Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle) has long argued that the militia is the foundational institution of Western civilization. Unlike other civilizations that relied on centralized power structures and standing armies, the West was built on the distributed power of armed, self-governing men.

Doolittle’s Argument: Why the Militia is the Cornerstone of the West

1️⃣ Decentralized Defense and Sovereignty

In Western civilization, defense was not the sole responsibility of a central ruler or professional army. Instead, every free man bore arms and stood ready to defend his home, his family, and his land.

This model created a society of self-reliant, responsible men, not passive subjects dependent on a state apparatus for security.

2️⃣ Martial Virtue and the Creation of Law

The Western militia was not just about fighting—it was about enforcing and upholding the law. When a group of men stands together to defend their land, their traditions, and their sovereignty, they also dictate the terms of justice in their own communities.

This is the origin of Common Law, trial by jury, and property rights—all stemming from the fundamental idea that law is upheld not by the will of a king, but by the armed consent of the people.

3️⃣ The Relationship Between Freedom and the Right to Bear Arms

Western civilizations are unique in that they linked personal sovereignty to the right to bear arms. A free man was not free because he was granted liberty—he was free because he could defend it himself.

The foundation of the Greek hoplite, the Norse warband, the medieval knight, and the American minuteman all share this central theme: freedom belongs to those willing to defend it.

4️⃣ The Failure of Standing Armies and the Rise of Centralized Tyranny

Historically, whenever a Western nation transitioned from a militia-based defense to a standing army, it paved the way for authoritarianism.

Kings, emperors, and later modern bureaucratic states seized control not just of security, but of power itself, sidelining the role of the militia and reducing the average man to a mere subject instead of a participant in his own governance.

📉 Consequences of Delegating Defense to the State

⚔️ The End of Personal Responsibility for Security

Most men no longer participate in their own defense.

They are no longer warriors or enforcers of justice but domesticated, passive workers who rely on a state-run military and police force to protect them.

The Loss of Citizen Power and the Rise of the Police State

The average citizen no longer has any say in law enforcement because it has been centralized.

Police no longer serve the people but rather enforce the will of bureaucrats, politicians, and oligarchs.

Militias acted as a check against government overreach—without them, the state holds a monopoly on force.

Governments Become Unaccountable to the People

When armed men protect their own communities, the state must govern with consent because it knows the people have the means to resist oppression.

Without a militia, rulers answer only to their own class—not to the people.

Example: In pre-modern societies, nobles had to personally lead their men in battle, ensuring they had skin in the game. Today’s leaders send others to fight while they hide behind security teams.

The Expansion of Surveillance and Social Control

Because the population no longer has the means to enforce its own order, the state resorts to spying, censorship, and mass surveillance to preemptively control dissent.

If the state trusted its people, it wouldn’t need mass surveillance, but it doesn’t—because it knows the people no longer have the power to resist tyranny.

Endless Foreign Wars & No Real National Defense

When citizens are not responsible for defense, wars are waged for empire rather than for survival.

The militia model ensures only necessary wars are fought—when the state has full control, it sends young men to die for geopolitical games.

If people bore the costs of war directly, there would be fewer wars.

💰 Economic Consequences

The Taxation Trap: Paying for Security Instead of Providing It

Instead of defending their own property and sovereignty, citizens are forced to pay increasing taxes for state security that often does not serve their interests.

People now pay for their own oppression, funding standing armies and police forces that are more loyal to politicians than to the public.

Loss of Skills and Trades That Come with Defense Training

Militias required men to be multi-skilled—blacksmithing, tracking, survival, medical treatment, weapon maintenance, and tactical planning.

The loss of militias means the loss of practical skills, leaving most modern men useless outside of office jobs.

The Monopoly of Force = Economic Serfdom

The state can impose whatever economic system it wants when the people have no means to resist.

If a militia culture still existed, it would be impossible to force men into endless taxation, inflation, and debt servitude, because they would still hold sovereignty over their labor and resources.

Destruction of Small Communities and Local Economies

Militias were inherently local, meaning they protected small-scale economies and local autonomy.

Without them, we have centralized economic control, where only mega-corporations and big government dictate how people live and work.

Localism dies when self-defense dies.

📉 Social Consequences

The Decline of Male Bonding and Brotherhood

The militia was not just about defense; it forged bonds between men through shared struggle, training, and common purpose.

Without it, men have fewer deep friendships, leading to loneliness, depression, and societal atomization.

The Softening of the Male Spirit

Historically, the rite of passage into manhood was tied to martial training and proving oneself in a group of warriors.

Without a militia, men lack structured challenges that forge resilience and discipline, leaving them easily demoralized, distracted, and weak-willed.

The Rise of Victim Culture & Dependence on Authority

Without militias, self-reliance is replaced with victimhood.

People increasingly look to the state for protection, handouts, and justice, instead of taking responsibility for their own security, prosperity, and community.

Men trained for defense do not see themselves as victims.

A Society That Fears Strength Instead of Respecting It

A world where strength is no longer a civic duty becomes one that demonizes strength itself.

The warrior ethos was once admired—now, it’s feared or pathologized as ‘toxic masculinity’.

A militia culture produces hard men; outsourcing defense produces soft men who fear the hard men.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Requires Strength

The Western world was built by militias, not bureaucrats. As soon as the average man outsourced his duty to defend his community, he surrendered not just his security, but his sovereignty.

We now live under governments of weak men, frightened women, and children who have never been taught self-reliance. Until the Western militia tradition is revived, sovereignty will continue to decline, and freedom will remain an illusion rather than a reality.

The question is: Are men willing to reclaim their birthright, or will they continue to live as domesticated subjects?