One of the better elements of the growing alt-right is its awareness of the innate biological differences between men and women. Whereas Objectivism is explicitly tabula rasa (although Rand herself shows male psychological dominance in her novels; ie "rape by engraved invitation"), the alt-right is biologically grounded and bases its view of the sexes on both socio-biology and more importantly (and more easily measured) on neurology. As a consequence it has the ability to understand the behavior of the different sexes in both the sexual realm AND the political / social realm.
One of the most popular of the alt-right bloggers, Chateau Heartiste, often comments on the differences between the sexes in a social context. He has a way with words that very few on the right have. Here is his latest pearl of wisdom which he offered in the context of the "rapefugee" phenomenon of the continuing Muslim invasion and rape-fest going on in Europe. A phenomenon which is the actual application of Binswanger's open border policy. Here is Heartiste's gem:
Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences.
The above quote is written in something of a Nietzschean style but it is an accurate statement of the psychological dynamics between the sexes that Rand herself acknowledged. In her book co-written with Branden ("Psychology of Romantic Love"), Rand uses the term "psycho-sexual dominance". Incidentally, this term offended Diana Hsieh. What a surprise. Rand implicitly understood that the dynamic between the sexes is one of primate male dominance and female surrender (which incidentally is the essence of PUA, ie the pickup arts), and with Branden as her psychological guide, she basically put her view of the sexes on a socio-biological foundation (whether she knew it or not). Get that. Rand was a Bandlerian. lol
Heartiste goes on to show the insanity of the rape (ie Muslim) crisis going on in Germany and Sweden. He shows how it stems from the abandonment of masculinity and the rule of the feminine. Find the rest here:
https://heartiste.wordpress.co...
---------
Objectivists should be able to reach these same conclusions but they can't. They can't because the flaw with Objectivism is its blank slate view of human nature and human psychology. That needs to be corrected or Objectivism will never "capture the culture". And I don't say that out of hatred. I say that out of love.
Also, I'll add that Lindsay often comments that women are "daffy" and basically insane. Well that's true in a way but incomplete. Once you understand female psychology though, you don't view women as daffy primarily, but just as the emotionalist, hormone driven breeding machines that they are (the daffyness is just a bi-product of their wiring; ie its a feature not a bug). A true understanding of female nature and their biologic imperatives would lead one to the conclusion that women should never have been given the franchise.
In some future minarchist republic where the state is contained by rational philosophy (or in some futuristic Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society if you believe in that) and women could not destroy the society through mass voting, then a different approach to female participation in politics could be considered. But in this one, the female vote is dangerous and should be viewed as such. I would have no problem with totally disenfranchising all women. I don't care that there are rational ones. The group as such is dangerous. And daffy.