Mar-a-Lago Narr

There is widespread agreement that poor Donald is afflicted by a narcissistic personality disorder. I prefer to consider the German “Narr” (fool) to be more relevant and not because of GWB’s mangling of the old saying to assert he was nobody’s fool.

GWB had reason to be concerned about being fooled. After all, he had been tricked into assenting to a stupid war on Iraq because some people (I consider them the supremacists) were convinced that their ambition to have a supreme ruler, albeit temporarily, could be achieved under the aegis of the Supreme Commander of a war effort.

The supremacists have been with us for a long time. They have never been committed to government by the people. But, as ling as the category of people effectively excluded women, children, foreigners and Native Americans, they were OK with the effective white male hegemony.

Since neither the emancipatory nor civic participation amendments to the Constitution had resulted in a significant impediment to white males, it was not anticipated that the fair wages and universal suffrage agenda of the 1960s would effect a significant change. When it did, when women insisted on equal accees to employment, financial assistance and civic participation, a backlash sprang up.

Limiting the terms of a supreme ruler was doubtless intended to disguise the real intent–by discounting the tenure, it was hoped, the supremacy of the position would be masked.

I might note at this point that the object of supremacy is not personal aggrandizement for the occupant of the office. Rather, the object is to immunize the subordinate cadres from being responsible for their performance of duties and obligations.

In a sense, immunity is the key to power, which is why the Constitution provides for it to be dispersed, leaving public servants as just servants, as GWB discovered when the SCOTUS ruled that even non-citizens and captives have to be extended rights when legally restrained.

So, what the supremacists hit upon next, especially since the fact that when poor Donald was elected, the female actually got a majority of votes. The increasing vulnerability of male hegemony could not be ignored and, lo and behold, the ministerial function of transmitting the will of the electorate to the Congress was revealed as potentially vulnerable to perversion.

And, they already had a practical model in the perversion of the ministerial function of prosecutors into investigation, charging AND negotiating pleas and the terms of punishment. And the judiciary had proved agreeable. Indeed, it was the Department of Justice which argued in 2010 that there is “no right not to be framed” by a prosecutor. Voting is organized by states, much as evidence of crime is collected by police under the jurisdiction of the executive. So, of law enforcers can be second-guessed by prosecutors, why can’t the processing of votes be challenged (and corrected) by Congress? What’s one more ministerial function made obsolete?

How to convey that white male supremacy is not about whites or males, but about a supremacy that is reserved to males, but is functionally irrelevant, a blanket whitewash–akin to baptism in the Christian religions. Six of the nine Justices are and will continue to be Catholics when Justice Jackson takes her seat. However, there will then be four females putting male
hegemony in danger.

Finally, in addition to pointing out that supremacy is not person-centered, but driven by an adherence to an idea or ideal, male hegemony is also a matter of principle enshrined in the Bible. If nothing else, this might suggest that the prohibition against agents of government interfering with religion is also an affirmation of religious rule as superior. Subordinates do not tell superiors what to do.

That this principle has largely been circumvented via the creation and regulation of subordinate corporations is an accurate perception AND consistent with the indirect action favored by supremacists/conservatives. They prefer exercising influence indirectly so they cannot be accountable or resisted.

Does supremacy have to be male? Does that account for the effort to exclude LGBTQ?

What do godless communism and secular humanism have in common? The rejection of supremacy. Does that mean immunity is more important than immortality.