So as discussed often enough the keys to good policy are 1. glutted land substitutes (high-rise, basements, roads under the ground) 2. Phasing to growth-deflation monetary policy (Gross business revenues always climb but never so fast that prices stop falling) … 3. Phasing to more cash than debt (or at least vastly improved cash/debt ratios) 4. Phasing out fractional reserve banking, 5. Immediately dropping any tax on sole trader retained earnings (they may pay their tax on excessive land holdings, or on drawings, but never even one dollar on retained profits and that is something we should jump to immediately rather than phase in) and 6. Meeting Henry George part-way.
But what clues do we have as to the exact rollout of these transformations. One way is to project forward what sort of a society would really work fantastically. And then reverse-engineer those policy settings that would more or less naturally lead to these outcomes given maybe two hundred years of organic transformation.
So lets kick off some analysis as to what we would want from city layout. Personally I would want these little bursts of high-rise with sixty acre permaculture farms on all sides. Maybe thats a bit too extreme. Maybe thats more of a thousand year transformation. Not a two hundred year one. I don’t have totally firm and worked out ideas on this. Like if you want all the answers for monetary policy I have all those answers. I consider myself the expert. I have all the transitional strategies. Thats a big topic though, so I’m putting off that one until the Christmas holidays.
One reason I don’t have all the answers for city layout is that I haven’t figured out how to make tall buildings sensationally beautiful yet. And you really don’t want ugly tall buildings. We who have lived through 20th Century architecture have been beaten down by the typical brutalitarian ugliness of tall buildings and thats why a lot of my ideas to do with high-rise expressed on Catallaxy, which I would have thought were obviously right, weren’t readily accepted. I cannot blame people for not being keen on a relentless glut of high-rise. Though it was the only way to give us first world wages with third world living costs.
This is also why I am very appreciative of the work of Roger Scruton. Bringing his philosophical training to try and look into the idea of beauty. So important. We need to know how to create beauty in advance. In advance of putting up a 30 story tapered building in a small town. I don’t think any council should object to a design on the basis of height. Thats plain anti-social. But they ought not let up a building that is going to be ugly. Because thats child abuse, elder abuse, and every type of other abuse in between. A councillor of a small town should show her enthusiasm for tall buildings. She should be almost orgasmic about them. But she should demand that the developer take all the time in the world getting the design of the building perfect. Because once its up, if we are not zionist terrorist Jews like Silverstein ……… we will expect it to stay up for maybe two hundred years.
Anyway here is a post I made elsewhere that I will use to kick off the topic of city layout. I would really want to be assailed by a lot of ideas on this matter so I could carve out a working ideology about it:
Try Science KT-2. It works for me. On another matter have we really thought through our city layouts? On the news in Sydney this week we had a survey on travelling times in Sydney. 71 minutes a day was the average commute for civilians who work in one place. But tradesmen were stuck in their gas guzzling van/truck for (from memory) 2 hours and 40 minutes per day or something close to it. Now this is a disaster as far as productivity is concerned.
You have people who make things and people who build things, and then there are many people who seldom do anything very useful for us over the longest run. In the second category its usually tradesmen. The skill set for building things is primarily in the minds of our tradesmen. So here they are wasting time every day in traffic. Now supposing they want to employ an offsider to teach and ride in the truck as well? How is a tradesman going to afford a young offsider to teach and help him, if he’s running into overtime most days, simply because everyone is stuck in the vehicle?
What would a city look like that cut down on these travel times? Maybe it would take up one tenth the ground area, have one million people and not four million people, with as many of the roads underground as you could possibly manage and first class public transport. Plus the roads financed by congestion taxes but only at peak times. Free travel the rest of the time so that we can manufacture goods and build things more cheaply than the people in other cities.
I don’t know if the answer looks like this, but it bears thinking about because this time spent in the vehicle by tradesman is a major break on economic performance. I want to close down maybe twenty or thirty government departments to make finance available for a communist department of tunnelling. The M4 opened days ago and its amazing how much time this humble tunnel can save people if they are criss-crossing the city.
We really need a communist department of tunnelling and a communist department for the development of canals. Some of these outfits need a 5000 year time horizon if we want to produce glorious outcomes.
Chairman Mao said: “Dig tunnels deep, store grain everywhere, and never seek hegemony.” This needs an update but its pretty good advice right there I would have thought.
Edward Dutton is born in 1980. He is just a child really. But the reality is he is one of the few people building on the brilliant scholarship of Gregory Clark. We must listen to him with our anti-elitist instincts intact but still with an open mind.
It cannot be emphasised enough: A key component to the improving health of the gene pool is that rich slobs are downwardly mobile. There is no humane elitist policy-settings that can work, if the goal is the slow improvement of the species. End of story, full stop, missing you, hu hu hu, the end.
Without an egalitarian context of rich offspring falling down in their socio-economic standing, there can be no general improvement of the human race, and as a practical matter we want to, within reason, preserve all races. Not to be extreme about it. But we need the diversity, even as we bring out the talent of all the nations.
Because of the need for rich offspring to be downwardly mobile there is no room for the current state supported usury, or indeed for the current big corporate communism. We must instead go for the sole trader paradise, and meeting Henry George halfway.
And just incidentally the road to the workers paradise is through the sole trader paradise ……. and meeting Henry George Halfway.
I am going to make a bit of a leap here by way of analogy. Finding out what Michael Behe says constitutes “irreducible complexity” and comparing that to my own thinking about the evolution of bipedalism. Bipedalism, with hands or hand-like claws may not be a case of irreducible complexity. But its something close to that unless your ancestors spent time living in the trees. On the open ground, from a starting point of being four-legged, there is no real scope to evolve hands or hand-like claws. Except in tiny critters where the blades of grass become akin to branches. And with tiny critters the gravity is such that having sophisticated little claws isn’t really a hindrance to running on all fours.
Proof that doctrinaire Darwinists have been deceiving us about the state of their own theory.
As soon as your ancestors scurry up into the trees then everything changes. This achieves two things. Firstly the advantages of being better able to grasp branches becomes a 24 hour thing without any downside. Secondly if the trees are spaced out you get the partial but not total separation needed for the same selective pressures to apply to the separated populations. So when they do interbreed, the offspring are conditioned by these selective pressures.
So the ancestors of the dinosaurs were tree-dwellers, and our ancestors also, at least for a time. People object to this conclusion on the weirdest of grounds. They say … ho ho the bear has hand-like claws. Do they really suppose for one minute that the bear didn’t have tree-dwelling ancestors for a time? They say “Ho Ho the Meer cat can stand up straight” But the Meer-Cats ancestors were surely tree-dwellers, they are not bipedal and yet they scurry up trees every other hour to this day.
Limits To Fossil Evidence
Contrary to popular opinion direct ancestry cannot be ascertained by way of the fossil record alone. It would require cross-referencing with genetic information, and the oldest genome we have is from a horse in the Yukon no more than one million years old.
((((See how I accept the criticisms of the intelligent design crowd without being too extremist about it? This characteristic is the scientific attitude in my view. You need three lines of evidence minimum to be sure of something. The fossils on their own tell us almost nothing. But if we could have genetic information to cross-reference with the fossils, three types of dating proxies in every case, and we didn’t throw out the fossils that didn’t conform with the mainstream narrative, then and only then would we have ourselves a serious science. We don’t have these things. So we really cannot be too presumptuous. Its okay to meet the intelligent design crowd halfway on matters of this sort.))))
Setting the precedent of “changing the venue.”
So we can say that the evolution of hands and hand-like claws is something akin to irreducible-complexity-lite on the ground. But nothing of the sort, if we change the venue.
I think this sets a precedent. I think it means that the first thing we do when confronted by ridiculous obstacles to ‘godless evolution’ (shorthand for pure naturalism), the first thing to do is change the venue, when formulating an hypothesis to explain it. Lets put changing the venue aside for one moment while we get a couple of caveats out of the way.
(((((Pure materialism is out of the question now that we have emerged from anti-aether brain-washing. Yet purely blind naturalism is still a respectable point of view and its my preferred hypothesis. The scientific method demands that I must be respectful of parallel hypotheses. I only mention it as a personal prejudice. I think the intelligent design crowd are winning for the moment.
What is not okay is the sort of dimwitted doctrinaire approach of someone like PZ Myers. A fellow so unsound he still sees nothing suspicious about modern vaccines, the big bang, or Keynesian spending sprees. A real twat, and I don’t mean that in a good way. More faith-based and unscientific than any biblical literalist, and far more unpleasant.))))
Its unscientific to rule out intelligent design.
Even though there are some intelligent people around that still take the biblical literalist approach to things I have no patience for it. I think thats entirely outside of science, since its derived by failing to have multiple hypotheses in parallel and ranking and re-ranking them. Like modern doctrinaire Darwinists of the low IQ variety its simple faith-based thinking, with a big bias of working backwards from a preferred conclusion. They are equally as bad as each-other from that point of view, though in the new century the bible literalists are more pleasant and less censorious than PZ Myers is ever going to be. But I cannot take it seriously as science. But less presumptuous versions of intelligent design must be taken seriously. And I can tell you why.
Aether theory allows that consciousness could precede matter.
Any serious understanding of the evolution of the universe implies that aether preceded matter. Since we can see distant stars, this means that there is aether chock-full in the areas in-between and relativity little matter. Since every nucleon that is visible and in the same gravitational network, manifestly connects every other, directly or indirectly, this implies the primacy of aether as the original substance as compared to substance itself. Here we dismiss idiocy in physics and cosmology and we can do that on logical grounds with far more certainty even than dismissing biblical literalism. Even the tendentious biblical literalists rationalise their beliefs rather than rejecting logic outright. So we don’t need to tarry on bad physics for one second.
Since we are very sure that aether precedes matter, and that matter is a kind of sub-aethereal phenomenon, it can never be ruled out that consciousness did not evolve prior to matter. Here I am not talking about a universe wide consciousness. But for example the idea of a solar spirit, or a planetary spirit, this simply cannot be ruled out. I might wish it to be otherwise. You might wish it to be otherwise, but this is science. And we cannot arbitrarily rule things out in science.
Actually I think animism on a technical level is even harder to rule out than a planetary consciousness. Who is to say that an aethereal consciousness could not associate itself with a small grouping of trees attached to a deep mycelial network? The idea could hardly be more primitive, but since aether preceded matter and has been around for trillions to the power of trillions of years, it cannot be ruled out even a little bit.
One annoyance one has with the very idea of intelligent design is akin with the annoying idea of ancient aliens. Its annoying because no matter how well it fits the data, its a blockage to furtherance of the enquiry. If we see large rocks being used in construction and we say “look the aliens probably did it” well thats fits the data fine but it means that the enquiry grinds to a halt, if we are complacent about that one hypothesis. Likewise with intelligent design. So we take the same approach. We cannot rule it out, but on the other hand we must not let intelligent design be the end of the hypothesis formation process.
In the early canonical lectures of Michael Behe he puts forward three examples of irreducible complexity. The first being more of an ambit claim. He explains how complicated eyesight is. Then he goes to a very simple human-invented example of irreducible complexity …… that is to say the old-fashioned mouse-trap. He shows why a mouse-trap in principle has to be conceived as an whole, how each part is useless as to purpose on its own until they all come together. And so traditional Darwinism is unable to bridge that gap. Other kinds of evolution maybe. But certainly not traditional Darwinism.
Than he goes to the best example which is this massively intricate flagellum. This combines the complexity of the eye with the seemingly impossibility of finding an evolutionary path for it.
Now I think that eyesight is hugely complex. But perhaps not irreducibly so once we have gotten past what may be thought of as the chemical and informational hurdles to evolution. But the flagellum still seems to be irreducibly complex at any stage.
If the Haka was all about peace, love and kisses, would you remember your friends when the time came? People talk. The whispers are out there. The people gossip and they say that you will forget your friends.
DO THE HAKA
IF ITS ALL ABOUT ANGER, WILL YOU REMEMBER YOUR FRIENDS? OR ARE YOU BURNT OUT?
Do the Haka. Do the haka until your throat is coarse and your thighs are bleeding. But don’t forget your anger when the cameras are gone. You must avenge your murdered school friends. School friends are the best friends are the friends you remember. Will you deny them three times before the “cock crows” the night you find out that it was the Jews who killed them?
That night that you find out that it was the Jews who killed your school friends, will you yawn and let them lie there in the ground unavenged? Will you realise that your anger and your humanity have gone? Or will you act to end the terrorist state of Israel?
Do The Haka
We almost forgot you Van McCoy. But at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we are going to remember our school friends…. murdered by the Jews.
Do the Haka, but don’t burn all that anger out. Because when you grow up, you must have enough anger left over to end that miserable little country just as quickly and as peacefully as can possibly be achieved. Its with your brains and your education that you must end this disgusting zionist entity. You don’t need the weapons that they murdered your friends with. Well you need them but they can stay safely locked up at home.
Let the children DO THE HAKA. “Let the children boogie” and all that. But will they remember their friends when they find out it was Judea that killed their friends? The older generation didn’t remember their countrymen, once they found out that the Jews did 9/11. Not everything about your elders is right, good and proper. Respect your Elders but remember your friends.
DO THE HAKA
VAN MCCOY. WE BARELY KNEW YOU. BUT WE WILL NEVER FORGET OUR MURDERED SCHOOL FRIENDS. THIS AINT OVER. NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
So if that Haka WASN’T a war battle cry would you see the job through? Would you get the job done?
But there has been something that has been bugging me about your Haka children. It was supposed to be about war. I’m not criticising your skills. I think you did an awesome Haka and all that. But there was something wrong about it.
You see I looked behind your eyes. And I think I saw that your Haka WAS really about peace, love and kisses. You had me fooled for awhile but you fool me no longer. And if your Haka WASN’T about war and violence then maybe you kids will have the cooler kind of anger, that will see the job done.
You were really grieving.
It was all about peace, love, and kisses.
The Jews attacked Australia and Indonesia in Bali. They attacked the whole world in New York and these were both nuclear attacks. Eternal crazies of this sort must be brought under strict third party supervision. And the cousins of your friends need to go home to Palestine and get their houses back.
Give us the tools. And we will finish the job.
What are the tools to finish the job and avenge your school friends murdered by the Jews?
What tools do you need to finish the job? Education. You need to study hard. Get good grades. Learn to write well. Bring this Jewish terrorist state down with words. And you need to remember your friends every year. And every year you say this aint over. This aint over. This aint over. Not by a long shot.
So right now do you what you need to do. Light all the candles until you run out of fire. But get yourself educated. And lets finish this fight once and for all time.
When you kids look into this situation there will come a time when you want to give up. You will think that the oligarchy and elite Jew pigs are the authors of history and that there is nothing that can be done. But it is love that is the real author of history. You have to be in this for the long haul. And you should make it a fun thing almost every step of the way.
The saviour commands that we love our enemy.
The Jews are our enemy and we must have enough love left over for them also.
Since this is a struggle and a quest that will take many decades and centuries you must learn to work hard but still have fun, and be of a joyous heart every step of the way.
Unfortunately what I said above now goes in spades for our friend Jason Wilson. Jason Wilson is one of the main professional opinion formers at the heart of the motive for this latest Jew/Gladio 2.0 killing spree. He could not get out of this central role if he tried.
The Guardian is a guardian of centre-left opinion. Its there to nurse people along on these Jew agendas. It criticises Israel a great deal but you don’t expect rags like this to take a crude approach and be successful. Basically it herds mildly anti-War and tepidly centre-left types along very carefully to be pretty fine and okay with the mass-murder of Muslims, in distant countries. A Guardian reader has been conditioned to be only mildly uncomfortable with the way the West has slaughtered millions of Muslims since 9/11. Full-blown agents like George Monbiot and Sunny Hundal are pretty easy to spot.
Jason isn’t one of these. But because the target of this particular Muslim slaughter is the alt-right, and the alt-right is Jason Wilsons journalistic beat, the terrorist community is kind of relying on him, almost more than anyone right now. He’s got to convince anyone that this didn’t happen specifically, via Mossad. But it happened organically. Organically not specifically.
Its Jason Wilson’s role, and the role of the Jew-controlled news, to detract from the specifics of the slaughter. In this fantasy, Muslim people were slaughtered organically through the careless talk and associations of various rightests in Australia. Various free-thinking right-wingers who (sadly have been taken in by the Jew-dominated false flag attacks and so) logically want to reduce Muslim immigration.
Jason has a very clear role now. Its to argue in such a way as to clamp down on free speech of the alt right on social media. And to put us all under surveillance. He won’t be saying that we ought to be all put under surveillance. He won’t be THINKING that we all ought to be put under surveillance. Rather he will be saying that there was not enough attention paid to us. Why were we not on the radar? All that sort of thing. The Alt-right is not on the radar because they are not violent. But the heat will come down on us and not on the terrorist community, when in sober reality every synagogue and Jewish cemetery in the world ought to be bugged.
People are traumatised by these attacks. Not me. I always expect them to be fakes now. So I was saved the huge trauma of it all because I only belatedly realised that it was a real mass-murder this time. Jason will no less be shaken up by this mass-killing than anyone else. So at the moment on his twitter account he’s lashing out against mild conservatives who want to be measured and cautious with Muslim immigration.
#Millers Crossing: It turned out the old man was still an artist with the left-jab.
The front-man for this Jew terrorist attack is of course an Anglo. Aussie-Whitey, working for the Jews, had to do the whole thing on streaming video, to prove his ethnic identity. This had to be done or we would not have the narrative.
When you have a difficult life-ending and life-altering job to do, the last thing you want to be concerned with is messing around with cameras. But lately the Jews have been carrying out fake events where crisis actors only pretended to be victims. Well that gets a bit old after awhile, and they needed a bit more realism for a change. Hence the slaughter had to be authentic and clearly recorded, so as to be proven to be real, and a full-blown anglo had to do the job.
So team Jew sent out Rudyard Kiplings Saxon live on video, and oddly enough someone was recording the live streaming. We should be looking for a chain of custody. Putting back the J in Who: Which Jew first recorded the live stream? Did he alert the police? He should have alerted the police and he should be on record. But perhaps he recorded it and DIDN’T alert the police. In any case its considerations of this type, we ought to be sorting out. The chain of custody of the film has to be known to find the perps.
A year ago I pointed out to Jason personally, that Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing were faked events, and that 9/11 was largely a Jew operation on the day … at least in New York. It wouldn’t matter if he did the research, and secretly wound up agreeing with me. He’s not in the position to let the reality of major terrorist events influence him in any way.
So now Jason is giving one of our Senators a hard time for one or two stray sentences. He is halfway siding with the kid who broke an egg over the Senators head. Not quite but almost. On his twitter he’s got all sorts of loose talk condemning the Senators statements. In sober reality everything the Senator has said has a certain understandable logic to it. Almost everything the Senator has said has been pretty mild. But with the shock of the slaughter …. these tiny heresies now appear deeply incendiary. And that is the point of the Jewish human sacrifice this time around.
Just go over what the Senator has said before and after the Jew slaughter. The statements are not the least bit incendiary in reality. They are coloured a bit by the Senators misapprehension of who is the real terrorist community. Thats unfortunate, but despite this wrongheadedness, there is a great deal of truth in his statements.
This is what the Jew slaughter was supposed to do. The slaughter was supposed to make mildly heretical statements seem scary.
Amongst Jason and his followers, many of whom I’ve had friendly conversations with (going back as early as 2005) this goal has been fantastically successful.
Here is Jasons twitter
But go easy on him because in the wake of the Jew false flag attack he’s a little bit unhinged. He’s claiming things that he would not claim in a sane frame of mind. He went so far as to retweet some leftist loony-toon to the effect that we alt-right conservatives wanted to see these Muslims killed and an enemy population disciplined. This sort of utter crazy-talk.
Jason is someone who doesn’t understand false flag terrorism, so he’s trying to make sense of things. When we are surprised and traumatised we think out loud trying to make sense of the senseless.
Jason if you are out there I think you should edit your tweets a bit. Take out the incendiary nonsense. And on a non-professional basis have a good think about the hard work that goes into a multi-media global terrorist event of this sort. Its not about some kid feeling a bit daffy after listening to Andrew Bolt. Terrorist attacks are not spur of the moment lashing out. Spur of the moment lashing out is what you and Liam are up to right now.
Time to try and get level-headed and sophisticated about major terrorist attacks. Tame Iti says; “Everyone needs to work on their attitude.” But the problem is not one of gentile-attitude. The problem is a specific terrorist attack carried out by a non-gentile intelligence agency.