‘This is what got my blood boiling’: Glenn explains his experience seeing the new film Monuments Men

Over the weekend, Glenn went to see the new film Monuments Men, which is based on Robert M. Edsel’s book The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. Glenn is a big fan of the story, and he was impressed with the film adaptation. While watching the movie, however, Glenn could not shake the overwhelming sense of hypocrisy surrounding Hollywood’s rose-colored glass interpretation of World War II.

“I saw Monuments Men. I happen to love the story, so I'm partial to this movie,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Some people might find it a little slow, but I like the story and the actors too.”

Glenn offered a brief synopsis of the film:

It's a true story. The story is during World War II. Hitler was taking all of the art, and he was going to build an Aryan museum in Berlin. It would be the largest art collection in the world, and it would have been all of the art from all of Europe and Russia. He would go into the country, and he would find out who has the greatest art. They'd kill the family, and they'd ship it off and hide it. It was grotesque what they were doing.

Well, the universities got together, and they said to FDR, ‘They're stealing all of the art, and even if we win, there will be no culture left’… We would lose what the West even means because he was going into churches, and he was killing all the priests and the taking all of the icons and everything else. They put together what are called the Monuments Men. The ‘Monuments Men’ land on the beaches of Normandy, and they try to find all of this.

And so [the movie is] their story of trying to find it. It's really amazing and historically accurate.

While watching the film, however, Glenn could not help but consider the entire scope of the situation at hand. The work of the Monuments Men was noble and necessary, but the United States government had made a conscious decision to prioritize the art over the Jewish people.

“So I'm watching this, and I'm seething inside because all I can think is these progressives… went in to save the art. The art was being stolen British the Jewish collectors. [But they didn’t] care about the Jew behind the painting,” Glenn said. “They didn’t care about the Jewish family that was exterminated, sent to a death camp. They didn’t care about any of that. FDR is on record saying, ‘We're not here to save the Jews. We're here to stop Germany.’ But they are there to save the art.”

So often Hollywood shames the United States for being the oppressor or the bully or the conqueror, but this story actually illustrates America as the good guy – even if it doesn’t tell the whole story.

“This is what got my blood boiling. The people that made this movie are the same people that say we're nothing but horrible, horrible human beings. We're nothing but conquerors that steal everything we can get our hands on. And yet name the country that replaced all of the monuments,” Glenn said. “Name the country that found the Mona Lisa and put it back. We could have taken it… Russia did it. Russia came in wherever they were and took it. And they sent it all back to Moscow. They took it all. We didn't. We went in; we found it; and we returned it to the owners.”

Ultimately, Monuments Men depicts a duality in the American psyche, in which there exists both good and evil.

“Monuments Men shows how split personality we are as a country. We are a decent, God-fearing, giving, righteous people when we choose. And at the same time, our leaders can take our collective heart and have it go cold, ignore it, and pretend it's not there,” Glenn concluded. “They can ignore an entire race of people. It happened with the Indians. It happened with the Japanese. And it's certainly happened with the Jews. It's wrong. It's evil. But that comes from a fascistic-style leadership, where our goodness is expressed as individuals. When there are enough individuals that understand good, then we start to elect good people and good things happen because good people don't take all of the power themselves.”

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.