In a party that is defined as representing the Coalition of the Ascendant–blacks, latinos, Jews, women, homosexuals, Muslims and transgenders–running a candidate of Kamala Harris’ intersectional ilk for the 2020 Presidential election, appears imminent.

But given the Democratic National Convention remains years away, using extensive quantitative and qualitative means to predict which Democrat will be nominated to run against President Trump in 2020, is neither here nor there.

More importantly from an identitarian standpoint, we ought examine the immediate implications of Kamala Harris’ candidacy, her announcement speech; and what they mean for traditional Americans– whose own destiny is inextricably tied to our own.

The main takeaway from her speech, is the radical, (largely) recent shift in progressive rhetoric it reflects. Consider Barrack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, that first catapulted him to the national stage. In a manner that might surprise otherwise informed political observers, Obama emphasised civic nationalist themes, that would purportedly transcend age-old, racially-derived rivalries. Amidst criticising ‘negative ad paddlers’, Obama famously declared:

Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

4 years later, when he ran to be the first black President of the United States, Obama appealed to the better sensibilities of white Americans: who wanted to redeem perceived sins of the past, and enter into a more harmonious, tolerant future. In the political context of 2008 in which whites constituted a larger voting bloc, Obama’s electoral approach was duly rewarded: as a Democrat he won states like Iowa and Indiana, an inconceivable result by today’s standards.

However, the one some call the ‘female Barrack Obama’, spoke about racial issues very differently in her recent campaign announcement speech. In fact, after hearing the speech, a genuine, lasting racial reconciliation for America seems further away than it did in even 2004, or 2008.

Let’s speak the truth that too many unarmed black men and women are killed in America. Too many black and brown Americans are locked up.

Nevertheless, in light of President Obama governing as an anti-American, Islam-apologist President, the ideological gulf between him and the bellicose Harris, is surely not so great. So what explains the patently great gap between the Obama of 2004/08 and the Harris of 2019?

Probably America’s changed demographics, and that President Obama (along with his POC supporters) viewed accomplishing racial ‘equality’ in 2008, as a mere step towards more direct measures, that would induce the irreversible destruction of traditional America. On this, one is reminded of Patrick J. Buchanan’s rhetorical question on page 120 in the Death of the West, to which he soon after affirmed:

Is our era of the equality of nations really the end of history or but a temporary truce, a phone peace, an armistice, a time of transition from a day of Western dominance to a day when the West pays tribute?

Now, some might (correctly) condemn this approach from Kamala Harris and Barrack Obama as misleading. But this would be to no avail: in attempting to engage a bad-faith opponent in good-faith. Again, Patrick Buchanan on page 79 of the Death of the West, explains the Leftist prioritisation of political objectives over honesty:

For old and new Marxists both, however, the definition of morality remained: what advances the revolution is moral, what obstructs it is not.

This brutally pragmatic strategy is critical to keep sight of, when pondering all the words of Marxist-influenced Leftists: which Kamala Harris is clearly among.

Whether it be late-term abortion, gay marriage, white grievances, demographic change; or perhaps one day, legitimately malevolent actions pursued against white people: Leftists will strategically deny an alleged political change will occur, until its fruits fully bear and can no longer be effectually resisted.