The venerable Uncle Nasty, in a comment to the previous post, discussed England's 14th century Peasant Revolt. Interesting because over the last couple of years I have begun to notice a distinct cooling of ardour from our (cough) 'elite' opinion formers on this topic. The revolt had been the touchstone of leftists for well over a century, the ultimate Good War. And you can see why, powerless serfs exploited by the land-owning class, rise up and get brutally put down by the forces of capital, church and royalty. This acclamation reached its apogee in the 1980's when Thatcher tried to impose a poll tax because the very same tax had sparked the peasants into their eponymous revolt way back then. Right Thinkers reverently bowed their heads whenever the subject was mentioned.
However, there has been a subtle rebranding since then reflecting a marked decline in leftist regard for the peasants. It took me some time to realise this and to seek confirmation I resorted to those classic New Speak fountainheads the New Statesman and the Guardian. And there it was. I learned from the latter that the “peasants’ revolt” is now called the “great revolt” by modern historians, to reflect what we now know to be the wider social background of those involved and that 'new scholarship has demolished many of its [the Revolt] foundations'. The same article warns that conventional interpretations of it are 'problematic'. Let me explain 'problematic' as currently deployed by the nation-wreckers. It's an interim state along the spectrum between acceptance and condemnation. Think of it in terms of a doomed Stalin apparatchik. The first sign of his impending fate is demotion to a lower level job. In due course he gets fired, to be followed soon after by accusations of treason, eventually ending in the Lubyanka death chamber with a bullet to the back of the head. Losing his job would be problematic.
This from the New Statesman is the equivalent of airbrushing Yeshov from his photos with Stalin. "Take, for example, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. It was, after all, a tax revolt - something we now associate more with the right than the left - originating in some of England’s most prosperous counties: Essex, Kent and Norfolk. Many of the rebels were not peasants: according to contemporary accounts, the first leader of the protests was a local landowner, Thomas Baker, while another leading agitator, Geoffrey Litster, held the title of bailiff and was a literate local official. When the protesters arrived in London, they soon became absorbed in what Vallance calls “a carnivalesque orgy of violence and destruction”, particularly targeted at foreigners and immigrants."
Aha!! Now it becomes clearer. You see for today's rootless, multi-racial, atheistic cosmopolitan 'elite' (again, I use that word advisedly) the idea of peasants revolting is, well, revolting. It sends a quiver down their puny spines, conjuring up all sorts of unsettling imagery. Because they now occupy the place of the 14th century aristocracy, feudal landowners and tax collectors. They're dimly aware, especially post Brexit and Trump, that a seething mass of latter-day peasants, as now represented by the White working and middle classes, flexes its muscles and prepares to retake their country.
Here's to a 21st century peasants' revolt. And hope that this time don't be duped and betrayed by TPTB.
However, there has been a subtle rebranding since then reflecting a marked decline in leftist regard for the peasants. It took me some time to realise this and to seek confirmation I resorted to those classic New Speak fountainheads the New Statesman and the Guardian. And there it was. I learned from the latter that the “peasants’ revolt” is now called the “great revolt” by modern historians, to reflect what we now know to be the wider social background of those involved and that 'new scholarship has demolished many of its [the Revolt] foundations'. The same article warns that conventional interpretations of it are 'problematic'. Let me explain 'problematic' as currently deployed by the nation-wreckers. It's an interim state along the spectrum between acceptance and condemnation. Think of it in terms of a doomed Stalin apparatchik. The first sign of his impending fate is demotion to a lower level job. In due course he gets fired, to be followed soon after by accusations of treason, eventually ending in the Lubyanka death chamber with a bullet to the back of the head. Losing his job would be problematic.
This from the New Statesman is the equivalent of airbrushing Yeshov from his photos with Stalin. "Take, for example, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. It was, after all, a tax revolt - something we now associate more with the right than the left - originating in some of England’s most prosperous counties: Essex, Kent and Norfolk. Many of the rebels were not peasants: according to contemporary accounts, the first leader of the protests was a local landowner, Thomas Baker, while another leading agitator, Geoffrey Litster, held the title of bailiff and was a literate local official. When the protesters arrived in London, they soon became absorbed in what Vallance calls “a carnivalesque orgy of violence and destruction”, particularly targeted at foreigners and immigrants."
Aha!! Now it becomes clearer. You see for today's rootless, multi-racial, atheistic cosmopolitan 'elite' (again, I use that word advisedly) the idea of peasants revolting is, well, revolting. It sends a quiver down their puny spines, conjuring up all sorts of unsettling imagery. Because they now occupy the place of the 14th century aristocracy, feudal landowners and tax collectors. They're dimly aware, especially post Brexit and Trump, that a seething mass of latter-day peasants, as now represented by the White working and middle classes, flexes its muscles and prepares to retake their country.
Here's to a 21st century peasants' revolt. And hope that this time don't be duped and betrayed by TPTB.