This weekend marked the 250th anniversary of the start of the American War of Independence. It was common or even normal for the leading figures on the Patriot side to use psuedonyms, or ‘noms de guerre’ as they were referred to (literally ‘names of war’), in writing and in publishing their arguments, both before, during, and even AFTER the war. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, Arthur Lee, John Jay, and James Madison all used noms de guerre. Samuel Adams, who did much to stir up Patriot feeling in the leadup to the war through his arguments published in various newspapers and publications, wrote anonymously under at least 25 different names. This continued among the Founding Fathers even when it came to debating the drawing up of the Constitution. One of the most forceful and persuasive opponents of the Constitution was an anonymous author who used the name Brutus. Historians still cannot agree on who he actually was. Indeed, it’s fair to say that without ‘anonymous activism’ the American Revolutionary War may not have happened or may not have been won, and even if it had the very constitution of the USA would be quite different today.
The Founding Fathers published anonymously for various reasons, and not only to protect themselves from retribution. They mostly used classical names referencing key figures in ancient Roman history, usually from the period of the Republic. This has led one writer to recently note that “if you read only the essays in the papers you might reasonably conclude that ancient Romans peopled eighteenth-century New England”. The key figures in the revolutionary debate wanted to seperate their arguments from their own personas, not simply out of fear, but because they had a lack of ego, and wanted their arguments to be judged impartially and on their own merits. This, as one writer explained in 1774, would ‘further the cause of liberty’. Using the names of Roman Republican authors would draw upon the strength of historical arguments and concerns that had continued to resonate and inspire down through the centuries.
Writing anonymously allows the author to seperate his ego from his argument, both in his own mind and that of his reader. One of the most promising aspects of a possible super-AI that may emerge quite soon is that – if it is truly built without any of the prejudices of a human programmed into it, as Elon Musk claims he is trying to build – then it should reason, argue, and conclude based upon the facts and evidence, completely impersonally and free from any ‘ego’ driving it. Making one’s arguments anonymously does not achieve this, but it goes a little way. It at least helps the reader have faith that the writer is not so much seeking any kind of personal reward. We have recently seen the dangers of what can happen when an inflated ego combines with public activism, and the noble ambition of ‘drawing blood with every word’ turns into ‘trying to get laid with your sword’.
There are, no doubt, occasions when a writer is going to have more of an impact upon the world through public activism than using a nomme de guerre. Somebody with deep charisma and boundless confidence, such as an Andrew Tate, will clearly benefit (although even here it might force him to water down his message). The likes of Matt Forney (formerly ‘Ferdinand Bardemu’ of the defunct InMalaFide website) and Eivind Berge probably do not. I do not either. When I was a teenager, I suffered from a schizophrenic breakdown. Although I recovered fully over the next decade, the ‘secondary symptoms’ of schizophrenia are almost impossible to shake off, and so nearly forty years later I still often stumble over my words when speaking, or suffer from embarassing ‘brain freezes’. So there’s no point in me debating with anybody live, or even having my own YouTube channel and the like.
Despite still being handicapped by the ‘secondary symptoms’ of schizophrenia, as I said, I have made a full recovery otherwise. In fact, it’s quite rare for anybody to recover as fully as I did. When I look up online the people whose names I knew from the psychiatric ward I shared with, most of them died long ago, either through suicide or from health problems likely caused by the medications and the chronic stress of their condition. I often wonder though if this is why I can both see the ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to the issues we discuss, and yet I am not as ‘autistic’ as many others who can. I am able to see the world as it is free from personal self-deceit, just like autistic ‘Maps’ and the like, and yet at the same time I do not quite share their sense of social blindness.
This brings me to another point about the dangers of public activism in the area particular to us. I’ve often made the argument that those who identify as ‘ephebophiles’ or ‘MAPs’ are simply individuals on the spectrum who cannot see that other men are lying when they deny they are attracted to teenage girls. Further, it seems to me that ‘aspies’ are inclined anyway to feel that they are ‘special’, probably because they have been forced to notice from a young age that they are ‘different’ to other people, as well as because of their difficulties in fully ascribing a theory of mind to others. This results in the ‘community’ of individuals who speak out on this topic skewed towards those who do identify as ‘ephebophiles’ or ‘MAPs’. And that then re-inforces the MAP’s belief that he is different and part of a ‘minority’.
I believe a similar issue applies to those who are choosing to engage in public activism on our behalf. It will be skewed towards those who are on the spectrum, and who are unable to fully consider the possible social consquences for themselves of doing so. And for the same reason just noted, such people are also likely to be self-identifying ‘MAPs’ and the like. The end result is the further reinforcement in both their community AND that of ‘normie’ society, that any man who finds teenage girls attractive is like this – an autistic weirdo with a sexual pathology.
Finally, to return to the issue of the American War of Independence, Nommes de Guerre, and personal safety. In the days of the revolutionary war, towns in the colonies were obviously much smaller than today, and retribution would be easy against those who took sides publicly. As populations increased and towns grew into cities, it became somewhat easier and safer to express controversial positions openly. In the 21st Century, Social Media and cancel culture have put us back in a similar situation to 18th Century America. But it’s about to get even worse with the rise of AI. OpenAI released two new ChatGPT models this week. One of them was an advanced reasoning model called o3 which has left those clinging to the hope that AI is ‘over-hyped’ a little more unsure. One of several viral trends it has already triggered is for users to share online the results of giving it a photograph and letting it pinpoit the location it was taken in. It can do this remarkably well, even locating an exact restaurant from a photo of a meal taken inside it. In a global village in which nearly everybody carries a pitchfork, choosing a nomme de guerre has never been more vital.