Architecture and Art: Explaining the Revolt against Beauty

In May last year I found myself in Budapest, surrounded by Neo-Classical architecture. The centre of the city is incredibly beautiful, and so consistently so, that it’s easy to become lost. A young, and rather cynical, female student I was with actually commented, referring to two London skyscrapers: “Budapest needs a Gherkin or a Shard, just so there are a few landmarks.” It’s the little details that are so uplifting: gargoyles, tessellations . . . These edifices were built with beauty in mind.

The Gherkin Juxtaposed to Some Examples of Traditional London Architecture

How different it is walking around most British city centres, marred as they are by brutal post-War architecture, where “beauty” is almost a dirty word. The same is clearly true of Art. Modern Art is quite deliberately vile and shocking: Damien Hurst’s cow cut in half, the Chapman Brothers’ child mannequins with anuses on their faces, flowers (“Piss Flowers”) ultimately cast from artist Helen Chadwick’s urine and so on. English philosopher Roger Scruton bemoaned the hideousness of Modern Art and Modern Architecture. But why does it have to be so revolting? The answer is surprisingly simple and it can be traced all the way back to the most primitive humans, eking out an existence on the Savannah.

Damien Hurst’s Cow Cut in Half   

Humans are “pack animals,” which means they must fight for the survival and triumph of their group, but, in the polygamous mating systems to which we are evolved, only the highest status males pass on their genes. Put simply, these males are better at fighting and at hunting. The females sexually select for these Alpha Males because they will have more resources to invest in the female and her offspring and the offspring will inherit the physical and psychological traits which lead to health, high status and the passing on of ones genes. As I have explored in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, among the hunter-gatherer Bushmen of southern Africa only 40% of males have any children at all, while in seventeenth century England the richer 50% of males had about double the number of surviving offspring compared to the poorer 50% of males. So, it is very important – and thus built into us – to want to attain social status.

Consequently, we balance different sets of what are known as “Moral Foundations.” The “binding” or “group-orientated” foundations are Obedience to Authority, In-group Loyalty and Sanctity/Disgust. The latter involves sacralising practices which are adaptive to the group and reacting with disgust to that which is maladaptive. Thus, people tend to react with disgust to foreigners because they may introduce novel pathogens into the group or disrupt its internal dynamics. Of course, high disgust can also be adaptive on the individual level, such as a strong revulsion to rotting food. But these three foundations correlate. Group-oriented people are higher in disgust, presumably due to its importance in policing group boundaries.

There are also the individually-oriented foundations of Equality and Harm Avoidance. A concern with equality means that you will get your fair – equal – share, while a concern with harm means that you personally are less likely to get harmed. People who are highly group-oriented have little concern with these, being happy to lay down their lives for the group, meaning they may pass on their genes only indirectly, by helping to save their group.

Liberals and Conservatives differ in the importance of these Moral Foundations. Conservatives score about the same in all of five of them. Liberals score very low in the binding foundations and they score very high in the individualistic foundations. As I explore in Breeding the Human Herd, liberals are also, on average, shorter, physically weaker, less physically attractive and more anxious and otherwise mentally unstable than conservatives. In a sense, they are bad, unsuccessful hunter gatherers. So, how do you gain status if you are such a person?

You can’t have a fair fight because you will be paranoid that you will lose, and you probably will. Accordingly, you “virtue signal”: You appeal to the conservative society – which is genuinely concerned about equality and harm – and attain status by seeming very kind. You also collaborate with outsiders. Being low in in-group loyalty and low in disgust, it has been found that the liberal moral circle – those with whom they identify – is further from self, in genetic terms. Conservatives are concerned with people in a series of concentric circles. In general, they prefer family to kin, kin to ethny, ethny to race and so forth. By contrast, liberals are more likely to identify with foreigners than with their own. This allows them to collaborate with foreigners and, so, take over their own in-group.

This will shake up everything but they don’t care. They are low in sanctity and they are low in obedience to traditional authority. What is the upper class socialist really doing? He is gaining power by collaborating with the working class against the interests of his own social class, in a context in which there is abundant evidence that social classes are substantially genetic castes. What are elite White people in Britain’s Labour Party doing? They are collaborating with working class Whites and foreigners in order to dominate the elite class of which they are a part.

How does this relate to Art and Architecture? I’m sure it’s clear by now. The traditional purpose of both was, in part, to create beauty. Beauty inspires people; beauty makes people feel good (feel transcendent, even). Beauty is symmetrical, it is about order, it aims to inspire the group with a sense of the sacred and the eternal. If you are low status, it is central to the system which caused you to be of low status. Thus, if you are physically and mentally weak, and cannot attain status within the system, it makes sense to attack the system, to attack “order,” so creating a vacuum in which you can take power.

Being low in sanctity (and low in disgust), you will be positively attracted to Art and Architecture which is revolting and repelled by Art and Architecture which is beautiful. Being concerned with “Equality,” you will horrified by the very idea that some things are more “beautiful” than other things. With your high Neuroticism, this will incur resentment. You will question the very notion of objective “beauty,” argue that there are “different kinds of beauty” and ultimately maintain that the ugly is beautiful so that everyone can feel equal. The very notion of “beauty” will hurt the feelings of –“harm” – those who are repugnant-looking, so it simply cannot be accepted. This destruction of tradition creates dysphoria, it confuses people, it creates a sense of instability; a lack of order. It is in this chaos that the Machiavellian — and liberals are individualistic and thus power-hungry — can take over.

As I have explored in my book The Past Is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, due to asymmetrical empathy between conservatives and liberals, culture will tend to drift leftwards. Eventually, once a sufficient percentage of the elite accept these ideas, we very quickly tip over into being a liberal society, as people understand that things are changing and wish to be on the winning team. As the more intelligent better understand the benefits of socially conforming and are higher in what Kevin MacDonald has called the “effortful control” that allows them to do so, they will spearhead this change. Once this takes place the more intelligent start competitively signalling their conformity to the new moral dispensation.

The result is a kind of “runaway individualism” where Art and Architecture become uglier and uglier and uglier across time. This will continue until there is such dysphoria, until so many people are so unhappy, due to their group-oriented foundations being ignored, and due to a general sense of unnerving chaos, there is a right-wing backlash. This will often be provoked by a situation which strongly sets off disgust – such as an epidemic – or which sets off other binding foundations, such as war. We became more conservative in the 1980s about sexuality due to AIDs for example. So, beautiful Art and Architecture may well re-emerge . . .

18 replies
  1. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    Beauty will return after we are mixed into a global mass. CS Lewis’s Space Trilogy is really good on the topic of ugly modern art. It might be the third book only that is pertinent here.

    Nikos Salingaros’s book Twelve Lectures on Architecture is really good. It mentions James Kalb as I recall.

  2. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    Beautify art and architecture have meaning. In Europe that often refers to the life of Jesus, the Bible and the saints. Modern art has no meaning or inverts meaning into nihilism, where nothing seems to mean anything. This war for status, for “liberals” (aka commies, socialists, perverts, criminals and other malcontents) by means of nihilism may very well create an environment for increasingling lower status and suicide.

  3. Mark Engholm
    Mark Engholm says:

    Incidentally, “The Gherkin” is owned by a Jewish family business called Safra, while “The Shard” is owned directly by Qatar. Which is also a “phallic” demonstration of power. Very symbolic of who is in charge in London and beyond. Then one more note on reproduction. A translation:

    Consciously or unconsciously, almost all women are attracted to two different types of men: A distinction is made between the wealthy provider type and the adventurous seducer type. The provider is sought for a stable relationship, the seducer for adventure and sex. Studies have shown that the majority of women have a relationship with the provider, but cheat on him with the seducer. This dual strategy has crystallized in human evolution.

    Women are most often attracted to the provider type when they are in the infertile days, the last third of their cycle. The reason for this behavior is measurable and is due to the fact that the concentration of the inhibitor enzyme monoamine oxidase drops during ovulation. The purpose of this hormone is self-control. If the level of this enzyme drops, women become more sexually open towards unfamiliar men and become more relaxed, impulsive and willing to take risks.

    The provider type: He is ambitious and determined and can provide the wife and future mother with the material resources she needs. He is respected in society because of his friendly and intelligent nature. He maintains a very emotional bond with his wife. His qualities include: Reliability, faithfulness and the ability to deal with children.

    This type of man is sought out by the female sex, who want to be protected. In addition, this type of man is expected to play an active role in the upbringing of the offspring. Men, on the other hand, are only prepared to take on such great responsibility if they feel emotionally attached to the woman.

    Funnily enough, women who are looking for a provider place less emphasis on looks. The focus is much more on the man’s willingness to invest. “Less handsome men are more loyal and reliable because their appearance makes them less attractive to other women.”

    This is a prejudice, but unfortunately it is often true. You also hear this statement quite often when you ask women “what” they are looking for when they are looking for a provider.

    The seducer type: Has a deep voice. Is “chronically unfaithful”. His physique: narrow hips, muscular, tall. His face shape: the face must be symmetrical and have striking facial features. Other health factors: full and shiny hair, clear skin without blemishes, straight and white teeth. How a woman would describe him: sexy, wild, adventurous, a man who is game for anything. It is also common to see exotic men among the seducer types, or men whose parents come from different countries [sic!].

    Many of these characteristics are attributed to the seducer’s increased hormone levels. It has been proven that the majority of seducer types are men who produce more testosterone. One of the less positive characteristics would be their unwillingness to enter into a committed relationship. Seducer types have neither the will nor the ability to have a long-term relationship, to establish an emotional bond and to support the woman. They simply lack the stamina to do so. What is very interesting in this regard is that women do not even try to retain such men. Women only want the genes from seducer types, i.e. a child, and not feelings.

    The official statistics on cuckoo children are of course deliberately embellished because the claims of cheated husbands would clash with the financial interests of a fundamentally matriarchal society. Years ago, I read statistics that reported that between one in five and one in ten children had been foisted on a foreign father.

    • Mark Engholm
      Mark Engholm says:

      Once again back to “cuckoo children”: In all seriousness, the question arises as to why a large number of deceived fathers have no doubts about their paternity? You really have to doubt the sanity of these people.

      It has been discovered that a father can smell his baby out from under 200 other babies on its back – unlike the mother! Furthermore, in the first three years of their lives, children tend to look more like their father.

      This has the biological meaning that the father becomes certain of his paternity and remains with the mother. I do know what my own baby’s back smelled like (very pleasant, a little sweet, but familiar), but I have no idea what other people’s babies smell like. Probably “foreign”.

      I may be accused of exaggerating when I say that we live (long ago) in a “matriarchy” now. At least for 30 to 40 years. However, this can be observed not only in the structural, systematic discrimination of boys and men in Western societies.

      Women are now “the preferred gender” (book title by Jew historian Martin van Creveldt). This is also expressed in the parents’ wish for the gender of the child, which nowadays is clearly in favor of girls (I’m talking about the “liberal” West here, not e.g. Islam).

      • Anne C
        Anne C says:

        ‘I may be accused of exaggerating when I say that we live (long ago) in a “matriarchy” now. At least for 30 to 40 years.’

        That is a great insight. You are completely right… and I am one of the increasing number of Western women who want The Patriarchy back.

        • Mark Engholm
          Mark Engholm says:

          That is very honorable of you, dear Anne. Thank you very much for your response. Even the Jewish “Breitbart” admitted something years ago that we have of course all known for a long time. Every normally developed person knows this. It is in our genes and is as old as humanity itself.

          Incidentally, it is very interesting that Italian (even Iranian) women, for example, feel disregarded by German “men”, because they have internalized the lie that chasing a woman or looking after her is a “sexist misogynistic disgrace”. They suffer from being perceived only as “persons” but no longer as female beings.

          The German “man” has learned from Jewish feminism that expressing masculinity is an all-too-dangerous minefield, so he believes that submissive servility leads to the goal. But women spit on these losers. Women simply want a confident go-getter and protector.

          Not everyone can be an “alpha” man, but a coward who overcomes his fear is always better than one of those submissive bootlickers who believe any nonsense they are told. Is that not the case? For women, it’s effort that counts, not necessarily physical strength.

          At least not primarily. Is that not the case? For women, it’s effort that counts. A man can be convincing in many ways: through humor, intelligence, sophistication, shrewdness, entertainment, great knowledge, but he should be always be determined in what he does.

          • Anne C
            Anne C says:

            This whole business of women only wanting the “alpha male” is a bit overdone.

            What most women want is for a guy to be “her” alpha male. You be my king, I’ll be your queen.

            Of course, women need to inspire men to want to do this. Otherwise, everything falls apart.

        • Mark Engholm
          Mark Engholm says:


          They say that professional success makes you sexy. Maybe for “gold diggers”. There is only one quality that makes a man a man: character (which is synonymous with courage).

          What does character mean? Character means not being afraid to use the word “No!”. (Even and especially when everyone expects you to say “Yes!”.)

          Only that means independent, autonomous strength, and only independent, autonomous men are interesting for women. That has always been the case and will always remain so.

          A man must want to survive a fight and consciously expose himself to it and be able to do so, whether physically or mentally, i.e. take a risk. To pay a price for his lifelong saving of face.

          What is he putting at risk? His dignity, honor, self-respect. It is the most valuable thing he owns and can therefore lose. I don’t want to use the word “pride” in this context, because this is a very deceptive mask-like infantile ego concept.

          A woman instinctively senses what a guy is made of, whether he is serious or just “playing” like an immature baby with its mother’s teat. A woman wants to have this confirmed again and again, that she herself gains her real security primarily from him.

          That’s the way it is, that’s the way it should be, nature has designed it that way. Women want to be able to lean against a strong oak or a rock in the surf. There is no reason to be ashamed, justify or apologize for this in any way.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      There was some activist writer who argued that Europeans had evolved to become monogamous and thus shy, incapable of seducing other women.

      However, from what I’ve seen, women just want money and status. So, if you have a homeless Don Juan, he’s homeless and alone.

      Presently, many young women will just sleep with everyone. They think it doesn’t matter. Men will hit the gym to become more attractive, making men more like women in improving their physical image.

      Young boys will even wear pink shoes, for example.

      Separately, marriages often involve step children. The children will ask incessantly whom their father is and will tell others how their father left them. It matters to the kids.

      • Mark Engholm
        Mark Engholm says:

        Yes, there are the most hair-raising biographies of the lifelong search for the father. A cruel example of this are the millions of German women who became pregnant unintentionally by Stalin’s murderous army.

        If even (isolated) Jews were already complaining over 20 years ago that boys and men were not only systematically disadvantaged, but downright arbitrarily oppressed, then something has long been rotten in the state of Denmark.

        Mothers who put their boys in girls’ clothes should be locked up and irrevocably deprived of parenthood. Fathers usually stand by helplessly and powerlessly, fearing that their rights will be taken away if they intervene.

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        “However, from what I’ve seen, women just want money and status. So, if you have a homeless Don Juan, he’s homeless and alone.”

        If a Don Juan is homeless on the streets then his chances are indeed slim.

        However – I have known plenty of women (usually upwards of 30) who have taken in a penniless -in between homes- Don Juan and supported them financially.. This is a lot more common than people think. Chances are he will start to become envious and bitter at her success and cheat on her. Then he’s onto the next lonely women of which there is an abundance in the West.

    • Anne C
      Anne C says:

      “Women are most often attracted to the provider type when they are in the infertile days, the last third of their cycle. The reason for this behavior is measurable and is due to the fact that the concentration of the inhibitor enzyme monoamine oxidase drops during ovulation. The purpose of this hormone is self-control. If the level of this enzyme drops, women become more sexually open towards unfamiliar men and become more relaxed, impulsive and willing to take risks.”

      The description above is a bit clinical, but it’s valuable information, so let me translate it into what a woman might actually experience.

      A woman doesn’t need a study to know her menstrual cycle affects her interest in intimacy. When you actively track your ovulation (for example, to time when to get pregnant, or not), you notice very quickly that in the days immediately preceeding and following ovulation, you are more easily aroused.

      But it doesn’t mean you are automatically attracted to dangerous strangers! On the contrary… I just start noticing things like how well a particular shirt, or pair of pants, seems to be fitting my husband… or how the hair is falling into his eyes… or how he moves when he walks across the room. I’ll want our morning hug to last just a few moments longer, and I might hold on a little tighter.

      The interesting thing from a woman’s POV is that, if you’re on The Pill, you don’t get to experience any of this, because birthcontrol pills stop you from ovulating altogether. So, your natural desire gets reduced as well.

      In other words, rejecting good sex (the kind that involves pursuing intimacy with a loving man and fertility with same) and using The Pill to chase after lousy sex (with multiple strangers who could give a rats ass about you) leads to a woman having a lot less fun than she might realize.

      Just saying.

      • Mark Engholm
        Mark Engholm says:

        I knew that women under the influence of this supplement even rejected their own partners. The Jews not only confused people’s minds, but also their entire hormonal balance. The inventors of the contraceptive pill were mainly the Jews Pincus & Djerassi.

        Everything under their “influence” generally turns into the exact opposite: good becomes evil, up becomes down, back becomes front, black becomes white and day becomes night. And original affection, as in this case, turns into “inexplicable” aversion.

        • Anne C
          Anne C says:

          “The inventors of the contraceptive pill were mainly the Jews Pincus & Djerassi.”

          No surprises there! The important thing is to realize what wondrous creations we are, and not let the Jews keep tinkering with us.

  4. Dr ExCathedra
    Dr ExCathedra says:

    I recently spent a few days in Budapest. First of all, while there are a lot of tourists in the old city, it is a city full of HUNGARIANS. Shockingly and wonderfully White. Clearly European.

    The architecture, largely a gift from the Hapsburgs and restored after the disease of Communism, is a balm to the soul. Budapest is what Paris should look like. Both architecturally and racially.

  5. K M Landis
    K M Landis says:

    The ugliness of Jewish “art” and “architecture” is a feature, not a bug. They do it deliberately. Jews are disgusting on principle, to destroy beauty and truth. This article explains it well.

    Today, the whole world can see Jewish perversity in Gaza, with mass murder and mass destruction. No one should be fooled by Netanyahu’s lying propaganda. The Oct 7 Hamas raid serves merely as a pretext for genocide by Israel. Jews have set up special web-sites to view videos of Gaza’s destruction, for their psychopathic enjoyment. And the US regime is Israel’s full accomplice.

  6. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    One thing whites will need to reverse, if ever we’re strong again, is the view of whites as this evil race. Many in the world, especially in white polities, view whites as evil.

    WASPs, and presumably other Europeans, don’t want to do the dirty work of writing culture and history. They want Jews to do these things for them, making Jews the master. But we’re going to need to do these things ourselves to reverse this view that we’re evil.

    In Polynesia, cannibalism is common. We’re worse than they? In the Americas, cannibalism and slavery predate Europeans. We’re told that Europeans were better organised and thus more evil, but the Aztecs are one of the scariest organised societies known to man. India had a brutal caste system that made some into untouchables who would be crushed in poverty as a result. Africa still has slavery. Jews were huge in the slave trade. Arabs were big on it, still seem to want blacks enslaved. It’s whites who reduce slavery, today, globally. Because we see it as wrong. The world would be better off without US influence, but it would likely have more slavery too.

    Europeans need to improve our image, and we need to be sure to reduce interactions to thus reduce the chance that we’re blamed for anything in the future.

    If you talk with Amerindian activists and some others: They want us exterminated.

  7. Basedjak
    Basedjak says:

    Tldr: commies create ugly art because they despise beauty for the exact same reason they despise the wealthy: successful and naturally talented people cannot exist in their ‘utopia,’ everyone must be equally as unremarkable and mediocre.

    Modern art has nothing to do with liberalism btw, many great artists came from liberal post-revolutionary france. It has everything to do with marxism.

Comments are closed.