2180: Unpacking the Culture War, Gender Roles and Social Responsibility in History with Curt Doolittle

Welcome to the show. This is Jason Hartman, your host. And every 10th episode we do something kind of special, kind of different. What we do is we go off topic. So regardless of which show it is on the Hartman Media Network, whether it be one of the financial shows, economics, real estate, investing, travel, longevity, all of the other topics that we have, every 10th episode we go off topic and we explore something of general interest, something of general life, success, value. And so many of our listeners around the world in 164 countries have absolutely loved our 10th episode shows. So that's what we're gonna do today. And let's go ahead and get to our guest with a special 10th episode show. And of course, on the next episode we'll, we'll be back to our regular programming. Here we go.

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company.

For more information and links to all.

Our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com hey Jason, it's Sarah.

Today I got a quote for a garage door repair.

The property manager said I needed a new motor and quoted me $672.

So of course I asked for a couple additional quotes and that technician found that a sensor was disconnected and my $672 repair went down to $0.

So don't take the first quote that you get. Always get a second opinion.

Welcome to the Creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine, self made multimillionaire who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who's owned properties in 11 states, had hundreds of tenants and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your Financial Independence Day. You really can do it. And now here's your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Welcome to episode 2180 and greetings from the fashion capital of the world, Milan, Italy. I've been on my European journey and have been traveling around through Switzerland and a whole bunch of places. Met with Swiss Banker the other day and had a very interesting conversation there. I've endeavored to get some of these Swiss bankers on the show, but guess what, the Swiss are pretty modest when it comes to this stuff and low key. They don't do media interviews.

So we're not going to have any.

Swiss bankers on the show for you. And why do I even mention this? If you don't know, the Swiss banking system is world renowned for a very, very long time. It's just a fascinating banking system. Frankly. Swiss banking is something everybody talks about and numerous books have been written about Swiss banking. So I thought we'd do a little series on that. And we're going to, but I don't think we'll have any guests appearing on the topic, so it'll just be me sharing my experience. But what is in store for today? Well, it is a 10th episode show and that means we're going to do a non financial topic. And I hope you're ready because this one is going to be pretty controversial. In fact, it's so controversial we thought about not airing it. So there you go. Anyway, here it comes. Also, Empowered Investor Pro members, I do want to mention to you that we.

Are changing the time.

Many of you have requested that we hold meetings during business hours, our monthly first Tuesday Zoom meetings. So next month will be the first time that we change the time. It'll be noon Pacific and 3pm Eastern, just like our second Wednesday Zoom meetings that are open to everyone even if you're not a pro member. So it'll be the same time, different day. First Tuesday of the month, our Empowered Investor Pro members meet on Zoom. And the second Wednesday of the month, we have a meeting that is open to all of you. So that is the scoop on a little schedule change there. And after this, I'm back to Switzerland, planning to visit Davos and go back to Zurich and then over through Austria. So I'll keep you informed about the travels. But let's go ahead and get to our 10th episode off topic guest today.

That I think you'll find fascinating.

Try not to be offended. Here we go.

It is my pleasure to welcome Kurt Doolittle to the show. He was referred by Rudyard lynch, who's been on the show before, and he is the founder of the Natural Law Institute. He studies the culture war, economics. Just a whole bunch of historical context for all of this and we're going to take a deep dive into that today. Kurt, welcome. How are you?

Glad to be here. Thank you very much for inviting me. Yeah, I will try my best not to over nerd the audience. And I count on Jason as a experienced interviewer and moderator to try to prevent the autism from running away with some nascent detail I find absolutely fascinating and is not so to the audience.

So we're no strangers to getting a little nerdy and Taking deep dives in here. So, yeah, I look forward to it. But, Kurt, you have some fascinating thoughts on really how we got to where we are in terms of culture today. It has certainly changed a lot over just the last couple of decades. You know, why don't you just kind of start with that and we'll take it from there.

Right. So the way you best educate people is to give them an example from history and then show that it's a repetition of example from history. So what happened when the Greek and Roman world overtook the Middle Eastern world? The Middle Eastern world, Benedict. A bunch of rivers, right, produced a place where you go to get food. They're actually really easy to lay political systems in because you can police rivers cheaply, because you can use boats to police them. And so there's a lot of great stuff there, but it's incredibly tribal. And there's always. And because. Because it's in the intersection of four continents, there's always a wave of new troublemaking guys on horses or foot or with some kind of new weapons coming in and killing off the aristocracy and putting the new one in place. So all of a sudden the Indo Europeans come around and the Greeks and the Romans build this new world and they create trade, even better, broader range of trade. And this tends to create a situation where Roman administration is trying to bring all these tribal folk into who have previously been basically under what Nietzsche would call slave morality or had been subjects into the Greco Roman model of European responsibility. And they don't like it. So what happens is, as all cultures do, they try to preserve what they had had before, which is a religious culture, which in their culture, they issue responsibility at the individual level and they push it up to others. So I'm only responsible for this. Well, okay, so what happens is, of course you create the need for. You create more wealth and opportunity so more people have more choices. So this idea that you can raise yourself up from the station, but you're still bound by your previous instincts and traditions and customs. All right, now let's fast forward to Industrial revolution. Same thing happens around 1200. The the Europeans start to restore the European method, right? They develop the Hanseatic League, restores trade. The the Muslims close, conquer Byzantium and close the ports. The Europeans develop the Age of sail, unite the world, make fast international colonization and trade crazy. So there's this huge explosion of wealth that results from a series of sale commercial, financial, industrial, scientific and technological innovations that happen, right? So what happened is we raise people up and every time a civilization Raises people up. It moves people from one class to another. And when they do that, they only know the traditions of their class. They went to the mythos, the ethics, the virtues, the means of argument, the rituals, the status of the class. And so when you move them up, they have resistance. They, they prefer the consumption available at the new level, but they resist the responsibility. The new level. In other words, they, they pursue the consumption available. Right. But they issue the responsibility. What, what did we do? We had the, we hit the industrial revolution that raised people up, and instead of getting Christianity like we did in the old world, we got Marxism. What's the difference? There isn't any. It's the same set of promises. Move from theological terms to pseudo scientific.

Terms to more like present day, almost economic terms. Right. You know, it's interesting. I wonder if that's an interesting thing about. Yeah. You know, certainly people don't want to take responsibility in so many ways and it's, it's such a sad state of.

Affairs and they're not always able to.

Understood. I wonder if that's sort of. Well, speaking to that point, actually. I wonder if that sort of kind of plays out like a Peter principle concept where in, in people's career, you know, they rise to their level of incompetence.

Well, you're jumping ahead, but what do you think's happening now? Yeah, right, okay, so let me just finish my arc and I'm sorry. You know, and it's just these stories.

No, go right ahead, take a bit.

I mean, Zion does a pretty good job. I'm not as practiced and articulate as Peter. So when we get to the US Revolution, but what happened? So the Enlightenment brought in the middle class, the industrial ocean brought in the working class, and the world wars brought the women in. Right. And so what's happened is that because men made all those previous revolutions, it wasn't until the introduction of women into the voting pool that we had a different moral and ethical foundation with which to generate political demand. And so while you have men in this process, men are inventing all the new crimes, they're inventing new opportunities, technologies, political systems or whatever. And women are still limited to the household. But the Industrial revolution and the warrior come in, you need to demand for labor, and all of a sudden women are able, but they're actually. Well, I mean, I'm from Canandaigua, New York, which is where Susan B. Anthony started, did her thing. So I mean, I'm very familiar with this in my background. So the, the movement's been happening Quite a while. But we really didn't have political until the women are integrated into the system. So all we're really seeing now is we're seeing the expression of the middle class in the Enlightenment and their lies frankly about the monarchy. And we're seeing the labor come in and their lies frankly about capitalism. Now we're seeing the female come in and their lies about masculinity. And they've created a basically a cult that is in the Abrahamic Marxist tradition that's just as much a rebellion against meritocracy and respons as the Semitic worlds and the Abrahamic religions were against the old world Greco Roman European demand for aristocratic responsibility. So we're just dealing with the integration of women into economy and polity. While men discovered all these previous means of innovation, they also invented all these crimes that we've suppressed. We've introduced women and we haven't equally suppressed female antisocial and criminal behavior. So if you study, you study. Watch Peterson for this because it's something he spent many years on. Sex differences and antisocial behavior, something we know quite a bit about.

Have we done that to men?

We do it incrementally in the common law to men all the time.

Yeah.

You know, one of the difference between male and female cognition is male systematizing over time and female empathizing in time. It's also male responsibility seeking status through responsibility and female staking status through irresponsibility or in other words, attaching herself to someone else's responsibility. So the fundamental difference between the sexes is a pursuit of responsibility and pursuit of status. Right, which provides reproductive opportunity versus the female pursuit of irresponsibility through mate selection and hyper consumption, hyper gaming. So once you understand those things, you understand the sex differences in cognition, you end up with the sex differences in lying and you understand that Marxism, neo Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, libertarianism, neoconservatism, PC and woke. The entire Marxist sequence is a repetition of the Abrahamic sequence. And the Marxist Abrahamic sequence are just an application of female means of antisocial behavior and lying.

Fascinating. Okay, so the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It's like, it's just so. You know, I tell people, people tease me. I mean I haven't got. I'm wired so that I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But it makes it a lot easier when you realize we're almost all just bots running on genetic information. Genetic biases that are just provided with tools for which to negotiate within a civilizational. Tradition. And that civilizational tradition is at least 5,000 years old. In every case. In our case of Europeans, we developed. There's only three. Three means of human coercion, which is force, inclusion, exclusion or trade boycott.

Right.

There's a three means. That'll be three points of the political compass. And so there's only three institutions that can form religion, state and commerce or law. Right.

In common law.

Well, Europeans, because we were basically cattle raiders carrying around horses and carts or oxen and carts on the step. The only way we could conduct warfare was through agreement. So we developed common. We developed the law as our first institution. The Middle east did this, did religion. China did the state, and those are the three points of the compass. And it's interesting that only India is the only weird outlier, which is this sort of weird proxy between culture and religion that produced it in this very fancy, fascinating culture for that reason, as an institution. But, you know, we, we, by luck of the draw, we ended up with the optimum means of organizing because it's the least capturable and it's the most evolutionary and adaptive. So that's the.

The organizing by law.

Yes.

So why is it the least capturable? Tell us what that means.

Because European civilization ended up being trifunctional because of it. There's the law, there's the military, and there's the priesthood, and there's the people in the middle, and the law decides. So we had three elites, the military, the legal, and the priesthood. And so we ended up with trifunctional civilization. This prevents. This keeps a competition between the three forces which. Which prevents calcification despite the fact that religion tried. The church tried to become a monopoly, the aristocracy tried to become monopoly and present the state, which is the. The military was trying to. Because, become a monopoly. And they're trying to destroy a law and our culture in order to make that happen. Monopoly.

Right. Right. Okay.

So.

So. So before you go there, though, just give us a. Compared to what? Compare that to the way the Middle east organized and maybe the way India organized, if you want, because you said that was kind of an outlier.

China. China developed a state first. And so they had an aristocracy, but they had a territorial aristocracy. And there were. And so they developed the state first, they developed philosophy second, because military is epistemic, more epistemic than religion is. So developed the military state first, then philosophy, and then they had to go find religion. The same thing happened in Japan, which is why Japan is like us. They develop military aristocracy. They developed some customary law and Then they finally went Buddhism forced on them. Even though they have natural religion, which is ancestor worsh. India is an interesting problem and that it was impossible for state formation given the size and population of the conquering Indo Europeans. So they succeeded in producing a caste system which basically has laws for each class. And so they had a legal system for each class. This turned out to be fascinatingly effective because you know, India is sort of like how Europe is Anatolian farmer in the north south and steppe herder in the north. India is Indo European in the north west and it's Dravidian in the southeast. And so they have these, all these tribes that had tribal peoples that are just basically too difficult and expensive to rule by state. This helps us understand the Middle East. The Middle east was too expensive and costly to rule by state and any means possible because it's highly tribal. Those people don't. It's a very low trust civilization. Matter of fact it's still heroic to lie, cheat steel and engage in corruption in the Middle East. That's why they can't form a military, a corporation of any size, economic productivity under skies because they're limited to familial size organizations that were basically family shops. So they're only capable of scale for that reason. So religion was the way of solving the problem of cheap administration of people. The same way India had resolved the problem of cheap administration. The way that China was able to impose fairly costly administration. And Europeans have the most costly administration. Which is why we can't expand, we can't conquer other people, we can't colonize other people. Every time we try, we fail because it's too. Our way of rule. Self rule demands too much responsibility of people who have too many heterogeneous interests.

And when you say our, you mean the US or you mean European ancestors?

Europeans. We're all these.

Yeah.

There's a variation across the European spectrum from the Latin to the.

Well, I, I don't know. Wouldn't people take issue with that when they look at, you know, how the sun never set on the British Empire?

Great question. When you say but it was. What were we successful of the empires? Who was successful? The. If you look at it today, you want to be an English colony. Why? Because of English administration, Rule of law.

They were great at it. They organized the world and in fact they civilized the world. I mean. But of course people complain about empires.

But was it profitable?

Yes, it was very.

The banking and trade was profitable.

Yeah.

But it became unprofitable over time. That's what we learned from colonization. It actually doesn't work. It's too expensive. So then you look at the.

But I would argue that it actually lifted up so many countries that were once territories.

Absolutely correct. Two different.

They would be. Nobody ever asked compared to what. I mean, look at how those countries would be had the Brits never come in there. Right. I'm not saying it was good or fair or anything. I'm just saying what if. Right.

I think this is common knowledge. The audience may not know this, but you're taking. I just want to make a note that I make making the opposite point that it's very hard for us to try to colonize other people. It works best when you take Europe. Our ancestors killed all the men and took over all the women in Europe. And then when you took over the States and took over the US And Canada and Australia, we basically. To replace the population. It's. That's different. Now can you. Can you modernize the population? Can you bring them into search? Certainly. You certainly don't want to be a French colony. It might be okay to be a Spanish colony, but. And it's certainly best to be a British colony. And so I'm not making an opposite. I'm saying for us, can we sustain that empire? And the answer is it's really hard to do so because. Hard to justify it. It's different for land empires because they're right next door. But naval empire is a different question. So all I was trying to make the original question I'm not going to do. You'd have to be crazy to say because if you look at the places that were colonized, the people that were. You want to be colonized. You want to be Nigeria, which has got the English model down the best. Right. But it's still hard for you because of demographic distributions. But anyway, the archae was simply on. Was saying that we developed law first as our first institution. We developed tri functionalism as a response. As a response which is a competition between the elites moderated by law. And this is the most expensive system of administration because it's the most behaviorally expensive system to ask people to. To adhere to. And that's because it's the most emotionally, psychologically and mentally demanding because responsibility is demanding. And so we have the high trust society because we're the most demanding society and most demanding society because we have the most responsibility. The only people that are close to the Japanese are the Japanese and Koreans.

Very interesting. Okay, so where does that take us? What does it tell us about the.

Future for Example tell us about our current crisis is women's instinct is the opposite of man. Okay. And externalize all responsibility. So what are they voting for?

They, they lean left and vote for more socialist type of agendas.

Certainly that's a female agenda.

Well, especially when they're younger and single or single in general, if they're married. They tend to take a U turn.

On that because a female's nervous system has evolved to by the age of 14, 15 to be able to extend her nervous system over a bunch of rugrats without having to think about it. In other words, she needs to do it involuntari early. So if you. It's just like if a man is deprived of any opportunity for responsibility, he won't develop responsibility. If a woman is deprived of the ability or necessity to manage her offspring, she will favor hyper consumption, hyper gaming and furthermore she'll externalize that to the polity for hyper responsibility, which is what we see in their behavior. And you can predict this from the very basics of human differences. And because all differences in, in human behavior are based on two basic things. The hemispheric device. It's not really hemispheric but the. The lateralization or longitudinalization of the brain for male speed systematizing overtime and female empathizing of volumes of information distributed in time. Fundamentally, women are prey animals and they are males or predators. So you see, women act like prey animals and males act like predators. Well, how do women lie sheet and steal and conduct war? They can't do it physically. They do it by undermining. They do it by basically reputation and destruction. They do it by gossiping and ridiculing and moralizing and social construction, which is gossiping at scale.

I mean look, there's. If anyone doubts this, there's a well known movie about it. It's called Mean Girls.

Yes. If you talk to women, female therapists who work with women who are of anti. Antisocial traits. So basically say female behavior is high school and it never stops. Whereas men's behavior in high school sorts them so that it can stop. Does that make sense? We sort.

So yeah, so. So tell us about the sorting of men.

Well, it's the whole thing of. I just want to know. Most men are pretty simple. I don't necessarily care where I am as long as I know my job and I can succeed at it. I'd like to move up, right? But I want to be able to succeed at it because the other guys won't put up with my. If I don't Succeed at it.

Right. So they'll, they'll be weeded out of the system and they won't be able to achieve the success they want if they don't play ball.

Right. But that doesn't happen to women. Why is it this? You gotta. We should think of this. Men and women both are deferential to women and that we put up with their behavior. Why?

Yeah, why? I don't know.

We don't know why. We, we know biologically why, but we don't know why it makes perfect sense to put up with women. I mean, because what we're really doing is we're licensing their anti social behavior. Now most of this stuff comes from not because they're women, but because they will be mothers or they are mothers and we are trying to compensate mothers for their concerns. But once they're not mothers, they're just being consumptive, hypergamic, hyper irresponsible.

And, and by the way, for those who don't know, you probably should explain what high hypergamy or hypergamy means. You know, that means moving up to the next level. Right?

It means if you know, how tall are you?

Tall enough. But not six three.

I'm five seven. Yeah, right, so. So a girl's gonna swing from me to you if assuming we. You have a little more income than I am because. Right. She's gonna swing from me to you.

She's always gonna go for the better deal.

She's always gonna go for the better.

And monkey branch, the better deal. Right.

Because it reduces her responsibility. I would have never expected this. I was horrified by it and I still resisted it mentally, emotionally, at every camp. But all female behavior that's different from male is reducible to the evasion of responsibility for the commons. All of it. So if what you're really saying, she's hyper, gammit. What she's doing is trying to avoid responsibility for production.

Right, but see, this whole idea that females are even responsible for production in the first place is, you know, that was born out of feminism. You know, I don't think that's really the proper role. I think it's caused a lot of heartache and a lot of very major depression among females. And men too.

We know they're not happy. You want to be happy. You be conservative with a family. It's really not complicated. Yeah, right, but what's the difference of conservative and liberal? It's basically feminine bias, cognitive bias. That's what makes you liberal, is empathizing in time instead of systematizing, measuring the cost overtime.

You've said those phrases several times. Sure, why don't you explain those? Empathizing in time versus systematizing over time. Over time. Okay, got it. So the empathizing applies to females more often than not. What does that mean, that phrase?

Okay, so your brain, your neurons are prediction engines, right? That's what it is. It predicts a whole bunch of stuff and it forms a competition for what's most interesting, which means what's the biggest reward? That's all it does. Right. And so that your attention, whatever competition is going on in your head produces a reward attention and of when it discovers a reward and you can suddenly say not that one and go back and recurse this and find others opportunities, but that's what it does. So when we're bilateralized, right, we're two sided. We used to be worms. Right? So you were bilateral. I mean life used to be worms, right? We're bilateralized. So our brain split in half. Well, how do you time your limbs for movement? You have to get priority somewhere. In other words, decidability has to emerge. Well, in human beings it turned up being the predator response in the right hand and the prey responsibility left. And the left hand is the right brain and the right and as left brain. So what happened in the sexual division of labor took advantage of this, which is the female prey and the male predator. And what happens in the female brain is it's more connected, there's more white matter, so processes more information in time and it predicts how people feel. Whereas the male brain is more disconnected between the hemispheres, predicts more longitudinally and predicts what's going to happen in the world over time.

Right.

So this is why men are good at spatial rotation, systematic prediction, throwing spears and all this other crap. And we look at women and say why do you care about how that person feels? Right? I mean it's like the, you can see this mostly in mansplaining versus woman spleen, right? A woman's planning comes out and is trying to tell some man, you should care about how somebody feels when the feeling is irrelevant because we're worried about consequences. Feeling isn't a consequence to us, it's just a cost of producing an outcome. But not to women. It's the whole purpose. Okay, so basically our brains predict some combination of these things and whatever gets our emotion, intention of balance is whatever wins the competition. And so most of us are mostly masculine and feminine, but there's an overlap between us obviously. And some, there's some men who are are very left wing because they're cognitively feminine. And some women that are not very small number but are cognitively masculine and very faction fracturing reality order. So fields versus reals is a real thing. It's biological. We can see it in your neural performance. It's not. We didn't used to have MRIs and it was different. Excuse me, we didn't have different technology for to explore how different brains thinks. But right now the level we've got, it is terrifyingly precise.

Means Fmris.

Yes, exactly. So, so these are, you know, it's, it's just biology. So in this sense you say, well, of course women think this way. Of course they specialize in single moral trait of harm and care. Right. But men, we don't specialize in one. We specialize in all six. Loyalty and hierarchy and disgust and purity and liberty and proportionality. They were there just in harm, care and fairness. So you have a, that why? Because you're predicting a smaller set but a larger number of risks. And we're predicting consequences and seeing different risks. And so the great thing about this from an evolutionary standpoint is that male and female specialization form a division of perceptual labor and time. So that when we cooperate, we're solving a problem in this time frame, in this condition, but we might also be able to solve it in these time frames and conditions. So this, this gave us our hyper adaptability, which is ability to predict different demands in different time frames. Same thing with classes. Slower classes think in shorter time frames called high time preference. And upper classes take a long longer time frame, which is lower time preference. Right.

And, and you know, that that's always been interesting to me. You know, I, I frequently say one of the true signs of maturity is the ability to delay gratification for a bigger, longer term goal. And I think that's also a good marker of intelligence. Right. You know, is the fact that you can, you can see the consequences of actions farther out into the future. I mean, you know, chess champions, you know, somehow they have the ability to evaluate all of these different moves, all of these different possibilities, all these different reactions from their opponent. And that, that's interesting. So what I wanted to ask you before is have there been, throughout history or geography. Right. Any time or place on earth, have there been successful matriarchal societies or have they all been patriarchal? And is this due to oppression by men or is it just the way things worked out?

Well, I'll tell you the nice answer and then I'll add the negative part There are matrilineal, but there has never been a matriarchal. Your name and parentage is determined by your mother. The mother is the stable unit of inheritance. And the reason is what's the eventual means of resolving all conflicts? Violence.

Violence, yeah.

And second is. Okay, you want. Ready for this one?

Yep.

Women are notorious liars throughout all history, and that's why they've been discounted in testimony, just like they are today. So here we need to believe them. Remember that during the Gorsa Whatever, one of the supreme courts.

Yep.

Who?

Anita Hill? Or you're talking about Brett Kavanaugh recently, was it Cabinet?

Was Kavanaugh's.

Yeah.

We need to believe them. Right. Not only don't you believe them, it's not clear. Women actually know the difference between desirable and true when they're emotionally activated.

You know, a lot of people are going to be very upset hearing this, but, you know, there is a. An argument for it outside of everything you're saying, and that's that men used their ability to inflict violence. Right. As their form of power throughout evolution. And women had to come up with something else. They had to have better intuition or they had to be better at manipulating circumstances.

Right. It's evolved because the minute we got spears, you and I can absolutely kill that Alpha. Right. So women got control of the reproduction. Right. So that's where it originates from.

So have there been any successful matriarchal societies?

There can't be. Really. Here's the example that the only places where women tend to have any control whatsoever, but it's because all the men are dead.

Right. That's Rwanda.

I don't know.

During the Rwandan genocide, women had to take over afterwards, you know, because. Because so many men had died during that time. I remember watching this documentary about it, about, you know, praising women for taking over and, you know, stepping up and running society and, you know, that's all great, but they seem to completely different discount that all the men are dead, you know, like their sacrifice.

And that realistically there's nothing they don't have. Self determination. The reason it's like libertarians always used to go their libertarian fantasy. And I'm an ex libertarian, so I. I still consider myself a classical liberal libertarian.

I think libertarianism sounds great in concept, but it in principle, it just breaks down all over the place.

Exactly. Well, it's the same thing. Think for female orders. Yeah. Women aren't loyal. They're only devoted in time. They're not loyal across time. They're not responsible for the Comments and.

So devoted in time, but not across time. What does that mean?

So you devoted to your children, devoted to you, but the minute they don't need to be, you don't matter. That's why men are more sentimental than women because we still protect our exes and whatever afterwards, but women don't.

Yeah, you know, that's, that's, that's really interesting. And most would think that's the other way around, but I would agree. I think men are much more sentimental than women.

I don't say anything that I don't have. I haven't done the data and falsify the alternatives. So basically, women live in the now because children are perishable. Men live over time because the society, because polities can tolerate variation in time if they can produce outcomes over time. So it's really simple genetics at work here. It doesn't, we're just bots. And the minute you do that, you realize that that crazy Karen over there is just an accident of neural recombination. Then you sort of say, okay, well that's great. The problem is those of us who are capable of responsibility have to take and maintain responsibility, and we're not. So I want to, it's easy to listen to what I say and say we're paying the normal cost of introduction of women into the polity like we paid the normal cost of the labor into the economy, political economy. Just like we paid the cost of the middle class into the political economy. We're paying those prices. Right. The problem is, are we going to take the responsibility or are we going to let this slide because we're habitually or biologically tolerant of female misbehavior. When we can look at the consequence of this female antisocial behavior, this female irresponsibility, this female destruction of comments and the female destruction of institutional views, a culture production. And when we don't, as European understand, is the mass production of individual responsibility that produces the high trust quality that all our gains of their product are.

Well, see, I think that's one of the, one of the other things that I have read about this over the years and I've heard people talking about it. It's that in matriarchal power structures, it's the women that don't trust the other women.

That's right.

And so you can't have a working like you certainly couldn't have a military without the people trusting each other. Right. You, you have to trust your partner who's in that foxhole with you. You know, I mean, it's worse.

You have to obey him otherwise because you have to assume you don't know. In other words, there's more to hierarchy than trust. Right. At some point you've got to say, I don't know, I got to do it anyway because it's my job and they won't do it.

Yeah.

So we get into this thing of saying, well, it sounds like I'm female. Bet. I'm just saying we're all bots.

Yeah.

You know, and that our law is a lagging indicator. And we've had all this new stuff come up. The introduction of women has produced some really bad legislation. And so we can correct it. It's not hard to stop female antisocial behavior because really, I mean, most of the stuff they do is, is traditionally illegal in our civilization and it's never been possible to do it industrial scale like this. Right. Mass media. We stop women from doing it, we stop the men from making money from selling it to women. It goes away. It's really easy. You got to stop it. Now what does that take? Well, I mean, most of my work ends up being constitutional reform, strict construction of homological law that gets rid of these problems and cures a lot of the problems that have come around. But that's too heavy for the audience.

Very interesting. Well, certainly some big topics here. We're going to have some angry people after listening to this. I am sure.

But. But I don't like it either. Don't blame me. I don't like it either. Because you figured out the circle, the sun. I don't like any of this stuff. Darwin figured evolution. I don't like any of this stuff. It doesn't matter what I like.

Yeah.

It matters what cause allows us to cooperate together.

Right.

And it's not getting what we want. It's getting what all of us can want without harming each other.

Yeah, yeah. Very interesting. Give out your website or Twitter handle or whatever you'd like people to have.

I'm just at Kurt Doolittle, one word on Twitter. T o little. The site is thenaturallawinstitute.com or it's just naturallawinstitute.com and we, we work very organically. The team's about 12 sort of full time people and we have around 500 people that are involved in some way. And so hopefully by the end of this year we'll have our first volume out and we'll start leaking policy. Legal changes out the year.

Kurt, thank you so much for joining us. Very intriguing conversation. We appreciate having you, Jason.

You're a great host. You did a great job.

Thank you. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show's specific website and our general website, hartmanmedia.com for appropriate disclaimers and terms of service. Remember that guest opinions are their own and and if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional and we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you're using and write a review for the show. We would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We we look forward to seeing you on the next episode.