Doug Casey on the 4th of July

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)  

Editor’s Note: This conversation was recorded on July 2^nd and refers to the 4^th in the future tense. This is not a material point, so we’ve left it as is.

L: Hola, Doug. You know I’m not the angry type: I don’t tend to walk around with a chip on my shoulder. Still, I find myself irritated around this time of year, as person after person wishes me a happy “4^th of July” – as though the passage of the fourth day of this or any month had any significance whatsoever. It’s Independence Day. Successful rebellion against tyranny is what all the fireworks are about, not just some random long weekend that gives people more time to drink beer and distract themselves from maxed-out credit cards with fireworks. What do you make of this annual showcase of doublethink?

Doug: I totally agree with you. One particular irony is that real fireworks are basically illegal these days. We are supposed to be celebrating the fact that individual farmers, coopers, and carpenters had the firepower to throw off their government – in a society that now disallows the average individual to own more than sparklers.

L: Well, there are loopholes. I buy my fireworks on an Indian reservation. Mostly high-lofting mortars, the biggest I can get. I’ve got a half-kilo “cake” type firework here.

Doug: Really? That’s great! I wonder if you could hit anything with those mortars… When I was a kid, we’d make real mortars by dropping a big firecracker down a pipe planted in the ground, and then dropping a marble with another big firecracker glued to it down the pipe. Primitive, and a bit risky, but fun practical science for any grade-school kid.

L: Hm. I’m not sure I could hit anything if I tried. These are pretty hefty for civilian use; the launch tubes are not the usual cardboard, but some sort of tough resin polymer, and the mortar rounds weigh between five and six ounces. But there are no fins on the rounds, and the launch tubes are not rifled, so I doubt they’d be very accurate. In my younger days, I might have done some tests to see what I could blow up with one, but my little ones get such a kick out of seeing them go off in the sky, that’s where they’ve all gone.

But I take your point. It is ironic that I have to find a scrap of land populated by the descendants of the people who lived here first to buy supplies – all made in China – to celebrate the imaginary freedom of the descendants of those who crushed them and took their land.

Doug: The sad history of American Indians is a topic we can get into another time. It’s the imaginary freedom you mention that I’d like people to think about now, as they decide whether to celebrate “Independence Day,” or the “4^th of July.”

L: What percentage of U.S. citizens even think about the meaning of Independence Day on the fourth of July?

Doug: Whatever it is, I would say it’s smaller than the percentage of so-called Americans who’ve actually read the Declaration of Independence.

L: That’s not many.

Doug: The correct statistical term is “teeny-weeny.” And sadly, in a country where you can’t even light a sparkler 364 days a year without the neighbors calling a SWAT team in on you, the chances of the people rising up as commemorated on July 4 are… trivial to nonexistent. It’s a pity how the political class can lord it over the serfs, because the serfs are still well fed.

L: Setting us up for a long “history of repeated injuries and usurpations.”

Doug: That is, after all, what the state does for a living – including the one in the U.S. We should talk about that. There are a number of points in the original “Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” [Ed. note: capitalization, including “united,” as in original] that are worth thinking about today. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing to all our readers, and all people around the world – it takes no more than ten minutes. Despite the fact that everyone has heard of the Declaration, and despite the fact that it contains very important ideas, almost nobody has actually read it – including the pompous talking heads who pontificate in the media about “America’s birthday.” Regrettably, America has largely ceased to exist, having been replaced by the United States.

L: Or the United State. I’m with you on this one: The Declaration of Independence is a good read, and many, if not most of Jefferson’s grievances against old King George are just as applicable to the U.S. government today. Let’s talk specifics.

Doug: Specifics are critical, as is precision in defining words and ideas; it’s part of what differentiates intelligent discourse from a rant. Let me start off by saying that the Declaration adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is not perfect. Right off the bat, the Declaration says: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another …” But the American states were not one people – anything but. Different religions, different languages, different traditions, different customs – and that’s just among the European inhabitants.

When the American Revolution started, it was in many ways a civil war as well. As it turns out, only about a third of the European population of the colonies actually wanted to sever their connection to the crown of England. It was rather bold for the men who assembled themselves in congress to presume to speak for “the people” and set them on such a dangerous and costly course – that of war. It was a huge arrogance, and an object lesson exploding the myth that the so-called representatives of the people actually represent the will of the people. A lot of black slaves, and even Indians, enlisted with the British against the Americans.

L: I’ve read that too. And many of the loyal British subjects who did not want to partake of rebellion found themselves surrounded by enemies and eventually on foreign soil in their own homes. A good bunch of them ended up moving to what became Toronto, and the Queen of England is still nominally the Canadian head of state.

Doug: That likely wouldn’t be the case if Benedict Arnold had succeeded at the first U.S. invasion of Canada, in 1775. But British sympathizers had to leave under very… unpleasant circumstances, not the least of which being leaving their property behind. It could have worked out worse for them, of course – look what happened a few years later with the French revolution. Maybe we should talk about that, come quatorze juillet. But the point is that the Declaration was not quite as unanimous as many would like to believe. I say that in the interest of intellectual honesty, even though I’m a big fan of the sentiments in the Declaration.

L: Fair enough. I also think it’s important because people who speak of “unifying” the country today – who imagine they can get everyone working together under some brave new banner – are dreaming. It’s just as crazy a dream as the Soviets had, when they imagined their next five-year plan would unite all the workers to pull unanimously in one direction.

Doug: I’m congenitally suspicious of anybody who wants to “unite” people. Most often they’re collectivists who want everybody to follow the party line, become lemmings, and drink the Kool-Aid. Horrible busybodies.

Anyway, the next famous line I think is particularly worth looking at is that of the unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I note that in the Individual Declaration of Independence you wrote in 1996, you amended it to: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property and Happiness.” We should link to your Declaration, so people can see what I’m talking about. I wish the original had the same emphasis on property you put in.

L: Well, I should explain that I declared independence from the U.S. approximately 15 years ago because I’d had enough of the long history of abuses and usurpations of the day – particularly the Waco massacre. As you note in your first point, I didn’t think my fellow Americans would unite as one people to oppose murder and mayhem paid for with tax money extracted from us by force. I also did not – and do not – believe it was necessary for me to wait for or have anyone else’s approval. I did not apply for citizenship elsewhere. So, in my view, I am not a U.S. citizen; I am a sovereign individual.

This may seem rather fantastic, in the literal sense of the word, to most people. I’m aware that the U.S. government never replied to nor acknowledged the Declaration I published – with the same sincerity and perhaps more honesty than the Continental Congress published its Declaration. Uncle Sam still considers me a tax slave, along with the rest of the herd. But to me it was more than symbolic: It cleared any mental clutter that might have prevented me from my pursuit of Life, Liberty, Property, and Happiness… It opened the door for me to become an International Man.

Doug: I congratulate you on being ahead of the curve on that… Although I suspect that if you sent it to them today – now that the ridiculous Forever War on Terror has been declared and the Department of Homeland Security established – you might have to deal with a dawn raid on your house. The Declaration of Independence has become a piece of subversive and seditious literature, and those who take it seriously… should be careful. 

L: Thanks, but now back to your point. It is my understanding that Jefferson actually did originally write “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Property.” But, as you say, there was not unanimity on the idea of declaring independence, and the declaration was amended a lot before it eventually passed. For some reason that escapes me at the moment, the pursuit of property was changed to the pursuit of happiness. I also understand that Jefferson had originally included language that would have freed the slaves, but that was struck to the gain the votes of the southern states, and that Jefferson predicted there would be trouble over the issue within a hundred years – just about the time when the War Between the States erupted.

Doug: I didn’t know that.