Writers hide the unsayable for several reasons. First, people are not ready for it. Knowledge is esoteric and can only be assimilated when the learner is ready for it. Second, there is no point adopting what people fear in order to educate them. Finally, to speak of these topics would bestow too much power on the electorate.
The foundation of the unsayable is that modern society is in decline because its fundamental assumption, equality, is unrealistic. Having said that, we need say little more. It’s clear that if equality folds, so does the idea of democracy. Then falls the idea of a caste-less society, and the idea that we don’t need to shape ourselves like evolution once did by rewarding the best, smiting the worst, and ignoring the mediocre.
In the election that’s coming up in four days, the collision between the sayable and unsayable will be unavoidable. Almost none of what is publicly being said about this election has any bearing on the actual task, which is part of the unsayable. You have a choice between two points of view:
Both of these options are gradients. This means that once you choose one, you are a moving in a direction toward more of the same and less of its opposite. They are also both mutually exclusive, since each choice favors an entirely different goal.
This process could be seen in the election of Barack Obama as well. His rhetoric started out moderate, then moved more toward the extreme with calls for universal healthcare, socialized entitlements, immigration amnesty and a more relativistic foreign policy. The voters spoke, and then continued pressure, which caused Obama to move closer to the source of his mandate, which isn’t him personally but the intention-based ideology he represents.
Currently it’s popular among the more alienated members of the right to claim that they will be boycotting the vote by not voting. I respectfully disagree; as far as I know, gentlemen can still do that without inducing enmity.
We’re now trying to reverse that process. It’s a sea change, not just an election. It’s a shift in our mentality from one that accepts a liberal state, to one that recognizes that any degree of liberalism is going to lead down a slippery slope to more liberalism, until we’re in total reality denial.
Even more, there’s a recognition of ethnic interests. Non-whites have always voted for their interests, which is why Democrats have made it a point to import them and cultivate them with entitlements. With this election, whites are realizing that this is their last chance to show up in great numbers and be represented as a group, or they will be replaced with new plans for amnesty and benefits:
I’ve written here before that politics is all about showing up. And in recent months, people on the Right have been doing a lot of showing up. They’ve showed up at Romney-Ryan events in unprecedented numbers. They made Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America” a huge hit despite a virtual blackout from traditional media. They stood in line for hours at Chick-fil-A restaurants to buy chicken sandwiches in response to politicians’ bullying. They packed houses at the “Hating Breitbart” premiere.
Will they now pack the voting booths and vote for Romney, and against Obama, in similarly unprecedented numbers? If they do, Romney will win in a landslide. – “The ground-glass election,” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Washington Examiner
What’s going on here is part of a sea change in politics. People are no longer thinking that liberalism is a positive direction, and in fact have realized that the nature of equality is that it creates dependents, and those dependents in turn vandalize and parasitize their society.
People want to go in a right-wing direction, but this is not going to happen through an ideal candidate arriving from the heavens and mentioning the sayable. It occurs in increments: a candidate appears, pushes the boundaries of the sayable, and gets elected. The next election, more from the unsayable realm is sayable.
You have a choice in this election to represent your interests. If you do not choose it, you will not be represented, and you will be rolled over by those who are representing their interests.
To this statement many people will retort with the idea that our society is so far gone that it will need to be replaced entirely, and that we should not vote, but hold out for the end. There are two major flaws with this.
First, the end does not come quickly, but slowly. We decline to a second-rate power, then a third-world kleptocracy, and at that point the people breed themselves into uselessness. If the Vandals ultimately show up to sack the capital city, that’s centuries later, when the damage is already irrevocable.
Second, introducing radical change is a bad idea. By suspending the normal rule of law, you introduce a winner-take-all mode which most commonly goes to the biggest liar, since most people will panic and reward whoever promises stability. You are unlikely to get a conservative leadership out of this instability.
The left is aware of this. They are playing dirty politics and engaging in election fraud because they know that if they win this election, they can roll out immigration amnesty and more entitlement programs and create new voters to replace us. The same process is happening in Europe, where the threats to liberal power are so great that censorship and political persecutions have returned.
Election 2012 is about demographics and direction. Do we want a voice at all? If not, we will consent to be governed by others. Do we want to change direction from liberal back toward conservative? These are the real choices, not the false media narrative created in order to drum up drama.
I understand the frustration of those who want to throw in the towel on modern society and its vile nature. The fact is that with all things in life, slow and steady work gets results, while radical leaps create uncertainty and work against the reformer. This election, opt for a move closer to what you want, instead of giving up because perfection is not at hand.