Rhetorical Analysis on Napolean of Notting Hill

Rhetorical Analysis: SHREEDHAR SHAH
What was London’s fate in next few years? Was it going to show world any noticeable changes? Why, if at all, should we expect it to change?
Answering above questions may sound too eccentric because it may seem that accurate predictions about the city require comprehensive study of current dynamics of the city. Although, author has wit-fully explained the answer by considering a counter question ‘Why London shouldn’t change?’ In one sentence, people hadn’t had enough faith in revolutions for any transformation to occur.
By the time discussed in text, revolutions had remained just a matter of principles and were thought of something that couldn’t be realized in practical life, something too theoretical. “All revolutions are doctrinal-such as French one and the one that introduced Christianity.” By this, author wants to assert, by citing strong example of failure of French Revolution, that people at that particular time had lost credibility in revolutions. The reason for people being too reluctant to change was that they had understood the fact that if change has to be brought it should be slow and not abrupt. It’s every being’s nature to respond to change in a manner to enable itself to adapt to the change and that’s what’s called evolution.
Democracy depletes in a society where people cared the least about the external phenomena taking place in their vicinity. “no one minded the governing class governing”   conveys that the population didn’t care about the political affairs happening in their country leading to despotic   government   in England.
Hence, the general public didn’t show any interest in overall development of England. Everyone was busy with his own chores, the chores that were the outcome of rigorous revolutions of preceding generations and no one ever wanted to go through those all over again to bring change. Moreover, everyone was contented with what they had and so, author mentions “There was no reason for...