He's for a return to 1920s "capitalist democracy" that excludes groups that don't vote the way he'd like.
He's stating that that was compatible with what he wanted. He's not claiming in that essay that we should go back to it. He doesn't want democracy, that much is apparent, because he thinks it's incompatible with freedom on a long time scale.
I'm not sure that I'm capable of the mental gymnastics to get there.
Reading the piece makes this much apparent.
The latter led to the former in his mind, so bringing the latter back would get him back to where he started.
> "In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”"
The piece is arguing that ANY government system of politics: democracy, theocracy, communism, or whatever is not compatible in the long term with true 'freedom' as he envisions it, and he is looking towards technology to remedy this problem.
You may not agree with him that a world without a government is a good idea, but make that argument instead of trying to twist what he wrote into some sexist fascist diatribe.
Like, he specifically brings up the 20s as a positive example.
Stop right there. He does not want to take away votes. He wants to take away the government entirely. Neither males or females would have anything to vote for because there is no longer a government.