Thought for the day: what is the nature of woman?


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?

Why would a woman want to be cop? Are women naturally inclined towards violence or is this image an aberration?

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?

Arlene & Theresa: handbags off the table, one billion quid on it. Lovely work, sistas!

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.

Further reading – The Bernician on abortion, Rogue Male on Feminism: the disease masquerading as the cure.


Email this to someoneShare on Facebook12Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0

3 thoughts on “Thought for the day: what is the nature of woman?

  1. Well in my opinion the mere fact that the above question is once again being asked tells the tale – that all men still can’t understand how a free spirited female works, so as the question is still being asked it is highly unlikely that men will ever be able to get their heads around it. Therefore the subject being peddled of “transhumanism” is BS of the worst degree no doubt created by yet another dim wit male with an over inflated ego me thinks – or perhaps one who is in fact not human!

    Try for starters from the fact that not all females feel/think or believe they are put on this earth with the sole purpose of procreation or making life easy for all? Then you will be getting somewhere, or perhaps men find this threatening?!

    Secondly did it ever cross a man’s mind that a female might actualy want to try and change things for the better – their downfall being they end up trying to be like the male, possibly because of pressure to toe the male dominated line?

    Lastly the whole thing about womens lib is also a load of BS too.

    1. Hi, Michelle. Emotion aside, it all amounts to the age-old divide and rule tactic. Male and female harmony is very powerful, being the natural balance of the respective energies. The ‘controllers’ want to diminish that power, thus social engineering devices are used to promote disharmony and attack the family. The article was posed as a series of questions, intended to provoke critical thinking. As such, it is expressing generalities only and is raising the question of what is natural as opposed to artificially created by indoctrination and the weaponisation of culture. You’re right, of course, to point out that not all women are here for the purposes of procreation, but that was not what the article was implying. As stated, male and female, “we have all been had.”

      All the best, RM

    2. Dear Michelle,

      The spirit of the free-spirited female

      The bubbling spring
      the babbling brook
      the river of intent

      The bursting bank
      the heaving flood
      the torrent of hell bent

      The defiant falls
      the enigmatic lake
      the ocean of inherency

      The gift of Life
      the Holy Ghost
      the Moon that guides the tides of sea…

      Is the moon free to do whatever it pleases or is it constrained to orbit? No, its constrained and good for us all too for without it life as we know it would not exist. Can the moon burn like the sun? No, but it does reflect the truth of light and aides our eye in the night.

      I do not profess to understand each or any individual but I do have a handle on the collective symbolic. From my position of neutrality at the mouth of the proverbial cave I peek inside and observe society chasing after shadows.

      We cannot answer the arguments presented, not in our current condition.

      Our ancient forefathers and mothers would look at us today and say we were sick, beguiled, un-whole-ly, under a spell cast with shadows. They would sing to us the songs they sang in harmony with the heavens for they know that is the cure, for the current malady is of the mind alone. It has no place in the ‘Spirit of the Whole.’ The arguments would fade and dissolve for they are founded on illusion and oh how our minds love illusion…

      The question is qui bono? Who benefits? Only the shadow brokers, they know the divine truth yet deny it to us for where is the profit in Truth?

      Where are our prophets in Truth?

      There is a saying, do not bite the hand that feeds you. I say do not feed the mouth that bites you. We can only triumph over controversy when we are grounded in Truth whether that be by the light of the sun or the moon. Together they make the Whole.

      We must starve the shadow beast out of exitence and claim back our dominion in equality.

      Peace on Terra and blessings, Dunravin

As of January, 2016 comments are open... cheers!