Many aspects of the cultural degradation of Western civilization have been discussed ad nauseam within the alt-right—race, gender, sexuality, family norms, et cetera. But there is one crucial aspect which often goes ignored; the complete degradation of our artistic and architectural standards as a people.
It used to be that you could distinguish the nationality of a building or series of buildings just by looking at them. That’s a Portuguese church, you could say. Or an Italian village. Or a German palace. Or a Dutch residential street abutting a canal. Nowadays, it’s the same bland, boring, soulless garbage being built across the Western world, indistinguishable from one country to the next. Monstrosities of concrete, glass, and ugliness.
You can compare the photographs of what major German cities looked like before the Second World War, and what they look like now. The contrast is sobering—and I have no doubt that the loss of beautiful urban architecture is a major contributing factor toward the cultural anomie and militant levels of cucking that are taking place in German cities today. At least in a city like Paris, if you just ignore what the majority of the people look like, you can still picture what the city itself looked like back when France was truly French, because the architecture is still there. In Hamburg or Dortmund, there is nothing to distinguish the architecture as German in any way, shape or form. You basically have to travel to a smaller city like Heidelberg or Bamberg to see what the real Germany looked like.
The Second World War had many casualties, but perhaps chief among them was aesthetics. Part of the reason was functional—the baby boom in Europe and the European diaspora, combined with the need to rebuild certain destroyed parts of Europe efficiently to accommodate all the now-homeless people. But there was also an ideological bent to it. Hitler admired classical art and architecture, so into the trash they go. Beautiful art and architecture suddenly represented the exact form of hateful, prejudiced ethnonationalism that Hitler stood for, and suddenly the very type of architecture that had made up the now-destroyed prewar Dresden now became symbolic of Hitler’s ideology in and of itself, even though it predated his birth by hundreds of years. Modernist artists and architects started decrying the old and bringing in the (((new))), panning anything that reflected a beautiful or traditional aesthetic as kitschy and cliché and played-out. Of course, by this point we’ve had modernist art and architecture for long enough that it has become a tired cliché in and of itself, but as with everything else, the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Cultural Marxism in this area eludes them too.
This boring, soulless architecture of the post-WW2 era goes beyond the point of mere utilitarianism, and often takes pride in being aggressively ugly. No greater proof of this can be seen than in the example of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, a beautiful early-20th century beaux-arts building that was deliberately adulterated with a horrendous jagged glass cubist addition called the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal in 2007. Mere blocks away, a similar architectural rape is being done to the majestic gothic revival One Spadina Crescent building of the University of Toronto.
In the British city of Leicester, now one of the least white municipalities in the entire country, the glorious tall Tudor-style buildings surrounding the central clock tower square were demolished in 1973 to build an ugly generic shopping mall. I can’t help but wonder if this surrender of the city’s architectural heritage to the bland forces of modernism helped make their capitulation of their ethnic heritage go through all the more smoothly.
Among the major names that advanced modernist architecture, you will of course find plenty of echo: (((((Joseph Eichler))))), (((((Erich Mendelsohn))))), (((((Arne Jacobsen))))), (((((Bruno Taut))))), (((((Oscar Niemeyer))))), and (((((Richard Neutra))))).
A major ideological aim of this ugly, bland, soulless architecture is to promote globalism by entrenching the notion of sameness across the Western world. You see a picture of one of these hideous boring buildings, and it could be in Germany or Canada or Russia or a million other places. You see a picture of a 17th-century Flemish building with a Flemish gable rooftop, and you know that building is in Flanders (or you may guess the Netherlands, but either way, close enough).
Having a unique style of national architecture is meant to engender a sense of national pride and identity in the people who live in these cities and towns and see the architecture every day, as they commute to and from work, or walk to the grocery store, or drive to their friend’s house. When you see the same boring generic buildings everywhere, you lack the sense of pride that would make you give a damn about seeing the same boring generic people everywhere (i.e. the Star Wars cantina-esque mix of different races commonly visible in any major Western city nowadays, making the people of every city in every nation look increasingly indistinguishable from the next).
A country that doesn’t take pride in the way that its buildings look will never take pride in the way its people look. Losing pride in the architectural identity of a nation will contribute to a loss of pride in the nation itself. Which is exactly, of course, what the Cultural Marxists want. As we seek to reinvigorate this fallen civilization we live in, we on the alt-right need to look into restoring our nations, not only in terms of their people but also in terms of the architecture that surrounds us. If we lose these aesthetic reminders of where our cultural pride comes from, then it will be far easier for us to forget who we are.