After years of dire warnings, the climate panic is quietly fading. World leaders barely mention it, voters rank it near the bottom of their priorities, and even Greta Thunberg has moved on. So what changed? Bjorn Lomborg, Hoover Institution fellow and author of False Alarm, investigates. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Where Have All the Climate Alarmists Gone? Presented by Bjorn Lomborg Who is still panicking about climate catastrophe? The Davos crowd? European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn’t mention the climate even once in her 2026 annual address—unlike in the past. U.S. voters? Americans rank climate change at number 28 of 30 problems, and according to the Searchlight Institute, voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook issues over climate. Canada? Prime Minister Mark Carney once championed radical climate policies but now wants to increase oil production. The Europeans? After worrying intensely about climate change for a decade, they have other things to worry about: sky-high energy prices, low growth and the war in Ukraine. In their latest ranking, climate hit a new decade low. How about global warming poster child Greta Thunberg? She has moved on to other causes. Certainly, not people in poorer countries. They’re primarily concerned about the necessities of life — health, food and education. According to a recent survey of Africans, climate ranks near the bottom of their priorities, at number 31 of 34. That’s behind unemployment, the economy, health, education, poverty, roads, electricity, hunger, and corruption. Even media outlets that once peddled climate alarm have backed off. According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change in three years. What led to this global change of mind? How could so many people be so worried just a few years ago, and care so much less now? First, everyone has started to realize that there are many other challenges in the world. After the end of the Cold War, people claimed that climate change was the last big challenge to fix. That was a common idea at Davos and among many global leaders. Now, everyone recognizes that climate change is just one of many issues: wars, budget deficits, immigration pressures, declining educational achievements, artificial intelligence, and demographic changes are just a few. Second, you can only cry wolf so many times. How many “the end is nigh” predictions over the last 50 years? One peer-reviewed study counted at least 78 specific claims, like when King Charles insisted that the world only had 18 months left to fix climate change. That was in 2019. So, that statement was wrong. And every statement by every well-known climate alarmist that has been resolved by 2026 turned out to be wrong. Not to mention when Al Gore told us in 2008 we only had 10 years left. Third, climate policies are incredibly expensive and do little. The world has spent more than 16 trillion dollars to curb climate change, and governments are looking to spend hundreds of trillions more in the future. A Science study of 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries across the last two decades showed that only 4% worked. In total, they cut less than a quarter of one percent of total emissions. If a private company had this kind of record, they’d be out of business. Fourth, the alarmist claims are often blatantly misleading. When you’re told that sea level rise could force 187 million people to move, that claim unrealistically assumes nobody will do anything to address the problem for a century. But when people adapt — for example, by building levies — that number goes down 99.8%. We’re constantly told more people will die from heat waves. But nobody ever reveals that the cold kills many more. Right now, warming temperatures actually save lives. And of course, when there’s cheap and reliable power, more people can afford air conditioning. As the US warmed in the 20th century, heat deaths declined significantly, exactly for that reason. Climate economists have consistently shown that by the end of the century, climate change will cost 2-3% of global GDP. It is a real problem, but nowhere near Armageddon. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/452HXQJ

Ask what inspired American government, and you’ll hear the usual answers: Greece, Rome, the Enlightenment. The Founders studied them all. But none of them fully explains why America rejected kings altogether. So where did that conviction come from? Noted historian and author @BillFederer explains. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: No Kings: Why We Don't Have One Presented by William Federer Ask someone what inspired the American system of government, and you’ll usually get one of three answers: Greek democracy. The Roman Republic. Or the European Enlightenment. These answers aren't wrong. The American Founders studied all of these eras. But if you want to find the deepest, most foundational roots of the American Republic, you have to look much further back than the Enlightenment, back further even than Greece or Rome. You have to look at the Hebrew Bible. And to understand how the Bible shaped America, you have to place yourself on a cold, storm-tossed ship called the Mayflower. When the Mayflower set sail from England in 1620, its intended destination was the Colony of Virginia. But violent gales blew the ship hundreds of miles off course. Instead of reaching Virginia, where they would have simply submitted to the King’s colonial government, the ship’s captain told his passengers they would have to disembark in the wilderness of Massachusetts. Immediately, they faced a crisis. Of the 102 passengers on board, no one had been appointed by the King of England to take charge under these unforeseen circumstances. There was no royal governor. No one of nobility in the group. From the perspective of the 17th century, this was a recipe for anarchy. How could commoners possibly survive, let alone thrive, without a royal master to tell them what to do? To solve this dilemma, the Pilgrims did something revolutionary. They created their own government. Before setting foot on the New World, they drafted a short document known to history as the Mayflower Compact. It contains a sentence that would set the course of American history: “We... in the presence of God and one of another, covenant... ourselves together into a civil body politic.” Note that the Pilgrims didn't use the word "contract." They used the word covenant. This is a profoundly biblical concept. It is the same concept God used when He made agreements with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. The early settlers of America, and later the Founding Fathers, were intimately familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. They knew that ancient Israel had no king. For several hundred years after the time of Moses and Joshua, the Hebrew Republic was governed by laws given by God, administered by local leaders, and guided by judges who rose up during times of trouble. But eventually, the ancient Israelites had a change of heart. They looked at the pagan nations surrounding them and said, "We want a king to rule over us, so we can be like everyone else." The prophet Samuel warned the people what would happen if they traveled down this path. A king will take your sons and make them serve in his army. He will take your daughters. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards. He will take a tenth of your flocks. And you yourselves will become his slaves. In other words, a king will consolidate power, strip away your liberties, and tax you into poverty. The Israelites ignored the warning and suffered the consequences Samuel prophesied. Steeped in the Bible, the American Founders were very familiar with First Samuel chapter 8. So much so that Thomas Paine referred directly to it in his highly influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing, “monarchy… [has] laid… the world in blood and ashes. ‘Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against…” The Founders understood that human kingship was inherently flawed, that centralizing all power in the hands of a monarch was a rejection of the freedom God intended for humanity. That’s essentially why the colonists came to America in the first place — to be free of kings. Here’s how King James I of England described himself: “The king is overlord of the whole land... master over every person ... having power over the life and death of every one." And: “Kings are... God's lieutenants upon earth... sit upon God's throne…” Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4pEfquk

We think of identity politics as a modern idea, something that emerged from academia in recent decades. But it isn't new at all. It's one of the oldest ideas in history: the instinct to divide people by tribe instead of judging them as individuals. America was founded to reject this idea. So why has it come roaring back, and where does it lead? Associate professor of philosophy Andre Archie explains. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: The Vicious Cycle of Identity Politics Presented by Andre Archie We think of identity politics — defining a group based on its race, religion, or sexual orientation — as a new development, something that recently emerged out of academia. The truth is, identity politics has a long history in the United States. You could fairly say it was the basis of the Civil War. Ultimately, this obsession with group identity was rejected. It is fundamentally a primitive concept and not an American one. The American ideal, as stated in the Declaration of Independence and later reaffirmed in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, has always been a colorblind society in which people are judged based on merit and character. But toxic ideas have a way of resurfacing. Identity politics is one of those ideas. The overriding question for those who embrace identity politics seems to be, “Who am I?” On its own, the question is perfectly legitimate. But it easily becomes destructive when it demands that one’s group-based identity be recognized in law, corporate hiring and other areas of public policy. Once government begins handing out benefits, protections, or status on the basis of group identity, politics becomes a competition among tribes. Every group is encouraged to see itself not as a collection of individuals, but as a bloc with claims on the state. This is not a recipe for national unity. It is a recipe for endless conflict. In the 19th century, the country was torn apart by a racial ideology that claimed white people were inherently superior and therefore entitled to rule over others. That belief helped justify slavery and the denial of basic human dignity. Even after the Civil War and the 13th Amendment ended slavery, it took a century of hard-fought struggle to challenge that lie and bring the nation closer to its founding principles. Yet, starting in the 1970s and accelerating through the 1990s, a new identity politics took root in American universities. It sorted people into racial, ethnic, and gender categories, assigning each group a place in a hierarchy of victimhood. It argued that—as Howard University professor Ibram X. Kendi put it—”the remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Just with a different set of winners and losers. At first, this remained largely confined to college campuses. But within a generation, this ideology had migrated from the academy into newsrooms, corporations, government agencies, and school curricula. Group identity became the lens through which seemingly every policy debate, every hiring decision, and every cultural controversy was filtered. The competition never ends, and the grievances never resolve, because the game isn't really about fairness—it's about power. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4bxFBNl

More and more young people today suffer from anxiety, depression, or loneliness. But it turns out this isn’t a new problem. Sixteen hundred years ago, a restless university student named Augustine suffered the same maladies. This young man, who would become one of history’s most famous philosophers, found a solution. It still works today. Owen Anderson, Arizona State professor of philosophy and religious studies, tells the story. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Augustine: The Philosopher Who Solved Anxiety Presented by Owen Anderson Recent studies report that almost two-thirds of college students suffer from anxiety, depression, or loneliness. They feel restless, empty, overcome with self-loathing. They try therapy. They try psychiatric drugs. They try political activism. They might even try to radically change their sexual identity. But the anxiety doesn’t go away. In fact, it often gets worse. This is not a new problem. Sixteen hundred years ago, a young man, a student of philosophy and law, trying to find his place in the world, felt exactly the same way. He was born on the north coast of Africa in modern-day Algeria. His name was Augustine. He felt a gnawing emptiness he couldn’t quite explain. To find fulfillment, he plunged himself into worldly pleasures. He chased after women — he described himself as “a slave to lust…” He even tried petty crime just for the thrill of it. He and his college friends—they called themselves “the wreckers”—spent their days, as he put it, “being seduced and seducing, being deceived and deceiving.” Augustine’s father, a Roman citizen and a pagan, wanted him to be a lawyer. But his mother, a Christian, worried about his soul. She prayed for him every day, hoping he would see the error of his ways. Our college student knew he was violating the Ten Commandments, but he didn’t care. They meant nothing to him. As he matured, he tried to straighten himself out. He wanted to do better, to be better, to act morally. He even tried converting to Christianity, inspired by the most famous cleric of his day, Ambrose of Milan. But Augustine couldn’t stop sinning. At one point, he famously prayed, “O Lord, grant me chastity and self-control—but not yet.” Augustine didn’t mean it as a joke. He was serious. He wanted to change. He wanted to improve himself. But he also wanted to continue indulging himself. This inner conflict tore him apart. Anxious, divided, trapped by his own passions — he had no one to blame but himself. Self-improvement doesn’t work when the problem is you. Who, then, would save Augustine from Augustine? Then one day, sitting alone in a garden, something changed. He heard a voice say, “tolle lege,” take and read. He picked up a Bible and opened it, reading the first passage that caught his eye: Romans 13:13. “Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” He suddenly realized that even though he had outwardly converted to Christianity as another self-help mechanism, he had not truly put his faith in Christ. Only Christ could save Augustine from Augustine. “At once, it was as if a light of relief from all anxiety flooded into my heart.” This anxious, sex-addicted young man went on to become one of the most influential Christian philosophers and theologians in Western history. His ideas still shape how we understand God, freedom, and salvation today. Augustine later wrote his story down in a book entitled The Confessions. It’s not simply a theology textbook. And it’s not a self-help manual. It’s an honest account of what it feels like to be trapped inside your own desires. Early in the book, Augustine writes: “You have made us for Yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.” This sentence explains Augustine’s anxiety. He wasn’t anxious because life was meaningless. He was anxious because he was chasing meaning in the wrong places. Pleasure didn’t satisfy him. Success didn’t satisfy him. Even self-improvement didn’t satisfy him. Why? Because, as Augustine wrote in The Confessions, the human heart yearns for union with God. And when we try to replace God with anything else—even good things—we don’t find peace. Augustine tried to master himself by himself. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4wwXdB2

After six long, bloody years, the American fight for freedom was at a crossroads. To end the Revolutionary War and bring King George to the negotiating table, the rebels needed a knockout punch. They got it at the Battle of Yorktown. Author Robert Orrison tells the story. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Yorktown: Victory At Last Presented by Robert Orrison The Battle of Yorktown effectively ended the Revolutionary War, securing the independence Americans had sacrificed so much to win. This time it was the rebels who had all the advantages: in soldiers, in cannon, and in naval power. Getting those pieces in place, was a combination of brilliant generalship, the deep pockets of a Philadelphia businessman, and mind-bending luck. The brilliant generalship was displayed by two men: George Washington and his most trusted subordinate, Nathanael Greene. It was Greene’s daring strategy at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina in March of 1781 that set the stage for the decisive showdown at Yorktown seven months later. Greene knew he would likely lose the North Carolina battle, but that was okay because he could sustain losses, whereas his opponent, British General Charles Cornwallis, isolated from his supply lines, could not. Indeed, Cornwallis held the field, but at a price he couldn’t afford. Badly depleted, he moved his army to the port city of Yorktown, Virginia. There, he could rest his men and wait to be resupplied or evacuated by the British fleet. This made perfect sense if the British controlled the waters in Chesapeake Bay. It made no sense if they didn’t. Although the Americans had no navy to speak of, their ally, the French, did. Unfortunately, the French fleet was in the Caribbean. Washington sent desperate letters to the Admiral of that fleet, the Comte de Grasse. The American general had a single request: sail your ships to the Chesapeake Bay. If you do, we can trap Cornwallis, and maybe — just maybe — end this war. Given the time it took for his letters to get to de Grasse and the time it took for de Grasse’s letters to get back to him, Washington waited for weeks in anxious agony for the admiral's response. The wait was worth it: the Admiral would do as Washington requested. Now Washington had a new problem. To preserve the element of surprise he had to make General Henry Clinton, the commander of British forces in New York City, believe that it was New York, not Yorktown, that he (Washington) was planning to attack. To do this, Washington spread false rumors through his spy network and set up a dummy encampment across the Hudson River to suggest an action was imminent. Then, when his troops, and those belonging to his French counterpart, the Comte de Rochambeau, were ready, he marched them swiftly south, hoping Clinton wouldn’t notice. The ruse worked. Washington’s first major stop was Philadelphia in August 1781. More problems — the greatest of which was that he had no money to pay his men. In fact, they hadn’t been paid in months, and they weren’t happy about it. Patriotism only goes so far. Giving them worthless paper “continentals” wasn’t an option. They demanded hard currency. That was a major reason Washington went to Philadelphia: to get money. His pleas to the notoriously stingy Continental Congress, however, fell on deaf ears. The general despaired. To be this close to victory and throw it away because of a lack of funds? This might have been his own personal low point of the entire war. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4flswcg

Do children born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Many claim the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that they do. Are they right? Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confronts this question head-on. 📣 We want to hear from you! Should babies born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Vote in our poll ➡️ https://l.prageru.com/4vDpsy5 Transcript: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Presented by Amy Swearer Does the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States? Even the children of people who’ve entered the country illegally? Or the children of foreign tourists who owe our country no allegiance? That’s the question underlying the controversial issue of birthright citizenship. Many people today take it for granted that the answer is yes: if you’re born on American soil, you’re an American citizen. Period. End of issue. But is that what the Constitution says? Let’s first look at the text of that document, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” Case closed, right? Not so fast. The key phrase here is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” — it creates a second condition for birthright citizenship beyond merely being born on American soil. But it also raises another question: who is born subject to U.S. jurisdiction? To answer that question, we need some historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to rectify the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court declared that black Americans were not and could never be citizens. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Dred Scott technically remained the law of the land. Black Americans were left in limbo—they were no longer slaves, but they still were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue, once and for all. These newly freed slaves and their descendants were certainly born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had been their home for generations. If they were not American citizens, to which other nation did they still belong? So while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue as it related to race, its authors would have been shocked to learn that we now interpret these words to make citizens of virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, under all circumstances. As Yale Law Professor William C. Robinson explained in his 1875 legal treatise, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those “born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States”—a condition that requires, at minimum, lawful permanent residence in this country. This was also the original understanding of the federal government. In 1885, for example, the State Department rejected the citizenship claim of a man named Richard Greisser. Yes, Greisser had been born in Ohio eighteen years earlier, but his German parents never intended to stay in the United States. They returned with their son to Germany shortly after his birth. Because Greisser’s parents did not owe the United States political allegiance, their son wasn’t born subject to its jurisdiction, at least not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Similarly, in 1890, the Justice Department considered the citizenship claim of a child born to one Mary Devereaux, a pregnant Irish woman being held on a ship in New York Harbor. While awaiting immigration approval, Devereaux left the ship for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth in a New York hospital. Authorities later denied her immigration application. Because Devereaux wasn’t eligible for lawful admission to the U.S., her U.S.-born daughter was not recognized as a U.S. citizen. Both mother and child were sent back to Ireland. The Supreme Court addressed the question of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born and raised in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrants. In 1895, after a short trip to China, Wong returned to the U.S., only to be detained by authorities and threatened with deportation. Wong sued, arguing that he was an American citizen by birth. The Supreme Court agreed. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4wiIeup

Two revolutions reshaped the world in the late 18th century. The American Revolution gave birth to the most successful republic in history. The French Revolution gave birth to the guillotine. So what went right in America, and what went wrong in France? Renowned author and historian Andrew Roberts explains. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru)

The West is in a war for its survival, but it's not the war most people think. It’s an existential conflict, as Ben Shapiro describes it, between lions and scavengers. The scavengers have the advantage. They have figured out how to use the lions’ virtues against them. So how do the lions fight back, and win? Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Lions vs. Scavengers: Saving the West Presented by Ben Shapiro We are not just in a clash of civilizations — we are in a clash within civilization: a clash between lions – those who wish to build; and scavengers — those who wish to destroy. The scavengers, for too long, have been winning. They have been winning because the lions got complacent. In their complacency, the lions forgot how to defend their civilization — or even that their civilization required defending. And the scavengers grew ravenous. The scavengers hit upon a brilliant strategy: what if they could turn one of the great strengths of the lion against himself — that is, the lion’s willingness to admit error. In 1946, in the aftermath of World War II, anthropologist Ruth Benedict wrote a famous book titled The Chrysanthemum and the Sword — an attempt to understand the differences between America and her approach to war and that of the Japanese Army. She hit upon a fundamental distinction: the distinction between what she termed “guilt cultures” and “shame cultures.” Guilt cultures, said Benedict, were frequently present in societies that inculcated “absolute standards of morality” and relied on people “developing a conscience.” Guilt is a private phenomenon: we beat ourselves up when we sin. And this means we also confess our sins and repent of them. This is essentially a statement of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Shame cultures, by contrast, are interested, not in absolute standards of morality, but in how people are perceived by others. As Benedict wrote, shame cultures “rely on external sanctions for good behavior.” Those sanctions include enforced conformity, social rejection, and public humiliation. If that sounds like Cancel Culture to you, you would not be wrong. So-called honor killing is an extreme example: the only way to repair the social shame brought on by a daughter who dates someone of whom the family disapproves is to kill her. In short, lions are concerned with guilt, scavengers with shame. To put it another way, lion culture is preoccupied with how God judges people; scavenger culture with how other people judge them. What happens when these cultures clash? Let’s examine. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4voj9OP

When we think of the American Revolution, we think of the North: Lexington and Concord, Washington crossing the Delaware, the winter at Valley Forge. But it was in the South—in the swamps and backwoods of Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia—where the war was decided. Mark Malloy, author of To the Last Extremity: The Battles For Charleston, explains. Listen to 5-Minute Videos on Spotify and Apple Podcasts 🎧 New episodes drop every Monday! ➡️ Spotify: https://l.prageru.com/3OSGlUL ➡️ Apple Podcasts: https://l.prageru.com/3Nfs9on Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: The Southern Campaign: The Fight For the South Presented by Mark Maloy When we think of the American Revolution, we think of the North: Lexington and Concord, Washington crossing the Delaware, the winter at Valley Forge. But it was in the South—in the swamps and backwoods of Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia—where the war was decided. By 1779, the conflict was at a stalemate. To break it, the British High Command shifted its attention to the southern colonies. The campaign got off to a promising start. In May 1780, after a catastrophic siege, Charleston fell. It was the worst American defeat of the entire war, resulting in the surrender of over 5,000 men and the loss of the South's major port. Leading the British force was General Charles Cornwallis. While his manner was genteel, his military strategy was aggressive and unforgiving. He fully expected to make short work of the rebels. George Washington sent his most trusted officer, Nathanael Greene, to stop him. Greene was one of those remarkable Americans who emerged out of the crucible of the Revolution. Born in Rhode Island in 1742, he rejected his pacifist Quaker upbringing to join the Revolution. Like many of his fellow rebel leaders, he had no formal military training. He learned tactics and strategy on the job. And at this point, he had a lot of job experience, having been in nearly every major engagement of the war. When Greene arrived in the South, he found a motley collection of about 2,000 fighters. In his own words “…the shadow of an army in the midst of distress.” Cornwallis, in contrast, had a well-provisioned professional force more than twice that size. Greene knew he couldn't win a conventional European-style contest. So, he decided to break the rules. He split his tiny force in two. The idea was to lead Cornwallis deeper into the wilderness, away from his supply lines, and harass him only when conditions favored it. Greene took one-half of his army. The other half he gave to General Daniel Morgan. Whereas Greene was educated and middle-class, Morgan was a rough-hewn frontiersman. His origins were murky—he wasn't even sure what year he was born. All he ever told anyone was that he hated the British. He had a good reason. Years earlier, during the French and Indian War, a British officer had ordered Morgan to be disciplined for a minor insubordination. The punishment was 500 lashes. Morgan carried the scars, and the grudge, for the rest of his life. Cornwallis sent his cavalry commander, Banastre Tarleton, to crush Morgan. They met in January 1781 at a South Carolina pasture known as the Cowpens. Morgan knew Tarleton loved to charge his foe, sabers flashing. The fearsome sight invariably sent the rebels into a panic. This time, the wily Morgan ordered his men not to hold their ground. “Just fire two rounds, boys, and run for the trees.” Tarleton saw the retreat and mistook it as the predictable panic. He ordered his horsemen straight into a trap. Morgan’s veteran Continental soldiers — cocked and ready — were waiting behind cover. They unleashed a wall of lead that decimated the British ranks. It was a tactical masterpiece. In less than an hour, Tarleton’s force was effectively wiped out. Tarleton, himself, barely escaped. Cornwallis reacted with fury. Bent on revenge, he chased Morgan and Greene across North Carolina. But with the help of guerrilla-style fighters like the legendary “Swamp Fox” Francis Marion, Morgan and Greene managed to elude him and, in the process, stretched Cornwallis’s supply lines until they snapped. By mid-March, Greene was ready to make his stand. It happened at Guilford Courthouse near present-day Greensboro, North Carolina. Access the full transcript here...👉 https://l.prageru.com/4uG8yxn