The old National Review conservatives stood athwart history, yelling Stop.

They failed, because they refused to yell Go in the right direction, and specify the direction.

With no positive vision and no ideas, at best, they’ve slowed “history” down a little bit.

Conservatism is a sad exercise in futility indeed.

One key to understanding Trump is that he has no ideology, and so there is nothing to understand.

What works in our favor, however, is that fundamentally, he’s a decent guy, far better than his predecessors.

It is said that each new president makes you long for the previous one, however horrible the old boss may have been. Thus, Bush II caused Clinton to look positively holy.

Not Trump, though. I like him.

Remember the NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s 2013 soda ban attempt?

Pathetic, wasn’t it? Suppose Bloomberg had said instead:

I am a god. My power is absolute. All sweet drinks are hereby banned in the city. Anyone found drinking soda will be summarily tortured and then executed on the spot by the police.

I’d respect this in a perverse sort of way.

Instead, it wasn’t much of a ban; Bloomberg tried to regulate the size of soft drink cups, the types of drinks that could be sold, with many subtle exemptions and distinctions drawn in the law. The punishment would be a $200 fine.

That’s precisely what made the whole thing pointless and ridiculous on its own terms: the “ban” would have achieved nothing except economic chaos and possibly random violence on the black market for massive adulterated Coca-Cola doses.

We have only two choices:

  1. a society of free men;
  2. a society of one god and all others his subhuman slaves.

There is no “Third Way,” whether Bloombergian or any other kind.

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.

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?