Translation of Colbert’s “interview” with Tulsi Gabbard:

If “we” don’t engage in mass murders based on lies in “international conflicts,” then the Russians and Chinese will take over that role. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Well, first, not necessarily; second, let them. If they decide to do evil, let their crimes be on their conscience, not “ours.”

It’s just like saying, if my gang fails to control the drug trade in the area, then some other gang will. There is therefore nothing objectionable to the violence attending on drug trade.

If I don’t mug this well-dressed guy and take his money, then some other street thug surely will. Guess I’m good to go.

“The United States, however flawed, is a force for good in the world in my opinion,” Colbert finished. Does he mean in the sense that it is the least evil empire? Pathetic — and debatable.

For example, as a commercial republic that still is able to create wealth, the United States is indeed a “force for good in the world.”

As a ruthless and aggressive empire, it is definitely a force for evil.

“Optimistic techno-futurism” is an absurdity and blasphemy.

It is obvious that advanced tech can be used for both good and evil, and with the state and statism again in ascendance, there is a huge danger that evil will triumph.

Mises wrote, for example:

Bourgeois civilization has built railroads and electric power plants, has invented explosives and airplanes, in order to create wealth.

Imperialism has placed the tools of peace in the service of destruction. With modern means it would be easy to wipe out humanity at one blow.

Now it is true that the government has failed to control and subvert the digital revolution in time. We lucked out. But it’s catching up. It could not suppress the Internet, etc.; so it is switching to plan B: using it to destroy people and society.

Mises again:

We have no knowledge whatever about the existence and operation of agencies which would bestow final victory in this clash on those ideologies whose application will secure the preservation and further intensification of societal bonds and the improvement of mankind’s material well-being.

Nothing suggests the belief that progress toward more satisfactory conditions is inevitable or a relapse into very unsatisfactory conditions impossible.

It’s true of course that God has the whole world in His hands, and that is a reason for optimism, but only in the longest possible term.

That fact need not have been any consolation to those, for example, killed by the Mongol Horde or the Black Death.

Of course, the state already has its horde of soldiers armed with demonic weapons; and if some plague does come back as a worldwide pandemic, then it, too, will very likely have been engineered by the US government.

Washington-speak:

Tax cut: a rearrangement of the tax burden away from the recent winners in politics and toward the recent losers, often with a net increase in the amount of tax revenues collected.

Spending cut: a cut in the rate of increase of spending. If last year’s spending went up by 5% as compared with the year before that, and this year’s spending went up by 3% as compared with the last year’s, then that’s a 40% “cut.”

If a “marginalized group” in fact marginalizes itself, such as by being lazy and stupid, that’s Ok, isn’t it?

If the “marginalized” are victims, then it’s only of bad genes.

But these genes were bequeathed to them by their parents. The more successful folks now have nothing to do with these people’s plight.

Suppose a person argues: if we are to “control guns,” then take guns away from criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

The devil replies thus:

If a law is passed banning guns, then all “law-abiding citizens” will need to turn their guns in.

Those who refuse will instantly cease to be law-abiding and become criminals, thus deserving to be disarmed by force and imprisoned and even killed if they resist.

In any case, there are no law-abiding people in our land of a million laws. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” said Beria, Stalin’s chief of secret police.

You’re all guilty of something already, hence precisely non-law-abiding, hence essentially outlaws who have avoided persecution only because you have managed to blend in with the crowd.

Your time will come though; or it will be your children’s.

In short, the absurdity of pleading with the me not to take your guns because you are “law-abiding” is evident to all.

Ah, we say: you are wrong, devil, because you’ve failed to make the distinction between natural and positive law.

It may be true that the government has outlawed everything, but it has done so unjustly. It is thus a tyrannical and wicked government.

But the vast majority of citizens, being non-violent and honest in everyday dealings, are perfectly innocent in the eyes of natural law. Very few commit genuinely unjust crimes of murder, robbery, or fraud.

It is also true that all the state — run by you, devil — knows is how to destroy. But it is not omnipotent, and we are all called to fight its evil.

I would love it for a definitive proof that there was no Holocaust to be found and presented.

It would cleanse the Germans of a terrible sin and the Jews of their miserable defeat.

This is one thing that makes the ostracism and fanatical hatred on the part of Jewish gatekeepers of “Holocaust deniers” so ugly. But it is easily understood: there is a whole industry devoted to implausible exploitation of this event.

They came for the Holocaust deniers first; what’s next, imprisoning Keynes deniers?

There is such a thing as atrocity propaganda during a war, and in a savage global conflict like World War 2 (in which the Germans surrendered unconditionally and so took no part in “writing history”) we should expect plenty of it.

The Holocaust issue comes down to whether there was mass cyanide gassing which some indeed deny. There is no controversy regarding whether many Jews were enslaved or starved or killed in other ways.

For myself, I am irritated at “reducing” a huge event like this to the Holocaust. It was after all a world war with invasions and battles and sieges and tanks and ideologies and politics and economics and all the rest. The overall suffering brought about by it far exceeded that of the Jews taken separately.

My Jewish grandfather, Isaac, was in the army intelligence during WW2, finishing as captain. His future wife, my grandmother, evacuated as far as Azerbaijan. He fought at Stalingrad; took part in taking Berlin at the end; and walked all the way back to Russia afterward, freeing the captured Soviet troops along the way.

(They had gathered up a good number of men, but Stalin believed that the captives must’ve surrendered out of disloyalty or cowardice, and so when they came back to Moscow, he had them sent back to his own labor camps.)

Interestingly perhaps, for the duration of the war, he changed his name from Isaac Israelevich (Isaac son of Israel) to Alexey Ivanovich (Alexey son of Ivan) so that he would not be instantly tortured and killed if he were captured, especially since his duties included sneaking behind the enemy lines to kidnap and deliver a “tongue,” i.e., a German officer to be interrogated. That’s also why my mother’s middle name is Alexeyevna, not Isaacovna, the Russian tradition being that a child’s middle name is the suitably modified father’s first name.

Both survived, though a large branch of my mother’s family was murdered by the Germans; but they were not the pathetic victims Jews have been made out to be. It’s lucky for me, too; I wouldn’t exist otherwise.

The Holocaust was a shameful event in the history of the Jewish people. (Issac once told me there was no way he’d up and march into a gas chamber like a lamb to the slaughter; he’d attack a guard instead and die less dishonorably.)

It is perverse to see it celebrated in popular entertainment and dwelt upon as if some defining moment of modernity.

Do military men realize the obvious fact that they are just particularly deadly government bureaucrats? They

  • work for the state;
  • they kill for the state;
  • they are paid for the killings by the state;
  • they die for the state.

Soldiers, generals, and politicians are not in conflict; they are a single chain of command, in which its every member is fully responsible for whatever injustices he perpetrates.

For example, Vietnam veterans were not “betrayed by gutless politicians”; rather, the veterans themselves betrayed their own humanity by their monstrous acts of violence and destruction.