There will be complete gun freedom in paradise, since the bodies of the blessed can become impassible to harm from any material object including a speeding bullet at will.

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.


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 nonviolent 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.

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.

David Marcus advertises for Ocasio-Cortez:

She has “falsely” claimed, you see, that

AIPAC has paid politicians to ignore right and wrong and simply do what their Jewish benefactors demand.

This claim is absurd on its face and makes reference to centuries old claims that greedy Jews are subverting decent society with their big bags of shekels.

Well, of course Jews pay off politicians. Everyone does; that’s what the politicians are for — for sale. (And that’s a good thing — I, for one, like my Democrats less socialistic and more corrupt.)

But Jews are the smartest ethnic group on the face of the earth and therefore rich; they are clannish, ruthless, and therefore able and willing to buy congressmen. What’s “false” about that? Jews should be proud of their political savvy.

(Of course, Jews would not have anywhere near the influence they do have if the American Christians did not support them, but that’s another subject altogether.)

In fact, they should pay Omar and AOC to take their side. I imagine these girls are easily corruptible.

The second claim is that American Jews who support Israel are engaged in dual loyalty. That their real allegiance is not to the United States but to Israel and Judaism.

Many are not. Some are. Be smarter and learn to discriminate, David. Oh, and speak for yourself. You are trying to make Jews into pathetic victims again. You are an embarrassment, so keep your mouth shut.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes.

On the contrary, there are only atheists in foxholes.

A Christian would understand that he would burn for committing his mass murders and find a way to escape the war ASAP.