Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahami

    No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahamic religion, and immediately restored our ancient trajectory. The reason for degeneracy is the reintroduction of Abrahamic Religion in pseudoscientific (marxist) and peudorational (postmodernist) prose

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-09 15:17:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983363253957869568

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983361981582209024

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983361981582209024

  • There Are only Two Success Stories in Human History

    Don’t be daft. There are only two success stories in history. The far west: a professional militia of kin that create markets, and the far east: a professional bureaucracy of kin that create monopolies. I have no idea why we even pay attention to the fertile crescent. it is an exercise in a professional class of liars (priests). Which is the worst of all possible worlds. Starting first with any technology is a disadvantage because of the cumulative network effect. The chinese avoided religion altogether. The west was conquered by it and has tried repeatedly to escape it. Maybe this time we will be successful in replacing religion with Literature, the Oath, Sports, and Festivals.

  • There Are only Two Success Stories in Human History

    Don’t be daft. There are only two success stories in history. The far west: a professional militia of kin that create markets, and the far east: a professional bureaucracy of kin that create monopolies. I have no idea why we even pay attention to the fertile crescent. it is an exercise in a professional class of liars (priests). Which is the worst of all possible worlds. Starting first with any technology is a disadvantage because of the cumulative network effect. The chinese avoided religion altogether. The west was conquered by it and has tried repeatedly to escape it. Maybe this time we will be successful in replacing religion with Literature, the Oath, Sports, and Festivals.

  • Also: The problem for sub saharan africa (and for most of the world) is (a) the

    Also: The problem for sub saharan africa (and for most of the world) is (a) the tradition of stealing on behalf of your family tribe and clan, and (b) the expression of this tradition in *corruption*.

    The only fix for corruption is not to demand good people (they don’t exist) but to create good judges.

    If you demand uncorrupt judges (and kill them if they are not uncorrupt), the judges will prosecute politicians.

    Until you have an army or police force, and a judiciary that is paid enough that corruption is not ‘valuable’, then it does not matter what government you have.

    step 1. soldiers who protect the people.

    step 2. judges who are not corrupt

    step 3. police (or soldiers) who will enforce the judge’s rule.

    It is cheaper to create highly paid police and judges than to create a highly paid military.

    The world is very simple if we stop trying to find good men, and instead, punish people who are bad – leaving only good people able to work in government.

    Ukraine has the same problem. Every poor country has the same problem.

    Westerners do not have this problem because we were always a militia – meaning all men fight. This is the secret to western successes. It all begins with our militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-09 10:10:00 UTC

  • WON. LET’S BE HONEST. FASCISM WON THE COMPETITION Correct. 1. Fascism and Nation

    https://www.quora.com/Is-a-democracy-necessary-for-sub-Saharan-Africa-taking-into-consideration-our-historical-makeup/answer/Shingai-Samudzi?share=326172c1&srid=u4QvFASCISM WON. LET’S BE HONEST. FASCISM WON THE COMPETITION

    Correct.

    1. Fascism and Nationalism have emerged as the optimum political order for modernization – meaning, a strong monopoly government that forbids competition, and that operates primarily in the national interest (creating wealth) by the production commons that produce returns, has and will always and everywhere succeed at modernization.

    2. The 20th century experiment with socialism (government control production distribution and trade) had been a failure – everywhere. And in most cases has lost the ‘window of opportunity’ for rapid growth.

    3. The 20th century ‘threat’ that peoples must (a) respect borders, and (b) adopt consumer capitalism, has been a success.

    4. The 20th century experiment with democracy has been a failure because it only serves to distribute windfalls due to technology or conquest in an already-advanced (meaning middle class) civilization.

    5. The outlier is Iran’s attempt to restore the caliphate from the mediterranean to india, under a regressive theocratic (kleptocratic) system of rule. The Kingdoms (which are probably the optimum government) have finally lost fear of the expansion of fundamentalism and communism and are slowly reorganizing to suit both modernity and their demographics.

    6. The dirty secret of the 20th century is that the western ambition of an aristocracy of everyone has failed, because each society is limited by the size of its underclasses, and while the northern europeans have all but eradicated theirs through manorialism and upward redistribution of reproduction, the rest of the world other than perhaps the han/korean/japanese still is heavily burdened by underclasses that lack not only education, knowledge, experience, and traditions, but the *ability* to process information necessary for political decision making – and are just pawns of malcontents the world over.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-09 10:03:00 UTC

  • I don’t see that. I see a systemic problem going back to the origins in the late

    I don’t see that. I see a systemic problem going back to the origins in the late neolithic, passing through the development of their aristocracy in the age of transformation, and continuing to the present. It might be that we drag them out of it, but it doesn’t look encouraging.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-08 00:59:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982785055041794053

    Reply addressees: @SAStillSucks @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982757932461850625

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982757932461850625

  • Understanding Trust.

    So, when I say “low trust” I am speaking in terms of the institutional development of rule of law as a means of suppressing corruption, and therefore expanding truth telling. The reason russia is rated (and I rate it) as a low trust country is corruption. That said, I promise you, that you want russian friends more than friends from high trust countries. Just as much as you want government from high trust countries. When I say ‘chinese are a low trust society’, this does not mean that they don’t trust each other. It means that (a) they lie, (b) they cheat, (c) the government is corrupt. So high trust describes a RADIUS of trust, not how you trust the people you interact with. In other words, trust is a question of economics. Honestly, I prefer the company of conservative libertarian western europeans, and educated russians equally. I am a russophile just as much as I am a lover of ukraine. Read Fukuyama’s “Trust”.

  • Understanding Trust.

    So, when I say “low trust” I am speaking in terms of the institutional development of rule of law as a means of suppressing corruption, and therefore expanding truth telling. The reason russia is rated (and I rate it) as a low trust country is corruption. That said, I promise you, that you want russian friends more than friends from high trust countries. Just as much as you want government from high trust countries. When I say ‘chinese are a low trust society’, this does not mean that they don’t trust each other. It means that (a) they lie, (b) they cheat, (c) the government is corrupt. So high trust describes a RADIUS of trust, not how you trust the people you interact with. In other words, trust is a question of economics. Honestly, I prefer the company of conservative libertarian western europeans, and educated russians equally. I am a russophile just as much as I am a lover of ukraine. Read Fukuyama’s “Trust”.

  • “Joseph R. Strayer’s “On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State” treats that i

    —“Joseph R. Strayer’s “On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State” treats that institutional development with detail without wasting words.”— Eric Orwoll

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-07 13:19:00 UTC

  • So, when I say “low trust” I am speaking in terms of the institutional developme

    So, when I say “low trust” I am speaking in terms of the institutional development of rule of law as a means of suppressing corruption, and therefore expanding truth telling.

    The reason russia is rated (and I rate it) as a low trust country is corruption.

    That said, I promise you, that you want russian friends more than friends from high trust countries. Just as much as you want government from high trust countries.

    When I say ‘chinese are a low trust society’, this does not mean that they don’t trust each other. It means that (a) they lie, (b) they cheat, (c) the government is corrupt.

    So high trust describes a RADIUS of trust, not how you trust the people you interact with.

    In other words, trust is a question of economics.

    Honestly, I prefer the company of conservative libertarian western europeans, and educated russians equally. I am a russophile just as much as I am a lover of ukraine.

    Read Fukuyama’s “Trust”.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-07 08:32:00 UTC