Published on 12, July, 2020
We humans all live in a social system which is complex and deceptive in some of its aspects, and delightfully simple in others.
The complex part can be called "politics", the simple part correspondingly called "personal survival"
Neurotypicals are pre-oocupied with politics, most of us 'Spergs with "personal survival".
THE (social) SYSTEM, acts as a FRAMEWORK for us to live our individual lives in a way that we all (generally) concede is the best way for humans to live.
(I.E. not being killed for the colour of ones skin or religious / sexual / sports preferences etc.)
Am I right and clear with my thinking so far?
The banking system is designed so that your money is safer than if it's in a hole in the ground. That's common sense really, because as a lone individual it is very hard to protect great (or even moderate) wealth against the more predatory classes of people.
The money system is designed (theoretically) so that the people get rewarded for hard work, and protected from adversity via established social funds paid for by taxes and insurance premiums etc.
The legal system is established to give us all a fairly level playing field in life so that even the physically strong have to negotiate for not just TAKE resources.
The social system is designed to help us al find ways of expressing our uniqueness without adversely affecting (or being unduly restricted) by the needs of others.
The religious/moral system is supposed to help us gain common wisdom as to life and our place in it and how it works, and was the foundation on which all the other systems were built and operated,
The medical system is supposed to assist us all in maintaining optimum health and effect repairs to injuries of one sort or another, when we are in need.
Together all these sub systems as far as I can determine, make up what we collectively refer to as society or the SYSTEM.
So WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF IT??
In my case, as I analysed the system with the hope of eventually being able to find my place in it, I came to an understanding that the system operates assymetrically, (particularly the money system) consistently bestowing it's benefits on people who are NOT LIKE ME whilst drawing heavily (as a percentage) from the annual turnover, (via a bewildering variety of inputs) from PEOPLE LIKE ME.
There were many decades of cognitive dissonance whilst I struggled with that reality whilst trying and suceeding for DECADES to "play the game" with admittedly more success on the financial side, but paying a heavy (if made less perceptible by the nature of participatiion in our modern system on the moral / spiritual side of things)
Eventually "the system" claimed my family as it does so often these days, (The older systems of social life as practiced still elsewhere in the world, are a lot more "family freindly" and less likely to make you "homeless" than our western progressive way of living since the sixties) and I faced the homelessness issue again...
At which point to you realise that you are just working to pay for a system that is designed to steal your happiness and keep you form being ever secure in the basics like housing, and adequate, clean quality food, whilst promising you more down the road if you just reject the old system of thinking and acting (GOD?) and embrace the new progressive ideas?
How many of you are still seeing things my way?
How many of you are seeing things this way for the first time?
For many years I thought the system didn't work for me because I was of poor character and simply needed to work harder and smarter.
It's tempting to blame the Autism..
Or has the Autism merely forced me to make an objective independent assessment of my situation, which has revealed some gaping (and to a sane mind, I posit, irreconcilable) inconsistencies between how WE ARE TOLD our system works, and how it ACTUALLY works?
I am well aware MANY people feel very well served by our modern system of life, and don't like it when people like me speak out our reality, it's "disturbing".
For me the amount of the "social contracts" I listed earlier that I have personally tested (Or observed others testing, from an outside perspective) and found unworkable in practice, is so large that it seems like human life has been reduced to a game of "monopoly" where most players get to waste their entire lives going around and around chasing a pie in the sky.
FORTUNATELY:
Monopoly isn't the only game available in the big cupboard under the TV of liffe...
Have you ever considered that it might be possible for us to make our own system? Sometime ago I was thinking what an autistic nation or at least an autistic city might look like. But then I realised building an autistic town is actually feasible if you had the money. In the UK there are things called restrictive land covenants. You could set up a charity dedicated to providing services to autistic people, it could purchased undeveloped land near to where its services are being provided, get planning permission for buildings and then sell on the land to developers but with a restrictive covenant that the land can only be used for residential purposes by autistic persons or their near family. Since the equality act allows you to treat disabled people more favorably than non-disabled people this would be legal I think. And a covenant can be enforced as long as enforcer derives benefit from the covenant to their land which in this case would be the benefit of having autistic people near the services that the charity provides. So no matter how many times the land was sold on it could still only be lived in by autistic people so long as the charity remains providing services in the area.
Hypothetically it could grow large enough to be a town of autistic people. At which point you would end up having an autistic counsel. The social services would be run by autistic people, if it got large enough possibly even its own police force although you do generally need to get to county size for that which seems unlikely.
If a charity had tons of money it could just start buying farmland in the middle of nowhere off some motorway and basically turn a patch of countryside into an autistic city.
Basically, an inshore Sealand?
Yes and no. Sealand had a fairly strong technical claim to be a sovereign nation. Practically that was basically impossible. A city of autistic people in a larger nation may not have a good legal claim for sovereign independence. But practically it might have a much better chance at it than somewhere like Sealand. At the very least you might aspire to a situation where you had an autonomy creep where it managed to acquire more and more independent powers for itself
If nothing else there’s a strong chance that they could claim genocide. If typical social-service policy is repeated A city composed of autistic people could expect to have significantly more children taken into care than other cities. Removing the children of a particular people group by force to another location is generally considered a form of genocide. And in international law the definition of what a distinct people group is is wide enough that it might cover a city of autistic people.
For example in Rwanda genocide because the two ethnic groups were effectively physically indistinguishable there was some question if it actually was technically genocide but at that point the international court ruled that cultural differences were as important as biological differences if you could argue a city of autistic people was culturally distinct it probably would count as a separate racial grouping.
and of course local regions that find themselves subject to the genocide of the larger nation have historically often used it as a basis on which to break away.