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.
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=falseWell 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_HirschfeldAnd 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_HaarmannThe 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
Home
Search
Login
Register