Monatsarchive: Februar 2017

Angela Merkel: „Das Volk ist jeder, der in diesem Land lebt.“ Und Kanzlerin ist jede Vollidiotin, die sich dafür hält.

Angela Merkel: „Das Volk ist jeder, der in diesem Land lebt.“ Und Kanzlerin ist jede Vollidiotin, die sich dafür hält.

Von Markus Vahlefeld.

Nach „denen, die schon länger hier leben“, Wahlrecht für Migranten und der „Aushandlung des Zusammenlebens“  jetzt: „Das Volk ist jeder, der in diesem Land lebt“. Sie bekommt auch noch Applaus dafür.

In Nordrhein-Westfalen beschließen SPD, Grüne und Piraten, dass von nun an alle im Land Befindlichen das kommunale Wahlrecht ausüben sollen. Weiterhin wurde die Vereidigungsformel für die Landesregierung, die bis dato „auf das deutsche Volk“ lautete, geändert in „dass ich meine ganze Kraft dem Wohle des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen widmen“ werde.

Die Staatsministerin für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration und stellvertretende SPD-Bundesvorsitzende Aydan Özoğuz frohlockte bereits 2015 im Zuge der Großen Öffnung, dass nun „unser Zusammenleben täglich neu ausgehandelt werden“ müsse. Und nachdem sie vor einem generellen Verbot der Kinderehe gewarnt hatte, konkretisierte sie dieses Vorhaben kürzlich in einem Strategiepapier nochmals als „Aushandlungsprozesse, die auf Toleranz und Respekt gegenüber jeder und jedem beruhen“. Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen.

Die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel, die noch 2010 Multikulti als „restlos gescheitert“ erklärt hatte, hat sich inzwischen eines Besseren belehren lassen und spricht nicht mehr vom deutschen Volk, sondern nur noch von denjenigen, „die schon länger hier leben“ und denen, „die neu hinzugekommen sind“.

Und nun hat sie, um die AfD und alle anderen bösen Nationalisten restlos an die Wand zu nageln, erklärt: „Das Volk ist jeder, der in diesem Land lebt.“ Der Applaus, der danach in ihrer CDU aufbrandet, lässt erahnen, dass auch die Geschichte des Konservativismus in Bälde neu geschrieben werden muss.

Ein Volk, so unkte Bertold Brecht einst, das das Vertrauen der Regierenden verscherzt habe, solle doch dann einfach aufgelöst werden, damit sich die Regierung ein anderes wählen könne. Diese Wahl ist hiermit vollzogen worden.

Corbusier’s nasty drivel

Anthony Daniels wrote in 2015 a masterful defenestration of modern architecture’s chief founder, “The Cult of Le Corbusier,” for Quadrant, an Australian magazine. I offer this one quote, along with my assurance that the essay in its entirety will comfort all who recognize the despicable in Corbu and his work. He is a man venerated […]

über Corbusier’s nasty drivel — Architecture Here and There

Deutsch-israelischer Publizist kritisiert polemische Mainzer Karnevals-Sendung

Von Klaus Moshe Pülz Diese Veranstaltung “Mainz, wie es singt und lacht” war hinsichtlich der politischen Aussagen fast durchgängig peinlich, weil hierbei gegen eine Partei in nazistischer Manier polemisiert wurde. Dabei geht es nicht allein um den Vortrag des Lars Reichow, sondern auch um das „Schlappmaul“ Hans-Peter Betz. Man hatte den Eindruck, daß trotz anwesender […]

über Deutsch-israelischer Publizist kritisiert polemische Mainzer Karnevals-Sendung — CHRISTLICHES FORUM

Theodore Dalrymple: Modernist architecture is inherently totalitarian.

Modernist architecture is inherently totalitarian: it brooks no other, and indeed delights to overwhelm and humiliate what went before it by size and prepotency, or by garishness and the preposterousness which it takes for originality, and which turns every townscape into the architectural equivalent of a Mickey Finn.

In the Guardian newspaper last week, its architectural correspondent wrote an admiring article about Paulo Mendes da Rocha, whose work is so bad that he has been awarded the Royal Institute of British Architects gold medal. No greater insult could well be imagined for an architect than that; and a small photograph accompanied the article, of a raw concrete sports club blackening horribly with age, as it always does, demonstrates that he well merited it.

The article begins by quoting the 88 year-old Brazilian: ‘All space is public. The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.’

The architectural correspondent, Oliver Wainwright seems to accept this dreadful dictum without comment or criticism, indeed appears to find it inspiring, though it is difficult to follow his thought processes:

It is an optimistic statement, given that he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark.

Why is the inherent, apparently ontological, impossibility of privacy something to be welcomed? Does Mr Wainwright defaecate and make love in public, and if not, does he want to? Besides, da Rocha didn’t way that all space ought to be public, he said it is public, it can be no other.

This kind of balderdash, of no possible denotation but with plenty of nasty connotation, is typical of writing about architecture, at least by apologists for modernism. It comes as no surprise to learn that da Rocha is a Marxist, though he could just as well be a fascist, as was his architectural ancestor, Le Corbusier.

Nowhere in the article is there an aesthetic judgment of the work of a man who ‘has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up,’ which, by description, sound equally horrible and inhuman. This is a world in which the word brutalist can b used as a term of approbation. The nearest the write comes to criticism is when he say that the architect’s unbelievably hideous building for the National Coach Museum in Lisbon near to ‘the gothic confection of the Jéronimos Monastery’ (note the disparagement) is that ‘it feels a little out of place – a great white aircraft hangar jacked up on fat concrete columns.’ He adds, ‘Still it might soften with time and use.’ It seems to have escaped this critic’s notice that concrete does not improve with time, and he does not explain how use can soften fat concrete columns.

Universities should be intellectually diverse from top to bottom, rather than echo chambers of left wing opinion.

It’s far better to have a liberal system of open debate – especially in universities – with no restrictions on speech, bar the unwritten rules of decency and respect which tend to get reaffirmed by students and staff alike in properly managed places of learning. This is particularly important because, sadly, that poster was far from my only experience of a clear left-wing bias within academia.

I recently went to see another Sussex academic about my interest in studying the work of Edmund Burke, who is considered one of the founding fathers of conservatism. Just two minutes into our discussion, I referred to a well-known admirer of Burke, the eminent contemporary conservative philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton. The lecturer’s face dropped as soon as Scruton’s name passed my lips. In what appeared to be an only half-joking tone, he replied, “you aren’t some kind of rabid conservative, are you?” I should have replied with, “you, sir, are supposed to be an academic who cares about intellectual diversity, so why would it matter if I was?” Instead I sat rather awkwardly and tried to bluster my way through explaining that I wasn’t yet entirely sure what I believed in.

This lecturer may well be perfectly fair-minded to all political persuasions. But his assumption that I would naturally be left-wing suggests a dangerous climate of conformity. And when students are confronted with remarks and attitudes like his, how are they to be sure they will be treated unfairly? Why shouldn’t they be worried about the way their work will be judged? Why did he think that was an appropriate thing to say?

The central point is that universities should be intellectually diverse from top to bottom, rather than echo chambers of left wing opinion.  Whilst there are some small, encouraging signs of open-mindedness amongst the student body, there seems to be a worrying aversion to the Right amongst academics, and a similarly disturbing desire to control dissenting opinions that are considered beyond the pale. As a response, perhaps students should organise a discussion aimed at ‘dealing with’ the aversion to the Right in academia. With any luck, it’ll shake them out of their caustic and prejudiced myopia.

« Ältere Einträge