Audio

[J Roberts]

Is that Tom Wolfe book you mentioned, "From Bauhause to Our House" worth a read?

[Sean Gruber]

It's interesting how Jones pointed out remodeling society based on the individual versus the nation and family.

It's an old principle: divide and conquer. In real life, a Howard Roark would be defenseless. Predators sell standing alone (no ties, no family, no friends, no connections, no unions) as exciting and strong; makes it easier to dominate you or pick you off.

people flock to new innovations just because they're new or shiny, not because they have merit

No. Jones's point is that they're basically forced on people. On balance the most/worst of this stuff was pushed through under communism and corporatism, not a frontier-style free market. If capitalism was involved, it was state capitalism.

As one of Alex's favorite movies might say: "Inside the shiny individualist do-your-own-thing box are the same old shitty state-planning parts." There's a sales pitch for this stuff, but behind the velvet mouth gnash the iron teeth of the planners, who take public money and sink it into "public" boondoggles designed by elite degenerates whom no one voted for with either votes or dollars.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The Bauhaus doesn't represent "socialism" or central planning, it represents neo-liberal capitalism. Read when you get a chance Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat", where he talks about how the "free market" is creating a standardized world where everyone dresses the same, eats the same food, sport the same brands, etc. Market forces, according to Friedman, are forcing people in India to break away from their strong family values and traditions, whether they like it or not.

No one is forced to do anything - they prefer things that are customized, predictable, 'safe,' and mediocre to their family tradition of - eating rats. What's so great about local traditions? Many of them stink. Neither traditions nor innovations are inherently good. I would not give tradition more than a slight bias, because, unlike the traditionalists and conservatives who make a fetish out them, I understand where they originate. If the whole world has access to American-style fast food, I don't see that as a bad thing. One is not forced to eat that stuff. One can learn to cook, and occasionally supplement it with something else. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their choices. They are not passive victims. They don't have to buy cable tv. They don't have to buy fast food. What they have to do - which you don't mind, as far as I know - is pay half their income in taxes to support the government. That's where the change is needed.

High-end whites are already past materialism and into minimalism. They like big bank accounts, who doesn't?, one would be crazy not to, but people like Paltrow (jew, yes, but the point remains) don't eat shit. They are very careful about what they eat. People without money can do the same thing high-end people do, but with lower-cost ingredients. They simply choose not to. Don't tell me that's not true, I am intimately familiar with the minds of working-class whites. Those in this class who have anything on the ball mentally will rise to middle class or higher in one generation. But the vast majority will continue to act in ways that keep them comparatively poor, living from paycheck to paycheck. They will continue to prefer to drink and eat fast food and live fatter and unhealthier than they could. I don't get upset about that or blame it on the market because the market isn't forcing them to use any particular service.

Where there must be intervention is in the sexual stuff. We cannot allow the jews, as a hostile, alien, predatory group, to use the mass media to condition our kind for slavery and abuse, sexual, taxual (heh) and other. Mass media may be a market of sorts, but they are a key sector in the racial war, and we must take them away from our enemy.

Bangalore's emerging IT middle class are lining up to live in Bauhaus type of buildings- accustomed to it after working in Bauhaus style work spaces exported by corporate America. Jones is trying to make a point about modernity vs tradition, IE, people flock to new innovations just because they're new or shiny, not because they have merit.

I doubt they're doing it because they like it, rather they have no better options, or it's temporary or they have to save money to get a bigger place.

The best parallel to "free love" is a "free market". While both capitalism and free love promise everyone potential for unlimited money and pussy, in truth both systems always end up manifesting themselves with the Pareto principle: 80% of capital/women are owned by 20% of men. Just like this dynamic creates millions of able bodied lumpen proles and unemployed, so does free love lead to millions of young men sitting home jacking off to porn instead of creating and leading families.

To the extent there are systemic problems they come from jews sexualizing the nation thru schools and government as well as mass media, and their enforcement of anti-white, anti-male law through the courts. Any man, no matter how ugly, who is willing to be loyal to a woman can have his pick, if not of the best or second best, of a vast herd of cows.

While the wealthy, prestigious, and greedy Walter Gropius' of the time were gorging themselves with sluts, 10 other German men went without wives-the ones that weren't being cuckolded. I haven't read his new book on Capitalism, but I think E Michael Jones would agree that monogamy is a collectivist institution.

Do you really think that? Jones is talking about some very high-end people flitting about in their own salons, not common people. None of the ilk Gropius runs among are going to be messing with average people, unless they're extraordinarily beautiful, they simply don't run in the same circles. Jones, one ultimately realizes, does not ever question his own thesis. He just points to evidence, strong or less strong, and considers his work done, almost magically.

You know, porn and politics is an area that should be covered. When VNN ran one political graphic using "interracial" (as jew-porn styles it) material, there was an uproar. But this area is serious, and the people who reacted were wrong. Only one serious article has ever been written about this phenomenon, but it is psychologically important, and it is larger than it appears. Porn is the affecting unseen in our society today. All the anti-white memes jews push in politics and culture, particularly in sports, are pushed harder in porn, ie pushed more openly. No one wants to write about this because it is distasteful and involves watching porn, collecting examples, and people are afraid to do that, but if they did do it, they will show the true depth of the racial hatred jews have for whites.

Our children - our very kind - is being set up for dispossession and genetic dispersement. The jews can't be allowed to use mass media, even if freely acquired in the market, to groom our kind for destruction. It should be obvious that in a white nation, with jews and blacks excluded, the media would no more be allowed to undermine the racial basis of the state than any other actor.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by J Roberts

Is that Tom Wolfe book you mentioned, "From Bauhause to Our House" worth a read?

Yes. In length it's similar to Jones. Much overlap in the points, but Wolfe, as always, comes at it from his own perspective, which is a concern with how style, personal and architectural, reflects status. What he basically says is that these modern executives (back in 70s) are being coolier-than-thou'd by these high-end arch firms, but, after getting their bauhaus, they...have regrets, and quietly rehumanize and restyle their interiors, in the old rich, ornate way. People don't really like the antiseptic, utilitarian coolness of bauhaus, they prefer the circular, the organic, the humanistic to the cold, angular and scientific.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_S...pdfs/wolfe.pdf

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Sean Gruber

It's an old principle: divide and conquer. In real life, a Howard Roark would be defenseless. Predators sell standing alone (no ties, no family, no friends, no connections, no unions) as exciting and strong; makes it easier to dominate you or pick you off.

No. Jones's point is that they're basically forced on people. On balance the most/worst of this stuff was pushed through under communism and corporatism, not a frontier-style free market. If capitalism was involved, it was state capitalism.

As one of Alex's favorite movies might say: "Inside the shiny individualist do-your-own-thing box are the same old shitty state-planning parts." There's a sales pitch for this stuff, but behind the velvet mouth gnash the iron teeth of the planners, who take public money and sink it into "public" boondoggles designed by elite degenerates whom no one voted for with either votes or dollars.

Joe is using language as a leftist does - everyone is "forced" to do this or that. I object to that casual use. No one is forced to eat at MacDonald's. But everyone is forced to pay taxes. And that force he isn't so much bothered by.

What is it that our government does that is good? That we would want it to do more of? Virtually nothing. And even if we removed the jews, the government will not suddenly turn into some massively good thing, as many WN seem to assume. White men are fully capable of being corrupt and tyrannical, and if they have the power, many or most will abuse it. There is no way around that, technically (technically means with laws or schemes, as the Constitution), but perhaps the damage it does can be limited, and, if the government is (on paper) charged solely with defending the race, this can be made into a sort of holy mission that attracts and creates (through a national academy) a higher percentage of men unwilling to use high power for personal benefit.

As for blaming the market, if individual corporations build bauhaus-style skyscrapers, I don't have a problem with that. The interesting question is why the socialist planners are in love with this ugliest of architecture - the communist block apartment, the section 8 housing in the US. I think it's undeniable that springs from the ugly, ridiculous leveling mentality common across the left, see 'philosopher' John Rawls and his 'original position' idea. Forcing everyone to be the same, and extreme jealousy of those who work harder and make a better life for themselves, is long known to be the heart of socialism.

How were white men able to house and educate themselves before we had an all-powerful central government and a public school system? How were they able to produce a generation full of geniuses, as the Founders surely were?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The Bauhaus doesn't represent "socialism" or central planning, it represents neo-liberal capitalism. Read when you get a chance Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat", where he talks about how the "free market" is creating a standardized world where everyone dresses the same, eats the same food, sport the same brands, etc. Market forces, according to Friedman, are forcing people in India to break away from their strong family values and traditions, whether they like it or not.

Bangalore's emerging IT middle class are lining up to live in Bauhaus type of buildings- accustomed to it after working in Bauhaus style work spaces exported by corporate America. Jones is trying to make a point about modernity vs tradition, IE, people flock to new innovations just because they're new or shiny, not because they have merit.

The best parallel to "free love" is a "free market". While both capitalism and free love promise everyone potential for unlimited money and pussy, in truth both systems always end up manifesting themselves with the Pareto principle: 80% of capital/women are owned by 20% of men. Just like this dynamic creates millions of able bodied lumpen proles and unemployed, so does free love lead to millions of young men sitting home jacking off to porn instead of creating and leading families.

While the wealthy, prestigious, and greedy Walter Gropius' of the time were gorging themselves with sluts, 10 other German men went without wives-the ones that weren't being cuckolded. I haven't read his new book on Capitalism, but I think E Michael Jones would agree that monogamy is a collectivist institution.

Don't worry about the labels so much, trying to force everything into an ideological category is one of the bad things about communism. The leftists do it for a reason, but honest white men should try to see things for what they are rather than categorize/dismiss. It's not a market failure if some guy chooses the wrong firm/design for his building, that's on him. We aren't forced to use his offices. If the state extracts money from us via taxes, and uses it to create ugly buildings like Robert Taylor homes and in them proliferating colonies of violent, feral niggers, then that we can complain about because we have no choice. We have to pay taxes. Even if we vote our own interests, the System's courts find a way to invalidate it. Don't you see those are wholly different things?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by J Roberts

It's interesting how Jones pointed out remodeling society based on the individual versus the nation and family. This not only meshes well with materialism, but also, homosexuality. What are homosexuals but narissistic creatures completely driven by lust,appetite and vanity. Remaking society in this way almost makes the acceptance of homosexuality and other perversions a necessity.

Homos are the male sexual instinct, random and rough, unmoored from any constructive purpose.

To me, the key is that people wiht the mindset of Gropius simply want to force everyone to live together, when they actually need their space. Gropius is essentially an Aryan denier. Aryans need their space, their privacy, their dignity. They don't need to be mushed together into Wohnbergs or free prisons made of individual isolated utilitarian cells.

Things low key, quiet, private, dignified - all these go together. But a portion of many men's nature prefers the grandiose, which I mock as the power-eagle mentality (on our side) and is evident in Hitler's architectural desires - he was more interested in architecture than nearly anything, and is also evident in the soviet union, and in the colossal bureaucratic buildings built to house all the new agencies that socialist monster created.

What people need out of a central government is the same thing as we need in a water or garbagement - quiet, unobtrusive service. Government should be devised to afford the most competent whites the ideal conditions, for they elevate the rest of us through the culture they create. The rest need only to carry their own weight, and government's responsibility toward them is not to play funny with the money (as they do now, and will always do in every government that prevents currency competition and has a central bank), and not to subsidize destructive behavior. "What you subsidize, you get more of" is a time-honored conservative precept. "What you tax, you get less of." Same thing. What does our giant, centralized government subsidize? All the worst types? Green niggers wasting money in pointless foreign wars to expand Israel, black niggers, endless bureaucrats, NEA teachers, retards going to "online colleges," banks making/trading bogus loans to uncreditworthy minorities. The government distorts the market in a million ways, pretty much all of them anti-white.

[Alex Linder]

Ok, going to tape a bunch this week. Will be posted later today.

[Alex Linder]

Jones, Living Machines, Ch. 12

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...es-LM-Ch12.mp3

(1:53)

- chapter 12, second to last section, covering harvard business school traditional georgian architecture vs bauhaus Graduate School of Design. the misery of book "pods" bs traditional stacks. forced to relocate to basement and put in expensive windows. concrete benches under pointless ramps, benches no one will sit on. the concept of Bodenstaendigkeit (groundedness, stability) in archicture of a nice private home with grounds rather than floating in space in a high-rise dormitory. most aryans like privacy and space, not that floating, divorced, impersonal-but-crammed feeling of a wohnberg, or apartment mountain made of prison-like cells. also, the ideology of the flat roof vs the steeple. what the socialist planner wants vs what actual people want - the married man with family vs the bauhaus dorm designer; the librarian and students vs the bauhaus library designer. big glass boxes with no privacy - when they lack it, people will make their own privacy as best they can. concept of "no future" applies to socialist planning because the man has been removed. He has his head cut off - the socialist planner, in the west called the expert, knows best - he will do all the thinking, you will do all the obeying. just go get drunk and fuck, everything is taken care of. men become gerbils in a bauhaus acquarium.

- bauhaus is ideology - claims to function in the name of the people and their interests but results in structures and spaces they hate and won't use or must reconfigure. bauhaus socialistically forces people together in library or workspace, freezing/boiling them in glass boxes, and subjecting them to all kinds of noise. they have to create the privacy and quiet they need for study or work on their own, even though the bauhauslers are paid millions to design these buildings. bauhaus springs from contempt for traditional forms. it is perversion/architecture, just as atonality is perversion/music and non-representational art is perversion/painting.

[Alex Linder]

Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers, Chapter 14: Sweden and Chapter 15: Norway

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...CS-Ch14-15.mp3

(1:35)

- how unprepared they were, 100 active army in norway, how naive, gullible, propagandized, how the british were lying to them, trying to rook them into war to serve british interests, how the bolsheviks wanted germany to weaken itself thru war in west until red army could come in and wipe up europe, how ussr wanted to destroy the british empire.

[Joe_Smith]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

No one is forced to do anything - they prefer things that are customized, predictable, 'safe,' and mediocre to their family tradition of - eating rats. What's so great about local traditions? Many of them stink. Neither traditions nor innovations are inherently good. I would not give tradition more than a slight bias, because, unlike the traditionalists and conservatives who make a fetish out them, I understand where they originate. If the whole world has access to American-style fast food, I don't see that as a bad thing. One is not forced to eat that stuff. One can learn to cook, and occasionally supplement it with something else. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their choices. They are not passive victims. They don't have to buy cable tv. They don't have to buy fast food. What they have to do - which you don't mind, as far as I know - is pay half their income in taxes to support the government. That's where the change is needed.

American-style fast food is taking off everywhere is not solely because of choice, it's because of shifts in culture and employment brought about by capitalism that intrude on other cultural factors.

The reason Americans are so fat is because the capitalist system forces women into the work place, who then become too tired or don't have time to cook, and so mom buys a bucket of KFC or a Pizza Hut pizza, or at best, pops in a few TV dinners to feed the kids.

If you don't think traditions are important, why are you in this? Do you want to visit Egypt and see their indigenous culture replaced by soulless Kwan strip malls and coca cola? I think the world's traditions are worthy of preserving, and unlike you, feel it should be a priority. Now of course, when I speak of tradition, I'm not talking about Green Bay jackoffs wearing plastic Cheese helmets, I'm talking about the real thing.

And no, I oppose most taxation. States that are truly socialist have lower tax rates than capitalist ones, because there are no plutocrats to feed, living wages provide basic necessities, and there is universal employment. Whites are crucified in April because we have to support Israel/Zionist wars and welfare for niggers and illegal immigrants, as well as welfare for big business and finance Jews.

High-end whites are already past materialism and into minimalism. They like big bank accounts, who doesn't?, one would be crazy not to, but people like Paltrow (jew, yes, but the point remains) don't eat shit. They are very careful about what they eat. People without money can do the same thing high-end people do, but with lower-cost ingredients. They simply choose not to. Don't tell me that's not true, I am intimately familiar with the minds of working-class whites. Those in this class who have anything on the ball mentally will rise to middle class or higher in one generation. But the vast majority will continue to act in ways that keep them comparatively poor, living from paycheck to paycheck. They will continue to prefer to drink and eat fast food and live fatter and unhealthier than they could. I don't get upset about that or blame it on the market because the market isn't forcing them to use any particular service.

Let's be fair here Alex, you live in one of the poorest states in America. Middle class people in Missouri are falling into the poor category at alarming rates, and you pretend its just because they're stupid. That's typical conservative reductionism.

Even if you were right, you're still wrong. Much like you, I've learned to cut corners and get creative in order to get by. But you can't expect everyone to be smart enough to know how to do it. Most poor whites I know not only are grateful for a helping hand, unless they're mixed up with drugs they usually take full advantage of it and try their best.

Do you really think that? Jones is talking about some very high-end people flitting about in their own salons, not common people. None of the ilk Gropius runs among are going to be messing with average people, unless they're extraordinarily beautiful, they simply don't run in the same circles. Jones, one ultimately realizes, does not ever question his own thesis. He just points to evidence, strong or less strong, and considers his work done, almost magically.

The degeneracy of the elite has an effect on the rest of the society, because as we see with the Bauhaus, they have money and connections to put their warped behavior on a platform that potentially rubs off on the greater public in both subtle and not so subtle ways.

You know, porn and politics is an area that should be covered. When VNN ran one political graphic using "interracial" (as jew-porn styles it) material, there was an uproar. But this area is serious, and the people who reacted were wrong. Only one serious article has ever been written about this phenomenon, but it is psychologically important, and it is larger than it appears. Porn is the affecting unseen in our society today. All the anti-white memes jews push in politics and culture, particularly in sports, are pushed harder in porn, ie pushed more openly. No one wants to write about this because it is distasteful and involves watching porn, collecting examples, and people are afraid to do that, but if they did do it, they will show the true depth of the racial hatred jews have for whites.

Our children - our very kind - is being set up for dispossession and genetic dispersement. The jews can't be allowed to use mass media, even if freely acquired in the market, to groom our kind for destruction. It should be obvious that in a white nation, with jews and blacks excluded, the media would no more be allowed to undermine the racial basis of the state than any other actor.

You give me some food for thought when it comes to the interracial porn thing. Personally, just the thought of it makes me want to vomit. With that said, doing a study would be important, especially the impact it has on the minds of white women (which studies conclude can even be turned on by watching 2 bonobos fuck) as well as the assertiveness/courage/pride of white men. Some of the toughest whites get high pitched voices and shrink at the thought of a "big black guy", even though niggers in my experience are far less resilient fighters than whites.

[Alex Linder]

Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers, Chapter 14: Sweden and Chapter 16: Finland, 17: England, 18: Europe and Epilogue.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...ilogue-END.mp3

(1:35)

- Day has great respect for finns, very brave, tough, honorable. usa and britain tried to undermine her for their own reasons; roosevelt admin tried not to offer loan help at the most desperate time because it was run by jews who favored their jew-bolshevik buddies in russia. while world supported finland vs ussr in winter war, allies should have realized when finland continued to fight ussr after the winter war it proved the NS-USSR was the same struggle (ie, finland and germany were the right side, the good guys). emphasizes that this is a war between jews and (teutonic-nordics) whites for the future of europe. jews want a world revolution, they must be defeated.

[Alex Linder]

Jones, Living Machines, Ch. 13-15 (END)

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...h13-15-END.mp3

(1:45)

- bauhaus weimar, not commie or nazi but social democrat. seen by enemies as kultur bolshevism. later basically admits is communist design philosophy, second director of school (hannes meyer) runs to moscow in thirties where modernist future is being born, while gropius takes his wacky ideology to harvard
- on Farnsworth House of Plano, Ill. *(50 mi. west of chicago) as the ultimate example of bauhaus/private house. crazy perverse anti-nature fit only for wacky cultist devotees of this nutty school


- as an exercise, list all the ways you can think of in which the above Farnsworth House is perverse in its design - or brilliant/cool. What choices did the architect make? why? Do you see that most things are product of choices? there are always alternatives? how do you come by the principles by which you make your decisions in your field?

- on Gropius House, the first modernist buildings, or among them, in the US. from which this wackiness spread all over the US like kudzu mated with space aliens.



- discussion on what is perversion? ideology? tradition? should we respect tradition? or see it as the black past, which has nothing to teach us, nothing but black stuff holding us back. see the connection between thinking the past all sucks, hating our own kind, own ancestors, own tradition, even hating nature, fighting it, driving it out with a pitchfork, in arch that means designing it without taking nature enivonmental (umwelt) or human into account, which the liver-in will have to remedy as best he can, like the library students making own carrels, or the resident of the Farnsworth House blocking the huge glass with drapes.

- bauhaus as perversion/architecture, just as atonality = perversion/music, cubism/nonrepresentational art = perversion/painting, and on and on in every other field.
- suggestion - induction vs deducation. instead of producing the theory from the examples, start with the theory and look for proof. rather than collecting bad eggs and tracing them back to the jewish yeaster bunny distributing them, put yourself in the position of the jew. you want to mess up settled, happy, normal white society. what to you do? different and often EASIER way to see what's going on than the usual WN way...

[this is the end of Living Machines, with this segment, we will next move on, in Jones books, to the one that started it all, degenerate moderns]

[Alex Linder]

Paul C. Vitz, Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-worship:

Ch. 2: Self-Theory for Everybody

Ch. 3: Selfism as Bad Science

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...-PaR-Ch2-3.mp3

(2:24)

- no control group, no proof, no evidence higher than a priest's stories from taking confession. rousseauian insistence that men are naturally good, that original sin or our dual human nature is a lie, that all seeming bad comes from social institutions. people are inherently good not bad, and should be encouraged to express rather than control themselves.
- discussion of concept of encounter groups, lack of proof they work
- denial of aggression and desire to destroy things and hate things, they simply blip over this but real scientists prove it exists.
- encounter groups promote expression and interchange of feelings openly based on theory that communication and flexibility build trust; sex removed from commitment can be refocused on personal needs and growth, but this has nothing to do with spread of STDs, divorce and other social problems. combine with venomism or feminism and tell women they are being oppressed by the patriarchy rather than elevated by men, and increase bitterness. encourage self-expression, -fulfillment, -indulgence at all costs, and ignore/deny any kind of control or duty or responsibility or moral tradition. society is helping us or holding us back? again, more false liberation that exacerbates real and continual problems that cannot be driven away but must be channeled - which is what social forms like marriage let us do - channel a potentially extremely destructive drive into something good for the individual and society. the self-indulgence/expression movement that is selfism appeals to the shallow minded who seek simple rationalizations and justifications for their love of gossip and self-indulgence

[Alex Linder]

E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Introduction

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/M...erns-Intro.mp3

(1:33)

- modernity as rationalized sexual immorality. we discuss his thesis, give more criticism of him than often do, consider alternative arguments. talk about Paul Johnson and his book Intellectuals.

[Sean Gruber]

In Living Machines maybe Jones's argument is that Grope-y had a bad conscience and blamed it on the Mahler house, the mental locus of his sins. Maybe in his mind this house stood for the whole civilized society that would judge his behavior as defective (correctly). So, in one stroke, he pisses on the old values and psuedo-expiates his sexual sin by building glass boxes where no one can do what he did--where everything is "laid bare."

From Jones's standpoint the root of Gropius's perversity seems to be his refusal to own up to his bad behavior. His guilt is what Gropius is simultaneously: projecting in the Freudian sense (on to a style of house, of all things), psuedo-expiating (by working to create a "new man" who also can't hide like he and his various betrayers did), and rejecting (by giving the middle finger to God, or to the architectural and other verities of the old civilization which Gropius had internalized).

So the pattern is, G fucks randomly, is fucked, feels badly, blames everything on the furniture, smashes the furniture and makes a wasteland to avenge himself on sense/order/God/logos (and his own cheating lovers), and then the brutalized residents of this wasteland (including older G) fuck randomly. Wikipedia says Gropius died of "an inflammation of the glands."

It's insanity but, as Jones would say, it all fits with the rejection of logos etc. In any case, E Mike sure puts the grope in Gropius, ha.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Sean Gruber

In Living Machines maybe Jones's argument is that Grope-y had a bad conscience and blamed it on the Mahler house, the mental locus of his sins. Maybe in his mind this house stood for the whole civilized society that would judge his behavior as defective (correctly). So, in one stroke, he pisses on the old values and psuedo-expiates his sexual sin by building glass boxes where no one can do what he did--where everything is "laid bare."

From Jones's standpoint the root of Gropius's perversity seems to be his refusal to own up to his bad behavior. His guilt is what Gropius is simultaneously: projecting in the Freudian sense (on to a style of house, of all things), psuedo-expiating (by working to create a "new man" who also can't hide like he and his various betrayers did), and rejecting (by giving the middle finger to God, or to the architectural and other verities of the old civilization which Gropius had internalized).

So the pattern is, G fucks randomly, is fucked, feels badly, blames everything on the furniture, smashes the furniture and makes a wasteland to avenge himself on sense/order/God/logos (and his own cheating lovers), and then the brutalized residents of this wasteland (including older G) fuck randomly. Wikipedia says Gropius died of "an inflammation of the glands."

It's insanity but, as Jones would say, it all fits with the rejection of logos etc. In any case, E Mike sure puts the grope in Gropius, ha.

Yeah, that's about right, I guess. It doesn't make perfect sense to me, Jones's argument, and that's why I said I think he needs to go deeper than he does into his theory, and even dare to question it. He never does, though. He presents it, with examples, and counter-explanations are never brought up or considered.

So...basically there's nothing immoral you can do with your body. There is no need for shame or guilt. In architecture, this means there is no need for humans of any proclivity (formerly regarded as perverted or shameful) to apologize or hide. Thus, buildings can be completely transparent. Since people's choices are nothing more than that, sex is nothing more than drinking a glass of water (Lenin), and architecture for the new age should reflect that.

I think that is the thinking. But, it's not entirely clear whether the architecture is responding to the new man, creating the New Man, or both. Jones seems to say that Gropius felt WWI with all its horrors and shatterings had destroyed the old world, morals and materials, and bauhaus was a response to that fact. Then you have Gropius saying that architecture's buildings carry the spiritual weight of our age. Close to that. I think Jones could say that these breakers of eternal moral law are trying to deny their inner voice telling them they are doing wrong (and he can cite their biographers citing their letters to this purpose) but chutzpathically denying that in public by building structures that announce and defend the New Brazenness.

I still believe that simple sadism is a large portion of the appeal of planned ugliness, along with the need for paranoid-level prison control. I think the desire to defend ones 'dirt' is less common than the desire to bend others to one's will. The socialists know that people don't want what they offer, they just don't care. They hate that you're free to drive around, for example, in your private car, and they want to force you into some ugly bus, loaded with ghetto niggers.

If I knew more about architecture, I would no doubt be able to cite examples of traditional architects with barnyard sexual morals who designed beautiful traditional buildings. What would Jones say about that? That only some libertines are driven by the need to justify in their professional work their private sexual behavior? Whereas others make a divorce? I've known plenty of jews who were personally quite conservative, including on sexual matters, who nevertheless advocated all the destructive politics and policies that add up to judeo-modernity.

[Sean Gruber]

I would no doubt be able to cite examples of traditional architects with barnyard sexual morals who designed beautiful traditional buildings. What would Jones say about that? That only some libertines are driven by the need to justify in their professional work their private sexual behavior? Whereas others make a divorce? I've known plenty of jews who were personally quite conservative, including on sexual matters, who nevertheless advocated all the destructive politics and policies that add up to judeo-modernity.

Jones does seem to be cherry-picking his examples of sex deviants who became culture perverters. That's kind of hidden because they're central figures in some modern trends (Picasso Gropius etc).

As you suggested in an earlier chapter in the Living Machines series, this cherry-picking would go hand-in-hand with Jones's religious "knowledge-as-revelation" orientation. That is, one begins with an a priori "revealed" thesis, one goes hunting for examples of it and ignores contrary examples if necessary. That seems to be his procedure sometimes, but maybe he knows more than he's explaining. I don't know.

[Erik Adolfsson]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

So...basically there's nothing immoral you can do with your body. There is no need for shame or guilt. In architecture, this means there is no need for humans of any proclivity (formerly regarded as perverted or shameful) to apologize or hide. Thus, buildings can be completely transparent. Since people's choices are nothing more than that, sex is nothing more than drinking a glass of water (Lenin), and architecture for the new age should reflect that.

I just have to interject here to say that the Lenin quote is incorrect. Even though it is a communist concept he rejected it as "un-marxist":

“I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and, moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is, of course, an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises, it is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.

“As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title ‘satisfaction of love’. In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor communist. You will remember that about the middle of the last century it was preached as the ‘emancipation of the heart’ in romantic literature. In bourgeois practice it became the emancipation of the flesh. At that time the preaching was more talented than it is today, and as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don’t mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/zet...in/zetkin1.htm

[Joe_Smith]

Yes, that is a misquote I see conservatives and christians often using. The real quote is Lenin talking about how gross it is to drink from a glass of water that has been touched by too many lips.

It's from a debate with bolshevik feminist Alexandra Kollontai, who was a disciple of Jew Rosa Luxembourg. She was an advocate of free love and many of the jewish bolsheviks supported it at first. Kollontai's "dream" was that one day the traditional "patriarchal" Western family structure would "wither away", like it has in the modern West.

The results of these policies were disastrous, similar to what you see in America today with the single mom epidemic. Stalin began reverting the laws to encourage the traditional family structure and ushered in an era of Soviet conservatism (sexually and otherwise). He started executing communist party Jews by the hundreds, which got the Jews who were spared scared enough to "let go" of the "free love" plank. Kollontai herself wasn't purged, but she was ironically one of the last "old guard Bolsheviks" left alive, and she was sent far away from politics to be a diplomat in the Soviet embassy in Sweden.

By the 1970's, the USSR was far more morally conservative than AmeriKwa. Even George Lincoln Rockwell pointed this out when he talked about the difference between the communist conspiracy coming out of Moscow, and the real communist conspiracy (that preached free love, homosexuality, race-mixing, forced integration etc) coming out of Union Square, NYC. The conservatives, prone to silly Jew sponsored crusades, were sabre rattling and talking about nuking Moscow, yet had no interest in doing anything about the Trotskyist/cultural marxist Jews drastically changing society from within.