shows that if MI6 cannot fully protect themselves then how can they protect the public?. The villain is free to do anything he wishes and there is little that could be done to stop him.

SF if you think about it paints a more unsettling picture of the future world we will live in. It does not leave you with a reassuring thought.

I think Mendes is trying to 'say something' about the world we live in. I believe he has even said as much in interviews - that he wanted the film to have some resonance with the real world.

I think exactly what the message is is up for debate though. Doubtless some will see it as a simple story of patriotism and duty but I think the underlying themes are more complex and much darker. Like you say, it doesn't exactly reassure you about the competency of SIS - they mainly seem to be inept, impotent or arrogant.

I actually found the new Bond film title Skyfall misleading. The word I have heard many times is associated with an imminent terrorist attack and that is not just because of what I read here http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1561.cfm

I always thought Skyfall being Bond's home was just a cover up from what the film's hidden meaning are. Mendes like Nolan introduces a world where the good guys do not always win and any success comes at a terrible cost.

Skyfall depicts a world where we are not safe and where Bond is not always one step ahead of the game.

The film to me is subliminally showing Britain as a power is on the rise again. Look at the sphere of influence we still have in the Middle East. We can change governments like we did in Libya and though we are small, we are still powerful.

I will say this, if Mendes came too close to reality, there would be trouble. A film that is going to be seen by so many people can only go so far in it's telling of the truth. It certainly does not go against USA or UK interests for sure.

CommanderRoss

Nice find @Getafix, and an interesting point made by John le Carre in 1966 and by you. Interesting also that JlC does now say he'd be far nicer now, also adding that we've come to know Bond through the films, not the books.
And i can see where he's coming from, especially now that I'm reading them all again (now at YOLT). Fleming sure as hell was conservative, very conservative. His Bond was the same. The Bond from the films is far more progressive.
Now i feel the films try to get back to the novelised Bond. Craig's Bond has a strong sense of duty, and is very straightforeward in what's right and wrong. In the meantime Mendes showed a realistic world in which the head of MI6 has to make life-and-death decesions. She's more human now then we've ever seen her before. Well meant choises turn out to be 'the wrong ones'. I really like SF in that sense. MI6 is a hierargic organisation (and yes, fascists love hierarchy) and the story shows the drawbacks. But don't forget, it was QoS in which she threatened with torture first.

I think SF shows a more realistic side to espionage we haven't seen in Bond for a long time. I don't think espionage was that much more 'happy' during the 70ties and eighties, things just didn't get out as the do now, sometimes. I hope this all makes sense.. ;)

Jazz007

acoppola wrote:

Nicely put about blowback. I hear the UK government now want to arm the Syrian rebels knowing full well some are Al-Qaeda operatives. Libya is a disaster that will haunt us. I guess nothing has been learned as politicians rarely get to suffer the physical consequences of terrorism.

Not that the USA is any better in that region. It does not require a genius to work out that some western policies are wholly contradictory. Just go on Youtube and see these rebels and ask yourself what was the point of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well said. Though, as an American, I can tell you that the USA is worse! The US government's business seems to be deciding what the business of everyone else on the planet should be and, unfortunately, the population is large enough to fund the world-wide meddling campaign from Washington.

What is especially interesting about this topic is the way that Quantum of Solace featured governments in bed with special interests (Quantum) which naturally harms the very people they are supposed to protect. Bond's mission put him against this system - he's "motivated by his duty" regardless of the fact that his own government is after him. Skyfall turned this around and saw Bond's mission work within the system while he is still motivated by his duty to protect M and Britain as a whole; obviously both films feature different circumstances but the opposing dynamics are interesting. Bond never changes even if government agendas and methods do.

Getafix

Jazz007 wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Nicely put about blowback. I hear the UK government now want to arm the Syrian rebels knowing full well some are Al-Qaeda operatives. Libya is a disaster that will haunt us. I guess nothing has been learned as politicians rarely get to suffer the physical consequences of terrorism.

Not that the USA is any better in that region. It does not require a genius to work out that some western policies are wholly contradictory. Just go on Youtube and see these rebels and ask yourself what was the point of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well said. Though, as an American, I can tell you that the USA is worse! The US government's business seems to be deciding what the business of everyone else on the planet should be and, unfortunately, the population is large enough to fund the world-wide meddling campaign from Washington.

What is especially interesting about this topic is the way that Quantum of Solace featured governments in bed with special interests (Quantum) which naturally harms the very people they are supposed to protect. Bond's mission put him against this system - he's "motivated by his duty" regardless of the fact that his own government is after him. Skyfall turned this around and saw Bond's mission work within the system while he is still motivated by his duty to protect M and Britain as a whole; obviously both films feature different circumstances but the opposing dynamics are interesting. Bond never changes even if government agendas and methods do.

You're completely right. I think it's easier to 'like' Bond in previous films because although perhaps he's only acting out of a sense of obligation, he is usually clearly on the right side. With SF it's far more ambiguous. From an intellectual perspective I suppose that is more 'realistic' and perhaps more interesting as well.

In the US George Bush (or rather Cheney) seemed to use 9/11 as a justification for introducing sweeping oppressive anti-freedom legislation. The irony was that they did it all in the name of protecting American liberty. We've had a similar situation in the UK with attempts to introduce extended periods of arrest without being charged and 'anti-terrorism' laws being used to pursue people for stuff that is clearly not terrorism.

I do think Mendes is trying to depict a little of that world and suggest that perhaps it isn't all good. There is an old-fashioned moral to the story though becuase M gets her comeuppance.

acoppola

Jazz007 wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Nicely put about blowback. I hear the UK government now want to arm the Syrian rebels knowing full well some are Al-Qaeda operatives. Libya is a disaster that will haunt us. I guess nothing has been learned as politicians rarely get to suffer the physical consequences of terrorism.

Not that the USA is any better in that region. It does not require a genius to work out that some western policies are wholly contradictory. Just go on Youtube and see these rebels and ask yourself what was the point of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well said. Though, as an American, I can tell you that the USA is worse! The US government's business seems to be deciding what the business of everyone else on the planet should be and, unfortunately, the population is large enough to fund the world-wide meddling campaign from Washington.

What is especially interesting about this topic is the way that Quantum of Solace featured governments in bed with special interests (Quantum) in a way that harms the people they are supposed to protect. Bond's mission put him against this system - he's "motivated by his duty" regardless of the fact that his own government is after him. Skyfall turned this around and saw Bond's mission work within the system while he is still motivated by his duty to protect M and Britain as a whole; obviously both films feature different circumstances but the opposing dynamics are interesting. Bond never changes even if government agendas and methods do.

I have many American friends and it amazes me that they show little interest in things that will cause guaranteed blowback. Sometimes politically, I will make them not look at everything so black and white.

I think QOS is the film closer to reality and perhaps that is why it got universally destroyed critically. It blatantly shows the CIA as badly corrupt and subtly winks if you read between the lines to the days when they financed Bin Laden happily.

Green is a sinister villain because you do not see him coming and the film does not hide the fact that Quantum are superior to governments in terms of influence. In fact, in QOS it shows that through the corruption it is our western governments who allow these practices to happen. It is the politicians without the film saying it balls out that whitewash events and hide the small print from us.

QOS politically is the darkest of the three Craig films and ironically the most hated. But I saw it as better than CR because it cut closer to how things are in the real world.

actonsteve

acoppola wrote:

[q
Green is a sinister villain because you do not see him coming and the film does not hide the fact that Quantum are superior to governments in terms of influence. In fact, in QOS it shows that through the corruption it is our western governments who allow these practices to happen.

Excellent point and its one of the reasons I rate QoS very highly.

acoppola

actonsteve wrote:

acoppola wrote:

[q
Green is a sinister villain because you do not see him coming and the film does not hide the fact that Quantum are superior to governments in terms of influence. In fact, in QOS it shows that through the corruption it is our western governments who allow these practices to happen.

Excellent point and its one of the reasons I rate QoS very highly.

Thanks!

chrisisall

acoppola wrote:

I have many American friends and it amazes me that they show little interest in things that will cause guaranteed blowback.

I know this one guy that ACTUALLY said waterboarding isn't torture *because* our government (in America) used it. At least half the people of my country are so busy watching reality TV & chatting on Facebook that they have no room left in their heads for critical analysis of any kind, sadly.

I for one, like that Bond's organization is a bit shady- the friction between Bond's moral instincts and his job make for excellent drama IMO.

And great thread, btw!

Getafix

Poor old Dan. He is good, but it doesn't help that he looks like a traditional blond arian/Nazi henchman. Let's face it, in any film prior to CR you would have spotted him straight away as the villain's blond heavy with a penchant for crushing skulls/strangling people. Sort of Red Grant crossed with Necros. He is straight out of SS officer central casting. I think one of his great achievements is that his acting just made that irrelevant.

BAIN123

Getafix wrote:

Poor old Dan. He is good, but it doesn't help that he looks like a traditional blond arian/Nazi henchman. Let's face it, in any film prior to CR you would have spotted him straight away as the villain's blond heavy with a penchant for crushing skulls/strangling people. Sort of Red Grant crossed with Necros. He is straight out of SS officer central casting. I think one of his great achievements is that his acting just made that irrelevant.

I admit Craig does look more like Red Grant than Bond at times. There's a very "Fight Club-esque" shot of him out there posing topless in a darkened room infront of a mirror.

doubleoego

But part of the point and appeal of Red Grant was to keep himself inconspicuous and believable as a British agent. So, if Craig does look more like Grant then isn't that in keeping with still looking decidedly British?

Oh and good thread btw @Getafix.

Getafix

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/26/bond-james-bond

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/26/bond-james-bond

Did you look into where the word "Skyfall" comes from and it's real meaning in the real world?

Here is another find that makes me think the family home is a diversion to what it really is in the world of intelligence http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47510

SpectreNumberOne

The world is Grey, always has been.

With most Western Governments no matter what their political doctrine, when it comes to National Security they are all right of centre, but neo-facsist? I don't agree, bit strong, the problem is a balancing act: Freedom V Security.

The Security & Intelligence Services have always revolved around moral flexibility, doing what's required however aberrant, but despite what is often presumed, they are all governed by the law of the land, but when Governments make the laws? you get my drift. The CIA used to say in the 80's "Whoever' side we're on this week", which meant whatever foreign policy was that week, the UK is no different, there has always been a political side to it & it won't change.

However the changes in Bond since CR are mearly a reflection of our times, plus Bourne came out & changed the feeling of the espionage thriller, lets face it after 9/11 the world changed, it was a wake up call for us all, 7/7 in the UK was a perpetuation of what had begun on that fateful day in New York.

As M intimated in SF, we now live in different time's, our enemy's are no longer nations that can be easily identified. They are ideologies opposed to our freedoms & liberties, things we take for granted. Yes some of these have been eroded in the name of security & I personally believe its to our detriment, in other words those who would destroy our way of life are winning.

Whenever you are forced to change your lifestyle for personal security the perpetrator has won.

timmer

I like this bit from the Spectator 2010 article linked above. The author, Frank Schell, "gets" Fleming
"Bond is fighting to foil the imposition of totalitarians and miscreants, using the best of British tradecraft and occasionally the assistance of the CIA. There is a certain ethos in Fleming, which is that evil will not stand, and it is the solemn duty of the fading British Empire to fight it, sometimes with American muscle, from the paneled offices of MI6 to the far away outposts of villainy."
Fleming takes pains to really villify his villains. He generally gives them physical deformities to augment their villainy.He likes to accentuate their hideousness. Oddjob is so vile, he eats cats, and Goldfinger happily hands them over to him. And "blunt insrument" Bond has license to kill. These villains need to be rubbed out.
I note that in DN, when Dr. James Molony inquires of M, as to what became of Rosa Klebb, after she was captured in perfectly good health, M simply remarks that she "died," with no further explanation. The implication being she died in custody. M's answer also serves to assure us the dear reader, that not to worry, she got her comeuppance.

acoppola

By the way, in view of the thread's title and question. No, Bond is not a neo-fascist. He just follows orders like any spy would for their country regardless of ideology. Bond is neutral politically and not always happy with his assignments.

Bond knows what he is doing bad but if he does not do it then the other side will get the upper hand and make things even worse.

LTK shows very well what happens when orders are ignored. M will not tolerate an agent who defies instructions. In TLD I though it was well shown that Bond is uncomfortable with the killing Pushkin assignment.

SpectreNumberOne

acoppola wrote:

By the way, in view of the thread's title and question. No, Bond is not a neo-fascist. He just follows orders like any spy would for their country regardless of ideology. Bond is neutral politically and not always happy with his assignments.

Bond knows what he is doing bad but if he does not do it then the other side will get the upper hand and make things even worse.

I might remind you that following order's didn't work for the Nazi's, I think Bond uses his brain, he makes informed choices, in all the films or books could you say anyone he's killed didn't have it coming.

acoppola

SpectreNumberOne wrote:

acoppola wrote:

By the way, in view of the thread's title and question. No, Bond is not a neo-fascist. He just follows orders like any spy would for their country regardless of ideology. Bond is neutral politically and not always happy with his assignments.

Bond knows what he is doing bad but if he does not do it then the other side will get the upper hand and make things even worse.

I might remind you that following order's didn't work for the Nazi's, I think Bond uses his brain, he makes informed choices, in all the films or books could you say anyone he's killed didn't have it coming.

True. But the side Bond works for was opposed to the Nazi ideology and so was Fleming. So it is a given that there is a breaking point where Bond would not comply.

chrisisall

SpectreNumberOne wrote:

Whenever you are forced to change your lifestyle for personal security the perpetrator has won.

Not completely agreeing here.
As a young teen I was bullied heavily. If I had changed my lifestyle in the way of skulking about to avoid my tormentors, seeing potential bullies where there were none 'just in case', or hiding out at home forever more, then yes, they would have won.
If I had purchased a gun & shot up my tormentors at school in a fit of emotional vengeance, they would have won.
Instead, I studied martial arts. This had the unexpected effect of increasing my self-confidence. Yes, I *did* have to pound down a couple of bullies to prove myself, but I didn't unnecessarily bloody them. "Are we done?" was my question at the end. No answer always meant yes.

My point & analogy here is, extremes are not the way. As M said in TND, moderation. Intelligence over mindless reaction to fear. Strength to back it up. And benevolence in the end.

acoppola

chrisisall wrote:

SpectreNumberOne wrote:

Whenever you are forced to change your lifestyle for personal security the perpetrator has won.

Not completely agreeing here.
As a young teen I was bullied heavily. If I had changed my lifestyle in the way of skulking about to avoid my tormentors, seeing potential bullies where there were none 'just in case', or hiding out at home forever more, then yes, they would have won.
If I had purchased a gun & shot up my tormentors at school in a fit of emotional vengeance, they would have won.
Instead, I studied martial arts. This had the unexpected effect of increasing my self-confidence. Yes, I *did* have to pound down a couple of bullies to prove myself, but I didn't unnecessarily bloody them. "Are we done?" was my question at the end. No answer always meant yes.

My point & analogy here is, extremes are not the way. As M said in TND, moderation. Intelligence over mindless reaction to fear. Strength to back it up. And benevolence in the end.

I see your point but the statement about lifestyle refers to personal freedoms being taken away. Case in point, look at how the TSA runs airport security and we have certain freedoms removed because of terrorism.

We are not as free as we were 11 years ago and in a way there is no denying terrorism has made a huge impact on our lives. Former Governor Jesse Ventura says the terrorists won by our freedoms and way of life being altered. He thinks their aims were achieved.

But it is great that you turned a negative into a positive when you took action against those who made others lives a misery.

Tobester95

It'd be interesting to see them make a Bond movie where MI6 is depicted as being flat-out corrupt and Bond goes somewhat rogue (but not in a LTK or QOS way). Although I don't want to hate Ralph Fiennes as M :(