Back Matter-Transparency

Back Matter

About The Institute

The purpose of the institute is to train a new generation of Jurists, Lawyers, Activists, and Advocates for the restoration of western civilization to its arc of history, and to prevent another fall of European civilization and another dark age of ignorance and decline – saving the west from the fate of every other civilization infected by the Abrahamic method of seditious undermining and destruction of civilizations from within.

  • Our near term goal is to build out the curriculum
  • Our short term goal is to obtain certification (although they’ll try to stop us)
  • Our medium term, again, is to train a generation in the ‘bible’ of western civilization: Truth.

But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need:

1.Moral Authority: We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide.

2.An Actionable Solution: An alternative set of institutions that are capable of inter-temporal persistence across many generations.

3.A Plan of Transition: the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it.

4.A Method Of Revolution: The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos.

My work is an attempt to that provide Moral Authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution to force a compromise we call “peaceful separation”.

In other words: In imitating of the Founders, and in repetition of the long line of British constitutional evolution, to produce a SUIT AGAINST THE STATE consisting of a Declaration of Reforms, Preface, Constitution, And Policies that reform the existing constitution, preserving the country as a going concern, and prosecuting our enemy more vigilantly than we did by removing the Muslims from Spain the Jews from England, and the Ottomans from the Balkans.

About the Author

Burton E. ‘Curt’ Doolittle
Founder at The Propertarian Institute
Serial Entrepreneur in Seattle Tech Industry
Fine Art and Art History at the University of Hartford
St. Francis Xavier High School, Middletown, CT
From Canandaigua, New York
Lives in Kyiv, Ukraine

Email:   Skype: curtdoolittle

“I work as a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition, at The Propertarian Institute. I’ve been fortunate enough in business that I have been able change careers and pursue my primary passion.

About The Propertarian Institute

The mission of the institute is to conduct research into, and teach a program of natural law, specializing in truthful, scientific, speech, in economics, politics, and law.




Despite the fact that attacking the arguer rather than the argument is the crime of critique, I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself when I’m not.

List of legitimate Ad Hominem Criticism’s.

  • Multiple marriages. I put business before family.
  • Multiple relationships. I put business and philosophy before relationships.
  • High-risk biz ventures most of which succeeded – not all – producing expected downsides when not – I didn’t always succeed and I didn’t always manage failure well.
  • Ruthless biz practices, some of which made others rich, that resulted in various suits, as well as various tremendous windfalls. I am a product of the “Wall Street”, “Yuppie”,  “Jones Generation”, as are Larry, Jobs, Gates, Bezos and others.
  • Continuous civil warfare during and after my divorce that will continue interminably – I expact and this is one of my origin stories so to speak.
  • Midlife crisis after multiple near-death experiences resulted in a bit of a wild ride for a bit – and I enjoyed every moment of it.
  • Obsessively – zero tolerance for ‘slights’ – Family Crest alludes to this tendency.
  • Will fight to the end on ‘principle’ – even if it makes no material sense to do so.
  • More than slightly clueless about neurotypical life and experience, and insensitivity to neruo-commoner world views.
  • Considers other people subjects in social science experiments.
  • Considers each business an experiment in social science.
  • Wealth is merely a means of financing experiments in social science.
  • Considers people vehicles for achieving success in business or social science.
  • “One cares for domesticated animals and pets, one cannot engage in reciprocity with them.” or more fashionably: “A lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep.”

These are legitimate ad hominems. They are true. Everyone who follows me knows them.

They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences.

I am not a good person. I succeed because I am a natural infovore in an age where borderline autism is an asymmetric advantage like no other talent in history; hyper-competitive to the point of ruthlessness; predatory, creative, and driven often to the point of physical and emotional consequence. That is all.

I am, however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation, and my work will endure for centuries for no other reason than I am fortunate to live in an era where many scientific investigations despite many failures, have falsified a new set of pseudo-religions and found myself by accident with a correct diagnosis of the disease – purely by accident.

I am also not a normal person living a working-class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. But I am acting in the interests of the laboring, working, and middle classes who have been abused on a scale not seen since Muslim slavery.

I am not a good person and don’t claim to be.
Truth doesn’t require that I be a good person.
It requires only that my work is not false.
And it is not false.



King of the Hill Games

( … )

(the problem of social science surveys )


I work by aggressively attacking ideas to see if they can survive. This includes attacking cherished myths, traditions, and institutions, and all the values that accompany them. Observing this process can easily offend you.


I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done â?? good and bad. Although, depending on the audience it can feel much more like a bar, gym, or locker room.

Testimony is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool in which to test ideas and seek criticism.

I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.)

But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms â?? for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution.

I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the not false and not irreciprocal..


I have developed the King of the Hillstrategy of discourse (teaching) because it is THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial-up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.

Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if itâ??s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, Abrahamic, and non-argument.

I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.

My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me“. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development).

That is why this game works.

Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.

The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of less than sufficiently educated men with access to digital discourse, and an unhealthy supply of unexpressed dominance, simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room, we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want an infant-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.

I teach argument. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)

You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview â?? because Iâ??m not very much like my online persona.

This is educational entertainment and theatre.


I read science, economics, and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo.

So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias. And aside from those works, I found the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian.

I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces.

But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal.

So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse.
The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasn’t quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere.

It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons.

So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law.

What I am writing is natural law.

The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics of Sovereignty.

Childlike Dreams

(how it came about)

In the mid 1980’s my personal research program was in artificial intelligence – a technology that had to wait for cheaper hardware. And a technology that still has to wait for different hardware and computers altogether. In the late 1980’s I was one of the first people to automate the production of legal arguments – much to the disappointment of the legal staff. In the 1990s I spent most of my time on economics and economic history.


I learned to read early (phonetics), and constantly. I would wake up early and read from around four or five to six thirty or seven. I would keep a book with me at all times in case – god forbit – I had to suffer even a moment of boredom.  I wrote stories. This seemed to impress parents and teachers. But really, I was just retelling some version of fairy tales.

Nerds: People are by and large unpredictable, impulsive, emotional, illogical often ignorant creatures and most all of them, except a few adults, are for all intents and purposes, running with physical, emotional, and conceptual scissors.  And they are prone to do damage to themselves others and you if you aren’t careful with them.

–“For ordinary people, the purpose of communication is negotiation of consensus. For a nerd, the purpose of communication, is to submit your ideas to peer review”-Joscha Bach

Encyclopedias: I wasn’t sure why at the time but I read encyclopedias. All of them. Multiple times. In retrospect, books were an iffy proposition. A few were good, others were not so good and most were a waste of time and printing ink. An encyclopedia was crammed with novelties, in relatively neutral point of view, meaning free of innuendo, obscure reference, emotional loading and social and political framing. You were pretty much guaranteed to find something interesting in any volume of an encyclopedia. And the more times you read them the more they all fit together into a model of the entire history of the world.

Three wishes: When asked what I would do with three wishes as a child I knew the simple answer: I wanted to know the contents of every book in the library, a sports car, and a small brick house, and I would be happy.

Sociality: We live in the first era where being a nerd is economically beneficial. This is the best time to be a nerd in human history. And we have normalized the value of nerds over the past few decades because of it. That wasn’t the case in the sixties and seventies. It was a anti-intellectual period.

Classroom: While teachers were drilling us to hide under desks in case of a nuclear war, I was thinking to myself that this isn’t going to make any difference. It won’t even protect us from the broken glass. Confirming my nagging intuition that adults have no idea what they’re doing. But given the barbarism of children and most adults, it’s only in one’s self interest to help them by not being a problem too.

Drawing: If you learn to draw you learn to observe how fragments of the world fit together. People are made of curves, are bendy, and are quite hard to draw really, but you can learn to draw perspective, landscapes, houses, buildings, and quite accurately because mostly they consist of straight lines. If you draw enough houses you can imagine the structural composition the house is made of and then draw that instead. Just like if you want to learn to draw people you learn to draw a skeleton and then cover it with muscles, then skin, then hair. You learn to visualize the internal structures of how systems of things operate. Drafting classes only improve both your ability to draw, your understanding of how the world fits together. But perhaps more importantly, it falsifies your assumptions on one hand, and teaches you how smart other people are at engineering things like flight control systems in fighter planes.

Cardboard: With enough cardboard, glue, tape, and a boxcutter you can build almost anything mechanical. You can layer it, bend it, and work with it like tailors work with cloth. Same principle. Less flexibility. You can even make a working vending machine. You learn how to construct systems of things. You can build things with cardboard that you can’t build with clay. And you can do it quickly and cheaply.

Plumbing: if you are young and very smart you can fix things that the adults can’t – at least if you don’t ask permission and fix the problem when they aren’t looking. Also, it’s a miracle that the world works at all between kids and these adults. The adults need all the help they can get. That’s the only really good reason to behave: so that they handle all these problems and you don’t have to.

Work: I worked in my parents law, garden, and florist business starting when I was in second or third grade. Sweeping floors, watering plants, dusting things, and most importantly, loading the deliveries from the cooler (refrigerators) to the truck, and then riding with the driver, getting the flowers out of the truck, ringing bells, knocking doors, saying something positive with a smile, and a little too frequently running from dogs. Holidays meant that I would make money of my own. I saved it in glass jars next to my bed, and a savings account at the local bank.

Electronics: If you do little jobs for people you can make enough money to buy and build every electronics kit in radio shack. you learn that soldering requires the same kind of patience as glueing plastic models, and model rockets together. You learn that electronics and plumbing work pretty much by the same rules just at different rates of speed. It’s just a difference in scale.

Induction: A debate with a teacher over induction vs deduction. I said all of these cases we call induction are just deduction with guesswork, but none of these statements are certain – they’re just guesses. I leave this conversation thinking I don’t understand something. I read on the problem of induction and of course, realize that it’s not me that has the problem.

Transcendence: I read a story titled ”Evensong”. In this story god is being chased across th universe, and captured by man, and he is captured by stumbling upon earth – which man has converted into a sanctuary:  a garden of eden. How would a god that old think?

Time: I read another a story titled ‘oh stars won’t you hide me’. It’s about the last human fleeing at very close to the speed of light, followed by an alien race that exteriminated humans. The dialog is between him, his computer, and the aliens. The man keeps running even though there is no hope for him or man – but lives until the universe ends.  How do we defeat eternity if only by outliving it? How would we think after so many millions of years?

Lifetimes: I read another story titled “the last command”. It’s about the AI in a tank, that after a war, was irradiated then buried under layers of concrete. Construction above or nearby jolts it awake, and despite having very little power, it tries to continue it’s mission. The dialog is between the AI, and an old man that fought along side these tanks.  Can we create an AI that is as moral, loyal, and dedicated as we wish all men to be? If it could live for centuries how would it think?

Mistake: Professors from both the literature and philosophy departments asked me to transfer to their departments and change my major. I was too obsessed with the sciences to take this invitation seriously, and I had no idea how important such an invitation can be for one’s academic success and career. I had no one to advise me. And I found the entire academic system to be almost cultish in specialization,  highly politicized, and the graduate programs a kind of serfdom, and an expensive serfdom you paid for with debt and lost income opportunity. The reality is that people on the spectrum mature more slowly and I lacked the development, experience, and skills to make use of or even recognize academic opportunity. For most of my life I’ve heard the same cognitive dissonance: “You belong teaching in a university” from the business community, or “you belong in business and politics” from academics.  What these two apparently conflicting statements are mistaken. They mean that business adapts and favors competition but only within the limits of the customers, management and staff.

Chastizement: I wrote a sort of adventure game. Technically speaking the computer lab was meant to be used for school work. School work was tedious boring and lacking in any creativity – it was an act of producing a measurement of the irrelevant: what the professor could test. This game taught me how difficult it was to make an unpredictable and evolutionary experience – and the counter-intuitive difficulty in just creating randomness. Determnistic patterns would emerge no matter what I did. This insight would stick with me as strongly as my intuitions on induction and mathematics. I was working on this game late one afternoon, when most of the terminals were busy, when a group of administrative folks walked in, showed me a printout, and the vast majority of computer time by all students was being spent playing my game. They told me they would prohibit and delete the game. The a couple of semesters later I found that it was still being played regularly and that one of the administration’s new professors claimed he wrote it. Surprised me, but then again, status capture is a common human behavior.

Ogres: In the late 197o’s a small board game company published a wargame called Ogre. In this game many small military units at one end of the map, would try to stop one large super-tank – by analogy, a land-based battleship – from reaching the other side of the map. I thought, “How could I write an artificial intelligence for tanks, and how would those tanks think?” For all intents and purposes my private research program focused on this question, and if I wasn’t working at making a living, I spent nearly every waking moment on this question.  I had a few painful frustrations (insights): any mathematical function used to generate behavior, produced increasingly deterministic predictable results, and not all possible results(sequences of actions) could be expressed by a mathematical function. In other words ‘everything interesting (innovation) happens at the margins (uncommon cases)’. Or better yet, many solutions cannot be generalized without losing the opportunity for innovation and adaptation. We can compensate by randomness, but we can’t make an AI smarter with randomness as a substitute. It needs instead to increase the predictive opportunities.

Artificial Minds: All creatures that we know of evolved a very simple hierarchy of functions all of which depend on changing some biochemistry in order to maintain or change internl state (homeostasis). From that point we evolve to physically move in order to increase caloric consumption, evade harm, or being consumed. To coordinate movement of muscles requires memory, with enough memory we develop categories, including body position, direction, speed, space and location, then together memory consolidates (categorizes) synchronous experiences (senses that happen at the same time) into episodes, we can generalize objects, spaces, places, locations and episodes by auto-association(intuition, prediction, imagination) with one another. With episodes can develop recursion (a state machine), and with recursion and we can evolve wayfinding (a branching state machine). And everything we intuit, think, say, and do as humans consists of variation in homeostasis plus sense perception plus auto association plus wayfinding, using more and more information from more and more sensors to create more and more episodes to predict more and more steps over longer and longer time horizons, producing more and more complex models of the world aroundus with more and more groups of neurons.

This simple process can be coded into assembly language(producing small fast code) on very early computers with limited memory and processing power at the expense of buying sensors and integrating those sensors – or producing sensory data in the absence of those sensors (just like we train neural networks today).

The code would record the before, during, and after conditions of every sensor, subsystem, system at every ‘tick’ of the game’s clock, for the past three or four seconds – or, realistically, as many seconds as would fit in memory. If the sensors, subsystem, arrangement of subsystems, or tank achieved (acquired) something of value, it would raise the weight of those sequences that contributed to the acquired value, and over time, those better sequences would rise in weight ( priority ), and worse would fall off of the stack. Successful ‘episodes’ then consist of the relations between a hierarchy of sets of sequences of observations, decisions, and actions at the sensor, subsystem, system, and tank levels of the hierarchy. Reproducing some approximation of an episode consists of sequences of actions by multiple systems. And prediction consists of searching for those sets of conditions, producing a hierarchy of episodes that achieve a goal, then replaying the best system, subsystem and tank actions that produced those favorable ends. This combination as a new sequence, and the evolutionary loop continues, as a competition of memories from moment to moment predicting or failing to predict beneficial (and not harmful) outcomes.

At least in simple terms that’s how the brain works. But it ran into any number of problems each of which provides us with some insight. First, the brain uses very sparse method storage that’s for all intents and purposes, infinite. The program that ran that simulation ran out of memory very easily. Second, the predictibv

deterministic, dumb, boring.

The indeterminacy of most decisions

The time horizon necessary for them

Most of what we consider AI today is just bayesian accounting that is capable of more complex measurements producing more categories with less bias (although often more error) than we do.

personality Computers

Personality Testing:  In early 1980’s my company required all management to take a course in personality profiling and to practice it by creating a card on everyone in the company we interacted with. This test varied from the Big5 and from Meyers Briggs. Big five ignores sex differences, Meyers Briggs includes sex differences. The system I learned was more concerned with conscientiousness, patience, assertiveness, and extroversion, and less with behavioral undesiralbes like neuroticism. An understanding of personality differences was one of the most useful tools I learned in life: to understand that people had natural biases that were easily categorizable, but they themselves didn’t understand, and that with that knowledge you could communicate, understand, advise, and manage them according to their needs.



Hayek’s journey



How I Learned To Love The Bots

Can I reach bots vs blame?

When I became a happy person it was because I understood bots vs blame.  Dont make it harder for the stupid people.

Our project consists in conforming human nature to natural law.

The solution to the human conundrum.

There are no cheats, cunning twists

Was this page helpful?

. . .