Theme: Cooperation

—“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—

[W]omen. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.

Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.

In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.

I think this is the right analysis.

For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.

But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.

I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.

Curt

[W]omen are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.

It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.

While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).

Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.

There are good men and bad men.
Good women and bad women.
Good christians and bad christians.
Good jews and bad jews.

But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.

( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine