Writing is a hard job. There are some people, I will not name names, who seem to mistake writing for just being a hobby or not a “real job”. There are also people who have said that writing is the only profession where one can work for hundreds of hours on a project, not get paid, and have it all considered normal.
I do not know exactly what I was thinking when I started this journal a little while ago. Very few of the acts I perform that are of this kind are really thought out that hard. Some sort of stimuli usually prompts these actions, which are rarely thought out beyond the immediate action sense. In the case of this journal, I had a mad impulse to start writing again after I read this artcle on the journal of one Lydia Brown. Lydia, bless her says almost everything to the individual quoted that I would. Almost. The problem from my point of view with people like Lydia, however, is that they seem to have this bizarre belief that we are at peace, and that pleading with the normie enough will attain us our goals.
Not only do I believe this to not be the case, I find the way in which people like Lydia behave as if this is the case and anyone who thinks otherwise is automatically wrong to be a real slap in the face. I have already talked about the Black Panthers and other aspects of the black civil rights movement as a parallel example of why. But this is only an easy parallel, one that is readily understood by the majority of the people I am addressing, if not readily grokked.
As the image presented here states (the text is a bit on the wonky side, in my opinion), “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them”.
That, in a nutshell, is why I find the treatment of our plight by people within our group in a manner more befitting an already-granted victory appalling. Begging, pleading, and being nice are convenient both to protestor and protestee alike. And as many people commenting on protests about appalling laws in other places have said in different words, the efficacy of a protest is inversely reflected in its convenience to those participating in it. Give us a protest in which participants stand around, sing, listen to singing from self-important pop stars, and sip champagne, and you give us the least effective protest imaginable. Give us a protest where the participants are deliberately starving, throwing bricks at passing cars, and drinking poison, and you have a protest that is not easily forgotten by the audience.
The validity of this comparison can be seen quite easily when discussing the recognition of the rights of Australian Aborigines. All of those uniform speeches about recognising the traditional owners of this or that land must sound pretty bloody funny to their present-day 15 to 25 year olds. Let me tell you a little secret about land ownership that will save you a lot of time, guilt-tripping white Australians. It does not matter how long ago a person’s ancestors were on a given scrap of land. Once any new entity, a squatter or a government or a species, has come in and taken that land by force, that land is effectively theirs now. That is why all countries that want to stay owned by their current owners, without exception, expend significant amounts of money on weapons with which to defend ownership from threats both within and without.
I am not sure entirely when it was, but it cannot have been too far in advance of or after my twenty-first birthday. An Aboriginal boy was shot and killed by a police officer whilst, in the words of news reports, riding away on a bicycle. Saying there was outrage is a bit like saying there was grief. Of course there was. But the extent of the outrage was such that the Aborigine-dominated inner city suburb of Redfern erupted in rioting. Now, some white folk (including a certain individual who claims to be related to me) proclaimed that the police officer fired because the child was doing something wrong. I repeat: said child, as stated by senior policemen, was attempting to ride away from a police officer on a bicycle. How that justifies shooting is beyond me, but that is beside my point. My point is that after the Aborigines hurled flaming improvised projectiles and rocks at riot police for hours, questions were asked along the lines of how to make sure not to do it again.
In case you were wondering, that was the point. Police officers in the state of New South Wales were asked to rethink their procedures so that little boys on bicycles will not get shot and killed in the future. Even today, the police are leery to go into Redfern without a lot of backup because they know the population there is extremely hostile to them. This is a small concession compared to the problems with health, crime, and employment discrimination that Aborigines continue to face, sure, but one that justifies the level of anger and hurt the protestors put into their protest.
There is a reason I keep mentioning the struggles of racial minority groups in conjunction with the struggle of the autistic. The definition of a minority group is not an easy one to get right, but this article on the web site for the Office Of The High Commssioner For Human Rights is a good place to start. I will quote the relevant portion of the article here:
According to a definition offered in 1977 by Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a minority is: A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.
As the article also states, the criteria has often been challenged, and not without reason. South Africa during the Apartheid era is a good example of the reason the first part of the definition has been challenged. White men have always been numerically inferior to the rest of the population of South Africa. But as Apartheid demonstrated very conclusively, numerical inferiority does not guarantee social inferiority.
This necessitated a bit of a rethink about the criteria, both in terms of how it is applied and what the rules should be. And probably the first, foremost, and evermore most important addition to the list is an explicit statement of something implied in the second part of Captorti’s defintion. Namely, membership in the group has to be involuntary. Just like being white in South Africa, being Korean in Japan, or Aboriginal in Australia, being autistic is not something you choose. Think about it. If, at some point before birth, Odin asked you if you would like to be part of this group that is looked down upon by the dominant group of where you will reside, and can be subjected to violence on a whim by said dominant group, you would ask him if he were kidding.
The point here is that passives do me (and the rest of us) a grave disservice. They stream out articles about how to “get along” better or how the normie is just being mean. Never will you see them write about how to make the normie genuinely frightened of what might happen if they mess with us too hard or on the wrong day. And before you rush to write me that angry email about how much it will hurt to get off your arse and fight instead of sit on your knees and cry “pleeeeease accept us, normie!” at the top of your lungs, please have a good hard read of Maddox‘s hope that SOPA (a law designed by wankers) would pass. In it, he quotes words from Snopes that should be etched into every bedroom ceiling:
Protest schemes that don’t cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.
I do not know about you, but when the news media monopoly blares out a message to the effect that all autistic people are essentially school shooters in waiting (in spite of reams of records that prove the autistic are far more frequently subjected to mistreatment and violence), that tells me a few things. One, it tells me that all the pleading and whining and begging for acceptance is simply not working. Two, it tells me that continuing to use this methology is going to end up with all of us exterminated, buried, swept away, and the history of the whole thing rewritten to make it all not a crime. Just like what happens with every other truly successful genocide. Three, continuously excluding autistic people from the voice of autistic people just because a group of autistic people who have not woken up to points one and two is creating a subset of further discrimination.
That is right, passives. By excluding autistic people for not being passive, for not pleading, for not taking the abuse and trying to talk it into stopping, you create exactly the same kind of marginalisation that the normies create against the autistic, just in a smaller subgroup. The Aborigines of Australia, the blacks of America, the blacks of England, they do not subscribe to such malarkey. They might not all go around the street armed with anything from guns to looks that say “fukk with us and you will regret it”, but nor do they actively discriminate against their own for doing that. This is a critically important point that the autistic civil rights movement as a whole needs to get before it can make any real progress, and I am getting sicker, more suicidal, more murderous, by the day having to repeat this to them.
In order to see an example of how aggravating passives are to me, the film Ransom contains a great example of how to respond. Passives will cry and moan that if we hurt them, they will come back hurting us and our children and so forth. In one critical scene of Ransom, the father played by Mel Gibson and the kidnapper played by Gary Sinise are arguing over the ‘phone. Gibson is pissed off because he followed the instructions of the kidnappers to the letter without anything to show for it, and is now very convinced that he could pay all the money in the world and the kidnappers will never return his son to him. He has just gone on the television and told the world that instead of paying the kidnappers the demanded two million dollars, he is offering it as a reward for their heads. Sinise is essentially trying to make him change his mind. But after Sinise does something that makes Gibson and Russo believe that he has shot their son, Gibson does the same thing we should be doing. He gets in front of the cameras and says that he is undeterred in his course of action, and the reward is now three million dollars.
I know passives are not the most clever people out there when it comes to frightening others, so I am going to spell this out here. In a game of chicken, the point is not to go faster, be harder, or time the choices right. No, in a game of chicken, the objective is to raise the stakes so far that your opponent is not wanting to deal with the consequences of losing. I will not state how Ransom ends, but Gibson‘s character raises the stakes so high that his wife (Russo) has difficulty talking to him, and his son ends up a poster child for childhood PTSD.
He wins the part of the struggle that entails ensuring the survival of his son not because he whines and pleads enough with the kidnappers, but because he turns around and makes it clear to the kidnappers that no matter what they do, he is going to make them wish they had never heard of him.
This is a point that I am starting to become tired of trying to explain to passives. So in response to Lydia‘s article Annoying, I have to say the following: You are annoying to me. You whinge and plead for acceptance, yet you cannot even accept the group you are putting a face on in its entirety. You annoy me because this inability will have dire consequences for us. You annoy me because, just like curebies, you want to take one fragment of a sizeable group of people and present it as being the whole. Granted, that fragment is a good deal larger than is the case with curebies, but have you not learned from how my generation of autistic individuals basically got in the arse as a result of Rain Man being thought the whole and sole of autism?
This difficulty is having very serious effects on my health. Although I was having very big problems when I was having to explain to the agent that manages the place I am living in that there are things they need to do so that I can have Internet and it is their responsibility to do these particular things, last December just messed me up beyond belief. If I were a Jew living in America and they were having Congressional hearings about what to do about “Jewishness”, I would not be pleading with gentiles that this is not what my people are like and the Congressional hearing speakers are bigots. I would be finding those speakers and making examples of them. The Jews have done things like that multiple times in history now, the most notable example being the retribution for the slaying of eleven Israeli athletes by the Black September group. Now, whilst it is true that Israel as a nation deals with threats from everything Arab on a constant basis, it is also true that Israel as a nation owes its very existence to the utterance of statements such as that for every nuclear weapon thrown at them, Israel would retaliate tenfold.
Hence, when I hear normies say things like how they are going to go and “burn” autistic children as some sort of “payback” for the actions of an “autistic” school shooter, it makes me feel something. Namely, it makes me wish I could gather a group of a hundred autistic men and issue a statement on the nu-press that for every autistic child who is harmed by a normie like this, we will kill a hundred normies at random. And increasing the pressure is a vital component of this kind of game of chicken. Because normies, oddly enough, are very weak people. Their strength only comes from majority privilege and comfort. Take those things away from them, and they have nothing. Tell them that every time you so much as hear a rumour that an autistic child has been hurt for being autistic, you will raid their neighbourhoods, drag them out in the street, and shoot them, and they will fold in on themselves like a bag of shit. Because when they utter threats, they do so believing that there is no way it can ever circulate back to them. That is one reason why the NRA was all about passing laws to stop the Black Panthers from openly carrying guns. Because the second a privileged normie is made to even entertain the idea that their little world is not as impenetrable as they like to think, as Sy Richardson said so well in Repo Man, they’re shit-scared.
After the events of last December, I think the autistic would do well to believe that we are at a crossroads. Being nice to the normie is just not going to cut it anymore. We have held out our hands in “friendship” so many times now. We have had it slapped back, grabbed and burned with tongs, splashed with boiling water, and on it goes. That whole line about turning the other cheek is a crock of shit. People who turn the other cheek end up in history books next to words like “victim”, “extinct”, and so on.
I think the passives of the autistic civil rights movement would agree with me when I say that being autistic is not a fashion, nor a uniform. Problem is, I would like them to start behaving like they understand this point. Until they do, we will only continue to go backward.