Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • ANTI-UTOPIANISM Agreement on mutually beneficial opportunities and constraints i

    ANTI-UTOPIANISM
    Agreement on mutually beneficial opportunities and constraints is preferable. But in the end if the conditions are impossible, or intolerable, violence always, and everywhere decides.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-23 21:01:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2036186583330881784

  • “Hillary Clinton Is One of The MOST Disgusting Human Beings on the Planet” (yet

    “Hillary Clinton Is One of The MOST Disgusting Human Beings on the Planet”
    (yet women in particular voted for her)

    https://youtube.com/shorts/lpUpwCnGKtAsi=DBSlTa99VrHDh0ex
    … via @YouTube

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-22 02:37:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035546256651784323

  • Contrast Anglo-American Liberalism with German Thought I would not contrast Angl

    Contrast Anglo-American Liberalism with German Thought

    I would not contrast Anglo-American liberalism with “German thought” as though each were a single block. The better contrast is between two different civilizational solutions to scale.
    The Anglo-American solution, at its best, is bottom-up, common-law, anti-discretionary, and reciprocity-bearing: natural law, rule of law, divided powers, rights tied to obligations, and sovereignty distributed through institutions rather than concentrated in a theory of the state. In my framework, its virtue is not “freedom” as sentiment, but freedom as the institutional byproduct of reciprocal constraint. That is the point of common law, adversarialism, federalism, and the prohibition on arbitrary rule.
    The German 19th-century tradition was solving a different problem: how to produce cultural unity, state capacity, education, industrial development, and national coherence in a fragmented continental setting under pressure from France, industrial Britain, and later mass politics. On that terrain, it produced real strengths. Humboldt saw that the state should not smother the person, but should create conditions in which cultivation and association are possible. Fichte saw that a polity cannot live by abstraction alone and that labor, education, and national formation matter. List saw that markets do not emerge in a vacuum and that nations in an early stage of industrialization may need coordinated development.
    So no, that tradition was not merely “flawed and destined to fail.” It contained genuine strengths that Anglo liberalism often under-supplies: administrative seriousness, educational formation, long-horizon industrial policy, public capacity, and a more explicit understanding that a nation is not only a market but a historical and institutional inheritance. Germany’s later welfare and social-insurance achievements show part of that capacity.
    But where that tradition becomes dangerous is where culture, nation, or state cease to be instruments under law and become ends in themselves. The recurring German temptation was to over-credit reason of state, civil service, national mission, philosophy of history, or cultural destiny, and under-credit the Anglo lesson that liberty survives only where discretion is broken up by law, rights, procedure, and distributed sovereignty. Within my framework, once sovereignty is no longer reciprocal and law no longer stands above political will, the whole system begins to slide from cooperation into managed hierarchy.
    So the German tradition is complementary to natural law where it contributes capacity without violating reciprocity: education, competence, disciplined administration, industrial coordination, and national continuity. It is incompatible where it subordinates the person to the state, replaces law with historical mission, treats rights as grants of membership, or confuses collective destiny with moral legitimacy.
    On National Socialism specifically: it was neither the simple fulfillment of Humboldt, Fichte, or List nor wholly unrelated to the broader German line. It was a catastrophic late mutation that drew on some available materials—nationalism, statism, racial myth, autarkic and expansionist thinking, anti-parliamentarianism, postwar humiliation—but radicalized them into a racist, anti-democratic, total state aimed at domination, exclusion, and extermination. That is why it must be discussed, but not allowed to retroactively erase everything else in German political development. Humboldt’s defense of individual development, for example, sits much closer to liberalism than to Nazism. Fichte is more ambiguous. List belongs more to developmental nationalism than to racial-totalitarian politics.
    If that German line had continued in a healthy direction rather than through the catastrophes of 1914–1945, its superiority over Anglo liberalism would likely have been in coordinated development, educational depth, bureaucratic competence, and the integration of economy with national survival. Its inferiority would likely have remained in its weaker defenses against concentration of political discretion. In other words: stronger at formation, weaker at limitation.
    So my answer is: the best of the German tradition is not an enemy of natural law. It can supplement it. But only on the condition that nation, culture, and administration remain subordinate to reciprocity, truth, sovereignty, and rule of law. Once they are elevated above those constraints, they cease to be complements and become threats.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 16:53:32 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2035037034726007251

  • Sex Differences in the Franchise: testable institutional failure rather than sex

    Sex Differences in the Franchise: testable institutional failure rather than sexism

    –“If our voting system were to be overhauled, rather than stripping the right to vote from ALL women, how might we filter out the 80% of women with female cognition while somehow keeping the 20% of women who have male cognition, so as to not be ‘sexist’.”–

    Good question. It gets to the operational heart of the matter without the usual moralizing fog.

    1. Voting Isn’t a ‘Right’ — It’s a License to Direct Coercion
    Voting directs the organized application of state violence (taxes, law, policy, enforcement). In a high-trust polity, this requires demonstrated reciprocity: full accounting of costs imposed on others’ demonstrated interests (body, time, effort, offspring, reputation, commons). Universal suffrage fails this test because it allows irreciprocal majorities to externalize costs without liability.
    The data is clear: adding women to the franchise produced predictable shifts toward pathos-driven policy (welfare expansion, debt accumulation, dysgenic incentives, open borders, family dissolution) because female cognition biases toward:
    • Higher neuroticism & empathy → preference for immediate care/relief over long-term systemic costs.
    • Risk-externalization → “someone else pays” (tribe/state/men bear reproduction/safety costs).
    • Evasion of responsibility → moralizing/shaming/rallying/gossip (GSRM) over direct accountability.
    • Short time preference in commons production.
    This isn’t ‘all women’ — it’s the modal female distribution (the 80% you reference), and it’s why anti-suffrage predictions bore out almost exactly.
    2. Why Blanket Bans Are Inefficient (and Irreciprocal)Banning all women imposes costs on the ~20% with male-like cognition (systematizing, low neuroticism, high agency, responsibility-bearing) without full accounting. That’s baiting-into-hazard: false promise of ‘fairness’ that raises cooperation costs. We don’t ban all low-IQ people — we filter via demonstrated performance. Same logic applies here.
    3. Operational Filters That Target Female-Biased Cognition Without Blanket SexismUse demonstrated responsibility proxies that correlate strongly with male cognition / high-agency women, while excluding pathos-driven, irreciprocal voting:
    • Net Taxpayer Status — Must have paid more in taxes than received in transfers over lifetime (or projected). Disproportionately excludes single mothers, long-term welfare users, and low-responsibility lifestyles (heavily female-skewed).
    • Parental Responsibility — Tied votes/benefits to number of children raised to adulthood without state intervention (future taxpayers). Rewards high-agency pair-bonded families; penalizes single motherhood / dysgenic reproduction.
    • Criminal / Civil Liability Record — Exclude those with pattern of GSRM-style fraud, defamation, false accusations, or family court abuse (heavily female tactics we already suppress in men via violence/dueling laws historically).
    • IQ + Delayed Gratification Tests — Minimum threshold (e.g., 105+) + time-preference measures (e.g., marshmallow equivalents or credit score proxies). Captures high-agency women; excludes modal female distribution.
    • Military / Civic Service — Demonstrated bearing of commons costs (defense, emergency response). Historically male, but high-agency women qualify.
    • No Public Sector Employment Dependency — Exclude those whose income depends on state largesse (teachers, bureaucrats, NGO workers) — heavily female and pathos-biased.
    These aren’t ‘sexist’ — they’re sex-neutral but produce disparate impact because of biological distributions in cognition, valuation, and behavior. We already accept disparate impact for IQ/criminal filters.
    4. Systemic Fixes (Better Than Filters Alone)Filters are bandaids. Restore decidability via institutional design:
    • Multi-House Legislature — Territorial (regions/men-heavy), Commercial (capital), Familial/Women’s House (pathos inputs contained), Institutional (academy/experts). Policies require cross-house consensus — no more majoritarian pathos raids.
    • Constitutional Amendment — Criminalize female equivalents of male antisocial behavior (sedition via moralizing/shaming/rallying, false victimhood claims) under strict liability.
    • Restore Intergenerational Family Primacy — Reverse no-fault divorce, tie benefits to pair-bonded reproduction, tax workforce participation by non-mothers.
    • Restore Demand for Evidence of Enforcement – Evidence of enforcement of responsibility, reciprocity, and accountability.
    5. Bottom LineWe don’t need to ban women — we need to ban irreciprocity. The 20% of high-agency women will pass every filter above and add value. The 80% won’t — not because of ‘sexism,’ but because their demonstrated interests conflict with sustainable high-trust commons.
    Natural Law doesn’t promise equality of outcome. It demands full accounting of costs. Universal suffrage failed that test. These reforms pass it.
    Happy to drill deeper on any filter or house design.

    Cheers
    Curt
    Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 16:01:54 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2035024041132888255

  • Interesting. The Israelis are pushing the chips all in against both Iran and the

    Interesting. The Israelis are pushing the chips all in against both Iran and their proxies in Lebanon.

    The strategic problem with authoritarian states like Russia and Iran is their dependence upon large domestic police and paramilitary organiztions to contain the population. This is made worse when the mullahs are in charge since they are the equivalent of neighborhood activists. And unlike bureaucrats we have in most developed countries, who will merely lose their jobs (at least for a while), The regular police, then, the mullahs (political agents), the morality police (Gasht-e Ershad or Guidance Patrols), The Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran (FARAJA), Basij paramilitary force, and the IRGC with the IRGC functioning as the ideological army.

    Local mullahs help maintain oppression by providing ideological cover, local compliance, and mobilization support—especially in conservative communities—but they are not the primary enforcers. The oppressive apparatus relies far more on the IRGC/Basij for coercion and the Supreme Leader’s centralized clerical oversight for structure. High-level clerics (not local ones) hold veto powers via constitutional bodies.

    What does this mean? It means you have to ‘off’ a lot of people, and in most cases that takes a military on one end or a population that can gain access to arms on the other.

    The Israelis have no problem doing the ‘offing’ as we have seen. But there is a lot of it to be done.

    The regime’s structure is deliberately layered, resilient, and decentralized in key ways to survive leadership decapitation, internal crises, or external pressure.

    Why “Offing” Senior Positions Isn’t Enough

    The Islamic Republic was engineered post-1979 to avoid the vulnerabilities of a single-point-of-failure system (like the Shah’s monarchy). Power is distributed across interlocking institutions, with ideological loyalty baked in at multiple levels:

    Supreme Leader → Symbolic and doctrinal head (velayat-e faqih). Killing or removing him triggers constitutional succession (e.g., Assembly of Experts or interim councils), but the system has mechanisms to replace him quickly—often with someone from the same hardline clerical-IRGC ecosystem.

    Clerical establishment → Bodies like the Assembly of Experts, Guardian Council, and Expediency Council vet leaders and policy. These are networks of thousands of mid- and lower-level clerics who provide religious legitimacy and local ideological control. Many are regime-dependent (salaries, perks), so they resist collapse.

    IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) → The real backbone. ~150,000–200,000 elite forces, plus control of the Basij paramilitary (hundreds of thousands of volunteers/mobilizable members embedded in neighborhoods, workplaces, schools). The IRGC isn’t just military—it’s an economic empire (controlling oil, construction, telecoms) and intelligence apparatus. It exists explicitly to protect the revolutionary system, not just one leader.

    Basij and security layers → Neighborhood-level surveillance, morality enforcement, and rapid-response repression. They form a “dense web” for grassroots control and crackdowns (as seen in 2022 and January 2026 protests).

    Other pillars → Judiciary (hardline-aligned), intelligence (VEVAK/MOIS), regular police (FARAJA), and even parts of the conventional army (Artesh) that can be co-opted in crises.

    Recent events (Khamenei’s death in late February 2026 airstrikes, followed by an interim council and rapid succession moves) illustrate this: The regime didn’t collapse. Instead, power shifted toward IRGC-aligned figures, with warnings of a potential “garrison state” or hardened militarized rule emerging from the vacuum.

    What Full Regime Change Would Actually Require

    Analysts and recent assessments agree that meaningful change (ending velayat-e faqih, dismantling theocratic-IRGC dominance, allowing secular/democratic transition) demands disrupting or dismantling multiple layers simultaneously:

    Massive internal uprising — Sustained, nationwide protests that overwhelm security forces (as attempted in January 2026 but brutally suppressed with 30,000+ deaths reported in some estimates).

    Significant defections or fracturing — Within the IRGC, Basij, or Artesh. Without this, loyalists regroup and repress (no major defections occurred post-Khamenei).

    Neutralizing the coercive apparatus — Targeting IRGC command structures, Basij networks, intelligence, and economic assets to break their ability to hold neighborhoods and crush dissent. Air/missile strikes alone degrade capabilities but don’t eliminate the embedded, ideological forces.

    Often external pressure — U.S./Israeli actions can weaken the regime (e.g., destroying nuclear/missile sites, killing leaders), but historical cases show air campaigns rarely achieve regime change without ground/internal follow-through (Libya, Iraq parallels cited).

    Some scenarios predict:

    IRGC takeover → A more openly militarized “garrison state” if clerics weaken.
    Survival/hardening → Regime consolidates under new hardliners.
    True collapse → Only if protests + defections + sustained external weakening create a tipping point (possible but not yet realized in 2026).

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-18 23:27:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2034411288517017832

  • Maritime Chokepoints

    Maritime Chokepoints

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-15 01:36:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032994312330645678

  • The academic process consists much more of indoctrination than it does empirical

    The academic process consists much more of indoctrination than it does empirical resolution of differences independent of doctrine – otherwise there would be no controversy over what was said or what was investigated.

    At present
    a) no use of research to fund activists, political activism, whether in the academy, in the non-commercial sector, or in the commercial sector as a means of funding activism.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 19:45:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032905948898144605

  • REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM Restructure the grant request to be free

    REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM
    Restructure the grant request to be free of DEI dogma. Re-apply. They have a mission. They are pursuing their mission. It’s not that complicated. They’re irradicating DEI from the government, and eradicating funding of leftist causes through the grant system.

    Deal with it. It’s not rocket science. If your science doesn’t pass those hurdles then it’s not science it’s use of public funds for political purposes, propaganda and ideology parading as science.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 18:35:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032888351435665413

  • THE REAL DAMAGE THE LEFT ACHIEVED THROUGH EMPATHY RATHER THAN TRUTH We used to b

    THE REAL DAMAGE THE LEFT ACHIEVED THROUGH EMPATHY RATHER THAN TRUTH
    We used to be humble. The left intentionally trained generations to assert false confidence in justification of their intuitions rather than skepticism of them, and testimony under that skepticism, in order to undermine our ancient traditions of self regulation, self skepticism, and humility in order to weaponize the arrogance and ignorance of the inexperienced against the polity to generate demand for the left’s authority, and the gradual erasure of our traditions values institutions morals and norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 16:51:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032862245903028691

  • My argument may be beyond you. The cost-reciprocity model for expulsions, using

    My argument may be beyond you. The cost-reciprocity model for expulsions, using examples like European colonization of America and bacterial competition, to highlight how power, not “neutral science”, decides “hosts” versus “non-hosts.” And yes host populations demonstrably by the overwhelming evidence possess the power of expulsion throughout history and exercise it whenever costs suggest its utility. I am not sure how you conceive that power is neutral and can be used to restore non imposition of costs or impose costs. Thats science. I merely explain the science.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-10 20:33:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2031468616277962763