The following reflections have cost me some effort and pain, particularly as I am not yet fully recovered from various serious long term and sort term health challenges. But I believed it was time for a retrospective discussion of some very important matters, which have been weighing on me for rather a long time. I suspect there are a number of things here which may perhaps distress or bewilder not only my adversaries, but even some friends. But I am a very strong believer in the eternal, undying truth that one can either serve God, or serve Mammon. So either one commits oneself to the life of martyrdom, or to the life of prostitution. There is no third option the Son of Man offered us, and there is no middle ground he has invited us to entangle ourselves with.
So I will speak with integrity, and without fear, and I will pay no heed to the darkness within or without, and value the good, the true and the beautiful more than the empty praise or futile scorn of mortal flesh.
I've not been involved in the 'Autism Wars' for rather a long time.
And I’m not planning to jump in again any time soon.
Because I have something rather different in mind.
In the past, I identified with the emerging ‘Autistic Dark Web’ movement, and indeed was one of the first to use the tag. However, after a long period of death threats and defamation, amid being unwell and often suicidal, I retreated almost entirely from the various autism debates.
Looking back on the Autistic Dark Web, I can see that there is some criticism that is either disingenuous or incredibly ignorant and uneducated; but regardless of the precise objectiev and subjective causes of some of the ridiculous commentary that has arisen being made, I am going to set the record straight with an objective and dispassionate account of the movement, and of my own retrospective view of it.
The first thing I will say is that although the Autistic Dark Web seemed to have some potential at the start, and arguably even did, I would say it was more what one might call an ‘intervention,’ as the Parisians might say; even an ‘Event,’ or ‘Evenement,’ a traumatic rupture in the order of signification.
(Vraiment? Badiou et Lacan? Well, what can I say! I reap where I have not sowed… Haven’t we all! I am, after all, a harsh taskmaster…)
Ultimately, I do not think the Autistic Dark Web was ever at all likely to be a goer in the long run, and here are some reasons. Some, of course, may be stronger than others, but you may use your judgment. I am going to be dispassionate and objective and even-handed to all concerned.
1. Ideological differences
A: Reform vs Revolution
The movement was fundamentally incoherent. The idea of pointing the limitations within Neurodiversity in order to reform it, versus trying to abolish it as an illegitimate ideology by the power of the better argument, is simply not coherent. It would be like revolutionary Trotskyists and the Labour Party’s Social Democrats trying to unite (how’s that one working out right now? Polling not great, surprise surprise! Incidentally, Corbyn’s deluded ideologues are the first party in the UK to formally accept the Neurodiversity agenda, but that’s a topic for another day).
B. Incel Debate
One of the most damaging disagreements was over the topic of the ‘incel’ concept. There was a very passionate internal disagreement over whether the term ‘incel’ could ever be an appropriate self-ascription. I myself have criticized the incel concept many times, and more than once at length; see here, for example, on the Good Men Project. I even planned out a book, but as my health is only partly improved and still not perfect, this is yet another project I am shelving indefinitely, until I feel better. By contrast, Jonathan Mitchell and Thomas Clements misguidedly used this self-ascription, despite my feelings on this matter: see, for example, this post. Just to be clear, I am not apportioning blame, but merely illustrating the kinds of huge ideological rifts within the Autistic Dark Web, which Neurodiversity supporters are wont to glide over, in order to have fun with their usual ‘guilt by association game.’
I need to say a little about both people here: Jonathan Mitchell is a veteran critic of Neurodiversity, while Thomas Clements is clearly a thinker and communicator of some brilliance. My intention in distancing myself again from the views of both writers on the ‘incel’ topic is not intended as personal criticism, or to undermine the many positive things they have done, and often at great cost to themselves. It is simply to underscore the importance of irreconcilable disagreements within the Autistic Dark Web, and to challenge the nonsensical view that it was some kind of echo chamber. I use the past tense, ‘was,’ because quite frankly, I believe that for better and for worse, it was very much a project of its time; and if anyone else wants to continue it, it is their decision. But for my part, as I shall continue to elaborate at length as we proceed, I do not feel it is something I want to include in my own personal journey, as with the benefit of hindsight, I believe the project was never destined to be the success we intended it to be. Of course, there is every chance I could be wrong about that, but for the various reasons I discuss here, I will simply say that I am unconvinced of the long-term viability of the project, even if I strongly agree with some of the views some ADW people have held, while disagreeing very strongly with other perspective of agendas some of the movement may have had.
I should also mention in passing that I don’t believe Thomas Clements or Jonathan Mitchell have ever intended to endorse the incel subculture or ideology. They did both however, as far I can correctly recall (I am open to feedback on anything I write in this article) think that the notion of the ‘incel’ could somehow be isolated from the subculture and ideology; the subtext, it seems to me, could probably be fairly rendered as this: ‘I am an incel, but I don’t support the misogynistic web culture of incelism, let alone terrorism.’ But my view has always been that the term ‘incel,’ short for ‘involuntarily celibate,’ is an intrinsically wrong word to use. I am not sure I have anything very original to add to WHY this is so, but here are a few fairly predictable (but far from trite) arguments:
1. Celibacy, by definition, cannot be involuntary. Celibacy is a calling people in some religions, e.g. Christianity and Buddhism, voluntarily take upon themselves. Someone who does not or cannot or feels they cannot find a girlfriend, boyfriend, husband or wife is not ‘celibate.’ This is an abuse of language. Of course, most religions do call the unmarried to chastity, which is not the same thing as celibacy. But even chastity is not ‘involuntary.’ See reason 2, which is about to follow.
2. Calling one’s singlehood ‘involuntary’ has an implication, even if unintentional or unconscious, of resentment. A sense of injustice. One can be involuntarily dragged into military action (press-ganged), or involuntarily physically transported (kidnapped), involuntarily silenced (purged or assassinated), but one cannot be involuntarily in a state of singlehood; because there is no aggressor. It is true that in a literal sense, ‘involuntary’ simply means ‘against one’s own will.’ However, moving beyond dictionary definitions and etymology into ‘language in use,’ the term ‘involuntary’ does seem to many people, not just me, to have a whiff of ‘injustice.’ But injustice, it would seem, has to have three elements: an unjust act, an agent of the unjust act (one or many) and an individual patient of the unjust act (one or many). However, singlehood cannot be unjust, because there is no agent of the supposed injustice in question. If this is so, it cannot be an injustice; and so, the use of the term ‘involuntary,’ at least on the level of non-trivial implication and not of a mere dictionary definition.
Having cleared this up, I want to emphasise that I wish all good faith members of the Autistic Dark Web the very best of luck, insofar as what they write and do is true and virtuous; but where there are irreconcilable agreements, I am morally obliged to say that as a former member of the Autistic Dark Web who no longer associates with it, I cannot but distance myself from any views of individual members which I consider to be objectively wrong and contrary to true virtue. I long with all my heart for the day that Thomas and Jonathan will one day find fresh thinking on autistic singlehood; and I am aware that as someone who has not lived all my live without a serious relationship, I am in a more fortunate position than they are, so I ought not to judge them. But to speak the truth in love is part of the holy Orthodox tradition I follow, and which in the past while, has grown stronger in me, as I strive to move beyond past vices like fearfulness, insecurity, suicidal ideation, threats of suicide, and drinking to excess; and I would never wish to compromise on the necessity to bring truth and compassion into harmony, rather than to divorce them, one from the other.
C. Secularism and Sanity
Neurodiversity is an ideology of irrationalism, just like other counter-modernity tendencies: e.g. fascism, Right-Nazism (Hitlerism), Left-Nazism (Strasserism), National Bolshevism, Communism, feminism, white nationalism, black nationalism. I say ‘counter-modernity’ to refer to man-made, secular ideologies that claim to redeem people from the faults of mainstream ‘vanilla’ modernity, aka bourgeois liberalism, the ideological justification of the free market; while still betraying a theoretical, moral and aesthetic beholdenness to whatever they claim to be opposing.
This beholdenness takes many forms, but counter-modernities or alt-modernities are, in case, a failure to proceed beyond the limitations of liberalism as a unity of material structure and spiritual (ideological, theoretical, ethical, artistic, pseudo-‘religious’) ‘facts’ and ‘values.’ Examples include, but are not limited to, constant economic growth, eternal Hobbesian warfare, unaccountable centralized powers, and the rejection of religion in any historically recognizable form.
But one of the most intriguing and disturbing commonalities between Modernity and Counter-Modernity / Alt-Modernity in its many forms, is the false dichotomy between irrationalism and rationalism. There was a time, and it was not so long ago, when I believed liberalism was redeemable: consider the writings and speeches of people from what one might call ‘neo-classical liberal’ publications such as Quillette, Uncommon Ground, Unheard, Conatus News, the Rubin Report, Areo Magazine. However, I was troubled by a deeply unsettling question: of Modernity ‘devolved’ or ‘deteriorated’ into Postmodernity, how far is it really possible to avoid this? Is it even worth trying to save modernity and ‘true, authentic liberalism,’ only in order to prevent it devolving again into postmodern nihilism and depravity very shortly afterwards?
Over time, as I reacquainted myself with my Orthodox faith (I was raised in an evangelical context, lost my faith around the age of 18, and after various stages of other faiths and agnosticism, finally found true peace of mind in Mother Church. Eventually, on account of personal difficulties, I ‘went under a tunnel,’ lost my faith for a while, and even wrote an article or two for Secular World Magazine that must have made my lack of faith more or less clear. But after the death of my mother, I was gradually offered the hope of re-immersing myself into the Church again.
I am very much in favour of the view that while the path is One, the wayfarers are many; and the fact that some of us wrestle like Jacob, and have a very crooked path to the New Jerusalem, is far from a negation of the faith; and if anything, is more of an affirmation of it. I would tend to consider myself more passionate than devout; but this autumn, between much healthier lifestyle factors, a short 5 day course of Diazepam and then going back on Prozac (temporarily but indefinitely) and finding better coping mechanisms for the side-effects I am getting with the latter medication
I also feel a lot less insecure and stronger, and gaining a lot in self-control. Like so many with the autistic pathology, I am the kind of person who needs to stay off alcohol; but I have also been advocating for personal responsibility as well, rather than the constant excuse-making of the autism lobby. It is my responsibility what I put in this body: I do not possess this body, but am merely a steward of it, as it is given in trust. For after all: the medical is the moral, and rather than expect everyone to change for me, as the Neurodiversity Lobby do, I prefer to work on myself, and to co-operate with God.
And it is precisely because of my gravitation towards higher matters, and because I have been snatched out of the fire, that I cannot accept a purely worldly approach towards the autistic pathology, and in turns, towards the purely pagan Neurodiversity ideology, founded as it is on the self-indulgent, narcissistic egotism and ‘polytheism’ of the generation of ’68. And it is of truly crucial importance to understand that the old strife between rationalism and irrationalism is very much indicative of the dark heart of the Western soul. Ever since the arch-heretic John Calvin chose to sacrifice non-negotiable Christian teachings on usury (falsely euphemized nowadays as ‘interest,’) my country, my continent, my civilization and the whole of holy Christendom and indeed the entire world, has been swamped and flooded with Babylonian darkness, and the captivity of filthy lucre, which was rightly characterized by the apostle to the Gentiles (‘let he who readeth understand!’) as nothing less than the root of all evil.
It is thus clear that, although bourgeois roaders (i.e. those who follow generally ideologies like Liberalism, Communism, White Nationalism, Eurofederalism or Neurodiversity) tend to mischaracterise Jews, Zionists and Israelis as the root of all evil in our world today, it is Christian Europe that fell; it is not Jews who have corrupted the world with usury, with free markets, and with the liberal market values system. It is Christians ourselves who have done it, and continue to do it.
And sad to say, it is not just the fastidious, virtue-signaling Sadducees of the Quinoa Belt alone who are perpetrating this abominable crime against nature; there are no doubt a great many of my Orthodox brothers and sisters who have savings accounts or mortgages, or who have bought electronic equipment on credit, or who have sought loans from banks and credit unions, or encouraged others to do the same.
Why is all this important?
Because rationalism and irrationalism are two sides of the same coin.
The uncritical fetishization of ‘reason,’ a reason spare and dry and empty of all that really matters in life, is the alienated prodigal brother of unreason. Just as the liberal free market system inevitably spawned such abominations as Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Juche, so also did the intellectual usury of bourgeois rationalism, always giving but a little and demanding a great debt in return, encourage a truly tyrannical bankruptcy to arise in God’s appointed time; what can only be described, in the exquisitely appropriate words of the early (non-neoliberal!) Frankfurt School as a Freudian ‘Return of the Repressed.’
Why does all this matter?
Because a Rationalistic and ‘Rational’ and Neo-Classical Liberal approach to the Irrationalistic, Irrational and Postmodern Liberal lunacy of bourgeois Neurodiversity is tantamount to casting out a devil by invoking Beelzebub, the very prince of the devils. Rationalism, founded on the moral indifference of the free market, is the petri dish in which all forms of irrationalism flourish: from the Neurodiversity Lobby to the Chinese Communist Party, from Richard Spencer to Kim Jong Un, from Judith Butler to the Democratic Party, from the anti-Zionist hate rags to the pro-prostitution love rackets, from the Atlantic Council’s post-truth to Hitler’s post-natal abortions; all cases of ‘speaking my truth’ are simply a reaction to a perversely reductionist vision of the objectivity and universality of truth; precisely because there is no good, nor truth, nor beauty in the market, the free market had to fabricate a kind of counterfeit currency of the three treasures of Plato.
But it has ignominiously failed to do so in any remotely convincing manner; not least because its tainted tin, falsely gilded as royal gold, has zero capacity to convince anyone to buy what is being sold to them. This, then, is why the celebration of sickness and pathology, something common to all Counter-Modernities, and even to the postmodern stage of Bourgeois Liberalism itself, first came to be. If the Neurodiversity Lobby refuse to uphold an essentialist vision of human nature, and to compassionately pathologise autism, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, borderline personality disorder, narcissism, psychopathy, sociopathy, paedophilia, necrophilia, anti-social personality disorder, that is a wholly unsurprising reaction to bourgeois liberalism and the utterly unhinged sanity of the free market and its liberal market values society.
Ultimately, irrationalism to rationalism is simply a swing of the pendulum: both irrationalism and rationalism are aspects of bourgeois alienation, founded upon the material and spiritual moments of the bourgeois liberal free market dialectic.
The only way to move beyond autism, and the only way to move beyond the ideological sickness and the profound spiritual debility of the neurodiversity cult, is to move beyond it the same way everyone is called to move beyond any civilizational malady…
By replacing bourgeois market values and all pseudo- theoretical, ethical and aesthetic ‘insights’ of the liberal free market system with higher values.
And where are such higher values found?
In religion, and in religion only.
There are not three choices: rationalism, irrationalism and religion.
There are only two:
Bourgeois market values, or the City of Man?
Or higher spiritual values, or the City of God?
The Autistic Dark Web has many good ideas, and I wish those people who are or who were previously involved in it the very best, insofar of course as they do and say what is right, and keep their intellectual and moral integrity, rather than being drawn into any past, present or future byways. But when all’s said and done, my loyalty is to God, and my faith is in God, and not in the arm of flesh, and in the sons of princes.
I no longer believe that any worldly, bourgeois, secular approach to criticism is sufficient for containing and rolling back the cancerous plague of irrational ideologies like Neurodiversity, Communism, Feminism, White Nationalism.
For any such approach cannot but be deemed eminently insufficient, both in terms of expediency and in terms of principle, the latter being far more important to me, as it is by far the least bourgeois of the two. Rationalism, I repeat, cannot drive out irrationalism: only faith can do so.
This may not be very much to the taste of those who have (quite understandably) fallen into the trap of Neo-Rationalism: but at least I have the consolation that it will hardly meet with the peremptory nihil obstat the Neo-Irrationalist community either.
The foregoing are just three of the huge ideological schisms within the Autistic Dark Web. It is clear to me that the movement was simply not very coherent to begin with: this is not intended as a dismissive comment, but simply as a question of realism. I welcome any serious critique that will arise from some of the past or present Autistic Dark Web participants in future, but the idea of a coherent movement is unconvincing to me. This brings me to the next point.
2. Formal structural problems
The Autistic Dark Web, for various reasons, never mobilized offline. This was partly because of the health problems of some members, and partly because of distance, and perhaps partly because it was new movement too. This meant there was no gatekeeping, and the movement was vulnerable to the following potential threats:
A. Internal conflict.
I had a huge blow-up with G0MZS and his family, over whether I (as someone who felt I was on a very low income at the time) was somehow trying to ‘profiteer’) over autism. I will not bear a grudge over this, but I simply note it in passing. I personally think I found it hard to get on with G0MZS at times; whether he felt the same in return, or not, is for him alone to say; if he should ever wish to do so.
B. Serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
For legal reasons, I have to tread carefully here. Allegations have been made of doxxing and other serious criminal activities by some Autistic Dark Web members. Now, if I endorse such allegations, I am potentially risking saying something that might be perceived as defamation. But if I deny the allegations about the people in question are true, I also risk potentially saying something that might be perceived as defamation.
Suffice to say, I cannot discuss those allegations in detail, and I will not comment on whether I consider any of them true or not. All I will say is that the existence of such allegations, whether well or ill founded, is a serious risk that comes with an informal, decentred movement with no formal membership, disciplinary sanctions or explicitly defined and characterised ‘creed’ or ‘evangelium.’
Looking back, I am no longer convinced that such movements are a good thing, in general. Standards exist for a reason: if you don’t agree with this, compare the Orthodox Church, for all its faults, with Westboro Baptist Church. Regardless of whether any of the serious criminal allegations made against any of the past or present members are true or not, which is undoubtedly a question I am neither morally nor legally entitled to comment upon, informal movements without clear institutional structures and a universally agreed upon theoretical/practical vision are just generally vulnerable to the risk of outsiders weaponizing the old Soviet trick of guilt by association.
C. Possible Infiltration
There is a possibility for the group chats and private social media posts of sucha movement of this to infiltrated by moles, in order to harvest quotes out of context, or otherwise stir up trouble. Given the nature of the internet, it is very hard to know one way or another. The same goes for E and F, to follow.
D. Possible Poes
There is a possibility of past LARPing by people who might have wanted to cause trouble just for the “LULZ.”
E. Agent Provocateurs
Even organised groups, let alone groups of the informal and unstructued nature of the ADW, may at times risk falling prey to agitators who might want to discredit the group by inappropriate behavior, or by waging covert psy-ops against those who actually supported the movement.
F. Unfortunate supporters or unfortunate behaviour
Attracting the wrong kind of support; or indeed, the wrong kind of supporter. This could relate to ideological or personal associations of particular actors, or it could relate to inappropriate personal traits or bad habits: such as substance abuse, spending too much time online and losing perspective, being sexually frustrated, irritable, or socially maladroit, being a ‘black hat troll’ (provoking others for the sake of it, instead of being a provocateur or contrarian in the mode of Charlie Hebdo, Jonathan Swift, Rabelais or Voltaire), or simply not understanding basic concepts.
I mention the six threats above in a tentative and hypothetical manner, simply because the (partial) vein of anonymity provided by the internet makes it quite difficult to determine what precisely was going on with some people who claimed (rightly or wrongly) to support the claims of the movement. While there was definitely a lot of good arguments made by some members of the Autistic Dark Web, there were some peculiar accounts that I was myself, personally, quite suspicious of, as were others.
Unfortunately, anyone can slap a hashtag onto their Twitter profile, or use it on various tweets, and with no centralized membership or gatekeeping, they can claim to represent an entire movement. To take an extreme example: if someone claimed the Holodomor in the Ukraine was a hoax, and they had an #Anonymous hashtag on their Twitter profile, the media or mediocre bloggers of the useful idiot kind would immediately claim ‘Oh look, Anonymous are Tankies!’
As for the matter of disavowal, which is a fairly obvious objection to what I’m saying here: I know from my own experience that disagreement or disavowal makes zero difference to the Neurodiversity Lobby, because their tendency is to homogenise their critics, weaponizing guilty by (often enough purely deluded and imaginary, while at other times grossly reductionist and oversimplified) association. While at the same time, they deny the Neurodiversity Ideology / Agenda is a closed system; which is palpable nonsense, as anyone who is remotely familiar with it, and has basic critical thinking rather than a conformist bourgeois/postmodernist mindset, can smell the whiff of Stalinistic conformity a million miles off.
After all, the Autism Mafia are presenting a worldview that is formally, structurally identical to all the other bourgeois IdPol movements. Imagine a baker’s dozen of identically structured draughtsboards, with exactly the same chequering and the same counter positions in all 13 cases, identical in every way, except for one thing: the oppressor counters were painted with a different motif, unique to each draughtsboard, as were the oppressed ones. Are all 13 draughtsboards exactly the same? Yes and no.
There are minor differences, by all means; but from a purely structural and formal perspective, they are essentially the same at bottom.
So, we can see that disagreement and disavowal are all well and good, but they never make any difference to the Neurodiversity Lobby, whose writings might perhaps lead some readers to wonder whether or not some of them were somehow hellbent on homogenizing the differences between various critics of Neurodiversity. Above, I have discussed in detail just three of these differences; any further discussion in future may include more, but it is not hard to see that all three of these are very significant indeed.
Now, for a classic example of an utterly ludicrous hatchet job, see this from a rather intellectually confused postmodernist Neurodiversity mill, the Aspergian. There are so many schoolboy howlers in this article that it’s difficult to know where to begin; and frankly, the article is so incompetent and lamentably ignorant that at this point, it would appear hardly worth the trouble of refuting. For those who are unaware of the basic facts, I will simply state some things that will be blindly obvious to at least some people:
1. The scurrilous polemic I have linked to homogenises the views of people who either belong or who have belonged to a decentred ‘anyone-can-join’ movement, with no formal membership, statement of aims, or coherent ideology. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say the lack of a formal membership and of any kind of binding, formal agreement on basic principles and agendas, the Autistic Dark Web seriously lacked coherence and consistency; and this did to some degree risk empowering the Ancien Regime of Big Disability.
2. The various bogeymen and scarecrows referred to here are patently ridiculous as linked to any of the people discussed here. The ‘Alt-Right’ is one obvious one. Then there is ‘Aspie supremacy’ (sic) or ‘extreme male brain’ (how on earth the latter two are supposed to be linked, I leave to finer minds than mine). Other fashionable folk devils in the polemic I linked to include Gamergate, various prejudices such as racism and misogyny, LGBPphobia, and the old favorite, ‘internalised ableism’ (don’t ask!) There there’s the Skeptic (i.e. rationalist) movement, Neoreactionaries (from what I recall of this ideology, it’s those who want the government to be run as a LITERAL corporation) and ‘Human Biodiversity,’ i.e. those who want to provide a veneer of scientific respectability to white nationalism, aka ‘Alt-Right.’
This is very much a kitchen-sink approach, and it is noteworthy that the quote-mining they use to discredit me and other writers and associate us with the foregoing movements are not only very low on ‘evidence,’ and based on very tendentious readings of ‘gotcha’ snippets, taken out of their broader context; in addition, there are absolutely no references to occasions where I or others have, both in short social media posts and at length, critiqued or condemned any of the foregoing tendencies, either in whole or in part.
It is very interesting that when Person A associated person B with an ideology, agenda, movement or tendency with which Person B has zero sympathy, Person A’s highly tendentious and speculative readings of isolated snippets of Person B have to be taken at face value: but Person B’s various criticisms of the movements they are being implausibly associated with are to be simply taken as disingenuous or deluded in character.
There is much more I could say about the nonsense from the post I have linked to; but suffice to say, a broad outline seems to be adequate for now, and indeed more than such a childishly uninformed and ignorant screed actually deserves.
I will not go so far as to accuse anyone at ‘The Aspergian’ of bad faith, as it is necessary to maintain the moral high ground. Suffice to say that if someone consistently condemns white nationalism (“Alt-Right,”), incelism and all other forms of social justice and identity politics, of left and right alike, with scrupulous moral consistency, for years on end, and then someone prints a few ‘gotchas’ with a highly speculative and tendentious reading of their isolated quotes, it’s better to go with the non-conspiratorial reading.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic of the ‘conspiratorial…’
The very idea that I and others from the Autistic Dark Web, past or present, think there is a Jewish ‘Cultural Marxist’ conspiracy is very interesting, given that:
A. I am not aware of any of us stating this conspiracy theory was true.
B. I have explicitly spoken against using the term ‘Cultural Marxism,’ as an old article of mine on Being Libertarian will show you. I will not post a link to it here, as this kind of spoonfeeding is itself an act of complacency. Search engines exist for a reason, or a number of reasons; not least so people can do their research before making unfounded accusations of which a few mere minutes more of further online research would have swiftly disabused them.
I do believe, of course, that if someone is going to accuse someone of a serious moral flaw, the burden of proof is on them, unless the supposed wrongdoing is somehow self-evidently true. To ignore someone’s explicit letter of condemnation of a certain word or idea, whether out of carelessness or ignorance, while providing highly strained interpretations of other texts of theirs in order to prove that they (implicitly) support what they have (explicitly) condemned elsewhere does not bespeak the kind of critical competency that would normally be considered adequate to the furnishing of such eminently derogatory allegations, as have been directed against me and a number of others.
B. My critiques of postmodernism were previously a kind of modernist neo-classical-liberal counter-critique of postmodernism, although by this point (as discussed above) they are merging into a more post-secular, rigorously consistent anti-bourgeois critique. In neither case does antisemitism have any part to play, nor any nonsense vocabulary from white nationalism; not only because I have consistently condemned both of these for quite some time, but also because white nationalism is identity politics and ‘social justice,’ which means it is a wholly bourgeois and corrupt ideology and agenda. Idiots and morons like Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin claim that your values come from your ‘race.’
This is a fundamentally liberal, bourgeois, market values approach that cuts across various different streams of man-made, secular ideologies: from Francis Galton to Adolf Hitler, from the British Empire to the Daily Stormer, this is a grossly materialistic vision of life that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with truth, and everything to do with ideological self-interest.
And even when I did take a more neo-classical liberal approach (in almost all my past essays on autism, before my recent long health break from this topic), that was in a more ideologically naïve time, when I believed that one simply needed to purge liberalism of its identitarian tendencies, both modern and postmodern, in order to redeem it. As some will be well enough aware, I no longer believe this is possible.
Needless to say, this does not mean that one ought to embrace identity politics, either in left or right wing form: it simply means that if one wishes to avoid the idolatrous worship of identities, racial or otherwise, and to avoid many other unspeakable abomination, one is necessarily obliged to reject bourgeois ideologies of ALL kinds, as illegitimate forms of spiritual, ideological apologetics for cruel, abusive and ecocidal economic and political material systems such as those of Liberalism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Myanmarese Buddho-Marxism, Jucheism and White nationalism.
Although the article I linked to does not, in itself, deserve any kind of refutation, and it is quite simply one of the most woefully, if hilariously incompetent hatchet jobs I have ever had the good fortune to snigger over in my entire life, it was worthwhile to write all the above, simply as an intervention into the broader ideological context of today; all the points above have merit not so much in terms of giving my adversaries the dignity of a serious responses, but more as a broader discussion of the ideological necessities of today, and the various pitfalls and promising lines of flight that await every critical soul and body.
This is a long intervention, and indeed rather longer than I intended at first. Let me now close with the following words:
The Autistic Dark Web seemed like a good idea at the time; but truth and strategy are not the same thing. The lack of formal membership, of disciplinary sanctions, of offline engagement, and of a compulsory signing up, on the part of all the members, to some kind of a unified statement of principles of the good, the true and the beautiful…
All this, in hindsight, appears to me misguided.
This, in turn, led to a number of problems. These included a lack of discipline among some members; possible (but I believe at this point, unproven one way or the other) covert ops activities, such as infiltration and agent provocateur behavior; fundamentally unbridgeable ideological differences, including some that were distasteful, incorrect, immoral, or otherwise ‘ideological’ in character, such as the incel dispute; and ultimately, open season for those supporters of the hegemonic postmodernist autism establishment to practice guilt by association.
Many true and morally sound things were said by individual members, but there were also some things that were either wrong or immoral, insofar as there is a difference. I myself showed some character flaws, e.g. by being overly resentful online towards those who opposed an autism cure; when it would have been better to cling to the moral high ground as much as possible.
Ultimately, I believe the Autistic Dark Web, for better and for worse, was very much a product of its time. I do not believe it is a project that is worth continuing, but I most certainly believe in many of the ideas it espoused, and I am proud of many of the people I once used to associate with online, for taking on a very entrenched status quo establishment.
But quite frankly, I feel that by this point, the name itself, for the various reasons given above, is a liability.
And not only this: I am no longer interested in the kind of secular, common sense, rationalistic approach various members have taken in the past. I believe that the only way to conquer autism is to cling to the Undying Light. Autism is a fate so utterly horrible and life-destroying, that God alone is able to save human beings from it.
I would like to finish with these words from St Gregory of Nyssa, who remains a constant source of inspiration and guidance to me:
Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything. People kill one another over idols. Wonder makes us fall to our knees.
Pray for those who suffer from autism, and from all diseases of the spirit, of the soul, and of the body.
Pray for those who suffer from the autism of others.
Pray for those who are captivated and seduced by rationalism, irrationalism, and all other purely profane, secular, heathen, pagan, usurious, bourgeois, market values, worldly, pandaemoniacal lunacies, intoxications and delusions.
Pray without ceasing.
For the one who persists unto the very end, shall be delivered.
Pray for your enemies, pray for your friends.
Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing of what you have received—but only what you have given.
St Francis of Assissi