Wheat 2Advocacy groups can therefore solely perpetuate their current condition. They do notcommunicate with anyone, but resoundingly disseminate the same monologue of their differencefrom everyone in the expectance of becoming integrated. The discourse of advocacy is onewhich attempts to dissimenate its own identity from itself. And in so doing, leads to therepression of its members as both universal in their brotherhood with mankind, and alsofreakishly exterior and isolated in their special status.The greatest failing, however, of the discourse of advocacy is that it assumes a posturewhich cannot ever hope to reach the consideration of the masses as it requires normatization. Thediscourse is structured to fail because of how it draws on the people to assemble themselves inthe machinery of advocacy. No longer are they defined as specific persons, but are reduced tofellow souls called to serve the
(see Stirner) of advocacy. In this reduction of persons,advocacy has not only alienated itself, but those who would support it. The largestaccomplishment of this is performed by the induction at mass events, such as rallies, parades,and dinners. All of these are methodological devices employed by the discourse to further µawareness¶ about the everpresent unawareness of the population. This statement in itself isfallacious for the reason that awareness can not be held as a method or tool of supporting civilequality or human justice. People are born without knowledge, such as hatred. Therefore, theycannot be approached as needing basic instruction. They have learned hatred or discriminationfrom their environment, and must be µre-educated¶ according to principles associated with re-education. However, the need for such re-education, and whether the discourse of advocacy canincorporate re-educational methods, are questionable.