Jump to content

The Importance of Beauty


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because that’s the way the soul-less ones want it; keep the vibrations low.   And as well, most people these days have got their faces stuck in their devices; they couldn’t care one way or t

A new thread about the importance of beauty and the decline in architecture. Why do we often create or build things that are an assault on our senses these days? Why can't people have surroundings tha

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Elizsia said:

BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS Like The Great Pyramid WERE NOT CREATED BY FREE PEOPLE, They were trying to set an example of their authority and power over the 99%..

 

Freemasons Didn't Build The Natural World, And You Prefer to Admire Buildings Created By The Elites..

 

They weren't necessarily created by the elites in the sense that the designs were conceived by architects and then the buildings were built by craftspeople. The elites funded it

 

The elites DID largely shape the natural world though for example much of the land was deforested by them to build boats or to feed the furnaces of the industrial revolution for example to power the ironworks which used charcoal that required vast swathes of forest to be reduced

 

Also the hedgerows were often removed in the redrawing of the landscape in the agricultural revolution and the enclosures acts

 

even today the elites retard the growth on the moorlands through burning to keep it as heather for grouse shooting

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Macnamara said:

 

They weren't necessarily created by the elites in the sense that the designs were conceived by architects and then the buildings were built by craftspeople. The elites funded it

 

The elites DID largely shape the natural world though for example much of the land was deforested by them to build boats or to feed the furnaces of the industrial revolution for example to power the ironworks which used charcoal that required vast swathes of forest to be reduced

 

Also the hedgerows were often removed in the redrawing of the landscape in the agricultural revolution and the enclosures acts

 

even today the elites retard the growth on the moorlands through burning to keep it as heather for grouse shooting

The word you were looking for was Created, Not Destroyed..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elizsia said:

Its not the building, its what the building represents and what it was made for..

 

ok lets take westminster for example because you mentioned that already

 

It represents the grandeur of the british government and many of us here certainly have issues with that

 

But the politicians didn't design it. Charles Barry designed it and pugin designed the interiors

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Macnamara said:

 

ok lets take westminster for example because you mentioned that already

 

It represents the grandeur of the british government and many of us here certainly have issues with that

 

But the politicians didn't design it. Charles Barry designed it and pugin designed the interiors

You didnt get it... What was it made for? for who? what does it represent.. Who Funded it? It is not a public building..

Link to post
Share on other sites

People admire the Royal Family and especially Buckingham Palace. Its what the building stands for and what or who it represents. Its Not Public. Its For The Elites... Please.. And Now My Family Member Is watching football with those people singing that bullshit anthem..

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Elizsia said:

You didnt get it... What was it made for? for who? what does it represent.. Who Funded it? It is not a public building..

 

sure today the elites believe its theirs but if enough british people grow a backbone then the building can be ours in an instant. In the meantime it was built by british workers using materials from britain and it stands on british soil

 

and in the meantime as i say they can't own a view. You can still admire the vision and the skill that went into it

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Elizsia said:

People admire the Royal Family and especially Buckingham Palace. Its what the building stands for and what or who it represents. Its Not Public. Its For The Elites... Please.. And Now My Family Member Is watching football with those people singing that bullshit anthem..

 

I don't like the royals, but we should keep our anthem alive. I can appreciate my heritage without glorifying tyrants. I would rather people embrace their national identity than capitulate to global government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

I don't like the royals, but we should keep our anthem alive. I can appreciate my heritage without glorifying tyrants. I would rather people embrace their national identity than capitulate to global government.

 

I won't sing 'god save the queen' but i will enjoy the view of their building while fantasising about potential adaptive re-uses of the building

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember, Public Facilities that were created for the Public, were things like FEMA.. Or the camps created by the Nazis to kill people. You need to understand, They only create buildings for the public as a means to control. So what you think about big high rise apartments? to Enclose the Poor... While the rich people get separated housing.. The people they have no care for, and who they test out their control, they end up living in poor big high rise buildings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Elizsia said:

They only create buildings for the public as a means to control. So what you think about big high rise apartments? to Enclose the Poor... While the rich people get separated housing.. The people they have no care for, and who they test out their control, they end up living in poor big high rise buildings.

 

yes the high rise buildings were the vision of marxist city planners of the 1960's and came out of the modernism movement. For example grenfell tower was an example of the 'brutalist' style of architecture of the marxist city planners

 

These marxist and often occultist planners loved to knock down the older portions of cities to create what they call a 'tabula rasa' which is to mean a blank slate

 

That's what communists do. They erase everything that went before including history and then they declare a day 'zero' to begin their new reign from

 

Here is the vision of marxist city planner corbusier who wanted to bulldoze the older portions of paris to build large chicken farm like structures for humans (human farming):

 

th?id=OIP.g7ZX15LkCSCMhSCEgjTOwQHaEy%26p

 

 

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

Le Corbusier and the Occult

By J. K. Birksted

Revealing the secret sources of Le Corbusier's architecture—concealed by the architect and undiscovered by scholars until now.

Summary

Revealing the secret sources of Le Corbusier's architecture—concealed by the architect and undiscovered by scholars until now.

When Charles-Édouard Jeanneret reinvented himself as Le Corbusier in Paris, he also carefully reinvented the first thirty years of his life by highlighting some events and hiding others. As he explained in a letter: “Le Corbusier is a pseudonym. Le Corbusier creates architecture recklessly. He pursues disinterested ideas; he does not wish to compromise himself... He is an entity free of the burdens of carnality.” Le Corbusier grew up in La Chaux-de-Fonds in Switzerland, a city described by Karl Marx as “one unified watchmaking industry.” Among the unifying social structures of La Chaux-de-Fonds was the Loge L'Amitié, the Masonic lodge with its francophone moral, social, and philosophical ideas, including the symbolic iconography of the right angle (rectitude) and the compass (exactitude). Le Corbusier would later describe these as “my guide, my choice” and as his “time-honored ideas, ingrained and deep-rooted in the intellect, like entries from a catechism.” Through exhaustive research that challenges long-held beliefs, J. K. Birksted's Le Corbusier and the Occult traces the structure of Le Corbusier's brand of modernist spatial and architectural ideas based on startling new documents in hitherto undiscovered family and local archives. Le Corbusier and the Occult thus answers the conundrum set by Reyner Banham (Birksted's predecessor at the Bartlett School of Architecture) who, fifty years ago, wrote that Le Corbusier's book Towards a New Architecture “was to prove to be one of the most influential, widely read and least understood of all the architectural writings of the twentieth century."

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/le-corbusier-and-occult

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 4:24 PM, Captain Falcon said:

 

I looked up the definition of the word modern, and it says something like "relating to the present time, what is current" etc. Well as far as I can see most of the things that are described as modern, especially in relation to architecture and the like, is just shit. Bland, angular, cold, harsh, uninspiring buildings and such. By describing that stuff as modern, then aren't they saying that beauty and elegance and real art is outdated and the old way of doing things? How can beauty be outdated? It's bullshit.

 

By that definition, then surely the Sistine Chapel in it's day was modern. The most beautiful buildings in the world were once modern.

 

 

 

 

Indeed the word modern is sometimes also used to indicate the period as far back as the renaissance, starting from the rise of science and art.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 8:58 PM, Elizsia said:

You Admire Buildings Funded By The Elites? Not for public use? Not designed for the 99%

You are politicizing beauty, by means of which you betray that you have no love for beauty itself.
If you want beauty for the people, you should promote the art which dictators loved, art for the people, especially designed for them.

Edited by Autos Nomos
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 8:16 PM, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

No offense, but have you just finished college or uni? You sound like a product of the long march through the institutions. Next they will be teaching youngsters that it's better to destroy than create. No one is forcing you to appreciate architecture.

 

It's not even just about architecture, there is beauty in nature too.

They, the multitudes who reason like this, are incapable of separating morality and beauty because their beings have been deeply politicized. So they can only think in terms of political power and social justice. As such they will be dictators when they get their hands on beauty, they will jealously point to a beautiful flower in the garden of a member of an elite and say 'this doesn't belong here with the '1 percent', it is not fair'. Beauty will have to submit to their pettiness and the logic of their political slogans, which are holy to them, it will have to be subjugated to their incapacity of disinterested appreciation. Not only will they jealously point to the beauty in the garden of an elite, their fairness is the fairness of continuous equalization, so they will divide beauty fair and try to chop of the head of anyone in possession or capable of creating more beauty than they have, that is, not because they recognize it, but when the word goes around of beauty being present, they will apply their equal and fair distribution logic to it. When the beauty has cost a lot of money, like that of architecture, they are of course the first to point their fingers at it, the unfairness! when the beauty is of a sort of which the production does not costs much financially, but is appreciated only by the few, they will say that it costs time, and that the creator of it has been wasting his time, that he should invest his time in making products which can be appreciated by the greater collective, preferably the greatest, the 99 percent. The logic of envy, which is based on the incapacity of disinterested appreciation expresses itself in a variety of forms.

In the case of for instance religious architecture of which a lot has indeed been made by means of oppressing the people, of their blood an sweat, but it being centuries ago, they will still today, even when such practices have been long ago discontinued in that area, forbid people to enjoy the beauty, as they are moralists of envy. So they will intermingle with the few non political forum topics like this, to point with their moralist politicized finger.

It is in place though as David Icke himself continuously  enforces the democratic myth of the people being the good, the simple and honest, at worst being misguided, always victim, so he enforces the victim complex of those for which it is convenient. This forum is crammed with such types.

Edited by Autos Nomos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...