Bloc Party
On Politics by Human Shields
Let me open by saying something entirely uncontroversial: the LGBT+ community does not exist.
Just kidding – about the “uncontroversial” part that is. The rest I meant. There is no such thing as a community along these lines. There is also no such thing as a black community – not as asserted in this context, anyhow.
So, what am I on about anyway? Well, a community is a group of people that have both interaction and some combination of geography, habits, hobbies, and ethics in common, as well as existing towards a common benefit socially.
What, then, makes the LGBLT and black “communities” not actually communities as such? It’s simple: firstly, the avatars of these so-called “communities” have no quantifiable claim to speak for even a plurality, let alone a majority of the persons identifying with the labels claimed, and second, naked political ambition is not the same thing as a common social benefit. It is only along truly leftist lines of conceptualization that the broad concept of “social benefit” and narrow “political ambition” forms a circular Venn diagram. Politics is merely one facet of the much thicker concept of “community.”
From a traditional perspective there is a much more accurate term for what these “communities” truly represent: a political bloc. What is it that these political blocs are designed to do? That too is simple, if fairly dark: they claim the mantle of an entire identity, and they present it as politically monolithic entity with which to advocate for leftist (Marxian) politics. It gets darker still when considering the specific identity groups chosen will be those with the most genuine historical grievances, and, thus, the most banked victimhood social currency. This is important to the organizers, as this currency will be spent in the manner of utilizing those identity groups broadly as human shields for the radical politics. Unfortunately, this tends to radicalize true reactionaries against individuals asserting these identities, whether or not they conform to the politics of the bloc.
In turn, these identities do, over time, tend to group towards the political positions asserted by the bloc. The resultant product is commonly known to Marxists as an “authentic critical consciousness” shared across a wide swath of an identity group in coming to view that trait as an identity in which a person can find both themselves, and “community.” This shrinking of “community” down to an ethnic, racial, sexual, gender, or other intersectional character guarantees an increasingly hostile cultural environment – perfect for Marxist revolutionary ends.
So, how do we make use of the information we have here? As we descend further into tribalism as a nation it is important to remind ourselves that people exist not as group avatars, but as individuals. Thus, people should be treated as individuals, and not group avatars. This works two very distinct ways. First, don’t become the reactionary taking your frustrations out on mere avatars without regard for whether or not that person is, individually, guilty of something. Second, when engaged with an organizer or political activist do not allow them to introduce the broader identity group as a substitute for their individuality: hold their feet to the fire as a person, not as an avatar for a group they don’t truly represent. If you forget the latter and allow them to claim the mantle of an entire identity bloc, you hand them the legitimacy of an entire allegedly aggrieved people, and further legitimize that construct.
What does that look like in practice? Simple, break the spell. Every single time that an assertion is made from the position of an aggrieved identity group you must assert the fact that the person making the claim has no right to represent any such group in total, as those characters are not monolithic, the activists are not elected among any such population for representative purpose, and that they are merely an individual Communist (or “leftist,” or “Marxist”). This is the morally righteous and correct position, and it should be asserted as such – not with whimpering and begging, but with chest. Use humor also, ask them “if you represent the LGBT community name them all.” It’s a ridiculous demand, but no more ridiculous than their assertion of representation, and it's funny. Ask them to name any of their detractors within their identity group. If they refuse or are unable, paint them as ridiculous for pretending they have no internal opposition, much like Kim Jong Un or Putin – if they comply and name some point out that it proves they do not have any right to pretend to represent an entire identity, and that they are merely political lobbyists for a particular special interest.