Join the Woke Army

Check out monorail.com, America's affordable investment app made for conservatives who want to keep their hard-earned money with companies that share their values. Download the Monorail app today. Join Monorail. Well, hello everybody. Like to tell you what is happening in our armed Forces. As soon as I put my coffee bottle away— it's not a bad looking thermos bottle, I gotta say. Oh, here, let me show it to everybody. This is it. It matches my shirt. It's good. I don't know, there's something to be said. I think the paper towels can be moved, however. That I agree with. Well, anyway, hello y'all. Listen to this. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a gender gingerbread person. NASA says beware of micro inequities. And if U.S. Army servicewomen express, quote, discomfort showering with a female who has male genitalia, what's the brass's reply? This is from the Wall Street Journal. Talk to your commanding officer and toughen up. Did you hear that? I'd like to know why a good person would vote Democrat in light of this. Every institution is being ruined by the Democratic Party and the left. Democratic Party and the left are interchangeable. It means that you've been so deeply, deeply brainwashed to believe Republicans are bad that you still believe, like, like in the days of perhaps FDR, that the Democrats are for the little guy, that none of this matters. Also, there's another reason people who vote Democrat and who are good people let's put it this way, otherwise good people don't know this. They don't know it. They remain hermetically sealed off from whatever would challenge their decision to vote Democrat by labeling every piece of opposition fascist, neo-fascist, racist, etc. You hear that? In the Army, you're a woman, you're in the shower, and the person next to you has male genitalia. Too bad, baby. This person believes that he is a she, and that's all that matters to the United States Army at this time. Reality is garbage. Ideology is reality. Oh, it continues. Asked for its diversity training, the U.S. Army offered 3 modules on transgender policy: one for commanders at all levels, another for special staff, and a third for units and soldiers. Notable is a series of vignettes that cover pronoun usage, urinalysis observation, and a serviceman who wants, quote, to discuss his newly confirmed pregnancy. You hear that? In the United States military today, because of the damn left. You discuss his pregnancy. And if you don't refer to it as his pregnancy, you are liable to be disciplined, perhaps even kicked out of the US military. At this time in the United States of America, if you do not affirm that men give birth, you are in deep trouble. Is it any wonder that we are not Drafting as many people as are necessary just to keep the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines at present levels. With respect to showers, schedules can be adjusted or curtains installed, but a soldier's gender in the Army's system governs which facilities are used. Accommodating only a transgender soldier is prohibited. In other words, if a man says he is a woman, he must shower with other women, or if you will, to be more precise, with women. Anyone who encounters— anyone may encounter individuals in barracks bathrooms or shower facilities with physical characteristics of the opposite sex. This is from an Army manual. Transgender soldiers aren't, quote, required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not, quote unquote, match other soldiers. That's what it is. That's— there are no men and women. There are just people with different genitals. So they have a photo here of something given out by the US Army with the official imprimatur of the US Army vignette, and then considerations and responsibilities. A soldier transitioned from male to female as indicated in DEERS. What is DEERS? Must be something, something in the Army. The soldier did not have sex reassignment surgery. The transgender service member is using the female showers and has expressed privacy concerns regarding the open-bay shower configuration. Similarly, other soldiers have expressed discomfort with a female who has male genitalia. This is what you do about it. Considerations and responsibilities. Sean, would you please look up DEERS, D-E-E-R-S, as an Army term? Soldiers should discuss concerns. One, soldiers should discuss concerns about privacy with their chain of command. Two, soldiers must accept living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by little or no privacy. 3. All soldiers will use the billeting, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with their gender marker.

4.

Commanders have discretion to employ reasonable accommodations when a soldier voices concerns about privacy. Steps may include faculty facility modifications, authorize alternative measures to respect personal privacy, such as adjusting shower schedules, etc. Next. The Veterans Administration's Managing Gender Diversity training has sections on pronouns and embracing gender expansiveness. One slide lists terms including gender fluid and pansexual. While instructing, list your personal biases in the bias box. Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System. Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System. You know how long I will remember that? I already forgot it. A game of privilege bingo includes such items as no criminal record, Military experience and married. Then we have another one from the Veterans Administration: the gender-bred person. Gender identity, gender expression, biological sex, sexual orientation.

Hmm.

Gender identity: boy/man, transgender, girl/woman. Gender expression: masculine, androgynous, feminine. Biological sex: male, intersex, female. Sexual orientation: attracted to women, attracted to all, both, none, attracted to men. A NASA training in allyship for executives. These terms mean nothing to me, or do you, says that the term African American is utilized heavily in white spaces and it can make black people feel excluded as the term tends to other. So this proves my point that even many of my fellow conservatives are sheep-like on occasion. I never used African American, or if I did, it was so rare as that I I made a boo-boo at the moment. I always said black. Jesse Jackson came up with African American. I found the term pointless, and sure enough, now it's racist. If you were racist if you didn't say African American and said black, and now you're racist if you say African American. And not black. We return. The Dennis Prager Show. I'd like to introduce you to Monorail, America's investment app that takes you from where you are to where you want to be. Monorail is an investment and savings app that is made for patriots by patriots. Doesn't matter whether you're an Apple fan or if you prefer Android. Monorail is available in both environments and online at monorail.com. Monorail is safer for users with bank-level encryption and biometrics. Your money is protected with Monorail through Securities Investor Protection Corporation and the FDIC. No matter how you engage with Monorail, you're getting the security and safety that you need, whether you're adding funds to your investment account, looking to buy a stock, or putting money aside for future purchases. With Monorail, you can put your money where it matters and utilize the economic power that built this country. Don't go somewhere else to trade stocks. Monorail gives you the freedom to purchase whole or fractional shares in companies you believe in. It only takes 5 minutes to download the app and set up. Join the pro-America money movement. Join Monorail. The destruction of the armed forces is another aim of the left. Anything that weakens the United States, the left is for. Massive numbers of illegal people, people illegally coming into the country. The destruction of the universities, high schools, and elementary schools. The destruction of the armed forces. The bastardization of the American medical community, rendering doctors into unthinking puppets of leftism. Can you name me an area that the left has made good? Has built, what they do to music and art. It's really something. They're agents of destruction. And I'm reading to you now about the armed forces. A NASA— this is now I'm going to NASA, from the Army to the Veterans Administration to the National Space Administration. NASA training in allyship for executives says that the term African American is, quote, utilized heavily in white spaces and can make Black people feel excluded, as the term tends to other. By the way, of course they capitalize Black. I refuse to. No, I never capitalize Black. I never capitalize white. They are colors. They are not proper nouns. But the sheep-like behavior of the human species is again evident as people capitalize Black so as not to be disliked. The liberation of not wanting to be liked by a lot of people— you have no idea how liberating that is in your life. You want to be liked by good people, period. Therefore, I don't want to be liked by the New York Times. That's the point. If the New York Times likes me, there is something wrong with me. If the Washington Post likes me, if Media Matters likes me— when lowlifes like you, you're, you're not, uh, you're not impressive. Their opposition to me reinforces my belief that what I'm doing is decent. And kind and noble. So I will not spell Black with a capital B just because the New York Times decided to. You should not either. It's a color. You don't color blue. You don't color brown. By the way, I'm curious, since there are brown people, do they, do they capitalize brown? There are red people. Do they capitalize are? Just wondering. The day you stop capitalizing Black with a capital B will be a liberating day in your life. You announce, I am not a sheep. It is so exhilarating. That night you will sleep better. How do you defy the shepherds of the left. That is a question. Do you do it at all in your life? That's a good New Year's resolution. Another NASA slide series explains that inclusive leaders, quote, are willing to be uncomfortable in exploring race, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth. Quote, we have been taught to act as if we are colorblind and gender-neutral It adds, but these efforts actually limit us. They don't even know what they're talking about. Who has ever said we should be gender neutral? Well, I never even heard the term. They're the ones who want us to be gender neutral because they don't recognize gender as objectively existing. As regards colorblind, yes, colorblind is noble. I don't give a damn about your color. Is a noble sentiment. So this is what they send out in NASA. Over the years, we have been taught to act as if we are colorblind and gender-neutral and that no differences exist between people. What does that mean? Who has ever said no differences exist between people? They lie even in their own defense. They just lie because truth is not a left-wing value. Say that when you wake up and when you go to bed. It's not that they consciously lie. It's that truth is not a value. Whoever said that we are to believe that there are no differences between people? Of course there are. There are no differences between races. That's— but they won't have the guts to write what is true. But these efforts actually limit us. Inclusive leaders recognize that everyone has unique perspectives and value. Of course we recognize that. They don't. They believe that values and perspectives emanate from race. We don't. And that those differences can contribute to unique business results. Oh, I see. While everyone has biases, these leaders minimize them through candid conversation, conversations, and courageous actions. Uh, it's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about left-wing leaders. Courage. Yes, the heads of Nike are courageous. The heads of Google are courageous. Never thought of that before.

Wow.

All right, we're continuing with what is being done in the armed forces of the United States of America. Let's see here. Yep, a NASA tip sheet on microaggressions gives examples that include asking an Asian person to help with a math or science problem. Oh, isn't that interesting? That's a crackup. Yes, because people might really be anti-Asian and think they're smarter. Can you think of a greater insult to a person who looks Asian than to assume that they're smarter than you? That is really low. This is what's given out in the U.S. armed forces at this time. We continue. Many investment advisors have been recommending cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. They claim it's the new gold. This is Dennis Prager for AmFed Coin and Bullion. Why would you buy the new gold when you can buy real gold and silver, which have maintained value for thousands of years, versus the highly volatile crypto market? When I purchase gold and silver, I do so from my friend, and I don't often say my friend in these ad copies, Nick Grovich, owner of AmFed Coin and Bullion. I like the fact that it's tangible. I can hold it and control how it's stored, unlike digital currency that's held in a digital wallet. I want to preserve my wealth, which is far from the case with Bitcoin's spiraling drop in price. Nick's been in the precious metals industry for over 41 years, and he has established a reputation built on trust, transparency, and fair pricing. Call Nick and his team at AmFed Coin and Bullion to take advantage of his honest advice and extensive expertise. 800-221-7694. AmericanFederal.com. AmericanFederal.com. Reading to you about how the left is destroying the U.S. armed services through the LGBTQ method. That's what it's about. It is not about lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgender. It is about destroying the society as we know it. It's not being done by gays, lesbians, etc. It is being done in the name of them by, frankly, mostly heterosexual cisgender people. NASA tip sheet on microaggressions give examples that include asking an Asian person to help with a math or science problem. Or, ready? If you say a melt— America is a melting pot. I was taught in school when I was a kid that America is a melting pot. There is no America if it is not a melting pot. Where everybody comes from different cultures and so on and eventually becomes American. It doesn't mean that you give up your own indigenous culture. I learned that America was a melting pot in a Jewish yeshiva. All day school, half the day in Hebrew. But I learned America was a melting pot. I learned to be a proud American. I learned give me liberty or give me death in that school. Say America is a melting pot today offends the left because they want to destroy America. If you don't understand that, you are lying to yourself, and that's a big sin. The left wishes to destroy America. Do you understand that? Not liberals. Liberals vote for the people who wish to destroy America, but the left does. Hence the border issue. Hence what they're doing to the armed forces. Hence what they're doing to schools. Hence what they're doing to the family. Hence what they're doing to children. Medicine. They only know how to destroy. The left builds nothing but government. It destroys every other institution. If you don't know that, you are lying to yourself. Period. A talk to a NASA center by Janice Underwood, then the state of Virginia's chief diversity officer, urges, quote, walk toward, emphasized, the discomfort. When patterns of white supremacy are named or questioned, predictable defensive responses will emerge. Uh, doesn't mean a damn thing. It just means if you differ with us, you're a white supremacist. Run by a woman, that is a shock. Ms. Underwood now leads the Diversity Bureau at the Federal Office of Personnel Management. Wow, how did this country survive without diversity bureaus in the past? This is what NASA gives out. Avoid language like, I don't see color, I'm colorblind, I treat everyone the same, I just hire the best person. Wow, you're actually told that you should not say, I hire the best person. They don't want you to hire the best person. They want you to destroy the institution by hiring by race and diversity. Not by best. If you still don't believe the left is out to destroy the society as we know it, then you're lying to yourself because you don't have the courage. It's not an act of intellectual realization. It is an act of courage because to say the left is destroying America means you have to fight And most people rather fight people who won't hurt them, like Christians. Right? The left doesn't fight the Islamists. They don't make fun of the Quran, but they make fun of the Bible. I'm not telling them to make fun of the Quran. I'm just saying they won't dare do so. Cowardice is a feature of leftism. You fight the people who won't hurt you, like Christians. Avoid language like, 'I don't see color, I'm colorblind, I treat everyone the same.' Do you understand that? The left is telling you that if you treat everyone the same, you're a bad person. We are living what was warned 3,000 years ago by one of the Hebrew prophets, Hosea. Woe unto those who call good evil and who call evil good. That is the motto of the left. They call evil good and good evil. I don't know what else it takes to prove it. Look, you did the tough thing during COVID You paid your people and pulled your business through the pandemic. Or really the lockdown. And now doing the tough thing could qualify you for up to $26,000 per employee at COVIDTaxRelief.org. Government funds are available to reward companies with 2 or more employees who stayed open during COVID This is not a loan and you don't have to pay it back. The program is complicated, but nobody knows more about it than the CPAs and tax experts at COVIDTaxRelief.org. You pay nothing upfront. They do all the work and share a percentage of the cash they get you. Businesses of all types, including nonprofits and churches, can qualify, including those who took PPP loans. Even if you had increases in sales, you did the tough thing for your employees during COVID Let COVIDTaxRelief.org help you get up to $26,000 per employee. Visit COVIDTaxRelief.org. That's COVID taxrelief.org. Hi everybody, I have a really important subject here with a great thinker. We have over 500 videos at PragerU, 5 of the 5-minute videos. We have many, many other things up there, but the, the best-known thing that we do with hundreds of millions of views are our 5-minute videos on virtually every subject outside of the natural sciences. The collapse of beauty is, uh, even the notion of beauty is one of the aspects of the last 100 years in the art world. One of the most popular videos ever made at PragerU was made by an artist named Robert Florczak. Dennis Prager, an American who is living in Germany for the last few years. His first one was "Why is Modern Art So Bad?" It remains one of the most widely viewed videos we ever put up. It is powerful. They're all 5 minutes, all our videos. You should see it. You should see it a few times. You should show it to your high school age kid. In fact, your elementary school age kid might understand it. So he has a new one up finally after all these years. Why is classical art so good? If modern art is bad, why is the classical art— why is it so good? What makes art good? That's— that is really the subject. It's titled Why Is Classical Art So Good? It is up this week at PragerU. Let me begin. You can watch it if you're watching me. Let me begin with the video and then I'll talk to Mr. Florczak in Germany.

How do we know that classical art, as opposed to modern art, is so good? We know it because it was produced within the demanding standards and refined principles of aesthetics, the centuries-old branch of philosophy that measures artistic quality. Painting, drawing, and sculpture employ a number of characteristics such as composition, form, color, line, texture, and movement to create beauty. To the experienced eye, and even to the casual viewer, each of these is present in any work of art worthy of being called art.

Composition, for instance, is the positioning of objects So obviously it would be truly beneficial if you saw it. We showed it now, and you should see the entire video at PragerU. Why is classical art so good? It is like a 5-minute course in beauty and in excellence. So Robert Florczak, you've, uh, you've now pitched 2 no-hit games since I— I know you think in baseball terms. Sure. So I congratulate you.

Thank you.

When, when did the deterioration begin? Can you name an artist or an era?

Uh, there's nothing— there wasn't a single artist, but there is an era. Um, it was start— it started in about the 1860s, uh, in a, um, protest against the Academy in both, uh, Paris and London at the time. The academies represented 500 years of upholding standards of quality in art, and that those standards were— helped determine who would be exhibited in the yearly shows at the— at these salons.

So it started in France and England?

Yes, yes.

That's interesting. I didn't know— I did not know that. Almost all bad ideas ultimately emanate from Germany. I'm sorry to say, because you've been living there.

Not in this case. In this case, it's France. And mostly France, and in London also. It has to do with the Impressionists. The Impressionists were the first ones who didn't want to abide by what a lot of people since then have called the rules. And it's not really rules, it's just standards of excellence. That generations of artists had abided by to make great art. And these new artists felt that they shouldn't have to abide by those things and started to loosen up and kind of ultimately down the line dumbed down art. And that started the ball rolling downhill and there was no turning back. But pretty much between the 1860s and the first decade of the 20th century, Gradually it started to happen, and then, and then it really picked up speed. And the really sad part of it all is that history was rewritten by historians and critics around the turn of the century. And not only did they rewrite the narrative of what had been going on, but they were successful in completely excising from history the last great classical artists in the late 19th century, to the point where No one who was studying art, including myself in art school in the '60s and '70s, ever heard of these people. They had been just cast off into the dustbin of history in favor of the moderns.

That is so interesting. I did not know that. Can you give us some names? Obviously, I would not have heard of them based on what you said. Yeah, sure.

I mean, Degas and Cézanne both— no, those were later artists. They themselves both agreed that probably the greatest artist of the 19th century was William Bouguereau.

Wow, you're kidding me. Of the whole 19th century?

He was— in the second half of the 19th century, he was the most successful artist in the world. He— so his paintings would be sold before he even started the canvases, uh, sold to, um, wealthy people both in Europe and in the United States. He was so in demand because his work was so tremendous. In England, you had—

wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I want to start talking about Bouguereau. What nationality was he?

He was French. He was deeply French. He was very religious. He was very patriotic.

I'm dying to see his paintings.

They're knockouts. I mean, you can, you can find them even in where you are in Los Angeles.

How do you spell it? How do you spell his name?

B-O-U-G-U-E-R-E-A-U.

I would have guessed that.

There's a, there's a phenomenal— as a matter of fact, in the new video, in my new video, it, it starts out with a Bouguereau painting, which is of all odd places at a chapel up at Glendale Forest Lawn. And you can see this, it's stunning, it's huge, and it's just, just a beautiful work of art.

So it's right, right next to the studio, right near the studio.

The, uh, the Getty Museum has a, has a wonderful Bouguereau. Um, there, there aren't too many around on the West Coast. You'll see a lot more.

Did anybody protest in the, in the end of the 19th century the deterioration of art standards?

Oh sure, these— Bouguereau himself was— he would talk about Matisse, who became a major figure in modern art, was thrown out of Bouguereau's atelier. Bouguereau said, when you learn to draw, you can come back.

What do you think of him?

Of Matisse? Yeah, it's pleasant. He— a lot of his work is pleasant. It's decorative. It's not deep. Um, it, it, it— if you look, if you, if you go by what I talk about in my video, you can analyze works of an artist like this and see where it starts to fall apart. Now, what I'm saying here is, is really almost, um, sinful to the, to the modern world. Nobody says what I'm saying, but most artists of any seriousness who deal in excellence of execution and craft know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a well-known secret in a sense, and I'm not focusing—

When did the adulation of the incompetent come to American art?

That, it was all gradual. By about—

So was it happening at the same time as in Europe? In America?

Yeah, it started in Europe.

I know. So once it started in Europe, was it quickly assimilated into American art?

Yeah, it became so.

Who was the first American junk artist?

Junk artist?

Yeah, who was the first?

There's so many of them, it's hard to tell. It really explodes in the 1940s with abstract expressionism. You know, with Pollock and Klein and all these people, it's that— that's where— that's where, you know, at the end of my video where I say the one thing about classical art is that it can never fool you.

Oh, that's a great line. Are we going to come back? I want to develop that when we get back. See his video. It's up at PragerU this week. Why is classical art so good? 5 minutes on beauty. MyPillow is excited to bring you their biggest bedding sale ever and just in time for Christmas. For a limited time, get the Giza Dream bed sheets. For as low as $29.98, a set of pillowcases for only $9.98, and rejuvenate your bed with a MyPillow mattress topper for as low as $99.99. They also have blankets in a variety of sizes, colors, and styles. They even have blankets for your pets. Get duvets, quilts, down comforters, body pillows, bolster pillows, and so much more, all with the biggest discounts of the year happening now. They're also extending their money-back guarantee for Christmas until March 1st, 2023. Making them the perfect gifts for your friends, your family, and everyone you know. So go to mypillow.com and use the promo code PRAGER, or call 800-761-6302. You'll get huge discounts on all MyPillow bedding products, including the Giza Dream bed sheets, for as low as $29.98. And get all your shopping done now while quantities last. I lied. Well, if you think that the arts are important, and I do, The role of music in my life is so deep, and I love art. Music is my first love, but doesn't mean my only love. When I walk into museums of contemporary art and I see a banana peel on a wall, or some menstrual blood exhibit, or as I've often brought to your attention, the gigantic exhibit of turd sculptures in Holland a few years ago, covered seriously, seriously in the New York Times art section, where they actually sculpted poop. I can't think of anything that more symbolizes the secular age in which we live than sculpted poop in the art section of the New York Times. Combines everything that is rotten. Robert Florczak is a, a one-man intellectual crusade against this. He is a wonderful artist in his own right. In fact, his artwork is what is on the COVID of my Passover Haggadah book that came out last year. That's how much, how highly I esteem his work. So his first video for PragerU was on modern art, and it was, it is, as I've told you, one of the most popular ever made and And that's— he's got a lot of competition there. There are a lot, a lot of popular videos up at PragerU. And his latest is "Why is Classical Art So Good?" It's really a course in beauty and standards. So the origins of the movement to desiccate art standards are in the second half of the 19th century. They go back that far. Beginning in France and England and then spreading to the rest of Europe and the United States. You ended with a line that I want you to amplify on. Great art or classical art can't fool you. What does that mean?

It means that because that art— let me take just one second to talk about these labels. Because like you, I read my reviews and comments and everything. And one of the things that comes up all the time is semantics, and people get hung up on semantics. When I say classical and modern, I simply mean where the cutoff point is in the late 19th century when age-old standards of aesthetics are begun to be thrown out and we've moved into the modern era. A small M. Yes, there was a period in the arts called modern art, a specific period, but there was also a— as you know, there was a period in classical music called the classical period, but nobody gets upset about the fact that we call that whole type of music classical music. So that's the, that's the difference there. It's very simple. Um, up during the classical period of art All artists, sculptors, painters, um, they followed aesthetic standards, uh, by which to create their work at the highest levels as possible, of possible visually. And some, some were better than others, obviously. There, a lot of people will say to me, well, you know, there was a lot of junk back in the Renaissance. Well, that's true, um, you know, that there's, there's no question about that, but What changed was from the late 19th century, because it's human nature that standards, living by standards is a difficult thing to do. It's easier not to. So once that trend started happening of, well, you know, we don't have to abide by that. It's too tough. It's too tough to have to try to pole vault, you know, the highest that anybody has. We can just kind of run under the vault itself. And be accepted doing that. So there was a domino effect, there was a slide down the slide that became more and more the case where the standards weren't upheld until there weren't any anymore. Then it got to a point, to finally answer your question, whereby it wasn't visual standards anymore that were the essence of art, It was the concepts and the ideas, which really is getting outside of the world of visual art. It's getting into, into literature or something like that when you have to write about what the piece means. Thomas Wolfe has a great book on this called The Art of the Written Word— The Painted Word, it's called— where it became— yeah, it became— it got to a point where unless you read about the piece, you wouldn't understand it. Now, the problem with that is when it gets to that point where you don't have a visual standard to use to analyze what's in front of you, you have to go by the— you have to trust the artist's intention. And that's where we've, we've, we've come to in the last, say, 50 years or so.

May I— forgive me, Robert, I want, I want to give a an analogy, it would be, it would be as if— let's apply what happened to the art world to sports, and let us imagine that there was no longer an objective definition to a home run.

That's right.

If the batter intended to hit a home run, it was a home run.

Yes. And he could say, you know, I really did. You didn't see it visually, but the visual part doesn't matter.

You didn't see it visually. Exactly.

At the end of this video is a perfect example of that. There's a piece— these videos are short, as we all know, and we can't really give a lot of credit to everything. You know, the images just kind of fly by. At the very end, there's an image that looks like scribbles on a chalkboard, and essentially that's what this painting is. It's white crayon on black or gray canvas. That piece sold about 2 years ago for $70 million. And the thing about that is people will say, well, you know, art has really just become an investment kind of thing. Well, that's fine. But the thing is, all you have to do is go to these artists and find and read what the descriptions are of what they're trying to do. And there is so much gobbledygook in the description of how and why this work is being created. And not only this one, but I'm talking about the art of the last 50 years or so. The, the explanations will make your head spin. And I always think the more you have to explain what you're doing visually, the more you have failed visually. Because as I say in this video, um, ideally a work of art should be able to stand in a vacuum. It should stand on its own without ever knowing what the backstory is. We show a Rembrandt—

this, folks, this is, this is almost everything.

Yes.

If it needs an explanation, that means it's not visually compelling.

That's right.

It means it's gobbledygook until the author or some art critic— and I want to get to the role of art critics— has explained it to you.

Yep.

The video is up at PragerU, and it is the What Makes Classical Art Great. You should see his prior video on modern art too. Robert Florczak, the artist, is my guest. I'll take your calls, 1-800-PRAGER-776. The Dennis Prager Show. Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here. We're going to talk about the world now, the world at this moment, with one of the few people I regularly have on a few times a year, George Friedman, founder and president of Geopolitical Futures, a Private Intelligence Service. His extremely significant daily briefing can be found at geopoliticaalfutures.com. geopoliticaalfutures.com. He is in Austin, Texas, George Friedman. I heard, George, that you just finished a world tour.

It seemed like a world tour. Uh, we were in Southeast Asia, We were in Dubai, we were in most of Europe, and trying to find out what mischief we can discover.

So we'll get to that in a moment. Well, actually, not in a moment. I really want to talk to you about Ukraine. So in a nutshell, I'll tell you my position, and as every guest knows, if you differ slightly Or totally, it's fine with me. So I believe that we have— we in the West have no choice but to help Ukraine resist the attack by Russia. I thought the Wall Street Journal laid out some really powerful arguments, and they coincide with some of mine, like The, uh, I, I believe in this. I'll be very curious to get your reaction. I think this somewhat diminishes the likelihood of China invading Taiwan, seeing what, what has happened. It has increased the credibility of American weapons. And, uh, aside from any moral concern of, of taking over a nation. What's your take on Ukraine?

Well, the first thing is to understand what's important for the United States. If Russia takes Ukraine, then the Russian army is right face to face with NATO countries like Poland, Hungary, uh, so on, and we're guaranteed to defend them. So it's in our interest to keep the Russians as far away from there as possible. And really, in the interest of the Russians, too, because we don't want another 20-year confrontation. The Russians desperately want us farther away from Moscow. You know, right now, Western forces are about 260 miles from Moscow. So they've got the need to push us away from the places where they got invaded and defeated. And we have the need not to have another war. And that's where wars start. We can't have a civil war, and we are going to have this confrontation. Whatever the opinions are, these are fundamental things to both countries, and we're going to fight it out.

So I, I asked a historian of whom I have great respect a question about 6 months ago, and I'd love your answer. I won't say what his was. I said, if In your opinion, if Donald Trump were president, would the Russians have invaded Ukraine? What's your answer to that question?

Well, you know, Donald Trump had the same policy as Biden. He was the one who gave the tanks to Poland, and he was the one who's going to have, uh, Fort Trump named after him. I mean, he was very, very big on this for whatever reason he had. And the Russians looked at him as a threat. I mean, there's this idea that he had a rapport with, uh, you know, the Russians. Well, it's hard to have a rapport, but he did something the Russians really didn't like and they didn't trust him.

So this historian said he doesn't think they would have invaded if Trump were president. Forget it. I've never bought the rapport nonsense. He theoretically had a rapport with Kim Jong-un too. But my thinking, and I always like to bounce it off you, is that they thought he was somewhat of a wild man and they weren't going to mess with him.

Well, in war you sometimes like a wild man because he's not careful. He's not— he overestimates his capability. I don't think Trump did either of those things. I think they looked at Trump, paid very little attention to what he said, and took a look at the things he did. I mean, he did some really important things in building American power in that region. And so, you know, the idea that he, he was projecting, you know, the sense of being unpredictable. But in fact, Obama started arming Poland, Trump continued it, and Biden went on. America is much more consistent than it likes to think of itself as.

Right. Uh, all of that notwithstanding, I mean, maybe there— it's just so conjectured you don't want to answer, which is fine. But do you think he would have invaded if Trump were president?

He invaded because U.S. forces were 260 miles away from Moscow.

But he didn't invade while— that was true when— when— wasn't that true while Trump was president?

Sure it was, and he was building up his forces to do it. Uh, the invasion of Moscow, from Moscow, was a multi-year effort. So if he invaded when he did, he was building his army years before, and he was. And everybody said, well, he was just doing it for fun or something like that. He had— Putin is a smart man. He's not emotional, and he knows what his country needs. He needs the Americans, who he regards with serious respect, away from Moscow. And so it was not, from his point of view— presidents, they come and go. American power—

All right, so you feel he would have. Okay. So I want to understand this, too. This was my field of study. I was at the Russian Institute at Columbia. I know Russian. I went to the Soviet Union a number of times, and I've never fully— I understood emotionally that Russia was attacked by Napoleon, Russia was attacked by Hitler. I get it. I understand that. Does the average Russian— I mean, the average Russian patriot, the average Russian Putin supporter— truly believe that America would invade Russia?

Uh, the answer is that they miscalculated on what Hitler would do, on what Napoleon would do. The Russians are chess players. They don't guess on what your move is going to be. They get ready for the worst-case scenario because that's what they're used to. That's what the United States should do too, which is hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Okay, but they didn't invade Ukraine since the fall— well, they did actually, of Eastern Ukraine, I understand, but they didn't do this since the 1990s. They haven't done it in 30 years, and there would have been no invasion of Russia. Why all of a sudden was it imperative to invade Ukraine?

Well, I don't think it was all of a sudden. They had taken Crimea They were a dominant force in the Donbas in the east, okay. They were constantly making moves, but they were also building their military. Remember, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian military went to pieces, and Putin was carefully building the option. I don't think he was committed to this, okay, but what he basically saw was this buildup in Poland, and that, that was the thing that people forget. The US was building up its forces, putting 82nd Airborne into Poland, more than that. And he's saying, why are the Americans doing this? And this predated Trump. It went on during Trump. So he was looking at this and saying, I've got to build up my force. And I don't think he built up his force big enough. I think he underestimated. But still, you know, when I went to Russia, Every house has a picture of somebody who died. It's an amazing thing and a painful thing to go to these houses. That war still lives. It was, I think, some 30 million Russians killed. So yeah, they do respond to it.

What, uh, what is the worst-case scenario that can come from this conflict likely or feasible? Not likely. What is a feasible worst-case scenario?

That we wind up unable either to defeat the other side, one or the other, okay, and unable to make a peace. I'm not worried about nuclear weapons. I'm not worried about many other things, but the worst case here is one of these endless Vietnam-style wars that go on and on. And, you know, that may not be the worst thing in the world, but that's what scares me, because what I see is a Russian force that is— you cannot simply defeat them without them coming back at you. And the Ukrainian force fighting for its life and wanted to be there, and the U.S. committed to supporting it. And I see a lot of blocks that could no longer be.

All right, we'll continue this in a moment. George Friedman is my guest. This is the Dennis Prager Show. Hi everybody, welcome back. George Friedman is my guest, major source of information on the world today, founder and president of Geopolitical Futures. You can go there and check it out, geopoliticalfutures.com. And we're talking about Ukraine. We'll talk about China and other things in a moment. Well, I don't know if it'll be in a moment, but I have so many things I want to bounce off George Friedman with regard to Ukraine. So do you think that Putin expected the resistance that he's, he's getting?

No, I think he made 3 massive intelligence failures. First, he failed to understand Ukrainian training level and motivation. Second, he didn't understand that in a war Germany was not going to play ball with him, but work with the United States, taking Europe with him. And finally, I mean, he simply miscalculated on what the United States was going to do. He thought he could move rapidly in, occupy Ukraine, provide a, you know, a reality, and the U.S. would kind of back off. So I don't think he ever anticipated this.

I don't want to talk about that. What is the reality that he thought he would create? Did he— I don't know.

I—

it puzzles me. I know he would dream of reconstituting the Soviet Union. Did he think he could annex Ukraine? Was that his aim?

Well, he saw Ukraine as incapable of putting up resistance.

Right, okay, so he wins, they put up no resistance, he wins. What does he do with Ukraine?

What he does with Ukraine, and I think we really have to understand this importance, he has the borders of the Soviet Union back. He faces in Europe, and anyone who wants to hurt him— and Putin believes the United States is planning to hurt him— anyone has to go a lot farther. So he gets, firstly, his western frontier secured. He winds up putting the position where the Americans have to be on the defensive rather than him. And he also gets into a new relationship with the Europeans, with Germany particularly. Germany gets the oil there. He happily gets—

right, I want to talk to you about Germany.

He—

so it's an interesting, uh, take you had there. So you— your view is that because Germany was so reliant on Russia for energy, it would not oppose his invasion of Ukraine. Do I have you correctly?

Exactly, yes. Wow. But it was one other thing that Shultz, in the first two days, did what Putin expected him to do. He looked for a way out. He looked for it. He flew to Washington. He had a meeting with Biden and some other people, and he shifted his position. We showed that, you know, we have various things that he needs more than the Russians. So there was this moment where it may— could have happened. It was not an insane idea. So the thing about Putin was He did not. He was wrong, but he was not ridiculously wrong. And he's favored.

And he's what? He's paid for it. Yeah, exactly correct. So again, my take, which I like bouncing off you, is that there's no possibility of an end to the war without Putin saving face. Is that a fair statement?

I think that's absolutely correct. Okay, because any other way, he's a dead man.

That's right. Literally, literally a dead man.

Literally.

This is Russia. So, uh, what— so now the 64,000 ruble question. What would save face? It would seem to me that possibly— I don't know— that Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO would be a face-saver?

He needs more than that. He needs to— Donbass is a region on his border that really is predominantly Russian, the only part that is, uh, that he had influence over and that the Ukrainians attacked and tried to take back. I think we could have a settlement if Ukraine agreed to cede this area to the Russians.

I don't see that as conceivable.

Well, it comes down to this. If the United States tells the Ukrainians, we're going home, enjoy yourselves, okay, a lot of things become conceivable. So one of the things that's going to happen here is we're going to have a locked-in war going on and on, and at some point the president or someone is going to say, you know, this is not going to end, and we can't spend all our time here. And they'll look for the concession. Now, I may— there may be a different concession, okay? But I think this is what the Russians could accept, is some territory. He need— they need that. And I think there's a limit. You and I both know there's a limit to the tolerance of the American people for endless wars.

Correct. So what was the— I wish I knew the answer. I'm a little embarrassed that I don't, but I don't. But I rather embarrass myself and learn. What was the status of the Donbas region prior to the invasion?

It was part of the Ukraine formally, but in practical terms it was governed by the Russians who dominated the area. Ukrainians didn't leave, you know, left them alone. The Russians didn't worry too much about what they did, and it was a region that it was You know, on the map it was Ukrainian, but it was really, you know, Russian. So it was one of those ambiguous places.

So, so Putin would not accept, uh, status quo ante?

No, he would accept that. He had to come away because he's got a lot of people dead and they have to die.

Well, no, no Ukraine in NATO is a victory.

Well, yes and no, because That by itself is the status quo ante. Can't have all these people dying just to restore what was there. So he's going to want that, but he's going to have some sort of symbol that says this war was worth it. Something.

Yes, it's— well, if it— if, if, if Ukraine not joining NATO is worth it, uh, It's hard for me to imagine an end to this war that would satisfy him.

For 20 years, uh, Ukrainians weren't in NATO. That was the status. He used to talk about— Putin used to talk about the importance of them NATO creeping and so on and so forth. But, you know, it was something that didn't happen. So the status quo is not what he's going to accept. Remember, he has a big problem. He has two armies fighting. One is called the Wagner Group, which is larger now than the Russian army, and they're under the control of various oligarchs. And these two armies are out there, and slowly Putin is losing control over what's going on, or having to negotiate with people. So his power is slipping. He needs a settlement, but a settlement that will take him where—

All right, we'll talk about that in a moment. George Friedman, my guest. Hello, my friends. Final segment with George Friedman, founder, president, Geopolitical Futures. Go to geopoliticalefutures.com, sample one of his daily intelligence reports. I have very good questions, so I would suggest that the, uh, that those of you calling in now and asking about conservative opposition to supporting Ukraine call in tomorrow, third hour, or I will devote an hour to answering conservative critiques of the war next week. In the meantime, we're talking about the world situation right now. So you, uh, you actually gave us some reason for optimism, which is rare these days, when you said you didn't foresee nuclear conflict as a result of Ukraine. Do you think that nevertheless that is the most dangerous situation in the world today, or is there something we're overlooking?

Well, I don't think it's dangerous because if Putin launched a nuclear attack, 30 minutes later he'd be dead because we could track him pretty well and you can count on that. So everybody avoided nuclear war because it was impossible to have one without being badly damaged yourself. And that's the same thing here. But it's good to talk about it. I mean, the really difficult thing here is we're going through a period of time where there's a global economic downturn. We have these every 8 to 10 years. But this time, it's with a lot of countries that have very weak governments and are greatly unsatisfied. The possibility of, I won't call it global unrest, but I will say, in strategic countries no longer be able to control their public and themselves, that's my fear.

Example?

An example is that in a country like Hungary, which I was at, and I know you're friends with Viktor Orbán and I am too, that you have a person holding it together, but they're under pressure from the economies of the European countries and so on and so forth. And at a certain point, the pain becomes more than can be resisted. I picked Hungary only because I was there recently, uh, but it could happen in any country. You could have it a lot of times. As you look into the 1920s, and that was what the world looked like. Wow.

All right, my friend, I thank you for your time. I ask you all to sample his brilliant daily reports at geopoliticallyfutures.com. Thank you, George. Be well.

You take care. Bye-bye.

I do take care, actually. By the way, for the record, I know what he meant, but just for the record, I'm not friends with Viktor Orbán. We've never met. But I do not believe he's an incipient fascist as the New York Times depicts him. We will continue on the next show on the great themes of life, from the decay of art to Ukraine, on The Dennis Prager Show. Dennis Prager here. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire 3 hours of my radio show commercial-free every single day, become a member of Pragertopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep. Subscribe at pragertopia.com.