Piggy Wrote:I'm not sure if I would go as far as Varg, but when I read about past lifes of peoples (whites, but you can add Asians as well) something feels off; those peoples don't seem like they belong to the same species as the current normalfaggot who invades and ruins everything today. From their prose, to their interests, ambitions, demeanors, refinement, sensibility, etcetera... I just can't believe that if you just transported the kid selves of excellent past peoples to today and let them grow in this fake and gay reality, they would simply become unabashed degenerate normalfags.
Something's not right. I'm thinking that perhaps the aspie/autistic type is not the result of modern industrial developments, but the opposite - that the aspie has more in common with the average civilized folk of centuries ago than the debauched normie types of today... so what if normalfaggotry is actually the odd adaptation born as consequence of industrialization, goyslop, whatever it might be, let's say modernity as a whole? do you think there might be a point to this? what causes the normalization of normalfaggotry, the constant race towards nigger world? Am I overthinking this and the current scenario is simply the result of unwashed proles procreating like rabbits thanks to medical advancements? But even then, it’s depressing to compare current “aristocracy” to the old one. I’m just here trying to find solace in the thought that niggerdom isn’t the human default. Do simple downward civilizational cycles cause this?
I remember a tweet showcasing a scientific study of Ancient Roman peoples which concluded that autism was actually more prevalent then than in the present; I don't know how they can determine that beyond DNA sampling and such but either way I regret I didn't even save a screenshot of it, perhaps somebody else knows the xeet I'm talking about.
I was reading Hubbard's Dianetics recently and found a statement there to be quite true:
Quote:If one set out to resolve the problem of aberration by a system of cataloguing everything he observed and were unaware of the basic source, he would end up with as many separate insanities, neuroses, psychoses, compulsions, repressions, obsessions and disabilities as there are combinations of words in the English language. Discovery of fundamentals by classification is never good research. And the unlimited complexities possible from the engrams (and the severest, most thoroughly controlled experiments discovered these engrams to be capable of just such behavior as is listed here) is the whole catalogue of aberrated human conduct.
Previous discussions have been made here on the subject of
autism, but outside of our thing it always seems as if
idiopathic causes are always subtly present in other discussions: there is an established set of behaviors colloquially known to be "autistic", but one cannot help but think people are viewing it as an
ex nihilo development — there is some incipient presence of it at birth and it should be considered an everlasting factor of a person's life. This, I think, has a deep relation to the genetic interpretation, though this explanation of course satisfies almost nobody. Like with the Hubbard excerpt above, the fundamentals revolve around a set of classifications, but that alone only perplexes people further (the classifications are provisional and oftentimes undergo heavy re-defining), and the nature of the disorder continues to mystify us. It would be more valuable if deep observations were conducted around the lives of the mentally defective, or better yet (since this is really the driving force of discussion), the "Aspergic" character. In the latter case, I would make the prediction that many are all but destroyed by family/
In loco parentis settings, some are afflicted by another issue, and a remaining few are troubled with a classic case of mental retardation. I am casting a wide net here only because you and I both have a received idea of what autism means, and this idea appears to diagnose many people as psychologically aberrant. Dumb women are making this conversation more complicated than it needs to be since they now believe if you
think you are autistic, then
you are.
Already in this post I've been ambulating around your main point (are earlier men of civilization autistic), so I'll get to the point: the issue with considering earlier lives on these terms is the assumption that there's a characteristic of
deviance involved. I think it's more that they were greater, more capable of social success, and were developed enough to pursue their interests with determination. There were less impediments of character, less things obtruding on the freedom of their thoughts. Just because this book was the one closest to me while writing this post, I thought it was appropriate to quote this part from Eckermann's Conversations with Goethe. Eckermann had conversed with an elderly opulent man, and found out that he was once Goethe's valet for twenty years. Here is what the elderly man had said:
Quote:"When I first lived with him," said he, "he might have been about twenty-seven years old; he was thin, nimble, and elegant in his person. I could easily have carried him in my arms."
[...]
"Always working and seeking; his mind always bent on art and science; that was generally the way with my master. The duke often visited him in the evening, and then they often talked on learned topics till late at night, so that I got extremely tired, and wondered when the duke would go. Even then he was interested in natural science."
The reason why I'm quoting this is because it was once a meme of sorts to consider Goethe autistic (I know, low-hanging fruit example). But it's easier to say, from this passage alone, that there are no
social difficulties here: everyone around him has correctly assessed his worth and an appropriate servitude follows. It would be a foreign idea to historically exceptional men that they should be "allowed" this privilege, it simply follows with the kind of life they lead — by nature, they are more important. So, it is very much true that these past men are unerringly different from the laughably inferior types we come across today, but psychological deviance isn't a satisfactory explanation. Here's something we could say in favor of lost geniuses and such: there's a greater risk for malformation when greater types are exposed to present-day conditions, and those that would have thrived are condemned in more ways than one. But an inward disorder isn't the first cause, only a disorder of the world. On that note, we may not even need to consider normalfaggotry an adaptation, just an expected result: rewarding those who refuse their humanity leads to a proliferation of baseline existence ("If happiness consisted in the pleasures of the body, we should call oxen happy...")