Adunai

I think it all comes down to how we’re defining ‘mental issues’. For example, could we not consider autism itself a mental health issue?

I mean, either it’s mental health or it’s hard neuroscience (bar all the other silly obscurantist hypotheses they come out with to fill the void: so desperately open-minded – bar one obvious choice – on the matter that their brains have fallen out and rolled away) and, um, I don’t see a great deal of conclusive science supporting this, referring to Wikipedia’s ‘Heritability of Autism’ article, which, bar a lot of hot air, spin, overconfidence, and waffle, admits all the way through that, just for example:

“genetic linkage analyses have been inconclusive” (their polite way of saying ‘not there’); “for most of the candidate genes, the actual mutations that increase the likelihood for autism have not been identified.”; “autism cannot be traced to a Mendelian (single-gene) mutation or to single chromosome abnormalities”; and “several results in this area have been described incautiously, possibly misleading the public into thinking that a large proportion of autism is caused by CNVs”, etc., and then a lot of ‘may be’ and ‘possibly’ remarks, but, as with benighted, mono-minded schizophrenia genetic research, nothing of substance. I wish they’d stop wasting this much time money just to blindside us with an irrefutable ‘just over the horizon’ dead end. No, it’s not “complex”, your main theory is a dud.

All this, really because we refuse to even consider the discredited – for once, evidence based to some degree historically, though more of the modern budget could look into it – theory of poor parenting from maternal figures, ‘discredited’ only because, in the paraphrased words of Peter Breggin: “the psychogenic theory of autism was abandoned because of political pressure from parents’ organizations, not for scientific reasons” (I’d add possibly from feminism also, and a politicised female desire not to held accountable for anything). I haven’t seen any genuine hard evidence that Bruno Bettleheim, Frances Tustin, Silvano Arieti, Alice Miller, and Leo Kanner weren’t onto something. I think the powerful, popular, big budgeted, utterly cack-handed (they cling to twin studies for one!) genetics industry usurping control of the issue does nothing to suggest that in reality, unpalatable as it may be in the vast can of worms it opens, yes, autism is indeed a matter of psychology and environment-imposed developmental brain damage, and very much a mental health topic.

He straw mans you by suggesting that he was ‘never anally gaped as a toddler’ (a lot hangs on that ‘or whatever’, rather like him trying to confine MH to ‘nightmares or lack of sleep’) as he totally disregards the fact that the most impactful forms of child abuse are not sexual but emotional, psychological, and developmental. I differ from those researchers above in that I do not confine ‘poor maternal parenting’ to cold and distant mothers, but rather the whole nature of being raised by single mothers – or primarily by mothers – at all, and I can imagine more ways than that by which a child could be ruined.

He has made an either/or out of ‘being kind or preserving the race’ as if one couldn’t have both. What prevents us from employing an asymmetrical approach to our dealings with others, based on sole in-group loyalty? – The problem with Adunai’s argument in totality is that I see no Western historical example that being cruel in this fashion to children has positively aided us (and I would argue has handicapped a percentage of us for untold generations). We have the reasons why the non-Aryan world makes for a poor comparison from the previous thread.

It’s like he has no concept of friend/enemy distinction: one can be both cruel/brutal to enemies and yet kind to one’s own.

I found that prior remark about the ‘Hindu Neanderthals’ particularly callous and unacceptable. It was the same with his Henry Nowak remark – I’m not particularly obsessed with that case myself, but Adunai’s point was that he respected the killer for being at least ‘a warrior’. I thought to myself, so what, he’s still a fucking raghead, despite his cold-hearted ‘martial’ mindset. Any criminal can pick up a blade. I refuse to respect non-white enemies, and would rather we cultivated their warrior traits (which were once our traits) independent of the need to give them credit. The alternative feels like fawning Third Worldism.

I take it Adunai simply doesn’t know how to feel sustained pity or sorrow (for anyone outside himself, and his long-term shallow inability to debauch himself). He doesn’t see the loss of friendly/in-group life as any problem at all… hence his lack of remorse over his comments on the death of many millions of Germans immediately post-war.

It’s like ‘the Aryan race’ could be an abstract principle carried forward by any subhuman racial other, as opposed to living flesh and blood people (women especially) in need of defence and preservation.

Just a few thoughts for the moment.