Why the Elites Hate Farmers: A Tale as Old as the Dirt
In a world where governments, think tanks, and activist groups issue stern proclamations about saving the planet, one group stands in their way: farmers. Yes, those humble stewards of the land, the ones who grow your food and get dirt under their nails, are now public enemy number one in the eyes of the technocratic elites. It may seem perplexing—after all, we all need food to survive. Yet, the relentless pressure on farmers across the UK and Europe suggests a deeper, more sinister agenda at play.
From draconian environmental regulations to crushing tax reforms, the assault on the agricultural sector is not just an unfortunate byproduct of modern policy. It's a calculated strategy to dismantle the independence of those who work the land, those who—by virtue of their self-reliance—pose a unique threat to centralised control. But why is it that the elites, who so often preach about equality, seem to harbour a special disdain for the folks who literally keep us fed?
Let’s dig into the historical, economic, and ideological roots of this deep-seated animosity.
The Age-Old Struggle for Control
To understand why farmers have become targets, we need to revisit a few historical episodes. Every revolutionary regime that sought to impose centralised control—be it Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia first turned its sights on the rural farmers. Why? Because these regimes understood that to control the people, you must first control the food supply.
Independent farmers, with their patch of land and their livestock, represent a bastion of autonomy. They are self-sufficient in a way that makes them difficult to subjugate. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the kulaks, those relatively prosperous peasants were branded as enemies of the people. They were blamed for hoarding grain and sabotaging the socialist dream. What followed was a brutal campaign of forced collectivisation, leading to widespread famine, especially in Ukraine, where the Holodomor resulted in the deaths of millions.
Fast forward to the present day, and the methods have evolved, but the underlying logic remains the same. While today's bureaucrats in Brussels and Westminster don’t wield the iron fist of Stalin, they have other tools at their disposal: taxes, subsidies, and regulations so intricate that they function as a noose around the farmer’s neck.
The Green New Deal or the Great Green Grift?
Let's talk about the modern-day crusade: environmentalism. It’s become the rallying cry of elites who claim to be saving the planet from climate catastrophe. But, as with most causes embraced by those in power, there's more than meets the eye. The EU’s Green Deal, aimed at making Europe climate-neutral by 2050, has put a target on the back of European farmers.
These ambitious plans demand drastic reductions in pesticide use and nitrogen emissions, effectively telling farmers to produce more food with fewer resources. On paper, this sounds noble. Who wouldn’t want cleaner air and water? But in practice, these policies are akin to asking a chef to cook a feast without using fire.
In the Netherlands, farmers have been protesting en masse, driving their tractors into city squares to voice their opposition. Why? Because they know these policies could decimate their livelihoods, especially for small, family owned farms. Meanwhile, large agricultural conglomerates, who have the resources to comply with such regulations are poised to benefit. It’s almost as if the elites are using environmentalism as a cover to squeeze out the competition.
The UK's Labour government is following suit. In its recent budget, it introduced a 20% inheritance tax on farming assets over £1 million, set to take effect in 2026. The logic, they say, is to address wealth inequality. But the reality is that this tax will force many family farms to sell off land just to pay the taxman, paving the way for corporate buyers to swoop in. The result? More centralisation, less independence, and fewer small farmers who can thumb their noses at government overreach.
Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
It’s one thing to suspect that the powers-that-be hold a disdain for small farmers; it’s another thing entirely when they come out and say it. Enter John McTernan, former Labour adviser, who recently let slip exactly what the elites really think of the agricultural backbone of Britain. In a moment of unfiltered honesty, McTernan declared, “It’s an industry we could do without,” and, as if that wasn’t enough, he went on to suggest that if farmers dare to resist, “we can do to them what Margaret Thatcher did to the miners.”
Let’s pause for a moment and appreciate the brazenness of that statement. McTernan just said out loud what many of his ilk have been thinking for years: small, independent farmers are expendable. Never mind that these farmers are the ones who actually produce the food that fills our plates. Never mind that they’ve kept communities alive for generations, or that they form the bedrock of a self-sufficient nation. In the eyes of the bureaucrats and technocrats, they are merely inconvenient relics of a bygone era—obstacles to the shiny, centralised, industrial future they envision.
This is not just a slip of the tongue; it’s a glimpse into the mindset driving current agricultural policies. When the elites push for inheritance taxes that will force family farms to sell their land, or when they enforce suffocating environmental regulations, it’s not about protecting the environment or levelling the playing field. It’s about making way for big agribusiness and tightening control over food production.
The comparison to Thatcher’s infamous crackdown on the miners is telling. It reveals a willingness, no, a desire to crush any sector that dares to resist. The miners were seen as a threat to the government's plans, so they were dealt with ruthlessly. Now, it seems, it’s the farmers' turn. But here’s the difference: while Thatcher targeted an industry reliant on finite resources, the war on farmers targets something far more essential our food supply.
By saying the quiet part out loud, McTernan has inadvertently confirmed what we’ve suspected all along. The attack on small farmers is not just a by-product of misguided policies; it’s part of a deliberate strategy to centralise power, eliminate independence, and ensure that every morsel of food is subject to government oversight.
The Hidden Agenda Behind "Sustainability"
At this point, you might be thinking, “Surely, these policies are just misguided attempts to do good?” Perhaps. But when you look at the broader picture, a pattern emerges. The attack on farmers is not just about saving the planet or balancing the budget. It’s about control.
By phasing out traditional subsidies and replacing them with incentives tied to environmental benchmarks, the EU and UK are effectively holding farmers hostage to their agendas. You want subsidies? Then you’d better toe the line. Want to avoid that hefty tax bill? Better start “rewilding” your farmland, even if it means producing less food.
This push for centralised control of agriculture eerily mirrors the tactics used by communist regimes. In China, Mao’s Great Leap Forward forced farmers into communes and demanded impossible production quotas. The result was one of the deadliest famines in human history. Today, instead of iron-fisted commissars, we have smooth-talking bureaucrats in suits. But the endgame is the same: consolidate power by breaking the independence of those who can resist it.
The Folly of Sacrificing Food Security on the Altar of Ideology
Let’s not forget the elephant in the room: food security. The same elites who impose these stifling regulations on European farmers have no problem importing grain from countries with far looser environmental standards. In recent months, European farmers have protested against the influx of cheap Ukrainian grain, which is flooding the market and driving down prices. This isn't just an economic issue; it’s a matter of national security.
By pushing local farmers out of business, European governments are making their nations increasingly reliant on imports. It’s a dangerous game, especially in a world where geopolitical tensions are rising. If conflicts escalate or supply chains break down, who will feed Europe then?
This reliance on foreign imports mirrors the folly of previous regimes that destroyed their own agricultural base in pursuit of ideological purity. Just as Mao’s policies led to starvation, today’s technocrats risk repeating history by sacrificing food security for the sake of virtue signalling.
And now, in their infinite wisdom, the UK government has decided that even the humble backyard chicken poses a threat to the nation's wellbeing. You see, you can't simply own a few hens anymore without a licence—because clearly, Doris down the road with her three beloved cluckers is a biosecurity menace. It’s a classic example of bureaucratic overreach: the same government that can’t control its borders is now hyperfixated on controlling your chicken coop. Just one more step in the ongoing war against anyone who dares to be self-sufficient and independent. After all, if you can grow your own food, what need have you for their regulations, taxes, and Orwellian oversight?
The Farmer as the Last Bastion of Freedom
So why do the elites hate farmers? The answer is simple: because they represent everything the modern technocratic state cannot tolerate independence, self-reliance, and a connection to the land that goes beyond mere profit. Farmers do not depend on the state for their survival; if anything, it's the other way around. And in an era where governments seek to control every aspect of our lives, from what we say to what we eat, this independence is a threat that must be neutralised.
The irony is that in their attempt to dismantle the independence of farmers, the elites are sowing the seeds of their own undoing. For as history has shown, when you starve a people, you do not just create desperation you create resistance. The tractors rolling through the streets of Paris, Warsaw, and The Hague are not just signs of protest; they are warning shots across the bow of the technocratic ship.
As long as there are farmers willing to fight for their land, their way of life, and their freedom, there is hope. Because in the end, the soil beneath our feet is not just a resource to be managed; it is the foundation of civilisation itself. And those who seek to control it may soon find themselves with nothing to eat but their own empty promises.
Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this, consider subscribing for more thought-provoking content. Let’s keep the conversation alive.
I would warn against blind hope an idealism here, if one is to win, correct preparation will be needed to be done otherwise we end up like the Kulaks, that is, dead in a ditch and left behind be the New Regime.