article-banner11

An important aspect of a civilisation’s culture is its creativity and art from which its architecture originates. Architecture is a display of a civilisation’s moral superiority or inferiority and is often one of the first effects following cultural degeneracy. Most political movements have an associated or preferred architectural style.

It has been often noted that authoritarian regimes adopt a classical architectural style. Even opposing regimes, as in recent history the decidedly classical architecture of Stalinist USSR and National Socialist Germany, have recognised classical architecture as the ideal form for promoting their own ideology. It should be established whether or not classical architecture is an Aryan form of architecture and whether its history is one of non-Aryan incursion, or a fundamental non-Aryan element. On top of this, it must be established whether classical architecture is the only fundamentally Aryan architectural style.

From its inception, classical architecture has been fundamentally Aryan. However, over time; following culture degeneration, classical civilisations adopted non-Aryan elements into their architecture. A widespread example of this is the gigantic scale of “classical” architecture which is often adopted by authoritarian regimes, often due to non-Aryan and plebeian input, or for a psychological effect on the masses. This has been the case with Stalinist architecture, in particular the enormous Palace of the Soviets. Arguably, the planned Welthauptstadt Germania, which was to replace Berlin, was an example of non-Aryan elements influencing something fundamental Aryan due to its ridiculous nature, scale and its overall absence of purpose.

More ancient examples of the influence of non-Aryan elements into the architecture of fundamentally or originally Aryan civilisations, can be found in the architecture from Augustus Caesar onwards. While Augustus himself was perhaps one of the Caesars most aware of the social and spiritual aspect of Romanism, the architecture of his period seems to be primarily for popular support; which, subsequently, formed the foundations of the Colosseum. It could even be said that the Acropolis of Athens was directed by non-Aryans who forced non-Aryan elements into classical architecture. I am also tempted to include the Palace of Versailles due to its pointless scale and its overtly pompous nature. It should be obvious that non-Aryan elements have gone into its construction when one sees the Gardens of Versailles.

Aryan architecture must have purpose beyond pure pragmatism. Housing may be exempt from these requirements, as they require a different, yet still Aryan, spirit in their creation. However, for cities the architecture must contain philosophical and religious input. The Aryan characteristics of modesty and elitism (domination of the superior) are always the first to be extirpated by rulers seeking popular support by the construction of enormous buildings, with little reason for their size, which are often home to some form of cultural degeneracy (as was the case with the Colosseum which promoted the non-Aryan degenerate entertainment of the plebs ).

Fundamentally non-Aryan architecture generally only occurs when cultural degeneration has reached an irredeemable stage. Examples are easy to identify as they are often only designed and built by civilisations dominated by economic concerns (e.g. the USSR’s uniform building of apartments with no character). These buildings often contain nothing beyond the pragmatic, or any beauty they do have has no significance beyond superficial historical importance (e.g. the White House). Despite the USA’s early adoption of neoclassical architecture, its attention was a fundamentally a non-Aryan one (conservative, libertarian, etc.). In this case, quite a lot of its “great” architecture was devoted to buildings lacking any Aryan principles or significance. This gradually developed into the rather stereotypical American trait of “bigger is better” and the chase for the biggest, and thus the best, of everything. This mentality has its roots in; originally, an Aryan architectural style which was quickly influenced by non-Aryan elements (perhaps a result of American exceptionalism as well as geographic and cultural isolation), and shortly thereafter, forming a new, fundamentally non-Aryan, architectural style, which is far more in line with American values.

Aryan architecture is noticeably of small or medium scale, possesses reason for its construction and has religious and philosophical themes as the foundations of its design. Aryan architecture, I do not think, is limited to classical form. A good example of this would be the Forbidden City. Despite being large, its scale is not of a pointless nature and its design is centred around numerology, astrology and mythology. Examples of Aryan architecture in Europe are too numerous to fully list, so I will only include those which come to mind: Ludwig II of Bavaria’s various castles; Buckingham Palace; St. Peter’s Basilica; etc.. Interestingly enough, one notices that nearly all examples of Aryan architecture were built solely for nobility.

As Architecture is an art, I will eventually find some suitable examples of Aryan and non-Aryan architecture, as well as both of these with their opposites playing an influential role. While this has touched on Aryan architecture, it has been primarily written in order to identify distinctly non-Aryan architecture. I will also expand upon Aryan architecture when I write an article with examples of what has been written above.

Leave a Reply