33 THE SEXUAL DIVISION
From the moment the universe began, it became necessary to divide the universe into two main dimensions, these initial dimensions later generated the rest of the polarity expressions, including sexual differences. This division of dimensions gave rise to the universal cross that determines the difference between the top and the bottom or the horizontal and vertical. These divisions of the universe are intended to improve the universe itself, by being able to explore each of its individuals different and specialized fields. For this reason, the current version of feminism does not make sense, because it tries to annul the sexual division by denying the vital deferences that the sexes are associated with, because belonging to one sex is not only something physiological but also a difference in the vital tasks that it has as purpose to improve the life of the entire human species.
Universal potentials are present in countless examples throughout the universe and life would not be possible without the existence of these male and female potentials and without each of them being clearly defined separately from the other through different functions, an asexual universe does not make sense as feminism claims except if we refer to the universe understood globally. The current feminism that denies sexual and vital differences does not seek to make women more feminine but to turn women into men. Sex differences make us better precisely because they specialize us in our own sex.
Unfortunately, many women suffer the consequences of believing in the feminist myth, because this myth is based on the assumption that a woman can only be happy if she gives herself completely to compete with men in the world of work, then when they meet near menopause, they realize that they have managed to realize that myth, but then they understand that this does not fill them because what they are really excited about is being mothers. Other women try to work long hours to be like men, but at the same time to be mothers, this also fills them with anguish, because then they work inside and outside the home. This, in many cases leads to arguments with their husbands, because if they both work long hours outside the home, no one will have time to take care of the house and the children. This situation often ends in a divorce without understanding what happened. This would not happen if feminists understood that job specialization increases the efficiency of that job. It would have been much better if they had never been encouraged to compete with men and they had dedicated themselves to having the children that society needs and once the children were getting older they could gradually rejoin the world of work outside the family environment. In this way, they would have been able to raise their children and take care of the house while still keeping a lot of free time for both themselves and their husbands.
It is true that there are women who are born with genetic defects that determine that they do not feel identified with their sex and that is why they want to be allowed to live as men. In reality, genetic accidents do not cause a person to be born with a sexual orientation opposite to that indicated by their sexual organs, what can happen is that their sexual orientation is weakly focused on the sex that corresponds to them. In other words, a genetic accident cannot impose a homosexual-type psychological behavior, because what it does is weakly provide the orientation that it should have. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that what this genetic defect does is cause the person to be emotionally in the middle of the two sexes. Later, to this physical defect, homosexuals and lesbians add a psychological prejudice against their own sex when they assume not to accept it, that prejudice is, in reality, the true responsible for their behavior because they make the decision to live the other way around that determines nature. If I say that it is a prejudice, it is because of all the men with some feminine characteristics, or of all the women with some masculine characteristics, only a minority of them become homosexuals or lesbians. This happens, because if a deliberate attitude of going against their own nature were not added to that deficiency, then they could live a fairly satisfactory life without contradicting their own sex. In reality, most of them live sexually normal lives, because the fact that their sexual orientation is not as marked as would be desirable is not a reason to support reversed behavior. That is why it is so important to teach children the right way from an early age and not to encourage any unnatural behavior as politicians do in order to win votes.
In my opinion, the right thing to do is to try to encourage people to have a normal sexual behavior, but without imposing it by force, because in this world there is no one who does not make mistakes sometimes, and whoever believes that they are never wrong should throw away the first stone, therefore, we must respect, but without supporting what we do not agree with. But those who claim to defend tolerance also seem hypocritical to me but only if you support what they say, because in this way they are generating a world with a unique thought for which it is no longer possible to oppose homosexuality or miscegenation without being vetoed in the media. This shows that tolerance or freedom of expression to which they refer is the one that supports the truths politically assumed by the masses and not the authentic truth. Because those who try to defend points of view other than the official ones are vetoed in those media and persecuted so that their opinion cannot be heard. It is the same that occurs with the so-called “anti-fascist” groups, because these groups are made up of young people from the extreme left who claim to fight against right-wing dictatorships, but who, at the same time, support communist dictatorships and violence against all those who they don't think like them. If, according to their own arguments, fascism and dictatorship are the same, then they are also fascists, because they reject some dictatorships but support others. Politicians and the media that came to power after the Second World War continually remind us of the danger of falling into a far-right political system like the one the Nazis wanted to impose on the world, but, at the same time, they are trying to impose a model of the extreme left. They do not want to acknowledge that they are trying to impose their postulates by force, but when they violently attack or try to publicly discredit those who do not believe in feminism, anarchism or miscegenation, they show that they are using these arguments to impose their own ideas trying to make citizens believe that they are unquestionable rights. They try to make society unquestionably assume that communism is a duty for citizens, and a right to impose it for those who govern.
In reality, the prejudices of homosexuals or lesbians can be both towards their own sex and towards the opposite, an example of rejection of the opposite sex are those women who acquire fear of men and that is why they become lesbians, and a prejudice towards Their own sex would be when they decide to consider the opposite sex as their own, we can see this in transvestites. It is possible that one of the biological factors that intervene in the sexual attitude in men and women is the amount of testosterone they produce, in that case a deficiency of this hormone in men would produce effeminacy, and an excess in women would produce a somewhat masculine character. However, it must also be said that in those cases in which the sexual organs have developed correctly this circumstance should only be a secondary factor to alter the sexual attitude, therefore, I consider that sexual deviations are above all a decision psychological derived from a misconduct.
It is true that due to this genetic defect there are women with somewhat masculine character traits and men with somewhat feminine characteristics, but that defect in no case forces anyone to act against their own sex, and if they do not reject their own nature yet they could live a fairly normal life. It is true that due to this defect their sexual life cannot be perfect, but if they try to go against their own nature it cannot be better either, because what they will do is live a deformed and unnatural life, and if they go to the extreme of trying to have surgery To look like the opposite sex would not be better either, because then they would become monsters and not people of the opposite sex. This genetic defect can cause, among other things, that a person lacks some hormones necessary to complete their sexual development process, therefore, it will always be better to resort to medicine to help a man to feel like a man and a woman to feel like a man that she feels like a woman rather than trying to use her to deform her body trying to imitate the opposite sex. It must also be borne in mind that the fact that a man is somewhat effeminate does not therefore make him a homosexual, because for that he would have to have sex with another man, although to be fair it must be said that that would not be sexual intercourse but an act of masturbation performed by persons of the same sex.
The mind must dominate matter and not matter over the mind, that means, that even though it is true that a person can be born with a genetic defect that makes it difficult for them to feel sexual sensations in a normal way, it will always be better to use all the means at your disposal both physical and mental to complete what you lack before going against nature. It will always be better to recognize our defects and fight against the consequences of a genetic accident, rather than act arrogantly and try to live against nature by trying to support that defect.
That means that in these cases, the fact of trying to live as if they belonged to the opposite sex is more the consequence of their own choice than a consequence of biology. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in allowing a woman who wants to live like a man to do so if that is her wish, what is wrong is that this woman tries to convince others that this is how they can perform as women. I do not mean to claim that lesbians are the only women who defend feminism, but they are among the most combative because of their personal interest.
Genetics can favor homosexuality but it does not cause it, because when a person makes the decision to be homosexual it causes a change in the structure of his brain to adapt to that attitude, this occurs when the homosexual influenced by the weak sexual orientation that his defect genetics generates him, he consciously chooses to assume that he belongs to the opposite sex. In other words, the key to this behavior is that at the beginning, the sexual orientation of his mind is almost neutral and as a consequence of this neutrality the homosexual decides by mistake to choose the opposite sex as his own. The problem that occurs in these cases is that when a child has a neutral or psychologically weak sexual orientation, anything, however insignificant it may seem, such as having more friends than friends or seeing a shocking scene in a movie could make that child prefer to identify with the opposite sex to which he belongs.
It must also be said that it is normal for all children to have a weak sexual orientation, even though some have that orientation more marked than others, therefore, it is better for parents to give positive reinforcement to teach children what sex they belong to. That is logical, considering that their full sexual development does not occur until puberty, therefore, those who promote the support of children who do not want to accept their own sexual nature, because in the same way that a A father must reject any deviation that leads him astray, in the same way he must reject, although without forcing, when a child deviates from his own sexual nature.
The moment he decides to assume a woman's sexual behavior as his own, his mental attitude changes, because when he considers himself as belonging to the opposite sex, he identifies with that attitude and consequently induces his mind to feel attracted to his own sex which prevents you from having normal sexual behavior. It is true that a deviant behavior can begin with a biological deficiency that makes a person feel incomplete as a man or a woman, but if this defect were not added a psychological prejudice against their own sex and a deliberate attitude of going in Against nature your sex life could be quite acceptable. It is true that the life of these people cannot be completely satisfactory even if they live according to the sex with which they were born because of this genetic defect, but that would be better than going against nature.
That is to say that the physical defect by itself does not generate lesbianism or homosexuality because deviant behavior can only occur when the physical defect is added the deliberate attitude of going against nature and it is that attitude in the end that acts as a barrier that prevents you from having a normal sex life. In reality, no one is born with a sexuality that is mentally opposite to their biological sex, which if it occurs is a biological defect that makes it difficult to easily understand what gender they belong to, but in reality that defect does not make anyone a homosexual. Therefore, it is, above all, the decision to go against nature that most influences to alienate a person of that nature. For this reason, it is important that society does not confuse allowing with promoting, because a society that encourages homosexuality can end up full of people who become homosexual simply because they consider it a fashion. Society must respect but not collaborate with everything that is unnatural and degenerate.
Now, some political parties promote homosexuality because their leaders think it gives them votes, then, to avoid any opposition, they accuse all those who disagree with them of being homophobic to prevent any criticism of their attitude. But is it that all those who consider homosexuality degenerate behavior must necessarily be homophobic, and all those who oppose racial mixing must necessarily be xenophobic? Is it not possible for someone to believe that these behaviors are wrong without having any kind of prejudice or phobia? Because, if according to them, everyone who thinks differently must be accused of having a phobia, then where is the right to freedom of thought and opinion if they accuse and persecute you when you say something they don't like? It is evident that with this attitude they try to force society to have a single thought, that is, to believe what they say.
When the Second World War ended, the fear that the world could be left under a system of government of the extreme right like the one that the Nazis wanted to implement caused the arguments proposed by the extreme left to be accepted, that, in practice, implied accepting ideologies that support homosexuality, feminism or miscegenation. During the forty years following the end of the war, although Western society assumed that these ideological postulates were true, it did not apply them, but it is evident that when a certain line of thought is assumed by the collective as true, then, This way of thinking is destined to be implanted sooner or later, because, it is evident, that those who have achieved power by supporting these ideas are not going to stop until they reach their last consequences.
In reality, an ideology is like a path, the problem is that when society enters the wrong path, it is difficult for them to realize it until they complete that path and discover that everything that they were supposed to have was just fantasy without basis. Then, society is faced with the dilemma of how this path is reversed if the majority of those who hold power have obtained it by saying that they are going to continue down that path, or in other words they have obtained it by saying that they are going to support that ideology and that is why they do everything possible to hide their inconveniences from society. Nowadays and as a consequence of this, the world is moving more and more towards the predominance of political systems dominated by feminism or anarchism that in reality are characteristic elements of communism although they do not want to recognize it. All this shows that progress does not only occur by going forward but also going backwards, because when society chooses a wrong path, progress can only be made by undoing the path previously traveled.
The danger that this has is that the closer the world comes to completing all the ideological postulates of the extreme left, the greater risk it runs of generating the return of another extreme right regime as a form of reaction to the first one. That would not have happened, if politicians dominated by the desire to come to power had not tried to convince us that only one way of thinking is possible, and both left and right approaches had been accepted equally. This is necessary, because although they do not want to recognize it, the progress of humanity needs both ways of thinking.
It is necessary that society values both ways of thinking equally because in reality each of them represents a pole of nature, the right the positive or masculine pole and the left the negative or feminine pole, therefore, the balance can only be found when both political forces are given the same value. But when the political forces in power try to hide the truth and persecute all those who think differently as if they were heretics, in the end they may end up provoking the appearance of another extreme right-wing force as a violent reaction to the coercion that they are made so that the left can continue in power. We must take into account how bad a world dominated by the extreme left as by the extreme right can be, therefore, we must refuse to have an extremist thinking and appreciate what is true both forms of ideology.
To understand the differences between men and women we only have to study the behavior of the stars, because although they are different, they also represent universal polarities. The Sun, as a male example, is not only physically different from the Earth, which is a female example, but it also behaves differently. Therefore, what we must ask ourselves is what is the point of a thing being different if it cannot exploit that difference to do different things? What sense does it make that the Sun and the Earth or the man and the woman are different if according to feminism they cannot do different activities? It is evident that feminism confuses the right of women to be happy with the fact of performing the same functions as men, which is a complete error. The poles of nature or man and woman are different worlds but both are equally important, each one of them rules over a dimensional plane without necessarily thinking that one is better than the other, man must rule over the horizontal dimension and woman over vertical, man must govern human life in a direct way and woman indirectly, man being action and woman reaction, man being centripetal and woman centrifugal, man being attraction and repulsion woman. The man must rule over the family directly and the woman indirectly, for this reason, nature has made men physically stronger than women, because that way it is easier for them to assume their leadership without the need for a confrontation physical.
The poles of nature red and blue or male and female must be related in perfect harmony until the end of time for the universe to function properly, but it is necessary that each of them understand their place without claiming to encompass the functions of the other. . In reality, feminism encourages evil in women, because it suggests that they have the right to be evil towards men without suffering any pangs of conscience under the argument that they have been evil towards them before, but that is only the consequence to see the past under the eyes of a wealthy present, because in the past life was difficult for everyone and women were not the only ones who had to follow orders from others. It is possible that in the past women had to obey their husbands, but their husbands, in turn, had to comply with the demands of feudal lords or kings. Do feminists really believe that an ancient peasant was very different in scale of power than a peasant woman? They forget the great amount of problems that they had in those times to think if one was more powerful than the other when both shared the same vital problems. They would be stupid if they started fighting among themselves to decide who rules in the family. The truth is that this mutual dependence forced them to live in perfect harmony except in some minority cases in which one sex mistreated the other. But let's not forget that psychopaths there are exactly the same number of men as there are women, the only difference is that a violent man when he attacks a woman he does it head-on and with physical violence, while a woman when he attacks a man does it from behind and with psychological violence, perhaps for this reason, the damage to women in marital conflicts is more visible, but it is also true that men tend to hide that they are being mistreated by their women out of simple shame. Therefore, when we speak of gender violence, to be fair we must bear in mind that when a woman wants to kill a man she almost never does it directly, but rather pretends to be an abused woman and resorts to the law in the hope that this humiliate him and the man commit suicide, but if that is not possible, then the woman turns to another man to kill him. Then, feminists say that these are not cases of feminist violence but only other cases of sexist violence.
Before contemporary feminism existed that encourages women to compete with men in the world of work, women worked inside the home or in family jobs and men worked outside the home, but with feminism women work inside and outside the home home Where is the profit? Looking for jobs outside the home also increases the risk that they will be unfaithful to their husbands or suffer sexual harassment from their bosses or coworkers, which is why some Muslims consider it an act of infidelity for women to unnecessarily expose themselves to the job world of work. Feminists claim that assigning different functions to people according to their sex is only a consequence of cultural teachings, but if that were true, then how can it be explained that there are so many animal species in which males perform different tasks from females? It is evident that those who try to change people's opinions so that they are away from nature are them.
Feminists claim that they want equality to exist in all professions, but when they say that they mean comfortable or well-paying jobs and not physically tough or lower-paid jobs. Many women have joined the police forces, but where are they when you have to fight hand-to-hand in the demonstrations? They say they are absent because they are physically weaker, but then why do they say they are the same? Where are the women on the construction sites or in the mines? How many of them use their picks and shovels to make cement or carry bricks? It is evident that for these positions they do not ask for equality. With this attitude they show that what they want is for the man to be the donkey that pulls his cart and the surprising thing is that many men do not realize it. The man who has a good wife has the greatest treasure that he can imagine and a happy life assured as far as the relationship is concerned, but the man who has a bad one is not going to fear hell because he already lives in it. Therefore, when feminists try to associate evil only with the male sex, what they try is to deceive men into feeling guilty and thus be able to handle them at will.
Contemporary feminism is like a social cancer because it prevents women from having the children that are necessary for the population to be adequately renewed, for that reason, more than an ideological question it is a practical question, because as it is raised in the West it prevents people who die are replaced by new births, therefore, it is evident that that way it does not work. It is necessary for women to consider motherhood as something necessary instead of looking for other women to be mothers while they try to imitate men. The true mother is the one who is with her child when he is small, because for that reason nature adapted her body to that function. This false feminism that incites hatred against men so that they feel guilty and do not oppose them to occupy their space, ends up causing many women to become lesbians just because of the fear they have of having a normal relationship with the opposite sex.
Unfortunately, today, society is divided into political parties that claim to have the absolute truth exclusively. In order to obtain the vote of women and with it the power and public money show a version of the world deviated from reality, they thus confront couples destroying marriages without caring the least about the damage they cause. But worst of all, they incite women to kill their unborn children by saying that this child is only part of their body, which according to them deprives them of all rights. With this attitude they intend to dehumanize children when they say that they are only objects without a soul that can kill at will. By doing so, they become guilty of genocide, at a time characterized by scandalously low birth rates in developed countries. The most important question in this matter is not whether or not a woman can abort voluntarily, but whether she should do so for free at the expense of others. Because feminists claim to offer public money which is the money of all workers to encourage women to do so. Feminists claim that only mothers should decide whether to end the lives of the unborn, but then the logical thing would be for them to do so with their own money and not with that of all taxpayers as is the case in some countries. In my opinion, using public money to pay for the cost of an abortion is the same as paying a reward to a woman to get pregnant and then kill her child.
Feminists suggest to women that being a mother is outdated and that the most important thing is to compete in the labor market with men, but they forget that the life of that unborn child was also important, and they also forget that in the majority Of the occasions those women who abort became pregnant with voluntary sexual relations, therefore, the most reasonable thing would have been to remember those children and offer those women the necessary help to take them forward instead of offering them all the facilities so that they kill. Adequate moral training would also have been excellent to prevent these types of situations, but if feminists oppose morality, and at the same time support sexual promiscuity, in the end it is not strange that unwanted pregnancies occur. This, in the past, was difficult to happen, because it acted with greater prudence, but apparently, ethics and morals are not part of this type of ideology. It is necessary to reflect on the social changes that we make because problems are often created greater than those they claim to solve and when that happens it is not enough to put patches, because when a change is the consequence of an error, then it is necessary to go back and cancel that change to evolve.