Doug Casey: A Major Turning Point

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

L: Doug, a hot topic of conversation this week is the man who flew his airplane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas. What do you make of it? Is the guy a hero for the downtrodden taxpayer? Or a terrorist? Or just some lone lunatic?

Doug: First, I’d say we have to define what terrorism is. The generally accepted definition being that it’s the use of violence to create fear in a society in order to induce political change. I don’t think that’s the case here. So I’d say this was just an angry man, acting as an individual, attacking those he saw as destroying his life. The fact of the matter is that it was an act of revenge, not terror.

But according to the FBI, terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property, meant to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population as a means for achieving political or social goals. It’s to their advantage to see this as an act of domestic terrorism. It makes their jobs seem important and will result in more personnel to fill their gigantic new Homeland Security complex in DC, and more funding to look into Americans’ comings, goings, and thoughts.

L: Heh – so if it’s lawful use of force to intimidate the population, it’s not terrorism.

Doug: Of course; that’s a key word, completely unnecessary to the real definition of the word, and one that opens a real Pandora’s Box. From Big Brother’s point of view, it’s always “do as we say, not as we do.” Based on the FBI definition, state terrorism apparently isn’t terrorism, because it’s lawful.

L: Okay, so, given that the explanation the guy left behind goes beyond simply saying “I’ve had enough” to stating that violence is now the only solution, and calling for revolution, I guess that makes him a terrorist, by the FBI’s definition.

Doug: Well, I suppose. His call to violence seemed like an afterthought to me. In reality he’s just calling for the righting of egregious wrongs. However, it’s getting to the point in the U.S. that you have to be careful about even complaining, or you might be put on some kind of “watch list.” You actually better be careful about what you say, and how, and to whom. The walls have ears, as the Soviets, among others, used to say.

The media has downplayed his letter as a “rant” or a “screed” penned by a lunatic, partially to be self-righteous and partially to discourage others from reading it and thinking about it. But it’s actually worth reading and thinking about. It’s not that often you get to read a suicide note written by what appeared to be quite an intelligent guy. His letter is a little disjointed, agitated, and a bit ungrammatical at times – after all, it is a suicide note – but it’s not at all irrational. And I suspect he put his finger on what is probably going on in the minds of a fair percentage of the population.

You know the old saw people once used, but don’t anymore, as it’s become politically incorrect? Three guys are doing the same thing, and one says, “I’m a freedom fighter. You’re a rebel. He’s a terrorist.’” So, bandying these terms around makes conversation difficult. The FBI’s definition is self-serving and, in this case, serves – perhaps not accidentally – to obscure the truth of the matter.

L: It was always darkly humorous to me that in the Reagan years, the same people the lawfully constituted government of Nicaragua called rebel guerillas, the U.S. called freedom fighters – and yet the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein put down rebellion when he was an ally. Not that I cared for the socialist government of Nicaragua. The point is that if “we” like them, their opponents are terrorists, and if “we” don’t like them, their opponents are freedom fighters. It’s so hypocritical.

Doug: It’s perverse enough to be black comedy. I think this needs to be looked at from a personal point of view. Here was a man who was apparently just going about his business. He quite justifiably resented the government taking forty-plus percent of everything he produced. And worse than that, they were making it hard for him even to produce. They made his life miserable. He spent much of his time and money trying to fight within the system and got nowhere. Perhaps that was foolish of him, perhaps he should have just rolled over on his back and wet himself… just done what he was told and paid what he was told to. It’s the New American Way.

On a moral plane, I think it’s important to remember that groups of people can have no rights that the individuals who compose the group don’t have. In other words, if an individual does not have a right to do something himself, then neither can he delegate that right to a politician, policeman, nor some other authority. If it’s not his to give, he can’t give it.

If I don’t have the right to take money by force from my neighbor, I don’t gain that right by teaming up with others. A bunch of people voting for it doesn’t make it any more right. Suppose, for instance, a neighborhood voted to hire a motorcycle gang to defend it and “authorized” that gang to levy taxes by force, including on residents who didn’t want to go along with the plan. Most people would say that’s wrong. But somehow, if the government does exactly the same thing, people see it as okay.

There’s no difference in this instance, morally, between the motorcycle gang and the government. Of course, this calls to question the legitimacy of the state itself, as an institution.

L: Indeed. And I’d like to talk to you about your anarchist tendencies, but that’s a long topic, perhaps for another day.

Doug: Okay, but one other thing I’d like to point out about this incident. It’s a clear sign of the direction in which warfare is going – we talked about this very sort of thing in our conversation on the military. Warfare is becoming what you might call “open source.” You no longer have to get an army together, teach them how to spit-shine boots, and attack another army. We’re approaching the end of direct conflict between standing armies. This trend has its roots at least as far back as the American Revolution, during which the British were outraged that the Americans wouldn’t stand and fight. They’d take potshots from behind trees and then run. They even shot officers – officers! – from hidden positions. Most ungentlemanly.

Today fighters no longer need the aegis of a government. Instead, they organize loosely, for ideological or other reasons, and strive to sting with maximum effect, while presenting the smallest, least useful target for retaliation. They realize that with $100 they can cause a million dollars of damage. Wars are won on economics, in the long run. It is, for instance, quite stupid of the U.S. government to think that it can quash Al Qaida or the Taliban the way the Spanish took over the Aztec and Inca empires – by grabbing the guys at the top. There is no head to strike off.

To head off flaring tempers and angry letters, let me make it very clear I am not defending these groups. I’m very much opposed to them. If either the Taliban or Al Qaida came to power where I live, no doubt I’d be among the first they’d want in front of the firing squad.

But quashing individuals in such loosely organized groups, no matter how important they might be, doesn’t quash the reasons why such groups exist. It’s like whacking a hornet’s nest. Once you whack one, you don’t have just one hornet’s nest to deal with – now you have hundreds of completely unrelated hornets to deal with, all attacking you, because each sees you as his enemy.