Source: Facebook

CURT: DISTURBING SEXISM???

—“You display disturbing signs of sexism.”— (A friend)

(A comment from an otherwise obviously rational and scientific woman)

Great observation and great opportunity to repeat a central theme: compatibility and the need for markets in everything.

I’m going to suggest this instead: I display CONSISTENT criticism of the female gender biases given the evidence, in matters of politics and reason. (And I display consistent submission to female superiority in interpersonal matters.)

Sexism. So, why?

It’s because I advocate compatibilism rather than equality. And because the ratio of men to women in psychosis-to-solipsism vs rationalism-to-autism remains consistent in every single sampling from the behavior of female and male psychopaths, to the difference between male openness to pure ideas, and female openness to aesthetics, to the male concern for the best and female strong for the weakest, to the male concern for excellence to the female concern for equality, the the competence of females in interpersonal skill to the male competence in political skill.

There is literally no domain where compatibilism is not more evident than equality. Even in intelligence testing we had to lower the standard by increasing weights to verbal acumen. I mean. yo have’t been following me long enough so you haven’t seen my frequent ‘how the heck do women do that amazing stuff’.

So since NEITHER gender can satisfy the demand for perception, cognition, knowledge, specialization, negotiation, and advocacy, then the only way to ‘calculate’ (rendered commensurable) our division of cognitive labor is through voluntary exchange. And it is marriage that creates an informationally complete market for the use of the division of perception.

Now, I have written about this reproductive (short-child, vs long-tribe) division of cognitive labor. I have written about (and produced a video about) the classes as an extension of this temporal division of labor to the circumpolar people (white people and chinese people).

So I consider my ‘intertemporal division of cognitive labor’ concept covered. And I consider my ‘markets in everything’ to take advantage of our temporal specializations covered. And I am currently working on a constitution that denies equality and expressly RESTORES western ‘markets in everything’. With the principle difference that I’ve used testimonialism to eliminate the ability to even TALK about falsehoods and deceptions in public matters by extending fraud protections from goods and services to information (speech).

Now, I expect this solution that forces compromises to be LESS acceptable to women for the simple reason – mirrored by prison populations – that women ‘steal’ and ‘cheat’ the dominance hierarchy asymmetrically in favor of ridicule, shaming, gossip (suggestion), obscurantism, and advocacy of fictionalism (social construction of artificial realities) far more so than do men – even if men are the minority of practitioners and but the nearly exclusive producers (outside of feminists). And I make this case because as we can see, women have been, in almost all cases, domesticated animals herded by men, since the beginning of man, just like most other mammalian species.

And women have been the vehicle for the spreading of attractive lies in the ancient world (abrahamism) and the modern world (postmodernism). So the solution to the subjugation of women CANNOT be equality, but can ONLY be markets (trade). Men are not CAPABLE of the information processing and adaptability to local circumstances as are women, and women are not CAPABLE of reason in advancement of excellence (eugenics) in politics. I mean, it is almost impossible to find women who are not so lacking agency because of their solipsism that one can have a scientific conversation. I mean, I have women followers here and most of them know this by now. You just don’t know it.

So I remain on the attack against the falsehoods of equality and in advocacy of the science, and that is the only equality between any of us is that which is achieved by the market, and those who cannot succeed in that market provide evidence of their need of ‘pruning’ from the gene pool (error reduction), and the only market means of ‘pruning’ is the elimination of reproduction for those people, and the prevention of immigration of those people. Unfortunately, it’s women who produce dysgenic offspring. Men can’t. They can only more easily DEMONSTRATE that their genes are failures.