RM has, for a long while now, been pondering just what it is in the psyche of an individual that leads them to seek positions of authority over others. The nature of the male is, of course, outgoing. He seeks to understand the world around and outside himself, by way of observation and experience. His dna/biological imperative compels him to be this way.
By contrast, the female is naturally more inwardly orientated: her emotional life and domestic existence is that to which she is more naturally inclined. Her dna/biological imperative compels her to be nurturing and empathetic, especially towards others. She is also more disposed to working in a collective than the male.
It is thus easy to understand how men may seek public power but somewhat harder to grasp why women might seek it.
The reader is invited to note, of course, that one is expressing generalisations here for history shows us that some women may well have had the wisdom necessary to operate in positions of authority over others. However, such women are rare.
In the light of which, here are a dozen questions to consider:
1.What kind of woman seeks political, economic, social or any other form of public power?
2. Is it a mere coincidence that the two extremist politicians, Theresa May and Angela Merkel are both childless women?
3. Why would a woman seek to work as a police constable or as a soldier?
4.Given the fact men are physically stronger than women, how effective are women who work as firefighters? What are the limits on their ability to carry out the work?
5. Is it a surprise that Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police is a childless Oxbridge-educated lesbian?
6. Why are there very few women who wish to work as engineers or scientists?
7. If the law is about reason above emotion, then how successfully can women operate in courts of law as judges, solicitors or barristers?
8. Is it only ‘natural’ that women should seek positions of power or is it a perversion of nature, one that has been engineered by feminism, that most destructive element of Cultural Marxism?
9. Given that enfranchisement is, as a matter of fact, the incorporation of the name as a corporate entity and not about giving people the opportunity to have any real influence on the puppet show known as politics, was this really a victory for the suffragettes? Or, was it a victory for the deep state, that could now include them in its deceptive registration system as chattels of the system?
10. Are women more naturally prone to collectivist thinking than men?
11. When and where is a woman at her happiest?
12. Are women more naturally prone to drama, and necessarily so, given the act of giving birth is one of the most dramatic events possible?
The following video answers many of these questions. Whatever the reaction of the viewer, the fact remains that social engineering exists and collectivisation is more likely to appeal to the nature of women than men. Male, or female we have been had. The transhumanist agenda, just like feminism before it, is the latest manifestation of this social engineering, and, like all of it, is as much an attack on the nature of the female as it is on the male.