Personal Background

How Did Propertarianism Come About?

While I had the idea in 1992, listening to the propaganda of the time, I started working hard on the problem in or around 2001. And my only ambition was to provide conservatives and conservative libertarians with a rational and scientific means of arguing in favor of our ancient aristocratic group evolutionary strategy (culture and civilization) against secular socialist humanists and their overwhelming production of propaganda, pseudoscience and deceit.

I was pretty sure by about 2006 that I knew the institutional solution to creating heterogeneous post-democratic polities. It didn’t take me long to solve the problem of institutions.

By 2009 I had used Haidt’s work to express all moral differences in terms of property rights.  By 2014 I’d developed testimonial truth.  I sort of got stuck when I figured out that I had to make it harder for progressives to just lie, load, frame and overload through repetition and sheer numbers. And at that point, I had to understand ‘truth’ – and that took me quite a while (because it’s contentious) but I was able to solve it.  And that led me to develop Testimonialism.  And as a consequence, the Wilsonian synthesis.

By 2015 I had developed the moral division of labor. And I spent most of 2016 on the very difficult tasks of simplification of the overall message, solving the problems of religion and literature, and refining the questions of institutions.   But in reality, the past year or so has been largely an effort to simplify – to become better at speaking about these topics in a narrative voice that more people could more easily understand.

At present I’m working on the book, and a set of beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses. What these courses amount to in practice is a Certification in the Natural Law of Cooperation. And hopefully the ability to conduct arguments sufficient to reverse the century of mysticism, innumeracy, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience and deceit.

The book will consist of material similar to the courses, and I am producing them in concert. (Assuming I survive it all.😉 )

What is Propertarianism?


Propertarianism can be described as Natural Law: the philosophy, logic, and science of cooperation.

Propertarianism constitutes an amoral (non-moral) formal logic for the purpose of comparing and judging all ethical, moral, and political statements, in all civilizations, and forming the basis of a universal, fully-decidable common (organic) law. 

You can use the formal language of this law to construct all systems of government from the most absolute to the most anarchic, in operational language free of error, bias, and deceit. 


In each major era we evolve that technology we call reason. We can think of this evolution as the incremental suppression of some sort of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, half-truth or obscurantism, mythical or literary obscurantism, mysticism and occultism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit. It’s not so much that we increase our knowledge but that we reduce our errors, biases, and deceits.

Just as we have evolved reason, rationalism, logic, empiricism; just as we have evolved counting, arithmetic, geometry, and calculus; just as we evolved the suppression of murder, of harm, of theft, of fraud, of conspiracy.  And just as, in the commercial market, we evolved involuntary warranty of contract, products and services. As the complexity of our civilization evolved we incrementally suppressed more and more forms of crime.

Propertarianism’s functional purpose is to evolve the Law such that in addition to involuntarily warrantying of contract, products, and services, that individuals must also warranty their public speech: information.

In other words, the purpose of Propertarianism is to eliminate another dark age by the legal suppression of political error, bias, and deceit, by the expansion of the common law of warranty of contract, product, and service, to include information. To grant the informational commons the same protections we grant to air, sea, land, nature, borders, monuments and arts.

We have, over the past century and a half, seen the use of new media, as a means by which groups hostile to civilization have industrialized the distribution of lying.

So just as we used empiricism to end mysticism, we will use Propertarianism to end pseudo-rationalism,pseudo-logic pseudoscience, propaganda and lies.

And it turns out – it’s not even hard.

Propertarianism is an answer to, refutation of, and solution to cantor’s restoration of mathematical platonism, Marx’s pseudoscientific economics and sociology, Boaz’s pseudoscientific anthropology and sociology, Freud’s pseudoscientific psychology, and the Frankfurt School’s pseudoscientific aesthetics.

This constitutes the main actors in the Cosmopolitan (Jewish enlightenment) attack on Western Civilization.

It is the second Jewish attack on western civilization.

The first was the fabrication authoritarian mysticism with the promise of utopia after death by the professionalization of lying about scripture;

The second is the pseudoscientific attack on western civilization which promised the underclasses not only an escape from evolutionary and material constraints, but a utopia of consumption and a permanently expanding technology that would end all wants – using new mass media for the industrialization of lying.

Propertarianism’s purpose is to end lying in all its elaborate forms within the commons: including the supernatural, pseudo-rational, the pseudo-mathematical, and the pseudoscientific.


…(a) For reasons we are unsure of, the west combined bronze horse and wheel, and in doing so transformed from egalitarian earth worshippers to hierarchical sun worshippers. From submissive to heroic.

But because of their military strategy  – a strategy that required large personal investments and large personal risk –  they chose sovereignty: the right of the individual to act as his own legislature in his family’s affairs, as the first ‘law, rule or principle’ of their society upon which all others were to depend.

(DEFINITION: Sovereignty)

…(b) The only institutional solution to choosing the strategy of sovereignty is to resort to markets in everything: relationships, marriage, production, commons, adjudication of differences, and rule. And the only means of resolving conflicts between them is the natural, judge discovered common law. In other words the only solution to sovereignty is : the absence of discretion (choice). And the only solution to the absence of choice, is rule of natural, judge-discovered law.

…(c) the by-product of this choice of sovereignty is the rapidity with which new methods of free riding, parasitism, predation, can be suppressed – by the first case adjudicated and recorded.  And secondly, the ease of expanding risk taking when such rapidity and lack of discretion is visible.  And third, the trust that evolves from the consistent suppression of corruption in the state, and free riding in the commons, and parasitism and fraud in commerce, and predation by any criminal means.

…(d) in summary, the choice of sovereignty allowed the west to advance FASTER than the rest by process of DISCOVERY faster than the rest.  So the west was not first, it was fastest, except in the medieval world when (like now) we were defeated by the first great lie: mysticism.

…(e) The west has always practiced tri-partism: the estates of the realm – in one way or another. Since our origins on the steppes of Ukraine and Russia. Priests, Warriors, Laborers. We have always used the class structure ‘honestly’.

…(f) The west has (uniquely) practiced deconflationism  (specialization) in various forms – never mixing Law, religion, and festival – and resisting the church’s usurpation of our nature worship and related festivals. We have even had  in some cases, different languages for our estates of the realm: Latin, French, and German.

…(g) And so the west has always practiced polytheism of sorts: martial sovereignty, commercial rule of law, craftsman’s technology, intellectual philosophy, commoner religion, and the mythology of nature and the hearth. And each has used different forms of communication and different methods of argument.

…(h) so because of this tripartism, this unconflated set of competing yet compatible ideas produced a very complex unwritten social order never captured in a single book in a single language using a single argument. Possibly because it could not have been until now. We simply didn’t know how. It took us hundreds of years in the ancient world, and hundreds of years in the modern to discover how to complete our single language of truthful speech: that language we call ‘science’ – a language that evolved not from our priesthood, not from our intellectuals, but from our empirical, natural, common law.

…(i) Our current century and the last, and part of the previous, were victims of the same strategy that Jerusalem and Mecca used against us in the ancient world: the first great lie of supernatural mysticism. We have been fighting the second great lie of pseudoscience for over a century. We are now fighting the second version of the first lie: Islam, and Islam has replaced the pseudoscience of marxists: world communism with the fundamentalist, absolutist, mysticism of religion.

Technically, the name “Propertarianism” refers only to the philosophical solution to ethics and politics. But since I started with that term we (all of us) use it as the name for the entirety of the philosophical framework. We should call it ‘Natural Law: The Science of Cooperation’;  ‘Natural Law: The Philosophy of Western Civilization.’ Or ‘The Cult of Sovereignty’.   But those are all synonyms.

But What Does The Propertarian Framework Consist Of?

The framework consists of solutions to some our philosophical problems by unifying

  • Biology: Psychology, Sociology, Group Competitive Strategy, War.
  • Philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics
  • Law: Cooperation, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Law, Legislation.
  • Science: The Scientific Method

(Unification not Conflation)

By unification of these fields we obtain the following expansion of Aristotle’s five categories of philosophy into a complete system that describes all aspects of human (and sentient) life.

1) Metaphysics of Sentient Life: The Necessity of Action and the Red Queen

2) Reformation of Psychology (subjective experience) into Acquisition (objective actions)

3) Reformation of Sociology into the Intertemporal and Reproductive Division of Perception, Knowledge, Labor and Advocacy.

4) The Reformation of Epistemology

4.1) Testimonial truth (Existential Truth proper, rather than platonic truth, analogies to, or subsets of platonic truth).

4.2) Testimonialism (the completion of the scientific method and the transformation from justificationism to critical rationalism).

Adds Three Additional Criticisms (Logics) to the scientific method:
…(a) Operationalism (tests of existential possibility and limits)
…(b) Full Accounting (tests against selection bias) (freedom from information loss)
…(c) Morality (tests that any statement is objectively moral);

in addition to the known criticisms:
…(d) Identity or ‘Naming’ (comparable, calculable)
…(e) Internal Consistency (logical)
…(f) Externally correspondent (empirical)
…(g) Parsimony (falsifiable/ although “limits” is more correct)

6) Reformation of Ethics: Propertarian Ethics of the Natural Law of Cooperation (law of cooperation, non-parasitism, non-imposition against property-en-toto)

…(a) The preservation of the incentive to participate in cooperation by the costly suppression of free riding, parasitism, and predation.
…(b) Demonstrated Property or Property in Toto.
…(c) the incremental suppression of free riding via the natural, judge-discovered, common law.

7) Reformation of Politics: Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Subsidy: Market Government and Rule of Law

…(a) The necessity for houses for the classes including genders, so that individuals with different evolutionary strategies, and moral intuitions can conduct trades with other classes such that we cooperate on means even if we cannot cooperate on ends.

8) Addition of Group Evolutionary Strategy

Each civilization uses a different group evolutionary strategy, and each uses a concept of Truth that justifies that evolutionary strategy. Yet there is only one ‘true’. There is only one ‘moral’, but there are many norms masquerading as truth and morality.  But they are neither true nor moral.

9) Addition of Warfare: Group Competition, Conquest, and Defeat

10) Reformation of Aesthetics into the True, The Excellent, And the Beautiful.

Aesthetics is a question difficult to reduce to bullet points other than to say that Nietzche was right.  However, just as we have always had estates of the realm we must return to producing aesthetics for each estate – albeit not aesthetics that are in conflict.

What Has The West Been Dishonest About? We Aren’t free of Sin Either.

Lets face it: no civilization really understands its group evolutionary strategy.  But we can understand ours:

When the first Aryans combined horse, bronze and wheel, they were able to cover long distances with speed. They took big risks, and horse, chariot (cart), and armor were very expensive –  but they were able to prey upon neighboring people, as well as defend their own. So they used this military technology to expanded from western China to Spain.

It turns out that if you’re militarily capable of it, and develop a professional warrior caste, that capturing better territory and enslaving primitive locals for labor, was a profitable industry.  But only some subset of the population is fit for being ruled cost effectively and at low risk.  So where consanguineous tribes had tolerated wide variations in personalities, the rulers did not, found the most aggressive the most troublesome,  and by constant prosecution of outliers, the rulers achieved with man, what they had achieved with dog, sheep, pig, cow, and horse: gradual domestication of the animal man.

Slavery is expensive – you are responsible for all costs, serfdom less – taking only the proceeds and some of their labor, employee less – taking most of the proceeds and paying them, and credit slave even less – using dilutive fiat credit to grant them consumption and capturing most of the real proceeds of their production.

So over the centuries our ancestors have used the combination of hanging half to one percent of the population per year, delaying reproduction and limiting reproduction with manorialism, the harsh winters to starve the feeble and lazy, frequent wars under the promise of booty, and the conspiracy of the church to enfeeble the underclasses so that by the late middle ages Europe consisted largely of the progeny of the middle genetic classes.

Christianity provided little more than an excuse to justify Aryanism: the industry by which the martial class domesticated man for profit.  This was followed by the White Man’s Burden – a restatement of Aryanism in Moral terms. Which was followed by the American Project – a restatement of Aryanism in heroic terms.  Which was followed by Postwar Democratic Secular Humanism – a restatement of christianity in secular terms. And which we have seen most recently as Neo-Conservatism: a restatement of Judaism in Aryan terms.

Now let us flip that around and say that because we have domesticated man,  maintained tripartism, practiced unconflated rule for each class, and created markets in everything, the natural common law, and an ever more correspondent definition of truth, we have dragged humanity out of ignorance,superstition poverty, labor, disease, and the constant fear of the vicissitudes of nature.   We have made this world more so than any other civilization.

Not because we were first, but because we were FASTEST to learn and adapt, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age.

The problem facing mankind, we didn’t finish the job: We wrongly constrained germany’s attempt to complete the formation of  the north sea’s hanseatic civilization, and created a civil war that nearly destroyed us; and allowed  the second ideological invasion of the west in the form of pseudoscience, and are now bringing aboard millions of those people who we have struggled for 1400 years to prevent from spreading the cancer of their ideology – a more venomous version of the first professionalization of lying.

So, will we go quietly into the night, or will we continue to domesticate mankind, or will we return to the domestication of man, profiting from the domestication of man, and continuing the transcendence of may, through the most expensive commons that any civilization has ever developed: truth.

Why Doesn’t Democracy work?

[D]emocracy does work if it’s under one-family-one-vote, in a small homogeneous polity, under agrarianism, and if we have four houses of government in the Anglo Saxon model: monarchy, aristocracy, business and industry, and the church (proletarian, insurance and caretaking). Because the classes and families have enough in common to use majority rule as a means of selecting priorities for funding with scarce resources. But democracy wherein men, women, and classes possess equal votes just results in proletarian parasitic rule with every possible malincentive. We can use majority rule to select priorities among people with common interests but we cannot use majority rule to select preferences among people with disparate interests. That’s just illogical.

The data says that without women voting we would have been fine. Women expressed their reproductive strategy in politics under democracy. They undid civilization. That is a painful pill to swallow. Paternalism and property rights, the jury, and truth telling and the absolute nuclear family, and delayed reproduction under manorialism were means by which we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and controlled women’s destructive behavior – reproducing at will at random and causing the tribe to bear the consequences of her Malthusian impulses. Women select by r, not K. Civilization requires suppression of free riding of the masculine kind (aggression) as well as the female kind (reproduction).

We undid Indo-European history and the family as the central political unit, with one act. So, how do we construct compromises rather than oppressions? Different houses – whether physical and representative, or electronic and virtual, for those groups with different reproductive strategies.

Is There a Way Out of Our Current Situation? Can We Gain Control of Our Own Countries Again?

[O]f course. But… Gossip is cheap. Violence is very expensive – but very fast and effective. Preferences are demonstrated not stated.

There is no cunning solution. There is no easy answer. None. You are either going to use violence to demand change, or lose your civilization forever.

We will either agitate a small minority to raise the cost of our competitors loading, framing, overloading, engaging in pseudoscience and lying, and raise the cost of their colonization, or we will prove we are just talking not acting.

How Do We Create a Revolution?

The problem with a revolution is that it‘s an expression of frustration. It doesn’t necessarily bring change. And some revolutions are far worse than their original states: French and Russia in particular. To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. SO they have to create the right incentives. 

• So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification,  TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization. 

The truth is enough.  Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth expensive.  Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth.  

• After moral authority – then you need a political solution – something to demand, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally, and implement as formal institutions. 

• Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn‘t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it. 

• Then you need a rough set of goals – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once. 

• Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answer questions, and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability. 

• Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain. 

I don’t go into tactics because that‘s unwise. But in general, I try to get across this idea: How many hours of electricity, days of water, days of food, days of ‘order‘ are in the production line every day? I mean, if bad stuff happens in Ukraine and Russia, 40% of food is produced by the people. Everyone can go back to the village to relatives and the farm. What happens in the developed world if it‘s disrupted? 

We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. People just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand. 

It‘s our job to give it to them. Or, mine at least. 

Is Propertarianism a Response to Libertarianism?

[W]ell the methodology is from libertarianism. But let’s look at libertarianism: Out of the Enlightenment we got two libertarianism’s or three. Anglo, German and Jewish. The German doesn’t really exist per se for complex reasons. So we are stuck with High Trust empirical universal Anglo aristocratic classical liberalism and libertarianism under rule of law on one hand, and low-trust rationalist dual-ethic Jewish libertinism and anarchism under the rubric of libertarianism (Rothbard stole the name) on the other.

What I was able to get out of anarchism and cosmopolitan libertarianism (libertinism) was the same as what libertinism got out of Marxism: rigorous argument. If you start with Hoppe, and you’re good enough at the philosophy of science, you can launder his Marxist history and German justificationism out of his work and see that he was very very close to creating a criticism instead of a justification. So what I got out of Hoppe and libertinism, was how to construct a rigorous analytic argument using property rights as a means of articulating all moral propositions. Maybe others did it. But that’s where I got it from.

Today I can’t use any Hoppe, the same way we can’t use any Plato or Aquinas. But that doesn’t mean I could have gotten where I am without having known him. So that’s why he was important to me. (Although he thinks I am arrogant – possibly justifiably.)

I was really hard on the Rothbardians. I had to be. It’s how I tested my arguments. But now I just see them the way most people do – as well-intentioned people who are engaging in subject matter over their heads.

So libertarianism provided the argumentative innovations I needed: the method of AMORAL argument. But my purpose was always to articulate western aristocratic egalitarianism manorialism and our ancient morality in ratio-scientific language. But it’s not a reaction to Libertarianism.

What’s Your Background

• My family is old, Bretton, Norman and English. And my ancestors were Puritans from central England. Early residnts or ounders of the New Haven colony, Wallingford, Middletown and rabid members of the revolution. – a long history of anti-statism.

• My father grew up a quite privileged New England protestant, and my mother was a naive French Catholic girl who was the daughter of Maine potato farmers. And while I have maintained a Catholic idealism, my intellectual sensibilities are protestant.

• I grew up in a small, idyllic, Mennonite farm town in western New York whose Victorian artistry is frozen in 1914.

• I was born on the very edge of the autistic spectrum with Asperger’s mild impediment to empathy, and a deeper case of the Autistic’s obsessive thinking – such that, put to good use, it is a benefit to me much more so than a handicap – I view it as a ‘gift’. But in childhood, I paid the usual social price of being ‘different’ (a nerd). And I have had a very difficult time ‘taming’ that obsessive gift. I try to help fellow apies understand themselves when possible.

• As a child I read encyclopedias – often multiple times. The neutral point of view appealed to my autistic sensibilities. I think scientifically because I have no other choice really. Empathy is pretty useless for me. I have to make due with loyalty.

• I did reasonably well in school, and enjoyed it, but found I operated much better if I worked at my own pace which is somewhat slower than that of my peers. Since that time I have learned that many of us in philosophy share this very ‘skeptical’ and pensive method of functioning.  The continental academy is more suitable to the autistic mind than the American which is more concerned with social integration into the empire than learning.

• I started working early, at age ten or younger. I loved working. I still love working. 14 or 18 hours a day if I can.

• My father was an intelligent but alcoholic and man and a violent tyrant who felt he’d underachieved (he had).

• I was in multiple fights – usually at the bus stop – every month for most of my childhood – they only stopped when matured early and became a little more dangerous to tangle with.  The guy who was my nemesis was killed by police after murdering a woman and her husband in the 80’s.

• I grew up feeling that I must protect myself and others – particularly women – from evil. I’m sympathetic that Alexander and Napoleon are the products of mothers under duress.

• If you know me personally, I am, like most Aspies, a rather gentle, generous, and happy hamster.

That is all the explanation that is necessary to understand me in a nutshell.   And I put it out in public to remove it from the table.

• I studied fine art, art history and art theory, a little political science, as well as some electronic engineering in college. But it’s art theory and art history that has framed my thinking about mankind.

• While I treat my art education like my soul, I feel the great mistake I made in life was in not joining the philosophy department, or the literature department, when asked. I was too concerned with making a living.

• Self study is far more effective for me than organized education.

• My goal was, since the age of 12, to make enough money to write (or art) full time.

• I have been a principle or founder of ten companies, almost all involving the use of technology to solve various business problems. I am very good at what I do. And prior to the crash in 2008 I think I had a reputation of one of the better regional CEO’s. But my inability to control my board and partners while at the same time retaining my loyalty to them harmed that reputation.

• I’ve had cancer twice and two secondary infections that almost killed me, so I tend to have a very one-day-at-a-time view of life, and I feel that I need to fulfill my philosophical goals.

• I have had all the toys (Porsches, Ferrari, Jaguar, multiple homes, world travel, etc.). And I don’t particularly care for them any longer. I just care that I can write full time.

• So in 2012 I sold everything, moved to Ukraine, and I split my time between writing and product development. And that combination I find fulfilling. Writing is too solitary for me, and business is too enjoyable.

• I work with much younger people, and I live like them, and mostly I think like them. Age is a choice. I live and work like I am 25 and I hope that never changes again.

• I started keeping a blog in the early 00s when I decided that I had to improve my writing skills.  In 2009 or so I started using FB as a sketchpad as an experiment. Partly to ensure that I didn’t write in my inner voice. It worked.

• I do my work in public like medieval a street vendor. It turns out that people like watching the progress. I find their encouragement, objections and criticisms helpful. And it makes the work less isolating.

• I wake up and write immediately without thinking of anything else. Some days are fluid and some are less so. When I am done writing (usually around noon) I go to the office and work until 7 or 8pm. Come home, eat, and then work a little – reading economics blogs and papers. I don’t really watch media any longer. But I really like crash and fail videos before bed.🙂

Q&A: “Curt, Are you sick?“ (Because of how your voice sounds?)

[I] have allergy induced asthma – mostly to pollens, preservatives and things that are fermented. So I use an inhaler. The inhaled particles that carry the steroids that reduce the inflammation in your lungs, also land on your vocal cords on the way in, and affect them.

So if I‘m tired, dehydrated and my asthma is bothering me, you can really hear it in my voice. And that‘s what you sometimes hear on the interviews. I‘m actually fine.  (If you get me really going though, I have all the passion and fury of my Puritan ancestors thumping the bible of righteousness just before they go to war. : ) )

I have had a number of very serious illnesses in the past due to overdoing it, but my health has improved dramatically after leaving America and it‘s preservatives behind.

Thanks for asking.  :)