Uncle Sam, yesterday

As you know, I have always advocated a clear headed and objective view of the state of things. You cannot do otherwise if you hope to effect change – without knowing what has happened and is happening, you are adrift with no plan and no way of knowing what is of practical use or not.

Because of this, I feel it is necessary to for once and all put an end to a very pernicious lie, namely that America had a revolution and, that unlike those in France and Russia, it was a success, for various reasons. It is true that in America there was no Terror, that no death squads like the infamous Cheka arose as a sword and shield to the revolutionaries. And the reason for that is not that Americans are quantifiably different, or have higher moral standards. Its simply because what happened was not a revolution and so the after effects did not follow the same pattern.

I know what you're thinking. "But...there was fighting...and they separated...a new country was created...the Bill of Rights and Constitution....whats he on about?" And you're right, all those things did happen. But they do not necessarily add up to a revolution.

A revolution must negate all preceding history and political theory that came before, annihilating them on the tide of their chosen ideology. In revolution, ideas are put on trial, with humans in their places on the dock. These ideas and their human hosts are killed as a sacrifice to the new order, as a symbol of a new dawn in humanity and the end of the previous order. Invariably, this turns to state terror and rivers of blood. In short, the revolution must, by its nature, kill itself in a blaze of self-destructive glory, giving rise to new tyrants and monsters...

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.