Leavenworth, Washington
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
20 comments:
Vanity is impossible without regulation.
I don't know that I agree. Maybe to the extent of these small towns in Europe it is impossible, but what would happen if a small town was comprised of like-minded white people, each with a degree of wealth that doesn't necessitate dropping your standards? I don't think you'd end up with a town where all of the buildings are identical, but could you not end up with a town with beauty and cleanliness?
What do you think would happen if we could somehow make a town comprised of exclusively moderately wealthy, upstanding white folk?
What do you think would happen if we could somehow make a town comprised of exclusively moderately wealthy, upstanding white folk?
I suppose if you found a large group of wealthy people dedicated to creating architecture with a 1700's Bavarian style or whatever then it would be possible without regulation, but the trick is going to be finding these people. That's what I meant by vanity.
There's a town with a similar style in Georgia. It's called "Helen". They rely on regulations to keep the look right.
As far as just having a white town without building regulation, a quick look at the old buildings of any old small American town will give you an idea of what they would look like.
There's a town with a similar style in Georgia. It's called "Helen". They rely on regulations to keep the look right.
As far as just having a white town without building regulation, a quick look at the old buildings of any old small American town will give you an idea of what they would look like.
Here's how you do it.
You buy a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere.
You build your house on the land. You invite your kids to live there, and deed them property. If you have like-minded individuals, you can sell them land too.
When you reach a certain number, you incorporate as a township or city or whatever, and you set strict regulations.
It requires each of you being very careful who you sell land to, so make sure the landowners develop a high-trust relationship. Make sure they have their wills and everything set in order so that the land cannot be given away.
There are several places in the US where it is impossible to buy land. Nice communities, nice farms, but you will never be able to buy land there because it simply isn't for sale. In the rare occasion when land is sold, it's always to a family member.
It may be possible to develop such a system but with leases rather than sales of land, but I've never heard of that working.
That's the only way to do it.
You buy a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere.
You build your house on the land. You invite your kids to live there, and deed them property. If you have like-minded individuals, you can sell them land too.
When you reach a certain number, you incorporate as a township or city or whatever, and you set strict regulations.
It requires each of you being very careful who you sell land to, so make sure the landowners develop a high-trust relationship. Make sure they have their wills and everything set in order so that the land cannot be given away.
There are several places in the US where it is impossible to buy land. Nice communities, nice farms, but you will never be able to buy land there because it simply isn't for sale. In the rare occasion when land is sold, it's always to a family member.
It may be possible to develop such a system but with leases rather than sales of land, but I've never heard of that working.
That's the only way to do it.
And then the jew notices and hires a black dude to try to purchase a property. When the owner rejects the sale, the jew funds lawyers to sue you for fair housing discrimination.
This is probably the most demotivating thing: no matter how wealthy you get, you are still beholden to laws that utterly undermine your basic, unalienable rights. You can't choose who to sell your own property to and you can't choose who you work with. Right to property and freedom of association are dead.
In fact, the wealthier you get, the *more* these infringements affect you. If you are wealthy, you likely own a business and if you own a business, your freedom of association is completely stolen from you. The better your business does, the more likely you are to get caught and get sued, especially as your business grows large enough that you have to hire people to do hiring for you: if you tell them explicitly your hiring criteria, you *will* get caught, if you hope for the best by only putting that power in the hands of someone you trust but without writing the unwritten hiring rules, it is only a matter of time before that person caves.
This is probably the most demotivating thing: no matter how wealthy you get, you are still beholden to laws that utterly undermine your basic, unalienable rights. You can't choose who to sell your own property to and you can't choose who you work with. Right to property and freedom of association are dead.
In fact, the wealthier you get, the *more* these infringements affect you. If you are wealthy, you likely own a business and if you own a business, your freedom of association is completely stolen from you. The better your business does, the more likely you are to get caught and get sued, especially as your business grows large enough that you have to hire people to do hiring for you: if you tell them explicitly your hiring criteria, you *will* get caught, if you hope for the best by only putting that power in the hands of someone you trust but without writing the unwritten hiring rules, it is only a matter of time before that person caves.
You can't discriminate if you're not selling. You NEVER list the property for sale.
That's the key.
EDIT: From a quick internet search, selling property to a family or friend without listing it is OK. If it's near market value (hire an appraiser) it's not a gift. You can even go so far as to finance the property sale yourself. As long as you charge market interest rate, you are not giving them a gift.
Just don't list the property for sale or lease.
That's the way they do it down here. If I want to buy property, I have to get to know property owners because there is a lot of property that is ready to be sold but not listed and never will be listed. Without an introduction or a pre-existing relationship, I'll never know it was even for sale. Agents are rarely used for large tracts of land.
That's the key.
EDIT: From a quick internet search, selling property to a family or friend without listing it is OK. If it's near market value (hire an appraiser) it's not a gift. You can even go so far as to finance the property sale yourself. As long as you charge market interest rate, you are not giving them a gift.
Just don't list the property for sale or lease.
That's the way they do it down here. If I want to buy property, I have to get to know property owners because there is a lot of property that is ready to be sold but not listed and never will be listed. Without an introduction or a pre-existing relationship, I'll never know it was even for sale. Agents are rarely used for large tracts of land.
With the pastoral sort of beauty you describe I think a lot of that regulation would be cultural, a way of life and a regimen of work that the residents were born into and pass on. Once it turns into external institution it starts to go sour as the institution sours.
There is no real preservation of the beauty of things, that is vanity, even marble statues and other symbols of timeless achievement are all deteriorated today. Everything exists in its moment and goes away in its time in a big cycle of death and rejuvenation and that is, I think, what makes beautiful "beautiful". When we witness beauty it compounds the miracle of anything existing at all and we innately (and sometimes subconsciously) understand the preciousness, vulnerability, unlikelihood, and temporary nature of it.
If it were immortal, if it could never go away, then it could never be defeated, and I promise you a lot of people would see the thing in a very nasty way. This is, afaik, the emotional dynamic that drives people to hate beautiful things; they are trained to see them as product of an invincible system that they must morally defy against all odds.
I'll never be totally good, and part of it is that I can see how ugly some superficially beautiful things are. Things I view as a challenge to surmount or associate with a durable, external, institutional evil.
There is no real preservation of the beauty of things, that is vanity, even marble statues and other symbols of timeless achievement are all deteriorated today. Everything exists in its moment and goes away in its time in a big cycle of death and rejuvenation and that is, I think, what makes beautiful "beautiful". When we witness beauty it compounds the miracle of anything existing at all and we innately (and sometimes subconsciously) understand the preciousness, vulnerability, unlikelihood, and temporary nature of it.
If it were immortal, if it could never go away, then it could never be defeated, and I promise you a lot of people would see the thing in a very nasty way. This is, afaik, the emotional dynamic that drives people to hate beautiful things; they are trained to see them as product of an invincible system that they must morally defy against all odds.
I'll never be totally good, and part of it is that I can see how ugly some superficially beautiful things are. Things I view as a challenge to surmount or associate with a durable, external, institutional evil.
If you're gonna build from scratch, the trick is to follow the landscape. Most old developments started with farms scattered around as people settled down thousands of years ago, people walked or rode horses between these farms along natural paths, some of which were later upgraded into roads. With newer more straight roads being built in parallel.
The Church was usually built by a rich farmer after the missionaries came to convert us barbarians into Christianity, the richer the farm, the bigger and more impressive the Church was, high towers was status and they all have large bells which they ring frequently to call to prayer a trend that continues to this day.
With the church and growing farms workers was needed and so came the church village which are usually not very organized at all, people settled down here and there and roads were built later, but everyone wanted to live close to church and small gardens was normal as people worked on the farm fields and needed the land for farming.
Few hundred years later in medieval times came the castles. Castles were usually built according to a master plan, usually a circle with all roads leading to the castle, his is were the original grid design comes from, but in European cities it's more of a circular grid. Modern day city governments simply expand on this layout without breaking it.
Large cities have grown together with neighboring cities which increases land value and forces new buildings to become a few stories taller, now here's the first major difference. In jew york for instance, they have an average height regulation, this of course (((they))) cheat by buying up a lot of land only to build low 1 story buildings or surface parking. In turn that allows (((them))) to built one skyscraper which is a lot taller than all other buildings.
European cities has no such (((regulation))), instead the entire city grows in height slowly, but no building grows much taller than any other, in most cases. There's always approval involved and if you're gonna build something in downtown Paris for instance, the look and size of the building is very limited as it has to match the style of all other nearby buildings. In smaller towns this of course is less important and you'll have much more freedom in terms of what you can build.
Another important detail is the city limits once again, because the cities are small to the surface they don't sprawl. By the edge you can literally have 2-3 story apartment buildings, then instantly forest or farm fields.
There's no minimum parking requirements, zoning laws are much more flexible and allow mixed use for instance were you have a small business on the bottom floor and apartments above in the same building, assuming the business isn't of the disturbing type. You have more freedom to run a business in your own home and apartments can be converted into small businesses for office purpose or similar.
The road and street layout are all managed by the city. This I think is a very important thing as well. Because the city will design a road network that is a lot more connected, no cul-de-sacks, but also no pass through traffic, yet walk and bike paths connecting everything. Kind of like a master plan, lot's are then sold and developers build on those lots.
From what I understand in the US a developer buys an entire superblock, then lay out the roads in a way that allows them to squeeze in as many houses as possible, this usually means a maze of very small lots, only single family homes, no businesses or offices and just one connection to a main stroad which means you can only leave that prison by car.
Due to higher land value, we also don't have much abandoned property, old buildings are either repurposed or demolished. No big box stores near the city center just sitting there abandoned to rot.
Ironically I think the reason European towns and cities look like they do is all thanks to less regulations, and individual local approvals for building designs rather than federal regulations, we also use locally sourced materials, which gives each town a more unique look and feel, a nice detail and looks a lot better than schlomos drywall INC.
Right to roam protects all the old paths, ensuring that no fucktard kike can buy land and fence it off just to restrict access to the nature. Private land that isn't used for anything that generates profit or part of a home zone is available to everyone, for hiking. There's rules in place, no cars, no trash left behind, no fires and so on. Follow them and you can hike, pick berries and mushrooms, camp overnight and some more. And the landowner can relax because if some fucktard kike goes out in the forest and gets molested by a bear, it's the governments problem, schlomo can't sue you for getting injured on your land.
This became a longer post than expected, but it's an interesting topic and lot's to discuss. :)
The Church was usually built by a rich farmer after the missionaries came to convert us barbarians into Christianity, the richer the farm, the bigger and more impressive the Church was, high towers was status and they all have large bells which they ring frequently to call to prayer a trend that continues to this day.
With the church and growing farms workers was needed and so came the church village which are usually not very organized at all, people settled down here and there and roads were built later, but everyone wanted to live close to church and small gardens was normal as people worked on the farm fields and needed the land for farming.
Few hundred years later in medieval times came the castles. Castles were usually built according to a master plan, usually a circle with all roads leading to the castle, his is were the original grid design comes from, but in European cities it's more of a circular grid. Modern day city governments simply expand on this layout without breaking it.
Large cities have grown together with neighboring cities which increases land value and forces new buildings to become a few stories taller, now here's the first major difference. In jew york for instance, they have an average height regulation, this of course (((they))) cheat by buying up a lot of land only to build low 1 story buildings or surface parking. In turn that allows (((them))) to built one skyscraper which is a lot taller than all other buildings.
European cities has no such (((regulation))), instead the entire city grows in height slowly, but no building grows much taller than any other, in most cases. There's always approval involved and if you're gonna build something in downtown Paris for instance, the look and size of the building is very limited as it has to match the style of all other nearby buildings. In smaller towns this of course is less important and you'll have much more freedom in terms of what you can build.
Another important detail is the city limits once again, because the cities are small to the surface they don't sprawl. By the edge you can literally have 2-3 story apartment buildings, then instantly forest or farm fields.
There's no minimum parking requirements, zoning laws are much more flexible and allow mixed use for instance were you have a small business on the bottom floor and apartments above in the same building, assuming the business isn't of the disturbing type. You have more freedom to run a business in your own home and apartments can be converted into small businesses for office purpose or similar.
The road and street layout are all managed by the city. This I think is a very important thing as well. Because the city will design a road network that is a lot more connected, no cul-de-sacks, but also no pass through traffic, yet walk and bike paths connecting everything. Kind of like a master plan, lot's are then sold and developers build on those lots.
From what I understand in the US a developer buys an entire superblock, then lay out the roads in a way that allows them to squeeze in as many houses as possible, this usually means a maze of very small lots, only single family homes, no businesses or offices and just one connection to a main stroad which means you can only leave that prison by car.
Due to higher land value, we also don't have much abandoned property, old buildings are either repurposed or demolished. No big box stores near the city center just sitting there abandoned to rot.
Ironically I think the reason European towns and cities look like they do is all thanks to less regulations, and individual local approvals for building designs rather than federal regulations, we also use locally sourced materials, which gives each town a more unique look and feel, a nice detail and looks a lot better than schlomos drywall INC.
Right to roam protects all the old paths, ensuring that no fucktard kike can buy land and fence it off just to restrict access to the nature. Private land that isn't used for anything that generates profit or part of a home zone is available to everyone, for hiking. There's rules in place, no cars, no trash left behind, no fires and so on. Follow them and you can hike, pick berries and mushrooms, camp overnight and some more. And the landowner can relax because if some fucktard kike goes out in the forest and gets molested by a bear, it's the governments problem, schlomo can't sue you for getting injured on your land.
This became a longer post than expected, but it's an interesting topic and lot's to discuss. :)
Thanks for the post. One thing I wanted to respond to:
>Right to roam
This is something I wish the United States had. I don't know for sure how it is implemented in Europe, but how I'd wish it were in the United States is that you have the right to a 20-50 ft. easement for pedestrians between every single property along the property lines, even if you did not own the property. Except in those areas where the average property is *huge* (in those areas, perhaps an easement every 1,000 feet), this would provide a way for people to explore and maneuver without being among cars on set paths, without severely infringing on private property or people's privacy on their land. This will also ensure no property gets fully landlocked and generally encourage moving around on foot as opposed to car.
Additionally, I think the entire country needs better mixed-use paths that allow ATVs. This is something Europe is notoriously *horrible* at, but America is frankly not much better. It is odd because so many people in America own four-wheelers, off-road trucks, jeeps, and side-by-sides, but there is truly very little you can do with them. You can put around on your own land, trailer them to an ATV park and ride the same trails again and again, or trailer them to a state/area that has more lenient rules to allow for riding on the road, forestry roads which allow ATV traffic, and/or an extensive trail system. Wouldn't it be nice if every state had an extensive trail system and the ability to ride ATVs on berms (so you can get to the trail), such that you could take your ATV, Jeep, dirt-bike, mountain bike, or even hike from your house to some shops and restaurants?
Of course, one of the limiting factors with this is our population. We *are* overpopulated, and this necessitates regulation and limits what is allowed. It is not coincidence that those areas with the most extensive free-use trails are also those with the lowest population. People can say "we have room" all they want, but we don't have enough room to have all these people *and* freedom at the same time; which means we *don't* have enough room. With this many people, things like paved highways with strict vehicle regulations and constant monitoring are required. With this many people, things like hunting/fishing limits are required. With this many people, things like building codes are required. With less dense populations, all of this is unnecessary. You have real freedom.
>Right to roam
This is something I wish the United States had. I don't know for sure how it is implemented in Europe, but how I'd wish it were in the United States is that you have the right to a 20-50 ft. easement for pedestrians between every single property along the property lines, even if you did not own the property. Except in those areas where the average property is *huge* (in those areas, perhaps an easement every 1,000 feet), this would provide a way for people to explore and maneuver without being among cars on set paths, without severely infringing on private property or people's privacy on their land. This will also ensure no property gets fully landlocked and generally encourage moving around on foot as opposed to car.
Additionally, I think the entire country needs better mixed-use paths that allow ATVs. This is something Europe is notoriously *horrible* at, but America is frankly not much better. It is odd because so many people in America own four-wheelers, off-road trucks, jeeps, and side-by-sides, but there is truly very little you can do with them. You can put around on your own land, trailer them to an ATV park and ride the same trails again and again, or trailer them to a state/area that has more lenient rules to allow for riding on the road, forestry roads which allow ATV traffic, and/or an extensive trail system. Wouldn't it be nice if every state had an extensive trail system and the ability to ride ATVs on berms (so you can get to the trail), such that you could take your ATV, Jeep, dirt-bike, mountain bike, or even hike from your house to some shops and restaurants?
Of course, one of the limiting factors with this is our population. We *are* overpopulated, and this necessitates regulation and limits what is allowed. It is not coincidence that those areas with the most extensive free-use trails are also those with the lowest population. People can say "we have room" all they want, but we don't have enough room to have all these people *and* freedom at the same time; which means we *don't* have enough room. With this many people, things like paved highways with strict vehicle regulations and constant monitoring are required. With this many people, things like hunting/fishing limits are required. With this many people, things like building codes are required. With less dense populations, all of this is unnecessary. You have real freedom.
> HoA
Why do you use abbreviations? Who the fuck should know what it means? Americans maybe? Is this referring to nigger housing programs?
> Essentially I've concluded that living in these towns must be like living with an HoA on steroids. What is the point of living within beauty if it comes at the cost of your freedom?
See, disconnect yourself from the idea that having freedom leads to chaotic mess of ugliness. This is what jews like to do, but intentionally. They place literal ugliness into the view just to ruin it, and call it art (Brutalism).
The reason there are villages/cities in Europe that have a homogeneous style is because the same people built the things, the materials available were the same, and/or people simply imitated the style because it is a proven concept or cheap at that time. Regulations may reinforce that, but I don't think they are the foundation for it.
To deviate from the style of others is also a decision. In Hungary for example it is quite common to have similar styles. For one, concrete is used for the walls, buildings are white, and the roof is red. Rarely a roof is different, even more rarely the wall is not white. Often there are houses that have a similar amount of spacing in between - for example there are areas where you only have a tight corridor of open space (property outside the building), and the buildings are all shaped orthogonally to the street.
In cities often you have buildings that close off the entry, so that you have inner courtyards. Why not do it differently? Well, actually there are quite some places that do it differently, like having vast areas with large living spaces with parks and trees in between.
So there is a tendency to imitate the style of those surrounding you. This vehement "going against the stream" that ruins the local style is uncommon.
Why do you use abbreviations? Who the fuck should know what it means? Americans maybe? Is this referring to nigger housing programs?
> Essentially I've concluded that living in these towns must be like living with an HoA on steroids. What is the point of living within beauty if it comes at the cost of your freedom?
See, disconnect yourself from the idea that having freedom leads to chaotic mess of ugliness. This is what jews like to do, but intentionally. They place literal ugliness into the view just to ruin it, and call it art (Brutalism).
The reason there are villages/cities in Europe that have a homogeneous style is because the same people built the things, the materials available were the same, and/or people simply imitated the style because it is a proven concept or cheap at that time. Regulations may reinforce that, but I don't think they are the foundation for it.
To deviate from the style of others is also a decision. In Hungary for example it is quite common to have similar styles. For one, concrete is used for the walls, buildings are white, and the roof is red. Rarely a roof is different, even more rarely the wall is not white. Often there are houses that have a similar amount of spacing in between - for example there are areas where you only have a tight corridor of open space (property outside the building), and the buildings are all shaped orthogonally to the street.
In cities often you have buildings that close off the entry, so that you have inner courtyards. Why not do it differently? Well, actually there are quite some places that do it differently, like having vast areas with large living spaces with parks and trees in between.
So there is a tendency to imitate the style of those surrounding you. This vehement "going against the stream" that ruins the local style is uncommon.
>Why do you use abbrevations? Who the fuck should know what it means?
Americans. It's a commonly used term here, but it makes sense that it's not a term everywhere. You can't blame me for using a regional term. Anyway, it's short for "homeowner's association."
Essentially, in America, a wealthy developer will buy a large plot of empty land and build a bunch of houses on it, including building the roads and sometimes other amenities (like a community pool). This is how most "subdivisions" come about, which are characterized by very similar looking houses, all moderately manicured and soulless. Once built, the developer begins selling the houses to prospective homeowners. However, they typically set up an HoA (homeowner's association) and require anyone who purchases the home to sign into it. The contract then prevents the home from being sold unless the next buyer also signs into the HoA, and so on.
Since these associations are based on contract law, they have far more leeway to enforce rules that local governments cannot. The HoA is set up in such a way in the contract that essentially runs it like a small government, so the residents can vote to abolish it if they so desire or change the rules (although, for some time, the developer owns enough of the properties themselves to have the controlling vote.)
In practice, what you often end up with is one or two busy-body neighbors (usually stay-at-home wives to working husbands) who make it their entire life to go around enforcing petty offenses. These associations would prevent such things as painting your garage door purple or leaving garbage on your front lawn or not cutting your grass... but they can also be more pestering and prevent things like putting up a new mailbox without approval or parking a car in your driveway (rather than your garage) for longer than a few hours. Every HoA is different.
But I don't want to portray this wrong. A lot of people *prefer* to live in an HoA because they prevent their neighbors from trashing the place. A lot of people view them as a necessary evil. Ultimately, while I wouldn't live anywhere with an HoA, I do see the appeal and I think they are the least offensive form of governance (because they are truly voluntary; you chose to move into that neighborhood, and are hyper-local; you can literally make a difference by getting involved).
Americans. It's a commonly used term here, but it makes sense that it's not a term everywhere. You can't blame me for using a regional term. Anyway, it's short for "homeowner's association."
Essentially, in America, a wealthy developer will buy a large plot of empty land and build a bunch of houses on it, including building the roads and sometimes other amenities (like a community pool). This is how most "subdivisions" come about, which are characterized by very similar looking houses, all moderately manicured and soulless. Once built, the developer begins selling the houses to prospective homeowners. However, they typically set up an HoA (homeowner's association) and require anyone who purchases the home to sign into it. The contract then prevents the home from being sold unless the next buyer also signs into the HoA, and so on.
Since these associations are based on contract law, they have far more leeway to enforce rules that local governments cannot. The HoA is set up in such a way in the contract that essentially runs it like a small government, so the residents can vote to abolish it if they so desire or change the rules (although, for some time, the developer owns enough of the properties themselves to have the controlling vote.)
In practice, what you often end up with is one or two busy-body neighbors (usually stay-at-home wives to working husbands) who make it their entire life to go around enforcing petty offenses. These associations would prevent such things as painting your garage door purple or leaving garbage on your front lawn or not cutting your grass... but they can also be more pestering and prevent things like putting up a new mailbox without approval or parking a car in your driveway (rather than your garage) for longer than a few hours. Every HoA is different.
But I don't want to portray this wrong. A lot of people *prefer* to live in an HoA because they prevent their neighbors from trashing the place. A lot of people view them as a necessary evil. Ultimately, while I wouldn't live anywhere with an HoA, I do see the appeal and I think they are the least offensive form of governance (because they are truly voluntary; you chose to move into that neighborhood, and are hyper-local; you can literally make a difference by getting involved).
Toast message
What was striking to me.. Seeing Paris 50 years ago and how much it's changed. So far as, the demographics of people shown and the streets looking less cluttered with advertising & foreign influences.
I've been trying to watch more older films. Anymore with Delon that you would suggest?
[Her Mother](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yva_L%C3%A9ro) was a feminist activist from the mulatto class in Martinique, French West Indies and [her Father](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9lus_L%C3%A9ro) was a communist politician from Martinique who was elected to the French Senate. You can't make this stuff up.
It's interesting how it always leads back to the same culprits. Jews and/or communists.
All these reclaimed streets becomes nigger free over time, frankly it's scary for a lone nigger to walk around on a street with hundreds of White people, if he start to nigg around he'll be alone against a mob.
That said, they still suffer from the peak back in 2016, but less nowadays than back then. Build good cities and the niggers won't feel welcome anymore. A car dependent society is the dream for a nigger, lot's of dark places were nobody sees or hear, with very few people around, allowing them to rape and rob without being disturbed.