This is one of the more inspiring wiki pages
And quite a list it is. Seriously, you’ll be scrolling. Out of the hundreds listed there’s probably one that fits our situation best, if you’re willing to study all the different examples. The American, French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions aren’t the only ones that ever happened in history.
Back to the beginning! You know what I like to do.
Lots of green and lots more red on that wiki page
The first revolutionary victory was in 2380 BC, the Sumerian Revolt.
It looks like the first one in the West occurred in 510-509 BC, the Roman Revolution.
These aren’t always good things. I’m interested in studying the form. Extreme political shifts. They might be good they might be bad. The well-known Bolsheviks for instance can be studied for the form of their revolution rather than ideological content.
A year after the Roman Revolution, the Athenian Revolution occurred. The first installed a Republic, the second installed a democracy. I’ve showed you how various canonical greats like Roger and Mach admired the Roman Republic and lamented its lapse into Empire after about 500 years.
Etruscans ruled Rome for centuries before they were overthrown in 509 BC by aristocrats known as patricians. Whether they were illiterate morons at that time is besides the point. This modern idea of a “people’s revolution” needs to be dispensed with. Everyone having a say in government means that ignorance controls the political order.
It was the Etruscan kingship the patricians overthrew, they didn’t believe in one-man-rule themselves, PER SE
the Senate and the consuls could appoint a temporary dictator to rule for a limited time until the crisis was resolved
So it was an aristocracy with emergency procedures. Sounds pretty ideal. The US has neither an aristocracy or emergency procedures, simply a hidden tyrant.
Someone by the name of Cincinnatus for example was chosen to be temporary autocrat for only 15 days. After he resolved the issue the multi-man patrician rule resumed. A couple weeks where an emergency procedure were put in place COULD do a lot of damage to our hidden tyrant. The Reign of Terror was about 11 months though, for reference. I emphasize, this is how it was after the very first revolution in the west. “Revolutions” don’t always have to be the way we think of them, i.e. as the kind that occurred in an Enlightenment setting in the last 250 years. This first revolution occurred 2500 years ago. Lots of history to learn from before the late 1700s.
We know about this distant time in history in part because the patricians would have a nail hammered on the side of the religious altar once a year. It was a temple for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva–which might have significance in itself. The old trinity, Zeus, Hera, and Athena? That isn’t too far off from Homer either. In order to understand their form of government we need to understand their form of religion.
The governmental system of consuls and senate wasn’t put in place immediately
That was their later “checks and balances system”, a senate that elected two consuls
Everyone knows the autocracy of Julius Caesar. I personally think this earlier form of government was more realistic.
People don’t care about this earlier time because everyone in the democratic age hates aristocracy. Here’s a name you probably don’t know- the first Revolution overthrew King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, otherwise known as Tarquin the Proud. This is already a better model to draw from than those leveler-minded Bolsheviks. No, we don’t want to put political control in the people’s hands, they are poorly educated. The thing with the early Roman Republic is that it’s not like it wasn’t altogether “undemocratic”- the aristocrats needed the people’s approval, otherwise they would’ve suffered the same fate as Tarquin the Proud. So it was more precisely a mixed government of the consuls, the senate, and the people. This is the kind of thing we need to think thoroughly about if we want to have a “forward revolution” in the west. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say we’re at present experiencing a (lowkey) backward revolution. That is what happens when the poorly educated have too much control of government.
If you’ve been reading me for a while you very likely have gotten the impression that there is something real about my rants regarding “subhumans”. I think it’s tough to deny that I’m altogether wrong about those creatures. An aristocratic government follows from the acknowledgment of that. The next question is how is it structured. In this model we’re looking at now, aristocrats elect “super-aristocrats” and there are various gradations of offices and democratic forums, that these first two, the senate and consuls oversee. It’s not “king-rule”. Just like if it happened in our own day, it was a revolution against too much concentrated power. Just some ideas for those who only know about the Russian Revolution. What I think we need in our own time is a temporary king who creates the conditions for the sort of “double-aristocracy” discussed here. I think many reactionaries would agree with me simply through the fact alone that no reactionary agrees with another reactionary on everything. An aristocracy or double-aristocracy would be ideal so that reactionaries don’t find themselves living under the rule of a “reactionary king” that is not too far off from the cathedral. America’s founders, as is known, knew Roman history too, and in part modeled the US gov on their Republic. All we can do for now is form thought-experiments like they did, form thought-experiments and theorize about plays that could lead to guillotines…