As in every election year for the past several decades, we are currently being subjected to the fantasy that the authoritarian US political system can somehow be made less awful by electing more women to high positions; similar argument are made for more female cops, spooks, bureaucrats, etc. But this is nothing but a “feminist” fantasy embraced by the government to call attention away from the truth, as a magician’s showmanship draws attention away from what he’s actually doing. If a system is sexist, it makes no difference whether the individual cog which subjects individuals to that system is male, female, non-binary or even hermaphroditic; what matters is that if that cog wishes to advance in a sexist system, it follows the sexist system’s procedures. Therefore, the more power an individual establishment actor has, the more likely that individual is to be a sociopath or even a psychopath; the same exact thing is true of racist systems, sex-negative systems, etc. This is exactly why the pretense or belief that giving women, minorities, queers, etc more power in authoritarian systems will somehow make those systems more humane is childish and counterproductive; as long as the system remains authoritarian, the gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or whatever of the individual cogs in that system is of absolutely no consequence. If such an individual is to advance, they must divest themselves of any personal moral beliefs they might have and replace them with the rules, regulations, and laws of the system; anyone too moral to do so is either ground up by the system, cast out of it, or remains relatively powerless and therefore unable to enact meaningful change. The only way to limit the power of a system (or any given cog in that system) is to remove that power entirely. Power will by its very nature always lead to abuse, no matter what the personal characteristics of the functionaries of that system may be; systems can only become less abusive to individuals by limiting (or better, completely eliminating) their ability to abuse.
Visit my bookstore
This Month
Old Posts
Call me
Become a Blog Patron
If you want to donate but don't want a recurring charge, you can send any amount you like via PayPal to my email address (see below). Be sure to include a note so I can thank you!Contact Maggie
Maggie on Twitter
My TweetsBoring but necessary legal stuff
This is one of the major reasons why I oppose socialism/communism, and why I look upon the morons who defend it with heavy disdain. (E. G. Zornuzzkul on Newgrounds, Contrapoints on YouTube, and The Lens NOLA.) By the way, here’s something I wrote that I’d think you’d like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rseinxt3k5r7nh9/A%20List%20of%20John%20Bel%20Edwards%20Achievements.docx?dl=0
Another excellent piece Maggie.
Fully agree to that. Not only does power corrupt, the corrupt are always seeking power. The problem is that those seeking power on this level are universally not fit to wield it, differences in genetic markup play no role.
Great piece Maggie.
I agree. Most Americans simply fight over the right brand of authoritarianism, but a system that creates centers of power authoritarians can exploit at the point of a gun is the real problem. Current ideological movements are generally made up of cowards who depend on State violence to enforce their will since they lack the courage to take any personal risk.
The American people have a long history of worshiping strongmen and the problem has only grown worse over time. Our tendency to chose legalism over morality that Solzhenitsyn described so eloquently during the Harvard Commencement Speech in 1978 has only grown more true with time.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm
It’s worrying that most of the thought leaders like Solzhenitsyn and commercially successful artists like Miloš Forman who challenged authority have left the stage. The Eastern Europe dissidents who migrated to America during the cold war are especially missed. They had the unique experience of living under first Nazi, then communist rule. They understood deep in their bones that all authority is dangerous and must be challenged and watched closely. That blind trust would get you killed.
Star Trek episodes like “Patterns of Force” and Twilight zone episodes like “The Monsters Are Due” have become completely absent from popular culture, replaced with endless episodes of authority worshiping shows like “COPS” and “CSI.” Can you imagine the outcry if something that challenged gender roles like “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” or the early David Bowie came out now?
I would never claim such authoritarian commercial art (Dragnet) did not exist in the past, but that is now literally all we have. We’ve raised a few generations now with strong fascist tendencies prepared to repeat the worst mistakes of the 20’s century.
Thank you for the always thought provoking writing.
Well said. By the same token, I’ve been skeptical of the claim that “privileged” folks have no right to ever question the leaders of “marginalized” groups — even if the leader in question is self-appointed, abusive, bigoted, dishonest and/or dictatorial.
Same here, Desmond.
Reblogged this on Living in Anglo-America.