Turning the Monkeys Autistic

[Guest]

"Urban dog ownership": A social animal is placed in an situation/environment it's designed for. It's bad because "furry four-legged anti-depressants".

Spergmonkey experiments: A social animal is placed in a situation/environment it's not designed for. It's good even though Hitler would've hated it because reasons.

Since you're discussing me I should answer. 

In the former case violence is done to both parties for no real positive end or plan. It's just a desperate clinging of the emotionally drowning. The latter case is practical social science executed by what is now an exceptionally clean and sharp looking man with a clearsighted shamelessness that seems to almost border on naivete. I find the severity of his experiments paired with the positivity of his presented demeanour funny. And like the android observing Ridley Scott's Alien creature, I can admire the purity of what I'm seeing. Pure, white coat science. I open with the picture for that effect. Do you not admire any part of this?

I don't, but I appreciate how you actually attempt to explain your position.

While we're on the general subject of animal experimentation, what's your opinion on Neuralink and Anthony Fauci being respectively investigated/criticized for the alleged deaths of several monkeys and dogs?

[anthony]

I don't, but I appreciate how you actually attempt to explain your position.

While we're on the general subject of animal experimentation, what's your opinion on Neuralink and Anthony Fauci being respectively investigated/criticized for the alleged deaths of several monkeys and dogs?

You may or may not have seen when dear friend of the forum Nick Fuentes Groyper made a series of dialogues playing on the idea of Fauci as an overman of science.



These were of course made mostly in response to the revelations of feeding dogs to sand-fleas for no discernable benefit or insight. That and Fauci's very much maligned reputation among the public and conspiracy theorists. The way to extract humour from the situation is to recast Fauci as a kind of Harlow like figure who is capable of doing such things because of a nature so superior to our own concerns that it becomes alien. A kind of godlike distance and practical American positivity (which pairs very humourously with this strange arms crossed image). He's sort of like a parody of the Harlow era American biologist played up into a superhuman.

This joke is funny, because this is so obviously not what Fauci actually is. He seems to be a rather mundane careerist who finds himself in positions of power during moments of historic importance just because he goes where the power is but otherwise just carries out the mundane corruptions and failures of a common American bureaucrat. Why did his authority end up being used to feed dogs to sandfleas? He probably didn't even know it was happening. He's just another bad bureaucrat.

Maybe he deserves his own thread. He's such a fun figure to think about. And not enough serious people have talked about that other time during which he may or may not have killed massive numbers of people to serve his career.

[august]

And not enough serious people have talked about that other time during which he may or may not have killed massive numbers of people to serve his career.

"The only thing those junkies ever used to talk about was chasing that first high. Psh. They have no idea. Try being me. Imagine how I've felt since then."
"......"
"There are only two philosophers to have ever lived, and my life has been but a series of their influences upon me. One of them said, 'You look up when you wish to be exalted. And I look down because I am exalted.' The other was Christ Himself." 



What's really funny about this guy is the mental image of a 160 cm Italian-American standing with his lab coat, surgical mask, and big 1980s glasses in a hazy mist of musky, sweat-infused air in some San Francisco bathhouse. To his left, the most stomach churning display that you'd never think physically possible. To his right, Ricardo happily answering every question he's asked with a level of candor that, to his credit, is actually quite admirable. Fauci scribbles away at his clipboard in an impassioned frenzy. This is how I'd imagine an alien from another planet to behave in such circumstances.

[Margatroyper]

Fauci and Harlow perhaps present iconic examples of how "chuunibyou" personalities can be either locked or keyed. On the one hand, our bathhouse bureaucrat sees himself as a science-fueled savior. On the other hand, we find a man intentionally willing to play the villain, as a public spectacle if necessary, in the quest to unlock the secrets of the mind:

Harlow was well known for refusing to use conventional terminology, instead choosing deliberately outrageous terms for the experimental apparatus he devised. This came from an early conflict with the conventional psychological establishment in which Harlow used the term "love" in place of the popular and archaically correct term "attachment". Such terms and respective devices included a forced-mating device he called the "rape rack", tormenting surrogate-mother devices he called "Iron maidens", and an isolation chamber he called the "pit of despair"

Hopefully, the aesthetic difference in blithely signing off on a sand flea experiment which should seem pointless on the most cursory examination, under the belief that your college degrees and state-recognized authority make you a physical force for good, and inventing what you personally dubbed the "rape rack" (sometimes to the chagrin of colleagues and underlings) is self-evident.

[august]

Assuming that people really are less "genetically autistic" today, I still think that someone smarter than me needs to figure out what's going on with moderns and 'Synthetic Autism'.

[BillyONare]

BASED Bronski. What does he mean by “autism” though? I thought the scientific definition was just retardation caused by having a *high mutational load* (Bronski knows what this is). It is not very scientific of him to throw around vague imprecise words so that even a reasonably informed person has know idea what the fuck he is talking about. Bronski pop science attention grabbing headline Steve Pinker style.

[Piggy]

(This post and the following moved from SQTTDTOT - Chud)

On normalfaggotry:

Often there's this shared belief among the Right which ascertains that autism/aspergers are a new development caused by goyslop, xenoestrogens, not enough bullying, whatever. And then there are the Varg types who think autism = European gene. 

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.

[FlyWithYou]

On normalfaggotry:

Often there's this shared belief among the Right which ascertains that autism/aspergers are a new development caused by goyslop, xenoestrogens, not enough bullying, whatever. And then there are the Varg types who think autism = European gene. 

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.

Much has changed in the past few hundred years besides genetic distributions.



https://i.ibb.co/P5kQnB7/historicalandcr...g-0091.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/CnXxfb7/historicalandcr...g-0092.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/kXB67H4/historicalandcr...g-0093.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ry82Sq5/historicalandcr...g-0094.jpg
(Thomas De Quincey)

[JohnTrent]

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:

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:

"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...")

[august]

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.

https://amarna-forum.net/t-Turning-the-M...1#pid13661

But this is an example of sensationalist HBDtardism. If we can be so bold as to say that the ancients were more "genetically autistic", why is the genetic explanation for autism still so spurious if such an explanation is the consensus? I doubt there is any way to actually prove that they were, and even if someone could it still doesn't make sense of why autism was X thousand % less prevalent not even 100 years ago. "It's more diagnosed now." Yeah, just like how 20% of Boomers and their parents were acktually homos like Gen Z is but were forced to suffer in the closet because of uhhh society, or something. A lot of people on The Net think that calling themselves autistic is a badge of honour that shows how Based™ they are (because they're stuck at the 2015 New Year's Party). Maybe the Medical Experts can first explain to me how Elon Musk and any given nonverbal, functionally mentally retarded person (who probably also experiences schizophrenic delusions) are in any way similar enough to categorised together by any metric. Oh, because it's a "spectrum". Yeahhh, that makes sense.

To the broader question, I was going to say partly the same thing that John did but he did a much better job of it so I'll just briefly reaffirm him. He gives the example of Goethe, I'll add the example of Napoleon. Neither were socially inept. On the contrary, they were rather charismatic. Very likely not "autistic", just genius, superior. But it's important that I stress that such superiority clearly still exists today. I'm not saying that I'm one of these people, in fact I know and admit that I'm not. But I have seen and even know people who seem as though they could have been if they weren't STYMIED beyond all belief by this retarded world that we currently, though not for much longer, live in. 

The general masses have always been normalfags, whether it was one, five, or twenty centuries ago. The difference may be that breaking out of the levelling process seems to have been rather straightforward and perfectly possible throughout much of the past if one had the tenacity and capability to do so. Kierkegaard and a few others talk about that quite nicely. But I'll leave that to you to look into if you care, because unlike Not Green Groyper in Not Green Groyper's post above, I know how a forum works and I'm not going to force you to do reading homework with absolutely no context while thinking that I provided you with something that even resembles an answer to your question.

[Polytropos]

But this is an example of sensationalist HBDtardism. If we can be so bold as to say that the ancients were more "genetically autistic", why is the genetic explanation for autism still so spurious if such an explanation is the consensus? I doubt there is any way to actually prove that they were, and even if someone could it still doesn't make sense of why autism was X thousand % less prevalent not even 100 years ago. "It's more diagnosed now." Yeah, just like how 20% of Boomers and their parents were acktually homos like Gen Z is but were forced to suffer in the closet because of uhhh society, or something. A lot of people on The Net think that calling themselves autistic is a badge of honour that shows how Based™ they are (because they're stuck at the 2015 New Year's Party). Maybe the Medical Experts can first explain to me how Elon Musk and any given nonverbal, functionally mentally retarded person (who probably also experiences schizophrenic delusions) are in any way similar enough to categorised together by any metric. Oh, because it's a "spectrum". Yeahhh, that makes sense.

Completely agree, it defies all common sense that there was X% of people rocking back and forth or stimming out and it managed to go unrecorded for all of antiquity. I'm also skeptical of the xenoestrogen or other "zog chemicals" being the primary cause. I'm inclined to think it has something to do with the way children are socialized today. I'll also raise the Trump hypothesis of it being the vaccines since no one else has. 

To the broader question, I was going to say partly the same thing that John did but he did a much better job of it so I'll just briefly reaffirm him. He gives the example of Goethe, I'll add the example of Napoleon. Neither were socially inept. On the contrary, they were rather charismatic. Very likely not "autistic", just genius, superior. But it's important that I stress that such superiority clearly still exists today. I'm not saying that I'm one of these people, in fact I know and admit that I'm not. But I have seen and even know people who seem as though they could have been if they weren't STYMIED beyond all belief by this retarded world that we currently, though not for much longer, live in. 

This is tangential to the original question, but while it's certainly true that geniuses are rarely "autistic" or even socially inept, they very frequently conceive of themselves as in conflict with prevailing social conditions and profoundly misunderstood. Goethe was a generous and kind man, I think he concealed his alienation but sometimes you see it come out, this is a good example: https://twitter.com/AsabiyyahPepe/status...6900158866
If normal people could understand the minds of men like Goethe or Napoleon they would be utterly horrified, and I think on some level there always exists this presentiment that their natures are fundamentally opposed and always will be. To your point about the modern world stymying potential I think about this aphorism from BGE quite often: 

The problem of those who wait. Strokes of luck and many unpredictable factors are needed for a higher person, who contains the dormant solution to a problem, to go into action at the right time, “into explosion” you might say. This does not usually happen, and in every corner of the earth people sit waiting, hardly knowing how much they are waiting, much less that they are waiting in vain. And every once in a while, the alarm call will come too late, the chance event that gives them “permission” to act, – just when the prime of youth and strength for action has already been depleted by sitting still. And how many people have realized in horror, just as they “jump up,” that their limbs have gone to sleep and their spirit is already too heavy! “It’s too late” – they say, having lost faith in themselves and being useless from this point on. – What if in the realm of genius, the “Raphael without hands” (taking that phrase in the broadest sense) is not the exception but, perhaps, the rule? Perhaps genius is not rare at all: what is rare is the five hundred hands that it needs to tyrannize the καιoς, “the right time,” in order to seize hold of chance!