Its not plausible that the blocks that the pyramids were built from, were originally quarried specifically for the pyramids. That is to say its not plausible that someone got the idea to build the pyramids. Then they up and cut, moved, and assembled the whole lot of them from scratch. What really must have happened is that the blocks must have been cut many years before for other reasons. They must have been cut and quarried over many hundreds of years. And then when the determination was made to build the pyramids, they simply would have been retrieved and assembled those blocks. Hence the pyramid building job would have simply been a matter of big stone block retrieval, the setting up of a convoy, most likely of a robotic nature, and putting the blocks in place. Probably a couple of warm-up pyramids would have been made with the smaller and lower quality blocks. Then when various problems had been worked through the better bigger pyramids would have been made with the larger better blocks.
We’ve built up a lot of assumptions here in earlier threads. And of course if one base assumption is shown to be wrong then the whole theory tumbles but thats a good and not a bad thing.
The biggest pyramid has maybe 2 and a half million blocks. Pharaonic propaganda claims that it was made over a 20 year period. Just for that one pyramid alone I made that out to be 1 stone every 252 seconds I think from memory. For all the pyramids in Egypt I’ve heard people talk about one block every 9 seconds. Now this isn’t even a very good lie. The problem is that you need capital goods to make these blocks and whatever you use to transport the blocks. And you need capital goods to make those capital goods and it keeps regressing. Capital goods are used up in the act of production. So to gear up production to cut these stones over a 20 year period is ridiculous. And the fact is it did not happen that way. Pharaonic Egypt was basically communist as defined by religion, state and governance being all wrapped into one. And they lied like communists clearly.
The Basic Conundrum
The fundamental conundrum we have with the Pyramids is that to make these pyramids out of stone, the Velonovins must have been more high-tech than what we are. But were they more high-tech then what we are they would not have made the pyramids out of stone. Ergo it follows directly that this was a post-catastrophic production. All their transport robots would have been repaired by the traumatised survivors and the blocks no longer in use would have been taken from where they had been, and in a panic the pyramids were built to have at least some refuge should another disaster occur. You might think of it as a wasted effort. Because there has been no disaster of that magnitude in the interim. But it was more than merely a wasted effort. It was a curse. What had grown up organically was now replaced with a Nile-based civilisation planned with intention and fear of the oceans. And the civilisation built was seeded with flaws that would mean we could never hope to get back to the golden age prior to the catastrophe.
Had the Velanovins known that there would be no further catastrophes on quite that same scale the Velanovins ought to have just gone back to the coast. Tried to make their economy a sustainable and non-scavenging one. It was the curse of an economy built on the pseudo-subsidy of scavenged goods that did us in. The Velanovins (in my version of events) ought not have worried about building on the higher ground by the Nile river. But rather they should have gone back to their destroyed homes on the sea. But they instead went to the Nile. A scavenging economy quite naturally lead to statism. The new world on the banks of the Nile could not become the setup for an improving technological society. And so the more Rothbardian, sea-based economy was lost (in my version of this story) and a new repulsive statist seed was planted in this world. Something that had not been there before, or at the very least had been sucessfully eradicated, or they could not have reached the superior technological level that they seem to have reached.
WILD SWINGS IN SEA LEVEL
But why would the pre-catastrophe world have had all these big blocks? The reason why is that the pre-catastrophe world was the world of the glacial period. And the glacial period is the period where you have wild swings in sea level. Only the big blocks can protect you from the ocean. A high-tech society, more high-tech than our own is also more sea-based then our own. That it must be more sea-based follows directly from economic laws. Technology is imbedded in capital update and capital accumulation. As an economy develops the Boehm-Bawerk doctrine of the lengthening of the structure of production kicks in. Should we have an inland based economy then this lengthening of the production structure would mean that GDR would continue to outpace GDP in growth. And a limiting factor would be reached. Since the amount of trucking and transport would have to increase disproportionately. The economy would get way too greedy energy-wise. I may be quoting Felipe Fernandez-Armesto when I say that mountain ranges divide us but oceans bring us together. Economic law emphasises this in a big way. Since with the ongoing lengthening of the production structure, what we would be after is arrays of pyramidal and conical buidlings, fairly near the coast, and heavy cargo moving via the sea. Not overland.
So the sea is widely variable during glacial periods. Whereas CO2-bedwetters are lying to us about how the seas could rise drastically, the reality of the matter is that this is impossible. Arctic ice is floating. So melting it doesn’t affect sea level. Antarctic ice at -60 degrees celsius cannot be melted. So the only source of water to make our sea levels rise is from Greenland. And that will melt very slowly if things don’t now start going the other way as I suggest that they will. Our background sea level rising is about 2mm per year since the end of the glacial period. This jumps around all over the place but by no great amount in any given year. The sea level during a glacial period is an entirely different matter.
During a glacial period there are trillions of tonnes of land ice that may be close to melting point at any given time. Also within the massive ice sheets there may be a great lot of already melted water that is yet still contained by the surrounding ice. One can see the glacial period sea levels then bouncing around all over the place and by fairly drastic amounts. This is the reason for a high-tech civilisation cutting all the big blocks. This is the ONLY CONCEIVABLE reason for a high-tech society to be cutting all these big blocks.
GO IN TWELVE MINUTES TO SEE HOAGLANDS COMPARISON PICTURES BETWEEN MODERN WEAPONS AND DEPICTIONS AT ABYLOS.
LESSONS FOR OUR FUTURE
Currently 2012 catastrophists are hoping to ride the disaster out by building on the high ground. I believe we must do better than that and still base our act reasonably near the sea. The idea is to put all the effort into the survivability of the buildings. Not the survivability of ones position. I’d rather have a building down at Innisfail that could survive an earthquake of 10 on the Richter scale, and a succession of tidal waves of a kilometer high each. As well as one that could sheild out gamma ray blasts. That would respond to a sudden equatorial shift by skidding along the ground for hundreds of metres without tipping over. And that could last underwater for a very long time while the flood waters were draining. What I’m saying is that I’d rather have such an extraordinary building like this down at Innisfail, then having a middling building up at the Atherton tablelands.
I would want the situation of many people having buildings like this that were sufficiently large for industrial production. And that when the disaster was over we could transport all such buildings down to the coast and the designs were such that we could set them up in array and attach above ground light-rail between them, to get back to a serious economy as quickly as possible. Remembering that in a really big catastrophe most buildings would be flattened. Few fences would be standing, and most land-owners would be dead. And even if lawful title was still a real factor, well the land-owner near the coast would be only too willing to cut a deal to have somewhere to stay.
For the record I don’t place all that much significance on this particular 2012 date. Some significance but not a great deal. Rather I take the LaViolette view that we are overdue for something really pretty nasty, and have only maybe one chance in ten of avoiding this in the next (he says) 400 years. I think we ought to trust his judgement for now, but assume that he’s being conservative, and that the risks will be front-end-loaded.