Prager University. Part 46. Six Prager U Videos.

Prager University. Part 46.

• John Stossel- Woke Medicine
• Victor Davis Hanson- Why Study History?
• Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator
• Does Israel Occupy the West Bank?
• Can You Trust the NY Times?
• Totalitarianism: Can It Happen in America?

 

Woke Medicine

https://youtu.be/4co0kcocgqs

200,062 views

Feb 22, 2022

John Stossel

650K subscribers

America has a shortage of doctors. It’s one reason why health care costs so much. Yet the AMA, the biggest doctor’s association, is focused on telling doctors to use Marxist language. The AMA now tells doctors to use woke language. Instead of saying equality, say “equity.” Don’t say minority, say “historically marginalized.” “Can you imagine anyone actually doing this?” says journalist Matthew Yglesias. “What would happen if you were in a clinical setting and somebody starts giving you this lecture about landowners?” Silly language is one thing. But the AMA also makes it harder for people to become doctors, and lobbies for rules that reduce the number of doctors. “They restrict what kinds of people can provide medical services,” Yglesias tells me. It’s a reason America has fewer doctors than any European country. I’ll show you how the AMA acts like a doctor cartel.

———— To make sure you see the new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe ————

 

Why Study History?

https://youtu.be/rCrASZ2zd8c

534,130 views

Premiered Jan 24, 2022

https://www.prageru.com/

PragerU

2.94M subscribers

Is it important to study history? Why do we need to know what’s come before us? Isn’t it enough to just “live in the moment?” Renowned historian Victor Davis Hanson explores these important questions. Script: Why study history? Ironically, this question is as old as history.  Twenty-five hundred years ago, Thucydides, the great chronicler of the Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta, and the man many call the “first historian” said that “…I have written my work, not…to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.” Thucydides hoped that what he was writing would help future generations understand what transpired in his day. If they could learn from it and make better decisions, his efforts would not be in vain.   More than two millennia later, the American social thinker George Santayana said much the same thing, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” But while knowledge of the past is a prerequisite to wisdom, it doesn’t give the historian a crystal ball.  We must be modest in our claims: studying history provides an invaluable guide—but only a guide—to current and future political, economic, military, and cultural challenges. Just as it is dangerous to be ignorant of past events, so too it is equally risky to assume that history across time and space will repeat itself in exactly the same fashion. It never does. Still, with the proper caution, studying history can warn us of dangers ahead.  For example, across the ages appeasing or ignoring enemies has rarely proven to be a prudent strategy. Usually, it’s disastrous.  The Greek city-states’ coddling of the Macedonian king Philip II, the weak Western democracies’ reaction to the aggression of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, and the indifference shown to the dangers of radical Islam by an affluent West in the 1990s make the point.  There is another—perhaps less recognized—value in studying history. Every generation, none more than our own, suffers from a pernicious presentism—the arrogance that those now alive have created the most prosperous period in history. The result is that too often we judge a materially poorer past by the same contemporary standards of an affluent and leisured present.  Those who study history can avoid these fallacies. Aside from the fact that the present is the beneficiary of the accumulated intellectual, moral, and scientific contributions of the past, proper knowledge of the hardships of prior ages teaches us the value of humility. To take just one possible example, it might be an easy thing to chronicle what seems to us prejudices recorded among the wagoneers on the Oregon Trail in the 1840s. It is quite another to imagine how the trailblazers struggled to survive one more day in an age without effective medicines, labor-saving machines, or adequate shelter. Studying history also confers much needed perspective.  It’s neither fair nor wise to attempt to apply the moral standards of today to say, the far more deadly 17th century when life, in the words of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The COVID-19 pandemic seems to many like a public health crisis without precedent—until we take time to learn of the global outbreak of the H1N1 influenza virus in 1918. The “Spanish flu” killed nearly 600,000 Americans in a nation of 100 million, with a worldwide toll of perhaps 50 million dead—and yet our nation and planet survived and learned from it. One of the ways that I used to endure the tedium, dust, and noise of tractor driving was to remember that my farming grandfather covered the same ground with a team of horses. It took him two days of back breaking labor to cultivate four acres of land. I could do it in an hour—sitting down. For the complete transcript visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/why-stu...

 

Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator

https://youtu.be/nZmSjlNpfIs

570,062 views

Premiered Feb 21, 2022

PragerU

2.94M subscribers

Few presidents have connected with the American people like Ronald Reagan did. Through a combination of persuasion and policy, our 40th president turned a depressed nation into a confident one. Scott Walker, former governor of Wisconsin and president of Young America's Foundation, explains how he did it.

Script: Ronald Reagan fashioned his political career and his presidency around three things.  Lower taxes Smaller government Strong defense In doing so, he almost single-handedly resurrected and redefined the modern conservative movement. But he did much more than that—he resurrected and redefined America. If that sounds like an impressive feat, it was. And it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Reagan who could have done it. Known by friend and foe alike as The Great Communicator, even Democrats conceded that no one could connect with the American people like Reagan. Whenever he went on TV—which was often—to promote a policy, he invariably swung the American people his way. When he explained something, it just made sense. Fittingly, it was a TV speech in 1964 entitled “A Time for Choosing” that launched his political career. He delivered it on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Here’s just one of his many memorable passages. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size… Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." This was pure Reagan: a basic truth delivered with humor. Born in a small Midwestern town on February 6th, 1911, Reagan honed his communication skills as a radio announcer and then, as an actor. He was a genuine Hollywood star and celebrity for over two decades before he got into politics. Tall, broad-shouldered, and handsome with a golden voice, he was well-respected and well-liked by his peers. He was also seen as a natural leader. From 1947-52, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild, deftly guiding it through the blacklist era.     In 1965, encouraged by the positive response to his “A Time for Choosing” speech, Reagan decided to run for governor of California. He won easily. The victory immediately established him as a major figure in the Republican party. By 1980, he was their overwhelming choice for President. That year, he soundly defeated President Jimmy Carter. The incumbent lost because his pessimistic approach to problem-solving mirrored the justifiably sour mood of the country. The economy was going nowhere, caught in the double grip of inflation and stagnation. In contrast, Reagan—ever the optimist—offered a way out. It wasn’t the American people who were to blame, he told voters, it was the government. Reagan would get it out of the way. He would lower taxes and cut red tape. He did both. The media dismissed his plan, calling it “Reaganomics.” But it worked. From 1982 to '87, the American economy, defined as GDP adjusted for inflation, rose an astonishing 27 percent, manufacturing 33 percent, and the median income by 12 percent. An estimated 20 million new jobs were created. All income classes and all racial and ethnic groups benefited from the Reagan economy. The dark decade of the seventies, a time in which it looked like America was in a terminal eclipse, faded away. It was, as Reagan put it, during his 1984 re-election campaign, “Morning in America” again. Every bit as transformational as his work on the economy, was his approach to foreign policy, specifically the Soviet Union. It’s easy to forget, but when Reagan came to office in 1981, Soviet-style communism appeared to be as strong, if not stronger, than American-style democracy. Whereas Reagan’s predecessor had taken a “we just need to get along” approach, Reagan saw it much differently. He didn’t mince words. In March of 1983, he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” The media and the Democrats wailed that the phrase was reckless, but it was typical Reagan. Simple, clear, and true. What else do you call a totalitarian system that had deprived millions of people across the globe of their freedom? When asked what his strategy was for fighting the Cold War, Reagan replied. “We win. They lose.” For the complete transcript visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/ronald-...

🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship! SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/ 📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app! Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage... Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/ronald-... 📳 Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/

 

https://youtu.be/wu1rkvwzshE

Does Israel Occupy the West Bank?

559,393 views

Premiered Jan 17, 2022

PragerU

2.94M subscribers

How many times have you heard that Israel "occupies" the West Bank? But have you ever asked yourself whether that’s true? Or even what it means? Eugene Kontorovich, professor of law at George Mason University, dives into these questions and uncovers some surprising answers.

🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship! SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/ 📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app! Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage... Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/does-is... 📳 Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/

Script: How many times have you heard that Israel "occupies" the West Bank? Probably more times than you can count. But have you ever asked yourself whether it's true? Or even what it means? Let's do so now in the most objective way possible; that is, in the way that all territorial questions everywhere else in the world are resolved. To do this, we must look at the law. But first, we need a little history. Up until 100 years ago, the areas now called Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and all the countries around them—were part of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over a vast area and many peoples. Neither the Jews nor those Arabs we now call Palestinians had a state, though the Jews had a nationalist movement calling for one. Everything changed after World War I. The Ottomans fought on the losing side with Germany.  By end of the war in 1918, their empire had disintegrated, leaving the British and French in control of much of its territory. In earlier times, the victors would likely have kept this land as colonies for themselves. But there was a new spirit of democracy in the air. The allies—including the British, French, and Americans—agreed that the former Ottoman lands should be allowed to become independent nation-states. After the war, the nations of the world created the League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations. Meeting in San Remo, Italy in 1920, they set up what was known as "the Mandate system." The colonies of the defeated powers—Germany and the Ottoman Empire—were converted into distinct geopolitical entities, which became the countries now known as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. None of this is controversial. There was one other Mandate issued—the Mandate for Palestine. "Palestine" was merely a geographic label—the name the Romans gave the Jewish Kingdom of Judea after they conquered it. There was nothing exclusively Arab about it. The Mandate provided that Palestine would become a "national home" for the Jewish people. There was a simple reason for this: the League recognized that Jews were the indigenous people of the area. All the mandatory territories in the Middle East transitioned to statehood in the 30s and 40s, with Israel the last to do so, declaring independence in May 1948. So, now we get to the legal stuff. What were the borders of the State of Israel when it declared independence? International law has a simple and universally applicable rule for determining borders.  It's called the Uti possidetis juris principle (lawyers love Latin phrases). The rule provides that when a new country is created, its borders match the borders of the previous geopolitical entity in that territory.  For example, the borders of Ukraine, Latvia, and Azerbaijan are exactly what they were when they were parts of the Soviet Union.   Other considerations, such as demographics, are not taken into account—because without a simple, easily-applied rule, a new country's borders would never be settled—a recipe for permanent conflict.  Applying this rule to Israel means that it had sovereign claims to all of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza because those were its borders according to the Mandate of Palestine. To be sure, the United Nations proposed a resolution in 1947 with different borders and a much smaller area for a Jewish state. But that resolution was a non-binding recommendation. Nothing more. It did not have the force of law. We know what happened next. Upon declaring independence, Israel was immediately invaded by five Arab armies, seeking to destroy it. Israel survived, but Jordan managed to seize parts of Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria, which it dubbed "the West Bank." All the Jews living in these areas were expelled—or, to use a contemporary term, ethnically cleansed. Here we need to introduce another key principle of international law: a war of aggression cannot be used to change a country's borders. For the complete transcript visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/does-is...

 

https://youtu.be/x4dUeVFT7n8

Can You Trust the NY Times?

534,632 views

Premiered Jan 10, 2022

PragerU

2.94M subscribers

The most influential news source in the world is the New York Times. Every day, hundreds of newspapers and news stations around the world follow its lead. After all, isn’t the Times the gold standard of journalism? Investigative reporter Ashley Rindsberg reveals the truth in this eye-opening video.

🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship! SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/ 📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app! Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage... Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/can-you... 📳 Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/

Script: The most influential news source in the world is the New York Times.  Every day, hundreds of newspapers, and TV and cable news stations around the world follow its lead—literally.  Why wouldn’t they?  Isn’t the Times the gold standard of journalism? The place where the facts of the story are presented without bias or agenda? Actually, the answer is no.  When it comes to episodes of major historical significance, the New York Times has routinely failed to provide the public with unbiased journalism. Instead, it has chosen to manufacture false narratives—often with catastrophic consequences. It has done this in service of its own financial and ideological interests.  This goes back, at least, to 1932.  That year there was a terrible famine in the Ukraine. Between 5 and 7 million Ukranians starved to death. The disaster had nothing to do with bad weather and everything to do with the ruthless regime of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.  Walter Duranty, the Times foreign correspondent in Moscow, knew all of this and covered it up. In fact, his reports flatly denied there was any famine at all.  The American media took its lead from the Times star reporter. So did America’s political elite, including newly-elected President Franklin Roosevelt who personally met with Duranty to discuss “the situation” in the Soviet Union.  Duranty had another admirer, Josef Stalin. The brutal tyrant had nothing but praise for the New York Times man: “You have done a good job in your reporting of the USSR… because you try to tell the truth about our country.”  Had Duranty exposed the facts about Stalin and the famine, the American people would have better understood the true nature of the Soviet Union. Instead, many were fooled.  When it came to reporting on the persecution of Jews in Germany leading up to World War II, the Times was even worse. Initially, the paper refused to publish reports on the concentration camps. And when it finally did, those reports were relegated to the back pages. Again, the Times set the tone for the rest of the American media. If the Times didn’t think the genocide of the Jews was a major story, it must not be one. In 1957, the Times flipped this script. It took a minor story—a rebellion in Cuba—and turned it into a major one. In the process, it helped destroy an entire country.  New York Times reporter, Herbert Matthews, tracked down an all-but-defeated rebel named Fidel Castro at his mountain hideout.  From this interview came a flurry of front-page New York Times articles hailing Castro as Cuba’s democratic savior. The Times transformed the down-and-out Marxist revolutionary into an international sensation. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Times made Castro. Without its assistance, the Cuban revolution would have almost certainly failed.  A very similar phenomenon played out a few years later in Southeast Asia. This time instead of making a hero out of a villain, the Times made a villain out of a hero.  With the paper’s blessing, a brash, young Times reporter, David Halberstam, decided that South Vietnamese elected leader Ngo Dinh Diem was a murderous madman. Caught up in the prevailing leftist notion that the American war effort was immoral, and that the North Vietnamese communists were the real freedom fighters, Halberstam wrote piece after piece designed to bring down Diem. The one that did it was his reporting that the Diem government had massacred 30 Buddhist monks who were protesting Diem’s policies.  Only it didn’t happen. Halberstam manufactured it out of whole cloth, basing it on anonymous sources and rumors.  When a United Nations team later investigated the killings, they found that all the “murdered” Buddhists were alive and well. For the complete transcript visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/can-you...

 

https://youtu.be/OzCZeFqDc7o

Totalitarianism: Can It Happen in America?

578,539 views

Premiered Jan 3, 2022

PragerU

2.94M subscribers

What does totalitarianism look like? In the 20th century, it took the form of secret police violently silencing anyone who spoke out against the government. Now, it has a very different face — one we should be wary of just the same. Rod Dreher, author of Live Not By Lies, explains.

 🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship! SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/ 📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app! Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage... Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/totalit... 📳 Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/

Script: Here’s the good news: The secret police are not coming with guns to take you away to a prison camp in a frozen wasteland for speaking out against the government. They did that in Communist countries in the twentieth century. It’s not going to happen here in America or in Western Europe.   Here’s the bad news: The secret police aren’t coming for you because they don’t have to. There are ways to shut you up and keep you quiet that don’t involve physical force. The powers that be—and that now includes major corporations, the educational establishment, the media, and the government—can just kick you off the Internet, put you on a no-fly list, and bar you from using the banking system.  We can describe scenario number one as hard totalitarianism and scenario number two as soft totalitarianism.  There are big differences between them, but in the end, you arrive at the same place—submission and silence.  To grasp the threat of totalitarianism—hard or soft—it’s important to understand exactly what it means.  According to the famous political scholar Hannah Arendt, a totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology.  The state literally defines and controls reality. Truth is whatever the rulers decide it is.  These rulers might say something like…  Men can have babies.  Or, Skin color is more important than character. Or, The American revolution was fought not for freedom, but to protect the slave interests of the colonists.  Or, Those who resist a vaccine mandate are enemies of the people. And insist you not only believe it but affirm it. If you don’t, you might lose your job, your business, and your good name.  That dystopian future, of course, is now. And, we’re only at the beginning of this process.  Where does it lead? To less freedom—that much we know. Again, no guns, no violence—we just go along. Nobody kicks the door down. We open the door and invite them in.  The more information the government has about you, and the more the tech sector can see what you’re doing and saying online, the easier it is to monitor your behavior.  How long before the government creates a digital profile of each citizen?  And how would the government use that profile?  It might go like this: If you do socially positive things—as defined by the government—nothing really changes.  You can do whatever you want. Maybe you’re even rewarded for good behavior—a faster internet connection, preferred medical treatment, or even the best seats at a concert. If you do socially negative things—again as defined by the government—you lose privileges. You’re pushed to the margins of society. You become a non-person. Sound far-fetched?  It shouldn’t. It’s happening right now in China.  It happened in Russia and Eastern Europe not that long ago. Talk to anyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain, and they will tell you we are headed down a dangerous road.   “No,” you say, “It can’t happen here—in the land of the free and the home of the brave.” I wouldn’t be so sure.  Ronald Reagan famously observed that freedom can be lost in a single generation. That’s because the human inclination is not toward liberty, but security.  Freedom is a value, not an instinct.  It entails personal responsibility and risk. Security requires little risk and little personal responsibility. So, it comes with little freedom. That’s why every new generation must be taught the supreme importance of freedom and develop the strength of character to maintain it.  Of course, the people who want to take away our freedom say they’re doing it in the name of compassion—for the many victims of oppression.  Unlike the Bolsheviks of the old Soviet Union, the left of today’s America gets its way not by shedding blood, but by shedding tears. For the complete script, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/totalit...