Very recently, it came to my attention that some very big, brave person delivered an anonymous letter to the mother of an autistic child. This letter spared no effort in stating to said mother that the author wanted her to either move or euthanise her child.
The article about this incredibly upsetting event is at this link. Whomever wrote the headline has already revealed a bias the like of which deserves a good slap in the face. “Not a hate crime, but writer of autism letter already being punished”, this headline reads. Seriously?
I am not going to read and retype the content of this letter, because if I do, there is a great chance that by the time I finish, I might decide I want to kill someone, such as one of my neighbours.
However, it does raise a few questions, many of which I would like a real answer to from the Durham police. Before I begin, however, it must be noted that not one of these questions is any more or less important than the other. All are needing of an answer from not only the police force in Durham, but also its residents and the residents of surrounding areas. Here we go:
- It is well-established that children of all kinds behave in manners that may disrupt, disturb, or even cause damage to others’ property. To my knowledge, normie children are not excepted from this, and nor are they ever the campaigns of hate mail like the paper above. So when a letter like this is directed towards the mother of an autistic boy, and thus the autistic boy himself, exactly why is that not a hate crime?
- The autistic meet every criteria used by the United Nations to define a minority group. The most important of which is, and I quote, involuntary membership in the group. That is, even if the individual member wanted to leave the group, they are physically unable to do so. One cannot choose to not be autistic. Why should one group that meets this definition be protected by hate crime legislation, and the other not?
- In the article from which I retrieved this scanned copy of the letter, it is proclaimed that “widening the legislation” too far, to include too many groups, would defeat its purpose. As proven by the above letter, autistic individuals, even ones who are children, are subjected to crimes based on characteristics they cannot help. So too are other groups who may possess skin that is as white, if not whiter, than mine.
- As the above image proves, you have to be pretty damned white to get any whiter than I am (the pink-ish tone of my face in the picture is because of the flash lighting). Amongst others, groups that are subjected to hate on various levels and look no different from me include transgendered folk, homosexuals, and even in some cases people of different nationalities. Do we deserve any less protection from people, groups, or even whole countries, that wish to lynch us simply because we do not look any different? If that is your logic, Durham police, then you are an example of why the hate crimes legislation needs to be broadened as much and as rapidly as possible.
- How is telling a woman to euthanise (in cases like this a euphemism used by Nazis, Klansmen, Autism Speaks, and other hate groups, for murder) her child solely for perceived disturbances made by that child not a hate crime? How? Justify your answer. To an academic, not brush-off, level.
- What do you expect the consequences of this child growing up under the impression that nobody will protect him from people like the author of this letter when he needs it to be? (For the particularly dense readers of the report, when you look at me, you are looking at them.)
- If autistic individuals are not an identifiable group, and the sending of messages like this to one autistic child and their parental unit(s) not a hate crime, why is it that autistic adults who have never met the child in question are seething with rage and want to do things to the author that would make Mengele shudder in horror?
I think that list can do for now, although I would gladly accept submissions from other autistic adults concerning additions.
Note that I have not even begun to address the subject of how different this world would be without the autistic. It is not a positive difference. As I make very clear in the image above, normies like to play games of “good person = one of us, bad person = one of them”. Well, not only was Albert Einstein doing a very good job of impersonating an autistic boy, man, and elderly man in times when it was not only not politically expedient for him to do so, but could have got him murdered, he is far from an isolated example. (That, by the way, is what I mean in the image with the words “you refuse my idols” and so forth.)
The last question might seem confusing to some. After all, if this letter is directed at one person and their mother, why would people who live 10,000 or more miles away from both be so angry about it? Well, guys, it is actually quite simple. The statement and poem titled First they came…, by Martin Niemöller, explains it best. According to the foundation named after Niemöller, the original text is as follows:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
There are multiple versions of this text, a large number of them created by Niemöller himself. But they all stick to this basic topic. First they came after this lot of people, then the next, and so on until by the time they came after me, nobody was left to speak up for me.
That is the principle on which all autistic adults react on some level with anger and fear when they hear of one autistic individual being maltreated. How much longer do we have before people start to come after us, and who is going to speak up and tell the normie brigade that this behaviour is not acceptable?
Also worrisome to many an autistic individual who has had enough of the treatment we receive is the apparent double standard. Why is it that when people shoot children at schools, as happened in December of last year, the media sings out that they are automatically autistic, without any attempts at evidentiary confirmation whatsoever? (Not coincidentally, I am also working on a writing that appraises Vincent Bugliosi‘s criticism, among other things, of the media’s behaviour during the murder trial of O.J. Simpson.) In light of that, police community of Durham, can you not see why autistic adults might just feel a little bit fukked over by you when you proclaim that threats to the life of an autistic child are not hate crimes?
The actual definition of a minority group is not easy to find. The United Nations defines a racial or ethnic minority as a group of people within a given state:
- which is numerically smaller than the rest of population of the state or a part of the state
- which is not in a dominant position
- which has culture, language, religion, race etc. distinct from that of the majority of the population
- whose members have a will to preserve their specificity
- whose members are citizens of the state where they have the status of a minority
- which have a long-term presence on the territory where it has lived
The autistic, everywhere in the world, meet this criteria. I have only heard one credible (that is, not scaremonger-promoted) estimate of the percentage of the populace that is autistic. That is one in every 150. I am not very good with fine-detail mathematics, but dividing one by 150 gets a result of 0.0066 and change (a long string of 6s ending in a 7). That is a pretty small percentage. So to say that the autistic is numerically smaller than the rest of the population in any state or part thereof is redundant. (I will later clarify why I feel this part of the definition is a load of balls.)
If the autistic were in a dominant position, then “liberal” Senator Jim Munson would be, as they say, run out of town. The margin of time between one report of a hateful act towards an autistic individual or the autistic in general is not counted in years, months, or even weeks. It is counted in days, Jim. If that makes this letter an exception rather than the rule, then what planet do you come from?
It is utterly incontestable that the autistic have a culture and language distinct from the rest of the population different from the majority in the entire rest of the world. All one needs to do to understand that is observe the difference between what normies in television studios tell us our culture is (Big Stereotype Theory et al) versus what a Powell type tells them our culture really is (TRON: Legacy, X-Men, Blade Runner, and so on).
I think it is redundant to say that the autistic have a will to preserve their specificity. When an individual like myself is frightening the managers of branches of supermarket chains into removing hate signs like the puzzle piece from their premises, that is going way beyond a will. That is an aggressive compulsion.
I think the bit about being a citizen of the state in which you are a minority is a bit of a laugh. Australian and autistic are, to me, two mutually exclusive states. You cannot be both. Australia has a culture that encourages herd conformity and stupidity as virtues. Both are “virtues” that the autistic brain is hard-wired to fight against. And failing that argument, exactly where in the world, Durham police, do you suggest we go in order to not face the kind of discrimination organisations like yourself and Autism Speaks are bringing against us?
And finally, a long-term presence. Really. Contrary to what certain idiots might tell you, the autistic have been around for a lot longer than you might think. In fact, many of us wish we could go back to the days before “awareness” brought us the constant stream of hate we are now experiencing both in mass media and from the world. It is also said that autistic adults tend to have autistic children and so on. To say that we have been here a lot longer than the people who wish to see us gone will give us credit for is redundant.
The requirement that a group be a numerical minority is, as I said, a load of balls. Before Nelson Mandela was freed and allowed to run for President of South Africa, black South Africans were a social minority in every sense of the word. The (predominantly white) police could kick in the doors and kill them on just about any pretext, all protected under the Apartheid rule. This is because the white South Africans were better-armed, had a legal system set up in their favour, and were regarded as the sovereigns of the nation. Yet the population of South Africa was, and still is, overwhelmingly black. Whilst many tribes and racial sub-groups comprise the black population in South Africa, their share of the total population there might have run as high as ninety percent. Yet until the white government was dissolved and a black political party given leadership, the blacks were the social minority. Ironically, the numerical minority status is the only real reason why autistic adults the world over are not in uprisings about things like this letter and the kid gloves with which some see fit to treat it.
This press statement from Amy Nelson, founder of the Aspies For Freedom group, is much more specific about how the autistic meet all of the criteria necessary to be considered a minority group and then some.
So, Durham police, Senator Munson, please explain to myself and my readers, why sending a letter to a woman telling her to either leave an area or kill her child for a characteristic that he can help no more than his eye colour is not a hate crime. And do not give me that crap about how it is not targeting a specific group. As I think I have explained, when you threaten one autistic individual, you are in effect threatening all of them.
I also have this statement I wish to direct at the Durhman police, Senator Munson, and all commentators on this article as well as its author.
When it is explicitly stated not only to persons living in the Americas but the entire world that it is not okay to threaten anyone solely on the basis of their being autistic, and they show signs of “getting it”, then I will stop calling for acts like this to be labelled as hate crimes. Not before.
When autistic adults no longer have to turn on their computers, attempt to communicate with each other, and learn every other day of incidents in which they have been called inherent pedophiles, children have been threatened, or slander/libel has been committed against them, I will stop asking for such to be labelled as a hate crime. Not before.
(I know not which definition it falls under, slander or libel. But telling the world a person shot bullets at a bunch of children because he is autistic (and all without him ever being diagnosed as such) or telling the world that all autistic men are inherently pedophiles, comes suspiciously close to meeting both so far as I know.)
When I no longer have to feel that I have to act in an aggressive, at times murderous manner in order to get my objections to my enemies setting up shop where I live or being otherwise mistreated heard, I will cease calling for actions like this letter being labelled as hate crimes. Not before.
When I no longer see publicly-funded entities placing adverts on buses, bus stops, or in any public place asking viewers who might otherwise be ignorant would they not like to see a world without autism, no wait let me start over. When I see a world where people who run public utilities do not even contemplate mistaking that for a good idea, then I will cease to call for letters like the above to be labelled as the hate crimes that they are. Not before.
As the above list should make clear to you, Global News, Senators of the world, and anyone else who happens to be reading, the future of relations between yourselves and autistic adults, including Powell types like myself who regularly start to snarl and contort angrily in public places because of what people like you have done, is in your hands. It is your behaviour that needs to change, because we can easily demonstrate that we have suffered enough at the hands of your kind.
One day, the boy featured in this article is going to grow to be a great big man, and things like that letter are going to form part of how he sees the world from that point. More generations are going to grow to adulthood and start wanting retribution for behaviour like this letter, which is the rule, not the exception. The onus is on you to make boys like this believe that you do not approve of your fellow normie’s acts. Because if enough of future generations grow up believing as I have that our wellbeing and safety are of no importance to you normies, there will be consequences.