Aspies For Freedom

Maybe that's part of her Aspie's. All of us experience it differently. You just assume that she's more lazy than you and that assumption might be completely wrong.

Does she say so herself or is that your opinion of her? Just because she received no official diagnosis, that doesn't mean she isn't Aspie.

Not everyone is good at language, including their own. Deal with it....

What's the point of repeating that entire post? If you want to refocus attention on it, you could always quote part of it and link to the rest

That's exactly the observation I as an Aspie make with regards to the average NTs

At least you talk respectfully to them. That's a start

I personally don't really trust modern medicine either, so I understand why some people would persue alternative medicine. There are too many incompetent or unprofessional MDs out there.

Racial differences : every ethnic group is a unique mixture of the main races and therefore as a group has unique physical, mental and spiritual traits. These traits are valuable and worthy to preserve. Therefore, it should not be recommended to mix different ethnic group, however the final decision should be left with the individual.

Homosexuals : they are a deviant way of life and their way of life should be recognised as such. They should not, however, be forced to live a heterosexual way of life. During the viking age homosexuals were tolerated but just had a lower social status than heterosexuals. I'd say this would be a reasonable approach. Heterosexuality as a norm is vital because reproduction and a family unit are essential for the future of the species.

Immigrants : economic migration should be minimalised by stopping exploitation of third world countries and by using a UN-like organisation to balance the global economy. Those who migrate for other reasons (a small minority) should be granted all civil rights only after a certain amount of time, when his loyalty to the host people can be illustrated. Then, he can become a full member of his community.

Please note that these are my personal views and they do not necessarilly reflect those of other traditionalists and conservative-revolutionaries.

National-socialists aren't bad people per se either. It is no more just to link them to genocide and hate than it is to link your average communist to genocide and hate. Most people have an entirely incorrect view of the ideology of national-socialism because they're so brainwashed to hate it with all their heart.

The problem is that we are purposely kept ignorant by our governments. They want us to think perfectly within the box they have outlined for us, so they will only allow you to read, hear and see material that fits within that box. Any information outside of that box is either ignored, distorted or labeled as Muslem-fundamentalist, extremist, fascist, racist, nazi, anarchist, eco-terrorist or whatever label they can think of. That way, they keep you neatly tucked inside their box without even realising it. On top of that, they train us to feel a Pavlovian hate for anything that does not fit within the box, so we can apply our own censorship on others. The labels mentioned hereabove are enough to create a mind-block in the mind of the average individual, which prevents him from thinking outside of the box himself and encourages him to actually fight those who do.

I've had very close contacts with people of various ethnic origins from various countries, some whom I considered my friends. I've had very close contacts with people of various political ideologies, varying from "ultra-left" to "ultra-right". I've had very close contacts with people of various religious backgrounds, varying from Budhism and Wicca to ultra-conservative Catrholicism and LaVey satanism. One of my best friends is a lesbian. A befriended couple are pretty much marihuana-junkies. I have close contacts in blue collar circles and upper class white collar circles. etc.

I think I'm as tolerant as any person could be.

It's not just Christians who to shove their religion down your neck. They just do it in a more obvious and simplistic way than liberals

Do you still treat them with respect of not?

Obviously I disagree strongly.

Second, I never said anything about supporting multi-culturalism.

New-Rightists are a strong influence for me, whereas paleo-conservatives constitute a minor influence. I'm not as relativist as they are, but definitely far more than your average monotheist. I reject all forms of dogma and only accept mythos and rational thought as valid replacements.

I don't care for who's superior than who. I just know that we're all different on both an individual and an ethnic basis, so I regard it as madness to say that we're all equal. We all deserve respect, but we should also realise that we're not all equal.

At least you put it nicely. I can respect that

That's where you're wrong. Certain political groups are indoctrinating the masses with an artificial mindset they created to keep the the population restrained within a limited frame of thought.

First of all, history is always written by the winners. The losers of the war will always be depicted as monsters and the winners of the war will always be depicted as great liberators. Whoever wins the war, history records will always say that the good guys have won.

Second, let's not forget about the attrocities of communism and the horror caused by some folks in Washington who dribble on about wanting to fight extremism and spread democracy. Let's not forget that "democratic" England was the first nation to use modern concentration camps and that "democratic" USA was the first and only to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian area.

Good tip !

I don't know, actually. That might be interesting discussion material. She's a borderliner, so she's known both a lot of highs and a lot of downs in her life.

Anyway, the status of lesbians in viking society is something only little is known about. Still, I found this :

Where did I say anything about segregation?

Fascism is nothing but a modernist variation on monarchism. It is a re-installation of monarchist principles in modern life without the hereditary elements of monarchism and with based on (usually Germanic or Romanic) pagan principles rather than on Judeo-Christian principles. It be no means implies terror, violence, warfare or totalitarianism as many tend to believe.

Where did I imply that homosexuals are inferior?

Why should they?

The opposition from Conservative Revolutionaries towards Hitler was opposition on many fronts. Some criticised Hitler for being too socialist. Others criticised him for not being socialist enough. Then another group criticised him for his antisemitism. etc. For example, someone like Spengler was very much against Hitler's racial views, whereas someone like Evola was very much against his socialist views. Heidegger's problem was mostly one of being ignored. You can't put all these people at one heap.

What hatred? Where the hell did I even remotely imply that I hate homosexuals, "non-Aryans" (whatever that means) or anyone else?

I have non-conventional views, thus I must be a troll, an extremist, a racist, ...

Your attitude is exactly the sort of intollerance and prejudice I was talking about in the orriginal post.

First of all, Jihad isn't interpreted in a violent way by most muslems. Some consider it as a spread of enlightenment through peaceful  conversion, while others see it as a call for war.

Second, many of those who do see it as a call for war do not see it as a call for Islamic imperialism but actually as a defense against American imperialism.

I was just inquiring for an answer. I did not give any value judgement and I didn't want to sound rude.

I think you should first and foremost judge an individual on how he treats another individual, regardless of his religion, his political views, his racial origin, his sexual preference, his class or anything else.

The problem is that one man's freedom often starts where another man's freedom ends and that collective freedom and individual freedom cannot always be reconciled. That's why freedom must not only be judged by the number of individual liberties you have, but rather on how the combination of liberties and restrictions enables a person to pursue a happy and prosperous life.

Maybe it sounds more rude in English than in Dutch. I use the "or not" mostly to point out that the previous words of my discussion partner are not to the point and ignore one of the most relevant issues. It's nothing but a respectful call to refocus.

I no more respect people who mistreat others by raping them, torturing them, stealing their money, getting their children hooked on poison or demanding favours they don't deserve. That was my point.

I'm just saying that we SHOULDN'T judge people on race or sexual preference but also not on what they believe to be just and righteous. It is against this sort of prejudice and discrimination that I strongly protest and it's this sort of prejudice and discrimination that I've seen on this forum too. As long as they don't hurt someone else, shouldn't everyone be free to hold and express the beliefs he has?

Most definitely. I try to combine being honest and frank with being polite and respectful, but somehow I can't get that to work at all times.

I was describing the situation of (male) homosexuals in Viking era, where they were tolerated but also had a lower social status. This, because manliness was considered an important trait for males and homosexuals (at least those who take the female role in a homosexual relationship and those who behaved very feminine) were regarded as less manly. Somewhere I stated that I wouldn't mind that the viking approach to homosexuality was incorperated in modern life because it was both tolerant towards them while also focussing on the importance of the family, procreation and gender roles. It is in line with both personal freedom and tradition.

Isn't an insufficient ability to clarify to others what you actually mean quite a common Aspie-trait? If so, then shouldn't it be more accepted on a forum like this?

I understand and feel emotion. I just don't mix it with rational thought. For me, emotion and ratio are two entirely seperate concepts that don't mix. Therefore, when I discuss ideas and concepts I only look at the rational arguments.

Further, please explain what's so discriminatory about my opinions.

That's your interpretation of what I said. I never said that you should be held in a lower social status because you're a lesbian. I've had several lesbian friends, so I really have no problems with lesbians. I actually tend to like lesbians more than most heterosexual women.

If you feel that way, then why are you expression your opinion?

I'm trying to stay polite and respectful. You could do the same.

Considering I'm a heterosexual male and you're a lesbian woman, I would probably like that a hell of a lot more than you do

Everyone who doesn't agree with YOUR views on morallity is ignorant? Is that what you're saying? That's such a very arrogant attitude and you probably don't even realise it....

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how men behave in comparison with women. You can't fool me by saying you don't notice any obvious difference here.

So a person must have studied psychology to be able to say anything reasonable about it?!?

I pity your children for growing up with a parent who's so intollerant towards other opinions.

Stop applying your own standards to others. Just because you may hate people for having different views or a different lifestyle, that doesn't mean others do. I may not believe in the concept of multi-culturalism and I may not believe in the beneficial nature of homosexual propaganda but that does not mean I don't respect people of other races or sexual preferences. That does not mean I'm ignorant about them. That does not mean I treat them poorly or hate them. I don't apply such a simplistic and primitive concept of morallity. I'm far more nuanced than that and treat people with respect and kindness, no matter how much I may disagree with their views or their lifestyle.

Everyone who calls others a bigot for not believing in the concept of multi-culturalism or not believing in the beneficial nature of homosexual propaganda is narrowminded and actually a bigot himself. People who are openminded don't judge others on such criteria.

Maybe it's the same for all languages. I honestly don't know. I'm a typical Aspie when it involved inter-human relations, so I don't have a particularly strong affinity with certain aspects of social behavior. Dr Spock, remember?!

I never imply any negative conotation when I say it like that, really.

Grow up.

Maybe I'm just used to talking with people who have more of a spine and who can take some criticism without feeling offended?

I fully agree.

For the zillionth time : I'm not a supremacist, I'm not a racist, I'm not a homophobe, I'm not a xenophobe and I'm not a bigot.

I do regard homosexuality as deviant, but I also regard Asperger's as deviant (which makes myself deviant). People should be proud of being deviant rather than demanding for others to regard them as "normal". Normal people are boring as hell.  I don't see why anyone would demand to be called "normal" instead of deviant when they truely deviate from the norm.

I do distinguish between ethnic groups, but I treat people of every ethnic group with the same respect as my own family and friends. I may not believe in the concept of multi-culturalism, but that doesn't stop me from treating people of another ethnic group and culture with respect and kindness.

I do think certain religions and ideologies are bunk, but so does everyone else on this forum. Just because I may say that your specific religion or ideology is bunk, that doesn't mean I don't respect you as a person. I used to be a catholic and a wiccan myself for some time.

I do think certain cultures, religions or ideologies are more primitive than others. That's just an observation based on comparing them on various level. Just because I regard something as primitive, that doesn't mean I don't respect it or can't be interested in it. My dogs are also more primitive than I, but I still love and get fascinated by them.

What bothers me about liberals, is that they somehow can't seem to figure that you don't have to see something as "normal" or "equal" to appreciate or respect it as much as anything else. Something can be primitive or inferior and still fascinating. Something can be deviant and still fascinating. You should stop thinking so black & white !

I value animals as much as I value humans and I love my dogs (technically they're my girlfriend's dogs) as much as any father loves his children. Still, I regard animals as more primitive than humans.

If you regard something that's more primitive as something that's inferior and therefore less valuable or of less worth, you should not regard that as a standard for others. Others may not link value judgements in the same way you do. They may not even contemplate the question of value when addressing the question of complexity. By ignoring this, you're basically putting words in other peoples mouths based on your own prejudice. You should be looking within your own heart when you make such assumptions.

A dog does not have the same cognitive abilities as a human being and therefore lacks the ability to contemplate a philosophical concept or to transfer his thoughts and emotions onto a canvas of paint. That makes the dog as a species more primitive than man, but this tells me nothing about the intrinsic value of the dog as a species. My dogs are lovely individuals whom I respect in their individuality and in their nature as dogs. I treat them with the same kindness I would treat my own children with and I love them as much as I would love me own children.

Something can never be different yet equal. Something can, however, be different and of equal value and interest. You are thinking black and white when you link equality with equal value and interest.

That's because YOU attach these words to a value judgement and YOU therefore ASSUME that another person does this too when he uses those words. That assumption is where YOU are wrong. NOT everyone makes those same value judgements. I sure as hell don't.

True. This tells us how complex and nuanced this world is. Human nature contains so many complex factors and two individuals may differ so strongly from one another that it would always be wrong just to make the most basic assumption of how a man may think or feel based on something he said.

Sometimes, the context takes up a huge volume if you want to display it in such a way that all necessary details to get the whole picture are there. Sometimes you have to leave out relevant parts. People should learn not to make assumptions when they notice a relevant part is missing and that's an area where human nature tends to be incredibly flawed.

Normal = applying to the norm.

Equal = the same as something else.

That's quite a load of crackpot demagogy you're spouting here. You're so way out there with your prejudice and intolerance that I don't even know where to begin with you.

There's a truth in saying that the same content can sound like the bells of heaven or like the bell of doom, just depending on how you put yours words. I guess I just lack the talent to be both frank and non-offensive at the same time. My girlfriend has learnt how to deal with that and not interpret something in a negative way when there is a positive way to interpret it in. I realise that others never had to learn that and sure as hell are not going to apply this with a stranger on the other side of the globe. Still, I am not the kind of person to wrap my words in foil and lint in order to make sure no one feels offended by whatever opinion I hold of them or what is dear to them. Others don't have the courtesy to do the same for me or what is dear to me so why should I do this extra effort for them? We should people be encouraged to be so ultra-sensitive and why should no one be allowed to criticise them of what is dear to them? Why should I grant anyone that courtesy when they force me to be hard as a stone?

I do have feelings like everyone else. I can be hurt, I can be joyful, I can be sad and I can feel love. I simply don't pass judgements on people and can see a person's flaws without thinking less of them. If people treat me with respect, then I grant them that courtesy too... no matter what feelings or ideas I may have about their lifestyle, their ideas, their upbringing or their background. I may disagree with everything they stand for, but if they have an open mind for the individual that I am, I will grant them no less than that same courtesy. Mutual respect is a sacred value to me and one I apply in my daily life.

I find it hard to grasp it when people pass judgements based on their own fears, their worries, their greed and their prejudice. After just seeing Lars Von Trier's masterpiece Dogville, a minimalist psychological drama that tears open the sesspool that is human nature, I realise better than ever how bigoted the most self-righteous liberals tend to be, how weak and how pathetic human nature tends to be. People are nothing but prisoners of their primal instincts, their weaknesses and their fears. They can do whatever they can to justify or cover up their bigotry, their vanity and their ignorance. They will build up walls around them that display at least some form of civilisation, but in the end they rarely support the character to rise above this primitive existence and be a better, more tolerant and openminder individual. I feel like an alien when I look at humanity displaying this beast-like sort of existence and I feel absolutely flabbergasted by what I see. It makes me feel ashamed to be of that same species and ponder about what bliss it would be to live as a member of a wolfpack somewhere in a desolate area, free and unharmed by the destructive influence of human civilisation.......

The emotions of joy and love can be so wonderful and it is like a sunshine in my heart to know I found a person with whom I can hopefully share the rest of my life. I love to smell the flesh smell of springtime while walking in the forrest and I love to see the stars twinkle in the unpolluted bright sky when strolling down the road in a small rural village. Mankind is corrupted, however, by emotions of fear and hate, which keep their minds closed and their spirits free from any sort of childish innocence. That is the state of mind that feels so alien to me. This irrational pull towards that which is familiar and the uncomfortable feeling of being threatened by something that does not fit within their frame of thought, that's something I haven't felt for an eternity... assuming I ever did feel anything that can be described as such.

Just because some facts may stir an emotion within someone, that doesn't make them any less factual. Besides that, almost every opinion can be offensive to someone, regardless of whether it carries a value judgements. People are, in fact, most offended when you tell them something they know is true but they're not willing to accept for themselves. Why should anyone refrain from voicing his opinion, just because someone doesn't feel comfortable hearing or reading it? Why should a proven fact not be mentioned is someone feels offended by it? Or why should it be wrapped in foil and lint just to make the truth more bearable? Are we not adults with a spine in our back? Should we really all be protected from opinions we may not feel comforable with like little children are sometimes protected from knowing who really brings the gifts on christmas or why they never see their grandmother anymore?

I respect feelings. I just don't think people should treat each other like little children and not tell them there is no Santa or that grandma is tucked away neatly in the ground while her body will rot and her spirit is hopefully reborn into another fine human being. Adults should be able to handle the truth or even just another person's opinion, no matter whether or not they like to hear it.

You forgot, we're also inferior liberals!

I never said or implied that you or any of the other liberals on this forum is inferior. You're just making that up based on your own silly prejudice.

A Turkish colleague of mine told me some time ago that I should be more careful with myself and explained that she regarded me as a pure person in an unpure world. A close friend of mine recently told me that he had never encountered a single person as unprejudiced as I. Both of them knew my personality infinitely better than all of you combined, so why should your judgement be more valuable than theirs?

She and I know quite a lot about each other and each other's lives. We're both people who've been through a lot of highs and a lot of lows and both people who are open and honest about ourselves. If she would have had any suffering in her life from homophobia, I sure as hell would have heard about it before.

I've been doing that for my entire life. I've had personal conversations with junkies, Pakistani immigrants, lesbians, homosexuals, anarchists, skinheads, goths, skater-punks, MDs, civil engineers, farmers, factory laborers, lawyers, etc. I've done my college internship in Poland, I've sailed lake Balaton in Hungary, I've found my way in Prague, I walked along the Seine in Paris, I enjoyed the sound of the saxophone in the London subway, I've gone through the channels of Amsterdam and I've strolled through the age-old steets of Pompei. My views are not the result of ignorance. How much more can I stress this?!?

Why don't you just cut the demagogy for a change?

All I'm saying, is that heterosexuality should remain a norm. The reason for this is not based on any sort of prejudice but on the simple fact that a male-female relationship is the best environment for any child to grow up in and the only natural way to procreate. From a nature-oriented perspective, heterosexuality must and can only be the norm. Why is it wrong to oust that opinion?

You're absolutely right about the fact that my friends in life can just me on how I behave while people out here can only judge by what a person says. That's exactly why I object so much to all these people here making one assumption after another about what a despicable monster I supposebly am. If they knew me in real life, they'd know I can be quite charming and I wouldn't even hurt a fly. It's their prejudice that somehow triggers them to make all sort of assumptions because they do not read what I'm saying but what they think I'm saying.

Just shut your yap, you narrowminded hypocritical *** ! You're constantly whining about how I supposebly offended you, yet you keep throwing one explicit insult after the other in my direction. WTF?!?!?

If what I'm saying is offensive to you, it's probably because you know it is true. Like I said before, people tend to be most offended by what they know to be true but are not willing to admit for themselves....;

There was no huge line supporting Gallilei, Copernicus and Keppler when they claimed the earth was an orb spinning around the run. There was no huge line supporting Darwin when he claimed that man evolved from other animals. The fact that an opinion is unpopular and feels offensive to a large number of people, that doesn't make it any less valuable.

I'm not the one continuously offending others. Again : if you take my words as offensive, then that's probably because you just can't handle the truth.