Q&A: Curt, Why Attack Cantor? It’s Useful. (Lying is also useful, but it’s not true.)


—“I’ve been following your work for some time. I’m going through your reading list and am intrigued. One thing however was bugging me for some time. Namely, your attack on Cantor you gave on one of your interviews.
I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this a little. For example infinities of different sizes were very helpful in answering a very practical question of decidability of the halting problem.Could you give some very brief explanation?”—

Many analogies and models are useful, but are not true. Fairy tales are useful, and may in fact be the ultimate form of pedagogy but they are not true. Lying is profoundly useful. Propaganda is perhaps the most useful of technologies.

I will see if I can do this topic justice. I am not sure I can do it briefly. So I will give a few hints and see if you can make the connections rather than write five pages of text that I don’t have time for right now.

Lets understand that my criticism is an attempt to require mathematicians to practice their work ethically and morally and free of externality. And that as a cosmopolitan, I criticize cantor for unscientific method of argument that produces ‘meantinful’ but ‘untrue’ externalities, in a case where scientific statements that are equally meaningful but produce no untrue externalities will suffice. I am particularly concerned about this for the reasons the Intuitionists were concerned: Einstein should not have been revolutionary, and should have occurred a century earlier. And for the same reasons scientists publish in operational definitions and postmodernist pseudoscientists publish in ‘meaning and allegory’ – non-operational statements. Becuase there is a very great difference between a Name of something extant, and an Analogy to Experience. The former is laundered of imaginary content and the latter loaded with it. Or more precisely, the former is more true and the latter almost always false.

Cantor’s insight would be trivial if we taught the foundations of mathematics to children instead of taught by wrote memorization. The foundation being ‘pairing off’. Mathematics evolved from the very simple act of putting stone in a bag for every sheep one took out to the pasture at night, and one out of the bag for every sheep that one brought in. This is ‘pairing off’. Cantor returns us to the basis of mathematics by reminding us that we are at all times, paring off. And that we can pair off different bags of stones as well. We can also create a bag that in theory will always have more stones in it because in practice we can always find more stones on the beaches with which to refill the bag. We can use stones of different colors, sizes and textures. We can also name stones. But humans can only remember so many names so we invented positional naming: what we call ‘numbers’, consists of a sequence of operations by which we generate names, each of which is unique and whose name is positionally commensurable with all other names of stones regardless of size, texture and color.

The point I make here is that mathematics consists of sequences of operations, all of which use pairing off (category), positional naming(identity), and functions (collections of operations) to express ratios. All of which are existentially possible operations, that because of ‘pairing off’ correspond to the real world.

We can however, construct general rules of arbitrary precision by ignoring correspondence with any real world entity and instead comparing ratios of names against names. This arbitrary precision however eliminates contextual decidability. We now must construct a what we call a ‘limit’ for any ratio to be decidable. This limit corresponds to a real-world context.

For example, the square of two cannot logically exist without an expressed limit to the number of operations that must be performed. Yet neither can one perform an unlimited number of operations. So we have a general logical rule, not a number, because that number is existentially impossible to exist other than as a function decidable by contextual limit (limit of arbitrary precision).

Furthermore, we can use symbols to form recipes for these operations, and additional symbols for functions (collections of operations into a recipe). In this sense only natural numbers scientifically exist. All other ‘numbers’ that we refer to are existentially and necessarily, irrefutably, names of functions, not in fact numbers. We can use these functions as we use numbers, but they remain functions at all times out of existential necessity. Applying the name ‘number’ to a ‘function’ is a verbal convenience, like so many verbal conveniences in mathematics. But it is not ‘true’. This is the most common pseudoscientific fallacy in mathematics, and has been understood for over a century.

Religious mysticism works. Mathematical Platonism ‘works’. Both have the same scientific standing: pseudoscience or utter falsehood. We criticize the externalities of religious mysticism. I criticize the externalities of philosophical rationalism. Mathematicians of great skill still talk in terms of a non-existent mathematical reality instead of ‘the deterministic consequences of an axiomatic definition that appears to the human mind real because we are unable to imagine those relations as entirely deterministic.”

So let us look at infinity. Can any infinity exist? Well no extant infinity can exist, because there is nothing infinite that we can identify, and anythign we construct logically as infinite (a path around a circle) is limited by the boundaries of the universe, or limited by the number of operations we perform….. OR….. ***limited by the rate of operations we perform***.

What Cantor’s ‘analogy’ does, is imagine that all operations are performed instantaneously, and that the rate of one set of operations is faster than another rate of operations. In other words, he’s using the time honored principle of GEARS.

Now, is one infinity bigger than another? No. One set of operations produces more outputs per cycle of operations than another set of operations. One rate is faster than another rate. If we ignore the passage of time, then in any system the rate of production no matter how long will produce more operations in one than the other.

But, just as length did not exist as the constant, as Einstein showed us, neither do rates, also as Einstein showed us. Lengths are externally dependent on the observer as are rates.

Now, can any infinity exist? No. No infinity can exist. Infinity cannot exist any more than the square root of two can exist. Infinity is a name for a limit of arbitrary precision: information provided external to the calculation, useful when we wish to construct a scale independent general rule.
So let me play economist here, and ask the question “what is the total cost of mathematical platonism and the ignorance of mathematicians of the very simple fact that much of their language is pseudoscience justified by special pleading?” The answer I suspect, is that mathematics is quite simple and most people are limited in the application of it and access to it, simply because it remains taught to the general public as an ancient form of mysticism, rather than a very basic principle: bags, stones, and moving them around.

What has been the impact on physical science and mathematics? I am not sure. What has been the impact on the perpetuation of pseudoscience in the public mind: that appears to be vast.

Half truths are a pretty serious problem as precision increases. This is the direction of man’s evolution: toward greater truth. And greater truth means greater parsimony: greater precision. And greater precision means greater correspondence. We can know names rather than analogies. When we speak in the language of truth, using the true names of the universe, we will indeed be gods of it.
And mathematical platonism is for a variety of reasons one of the means by which modern pseudoscience in all walks of life has been perpetuated.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine


Can Christianity Find Room for Intellectuals?

I am fairly sure at this point that my concept of christianity differs little from say Jefferson’s except in the current scientific language I would use to express it.

I practice an intellectual form of what we call christianity. It is demonstrably more pagan (the adoration of beauty, life, nature, the universe) in sentiment. It is not submissive but heroic. It is not the demand of a god, but an exchange with one. It is not mystical, but psychological and ethical, social and moral, political and economic. But it remains spiritual: a means of serving the pack by submission to, investment in, and sacrifice for, the pack (the tribe).

I pray to and take advice from my god daily. Yet I see this god as a construction of man’s collective intuition, belief, and action, and the magic of religion a product of complex consilience.

When I talk to my god he is not the semitic, Egyptian or babylonian terrorist, nor the fearsome Odin, nor the importune Zeus. He is the “all-father” for certain, but he is a distinctly christian father. A wise monarch, not a pious priest or selfish demon.

Or better yet, he is the god I need him to be in order to do the work of my people – to raise my people from beast, to man, to gods all. To transform the entire universe to eden. Not to be cast out of paradise, but to construct it.

So in this sense I see Polytheism as superior for an advanced civilization: to lionize our generals and saints, artists and poets, scientists and philosophers, manufacturers, merchants, and craftsmen. Because all of us require that our gods speak to us in our our language.

But what are gods? Gods are the product of the human mind, just as are numbers and formulae, and they exist just as do numbers and formulae. They are what we wish to be if we were able, not what exists prior to us.

Is it better to practice ancestor worship, disciplined ritual, as the Japanese and the stoics? It certainly appears so. Is it problematic to practice nature worship, seek advice of the gods? I do not see reason to. I can pray to the soul of Aristotle and if I understand him well enough hear his advice. Prayer is a means of circumventing your cognitive biases by a ritual act of submission to the pack. We hear the truth in prayer because we cannot lie to ourselves before an the knowing gods.

If Christianity can find room for Intellectual Christians then why must it remain ‘truth’ rather than ‘myth and allegory’? Surely a tea ceremony, or the daily ritual of diary planning and writing are personal rituals rather than political. While prayer remains a mixture of personal and political. But all three quiet the mind so that we can listen to intuition gained from the study or experience of the ideas of great minds free of the multitude of biases that cloud our minds.

Christianity can be expressed as an entirely rational system of thought. The premise is very simple: extend love of kin to non kin, and in doing so construct trust, and trust will produce prosperity. When paired with aristocracy and chivalry, this comprises the western character: heroism: the construction of personal excellence for the purpose of service to and advancement of the tribe.

That we create god within us is more important for us than to explain the vicissitudes of nature – the universe is definitely hostile to human life.

If I agree with the Catholic philosophers and Mormon practice, why is there no room for those men of science (truth) who need even FEWER biases and comforts in order to gain access to our intuitions? We need fewer excuses and incentives to think and act in Christian fashion, other than because of our station or disposition we understand that limiting consumption and contributing to the commons with our thoughts, feelings, and efforts is
you see, I understand the cancer that is monopoly in any form, and the genius that is what we call balance of powers, but is better considered a division of labor. For in that division we produce multiple excellences, and through voluntary exchange we find the golden mean: the optimum path for many specialists rather than the only possible path for monopolists.

The church is meaningless and rudderless without aristocracy. Aristocracy is meaningless without the church. Without the competition between Nobility, Priesthood and Burgher (bourgeoisie), two must be subject to the whim of one rather than each in constant excellence each conducting exchanges, and where those exchanges form an information system by which we investigate all three possible dimensions of social order as specialists, use each that we find advantageous, and continue to evolve. Meanwhile each keeps the other from abuses by a competition for power.

This was our western secret and we have abandoned it for the folly of monopoly government by the lower classes in which we simply lie and cheat and manipulate outside of government and using government rather than between the great houses of state, church and industry.

A man must be educated by the church and the aristocracy and industry. He can then specialize to suit his abilities: education and care-taking, invention and production, law and order.

I do not see the value in the bible that I see in our great literature. I see value in a church, in a priesthood, in a mythos, and in rituals. I do not see the value in heaven that I see in the natural world. I do not see the value in false gods that I see in past saints and heroes. I do see a true god, and a truthful god, that seeks to parent us through our evolution such that we may transform the universe into the garden of eden. And that god has many faces.

It has taken me a long time to understand that across all of mankind the words spoken in ritual whether field, temple or church, are meaningless. It is the safety we feel in ritual that matters – our feeling of membership in the pack and the great comfort that it brings to us no matter what the forum (including TED talks for the new hippie era).

We need a christian reformation as well as a restitution. And we need to kill forever the monopoly of the heresy that is state-run-secular-humanism as one of the great failed experiments – another great lie – in human history. A heresy that is a monopoly, and as a monopoly NOT CHRISTIAN OR WESTERN but middle eastern.

It is not only islam we must purge from the west, but democratic secular humanism: the worship of the state: the worst false god man has invented in two thousand years.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Curriculum

THE UNIFYING METHOD: HISTORY: The Evolution of Each As A ‘Technology’ That People Used To Solve Problems. (ie: no wrote.)

ARTS – Personal
Myths and Legends, Literature, Biography, History(anthropology, archaeology), Geography, Space
Reading, Writing, Programming (note that programming is an extension of writing)
Health and Hygiene, Diet, Discipline, Diary, Tradition, Ritual, Feast(cooking), Holidays, Celebration.
Beauty: The Fine Arts(content), Design(aesthetics), Craft (construction)

ETHICS – Interpersonal
Virtue (excellences), Ethics and Morality, Natural and Common Law, Jury,
Testimony, Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric
Family(siblings and parents), Friendship, Alliances, Leadership, Romance, Marriage and Home, Parenting, Aging, Retiring, Death.
Hospital, Emergency Services, Charity, Care -and- Commons, Construction, use and maintenance, Manners

SCIENCES – Extrapersonal
Arithmetic, Measurement, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, (Risk, Fragility, Probability and) Statistics, Calculus
Science, Engineering, Macro physics(large), Planetology-Ecology, biology, chemistry, subatomic
Money, Banking(credit, interest, notes, investments), Contract, Competition, Entrepreneurship (private), Politics (commons), Economics
War, Strategy, Tactics, Fighting, Sport, Fitness

CRAFTS – Production
Physical transformations (labor careers)
Logical Transformations (calculation careers)
Organizational Transformations (organizational careers)
Institutional Transformations (cross organizational careers )


The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

(important)(very important)

You see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success.
There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion.

By constructing three houses:
1) aristocracy/military/law of property;
2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance;
3) burgher/commerce/law of contract;

…and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons.

So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation.

If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family.

Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent.

In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent.
Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent.

So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity.

Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras.

We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses.

More as I continue my work.

But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.


A test, by a rational actor, of existential possibility independent of involuntary transfer by externality defeats most pretense of morality.


The Meaning of Emotions

(worth repeating)

If I am correct, and that all emotions are reflections in change in state of property en toto, then all statements of experience are objectively describable independent of statements of experience. And differences in experience are differences in evolutionary strategy. And evolutionary strategies can be decided meritocratically.

This knowledge is as dehumanizing as the insights of Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo, Machiavelli, and Aristotle. That does not mean it is not true. I am just as certain that it is, as they were of their own statements.

This does not prevent us from making compromises. It merely prevents the state from imposing involuntary compromises upon us.
The individual cares how he feels Others care how he feels We can learn how someone feels. But we cannot decide a conflict based upon how someone feels. Feelings are a gauge, but a gage of individual demand for acquisition and retention and that is all.


The High Cost of Truthfulness – But Truth Is Enough

There is a high cost to truth telling. I am entirely aware of the burden we must pay for physical defense of the realm, physical defense of life and property, normative defense of civic behavior, and defense of the informational commons. But in each case the costs produce extraordinary returns.

If we require truthfulness, invasive religions and ideologies cannot Proselytize any unscientific statements – at least using the commons. And alternative rules of law are violations of natural law and pseudoscientific encouragement of theft and fraud.

Truth is Enough. Truth and Violence allowed us to construct commons. Truth and violence are enough to restore us.

Truth. Violence. Persistence.

Lies and cowardice. Genocide.


To Eliminate The Predatory State, Eliminate Demand For The Predatory State

Eliminate demand for the state and we shall have no moral cause for the state. Law must evolve as fast as a polity. The common law can.‪‬

To eliminate the arbitrary discretion of authority, eliminate demand for arbitrary discretion by using the common law and property.

Any conflict that cannot be resolved under the common law of property rights creates demand for authority’s arbitrary discretion.‬

Polylogism, polylegalism, polyculturalism, polytheism, polytribalism: political conflict, economic conflict, undecidability of conflicts.


From Jim’s Blog: “Yes, we are at war with Islam”

And always have been.

For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first.

If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war.

France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam.

France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement. A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported.

Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem.

Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted. And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it. Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country.

When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious. But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime.

France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing.

The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.


Reframe Developed and Developing Nations as High Trust and Low Trust Nations.

Reframe: DEVELOPING/DEVELOPED Should be restated as High Trust vs High Corruption. This would more clearly address the cause of differences.

WORDS MATTER: “The High Trust World vs the Low Trust World.” We can implement fiat money and credit but not high trust. (ie: common law)