Posted by: graemebird | November 11, 2009

The Pyramids And The Post-Quaternary-Catastrophe Cannabilisation Of The Capital Goods Of A Technologically Superior Civilisation.

I think we now know the primary reason the pyramid of Giza was built. There is a great deal that we don’t know. And so the first step to solving the many-headed mysteries of this case is to put out a bunch of hypotheses. I will here put out an hypothesis, without pretensions to the idea that it is the only or the best hypothesis out there. This hypothesis is not to be mistaken for my own beliefs in the matter, which are in any case irrelevant. Matter of fact I don’t have any serious belief about the Pyramids. I am deriving the hypothesis simply through method. And since I cannot explore all avenues of enquiry, I will be excluding any evidence or supposition to do with alien intervention, or to do with matters spiritual or religious.

“How can you rightly do that?” is a valid objection in the form of a question. I cannot. Except for the purpose of putting forward one hypothesis to be tested amongst many. But I do have a strong motivation for running with this way of doing (as will become clear.) It is by no means valid to let hidden motivations drive science. But what I’m saying here is that the motive is not hidden and that it is operating at the hypothesis building stage. Not at the paradigm-ranking stage.

Speaking of Joe Parr.

“….. (Joe) found out all pyramids, whether they are small model pyramids, or the great pyramid of Giza, has a “bubble” or “orb” or “energy field” surrounding it. Sometimes its strong. Sometimes its weak. Sometimes it disappears. But when it is strong, he could simulate it and strengthen it in the lab. IT BECOMES A BLOCK/SHIELDING EFFECT and blocks out all forms of radiation. Even electromagnetic radiation. EVEN GAMMA RADIATION. Which are the most potent, powerful, energy (forms) in the universe . NOW what he tried to find out was what affects the field. Because he noticed that, at the end of 1979 until 1980 the energy field started to disappear. And then several years later it came back. And then it wasn’t until years he discovered the answer: HE FOUND OUT THAT THIS ENERGY FIELD, AROUND THE PYRAMIDS, WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT ASTRONOMERS HAD DISCOVERED, AT THE CENTRE OF OUR GALAXY KNOWN AS THE GREAT ANNIHILATOR…..”

So said Dr John DeSalvo on June 11 2008 on the Coast To Coast radio show. He goes onto say that this shielded region (on any sort of pyramid at all), switches on and off in accordance with the activation of the galactic centre. The galactic centre is the heavy dark rift at the centre of the universe that is thought to have a mass of 8 million suns. I have been putting about the idea, publicised and theorised about by Paul LaViolette and others, that this galactic centre can explode, leading to gamma ray bursts, but also leading to a shockwave, of undetectable constituency, that disturbs gravity, and therefore can touch off supernova explosions, volcanic activity and earthquakes. coronal eruptions, and I have extrapolated to suggest exploding planets as well. The way DeSalvo describes it, it appears that by its nature, a pyramid-shaped structure works a bit like (my analogy) those self-activated sunglasses. That become darker as the light grows stronger. These glasses are a mystery to me. So don’t go all smug at this theory of pyramids before you can explain how those prescription sunnies work. Because it turns out that Joe Parr’s work is fully repeatable in the lab.

((((((((((The implications of all this are obvious. I’m sorry they are. Bully-Boy advocates of the status quo have to live with the conclusion. The implication is that we have to come up and apply a formula, that strengthens yet alters freehold, such that there is far more consolidation of existing land plots which will lead to the development of wider plots that can lead to the building a great deal of these pyramidal shaped buildings. And otherwise of buildings that can be made super-resilient, that can provide for a continuing glut of living and working space, and that can survive the sort of stress from nuclear attack, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, more catastrophic then anything seen before in history.

I originally started thinking of pyramids and cone-shaped buildings as being important simply to be able to develop a fairer society via ubiquitous oversupply of land substituting high-rise. Now as it turns out, the reforms necessary in this department are also necessary for the mere survival of our liberty, independence, and survival PER SE. If a pyramidal building can be designed to block out all sorts of radiation, including that from nuclear fallout (I shall need to check this one) but also X-Rays and Gamma-Ray explosions from our sun or from elsewhere in the galaxy, then this is the icing on the cake to all the other improvements that the ability to easily build these and other hyper-resilient and volumnous buildings would bring.

Now bear in mind. We don’t want, nor ought we put up with, socialists pointing at the sky and when you are not looking raiding your wallet and then turning out these ugly eye-sores that look like they were built at the post-office. Rather we need to persuade local councils, state governments and our Federal Government to review all our laws and tax policies with this sort of thing in mind, and see if they can both strengthen free-hold and yet make it more amenable to what we are talking about here. These long skinny flimsy rectangular buildings where the only thing you can really do in them is send the suits to type and talk, well this simply makes no sense anymore. We need cone-shaped buildings that can straddle roads, Domed affairs that can have goats and other farm animals still walking over them with their grass-growing land-area unimpaired, and pyramids, pyramids pyramids. If you are thinking this all sounds too weird and embarrassing to mention in public, I feel the same way too. But there is no escaping the logic of this.

Not only are domes, cones and pyramids the most sturdy of all structures ceteris parabis. They are far cheaper to build then conventional buildings. We have our entire expensive, flimsy and feeble building technology brought down to us via the path-dependency of our freehold practices. So finding a way around all this will lead to an explosion of potential wealth the likes of which has scarcely been imagined before.

Domes particularly are almost shockingly easy to build. Dig a hole. Blow up a balloon. Pour the first mold over the balloon and let it set. Go from there. The first mold being strong enough to have workmen crawling all over it, yet still cost-effective enough to cut through.

Of course in the wrong hands, in hands that don’t think strengthening, and not weakening freehold is all that important….. In those hands these ideas would be a curse. Since these ideas could be taken up for wicked purpose and in particular to undermine capitalism, and the idea of the voluntary society.

The libertarian Judas Goats will be baying for blood at the above. Because in their world these sorts of assurances are only a bait and switch. And we find ourselves in the same situation as we would for congestion charging. Good in principle, absolutely necessary as soon as possible, but yet we must oppose the sort of people currently promoting such schemes. People who have made quite clear no compromise is possible with them.)))))))))))

So the pyramid was built to shield something or some people from a disaster of the sort that would come from a galactic centre explosion. The pyramid of Giza was built to protect from the disasters we have been talking about. The galactic centre explosions that can explode stars (ie create supernovae) Explode planets, create coronal mass ejections, and create a chain of disasters here on earth. The Pyramid was made such that it would shield things and people from not only the gamma ray burst that comes with these galactic centre events and supernova explosions. But also from the subsequent myriad catastrophes that radiate out from these powerful galactic centre events.

That is WHY it was built. I will simply assume it was built by homo sapiens without either divine or alien assistance. I do not know this. I cannot prove this. I’m simply assuming this for the purpose of this exercise. As I said we can be fairly sure why it was built. But when was it built? To me the only timing that makes sense involves the idea that it was built in the first and second generation after the quartenary extinction event.

I am now about to speak without caveats. You see above some things I know I’m simply assuming. Some things I’m fairly sure of and others that are speculative. Endless caveats get in the way of the communication process and make one sound dreary and grey like Gareth Evans. Constant caveats impede thought also. So whereas I could start each sentence “Under this hypothesis….” or “In this story…” but I will seldom do so and will rather let the thing flow freely as if it were a story handed down to me or as if I had a direct line into prophet-central.

The civilisation that preceded the quarternary extinction lived in glacial period of our ice age when most of Europe and North America were fundamentally unihabitable or inhabited in scant fashion by coastal dwellers for the most part. Estimates of Europe holding only 40 000 people at that time are on the basis that they were “inlanders” which is far from credible. And instead we ought interpolate something like 40 000 low-tech inlanders yet far more people around the coast, living for the most part far below where the sea level is now. We expect a GLOBAL population a great deal more than what is normally assumed. And yet there is a problem with this idea. Since Cro-Magnon inlanders in Europe have been found with crude buttons and three layers of animal-skin clothing. But really nothing beyond that. In fact the Neanderthal was thought to be higher tech.

We have a problem with our theory here. We want to eliminate alien intervention. But its quite clear that the pre-quaternary extinction civilisation, specifically in the area of Egypt, in accordance with this the hypothesis I’m running with, must have been more high-tech then we are today.


I will press on with the contradictions already inherent in this thesis, though I will explain in passing those contradictions.


What we see from fictionalised versions of a high-technology future is that everyone has utterly the wrong idea. They see technology as being disembodied from the economy where this technical ability was discovered. Such a manifestation could in fact be the case only on distant colonies, in the advent of alien intervention, or in a very few generations following a mass catastrophe. It is the case that technology is imbedded in capital accumulation (and the society that accumulated that capital) every bit as much as a girls gorgeous smile cannot be any real thing without her lovely face.

Technological improvement is imbedded in capital update. And the extent of capital update is constrained by the scope of the market and the division of labour. How is it then that the people of pre-Catastrophe Egypt could have developed a far greater level of technological sophistication then our own?

If I am excluding alien intervention I can only put forward a sub-hypothesis. The extent of the market was more fully developed then today. And what allowed this was the fact that man (or at least this one pre-catasrophe culture) had developed trade and high-technology during a time wherein there was simply no impetus or gain to be made from the inland. Where the natural resources had never been exploited before and so they were fundamentally right before them. Almost jutting out from the ground. Its up to others to figure out how far we can go without bringing in alien or divine intervention. But the pre-catastrophe world was incredibly constrained. And the possibility of a planetary trading network that skewed technology in odd ways to what we would consider was credible today, could have been the case, if natural resources were then barely at issue.

A high-technology culture, virtually forced onto the coast, with no great need to pull their act inland, could have developed the necessary scope of economy and division of labour, to become more technically adept than us, on the grounds that a sea-trading economy is just so much more cost-effective than any other way of doing things.

Gorillas in the room haunt me. Why did inland Cro-magnum have only buttons and three-layered clothes? What seemed like an unaccountable level of technological sophistication now appears to be a few shades short of credible. Since how could such lesser technology exist on the Steppes while in the area we now call Egypt, we clearly had people who would likely have left the earth and reached for the moon.

I’m pushing on with this thesis and excluding any alien intervention as a matter of stated method. The only way to square the above circle is to assume that the human race proper, as against some stragglers that went inland WERE FUNDAMENTALLY AN OCEAN-BASED SPECIES. The historical record has let us down on this score for obvious reasons. Where evolutionary forces were available at an even earlier time to what I speak of, we were down on our hands and knees going after shell-fish, or wading up to our waists spearing fish, a good part of our waking hours one might assume, and the evidence buried and decayed in water, the universal solvent, could it have been, otherwise.

Mainstream historians, when thinking of the Egypt we know, which existed between now and about 5000 years ago, often think of Egypt as the FIRST MODERN STATE. Its ability to maintain itself as the first modern state that was not either an Empire nor any city-state came from the fact that it had the irrigation from the Nile river. And yet away from this fertile zone, the desert was too far for invaders to cross that desert, defeat and besiege the Egypitans, and maintain a hold of them for any length of time.

THIS EGYPT/ The Egypt that we know about, was strong from the fact of the Nile itself, and the desert barrier that surrounded it. But I would say their strength came from a degenerating paternity handed down to them. So we see them as the first and perhaps only modern state for thousands of years. The other political entities being Chiefdoms, City-States, and Empires. And the new birth of the Egyptian facsimile not predating the Europeans ubiquitous exploitation of gunpowder. The Egyptian nation-state lived on protected by the desert barrier right up until the emergence of a youthful psychopath called Alexander. And somewhat reconstituted itself after he had mercifully been poisoned one thinks. But his own teacher Aristotle one hopes.

Its proven beyond the shadow of the valley of a doubt that this crowd did not build the Sphinx. And I’m not buying anymore that these decadent assholes built the pyramids. I’m not putting up with that jive anymore. The Sphinx’s age cannot be younger than 5,100 years old. It could be anything from 5,500 years old, to 50,000 or 100,000 years old. With 10,000 years old as a commonsense minimum.

But having said all that, its true we do not have such absolutist minimum dating for the pyramids themselves. To prove that the Pyramids are THEMSELVES 10,000 years old MINIMUM may have to wait. But for now we ought to simply assume this is the case, the academy be damned.

For my own part I’m saying that the Sphinx was built by the space-travelling generations that lived just before the Quaternary Catastrophe that killed the Mastodon and other big critters. And I’m saying that the Pyramids were built within two or three generations of that date. By a process that was not particularly taxing of the survivors, given that they were briefly in a position of having a great deal of damaged capital goods, in proportion to a relatively tiny number of survivors.

With alien intervention the situation is entirely comprehensible. The Anunnaki come down with only the technology in their ships. Their bases are on the moon where they may have abundant Helium 3 resources. They come down, screw with our genes, ignore inlanders, build a lot of stuff with stone since they are dealing with outpost technology combined with slaves. And everything fits together easily and according to Hoyles.

But I prefer to not go that route. Since the situation can morph from a “God Of Gaps” to an “Aliens fill the gaps”. Hence if you don’t know how something could possibly done you can always say that the aliens did it. I wish to explore other possibilities.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Thanks for that Philomena. What I found out about him is that he proposed a scientific challenge. Which makes me like him a lot without knowing squat about him, on the grounds that I think of myself as being almost unnaturally, or supernaturally, qualified to being a director of scientific enquiry, though I am unsuited to doing the work myself.

    Apparently he put out the challenge for others to find out how much of the nutrients for plant growth come from the air or from the earth. Naturally people tended to think that most of it came from the soil. From dust to dust.

    His moral endorsement for others to find this out one way or the other yielded very odd and counter-intuitive results. Results which now appear to be yet more evidence that the earth is growing.

    You see when the soil was measured it appeared that abundant plant growth could be created with only a few ounces of soil being lost.

    See how we find out about the past Philomena? We dig down. The plants take only moisture and trace nutrients from the ground. Critical but small according to weight. Plants fundamentally convert gases into plant material of massive yearly weight, WHICH CREATES SOIL. This is totally back to front and counter-intuitive.

    Totally different from how people prior to Nicholas thought and different to how your average Joe and particularly your average CO2-bedwetter thinks today.

    For if those layers and layers of dirt, going deep into the ground, are what hold our history, then it is the case, that if the planet hasn’t grown, then why haven’t said layers sucked out pretty much all of our atmosphere?

    Nicholas found the answer to the problem he had set by his moral and intellectual leadership alone. But we still haven’t digested the answer to the problem solved for him to this day.

    Some call Nicholas of Cusa the founder of modern science.

    But if Nicholas of Cusa founded modern science, still a new enquiry needs to come down, in order for us to find out who lost it.

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Now Birdie, someone once wrote of a connection and relationship between the great pyramids of ancient Egypt and Keynesian economics.

    What’s that all about?”

    As soon as you enter into an age of fractional reserve you enter into a situation where everyone has more debt then what can be sustained comfortably for the current money supply. You end up with a world of more debt then money but the good future society ought to have more money then debt.

    You end up with most of the money being dead air and fraudulent and based on promises that are lucrative but that cannot possibly be kept under any fair laws, except with recourse to printing press, bank subsidy and even, as we have seen, TREASURY LOOTING.

    So you, me, and everyone else, have become liquidity addicts. We live in a society of ubiquitous liquidity and debt addiction. We are not our own people anymore. Sure we made these choices. But the goveybank racket set up all the incentives for us to come inside their tent. And sign up before the fellow with the hooves for feet, and the horns hidden by his purple fedora.

    We live in a world of low cash balances and ubiquitous debt and we have never known any world other, but yet there was a step change for the worse, that came in the early 70’s. As any memories about the change in house prices during that time will confirm for you.

    “Now Birdie, someone once wrote of a connection and relationship between the great pyramids of ancient Egypt and Keynesian economics.

    What’s that all about?”

    Under conditions of liquidity addiction we can only ever feel momentarily satiated when there is a new burst of money creation. But people mistake this somewhat and this lends the anti-economics of Keynesianism some credence.

    You see new money creation comes from the banks getting us into still more debt. Hence the businessman feels intuitively that he is only really happy if he personally is subjected to more spending. More spending for him PERSONALLY. More spending for him, oddly disconnected with he himself taking on more debt. Hence it is easy to convince him in a half-learned osmotic way, that fiscal policy can be used to boost demand.

    So the Keynesian perspective is very easily foisted on the more influential people in society. The sellers and the businessmen. Not in toto, because its such a stupid school of thought, but sort of half in half and as a lazy default position.

    “Now Birdie, someone once wrote of a connection and relationship between the great pyramids of ancient Egypt and Keynesian economics.”

    Hence the brazen lie of the parasites comes about that they must CREATE DEMAND. Like imagine someone so brazen and so lazy that he convinces everyone that him consuming all their gear is him doing them a terrific service?

    This fiscal spending as a cure to what ails you is a lie beyond the dreams of the snake-oil salesman.

    But there is such a public-choice-theory-pull-factor for this lie, that it pays an ambitious economist to become erudite in all other matters. Then to portray himself as a general sophisticate and man about town….. and then the third step is to put this unscience about in the most brazen fucking fashion.

    Even worse then this, the Keynesians who take this dual role intimidate and seem to exercise a sort of professional mind control over even good economists. The good economists dare not tread on a few strategic long tent-poles, that are knocked in the ground on this score.

    “Now Birdie, someone once wrote of a connection and relationship between the great pyramids of ancient Egypt and Keynesian economics.

    What’s that all about?”

    Now the lie is out there and it co-mingles with the Marxian story of capitalists needing to make war to create demand, and to go to war to secure markets for the imperial capitalist empires. As usual Marx is about 30% right for about 90% the wrong reasons.

    But there is just enough truth there for these amorphous meme viruses to insert themselves into the thinking of men who have for all their lives been under woe and enslavement-lite to lack of liquidity and inappropriate levels of debt.

    The liquidity-junkies have never once got that monkey off their back, and do not know about the better otherworld, that might have been theirs.

    “Now Birdie, someone once wrote of a connection and relationship between the great pyramids of ancient Egypt and Keynesian economics.

    What’s that all about?”

    The idea comes from the notion that even the most wasteful, idiotic, and badly motivated spending, can be worthwhile just from the point of view of CREATING AGGREGATE DEMAND.

    My findings are that the pyramids were made for good reason, that they weren’t too taxing on the people of the time, and that the last thing anybody would have wanted to be doing was to be spending wastefully to create demand.

    11 Nov 09 at 1:24 am
    Leave a Reply

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I understand the concern with debt, Graeme, but why not just focus on that? Arguing against debt-fuelled growth is surely better than fractional reserve crankery.”

    Well see you are wrong. And you are ignorant. And if you wish to learn about the subject you’ve got to be motivated to actually learn the subject step by step.

    100% backing CAN have more debt then money. But 100% backing given enough time, if combined with growth-deflation and good equity investment rules, good tax laws and so forth , ought eventually get to a state of having always more money then debt.


    And debt is like slavery-lite in some ways even though the acts that precipitated the debt are voluntary. The CONTEXT that pushes people into debt is NOT voluntary. In a better world we own monetary assets that constitute no debt to no-one and secure the civilisation itself as the ultimate form of insurance.

    Our less liquid assets are to do with equity investments. Hence we are motivated by incentive and adventure and not by fear or obligation. At least to some greater degree than currently is the case.

    Now you see above I haven’t even touched on fractional reserve. But you won’t learn monetary economics. And you lie and act like you already know it all. You don’t know it all. You ought not pretend you do. I’m constantly amazed that people can form these strong conclusions without knowing a damn thing and that goes for a short list of subjects where this is always the case.

    When you are willing to actually learn stuff and can ask decent questions then I’ll set you straight on this most pernicious of all sins against the voluntary society.

    11 Nov 09 at 2:08 am

  4. “meanwhile Mark B celebrates the fact that he can get to pay more for books. what a bloody tool”

    Crazy isn’t it. I don’t think you are in any position to criticise anyone for this sort of thing Jason. I notice you are saying that SOMEONE ELSE and not yourself is the “denialist.”

    So you have found some evidence then? Well thats funny isn’t it. Because you have not presented it here. And you did not show up with it last time we dealt with this matter. Nor did you email Kate with your evidence.

    The global warming assumption is not even viable on an apriori basis any more. As some of us have gotten more sophisticated in this area the global warming racket simply cannot be maintained from even an inductive reasoning point of view.

    Apriori and inductive reasoning on their own are never complete in science, without the empirical evidence. And so we had a theory that seemed inductively sound and we find out the evidence gives it the thumbs down. But having found out a bit more about the problem, it doesn’t even hold up on a straight reasoning basis.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Just remember we could have had tax cuts as payoff if the denialist idiots had any political sense.”

    Thats nonsense as well. Thats like saying the Americans could have tax cuts if they ramped up the capital gains tax. Whereas Clintons people found the opposite. They found their budget balancing by getting rid of the capital gains tax.

    You don’t need an extra tax to get rid of any old ones. If that isn’t economic unscience certainly its politically naive. We can expect the carbon tax to progressively harm the revenues generated from every other tax. And we expect it also to have the characteristics of a tariff. That is to say it will systematically destroy the revenue basis FOR ITSELF.

    So with a tariff the short term situation is not bad as far as taxes go. Since if they don’t retaliate you still have the goods but you have the revenue. But the tariff is pernicious since over time you lose the goods, lose the revenue and are left only with the malinvestment.

    This is what we expect from the carbon tax. The destruction of growth and revenue of other taxes. Then the destruction of revenue FROM ITSELF. Leaving only the malinvestment.

  6. “I repeat, we will have the ETS anyway but with diminished input from the Coalition to address the concerns of its supporters in design issues.”

    No this is idiocy. Is this the new fatalism? We are only getting the ETS because of traitors on both sides of the political spectrum. Apply your new fatalism to forced live organ donations from politically unpopular dissidents.

    You are being a traitor. Go home. How can it be a given when there is no evidence for a problem?

    How is it cut and dried that policy must be based on something that isn’t there?

    Its just a lie. You are lying. You are substituting soothsaying for reason in policy development. Your angle is self-referential, since it is entirely dependent on people like you acting like a Judas Goat.

    11 Nov 09 at 4:52 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Jason Soon does not have a valid scientific argument for this betrayal. He does not have a valid economic argument for this betrayal. And now he’s trying to make out that he has some sort of street-cred on political science. Thats the opposite of the truth.

    “As the Left always understands, and the Right never does, granting the premises of your enemy is the key to his victory; the rest is merely haggling over the consequences that the premises imply.”

    Thats the political science there. Thats the street cred right there. Thats part of the reason I have opposed you libertarian Judas Goats on this matter every step of the way.

    You’ve given up on political reality. Once you gave up on that economic reality didn’t matter at all, and from there it was always “please don’t talk to me about the science….”

    Once you gave up on political reality you gave up on all reality as such.

    Soothsaying does not come into it even a tiny bit. Since if we adopt this treason we are going to have to work to overturn it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: