The Radicalism of establishment, or not?

Post Reply New Topic

The Radicalism of establishment, or not?

I’m not a fan of going up against establishment, simply it is easy to disagree and conspire of such large things.

Really though, I want to present a point of view that is reasonable with comparisons that are dreaded and a bit extreme themselves.

Abortion is a sensitive issue in general, however this is a special circumstance which might provide some understanding as to why.

Society in establishment which governs has categorized people and labeled them, then has placed a judgment in intents, a prenatal test for autism. If establishment makes itself function to judge that certain people ought not exist then whom judges them?

In some ways diagnostic labelisms function positively, when they group up a people such as seen on this site by evidences seen, then act to destroy that, what are people to think. Who are they to say you’re not good enough, therefore people like you should not exist so we are developing a test that can be used to not allow people like you to exist.

I will apologize now for saying this, in Germany WWII Hitler did not want Jewish people to exist, they all had commonalities of the mind, beliefs and ways, whereas people with autism have uniqueness’s that make up who we are. People have been labeled, grouped up and are cogent enough to understand the possibility of what might be developed.

Yet most of this prenatal testing subject is online, I am thinking what if it was to come to be.

Also what I do not agree with, is the reproductive judgments that one should not reproduce because of risk of having someone that has a form of autism.

Just who do they think they are to even insinuate those things?

What is truly evil (descriptor non-literal) in this world is money, it’s because of it that certain people are not accepted because they cost to much and are considered a poor investment, thus should not exist. Money is a positive good thing when it is used for good, such as research and chosen treatments for improvement of quality of life.

I do understand enough to respect the challenges that are more severe then I, yet I think there is a balance that need be sought. If everyone had a form of autism, this world would be a different place, there would likely be more people with a form of autism partaking by understanding one anothers differences. The formulation of environment and function would be constructed for those with an autism mentality, which is just generalities of how one adapts like how other people without autism might be on average. With for instance a centering around socialization instead of productivity in the office.

When money does not exist is when the world will be a better place for some reasons. It's becuase of money that autism is seen as a burden by establishment, so becuase of money partly people want to end what partly discribes me.

Is it or is it not genetic cleasning?

With this subject I percieve it non-personally untimately, as I have decided some time ago that autism was just a label and to not really associate with it that much personally.

Groups like ASA calculate the cost of maintaining autistics without factoring back in the gains. Would they even have internet without ASDs? I think not.

You're generalizing way too much.


On a separate note, I think it would be a funny gag to have a university-style sports banner with the word "ESTABLISHMENT" printed on it.

In order to get funding such calcs have to be made.

I had to generalize as to not mention specific entities. I still am doing interviews with organizations, just the project I am taking a break from. So I am not really wanting to speak against organization, rather I have interpreted intents, such as the development of a prenatal test for autism.

The post was not intended to be fact rather interpretive and projective of perceived ideologies. Also after reading others opinions online and forming my own.

Argument debate style.