The Standard Review

Because We are Different than Them

My goal as a disability advocate is to challenge the current standards which are unfair. The need for this is shown in how both the words ableism and disabilism are used interchangeably.  Both are sides of the same coin (so to speak). It is because we live in an ablest society with unfair standards that we have people who are limited due to their inability to meet those standards.

Within what is referred to as the online autism community, the response of some advocates to unfair standards is not helpful. It can discriminate against autistics for no other reason than attempting to validate a few.

When people use the term autistic, it can refer to a diagnosis given by a professional. That can be extended to include more people and can be used constructively when it refers to a social rather than the medical model. However, once autism becomes Autism, a new set of standards are set in place so that once again some will be excluded and discriminated against.

The same is true for the word neurodiversity. It has so much to offer in the concept it can be used to represent but when it becomes Neurodiversity, lines are drawn and decisions are made as to who is and isn’t included.

When I hear people referred to as “my people” or “one of us," I’m reminded that the person using the term is no longer simply looking to include some people where they have instead been excluded or challenge the current standards; their goal is then to show how they can meet the standard and exclude others. This not only contradicts the moral reasons I believe that advocacy is necessary and important; it is impractical and won’t work.

Politics (the environment public policy is decided) is an extension of the law which demands more attention be paid to subtlety and nuance. There must be a method of differentiating between what roles, we who are in need of support need to assume, and ones we need to either delegate or make exchanges in order to obtain. Without recognizing this, autism politicians (both the autistic variety and the guardian) have built a wall (metaphorically speaking) around the arena where policy is decided, which excludes mainly those who are claimed as being the benefactors.

 "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."  ~Audre Lorde

I wish that the guardian portion of the online autistic community (the parent, professionals, presumed supporters, etc.) would realize that by following the medical model tradition of separating autistics into categories of levels of functioning and adhering to age appropriate standards, they create more unnecessary pressure on everyone. These standards were never meant to help the majority of people succeed, and they do more to demand unreasonable level of performance by a particular age and have people ignored or accused of abhorrence or laziness if they don't meet the standard. It also supports needless labels of high or low functioning in order to dismiss people so that they are conveniently considered unable or too disobedient to be taken seriously.

When a child is born with four limbs and twenty digits everyone will claim they are a blessing. Some mistakenly also believe that we as a culture can look at someone who doesn't as something other than a curse. I appreciate that many don't see things this way as individuals but as a culture, I don't believe we are so sophisticated.

As children grow the age-appropriate  standards begin to take their toll and fortunate children receive support while the less fortunate have their abilities categorized in terms of unable (which NEVER completely escapes moral judgments) and moral choices such as lazy and unwilling to be responsible. However, these standards were set by industry leaders who lobby for laws that ensure profits for their investments, and they influence mainstream publications that teach attitudes, which encourage bitterness toward each other among the less fortunate class.

The only reason most of us has any rights at all is because someone before us won that right in court. If your ability isn't one that automatically serves the industrial objectives, by default, your value becomes to them (and then our culture adopts this view) is the same as if you are disabled. These are the standards that determine disability.

Furthermore, being diagnosed with an ailment which is categorized as a physical may be the beginning of the support you need. On the other hand, being diagnosed with any abnormality, which is associated with behavior may instead be the beginning of how people other than your family are provided the right to mistreat you, detain you with less sufficient cause, and subject you to therapy, which has little scientific support.

Furthermore, in the same way as a church will dismiss and/or exclude those whom they find inconvenient as being in possession of bad spirits, medical professionals and therefore, other supports available to the general public will demonize a person who is considered to have behaviors that result from exposure to environmental toxins. Because people with a diagnosis that includes inconvenient behaviors are devalued in society, claims of disorders being caused by environmental toxins are publicized though they have little or no scientific support. Again, this also leads to more people being labeled as either high or low functioning and either will be used interchangeably in different circumstances to justify ways your rights are denied.

All this indicates to me that autistics need (based in part to the label and in part the behavioral differences that our culture will recognize as inappropriate) to have exclusive standards challenged. This does not mean that we need to make a place for ourselves (metaphorically speaking) at an already established exclusionary table. As long as we are working toward equality, there is a morality involved in our efforts, which will provide us with rights. However, if instead we create exclusive clubs and follow similar exclusionary practices at the expense of others in similar ways as what was done to us; I see little value in our efforts.

 First they came…

“"First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.”

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Many during this were too willing to allow neighbors and even family to be persecuted because they were among those who initially passed the acceptance test. Unfortunately, when a category that defined them was also included as one which was seen as unacceptable, all those who would have been there to protect them had already gone. I hope this can serve as a reminder of how fragile our privileges are and how important it is not take them for granted. It’s important not to do things, which provide for what are considered our own rights, which ultimately come at the expense of someone else’s.

Improved Behaviorism and Worse Behavior

Policy makers and their supporters claim that people's behaviors are becoming worse. More specifically they claim that children's behavior is becoming worse. However, these same policy makers and supporters are claiming that behavioral products, and the techniques are advancing.
 
For the purpose of my focus here; whether their evaluation of behavior is correct doesn't really matter. My point is the claim behavioral conditioning is advancing or that the products are become more sophisticated and humane doesn't fit how the attitude toward the people receiving them is becoming more desperate. This desperation is causing more severe and dangerous methods of control along with those who implement them often becoming less empathetic toward those receiving them.

The behaviorists in the U.S. are involved in turf wars, which include how Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is marketed. The kinder and gentler Positive Behavioral Support (PBS) is being marketed by some as the answer to outdated and no-longer-appropriate "old school" ABA. However, the foundational principals set by earlier behaviorists who found ways to market the application of this new science provide the newest products their legitimacy. Now that it's been established that people don't possess what their treatment harms, there are fewer objections.

You of course can't read much about how the entire approach of behaviorism is inappropriate at best and very dangerous at worst because there is no market for such criticism. In the same way that the mental health industry is designed to improve the lives of everyone but the one who receives treatment, behavior modification is evaluated by those who live with, educate, and implement the treatment rather than those who receive it. This means that professionals and other authorities are prohibited from knowing the harmful effects as well as prohibited from sharing views that would harm the marketing potential of the product.

It's important to understand how those who receive behavior modification are trained to be compliant. Therefore, it's likely that someone who would otherwise tell how abusive the treatment has been will be concerned about the likely punishment that results from doing so.

The work of behaviorists could not become more humane during the same time that the lists of types of people who are seen to need the service is growing, the behaviors being treated are seen to be more severe, and the laws which provide protection for the treated are increasingly aiding the treatment providers with protection instead.

There are reports that advocacy efforts have increased during this time. However, this has not been nearly sufficient to meet the demand  for the protection needed. While institutions over the years have added carpet and air conditioning, this has been disguised as and substituted for the needed protection against abuse. Furthermore, protection agencies which have been developed during this time have primarily provided more power to a specific subset of parents of children with disabilities while providing the disabled with powerful sounding names like consumer as a substitute.

More people are being incarcerated now than ever before and there are a broader set of laws for which they can be punished. Behaviorists work toward providing children with particular grades and labels, which will determine their path at earlier ages. Their goal is to have more rules (and have only a single set) and have them be applied to a broader set of people. It's ideal to believe that morality and ability won't be lumped together, but it's not practical.

The same type of marketing specialists who promote Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks by using fruit names and describing how including oats will benefit your heart will use positive names and the endorsement of well compensated scientists to sell behavior modification. Until or unless those who receive the treatment begin to be consulted and continually monitored and questioned as to its effectiveness and potential for abuse, you can be sure that along with better behaviorism you are buying sugar-coated law enforcement at the expense of the heart, mind, and soul of the most vulnerable people.

Closing a Community

 

The main reason for the problems related to inclusion, and supportive environments are due to people seeking answers from community builders rather than from the disenfranchised. Myths and presumptions about people who don't fit in are too convenient and are rarely challenged.

I can tell you from what I've witnessed and experienced that this problem is epidemic and leads to some of the worst of what is consistently dismissed as "societal ills." I don't know more about this than anyone else does, but I know more about it than I do about anything else.
 
People are so concerned with being part of a group or designing one that appeals to them that they never concern themselves with how exclusive they are or how badly people are hurt by it. It all just blamed on peoples unwillingness to conform. Diversity is too often a commercial brand that does little more than encourage identity politics and the very attacks (the bullying) which is claimed to be what people are attempting to prevent.

Would-be Liberators Securing Oppressive Tradition

Too often the difference between nationalism and patriotism is not clearly understood.

Our political system in the United States is an exercise in nationalism and participation too often discourages people from being patriotic.

Today more than ever, a patriot is one who questions and challenges the system rather than applauds it.

For the average person in the US to become educated, it will be done despite the educational system rather than that being due to it's merit. In the same  fashion if the average person can  avoid the abuses of public policy, it is despite our political system rather than the result of how it supposedly functions.

From the public outcry for more humane treatment of persons with disabilities (including the mentally ill and those with developmental disabilities), came political solutions called Protection and Advocacy and Independent Living. Despite how they have been presented, they were designed to give the agencies which were already providing for this population the greatest latitude of continued decision-making power.

Had there been any sustaining empowerment intended to any from this category of the population, these agencies would have radically changed every few years. Instead what has happened is that with every effort to advance the cause of empowering more individuals, the politicians have chosen the most compromising and least affected by the policy decisions to silence the rest and aggressively guard against any threat (or perceived threat) to tradition.

The wider understanding and recognition of autism has promoted more demonizing stereotypes for autistics to contend with and therefore, more abusive situations that we face. Certainly, the term neurodiversity does provide an opportunity for individuals to describe the nature of this oppression as well as ideas for how to oppose it.

Unfortunately, those of us who were interested in promoting this type of advocacy were confronted with the political aspirations of a few in a traditional way that has always prevented effective change.

For those who have hijacked the term neurodiversity and promoted the idea that it represented how liberties could be won through the political process, it would be best that they attempt to preserve the ideals it has represented to so many people rather than subjecting us all to the traditional oppression of standard politics. Instead I see the opposite.

Because the United States is more of a corporation than a nation, it must be understood that pragmatism and objectifying people that are used in politics for the preservation of the oppressive system itself will include cult like intimidation.

One way of describing this type of security is by use of the term Fair Game:

"The term Fair Game is used to describe policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies. Founder L. Ron Hubbard established the policy in the 1960s, in response to criticism both from within and outside his organization.[1][2] Individuals or groups who are "Fair Game" are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible.[1][2][3] In 1968, Hubbard officially cancelled use of the term "Fair Game" because of negative public relations it caused, although the Church's aggressive response to criticism continued."

An oppressive rather than a liberating agenda can be best be identified by how strictly those who advocate for it categorize everyone as either friend or foe. Individual and creative ideas will never survive this environment nor can the people presenting them be respected or empowered.

As I often write about on this blog, it's very important for representatives to remain open to questioning of their practices. Instead what I see within this movement is a very strict and aggressive approach to any alternative views or any ideas that are not in complete agreement with how they do things.

I often see opportunities for the leadership of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and other similar organizations to show how they are truly advocating the ideal neurodiversity rather than being pawns instead being addressed a threat. Subsequently, people providing these opportunities are bullied and intimidated. This is very counterproductive and unwise.

The biggest threat to liberties is not a clearly identifiable oppressor but instead comes from those who have the opportunity to cause a change being labeled as liberators and betraying people's trust. They fill the positions that should be filled by those who are genuinely committed to the cause.

Most freedoms are not restricted using official force but instead by the underhanded and deceitful practices of public figures that betray our trust. For the sake of those who are committed to justice and are consistently oppressed, exploited, and intimidated by would-be liberators, I hope that more people with power will consider the responsibility that accompanies it.

Owning Ideas and Selling Autism Awareness

 
http://www.nonprofituniversityblog.org/wp-content/uploads/oxymoron-781368.jpg

Autistic people are among the most discriminated against in our society.  What makes us vulnerable to these exclusionary practices are set of standards, which were set to provide the illusion of superiority for small group of elite.

These elites have designed a number of theories (including those which are said to be " scientifically proven") in a scholastic environment where most people are prevented from participating.  People with sensory experiences (and responses to them) that do not fit within typical standards are inconvenient to people who depend on the myth that they are entitled to be privileged due to "divinely awarded inherent genetic traits" which they've used to dominate and/or destroy those who are different.

Often many people can't hear an idea due to those who are arguing for the sake of dominance based on the myth/illusion that an idea can be owned. To respect ideas (and the principals which support them) each must be accepted for being independent of personalities and political agendas, which distort their meaning.

Often for opinions to be recognized as valid, they must be presented within particular scholastic environments and by recognized scholars or their family members.  This is what predominantly influences all political processes.  This elite group of scholars has even gone so far as to create test, which claim to be able to measure a person's intelligence based on their ability to answer questions which most people don't have access for learning.

Throughout history the worst mistake discriminated against populations of people have made in order to promote social acceptance and a more balanced system of justice is following the rules which have been presented to them by their oppressor.  The policymakers protect their deceit and exclusion by suggesting methods of liberation and inclusion. They use this to prevent others from attaining what they seek.
 
"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"- Audre Lorde

People have always been aware of autistic people and the characteristics which are unique to autism. To encourage awareness for the awareness sake is to promote more of the same type of discrimination, which has always existed. Rather than encourage rights for autistic people Autism Awareness campaigns (which are titled as such) often simply sell those rights to the highest political bidder.

 

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7359898/2/istockphoto_7359898-green-stop-sign-oxymoron.jpg

Despite the attempts at claiming that the people's will is what influences political decisions it is instead the opposite.  Politics is an exercise in defeating democracy rather than promoting it.  We are taught that we must compromise within the system (in other words, become involved in politics) in order to change policy yet such participation threatens individualism, and the creativity needed to discern the problems within the system. This ultimately discourages anyone other than those who are already empowered to influence their destiny.

It's very important that the medical model of autism designed by opportunist as charlatans be understood by people involved in the lives of autistics.  However, now there is little recognition of what may be required in order to and re-educate the public of ways we (the autistic population) might be included and treated with more respect.

Today, November 1st, has been declared Autistics Speaking Day. This  may have been a day when individual ideas from autistics could be better understood as an alternative to the voice of typical main steam autism politics. Instead a political group formed and was blessed with being described as that opposition so that their compromising political agenda can replace anything too radical. This type of elitism which threatens democracy for a marginalized group is nothing new.

Before people can recognize how narrow the agenda is for the mainstream autism political campaigns, they will need to understand the nature of liberation and how traditional politics is both oppressive and exclusive.  Nothing is a bigger threat to democracy than the claim that already exists.  Autistics don't yet have much of a voice in the designing of public policy, which discriminates against us.  In order to promote that we need to encourage neurodiversity rather than confine the understanding of such an important term to the narrow agenda of a political movement.

The acceptance of different ideas and creative and individual expressions of more autistic people will be the best influence on the needed changes rather the sound volume (loudness) of a few content with convention and compromise.

Bullies, Boundaries, and Political Practices

 

http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/daubenton/files/opposition.jpg

I have once again seen political maneuvering being done in the name of autism advocacy. One group of advocates got the idea to have a day declared Communication Shutdown to raise awareness of autism. Another group (Obviously unaware of the entrapping nature of competing against political ghosts) decided to advocate against this event with an opposing event called Autistics Speaking Day. This is (despite the appearance of the name) a closed group that has a narrow political agenda.

I am participating in the organized opposition group and yet what's advertised in the name of free speech is not only false advertising, but it is the opposition to free speech. Nothing threatens the attainment of democracy more than the claim that it is already existing. In the U.S., we play a political game where we imagine this as a right in order to deny most people the privilege.

These advocates responsible for this Autistics Speaking Day event are well schooled in the art of deception and politics but as with most pawns, duplicating how the important advocates' work is a trap. If you don't have a view from the top you can't see how corrupt it is and how you're being used.

 

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/330874/330874,1260750397,5/stock-photo-opposition-42774751.jpg

Character is based on the decisions we make, and we must first choose boundaries for ourselves. I have a friend who often says "people who don't respect boundaries don't like boundaries." I understand that better more all the time. I (like I'm sure many others do) will end up making excuses for people over and over thinking that somehow they aren't really wanting to be disrespectful. However, people accustomed to boundary-less environments must want to leave that atmosphere before they adjust to a new one. No one can make that choice for them and enabling it will encourage the same behavior in the enabler.

Humans have the ability to plan in a unique way and that ability isn't stifled nearly so much by neurological configuration/nature as it is by politics and societal grooming/nuture. If you teach a person to play a game that requires and allows for no unique individual planning on their part, it's not likely that you will lose. This is how politics is taught to advocates. Very few can truly change things within the political system because the first lesson learned is that compromise is more important than creativity.

The house always wins. You can't fight against tyranny with a tyrannical approach. and this is becoming my favorite quote:

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"- Audre Lorde

(this quote is repeated on this blog site many times)

The race may indeed be to the swift, but if you don't plan where you are going to it's not likely you will appreciate where you end up.

Viktor E. Frankl said:

   "Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

Frankl challenged the very foundation upon which the entire US political system is based. The constitution claims that citizens have to right to pursue happiness. But the very nature of the claim would lead people to a vain existence based on idolatry. The stimulus of the US economy is a chase and a race where the reward is unattainable. Politics is not a tool. It's fantastic folly. The people will  benefit from it are already established. Again the house always wins.

If I ever gave people the impression that neurodiversity advocates weren't opposed to disability rights, I apologize. Until the last couple days, I didn't know that anyone was so underhanded and ambiguous as to fight for the right of so-called Aspies at the expense of others. I have learned unfortunately that indeed this is happening. What's worse is that it's disguised as bluntness (that being the subject of a later blog post is the only way to do that topic justice).

A political group encouraging neurodiversity is a contradiction. The inclusion of diversity by definition is respect of different goals and different motives. Politics by definition is the adherence to narrow set of methods and goals set by an inaccessible authority. If peoples unique abilities and what they have to offer are to truly be respected, political environment is the surest place that will make that impossible.

On Nov.1 st autistics will communicate as they always do and people will attempt to silence them as they always do but beware the solutions. Gramma ain't supposed to have a long snout and sharp teeth. If you see that, take your picnic basket and head for the forest! There is no comfort and support in that house despite the appearance of the surroundings.

Furthermore, there is nothing empowering about fighting against an enemy that wants to have you for dinner. That kind of fighting is only for protection. Try not to confuse and abuse what you do to survive....and quit investing in ships that will never sail.

The Mainstream is Directed not Chosen (autism awareness politics)

This is a follow up to my last post: Unchallenged Political Behavior ( autism awareness myths are protected)


As I said in that post:


"In that politics is the behavior that influences government, when that behavior is unregulated and unchallenged by others, it is corrupt. The biggest threat to United States citizens has never been the lack of democracy, but instead it has been the belief in the myth that the political system in some way resembles democracy. In fact, it does no such thing. If more people had this regularly brought to their attention, there would be a public outcry for things to change. As long as industry is opposed to this type of public awareness, and they control the airwaves as well as the elections, many who would challenge traditional corruption are provided an environment which allows and encourages them to ignore it."

The political arena in the United States has not allowed the disabled population to have a say in the laws that affect them. This has been much worse for disabled people who are considered that way as the result of brain dysfunction, intellectual impairment, or psychological maladjustment. Because this group is seen to not have the ability to reason our liberties continue to be prevented.

The way this is openly done by political groups who claim to be championing our cause is that they only listen to the smallest elite part of the population who presents them with the types of difficulties that can be conveniently dealt with so that they as a group can compromise the rights of the majority in the name of political expediency and make their name and their mark as a valid and important group.

The continued lack of respect and rights for autistic people has nothing to do with mainstream advocates not working hard enough to champion our cause nor is that respect an overly simplistic ideal that is changing incrementally. Instead it is the result of all advocates either going along with the mainstream or feeling they must compromise in traditional ways and be nothing more than better than the worst.

Anyone coming to this blog looking for the writing of an authority on anything or an ideology they can follow won't find that here. My goal has always been to advocate for autistic people being allowed to do the things I have found to be what we need to do in order to have more respect and rights in society. If I ever spoke for anyone else or spoke with the claim that I had some kind of specialized knowledge I would need to begin qualifying everything I say in terms, such as "I think" and "I believe" and "it is my perception that" etc. I would also need to speak in terms that are politically accepted in the mainstream so that I would not be excluded from it and be more respecting of personalities with significant titles and positions than of others. I have no intention or motive to make such compromises.

There are plenty of other places to go on the Internet for such information and such politicking. Here I advocate for thinking and listening to people who haven't been trained by the mainstream so that ideas rather than what gets arbitrarily declared as "truth" can be better evaluated. The declaration of truth is the biggest threat to knowledge and understanding.

I advocate for people on the Internet, who are asked support ASAN as well as everyone they claim to be representing to have an opportunity to question them. At this point, that questioning has been strongly discouraged.

The idea that an advocacy group should be supported because it is better than another has been behind how advocacy efforts go unchallenged and our rights continue to be unrecognized.

As I said in my last post:

"It's not necessary to speculate about what opportunities the mainstream political groups is interested in providing the majority of people. The way to judge their motives about such things can be done by watching the way they treat questions from the elite minority who are privileged to have an opportunity to question them. If this population is treated badly and informed discussion is discouraged it seems logical that the broader population who is traditionally and systematically prevented from entering these discussions are thought to be insignificant and burdensome. Encouraging others to be more respectful and give more rights and opportunities to a population (which is how political advocacy is defined) that you yourselves find insignificant and burdensome would indeed be a difficult task. Hiding the fact that you're doing this is politically expedient, but it's the type of politics that needs to be guarded against the most."

One of the ways to understand American politics is to see how our decisions are guided by the mainstream media and how democracy and free speech are discouraged. Those who are in the elite group who have an opportunity to question those decisions are prohibited from doing so by the industries who control the mainstream media. Since these people are prohibited, it's reasonable to believe that the restrictions on the majority are even more strictly enforced. Being a part of the group who is seen as insignificant and burdensome won't change by learning to compromise and continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils. It will only change when people commit to values that are against evil.

In the same way that the autism community is but one community, the United States is governed by a one-party political system rather than two.

The following is a video that describes our mainstream political party and how it is disguised as accepting a much broader range of views than it actually does:

Unchallenged Political Behavior ( autism awareness myths are protected)

The degree to which a government has the interest of the majority as its primary concern is shown by how much opportunity they attempt to provide everyone to influence government decisions. If it doesn't aspire to provide everyone (or at least the majority) that opportunity it is by its very nature attempting to encourage oppression, avoid ethics, and misbehave. By never committing to a single set of standard behaviors that they as the government will continually be required to follow, might is always the declaration of right.

In that politics is the behavior that influences government, when that behavior is unregulated and unchallenged by others, it is corrupt. The biggest threat to United States citizens has never been the lack of democracy, but instead it has been the belief in the myth that the political system in some way resembles democracy. In fact, it does no such thing. If more people had this regularly brought to their attention, there would be a public outcry for things to change. As long as industry is opposed to this type of public awareness, and they control the airwaves as well as the elections, many who would challenge traditional corruption are provided an environment which allows and encourages them to ignore it.

Recently, I attempted on this blog to discuss how ASAN (a political advocacy group in the United States promoting the rights of autistics) might affect the laws concerning autistics and weather autistics and others invested in our welfare should have more freedom to question them without the threat of consequences for doing so. The typical political demands of this group have included limiting that conversation to where their leaders discourage any questioning of how the group operates. It is typical for too many political advocacy groups to aggressively discourage independent expression.

Autism Awareness is a political campaign which has sought to raise funding for genetic research to prevent the birth of autistic children, funding that encourages the fight against the vaccine industry for crimes they have not committed, and has allowed for unethical treatments that harm autistics to continue.

Unfortunately, there is now the myth that everyone involved in autism politics in the US are not working towards the same goal. However, for that to be true, ASAN (being the source of that supposed alternative) would not only need to state their goals in formal political terms, they would also need to open a discussion in the places they seek support (Internet locations). They would need to be willing to discuss political decisions in nonpolitical ways for people (which makes up the majority of people they claim to be representing) who don't speak that language.

I have never seen anywhere on the Internet another political group countering the goals of ASAN and yet the leaders have promoted the claim that those who question them are part of a countering group that opposes their own. This is done in order to promote the perception that questioning what they (ASAN) do in the name of promoting autistics rights is an enemy tactic that deserves their punishment.

As I have often described on this blog, most people in the United States are not educated and are often punished based on the claim that educational opportunities are provided to them. Falsely describing everyone as being in the same category as wanting the same things and having the same opportunities to attain them is the oldest form of political oppression as well as (unfortunately) the most effective.


It's not necessary to speculate about what opportunities the mainstream political groups is interested in providing the majority of people. The way to judge their motives about such things can be done by watching the way they treat questions from the elite minority who are privileged to have an opportunity to question them. If this population is treated badly and informed discussion is discouraged it seems logical that the broader population who is traditionally and systematically prevented from entering these discussions are thought to be insignificant and burdensome. Encouraging others to be more respectful and give more rights and opportunities to a population (which is how political advocacy is defined) that you yourselves find insignificant and burdensome would indeed be a difficult task. Hiding the fact that you're doing this is politically expedient, but it's the type of politics that needs to be guarded against the most.

Dinah Murry Questions the Practices of ASAN

A letter was posted here  by Dinah Murray in response to an earlier post on that site (this one).

Thank you Dinah

The letter is written very well and expresses what I feel needs to be said. It deserves to be treated respectfully so I am copying it to this blog in appreciation of what she has written.

The practices of ASAN are not being allowed to be questioned. They as a group seem unaware of the political mistakes they are making by attacking people who question them. This is unfortunate as well as unjust.

I am but one person and I have but one vote. I would like to protect that vote (which sometimes becomes just self protection) and wish that those who are now the silenced majority would be encouraged to voice their opinion in the matters that affect their lives.

There are too few representatives speaking on behalf of too many and it's even worse that they are attempting to reduce the number of voices that are now speaking, which will send a message to others that there are consequences for getting involved.

This is what I have always seen as the biggest threat to peoples self-esteem, and ultimately it has the worst effect on the number of opportunities they have to better their life's circumstances and become more respected members of society. It is that goal on which I focus my advocacy efforts.

Here's the letter:

"Victims of bullying are often blamed for what they have suffered.  People on the receiving end of defensive behaviour from the victim forget the power imbalance which led to it.

Power imbalances arise either when people are functioning as a gang/clique or when they have power for other reasons - or both; in this case, both.  In this case also some innocent by-standers and would-be supporters have been caught in the turmoil and seen as on the other side, in a way that has been hurtful for them.


As a result, some (as seen here) have turned nasty on Michelle, who consistently continues to defend her position regardless of anyone's feelings, though she is never abusive.   This not about her ego (as has been suggested) it's about correctness and justice and not letting go: traits often associated with autism (along with the tendency to disregard others' feelings), IMO.


Imagine watching someone constructing a wooden table and seeing they are making it non rectangular at a leg join - you would surely want to tell them so they wouldn't waste labour creating a wobbly structure?   I would want someone to tell me if I was the inaccurate carpenter.

That is the impulse behind a good argument: create solid reliable structures in a joint enterprise which can then be leaned on by anyone.   It is a matter of getting it right so future actions are soundly based.  I submit that is what Michelle repeatedly tries to do.  Accuracy and justice on this occasion have a personal bearing: that is hardly her fault!

Misunderstandings happen, and are more likely to happen when one is feeling upset. There's been a lot of upset about and I reckon we should all 'cut each other some slack'.    But there is no misunderstanding that Ari Ne'eman is capable of being a bit of a bully, and he was certainly using rhetoric to build up and disseminate an inaccurate, harmful and negative picture of Michelle, as a result of her unwillingness to adjust her views or her statements to what he saw as essential long-term aims.

I have a bit of personal experience of being put under some pressure by him.  In the circumstances it was a warning signal to me that this is someone who may put political expediency first, at the expense of constructive action to benefit the people he purports to represent and help them truly represent themselves - however admirable his organisation's long-term goals are.

Ari is also charming, a good speaker who knows how to talk the talk, and a brilliant networker.  In addition, he and others appear to have done a certain amount of "smoke and mirrors" stuff to make his outfit appear bigger and more representative and popular than it really is: this has been highly effective.

You may well say that all the above are essential qualities of effective political activity, and perhaps they are.  But part of the responsibility of a leader of a political organisation in a democracy must be to truly represent a genuine constituency.

In my view, ASAN needs to work harder at widening its base and becoming more genuinely representative of more autistic people.  This is a problem faced by people trying to make local autistic rights movements effective all over the world, including here in the UK. - In a way they have to start with "smoke and mirrors" in order to get any attention at-all in the political arena.

This is a regrettable but also a seductive process, and it behooves all political organisations to avoid its allure to the maximum, and work on connecting with their 'grassroots' instead so as to be truly representative.

Neurodiversity' activists everywhere should take these matters of democracy and participation very seriously indeed in my view, and actively begin processes that will enfranchise the inarticulate and excluded.

This is a key reason why many of us over here and elsewhere prioritise getting information and communication technology to people who don't speak effectively to meet their needs (www.autreach.it).

Dinah"

Autism Awareness is a Myth

I hope that the Autism Awareness campaigns will not continue. There is really nothing good that comes from them. While the campaign has been successful in raising funds for scientific experiments to try and cure autism and for promoting specific treatments, there are commercial interest with political support behind this, which does more to create the negative stereotypes which are the biggest cause of abuse.

There are people with original ideas and creative encouragement for autistics and certainly there are autistics living healthy productive lives and average lives worthy of respect but mainstream politicians aren't interested in that. Commercial and political interest is based on need so advertising achievement of anything positive is often contrary to the goals of people wanting to promote those interests.

There were people on the internet promoting alternatives to the mainstream view but many of the websites I felt were helpful are now only encouraging ASAN and their political agenda. They are involved in typical politics without regard for honesty or integrity. The people who promote these advocacy groups are mainly interested in the sport of politics and power-based networking rather than in creating better opportunities for people.

It is good for people to get involved in trying to change things, and I think blogging is a good way to do that, but I hope that people will be careful of a widespread myth that there is an autism community on the Internet but that it is divided.

Actually there is only one autism community but is not divided. The one that is represented on the Internet is truly representative of the entire community. This is very exclusive and elitist in the same way that the disability community is. Very few people are represented and most people who are affected by what the community does are never heard from.

A blog such as this one is irrelevant to the autistic community. To be relevant to that community people have to only describe the current political system as progressively working to make things better and enter that system by avoiding issues that are important to the majority of people. Instead they must in true political fashion berate peoples character and encourage sensationalism and backstabbing while discouraging any type of independent thinking that questions mainstream beliefs. This is how people show their true commitment to politics, which is the basis of the autism community.

Mainstream politics is oppressive in a similar way to the behavioral programs I have written about. They both create narrow definitions of human behavior so that all people can be considered to be motivated by the same things. That leads to everyone being judged in the same way so that diversity is discouraged. Each person is defined by how close they come to the official definition of normal. This hierarchy keeps the elite leadership from being challenged.

Actually, the idea of denial is based on a myth as well. What is considered denial is actually a very important part of everyone's mind and popularity is mainly the deciding factor for what anyone believes. I'm reminded of this every time I hear the term awareness associated with a concept which is used to exclude and oppress people who are vulnerable to the abusive rules and regulations which are created in the name of truth.

Autism awareness is worse than insignificant because it is masquerading as being used for promoting truth when it's really nothing more than a campaign for promoting psychology and politics by using traditional psychological and political oppression.