2,600 words
F. H. Buckley just doesn’t get it. He has good instincts and intentions. He’s sniffing around in all the right places. He uses his training in statistics and social science to good effect. (And he’s warm, I’ll give him that.) With all his effort, he could probably discern the exact dimensions of the 500-pound-gorilla-shaped space that’s somehow being occupied in the middle of the room.
But to actually call it a 500-pound gorilla? Never.
In 2020 Buckley wrote a book entitled American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. In it he expounds upon the reasons why secession is stirring like a bitch’s brew in the melting pot of modern-day America — and why good, proper-thinking Americans should be concerned about it. Fortunately, he offers possible solutions based on the recent history of his home country of Canada, and expresses hope that the United States will remain indivisible, as it says in the Pledge of Allegiance.
While he’s spot on that the levels of contempt in the chasm between political factions in today’s America has not been seen since the Civil War, his approach is so clinical and timid that he cites the natural shortcomings of a free and prosperous society as the reasons for this contempt. He’s uninterested in the deeper reasons for secession (even to refute them), and prefers instead to stick to the topics he’s allowed to talk about — namely, economics, history, and government — and all from a scrupulously right-of-center libertarian perspective. He completely ignores racial realities and the Left’s genocidal intentions. This makes American Secession, as it was intended by the author, little more than a bland defense of civic nationalism.
What is interesting about the book, however, is Buckley’s lack of confidence in civic nationalism. For him, secession really is looming, with good odds of it happening in the near future, and civic nationalism is breathing its last gasp. He presents his unionist strategies as Hail Mary passes than as shoe-in solutions. Despite his being a speechwriter for candidate Trump in 2016, there is little that is triumphalist about American Secession. So while Buckley remains blind to the race-realism gorilla in the room, he deserves props for at least having a sense of urgency about the problem, and thus dissidents should at least hear what he has to say. With his erudition and clear writing style, the blind sow does have a knack for coming up with the occasional acorn.
Included among these acorns is a nice survey of secessionist movements across the globe, past and present; Buckley’s convincing rehabilitation of President James Buchanan; a fascinating treatise on the political philosophies of David Hume, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (which covers Hume’s nasty spat with Rousseau); solid exposition on the US Constitution and its history (including the struggle between James Madison and Roger Sherman over the size of the fledgling republic’s government); and some good research on the Founding Father’s opinions regarding secession.
Buckley also introduces his readership to Don Livingston of the Abbeville Institute. Livingston is the tall, well-spoken Southern scholar who tirelessly defends the antebellum South on the Internet, and who is also a partisan and secessionist. Buckley, thankfully, takes him seriously and treats him with the respect he deserves. If a reader is interested in any of this, American Secession is certainly worth a look.
What is best is Buckley’s clear understanding that the lunacy of the Left is doing more to encourage secession than anything else:
We thought it couldn’t get any crazier, but the political divide and the breakdown in trust became even deeper after [Brett] Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in 1992, we were permitted to disagree about who was telling the truth. No longer. On the left, fury has been weaponized and moral outrage has supplanted political debate. Hillary Clinton told her supporters, “You cannot be civil,” while Eric Holder, the former attorney general, chided Michelle Obama’s niceness: “Michelle always says, ‘when they go low, we go high.’ No. No. When they go low, we kick them.” We’ve hit rock bottom, with no clear path up.
So far, so good. But instead of examining the source of the Left’s fury, Buckley outlines all his purported reasons for secession that the Left doesn’t care about, as if they are somehow related.
All of these reasons relate to the fact that America is too big. People are naturally happier in smaller countries, according to Montesquieu and the 2018 United Nations World Happiness Report. Therefore, most folks will eventually uproot their families, stuff their belongings into a U-Haul, and ride off into the unknown (to say nothing of risking a second civil war) over statistics and the political arguments of long-dead philosophers. (Hume disagreed with Montesquieu, by the way.)
Here is Buckley’s happiness data:
TABLE 5.1 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING RANKINGS: HAPPIEST COUNTRIES
Buckley then scratches his head over why the Finns are “so darned happy.” It can’t be the weather. It can’t be living so close to Russia. Maybe it’s all that cross-country skiing, or their national sport of pesäpallo, or their cuisine, which he informs us “is heavy on buttermilk, lingonberries, and turnips.” Buckley does offhandedly mention that a larger population in Finland would be more diverse and less unified, and therefore less happy. But he doesn’t expound on this, preferring to stick with his less-is-more viewpoint. He doesn’t spot on this chart what anyone on the Dissident Right would discern in an instant: that the top ten happiest countries just might be the happiest due to their high proportion of whites and low proportion of blacks.
I’m quoting Buckley at length here because his tone-deafness is truly astonishing:
If we’re going to make sense of the happiness data, then, we’ll need to take account of much more than population size. Geographic size counts too, which we’ll pick up by looking at population density (number of people divided by square mile). We’ll also want to take regional differences into account. Many of the least happy countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, so we’ll separate that region out. Similarly, Latin American countries have tended to be politically unstable and often have ruinous economic policies, so we’ll break out that region too. The happiest countries are the most economically advanced — the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) — so we’ll want to consider them separately.
Ethnolinguistic differences can be a source of tension and even conflict in a country, and so we’ll make this a variable. A high level of economic inequality can also be a cause of conflict and of unhappiness. Finally, countries suffering under armed conflict — like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan — are naturally going to have a lot of unhappy people in them, so we have to take account of such conflicts in the period we’re examining.
Here is his next chart:
TABLE 5.2 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING RANKINGS (OVER 200 MILLION PEOPLE)
Note how the happiest large nation in the world by a good margin, the United States, is the only large nation in the world with a white majority. Charts like this one and the one previous scream race realism, but F. H. Buckley, milquetoast that he is, refuses to see it.
Another reason for secession in Buckley’s mind is corruption. Buckley argues not so much that corruption factors into public attitudes on secession, but that corruption is proportional to a nation’s size. In this way Buckley stays in his wheelhouse, and like much of American Secession it is interesting and persuasive — merely beside the point for people who are serious about secession. Yes, special interest groups and their lobbying firms practice legalized bribery when financing campaigns. Yes, “minoritarian misbehavior” is a form of tyranny when influential and cohesive minorities conspire to control elected politicians. Yes, “parasitical Wall Street speculators” are at odds with honest “wealth creators on Main Street.” And yes, legalized corruption, such as various pay-for-play schemes, remains a big problem. All this is no doubt an argument for keeping nations and governments as small as possible. But to say people would be willing to secede over this kind of corruption, as Buckley does, is much more of a stretch.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
I’m sure the United States government in 1960 was plenty corrupt, but were race-realist white identitarians, like those in the John Birch Society, actually calling for secession over it back then? Wouldn’t it simply be easier to vote out the swamp rats than to go to war over them? Look at the difference 20 years made in the mind of proto-dissident Wilmot Robertson. He decried non-white immigration in 1973’s The Dispossessed Majority, but still held out hope that “Pax Americana” could occur after an attitude adjustment among whites. In 1993’s The Ethnostate, however, Robertson called for what is effectively secession after accepting the fact that non-white immigration was here to stay.
Buckley is not this perspicacious. He believes secession could be coming, but the reasons he ascribes to it have always been with us. Why is the threat so palpable now, but was less so in 1973, when the United States was still one of the most populous nations in the world?
The answer, at least in America, is race. In a multiracial society, racial groups compete aggressively with each other over the important things: money, power, influence, and space. Gaining advantage in such struggles is more important than truth, honesty, or fairness, and the results will necessarily highlight the average differences between the races. This is a perfectly natural, if regrettable, state of affairs since these differences can generate a good deal of resentment. At present, a coalition of minority races — and religions, as in the case of Islam — have all but criminalized overt white competition in these struggles in order to weaken whites and strengthen non-whites. They claim that for whites to actively compete as a bloc the way non-whites do would be racist, and would highlight the so-called “white supremacy” of the historic American nation.
Sadly, F. H. Buckley is under such a thrall; he cringes over historic white supremacy, yet doesn’t bat an eye over present non-white supremacy. Such a double standard is normal to him. Observe [emphasis mine]:
During most of its history, America’s admirably liberal set of constitutional rights coexisted with the harshest restrictions on people of the wrong color. Before the Thirteenth Amendment they were slaves, and for a hundred years thereafter they labored under the most severe legal disabilities that a country could inflict upon its citizens. Over that period, America was less than fully free.
“The most severe legal disabilities” huh? Well, that’s a lie — the lie that racial minorities (blacks and Jews, mostly) want white people to believe so they can be more easily bullied in the public square. And how do I know this is a lie? From F. H. Buckley himself, whose next sentence reads:
But it was far freer than the USSR, notwithstanding all the freedoms of speech and the press guaranteed under the Soviet Constitution.
Ah, so the “most severe legal disabilities” are not the most severe, after all. American slavery didn’t place the “harshest restrictions” on people. It was far worse to be an emaciated zek above the Arctic Circle in 1953 than a well-fed Alabama field slave a hundred years earlier.
Buckley’s only explanation for imminent secession besides his anodyne less-is-more theory is bad behavior on the Left:
Sixty-three million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016, nearly half of all voters. For much of the media and the academy, they are the enemy. Those who supported Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court were “complicit in evil,” according to Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). You are either contributing to a wrong or you are fighting against it, he said. Trump is destroying democracy, and his voters need to be held accountable, echoed the Washington Monthly. Hillary was right, said Jennifer Rubin. They really are deplorable, in the end. “Those who after all of that still back him either share his racist beliefs or have an incredibly high tolerance for racism.” After the mass murder in El Paso in August 2019, the vitriol was turned up a notch. Not merely is Trump a white nationalist, but so are all his supporters and we’re not about to forgive and forget them. When that’s how people feel, they’re past talking to each other.
While Buckley makes some good points about the Left’s intolerance and tyranny, he doesn’t seem interested in exploring any of the truth behind it. The reason why many on the Left favored secession during the Trump years was because most of them are either non-white (and inherently anti-white), or are white and brainwashed to be anti-white. Donald Trump’s election, with his anti-immigration and populist platform, was a fairly moderate assertion of white racial interests. The Left — which believes that self-assertive whites are effectively Nazis — found this intolerable, and did everything it could demonize Trump and get him out of the White House.
Further, the reason why many on the Right today wish for secession is because, after 2020’s stolen election, the anti-white Left is now in charge. They censor, they oppress, they incarcerate, they attack. Why live with elites who do this to their own countrymen?
Buckley seems to think that if the Left can simply dial back the hate, we can apply his solution to the America-is-too-big problem and prevent secession from happening. That solution is home rule. Home rule, as found in Quebec, will allow different regions of the United States to be able to choose which aspects of federal control they can nullify. Thus, we will see vastly different ways of life in different parts of the country: gun rights and traditional marriage here, abortion rights and gay marriage there. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues here, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X statues there. You see the point. Further, with access to U-Hauls (a common theme in American Secession), people will eventually sort themselves out, and a more variegated and sectionalized nation will find peace in the long run. Vive le différence!
It’s a nice idea, but it is predicated on the Left listening to reason and learning how to behave. Is that ever going to happen? Has the Left ever done this? Probably not, but don’t tell F. H. Buckley that; it might crush what little optimism he has left:
[i]t would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of disunion. It’s the direction in which we’re headed, and the notion that it couldn’t happen again is fanciful. That’s why we need to ask what might be done to restore the bonds of affection that have been so frayed. Home rule is one answer, but more generally what is needed is moderation from both sides, left and right but especially the left, in their desire to enforce their ideas about the good upon the rest of us. For starters we need a greater tolerance for differences of opinion.
These sentences appear at the end of Buckley’s book, and it strikes me as pathetic that he would conclude his treatise on secession with a crescendo of platitudes. So, we need to be more tolerant, huh? That’s his big idea? If Buckley thinks that he can persuade the Left to be more tolerant, then he doesn’t understand why Leftists are so intolerant to begin with. It’s because the Left is possessed by non-white tribalism, which has values that are inherently and biologically opposed to white European values.
This cannot change except by the ultimate submission of whites, or by the very secession that F. H. Buckley sees coming, but cannot fully explain.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
9 comments
Unfortunately, populist-nationalism is very cyclical. It has almost nothing to do with economics either because the recrudescent tribalism of 2016 should have existed in 2008, which it did not, and should not have existed in 1992, but it did. The public forgets the concept entirely at times, so even the framework of separatism is something that will take a long time in a synthetic country such as America. It has to occur beyond politics. The libertarian project in Keane, New Hampshire would never work en masse, and only created a den of the worst stereotypical libertarians in one location.
The domestic migration patterns occurring now do not cohere to a unified ethno-state because it is scattered across the continent in some of the most diverse places (Arizona, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee) rather than the ideal (Pacific Northwest, Great Plains, Rust Belt, Northwest) and only because of taxes and vaccine requirements.
WNs really need to decouple blood from soil, and then the state from nationalism/corporations because this is not Interwar Germany which was already an autochthonous ethno-state even in its 1920s nadir. So the hard part was already finished and baked into the cake.
Meanwhile, the Founding Fathers had no idea what they were fighting for in 1775. They just knew they were American-born British, and decided to identify as de facto North American ‘Criollos’ during this time because George Washington first wanted to be a general in the British Army, and even the Confederates were all originally in the US Army assisting Manifest Destiny.
The process that started with Trump in 2015 will take several phases. First, moving normie whites away from neoliberalism and towards Old Right protectionism, isolationism and xenophobia with a titular leader. The next phase we are currently in is realizing the futility of liberal democracy itself and shedding the reflexive bootlicking/staffing of American security forces and corporations because of what has transpired the last 2 years.
I have no idea what comes next or if this new disposition will subsist, but I do know that our neo-Cohen overlords knew this day would come, but perhaps not so soon. Bill Kristol wrote extensively about it in the 1990s and how he and his cabal would make Aliyah back to the Democrats the moment a Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, even Rand Paul or Donald Trump won the GOP nomination because this latest realignment was delayed as long as possible for a reason, as they knew they could not maintain this neoliberal bipartisan consensus with all of these placeholders after that. So they channeled that post Cold War Gentile energy into fortifying Greater Israel until the wheels fell off because they knew the wounded American Saxon would awaken with a vengeance.
https://carnegieendowment.org/1996/07/01/toward-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy-pub-276
Interesting take. I hadn’t thought about “decoupling blood from soil” before. You could be right about that. Then again, we still would need some soil, no?
Ask the moneychangers how long they lasted without soil living as constellation of minorities in over 100 countries. How is it possible they preserved their genetics in three different tribes (Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi) for thousands of years after being dispersed, and somehow commandeered dozens of these host states?
They maintained a firewall around their particularity (religion, language and thus genetic divergence, despite splintering into many sects and Hebraic dialects) instead of ever making a suicidal ‘final stand’ like every WN is so ready to do over a piece of dirt, which changes hands every few generations regardless. All while paying homage to the Holy Land and promising to return someday.
Many ethnic Germans have strangely mimicked this group-evolutionary strategy (Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, Lutherans,
Teutonic Crusades etc) from the expanses of the former Soviet Union to North and South America, preserving their unique sect of Christianity and their specific dialect of German, while being mindful of the pitfalls of consanguinity and assimilation. They remedy this by periodic relocation and cross-pollination with other likeminded families in different regions.
So they decoupled nation from nation-state since there was no unified German country, while every other country in Europe (besides Italy) was unified, and promptly emigrated to live as insular minorities abroad. They spent centuries reinforcing their tribes with exceedingly high birthrates, despite the hardship, until the discrimination became untenable (and forced assimilation all but complete) in the aftermath of WWII and more recently in the wake of the crumbling Soviet Union.
Then under the shadow of German reunification, a law was changed, which created a German version of Aliyah originally stipulated in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and specified during WWII (Heim ins Reich: ‘Back home to the Reich’) to unite all Volksdeutsche (‘Germans outside of Germany’) or recall from the Drang nach Osten (‘Drive to the East’).
So despite WWII, about 2.5 million ethnic Germans relocated to Germany in the 1990s from the former Soviet Union despite no longer speaking German or having religion, and were quickly naturalized with notoriously difficult German citizenship as Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler (‘resettlers/late resettlers’).
The same process also took place in Algeria with the 1.5 million Pied-Noirs (‘Blackfoot’ French/Spanish colonists born in North Africa) fearing Arab reprisals had to repatriate back to Metropolitan France as Algeria gained independence.
I could go on and on with more examples of how these different peoples maintained their ethno-linguistic nationalism despite relocating abroad. The Québécois have done this fortuitously, and I believe once Canada is overrun with majority-minority, they could try to repatriate back to mainland France too.
I could also say it works in reverse for our enemies squatting on our ancestral fatherlands. The more unassimilable and numerous they are, such as Turks and Chinese, the likelier they are to maintain an identity without being integrated, and thus ripe for a recall back to their modernizing motherlands, which are now experiencing a demographic crisis of their own titular nations.
In summary, the soil will always be there for requisition or repatriation, but the blood will not without insularity and reinforcement.
I read ‘American Secession’ a while back so I cannot recall if he mentioned Calhoun at all. Probably not. Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun all defended nullification and the ‘states compact’ theory of the Constitution. Calhoun, being the latter of the three and seeing the rising issues resulting from North/South factions in Congress proposed a way forward: Concurrent majorities.
The Right – including the Racial Right – tends to be very willing to chuck the ‘democracy’ baby out with the ‘intracolonizing central state’ bathwater. I don’t support that view because I don’t think selling White racial consciousness and whatever-isn’t-democracy is a viable way to earn political power among White people in the United States. The percentage of Whites with a real enthusiasm for some variation of Church-And-Throne is pretty small.
‘Concurrent majorities’ aims to keep ‘democracy’ intact in important ways while doing away with the obvious hazards of having major political decisions and continental policies decides on a 50%+1 basis. What Calhoun (in essence) proposes is a whole range of ‘democratic’ bodies whose ‘core values’ are not up for contestation by means of voting. The model here is what some ‘conservatives’ are always jabbering on about – civic organizations, ‘little platoons’ – but at all levels of possible organization from the club to the block organization to the neighborhood to the continental industrial labor organization. The idea is that affinity groups can have ‘democracy’ within themselves but that continental-scale policies are not handled ‘democratically’ but by consensus.
The motivation to achieve consensus on continental matters is nullification. Since each party to the continental conversation has its own power-base and it’s own ability to mobilize that power base, these entities cannot be bullied into accepting policies that are not in their – or their members – interests.
‘The Union’ becomes whatever can be achieved by consensus and nothing more. Gone will be the days of a domineering central authority to issues diktats to the periphery and demands obeisance at the point of bayonet or the barrel of a cannon.
But to make this work, we all have to walk away from the sadistic desire to dominate The Other and, instead, build fences and bridges as needed. To cultivate our own fields of truth and culture and stick with our own kind.
Nullification works. Marijuana. Immigration enforcement. Speed limits. Gun laws. These are just a few of the successful nullification movements going on right now.
WIN’s just have to understand that the way forward is sideways.
Nullification, then ethnic enclaves then who knows?
But nullification and home rule will work only when the other side is willing to live and let live. The Left currently is in Carthago Delenda Est mode and won’t do that. Or am I wrong?
Respectfully, you’re right and you’re wrong. You’re right because the Left is driven by the paranoia of the Jews and they have to be given a reason to stop of their interference in the lives of non-Jews. But you’re wrong in the sense that ‘the Left’ is a political monolith that is uniformly going to oppose peaceful separation. I don’t think that’s the case. There’s far more secessionist sentiment among the different political ideologies than there is anti-secessionist. Every poll on the matter seems to affirm that the Jew’s program of ‘divide and exploit the divide’ has worked: The various political-sentimental blocs in the US cannot imagine living together under the same rules or rulers. ‘The Left’ such as it is, is a creature of Jewish power and the Jews can operate under assumption that non-Jews cannot be allowed to control their own communal spaces, but they cannot afford to be forced to openly defend that policy.
Devolution, secession, local rule, ‘community values’ even if achieved via nullification are far more acceptable as a ‘compromise’ than whatever it is the Left thinks it can shove down people’s throats, even people on their side.
Also, from the standpoint of strategy, a secessionist movement does not rely on success in the Hubs (where the Jews and their minions are strong), but depends on natural political sentiments of the people of the Periphery. In order to oppose secession and nullification, the Left would have to come to where we – Whites and other normal decent people – are strong. They are terrified of us and they’d only feel comfortable amassing an army (like BLM etc) to come and attack us. And that would make them look bad.
Also, there’s another reason the non-Jewish Left won’t be inclined to stop the process: They’ve been using it for years to stymie immigration enforcement.
The truth is that the Left is far ahead of the Right in using nullification and secessionist sentiment to get what they want. I’m advocating that our side do the same but for different purposes and as part of a long-term strategy of ‘re-ethnizing’ Lower North America.
There’s a think strata of American society represent the Puritan busy-body do-gooder strain of the American Character.
Most people despise them. But the Jews have found them useful (for the moment) so they’ve been given cultural and political authority far (very far) above their actual support in the populace. WINs can be supportive of something that already has support and piggy-back on the larger and more popular movement to get a great deal of what we want and to set the stage for getting things we might not yet imagine because the contours of the current political-sentimental landscape obscure them.
Nullification is the expression of local rule and local rule is virtual secession and virtual secession comes from the Periphery and the Periphery is mostly White and our enemies have little grass-roots support or power at in the Periphery. Therefore, a pro-White movement supports secessionist sentiments and political action while being mindful to shape that movement in pro-White ways.
Support for secession and nullification is White power advocacy sideways and on the installment plan.
That’s my theory in a nutshell.
But Buckley’s argument is to have home rule and nullification without secession. We are to remain one nation with vastly different rules in different sections. Above it seems you are equating nullification with “virtual secession” but I am not sure what that means.
I agree with you however that WNs should support nullification and home rule efforts as a means to an end. But that end must be secession since no nation can stand with such ideological differences among its people. I can’t see home rule working for more than a short time. Ultimately, legacy America will submit or secede. I don’t see a third option.
My view is that its not our job to solve all the problems that might turn up. Our job is to move the ball down the field so that the next bunch of WINs can make an assessment of their state of affairs and figure out how to secure a future for our people. Don’t try to predict the future. Try to create the conditions for the kind of future you want.
By ‘virtual secession’ what I mean is a state of affairs where power has devolved sufficiently where locales and regions function with significant independence and are able to say ‘No’ to any policies or institutions they don’t want and to make their ‘No’ stick.
That is my interpretation of Calhoun. He thought – and I agree – that different ‘layers’ of society had their own ‘democratic’ power base, that the conditions of ‘popular sovereignty’ would be met without the concomitant problems of 50%+1-winner-takes-all. Calhoun saw everything that is going and exactly how we’d get here in the 1860s. He was not only a brilliant thinker and statesman, but he was also the most experienced politician to write on the subject of reforming the American continental order.
As long as you don’t declare your territory to be a sovereign nation, I’m thinking most Whites are going to be comfortable with that. On the other hand, lots of Whites celebrate the ‘national sovereignty’ of Indian tribes, so maybe there’s wiggle-room even there.
I would immediately throw Israel and the United States off of the “18 Happiest Countries” chart. How can Israel be happy if they are surrounded by their worst enemies, and as their self-proclaimed “Chosen People” status, they stand as unhappily, though smugly, superior — in their minds — to the rest of the people on earth.
And the current unhappiness in the U.S. is well-known to all of us.
I’d be thrilled to live in any of the listed European states. Switzerland was glorious in 1971 when I visited, though I understand there is now a presence of rich Arab types. I’d have to check out Costa Rica — too close to the impoverished Latino states near it, and the drug dealers tramping through its hinterlands.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.