Minichan

I’m indignant, indeed. This is not the same thing as mindlessly belligerent and impotent rage per the fetishistic compulsion of the system’s in deliriously and feverishly caricaturing autists. It is something rooted in aggrievement. To have been aggrieved (transitive verb of the past perfect) means somebody must’ve previously imposed this in order to aggrieve (the simple infinitive, though describing present actions, in this instance points towards an external cause, per the motivation of its carrier to then perform that later). You would have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss this, given it is not in a congenital idiocy of logic or even simpler heuristics of verbal reasoning that one chooses to deliberately overlook the origin of this resentment. No, yours is a magic of revisionism.

Yet you had, and repeatedly, and quite openly, especially during our 21st October consultation, without even so much as restraint beyond that of overt mention (as if to suggest your derisive contempt towards my ability to see finer implications), interjected my explanations mid-sentence with interruptions in misdirection, which was to see their reciprocation, if you recall, in my deliberate over-talking of you (yes it was uncouth, no I can’t be apologetic in light of what I was responding to; to be honest, I regard it excessive of my politeness -- which I’m sure hasn’t been reciprocated on paper in the notes, making it even more pointless -- to even acknowledge the former as much, but if it’s any recompense to you). You may feel as if you are unanswerable to or unaccountable for this, since it is the work of your predecessors. Logically speaking though this appeal to temporality is moot, seeing, as I’ve mentioned before, that you’re perpetuating the damaging effects of their work. You can at least answer to your complicitness in this regard.

I’m sure all manners of conspiratorial machination have been unwreathed in their hatching, to every intention of your plans. You’re not seriously going to try and excuse under the confidentiality clause a tendency of speculative callousness, per the mandate and typical course of your profession? It was repeatedly attested to me by your predecessors -- some of whom are still working -- of all ranks that this speculation was their job; to take this with the full implication of its meaning you can thus abtrusively render my actual person to the dust of sophistical caricature, propaganda, calumny, and state-sanctioned-yet-unofficially-recognized libel, one which would have your sickly maligned Marxist ideologues and even the old Heeb (and I’m sorry if I’ve missed the etymology of ‘[redacted]’ as to have inadvertently insulted your semitic progenacy) himself shedding abnormally mirthful tears of joy. I’d used a phrase in my old writings a lot, it was something to the extent (I’m paraphrasing here) of “paper-encoded”/”scroll-encoded mythologies” or other. The mysticism contained in any work that had reportedly been produced under the auspices of scientific empiricism is, as the idea in itself was, an extension of thematic typologies in Biblical lore and thus stand to untrustworthiness in their obfuscation of the true methods, in secretive concealment and probably so far so as to render an illusion the entire process of ‘research’ from the Goyim (Gentile/non-Jew), even those mis-educated doctors who practice it, merely implementing toyish doppelgangers of the real implements, those being within the hands of an anointed, esoteric society (think something like a modern day variation of Sir Bacon and his league of acolytes, operating under the pretense of ‘science fiction writing’ a technocratically-motivated, Soviet-esque political planning racket); the scientific-technocratic conspiracy has been well known for its mere manifestation of the Talmudean agenda of the Novus Ordo Seclorem, the singularity of information as now gleaned with these entirely contrived rubrics and measurements merely allegorical of the “Temple of the Mount”, the last vestige of an enlightened pseudo-elite, in a manner close to the hoarding of the last refined literatures we see in the scene between Savage John and the Commander in Brave New World (I used to call it the “Brave New World Order” for this reason). Sorry to bore you with the critical literary analysis but I do have a point here:
You know autism is just a bullshit sociological experiment to stratificationally forge an arbitrary category of surreptitiously abused people (the perpetrators of the aforesaid being those claiming to help treat it). This is socialist subversion of society in action which you actively partake in with every bated breath of barely-concealed laughter with which you internally and derisively mock the viciously predatorial work of brutalization you carry out in your every “professionally”, “clinically justified” action every day. We’ve covered those concepts already; these are code-words for “in my homage to Sir Bacon and his pioneering work in the seminal construction of technocracy so I devote in my liege this societal devastation”.

Political ideology of the sort whereby you must espouse to the legitimacy of an illusory mirage of scientific progression will compel you to sarcastically dismiss my writings as a “rant”, and this much I’d myself sardonically rejoindered with similar disdain, to a similar accusation by a psychiatrist who’d interviewed me after the junior, on the ward itself, in July ‘14. It’s like Robert Mugabe’s former colleague, Joshua Nkomo, said dismissively to Western journalists at a post-conference dinner: it really all depends on your ideological opinion. You may bullshit that Zimbabwe is an economically failed basket-case, and your perspective will privilege you to cast such an aspersion on such a basis as the material fancies of what it means existentially to live as a Westerner, but for those superficial concerns, the average Zimbabwean couldn’t give a shit. I’m of a similar disposition when you speak of forcing acceptance of my autism in order to recruit me into the neurodiversitarian-matriarchal alliance. This membership of mine you are most certainly not recruiting. I’m far too politically well-trained (at least as far as one can in an informal sense) thanks to a series of mentors, all egregiously betrayed by the neurodiversity agenda, who’ve inculcated into me these insights into a neo-Fabian movement to make a post-classist society on psychiatrically codified lines (although I only came to the conclusion myself, after they’d imparted into me the constituent foundations). I’m sorry.

If this atonement, as I no doubt you rather maniacally deem the necessity of its (the ideological capitulation that comes with acceptance of the conceptual basis underpinning autism as anything more than arbitrary politicism) nature, is to be entertained by me, I would be turning back on convictions and repudiating the principled internal consistency of my ideals, which would only further serve to reinforce the idea of my instability and undeservingness of recognition as a meaningful individual. Although perhaps only 2 years ago might I have never entertained listening to a Negroid (this is not a racial epithet, you’re thinking of a variation of this term by a different suffix) about anything, in watching a Mugabe speech out of boredom, one line of his struck me particularly profoundly: “Never, ever, ever, sacrifice on your principles.”

A sacrificial offering of this sort does nothing to redeem my perception in the eyes of the system, however much it might be stated to the contrary, so I won’t waste my time trying. I feel, in any case, that it may be obtained just by staying on the road I’m currently traversing. In the cyclical nature of its meanderings, rooted in a duplicity of neurotypical thought that can only be described by the Biblical proverb of “speaking from both sides of the mouth”, it would only be cynically taken as an affirmation of its current processes, vindicating the disaffirmation of my ilk under the context of pathology. And I know how vindictive the system has been to me thus far, a reflection of those who work under its auspices.

You’ve used succession to admonish yourself of a status wherein you represent via. personification the system itself despite my argument of this point, and it is in that vain which I use the pronoun ‘you’. You’ve killed me. You’ve murdered me. You did it silently with drugs, and covertly by its existential rather than physical nature, something from which I’m not certain if I’d ever fully recovered. You used the manumit of clinical misdirection -- disproportionately blowing above station the severity of an otherwise barely relevant condition -- in justification of the afore-said. You’ve extracted confessions by the misinterpretation of psychotropically-addled statements I can’t even remember having made in defamation of my own character, and you did this twice. You took perverse pleasure in knowingly committing all of the above, hiding behind a pretext of genuinely misguided and professionally ‘sincere’ concern. And you expected me not to break into tears the entire time, back then (I refer still to the same period, circa mid-’14), only to use it against me in further pathologization when I did so, without realizing its actual manifestation of my realization that you were collectively all in for me.

About these experiences, and their valuation by me in utility as useful forewarnings and allegorical, moral lessons, especially about what I believe they portend on the whole. It’s not as i I’ve deliberately drenched them up just now to find excuses. These are just the most frequent of the kind of suddenly terrorizing spontaneous recollections - I’d use ‘flashback’ but it may demean in your eyes people more deserving of recognition for their traumatic experiences and with this, I’ll play - that befall to haunt me on a regular basis, and I can’t help but find contextualizable connections that help bridge the points of individual experiential phenomena over a more widely biographically recollective, if immaterial (these only exist to me and their pertinence pertains such), plain. Yes, it may well engender distrust in the longer term. But what would engender even greater distrust, if I’m to argue the kinds of Devil’s advocacy just beginning to dawn upon people when regarding the autist, would be a continuation of that intervention which is akin, to borrow an analogy I’ve used before elsewhere, to beating a dog outside the cage where it is allowed to roam free-range, pretending the aberrant behaviour resulting therefrom is a consequence of the freedom allotted rather than the abuses exacted, and confining them back to captivity, where an observation they have “calmed down” had ignored the confounding factor of said beatings.
It’s time to give up. Thank you for reading.