A Reflection On the Claims of the “Community”

                                                 
Many claims and demands are founded on this non-descript group. The X community needs this, the community must protect Y, this is the responsibility of the community to do Z. The main problem with this idea is that it is regularly used by politically interested and invested in the outcome (Z) to emotionally shame and brow beat large and divers groups with competing and conflicting interests into the idea that there is a cohesive group that is “the community”. In small cases, parishes and villages, this may be possible. However, in large polities this works out in practice to mean government coercion through FORCE of law. Thus those that are do not agree with X,Y, or Z are portrayed as outside the community. The fact that this community is an artificial construct is lost on most politically indifferent people. Moreover, it is irrelevant if the suddenly “outside” group is the majority or not; let alone if they are right. For the community is always fluid. It may be steel workers, children, homosexuals etc. The point is that the community, and inclusion in it, are what is really important. Certainly not individual

thought, critical thinking, debate or tolerance. Ironically, Diversity is the opposite of tolerance as it is a movement onto itself. Although Diversity would suggest tolerance, and is the main battle cry of these tactics, yet they always seem to push laws that suppress the individual authority, sovereignty and free speech of others. “Others” being those they disagree with and not ensconced in the “community”.  And all the while this group is always more and more subtly oppressed and needs more “community” action in it’s defence. This is because the “community is being created by a group that has a financial interest in the creation, propagation and execution of the very government programs that are to be instituted to address these issues. Issues that may or may not have been issues to begin with.

Thus the “community” is code for special interest groups seeking financial gain. But this is always obscured and justified by pictures of battered women, drug addicted teens, pregnant rape victims and impoverished children. For only Monsters are critical of groups promoting the redress of such ills. Therefore individuals are discouraged from pointing out legitimate moral issues regarding the financially interested groups political agenda and ideology. What is most dangerous is that this cycle ends and festers in government control and legislation. Most honest people can only practice political activism part time because they have to work in

the private sector and raise families. But the Group described above creates for itself the ability to be politically active all the time and paid by the political system for the pleasure at the same time. Thus honest families are pushed out of the political process by sheer economic pressure. Therefore a claim for “community” action is really a call for publicly funded political activists, unaccountable to that very public, to institutionalize it’s ideology.  A call for “community” is therefore a call for the destruction of any pretence of community at all.