The Standard Review

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.

Accurate Speech versus Effective Communication

http://www.sinj.com/the-moon-tarot/images/standard-oil-logo.gif

The ways similar subjects relate to one another can be difficult to understand due to how morality and ethics, separate from other subjects, are typically decided individually based more on emotion than practicality. Collective mentality is how governments contradict the emotions and mental process of the individual and teach them to de-value themselves and their creative spirit. When people describe all things being relative without considering this, discussion becomes chaotic.

Despite the goal of creating appropriate and accurate standards of speech being impossible, people tend to argue as if one person's ability to meet the standards can be measured as greater than another. In the same way, that information is given a royal endorsement with only a few options being explored (and a few royals allowed to express different ideas) variations of verbal expression are used to determine people's ability and the value of their ideas. In the world of academics the silliness of this standard judgment seems less understood by those involved in the process.

The goal of scientific research is mainly to encourage the validity of science and protect what has been described as knowledge by a scientist. The definition given by Wikipedia for science is here.

We have no way of knowing who were the best thinkers in ancient Greece because the standard of measurement excluded most people from even being considered. The thoughts they described were within a narrow realm of the beliefs and ideas that questioned the superiority of the empire's methods were never considered valid. Long before eugenics was a word used for the elimination of invalids Aristotle and Plato published these views: (note this site is described as a Nazi fan site)

These so called superior thinkers showed contempt for independent decisions and variety of ideas. They wrote rule books for others that were considered the best humans to follow so that the State would always be honored and would make decisions about whose life was valuable and whose was not. This was, and still is, considered by the most valued members of society who mainly influence decisions about public policy, to be the best way to preserve what is considered civilization.

In several hundred years, the philosophy that protected this empire has changed very little because those who have had power have used it to eliminate diversity, promote slavery, and discourage all types of independence and democracy.

For example, the empirical ambitions of the United States are promoted in very similar ways to that of ancient Greece. Only a very few of the considered elite are even included as being valuable citizens who achieve a high school education.

It says here:

"This report finds that only about half of all students served by the main school systems in the nation's 50 largest cities graduate from high school."

Part of the myth that sustains poverty and oppression in the United States is that we have a continuum of opportunity rather than dividing spectrums according to class and economic distinction. This supports the myth that our political system is a democracy and that opportunities for economic success (and sometimes even survival) is not predetermined.

In this article by John Taylor Gatto, he describes how the leadership in the United States set up the compulsory education program we have today based on the success of a similar model used in Prussia to discourage democracy and free thought in favor of a powerful military. Those targeted for this type of education were not those who were thought to be the future leaders but instead were expected to be soldiers or exploited factory workers who would do well at following orders.

On the other hand, the leadership of the United States, is provided a very different type of education where their esteem and the validity of their ideas are encouraged.

In this interview Gatto explains more about the validity of the standardized tests given to US public school students. Here is an excerpt from the interview: (JTG is an abbreviation for John Taylor Gatto)


"MP: That's exactly the problem. See, if your kid is already scoring 95 percent on the standardized tests, you think, "Boy, this is great, right?"

JTG: No! The tests don't measure what they purport to measure. I guarantee you they don't do that. Let me give you an experiment you could run anywhere in this country and it will work. I used to take the kids who scored the very highest on the standardized tests. I would say, "I will demonstrate to you that you don't know how to read, even though your test score says that you know how to read better than anybody in the school." So I'd get these groups together, I mean, I'd do this year after year, and I would give them an extremely simple classic book to read, Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. It's still in print, sells more copies in the year 2000 than it ever sold in 1928 when it was printed. It's a story of teenagers in the first world war. It's written in teenage language, with teenage concepts, and there are hardly any three-syllable words in the book, I mean it's mostly one- or two-syllable words, so it's extremely simple to read. I said, "I will give you an open book test on the first 20 pages of that book, and I will be very surprised if anyone in here passes the test.

See, standardized tests, even though all the questions look different, really arrange themselves in six, seven, or eight different patterns of extracting information from the reading selection. In actual fact there are about 168 separate ways to extract information from a reading selection. Most people who read a lot learn those things automatically; they don't have to be taught them. But when you're taught reading, and when you think the prize is getting a high score on a standardized test, what happens inside your mind (this is really diabolical) is, if you're efficient, you tend to concentrate harder on the things that you recognize will show up as questions and answers on the test. You may not be aware you're doing that, but it will happen inevitably. As a consequence, out of the 168, you miss about 160 types of information that are in the reading selection."

 

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/0138.jpg

Here Gatto explains:




"The Fear Of Common Intelligence

The fear of common people learning too much is a recurrent theme in state records around the world. The founder of the Chinese state, the Emperor Ts’in She Hwang-ti, burned the work of the philosophers for fear their ideas would poison his own plans. The Caliph Ùmar of Syria wrote instructions to destroy the perhaps apocryphal library at Alexandria, using this airtight syllogism:

If these writings of the Greeks agree with the Book of God they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed.2

Literary bonfires in Nazi Germany are often invoked as a vivid symbol of the deepest barbarism of the twentieth century, but extensive press coverage ended the book burning by stirring public uneasiness worldwide. Much more effective have been those silent blast furnaces used by public library systems and great American universities to dispose of 3 million excess books annually because of a shortage of shelf space. Why aren’t they given to schools?

There are other ways to burn books without matches. Consider the great leap forward undertaken in the modern Turkish state under Kemal Ataturk. Unlike Hitler, who burned only some of the past, Ataturk burned it all without fire by radically changing the Turkish national alphabet so that all the vital writings of the past were entombed in an obsolete symbol system. Not a single Turk voted to have this done, yet all accepted it.

From 1929 on, all books and newspapers were printed in the new alphabet. All documents were composed in it. All schoolchildren were instructed in it and no other. The classics of Persia, Arabia, and Turkey vanished without a trace for the next generation. Obliterate the national memory bound up in history and literature, sift carefully what can be translated, and you open a gulf between old and young, past and present, which can’t be bridged, rendering children vulnerable to any form of synthetic lore authorities deem advisable.

 
Turkish experimentation is echoed today in mainland China where a fifth of the population of the planet is cut off from the long past of Chinese literature and philosophy, one of the very few significant bodies of thought on the human record. The method being used is a radical simplification of the characters of the language which will have, in the fullness of time, the same effect as burning books, putting them effectively out of reach. Lord Lindsay of Birker, a professor at Yenching University outside Beijing where I recently went to see for myself the effects of Westernization on the young Chinese elite, says the generation educated entirely in simplified characters will have difficulty reading anything published in China before the late 1950s.

First, said Plato, wipe the slate clean.

There are many ways to burn books without a match. You can order the reading of childish books to be substituted for serious ones, as we have done. You can simplify the language you allow in school books to the point that students become disgusted with reading because it demeans them, being thinner gruel than their spoken speech. We have done that, too. One subtle and very effective strategy is to fill books with pictures and lively graphics so they trivialize words in the same fashion the worst tabloid newspapers do – forcing pictures and graphs into space where readers should be building pictures of their own, preempting space into which personal intellect should be expanding. In this we are the world’s master.

Samuel Johnson entered a note into his diary several hundred years ago about the powerful effect reading Hamlet was having upon him. He was nine at the time. Abraham Cowley wrote of his "infinite delight" with Spenser’s Faerie Queen – an epic poem that treats moral values allegorically in nine-line stanzas that never existed before Spenser (and hardly since). He spoke of his pleasure with its "Stories of Knights and Giants and Monsters and Brave Houses." Cowley was twelve at the time. It couldn’t have been an easy read in 1630 for anyone, and it’s beyond the reach of many elite college graduates today. What happened? The answer is that Dick and Jane happened. "Frank had a dog. His name was Spot." That happened."

 

 

http://www.innervisionz.com/images/Normal_Pill.png

 

So the goal of standard education is to standardize people and standardize their behavior. This is consistent with encouraging Applied Behavior Analysis in schools and more specifically Statewide Positive Behavioral Support. If all people can be seen as being motivated by the same things, they can be ranked accordingly. This ranking is how individuals and individualistic views are discouraged.

People who communicate differently and may be more prone to different views and alternatives to tradition are a threat to polite society. Neurological differences (including autism) are not and cannot be respected while at the same time respecting tradition, scholastics, and politics. This realm is opposed to all types of diversity and all types of creative thinking.

The Internet is not inclusive of people with neurological differences. The exclusion of autistic people is supported by advocates who are interested more in a convenient tradition and showing how several autistics are already meeting the standards rather than revealing the contradiction and broadening those standards with a new way of looking at communication which traditional leaders have not yet explored.

If there is to be a change in how autistic people are treated it will come from listening to autistic people rather than continuing to honor the ongoing traditional attitude of ambitious scientists and politicians who demean and exclude us.

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 Employment of Bullies

 
http://www.readinggenius.com/Executive20Winning20Licensed.jpg:http//images.forbes.com/media/2009/01/27/0127_bullies_170x170.jpg

In today's society puppeteer (metaphorically speaking) is a well respected craft. Controlling the behavior of the masses of people is what people see as being most important and therefor someone or some group that can do it with subtlety, nuance, and wide acceptance from the public will be provided for and encouraged.

As a society we understand that someone who can instill trust in the hearts of the public will be the most creative and genuine guide to diversity and harmony but such a person becoming worthy of that trust requires patience. Exclusionary leaders skillful in methods of control are the convenient choice.

More than anyone a bully understands the threat of being seen as inferior, and they are haunted by the revelation of their personal deficits. Aggression may be the only way they see to prove their worth and avoid the fate of their victim.

Those of us who advocate for better public policies need to understand that leaders tend to be chosen based on their ability to control rather than based on being someone who we trust for real and lasting changes. This leads to policies designed to exclude and diminish the appearance of value for honesty and/or vulnerability.

    

 

 

http:/www.makli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Michael-Savage-Podcast.jpghttp://www.supremecourthistory.org/history/images/049_holmes.jpgC:\Users\ray-\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\59KXF4RU\too-many-dumb[2].jpghttp://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/81439532.jpgv=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548D4FDF30579F39152B0484824BA8AF679C39C05526BB325C1E30A760B0D811297http://www.bestbehaviour.ca/images/Lovaas.gifhttp://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/partypictures/2005/03_10_05/images/comlove/SusanBob-Wright2.jpghttp://i.huffpost.com/gen/203329/thumbs/s-SHARRON-ANGLE-AUTISM-HEALTH-CARE-REFORM-large.jpghttp://findmeapirate.com/Pages/Shoulda%20been%20a%20pirate/Images/Denis%20leary.jpghttp://www.autismspeaks.org/images/supportlegislation/d_200604_senator_clinton_speaksing.jpghttp://www.fadooda.com/media/1/20090902-Ivan_Pavlov.jpgC:\Users\ray-\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\59KXF4RU\skinner[2].jpghttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/galton.jpghttp://thenewtj105.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/benjamin_rush_painting_by_peale.jpg  

 

Autistics are inconvenient when it comes to protecting social standards. We often don't have an understanding of etiquette and the exchange of pleasantries and are vulnerable to abuse in places where this determines what, and therefor, who is right or wrong/good or bad. Everyone knows this is nothing but an exclusionary means of entertainment at the expense of people who are unskilled at it but protecting it requires keeping the unskilled, compliant as well as silent. When people aren't that way they become quite inconvenient.

With the recent claims of autism being something a person has (described by terms such as "having autism") the door has been opened for opportunists of all types to see autistics as a convenient means for their agenda.

The goal behind discouraging vaccinations has always been based on the idea that giving people an opportunity to survive when their weakness/defenses would not provide for it is an unnatural provision and a threat to the evolutionary process. The vain illusions of strength (that replace the need for responsible evaluations and trusting relationships) are what protects the justification for the atrocities committed by advantaged races of people who were attempting to secure what they claim to be their "rightful place of athority"on this planet.

Since autistics have been found convenient for the experimentation of weaponry used in warfare being studied at our finest scholastic institutions, we now have applied behaviorism described as scientifically justified, and the forcing of toxic compliance drugs (hallucinogens, antipsychotics, amphetamines, etc.) seen as therapeutic intervention.

Of course using autistics to promote anti-vax propaganda, and prenatal screening for the disabled is a result of how the public has been misled.

This is a recent story which shows how societal views of autistic people result in bullying :Evil teenagers who 'tortured' autistic boy, 17, for three days free to roam streets after judge fails to lock them up

To say that what these teenagers did was unlawful may be misleading. What they obviously did "wrong", which was reported by the media was getting caught. The rule (although mainly unspoken) for getting caught doing the bidding of an exclusionary society is that you may not have their protection if caught. It's similar to expecting a spy to take cyanide poisoning if caught rather than reveal the information of those who sent them.

I hope these teenagers will be punished in the same way as any bully who committed such an act, but I also hope the broader public will evaluate attitudes that encourage such behavior rather than continuing the cycle of scapegoating responsibility.

Mainstream Advocacy Opposes Democracy

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/United-States-Congress.jpg

Advocacy for better public policy and broader acceptance of diversity in society is often void of the voices who are treated the worst by traditional problems. Those who support subsets of  mainstream advocacy types and alternative solutions are not immune from this, unless they are specifically attempting to have open dialogue with the broadest number of people who have otherwise been silenced.

For many years U.S. citizens have used the documents written by the original founders for addressing how the advantages for the elite are oppressive for the majority. However, the traditions of politics as well as those of all three branches of government have been heavily influenced by elites with an agenda that is supported by systemic oppression. Therefor advocacy efforts which don't propose radical changes to the way the system works are supporting the system that doesn't work for most people and shifting the elite advantages from one group identified as disadvantaged to another.The oppression of traditional policies doesn't hurt the most diverse aspects of our culture as much as it does those who are the least likely to be able to follow conventions. Although we are taught to accept conventions simply because conventional approaches are the best which has been found so far, many of us couldn't do that, even if we tried. Of course autistics have always been banned due to this type of exclusion that protects the status quo of public policymaking.

Once people are systematically divided by need, taught or their proper place, punished for noncompliance, have their arguments polarized and their freedoms substituted by the advantages given to the voting/valued citizens, they can call it democracy and control people by the threat of losing it.

Recently, I was told by mental-health advocates (ones that were working as mental-health professionals) that my advocacy must reflect their set of values and that my language must be in keeping with the medical language describing autism so that credit could be given to the positive changes which professionals have made when describing their clients. I was professionally diagnosed via the internet as having hang-ups. I was not amused.

http://tnaron.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/pillory-stocks.jpg

The methods for excluding advocates who have a different approach or who may question tradition are the same within advocacy groups (including subset types of advocacy and alternative approaches) as they are in the U.S. Congress and House of Representatives. Unfortunately, ineffective and harmful advocacy efforts mimic the most formal forms of politics because we are taught that we are involved in a democracy and that our leaders are interested in doing what's best for the majority of people. If it was understood that this is not the case more people would be accepting of diverse ideas and approaches.

The biggest threat to the US policies comes from excluding the majority of voices and the people who are in command do not have to monitor such exclusion. All that is necessary is that we as the majority of the public accept the taboos of individualism and follow the bigoted notions of who is important and what contributions are important.

Many claim to be winning when most people aren't allowed in the race. Ideas are only allowed to be challenged within a narrow realm of like-minded individuals. I've heard it said that people who don't conform to mainstream politics and who challenge the system are arrogant and misleading because they aren't interested in practical solutions. I think that accusation is directed toward the wrong people.

Hierarchies are exclusive in how they show that everyone must be seen as working towards the same goal, motivated by the same things, and be gratified by the same rewards. This is how democracy is opposed.

With the large number of people in the United States who are not being educated, not being trained for jobs, and not working, is it any wonder that so very few even vote at presidential elections? How does telling people that they are lazy, ignorant, and irresponsible encourage them to accept responsibility? It seems to me that those who have been privileged to benefit from policies, which catered to their uniqueness have been irresponsible by not encouraging more inclusion.

It doesn't make sense to blame the big corporations which run our government or the politicians who do their bidding for such problems if we aren't willing to change how we treat each other and become more accepting of the diverse ideas which come from the most unlikely sources and which challenge our most honored traditions.

Healthy Boundaries!!

http://www.miragebookmark.ch/images/borders-nyc.jpg

Setting boundaries can be very difficult because collectivism is so important to politics. Many evils are done by promoting solidarity and personalities, along with abusing the term advocacy by associating it with convincing others of the "truth". All this weakens trust and discourages the independent thinking which leads to personal empowerment.

Questions and creativity are forbidden in such an environment. Issues become polarized and people become objectified in this cult-like hostage-taking atmosphere. In the U.S., it's how the Democratic political party steals democracy from citizens.

A summery of my advocacy is "Autistics aren't encouraged to voice our concerns about matters that affect us and that needs to change." Some restrictions are subtle and some are more overt but the intentions are quite clear. Everyone and anyone is provided more authority than autistics to speak about autism.

This is a personal judgment based on my experience. If advocacy doesn't include encouraging autistics to have a voice (it matters not what your diagnosis is or whether it's clinical or self declared, whether you don't believe in psychiatry or labels, or whether you want to sing songs on a windy hillside while picking daisies and intellectualizing about continuum and relativity) it won't be something I support.

I believe very strongly that everyone is their brother/sisters keeper. Avoiding that responsibility has consequences. One of the reason's people avoid it is because it's difficult to accomplish or even understand without appropriate boundaries. Such things prevent people from recognizing how steps can be made to reach ideals and how suggestions can be made without being hurtful.

http://www.melbournebrick.com.au/images/walls_main.jpg

I must and do take responsibility for advocating in my own words where I  hope it will have a positive influence and attempt to avoid posting such statements where I believe others are hurt or may feel less empowered by my doing so.( I take more liberty in radical expression on this blog and my Facebook wall, page, or whatever it's called....)

However, I DON"T take responsibility for other people's emotions. Other people taking responsibility for their own emotions is their path to liberty and empowerment, and I won't try to rob them of that. This is very different than not caring about what I say or whether or not others are hurt by it. Claiming these two things are the same  is confusing and discouraging.

I don't accept any responsibility also for anyone else needing to have me change my view nor is it my intent, my mission, or my hang-up to convince other people, of how I see things. To think that way is an unhealthy codependency trap (and unfortunately not one I'm immune to). If people think they can get into a convince-or-be-convinced game with anyone and ever be on the winning side, I suggest you reconsider. It's frustrating, exhausting, and unproductive. Empowerment comes from encouraging others to think!

Exclusion is bad but the exclusion disguised as inclusion is worse. It prevents people from seeing the enemy so that an  effective method of combat can be understood.At this point, I'll be more likely to delete/block/etc. signs of aggression, and I hope everyone will be responsible and empowered in doing the same.

My solution is boundaries. Don't accept others views when they attempt to deny you respect and dignity. When you accept that it becomes more difficult to trust the people who deserve it and who really care about you. You need these people in your life, and they need you.

Make it clear who you are, what you think, and evaluate ideas in an objective and individual way that is separate from any political party or "movement". Otherwise you become objectified and your thinking will tend to promote the taking of hostages as well as submitting to oppressors.

The Outside Advantage

The highest-ranking government officials in the United States seem to believe they can no longer effectively rule against the special-interest. The executive branch is continuing to provide more rights to these groups at the expense of the majority of citizens.

The voters in the U.S.are often taking the liberty of claiming that policies they encourage are considering the majority of the citizens. The policies can't be that broad that at this point. Instead, the elite is being catered to at the expense of others. There are people who want change but if the position of the inside advantage isn't used for challenging boundaries the advantage is instead on the side of those  who would make the boundaries even more unreasonable and strict.

Autism advocacy is a reflection of the compromising trend because mainstream advocates are so harshly criticized for encouraging any ideas that contradict the industry-driven medical model.

The main excuse I've always heard (in all types of political compromise) is that change can only occur once you get involved where the changes get made. Individual ideas too often are seen as a threat rather than an aid to what this group calls advocacy.

The people who set up the form of government in the U.S. that we are supposedly still following didn't believe that such compromise was necessary. They warned against the type of compromise that government officials and all types of mainstream advocates are making today. The liberties which are being lost at the expense of catering to the mainstream and the compromises which are often harshly demanded are not something we can continue to afford.

The way autism is mainly being described in the media practically never deviates from the medical model which is overwhelmingly influenced by the industry rather than by the continual observation of the people the industry labels. For people to describe an alternative way to see the people who are labeled in this way is highly offensive to medical practitioners as well as the mainstream society that has adopted their views.

All disability advocacy continues to be radical but the confines of this radical approach is increasingly narrowing the options provided. Advocacy from anyone who's thought pattern is discriminated against in any way (which can accompany physical barriers) has traditionally been devalued in the worst way. This means that as autistics are being more recognized we have the least voice in matters that concern us.

We are described as un-empathetic so that we can be categorized and not be seen as having an understanding of another clinically defined subset of autistics. Of course course this also provides justification for bullies looking for vulnerable targets. Our lack of understanding of how the more-catered-to-population in society communicates is described as nothing more than social deficit disorder that prevents us from understanding and or accepting reality.

I recently saw where someone had claimed that Jenny McCarthy was fighting against the media hype. I was astounded that such an expression could be made, which described the hype about autism as the opposition rather than the agreement of Jenny McCarthy view. This is how identity politics is used to isolate and polarize discussions so that the industry's views are protected.

Radical advocacy is not safe. It never was. However, extreme measures are now being taken so that fewer people who are vulnerable to the mainstream demands by special interest can be effectively challenging those demands without being harshly criticized and even penalized using  unjust laws. There is a high price to pay for the complacency which comes from what is described as the necessary political compromise (the inside advantage). Criticism of injustice must challenge the boundaries (both real and imagined) in order for the needed changes to occur.