Monthly Archives: January, 2016

Offensive attack on Asperger

The following link crossed my bows today while doing some other searching;

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/20/463603652/was-dr-asperger-a-nazi-the-question-still-haunts-autism

I’m not going to quote anything from it because it would take too long, but there are some important points to make.

The first is that it is now becoming clear that the Autistic Spectrum was first written about in 1935, not 1943, and by Anni Weiss – a colleague of Hans Asperger – and not Leo Kanner. That led to Asperger having a wider range of children to examine (and as a side note there was no indication that any of the children could have been as young as four, which is the cut off for thiomersal being introduced into vaccines in 1931) and had the whole Spectrum in front of him – not just one section like Kanner did.

The second is the controversial part. Now as we all know, Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime preached the Aryan Race. This precluded anyone with a disability, who were targeted for death as much as the Jews were. So when Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938, Asperger had to know his subjects were in danger. He didn’t have much support as many of his colleagues were Jewish and sought to flee the country – or they committed suicide. Those that didn’t fall into that category fell into line behind Hitler and his cronies.

The controversial book “In A Different Key” tries to paint Asperger as a Nazi sympathiser at best and a blatant Nazi at worst. If the latter was correct he would have allowed all his subjects to be killed, and he didn’t. So that idea can be blasted out of the water. What he did do was in effect put on two faces – the outward sympathiser face (which the writers on In A Different Key have focused on it appears) and the inward researcher continuing his work.

Steve Silberman has gone up in my estimation with this piece. The writers of that book, John Donvan and Caren Zucker, are clearly on the warpath trying to discredit Asperger’s work by slapping a Nazi tag on it. That’s BS and Silberman rightly called them out on it, especially when his research contradicted theirs in so many ways. This was because Steve actually took the time to look at everything. It’s just so typical of a society that fears Autism so much that such lazy rubbish comes out to try and undermine the real and full understanding of the Spectrum.

And it also adds validity to the argument that any demands that Autism be cured, wiped out and so on should be seen in the same light as wiping out the Jews. We are people. We are human. We are not animals, we are not diseased and we should not be cured. We should be accepted, nurtured properly, supported and valued – and be given the room to adjust to our respective conditions. Adam Lanza refused to have anything to do with his condition at all, and look what happened to him. He went mad. A refusal to accept and adjust is asking for mental health issues on a major scale, and there’s one right now living in Los Angeles who is nearly the same age as Lanza who is heading in the same direction, and owns an AK-47 (or so he says).

As a final note, there was this from erstwhile loudmouth Jonathan Mitchell;

Perhaps Czech won’t give Steve Silberman information because he has the good common sense to see how absurd neurodiversity is.

No, he won’t give it because he knows Steve has him by the proverbials and doesn’t have the courage to admit it. Everyone with common sense knows that neurodiversity is not absurd, and Mitchell is the last person to be criticising that given how he was brought up to hate Autism and therefore doesn’t have the tools to understand what neurodiversity really is. Nor the courage to admit his error.

Think again, Neil Greenspan

It was brought to my attention today that Neil Greenspan had written an article in the Huffington Post back in March and then updated in May, in the wake of Newsweek’s unfortunate article on Jonathan Mitchell – an article I maintain to this day should not have been written as it gave Mitchell publicity that he didn’t deserve.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-s-greenspan/neurodiversity-proponents_b_6964704.html?ir=Australia

Greenspan firstly gets it wrong by claiming critics of Mitchell are attacking him because he is supporting “effective autism therapy”. That is not the case. Mitchell is only interested in a cure and nothing else. He is in fact a critic of therapy for Autism. Greenspan also gets it wrong thus;

…because they fear that public acknowledgment of his quest will undermine their efforts to achieve acceptance for themselves or, in the case of parents of affected individuals, their children.

Remembering that Greenspan got the previous point wrong, the reality is that Mitchell’s pursuit of a cure plays right into the hands of a society that still fears Autism. This fear plays out in all the legal discrimination that goes on, and on top of that there are the anti vaccine proponents who insist that vaccines cause Autism. Mitchell’s desire for a cure also plays to them.

The attitude appears to be that JM’s right to pursue his life aims as he sees fit should be held hostage to the needs of others seeking greater acceptance of autism-associated traits or behaviors.

This is misleading. Greenspan obviously hasn’t read Mitchell’s blog. It is a litany of whining and complaining – and doing nothing positive about it. We aren’t holding him hostage. He’s holding himself hostage. He can do better, but he won’t.

The good news is that Greenspan supports the proper concept of neurodiversity as it should be (further proving that he hasn’t read Mitchell’s blog and seen his favourite saying “we don’t need no stinkin neurodiversity”). But;

However, the critics of JM do not take sufficient account of the extraordinary range of autism-related manifestations when they presume, based on rather limited knowledge of JM’s condition and circumstances, to tell him the source of his problems and what he is permitted to think or say about his own needs and desires.

Limited my arse, and don’t tell me (one of the said critics) that I’m not taking the entire Spectrum into account! Every single negative trait can be treated – if it is caught early enough. That is what I’m about. It was made clear in the Newsweek article that Norma Mitchell was accused of being a bad parent. She responded by taking the blame – instead of rejecting it as every other parent of an Autistic at the time did. In every single Autistic on the planet (no exceptions) that first twelve years of life is crucial, as are the next three or four. The adjustment process has to be done during that period. If it isn’t there are issues. I can talk about that as I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 31. But even at 31, I knew to adjust. And I have and I am better for it. So are others who have adjusted. Mitchell hasn’t. No matter his specific condition and circumstances, there is no excuse for that.

I do not believe he has any intentions of demanding that other affected individuals must seek the same treatments, should they materialize in the future, that he would gladly try.

He doesn’t need to. Others will do that, and that is the real danger – and the core of it is this desire for a cure. It’s a desire that HAS to be silenced because it is murder. There is no other word for it – murder. There is no room for people like Mitchell because he has no respect for the condition he has. In order to be a part of the solution, the first thing that has to happen is to understand and respect the condition. Mitchell does neither, so he is part of the problem, not the solution.

I’ll finish with this;

Otherwise, these activists will undercut their important mission by demonstrating their own inability to tolerate diversity in perceptions or goals.

You, Neil Greenspan, need to understand that collusion to murder is not tolerance towards diversity. It’s opposing hatred of diversity. Mitchell hates neurodiversity, therefore he hates diversity. To oppose that does not undermine the mission. It supports it by recognising and silencing threats. Mitchell is a threat.

Fact.