Notes On An Energy-Deprived (and Efficient) Future That Is Still Awesome.

I wouldn’t resent peoples bad science CO2 delusions if these same people were reasonable individuals who we could come to some practical compromises with.

By first hydrating the landscapes, we can get the carbon into the soils. Thereafter we can get the carbon into the buildings:


There is a kind of natural welfare for fit people that can be had. Which involves building spectacularly beautiful high-rise buildings but with no lifts. Here the shop is on the first level, The rich people have a powerfully luxurious second floor. As the floors go up the building slowly tapers for structural strength purposes. But the rents get lower and lower. Until you get to a floor that is still luxurious, though quite a bit smaller. That floor can be rented out to people for a nominal amount. Since they have so many stairs to climb. That may seem stupid but we want to house everyone and we want societies that function well even under wartime conditions. Right now if we are being attacked all our power goes down.

Combining New urbanism ideas with some form of Georgism:

Does car parking get much of a look-in? No under Georgism and new Urbanism principles you’d probably have high-rise parking on either side of the high-rise strip. Being at either end maybe the parking buildings would be higher than all the other buildings in the middle. Surface parking cannot really justify the expense of it all. Its probably better to build High-rise parking places at either end and encourage people only to drive between high-rise town areas. Not within them. Even if parking is communist. Things may go so far as to have almost no carsheds even where there are two story houses. People might get on their bicycles to retrieve their car to go for a long drive out of the city.

For that matter, we have to strongly consider that under Georgist assumptions we would want to be pretty conservative about putting in new roads anywhere but always have good budgets for new tunnels. Since tunnels don’t have to justify the surface value of the land they represent….

New tunnels Good …. New roads pretty dubious. New roads if they are tar-sealed have about ten times the construction costs of gravel. They take up too much land. They involve high energy costs for transport. Really we want cargo transport to involve very flat rail, sea, canal and dirigibles transport as much as could be possible. We have to take a 5000 year view of things here.

From here on in parking needs to be even more high-rise then apartment buildings. Urban areas should be walkable. New population growth should be in small towns. The other really high-rise buildings would be mostly just those right near to the train station. Yes they would need lifts, these really tall buildings. But there ought to be no parking. These might be the poorest people in the community that lived in these luxurious high-rise next to the station. And most likely you’d want them to bike a mile or so to retrieve their car from high-rise communist storage if they wanted to go for a long drive every month or so.

To get every car thats not moving right up in the air the communist carpark buildings might look a bit like this:

Except maybe scaled down in volume a lot and hopefully more aesthetically pleasing. It will spiral upwards and be more open air.  Hopefully it will be a good chance to overuse arches for ventilation.  However they design the car parks, it should be clear that car parking simply cannot justify all the surface space its taking.

New urbanism suggests that you want to have every possible thing you need within about a 400 metre walk. They emphasise 5-8 storey buildings. I’d perhaps go a little higher with the upper floors as natural welfare for fit poor people. But in the main I defer to their expertise.

I think as the buildings taper to a point where they are still big enough for a passing dirigible to drop cargo off, perhaps the last couple of floors could be water storage, hot and cold. This is because we are facing a great deal of energy deprivation the rest of this century and we want to get that water up in the air with intermittent energy and let it come down naturally when we need it.

A pretty bizzare and paranoid approach to energy? Well white maggot scum have planned it that way. Yes I know I know we could be doing the whole thing on thorium. And I’m glad that “Legalise Sedition” has weathered well and matured in his thinking (over at Catallaxy) and is in favour of this sort of thing. But its going to be decades before we get out of our energy deprived status.

Consider the poor fit guy on the twelfth floor who pays only nominal rent? He’ll always have a part-time job delivering the cargo from the dirigible to everyones door. Its a beautiful system really and we want to make it one that allows society to function well under conditions of extended nuclear war.

Naturally the small high-rise towns should be surrounded by permaculture farming.

329 thoughts on “Notes On An Energy-Deprived (and Efficient) Future That Is Still Awesome.

  1. “JC
    #3594372, posted on September 22, 2020 at 10:20 pm

    That’s true in terms of isolated incidents, but these fuckers are saying 40% of their time is devoted to far rights groups. Where’s the evidence to support these threats? I can’t figure the mindset.

    It’s the same in the US to some extent. Cities are being trashed by antifa and their actions are being described as mostly peaceful.”

    JC obviously ASIO has been captured by Jew influences. They aren’t interested in our well-being or sovereignty. Only on Jew supremacy.


  2. Having said what I said before in the comment too true to publish, since the increase between 1950 and 1976(?) has been confirmed I don’t suppose it makes a great deal of difference that Moana Loa data is not allowable. They may be covering up some variability during that 50-76 period. But its totally proven that there was fast overall rise during that time interval. So that ought not be a problem to your side of the argument.

    But in science you cannot tolerate any excuses. So we still cannot accept Moana Loa data no matter what. What is notable is that 1950 was the only time when the real data and the ice core proxy got the same reading. Thats where the two lines intersected. Thats a bit rich as they used to say. So we have far-sighted rigging of figures from very early on. Which should raise an eyebrow to even the dimmest, yet most ardent believer.

    There is two more things that really give me the shits. We see this lip service to storage that comes in the form of pointing out the many different types of potential storage. You can be right about all of that and still screw everything up for the rest of us if its not recognised that storage must lead renewables at all stages. If storage greatly exceeds renewables thats a minor problem. But if renewables exceed storage all the way up then we are being impoverished all the way up. Thats why our electricity prices went from amongst the cheapest to the most expensive. Thats the reason. Barely anything else counts other than John Howards long-term gas contracts.

    Now this storage reality is being treated as a minor issue but its not a minor issue. To shove this reality aside is a major act of societal vandalism.

    The final issue is the two sides of the balance sheet. I went to a farm fencing course. The tafe has to keep building fences to teach the kids. What is the effect of this largesse as regards to fences? Its the richest deepest darkest soil you could ever imagine. Incredible grass productivity. So we can inter as much carbon as we want. But soil production is the only sane way to do it.

    I suppose I’ll add just one more thing. When we run out of rooftops we could vault solar across narrow roads. That may seem restrictive but there is endless roofs and narrow roads taken together. There is no excuse for taking land out of production. Particularly when at the flick of a switch we can start interring carbon into that land and making farm production vastly more abundant.


  3. I think this is great. Because Judaism is I think itself a deliberately created religion and it represents oligarchy. So maybe it was Egyptian Levites, who created a new religion by carving a group out of the Canaanites and giving them a fake history. If so they may have done this on the part of an Egyptian oligarchy. Next after Plato gave these guys a few lessons on how to start a new Republic with false memories I think the oligarchs who controlled these reconstructed and inbred Canaanites took their act about ten times more nasty and effective. So Christianity is a kind of anti-Jew antidote to these servants of oligarchy. Which may as well be servants of Satan. So I agree with everything the scholar is saying. Except I take this fight-back to be a good thing.


  4. The Coenites and the Levites keep on restoring the male DNA of the Jews with the original gene pool I think. So as much as there has been lot of male admixture in the past in practice that won’t necessarily dilute everything because the two tribes of Coen and Levite may play a special role in maintaining an inner core of fairly faithful original Jew male DNA. The Levite influence would be somewhat ancient Egyptian if I have this story right. Which may be a bit of a slim chance since although this theory hasn’t been proved wrong outright it hasn’t been proven right either.

    Now on the sheila side its Jew to Jew to Jew. Which would keep that side also reasonably faithful to the Jew inner core and so you’d expect some trace ancient Canaanite still in there somewhere.

    But in reality you’ve got to scratch all that. Because there are too many generations and the important thing is THE JEWS MUST BE INBRED WITH REGARDS TO EACHOTHER IN ANY GIVEN TIME PERIOD.

    So while this genetic originalism was surely attempted in practice it will be all but bread out. But that doesn’t matter. The key was to make them all inbred troglodytes with regards to each other in order to make them useful as tools of oligarchy, or Satan if you would have it that way.

    So don’t quote the first part of what I’m saying without the second part. Because there is a turnaround here. Amazing that they have still maintained those hooters. But for rhinoplasty we would realise we were being oppressed by barely human gargoyles.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s