The preface of Psyclone states that ‘whatever you see on television, hear on the radio, or read in the newspapers has been, at the very least, allowed. More often than not though, it has been meticulously designed using principles of behavioural psychology and linguistics toward very specific aims. Put another way, if your channels of information are confined to those listed above, then your awareness, your reality, is being manipulated and compromised.‘
Information that backs up that statement can be found within the extensive appendix of the novel. Talking with people recently has proved the final sentence, and moved me to edit and repost an article written five years ago in 2009, the last time Gaza was experiencing an all-out air attack from one of the most well-equipped armies in the world. As the title of the article says, Those Who Forget History Are Condemned to Repeat it
In the spirit of focusing on what’s breaking through, not what’s breaking down.
Too seldom do we hear of those in Israel whose conscience has moved them to refuse to take part in the military occupation of Palestine. I’ve read the statements of many conscientious objectors, past and present. Though his stance is in keeping with others led by their conscience and principles, Moriel Rothman’s statement stands out. There is hope yet.
Remember, remember the fifth of November The Gunpowder Treason and plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason Should ever be forgot.
Most people in Britain have a vague awareness of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, something along the lines of a man called Guy Fawkes was caught in the act of trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament, and was executed. That it is so vague is down to the fact that the details of the man, the incident and the situation in the country that led to the plot aren’t generally taught and/or discussed. The fact that the incident is given so little detailed attention is in itself suspicious. Over the years my suspicion has deepened to a point where I’m now convinced that the subject has been the victim of a long-running psychological operations (PsyOps) campaign designed to minimise the political lessons of the story. (PsyOps, for those of you who missed that class, have been defined as ‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives…disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.)
An example of the process in connection with the account of the Gunpowder Plot is how in the UK in the 1970’s the 5th of November was still known and referred to as Guy Fawkes night. By the 1990’s the collection by children of money for a straw-filled dummy wheeled around the streets prior to the 5th, the ‘penny for the Guy’, and the burning of the Guy on the bonfire, had been banned and the night no longer called Guy Fawkes Night but referred to by the establishment and media as Bonfire Night. Nowadays the night is called Fireworks Night and public celebrations are often just fireworks demonstrations. Bonfires are discouraged to a point where in recent years in London some people have gathered around a virtual bonfire projected onto a screen.
On hearing the night referred to as anything but Guy Fawkes night I usually object and remind the speaker that the night commemorates an important occasion in British history and the death of a political martyr. As I’ve said in the article ‘Suicide Bombers and the Promise of Heaven?’ I am, very strongly, against the killing of innocent people, non-combatants, in the course of political, ideological, or any other kind of conflict. It is a fact that innocent people, non-combatants, would have been killed had the Gunpowder Plot been successful. That such an attempt was tried, and the socio-political situation that led to it, should not be forgotten though, particularly as it can help us to understand similar events and actions taking place around the world today.
Born in April 1570 Guy Fawkes was the only son of Edward Fawkes, proctor of the ecclesiastical courts and advocate of the consistory court of the Archbishop of York. At around twenty-three years of age he left England for Flanders where he enlisted in the Spanish army under the Archduke Albert of Austria, Fawkes held a post of command when the Spaniards took Calais in 1596 under the orders of King Philip II of Spain. He was described at the time as a man “of excellent good natural parts, very resolute and universally learned”, and was “sought by all the most distinguished in the Archduke’s camp for nobility and virtue”. Tesimond also describes him as “a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, of mild and chearful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a faithful friend, and remarkable for his punctual attendance upon religious observance”. His extraordinary fortitude, and his “considerable fame among soldiers”, perhaps acquired through his services under Colonel Bostock at the Battle of Nieuport in 1600 brought him to the attention of Sir William Stanley in charge of the English regiment in Flanders, Hugh Owen and Father William Baldwin. Fawkes severed his connection with the Archduke’s forces on 16 February 1603, when he was granted leave to go to Spain on behalf of Stanley, Owen and Baldwin to “enlighten King Philip II concerning the true position of the Romanists (Catholics) in England. England at that time was a society seething with sectarian conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Henry VIII, had broken with the Catholic Church over matters both political and marital. That break had led to the growth of Protestant power in England, particularly in the cities. The more rural areas of England were less inclined to enjoy the change, and violence followed as first one side, then the other, gained the upper hand. After Henry’s death in 1547, according to historian F.E. Halliday, “There followed a disastrous decade, a violent oscillation impelled by greed and fanaticism, out to an extreme Protestantism and back to a medieval Catholicism. Discord in religion and its exploitation for political ends were now to make the creation of order still more difficult.”
By the time James I ascended to the English throne following Queen Elizabeth’s death, the kingdom was populated by a large minority of Catholics who felt themselves unjustly oppressed, mixed amongst a Protestant majority almost paralysed by fear of Catholic intrigue from within and invasion from without. Unfortunately James’ attitudes only made things worse. James was an aspiring dictator, a man who believed himself to be an all-powerful monarch, justified in his regal splendour by the divine right of kings. “Kings are justly called gods,” he wrote, “for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth.” Like God, he said, kings “make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only.” This belief that he was as a god within his kingdom, accountable to no man or law save himself, was a spark almost certain to set off a social conflagration.
James deliberately antagonised the Catholic minority. A new peace with Catholic Spain may have initially provided a fleeting sense of hope that conditions for Catholics would improve, but that turned out not to be the case. The continuing practice of recusancy, compelling Catholics to attend Protestant services or pay a steep fine, brought about great financial hardship as “farmers and laborers who decidedly preferred the old forms of worship, were deprived of their rites and ministers, and ruined by spies, pursuivants and bad neighbours, who carded off their goods under cover of collecting recusancy fines, till one by one they gave up the struggle and conformed.”
Catholics lived through an ongoing and fluctuating persecution. Priests said Mass secretly at times, more openly at others. For a time it would be dangerous to be a Catholic. At other times, and sometimes in other places, it was a mark of distinction and honor. Embodied in the Penal Code, the persecution was irregular in its working. “It was at no moment … completely enforced…. The degree of its enforcement varied continually in respect to persons, places and times.” wrote the British historian Trevelyan. Catholics, Trevelyan noted, “were made to confine their activity and influence to their own estates, by laws which excluded them from any post in national or local government, and even forbade them to travel five miles from their place of residence without licenses signed by neighbouring magistrates.” Intrigues developed including a radical party, led by the Jesuits, seeking reconversion of the kingdom, by the sword if necessary.
Early on, James had appeased the Catholics by renewing diplomatic ties with Rome. Many Catholics viewed this as a promise of toleration. Maybe the recusancy fines would no longer be collected. Such hopes, however, were dashed and even a group of moderate Catholics, feeling betrayed, hatched a plot to abduct the new king. The plot was relayed to the king by none other than the Jesuit faction in both a betrayal and a stroke of subversive genius. James, thinking as a result that he could trust the Jesuits, did finally implement a plan of toleration in response. Catholicism would be tolerated, so long as Catholics pledged their loyalty to the king and their numbers kept in check.
The Jesuits, for their part, had no intention of declaring their loyalty to the king. But more alarming to the Protestants was the sudden rush of formerly hidden Catholics flocking to services and gatherings that were no longer suppressed. “Whole neighbourhoods were alarmed,” Trevelyan noted, “by great gatherings of Catholic devotees…. James, terrified at the phantoms his first stroke of kingcraft had conjured up,” abruptly reversed course in his policies. “In February 1604 a proclamation appeared ordering all priests to quit the country; in August several were hanged by judges on the circuit, though without instructions from the government; in November the levy of fines from lay recusants was vigorously resumed; in December five men were mining a tunnel from a neighbouring cellar to the wall of Parliament House.”
The Catholic rebellion was hatched by Robert Catesby. Intelligent, industrious, and well educated, Catesby came from a notable family. A distant ancestor had served as councilor to King Richard III. When, with other Catholics, his final hopes for tolerance under James were dashed, he resolved to lead a plot to overthrow the government for good. This would be accomplished beginning with one remarkable act of violence by destroying Parliament and the king in an instant with a gunpowder-fuelled explosion. According to the Gunpowder Plot Society, an historical society dedicated to researching the uprising, “Catesby felt that ‘the nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy,’ and that the Plot was a morally justifiable act of self-defence against the oppressive rule of a tyrant.”
Of the co- conspirators Catesby gathered, Trevelyan retrospectively judged that their motives were pure. “They were,” he said, “pure from self-interest and love of power. It is difficult to detect any stain upon their conduct, except the one monstrous illusion that murder is right.” Among the men was one Guy Fawkes who, after serving with other English Catholics in Flanders, was skilled at siege warfare, and how to tunnel safely and accurately. Following his direction, the conspirators began tunneling toward the foundation of Parliament from the cellar of a nearby building.
The rest, as they say, is history, but still worth looking at in detail.
Modern day phraseology would describe Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators as terrorists. There is, however, another view that questions the old, simplistic one. Author Scott Horton notes in Harper’s magazine that, “Today Guy Fawkes is increasingly viewed as the heroic figure prepared to stand against an unjust and oppressive state, as a martyr and a victim of torture.” Dennis Behreandt comments in The New American that, “Until recently, Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators were viewed with scorn as traitors and criminals. But were they really? We should deplore the means they chose to effect their planned revolution, but we should use care in our criticism of them lest we indict ourselves. After all, less than 200 years after Fawkes, men like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin did themselves first plot, then carry out, treason against the British king, and their violent revolution brought forth something unprecedented in history: a new nation uniquely conceived in liberty.”
Personally I can’t agree about the ‘conceived in liberty’ bit given the genocide of the American Indian and the condoning of slavery by the Pilgrim Fathers, but that’s beside the point being made here. Others described as terrorists today would consider their actions, as Catesby did, morally justifiable acts of self-defence against oppressive rule. indeed, the situation described by Trevelyan where people “were made to confine their activity and influence to their own estates, by laws which excluded them from any post in national or local government, and even forbade them to travel five miles from their place of residence without licenses signed by neighbouring magistrates” accurately describes the current situation for Palestinians in their own country. I see it as no coincidence then that people in Palestine are reacting in the same way as other “men of great piety, exemplary temperance, mild and chearful demeanour, and punctual attendance upon religious observances”
This thought-provoking article, an excerpt from 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Griffin Tarpley, discusses the Gunpowder Plot in the context of other state-sponsored terrorist actions, and identifies Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators as unwitting patsies in a larger, successful conspiracy.
Related is the film, V for Vendetta, the Wachowski’s screenplay adaptation of the graphic novel written and illustrated by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. Set in a near-future Britain under an oppressive right-wing government, the story centres around a mysterious revolutionary called ‘V’ whose identity is concealed behind a Guy Fawkes mask he permanently wears. V’s reaction to the fascist state is to try to waken the population up to their personal responsibility with a series of high-profile actions. I’m not a fan of the Hollywood film production model, and V has its share of cringeworthy Hollywood aspects. These are more than made up for though with some excellent acting from notable British actors, and some inspired dialogue that is spookily relevant today. Below is an example:
As Moore asked in an interview in The Beat:” …What do you, the reader [of the graphic novel], think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn’t want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history.”
If there is one film you should put on your To See list it’s this one. V for Vendetta has been, to my mind, suspiciously under-marketed. This fits, as I see it, with the subtle moves over the years to distance the real story of the Gunpowder Plot from the public’s consciousness, moves I described at the beginning of this article as PsyOps manoeuvres. For this reason, I’m enjoying seeing the Guy Fawkes mask being used and represented more and more in various political actions worldwide.
I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot.
– Supporters of Palestinian rights claim victory as target Agrexco ordered into liquidation
– Court papers warn that company is Israeli symbol whose downfall will have ‘wider implications’
– Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions National Committee (BNC) calls on the movement internationally to celebrate this victory and to intensify BDS campaigns
Campaigners for Palestinian rights are celebrating after the primary Israeli agricultural produce export company Agrexco, which has been a key target of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement in support of Palestinian rights, has been ordered into liquidation after being unable to pay its creditors.
Agrexco is a partially state-owned Israeli exporter responsible for the export of a large proportion of fresh Israeli produce, including 60-70% of the agricultural produce grown in Israel’s illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). In a translation of the court documents on the liquidation process that the BNC obtained, it is clearly stated that Agrexco acted as an arm of the Israeli state, effectively providing state subsidies to the agricultural sector. The documents indicate criticism of the government for allowing the company to default on its debts and also warn that Agrexco is a primary Israeli symbol and that its downfall is likely to have great implications.
“We congratulate and warmly salute our European partners for their dedicated and determined campaign against Agrexco. This ruling follows the news that Veolia, a French multinational that has lost billions of euros worth of municipality contracts over its provision of infrastructure to illegal Israeli settlements, is facing a financial meltdown. Clearly, the BDS movement is coming of age and is raising the cost of corporate complicity with Israeli war crimes. Strategic BDS campaigns are proving, through every day successes, that BDS is the most effective form of solidarity needed to challenge Israel’s system of colonialism, occupation and apartheid” said Jamal Juma’, coordinator of Stop the Wall Campaign and member of BNC secretariat.
Adel Abu Ni’meh, director of the Palestinian Farmers Union, a member organisation of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, welcomed the news but warned that “Agrexco assets are still being sold. We are following this closely and call on all international companies to withdraw their offers. Those companies that purchase Agrexco assets and brand names or seek to replace the company as the primary Israeli agricultural exporter will be similarly targeted by the BDS movement”.
Agrexco has been targeted with popular boycotts, blockades, demonstrations and direct action throughout Europe. In France, a broad civil society coalition containing dozens of organisations took legal action against the company and fiercely opposed the construction of a terminal at Sete that has laid unused since its construction. In Italy and the UK, campaigners took direct action and pressured supermarkets to drop the Agrexco brand. In July, a new coalition of organisations from over 13 European countries vowed to “put an end to Agrexco’s presence in Europe”. The coalition is expected to examine developments and may initiate new campaigns in response to the outcome of the liquidation.
As respected Israeli economist Shir Hever has stated, the European-wide campaign against the company was among the factors that led to the company’s downfall. “The company has been found to produce misleading reports, and did not warn its investors of the possible impact of the BDS campaign to boycott the company products. Many farmers have left the company, opting to work with competing ones which have not yet been at the focus of the BDS campaign, and as a result Agrexco entered a liquidity crisis. Several companies have considered bidding to buy Agrexco, but have withdrawn their bids after a brief research, which has no doubt uncovered the company’s prominence in the BDS campaign, among other things,” he explained.
The campaign against Agrexco was initiated in response to the 2005 call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment initiatives and sanctions on Israel and its supporters until the state complies with international law by ending its occupation and dismantling its apartheid Wall, ensuring equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and implementing the right of refugees to return to their homes as stipulated under UN resolution 194.
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS: firstname.lastname@example.org
Charles Boycott, the agent of a British landowner in Ireland, could never have imagined that he would play a role in a country called Israel 130 years after his name had become a worldwide symbol. Captain Boycott evicted Irish tenants, who defaulted on their rent because of desperate economic straits. The Irish reacted with a new weapon: no one would speak with him, work for him, and buy from him…
The word ‘boycott’ enters the English language during the Irish ‘Land War’ and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, on Achill Island in County Mayo, Ireland, who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880.
In September that year protesting tenants demand from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refuses but also evicts them from the land.
Charles Stewart Parnell proposes that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with him. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Captain Boycott soon finds himself isolated—his workers stop work in the fields and stables, as well as the house. Local businessmen stop trading with him, and the local postman refuses to deliver mail.
The concerted action taken against him means that Boycott is unable to hire anyone to harvest the crops in his charge. Eventually 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan volunteer to harvest his crops. They are escorted to and from Claremorris by one thousand policemen and soldiers.
This protection ends up costing far more than the harvest is worth. After the harvest, the ‘boycott’ is successfully continued. Within weeks Boycott’s name is everywhere. It is used by ‘The Times’ in November 1880 as a term for organized isolation.
Since then ‘boycott’ has spread throughout the world. And now to Israel…