The Farmer Submits

The UK snap election which was resolved as of this morning (10th June) demonstrates another failure of democratizing a system of rule. Whether one is mad because his party didn’t do well or mad because he could find no party to represent him in the first place, it is better to simply come clean and admit that the entire ordeal is a failed experiment in politics. The gist of the results are a hung parliament, meaning no majority has been won by a single party and so the next few days are likely to entail passionate speeches to the fraudulent, placeholder, non-parties in the parliament (i.e. SNP) to win a majority by compromise. Because democracy is a mere Victorian parlor game by nature in which the best public speaker has a great edge over all others regardless of his policies (see: the advent of televised debates), little of meaning can be expected to result. However the tendency to compromise in such a parliament is of interest to us all.

Just as any farmer is his own king and his home a castle, monarchs are sorts of scaled-up farmers presiding as sovereign over their own properties. The crops behave in such a way that is meaningless to the farmer besides how it benefits his own ends, under his benevolent guidance. The farmer lives and dies by the health of his crop; he knows he is to one day pass his land onto an heir, and is thus motivated to preserve and protect it. This is the nature of farmers and farmers of men. The farmer does not let the crop lead him; our civilization itself began when nomads domesticated wild crops and instructed them where to grow, rather than accepting the whims of nature. It is unnatural and nonsensical for the farmer to make concessions to his property.

A ruler listens to his people in the same way the farmer identifies damage and disease and threat to his property. His laws are derived from what IS, not what his people FEEL (indeed, legal positivism, the notion that the law is created, not given, has degraded our modern justice system). What happens next in the UK will openly defy all laws of nature, just as all failed experiments in democracy have, and my advice this time around to the disenchanted public is to stop looking for what group or what politician is ruining your perfectly-tiered dessert, and take a step back with some humility to realize your insistence on holding elections and otherwise meddling in government affairs has upended the whole damned table.

There’s nothing wrong with being a mere shaft of wheat or wandering sheep in the grand scheme of things; there’s nothing evil or unsatisfying about being the very sustenance of the realm. There is great honor in being a loyal wife; there is nobility in peasantry. The Irish poet William Butler Yeats understood this central truth, and lived it: his own home was a cottage built at the base of an old Norman tower, the ideal fusion of the lord and the those lead. Returning to the metaphorical wandering sheep: those who believe in the empowerment of the people often lash out against those whom they consider “sheeple”, and believe that through education and conditioning, they may become enlightened. Of course this has never worked, because people are who they are: the bulging center of the bell curve will not shift even a fraction of a standard deviation in a single generation, they will never “wake up”. So instead of attempting to empower the lower classes to such an extent that they be given power that is too easily abused, and thus forcing the highest caste to make unnatural concessions to them, let things be and form organic hierarchies that are natural and right.

One thought on “The Farmer Submits

  1. “There is great honor in being a loyal wife; there is nobility in peasantry.”

    Indeed. I have thought often about this problem. Democracy—or better say, the entire modern project from the Enlightenment on—has inculcated in the common man an exaggerated sense of his own worth and an inflated idea of what is due him. This has been the driving force behind entire revolutions in modern times, and it seems to me that it can only be set aright again given enormities of labor and quantities of time. For I do not foresee the common man voluntarily laying aside this particular kind of arrogance—unless he has had occasion to forget it. Convincing him of his natural place seems to me out of the question.

    This is yet another example of how modernity unleashed forces it did not altogether understand, forces which can be contained once again with great difficulty. I suspect that religion will be someway necessary. Your previous essay might be quite pertinent here…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s