So, after admitting that (once again), my grand plan to off myself did not go to glory and I am still here, I decided to post a little bit about what motivated the “decision” in the first place. One thing that has made me question the value of not just my life but life in general has been the perceived propensity of persons in my life to change the rules based on what I have just said.
Now, in order to give a clear meaning here, I will quote again a parcel of text in one response to my more recent statements that bears thinking about. In response to my comparison (remember this word) of the autism civil rights struggle to the equivalent civil rights struggle on the part of black Americans, one party had the following to say:
An invisible disability does not equal an indelible physical trait, like high levels of melanin. We can “pass”, at least on sight.
Now, when I first read this, I thought one thing. Careful, dear, the word “disease” is about to escape your lips. And the more I reread this quote, along with subsequent statements by the same party, the more I kept thinking things along these lines. When you remember that curebies are entirely dependent upon the fence-sitting audience thinking “disease” when they hear the word “autism”, that should give a good idea of how I react to statements like the above.
The author quoted above has also, at varying times, either made a song and dance about how educated she happens to be (which is fair enough given her stated environment) or about how unfairly she thinks the peoples of the Babble Belt are portrayed in media (which is not). In one discussion of the television show True Blood (which, in other matters, has taken a serious nose dive quality-wise in the last couple of years), she even had the gall to profess that her objection to the “South” being portrayed the way it is in True Blood is like mine to all of Australia being mistaken for the locations seen in the Crocodile Dundee films. First of all, the part of Australia seen in the Crocodile Dundee films is a backwater so remote that it can be said to represent the lifestyle of less than one percent of Australia’s citizenry. Secondly, the creator of the Michael Dundee character, Paul Hogan, knows this. A man who made a living doing a maintenance task on the Sydney Harbour Bridge cannot go through life without knowing this. Whether you deem his satire of a stereotypical view of Australia’s people successful or not, it is easy to make the case that it was indeed meant (at least in part) as a satire.
Unfortunately, similar things cannot be said of True Blood. Although parts of the series are set in relatively connected, non-isolated parts of the Louisiana/South areas, most of it is set in, as one character so brilliantly puts it, a bum-fukk town. (Are we even in a town?) And please, South folk, no protesting that you live in a city. Just because you say it is a city or your town leaders say it is a city does not make it so. Although the criteria to be a city is not so easy to define, we can safely say that with the exceptions of Sydney, Melbourne, and a small cluster of Brisbane, nothing in Australia meets the criteria to be a city. And whilst I have not been to every place in the Babble Belt, I can say without looking too hard that I have every confidence that few of the places in the South, as they call it, qualify as cities, either.
But this is getting away from the more crucial point. At the end of my previous writing, I made a comparison. In this comparison, I quoted Spike Lee‘s portrayal of Malcolm X. I do not like Spike Lee, for reasons I might elaborate on later, but his Malcolm X says one thing that I feel everyone who seeks to promote the rights of a disenfranchised group would do well to remember. Specifically, he says that his people had the best organisation that black men ever had, and “niggers” (Spike Lee‘s word) ruined it. Note specifically the distinction between “black men” and “niggers”, because it is an important one. In this context, “black men”, I suspect, refers to black men who wanted to throw off the social and cognitive shackles of slavery, to create a new world in which being black was irrelevant compared to having a PhD. in political science (for example). In the same context, “niggers” means the black men who are so hopelessly used to and dependent upon the way things are that they will gladly defend that status quo, regardless of what it costs them or their children.
As stated in the Wikipedia article on racism, a very valid criticism of the way the definition of racism is applied goes:
Critics argue that the term is applied differentially, with a focus on such prejudices by whites, and defining mere observations of racial differences as racism.
This is a very valid criticism of the manner in which racism has come to be defined on the internet, with even the paraphrasing of quotations concerning the internally racist behaviour of black civil rights activists deemed racist. So bear that in mind whilst I explain (again) the following.
Passives are the niggers of the autism civil rights struggle. I do not mean that they are of a different race to others in the autism civil rights struggle. What I mean is that they are of a different (and not in a good way) mentality. In order to understand this, it is important that we define what is meant by the word “nigger”. The definition that seems to be put forth in Spike Lee‘s quotation or paraphrase of Malcolm X is a black man who is so okay with the status quo, regardless of how it keeps him down, that he does not mind working to perpetuate it. Whether consciously or unconsciously. Oddly enough, that is the meaning I had in mind when I referred to the passives that currently dominate the autism civil rights movement as the niggers of neurodivergence.
The question that the “umm-mama! yu sed a bad werd!” bleaters do not seem to give any consideration to is whether the word is accurate or not. And like it or not, politically-correct turd tasters, if a person finds that a word conveys his intended meaning and pleases him, he will use it. If a person finds that a word conveys his meaning, but displeases him enough to use, he will use it in such a way that his meaning must be carefully considered.
And that, friends and neighbours, is the problem with the politically correct retards of this world. In fact, let us consider the word retard for a second. Dictionary.com offers a five-point definition of the word retard. Of these five points, the first two are the most pertinent to the meaning I had when I call the politically correct and political correctness pushers a bunch of retards. I will quote them in full:
verb (used with object)
to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
verb (used without object)
to be delayed.
Either of these points can be used quite variably. Before the political correctness brigade got a hold of it, the Wikipedia’s article on the X-Men character Wolverine described one of his superpowers as “retarded ageing”. With the above points in mind, can you think of a single person living today (other than me) who would not give anything to have a “retarded ageing” power? I did not think so. But try telling that to the (intellectually) retarded “umm-mama! yu sed a bad wurd!” brigade.
So when I tell you that I compare the passives, who beg and plead with the normie for acceptance in the face of having it thrown back at them, with the niggers that Malcolm X is displayed complaining about in a Spike Lee film, you need to understand my full meaning.
This is the point at which I feel the need to come clean about something. During my teens, if you listened to what was coming out of my mouth (like anyone does, now or then), you would have heard some incredibly racist shit come out of my mouth on some occasions. But important to consider is the context in which they came out. In this time (the early to mid-late 1990s), the RIAA decided that the black music genre known as rap was the latest thing to water down and neuter. In place of genuinely interesting acts like Public Enemy, we were drowned in the like of Will Smith et al. And when Will Smith was on the tube reciting garbage that would make an intelligent ten year old wonder if he had been dropped on his head, disparaging remarks pertaining to his race and public character, especially where the two converged, were often not far off.
But here is the thing. Just as not every white man is into bluegrass or country-soundalike crap, not every black man is into rap. And even when a black (or white, for that matter) man is into rap, that does not mean he is on board with the watered-down, neutered version that the RIAA wanted people like my good self to think was the be-all and end-all of rap.
When Spike Lee‘s Malcolm X says that niggers ruined “the best organisation a black man’s ever had”, he is passing judgement on a specific group of black men. And his judgement was based upon what I can guess were some self-defeating actions that set back every black man (or woman or child) immeasurably. The judgement is therefore valid, and that in turn makes the word valid. You do not use flattering words to refer to a person you despise so much that you feel you will lose everything by allowing them to continue representing you. You use words that you hope will convey to them what you really think of them as people.
As I am sure you have already guessed, I have nothing but contempt for the autistic individuals who keep holding out their hand and begging the normies for what they call acceptance. As I have mentioned before, I was admitted to hospital twice in the same three-day period because of the impact that reading news about the (suspicious and, of course, posthumous) diagnosis of a school shooter. Just weeks prior to that, the American Congress decided to hold a “hearing” about what to do concerning the “autistic problem”, and refused to allow any autistic individuals to speak until cowed into doing so by protests. Yet just this morning, I was reading statements in comments concerning how incredibly rah-cyst my comparison of similarities between struggles were to the effect that nobody is organising to murder the autistic. Really? I guess when people try to represent you as burdensome, diseased, inhuman, and school-shooters in waiting, it is because they want to give you flowers and take you dancing?
As I have said many times before, the voice a child hears throughout his childhood becomes the voice he thinks to himself in when he is an adult. Small wonder, then, that things like bad, not good enough, or rotten dominate the track of thoughts that run through my brain all the time when I think to myself.
Another thing I should, and will, come clean about is that I have next to no idea what being black, whether it be in Australia or America, means in a social sense. Oh, sure, I know it means being subject to levels of discrimination and mistreatment that no well-off white male would ever tolerate, but that is par for the course. What I mean is that I have only a very limited understanding of how being a part of either racial group, and seeing how said racial group is portrayed in popular media, would affect my view of myself and what I do based upon that view. I can understand how certain things would have a very negative impact upon that view, but that is to be expected. When you go through your entire childhood being told that you are “baad” and then learn as an adult that the root cause is a characteristic you yourself had no say in, there are no words to describe the level of anger it can inspire. But that is a rather different matter from being excluded or mistreated on the basis of a characteristic you cannot help, and knowing at least the basics of why from the very get-go.
Where these two social conditions converge, however, is both the how and why. The how is best summed up in the following quote from one of my favourite articles:
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, for 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.
When you teach a child to think that he is “baad” rather than being short-changed by his appointed educators, it means that said educators end up in a god-like position. Nothing they do ever comes under question. It is all justified to parent or even social worker as “the child is baad, mmmkay?”. That is the how. And it pretty much sums up the why, to boot. Why would a person who makes their living by delivering an essential service seek to absolve themselves from any kind of criticism, especially the sort that is most important (a child’s), unless they are profoundly bad at their job?
Education systems the world over are populated by people who will tell you that their mission is to teach the child “to think”, but nothing could be further from the case. What they mean is that they want to teach the child (or teenager, or young adult) to think only in the manner they want. If the child is middle class or upper middle class (or even higher) and white, they teach that child to think their privilege is wholly earned and that anyone who questions their entitlement to such privilege is just trying to scrounge off them. When the child is white, lower-middle class (or lower), or of any other race, second-class status and the drilling of same into their head is the primary objective.
George Orwell wrote a number of important works, but the one he is best-remembered for is Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel about how manipulating and modifying the language of the person can make a slave of them. In it, the main character writes numerous things in his diary, but one of the most pertinent is “I understand how. I do not understand why”. Later in the story, it is explained to him that the ultimate objective of people in power is to exercise power and retain it. But the how is important, too.
One of my favourite points in Nineteen Eighty-Four states that the Party has criminalised the wearing of the wrong expression in response to news. Looking incredulous when a victory is announced, for example. There is even a Newspeak word for it: facecrime. But it all boils down to the Carter G. Woodson quote. If you can control what a man thinks, you do not need to worry about how he acts.
This is why I find it absolutely horrifying when people proclaim that there is no organised effort to embark on a campaign of genocide against the autistic, or that being autistic is merely an “invisible disability”. The falseness of both positions is only secondary. The reason it horrifies so much is because if you can get people to try to tell others there is no effort to organise for genocide (or neurocide, if you like), the people doing the telling will also behave as if that is the case. When the most powerful body in the world holds a hearing and only allows the people being spoken of as burdens, plagues, or crises to speak in small amounts, and in the face of protest at that, that is all the evidence I need that geno/neurocide is being prepared for, and when it will actually begin is anyone’s guess.
In my fiction writings, I write often of battles in which membership of several distinct fantasy races unite against a common foe. The strengths of one race, such as incredible stamina or armour-wearing, cover for the weaknesses of another, such as relative fragility. In a culture war where a social majority, namely rich white men, has declared war on pretty much everyone else, the one thing they count on to see them through is the scattering of their opposition. And that is precisely what is going on now. The extent to which all groups that are not in a majority position are so bitterly divided makes one wonder how anything ever gets done on this world.
Which leaves me with a closing thought for now. Passing is not a desirable goal. I do not give a fukk how much a person thinks “we” (what you mean we, paleface?) can pass. As one of the best characters in the X-Men films says so well, we should not have to. Passing is for people who want to meekly submit to their oppressors, or in limited cases sneak into their oppressors’ bases in order to do more damage.
I do not know whether I can even bother continuing with any of this anymore. The future seems even worse to me than the past, and that has to change if anything productive is ever to occur. I hope it does, but the passives who have monopolised the voice of the autistic are among the biggest barriers to that.