Skip to content

The Levellers

15 November 2010 @ 19:31

Over at The Other McCain, Stacy McCain is on a roll today.  Two of his postings deal with the concept of Equality, one on Feminism and the other on the absurd airport security screening policies we have in America.

In the latter instance, he posts a video of a three-year old girl being forced to endure an intrusive search by the TSA.  The post is entitled, What Causes Islamophobia:

Make no mistake: The reason that 3-year-old Mandy Simon had to be searched by TSA is Islam — and the politically-correct insistence that, in Ed Morrissey’s phrase, “everyone must suffer equally” in airport security.

The idiocy of how the TSA conducts itself is well-known: making everyone go through the same intrusive procedures despite the fact that it is obvious the vast majority of people flying are not likely terrorists.  But in the name of political correctness we are all forced to endure a process that is often humiliating.  PC arises out of a Leftist belief that one cannot discriminate against certain persons or groups because they would be offended and, somehow, to do so would be ‘unfair’ – and, Lord knows, we can’t be that.  No, everyone must be treated EXACTLY the same, in a denial of reality that would be laughable if it were not for the seriousness of the danger behind The Levelling Instinct.

In the other, longer posting, Stacy takes aim at Feminism, specifically the espousal of a belief in it by women on the Right.  A highlight:

“Conservative feminist” is as oxymoronic as “moderate Obama supporter.” To be a feminist is to believe in — to advocate, litigate and legislate for – a sort of equality that does not exist, that has never existed and that will never exist. Men and women are not equal in the sense that feminists believe. They are not identical and interchangeable. Attempts to bring about such a false equality are misguided and harmful.

This is not an assertion of “male supremacy,” nor does anti-feminism entail the patriarchal dystopia of Margaret Atwood’s vicious imaginings. To oppose feminism is not to disparage women’s abilities, nor relegate them to kinder, kuche, kirche.

Indeed.  In the creation of Man and Woman, a delicate and complimentary balance was brought into being that has brought about civilization and any worthy progress. Leftism, and it’s mutant offspring Feminism, have successfully disrupted the balance and this has brought about the wearing away of the cultural glue that holds The West together, to the point where our Civilization faces the likely possibility of disintegration.

As Jean Raspail asked: ‘Could this be one explanation?’

Later in that same posting, Stacy offers some damn good advice:

Memo to young conservative women: Do not buy into “feminism” as an alternative to a nightmarishly oppressive past (or future) that exists only in feminist propaganda. Do not allow the collectivist philosophy of “feminism” to coopt credit for your achievements as an individual. There were high-achieving women in the workplace prior to 1964 or 1969 or 1973 or whatever other date the feminists would assign as the beginning or triumph of the “Women’s Movement.”

To achieve equality, everyone and every thing must be brought down to the lowest level existing. Such thinking about equality brings nothing — absolutely nothing — but equal suffering and equal despair. It requires enslavement of the population because the human soul desires freedom which brings about [glorious] inequality.  Those who have resisted such submission, who have fought The Levellers, have often found themselves staring down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun or imprisoned in a mental institution.

I think Ayn Rand put it very well:

They turn the word into an anti-concept: they use it to mean, not political, but metaphysical equality—the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. It is not man-made institutions, but nature, i.e., reality, that they propose to fight—by means of man-made institutions.

Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts….

This obsession with Equality by so many confirms me in my belief that Nihilism is the root of such thinking, and Nihilism is a hatred of life.  Part of this hatred is a loathing of all that is beautiful — in order for someone or something to be beautiful there must be a standard by which he, she, or it is judged, and this implies inequality.  I have no doubt that many many people on The Left would enjoy watching the world perish in a Gotterdammerung of flame and destruction — one merely has to look at their eyes and observe the contortions on their faces when they begin raving to see that find their fellow humans repugnant.

The Levellers must be stopped from implementing their mad schemes.  The souls of the dead who have died at their hands must be avenged.

  1. 15 November 2010 @ 22:59 22:59

    The reason that 3-year-old Mandy Simon had to be searched by TSA is Islam — and the politically-correct insistence that, in Ed Morrissey’s phrase, “everyone must suffer equally” in airport security.

    As I commented at Stacy”s and elaborated on my blog, Islam and PC are simply the EXCUSE, not the reason. The reason is corporatism, power and control. Like all governments throughout history, our government seeks power and control over the people. The government is conditioning you (see WyBlog), herding you like cattle through porno-scanners and physical molestations, and Chertoff had scanners to sell.

    This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Nothing at all. Islam is the excuse, not the reason. Collectivist forms of government require a security state. After WWII, we were told we defeated fascism, but FDR enacted the fascist economic state at home. We were told we defeated communism in the Cold War, but America looks more like the old USSR than it does the old USA. Now we’re being told that we’re defeating terrorism … while they erect a security state.

    It’s all lies Bob. It’s all lies. Bipartisan lies.

    Your/our government is no better (I’d argue worse) than the government our Founder’s overthrew. Neither Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and Adams, author of the Alien and Sedition Acts, would defend this government for even a millisecond. They weren’t afraid to turn against their own government. They’d both be advocating another war.

    It must be done peacefully this time, so don’t misunderstand me. But until “We the People” stop trusting the government, believing they’re “protecting” us … that it’s simply a foreign enemy who’s stealing our freedoms (when in fact it’s our own government), nothing significant will ever change. Nothing.

    Islam is the excuse, not the reason.

    P.S. – You like how I stuck that dig in at Adams?

  2. Erich Madden permalink
    16 November 2010 @ 00:35 00:35

    -theCL – to be clear, when you suggest that Islam is an excuse, are you suggesting that Islam is not a real threat, that its magnitude has been greatly exaggerated by the government for its own ends, or are you simply saying that the government has exploited a very real and extremely dangerous threat as an excuse in order to oppress us without actually increasing our security from that threat.

  3. Erich Madden permalink
    16 November 2010 @ 00:37 00:37

    Here is a picture of everything you need to know about how our Government is protecting us:

    Muslim TSA Agent Frisking Nun

  4. bobbelvedere permalink*
    16 November 2010 @ 08:21 08:21

    TheCL: -If by ‘corporatism’ you mean Fascism, then we are in agreement on that. Indeed, the committed Leftists and their Fellow Travellors [ex: RINOs] do believe that the average American in incapable of ‘properly’ regulating his life and conducting himself as he ‘should’. The Fascists see life as way too messy and want to clean it up with their sterile re-engineering schemes.

    -Erich is dead solid perfect in his assessment of the Mohammedin threat. I hope he is right that you subscibe to the latter rather than the former. Islam is a grave threat to the continuing existence of The West.

    Erich: Maybe I’m just a bigot, but I don’t want any Mohammedins allowed to be TSA agents.

  5. 16 November 2010 @ 10:02 10:02

    @Erich Madden: It’s a highly exaggerated threat being used as an excuse to “immanentize the global eschaton” and erect a security state – a hallmark of collectivists all throughout history.

    The government doesn’t think about “keeping you safe.” It’s all propaganda. This is true of both Democrats and Republicans. There are better odds of you winning the lottery 4 times this afternoon than there is you will ever die in a terrorist attack. These are the same odds as before Bush erected the security state too.

    Look,the US military, the most powerful in all of world history, cannot get control of Iraq. This means the odds of radical Islam invading and taking control of our country is exactly zero. It cannot happen. Our own miitary couldn’t get control of this country. It’s too big. The government simply wants to keep you in fear so you”ll accept the continued loss of your rights. Think about this … If Islam “hates our freedom,” why does our own government continue to take our freedom away? Does our own government hate our freedom too? Are they allies with radical Islam? They sure act that way.

    The government lies all the time. Everybody knows this. Well, guess what? They lie about foreign policy too. They lie about everything. The fact that politicians lie is about the oldest common knowledge there is.

    We don’t live in the country our Founders established. We don’t even have the same form of government. As Hayek taught, in politics, the scum rises to the top. The sooner “We the People” accept this, the better our chances for revival. But as long as “the right” continues to blindly trust the government, there is no hope. We’re doomed.

  6. 16 November 2010 @ 10:21 10:21

    @Bob: Yes. Corporatism is the economic policy of the fascist state. FDR enacted economic fascism in the US. This is fact. This is why I no longer believe that we “defeated” fascism in WWII. If we really did, we wouldn’t have it here at home. FDR is no hero. He was the enemy of everything our Founders stood for. FDR was a tyrant.

    Corporatism … It’ not by coincidence that Chertoff’s porno-scanners made their way into our airports. General and President Eisenhower was right all along, so was General Smedley Butler – 2 guys with more experience and wisdom than all of the neocons combined. Russell Kirk was right about war too. His writings are prophetic. His incredibly accurate foreign policy predictions should give every pro-war conservative second thoughts. He was so right, while the neocon predictions have been so wrong. Kirk had more wisdom in his right-pinkie fingernail than Dick Cheney could ever dream of.

  7. Erich Madden permalink
    16 November 2010 @ 12:12 12:12

    I’d like to reply to several of the above points, but I’m short on time, so I’ll just do this one now:

    theCL – “Look,the US military, the most powerful in all of world history, cannot get control of Iraq. This means the odds of radical Islam invading and taking control of our country is exactly zero. It cannot happen.”

    The American military could easily control Iraq in short order if they were willing to indiscriminately kill as many civilians as it took to quash all dissent. They are not. Radical Islam will not have a problem doing that.

  8. 16 November 2010 @ 17:29 17:29

    @Erich: Not true. Islam is about as scary as a hornet’s nest. Dangerous, yes. But easy to deal with too. China couldn’t take the United States, and they have more military power than radical Islam will have at any time during the next 100 years.

    Your government is lying to you. Russell Kirk, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Smedley Butler were right and have been right all along. Listen to those whose predictions turned out to be correct, not those who have to keep coming up with new excuses. Kirk, the godfather of conservatism, accurately predicted 9/11. Neocons were surprised. Listening to neocons concerning foreign policy is the equivalent to listening to Ben “there is no housing bubble” Bernanke about the economy. If your theory fails to predict, it’s useless garbage.

    The original conservatives like Kirk, Taft, Nisbet, Weaver, etc. have been mind-boggling accurate in their predictions because they have sound theory that makes sense in the real world. how often do they have to be proen right before people start listening to themagain?Look up what Eisenhower said about preemptive war … I’ll give you a hint, he said Hitler invented it. Hmmmm …

    If the government needs to take your freedom away, it’s lying to you. Period. Freedom has never brought anyone harm. In all of history, the security state is associated with tyranny, not freedom. Think about that.

  9. Erich Madden permalink
    17 November 2010 @ 03:40 03:40

    This is why I shouldn’t reply unless I have plenty of time -my thought above was incomplete. What I was objecting to is the analogy you made that the US could not get control of Iraq due to a lack of power. We are more than capable of wielding enough power to control Iraq 100 times over, but our moral nature prevents us from using it in that way (which is a good thing). I didn’t mean to imply in any way that there was a realistic danger of a Muslim invasion of a D-Day storming the beaches type or a military occupation of America by them. I don’t think anyone of any significance in or out of the government is claiming that is the danger we face. They could never hope to defeat us in that way, and if that was all we had to worry about then, yes, it would be a giant red herring. Their goals are much slower and more long-term than that. What they want is a takeover from within, through our own legal system and government, and a societal takeover through immigration, subversion, and conversion, particularly among the criminal class. We need only look at Europe to see where they are much further ahead in this goal than they are here. Note that the government does not even claim to be protecting us from this tactic, they won’t even acknowledge that it exists. The second part of their tactic acts in support of this goal – that is to weaken us so that we are more susceptible, and less able to oppose them. In that interest, they want to attack us in the form of terrorism, both to break our will, but even more so to destroy us as an economic and social force. (This is, of course, the part the government claims to want to protect us from, and they will happily exploit it to gain power over us.) This brings me back to the flaw that I was trying to point out in your analogy. America, though militarily strong, can’t control Iraq because our morals prevent us from using the brutality that would be required to do so. The Islamic enemy has no such restriction – though they are militarily weak, this lack of moral boundary gives them the ability to be a very great threat to us. Rest assured, if they get nuclear weapons, or smallpox, they will not blink an eye before using them against an American city. If you think they won’t, or that they can’t, you are mistaken. In that case, my or anyone else’s odds of dying from a terrorist attack would become significantly greater than winning the lotto, and it is by no means assured that America or the world would ever fully recover. We dismiss both the physical threat and the cultural threat at our great peril.

    That having been said, does the government lie to us about the specifics of this and other threats? Sure. You betcha. On both sides of the aisle, too. Do they do it to gain power over us? Yup. Doesn’t mean everything they say is automatically false. You can’t just use “governments lie” as a reason to discount anything they say about anything. Real, existing threats work just as well as made up ones. Evil people have used whatever means available to them, taken advantage of whatever real dangers present themselves, to gain power and money and influence for themselves over us since the beginning of time, and will do so until then end of time, and it has always been our job to fight against that. That does not mean that we should let our awareness of one threat (from the burgeoning power of our own government) blind us to the magnitude of other very real threats. That power-hungry individuals in our government seek to deny us our freedoms, and will fabricate threats where none exist, does not in any way prevent other equally dangerous threats from existing. That both seek similar goals of oppression and control reflects nothing more than the fact that they are both evil.

    If we would willingly give up our liberty to home-grown tyrants to protect ourselves from the Muslim threat would be a terrible thing, but it would be no less terrible if we ended up giving up our liberty to Islamofascist tyrants out of our effort to fight against the home-grown variety.

  10. 17 November 2010 @ 08:37 08:37


    You described accurately how Islam could take over, through the culture, not through bombs. The only way government can help save our culture is to defend freedom, the antithesis of Sharia, not take our freedoms away.

    They bomb us because we bomb them. If you were them, you’d bomb us too. Decades of interventionism on the world stage has had the same affects as decades of interventionism at home. It has distorted everything and created more problems that it has helped. You cannot bomb someone without expecting to get bombed in return. You can’t intervene i someone’s elections without expecting to create diabolical enemies. You can’t fund people like Osama bin Laden without expecting it to come back and haunt you. You can’t overthrow a popular, democratically elected president and install a brutal dictator (Iran) without convincing people you are the Great Satan. You can’t erect a police state at home and pretend you’re still free.

    Not long ago, the foreign policy will follow today was known (properly) as liberal internationalism. Taft warned it would cause the Viet Nam war, Nibet warned it would bring the communist police state home, Kirk warned it would bring 9/11. Nobody listened. how often do these old time conservatives have to be proven right before people listen?

    Intervention, especially with bombs and guns, has consequences. Dire consequences. And yes, when the level of lying is consistent and overwhelming, you don’t trust the messenger at all. Did our Founding Fathers trust the Crown?

  11. Erich Madden permalink
    18 November 2010 @ 12:42 12:42

    They bomb us because we bomb them ?!?! Muslims bomb the Hindu nations because the mean Hindus attacked them. Muslims bomb the Jews because the mean Jews (who are outnumbered 50:1) attacked them. Muslims bob the Christian nations because the mean Christians attack them. Muslims bomb the Atheist nations because the mean Atheists attacked them. Sunnis and Shites bob each other because…ummmm….well, it must be our fault, or possibly the Jooooos. Those poor Muslims, why must everyone be picking on them, forcing them to preemptively blow up civilians in self defense? As I recall, Osama’s originally stated reason for hating us was that we had defined the soil of sacred Saudi Arabia (our ally at the time) with our presence in Gulf War 1 – that’s right, they (so they said) attacked us for ALLYing with them against a secular ruler.

    Interventionism has consequences. Yes. So does Isolationism. We’ve seen those consequences in history, and they are not good.

    Yes. The government lies. A lot. For their own gain. To exploit and control us. Why? Why do they lie? Is it because they are the Government? No, it is because they are people. People lie, not just the government, and for all the same reasons. Even many of those who would claim to further Liberty lie to exploit our desire for liberty for their own ends. The Muslims lie, their leftist apologists lie, and for the same reasons, to deceive and control us. Just because they’re the government is not a valid reason to distrust their lies and believe someone else’s lies. I believe in actions – I see the Muslims actions and I believe that they intend to try to get nukes, and bioweapons, and to use them against us in their goal of destabilizing us to facilitate the cultural/political takeover.

    I am not in disagreement with you about the importance of Liberty and the principles of our Founding Fathers, nor about the danger of Tyranny from our own government. MY disagreement is that recognizing that danger should not be allowed to blind us to the fact that it is not the only danger, because trading one tyrant for another is no trade at all.

  12. Erich Madden permalink
    30 November 2010 @ 11:52 11:52

    As it has now been 12 days with no counterargument from theCL, I hereby declare myself the winner of this discussion!! Congratulations to me!!

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      30 November 2010 @ 13:15 13:15

      Erich: You’re prizes are in the mail.


  1. Bob Belvedere Pounds the Nail, Beautifully | Smash Mouth Politics
  2. The Spot-On Quote Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: