Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • THOUGHTS Strategy, like morality, is almost impossible to discuss because the fi

    THOUGHTS
    Strategy, like morality, is almost impossible to discuss because the first principles are not established. Only Militaries and Kings understand strategy because only Militaries and Kings can operationally afford to.

    Those states that most have to fear instability and insurrection within – and where the military’s primary responsibility is internal stability rather than out of area wars.

    Most strategic writing is nonsense because it doesn’t tell you what you need to know if you’re running 90% of the countries in the world throughout history. its only for those who can externally project power.

    Once you know what the natural law requires, you build a military that will make it possible internally by creating rule of law, so that you can build a military that will transform to make it possible externally.

    This is why only those civilizations (only Europeans) that develop rule of law as their first institution, state as their second, and religion only as their third can develop a high trust polity. And the second dirty secret is that this can only occur in a homogenous polity, where the incentives to respect natural law already exist, and the contrary incentives (tribalism) don’t.

    ONE NEEDS RULE OF LAW INTERNALLY. ONE NEEDS STRATEGY EXTERNALLY.

    P-Law establishes the first principles of law, politics, group strategy, strategy, and war.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-14 14:46:20 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033680810251698

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033676711832456

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    VIDEO: MILITARY STRATEGY – A GLOBAL HISTORY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq5lemhX6vo COMMENTS Smart speaker. Well done. The west strategically won Vietnam. The consequence of the west’s strategy is that we drove Russia and China together. … The great failure was not uniting with Russia WHEN THEY ASKED FOR IT. (CD: We anglos are always strategically stupid) All the south had to do to win is to make the north not win. (CD: Politics is not (yet) empirical. Democracy is anti-empirical. Republics and Democracies are Terrible at strategies. ) … With present pressures, we are likely to see more internal stresses (violence). … We see those not using external forces as peaceful, but if we look at the suppression of Marxists in India, that’s war. (CD: Why isn’t the left’s prosecution of white males and western civilization by institutional means not war?) …. Jomini or Clausewitz don’t tell you much useful about 19th, 20th, or 21st-century states where conflicts are largely internal. (CD: I think this is better stated as the history of western evolution of the domestication of warfare is an intellectual prison still constraining the western mind when Leftists, Islam and China, do not have this same error. The Chinese do not play rules-based-strategy they rely only on power of self-interest.) Americans love to think of themselves as living in a failed state, it is still the most successful state. (CD: I disagree and I am certain that we will have a civil war very shortly.) The military does not have a practice of interfering in government, but the government does in the military and the reason the military hasn’t to date (CD: but will). … (more)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033676711832456

  • Britain is an appeasing power. (CD: British are moralists but like the medieval

    Britain is an appeasing power. (CD: British are moralists but like the medieval Chinese this has become their political failing.) There are two American foreign policies at the miliary level that are in conflict. And the USA is trying to extricate itself from it. (CD: interviewer correctly states that without goal and exit strategy one is not entering into a war one can win. — my opinion is that asking men to risk their lives (make costly investment) results in betrayal if abandoned. This is one of those problems the current military faces. ) Want no disjuncture between the military and society. (CD: again, I’ll harp on military service in exchange for political access). Same for American perception of American police (CD: under-trained, and not trained, and the public is intentionally ignorant. Again, we have a problem of politics. Again, monarchy-state-military, parliament-commons, market-production, church(school)-education. ) Strategic culture – can’t believe a word the Chinese say – each state, as a result of its cultural character, a set of strategic goals, (CD: incentives). And that we must address them by their strategic goals (CD: NOT OURS. It’s this conflict that creates conflict.). Grand strategy is an oddly American term. It assumes that there is a clear set of international goals. (CD: there are – they as a set). Scottish national party would still like another referendum. They would like to close a nuclear base. And it’s the most important base in Britain. … (almost out of time notice from interviewer) … (CD: the general problem of western, Jewish, islamist, and chinese universalism, rather than world particularism.) You don’t get to make a strategy and stick with it. Strategy is about thinking long term and adjusting. 1848 america did not hold onto gains in mexico. like to talk about ww2, and you shouldn’t assume perfection in politics, esp strategy, and too many people assume there is a perfect outcome possible. (Conversation ends)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-14 14:45:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033678744576722

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033676711832456

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    VIDEO: MILITARY STRATEGY – A GLOBAL HISTORY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq5lemhX6vo COMMENTS Smart speaker. Well done. The west strategically won Vietnam. The consequence of the west’s strategy is that we drove Russia and China together. … The great failure was not uniting with Russia WHEN THEY ASKED FOR IT. (CD: We anglos are always strategically stupid) All the south had to do to win is to make the north not win. (CD: Politics is not (yet) empirical. Democracy is anti-empirical. Republics and Democracies are Terrible at strategies. ) … With present pressures, we are likely to see more internal stresses (violence). … We see those not using external forces as peaceful, but if we look at the suppression of Marxists in India, that’s war. (CD: Why isn’t the left’s prosecution of white males and western civilization by institutional means not war?) …. Jomini or Clausewitz don’t tell you much useful about 19th, 20th, or 21st-century states where conflicts are largely internal. (CD: I think this is better stated as the history of western evolution of the domestication of warfare is an intellectual prison still constraining the western mind when Leftists, Islam and China, do not have this same error. The Chinese do not play rules-based-strategy they rely only on power of self-interest.) Americans love to think of themselves as living in a failed state, it is still the most successful state. (CD: I disagree and I am certain that we will have a civil war very shortly.) The military does not have a practice of interfering in government, but the government does in the military and the reason the military hasn’t to date (CD: but will). … (more)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105033676711832456

  • The problem of 21st politics is that – other than my group (Natural Law), the Ch

    The problem of 21st politics is that – other than my group (Natural Law), the Chinese, Russians, and Indians – all westerners, whether Conservative, Libertarian(Productive), or Hyperconsumptive(Progressive), are fighting the last war.

    The right won ideas. The left immigrated.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-14 14:06:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316379883518472193

  • ((( Prager ))) is part of the problem. The enemy uses the same structural deceit

    ((( Prager ))) is part of the problem. The enemy uses the same structural deceit in conservative(capitalizing), productive(libertarian), and consumptive(progressive) points of the political triangle. Strauss, Rothbard, Marx-Derrida are each undermining a point of the triangle.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-14 14:02:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316378838138531841

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316304884564725760

  • I used to work for Justice. And a certain other ‘federal agency’. Do you want to

    I used to work for Justice. And a certain other ‘federal agency’. Do you want to take a bet that if I investigated your life I couldn’t find something on you? I could. Easily. Trump’s policies have been excellent for the country.

    You’re the problem. So we separate or war. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-13 21:04:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316122549688950785

    Reply addressees: @DWrightMBA @MattC03 @ezraklein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316121653672370183

  • He showed us what he always does. That you’re weak, he’s strong, and so are we.

    He showed us what he always does. That you’re weak, he’s strong, and so are we. 😉 Covid is overblown. Masks do nothing. It’s a disease almost entirely contracted from family, and family from the elder and medical care network.

    But you are all little girls. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-13 21:02:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316122053620228101

    Reply addressees: @MattC03 @ezraklein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316121032328126473

  • POWER. The purpose of anti-racism is power rotation

    POWER. The purpose of anti-racism is power rotation.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-13 20:32:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316114705740693508

    Reply addressees: @xavierbonilla87

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315723493976289280

  • Well, this is the thing. I will give up material luxuries for territorial, envir

    Well, this is the thing. I will give up material luxuries for territorial, environmental, familial, social, political, and military luxuries. In other words, I’ll give up selfishness (consumption) in favor of capitalizing commons – where the costs are trivial once shared. https://t.co/QTkFHjZ9hR

  • OPEN CLASSROOM: YES I TEACH ALL DAY LONG … 😉 INSTITUTIONS: 1) There are only

    OPEN CLASSROOM: YES I TEACH ALL DAY LONG … 😉

    INSTITUTIONS:

    1) There are only three means of coercion, and so only three institutions of political organization: Force (State, Military), Law (Judiciary, Economy), and Ostracization (Religion, Tradition Norm, and Family).

    2) The first institution a civilization develops will remain more influential than their second, and second more influential than third.

    3) Europeans developed law first,state second, and Philosohpy not religion. The Chinese developed the State first, Philosophy Second and never law. The Semites developed Religion first, religous law second, and failed at the state (at leat, outside of egypt – whose state was strong because of odd geography of the nile and its natural borders.

    4) The order of development of those institutions determined the spectrum of truth(Europeans), to face before truth (Chinese), to Deceit (Semites). There is a high cost of each hierarchy of institutions.

    5) The First Organized Religion (Mesopotamia) was a scam. It worked. It spread lying as the first institution. From that point forward, the middle east was doomed to the limits of religion and the fact that religions is a lie. The chinese were doomed to the limits of the state, and the fact that the state can only command. The europeans were lucky: the law adapts fastest as long as the state is still strong enough to defend the territory against invaders. This is the problem of the west – we are vulnrable to invasion (rome, and postwar europe). Why? Commercial interests (law) can easily overwhelm the intersts of the state (the capital of the people).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-13 18:31:09 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105028902497745958

  • 1) There are only three means of coercion, and so only three institutions of pol

    1) There are only three means of coercion, and so only three institutions of political organization: Force (State), Law (Economy), and Ostracization (Norm and Religion).

    2) The first institution you develop will remain more influential than second, and second more than third.