Spiteful Mutants & ASD: The Genetic Decay of Modern Society

The general population, most especially in the West, where Darwinian conditions are not in effect, mutation and the passing on of genes which would not survive under such Darwinian conditions are causing a leftward drift of politics and the societal behaviour profile that Professor Edward Dutton refers to as “spiteful mutants”; those who act in spiteful and pathological ways that go against the natural and adaptive order of things.

The ‘spiteful mutant’ hypothesis relies on Emil Kirkegaard’s research that attempts to show that mental illness has a high prevalence amongst people who are politically left-wing.

Dutton has argued that spiteful mutations “include any thought process that leads to a group’s sub-replacement fertility” and lists atheism, liberalism, antinatalism, feminism, nihilism, LGBT (especially homosexuality), asexuality and multiculturalism as maladaptive ways of thinking i.e. ideas, beliefs and (sexual) orientations antithetical to reproductive success.

The general conclusion is that these degenerative and maladaptive mindsets and attitudes are largely brought on by issues present as a result of this mutational pathology.

Rising ASD is the visible proof of society’s collective genetic mutational load

Autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) are a major modern symptom of this deleterious spiteful mutation in action. Autism itself is a condition of new (de novo) mutations of DNA not encountered in previous generations (those that preceded the most recent generations). The causes of this are multifaceted; partly the onslaught of the callously profiteering and profoundly harmful Western diet, partly other such manmade toxins present in the environment, including aluminium, and partly a lack of harsh enough conditions to regulate the gene pool back to a beneficial baseline, causing mutations to remain in genetic circulation, and to proliferate.

Autistic profiles differ from allistic (neurotypical) profiles in that an autistic person is as different from neurotypicals as they are different from other autistics due to de novo mutations – such mutations make an autistic person’s mind unique in its subjectively altered function. It is quite literally ‘self-ism’ – which endangers the fabric of society; how people are relationally and pyschosocially connected.

The term ‘autism’ comes from early 20th century (originally with reference to a condition in which fantasy dominates over reality, regarded as a symptom of schizophrenia and other disorders): from Greek autos ‘self’ + -ism.

Oxford Languages

The pressure that spiteful genetics places on society will be enormous. Society will become more polarised, most certainly politically as unnatural leftism grows in influence. The general workforce, including any skills that require a high level of functioning will be gradually degenerated to a critical breaking point, causing considerable societal backsliding.

Eventually society will be due a major collapse due to mutant infighting, the resulting civilisational failure, and the widespread decline of group intelligence; and thus a later rebirth from the ashes. Although it may take some time to go through the cycle.

ASD stats:

• Shorter life expectancy: Autistic people have shorter life expectancy than non-autistic people due to a wide range of factors which may include poorer genetic health, social isolation, and a higher risk of all-cause mortality due to general maladjustment that autistic traits bring on; 39.5 years to 58 years on average.
• Skyrocketing figures, NOT due to ‘better diagnosis’: The CDC says 1 out of every 36 children has autism, up from 1 in 44 in 2021. That’s a steep year-on-year increase.
• Here’s another figure for you: 787 per cent. That’s how much the number of autism diagnoses has increased in the past 20 years, according to researchers at the University of Exeter.
• Brain mutations are the root cause of autism: De novo mutations (DNMs) have been recognized as strong source of genetic causality in people’s genomes. ASD is highly genetically heterogeneous and may be caused by both inheritable and de novo gene variations. That means these new mutations are likely now being passed down each generation.
• Low prospects for employment: A mere 16% of autistic adults are in full-time paid employment. 40% of autistic adults working part-time want to work more hours (National Autistic Society in the UK).
• ASD is comorbid with genetic problems: People with certain genetic disorders, such as fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, and Down syndrome, are more likely to have ASD.
• ASD is mutational DNA scrambling: Approximately 20% of children with ASD will have a diagnosable (obvious) genetic syndrome. These syndromes can be due to missing or extra stretches of DNA, misspellings in genes, or biochemical abnormalities.
• ASD people recommended to get genetic screening: Some of these conditions are easy for a general paediatrician to recognize (for example, Down syndrome), while other conditions can be subtle and require specialized testing (for example, Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome). For this reason, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends that anyone with an ASD diagnosis receive an evaluation by a clinical geneticist.

Evidence in Schools: It’s time to look at the evidence right in front of us

If you want some strong anecdotal evidence about autism in new generations (and not merely ‘diagnosis’ as a cause in ASD’s reported increase), look no further than to ask what teachers are experiencing – that’s those on the front-line, seeing first-hand what the new generation is like and comparing this to previous generations they have taught. Most people are far-removed from this sort of valuable empirical feedback as to the vital signs of each coming generation.

The stats speak for themselves. To give an idea of what that 787 per cent jump looks like in human terms: in 2008, 3,072 of these patients were diagnosed with autism. But in 2018, 65,665 patients were diagnosed.

It’s a staggering increase, and one that has been echoed in schools. Statistics from the Department for Education (UK) – covering the whole of the school system – show that the number of pupils with autism as their primary special educational need rose from 50,000 in 2009 to around 163,000 in 2020-21. You may have even seen this shift playing out in your own classroom if you are a teacher. Children are less intelligent; more autistic; and their differential needs are greater.

Diagnosis is better now (and has been for many years), so why are the numbers still rising?

What we get from many sources is that all of this is only due to better recognition as to what autism actually is. If that’s the case – then logically at some point this dramatic increase will need to taper off and plateau, not continue to increase – as at some stage we will reach a ‘new (established) standard’ of medical understanding as to what autism is and how to identify it, which we surely must have by now in the year 2023 when the subject of autism has been in society’s consciousness for so many years.

Where’s the plateau?

When that new standard of diagnosis happens and the numbers are *still* increasing, mainstream medical stooges and bumbling government officials will have to finally admit that autism is increasing because of factors outside of ‘better diagnosis’, and then society will need to confront the uncomfortable but deeply necessary question; why?

Looking back to 2002 (BBC article) can give us another insight from schools. At the time, two thirds of teachers in England and Wales thought there were more autistic children in primary schools than there were five years prior, according to a report – that’s praxis, not diagnosis or theory. It’s a collective view that is the result of direct experience of working with children and boserving the changes between generations, we should not dismiss this key evidence. Furthermore, the teachers surveyed believed the rate was three times higher in primary than secondary schools. That goes to show how from one generation to the next, the numbers were rising.

Austistic behaviours can usually be quite obvious to see, so this report shows that the empirical opinion of teachers was that there was a clear rise in the most visible cases of ASD in schools, and therefore in wider society.

It is still unclear whether the rise in the numbers of children being identified with autistic spectrum disorder is due to greater awareness or a real rise in numbers

(UK) Dept for Education and Skills, 2002

Key shifts in diagnostic methodology have already occurred, and ASD numbers have not steadied

For many years the methodology for autism’s diagnosis has shifted and continually undergone review and scrutiny.

Logically, we might assume that the figures for autism cases would first increase before eventually slowing down and plateauing – past a certain point, the key signs are spotted and the room for any major improvement to this process is diminished – We could look to an economic principle to understand this argument: The law of diminishing returns is an economic principle stating that as investment in a particular area increases, the rate of profit from that investment, after a certain point, cannot continue to increase if other variables remain at a constant.

A Mental Health Diagnostics Manual: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

DSM–IV (basically an instruction manual for how to diagnose ASD) was published in 1994. It was the culmination of a six–year effort that involved more than 1,000 individuals and numerous professional organizations.

There was extensive analysis and comment on DSM-IV (published in 1994) in the years leading up to the 2013 publication of DSM-5.

In 2013, the DSM, 4th edition (DSM-IV), which had been used for over a decade was replaced with the 5th edition (DSM-5).

We’ve had ten years of DSM-5 now, the most ‘cutting edge’ diagnostic profile for ASD (and other mental disorders) ever created.

The history of DSM

The origins of the DSM starts in the 1800s, when first official attempts were made to try to gather information about mental health in the United States. Government officials tried to record the frequency of “idiocy/insanity” in the 1840 census. By the late 1800s, mental health categories included mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia, dipsomania, and epilepsy.

In 1921, the American Medico–Psychological Association became what is now known as the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and developed the American Medical Association’s Standard Classified Nomenclature of Disease. This early classification system was designed for diagnosing inpatients with severe psychiatric and neurological disorders.

The DSM-I owes it origins to post-war America. After World War II, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the 6th edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-6), which had a section on mental disorders for the first time. The ICD–6 was heavily based on the U.S. Veteran’s Administration classification and included 10 categories for psychoses and psychoneuroses, and 7 categories for disorders of character, behaviour, and intelligence. Shortly after, the APA developed a variant of the ICD–6 that was published in 1952, the first edition of the DSM (DSM-I). The DSM-I became the first official manual and glossary of mental disorders with a focus on clinical use.

The DSM–II, published in 1968, was similar to DSM-I with its basis in psychoanalytic theory, but eliminated the term “reaction.” Even though the DSM II was published in more than half a century ago, the following excerpt is sage advice even (and especially) today.

The DSM-III can arguably be said to be the document responsible for ushering in the biological psychiatry era by standardizing diagnostic reliability. The ability to reliably diagnose the same disorders between clinicians made randomized control trials for medications and biological treatments much easier (for better or for worse).

The DSM–IV, published in 1994, continued to build on the etiology-agnostic framework of the DSM-III. The APA working groups attempted to create a firm empirical basis for making modifications to existing criteria. At the same time, the authors of the DSM–IV also attempted to harmonize the diagnostic criteria with the 10th edition of the ICD (ICD-10).

Work on the DSM-5 began in 2000, with its publication finally occurring in 2013. One of the initial goals of the DSM-5 was to finally include biomarkers in its diagnostic criteria. However, this did not become a reality. The DSM-5 was in general criticized for expanding diagnostic criteria and labels.

“Although some mental disorders may have well-defined boundaries around symptom clusters, scientific evidence now places many, if not most, disorders on a spectrum with closely related disorders that have shared symptoms, shared genetic and environmental risk factors, and possibly shared neural substrates (perhaps most strongly established for a subset of anxiety disorders by neuroimaging and animal models). In short, we have come to recognize that the boundaries between disorders are more porous than originally perceived.”

DSM-5, Introduction, page 5 (2013)

So, if 2013 marked the initial published acknowledgement of spectrum disorders in mental health diagnosis, and ten years have passed since with continued development to boot, why do autism cases continue to rise?

DSM-5, what progress has actually been made?

The DSM-5 has improved upon the naming and classification of autism. Replacing the old and cumbersome diagnostic category of ‘pervasive developmental disorders’ with ‘autism spectrum disorder’ added precision and clarity to the diagnosis, and makes it more readily understandable to parents and teachers.

However, in refining the diagnostic criteria for autism, the DSM-5 narrows what constitutes the condition to the point of leaving out individuals at the edges of the spectrum. This rigid definition of autism is antithetical to the groundswell of research supporting the idea that autism comes in a wide variety of forms.

Not only did the changes in DSM-5 raise the bar for a diagnosis of autism, but they meant that people would no longer be diagnosed with Asperger syndrome or PDD-NOS. The reclassification led some to worry they might lose their status — and the medical, social and educational services that come with it.

Many individuals will no longer qualify for an autism diagnosis under DSM-5. In a systematic review of studies evaluating the DSM-5 criteria, it was found that the criteria would not detect individuals with intelligence quotients greater than 70.

So on one hand it’s clarified some things, on the other hand it hasn’t, and may have actually made it more difficult to get diagnosed. Yet the autism diagnoses continue to increase nonetheless. Go figure.