Published on January 11 2018

Doug Casey on Controversial Buzzwords, Part I

Justin’s note: Doug Casey isn’t afraid to speak his mind… even if it means offending people.

That’s a rare commodity. These days, most people only think what they’re supposed to think. They say only what’s politically correct.

It’s a serious problem that’s getting worse every day.

So, I recently called Doug to discuss some of today’s most controversial buzzwords…


Justin: Doug, you said something during one of our recent talks that intrigued me:

They’ll say if you use bitcoin you’re a money launderer, a drug dealer, a terrorist, or a tax evader. Actually, the morality involved in all those activities is worth a separate discussion… it’s perverse they’re always classed together.

What did you mean by that? What’s wrong with grouping these people together?

Doug: It's chimpanzee think. It's group-think memes in action. Somebody in a position of authority—or even just an actor, or a news reader, or a rapper, for that matter—says something. That transforms it into something that everybody automatically believes in, thoughtlessly.

It's like the concept of political correctness. I first heard that term on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s. They said "this isn't very politically correct.” I thought it was part of their skit. I thought it was a joke.

Recommended Link

Over 50,000 People Signed up for the Marijuana Millionaire Summit…

And discovered the details of the top 5 pot stocks for 2018. You have until midnight tonight to watch a free replay of the Summit.

Click here to watch.

Little did I know that it would become a meme. The concept didn’t just catch on in society, it’s come to rule it. You're supposed to be politically correct—if not, you must be a Nazi or a Klansman. Although, oddly, you might actually be a Communist or a fanatic Muslim with identical beliefs—and that’s somehow acceptable. So, the concept of PC isn’t a joke anymore. It’s the complete opposite of a joke. It’s a threat. Calling something a name that’s not just inaccurate, but maybe the opposite of what it is, is dangerous, dishonest and destructive.

A lot of words are consistently misused today. Sometimes purposefully, sometimes just stupidly. What you say reflects what you think. And what you think—or at least feel—influences what you do. I did an article a while ago debunking the misuse of a dozen common words. People who think in slogans and catchphrases are very dangerous. They turn their feelings into group moral memes. Lowest common denominator stuff.

Justin: They aren’t thinking for themselves.

Doug: Exactly. That’s how lynch mobs work—“Give us Barabbas! Give us Barabbas!” People should analyze these “hot button” concepts, like the four things I mentioned—and there are lots of others—on their own merits. Otherwise you’ll wind up mindlessly parroting Paul Krugman, Hillary Clinton, or Kim Kardashian.

These terms shouldn’t be grouped together. "These are evil things. We shouldn't even think about them. They're not even worth talking about." Did Big Brother call them Badthink in 1984?

Justin: But you think they’re worth talking about?

Doug: Absolutely. This is what made Walter Block’s book Defending the Undefendable such a work of genius. Everyone should read it. It’s also very funny, somewhat in the tradition of George Carlin, another genius.

So, yes. We should dissect all four terms that I mentioned.

Recommended Link

Delbert made $151,000 from Teeka Tiwari’s crypto plays, here’s his letter:
I am a 67-year-old retired school teacher and small business owner from Greencastle, PA… When Teeka began providing information on the cryptocurrencies, I was intrigued. I bought a $5,400 stake in October 2016. This morning it was $74,200!!!! As a follow-up, within a few more weeks my stake had climbed to over $151,000… $5,400 to $151,000 in 8 months!!!!!! Here’s how to get Teeka’s research right away…

Justin: I agree. Let’s start with money launderer.

Doug: Money laundering. It’s the process of making money obtained from criminal activity look like it came from a legitimate source. But it’s a completely artificial crime. It’s made up. It was created out of whole cloth about 40 years ago, as I recall. Like most “crimes” today, it’s not wrong in itself; it’s wrong because some legislators passed a law.

There's nothing wrong, in principle, with money laundering.

Perhaps you got the money illegally or immorally. And, incidentally, those are two totally different concepts, where there's only an accidental overlap. But that’s a big subject for a whole new conversation.

But what’s wrong with redeploying capital that already exists in a perfectly legal or moral way? I would say nothing. Money is fungible. It’s not like artwork—it’s not so easy to trace its provenance.

Anyway, it's said that most great fortunes started with a crime. That’s certainly true for the Kennedy fortune. Joe Kennedy, founder of the clan, made most of his money bootlegging, which is the equivalent of drug dealing. He also made money with stock manipulation, which is insider trading. God knows what else he was up to. Although bootlegging and stock manipulation are not, in themselves, immoral. That said, I have no doubt many other things—like murder, assault, theft—occurred in the process.

So, he laundered money. It wasn’t a crime then.

It’s counterproductive to make it illegal to take these so-called ill-gotten gains, and do something correct with them. It's just another Kafka-esque crime that they can arbitrarily use to hang you. At what point does capital created illegally become clean?

Money laundering is a non-crime, and shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Justin: What about drug dealers?

Doug: Today, drug dealers are automatically seen as the worst kind of scum. Drug dealers now are always looked upon as being violent, evil, immoral, amoral, just horrible human beings. But the problem isn’t so much that drugs can be abused and harm the user—that’s true of alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, inactivity, and a hundred other things. The problem arises when they’re made illegal. All drugs should be legal.

Why? Well, your body is your primary possession. If you can’t control what you can put in your own body, you have no freedom at all. You’re, in effect, a slave.

That's the moral argument for drugs being legal. Whether they're good, bad, or indifferent is a technical issue. But it’s a question of degree, as is the case with food, sex, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and everything else.

These can all be addictive or even dangerous if they’re not used in moderation.

The “War on Drugs” is foolish and destructive on every level. It should be abolished.

Justin: You explored this idea in your latest novel, Drug Lord.

Doug: Yes. In that novel, my co-author John Hunt and I tried to reform the unjustly besmirched occupation of drug lord. Our drug lord hero, Charles Knight, is a thoroughly good guy. There’s nothing wrong with the commodity. There’s nothing wrong with purveying drugs. But, as with the other subjects we’re discussing, people often have a fixed idea burned into their consciousness, and they’re unwilling or unable to analyze the subject rationally.

Drug dealing, whether you’re a ghetto dweller or Big Pharma, is—in itself—a non-crime.

Justin: But Doug, drug dealers murder, kidnap people, and do all sorts of horrible things. How can you say they’re not criminals?

Doug: That’s true. But it’s not because they’re drug dealers. It’s because they’re murderers, kidnappers, or extortionists. Those are the real crimes.

But you’ve got to separate these ideas. Something may look gray. But gray is a combination of black and white. It shows a lack of critical thinking when people can’t separate them.


Justin’s note: Tomorrow, I’ll share part two of this interview, where Doug shares his thoughts on two other controversial buzzwords. In the meantime, if you haven’t already, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Doug’s novel Drug Lord.

It’s a fantastic tale where hero Charles Knight has to sort through the legal and illegal, moral and immoral, and right and wrong as he navigates the War on Drugs and the corrupt pharmaceutical industry. You can order your copy right here.


Reader Mailbag

Today, readers respond to our recent Dispatch, “Why Sessions Can’t Stop This Marijuana Boom”:

Justin, awesome article. Where did you learn to write like this? You give the facts in a very appealing yet appalling manner! Hats off to you!

—Lois

Your reasoning is incorrect. The US Constitution governs his actions, and it is clearly worded otherwise against Sessions. Read the history of the 10th Amendment (and there is plenty from before that amendment was ratified in in September 1787). Generally, the 10th Amendment gives states the rights to overrule and supersede government foolery (Sessions included). Past SCOTUS cases will confirm the above information. The above are viable facts, and anecdotal bloviating.

—Craig

What do you think about Sessions’ fight against the marijuana industry? Let us know right here.


In Case You Missed It…

Did you attend Doug Casey’s free online investing summit last night?

Thousands of readers discovered how Doug turned $50,000 into $1 million by investing in one marijuana penny stock. Readers also had the chance to discover the five best plays for the coming legal marijuana boom. If you missed the event, don’t worry. Doug has agreed to host a replay. Catch it right here.