What “you” look like to me, in a civil rights model sense.

(An important note: This article was written before the school shootings and the autism strawmanning the curebies used it for took place. At the time this was written, I hated passives enough that I would throw them in a bonfire with the normies. As a result of those events, I am unsure whether I hate passives less than normies or curebies now. Go figure.)

I will admit right now, I am well aware that my superiority-based view of how the battle for our civil rights should be enforced can be rather alienating, even where others of my kind are concerned. But after the so-called 2012 Congressional hearings on autism, I have a question that not only would I like to ask what I not-so-nicely call passives, but one that I feel they should be asking themselves.

Can you blame me?

The comic book known as X-Men (or The Uncanny X-Men, to quote its full title) was conceived when one of its creators bore witness to black civil rights activists standing outside of a then-restricted university and protesting in favour of their right to attend such institutions. What I always take away from that story amounts to two pertinent questions, both with answers that normies may feel uncomfortable with. One, can you imagine for a second how quickly your privileged position in the world would disappear if those you put your foot on the heads of suddenly found themselves with extraordinary abilities? Two, do you have the slightest idea how you presently look to the people you are oppressing? (And make no mistake about this. When you hold government hearings in which you spend hours rabbiting on about a people using Holocaust-justification type language, only allowing two of them to speak for maybe a couple of hours at most as an afterthought, you are oppressing them.)

A central point that has kept the X-Men canon going for over fifty years is conflict. Not between what the canon refers to as Humans and Mutants. But rather between one group of Mutants and another. The recent film X-Men: First Class elaborates on exactly how that conflict began. And the reason I bring this up is because it is very pertinent to how the autistic civil rights movement is viewed by different parts therein. In an establishing scene of X2, whilst conversing about the recent attempt to assassinate the U.S. President, Professor X tells his more grown-up followers that whilst his rival, whom he always refers to as Erik, is capable of arranging something like this from prison, it would only be irrational for him to do. It could only hurt his goal of “mutant prosperity”. Without missing a beat, Cyclops chimes in with “you mean superiority“.

In this context, I am reminded of a saying attributed to Confucius (really, there needs to be a guide to how to separate Confucius‘ actual sayings from those that just have his name stuck on for credibility’s sake). The saying is “He who aims at nothing usually hits it”.

This is why “awareness” is so repulsive to autism civil rights activists around the world. We do not care how aware you are. What less Magneto-inspired activists really want, on the other hand, is acceptance. That is, equal treatment in the eyes (and hands) of the law. But if there is one thing that these Congressional hearings have made me believe, it is that acceptance is not really worth what Stephen King would describe through one character as “a pisshole drilled in a snowbank”, either. No, what we should be aiming for is superiority.

Unfortunately, without getting nasty or hateful, superiority is just as difficult for me to define as prosperity. Does it mean that people who murder anyone on the spectrum with foreknowledge of their being on the spectrum should be executed (regardless of where the crime originated)? Does it mean that teachers who single out an autistic child, regardless of whether they know or how justified they think they are, should be dismissed without possibility of reinstatement? Does it mean that medical professionals who consistently refuse to listen to what the autistic individual is trying to tell them should at minimum get a big slap upside the head from supervising authorities? I could go on for hours with examples of what it would take to make the present situation “right”, merely drawn from my own life or what I have read.

But during one Fudgebook discussion of just how frightening and hurtful these hearings really were, a fellow author asked me for permission to quote something I stated during a conversation with One Of Those People Who Just Does Not Get It™. The author of Yes, That Too (one of the journals I link to because I believe in their content) has quoted me in part of her writing here.

The poster of the comment I was responding to went under the “charming” but aggravating (at least to me) name of Blessed by (Autism) Uniquely Magnificent Children. There are two ways in which this group name aggravates me, both easy to work out when you understand the issue from my perspective. One, although this language is less separationist in nature than is often the case with similar turns of phrase, you cannot be blessed by something that is not a separate entity. Ergo, it is still separationist and has all the nasty implications of such. Two, if I hear “children” one more freaking time, I really am going to roar so loud that people in Perth will tremble in fear. Can I make this any clearer, legislators or people in general? Not everyone on the autistic spectrum is a child. But what really set me off about these people is that during a conversation about how hurtful the words of the majority of the Congressional hearing’s speakers really are, these clowns had the audacity to say “Don’t listen to other people”. Their exact words.

Let us leave aside the fact that when I read speeches by Nazis dating back to the 1930s, they remind me of words quoted from these hearings. Or that when I glimpse parts of Autism Speaks adverts, they remind the bits of propaganda featured in the Michael Burleigh-penned documentary Selling Murder: The Killing Films Of The Third Reich. My response was, and I will quote:

When the law is written to make murdering us for being autistic a hate crime, only then will not listening be an option. Until then, every word or turn of phrase designed to poison minds against us must be answered.

Now, like just about everything that I have written between very recently and October 26, this Fudgebook comment was made hastily and without checking to make certain that I had covered all of the bases. Not surprisingly, I had not. So for once in the time that I have been writing on this subject, another author came in and offered this expansion of my point.

I am sure that this author will not be surprised nor particularly put out when I say that what I said in that comment was merely a sliver, a glass grain-like shard of what I was thinking at the time. They probably already know this. I have a very well-established reputation for either making my commentary long and verbose, or only a microscopic fragment of what I really want the recipient to hear. In conversations with the people I think of as “online friends” or even friends without qualification, I follow neither rule unless I have something that demands verbosity. But as I would like to be able to make people like my mother grok, my overwhelming experience as a child has been that the simpler you make your responses to other peoples’ questions, the easier it is for them to twist those responses into something that horrifies you.

Not that the author concerned here does this. Far from it. I agree with every word that the author of Yes, That Too has offered in further expansion of my point. Not merely because a lot of it is what I would have said if I had felt able to offer 3,000 or more words in response to Blessed by (Autism) Uniquely Magnificent Children’s frankly idiotic statement. But because most of it hits the nail upon the head like the final five or so minutes of The Barghest O’ Whitby hits my aural-visual connection. (The Barghest O’ Whitby is a one-song EP by My DyING BRIDE that consists of a few themed segments. The part I speak of makes Sabbath Bloody Sabbath sound like a Patsy Biscoe offering by comparison. Yes, I am just as surprised to see myself write that as you are.)

But to get back to my point, I had a totally different road I was thinking down when I wrote the quoted comment, one that relates to the civil rights model that most autistic advocates work from. (In another article I will not dignify by linking or naming here, Autism Speaks is described as an advocacy group. They are not. That would be like calling the Ku Klux Klan a black advocacy group. Something I am sure even people who are whiter than I am will agree is ridiculous.) You see, like all movements for good, the civil rights movements in favour of black Americans, women, and so forth have multiple layers to them. One layer that applies to black Americans and women equally is called Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is, essentially, an undertaking by the American government to determine what percentage of the population is black, female, or both, what percentage of those are qualified for the jobs in question, and to ensure that the number of people who are black, female, or both employed in such jobs is an accurate reflection of this.

Opponents of such legislation will proclaim this to be reverse discrimination, but it is not. They will also proclaim this to be a politely-worded quota system. Again, false. What it is is simply a provision for good-faith efforts to be made for a workplace where qualifications are required to ensure that the qualified percentage of the minorities concerned in a district are accurately represented in the workforce. That is, if only one percent of the black individuals in a district are qualified for the jobs offered, then of that job pool, only one percent is desired to be black. And even when this is not fulfilled, actual quotas are only imposed when blatant cases of discrimination have been proven. This is a critically important point to understand in order to get to where I am going.

It may surprise some people to learn this after reading my words, seeing my photography, or watching what I commit to video, but I left high school early. Not because I was failing at it. I was, but that is because of the real reason I ended up leaving: because my being autistic was being ignored, and I was being abused to a point where it prompted me to become violent. But that is neither here nor there. What is important in this context is that the autistic need such laws as Affirmative Action extended to include them (I bet this was not mentioned at all during the Congressional hearing).

Another point you need to understand in order to understand where I am going with this is the justification for Affirmative Action. A lot of redneck imbeciles will tell you that Affirmative Action is based solely upon the fact that black Americans are still (generally speaking) in a dire situation within America. The part about their situation generally being dire is true, but the part about Affirmative Action being based solely on that is not. There are two points to the reason for the mistreatment of black Americans, and from a legal point of view, this reason and the points have not changed at any point in America’s history. These points are:

1. The majority (rich white Americans) decided that a morally irrelevant feature (having darker skin than the majority were used to seeing) was somehow relevant.
2. The majority (rich white Americans) mistreated these people on this basis.

Affirmative Action for the eight-point-eight million Americans who are black is not justified on the basis of the first point, but on the basis of the second. The same, with some modifications, can be said of Affirmative Action for women. And (this is a critically important point), the same is applicable, with slightly more dramatic modifications, to the autistic. The two-point justification that I will use my own wording for goes something like:

1. The majority (normies) decided that a morally irrelevant feature (having different cognitive and sensory systems) was somehow relevant.
2. The majority (normies) mistreated these people on this basis.

Piss and moan to your heart’s content, normies. This is the most accurate picture you are ever going to get of what is going on right now. Denying people the right to speak for themselves amidst a tide of what basically amounts to days of “they should all be killed” tirades and nothing more is mistreatment. Murdering children that may or may not have neurogenetic similarities to them is mistreatment. Refusing to employ them or allow them to partake in services because they will not spit your hateful, disgusting little mind back at you in exactly the manner you want is mistreatment. Refusing to perform medical treatments that may save the life of an individual whom you know to be autistic is mistreatment. And those are just the examples that come to mind right now. I can assure you with the same gravitas as “I am breathing as I type this” that there are more.

So again, I find myself asking people within the movement who are a bit not-on-board with how I feel towards normies a question. How can you possibly sit there, witness all of the bullshit such as that which occurred at the Congressional hearings, and possibly even be uncomfortable with me saying this? Because, and I think that everyone who has enough of a connection with the character called Magneto will agree with me on this, that Magneto is not so on board with the mass extermination of Humans because he simply dislikes them. No. He is on board with exterminating Humans like the cockroaches that normies are because he shares my enthusiastic response to the Robert Prosky quote. Let’s do it to them before they do it to us.

For a while, I have been toying with the idea of starting my own autism advocacy group. The revelation that I needed to do this came during the early stages of my return to Sydney. Having a meltdown at the sight of the housing I had signed up to be in, and most of that meltdown being justified by the reactions I knew were coming to my declaration that I did not wish to be in it, I had a bit of a trip to the district hospital. Or should that be hospital district? (Westmead Hospital may well be equal to Parramatta’s Westfield shopping mall in floor space terms, if not larger.)

Oppression causes pain, there are no two ways about that. But what a lot of people in this supposedly enlightened and wonderful time either do not understand or do not want to understand is that there are multiple types of oppression, and kinds of pain that oppression causes.

In Kruma Steward‘s essay about the “Nigga identity”, he quotes one Carter G. Woodson. Carter‘s race is not touched upon in Kruma‘s text, so I have no idea. Although it was far easier in 1933 for white men (as opposed to black men or women, see above point about Affirmative Action) to get published, it is not relevant here. What is relevant is what Carter writes in The Miseducation Of The Negro:

If you can control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his action. When you determine what a man shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one.

Read this out loud whilst watching the twenty-one year-old me going about his business in Parramatta, and the two fit together almost perfectly. Years of being told how baad I am, how being treated like something stuck to someone’s shoe by teachers was perfectly justified, and so forth, had done their job. Even today, that effect echoes within my person like Geezer Butler is echoed in just about every doom metal song.

That is why things like this Congressional hearing are so offensive and harmful to us, normies. We have already seen one generation grow up with a harmful and pervasive view of them dominating their every waking moment. Given my age, it is probably a given that we have seen at least two. You see, when children see people in monkey suits sit around a table and talk about what a big burden upon society they are, it registers with them. You are effectively telling them that you do not want them to grow up to be an integrated, useful part of your society. You are telling them that you want to live their adult lives as a lonely, bitter reject.

That is why, with only two exceptions (and I think everyone can work out who they happen to be), the people who testified at this Congressional hearing are disgusting, contemptible people who should not ever again be allowed to talk to anything sentient. Whether you like it or not, curebies, not only is not all about you, it has not ever been about you, even in the most minimal sense. That you insist on telling people in positions of power otherwise says quite a lot about what you are really like as people. Not one bit of it good.

This is why the autism civil rights movement needs to change its focus from acceptance to dominance. Normies will not stop trying to poison other minds against us until we stand over them with a whip and make them stop. I am sorry, passives, but there it is. If you really believe after these hearings that I am mistaken, then to paraphrase Gustav Hasford wrote in The Phantom Blooper, you are the kind of person I would go to a war in order to get away from.