The Standard Review

MacNeil and the Unawareness of Autism in 20011

 

During Autism Awareness month of April 2011, Robert MacNeil promoted his perspective of autism on television. I'm sure Mr. MacNeil's views on autism will be popular and well received but unfortunately there will be little if any nuance added to this mainstream view that traditionally prevents the educational and vocational opportunities for autistics and promotes the fear campaigns that encourage the worst stereotypes.

In the same way that the views of groups like Autism Speaks and the funding campaign efforts of the Jerry Lewis marathon are exploitive and disabling, the oppressive nature of the psychiatric industry and other medical abuses will go practically unchallenged due to the influence of commercial advertising. Anyone presenting rational alternatives and attempting to discuss practical ideas in a non-threatening environment will be either attacked or co-opted so that the issues which are important remain polarized.

Politics, political agendas, and bullies (and the politics and political agendas of bullies) consistently discourage rational views from being expressed on the internet whenever issues that concern disability are discussed.

This is a tradition that has always provided an ample opportunity for greedy politicians and corporate executives with an insatiable apatite for power to determine the policy that affects people with disabilities and encourages exclusion and negative stereo types.

My impression of online discussions is that we as a society are losing our ability to trust our neighbor, and we often tend to objectify and stereotype each person we meet. This begins by polarizing every discussion and seeing alternative viewpoints (however slight) as a threat to our self-esteem. It's difficult to know what we really believe because our thinking is so attached to the image we display and who we are that an objective view of our expressions is impossible.

Of course there will always be a mainstream view of what autism is ( MacNeil is just one celebrity who will present this narrow view) and due to unregulated commercial advertising and the impact it has on the views of people who want to "make a difference", nuances that are more accepting of diversity will be practically absent from the discussions where that view is presented. However, commercialism and mainstream politics is not what determines the truth. If we truly are interested in becoming a more accepting culture that is promoting diversity, we will find more ways to encourage the voices of individuals without regarding their category or status to determine the value of their expressions, and we will find value in what we hear them say.

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.

Autism and Imagination Deficits

 

When evaluating how well people are able to perform, behave, or learn it would be practical to include an evaluation of the teachers and those who are available to provide an example. These factors are typically not included in the evaluation as much as they need to be and the cycle of burdening those who are most convenient continues to harm everyone's future.

For several decades a community established by and for persons with disabilities has attempted to raise awareness that disability is natural. The alternative view has been the standard and continues to stifle the growth of our communities as well as the broader society.

It would be helpful if labels that describe deficits or a stage of someone's learning was used to provide more support and accommodation. Unfortunately, however, instead the growing industry of psychology(which encourages the psychiatric industry and adds to their corporate earnings) does more to isolate, disenfranchise, and prevent opportunities for the people who are labeled.

This article " Social skills in autism 'improved when patients choose own activities" indicates that research shows the child with autism benefits from choosing their own recreational activities. As simple and obvious as this sounds, the fact that it is even researched and reported is a reminder of how the public is unaware of the dehumanization mainstream commercial autism campaigns are encouraging.

Psychology is a product of the glorification of societies scholastic achievement process and is used to rank people accordingly so that the people who are already powerful pursuant to the advantages this system has provided can be portrayed to the public as having earned this elevated status.

People are not ranked as having a disability, deficit, or less than the standard rate of learning so that society can be altered to provide them with more opportunities. Instead the ranking (whether expressed as pity for their inferiority, disgust for their character flaws, or it's used to blame someone or something for making people appear less valuable or more by the contrast) of people by psychologist and school officials is a method of exclusion.

 
 

Much of the inappropriate behavioral treatment for autistics is not understood as being that due to false impressions pursuant to fear campaigns that justify teacher abuse and advocate their less severe forms of punishment and restraint rather than to abolish them.

This accompanies claims that most treatment deemed inappropriate is excessive rather than unnecessary. This prevents people from looking very closely at the core issues which need radical alteration and encourage them to make the unnecessary political compromises as though that's their only choice.

As a society, we seem to overlook the futility and often destructive results from our constant commercial based ranking of everything  and every person as well as every aspect of them.

The majority of people compete for a small fraction of the world's resources based on claims that we are either more deserving of privilege or accommodation due to our superiority or the severity of our need while allowing a greater percentage of resources to be hoarded and wasted by an elite few who then use their advantage to exploit us.

Insults, bullying, and most of the unnecessary fighting that results from our futile system of ranking is not due to any one being superior or even believing themselves to be. It is instead due to the fear of our own inability and weakness that we have been fooled into believing we can hide from.

We're taught to avoid the competition that causes us shame by making someone else look worse so we don't have to risk the defeat which is possible with attempting to become better. This is similar to accusing others of something that appears worse than what we've done in order to avoid appearing guilty. This is completely unimaginative as well as counterproductive.

Weakness and vulnerability in others are not what stagnates human progress. It is also not the weakness and vulnerability in ourselves. It is instead the needless fear and shame we associate with having to face our weakness and the risks involved with trying to do better.

Of course autistics do better when provided with choices and opportunities. Everyone does.

Others may claim they choose someone's (child, student, disabled, elderly, etc.) activities because that someone needs it and isn't wise enough to make their own choices, but it's often just more convenient to do so. Being given an opportunity to make choices lead to better understanding, more confidence, empowerment, and ultimately better choices.

Furthermore, when people use clinical evaluations to describe a behavior without considering how the language is insulting it alters the direction of future research as well as shape public opinion, and the group being researched is less empowered as a result. No one is helped by that.

The claims that autistics are less imaginative have been associated with similar claims that we lack a theory of mind and even empathy. Rather than seeing how different sensory experience might make people even more sensitive (although expressed differently) to the emotions of others, society's commitment to ranking has instead encouraged negative stereotypes. This has led to unnecessary blame in relationships and even unjust suspicion of violence when statistics don't support the claims.

The survival of our species is dependent on the acceptance of diversity, which includes weaknesses in others as well as ourselves. People are weaker or stronger, younger or older, and have a variety of different symptoms and deficits that range in severity. We as humans are perfectly capable of making decisions as to how we can accommodate and empower each other (and protect ourselves if necessary) by evaluating any given situation with any number of diverse human expressions that are present at any given time. Too often our judgement is impaired by attempting to apply a fatally flawed system of ranking to a situation rather than accepting what intuition would otherwise make clear.

When we choose to face our weakness, we are better able to appreciate all the good and bad that life has to offer and by accepting life on life's terms, we can enjoy living, laughing, and loving a lot more. Fear and doubt are what inhibit an imagination and circumstances are not what decide those things. We can all do better by making better choices.

Obsolete

In the past half-century, technological advances have become an increasingly dominant aspect of the global economy. As technological manufacturers have taught us it is impractical to repair our networking devices, we have adopted the belief that humans are composite of efficient or defective independent parts, and that we can be evaluated accordingly as valid or invalid.

Now that the majority of people are serving the enterprise known as science, in one way or another, the corporations which dominate this field have become a political force that works together with government to control as many aspects of our behavior as possible.

We are taught the central nervous system which is most active within the space between our ears is an end unto itself, and that we must submit to the scholastic theories of psychologist and psychiatrist so that our thought processes will be adjusted properly. We've learned to hyper-critically micro manage each other and quickly devalue any diverse expression that deviates from what the current leadership has determined to be the norm.

Medical models are dependent on behavioral treatments that propose to chemically alter the brain structure. These are researched by using the least valued public as expendable products (human lab rats) so that valued workers are more easily manipulated, and the elite are provided with more comforts.

In addition, many among the labeled community aren't exposed to the way that all these specific labels of a learning disability, developmental disorder, psychiatric condition, or psychobiological disorder practically vanishes for most people who are among the class which is least valued once they are institutionalized. In such environments the abuses of control are justified either by the person in care being considered unable to control their actions or unwilling to submit to authority.

Most of what we are taught are cures to the incorrect configuration of our brains or the maladjusted way we respond to our environment doesn't exist in any other way than how close our expressions come to a standard that was set to glorify the characteristics which are most comfortable to the people in positions of leadership. All sorts of atrocities are committed and justified by the claim that it is done in the name of science, progress, and the common good.

The most outrageous and harmful treatments and attempted cures are justified through the sophisticated fear-based advertising campaigns that describe cases of severity. The biggest deception of these campaigns is the exploitation of severe problems. While people with the most severe cases are shown as the reason for more research into cures and treatments, they are not the ones who benefit from scientific discovery.

Instead, in addition to the exploitation, they typically get described as beyond repair, aberrant and unwilling, too old, or that the main problem is due to poor character.

The way severe neurological disorders may contribute to a violent response has never been advertised in order to provide a better understanding or treatment for the people who have them. Instead, in a very few cases it gets accepted in the judicial system as an excuse (which then gets little if any attention or aid) and the belief that these disorders are associated with violence mainly provides justification for incarceration and harmful treatments based on the presumption of guilt for the undesirable and inconvenient public.

If our attitudes about people don't change so that we accept more diverse expressions as valid and important the sophistication of our technology and scientific research will go to provide worse treatment and even more widespread abuse. This is the current trend despite claims that science is leading us away from our barbaric ways.

The design for the cure attitude exhibited in the way it's advertised was never meant to provide more people with aid or understanding and eliminating competition certainly won't make the already accepted any stronger. Unless we focus on acceptance first and gear scientific research toward helping people whom we are already willing to accept as valid regardless, the result will be more expressions, which are shown to be inappropriate and more people who are thereby defined as obsolete.

Disenfranchised in Public

It can be very threatening to be unable to provide for yourself (food/shelter) and be without any identified marketable skills. I spent my youth constantly disenfranchised and often in public settings (either homeless or in worse danger) without any way to explain anything about my experience. From my experience being unable to explain and unable to plan are the biggest threats to safety. Our society doesn't do much to accommodate vulnerable people.


There were people who knew about my situation and wanted to help but couldn't. Several of them have told me that many people who knew the situation were not expecting me to live to see my 20th birthday. I guess I didn't either but never really thought about it.

It wasn't until I was 25 years old and was accepted by public programs that I came to understand how being without the ability to plan (sometimes clinically referred to as executive functioning), for those of us who are already disenfranchised and unable to fit in, we will be exploited by the system by vultures in similar and sometimes in worse ways than being on the streets.

When people wrongly evaluate your approach to the environment as both uninterested in changing your situation and un-empathetic to others' emotions, not being able to explain your situation is only the beginning of the set of traps that are constantly facing you. My experience within the system is a constant reminder that our society is addicted to convenience and the consumption of impulse buys.

This makes it so that many people are in public (whether within the public system or outside of it), and yet don't know how to exchange a service to provide for their survival (which sometimes just means one they can physically or psychically survive). There will always be people who can find ways to exploit that vulnerability. Abuses outside the system are hardly given any attention at all and within the system, there is a great deal of effort that goes into preventing and silencing the reports of abuse.

As for those disenfranchised people who don't die without anyone (or many people) who will do much more than record the incident, many will be victims of various types of slavery, and others will be forced to submit their  minds and bodies for research that will give the more valued public more advantages and comfort.

Whether there are specific solutions to these issues or not, the problem itself, is very conveniently ignored. An example of how society treats the disenfranchised is in the following video which describes how the medical industry exploits disenfranchised children. I would hope that during this holiday season where people are involved with family and friends, that there would be more recognition of what happens in public to those who are not providing what society has considered a valuable resource. It's important to recognize that this convenience is not something we can continue to afford.

 

The Protected Community

Learning different perspectives of American history reminds me that much of the leadership problem in the past century resulted from a distorted view of community. The philosophy involved seems to liken a community to a chain and the metaphor that describes the philosophy is: "a chain is only as strong as the weakest link."

Such thought designs are contrary to creative and innovative thinking. In a chain, each link serves the same purpose and can therefor be appropriately judged by the standardized test for strength and ranked accordingly. However, it's not natural for people to provide this convenience, and it's dangerous to attempt to demand it.

Unfortunately, many aspects of society are influenced by this type of thinking.

When the goal of a community is for individuals to have no other value than the way they serve it, it will either seek to be efficient, which leads to extreme and unreasonable methods of exclusion, or it will seek to be inclusive in convienient/pitiful-based charity ways, which ultimately lead to the same conclusion.

If you give people something to do that is seen as having no particular value, that value judgment will ultimately extend to how people themselves are seen and societies exclusion and elimination of them, which will simply be more covert and nuanced. When the community doesn't recognize this exercise in futility it can be much worse than if they did, and were seeing the need to address it.

This thinking is particularly detrimental to the respect and dignity of persons with disabilities, and it lends itself very conveniently to unnecessary behavioral standards and their strict enforcement.

The absurdity is never so clear as when this affects advocacy related to autism. Some have even suggested that there is an autism community which of course is impossible. The way to ensure that negative stereotypes about autistics continue and that the political system remains unchallenged so that educational and vocational opportunities are unattainable to the majority is by keeping advocates involved in club activities and meaningless personality-based debates.

When one person exploits their advantage for deciding public policy by using the claim that whatever a publicly recognized authority presumes is someone's severity of symptoms (or lack of them) is the way to distinguish their right to voice their view rather than evaluate what the view is, and someone else argues, the environment is effectively stagnant and progress is impossible.

It's the same with someone who describes causation and another who refutes the scientific evidence or someone who suggests that regulating an abuse of persons with disabilities in jails, mental institutions, and schools with federally mandated behavioral programs is an appropriate compromise. There's no way to judge scientific evidence or the sincere concern for individual welfare of the people involved in policymaking if people are aware of the corruption that tends to rule how these systems operate. Even so, these personality/popularity contests are what often pass for Internet autism discussions.

I can't imagine how anyone could trust the compromises and incremental alterations that are made by policymakers with regard to the rights of persons with a disability when the negotiation chambers for policymakers are patterned identically to the way of our judicial system.

The two party system defines much of how people debate issues. It presupposes that compromise is imperative and limits our choices. As long as each idea can only be ranked by the narrow context of how it compares with another, which can be influenced in an unlimited number of unfair advantages which we're forbidden to discuss, we are hostage to the stagnation and exclusion that the leadership defines as progressive.

The idea that the United States operates with three separate branches of government is misleading. Our judicial system in all its forms is a futile exercise in a political debate, and it's rare that an idea which isn't presented by someone who has been identified as a player/compromiser within the system is ever considered.

Of course intelligence is judged by standardized test, which was designed by people who were mainly interested in population control/eugenics. Of course there is a streamlining of the labeled schoolchildren to expedite class divisions, institutionalization and disenfranchisement and prevent challenges to the top-down elitist control. Of course the US medical system is completely chaotic and harmful to most of the public. Of course that medical system is primarily funded by the sale and distribution of mind altering drugs that are introduced  to schoolchildren at an early age to provide teachers with more control.... we aren't taught that we can trust the average public citizen like we do the policymakers. Therefore, if we can't trust the public they will have to be controlled rather than risk any challenges to the status quo (which were taught is progressive).

We can't make all our decisions with convenience being the top priority and expect to maintain any type of security. People act more chaotically when they have less encouragement to think and when thinking is suppressed through intimidation, exclusion, and a constant barrage of images that encourage immediate gratification and hopelessness for the sake of community and solidarity, there will of course less trust and more attempts to regain a sense of control through violence.

People can't keep feeding the monster they want to destroy. Effective change requires that we radically broaden our acceptance of diversity in order to strengthen the community rather than continuing to be unfairly exclusive for the sake of protection and security. It's important that more people understand how few people are actually represented in the policy decisions that are made, which govern their lives and how wide the realm of disenfranchisement extends.

If people are thinking, they will find more ways to be compassionate and inclusive but if convenience and distrust are more important we will recognize more types of uselessness, and the only creative thinking will be used to find methods for exterminating the excess. These danger affects everyone and thinking for solutions is imperative.

Pursuing Betterment

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Nelson_Rockefeller_HEW.jpg/220px-Nelson_Rockefeller_HEW.jpg

So many of the commercial messages which are designed to teach us a set of values are appealing to our sense of fear. People are aware that the chase for attainment is futile but will strive to prevent becoming "or appearing to be" an invalid or non-valid person. We are most afraid of our own inadequacies and exploiting that is a powerful and effective tool.

The very small portion of people who are capable of exploiting any type of government system have traditionally shown that without the public's objection, they will do just that.

There is nothing about the experience of any plant or animal that is complacent and accepting of their impending doom. Only humans would be so arrogant as to believe in the myth of laziness and fatality. Everything about life is an expression of someone's choices about what they want. The only practical way for government to operate effectively is to teach people to make wise choices and reward them for doing so in order for them to feel empowered by their ability.

There is no worse crime perpetrated against the planet than for people engaged in the practice of governing choosing to encourage the public to make unwise choices as well as intentionally creating unfairness, inequality, and exploiting people based on class distinctions.  When we choose to believe that our betterment will result from glorifying this system, we are involved in the very same crime.

Nothing has been more intimidating and exploitive of the human spirit than the glorification of scholastic pursuits. The myth involved in advertising this industry is that it is designed to encourage reason, and dignity as well as promote liberty. By accepting this and seeing that only a few of the people who are ranked by this standardization achieve a valid label we are participating in our own destruction. Of course people aren't doing this due to some type of lack of motivation. It is instead due to being impulsively motivated based on deception.

With the industrial revolution which encouraged a system of products and consumers, Western civilization adopted compulsory schooling as a supplementary method of ranking individuals. Psychology was not meant to empower the masses but rather to distract their attention. The labels used are not meant to give people an understanding, of how they learn, how they can be accommodated, or what areas of their health need to be addressed. Instead a medical model is used for stigmatization and marginalization.

It is impossible  for any living organism to lack self-awareness. The myth to the contrary, was taught so that a hierarchy of human worth could be sold to the public and families who have acquired resources (through whatever means just or corrupt) could protect the illusion of their superiority.

No one with the goal of empowering the public ever sat down, comprehensively analyzed all the most pertinent data, and created a system of labeling and treating the public for psychological disturbances. Believing that this happened is why we have the most corrupt system of medicine in the West, which was ever devised and why it works to prevent rather than promote the best healthcare.

http://library.uvm.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/dewey_bigger.jpg

While it's important to recognize how our leadership's devotion to empirical goals has led to an exaggerated military industrial complex and how warfare experiments have been used on invalid or non-valid citizens, the belief in what has been called the Manchurian candidate is not empowering at all.

If we believe that the human mind is only valid due to the physical components called the brain and that every reaction can be predetermined by scientific tools of measurement, we are thereby subjecting ourselves to worse atrocities being committed due to the value this indicates humans as having.

At this point in history, we have adopted sophisticated technology at a rate which was never imagined. However, to believe that our current understanding of the physical world is so advanced that humans can be taught to behave with no more sophistication than any other animal is to submit to the pessimism that corporations can use to further demean and exploit us.

It is possible for the people who are involved in schools, medicine, and the politics that governs them to be involved in this system with the knowledge and understanding of how it is corrupt and also alter its course. We are also all existing in a symbiotic relationship where most of the people's efforts are not encouraged or even acknowledged. Our system of ranking and exploitation has considered most of the human population to be invalid and unnecessary. This is our greatest and most valuable resource and to concentrate on the importance of any other resource at their expense is the quickest way to pursue our own destruction. We have the capacity to do better.

An Outside Interest

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jN9U8ZlQBVk/R_jzeLpqIqI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/HBq3AXeqz5E/S1600-R/Scales%2520of%2520Injustice1.gif

 

The power to changes trends, policy, and viewpoints for good also provides the people with it lots of opportunities to irresponsible and corrupt. The context in which something is said often frame alternatives in a strict contrast (good or bad, pro or con, for or against) so the logical alternatives which come from a different perspective and people with alternative thinking styles don't fit into a convenient category. They are therefore, dismissed as being completely impractical. This really isn't a healthy trend that promotes a more civilized society but the people who have power have traditionally neglected the responsibility that should accompany it. This history has had the biggest influence on the designs of our present system of government.

The more history can be described as some type of factual account the more deceit and the chaos that follows it influence society. A more comprehensive description of what is described as history is a set of viewpoints which someone with power has published about others with power so that tradition is protected and democracy is prevented.

Today what mostly is attributed with the honor of being called history is influenced most by commercial interest to protect their corruption by describing most of the public as ignorant, lazy, and uninterested in bettering their personal lives or contributing to a broader community.

People whose contributions are not seen as worthy of their prospective community or the broader society are unable or disabled. Some receive insurance benefits set up by the State which show that their family was at one point (or continues to be) accepted by the local or more centralized government. In the United States, the statistics would indicate that with or without what is considered insurance benefits in the way of financial subsidies the intention for how the public (as shown by what the voting public designs through policy) relates to those who are disenfranchised is to shame and/or exploit them for the personal and false sense of pride. This is the idolatry which leaves us spiritually and financially bankrupt.

Wherever there are walls that define a particular structure (be it, a house or some other institution) the people with an invested interest in its future must be responsible for its contents. Whatever you don't appreciate will own and consume you. It doesn't need your permission to do so.

We now have the technology that moves resources and power at such lighting speeds that our attitudes are becoming much more convenience based, and we are becoming much more unaware of human value. People are being described as more disposable than ever.

It's not practical to see the recording of history as following productive trends. Instead historical accounts are influenced mainly by the people with the resources to lie and cheat effectively and make the rest of the world carry the burden. They even have the power to convince people that the situation is completely opposite of that.


"For those looking for security, be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise." -- Harry Browne


The images that are shown on television and the internet are controlled by commercial interest. They show restaurants where most people don't eat, clothes most people don't wear, and products most people don't use. Of course most people know this to be true, but the valued public who can afford some of these luxuries act irresponsibly as if they can consume without regard for the inappropriate and unfair values which are being taught them. When the people being hurt most by this are seen, others use the shame and blame techniques, they have learned to ease the appropriate experience of shame as well as further justify not altering their course.

With most people being excluded, exploited and otherwise hurt by all this having no voice in policies that concern them and no confidence (for good reason) to challenge oppression, it's no wonder that the valued public continues seeking answers in the traditional ways rather than confront the problem.


It's important that the people with the resources to change things begin to accept that their quality of life will continue to decrease not as the result of useless people but as the result of their arrogantly believing that they can continue to judge people and their qualities as inferior and/or obsolete so their appetites are conveniently fed.

People can't claim ownership of anything or justify their rights that come at the expense of others without eventually being confronted with the spoils of ill-gotten victory. Of course there are only a few people who are really evaluating policies with the goal of population control and other extreme and inhumane solutions but the rest can help matters by recognizing how their values are ultimately supporting the atrocious ideals.

Quote :: Ghandi

"I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill."


Traditionally, the role of government has been to empower a particular system through the exploitation of the public they claim to serve. Whatever opportunities they provide cannot exceed a level that would give them less control. Aside from whatever personal compassion and concern that an individual working within that system can provide, the goal of the system is to serve itself.

The means by which mainstream autism advocacy operates does not challenge the values which have always opposed neurodiversity. A movement claiming to encourage this diversity must recognize which compromises are demanded of the them from the political realm where public policy is decided in order to challenge tradition.

The system isn't some combination of positive and negative strategy. It's not only that sometimes isn't the best. It must, due to its very nature, aid the elite at the expense of exploiting everyone else. Politics isn't just some life on life's terms, that "we" must accept. It's instead what a few with resources choose at the expense of the silenced and exploited rest that gives those few the privilege of that choice.

"Government is not compassion ... Government is nothing more than structured, widespread coercion ..." -- Glen Allport

http://images2.cpcache.com/product/yard+sign-when+injustice+becomes+law+resistance+becomes+duty-veterans+for+peace/268178022v24_225x225_Front.jpg

Politics is not a means for liberty. It's an end unto itself that opposes liberty by preventing democracy.

If the context where liberties are won from a government (who depends on controlling people and believes they can't afford to trust them) demands too much compromise from the politicians involved it is the duty of those who are truly dedicated to this cause and have the resources to do so to challenge those politicians as much as any other corruption or oppression.

Nothing will change until attitudes change and any provisions, which are accepted that only go to a few who can fit the model designed for the valued publics convenience is a threat to the individual liberties of most people rather than an aid.




"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson

"When all think alike, then no one is thinking." ~Walter Lippman

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips


"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

"Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Gandhi

"Tyranny is always better organized than freedom." -- Charles Peguy

Public Relations and Fractured Individuals

 

http://diversityrules.typepad.com/.a/6a01053625d752970c0115708274ff970b-800wi

The choices people make regarding which cause they champion and how they champion it are too often decided based on the appeal of having an influence that more of the public recognizes rather than on what is most important and what an individual is best suited to affect.

The biggest dangers that accompany hierarchical values (which affects who's advocacy is considered valid) come from how people are falsely taught about equal opportunities. The royal views of the "chosen" advocates and politicians are often used to discourage alternative ideas, and they can support the same oppression these people claim to be advocating against.

Advocates on the internet are often reminded of the narrowness of how oppression is described and how few expressions that oppose that narrowness are recognized as valid. The way that neurodiversity is important tends to be hidden by those who abuse the term. As a narrow political agenda it has practically no value at all.

The speed at which information can be transferred today by the increasingly larger number of people provides both for the opportunity of liberation as well as the ease for how those with the most resources can instead exploit more people.

The way that people strive today to find what is considered the best information and the most popular way to express it is very much entangled with the ways that the richest and powerful people control the media and promote a set of standard values, which encourages how the public is pathologized and shamed in the interest of population control.

 

http://images.popcontrol.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/SX4zrwoKCB8AACkpsQ41/overpopulation.gif?et=Aam0IfgRf7TP7yjGHyDoeA&nmid=0

The expectation of responsibility is placed on the people with the least resources. Since they can't express themselves in ways that public relations specialist teaches as being best, what they say and do is ranked accordingly.

Disenfranchisement is the key to exploitation. Once someone can be described by a popular resource as inconvenient and disconnected from what politicians have declared to be an appropriate society, they can be declared an enemy and abused in a way that is justified in society as well as in the legal system.

It says here of Horace Mann:

 
"Arguing that universal public education was the best way to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined, judicious republican citizens, Mann won widespread approval from modernizers, especially in his Whig Party, for building public schools. Indeed, most states adopted one version or another of the system he established in Massachusetts, especially the program for "normal schools" to train professional teachers[1]. Mann has been credited by many educational historians as the "Father of the Common School Movement"[2]."

AND:

"Under the auspices of the board, but at his own expense, he went to Europe in 1843 to visit schools, especially in Prussia, and his seventh annual report, published after his return, embodied the results of his tour. Many editions of this report were printed, not only in Massachusetts, but in other states, in some cases by private individuals and in others by legislatures; several editions were issued in England. In 1852, he supported the decision to adopt the Prussian education system in Massachusetts. Shortly after Massachusetts adopted the Prussian system, the Governor of New York set up the same method in twelve different New York schools on a trial basis."

It says here of the Prussian education system:

History

During the 18th century, the Kingdom of Prussia was among the first countries in the world to introduce tax-funded and generally compulsory primary education, comprising an eight-year course of primary education, called Volksschule. It provided not only the skills needed in an early industrialized world (reading, writing and arithmetic), but also a strict education in ethics, duty, discipline and obedience. Affluent children often went on to attend preparatory private schools for an additional four years, but the general population had virtually no access to secondary education.

Lutheran influence

Historically, the Lutheran denomination had a strong influence on German culture, including its education. Martin Luther advocated compulsory schooling and this idea became a model for schools throughout Germany.

Pietist influence

Pietism, a reformist group within Lutheranism, forged a political alliance with the King of Prussia based on a mutual interest in breaking the dominance of the Lutheran state church. The Prussian Kings, Calvinists among Lutherans, feared the influence of the Lutheran state church and its close connections with the provincial nobility, while Pietists suffered from persecution by the Lutheran orthodoxy. Bolstered by royal patronage, Pietism replaced the Lutheran church as the effective state religion by the 1760s.

Pietist theology stressed the need for "inner spirituality", which can only come about through the reading of Scripture. Consequently, Pietists helped form the principles of the modern public school system, including the stress on literacy.


The political motivations of the King of Prussia

Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]

The schools imposed an official language, to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will." [1


John Taylor Gatto[1] (born December 15, 1935[2]) is an American retired school teacher of 29 years and 8 months experience in the classroom and author of several books on education. He is an activist critical of compulsory schooling and of what he characterizes as the hegemonic nature of discourse on education and the education professions.

He has many educational videos on this subject which can be found on YouTube. This is my favorite and I think a good introduction to understanding what he teaches:

John Taylor Gatto - State Controlled Consciousness


“The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house”

 Audre Lorde


Radical change needs to occur for anything similar to the ideal of neurodiversity to be respected in the United States. Our school systems as well as the political realm where decisions are made about how it is run are designed to discourage neurodiversity in every way. The way to encourage it is to face the oppressive nature of how our present system works to provide for the elite at the expense of the majority. It's important to not be used by the system in a way that promotes and protects its tradition of oppression.

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.