|
(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)
L: [Skype rings;
it's Doug.] Howdy, Doug! I guess it's that time – what's on your mind
this week?
Doug: I'm glad to
see you survived the wilds of Lithuania. I'm sorry my canceled flights caused
me to miss the event – it sounds like you had a really good CYCLE.
L: It was a
terrific time, with some very inspiring teachers and really great students.
We had a lot of return customers, actually – no longer in school
– and a good number of them are applying what we've been teaching. One
has become a successful investor; he makes about US$10,000 a month, lives on
only 10% of that, reinvests 40%, and saves 50%. Blew me away. Several others
have started businesses of their own. Some of our veterans told me this was the
best CYCLE yet.
Doug: Fantastic.
Too bad I could only make a video appearance through Skype. I did enjoy it a
great deal the time I went in person; I'll be back. I encourage our readers
who have children, grandchildren, or know of young people who need an instant
education in what's really going on in the world and how they can be
successful to look into sending their students to next year's CYCLE.
L: We haven't
started planning that yet, but folks can send us inquiries through www.profitfromfreedom.com.
Doug: Well,
that's the bright side. On the darker side of things, there's been a spate of
mass shootings and attempted shootings recently, which has all sorts of
people calling for stricter, so-called gun-control laws.
L: I like my
gun control: I'm no great marksman, but I can hit a man-sized target with a
pistol at over 100 yards. I like having the tools to protect my family in
case of need, and the training on how to do it.
Doug:
Unfortunately, a majority in Congress don't see it
that way; their idea of gun control is to disarm citizens. It's inevitable,
I'm afraid. The type of person who gets into politics is naturally a busybody
who thinks he knows what's best for everyone else and is anxious to enforce
his opinions using the state. Historically, one of the main differences
between a slave and a free man has always been that a free man has the right
to own weapons and defend himself. The average person the world over –
absolutely including the US – has devolved into little better than a
slave. He thinks he's free because he has a relatively high standard of
living, but he's not much more than a lapdog who does as he's told. And he
better not even growl, much less try to defend himself, or his masters will
lock him in a cage.
L: Thereby
inviting more massacres by establishing target-rich environments where crazy
people can kill with impunity, knowing it's very unlikely anyone will shoot
back. But that's not new; I'm just waiting for Congress to ban Batman movies,
since the spate started with the movie theater massacre on the opening night
of the new Batman movie. That would seem logical: if guns are to blame for
violence, video games are to blame for violence, movies are to blame for
violence – anyone but the crazy person who murders people is to blame
for the violence.
Doug: [Laughs]
That's right – let's ban Batman movies. Better ban Westerns
too. It won't do for people to get the dangerous idea that they actually
should control their own destinies and be responsible for their actions.
Governments want adults to act like children and get permission from the
nanny state for everything. The kind of people who go into government view
"the masses" as automatons; they think hoi polloi should do
as they're told, the way sheep should do what the shepherd tells them. God
forbid sheep ever get the idea they should defend themselves…
But what do we really know about these events? All anyone
who wasn't actually there knows is what they read in the press, and all the
reporters know is hearsay they gather locally and official information
released by the police – when they're not just regurgitating hearsay
gathered by other reporters. You'll likely never know the real facts. For
instance, I heard that several witnesses saw a confederate of the shooter
open the emergency exit to let him in – which seems logically
necessary. But that piece of data seems to have disappeared down the memory
hole. And where did the alleged shooter get the thousands of dollars needed
to buy all his weapons and body armor? It's said he was relying entirely on
government aid for his schooling. The quality of reporting is abysmal. That
said, I'm hesitant to armchair quarterback regarding
things I really have no direct knowledge of, where the facts that are
reported are slim, disjointed, and unreliable. Reporters today all seem to be
blow-dried, air-headed faux news-readers. I'm so sorry both Gore Vidal
and Andrew Cockburn have just kicked the bucket; it's almost like they were
the last of a breed.
L: Fair
enough; neither of us has primary data on the Colorado movie theater
massacre. But we do have data – as much as anyone – on the
political fallout of such things, and how the state tends to use such events
to ratchet up its control over a people all to
willing to give up freedom in exchange for perceived safety.
This reminds me of my own thoughts at the time of the siege of the Branch Davidians
at their church in Waco, Texas. At the time, I remember being skeptical of
government accounts and suspicious of the fact that reporters were kept well
away from the scene. It occurred to me that it might be a good thing to do to
go down there with my own camera gear and try to get the truth, whatever it
was, out to the world. I'm ashamed to say that I did not follow up on that impulse.
But I'm glad some people have tried to expose the inadequacies of the
government's explanations for what happened. Still, most people seem to
believe the government's story and blame the 76 men, women, and children who
were gunned down or died in flames for their own deaths.
I remember this when I see talking heads on news
programs delivering information they have not verified as though it were
fact.
Doug: Yes.
There's a film trying to expose the truth
about Waco done by my friend Mike McNulty, and there's a lot more he's
uncovered since releasing it. But it got no traction among Boobus americanus.
It's worth noting that the site of the Waco massacre is one of the largest
crime scenes in US history. As with other crime scenes where the US
government has killed people, a thorough forensic investigation of the place
was not allowed. The government kept people away and bulldozed the place
within a week, effectively destroying the crime scene and most evidence of
what actually happened. That left us with very little but what the government
agents had to say about it. It's both shocking and disgusting. The government
kills all those people, the government conducts the investigation, and then
the government puts the survivors – not the perpetrators – on
trial. And the American public swallows the whole corrupt charade without
even asking a few meek questions. As usual, the guys at South Park
have a far more intelligent take on the episode than any of
the national media.
L: I seem to
recall that the county coroner in the Waco area was not allowed access
– or only very limited access – and complained loudly, but to no
avail.
Doug: Par for the
course, and ancillary evidence that most of the US population is thoughtless,
brainwashed, and/or on Prozac. But back to today. We can't say we know much
for a fact about what really happened, but there are reports the killer in
the Colorado movie theater shootings was getting some sort of psychological
or psychiatric counseling. I would not be surprised if it came out that he
was on some kind of psychiatric drug – it seems that a lot of shootings
by young people in recent times have been done by kids on psychiatric drugs.
The same with postal employees – and someone seems to "go
postal" annually.
L: I remember
reading that one of the killers in the Columbine massacre was on Ritalin.
Doug: I think
that's true in more than one case – and it's one of the most widely
prescribed drugs school shrinks give to kids who ask too many questions in
classrooms... or just act like kids. I've heard numbers quoted to the effect
that up to 25% of kids in school these days are on one kind of psychiatric
drug or another. I've not heard of any studies done on this connection, but
it sure seems like there ought to be. My suspicion is that Cesar Milan, the "dog
whisperer," could replace 99% of the shrinks and counselors in
schools – most of whom are either worthless or actively destructive
– simply by taking the kids out for a long run every day. It's the first
thing he does to get dogs rehabilitated.
L: Indeed. The
people who use every act of violence involving a gun as an excuse for more
bans and limits never seem to ask why there are more mass shootings now, when
fewer people carry guns... and why there were far fewer back when many
Americans carried guns frequently. A hundred years ago, it was common for
boys to carry rifles to school and shoot something for dinner on the way
home. I've read about schools having shooting ranges, just as they have
football fields, as recently as the 1960s. But back then, massacres were
pretty much the province of people in uniforms under orders from on high.
Doug: Yes. I went
to a military boarding school, and we had a full arsenal, including belt-fed
machine guns, a whole locker room full of M1 rifles, and all kinds of
wonderful weapons – even 81mm mortars. When I was growing up in
Indiana, almost everyone had guns. My friends and I would grab our rifles and
pistols and head into the forest to do some shooting, and no one thought
anything of it. But now, guns have become much, much less part of US culture.
If people see a kid with a gun today, they'll call 911 and a SWAT team will
appear.
L: When I
lived in Wyoming, they allowed open carry. I could go into a gas station to
pay for my gas with my gun belt on, and no one would scream, dive for the
floor, or put their hands in the air. That was only 15 years ago… I
wonder if it's changed.
Doug: As a matter
of fact, I once flew from Chicago to Washington, DC and back, and I took both
my rifle and my pistol. I just put them in my carry-on baggage and stuffed
them in the overhead bin on the plane. No gun locks nor
any special arrangements of any kind whatsoever. This was normal, legal, and
no one even thought to question me about it. I was just a 17-year-old kid at
the time.
L: I think it
was in the 1960s when the US government banned carrying guns on airplanes,
and that rule spread around the world. I don't think it's a coincidence that
hijacking commercial airliners became a choice tool for terrorists after
this.
Doug: I think
that's right. As late as the 1930s anyone could cross most any border –
except into totalitarian countries, of course – with a sidearm.
Remember Indiana Jones?
So what to do about mass shootings? Disarming people
only leaves them at the mercy of the psychopaths of the world, who, if they
are going to kill, are going to kill regardless of what the laws are. I think
everyone should own at least one gun at a minimum, and preferably four or
five, of different types and for different uses. And they should take the
time to learn how to use them.
Even a very effective and honorable police force
– which is increasingly rare – can only respond to crimes, and
then only a considerable time after they've happened. People need tools for
self-defense to stop crimes from happening in the first place. Failure to
stop a criminal not only leaves you and your family at the mercy of the
psychopath in question, but it also leaves that person free to go on to harm
more victims. Self-defense is both a fundamental human right and a
responsibility no one should shirk. It's perverse and outrageous that the
subject is even open to discussion. It's a major sign of how degraded
civilization has become.
On top of these personal considerations, there's the
sociopolitical aspect of the issue: a disarmed population cannot resist its
government when it turns predatory. An armed population – the more
heavily armed the better – can arguably limit the depredations of the
state when it gets taken over by psychopaths, as it always, inevitably, and
invariably does. Although, the fact is that argument was
much more realistic 50 or 100 years ago. The weapons the state can use
against its subjects are now orders of magnitude more powerful than in the
past. But what's happening in Syria, like what happened in Libya, is some
cause for optimism…
I think this latter point is a real driving force
behind so-called gun-control laws. It's not about safety or reducing crime. John Lott, among others, has shown that that's just not
so. The state does not want the people it rules to have any power to resist
it. The state wants its subjects to feel powerless and forced to rely on it
for everything.
And so today, unfortunately, it's becoming more and
more dangerous to be a gun owner in the US. Owning a gun means you're an
automatic addition to the list of undesirables. The whole atmosphere in the
US has changed.
L: I suppose
state troopers can see if people have a concealed carry permit when they type
license-plate numbers into their onboard computers – that could change
the character of a simple traffic stop pretty quickly.
Doug: Yes. And
cops are increasingly aggressive and paranoid in the US – it's not a
good thing. We no longer see friendly "Andy Griffith" types who
help lost kids get home. We see heavily armed and armored paramilitary thugs
who see citizens as potential enemies. It's a fact that the term cops often
use for civilians is "assholes." Cops increasingly suffer from an
"us against them" mentality. Their first loyalty is to other cops,
then to their employer, the government, and only then to those they're
supposed to "serve and protect." It's laughable actually, the way
they're portrayed in TV cop shows; good cops are becoming the exception, not
the rule.
L: Speaking of
this and mass shootings, I find it quite telling that the emphasis seems to
have shifted from stopping the violence ASAP to making sure officers don't get
hurt. If memory serves, in several recent cases more victims died after the
cops showed up, because they formed cordons and waited until they thought it
was safe to proceed. That's why many of these shootings only end when the
shooter kills himself – Columbine, for
example. Well, there was that one case in which two boys whose father was a
Navy SEAL and who had been themselves trained in the use of guns tackled the
shooter when he stopped to reload – they knew they had a chance while
others just cowered.
Doug: Like many
things that have to do with the state, it's perverse. Being a cop is more
dangerous than being an office worker, but it's a lot less dangerous than
being a fisherman, a roofer, a logger, a farmer, or many other professions in
which physical danger is commonplace. The paranoia cops feel is unjustified.
And it's a line of work that is drawing the wrong kind of people today, as
we've discussed before.
I hate to say it, but I think the bad guys are winning
on this issue, and the right to self-defense seems unlikely to last much
longer in the US. The bad guys seem to be winning in many areas all over the
world. Let's hope for a massive change of trend. I'm working for it, as are
you. It's not because I expect to succeed, but because it's the right thing
to do.
L: As it
happens, this subject came up on my way back from Lithuania; the young lady
next to me on the plane commented on the movie theater shooting in Colorado,
and I said it was too bad no one in the audience was armed. She asked if it
wouldn't be better if all guns could be banned – then nothing like this
could ever happen. That's that way most people think these days.
I made the point that if guns are outlawed, they will
not cease to exist; but the law-abiding won't have them and the outlaws will.
I also pointed out that the guy's apparent purpose was to kill people, not
just to go shooting. We hear he had bomb-making material in his apartment
– he could have used that if he didn't have guns, or maybe just driven
a truck through the glass doors of a busy store and run people over.
Eliminating one set of tools does not eliminate the problem of there being a
homicidal maniac on the lose.
Just look at the recent mass shooting in Norway, where they have gun control.
There was one in Germany some years ago, involving a high-school triathlon
competitor who used his slow-fire competition rifle to kill a lot of people
– and they've got a lot of gun-control laws in Germany.
To her credit, my fellow passenger gave this some
thought, but even that is a rarity. So many people have made up their minds
that guns are intrinsically evil, there's no point in even discussing the
matter with them.
Doug: I've
thought about this too; I suspect that if someone wanted to go on a killing
spree, he could do a lot of harm with a simple bow and hunting arrows, with a
machete as a secondary weapon – maybe even more harm than a shooter
– before he could be stopped. Since the bow is almost silent, people
wouldn't necessarily be alerted to the violence right away. And it's harder
to disarm someone with an edged weapon in close quarters than someone with a
gun.
L: It could be
anything; one could put a bike chain on the exit of a crowded theater and
then torch the place with a can of gasoline and a lighter. Removing one set
of tools from the picture – even if it could be done – does not
remove the problem, which is whatever factors are driving people to become
mass murderers.
Doug: That's exactly
right. You've got to get to the root of the problem, and I believe that root
is that a lot of people have serious psychological aberrations. The world
won't be free of violence until everyone has confronted their personal
demons, come to understand them, and eliminated them.
L: I'm not
going to hold my breath waiting for that. I'm glad I have some ability to
defend my family now. But what's the answer, then?
Doug: I don't
know that there is any simple solution. But the answer is not to suppress bad
impulses with the psychiatric drugs that are so popular; all they do is
disguise the symptoms and tighten down the lid on the pressure cooker.
Furthermore, when you try to control people physically or chemically, it
leads to frustration and hostility, and those things lead to violence. In
addition, the state has encouraged people to behave irresponsibly for
generations now. People think it's a good thing for the nanny state to take
care of everything for people: feed them, clothe them, medicate them, tell everyone what's right and wrong. This encourages
people, subtly and overtly, to act in irresponsible ways. It's no surprise
then that irresponsibility and criminality is what we get. Long term, the
solution is to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives
– but the government is doing exactly the opposite.
I blame the state in many ways. The very existence of
the state is, at least, a contributing factor to most of the world's
problems.
L: I agree. In
the US, it started earlier, most notably with the US's disastrous attempt at
alcohol prohibition, but really, the major push in this direction started
with the New Deal. That's when things changed from "some people are
unlucky, so we'll lend a helping hand" to "people are not competent
to take care of themselves, so we must force everyone to participate in
state-run retirement and medical care schemes." Lo and behold, you tell
people for generations that they are irresponsible and not capable of
anything else, and you get a lot of irresponsibility.
Add to this a compulsory, coercive education system in
which many schools look more like prisons than places of education, and you
get a lot of frustrated people under pressure and without a strong sense of
responsibility for their own actions. The consequences seem clean and
unsurprising to me.
Doug: That's
absolutely right. And the more the politicians do to try to solve the
problem, the worse they make it. They don't see that they are the
problem. Speaking of Prohibition, everybody applauds Roosevelt for helping
re-legalize alcohol in 1933. But the fool learned nothing, because in 1938 he
illegalized hemp – an extremely useful and salubrious plant – and
basically started the insane War on Drugs. It amazes me that people look to
politicians for solutions. They've learned absolutely nothing.
L: So… Boobus americanus
is unlikely to vote the bums out. What to do?
Doug: You know my
opinion: the most intelligent thing to do is remove yourself and your loved
ones from harm's way. Unfortunately, today that means most Western developed
countries. This is why I prefer spending most of my time in the so-called
Third World these days. As a practical matter, you're both much freer and
much safer than you are in the US – or EU, for that matter.
L: So…
we've talked about your favorite guns before… you packing
heat today, Doug?
Doug: No, I'm
not. I travel a lot and as a practical matter, can't carry all the time,
which makes it dangerous to carry some of the time. I wouldn't want to get
into a situation inadvertently thinking I was packing when I wasn't.
L: I went
shooting recently with my wife and uncle – it had been too long, and I
was rusty. It was a first for my wife, however, who picked it up like an old
habit she'd forgotten she had. She hit the target with every weapon she
tried, from a variety of distances. Her favorite was my .44 magnum, with its
authoritative boom. It was fun!
But back to business – is there an investment angle
to this?
Doug: Well, it's
not practical to invest in guns on a large scale, because they're not
expensive enough – too bulky to put big money into. Nor is it
politically wise; if you have more than a few you might be tagged as an enemy
of the state. On the other hand, they are durable, and prices have at least
kept up with inflation. Guns maintain high resale values, so putting a few thousand of dollars into some good guns is a sound move
– you won't lose money.
But a better investment is ammunition. I say that
because the Second Amendment still makes it hard for the government to just
steal everyone's guns and ban new ones. I think it will be easier for them to
disarm people by regulating ammunition and taxing it right off the market
– and, of course, a gun without ammunition is not much use. So, without
making ammo illegal, they will essentially ban it by making it too expensive,
and that makes stockpiling ammo a good speculation. I suggest owning a bunch
– say a couple thousand rounds in each of a number of calibers. Put it
in a dry, cool, safe place and forget about it.
L: Betting on
the government doing the wrong thing and profiting – a classic Casey
speculation. I guess ammo's not as good as gold, but in a pinch, boxes of
ammo could function as money: they are durable, divisible, compact enough to
be pretty convenient, and the units are consistent – and they have
value in their utility.
Doug: Right. A
no-lose investment, with big percentage upside and a lot of utility. You just
can't reasonably have a lot of money there.
L: What about
stocks? Would you buy Smith & Wesson?
Doug: No, I
wouldn't – changes in regs could crush a gun
manufacturer's profits at the stroke of a pen – too much political risk
these days. And as far as general equities go, I think stocks are overvalued
and vulnerable – I don't want to buy any at this point. However, in my
1993 book, Crisis Investing for the Rest of the '90s, I
mentioned a pair trade of going short Ben & Jerry's and going long Ruger. Ben & Jerry's was
overpriced and Ruger was underpriced – it
turned out to be a tremendous spread. It was the perfect politically
incorrect trade, which made it amusing and psychologically gratifying as a
bonus.
L: So, what
else, besides stashing ammo in the basement?
Doug: Well,
everyone who travels should buy cigarettes and liquor every time they go
through the airport and have access to a duty-free shop. You don't have to
smoke them or drink them; such items are highly liquid and hold their value
over time.
L: I can't see
putting a couple million into cartons of Marlboros…
Doug: No, these
are not serious investments, just prudent things to do with smaller amounts
of money. Like buying a stash of silver coins.
L: Very well
then. Words to the wise. Thanks for another interesting conversation.
Doug: My
pleasure. We'll talk again next week, and then again
at our Casey Summit coming up in California.
L: Right. For
those who can't make that, you'll also be speaking at the New Orleans Investment Conference, October 24-27.
Doug: Right. Keep
your powder dry.
L: I will,
Doug. Thanks.
While loading up on cigarettes and booze won't offer much
protection for the bulk of your wealth, there are steps you can take right
now to shield your portfolio from an increasingly intrusive government. One
of the most important things you can do is to internationalize your assets.
|
