C: Vox / Wiki

A tale of two  rebellions: a revolt against the elites must understand their will to power 

This is a tale of two rebellions, in two cities; one in Paris and one in London. One succeeded, the other did not. Not surprisingly, there is an applicable lesson to our present political situation.  

The peasant rebellion of 1381, incited by the imposition of a poll tax of 4p on every English adult, gathered breath in Essex and Kent, and under the nominal leadership of Wat Tyler marched on London where the rebels proceeded to lay waste to the homes and lives of the aristocracy and the wealthy.

A great fear gripped the ruling classes, and the king, Richard II, who was only 14 at the time, agreed to meet with the rebels. Tyler met with the King at Smithfield, and pleaded that he didn’t have a problem with his majesty, but with the ruthless nobility who were leading him astray.

That was his biggest mistake. Tyler did not last out the day.

The King’s Aide, seeing that Tyler had no “will to power” as a later philosopher would put it, attacked him, and before the day was out his head was atop a spike on London Bridge and the rebellion had evaporated.

Paris 1789: The peasants rebelled. They were hungry. They made demands. But their demands were more than Tyler’s; they wished to overthrow the established order. They succeeded.

There was a difference between these two rebellions. Wat Tyler’s rebellion made reasonable demands, they wanted reform. Tyler and his peasant army didn’t understand who their enemies were. They didn’t understand that the elites were all aligned against them.

The rebels in Paris were under no illusion. They were actually led by the elite. They were led by the “theorists”; by an upper middle class who wished to overthrow the aristocracy so that they could become the new aristocracy. They said they wanted justice, but mainly they wanted blood. These are the types satirised as the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Their aims were clear; violent overthrow of the old order and the creation of a new order where they would become the new masters. They used the poor to do this.

If we look at a modern analogue of these; the truckers’ protest in Canada and the farmers’ protest in Holland echo the attempts of Wat Tyler’s peasant revolt. Their demands are too modest. They want reasonable reforms, but they ask it of people who have no intention of giving it to them. The people in charge  – the elites – have contempt for them and treat them with contempt; just as King Richard II and his Aide had contempt for Wat Tyler.

If we look at the Marxist revolutions of the modern day, such as some of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the extremists in the trans lobby, we see that they have no such sincere objectives. Their intent, though couched in the feigned caring language of “diversity, inclusion, and equity” identity Marxism, is to overthrow the present system. Like the Jacobins of the French revolution they never institute reforms that would improve the existence of the very people they say they are championing.

It is for this reason that BLM can be depended upon to come out every four years in perfect synchrony with the American presidential election cycle. They find the same victims; the same villains; they make the same demands. They get what they want, and yet they never seem to get what they want. It’s an industrial cycle which delivers political power and wealth to the elites of this movement by never delivering anything to the foot soldiers. Make no mistake though, this is not a weakness in the strategy, it is the core strategy because solutions for the “victims” aren’t the goal; power for the elite is.

This is the principle of the Hegelian dialectic, and it underpins much of the change the elite wish to impose on the world.

The problem for the peasant revolts – both Watt Tyler’s and the truckers – is their lack of objectives. They lack of insight into what the Marxists identify as the superstructure of the political and social institutions that they run. They make reasonable demands and just want to be heard, and to get along. The institution as formed by the elite has no intention of serving the peasants – neither the truckers of Canada nor the farmers of Holland, nor the populists of Italy represented by Georgia Meloni.

It remains to be seen whether Meloni understands this.

It must be assumed that Meloni, who seems supportive in general of the European project, will not be allowed to go “half in”. The EU and global politburo demand total loyalty of the spirit and body. Meloni would be well advised not to labour under an illusion that she will be allowed pursue her pro-life and family friendly policies on the national level, if she only goes along with the economic and geopolitical policies of the global supergovernments in the IMF and EU etc. In the neo-liberal mindset, loyalty to “western values” is a more important alignment than all the war mongering and fiscal conformity you can muster.

But Meloni, in her speech, has given signs that she knows what the stakes are, and that she is willing to stand against the onslaughts. When attacked by French President Macron, who she said “described us as disgusting, cynics, and irresponsible” she returned the attack with a devastating and historically informed criticism of Macron’s foreign policy and how it had “cynically” destroyed Africa. “Disgusting” and “irresponsible” were two of the words she used to describe French bombing of Lybia and exploitation of Nigerian Uranium.

 

While Meloni’s forthright talk is charismatic and riveting, it remains to be seen if she can fight the fight on a policy and strategy level as well as she talks the fight on the cultural issues. The prospect of her finding a friend and ally in Viktor Orban is one which EU insiders must be trying desperately to prevent.

What is truly bewildering is the scarcity throughout Europe of representation for these populist ideas and the demographic that they represent – those who provide the essential manual labour and the food we eat. It is amazing that it actually needs to be said that these are a crucial demographic for the functioning of society and the economy. Nevertheless the elites have despised these people from a height for at least thirty years since globalism took off under the Clinton presidency, and the past seven years have revealed their full loathing.

However, there is something rotten in the global state and people are sensitive to it. The excesses of the Covid lockdowns, though probably viewed as a triumph of controlled communication by the elites, has left the public with a growing and profound level of distrust in the institutions that they once trusted to manage the world while they got on with their lives. People now hesitate at the sound of phrases like “the international rules based order” and ask who made these rules and who do these rules serve?
Asking the questions is the first step. Knowing what the answers mean is the difference between being a Watt Tyler and a Viktor Orban.

Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related
Comments are open

Should Fr Sheehy apologise to Simon Coveney?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...