The Dissenter, the Rebel and the Patriot

This is an unofficial part two of "the Art of Dictatorship". Why unofficial, you say? Because I feel like it, that's why.


Rebellion gets a bad rap these days. You hear lots and lots about "teenage rebellion" (usually accompanied by a cacophonic--is that a word?--series of images of angry, sulking teenagers screaming, "You just don't understand!") and then other varying stages of rebellion during childhood, and occasionally rebellion in China, or whatnot.

The definition of "rebellion" (and consequently "rebel") is "opposition to one in authority or dominance". Well, that's all nice and good, but what does it mean? The definition of a rebel is hardly morally clear; it could, using this description, be applied to both Claus von Stauffenberg or Joan Chittister.


As a result, the term "rebel" can be applied to anyone, in part because the definition of rebellion is extremely subjective to the speaker's own views. To return to our previous example of C. von Stauffenberg, while he was seen as a hero to the German Resistance, he was considered a traitor of the worst kind to the Fuhrer-in-all-his-perversity.

So the question is, what is being rebelled against? Let's have two scenarios.
First, what is the Hypothetical Rebel (hereafter HR1) attempting to accomplish? If, for example, we are faced with a tremendous tyranny, and the HR1 is trying to save the country (or people or whatever) from said tyranny and ultimately destruction, then the HR1 is aiming to defeat an evil, therefore making the HR1's actions a moral good (or at least morally neutral). (this is, of course, assuming that no moral evils are committed in the attempt to defeat the other moral evil to accomplish the moral good, i.e double effect and whatnot--that's a whole different can of worms that I might crack open some other time, and maybe pull out a worm or two. Just to fish, you know.)
In this case, HR1 may very well be considered a rebel--even if his motivations were not that of causing disorder, but love of country and fellow countrymen.


In our second scenario, let's once again ask a question: what is this hypothetical rebel (HR2) trying to accomplish? For this one, I am going to unabashedly plagiarize the majority of news stories that are seen today about people within the Church--including the penultimate truthseeker and bastion of veracity that-is-NCR.
HR2 is a "campaigner". HR2 campaigns for many things, mostly in the name of justice and equality. HR2 views these things very oddly--specifically, HR2 criticizes and laments the evils of the Organization every chance that HR2 gets, to the point of decrying it as, on occasion, "evil".

While HR1 is attempting to save many people from a very real, material evil, there is no physical or immediate evil pressing in HR2's situation. In fact, assuming that the Organization that HR2 is a part of is even morally neutral and not actually good, HR2 is still under no obligation to remain inside the Organization if it makes him so terribly uncomfortable.

If, then, HR2 is not trying to save anyone from any immediate danger, what is his goal? Assuming arguendo that the Organization is not, in any way, an immediate danger to anyone as an organization then HR2's justification for his own rebellion strains credulity.

The fact is, assuming again that the Organization is even just morally neutral and there is no manner of dictatorial keeping-of members (i.e people can come and go if they please; free will and all that) then why anyone unhappy with certain opinions who patently believes certain facets of the Organization are false would maintain their position within the Organization is beyond me.
So, since we've established that HR2 is

1) unhappy with the Organization
2) has no reason for staying in the organization, since
3) he believes certain things within the organization are patently false/immoral and vice-versa

the question remains: why does HR2 continue with whatever it is that he is doing?
(This is, of course, a rhetorical question; I cannot answer it myself.)

It is here that I would draw the line. Whereas HR1 has love of fellow man and country spurring his actions (or his rebellion), HR2 seems to be inspired by his own agenda--even if covering for this agenda involves holding up other people as an excuse.

Possibly, HR2 is what is known as an emotion vampire and/or classic control freak (these two make up my favorite little EDDys)--seeking to control every and any aspect that he can, even if they are very small aspects. Rebelling against something, even if it's not likely to do anything, might just be more fun than leaving for a different organization that fits their opinions better.

It is here that the true difference between HR1 and HR2 lies. HR1's actions are primarily selfless* and aimed towards a specific goal, typically the defeat of a certain evil. HR2's actions are primarily spurred from self-interest, and are aimed more towards subversion of a certain thing than the defeat of an evil.

The moral of the story, kids, is "don't be an HR2!"

*granted, we are dealing with flawed human beings, but speaking in general terms.