William Saletan explains Eric Cantor’s stunning electoral defeat in his recent Slate article, Primarily Extreme. In summary: it’s all about race and demographics. I couldn’t agree more. He offers some helpful charts which explain that the folks who ousted Cantor are manifestly unrepresentative of America because they’re generally more elderly, white, and conservative than the general electorate.
Saletan is a sort of Steve Sailer for Jewish liberals, Slate’s resident “science guy” who takes a more analytical and data-driven approach to social commentary than the rest of the collective. He’s actually so analytical and data-driven that he made an abortive attempt several years ago to concede that there are racial differences in intelligence. He’s no friend of ours, and his effort was actually a futile attempt to square hard facts with hard Leftism. The two are diametrically opposed, and he was lucky to retain his job in the wake of a firestorm of finger-wagging.
Saletan begins the article with the . . . extreme . . . assertion that Virginia’s primary voters are outright “extremists”.
How do right-wingers like Cantor and Cochran lose to challengers even further on the right? The answer lies in the extremism of Republican primary voters.
Traditionally, that term has been reserved for folks (like myself) who are radically misaligned with mainstream politics. In fact, if you’re voting in any election at all, you’re probably not all that extremist. And if the guy you’re voting for actually wins (as Cantor’s opponent did), then you’re almost certainly not an “extremist”. Merely a few decades ago, everything this demographic pool stood for would have been considered “moderate”, a word which has been swept to the Left with the demographic tide. What’s “extreme” is a moving target, relative to context and culture. By all historical and non-Western standards, Saletan’s views are the extreme ones. And if old white Virginians are extreme by historical and non-Western standards, it’s for being merely a few steps behind Saletan in their extreme liberalism.
He trots out statistics suggesting that the voters who ousted Cantor are so extreme that a third of them wish to actually enforce our immigration laws, sealing his case that we have ourselves a hopelessly out-of-touch assortment of ideological antiques. They’re more than 90% White and they’re not even ashamed enough of their Whiteness to advocate demographically displacing themselves with open borders positions.
This is how guys like Cantor and Cochran get defeated. The people who vote in their primaries are wildly unrepresentative of the general population. The real mystery isn’t how these guys lose. It’s how the candidates selected by such extreme electorates end up running the country.
This situation is a deliberate feature, not a bug. As much as America’s founding fathers bandied about “democracy” and “freedom”, they retained a healthy fear and suspicion of mob rule and revolutionary change, designing our political system with an elitist agrarian bias toward rural gentry, country gentlemen. As much as their original designs have been compromised over the passing decades by “reformers”, Congress still lags America’s rapidly shifting demographics by a couple decades, both in hue and character. Even after 2042, when White Americans will be in the demographic minority, we’ll still enjoy a couple decades of political dominance owing to our demographic’s more geriatric and rural spread.
Cantor’s defeat is being lauded by the media as a victory for the “Tea Party”, though if anything his fall from grace represents the death knell of the original vision of the Tea Party project: A rejection of all religious, identitarian, and cultural conservative advocacy in favor of a singular and strident libertarian fixation on lowering taxes. Cantor rode in as that golden boy who promised to balance the budget and rein in “Big Government”. He now leaves Washington in disgrace, having achieved nothing he promised and having actively betrayed conservatives on just about everything except lowering taxes.
The Tea Party movement, despite all the best laid plans of Zionists, careerist policy wonks, and corporate lobbyists, keeps inexorably creeping toward serving as an advocacy vehicle for disaffected White Americans. Time and time again, they’ve fallen for one hustle and con after another, but they continue spitting them out. In due time, they’ll spit Rand Paul out, too. In due time, a remnant among them will begin speaking in the identitarian and anti-globalist language of authentic reaction.
If William Saletan thinks the goyim are “extremist” now, he’s in for a rude awakening. Even the very data he presents confirms that the “immigration” issue is moving in the wrong direction for him, with fewer and fewer buying his “Progressive” definition of “progress” away from borders, cultures, and identities with each passing survey, election cycle, and generation.