2,264 videos 1,363,043,183 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson Debate Frank Lloyd Wright, Modern Architecture, and America's Moral Decline After 1945
Charlie Kirk sits down with Tucker Carlson to discuss architecture, design philosophy, and cultural decay. The conversation moves from Frank Lloyd Wright's theoretical approach to Tucker's rejection of modern design principles. Tucker argues that post-World War II architecture reflects a deeper spiritual crisis, with buildings no longer serving human needs but instead treating people as widgets in a collective. The discussion connects architectural ugliness to moral decline, exploring how the decision to use atomic weapons marked a turning point when humanity began playing God, reflected in everything from brutalist buildings to forced-air heating.
Charlie Kirk welcomes Tucker Carlson to his Phoenix studio, where the conversation quickly turns to architecture and design. Kirk notes that Phoenix serves as a hub where many figures stop by, making it a unique location in the media landscape. Tucker remarks on the studio's superior architecture compared to most Phoenix buildings, which leads to a discussion about Frank Lloyd Wright, who maintained a significant presence in Arizona.
Tucker doesn't mince words about his views on Wright's work. "I'm not impressed by Frank Lloyd Wright," he states plainly. His primary criticism centers on functionality. "A house, a building of any kind, should serve the physical needs of the people inside of it," Tucker explains. He finds Wright's designs aesthetically interesting but fundamentally flawed because "they don't work very well."
The conversation touches on Wright-inspired architecture in Florida, where Tucker spends time. He acknowledges a school of architectural design from 1960s Sarasota that shares modernist elements with Wright's work but distinguishes it by noting these designs are "rooted in the landscape" and make "use of the natural environment around the building."
Buildings Should Serve People, Not Theory
Tucker's architectural philosophy centers on a simple principle: buildings should respond to their environment and serve their occupants. He praises Spanish Colonial architecture for this reason, explaining that adobe homes "configure to the environment" where they're built. This practical approach extends to regional building traditions everywhere.
"If you're building in 19th century Maine, you're building out of wood, of course you're building out of pine because that's the main source of wood there," Tucker illustrates. These structures were designed "in a way that works" - able to handle massive snow loads, rain, and cold. The same principle applies to New Mexico and Arizona, where old architecture "works" because it was built with local conditions in mind.
Frank Lloyd Wright, in Tucker's view, represents something different and problematic. "Frank Lloyd Wright is a little bit too theoretical for me, sort of in love with his own theories over and against the practical," he argues. This wouldn't matter except that Wright's influence came during "the proliferation of modern architecture," and "it was theory based."
When Charlie notes that Tucker said something significant - that buildings should serve the people who live there - and asks when philosophical abstraction infiltrated architecture, Tucker identifies the culprits: "A lot of the people who sort of took control of the design business" during the modernist movement, including figures like Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, "hated people and they saw people as widgets to be assembled."
The Marxist Roots of Modern Architecture
Tucker traces modern architecture's problems to "this weird sort of mixture of the assembly line mentality of the Industrial Age with Marxism, both of which see people as kind of expendable." The result was worker housing concepts where people were placed "in little identical cubes because we're serving the greater good, we're serving the organization."
Tucker flatly rejects this approach. "I believe in the individual because God created the individual. Each person has a name and a soul and every hair on his head is known by God," he explains. This theological foundation leads to a completely different design philosophy: "If you come at design with that belief, then you're going to make things that are elevating to the human spirit, that are pleasing to the eye, that keep the occupants warm in the winter and cool in the summer, that won't leak, because you care about the people who are living inside the building."
The architects who changed Western design starting in the 1930s and accelerating after World War II "had no interest in the individual at all. They believed in the collective and it really shows." In Tucker's personal life, he has completely rejected this aesthetic: "We just reject that completely and don't have any contact with that at all."
Living Without Air Conditioning and Fluorescent Lights
Tucker's rejection of modern design principles extends to practical lifestyle choices. He reveals that his household doesn't use air conditioning at all - they don't even have it. This obviously wouldn't work in Phoenix, as both he and Charlie acknowledge. Tucker woke up in a Phoenix hotel room struggling to breathe, which he partly attributes to "the bad air" of mechanically cooled, sealed environments.
His family hasn't "slept with a closed door in many years, ever, ever, ever" in both their Florida and Maine residences. They leave Florida before it becomes too hot and leave Maine when it's "pretty darn cold," but manage with the help of dogs who "are happy to sleep under the cover."
Tucker believes modern society relies "too much on the mechanical and the electric and modern building materials." He questions their effect on physical health, suggesting "you shouldn't be living in a room full of plastics and drywall" with "low ceilings with fluorescent light." Phoenix particularly suffers from this problem: "We live in Phoenix and we have like no natural light in our buildings."
The Intentional Elevation of Ugliness
The conversation shifts to a broader cultural observation: why does ugliness seem to triumph over beauty in contemporary society? Tucker's answer is direct and theological: "The ugly is intentional. The elevation of the diseased, the deranged, the deformed - it's not an accident at all. The ugliest things, the ugliest people, the ugliest attitudes in our society are venerated."
He identifies this as "an attack on God, of course." His reasoning follows a clear logic: "Beauty comes from God. The design of nature is God's design, so it's the prettiest thing. So all art that's worth anything mimics the natural design." He offers a simple example: "There's never been a painting prettier than what you can see at dawn where you live, if you can see outside of course."
When a culture "intentionally elevates the ugliest things," Tucker argues, "you know that you have an attack on God obviously." He suggests this pattern isn't unique to contemporary America, noting "there have been quite a few" societies in the last century that reached this point, though he adds wryly, "I don't think you're allowed to mention them anymore."
The Self-Evident Nature of Beauty
Beauty, in Tucker's view, shouldn't be complicated or require extensive explanation. When something is "clean, orderly, symmetrical, uplifting" - these qualities are immediately recognizable. "You know them instantly when you see them. Does it please you?" he asks. "Symmetry is part of nature."
He points to the arch as "the perfect shape" and notes that "buildings point up to God." These aren't difficult concepts. "Once it's explained, you're like, 'Oh, well of course.'" A medieval cathedral is beautiful, but Tucker argues "a clapboard house in a pine forest can be every bit as pretty, maybe even prettier actually, because it doesn't have the French tendency to overbuild and make everything Rococo crazy complicated."
As a Protestant, Tucker prefers "the clean lines," but acknowledges "that's just a preference." What matters is that different beautiful styles are "both seeking the same thing, which is beauty."
He compares architectural design to parenting: "If you start out sort of trying to do your best, you'll get close enough." While there may be many good parenting books, the fundamental principle is simple - "if you really love your children and seek the best from them," you'll "make tons of mistakes but you're not going to get too far off course." Conversely, "if you seek to hurt your kids, it's really easy to do that."
The same applies to design. "If you seek beauty, you may wind up at a different variety than I prefer, but you're not going to be too far off. You're not going to build a glass box."
The 1945 Dividing Line
Charlie frames Tucker's theory for the audience: "Design and architecture reflects the morality of the moment or the lack thereof or the cultural landscape. And you have a theory that art, literature, architecture went south to the disgusting, the ugly after we decided to use the bomb."
Tucker admits this is "just a theory" without hard evidence - "it's not on Wikipedia, therefore it's not true," he jokes. But he finds the pattern compelling. "We use the ultimate force of the eradication of life, and all of a sudden we tend to become uglier."
He's careful to add sarcastically, "I don't in any way mean to criticize the indiscriminate murder of civilians at all, because I know that's not allowed. I don't want to piss off Jonah Goldberg by questioning the decision to drop a bomb on Nagasaki on a Catholic Church, on Japan's Christian population."
Despite lacking "hard evidence," Tucker has observed "a pretty bright line between pre-war and post-war design." In New York City, people pay significantly more for pre-war apartments. Why? "Because it's prettier. And by prettier I mean it's serving the needs of the people who live there."
What Pre-War Design Understood
Tucker uses fireplaces as an example of pre-war design priorities. "Normal people like to have a fireplace. There's something wonderful and sort of atavistic - not sort of atavistic, literally atavistic - appeals to something ancient within you, sitting in front of an open fire."
If you're "designing a living place for people, you would go out of your way to have a wood stove or a hearth because that's appealing to the deepest desires of the occupants." Modern design "intentionally eliminates that." While Tucker isn't "against central heating" and even has it himself (though he doesn't use it), he recognizes "it's more efficient, but is it more pleasing? No, of course it's not."
He asks whether "forced air" is "a more pleasant experience than radiant?" His answer: you get "used to it" living with forced air "all the time," but "then you go to a place without it and you're like, 'Oh wow, this is a better way to live.'" Tucker states plainly, "I would never have that," though he acknowledges in Phoenix "it'd be tough not to."
The Privilege of Choice and the Cattle Comparison
Tucker is careful to acknowledge his position: "I'm also 55 and can kind of live wherever I want." He recognizes "you've got massive advantages in middle age if you are not deeply in debt." While he believes "it's not that expensive to live a little better than most people live," he admits "it's a trade-off for sure and I have more options than most people."
He doesn't want to sit "in judgment of 24-year-olds who live in shared apartments in Midtown or whatever. They're doing the best they can, I get it. And I think the system is rigged against them."
However, the principle remains: "If you cared about the people who lived in a building, you would design the building for their pleasure." What happened post-war was "just the opposite - people herded into spaces like cattle." Tucker adds pointedly, "Actually, I think most cattle live better, at least where I live, than they do in our big cities."
This change "really took place at exactly 1945 or thereabout." As someone who lived in "a couple American cities" and travels frequently around the United States, Tucker noticed this pattern and asked himself, "What is this? Why World War II?"
Playing God With Atomic Power
Tucker's theory connects architectural decline to humanity's fundamental spiritual problem. "The most basic sin that people commit is imagining they're God," he explains. This manifests as the attitude: "I'm God. I don't - you know, I'm totally independent. I can make my own decisions about life or death and I'm in charge of the universe. That's the fundamental conceit that people have through all periods of history and especially now."
Atomic weapons represent something unique in this regard. "There is something about atomic power, the power of atomic weapons," Tucker observes, trailing off before adding, "Well, it may in fact be metaphysical. It flirts on that line."
The implication is clear: when humanity gained the power to destroy entire cities in an instant, to end thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives with a single decision, something shifted in our collective consciousness. This god-like power over life and death corresponded with a cultural shift away from designs that honored human dignity and toward designs that treated people as expendable units in a system.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.