The UK snap election which was resolved as of this morning demonstrates another failure of democratizing a system of rule. Whether one is mad because their party didn’t do well or mad because they could find no party to represent them in the first place, it is better to simply come clean and admit that the entire ordeal is a failed experiment in theoretical politics. The gist of the results are a hung parliament, meaning of course no majority has been won by a party and so the next few days are likely to entail embattled speeches to the phony, placeholder, non-parties in Parliament (i.e. SNP) to win a majority by compromise. Because democracy is of course a Victorian parlor game by nature in which the best public speaker has an edge over all others regardless of policy propositions, little should be expected of it all. However the tendency to compromise in such a parliament is what brings me here now.
Just as any farmer is his own king and his home a castle, actual kings are scaled-up farmers presiding as sovereign over their property. The crops perform their tasks which are meaningless to the farmer besides their ends which benefit, 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, nor is he forced to migrate with the wandering of his cattle wherever they wish to go. 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. What happens next in the UK will openly defy all natural laws of rule, just as all failed experiments in democracy have, and my advice this time around to the disenchanted public is to stop looking for whoever you think might be ruining your theoretically perfectly tiered desert and take a step back with some humility to realize your constant mucking about in government affairs like you have some right to decide the law of the land 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. Just as feminism has encouraged women to abandon their natural roles as homemakers (much to the misery of those seduced by its fiery rhetoric), the politicians demand that you vote for him for his own sake and not yours must be understood for what it is: no place of yours. There is great honor in being a loyal wife; there is nobility in peasantry. Even in the case of Brexit, there was incredible public support for the British working class and concern for its future from the entirety of the Right (meanwhile the Left believes it is interchangeable with sub-humans from foreign nations, a disgraceful remark at least). Returning to the wandering sheep metaphor, 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 massive 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 castes to such an extent that they be given power that is too easily abused (voting rights), and thus forcing the highest caste to make unnatural concessions to them, let things be and form organic hierarchies that are natural and right.