Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • 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

  • 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

  • As a human being I hate the idea of remigration. As a classical liberal I hate i

    As a human being I hate the idea of remigration. As a classical liberal I hate it as well. As a scientist I know it doesn’t matter what I hate. I don’t get a choice. As a jurist it’s just got to be done.
    Does that mean everyone? Not really. It means anyone not fully integrated. And it means everyone unwilling or unable to.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-09 22:03:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2031128687865975233

  • Basic Argument: Using others’ LLMs undermines your organization. If you have a b

    Basic Argument: Using others’ LLMs undermines your organization. If you have a business with any kind of knowledge or advantage and use a hosted LLM, you are teaching your competitors to defeat you.

    Basic Argument: You need an ontology. Alex Karp (Palantir) is correct that you need an ontology—we (Runcible, NLI) produce a universal ontology from which any particular ontology can be generated as a variation from that baseline. Basing it on our ontology will prevent you from injecting deterministic falsehoods into your organization.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-06 18:45:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029991760777384401

  • Israel doesn’t kill Americans. Iranians and their proxies do. Israel doesn’t cre

    Israel doesn’t kill Americans. Iranians and their proxies do. Israel doesn’t create instability. Iranians and their proxies do. The jews, or at least, political jews and financial sector jews, are in fact a problem in the west. But they are also a benefit. There is no benefit to anyone from the Islamist regime in Iran.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-21 20:51:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2025312443833221214

  • Emotions are not causes they are consequences. What is the cause of each of the

    Emotions are not causes they are consequences. What is the cause of each of the emotions used? It is always a change in demonstrated interests. The body and brain calculate changes in assets present and future and supplies stimuli as a result. Those emotions are our observations and labeling of those stimuli. Emotional stimuli are not causes, they are consequences of causes.
    So I would add causality under each emotion in order to maintain consistency with causality.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:07:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020937703194493374

  • “How can you Americans live with this scum as US president?”— Because we know

    —“How can you Americans live with this scum as US president?”—

    Because we know he is trying to restore responsibility and particularly civic and national responsibility.
    And why?
    Because europeans don’t carry their weight on one hand and signal virtue for not doing so.
    The USA can’t carry the international order in the face of the three remaining states with imperial instead of federal ambitions.
    So either put up and restore your national responsibilities both as countries and as a federation or you will suffer the consequences of your repeated failures to carry your own weight.
    We can’t do it any longer.
    Our debt will get as out of control as France’s.
    Our population will collapse as badly as Germany’s.
    Our economy will collapse as badly as the UK’s.
    Our civil strife due to immigration will collapse as badly as the Nordics and France.
    We will all be as difficult to govern as Italy.
    We will all be as poor as the southeastern europeans.
    And we will all be victims of resurgent empires.

    Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean he’s not right. He is. Sorry. It’s not opinion its economic and strategic necessity.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:02:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020936342570754349

  • We don’t ‘feel’ like you do, we think instead. We know Obama was one of the wors

    We don’t ‘feel’ like you do, we think instead. We know Obama was one of the worst presidents in American history because he fomented race conflict internally, accelerated immigration as a means of overthrow in the constitutional republic , and was so internationally incompetent that he set the stage for russia, china, and iran’s restoration of aggression.

    We understand the world far better than you,
    That’s the difference.
    It will always be the difference.
    The question is whether we will eventually discipline you or not.
    The left uses feminine strategy and is a continuous incremental hazard, but the right uses the male strategy which is driven by cliff effects and dramatic action.

    You’re begging a civil war you will lose on a scale not seen in a century, that will leave the large immigrant cities largely dead and depopulated, the governmentn collapsed, and the economy unrecoverable.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-31 19:56:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2017688431879721332

  • Rothbardian libertarianism (middle class marxism) ends up being a via-negativa a

    Rothbardian libertarianism (middle class marxism) ends up being a via-negativa authoritarianism, prohibiting collective defense of the commons and the law necessary to prevent fraud through baiting into hazard.

    Hayek called himself a libertarian but what he meant was what we call ‘classical liberal’ or a more evolved (scientifically framed) version of it. (This is still what I think of myself as a jeffersonian – too optimistic but preferring to err on optimism than preferring to err on human pessimism.

    So we have jewish libertarianism (Pale and Ghetto ethics), we have anglo libertarianism (rule of law naval ethics), and at least with Hoppe we have german libertarianism (german continental pre-unification city-state ethics).

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-24 20:09:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2015155107315479012

  • TRUMPIAN REALITY VS WELL INTENTIONED NAIVETY Do you think the Russians negotiate

    TRUMPIAN REALITY VS WELL INTENTIONED NAIVETY
    Do you think the Russians negotiate in good faith? The Chinese? Even the Europeans? I mean, I study this nonsense for a living. When the moral high ground fails, and it has with all three, then you are forced into pragmatism. And that’s what Trump is doing. He’s applying the “Art of the Deal” ( a book he wrote about his method years ago) to world politics and it turns out to be extremely effective.

    IMO you are making a common mistake which is to extend your moral compass beyond the scale of it’s applicability. Our previous ‘moral’ presidents failed. They spent over thirty years failing. Trump is achieving in months what they failed at for decades. And he has little choice.

    It’s normal behavior for people like you with limited world experience, just as it’s normal for young women to expect social behavior at political and economic scale.

    For those of us who have run companies around the world, dealt with corruption around the world, dealt with cultural differences around the world, dealt with courts around the world, and in my case, worked in both business, Justice and Intelligence, then you are deprived of the moral naivety of the average and below average American.

    Some of us have to be adults.
    Partly because we know how to.
    Partly because we can.
    And partly because we have to compensate for a vast number of ‘well meaning fools’ like yourself.

    I could call your opinion a luxury of first world innocence. Or I could call it naivety, or I could call it ignorance, or I could frame it with less kind accusations.
    But you’re clearly a good person.
    You’re just wrong to think your intuitions scale.
    The don’t.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 22:23:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014101604425933255