6,030 words

Architecture has its political Use; public Buildings being the Ornament of a Country; it establishes a Nation, draws People and Commerce; makes the People love their native Country, which Passion is the Original of all great Actions in a Common-wealth. . . Architecture aims at Eternity. — Sir Christopher Wren [1]

Our built environments — including architecture, landscaping, and city planning — can affect our day-to-day lives in profound ways. Walking through a dark alley on cracked asphalt surrounded by barred windows gives you a different feeling than walking through the marble arches of a Beaux-Arts manor or a cobbled boulevard lined with brick mid-rises. Like all art, architecture makes a statement about the society where it is found; a statement about its aesthetics and values. Every building is a functional piece of art that can alter people’s experiences through life. Beautiful architecture makes us proud of where we live, while ugly buildings can make everything miserably soul-deadening. The buildings around us are the aesthetic backdrop to our daily lives.

Internationalism, Brutalism, and Deconstructionism are architectural styles that descend from the modernist milieu. They originated in the 20th century, becoming dominant after the Second World War. For those who view Modernist architecture more broadly as a betrayal to a traditional sense of beauty, Internationalism, Brutalism, and Deconstructionism are metaphoric knives in the backs of the cities they occupy.

Some distinguish the Deconstructionist style from Modernism, as they believe Deconstruction is more Postmodern than Modern. I do not agree that one is necessarily a reaction to the other for the scope of this investigation. All of the styles and architects discussed herein are typified by rejection — and indeed, hatred — of aestheticism and unified in the ways they attack us as a people and our traditions. Although the three styles differ in several ways, their overarching effect on the cityscape and our souls are rather indistinguishable as architectural terrorism. (i)

Operating in Weimar Germany, The Bauhaus School, meaning school of building, was closed in 1933 with many of its adherents leaving Germany for other parts of Europe, Tel Aviv, and the US. Tel Aviv received so many of the exiled Bauhaus students and purveyors that it became the largest collection of Bauhaus inspired buildings in the world, boasting thousands built since the 1930s. [2] UNESCO has even added the White City in Tel Aviv to the World Heritage List. Jewish Currents notes: “Bauhaus staff and students included many Jews, some of whom spoke of their work as having international, humanistic significance.” [3]

More than 20% of Bauhaus lecturers, professors, managers, and workshop leaders were ethnically Jewish, much like the Frankfurt School and Magnus Hirschfield’s Institute of Sexology. This is a considerable overrepresentation, particularly in comparison to other, more proper architecture styles such as Romanticism, Georgian, Federal, Neoclassical, or Beaux-Arts styles that boast marginal, if any, Jewish influence.

A New York Times article discussing Bauhaus influence on then-Palestine notes:

The Dessau exhibition draws parallels between the architects and designers who taught at the Bauhaus design school — notably Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and Hannes Meyer — and their Jewish protégés who filtered in and out of the institute in the early 1930s en route to Palestine.

Further:

The National Socialists condemned the Bauhaus, declaring it an abomination of German tradition and, under pressure from the regime, the founders closed the school in 1933 after 14 years of operation in Weimar, then Dessau and finally Berlin. Most of the designers emigrated to the United States, taking the school’s ideals with them. [4]

Also, like the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Sexology, the Bauhaus School would be shut down by the Third Reich for promoting degenerate values and institutionalizing Cultural Bolshevism.

In an article interview titled “Jewish Immigrants Fathered Modernism,” San Francisco’s Contemporary Jewish Museum curator Donald Albrecht discusses the overrepresentation of Jews in Modernism and the idea that Jews intentionally shun movements such as Neoclassicism and gravitate towards Modernism to “get away from history.” [5]

The International Style of design is marked by industrial, mass-produced materials such as glass, steel, and concrete. Flat surfaces, often covered in plate-glass facades and sharp angles, represent an absolute rejection of what Internationalists call “ornament,” which appears to mean “anything that resembles beauty,” in layman’s terms.

There is a natural hierarchy in traditional architecture: The more important something is, the more ornate and grand. Ornamentation provides context and meaning. It differentiates and separates. Modern styles trend the other direction, through the removal of ornament in favor of a more uniform and equalitarian approach. Ornamentation is about detail; the little things that matter. Internationalism removes the important vernacular notes in design. Alpine climates need steeply pitched roofs to shed snow, a Mediterranean climate should consider ventilation and shading. Even necessary design elements to respond to a particular environment are eschewed in favor of characterless conformity.

International style skyscrapers serve as outposts the world over of conformity and globalism. Things now look mass-produced with no character as a result: The Tour Montparnasse in Paris, the World Trade Center in New York, or the Sears Tower in Chicago all belong to nowhere. They could all be interchanged with no noticeable difference to each city’s skyline. They are beacons to rootless people that this city has been occupied and made user-friendly for their ilk.

Those who admire and extol Modern architecture styles often remark on their “honesty” due to their lack of character. In a sense, these buildings are very “honest,” in the way they convey their disdain and intention to supplant the traditional architecture of the host culture with their own. They are “honestly” saying they loathe us — we would be wise to listen to their rare admission.

Brutalism, from the French term Béton brut, meaning “raw concrete,” is typified by repeating, modular forms, imposing concrete shells, visual heaviness, and far less glass than the International style. Brutalism favors rows upon rows of concrete, rectilinear forms stacked atop one another, and irregular windows in both shape and placement. The slit windows and grim walls of Brutalism are very reminiscent of the design of prisons. Brutalism was often presented as the “modern socialist” style and was used heavily throughout the Eastern Bloc.

Deconstructivism is distilled anti-beauty. Its primary purveyors are Peter Eisenman, the creator of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, and Daniel Libeskind, also known for an atrocity in Berlin, who have made an entire career out of defiling our cities and buildings. Libeskind and Eisenman are both ethnic Jews, who remind me of an awful lot of Azog the Defiler from the Lord of The Rings films, a hideous Orc that creates misery and ruin everywhere he goes. The style itself is influenced heavily by the philosophy of Sephardic Jew Jacques Derrida: Changing traditional form, disassociating it from its meaning, severing its roots, and creating something alien in the wake. Anxiety and fear in architecture is the essence of Deconstruction. These buildings come from the perverse minds of a people who live in constant fear that they will finally be held accountable for their behavior. You get the feeling that the specter of comeuppance is always haunting these culture vampires.

To deconstruct is to dismantle traditional notions of beauty and rewrite beauty as something entirely subjective, in effect raising ugliness to be level with beauty. Beauty is a value that is objective. It is not true that anything can be art or that anything can be beautiful, for that definition undermines entirely what beauty means. Hence, deconstructed.

The style of Deconstructivist architecture itself is intentionally designed to create an uneasy sentiment. Fragmentation, “violated perfection”, overturning tradition, unnatural, discontinuity, exploded structures, sharp, disorienting configurations, and most noticeably, the absolute repudiation of beauty are what comes to mind as I view these structures. Similar to Internationalism and Brutalism, the Deconstruction style makes heavy use of steel, concrete, and glass. Natural materials and shapes are eschewed in favor of artificial resins.

Stone, wood, brick (even bricks were formed using the clay local to the area) are all found in nature. Their colors and textures remind us of being home. The manufactured materials and unnerving design of Jewish architecture can make us feel foreign and alien, as if we’ve landed on some distant planet inhabited by a race lacking souls.

These modern styles are psychological warfare. It’s more than merely ugly; it’s anti-beauty. We seek beauty, be it in nature or civilization, and proper beauty will complement nature, not make some mockery. Architecture and town squares should be uplifting. Places that integrate the surrounding nature and that make you feel at ease. When the architecture looks as if it emerged straight out of the rocks and trees of the surrounding landscape, it is as it should be.

Those that build and promulgate these styles are not doing so because they love beauty, tradition, and our heritage. They do not place these monstrosities in our nations and cities because they want us to be “enriched” in some way. They do this because they want the entire world to be as ugly and rootless as themselves. Buildings in these styles should be seen for what they are: An attack on our culture and as a psychological menace. Turning a corner and seeing another Holocaust memorial, impersonal glass obelisk, or a classical building raped by Deconstructionist renovations are always unnerving experiences. Their mere presence is jarring and uncomfortable by design. You’re not meant to feel at home in or around these structures. For me, experiencing many of these places was like being thrown into some foreign maelstrom, worsened when compared to the urbane features of classical spaces I have experienced.

“Starting from zero” was a prevailing approach to these designs; completely shunning the traditional and creating something new in its place. Le Corbusier wanted to rebuild everything with concrete, starting from a blank slate to fix the world’s architecture. [7] This philosophy is strikingly similar to Tikkun Olam, the idea that something is wrong with our way of living and it must be “fixed” by imposing alien outsiders.

Corbusier, an early proponent of Modernism, called houses “machines for living.” He and others viewed the home as a soulless machine, with no ghost inside. This reflects the views of Walther Gropius, the founder of Bauhaus, who believed that high ceilings, wide hallways, spaciousness, and ornamentation were too Bourgeois; unnecessary and grandiose. All the things that make a building comfortable were stripped and cast aside. Bauhaus thought was that buildings should forward a social and political agenda. Gropius and his followers were all heavily influenced by egalitarianism and anti-traditionalism. [8]

Part of this recreation was to harm the family structure. Gropius: “The rented apartment replaces the inherited family house; being settled in one place is replaced by a new nomadic individualism.” Gropius proposed the removal of the hearth from the home, instead favoring a remote heating unit that would pump hot air into apartment complexes. [9] He was heavily influenced by socialist thinking of the era, going as far as to see Bauhaus as part of the cultural revolution that would overthrow traditional values: “It is no coincidence that this struggle is breaking out here in Weimar, the bulwark of the classical tradition.” [10]

Traditionally, the hearth was the center and heart of a home. Through the cold winter months, when drafts and frost ruled most of the house, the hearth was a place the family would gather around, share meals, bond, and coalesce. The removal of the hearth causes the family to disperse to separate dwellings within the house, moving further apart, with less of a reason to come together during the dark months. [11]

Gropius was not the only subversive thinker to forward the removal of the hearth as a means to attack the traditional family unit. He’s joined by none other than Jewish-born Lev Bronstein, more commonly known as Leon Trotsky. Trotsky made clear he wanted to destroy the hearth, as he discussed in The Revolution Betrayed. The Bolshevik Revolution was to destroy and replace the family unit in favor of the State. Trotsky rails against Stalin at length in the book, decrying the fact that Stalin chose to reverse many of the anti-family policies that had been instituted and instead sought to reestablish the Russian family unit. [12]

Frank Gehry, born Frank Goldberg, responsible for “blobotecture” such as the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain, and the Lou Ruvo Center in Las Vegas, was born to Jewish immigrants. Marcel Breuer, also Jewish, was responsible for the US HUD building in D.C., The Met Breuer, and the Whitney Museum of American Art building.

The New York Five, leaders of Modernist revival, were 40% Jewish. Peter Eisenman and Richard Meier were two of the five members. Gropius and Le Corbusier were not Jewish themselves, though heavily influenced by the Jewish thought of their era and surrounded by ethnic Jews; so much so that their greatest legacy today exists in Isreal.

Time and time again, we see an overrepresentation of Jewish values, Jewish architects, and those who have subscribed to their way of life in Modern styles. Not all are Jews, of course. I. M. Pei, for example, merely produced the typical Internationalism you’d expect from a rootless cosmopolitan: He moved to many different cites away from his homeland throughout his life. The idea of a local, traditional, vernacular architecture is foreign to them because they are so foreign to where they are.

Consider Pei’s Louvre Pyramid, the Modern addition to the Louvre Palace. Consider the total nonsense of allowing a diaspora Chinese with no connection to France to design and install an addition — not in the French vernacular — at the site of one of the most famous destinations in the world. The International-style glass pyramid placed in the courtyard of a classic French Renaissance palace is as disarranged and bizarre as seeing a fish walk down the sidewalk in a pair of jeans with headphones on or seeing a Somali in Maine or Ohio. You immediately know something is grossly amiss.

All forms of art, all buildings, all town squares, first existed within the minds of men. There is a point where all forms of human creation exist solely in the mind of the creator. Modern “contributions” to architecture betray a certain level of inhumanity that borders on the horrific. They are never welcoming spaces: Always barren, steel, concrete slabs, slats for windows, all notions of tradition and beauty are intentionally disregarded to the point of embracing something so inhospitable it would seem as if the goal was to terrify and crush the souls of all who encounter their monuments; a kind of semi-permanent fixture placed right in your city intending to make you as uneasy and rootless as those who designed the buildings and memorials.

Their “art” is nothing but an assault on European sensibilities and our notions of beauty. It is a way to destroy the soul of the people who inhabit these areas. I will not stand for it any longer. We will destroy everything and rebuild it again.

Defiling a Culture

Many of the most atrocious Jewish monuments have been build in Germany. It’s of little surprise that Germany is a target for ethnic Jews to carry out architectural terror. The Deconstruction addition to the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, which was originally built as an armory, is one of the most grotesque. The beautifully balanced, Neoclassical facade now has a piercing steel triangle dissecting the building and serving as a focal point to what was the former armory. The Deconstruction protrusion serves as a viewing platform as well, pointing towards Dresden, where the allied fire bombings of German civilians began. This is a highly symbolic statement by Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind: the buildings we did not destroy in 1945, we will destroy now.

On his website, Libeskind says of the project:

“The new façade’s openness and transparency is intended to contrast with the opacity and rigidity of the existing building. The latter represents the severity of the authoritarian past, while the former reflects the transparency of the military in a democratic society. The interplay between these perspectives forms the character of the new Military History Museum.”

Libeskind is also responsible for the Jewish Museum of Berlin. The museum is intentionally unnerving. It has an imposing metal exterior with visible slats that resemble scarring. One gets a sense of emptiness when viewing the Berlin museum. Libeskind designed the building with several motifs:

“It is impossible to understand the history of Berlin without understanding the enormous contributions made by its Jewish citizens; the meaning of the Holocaust must be integrated into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin; and, finally, for its future, the City of Berlin and the country of Germany must acknowledge the erasure of Jewish life in its history.”

Upon reading the last line, “Germany must acknowledge the erasure of Jewish life in its history,” while looking at the horrid structure, I couldn’t help but feel nothing but sympathy towards a people who would want to erase this menace from their homeland and history. If these are the types of vile, anti-German, Jewish contributions made to Berlin, why would one want anything other than their expulsion?

These building styles are the vernacular architecture of a people who have nothing but an atavistic loathing for all that is good and beautiful. If you’ve ever seen buildings or monuments designed in one of these styles and wondered “why?” the reason is clear. They want to destroy what they cannot create, and the remnants of a culture that thrived without them, perhaps even despite them.

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is a similar assault on the German people. Designed by Jewish architect Peter Eisenman, the massive 200,000 square-foot site hosts over two thousand concrete slabs resembling coffins, arranged as a grid, at varying heights. Similar to a graveyard, yet one starkly devoid of anything natural — typical of Brutalist design. You are “brutalized” by dour slabs of impersonal concrete and greeted with utter contempt by the dystopian edifices wrought by the nightmarish machinations of a soulless, nomadic alien.

The opportunity costs of these places are very high in some of these dense cites. Instead of a nice park, there is a vile mass of concrete.

Mini-memorials in the form of “stumbling stones” are even being installed throughout Berlin. Small bricks with Jewish names are inscribed on them, embedded into walkways, so that you can’t even bend down to tie your shoe without being bombarded with Jewish guilt porn. There are over 75,000 of these stumbling stones scattered about. [13]

The rootless cosmopolitans have left their mark of sin in places far beyond Germany; they are defiling as much of the white world as they can. The Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco is another unfortunate act of Jewish iconoclasm against our culture and people. Once the Jessie Street Substation, a classical revival work built by Willis Polk, a prominent San Franciscan architect of Scotch-Irish descent, the Substation has since been gutted and given the cancerous addition of a steel cube.

The most egregious example of Breuer’s work, I believe, is the expansion to the magnificent Beaux-Arts Cleveland Museum of Art. The original building, designed by old-stock Americans in the Neoclassical style with tremendous white marble and lovely fountains in the courtyard, has since been disfigured by a Diaspora architect.

The Royal Ontario Museum received the same unfortunate Jewish Deconstruction. Once a tremendous example of Romanesque Revival, the building is now vandalized with what appears to be glass and metal shards emanating from the classic brick as if it was exploding outward from the inside and spilling onto the street below. The forms protruding out of the once-magnificent structures grow like cancer, attached to something far greater, like a common parasite. A Jewish travel blog called the redesign “amazing,” and Libeskind the best Jewish architect in the world. [14]

Deconstruction projects are reminiscent of the Hagia Sophia, the Byzantium cathedral that would be turned into a mosque with minarets following invasion and conquest by a race alien to Europeans. If our ancestors were here and saw these buildings, they would rightfully think we had been conquered or replaced.

Holocaust Memorials

At least half of US states have some sort of Holocaust memorial. There is no more legitimate reason to have a Holocaust memorial deep within the US, or even in Europe, than there is to have memorials and museums to the Rwandan genocide or the Killing Fields in Cambodia. The difference is that Rwandans and Cambodians do not have much power over the US and Europe.

I wonder how many memorials there are to the poor bastards that died in WWII from Pennsylvania in Israel? There are four Holocaust sites in Pennsylvania; two museums and two memorials. Rather bizarre. It’s almost as if these inhuman and morally disfigured calamities serve another purpose entirely.

Holocaust memorials — like the events of the Holocaust itself — are not so much about remembering, but more about manipulating contemporary public policy and ensuring a safe future for Jews. These memorials and the constant the barrage of Holocaust porn are forward-looking: They are about reigning in European pride and white nationalism and ensuring borders stay open. Holocaust memorials serve as a welcome sign to other Diaspora Jews, and as a bulwark to legitimate criticism of Jewish behavior. I can see the reactions to this piece now: “What?! You don’t love your steel blocks and concrete slabs we put up instead of your beloved European buildings? Are you some kind of antisemite? You sound a lot like those Nazis who closed down Bauhaus, you know! This is the kind of thinking that leads to another Shoah!”

These monuments also provide a constant victim narrative that serves as a shield for Jews. It’s one so extreme, so outlandish, so over-the-top, that no matter their transgressions against their host society, they will be excused by those who believe Jews are the ultimate victims of history. It causes the uncritical to second-guess themselves. They may notice that there seems to be an awful lot of Jewish men in the news for raping women and children, like Weiner, Weinstein, Epstein, Singer, Rubin, or Polanski, yet with the salience of the Holocaust due to its industry and memorials, they may stop themselves before publically mentioning the pattern they noticed.

Further, they are here to send another message: “This is ours.” The Bolsheviks had a history of destroying monuments in nations they overthrew that represented the people who lived there, placing monuments to Jewish revolutionaries in their stead. These Holocaust displays are no different.

Even if I’m wrong about all of this, then if nothing else, they are an indication that Jews feel Jewish life is far more valuable than all others and therefore more worthy of remembrance. But I don’t think I am wrong.

There is a proposal to build a £50 million holocaust memorial in the scenic green space of Victoria Tower Gardens along the River Thames in Westminster. [15] The obscene bronze fins designed by an Israeli and a Ghanaian migrant is said to be necessary due to rising antisemitism and Holocaust denial in the UK. Taxing UK citizens £50 million to ruin a beloved park doesn’t sound like the actions of benevolent leaders to me. It sounds like an extortion scheme meant to punish those Jews see as ethnic enemies, and them using their political power to accomplish the feat.

Canada received its first national Holocaust monument in the shape of a six-pointed star. [16] The Brutalist space could have been put to good use. Maybe a dog park, or a landfill, anything else. Instead, the Canadian taxpayers received massive concrete walls, with no trees, designed — yet again — by architectural terrorist Daniel Libeskind. I noticed Jews never seem to include trees, or any sort of life at all, in their buildings. Perhaps the idea of a few conifers or deciduous trees that change through the seasons is far too foreign for a group of nomadic desert merchants. Perhaps simply far too human.

Compare these to the simple, yet moving elegance of the Holodomor Memorial in Kyiv: A young girl, looking emaciated, yet with a pleasant expression, surrounded by a brick walkway and trees lining the way. You get the feeling of a certain sadness for her, and others like her, who were intentionally starved to death by the NKVD, led by ethnic Jew Genrikh Yagoda. The monument in Kyiv feels like a true commemoration of lost kinfolk. The Holocaust memorials feel like intentional attacks on the European world.

These are affronts to the European sense of tradition and beauty. As a people, we are driven by beauty and fueled by romance. Our potential is tied to our environments in that our surroundings can ennoble us or they can demean us. These forces can be used to create a sense of home, belonging, and unity among a people — or they can be used to alienate and separate us from our ancestors. There is something deeply noble about walking through the hallowed corridors of traditional buildings, knowing you stand in the same place as many before you, whose shoulders allow you to reach ever higher. Conversely, there is something perfectly hollow about standing on the gray commercial carpet of a steel and glass International building. You’re always left with a sense of anxious unease, as if you know in your heart something is off-kilter.

There have been attacks on the Right for criticism of these heavily Jewish architecture styles amid more apologias for them. (ii) The articles call those who admire the beauty of traditional European architecture — and reject the styles of modernity as hateful — antisemites and dog-whistlers of white supremacy. And of course, they are right. I do hate everything that is opposed to beauty. They frame those against these architectural nightmares as “Nazis” and “antisemites” because they know these styles are incredibly Semitic both in their theory and in design. To the charge of white supremacy, our people created the most beautiful architecture and towns that have ever been known. To the non-white, our simple existence, particularly when compared to theirs, is nothing but an absolute affirmation of the supremacy of our ancestors. [17]

One article asked: “Why is the Alt-Right so Angry About Architecture?” [18] Though they never answered their question, the reason is rather simple. We don’t want to be drug down into the mud and forced to live in a concrete-slab favela, as those who push these degenerate architectural styles would like for us. We are angry because we are living as a dispossessed people in our own homelands, mocked by these repulsive monuments to the disfigured minds of our oldest enemies.

Lessons from Penn Station

A Beaux-Arts magnum opus inspired by the Roman Baths of Caracalla, Pennsylvania Station was one of the grandest public spaces not only in New York, but in the world: Doric columns, dramatic, 150-foot vaulted ceilings, and all the grandeur one would expect from a building inspired by and paying homage to the empires of a bygone era in our history as a race.

Now a subterranean labyrinth bathed in fluorescent lighting and the stench of a rotting civilization.

The destruction of Penn Station was so significant to so many people that the event fueled the rise of the 1965 New York City Landmarks Law. The law, and others like it, seek to protect historic buildings and neighborhoods from the onslaught of Modern architecture and turning every neighborhood into some off-the-shelf box-store carbon copy devoid of any character or history. Thousands of sites are protected by the law in New York alone; many sites have been saved, including Grand Central Terminal. [19]

Louis Kahn, a Jewish architect known for visually heavy Modern designs such as the Salk Institute and FDR Four Freedoms Park, died of a heart attack in 1974 — poetically, in a bathroom of the newly constructed Penn Station.

Fin

I was heartened to find I am not the first to criticize the unmistakable vacancy of beauty these styles embody. National Socialists said the styles showed a “perverse Jewish spirit.” Ian Fleming hated Brutalism so much he immortalized the Jewish architect responsible for Trellick Tower in London by naming the villain in his novel Goldfinger after him. [20]

H.P. Lovecraft wrote many interesting passages in regards to the architecture of a city. The lost city of R’lyeh, the place Cthulhu lays dreaming, is described by Lovecraft several times as a cityscape that is highly alien to Europeans. Modern architecture was budding during the time Lovecraft wrote the story. Taken with the theory that Lovecraft modeled the Eldritch abominations after a particular race, this may be a warning from the Aryan mystic himself: [21]

Without knowing what futurism is like, Johansen achieved something very close to it when he spoke of the city; for instead of describing any definite structure or building, he dwells only on broad impressions of vast angles and stone surfaces—surfaces too great to belong to anything right or proper for this earth, and impious with horrible images and hieroglyphs. I mention his talk about angles because it suggests something Wilcox had told me of his awful dreams. He had said that the geometry of the dream-place he saw was abnormal, non-Euclidean, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours. Now an unlettered seaman felt the same thing whilst gazing at the terrible reality.

“. . . weedy Cyclopean masonry which can be nothing less than the tangible substance of earth’s supreme terror—the nightmare corpse-city of R’lyeh, that was built in measureless aeons behind history by the vast, loathsome shapes that seeped down from the dark stars.”

“. . . Johansen swears he was swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn’t have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse.”

Every time you see a work of Judeo-Modernism, something is being stolen from you. Perhaps it’s the denigration of a work of classic architecture designed by one of your kinfolk, which in turn destroys a little more of your own heritage. Perhaps it’s another Jewish outpost in the form of a Holocaust memorial, where something enjoyable like a pocket park where you might have enjoyed a cup of coffee with a friend is foregone to make way for another monstrosity. These are not simply buildings and monuments; they are deliberate attacks on our way of life, our people, our history, our culture. It causes extreme alienation from our surroundings, our nations, and our folk. It serves to severe roots and deracinate further.

If the only crimes these schizophrenic desert merchants committed was their architectural terrorism against us, then their expulsion is already more than justified from these acts alone.

Our ancestors knew the secrets of building magnificent spaces. They knew how to create magical and timeless environments. The Roman Vitruvius spent a considerable amount of time studying architecture, distilling the theory to three important attributes that all buildings must have: Strength, utility, and beauty. The Greeks constantly analyzed the relationships between architectural features to find the most pleasing and harmonious balance, also taking into account local topography and scenery in efforts to ensure the most pleasant experience for the inhabitants of the buildings. The writings and designs of the Romans and Greeks would go on to inspire countless men throughout space and time, from Renaissance works to Jefferson’s Monticello. Their influence is noted.

Now is our turn to do the same: To rid our societies of these loathsome objects and return to what we know is right; beauty, power, discipline, and honor.

Endnotes

(i) Not all contemporary styles fit nearly into being Modern/International, Brutalist, or Deconstructivist. Many are some amalgamation thereof or borrow some elements while not others. A building can have Brutalist features, without being truly Brutalist. For example, a building may use large overhangs, be made of reinforced concrete, but use the massing and glass plating of a more International style, they are often referred to as simply contemporary or described by their features. There are other styles as well that may share some characteristic, Corporate style and High-tech are two that you’ll find in the late-Modern style.

(ii) Apologias such as:

Kubo, Michael, et al. “Tough Love: In Defense of Brutalism.” Architectmagazine.com, 6 Apr. 2012, www.architectmagazine.com/design/tough-love-in-defense-of-brutalism_o [http://archive.ph/Xklh7]

Saval, Nikil. “Brutalism Is Back.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutalist-architecture-revival.html [http://archive.ph/2r6qq]

Ljubanovic, Kristina. “Concrete Examples: Why It’s OK to Love Brutalist Architecture (Again).” The Globe and Mail, 12 Nov. 2017, www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/concrete-examples-why-its-ok-to-love-brutalist-architectureagain/article30293370/ [http://archive.ph/wMPFH]

Angulo, Luis. “Brutalist Architecture: Raw, Honest and Blunt.” ASM, ASM, 21 Apr. 2016, www.asmscalemodels.com/blog/2016/4/21/brutalist-architecture-raw-honest-and-blunt [http://archive.is/a1qeL]

Grabar, Henry. “Of Course Trump Hates Brutalism.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 31 July 2018, slate.com/business/2018/07/why-trump-hates-brutalist-buildings-like-the-fbis-headquarters.html [http://archive.ph/oz1nM]

Stewart, Jessica. “Brutalism: What Is It and Why Is It Making a Comeback?” My Modern Met, 4 Dec. 2018, mymodernmet.com/brutalist-architecture/ [http://archive.ph/fkx5a]

Payne, Tom Oliver. “This Is Why Brutalist Architecture Is More Important Now Than Ever Before.” Architectural Digest, Architectural Digest, 12 Dec. 2017, www.architecturaldigest.com/story/london-brutalist-architecture [http://archive.ph/Njaz4]

(iii) A non-exhaustive example of ethnic Jews who were or are prominent in Internationalism, Deconstructionism, and Brutalism.

International:

Max Abramovitz, Marcel Breuer, Gordon Bunshaft, Otto Eisler, Hermann Henselmann, Arne Emil Jacobsen, Marcel Hermann Iancu, Louis Kahn, Dov Karmi ,Oskar Kaufmann, Richard Kaufmann, Frederick John Kiesler, Charles Luckman, Alfred Mansfeld, Erich Mendelsohn, Richard Neutra, Zeev Rechter, Rudolph Schnidler, Arieh Sharon, Raphael Soriano

Deconstructionism:

Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman (Wexner Center for the Arts), Daniel Libeskind

Brutalism:

Ernő Goldfinger, Marcel Breuer, Moshe Safdie (Habitat 67, Quebec, Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum, Jerusalem.)

Bauhaus:

Bruno Adler, Anni Albers (born Fleischmann), Otti Berger, Marcel Breuer, Karlfriend Dürckheim, Fred Forbát, Paul Klee, László Moholy-Nagy, Xanti Schawinsky

Footnotes

[1]  “Of Architecture,” Parentalia; or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens, comp. by his son Christopher, Appendix, p. 351 (1750, reprinted 1965).

[2] Lewis, Reuben. “The Legacy of Bauhaus in Tel Aviv’s White City.” Culture Trip, The Culture Trip, 21 Dec. 2018, theculturetrip.com/middle-east/israel/articles/the-legacy-of-bauhaus-in-tel-avivs-white-city/ [http://archive.is/VsFry]

[3] Gorin, Abbott. “A Golden Age of Jewish Architects.” Jewish Currents, 21 June 2015, jewishcurrents.org/a-golden-age-of-jewish-architects/

[4] Zach, Elizabeth. “The Influence of Bauhaus on Architecture in Early Palestine and Israel.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/arts/16iht-rartbauhaus16.html [http://archive.ph/IAnb]

[5] Romano, Andrew. “Jewish Immigrants Fathered Modernism.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 1 Aug. 2014, www.thedailybeast.com/jewish-immigrants-fathered-modernism [http://archive.is/HL2Z0]

[6] Torkar, Felix. “Save Our Brutalism.” Jacobin, 15 Oct. 2018, www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/brutalism-architecture-public-housing-urban-planning [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/brutalism-architecture-public-housing-urban-planning]

[7] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/why-architectural-elites-love-ugly-buildings/

[8] Wolfe, Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House. Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. P.26

[9] Jones, E. Michael. Living Machines Bauhaus Architecture as Sexual Ideology. Fidelity Press, 2012.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Mansfield, Howard. “Dwelling with Smoke and Fire – How Our Homes Lost the Hearth.” Howard Mansfield, 18 Nov. 2013, www.howardmansfield.com/dwelling-with-smoke-and-fire-how-our-homes-lost-the-hearth/ [http://archive.ph/bqIQO]

[12] Bolton, Kerry. “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism.” Counter-Currents, Mar. 2013, www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/stalins-fight-against-international-communism/ [http://archive.ph/y6Rz4]

[13] “Germany: 75,000th ‘Stolperstein’ for Holocaust Victims Laid.” DW.COM, 29 Dec. 2012, www.dw.com/en/germany-75000th-stolperstein-for-holocaust-victims-laid/a-51827506 [http://archive.ph/suqnE]

Westervelt, Eric. “Stumbling Upon Mini Memorials To Holocaust Victims.” NPR, NPR, 31 May 2012, www.npr.org/2012/05/31/153943491/stumbling-upon-miniature-memorials-to-nazi-victims [http://archive.is/0pvk2]

[14] All Jewish Travel. May 14, 2013. https://alljewishtravel.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/amazing-architecture-by-probably-the-best-jewish-architect-in-the-world-today-polish-born-daniel-libeskind/ [http://archive.is/PsReK]

[15] Edmonds, Lizzie. “Holocaust Denial Has Festered in the UK, Says Award-Winning Architect of New £50 Million Memorial.” Evening Standard, 11 Oct. 2018, www.standard.co.uk/news/london/holocaust-denial-has-festered-in-uk-says-awardwinning-architect-of-new-50-million-memorial-a3958051.html [http://archive.is/pQsBo]

[16] Stevens, Phillip. “Canada’s First National Holocaust Monument Opens in Ottawa.” Designboom, 2 Oct. 2017, www.designboom.com/architecture/daniel-libeskind-national-holocaust-monument-ottawa-canada-10-02-2017/ [http://archive.ph/tpEvs]

[17] Manavis, Sarah. “How Architecture-Themed Twitter Accounts Became a Magnet for White Nationalism.” NewStatesman, 14 Aug. 2018, www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2018/08/how-architecture-themed-twitter-accounts-became-magnet-white [http://archive.ph/1MCX1]

Goldberg, Mackenzie. “Twitter Account Dedicated to Traditional European Architecture Draws Ire as an Architecture-Themed Dog-Whistle.” Archinect, 15 Aug. 2018, archinect.com/news/article/150077882/twitter-account-dedicated-to-traditional-european-architecture-draws-ire-as-an-architecture-themed-dog-whistle [http://archive.ph/Pv8Qx]

Kesvani, Hussein. “How the Alt-Right Infiltrated Architecture Twitter – And Turned Notre-Dame Into a Political Lightning Rod.” MEL Magazine, 24 Apr. 2019, melmagazine.com/en-us/story/alt-right-architecture-notre-dame-racism-anti-muslim [http://archive.ph/6jiNF]

[18] Hurley, Amanda Kolson. “Why Is the Alt-Right So Angry About Architecture?” CityLab, 17 Aug. 2018, www.citylab.com/design/2017/07/why-is-the-alt-right-so-angry-about-architecture/532470/ [http://archive.ph/SCKNS]

[19] See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. US Supreme Court 438 U.S. 104 (1978)

[20] 99% Invisible. “Why Brutalist Architecture Is So Hard to Love.” Slate Magazine, 13 Aug. 2015, www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/08/13/brutalist_architecture_a_case_for_hulking_concrete_buildings_from_roman.html [http://archive.ph/VXb20]

[21] Johnson, Greg. “H. P. Lovecraft’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth.” Counter-Currents, 17 Aug. 2015, www.counter-currents.com/2015/08/h-p-lovecrafts-the-shadow-over-innsmouth/.