"The most expensive work of poop art is
in the New York's Guggenheim Museum. The installation by Maurizio
Cattelan is a fully functional toilet cast in 18-carat gold, called
America. Visitors to the museum are encouraged to relieve themselves
on this throne. 'Come spend a little alone time with America, and
you can ponder that meaning for yourself', says the museum on its
website. The meaning is clear. Guggenheim Museum invites you to
defecate on America, on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness', on the American dream, on Western civilisation and on
the glories of Western art. This is the great project of the Left.
It is the supreme countermove to the project of Judeo-Christianity"
"Donald Trump needs to use the word
s***hole more - not merely to describe countries reeking with the
stench of corruption, but every institution in the West that the
Left seeks to pollute with its reverse Midas touch, especially
s***hole art galleries and museums" [source].
Modern or Traditional?
"A 2009 YouGov survey found 77% of
respondents when shown pictures of cutting-edge and traditional
designs side-by-side and asked which they would rather were built in
their neighborhoods [sic], went for traditionalist designs. ...
Analysis of the data of this research showed the results yielded
very little variation, meaning [that] respondents across region,
age, and income groups all preferred traditional design" [source].
"As a student, I worked a short stint
for the Danish government in the department for maintenance of
historical buildings. These people were all architects of course (I
was a clerk), and historically interested. But here's the thing:
there's a couple of crazy Swedish billionaire brothers who've built
a late Medieval village from the ground up, only with bigger
apartments and modern amenities. ... [O]ne day I found photos of it
in one of the magazines lying around in the office and during a
lunch break I made some positive remarks on the idea that not all
new buildings had to look desolate and depressing. The reaction
couldn't have been more icy if I'd [relieved myself] on the table.
Silence. Dagger stares. As it transpired, they had
thought I was mocking them. The village was apparently infamous
amongst architects and considered hideous beyond words, used as an
example of how ugly and wrong historicism is, an icon of bad taste.
Of course, the brothers made out like bandits and there's a twenty
years' waiting list for apartments there" [comment at
"Individuals do have a strong view on
the style of non-residential buildings in their area. ... [S]urveys
... have consistently shown that that traditional homes are more
popular with the public. ... Being traditional is not living in the
past; it's making sure that the present and past are connected"
[Architect Robert Adam, quoted at
"[Surveys reveal] just how far
architects ideas are from the public they are supposed to serve"
[Architect Robert Adam, quoted at
"If you look at the great railway
stations of the 19th century ... they were great structures, permanent in
purpose. Modern stations are temporary, they are ephemeral. I was
staying in a hotel in front of Paris' Gare du Lyon recently. There
is one of these high-tensile steel structures by it, put up just ten
years ago and already looking like it is going to fall down. Behind
it the beautiful station, still solid and carrying on. ... Sometimes
you have to sit back and judge yourself, and admit you got it wrong"
[Architect Francis Terry, quoted at
The Hypocrisy of Some Architects
"A lot of British people are much
happier living yesterday then they are today"
[Lord Rogers, interviewed after winning
the Stirling Prize].
Traditional buildings are "frequently very expensive and often use
[Ruth Reed, President of RIBA].
"I don't know what planet Ruth Reed is
on if she thinks that the glass, steel and concrete favoured by
modernist architects are more sustainable or cheaper than the
natural materials like brick, stone and stucco used by
traditionalists, but this knee-jerk negative reaction from the
architectural profession is to be expected. There are hardly any
traditional architects today as it has been a guaranteed way to fail
in architecture schools for 50 years. ... Architects are not
interested in designing for the public and only care about with
their fellow architects think - remember it's architects who hand
out the architecture prizes"
[Architect Robert Adam, quoted at
"Amazing really none of the Architects
ever choose to live in one of their own
"Despite their love of building concrete
boxes [architects] tend to predominantly live in Georgian and
Victorian homes themselves"
"When I say 'beautiful' architecture, I
should point out I mean Gothic, Classical, Georgian and Victorian,
my tastes being entirely reactionary on this matter, but then I've
noticed that modern architects all tend to live in Georgian and
Victorian homes, and I tend to pay attention to people's revealed
"It takes a scary kind of illness to
design a place like this for pay" [comment at
The Architectural Establishment
"As worthless as most other
'establishments'. Very few architects have any imagination at all.
Exhibit number one: Brutalism. Exhibit number two: Most other
post-war constructions in London. If Minister for State, John Hayes
MP, can do anything to move architecture back towards the lofty
heights of Christopher Wren, then... more power to him!"
"The problem is this: if you study
architecture for four years and your taste still conforms with the
proles', your education hasn't really done any difference, has it?
So a critical indicator of how sophisticated you are, is how much
your taste diverges from that of the base masses. That's why modern
artists and architects go out of their way to make ugly things"
their very presence, the raw-concrete-clad rectangular towers that
obsessed him canceled out centuries of architecture ... Le
Corbusier's favourite material, reinforced concrete ... does not age
gracefully but instead crumbles, stains, and decays. A single one of
his buildings, or one inspired by him, could ruin the harmony of an
entire townscape ... A Corbusian building is incompatible with
anything except itself" [source].
INDIA: "The only city Le
Corbusier ever built, Chandigarh in India, is another monument to
his bleak vision ... pictures of it were shown to the sound of
beautiful classical Indian music, as if some intrinsic connection
existed between the refined Indian civilisation and ugly slabs of
concrete. Le Corbusier's staggering incompetence - the natural
product of his inflexible arrogance - was revealed, no doubt
unintentionally, by pictures of the large concrete square that he
placed in Chandigarh, totally devoid of shade" [source].
THE PAST: "His ahumanity
makes itself evident also in his attitude toward the past.
Repeatedly he talks of the past as a tyranny from which it is
necessary to escape, as if no one had discovered or known anything
until his arrival. [In his opinion] it is not that the past
bequeaths us problems that we must try our best to overcome: it is
that the entire past, with few exceptions, is a dreadful mistake
best destroyed and then forgotten"
HIS CONTEMPORARIES: "His
disdain for his contemporaries, except those who went over to him
without reserve, is total"
GRAFFITI: "The most
sincere, because unconscious, tribute to Le Corbusier comes from the
scrawlers of graffiti. If you approach the results of their
activities epidemiologically, so to speak, you will soon notice
that, where good architecture is within reach of Corbusian
architecture, they tend to deface only the Corbusian surfaces and
buildings. As if by instinct, these uneducated slum denizens have
accurately apprehended what so many architects have expended a huge
intellectual effort to avoid apprehending: that Le Corbusier was the
enemy of mankind"
Corbusier does not belong so much to the history of architecture as
to that of totalitarianism, to the spiritual, intellectual, and
moral deformity of the interbellum years in Europe. Clearly, he was
not alone; he was both a creator and a symptom of the zeitgeist" [source].
"[A] hagiographic exhibition devoted to
Le Corbusier recently ran in London and Rotterdam. In London, the
exhibition fittingly took place in a hideous complex of buildings,
built in the 1960s, called the Barbican, whose concrete brutalism
seems designed to overawe, humiliate, and confuse any human being
unfortunate enough to try to find his way in it. The Barbican was
not designed by Le Corbusier, but it was surely inspired by his
particular style of soulless architecture" [source].
The Crushing Effects on the Human Soul and
"The psycholog[ical] consequences of
these depressing monstrosities has never really been highlighted.
Often they are defended by people who call themselves intellectual
and can afford to take three holidays abroad a year [and] live in a
comfy cottage during the summer months ... Those who actually have
to dwell in these places are usually suffering socially and
economically. There should be a penalty for [producing] (repeatedly)
buildings which do the opposite of lifting people's hopes and
"Modern architecture, modern art, modern
sculpture, modern 'poetry', modern 'music' ... all show disdain for
beauty, for balance, for harmony - maybe disdain for love of
community, of humanity, of people. These rebels, these misfits, must
'do their thing'. ... if the world is uglified what is there to love
for? The natural world is beautiful, is wonderful; just look a the
autumn trees; do they not say something? And we have the bounty of
colour vision to appreciate them. Why should the rebels continue
with their uglification programmes, all too often at public expense?
Good for the Minister if he can re-instate some plain common sense"
"The architecture is called 'brutalist'
and I suspect it has a brutalising effect on society. It says, 'You
are scum so you can live in scum houses and be surrounded by ugly
scum architecture'. How are people supposed to feel about
that?" [comment at
Totalitarianism, Communism, Globalism, NWO
"You just have to look back to USSR days
to see what their 'brutalist' architecture was built to achieve.
Stalin destroyed many beautiful buildings in Russia and built ugly
concrete blocks to replace them, as did Ceausescu in Romania, and
Mao in China. This was meant to stifle individual creativity and
aspiration, because beautiful buildings can evoke an emotional
response - undesirable in the cowed population of a totalitarian
state" [comment at
"I remember the first time I drove to
Zagreb, it was just after the Bosnia war and only a few years after
the collapse of the communist state. The outskirts of the city was
all bland concrete boxes, a stereotypical depressing grey slab of
post communist conformism. The city centre could not be a bigger
contrast, though. Cobbled streets, traditional central European
buildings, elegant statues. It really was stunning. I know which
part of Zagreb I would rather live in!" [comment at
"Zagreb is a charming city centre, but
the outskirts a drab nightmare. The exception to the communist
influence seems to be Poland, I have only visited Warsaw and Krakow,
but saw enough of both of these architectural gems to realise there
was very little of this rubbish design" [comment at
"You must understand, these designs were
the beginning of the one world order movement, where everyone was to
be the same underclass with the exception of the ruling elites.
Today we are witnessing this movement on steroid from the EU and all
throughout the UN"
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.