Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 2

equation, if bin Laden is speaking his mind accurately.

The Nature of Terrorism

The FBI defines terrorism "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." It's fair enough a definition. The key objection one might have to it is the use of the word "unlawful." Does that mean that the terror tactics engaged in by the likes of Hitler, (who was democratically elected) Stalin and Mao weren't terror because they were authorized by the laws of established governments? The laws of these nation-states were seen as legitimate at the time, even if they're viewed today only as criminal fantasies given reality on a grand scale.

This point has been made by Arabs in accusing Israel and the US of "state terrorism," a term which, although lacking an FBI definition, sounds pretty much like undeclared warfare. We then come to the question of whether "warfare" is something only a state can "ethically" conduct.

This may be a good time to examine the nature of the state itself something which is rarely done. Most people see the state, or the institution of government, as a part of the cosmic firmament, both necessary and eternal, as certain as death and taxes. This, of course, is total nonsense. For many years now there's been plenty of scientific basis to believe that even if death can't be abolished, life and youth will someday be capable of being prolonged for a very long time. Taxes are simply an artifice of the state. And there's absolutely nothing the state does that entrepreneurs wouldn't do for a profitexcept create wars, pogroms, persecutions, regulations, confiscations and atrocities.

A person's attitudes towards government offer an excellent insight into his character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another, and give a practical insight into how he views humanity at large, and himself in particular.

There are only two ways people can relate: voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism. The essence of government, however, is coercion; Mao was quite correct when he said that its power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Government is an entity that claims a monopoly (albeit with some fringe competition) on the use of force within a geographic area.

lands and holy shrines, and plunder the Muslims' oil. When it is met by any resistance on the part of the Muslims, this party brands the Muslims as terrorists. This is stupidity. People's intelligence is being belittled. We believe that it is our religious duty to resist this occupation with all the power that we have and to punish it using the same means it is pursuing against us."

"(There is) the need to engage in jihad against these US occupiers."

The message is pretty clear. A lot of people in the Islamic world (among other places) don't appreciate the US throwing its weight around. Of course some of them (but a much lesser number, I believe) equally dislike US culture in generalMcDonalds, Hollywood, rock 'n' roll, Exxon, and who knows what else. That just means that those industries will go elsewhere, and it's no problem. You and I don't go where we aren't welcome as individuals, and the government that purports to represent us should do the same.

Bush, in more than one of his speeches, has characterized the attack as one on freedom. The attackers are no friends of freedom; they're assuredly enemies of freedom. But they aren't going after America because it represents freedom (which is, unfortunately, an increasingly questionable proposition anyway), but because they believe it's been in the forefront of the attack on them. No one knows yet whether the defining feature in the eyes of the perpetrators was the New Jersey hurling hundreds of 16 inch shells ashore into Lebanon in the 80s, or the perpetual bombing of Iraq, or the active support of Israel, or the propping up of the thoroughly corrupt Saudi regime, or that of the Shah of Iran before it, or the accidental shooting down of the innocent Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes in 1988, or the invasion of Somalia, or any of scores of other real and imagined offenses against Muslims and Arabs. But these are undoubtedly parts of the

A person's attitudes towards government offer an excellent insight into his character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another, and give a practical insight into how he views humanity at large, and himself in particular.

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 3

It's widely believed that groups have rights unavailable to individuals. But, like many things that are widely accepted, and therefore rarely questioned, the proposition is wrong. Do two people have a right to initiate coercion where one does not? How about 100 people? If the KKK or the IRA had their own discrete territories, would that make them legitimate? Was the free French government-in-exile during WWII less legitimate for lack of a territory? How about the PLO, recently a terrorist organization, which now more-or-less governs a territory?

The point is that it can be a question of parsing words to draw a distinction between a lynch mob, a government, an anti-social group, a terrorist organization, or a mafia. I say that because the common element between them is a belief that they have a right to use force to get what they want. The fact that they aren't all "legal" is unimportant, because, once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the official laws of states, the ad hoc proceedings of a mob, and that of more formal groups like the KKK, boils down to the force they can muster to impose them on others.

I think it's important to bear these things in mind when thinking out what should be done as a response to the WTC disaster, and against whom.

A Brief History of Terror

Terror has a long history in warfare, and its use is so intertwined with "ordinary" conflict as to be indistinguishable from it. Ancient states, especially in the East, made it a policy to not just subdue, but totally destroy the cities that failed to open their gates voluntarily when threatened with attack; terror can be a weapon of intimidation. The Israelites made a practice of committing the most gruesome wholesale genocides on their neighbors, perhaps the ultimate form of terrorism; whether a war crimes tribunal would see the fact they were only carrying out the orders of Yahweh as a mitigating factor remains an open question. The Romans employed wholesale crucifixions, using terror for instructional purposes. Genghis Khan often piled the heads of the enemy into giant pyramids, it would seem simply as a monument using available materials.

The past of terror is fairly horrific. Predicting its future is especially hard when you consider the unlikely twists we've seen in the recent past.

In 1946 Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, blew up the King David Hotel, which was being used as temporary British military HQ, killing 91 people, mainly Arabs and British sol

diers. In 1977 Begin got the Nobel Peace Prize.

As head of the ANC, Nelson Mandela was at least indirectly responsible for its actions, including thousands of murders. The ANC was designated a terrorist organization by the US government in 1988, but Mandela won the Peace Prize in 1993.

Yassir Arafat founded Al Fatah (better known as Black September), the military arm of the PLO in 1957. Al Fatah is best known for its massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Arafat was awarded the Peace Prize in 1994.

Angela Davis, once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list for the murder of a California judge, is now a professor of History Consciousness at UC Santa Cruz.

Bernadette Dohrn was a leader in the Weather Underground, which was responsible for scores of bombings, robberies, and murders during the late 60s and early 70s. She's now co-chair of an ABA committee on children.

The fact that Saddam was a notorious terrorist didn't prevent the State Department from viewing him as a friend and ally before his Kuwait adventure turned him into the Devil of the Month. Osama was actively supported by the CIA when he was a fighter in Afghanistan.

Could men such as Sadaam and Osama bin Laden be rehabilitated? It seems most unlikely, but it wouldn't be the first time. These things change, and it's a cliché that history is written by the victors. One problem with today's media-saturated world is that judgments are rushed. I'm more sympathetic with the view of Chou En-Lai who, when asked what he thought of the consequences of the French Revolution, said: "It's too early to tell."

Viewed purely as a military strategy, terror is problematical. On the one hand, the knowledge that it will be used in a conflict is something of a deterrent; if the enemy knows that not only his troops, but his family and personal property are equally at risk, it acts as something of a disincentive

Terror has a long history in warfare, and its use is so intertwined with "ordinary" conflict as to be indistinguish-able from it. Ancient states, especially in the East, made it a policy to not just subdue, but totally destroy the cities that failed to open their gates voluntarily when threatened with attack; terror can be a weapon of intimidation.

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 4

over organized coercion in all its forms.

That's the good news. But the bad news is that this particular episode is still in its early stages. And armed conflict is the most unpredictable of all human activities.

The Nature of the Attack

Should the attack be considered an act of war, or simply a massive crime? Technically, an act of war can only occur between two states, and it seems quite unlikely that a state is even surreptitiously involved here; the potential consequences are simply too great to be worth the risk. But that needn't stop the US from striking out at one. World War I started, after all, with the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian who was acting completely of his own accord.

An attack on the White House, the Capitol, or the Pentagon would have created a furor of anger in the US. But not nearly to the degree the attack on the World Trade Center has, because the WTC was a purely civilian target, populated entirely by innocent bystanders; attacking it was a strategic error on the part of the perpetratorsif they expected any sympathy at all for their cause from outsiders. But they had to know that.

So clearly, they're not just attacking the US government so much as American civilization itself. Like the truck bomb attempt of 1993, this was far more than a political/military act; it was a cultural/religious act. Therefore the root causes of this "war," if that's how it's to be viewed, can't be healed as easily as those that underlay the past two world wars. If the US government isn't careful, it will be sucked into a conflict akin to that between the Israelis and the Palestinians, or the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, or the Indians and the Pakistanis.

Be that as it may, everyone is looking to the Federal government and its bureaucracy to do something. Predictably, most of what they're doing, and are likely to do, is not only non-productive, but counterproductive. Not least of which is making it totally impossible for passengers to defend themselves against hijackers should the occasion again arise.

Reports indicate the criminals employed knives and other edged tools to take over the aircraft. My thought is that, as well planned as the operation was, they could have gotten guns aboard if they'd chosen to. But they apparently felt, quite correctly, that edged weapons were not only completely up to the task, but helped demonstrate both their own resolve, and the ineffectuality of defense measures. If only passengers were allowed to carry arms (with the

to start a war. The threat of nuclear war from the 50s through the 80s was really just a controlled exercise of the balance of terror. The use of terror is a way of saying: "I'm serious about this; I'm not taking any prisoners." Terror has its uses, otherwise it wouldn't have such a long history.

On the other hand, it can serve to steel an enemy's resolve. That's certainly what the German bombing of London did. And German terror campaigns in conquered countries, like the Ukraine, turned them from potential allies into enemies.

Although terror such as we've just seen is highly disruptive and gives a lot of bang for the buck, it's main effects are psychological. As bad as it was, it was trivial compared to the terror bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo, where 100,000 died overnight. Those episodes had little or no effect on the war, and life went on.

Despite the current resurgence of terror, and the fact that it's the only way relatively weak groups feel they can strike at their enemies, I feel it's not going to be a really long-lived factor. In the world created by capitalism spilling over borders, in the world of the Internet, in a world which will inevitably become more prosperous, people simply won't put up with it. That may sound naive, I know. But (notwithstanding Pol Pot in Cambodia), we no longer countenance the type of things the ancients used to do as a matter of course. The principles of the Nuremburg Trials are widely accepted, if very unevenly applied. My suspicion is that, unless the ante escalates considerably, acts like this will actually diminish, because perpetrators will see they're actually counterproductive. Of course, that may be more of a hope than a prediction.

But there's plenty of reason for real optimism over the long-term future. Terrorism is, after all, largely a by-product of the nation state, and the nation-state itself is actually in its death throes (see IS XXI/4). Despite new laws and regulations and taxes, the market will eventually triumph

. . . they're [the terrorist attackers] not just attacking the US government so much as American civilization itself. Like the truck bomb attempt of 1993, this was far more than a political/military act; it was a cultural/religious act.

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 5

reasonable requirement they use frangible ammunition) this disaster would never have occurred. Lots of people I know (including myself) transported guns as carry-on in the 60s, and no one gave it a second thought. Now, however, you're going to be relieved of your nail file. Will it ensure a thoughtful bad guy won't get aboard with a real weapon? No. It will only ensure that the innocent go to a gunfight with nothing but their bare hands. But, actually, I don't expect further problems with on-board hijackers, for reasons covered below.

Far more serious is that everyone will further adopt the culture of learned helplessness, which has been permeating western culture for years.

What Will the Attackers Do Next?

The FBI alone is supposed to have something like 4,000 agents on this case full-time. About 90% of them (a guess, based on anecdotal evidence) are somewhat dim, robotic bureaucrats, working for a salary, but enjoying the childish cache being a G-Man. The same goes for employees of every other Federal praetorian agency I'm aware of. Based on their manifest incompetence in finding the Unabomber (who was uncovered only because his brother put two and two together), and their inability to anticipate almost anything, I have limited confidence in their ability to discover the real truth. And even less confidence the public will ever know the facts if they do stumble upon it.

Still, a combination of some really smart agents, plus literally unlimited resources, plus some real determination engendered by the scope of the tragedy is bound to result in progress.

The perpetrators are undoubtedly aware of that, and recognize that they are now no more than dead men walking. But they knew that when planning started many months ago. So it's not as if their plans came to an end with this last episode. They undoubtedly have lots of backup and contingency plans, ready to execute at the appropriate moment.

When might they be? My first guess is there won't be another strike until the US reaches out to punish them. There are several reasons for that. One is that the prospect of further retaliation may at least discourage the US from launching a counterstrike. Another is that, if they wait until after the counterstrike, the US will know that for every tit there will be a tat. Game theory has long since proven that's the most effective strategy in situations of this nature. That is, if you can't totally eliminate the enemy, which is what the US has promised to do. But, unfortunately, it will almost certainly, and counterproductively, fail in that attempt.

The least likely vehicles/targets at this point are the airlines. A case can be made that another successful stunt now, after US security is on red alert, would completely shatter public confidence. But an exact repeat performance is unlikely, simply because the airlines are

now a "hard" target. I wouldn't rule out, however, the use of any of the thousands of privately owned jets, including transport planes, as cruise missiles. Nor is it unlikely that any number of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles are awaiting deployment near any number of airports.

Those threats, while simple and obvious, are literally impossible to defend against. But they just scratch the surface of possibilities. Hijacking a liquid natural gas tanker, which packs nearly the punch of a small nuke, and lighting it off in the harbor where it's unloading is doable. Simple dynamite could set off history's second biggest oil conflagration in the tank farms anybody can see outside New York, Chicago, or LA. The net effect would be no more than a major inconvenience, but it would be a spectacle. Simple dynamite can disable the generators in any large dam, or take out transformer substations, or power lines, or oil/natural gas pipelinesalthough things of this character fall into the (relative) nuisance category. The Deep Ecology crowd has already done lots of homework in this area, and will likely be quite pleased to see such events. Although they'd be well advised to constrain their glee in the present environment.

Assassinations of high government officials is clearly an option. With very few exceptions, they all live in ordinary homes, and are extremely soft targets, regardless of the security they might have. In terms of actual damage to the economy, the effect would be zero. But for the purposes of creating mass hysteria and terror, it would be effective. As would be the targeting of mid-level officials.

A few years ago there was a news item about one of the Colombian drug cartels attempting to buy a submarine from North Korea for $5.5 million. Interesting. And in the tradition of Ragnar Danneskjold (of Rand's Atlas Shrugged), Hagbard Celine (of Wilson and Shea's Illuminatus), and Capt. Nemo (of Verne's 20,000 Leagues). These fictional renegade submariners were heroes. But then, it's clear the WTC perpetrators see themselves that way. And there are thousands of submarines now operating that could find their way into irresponsible hands. Some probably will.

The possibilities are endless. Anybody with a bottle of Jack Daniel's and a few hours to kill could come up with a long list. Movie script writers and novelists have worked out loads of possibilities in detail. You can bet that the thousands of dedicated Muslims that are now on a jihad, many of them highly intelligent, well-trained, and very well financed, are hard at work on the problem as well.

In issue 7 I explored the likelihood of using cargo planes and ships, as well as Fed Ex, to deliver ABC weapons; and that remains the real wild card. If that occurs, forget about life as we know it. But I discount it, barring real provocation.

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 6

A Solution

In my view, the proper way to treat this is as a common law crime, albeit one of extraordinary scope and gravity. Ideally, the criminals who are still alive should be pursued, captured, tried, convicted and made to pay reparations (to the damaged parties, not to "society," or the government) to the greatest degree possible. That, however, is unlikely to happen for any number of reasons, including the fact there's a real war fever in the land, and Americans don't appear inclined to take any prisoners at the moment. Entirely apart from the fact the perpetrators aren't about to allow themselves to be taken prisoner.

That being the case, we'll just have to do the best we can. Under the circumstances, the best possible outcome would probably be the deaths of perhaps 50 or 100 individuals who are directly involved, using small teams of independent contractors working on a bounty, and letting the matter rest. But that's a long shot.

More likely, the US is going to go wild and use its high tech military to bomb targets throughout the Islamic world. Afghanistan, a country where almost no Americans have been, and few can even find on a map, seems to be in the crosshairs of many armchair warriors and bellicose pundits. Afghanistan is one of the fifty countries I haven't been to, so as with most things where I lack first-hand experience, I hate to make a comment. But if the Soviet experience is any indication, it's not a good place to fight an offensive war, or even go on a manhunt. The people are xenophobic, inured to battle and discomfort, highly devout and typical of mountain dwellers the world over, extremely tough and independent. After the Gulf War, Schwarzkopf was quoted, mirroring the wisdom of my cleaning lady with regards to windows, as saying: "We do deserts; we don't do mountains."

It's gratifying that Bush hasn't flown off the handle so far; whatever his faults, he deserves credit for that. I just hope this doesn't turn into a major military adventure because, even with the utmost care and precision, there are bound to be tragedies. Many of them will be pointless mistakes, like the aspirin factory in Sudan. Many attacks will kill a bunch of completely innocent civilians, all of whom will have friends and relatives.

The US will likely deploy highly trained Special Ops forces to mitigate these problems, but it's still likely to be ugly. They'll inevitably take serious casualties, and some will be captured. When the captured soldiers are tried and executed, you can bet it will raise the ante significantly. All of them will amount to whacking a bunch of hornet's nests with a baseball bat. That's OK for young boys with time on their hands, but it's disastrous for a nation state in today's world.

This is a political matter, and the average American really seems to want blood and vengeance, let the consequences including, possibly, actual justice, be damned.

The US will, in other words, react pretty much like the Israelis do. But just because the Israelis are experienced in these matters doesn't mean they're drawing the right lessons from their experience. In any event, to the degree Israel merits support, individuals from around the world will continue to send it billionsas they already do. It's not an activity that should jeopardize 280 million Americans.

What the US should have done, long ago, is cut off 100% of all foreign aid (+/- $14 billion annually) and military aid (+/- $8 billion annually), while recalling the troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world. US soldiers in foreign countries act only as tripwires and provocations, which is to say they serve no useful purpose whatsoever. As I've observed before, the natives like seeing American soldiers strutting about as much as Americans would if our streets were filled with Iranian soldiers. Even if they put forward an excellent reason, like defending those practicing their religion in Waco.

At that point foreigners would have no more reason to attack the US or Americans than they do to attack Canadians or New Zealanders.

Societal Implications

War is the health of the State, whether it's the War on Drugs (which, I suspect, has already killed as many Americans and cost as much money as the Vietnam War), or the military type. The military and economic implications of a War on Islam are horrendous. But the societal implications are even worse.

Proposals are already being made for the long-awaited national ID card. How many new Federal agents will be hired with the $20 billion the Congresscritters are setting aside as a reaction to the WTC event?

It certainly isn't going to warm relations with a billion Muslims and Arabs when they read, as I did, comments in the paper like "I hate Arabs! I've always hated Arabs!" from some silly girl who doesn't even have a Jewish surname. These people are going to find it unpleasant to impossible to get visas to visit here. And their friends who live here are already finding it unpleasant to dangerousas might almost anyone who looks "foreign." If it gets really serious, some might recall the concentration camps set up for scores of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II as a precedent.

Freedom has been rapidly diminishing in America for many years, but this will put a near-final nail in its coffin. The hunt for the perpetrators, sympathizers, or even potential sympathizers has the potential to turn into a witch hunt unlike anything we've seen in either World War or the Cold War. You can already read and hear plenty of arguments about how we're going to have to give up some freedoms to counter this new threat.

Privacy of any type will become suspect. Membership in "fringe" groups will become suspect. Not being a solid citizen toeing the line will be suspect. And the stan

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 7

dard distribution of 2-3% of all people, everywhere, who are sociopaths are going to come out of the woodwork. Who would have guessed there would have been all the volunteers for the SA, the SS, and the Gestapo in the Germany of the 20s? Who would have guessed that so many Russians would join the NKVD and other secret police in the 30s, and that the average citizen would tacitly or actively support Stalin? Most of them were people who liked kids and dogs, had hobbies, and respectable jobs. But when the times changed, their true natures came to the fore. If you think we don't have the same distribution of people here, you're dreaming. Except it could become a real nightmare.

Investment Implications

StocksLet's skip over the commonplaces that you'll hear touted in the media. They'll include buying security firms like Wackenhut (WAK, US$19.85). Or "defense" stocks, like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. These things may, or may not, go up. But this incident seals the fate of the bear market that's been in motion for several years now. And in a bear market, with very rare exceptions, you just don't want to own stocks. That's entirely apart from the fact that things everybody thinks they know simply aren't worth knowing.

Even though it's a bear market, I'm also disinclined towards obvious shorts like the airline stocks. They were already in trouble with the recession. Now you've got a huge segment of the population that's afraid to fly. And another huge segment that's loathe to be questioned and processed like someone on their way to jail every time you board a planeentirely apart from the huge time penalty. I recommend using any and every rally as a selling opportunity.

BondsSo far, bonds have been an excellent place to be. But I continue to see them, especially with interest rates at these levels, as a triple threat to your capital. First, interest rates are just as likely to rise as they are to fall further. Second, the dollar is almost certainly started on the path to reaching its intrinsic value (see IS XXI/10). Third, the creditworthiness of most issuers, not least of which is the US government, is likely to come into question.

The dollar This floating abstraction, an IOU nothing on the part of a government which relies completely on new tax revenues just to pay the interest on its debt, is an accident waiting to happen. It rests upon nothing more than the world's confidence, and confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a hurricane. The only thing that can save it is a massive deflation. But the Fed is creating new dollars frantically to prevent that. Call up IS XXI/11 for the whole story. I suggest you not look to the dollar as a haven.

Domestic Real Estate Partially driven by the long bull market, crowned by a historic mania, in stocks, US

property, especially in upmarket locations, has done extremely well. Unfortunately, property prices will reflect the purchasing power of the people who own it. They're likely to suffer asset meltdowns, loss of their jobs, and the consequences of a gargantuan amount of debt. Prices stand to drop dramatically, certainly in real terms. If you view your house primarily as a financial asset, I suggest you hit the bid while there still is one. As an alternative, you might consider taking out a large 30 year mortgage while rates are this low (6.2%, with no points, on a typical 30 year mortgage) but only if you're confident you can keep the proceeds secure.

One possible relative bright spot may be somewhat isolated small towns, on the template of Aspen. Horribly overpriced at this point, they may still do well as the well-heeled decide this might be a good time to sell out in the city, and enjoy life in what used to be their second homes. As will a lot of others who were just looking for an excuse to move there. They now have the excuse.

We'll see. And I may be speaking as a biased observer here, in that I've been pretty heavily involved in ranchland around Aspen for some years. Note: I've got a few hundred rather spectacular acres that I'm subdividing. I'm willing to sell several +/- 70 acre lots next door to my place for about 1/2 their current market value (i.e., about $2 million) for a window of approximately the next 45 days, for reasons totally unrelated to the current situation. No tire kickers, please. Call Bruce Meadows at 406-443-0741 if, as Mr. Rogers used to say, you'd like to be my neighbor.

Foreign Real Estate I've said for years that there's every reason in the world to have a crib abroad, and almost no reason not toas long as you're in a financial position to do so. I think it's no longer just smart; it's critically important. My favorites? Longtime readers know that I'm partial to New Zealand and Argentina, and both places are very, very cheap at the moment. I'm also leaning towards doing something in Vanuatu (see XXI/8) just because it's incredibly cheap and beautiful. But with some real problems. Anyway, a man's got to know his limitations, so I'm edgy about developing, despite the potentially appealing profits. If you have a substantial and fairly immediate interest in any of these areas, we can talk, however.

Gold There's little I can add to what I said in the last issue, and indeed many issues before that. Buy it. If not now, I guess it'll be never.

Commodities Absolutely everything that's traded looks very, very cheap. To me, the situation resembles that just before the first dollar devaluation in 1971. The explosive upmove in silver as trading reopened on Sep. 17 is a straw in the wind. A word to the wise, perhaps.

Speaking of terror, it's perhaps a good idea to keep things in perspective. War is pure, unadulterated, compulsory, organized mass terror. If you think war might be a good idea, it's worth seeing two movies, both of them

Volume XXII, No. 9 www.dougcasey.com - Page 8

superb (and easily available on video): "Stalingrad" and "Enemy at the Gates." Both tell a story of the battle, one from the German, and the other from the Russian side. If you ever think you've got worries, just watch these flicks; they're a guaranteed attitude adjustment. n

Notes

I recently received a letter from Linda R. Tripp, the one-time friend of Monica Lewinsky. Linda retailed a sob story about how she lost her job as a "dedicated public servant" and ran up $2 million in legal bills by dint of her telling the truth about what an awful person Clinton is. Based on this, Linda asked me numerous times in the course of the letter to send her anywhere from $20 to $500 to cover her bills and, indeed, keep food on her table.

The letter prompted a number of questions in my mind. Why would anyone want to help someone who, no matter how she rationalizes it, is famous mostly for betraying a friend who trusted her? Why would anyone want to help someone who was a lifelong government employee in the first place? Especially if that person wants you to sign a petition to "restore my government career with a meaningful position in the new administration?" Where is Linda getting the money to do a mass mail campaign soliciting funds, in that the hard cost of each of the letters she sent out is at least $.35, and that has to be paid in advance? How did she ever run up a seven figure legal bill? Who were the lawyers involved, and why did they take the case when she obviously had no means? Although it's at least as dishonorable as betraying her friend, why doesn't she declare bankruptcy to stiff her lawyers? Why hasn't she had a trashy tell-all book ghostwritten, and hit the speaking circuit to earn some money?

Most important, how did my name get on a list that would make someone think I had any sympathy for her?

I contemplated affixing the self addressed return envelope to a large brick before putting it in the mail, but decided she wasn't worth the trouble.

I'm a shooter from way back, and have done several articles in years past on the merits of various firearms (see IS XI/1 and XIV/8), especially when it appeared the government was about to ban them. Especially in light of the current world situation, and a surge of Americans to properly arm themselves, I have a few thoughts on the subject. Or, more precisely, would like to introduce you to the thoughts of an old friend of mine, who goes by the moniker of Boston T. Party.

Among his books (all of which I consider good), BTP numbers Boston's Gun Bible (approximately 600 pages, US$28, from Javelin Press, Box 31, Ignacio, CO 81137-0031, www.javelinpress.com). I've read a lot on guns and, I've got to say, this is the most practical,

hands-on, thorough, and philosophically sound work on the subject. It covers the waterfront, from relevant laws of every description, to how almost all popular weapons compare to each other, to how to buy them, to tactics and training, to a superb bibliography of further resources. If it's not here, you probably don't need to know it, even if you're a professional shootist. Best of all, it's extremely well-written, with a sense of humor.

Anyway, I've been meaning to review the book for a while, and have just now gotten 'round to it. I suggest you get one.

End quote

One reason I like to offer thoughts from Gibbon is that countries, like companies, markets and individuals, go through cycles, a point he's well aware of. It seems to me that Americans are at about the same stage the Romans were in the late 2nd century, as their long descent into the abyss began in earnest.

"The minds of the Romans were very differently prepared for slavery. Oppressed beneath the weight of their own corruption and of military violence, they for a long while preserved the sentiments, or at least the ideas, of their free born ancestors"

Edward Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [1776], p. 72

Based on the government's nearly complete disregard of what little remains of the Constitution, which is heartily endorsed by the vast majority of Boobus americanus, I'd say Mencken's assessment is more correct than ever.

"The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."

H.L. Mencken,

Notes on Democracy [1926], Part III, p.148

Douglas R. Casey's International Speculator is published monthly by Douglas Casey. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher, editors and officers, including Douglas Casey may from time to time have positions, either long or short, in securities or commodities recommended by or referred to in this newsletter. No more than 250 words of this newsletter may be extracted or reproduced in context without permission of the publisher. ©2001 by Douglas Casey.

EDITOR/PUBLISHER: Douglas R. Casey; GROUP PUBLISHER: Laura Davis; PRODUCTION: Marketing Solutions Unlimited; LIST SALES MANAGER: Beth Ketzner
Please address subscription, customer service, and editorial inquiries to: International Speculator, 1217 St. Paul St., Baltimore, MD 21202, 1-800-433-1528, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Subscriptions: 12 issues, $199; back issues, $25 each. All prices are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. For international prices please call International Customer Service at 1-978-514-7857, Fax 1-410-230-1262.