Refi

Author Topic: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor  (Read 67 times)

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« on: July 16, 2019, 04:37:50 pm »
Bonnie,  A big reason that slavery ended in the United States was that free blacks were highly offended by Harriet Beecher Stowe and her protagonist.  Within one year they were speaking before the Massachusetts State Legislature, demanding to be able to serve in the militia.  And their justification was that they did not want to have to be like Beecher Stowe's protagonist.  Then when the legislature still denied them, they bought their own uniforms and formed their own militia.  Eventually 180,000 black men would train with rifles and bayonets and would serve in federal uniform.  When Frederick Douglas praised them, he contrasted them with Beecher Stowe's protagonist.  Without this service, they probably would have been returned to a state of slavery.

Beecher Stowe had not intended her protagonist to be offensive.  She painted him as a paragon of Christian virtue, tortured to death, but still not betraying the escapees.  But offensive he still was.  She had wanted Whites to accept him as non-threatening, as already subjugated.

In Nazi Occupied France, resistance emerged, Catholics, Nationalists, and Marxists from the Spanish Civil War.  They killed both Germans and French Collaborators.  When they killed Germans, other Germans took those places.  When they killed French, no other French took those places.  It is only because of such resistance that France was purged of such collaborators and treated as one of the four allied powers of Europe.

And then in the Warsaw Ghetto, Jews saw that it was better to die with honor than without, and so they rose up in the face of near certain death.  This act and others like it today give Jews something to remember and to look up to.

Bonnie, you do not seem to understand the nature of honor.  If people let bullies pin a completely bogus label to their lapel, or let psychotherapists talk them out so that they can easily manipulate them, then they are surrendering their honor.

Usually the primary bullies are the parents, doctors, and school teachers.  Other children are secondary.

And though it is right that LQBTQ members condemn abuses, just calling for diversity is not the same as taking any and all steps necessary to secure social and civil standing, and honor.  I know of LQBTQ members who have devoted themselves to protecting children from religions abuse, and from familial abuses.  Calling for diversity is not at all the same as directly standing up for ones own personhood and that of comrades.

Diversity is an idea like tolerance, that rather than enforcing absolute standards, that one should look the other way and understand that not everyone can measure up to those standards.  So the standards still remain in place, its just that they are not always enforced.  So no, I do not go along at all with what you are saying.

The ~mental health~, ~recovery~, and ~neurodiversity~ movements exist to label and marginalize, because that exonerates any and all abusers, and it leaves us with a society where everyone is always worried about their own compliance with normative standards.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2019, 04:44:01 pm »
"Actually, as a member of the LGBTQ community, I can assure you that yes, we do advocate sexual diversity."

Can you show any links to the LBGTQ community making these calls for sexual diversity?  Can anyone supply such links?

I am going to look into the matter.  I hope that the LQBTQ community advances itself with more than calls for diversity.

Most invoke the Stonewall Rebellion as the example to follow.

And then there had been harassment and threats against this Camp Sister Spirit in Mississippi.  I never remember any calls for sexual orientation diversity.  They treated the whole matter as one of threats of lethality.

Now, as I was just thinking this morning, it turns out that a few months ago I had met a man who had been on the Board of Directors of a prominent local LQBTQ group.

But this acquaintance of mine is a strong believer in ~mental illness~ and in ~psychotherapy~  He believes that he has ~mental illness~.  He treats this with Crystal Meth, and he believes that ~psychotherapy~ and ~recovery~ are absolute necessities.

And the group he was a Board Member, as I know it does a lot of ~counseling~ for members of the LGBTQ Community who seem to be having difficulties.

My last words to this man were, "You are denigrating survivors with your talk about psychotherapy and recovery."  He denies this, but I finally just walked away from him.

I think now that what I was seeing was this, decades ago the Middle-Class Family would likely of condemned homosexuality, seeing it as a violation of the Self-Reliance Ethic.

Now, things have changed, and often the Middle-Class Family will not condemn homosexuality, so long as there is compliance with the Self-Reliance Ethic.

And so my acquaintance is like that, an enforcer of the Self-Reliance Ethic, via psychotherapy and recovery, but also an outspoken LGBTQ supporter.

And we know that the LGBTQ movement has always had both types.  Some insist on public transexuality and public displays of affection, because they insist on the same right which heterosexuals have.  While others try to come across as inoffensive and especially to be seen as employable, thinking here of things like the Mattachine Society.  But what this latter is doing is aligning itself with the ideologies of the Middle-Class Family.

Remember at the start of Bill Clinton's Presidency there was debate about gays in the military, and Clinton just wanted to flat out lift the ban.  So there was testimony before the Senate.  One woman in a white military uniform was talking about her own experience and her history of service.  Strom Thurmond from South Carolina asked her, "Have you talked to a doctor about getting help for your problem?"

If the LGBTQ community makes calls for "sexual orientation diversity", then I say that they are relinquishing their dignity and they are always going to have to be dealing with people who say that doctors and therapists can help them with their problems.  And so they had better be ready for the interment camps.

https://www.amazon.com/Pink-Triangle-Nazi-Against-Homosexuals/dp/0805006001/ref=sr_1_1?crid=M1OK6OR21NWE&keywords=the+pink+triangle+the+nazi+war+against+homosexuals&qid=1563396084&s=gateway&sprefix=the+pink+trian%2Caps%2C182&sr=8-1#reader_0805006001

"besides that you are not understanding neurodiversity theoeists here, and your are very definately not hearing what I am saying"

Well as it stands I had just recently posted a great deal about this idea of ~neurodiversity~.

Here, 5 posts.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/06/good-actually-means-good/#comment-156834

And then here it is, after calling for ~neurodiversity~ we finally have the promise of a cure, at least a treatment, the Transcranial Magnet, to make currents flow in the axons of the nerve cells inside the brain!

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/07/06/tms1_enl-e295668c2f9e70baa3d00fe41a708346062f8752-s1200.jpg

Bonnie wrote,

"I think PacificDawn, that you have really misunderstood what neurodiversity theorists are doing. They are not pleading for anything. They are directly countering a pathology paradigm with a neurodiversity paradigm."

This Steve Silberman, a proponent of neurodiversity, and one who finds a hero in Hans Asperger.  Asperger signed to send thousands of children to be euthanized.  If he had not been able to hide his association with the Nazi's, then Apserger would probably have been executed.

I read your discussion of this Nick Walker.

And:
http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/

Why would anyone accept any kind of a label if they were not being conned and bullied?

Most of the time children are not really well positioned to take an absolute stand against their parents, and not when the parents are backed up by white coats, and not when the child is being placed in situations which are not safe.

Bonnie did you have a lapel tag in mind, for radical neurodiversity, not for pathology of course?

You say there are many ways to resist.    Do you consider capitulating to bullies to be a way of resisting?

Would you say that Neville Chamberlain was resisting at Munich?

Why would anyone accept any kind of a stigmatizing label unless they were being placed under duress and conned?

Bonnie, fortunately not everyone responds to oppression in the ways that you suggest.

Part1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zdzf5aQd9k
Part2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgU3wvQEho
Part3, the Yellow Star
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BPWoYzphFE

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2019, 07:35:21 pm »
This is a wretched attempt to attach an Autism / Neurological Difference label to people, probably often children.

"NW: Exactly. It is not possible to think outside the norm without building neural pathways in your brain… And every mad brain is a neurodivergent brain, which is different from someone’s whose thoughts stay within cultural norms."

The human brain is extraordinarily complex.  The idea that just because someone seems to be tempered a bit differently, or seems to communicate or think a bit differently, that you can say that they have a ~neurodivergent~ brain is preposterous.

Sami Timimi insists that there are absolutely no biological markers to the diagnosis of Autism / Aspergers.

None genetic, none otherwise.

This ~neurological difference~ is a fantasy which has been created to legitimate the continuing abuse of children and adults.

You want to pin labels onto people, and when there is zero evidence for this.  And you call this cognitive liberty?  You think people need to accept such a label in order to have cognitive liberty, in order to legitimate their thoughts?

"Oh, I think differently, I have a neurological difference, and I am protected by the principle of cognitive liberty."

This is what you want?  That is an unconscionable stigmatizing, and for no legitimate reason.

If I have anything to say about it, this will fought in courtrooms across the land.

And no I do not go along with any general drug decriminalization.  Such decriminalizations should come on a case by case basis, and only when there is a long history of it being impractical to enforce a prohibition.  We don't want to deliberately introduce any new drugs, such as drugs formerly issues by prescription.  The more people on such drugs, the more problems.

Why Bonnie you would want such a thing I cannot see.  Your thinking seems to be detached from any reality, and rather driven by I do not know what.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2019, 04:54:03 pm »
But usually that "passably acceptable argument", as Bertram Karon states it, is part of the justification used for writing the prescription, and getting the client to do the voluntary ingestions.

I know a man who has been convinced that he has ~Bipolar 2~ and he has been given ~medications~.  First it was just one at a very low does, but the dosages and the number these lethal drugs has increased.  He even has an extra one which he can ingest when he feels any anxiety.

He has even talked about suing the county for his original low dosage.  It is less than what the Physician's Desk Reference specifies.

To me his complaint seems absurd.  If one has to ingest such neurotoxins, then of course you just do the bare minimum.  Going lower than PDR does not do any harm.  It is not harmful, unless one really believes that the drugs are a necessity to go on living.

But my friend clearly wants these narcotics to mask his experiences.  I tell him to dump them.  He always says in response, "But I want to enjoy my life".

What he seems to mean is that he wants to be drugged into zombie hood, and this is what he means by enjoying his life.

He wants these drugs to completely mask his negative experiences.

He then goes on to invoke a negative stereotype of a homeless man, and he says that the only thing keeping him from becoming like that, are these drugs.

This is sad.  He thinks the drugs keep him "socially functional".  And it is this which I believe Bertram Karon was calling out when he spoke of "passably acceptable to most people most of the time".

Its the kind of an idea which you would find in someone who has totally submitted to the ideas of the ~mental health~ system, and those being essentially the same as those advanced by the Middle-Class Family.

And so to make it clear, here what I am referring to is it being done with people who are already facing huge and ongoing social harassment, over this imaginary issue of a ~neurological difference~.  To be more clear, it is being directed at those who have been convinced that they have ~Autism - Aspergers~, but instead of admitting that this imaginary ailment has no objective basis, as Sami Timimi says, "no biological markers", and "Autism does not exist."

And these survivors are being told, in effect, that they can be made passably acceptable to most people most of the time, by MDMA.

Now the originator of this, Nick Walker at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, says that it is to deal with "social anxiety".

Walker and his MIA colleague believe that this ~neurodiverstiy~, and in a radicalized form, something which there is zero evidence for, somehow benefit by accepting the label, and by then proclaiming the doctrine of "Cognitive Liberty".

I consider this to be a high level of abuse, and something which has to be responded to.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2019, 06:40:31 pm »
Usually the proponents of ~Autism-Aspergers~ are putting up this idea of ~neurological difference~ to say that ~Autism-Aspergers~ is not a ~mental illness~ and that it is also not really a ~disorder~ or a ~disability~.

But I hold that it is patently obvious that this is just capitulation to bullying and labeling.  It is absolutely no one's business how my neurology or your neurology are wired up.  And there is no reason any of us should be subjecting ourselves to testing or questionnaires, or to have to be advancing such labels to plead for approval.

That Nick Walker finds people willing to go along with his ~radical neurodiversity~ idea strongly suggests that he is preying on those who are under duress.  They face duress because of abusive work environments, and most likely because of abuse school environments, and especially because of their parents.

This Jayne Lytel is a frightening woman.  This book is saturated with the hatred that she and the husband feel for their second son Leo.

https://www.amazon.com/Act-Early-Against-Autism-Fighting/dp/039953394X/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=act+early+against+autism&qid=1564006070&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Here William Stillman explains that there is no epidemic of autism, there is only an epidemic in demands for hours of Applied Behavioral Analysis.  He calls this "Mommy Guilt".

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Autism-Looking-Spiritual-Secrets/dp/1601630050/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=william+stillman&qid=1564006159&s=gateway&sr=8-5

Majia Holmer Nadesan traces out the history of how the ideas of Autism and Asperger's could not have existed without universal schooling, without the mental health system, or without the eugenics movement.  She explains how Yale's lab was started by a leader in the international eugenics movement.  Many of the most vocal Autism-Asperger's advocates received their ~assessments~ there.

She also goes on to explain what she is calling "Bio-Looping", meaning just the horrid hatred and othering, sometimes classified as ~treatment~, which those so labeled are being subjected to.  And of course this makes one more withdrawn, more fidgety, and more susceptible to further scapegoating.

Most of what is being called ~Autism Aspergers~ seems to amount this Bio-Looping. according to  Majia Holmer Nadesan.  But she does say that there probably was some original difference, but it is unlikely that anyone will ever be able to know what it is.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415321816/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

And then of course we know now that Hans Asperger signed for thousands of children to be euthanized, only saving the few he wanted for further study.  It was because he was able to hide his Nazi past that he evaded prosecution.

https://www.amazon.com/Aspergers-Children-Origins-Autism-Vienna/dp/0393609642/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=hans+asperger&qid=1564009276&s=books&sr=1-1

Sami Timimi and his coauthors make it clear that they are being as emphatic as they can in their statement, "Autism does not exist."

Timimi also says, that what started the perception of difference could have been something just as simple as a child getting out to play with age peers a year or so later than the others.  He credits the upsurge in assessments to the rise of Neoliberalism, particularly in the UK's Tony Blair administration, and also to psychiatric policing and the resurgence of the eugenics movement which Neoliberalism has brought.

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Autism-Medicalising-Emotional-Competence/dp/0230545262/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=sami+tamimi+myth+of+autism&qid=1564007897&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0

Peter Breggin has written, originally in 1991, that all of the US Autism advocacy groups are simply defensive formations of the parents, needing to prove that autism is real and genetic.  But in fact they haven't proven or disproven anything, except that there is strength in numbers.

https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Psychiatry-Electroshock-Biochemical-Theories/dp/0312113668/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=toxic+psychiatry+peter+breggin&qid=1564008250&s=books&sr=1-1

So what it looks like then, as always seems to be the case with these group targeting's, is that it depends upon members of the targeted group picking up the mantle and doing it themselves, to their fellow survivors.

John Elder Robison, Temple Grandin, Nick Dubin, and Alex Plank are impossible to listen to, once you see what they are really saying, and what they have internalized.

And this is why free blacks found Harriet Beecher Stowe's protagonist an outrage, so much so that they made an oblique reference to him when they demanded of the Massachusetts State Legislature that they be allowed to serve in the militia.  And when they were denied this, they bought their own uniforms and started drilling and training themselves.

In France someone who aids oppressors is known as a collaborator.  But in the US, reference is made to Harriet Beecher Stowe.  She wanted Whites to accept him, so being a Presbyterian Seminary Teacher, she made him a paragon of Christian virtue.  Even tortured to death he would not betray the escapees.  But nor did he ever make any attempt to fight back, and nor had he ever made any preparations for resistance or revolt.

So needless to say Bonnie, I find what you and Nick Walker are doing to be reprehensible and intolerable.  And I also find it to be based on ignorance of the basic issues of oppression and the necessary struggles to restore honor.

The litmus test for resistance is in the penalties imposed on perpetrators and in the reparations obtained for survivors, not in the accommodations made to placate bullies or the pleas for approval.

I would suggest then that the best place to start is not in Autism Advocacy, but rather with Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth".

https://www.amazon.com/Wretched-Earth-Frantz-Fanon/dp/0802141323/ref=sr_1_1?crid=17D01G7LLIR4I&keywords=wretched+of+the+earth+frantz+fanon&qid=1564010804&s=books&sprefix=wretched+of+the+earth%2Cstripbooks%2C186&sr=1-1

And Fanon was a psychiatrist and director of the psychiatric hospital, treating both the tortured and the torturers.  But by the end of their independence war, he had resigned his position and was clearly against psychiatry and any kind of psychotherapy.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2019, 04:35:56 pm »
Joey wrote, " bathe three to four times weekly in sulfur salts, as my ‘autistic’ liver (a non-psychological organ) does not process enzymatically without the sulfur I absorb through my skin, which my ‘autistic’ liver cannot produce on its own. My brain chemistry works differently – sedatives keep me awake, and stimulants put me to sleep, much to the chagrin of anesthesiologists who have had me wake up in the middle of surgeries in spite of their best efforts."

You are helping to demonstrate what Sami Timimi etal are saying, "Autism does not exist."  Once of the reasons they say this is that it is so broadly defined as to no longer mean anything.

I have no idea what is going on with your liver or with these sulfur salts.  Sounds like you are in need of some serious medical treatment right away.

As far as having a different brain chemistry, no one knows that.  Refuting that kind of an idea is the primary focus of this forum.  Whittaker does an excellent job of this.

You also wrote, "Autistics are approaching 25% of live-births worldwide, and will, within a century, be the “typical” of this neurodivergent species."

Well that 25%, and of both males and females, is the largest number I have ever heard.  This explosion in the assessment rates is again one of the factors that Timimi etal point to to bolster their position, "autism does not exist."

People get marginalized and mistreated, so then medical theories like Autism-Aspergers give them some hope that eventually someone will find a reason.  But this does not mean that such reasons have any objective realities.

And no, I do not speak for you, and you have your rights to free speech, as do I, and as do Timimi etal.

Here, best analysis I have found explaining where the concept of Autism comes from:

https://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Autism-Unravelling-Understanding-Social-ebook/dp/B00F2H3EP4

The picture created is simply one of universal schooling, psychiatry, eugenics, and the middle-class family.

But you Joey are free to say whatever you think.  I would just like to point out that that freedom does not depend upon any neuro-diversity theory.  And tying it to such a theory, is in my view a big mistake.

What Nick Walker and Bonnie Bustow are doing amounts to telling people that they have Autism-Aspergers.  I consider this to be reprehensible, and I hope some of us can put out the counter message, that Autism does not exist.

Sami Timimi book:
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Autism-Medicalising-Emotional-Competence/dp/0230545262/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=myth+of+autism+sami+timimi&qid=1564175034&s=digital-text&sr=8-1

Video, Timimi makes it clear that look as they do, there are still no biological markers:
https://youtu.be/EzL9sAJmz54

Life can be hard, very hard, and all the more so when one is being targeted and marginalized.  What the Autism-Aspergers label seems to do most is just to exonerate abusers.

Interesting book:
https://www.amazon.com/Far-Tree-Parents-Children-Identity/dp/0743236726/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Q0KWK69WQ35VZ0MFGZ1H

One chapter deals with autism and the author admits that that is the singularly most controversial topic in the book, and really in the entire area of disability studies.

I am sure you know that it was just a few years ago that Arizona removed 5 children, plus a 6th older child, and pediatricians had to testify against the own Phoenix Children's Hospital shrinks who have given the 5 autism assessments.   The court finally agreed that the whole thing was just Munchausen's Syndrome By Proxy.

And the reason that the head of pediatrics got involved and pushed this, was she said that they had already fooled hundreds of doctors, and that now that they were exposed they were likely to leave the state and just start over somewhere else.

You talk about a "neurodivergent species".  Well know one knows that anything like this could happen.  It sounds like you are just following the eugenics movement, but arguing the opposite side.

What is true, in my opinion, is that people are starting to rebel against Muggle Socialization, the schools which do little more than to use bullying to achieve conformity.  Usually arguments in favor of autism depend upon this type of socialization, and upon the self-reliance ethic as backdrops.

As far was what drives any "lines of flight", Deleuze and Guattari say that it is Capitalism which creates schizos.  But as to what creates clinical schizophrenia, that is the mental health system itself.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143105825/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

Joey, I'm glad that you, someone committed to an autism identity, posted.  I am concerned about this liver condition.  But I also want people, like Bonnie, to see that Autism is not really different from the concept of Mental Illness.  You can't really argue against either one of them, unless you are prepared to argue against both of them.

Hey, I am opposed to Muggle Bullying Schools, and I support people to learn all that they can, books, computers, electronics, chemistry, mathematics, everything.  But as I see it, this is in no way helped by the concept of Autism.  And neurodiversity, pushed to its logical results, really does not mean anything.  It is something invented by people who are being subjected to oppression, and it helps the oppressors.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2019, 04:10:28 pm »
No one is saying that Autism is an illness.  But then really, that does not mean anything.  We could say that mental illness is not an illness.  Some times ~mental illness~ is used to make allowances for people, even to get them off for crimes.  Other times ~mental illness~ is used to indict someone, even to convict them of crimes.

Autism can and does work exactly the same way, and it is used in these ways regularly.

So why would anyone want to pin a label on themselves?

And why do we want to call for "diversity" when there is no proof of difference, no benefit obtained by claiming the difference.

I walk into a café, one guy is talking with his friend, two women are talking to each other.  Another guy is eating food.  I am intending to read a book.

Which one of us needs to call for "diversity" in order to be accepted as legitimate?

Remember, the first best line of defense when you're legitimacy is attacked, is the middle finger.

Some people will attack your legitimacy, but packaging it as For Your Own Good.  Again, the middle finger, or harsh toned direct words, will usually solve that problem.

But some people need lessons in respecting people and their privacy.  So if the middle finger does not work, I will usually go into Marine Corp Drill Sergeant Mode.

Face 2 face, people do not try to mess around with me.

And so what is this Neurodiverstiy Movement, and things like the Autism Self Advocacy Network?

Well, it's the Autism version of the Recovery Movement.  It's the survivors of abuse, who have decided that they can build for themselves an adult identity, by taking the place of the doctors, and abusing survivors themselves.

Nick Walker, he rejects the high functioning versus low functioning dichotomy, but why does he feel a need to call for a ~neurological difference~ identity at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0TrcbUyjSM

Walker asks how we deal with Autistic people?  Well in the work place and in community service groups, one finds all sorts of people, with all sorts of communications styles.  So how do you deal with them?  You deal with them no differently than anyone else.  You just have to be tolerant.  I don't mean tolerant of their category of difference, and I don't mean making presumptions about them.  I mean just tolerant of them as they are.


I want to tell a brief story here, decades ago, for a while I had an autistic girlfriend.  Or rather I should say, I had a girlfriend who had been convinced that she was autistic.

I was only a year older than she, and she told me about the institution she lived in.  It was only by happenstance that I met her.

She was not different from anybody else.  She was just as communicative and engage able.

In those days I did not know anything about Autism, other than as shown in that movie RainMan.  And I thought autistics did not talk at all.

This girl was nothing like that, just like everybody else.

I still though did come to feel that it would be a mistake to keep seeing her.  The issue was simply that I thought it would be taking advantage of her.  Its not that she was disabled in any way.  It was simply the disadvantage, the compromised personhood which she was experiencing in living in the institution.  She was at a huge social disadvantage, and this did come across.

Overall I would say that she was guileless.  Her feeling were right there on the surface.  I see this as a positive.  But I also know that she would have a hard time in adolescent girl culture.  And then no tight or revealing clothes, no high heels, no makeup, no bombshell hair.  She would be targeted.

But this does not mean that there was anything wrong about her, or any reason she should have to accept a ~neurological difference~ label.

There was however one thing which stood out.  And I have seen strange issues related to this in girls before.  She had strabismus in one eye.  In my view, particularly with a girl, that will change how people react to her.

Why did the parents send her to this school?  Why did the parents have her ~accessed~?  Were the parents embarrassed by her, as comes across in many autism narratives?  Was she being targeted in a Muggle Bully School?

She should not have had to have been institutionalized.  A well run communal home would have been better.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2019, 07:34:44 pm »
No one is saying that Autism is an illness. But then really, that does not mean anything. We could say that mental illness is not an illness. Some times ~mental illness~ is used to make allowances for people, even to get them off for crimes. Other times ~mental illness~ is used to indict someone, even to convict them of crimes.

Autism can and does work exactly the same way, and it is used in these ways regularly.


So why would anyone want to pin a label on themselves?


And why do we want to call for “diversity” when there is no proof of difference, no benefit obtained by claiming the difference.


I walk into a café, one guy is talking with his friend, two women are talking to each other. Another guy is eating food. I am intending to read a book.


Which one of us needs to call for “diversity” in order to be accepted as legitimate?


Remember, the first best line of defense when you’re legitimacy is attacked, is the middle finger.


Some people will attack your legitimacy, but packaging it as For Your Own Good. Again, the middle finger, or harsh toned direct words, will usually solve that problem.


But some people need lessons in respecting people and their privacy. So if the middle finger does not work, I will usually go into Marine Corp Drill Sergeant Mode.


Face 2 face, people do not try to mess around with me.


And so what is this Neurodiverstiy Movement, and things like the Autism Self Advocacy Network?


Walker asks how we deal with Autistic people? Well in the work place and in community service groups, one finds all sorts of people, with all sorts of communications styles. So how do you deal with them? You deal with them no differently than anyone else. You just have to be tolerant. I don’t mean tolerant of their category of difference, and I don’t mean making presumptions about them. I mean just tolerant of them as they are.


I want to tell a brief story here, decades ago, for a while I had an autistic girlfriend. Or rather I should say, I had a girlfriend who had been convinced that she was autistic.


I was only a year older than she, and she told me about the institution she lived in. It was only by happenstance that I met her.


She was not different from anybody else. She was just as communicative and engage able.


In those days I did not know anything about Autism, other than as shown in that movie RainMan. And I thought autistics did not talk at all.


This girl was nothing like that, just like everybody else.


I still though did come to feel that it would be a mistake to keep seeing her. The issue was simply that I thought it would be taking advantage of her. Its not that she was disabled in any way. It was simply the disadvantage, the compromised personhood which she was experiencing in living in the institution. She was at a huge social disadvantage, and this did come across.


Overall I would say that she was guileless. Her feeling were right there on the surface. I see this as a positive. But I also know that she would have a hard time in adolescent girl culture. And then no tight or revealing clothes, no high heels, no makeup, no bombshell hair. She would be targeted.


But this does not mean that there was anything wrong about her, or any reason she should have to accept a ~neurological difference~ label.


There was however one thing which stood out. And I have seen strange issues related to this in girls before. She had strabismus in one eye. In my view, particularly with a girl, that will change how people react to her.


Why did the parents send her to this school? Why did the parents have her ~accessed~? Were the parents embarrassed by her, as comes across in many autism narratives? Was she being targeted in a Muggle Bully School?


She should not have had to have been institutionalized. A well run communal home would have been better.


Louis Theroux’s Video About Autism is really good. But it is down. Autism is really controversial, and most of the advocacy has been parents defending themselves, or now this Recovery Movement version. Theroux’s video was not pro-parents.


Here is his Medicated Kids Video, but it too is not kind to parents, and the video has been adulterated. Still worth watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLbzJcr7QQ


Someone believes that they have Autism, then they are an abuse survivor. It is not necessarily the parents, and they do not cause Autism. They couldn’t, Autism does not exist.

But convincing someone that they have Autism, or the Neurological Difference, that is abuse.









People see that “Brain Chemical Imbalance” is nonsense, and so they refute it.

Why would the same people then go along with “neurological difference”. It is the same biomedical model, something which could somehow, scanning electron microscope on brain biopsy slides, explain human behavior.


Suppose I wrote a book,


“Does Your Child Have Evil Spirits In their Brain?”


“Learn how you can save your child and save yourself.”


And then if I worked with children and parents to promote this, and real children were harmed, don’t you think I should be sued for everything I had, if not incarcerated?


Why are people putting up with “neurodiversity” and “radical neurodiversity”?

I wrote of my short term ~autistic~ girlfriend above. Bad enough that people were telling her that she had ~autism~, but then to make it worse by saying that there is some genetic or neurological basis for it, when there is no evidence for this anymore than there is of ~Brain Chemical Imbalance~.















Continued from above:

Sure we have an Autism Industry, part of our nationwide nexus of FixMyKid Doctors. And then we have parents who want to find the locus of Original Sin in their child, and who have children for that reason.


But now, these self identifying ~Autistics~ who are promoting the ideas themselves?


Well, it helps them exonerate perpetrators.


And it does matter how we use it. Like Wittgenstein explained, there is no such thing as private language. So if you want to use ~radical neurodiversity~ or ~autism~ in some other way, or like an emerging species of super humans who are going to take over the world, that does not mean that I am going to go along with it.


And I want to reply just a bit to Bonnie here, because I feel that she really is missing some crucial things. There was this Magnus Hirschfeld, and here it talks about Roehm’s troops ( Brown Shirts, SA ) destroying the Hirschfeld’s Sex Research Institute in 1933.


https://books.google.com/books?id=_H2RBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT85&lpg=PT85&dq=magnus+hirschfelder&source=bl&ots=guJxCgzYdA&sig=ACfU3U0rSGZqvYNpy-c969AfjBX_LtPHNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid6IWrm9vjAhVWGDQIHUjiDeoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=magnus%20hirschfelder&f=false


Well Hirschfeld was at that time the leading thinker on homosexuality. Though I don’t think he called it that. He understood homosexuals as a third sex, and this was what he explained in his books.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld


And there had been this serial child killer Fritz Haarmann in Hanover Germany. In 1925 he was apprehended and convicted and executed. But it seemed highly likely that what Haarmann was convicted of doing actually required a great deal of help, and coming from the Nazis who controlled Hanover police. Haarmann was being used as a provoking agent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haarmann


The populace was terrified of this killer. they sung ditties about him. There was the claim that remains of murdered children were being cut up and sold as horse meat. But who ever may have done that, was getting official assistance.


Haarmann was like their Jeffrey Dahmer.


And so the Nazi’s used all of this to discredit Wiemar tolerance of homosexuality. In fact, ordinary Germans were somewhat tolerant of homosexuality, and especially in the big cities.


But when economic times got tough, and people were being told that homosexuals were the reason, and then this child killing, then that tolerance went away.


So the Nazi’s used this, and their control of Hanover Police, to discredit the liberal views of homosexuality.


Magnus Hirshfeld, having no direct evidence about these crimes, he was brought in as an expert witness to try and discredit the attacks on homosexuals. But the Nazi’s turned the entire thing into a show trial, not of Haarmann, but of Wiemar liberalism and of this “tolerance” approach towards homosexuality. The Nazi’s won, totally terrifying people about homosexuality. And clearly this opened the door to their later interment and final execution of homosexuals.


So I want to draw your attention to this.


1. I am not sure that the word homosexual is entirely neutral and problem free.


2. Generally a tolerance based approach is stupid, whether it be for sexual orientation, or this non-sense “neuological difference”. The only real way is a militant self defending approach.


3. You or I may use these diagnostic terms and mean no harm, but I think that is also a mark of ignorance. Autism is today often used to convey the sense of some sort of disorder and propensity for extreme violent crime. And like with the Haarmann case, people who want to can really agitate and inflame the public.


4. You don’t want to be opening doors to labeling. Best to always meet such labels with a cold like steel refusal, and a demonstration of willingness to defend self an others.

5. So no, I think people do have to be careful about “homosexual”, but about “autism and neurodiversity” even more so. And remember, Hirshfeld thought there really were 3 sexes, and no one goes along with that today.







Continued from above:

And I have heard accounts of things like this, of a mother describing how something really deep was set off in her when she saw the child being on the ground, surrounded and bullied by other children.


Its like that incident made her forever disown the child, and may indeed have started the child down the road of not being one of the herd, of somehow being different.  And today he or she would probably get labeled as ~Autistic~.


And then in Lytel's book there are graphic scenes which show you how much Lytel and the husband hate their son Leo, and this is without any white coats or labels in the picture.


And then I did not think of this when I first read Lord of the Flies, the character Simon.  If I had to today pick someone who is the prototype of what the ~Autism~ proponents are talking of, it would be him.


He was sitting in a closed thicket, communing with nature.  Jack and his hunters had gotten all worked up chasing a pig.  The pig broke into the thicket, followed by Jack and his people.  They right away turned on Simon, and he was the first boy that they killed.


No reason is given why they would want to kill Simon, no deliberation about it, it just happened.  I would say that they killed him because they had already known that he was not really one of them.


And this book predates most of the ~Autism~ hysteria, and the book never uses any labels or tries to explain Simon.


Most people are in the herd, and they are of it too.  They don't need to think about it, they probably are not even capable of thinking about it, they just do what the herd expects.


But some of us are not really of the herd, we think outside of it.


Autism is nonsense, Autism and Aspergers are just concepts invented to justify the abuse of children and adults.  And I think it a horrible mistake to be perpetuating and biologizing these via ~neurological difference~.


Okay, but there are people who for whatever reason seem to have Mystical Abilities, and often with High Intelligence.  Most of today's people claiming to be ~Autistic~ would probably all into this category, Mystical Abilities and High Intelligence.  Its just that once someone accepts the idea of ~Autism~ they are accepting all of its Eugenic Foundations, and this of course includes the Self-Reliance Ethic.


So for example John Elder Robison and Temple Grandin could be interesting people, were it not for the fact that their entire world view is shaped by the need to hold up the Self-Reliance Ethic and show their unquestioning support for it.


Based on a book I read long ago in college, I would say that these are the people who are probably going to get made into Shamans, Mystical Abilities and High Intelligence.  And I think I want to drop the idea of High Intelligence, as that gets to Lewis Termann and to the same sorts of Mental Hygiene and Eugenics stuff.  If someone is not of the herd, then they will have high intelligence automatically.


Really it is Mystical Abilities, and that just means not being of the herd.


Both men and women, but more men.


Book said that in primitive societies adults scrutinize children for signs of mystical abilities.  They value shamans.


When the find one, the first thing they do is separate the child from the parents.  And this does seem to be the key and the life saving step!


They are placed then under the care of an adult shaman.  Their path to adulthood will be longer and it will entail more risk.  Whereas normals reach adulthood at sexual maturity, a shaman does not reach adulthood until much later, perhaps as late as age 30.  It might entail vision quests and finding a totem spirit.


And the life of a shaman will be more risky, usually.  People may feel jealous of the shaman or threatened by the shaman.  But nevertheless, they serve an important roll.  But as Shamanism is probably something which is possible in all of us, and because it goes way back, so people have an in bread fear of it, or a fear that their child could go that way.  Separation from the parents is crucial.


A book about esotericism I read said that with most births the child resembles the parents.  But there are some births which come from above, where the child will not resemble the parents, and these births are always announced.  Citing Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist to name but a few.





So is Shamanism ~Autism~?  No it is not.  ~Autism~ is a concept which is perpetuated to justify the abuse of children and adults.


Where does autism come from, what created it?


Autism is created by


1.  Captialism


2.  The Middle-Class Family


3.  The Self-Reliance Ethic, a capitalist over coding


4.  Mental Hygiene and Eugenics Movement

5,  and now, Resurgence of Mental Hygiene and Eugenics in service of Neo-Liberalism

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2019, 04:03:23 pm »
Awesome article Bonnie.  I can't believe that someone could write this just in the time since your last article, not unless you were already highly conversant in these matters.

Now you know that Social Dawinism was a doctrine of the late 19th Century.  It got started in the UK, but it really came into its own though in the US.

And then even with the populist reactionary William Jennings Bryan, he objected so to Social Darwinism, and to Darwinism because, being Secretary of State, of the carnage he saw from WWI.  I certainly am not a Creationist, but I can respect someone who was that deeply influenced by WWI carnage, and saw it as being related to a low regard for human life.

The kind of Social Darwinism which gets spouted today is a later development, more pseudo scientific.  The idea runs something like, we have laws of evolution, and these favor the greatest.  But then you have the laws of Democracy, and these substitute numbers, and so Democracy is counter evolutionary.  This one speech was the key to street brawlers winning the support of the Business and Finance Sectors, Industry Club in Dusseldorf.  This speech has been printed in books going way back.  I only connect to this kind of a source because it is online.

http://www.der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/32-01-27.htm

And he talks about ~Bolshevism~ as some kind of moral and genetic degeneracy.  He will still be talking like that Nov 1942 as Allied Troops are landing in North Africa.  And then in Aug 1943, as Italians are throwing down their rifles and running and turning against their own Fascists, it's still ~Bolshevism~ and the ~N-word~.  And then in Paris in the weeks following June 6, 1944 the black shirt wearing Vichy Propagandist Philippe Henriot is screaming into radio that Liberation will not occur in his lifetime and talking about famine and starvation and using those same two words, ~Bolshevism~ and the ~N-word~.

And while Berliners might have been tolerant of homosexuality, and homosexuals had been quite welcomed in the Nazi Party, this did not mean that the rest of the population shared such views.  Things changed once power was obtained.  They blamed the Reichstag Fire on a homosexual communist and beheaded him.  And then at the end of June 1934, Night of the Long Knives, when Rohm had expanded the SA to 8 million men and was clearly threating the Reich, his homosexuality was used as the reason to kill him.

All of the methods of isolating and stigmatizing, and the all of the pseudo science used to justify the extermination, were practiced and perfected on homosexuals and communists, before these were then applied to larger population segments.

They called people who did not conform to their pseudo science "Contragenics".  There was a continuum, the worst being homosexuals, but then also including unmarried people, childfree married couples, and married people with a small number of children.  Only married people with a large number of children were exempt from this labeling.

https://www.amazon.com/Pink-Triangle-Nazi-Against-Homosexuals-ebook/dp/B0058U7HPI/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=pink+triangle+nazi&qid=1564605246&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Some years back there was talk that there could be a "gay gene".  I ask, and especially with all the amniocentesis, is that really a good way to go?

I doubt that any such gene ever will be located, things just don't seem to work like that when it comes to human behavior.  But even talking about it, does not seem good to me.  Would LGBTQ activists want to advance the idea of 'Neuro Logical Difference", "Neuro Divergent", or "Neuro Diversity"?  I would hope not.

In my view, people want these kinds of biomedical explanations because they have already been so bullied and stigmatized that they feel that they need something, anything, to legitimate their own existence.

Ever since the dotcom boom in the 90's, our official and popular politics has really been just Social Darwinism.

And then here, showing how it took the Eugenics Movement, the Mental Hygiene Movement, Universal Schooling, and a definite contribution from the Nazi Party, until you could have the concepts of Autism and Aspergers.

https://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Autism-Unravelling-Understanding-Social/dp/0415321816

And also the ~works~ of Hans Asperger were unknown in the US, untranslated, until the mid 90's.  So people were not getting ~diagnosed~ with ~Aspergers~ in the US, or anywhere in the English speaking world, until the mid 90's, and ~Autism~ was still thought of as something more disabling.  So I think they were telling people that they had ~ADHD~ when they seemed to be somewhat insulated from the Herd.

And then with the rise of Neo-Liberalism, starting in the late 70's with Margaret Thatcher, continuing with Ronald Reagan and with his right wing economists, and then made into a kind of social chic during the dotcom boom, you get a vast popularization of the ideas of Autism and Aspergers, and going to the concept totally unsupported by any evidence, of "neurological difference"  and then "neurodiversity".  I am convinced that this is a huge mistake.

One of the biggest boosters for the ~New Economy~ and for this idea that Autism - Aspergers - Neurological Difference being a chic, was this Wired Magazine, showcasing the business movers and shakers, and also employing one Steve Silberman.

https://www.amazon.com/NeuroTribes-Legacy-Neurodiversity-Silberman-2015-08-25/dp/B01F7X7SUE/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=steve+silberman&qid=1564602717&s=books&sr=1-2

Sami Timimi and his coauthors are totally opposed to the idea of ~neurological difference~ and for any kind of a computer industry chic, and they say that the reason for the explosion in ~Autism~ assessments if simply the rise of Neo-Liberalism, Tony Blair, and the associated desire to dismantle the welfare state.  Timimi calls the move to try and do ~Autism~ accessments, "Psychiatric Policing~ and a resurgence of the Eugenics Movement.

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Autism-Medicalising-Emotional-Competence/dp/0230545262

Bonnie, it looks to me like there is so much which we are likely to agree on.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2019, 06:17:12 pm »
~Mental illness~ is abuse.  The concept is abusive, the so called treatments are abusive, the stigmatizing and often an original othering, are abusive.  None of us should ever go along with this.  Instead, it should be penalties for perpetrators and reparations for survivors, as these are about the only way of restoring public honor.

And we should never support anything which propagates the idea of mental illness.

This makes mental illness into a joke, and so it is not about penalties for perpetrators and reparations for survivors.

http://www.torontomadpride.com/what-is-mp/

Bonnie wrote, "...there is a profound difference between the radical neurodiversity movement and the more mainstream one. That in the radical one, no one sees the differences in question as innate or as casual in any way. Moreover, no one in the neurodiversity movement would see any of the differences alluded to as the least bit “pathologoical”–an issue that came up i a few responses to this blog. As I have come to understand it, Why people in the movement championed the concept of diversity is precisely because it links them up with other types of diveristy–sexual diversity, for example, and racial diversity–and totally rules out the concept of pathology."


~Autism~ is abuse.  The concept is abusive, the so called treatments are abusive, the stigmatizing and often an original othering, are abusive.  None of us should ever go along with this.  Instead, it should be penalties for perpetrators and reparations for survivors, as these are about the only way of restoring public honor.

And we should never support anything which propagates the idea of Autism or Asperger's.

But this "radical neurodiverstiy", rather like the emergence of a science fiction super human race, makes ~autism~ into a joke, and so it is not about penalties for perpetrators and reparations for survivors.

We must oppose this movement.


Penalties for perpetrators and reparations for survivors is not a difficult concept.  It is the way survivors of abuse can restore their public honor, so that they can again have the socio-public identity with which it is necessary to function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYywl-KF4MQ

Radical Neurodiversity and Mad Pride do not constitute resistance to a Biomedical and Eugenic paradigm, they constitute subservience to it by making it into a joke.  It does not show that the whole thing is abuse to start with, and it is not about obtaining redress for abuse.

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2019, 06:23:38 pm »
from above:

Shari Karney was able to get laws changed, and as she explained, this is the reason why there are now $2 Billion in judgments against the US Roman Catholic Church.

Julie Gregory is fighting to get prosecution for Muchausen's perpetrators, and her book with medical records showing her own saga is compelling.

I don't believe that either of these survivors has received financial reparations, but no one would ever accuse either of them of life without honor, as their aggressiveness in acting against perpetrators is commendable.

But if someone takes a Mad Pride or Radical Neurodiversity approach to abuses, how does that do anything to restore their public honor?

forbitals

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2019, 05:25:33 pm »
Denouncing Nick Walker and his Radical Neurodiversity Stuff






Yep!


So that is where I want to go.  I want a theory which will give a way of opposing Psychiatry and the drugging, and also the con that is Psychotherapy.  And I want to go after the nonsense which is the Recovery Movement.  To me they all seem to have the same intent, to create an underclass, so that we don't need to question the Self-Reliance Ethic in an advanced industrial and information economy.  We don't need the extra workers, but we have the people, so what do we do with them?


So Foucault wrote the stuff about BioPower and BioPolitics in the late 70's, a series of lectures.


Then people seem to see Alain Badiou as the successor to both Foucault and to Deleuze and Guattari.  He wrote The Subject in 1982.  Might be a book which shows how to oppose BioPower and BioPolitics.


And then Judith Butler at UC Berkeley, I think she has written about ways to oppose BioPower and BioPolitics, and it is difficult.  Sounds like she sees it as something which cannot be direct.


And Butler is a partner of Wendy Brown, one of our major theorists of Neo-Liberalism, and the author of "Undoing the Demos".


I think these are the things we should be looking at, not debating with Psychotherapists and with people who want to add street drugs into the mix of chemicals used to keep people tranquilized.


And I also want to go after this ~Autism Asperger's Neurological Difference~ sham.


As I know, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, includes a provision of protection from labeling.


I consider this very important, essential.  And it is where I break with all the Autism and Neurodiversity advocates, and even with this Nick Walker and his Radical Neurodiversity.


People have Cognitive Liberty today.  People can think anyway they want.


Now if you say it, that is a different matter.  Say the wrong things, and especially to your psychotherapist, and you will likely end up handcuffed to a table in a police interrogation cell.


So I see this protection from labeling as far more important that this idea of Cognitive Liberty.  End the labeling and then everybody is just who they are.  Problem solved.


I read the stuff the Autism advocates write, and I can understand and identify with much of it.  But I interpret it totally differently.  I do not see there as being any objective reality to Autism, Asperger's, or to this Neurological Difference.  I just see that we have a cruel world which uses bullying to socialize, and that most people have little refuge from this.


I also notice one thing though, though they do not say it, I see in the writings of these self identifying autistics, that most of the time things start to look better for them, once they no longer live with their parents.


So Nick Walker pushes this idea of Radical Neurodivergence as far as possible, so that it does not seem to mean anything.


But of these courses he has, he also says"


"The instructor must be autistic."


"The Instructor Must Be a Participant


 in Autistic Culture, Community, and Resistance"


"At least 80% of the assigned readings should be by autistic authors."


http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/


So I see his work as being completely misguided.  He is propagating the myth of Autism, and he is trafficking in the labels.  I do not see any reason that the labels cannot just be dumped immediately.


Sami Timimi says that with the label, people buy in to a fantasy, "Now someone is going to really figure out what is going on."  And yes I see this, too, in the writings of these self proclaimed autistics.  But I see that the purpose it serves for them has to do with the Self-Reliance Ethic, and with the need to exonerate perpetrators.


I also notice something else, besides Nick Walker being involved in this thing about giving MDMA to ~Autistics~ to alleviate ~social anxiety~, I see that this California Institute of Integral Studies has lots of stuff about using street drugs, ~Psychedelics~, as an expansion of the psychiatric drugging travesty.


I have looked over many years at their web site for various reasons.  I never saw any stuff like this.  But today I have to say that what this Nick Walker is doing, propagating the myth that there is some neurological difference behind the popular phenomenon of Autistic Identity, is just plain wrong and it needs to be ended.


And then of CIIS, I now consider it suspect.

I feel that the protection from labeling and the ending of these identities formed in a context of abuse, are far more important, than worrying about how people think, or about what curious mannerisms they might have.