Best. Election. Ever.

as a citizen, i am always interested in discussions concerning definitions of the nation & the state. in my understanding, the nation is often defined as blood & soil (although there are nations which are only blood). then the state is a means to establish institutions which perpetuate the nation. in the modern era in the west this is effected by the adoption of a constitution. so the question becomes is it possible to have a bannon style "ethnoagnostic economic nationalism" predicated on the economic interest of the nation alone ? in the u.s. where all ethnicities are citizens its easy to overlook the complete absence of racial considerations in the constitution & view this as a trivial question. in fact the u.s. is thus singularly blessed with a constitution already prepared to uneventfully confirm economic nationalism. & with the constitutional & economic interests of the nation once again aligned, it would indeed be possible to create "ethnoagnostic economic national socialism" without being a racis nazi fascis. in short, "if you like your globalist progressivism, you can keep your globalist progressivism". those of us acquiescent to a clintonian confirmation of our obamantine plantation will be forced to adjust & take a step back from what is already a postcolonial latifundist oligarchical technocracy. i personally feel i will manage to cope provided i can resist the temptation to visit a starbucks & read the new york times.

Indeed, there is much work still to be done.

historically the democratic party has been the party of bolsheviks & muslims, allowing goldman sachs & other globalist elites to function in that twilight world between expropriation & sharia law. at times they make attempts at passing themselves off as the party of the working class or the poor, for example poor whites or poor blacks or the kkk. todays democratic party is in transition however, discovering that the tranny agenda is the most indispensable to its future, & favouring it at all costs along with progressivist retailers such as target whose customers are 90% female anyway & can be expected to be dragged along with any polemic which features the word gender. the republican party traditionally has been far more diverse. when cia affiliated buckley, bred of the carolingian plantation, undertook to reform conservatism so as to prepare it for the ascendancy of reaganesque figures, the priorities were to eliminate all traces of antisemitism, racism, misogyny, & homophobia. as events proved, one out of four aint bad considering most participants in the murrican electoral process cant tell an israeli zionist such as a breitbart operative from a pnac touting neocon.

Sure. Make mine a grande drip.

thus whereas the republican party recently purged like the pentagon of its neoconservative elements was ripe for a soft coup style takeover, the democratic party was ripe only for utter disintegration. its nominal pair of schizophrenic core constituencies: women / trannies & blacks / muslims are in fact at odds with one another long before one introduces a bonafide socialist or even vaguely anticorporatist critique such as bernies which in a differently disconnected echo chamber would still be fundamental to the democratic discourse. trump proved to be a patriot with his bannonesque vision of nationalism simply the inevitable antidote to divisive identity politics, promoted to bring all the citizens together in their economic interest. much has been written about his motives & his speaking style but his candor revealed almost immediately that he was holding all the cards & was well aware he would soon function as the broker for the orderly transfer of power from the old paradigm to the new, largely because of not in spite of his numerous insider connections, but also because of his unique approach to world events born of his disparate & wide ranging experiences in dealmaking & property development.

Hillary Clinton: shes just not my kind of muslim.