Since the end of World War II the racial issue has become a taboo subject for the whole of humanity, before the conflict was socially accepted that interracial mixtures were wrong behaviors and therefore were not well seen on the set of the moral values of the West, but the brutality of the Nazis proved especially ethnic minorities caused this issue happen to be outlawed and that any attitude positioned against the mixing of the races were once accused of being dangerous and anti-democratic ideology.
It should be borne in mind that freedom of expression is to respect every ideology as long as this is raised peacefully, whether we agree with it or not, but the racial issue happened to be outlawed and since the end of the war almost the study of these issues has been deserted.
One of my intentions in making this book is precisely to break this taboo and talk openly about knowing that even those who have always tried to take advantage of political spurts try to benefit from the criticism of this book.
From my point of view it is a mistake to think that human races are identical in every way and consequently consider that miscegenation is lawful, on the contrary I think it is true that some races are more evolved than others, this does not mean that assume a position of superiority or advantage opposite each other.
It is surprising that in this society that is considered evolved, first considered logical and healthy to try to protect each and every one of racial variants of each animal species, and yet there is a dreadful fear in regards to addressing the safeguarding human race each differentiated way, this is a clear example of true social hypocrisy and socially assumed prejudice.
In my view the mixing of the races that we are trying to impose in this decadent Western society, is one of the greatest atrocities in history, because it involves the extinction voluntarily all the genetic heritage that each racial variant contains.
While it is true that all human races form a single species, it is also true that species is divided into multiple races, and the fact
that this issue does not want to be treated does not mean that it does not exist.
It should be borne in mind that it was nature in its great wisdom which found that in every region of the earth there were a different race from the rest, but the current policy for crossbreeding is not only a contempt that inherited genetic heritage for generations but also involves the submission of social and humanistic to the interests of economic nature are those who hide behind the current process of immigration and miscegenation values, social good comes of equality but mongrelized society is an unequal society, in which the foot is given easily to classicisms and exploitation.
RACIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The way I see it is true that some races are more evolved than others, but these differences are not so much on an intellectual level, but rather on an aesthetic level, the reason that has given these differences lie in the earth's weather which is the cause of it.
As for racial differences, it is reasonable to think that the level of intelligence in different races present on earth is virtually identical, the reason is that despite the differences between each race all come from the same species and therefore have the same brain size. However, when what is at issue is the aesthetic beauty this is a very different matter, since in some parts of the world aggressiveness climate has led to the outer body image if you look depleted with respect to one the other, for example the fact that the European race is found situated in one of the places on earth with greater climatic balance, results in this race has a most beautiful aesthetic features and therefore more evolved.
A balanced climate is not only good for the development of populations, but also results in a more beautiful race, i.e. giving rise to traits that are characteristic in white, clear skin, smooth or wavy hair and color eye and more graceful hair, if this issue is analyzed without bias is evident that it is a fact, because in the aesthetic appearance beauty is not just in some races than others.
For blacks, the brutality of African climate determined esthetic features characterized by dark skin, lips and nose swollen and
black and curly hair look, this adaptation necessary to withstand the aggressive African climate caused however the decline the quality of its exterior aesthetics, to a lesser beauty compared to the European race taking place, i.e. that nature was obliged to give preference to adapting to the territory of aesthetic beauty, this is the reason why the crossbreeding also implies the renunciation of own racial and cultural heritage of the West, is not a coincidence that they were Europeans the first to reach the highest level of technological development, this is logical because Europe is one of the land areas with a climate more balanced and the balance is the source of success in most things, the story is testament to this as the various civilizations that have existed on the planet have always been more advanced when the favored moderate climate.
But the brutality of the Nazis during the Second World War prevented and postponed any discussion on this issue, as the risk of raising the passions of those he came were victims of them, or opportunists as some (NGOs) that promote immigration and could induce confuse impartial analysis of this issue with the condescension with Nazism.
RACIAL DIFFERENCES
Arguably, there are four races present on earth, and black, brown, yellow white.
THE BLACK RACE
This breed is characterized by its seemingly swollen facial features because of their adaptation to the high temperatures of African climate, dark skin and curly hair are designed to protect from aggressive sunlight, to curl your hair the number of layers is increased hair on the head and thus its protection is improved. As to the black character it is usually effusive in his form of expression, a form of response also derived from high temperatures.
BROWN RACE
This race extends from North Africa to India. Its main feature is to be located between a very warm climate and a more balanced, because of this these regions sometimes have a climate more African type and sometimes the European type, this results in both the racial aspect as the character can not be circumscribed to a specific environment, so you could say that this race is evolutionarily between the black and the white race. As to the character that climate ambiguity leads to a way of being more rude and irascible, especially in the area of North Africa.
YELLOW RACE
Arguably the yellow race is the sister of the white race especially having light skin and straight hair, but this breed was developed in aggressive and very cold Siberian climate, which resulted in some ethnic features characterized by eyes almost covered by the eyelids, which aims to protect them from cold, this is also the most striking feature of this race by giving the eyes an oval look.
The characteristic feature in the character of Asians is his nervous personality, which is a response to the need to act quickly before a cold climate that is predominant in northern Asia.
THE WHITE RACE
This race represents the balance both physically and psychologically for having developed in the most favorable and balanced climate of the earth. It is in Europe where it combines the best possible temperature and humidity, causing as a result a race that also more balanced and beautiful.
The story is proof of how progress is often accompanied by a favorable climate, this is the reason that at first, after the last glaciation, civilization flourished first in Egypt and Mesopotamia and out in these places where the weather was pleasant, after global temperatures were rising and civilization was gradually moving northward. Egypt and Sumer went to Greece and Rome, later were Spain and France, then England and the United States,
progress always smiled nations with a climate more favorable and that always was in line with the increase in global temperature.
Therefore it is evident that the various climates in the soil have a decisive influence on the configuration of the human races, although this adaptation aims protected from extreme temperatures, also it has an adverse effect that is the aesthetic deterioration in its appearance as an inevitable effect of climate adaptation.
Over time, the differences between the different races will be reduced to nothing, because with the progress of science, humans increasingly be less exposed to the influence of the weather, through a simple process of genetic evolution based natural selection, eventually all human beings are equal and that will have been achieved without drama or conflict. This means that once the different races are no longer exposed to different climates present in the soil, gradually and in a spontaneous way, will lose the difference between them, but you have to let nature take its course without forcing it, and until that time comes right thing is that every race occupy their countries and continents without mixing, thus safeguarding their race, their culture and their genetic heritage, thus leading to greater cohesion to their societies.
In the future, during the colonization of the worlds of the solar system, the different adaptation of each race to different types of climates could build it by installing, for example, the black or Arab on planets near the sun, in remote be installed the yellow race and the white race central, this would be useful in the initial process of colonization, but keep in mind that once you got to keep perfect weather on each planet probably racial differences would disappear.
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME OF WARS
Throughout history, man has been too often influenced by ideological currents that were usually determined largely by the politically correct truths imposed by the great powers to the rest of humanity, long after his military victories. It was not so important to know what the ultimate truth, but to know what the truth was determined by the winner of the last conflict, this kind
of ideological trend could be called Stockholm syndrome wars, i.e. the world had to bow the ideological approach of the victor for fear of reprisals, even going beyond almost unconsciously, tend to take for certain these ethical concepts because this way people feel less threatened, you better believe in the truths of the victor not believing and having to defend a different view of a clandestine way, unfortunately the first victim of war is truth loser, i.e. the truths that could defend the other side. The very brutality of war causes after completion is a taboo subject to be elucidated whether this issue or the other could be right on the principles of the losing side, but the impartial man must be able to distinguish things without implying condescension with undignified activities either side.
A clear example of this is the fact that when finished World War II the Americans showed the world its absolute rejection of criminal treatment and extermination policy that the Germans had with the Jews, yet those same Americans had staged a fact similar to the Indian natives a century prior to its almost total destruction, not just no sign of repentance on this fact gave, it was common to justify these acts through media such as film without arousing why any social reaction except isolated cases.
This means that if the Germans had won the war would see films in which these show us how just the "wicked Jews," but as lost, Americans show their films like massacring "Indians evil" that all They are trying to protect their land and their independence from the white invaders.
This demonstrates that seems to have more importance as the historical facts which were truly arise, if it is first presented to the victim who is to slaughter as unworthy and dehumanizes, then public opinion tends to accept more easily the mistreatment of the subject, especially if it is practiced by a great power, this is what happened first with native American Indians and later with German Jews, then these same events have also been surprisingly carried out by Israeli Jews to Palestinians in another example of historical amnesia. If Americans really really repudiate the behavior of the Nazis, should set an example and give back to the Indians at least a small territory so that they can exist as an independent state and repay the historic debt they have with them.
HITLER ENEMY OF THE GERMANS
Indeed, the greatest enemy of the Germans during the Second World War was Hitler, since the war was not really an excuse for the Nazis to perpetrate a coup undercover state, which actually wanted was to buy the German government paying for it with their military victories citizens, such was the greed of the Nazis who did not hesitate to sacrifice five million of its citizens in order to get it.
The origin of social discontent in Germany was mainly in the economic crisis of 1929 in the US, but this was a global crisis not only in Germany, however, the Nazis saw an opportunity in this social unrest to organize a coup, using the easy populist language of the alleged offense, common in the nationalist parties.
There had always been a reluctance to West Germany since the Roman Empire under Emperor Octavian tried to invade its territory ending this attempt at failure, this reluctance joined the unrest caused by the economic crisis, which gave the Nazis an ideal occasion to try to seize power and create a dictatorship.
But they could not eliminate democracy in a cold way, since it would have caused a great social response, thus they managed to achieve absolute power creating a situation of social alarm by causing the onset of World War II. In an emergency situation it was easier to handle power claiming control of that absolute power was a situation of necessity and not something intentional.
But the development of the military campaign was expensive, so the Nazis devised as a solution for economic resources blame the minority social group the Jews of being complicit in the economic crisis, so on the one hand, they removed the medium to a collective bit friend of the Nazis and on the other, creating a source of funding for the army seized with this social group.
It is clear that the Nazis wanted to justify the dictatorship and the change of power through military conquests, but his total lack of judgment shown by example in its extreme cruelty to prisoners including children and their policy of exterminating anyone who does not carry them stream.
An example that the Nazis were all enemies even German citizens is in the battle of Stalingrad, because Hitler refused to allow the return of his army, some (200.000 mens) after losing the battle, because the most dangerous for the absolute power of the Nazis was a well prepared for the fight army, but had realized how unwise it were their leaders, therefore the Nazis did not hesitate to leave their fate to his men and refused even the possibility that escape the Soviet encirclement heading south, having returned to Germany there were many opportunities they had removed the despotic government.
Another example of the worst enemy of the Germans were Nazis demonstrated in the fact that at the end of the war Hitler did not hesitate to enlist children in their ranks in order to protect him while he was ensconced in his bunker and knowing that the war was absolutely lost, could have tried some kind of truce, but did not care that German cities were destroyed and millions of its citizens dead, it is clear that for the Nazis and especially to Hitler human life including their own citizens had no value and only had the desire for power.
Clearly the Nazis only was the desire for power without limits, but with an absolute lack of judgment and ability to restraint, as if they had been terminated the war to reach the Russian border would have had many chances to sign the peace with the allies in an advantageous situation, which would have allowed them to gain time and consolidate their positions in control of Europe, we must bear in mind that although the allies had wanted to continue the war, Russia was not yet at war with Germany and he would he able to support oil and provisions, though the Nazis were some unable despotic individuals to understand the meaning of the word restraint and invasion of Russia demonstrated their eagerness to unlimited power but also his profound lack of judgment, it would not be just blame the Nazis previous military victories, but the high technological and industrial Germany.
But Hitler was not the only political leader who throughout history showed little appreciation for the lives of their own men, since before Napoleon and Alexander the Great showed that after a useless war was always another, as if they never end, An example of this was the purge Alexander made his men when he
told them his desire to conquer India and they protested demanding the return to Macedonia, this season especially, more like a sightseeing trip than anything else, but at the cost the shedding of the blood of his own men.
However it says that everything that characterized the Nazis was necessarily wrong would be not telling the truth, because there is no person or political group that all its principles or ideological principles are absolutely true or absolutely false to think so because it is very unwise.
The way I see the attitude of the Nazis towards defending a racial integrity was not necessarily wrong, because the race as I explained before, part of our own cultural heritage and is an element that determines a culture and a civilization, but that does not necessarily justify the desire to enslave or subjugate other races.
So it is correct and respectable considering, for those who want to believe that the white race is more evolved than others and need to defend it as a proper element of cultural heritage, but always from a peaceful attitude.
For the Nazis defending the racial integrity was more an excuse to try to seize the property of the Jews an ideological point of view, but because of his despotism condemned anyone who defended the rejection of miscegenation in a peaceful way to secret hiding before the war was a sign of good education in the West the rejection of racial miscegenation, but after she many people still remain opposed knew they could not express their opinions openly because then the opportunists confuse with the Nazis and we attended a post-war society deeply marked by these issues and where prejudice against those who refused were precisely miscegenation and not vice versa as it is usually thought.
The most striking postwar society is that those who proclaim the fight against racial discrimination and support immigration are seeking the same exploit them. It should be borne in mind that although these immigrants come for help by showing an image of weakness, yet have their own traditions and expectations in many earliest cases that Western and eventually could emerge interracial conflict and be costly to those who naively defend the open door policy.
What is clear is that a society is stronger the more cohesive is in all respects be they racial or ideological, fold the god of mere economic profit is not a long term solution.
Humanism that emerged after the Second World War for coexistence between races was a positive humanism, but yet that does not have to be in contradiction to the defense of values such as race or culture.
You shall not sow your vineyard two kinds of seed; because all would be unclean, sowing seed which the product of the vineyard.
(Deuteronomy 22:9)
Just as a farmer does not sow seeds of different species in the same field, it is not logical that man mix races and cultures in the same country.
THE CONCEPT OF RACISM
There are people who when they do not want to be elucidated about the reason for an issue, they just find a way to discredit it, that's how the word came xenophobia, i.e. instead of giving a logical reason to reject the thesis simply is qualified disease and thus is no longer necessary to demonstrate his mistake, but it makes no sense to reduce everything to a simple concept, since things like racism, feminism or sexism, may have contained many concepts and some may be correct and whereas others do not, so it is simplistic to reduce them to a single issue.
END OF SLAVERY
Contrary to what one might think, the end of slavery will come precisely from the rejection of racial miscegenation, because those who only think about exploiting their fellow men avail themselves of immigration to get their unworthy purposes and with the approval of the economic and political powers.
If developed countries worry of poor countries would not be limited to creating ephemeral policies aimed at sending modest items of food to those countries, since sending food to an
overpopulated country only leads to a greater increase in population and thus demonstrated the bad faith of friends who call themselves poor.
The only way to eradicate poverty in these countries is the implementation of a strict policy of birth control to limit the number of children to two per couple and this coupled with a technological development programs and cease this current coveted immigrants desperate for a job, and workers in developed countries would be improved their employment situation.
In this way each race would have its recognized territory internationally, immigrants who were in territories of other races would have to return to their racial areas and countries of colonization and the United States should create states within their borders to their ethnic minorities, and by example, blacks were could deliver south Florida half the native Indian tribes could give them territories inside to create their own independent state, and the white settlers would pay off the historic debt that takes two hundred years pending to be solved and the same with the other races, these races should receive land based on their percentage of the total population, they all have the same right to benefit from the lands of their country.
would no longer need that blacks have to live subjugated by a predominantly white society that systematically tries to pretend that the issue of race does not exist, they could well have a state in which both the president and the police or deputies would of their own race and that would be the real test of freedom.
In the case of the Indian tribes, many white presume to respect them or worry about them, but few propose delivered to them lands with which to create their own independent state in the United States. The extermination of the Indians has nothing to envy that was committed to the Jews by the Nazis and is a score that is still unsolved, the colonization of the United States had not been so disastrous for the Indians if just white settlers they had recognized their land rights. But the white man's greed knew no bounds, for it would be a positive gesture and an act of reconciliation with history, these tribes the right to be recognized to have an independent state.
However it would not be good for the world the demise of the United States, because despite their mistakes has brought many good things to the world, but it would be appropriate for this country to become a strong nation, but could be smaller, to wean their racial minorities and no longer imperialist zeal that characterized much of its modern history thus be incorporated into white society of nations that have their own international governing body and so would the other races.
Then there would be a headquarters of the United Nations rotate among all races and continents, but already devoid of selfish right of veto which was introduced after the Second World War to give advantage to the victors of the same, here the laws would be elected by majority impartially.
SLAVERY TRUE
The model of contemporary society that is based on a steady stream of immigrants many of them illegal, is the result of a developed world folded completely to a purely economic vision of society, without taking any account of social values and coexistence.
This contemporary society claims to be an example to the history of prejudice and lack of it is that most have of all time.
The current policy gives priority to pretend on being, for this hypocritical society does not care about being prejudiced only matter appear not to have them, this is a time that placed first who should be the last and is said to be last who should be the first, time will tell how soon drop this social system based on lies.
The main reason for this situation is in the implementation of false democratic models that pursue power for a few away from its true purpose.
Actually policy pro miscegenation currently governed not seek help migrants since migration flows are made so that these immigrants occupy the worst jobs and underpaid, this is therefore a slaver policy covert and yet surprisingly driven by left-wing parties.
It is striking that in the US were left parties who opposed the eradication of slavery, when it would make sense otherwise, this
shows how wrong he is supporting one party or another in an absolute way.
It must take into account also the immigrants who come to the developed countries in many cases the most prepared countries of those who leave, and leave those countries to condemn the loss of that skilled workforce.
It is also a prejudice assert that immigrants do not take jobs away from citizens of the countries to which they go, because if an immigrant accept a lower salary to a local is clear that the work will give it to him, but a local could not live on that salary, because usually much of what they earn immigrants keep it to bring their countries of origin where that money is more valuable, but it is clear that in this way cause harm to workers from countries that it will no longer have that advantage.
It is also hypocritical to say that without immigrants those jobs disappear, the example is that if immigrants are to march evidently construction would continue building buildings, but the builders would have to pay more to their workers. Of course the law of supply and demand will determine that some trades disappear that has always existed, but it is not logical to bring immigrants trying to survive by miserable wages.
It is therefore this Western society a society that applies an economic policy based approach covert slavery completely ignoring questions of social order and coexistence making this modern world in a real tower of babel in which miscegenation pro the economic profit of a few is the norm.
It is true that those states that enter the use of a slave economy or pro miscegenation initially see grow its economy by the effect of low wages of immigrants, but in a second phase that mysticism provokes a social disunity that medium or long term ends up hurting the economies and resulting clearly worse than an economic model developed from its own citizens or foreigners who share their cultural or racial values. Not forget that in the history of the evolution of nations always match the phase of growth and expansion periods when stocks were more homogeneous and therefore united, and precisely stagnation and reversal of these companies used to come after an important part
of its economy pass to be based on slavery, this is what happened to Rome and now is happening to the West and the United States.
Another sign of slave economy is to deny all people the right to a free and guaranteed health care for which no one could be unassisted as in the United States, if you really want to be an example of progress in the world should prove starting with their own citizens.
THE PYRAMID ECONOMY
A clear example of what would be a slave economy is the pyramidal economy, this economy has been practiced in the West of a fairly continuous basis, especially in the United States, this type of economic approach is to maintain a steady flow of immigrants which is oriented towards the worst trades and given quite far from what would be desirable treatment, then they are told that already live better when they win money with their low wages and their savings up businesses or businesses with which then they can also exploit new flows of immigrants who come after.
The downside to this type of economy is that it creates a rift between the whole of society causing a feeling of insecurity to hinder social cohesion to consider only economic factors, is not that immigration has to be necessarily bad, but it is necessary that this be done in matching patterns in cultural and racial factors so that is greater social integration and more difficult to create ghettoes and abuse towards such groups.
SLAVERY TODAY
Arguably today slavery has gone from being an open and visible issue as in the past to become a discrete phenomenon by another name because in the present that traffic is called illegal immigration.
Certainly there are some organizations dedicated to profiting by such immigration, but it is pathetic to see that they are Western governments the real instigators of these mafias of human trafficking, as the best gift that you can do is give priority to
immigrants entering in the West against the law, that those who try to enter legally.
It is not logical to say on one hand that is against the mafias of immigration and on the other hand legalize mass immigrants that these organizations bring, since this policy does is justify these mafias trafficking modern slaves and thus make grow and always have many candidates use them to enter illegally in the West.
It is necessary for the West to change its economic policy and stop considering economic profit as the only aspect to consider and try to encourage instead a more just and equal society, but that is not possible with an economic model slaver and pyramidal based on miscegenation as a form of exploitation.
Promote a homogeneous society in ethnic and cultural aspects in each race and continent also it serves to end the injustices and exploitation of some human beings to others.
The best way to end the pattern of slave society and pro miscegenation would be to reject the racial miscegenation and promote the development of backward in their environment with technology training programs economies and a stimulus to birth control, for which only the population of these countries would increase the extent to which its citizens can be fed and stocked with all your basic needs without having to depend on others.
IMMIGRATION POLICY PROPER
The best way to organize migration processes is that both the sending country of migrants and receiver share a same social values i.e. having the same race the same culture and a same or similar cultural values, the reason is very simple and is if already difficult to get a good living even among neighbors, much harder to be a coexistence with people of other races or cultures, especially if these cultures are much less developed.
Moreover, the mixture of races and cultures, can lead to a clear loss of values, because each race was made by nature to live in climates and different continents, racial interbreeding can lead to chaos in the West to remember the ancient history of the tower of Babel.
It is a serious mistake that Western society is folded to purely economic interests by allowing the arrival of uncontrolled form of immigrants, because eventually the unstable equilibrium may break, leading to tragic incidents that have already begun to happen in some countries, but could get much worse. It would require the commonsense return to the West on these issues as existed before the Second World War, but then was silenced by the fear that any activity contrary to miscegenation and for the defense of European values opinion remained pigeonholed as Nazi nature. It would therefore be necessary to redirect this issue that only companies and speculators benefit, but loses European society and culture.
I would also like to stress that all acts of violence against immigrants by the mere fact of being, must have the rejection of the whole society and indeed are such acts which cause people confuse these vandals with those opposed to miscegenation in a peaceful way, because this is not a problem of some races against each other, it is an ideological problem of those who believe in interbreeding and those who do not believe in it.
It is also important to note that an advanced society that neglects the immigration process at its borders, it risks repeating the disaster suffered by the Romans when at the end of his empire, wanting to help some oppressed tribes but backward, let them cross the these border and then took up arms against the state causing serious damage, this could happen in the West if that purely speculative policy of patronizing illegal immigration continues.
STABLE BORDER
The only way to get that European society and culture are maintained stably would be that its borders have a clear demarcation, in which the toils of expansionist type some not shall prejudice the idea of creating a cohesive society based on a common values and culture, it would be wise not to accept within the European community states that do not they shared these values is to say that it would be more correct than the territories included in this community of states were not the south beyond
Gibraltar, Crete or the Bosporus Strait and the east end at the border with Russia, this in turn could create another community of such states with former Soviet countries, otherwise the risk of losing the values of it runs European culture.
CHAPTER 2 - THE FEMINISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY
THE MYTH OF FEMINISM
In the early twentieth century feminism it emerged as a force which was originally supposed towards the liberation of women from a supposed historical affront caused by men, but soon ended up becoming one of the greatest scourges for Western society.
The main ideological feminism argument is the assertion that men and women are equal and therefore the tasks and functions performed in life also have to be equal.
Obviously this is already an awful lot from its very root, since precisely the nature made to the two different sexes precisely with the intention that their duties also were, i.e. both sexes what actually represent are different specializations, so that acting in a manner associated multiply the benefits for both.
What is reasonable is the claim that men and women must have recognized the same right to develop as individuals to be happy and feel free.
Another false statement of feminism is that in ancient times women were engaged in household chores because they were slaves of men, are easily forgotten that in those days life expectancies were shorter than now couples used to have numerous children throughout their reproductive life, therefore the dedication of women in the home was not something imposed, but an inevitable necessity and is a frivolity criticizing the man of those times I had as difficult as women's life.
It is reasonable to think that women must have recognized the same right as men to be happy, but that does not mean that to achieve this are bound to pursue the same functions as their nature in its great intelligence decided to divide human beings into two sexes and each of them specialize in different tasks and it gave each a different biological sex shape and also different personality, this does not mean that one sex is inferior to the other, but rather have different functions.
Another problem caused by feminism is the control command, i.e.
all organized social group needs to have an order of clear
command to determine a person to exercise these functions before deciding which sex is more qualified to do my conclusion is that function is preferable that the exercise men as a rule, since the male is the freest has been to engage in important functions and exclusive dedication, not having to go through the task of pregnancy and parenting children, so it is the man who should be the president in marriage, in any dictator case, since they are two very different things, so the man must make decisions in a democratic manner, taking into account the views of all family members, without trying to impose their wishes on others.
That is the man in the couple must have recognized his status as leader of the family of an administrative but democratically, i.e. to be the case that a man was unfair to his wife or children, logically wife would have the right to blame her or separated from if necessary.
Nature decided to specialize sex to improve humanity to devote each to different tasks and order of command is another benefit of this specialization, because just as in magnetism like poles repel each other the same way man is not possible coexistence between men and women without making clear the existence of different tasks and a clear leader.
Another example is the dispute that occurs over whether after pronouncing the word "children" should be pronounced "and girls" being together, but the problem does not end there, because then it would have to determine which of the two would have to be pronounce first.
The myth of feminism poses a completely unrealistic view of the show as a bad and always be lucky, when the hardness of life has always been the same for both sexes, albeit differently man.
An example is the fact that life expectancy in men are usually lower than those of women, which debunks the claim that his life has been better than theirs.
Another criticism of feminism is that women work all day, but keep in mind that women engaged in household chores, have a more diffuse and less controlled work, choosing breaks at will unlike men who are more controlled and more rigid schedules, plus they have the benefit of being in the comfort of home.
Ideally, women who wanted to work outside the home had part-time jobs at least until the children were minors, so they could combine home life with work and so your life more rewarding, well this would provide them some independence from men, the feminist myth induce women to compete with men in the working world which has led to is that many women after a workday of eight hours have to go home and deal housework, which has led them to worsen their situation. If both spouses spend all day working away from home, of course they will not have time to look after their children and home.
This would be solved if the taboo of feminism ended and accepted generally that have different roles in life is not something that makes women inferior but merely different, so it is better that those jobs that require total dedication to be occupied preferentially by men, having more time available.
Another victim of feminism have been children, since by raising goal of women performing lives of men and men's work, women who have believed were doomed to forget the important task of having children and raising them, saying frivolously who already have children of immigrants, they have thus condemned to Western society to its own process of extermination and the gradual undermining of their race and culture in favor of immigration in a process of gradual aging of society.
The logic is that every society and every culture have normally their own descendants who are heirs of their own culture. Say that we will solve the problem of immigrants is a way of not wanting to face the serious problem that feminism created in the aspect of birth is not only a right but a duty that every government to ensure that the generational change it occurs and if that does not happen is because there are important things to change.
Another victim of feminism are the elderly, because women who attempt to combine intensive work with having children, just pretending too often they are the grandparents who are engaged in their upbringing, turning them and other victims hidden in this movement.
If men and women are engaged in the same things in life, the differentiation of the sexes will be useful to be competing with each other in the same plane, in couples can not be peace and
children will find themselves disadvantaged and that if come to birth, both sexes need to make peace and understand its raison d'etre.
In the background feminism which has led humanity is a futile confrontation between men and women not understanding that nature made them for different but complementary roles do not understand that it is the woman who becomes pregnant and is the woman who has to breastfeed their children, because nature decided to go one sex and not the two who assume these functions. In addition another obvious difference is the already known corpulence and other less known is the quick reflexes, which is higher in men. Another topic that is said, is that women are better drivers than men, this is because they have fewer accidents, but not for the better drive, but because they are less reckless as this is a man's own quality. Thus there are clearly differences both physical and psychic between the sexes that make each equally important, but suitable for different tasks.
There is also debate about whether women are paid less than men in their jobs, in this issue, the key is to determine whether they are charging less performing the same functions or not, since what counts in the end is productivity and therefore you can not speak of discrimination if productivity is different or is it different functions. But if it is the same function and the same productivity logically you should charge the same.
Another feminist myth is the claim that married women must have a differentiated salary of the husband, but such a claim would establish that marriage does not exist, it would consider women as contracted and therefore outside the family, in a marriage is given by granted that there is a society for men and women created, where all assets of the couple must be considered as property of both equally and therefore makes no sense to speak of a differentiated salary. But when a woman has a job outside the home there is nothing wrong with having your own bank account in order to improve their sense of security, provided that income involved in maintaining family like man.
On the subject of separation legislators should try to avoid discrimination against men as usual today and both the goods of marriage and the care of children should be shared equally
between each spouse, unless some circumstance force majeure restrain her. Laws that are biased to what they wear is to encourage separation rather than help it, to give advantage to one sex over the other, and in the end both spouses and the children end up seeing impaired.
Perhaps in the background, some of those women who created feminism for men as men feel, and all the women's apparatus was just an alibi to hide this fact.
Therefore it is not here to deny women rights such as suffrage, to work wherever they want or even occupy a management position at a given moment, in this as in many other issues may be exceptions, more well what it is to understand that men and women represent a particular specialization by nature for our good and performing various tasks in life is not a subject but an advantage for everyone. With specialization humans doubles its effectiveness while avoiding the shock created by placing both sexes in the same functions.
However, in the common future it will be that couples have in most cases two children on average, and therefore, although women devote most of his time to raise them still remain them enough to do a job half-day. But it is clear that in this case would not be wise to take care of work much responsibility or dedicated, to have him to reconcile with housework and childcare. This does not mean that men can not participate in the care of children, but it is logical to be in a secondary and indirect plane.
Therefore, it is right that women consider motherhood as their primary occupation rather than compete in the professional field with men, at least while their children are small.
In any case neither is it here to state that everything in it feminism is bad, one example is the struggle these women have against male abusers who use their wives as the scapegoat for their own traumas in act of vanity and crime, but it is important to separate this from the belief that both sexes have to perform identical functions in life.
Another success in the feminist struggle was to defend the right to secede, keep in mind that the most beautiful thing in a relationship is that there is a match character between spouses, but otherwise it is best to dissolve the relationship because in the
world there are lots of ways of being and sometimes the period of courtship is not enough to know a complete form.
If society would stop trying to reduce everything to simplistic phrases such as racism, sexism or feminism, he would realize that by analyzing these issues impartially find that what they considered a simple matter, actually contains a multitude of concepts and ideas within and not all of them have to be good or bad, because everything has to be analyzed individually and objectively without generalizing.
THE HOMOSEXUALITY
An example of the social confusion that exists in these times is the way society treats the issue of homosexuality, because in this question can not distinguish the difference between freedom and licentiousness, i.e. the "democratizing" currents walking west from the late nineteenth century, make the public more receptive to the different inclinations that citizens in the use of their individual freedom to choose. However it should not be confused that there is a difference between respecting the attitudes or opinions of others and do acts of condescension or complicity with them, because one thing is that that respects others do in their free will with your body or your life and quite another to do what is right, why many people knowing not distinguish these two issues have respect for the wrong behavior condescension considering it is the same.
As a result, the social stream for which it has gone from an absolute rejection of these behaviors almost total condescension, being a must today be homosexual or at least justify all claims has emerged. An example of this is the issue of adoptions, homosexual intended to be considered as normal couples and then choose adoption, but it is necessary to note, that when giving a child to a partner state has the duty to ensure that this couple is as close as possible to parents that the child has lost, so that it can be the contribution of both sexes in their education and therefore be the best. It is not the same as gays, lesbians and transsexuals considered good for them than it really is good for children, as the best form of family that can give them, always be the most similar
to nature to them I can offer, i.e. some parents of both sexes as the couple who brought them into this world.
The right thing would be for the state and the citizens respect to these social groups, but not condescend to their behavior, as to pretend to consider them as marriage, because if each person had to tell the state what their sex and state what would for good, in that case also others would say that they are animals or another planet and the state being consistent with what he does with transsexuals would have to prove them right, but that would not be the rule of law and reason but the rule of individual whim and state yielding to him.
Homosexuality is therefore a deviation of sexual orientation and it would be desirable that the state would help these people regain their proper orientation instead of doing otherwise, this could be achieved by medical treatment, for example by giving male hormones necessary or by psychological means.
GENETICS HOMOSEXUALITY
This is a deviation of sexual orientation favored by a genetic flaw that causes in man a deficiency in the number of elements that determine their sexual orientation, such as deficiency of male hormones, in this case it would be good that the state would help to these people find what they lack to perform as men, instead of having an attitude of mere condescension.
HOMOSEXUALITY TIMIDITY
When a child goes through a difficult childhood and has a scary character, which can also be genetic, it can lead to behavior of a homosexual nature, the cause is because these people may consider that they find it better to have as a partner a man who Give them a greater sense of protection that a woman therefore what these people are looking to increase their sense of security.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN EXCESS OF CHARACTER
Some people being all the normal effects from a genetic point of view, it opts for homosexual behavior, the reason must be sought in its infancy. Normally in this period of life the children have not yet developed their sexual urges and tend to see sex as something strange or alien the same way that sports two teams are formed, there are children who mistakenly believe that women are from an opposing team or foe, usually during puberty children are realizing that the opposite sex is not the enemy, but rather complementary and forget these suspicions. However there are children who then have acquired prejudices towards the opposite sex that leads them to reject heterosexual relationships, this is an example of obstinacy and stubbornness but led to an extreme degree.
BISEXUALITY
Actually no such thing, actually those people who consider themselves bisexual have normal sexual instincts, the problem is in character, since they are such people that everything they see they have to do, therefore have a unstable and impulsive personality that leads them to do things by imitation without sufficiently reflect also in a society like today in which these issues are too present in the media is normal that place be given to such situations.
SEXUALITY FOOLED
In the background the way homosexuals keep their sex arguably more a form of masturbation that genuine sexual relationship, and that deep sexual mechanism is very simple and easy to stimulate.
What the gay or lesbian is to trick these mechanisms are intended to be stimulated, but not as they do, which is nothing more than a deviation from its true purpose.
The real problem lies behind homosexuality is that for one reason or another these people do not feel well with the sex they were born, however they should be the first to find items that are missing to fully carried out in sex rather than contradict, it is true that their situation may be regrettable, but deviant behavior is
what makes distance them even more true happiness that comes with a life in harmony with nature. Nor is it true that there are men born with sex man but brained woman, so there are men and women who have their male or female little chiseled features, but that's not a reason to reject their sex, but to try to find what they lack. Deep down perhaps ideally, those men who do not feel very masculine join those women who do not feel very feminine and perhaps could gain from each other so that they lack.
In my opinion, you can expect very little of a society that considers acceptable or normal so aberrant and unnatural as homosexuality practice, because if this society is unable to distinguish the difference between respect and condescending is that it lacks judgment on ethical issues.
It should be borne in mind that evil is not only expressed through weapons, because there are other forms of evil as that which concerns us, it is more difficult to distinguish, or for example those television programs that encourage ego and vanity among children, may not see or firing weapons, but incitement to evil is manifest and worse than that of those who say programs away.
Therefore it is right that both society and the state to respect these or other individual inclinations, but without pandering to them, because one thing is to respect their right to choose and quite another is to consider what they do this well.
I would also like to stress that although a genetic defect or personality to promote homosexuality but in no case provokes, because it only depends on the free will of the people.
CHAPTER 3 - THE END OF THE CHURCH
THE GREAT HARLOT
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me saying, Come hither; I will show you the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters; who committed adultery with the kings of the earth, getting drunk the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her prostitution took me to a desert in spirit; and saw a woman sitting on a purple beast full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and covered with gold and precious stones and pearls and had in her hand (one hand) a golden cup full of abominations and (secondly) the filthiness of her fornication. Written on her forehead was a name, a mystery: Babylon the great, the mother of fornicators and abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus women; and I was surprised at her with great astonishment. (Rev 17)
CRIMES OF THE CHURCH
The church was founded by its founders honorable purposes, but evil and greed present in the world soon undertook the task to master it and make it an instrument of evil.
But it is a serious mistake to think that where is supposed to be God is really, for that is the best claim for those wanting to make a bad appear to do good, so the church soon came to serve evil and not the good for which supposedly it founded and became an instrument of the powerful of the earth to achieve their illicit purposes.
This is how the alliance between the Catholic Church and the emerging Spanish empire in the sixteenth century emerged, Spain got the ecclesiastical blessing for military conquest and subjugation by the violence of indigenous tribes and in return the
church got the right to impose their religion and dominance throughout the empire.
Therefore it expected to arise movements in Europe that claimed the church return to its humanitarian origins and not the mere empowerment.
This is how Protestantism emerged and this marked the beginning of the end of an area under a totalitarian church that had an atrocious to freedom of expression and progress of social freedoms fear middle Ages.
When the Roman Empire was near its end and its economy showed signs of weakness, Emperor Constantine considered it appropriate to name Christianity the official religion of the empire and thus achieve cohesion was missing, using religion as a means to get it, but once the empire was dismembered church became more of a means of political power in a religious instrument.
The decision of the Roman emperors to install their capital in the east was a big mistake by being more a throwback to the past that a commitment to the future as more and more progress was favoring the territories of Europe and less to those of East or Africa. Surely if the capital of the empire had been transferred to Central Europe possibly the Roman state had continued to exist until today, the emperors were unable to distinguish between the importance they had East and Africa in the past, and progress was to come in Europe in the future, and they squandered the state capital betting on territories in decline, as when they were determined to build a city in the desert in north Africa.
During the Middle Ages the church was dedicated to a terrible persecution of healers, who naturally engaged in curing diseases through the knowledge of the therapeutic properties of plants, which had been passed from father to son for generations , therefore far from helping humanity, the church did was increase the suffering of people simply because a fit of jealousy and desire for prominence, so the only medicine that remained was based on chemical knowledge in those days they were just beginning, unjustly depriving humanity of natural remedies that were much more advanced.
So many innocent people were accused of witchcraft and their property and lands were taken over by the church, this example was followed centuries later by the Nazis.
During the Middle Ages the church also tried by all means prevent the spread of the biblical writings to the general public through the press, and tried to monopolize the dissemination of its content only in their own precincts.
Nor did they hesitate to kill those trying to promote the development of science or those who tried to prove that the earth revolved around the sun, for the church's freedom of expression had no place in her womb, such was his sense of power.
Another stain on the history of the Catholic Church was his fight against religious freedom to form the organization called "Holy Inquisition" designed to imprison or kill all those who having been denied the right to profess one's religion would find doing them.
Therefore, the attitude of the church during the Middle Ages left a lot to be desired compared to the vitality and joy of living that were characteristic of Greece and Rome, obsessed with giving a negative and catastrophic vision of life in the belief that and maintain greater control over people.
Another choice that the church should never do is constituted as an independent state, for religion should always be in the field of culture and never political, and after the emergence of the first European democracies the church was more outdated than ever be the first dictatorship to appear and possibly be the last to die. This is why it is a contradiction that some states are considered independent, but still allocate part of their budgets to a private, parallel organization such as the church.
Also in the domestic level, the almost obsessive determination to wield all the power led her to deny its members the right to marry, being this very counterproductive measure to further separate the priests of society and also favor discrimination in favor of homosexuals within the church and those who wished to marry could not continue in it. It should be borne in mind that there is nothing to suggest that church members can not marry, and this was a unilateral initiative of religious leaders in the Bible.
The desire of the church of trying to forgive in God's name also constituted an abuse of its powers, more directed this act to obtaining confidential information to make an act of justice, it was impossible to know whether such repentance was sincere or not. That power that they are attributed due to the fact that Jesus told the apostles that after he was no longer in them would fall the task of representing, but in any case it must be interpreted to mean that Jesus would give the blessing all that they or their successors did.
By denying the church to its members the right to marry, also favored the excessive growth of homosexuality among them, and also having these issues vetted inside, this resulted in scandals of child abuse than a massive scale occurred. But the church away from pursuing these acts, what he did was move these abusers where none were known thus giving rise to new abuses, he also obstructed justice in order that these facts do not know.
Another sign of alienation from the church to the Bible was the deification of the religious personages, this deification led to the return of society to a phase of history and finished that is polytheism, i.e. had replaced the ancient gods for virgins and saints, which was in clear opposition to the biblical doctrine that said that only God is to be worshiped and that all men should be fair.
In addition, the church has maintained a practice of condescension with self-torture practiced during processions and other religious celebrations, which leaves it to the same height as the primitive tribes who believed that sacrificing people to their gods was lawful, these people They understand that the only true sacrifice is the one that occurs when there is no choice but self-torture and bloodshed without befits wild and the church has done nothing to stop these practices.
But the biggest and most serious crime that the church made was to use religion as an instrument for obtaining power and wealth and not to propagate the ideas of Christ or other honorable ideas, because of this future generations were acquiring the idea that the excesses of the church were responsible for Christ, prompting an anti-Christian power to confuse the difference between his teachings and despotic behavior of those who claimed to
represent, but that's where you have to act the intelligence of people and realize that no is the same seems to be and is not the same to say that it is representative of Christ to be. Man can only achieve true freedom if it ceases to confuse appearance with reality and through critical thinking seeks truth valuing things by facts and not by appearances, is through that critical thinking as can be found a future society whose foundations are the search for truth and objective analysis of the facts.
Another unfortunate fact in the church is to give a negative image of sexuality, because of this many men and women were forced into a life of seclusion and separation from the rest of society and to promote a negative view of sexuality, or motherhood for women, as if being a virgin get close to a woman to God but have children no, the church is responsible for this because he never bothered to break this myth, it is only permissible to defend virginity in the pre-marriage as a form of responsible attitude, but it does not make sense as the ultimate goal.
The source of this confusion was because the apostles in order that the ideas of Jesus had echo and diffusion in society and prevent his legacy was lost, added some things to the true facts of his life such as theme of his conception of miracles or the star of Bethlehem, but the church once achieved its goal of spreading the message of Christ to the world had a duty to end this myth of him, because it helped to extend the true that is what the message of Jesus meant, perhaps Jesus was more like the rest of men in the physical aspect of what the church wants us to believe and perhaps not do the miracles that we have, but nonetheless if what it is to find miraculous events in the life of Jesus, no doubt there was one and it is their will and their success in the attempt to extend his philosophy for the good and coexistence among people, so ta not of what later became his legacy would also be unfair to hold you liable him.
Thus the idea of the divinity of Christ should be sought more in the value of its message in purely physical facts, because all truth is itself divine nature and the message of Jesus was true was also then divine, But something else was the set of material facts attributed to him, which could be far from reality.
The truth is that the early history of Christianity was a little sad, since Jesus had to sacrifice his life so that his ideas were extended and the apostles had to sacrifice the truth to achieve the same objective, we must take into account that in those times people were much more likely to be swayed by rituals and supposed miracles and less simply hear the message of Christ.
Another crime of the church was to pretend to deny any criticism of the pope, saying he was infallible and therefore could not go wrong. This statement besides being pathetic, represents one of the biggest attacks on freedom of expression that has occurred in history, asserting that all its deliberations from God and therefore are certain involves an extremely pretentious and clearly malicious action.
But what is truly amazing is that after all the facts described and that have occurred throughout history, the church still intends to give lessons in morality to the rest of society, as having sole ownership of truth and the rest people just have to shut up and accept its deliberations, such a thing is an insult to the intelligence and it is a duty of all not accept such powers.
Between God and men do not have to be necessarily intermediaries and if any does have to be organizations like the church has shown that their goals are different and not the good of humanity, because the truth is not owned by anyone alone god, and every man has the right and duty to seek itself without necessarily having to rely on intermediaries.
In this world of contradictions in which truth is presented as false and false is presented as true, the church uses as a means of propaganda and to control the population of a false victimhood by which we are presented as eternal offended and supposedly beneficial, when he has never made a genuine examination of conscience or tried to advance or to pursue the iniquities committed in its midst.
It is also a profoundly petty and hypocritical act, think that because they support the church are to get the favors of God, for who so acts he wants to do evil and no good. God does not like appearances and false rituals but the facts, and a church that has moved away from the purposes of Jesus does not deserve to be precisely provide support.
Nor do I say that everything that made the church during the out negative times since contributed to the spread of the Bible and this is one book that has contributed to the development of man in the moral level, however for church religion it was more an instrument for power than a means to do good.
THE END OF THE CHURCH
In my opinion, it is clear that the best thing for humanity is the disappearance of religious organizations like the Catholic Church, seeking to have an attitude of rivalry with governments at the political level, from my point of view religion is in schools where it should be taught, but not members of any sect or organization, but by teachers appointed by the school or the interior ministry.
Of course religion should be an example of democracy and open to all ideas and opinions, without imposing the teachings of a forced way does the Catholic religion.
Nor will things necessary as baptism or communion, because in the future merely symbolic as these rituals become too simplistic and will be replaced by education and training in values, each person will believe what they want to believe without dogmas and freedom of thought or expression, the temples are no longer necessary, because the real temple is within each person, because each citizen will be trained from childhood in values, but not from any temple but from the school that is most effective. It may also be drawn to children through other cultural media such as books, and philosophical and moral formation will have a role in education equal to or greater than the other subjects, but will be taught in line with science and free view citizens, so in the future will no longer exist temples, because the temples will be new schools, books and soul of people.
NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the city, the holy, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a voice from the throne, saying: Behold the dwelling of God among men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, and wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; there will be no more mourning or pain, for the former things are passed away. And he who sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. He also said, Write that these words are faithful and true. And he said, have been fulfilled. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life. The winner will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. More timid and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake on with fire and brimstone. This is the second death. (Rev 21)