Community Organizing,

 

I heard on TV the term community organizing (CO) and was curious to find out, how it relates to the two different patterns, which occur in every language: Disembodied Language (DL) and Embodied Language (EL). According to Wikipedia, CO is a process where people, who live in proximity to each other or share some common problem, come together into an organization that acts in their shared self-interest. Unlike those who promote more consensual community building, CO organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power for the powerless. CO has as a core goal the generation of durable power for an organization representing the community, allowing it to influence key decision makers on a range of issues over time. Ideally, CO groups get a place at the table before important decisions are made. CO organizers work with and develop new local leaders, facilitating coalitions and assisting in the development of campaigns. A central goal of CO is the development of a robust, organized, local democracy bringing community members together across differences to fight together for the interest of the community. This description clearly shows how DL is perpetuated by CO.

 

The insistence of CO organizers on conflict and struggle, as a way to, supposedly, achieve social change, is aimed at achieving durable power. This Marxist-communist approach, however, will never be able to properly address our DL. To the contrary, it will make our DL even more insidious, tenacious, manipulative and lethal, than it already is. Moreover, all of this will be done, because, presumably, it is good for the community. Make no mistake, with DL, only the illusion is created, that we are coming together.

 

CO is based on the artificial division between the so-called powerless and the powerful, and,   therefore, it preaches power for the powerless. EL isn’t based on any kind of fight and the basic premise of CO appears to be, that nothing can be achieved without DL. Whatever is achieved with DL, is never the wellbeing of the individual community members. The imaginary place, at the table of decision-making, is never obtained, because DL only deals with group-behavior, not with individuals. Like so many other political movements, CO throws out the child with the bathwater, by gas-lighting and virtue-signaling.

 

The aim of CO is social reform, that is, it claims to bring a social or political system closer to the community’s ideal. It should also be noted, that the need for reform of society, is grounded in what is known as liberalism or, more precisely, in socialistic-communistic-collectivistic ideology, which, in turn, previously arose from religious concepts. A famous example of this, was the fanatic, creepy, idiot, Mahatma Gandhi with his spinning wheel. Anything that is reactionary, religious, radical, left-wing or revolutionary, that is intent on transforming, replacing or radically overthrowing, the fundamental principles of society, is against EL and, clearly, in favor of DL.  

 

The end goal, the ideal, the future, which never comes – which, as is always the case, in brutal, lying, unnatural DL, justifies the means – of distributing power and resources, more equally, between the community members and external political and social figures of power (oddly, some people are seemingly more equal than others; see China or Russia), is always at the expense of the demise of millions of people. Freedom and wealth, was never created by any forcefully-distributing-the-wealth governments.

 

Another famous CO was Barack Obama, whose anti-American views, were shaped by the social justice warrior Saul Alinsky. Surely, the entire current Biden administration, is now executing Alinsky’s radical left agenda. They ram all kinds of absurd ideas down everyone’s throats and if you have any objections, you will be cancelled, by these powerful people, who will do anything to remain in power. Their DL has destroyed the Freedom of Speech, which provides room for EL. When it comes to acknowledging the difference between DL and EL, only the conservatives and republicans don’t force their ideas on others. I am not saying, the right has EL, but, surely, they are more open to it than the left. Essentially, DL is group-behavior, but EL is individual behavior, and, thus, the right is in favor of the individual, but the left – hiding behind their CO-shtick – is quite willing to sacrifice our individual rights on the altar of social justice. It is no coincidence Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1946). This is not Right-Wing paranoia, but a reflection, from a EL-perspective, on where America is today, based on where it has been. America and all free countries, need EL, the language of the individual.