Today is the start of three days of fireworks as Londoners celebrate The Gunpowder Plot or the Guy Fawkes celebration. No doubt, many believe that Guy Fawkes was a hero.
This blog post will not engage in an opinion or debate on the matter.
What this post will try to do instead is explore if terror movements ever benefit the masses that the radicalized violent few purport to fight for. All organizations that perpetuate terror claim that they do it to free people of an existing tyranny. Most times, they believe that their actions are sanctioned by whatever deity they happen to believe in. Oftentimes this is merely a radical incarnation of that religion and never representative of the personal philosophy of the masses who suffer most while the targets of terrorist aggression simply effect tighter restrictions on personal liberty.
I’m sure this generation can relate.
The simple truth is that the cycles of terror we have seen played out since the beginning of recorded time have all along been between the small, radicalized and militarily empowered class and the small, political/economical ruling class whom we empower on both ends with our abject indifference and cowardly surrender.
Guy Fawkes was not an enemy of tyranny. Nor was Che Guevara, Julius Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon, Yasser Arafat or Osama bin Laden for that matter. These men were terrorists. These were men who wanted to reshape their world into a form that aligned with their ideology and then impose it on those for whom they claimed to have fought. They were not heroes like the pamphleteer Thomas Paine, who inspired a revolution of the masses though the written word. Yes, his words led to death and destruction but ultimately it led to a rebirth of the values written eloquently about during the Enlightenment and which we still benefit from today, albeit not in the robust form intended.
Yes, terrorists have many non-violent supporters. There is a romantic love for the one who acts out their frustrations toward the state. They feel empowered that someone has the so-called courage to lash out against the state. However, what if I were to submit that the ones most complicit in creating these radicalized factions were indeed these non-violent masses? Is this possible or even probable? If there is indeed a collective psychology that abhors tyranny, then why doesn’t the Collective simply choose to not participate in empowering this so-called tyranny? Are people simply annoyed with the system they live in or are they expressing their rage through the self-destructive escapes and addictions of the age.
Or perhaps the problem is merely mathematical. Please consider what power the state would have over you and your fellow citizens if you simple refused to not participate as a Collective. I mean non-violently. I mean staying in your homes and not coming out.
One of the reasons why I love satire so much is that the satirist brilliantly points out the folly of the ruling elite and sometimes mocks the ones who do nothing to challenge them. The John Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s of the world represent an optimistic release to those of us who want to improve the state. But at some point laughter is not enough. Action must be taken. What if the act of staying home for a full day in protest actually worked? No marches, no picketing. I mean a collective and silent “no thank you” to the political class.
Respectfully, those that are anti –Labour or anti-Conservative in the U.K., anti-Democrat or anti- Republican in the U.S., really need to rethink the effectiveness of having such allegiances. We, including myself need to be reminded why we placed them in power – to protect our individual rights. Also, are we in such a bad state? Have you seen how the majority of the world lives under their governments? Yes, our system of government intrudes on many of our civil liberties but we also have a mechanism in place to reclaim those rights. Who cares who’s in power? We can force them into any decision.
I have a surprising statement to make to those that know me. Since moving to London a month ago I have developed a reserved fondness for the Royal Family whereas in the past I did not. Following England’s origins as a Roman colony, it grew into a monarchist entity that created a history filled with both progress and destruction; imperial hubris and global outreach; social oppression and the glorious Magna Carta. This paradoxical history is a fascinating one.
The Royal Family is indeed embroiled in occasional embarrassments. So would ours if we had newspapers devoted to reporting our every move. However the press has backed off significantly since the passing of Lady Di. However, since moving here I am astounded at how activist oriented they are. Prince Charles, for example, is fighting for rural farmers to have broadband so that they can engage in commerce more quickly and efficiently. The Royals do not have overt political power, but they have something that can be even more powerful, the active support of the people. Can you imagine? That the monarchists order that the majority of the world links with conspiracy theories and scandals is now more than ever a champion of the marginalized few across all frontiers foreign and domestic. As I see it, this is not a half-baked effort either. The man, this family is engaged in something that is concrete, tangible and absent of self-interest with the exception of national and cultural pride perhaps. Ribbon cutting seems to only represent a fraction of their duties.
So I ask now – what if all is needed is simple, measurable reform of the system we accuse of oppressing us? I do not support this motion yet. But the question is necessary. What if the notion of a fiat currency which I have condemned many times during my year of blogging, only a few months here on Wordpress, is not the problem? We humans have an extraordinary ability to corrupt the best of systems and perfect the worst of systems. John Maynard Keynes, a man with whom I have many philosophical disagreements, must be rolling over in his grave as he watches this latest generation of central bankers corrupt the monetarist system. What we have done since 1990 is expand it during the boom period, expand it during the bust period and expand even further during the credit collapse that followed.
On this first day of the Guy Fawkes celebration, perhaps we should ask ourselves what was ever gained by an act of terror against a perceived tyranny. Then look to your neighbours, street block and community and ask why alliances have not been formed to improve each others lives.
The Guy Fawkes’ of history were merely an outcome of a societies’ abandonment of collective action. This is the perfect breeding ground for radicalism.
