Okay, here it is. This is going to be a long thread. Ultimately I'm going to ask you guys a poll question, but I have to set it up first, and that will take a lot of 'splainin. I'd ask that you refrain from comments until the end, because I think a lot questions will be answered.
Specifically, I'm going to ask you about "national divorce" along the geographic lines indicated in this map.

But what do I mean by national divorce? How would it work? What would be the terms?

In this thread I'll lay out a scenario for how it might work...
Again, maybe you have questions/comments about the map, or about the concept. Just hold on, I'll get to all of that.
I'll do this in a Q&A format.

Q. Would the USA cease to exist as a sovereign state?

A. No. The USA would still exist, but the US gov's powers wld be mostly devolved via constitutional amendments to two new national governments. I.e., the USA would be a binational confederation.
We'll call the two new nations the Homeland and the Empire. Obviously those wouldn't be the official names, but it gets to the heart of the USA's existential divide, so I'll use those terms.

Both nations would enjoy internal autonomy. But the USG would still have some functions.
The USA would still be a monetary and free trade union. There would still be a military shared between the nations. The USA would enforce agreements (eg, on water resources) bt the 2 nations. And there are other miscellaneous functions (ATC, for example) that the USG should do.
Moreover, there are some functions the USG would still have to perform temporarily while the nations develop their respective capabilities. E.g., the nations would establish their own revenue authorities, but in the meantime the IRS/treasury would have to remit revenues.
As we've seen with Brexit, there's a lot of red tape involved in the decoupling of two modern polities. I have no illusions about the headaches that will arise from all the fine print, but my goal here is just to broadly describe the process, not address every detail.
But anyway, yes, the USA would still exist, both in the short term and in the long term.

I assume both new national governments would be jealous of their power and money, and consequently they'd both want to minimize the money and power in the hands of Washington DC...
Thus, for example, there might be a requirement (again, created by constitutional amendment) for both national legislatures to explicitly declare war before the US government can employ force abroad...
The shared desire by both the Empire and the Homeland to keep the rump US govt on a short leash would be a feature, not a bug.

But the USA would still exist, both for the aforementioned practical reasons and for old times' sake. Nobody would call it a nation though.
Q. How would the two new national authorities be constituted?

A. Mechanically, you'd need a series of constitutional amendments to transfer power to the new national governments. Most Americans like our constitutional framework, broadly speaking...
We would expect (indeed require) the new natl govts to have a similar structure to the US federal government. Checks and balances, guarantees of the rights and freedoms laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A lot of that would be substantially copypasta'd.
Q. But if the new nations have identical constitutions, what's the point?

A. Not necessarily identical in all respects (more on that later). But anyway, all liberal democracies basically function in a similar way, but it's still worth having separate nations...
No doubt French people would recognize a lot of the legal and political structure of Japan, and vice versa, but it's still good that there are separate polities for Frenchmen and Japanese. The political Constitution is not the same as the nation.

What's more...
The 2 nations would have complete internal autonomy. This means that there would soon arise separate bodies of statutory & case law interpreting what various constitutional provisions mean

E.g., "Free speech" or "right to bear arms" may have diff. interpretations in each nation.
This may be a tough pill to swallow for some Americans (many but certainly not all of them on the left)

But look, if saving the political soul of your countrymen depends on your ability to have your favorite member of the Supreme Wizard Council tell them what the Constitution...
...means, then they're not really your countrymen, are they?

Freedom (not just in the individual sense, but in the social sense) means accepting that other peoples may have some other rules. That's okay.
Anyway, there are many liberal democracies out there, the inhabitants of which are living perfectly civilized lives despite not being under the jurisdiction of American federal courts.

Nobody's going to reinstitute slavery or whatever.
Again, I'm sure there are some people out there who would be dead-set against national divorce because they believe the 14th amendment requires them to crusade to ensure bathrooms in Topeka are sufficiently gender-neutral.

How many such people are there? We'll find out...
Anyway, I think it would be good to put such people (some of whom, again, are conservatives) on the spot and make them admit they're imperialists

Look, it's an ethos. But if u believe u have a duty to occupy alien tribes for their own good, stop pretending this is a real country
Q. How would citizenship work? Would I automatically become a citizen of the nation where I live after national divorce?

A. All US citizens (as of some specified record date) would remain US citizens with US passports (again, the USA would still be a sovereign state)...
In addition to, & alongside, US citizenship, there would exist 2 new national citizenship categories (nationalities, if u like)--citizens of the Homeland, & citizens of the empire

All US citizens & legal permanent residents wld have a period when they could select 1 or the other
You may opt for nationality in the nation where you're living. In that case, there would be absolutely no qualifications or barriers of any kind. Doesn't matter if you're an Afro-Hispanic transsexual in Bismarck, or a redneck in San Fran. No barriers to electing citizenship...
You may also opt for nationality in the nation where you're /not/ living. This too, would be an option open to /every/ current US citizen/permanent resident.

But in this case, u might have to sign some kind of formal declaration accepting the founding principles of the nation...
In so many words, "I accept this is a homeland for the historic American nation, and I won't try to subvert it." Or, "I accept this is a cosmopolitan nation of immigrants and understand that it shall be so constituted in perpetuity."
Now, I don't think such a statement would be legally binding in any strict sense. I mean, you can't realistically prosecute someone for perjury because they committed ideological taqiyya.

But still, it would be a bit of a s*** test to keep out at least some malcontents...
Q. Would I have to move to the territory of the nation where I've elected citizenship?

A. No! All current US citizens/permanent residents would be grandfathered into a special status explicitly affording them full rights and complete equal protection for their lifetimes...
This might even be extended to the next generation. E.g., any kids you have in the next two decades are guaranteed this "grandfathered" status for the first 4 or 5 decades of their life.
Obviously, if you're living in the nation where you don't have citizenship, you wouldn't get to vote in their elections. That's only fair; why would an expat get to vote in local elections?

But in all other respects you'd have the same rights as citizens...
You could live there, work there, own property there, own a business, have a bank account, etc.

As a grandfathered "legacy" US citizen, you'd be able to do pretty much anything.
Again, this would be an explicit provision of the national divorce agreement. What's more, since there would be millions of Homeland citizens living in Imperial territory & vice versa, neither natl government would have an incentive to violate rights of the other guy's citizens.
Q. Would there be any physical barriers impeding travel between the territories of the two new nations?

A. No, I think that would be intolerable for most Americans, and it would cause a lot of disruption to the prolific social and economic ties that exist across the USA.
Think of it like the "Schengen Zone" in Europe. No walls, no need for passports. Just a sign saying, "Welcome to Belgium" or whatever.
Q. But then how could the Homeland keep out illegal aliens, or immigrants admitted to the Empire in the future?

A. Easily. External US borders & ports of entry wld still have 2 be maintained 4 security, but as far as immigration is concerned, a real nation doesn't need walls...
Immigrants (legal or otherwise) are mostly ordinary people making ordinary economic decisions.

The Homeland govt could explicitly require proof of lawful residency for employment, housing, access to govt services, etc. And ofc we'd ban birthright citizenship 4 anchor babies...
If it's not practically possible for those not lawfully residing in the Homeland to live and work and make money, they'll stay out.

(This was, btw, always the biggest problem with Trump's wall; if the USA were still a real country, no wall would be necessary.)
But again, if you're a legacy US citizen, or the child of a legacy US citizen, or an immigrant admitted to the Homeland under our own naturalization provisions, there's no problem.
Q. Would the Homeland be an "ethnostate"?

A. I wouldn't use that term, personally. It makes me think of creepy stuff like Nuremburg Laws.

An American homeland would naturally express Anglo-American political norms, which is to say it would be easygoing and liberal in many ways.
Having said that, escaping the Great Replacement is one of the fundamental reasons necessitating a Homeland in the first place. So the national government would be expected to attend to the modal, foundational ethnic interest of the nation.
Naturally this has certain specific implications for immigration policy. To the extent there is any immigration (from abroad, or in the future from non-grandfathered Empire citizens), I think explicit ethnic preferences would be acceptable. We'd want to avoid what befell the USA.
But even then, I wouldn't use the term "ethnostate."

Ethnic consciousness in a nation-state used to be normative. In most of the world it still is.

Deracinated globalism is the aberration, so /they/ should be the ones coming up with neologisms to describe their weird ideology.
I guess a reasonable formulation would be "civic nationalism within the borders, ethnic nationalism at the borders."

Far from being opposed, I think those two policies are complementary in many ways.
Q. Would the Homeland just be “Republicans: The Country.”

No, the purpose of having a nation is not to preserve the political platform of some particular party or ideology that exists at some particular time. That would be a very frivolous reason to seek self-determination…
Ofc, the battle lines of America’s existential conflict being where they are, I expect the politics of the Homeland would end up resembling Republican/conservative politics more than Democratic/liberal politics in some ways…
E.g., all things being equal, I’d expect the national and state governments of the Homeland to have lower taxes and fewer government services than the national and state governments of the empire.

Having said that…
I actually think that politics in both the Homeland and the Empire would become more substantive, responsive, and intellectually diverse than they are in the USA right now.

As I’ve said before, a lot of America’s political dysfunction arises from the fact that policy debates…
…are wound up with the deep crisis of identity burning at the core of the USA.
Everything becomes tribalized, because it’s impossible to decouple questions of “what” from questions of “who/whom.”
On pretty much every issue, we just shout at each other, because on some level we understand that the exoteric content of this or that policy debate isn’t what our political disputes are /really/ about.
Thus, by resolving (or mostly resolving, anyway) the existential, identitarian conflicts of the USA, national divorce would allow for a more robust and substantive discourse, precisely because the whole system would be by, for, and of our own nation, as we understand the term…
Naturally, the Homeland would have its own multiparty elections (as would the Empire). The Republicans might continue as a party in the Homeland, but we would also have the opportunity to create something that is no longer possible in the USA: a patriotic left!
Say you’re an Amerikaner who is a union/labor voter. Or you want to preserve public lands. Or maybe the GOP has been in power in the Homeland for a couple election cycles and they’re just not doing a very good job anymore…
Wouldn’t it be nice to vote for a progressive/liberal party that doesn’t come with a generous side helping of “Die Whitey”?

In the Homeland, you could.

Same goes for the Empire, too. Their politics would also improve…
Say you’re an affluent suburban liberal near Boston. You don’t like full-scale socialism or BLM rioters burning stuff down, but you can’t exactly vote for the Orange Man party, can you?
Presumably in the Empire’s own multiparty system, there would be some kind of Davos-y managerial technocrat party that opposes the hard left without transgressing any of your SWPL rainbow flag shibboleths.

So again, national divorce creates new spaces in political discourse.
One of the things I like about the dissident right is the intellectual diversity.

I think a lot of you guys would have reservations about some kind of epistemically stunted party-line rule in a Homeland.

I can honestly say that I wouldn’t expect a Homeland to end up like that.
Q. Why would US empire-loyalists let us get away with any of this?

A. Many will oppose it, ofc. And some of that opposition will be fanatical.

But my own feeling is, you don’t really know the answer until you actually ask a question. I’d like to jolt normies into thinking &…
…talking about this stuff, especially “BoomerCon” types who are still struggling to come to grips with the extent to which the USA has changed since their childhood.

Second, the liberation here is mutual. There are lots of progs who believe their own propaganda about how…
America is one Drumpf speech away from Cossack hordes galloping down Broadway.

You know these people. “The Supreme Court is a Christian theocracy. The Senate and Electoral College are systemically racist,” etc

Sell idealistic leftists on the nation /they/ can create, free of us
Finally, there is value in putting people on the spot and making them say, “No, you can’t rule yourself. You’re a savage.”

The state (any state) would /much/ rather hold things together with soft power than with hard power…
By “soft power” I mean narrative tropes promulgated upstream in the culture, establishment mythmaking, nostalgic appeals to a long-gone past, etc

In extremis, the state can always use naked force, but if things reach that point the writing’s on the wall for it already, you know?
If the ruling class lacks the consent of the governed—and I don’t just mean with respect to the outcome of some election or other, but rather a widespread feeling that the elite has lost legitimacy—then in some ways we’ve already won.
Alright, let’s talk about the actual map now.

Q. Is this map your ideal map?
A. No. My ideal map would look exactly like the map of the United States of America, but for that to be viable we would need a time machine allowing us to travel back at least several decades in order to install a better ruling class.

Alas, I can’t time-travel.
Anyway, I suppose I could gerrymander the map much more extensively. For example, I could draw a map that gives us pretty much all the national parks.

But I’m not trying to pull a fast 1 here. I’m trying to create a map with some resemblance to a realistic negotiated settlement.
Why are you using county borders?

Counties are the default unit of local government in pretty much every state, but tbh the major reason is that I’m making a map in MS Paint, not with some fancy GIS or vector-drawing software…
If there were an actual national divorce process, there would have to be an intermediate, non-binding national vote that would give the bilateral negotiators very granular data about who wants to join which nation…
You could then make extremely fine neighborhood- or precinct-level distinctions.

Even on a larger scale, there may be some cases where county borders would be less preferable than watersheds, National Forests, Indian Reservations, etc.
But I think this map is good enough for Twitter dot com. You can use your imagination to smooth it out a bit if you want.
(Indeed, I did already break up two large Western counties. One is Coconino in AZ, bc I think the Grand Canyon is the obvious natural border there. The other is Davis in TX, so we can keep the Davis Mts with
out creating a small discontinuity at the Rio Grande.)
Q. Why are there some indentations, enclaves, exclaves, etc on the map? Isn’t it better to have compact, contiguous territories?

A. In general, yes. To that end, I’ve tries to minimize discontinuities in each nation’s territory. I don’t think it would be practical to have…
a chaotic map resembling medieval Germany or something like that.

Having said that, as I previously mentioned, there wouldn’t be any hard barriers on the border, so geographic continuity isn’t strictly necessary…
In order for peaceful national divorce to be feasible at all, there would have to be cooperation and good faith.

There isn’t going to be a civil war. There isn’t going to be some kind of economic blockade like Stalin tried in Berlin. So some enclaves/exclaves are okay.
To be philosophical about it, one of the reasons for national divorce is so that we can be friends who respect each other’s differences rather than domestic enemies forever trying to convert each other to the One True Civic Religion.

We’re trying to be friends here.
So the Imperial enclave in metro Minneapolis isn’t going to be bombed by flyover America lol. Bostonians aren’t going to besiege the little Amerikaner statelet in the far north of New England.

This isn’t some tabletop strategy game.
Anyway, if relations between the tribes of the US ever /do/ degenerate that much (God forbid), then nothing we say here about rules and protocols will matter much, will it?

In that kind of environment, reality is dictated by the best-armed psychopath. I’d be hors de combat.
Before I move on to the next question, one of the reasons I’ve made the map the way I have is to make moving as painless as possible by giving both nations territory in every major region of the country…
Again, you wouldn’t even have to move if you don’t want to. You could stay where you are and live pretty much exactly as you do already, if you want. But if you want to move to your nation (or encourage your kids to), you won’t have to go far.
Q. Why doesn’t the map completely correspond to the R/D political split?

A. First, as mentioned above, there are considerations of territorial compactness and continuity. You can’t take every R or D county and color it just so.

Second, as I also mentioned previously…
the purpose of a Homeland is to preserve Americans, not the Republican Party.

E.g., there are lots of small town Dems still in the Upper Midwest, but I’ve incorporated those counties into the Homeland because they’re our people.
I assume the reason is some combination of Iron Range labor politics and Nordic affinity for social democracy. But that’s okay. Neither of those things are existential problems. Sorting those questions out is what democracy is for.
Finally, there are some strategic considerations. Again, I don’t mean strategic in a hardball military sense, but still…

For example, I think we should have at least some Pacific coastline in the lower 48, which means we’ll need a bit of northern CA and/or southern OR…
Del Norte County in CA is Republican (which matters insofar as it’s a proxy for American ethnic identity among whites). But Crescent City doesn’t have a good natural harbor. So I’ve incorporated Humboldt County (Eureka) even though it’s Democratic.
Contrariwise, there are some “orphaned” GOP counties in various parts of the country. There’s going to have to be /some/ give and take like this.
If you don’t know, I live—and have lived my entire life so far—in the Empire.

When I say, “you might eventually want to encourage your kids to move to the Homeland,” I’m not placing a burden on anyone else that I wouldn’t have on myself.

I could see myself living in the Chicago
area for a long time. I’d be disenfranchised, but I already am, basically. It’s not like Illinois’ senators represent “my” America.

Or maybe I’d move. Or if/when I have kids, I’d tell them to move. No great pressure, lot of options.

Important thing is to have a home in long run
Q. So I’ve noticed you’ve left a /lot/ of the South in the hands of the Empire. What’s the deal with that?

A. I like the South. I like Southerners—white, black, or otherwise. I wish them well. But I think we’ll have to leave a big chunk of the South on the table…
I’ve incorporated a lot of Florida, because Florida is sui generis, and because we deserve our place in the sun too, as it were.

Likewise Appalachia and much of the “upland” parts of the coastal Southern states. That’s part of the Homeland too.
But the Deep South—including much of the Tidewater region, the Cotton Belt, and the American Bottomlands (basically the extended Mississippi Delta)—is ground zero for the tragedy of large-scale American race relations. There’s no getting around it.
I don’t know what is to be done, either in a practical sense or a moral sense, about large-scale diversity. I think it’s fair to say it has led to a lot of dysfunction and pain, here and elsewhere, for centuries.

All you can do is avoid importing it where it doesn’t yet exist.
The sad thing is that blacks could, in principle, think of themselves as old-stock Americans. They’re certainly entitled to do so, afaic

And yet they don’t. That died w Barbara Jordan. They’re “PoC” now. That’s the decision they made (or that the prog elite made on their behalf)
“We might have been a great and free people together” is what Jefferson said about the British. That’s how I feel about 20th-century American race relations. But what’s done is done…
Second, it’s hard to overstate the role of the South in the mythology of the American Empire and in the country’s civic religion (as it’s understood by progs)…
You or I might think of the Civil War as a tragedy. I mean, 600,000 Americans died, which seems pretty depressing to me

But for Empire loyalists, it’s a /sacrament/, a glorious hecatomb offered in expiation for America’s Original Sin…
American progressives absolutely need the Deep South, in the way that GI Joe is nothing without Cobra. It’s not just a question of politics. It gets to the heart of their sense of self, of their very cosmology.
I said once—and I wasn’t exaggerating much—that all of American liberalism is a “To Kill A Mockingbird” LARP, with the prog in the starring role as Atticus Finch.
What matters is the dualistic eternal struggle between the high-SES Goodwhite and the icky low-SES Badwhite. Any minority/outgroup can be the “sacred object” being fought over, since it’s not actually about the minorities. But Southern blacks are the ur-prototype here.
So fine, whatever. If it means that much to them, let them have the Deep South. We don’t need all that historical baggage. We’re better off without it.

I’d also add that the Southern Republican business/political class is deeply unreliable…
Remember, these are the principled geniuses who were content to help globalists turn Georgia into a “New South” blue state as long as they could get moar cheap labor, more consumers, more subdivisions, etc.
So I confess that part of my motivation is giving these useless good old boys in places like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Houston enough rope with which to hang themselves.
What will become of them? Idc. Honesty lots of them will probably make peace with their baizuo peers, as long as their material interests are secured (which baizuo are also good at). Maybe they’ll be allowed some pro forma flag-waving and bible-thumping as a controlled opposition
And honestly, it’s not just the corrupt elites. There are a lot of BoomerCon true-believers who think that the very vocation of American conservatism is to sell minorities on how magical the text of the constitution is, or how great capital gains cuts are…
Well, good luck to them. BoomerCons are good people. They mean well.

But if they ever give up on their mission of proselytize the Red Tribe version of American Civic Religion, we’ll leave the light on for them in the Homeland.

Until then, let them tilt at windmills in the South
Finally, and this is a very important point, the ultimate political security of a Homeland relies on GRADUAL, SUSTAINED SELF-SELECTION OVER TIME.

We want based Southrons to move to the Homeland, and we want Empire loyalists (baizuo and/or unassimilated minorities) to leave.
Q. Isn’t that kind of cynical? You want to create refugees to bolster the Homeland?

A. No, this isn’t the Indo-Pak partition. Nobody is fleeing for his life. No coercion, no threats. Nobody has to go anywhere, especially in the short run.
I think that in the long run it would be in the interests of Southern conservatives, if they want a secure birthright for their kids, to accept a consolidated territory that is more demographically & morally defensible

The alternative to half a loaf is no loaf, on present course
Q. I’ve noticed that the Homeland gets more physical territory than the Empire. Is that fair?

A. Yes, we get more territory because the sparsely populated, open parts of the country tend to be populated by our guys. The Empire gets most of the big cities…
Arguably, we’re the ones getting the short end of the stick. The value of physical infrastructure, physical & financial capital, labor pools, networks of knowledge/skills, economies of scale, etc in the big bughives is immense. It’s worth a LOT…
Personally, I think it’s worth losing that. Look at Hiroshima today. It was nuked and it’s a first-world city again, because the real asset of Japan is the Japanese.

We don’t quite have that average IQ, but I think we’ll be okay…
But anyway, my point is that it’s completely fair for us to keep more of the the amber waves and purple mountains than they do, since the value of what /they/ get to keep is immense in its own way.
Alright, I think that’s it for now.

That was my FAQ thread on this particular scenario for national divorce. Obviously it’s not the only scenario, and this isn’t the only map.

But it sets up my poll question I’ll be asking later!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Blair Nathan

Blair Nathan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Blair_A_Nathan

12 Oct
Did you know there’s a Montevideo, MN? It’s a county seat in the western part of the state.

It’s had a relationship with Montevideo, Uruguay since 1905. There’s a statue of Jose Artigas, one of Uruguay’s founding fathers, in the middle of town.

I’ve never been there. I just learned about this. I’d kinda like to visit now.

I love what Derb called “the old, weird America.”

I guess this is also an example of what Sailer called “diversity before Diversity.”
It’s also an example of something else I was just talking about the other day: people and places that are “our America” without (historically) being “red state America.”

Sometimes we conflate the two as a matter of convenience, but ofc those two things don’t perfectly overlap.
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct
Is there anything more 21st Century America than the “hate hoax”?
And this specimen is so perfect. You have a reference to the Klan, which hasn’t existed in any serious form for decades, and Nazism, which became pretty much immediately defunct in 1945 for all intents and purposes.
But as Sailer said, this stuff is the KKKrazy Glue that holds the awkward prog coalition together.

Plus, I think progs have a great psychic need to believe that they’re “fighting The Man.” So they imagine America is run by Judge Smails-es directing Brownshirt goons or something.
Read 4 tweets
17 Jun
Conservatives long ago allowed property rights and freedom of association to be sacrificed in the name of civil rights.

Barry Goldwater was right about this. This is the result.
If you want unprincipled exceptions to be made to rules made by your enemies, but you have no desire to contest those rules themselves, you just might be Conservatism Inc.
Also that top comment lol.
Read 4 tweets
21 May
Apparently Kaliningrad is a pretty nice place. Russians seem to think so, at any rate; the population has gone up quite a bit during this century.
It’s a very odd place, historically speaking.

There are lots of examples of small-scale societies being displaced by expanding powers (such as the US, among others).

But there aren’t many examples of a great power being permanently expelled from its own historic territory.
From both a moral and political perspective, it’s hard to imagine such a thing happening in the absence of a great cataclysm like WW2.

But the Germans asked for total war, and I guess they got it.
Read 7 tweets
16 May
With the summer patriotic holiday season coming up, I want to repeat a recommendation I’ve offered: if you’re going to fly the flag, fly something other than the fifty-star flag...
Libs gonna lib, and leftists gonna left, but I’d say our biggest and most immediate problem is conservative normie Stockholm Syndrome.

The US empire has become incorrigibly hostile to their interests and identity, but they’re still its most reflexive defenders...
Part of the problem is a lack of the rhetorical and symbolic means to differentiate the American nation, as an ethno-historic political community, from the American empire, as a global economic and ideological system...
Read 5 tweets
3 Apr
I don’t want to be all “year zero,” but if we hypothetically had the chance to revise society from the ground up, I think we’d have to take a very critical look at sports. Pro sports, college sports, whatever. All of it has gotten way out of hand.
It’s an opiate, a racket, a bureaucracy, a vector for the state ideology. It seems to both represent and exacerbate so much of what’s wrong with the US.

It’s no accident that sports journalists and sports “PR spivs” (as @KMGVictoria would say) are often the worst of the bugmen.
You could say it’s been over-scaled bread and circuses for a long time, but now in the BLM era the colossus also evinces the ultimate character of state propaganda, and realizes the ultimate goal of same—humiliation. Abject humiliation.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!