In America, this did not happen. There was no American Robespierre, no Stalin. King George III was never put on trial and executed, Lord North and the rest of his inept Parliament were not given shallow graves and no new order was proclaimed. There is a crucial reason as to why this is; America was a successful rebellion, one of the very few in history, which makes it very different to a revolutionary state.

America, it can be argued, is in fact the true heir to the British political system. Radical democracy had long existed in the colonies, the political ideals they expounded an extension of British ones, but with updated theories from the latest philosophers. The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are all implicitly part of the British constitution, weakened though it is through its unwritten nature. Those who worked from this system, such as Paine, Locke and Hume, were the inspiration for the likes of Jefferson and Madison.

In short, the rebellion was not about the creation of new values, but the restoration of old ones. That is the vital difference, the limiting factor that ensures a rebellion will not end up copying the Terror. It is a built in factor that leads to self-moderation and the real establishment and respect of human rights. American revolutionaries did not dispute George III as a King, only his claim to rule over them, the nature of the relationship.

In short, rebellions work. Another example for you to ponder. In 1975, in Helsinki, the NATO powers forced the Soviet Union and its allies into signing a treaty on human rights, in return for improved trade. The Soviets thought nothing of signing it and ignoring it, despite the treaty making it law for these rights to be respected. But the dissidents took note. While of course, it was only one factor among many, the Helsinki accords were as close as anything to a philosophical basis for the rebellions. They were not out there to deny Communism as a system (in fact many called themselves Socialists, both among reformists and dissidents), they were there to deny what was being done, again to dispute their relationship with the state. And again, they had success. The Warsaw Pact was destroyed without a shot being fired, the USSR soon to follow.

Many Discordians may like to think of themselves as revolutionaries too. God knows, there are enough self styled dissidents, protesters and anarchists etc who will gladly take that title. However, what should really be sought is the mantle of rebellion. Revolutions invariably go full circle, whereas rebellion can restore what was once lost. Falling into the trap of seeing America or 1989 as "successful revolutions", working variations of Russia and France, is just falling into another trap, making a mistake that could be very costly.

Food for thought, I feel.