Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:00]
A
Shopify helps you sell at every stage of your business. Like that. Let's put it online and see what happens.
- [00:05]
B
Stage and the site is live.
- [00:08]
A
That reopened a store and need a fast checkout. Stage thanks. You're all set. That count it up and ship it around the globe.
- [00:14]
B
Stage this one's going to Thailand and.
- [00:17]
A
That Wait, did we just hit a million orders? Stage Whatever your Stage Businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 a month trial@shopify.com Listen.
- [00:31]
B
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hansen for the Victor Davis Hanson Show. I'm doing one of our interviews where Jack and Sammy are not with me today, but I'm honored to have my friend and a colleague and a person that you all know from both his Newsmax show, but more importantly, his prior service during the first Trump administration and his current tsardom as the second administration's expert on counterterrorism at the National Security Council, as well as a deputy directly counselor to the President. And we're going to get with Seb Gorka in a second right after these messages.
- [01:13]
C
Think about the app you've been wanting to build, sell something you've created, run your community, manage your business, or launch your next idea. Now imagine it's live before Today's over, meet base 44, the fastest way to turn any idea into a fully functional app. No code, no waiting. Just describe what you want and watch it come together. Backend design and all in minutes. A real product ready to share from idea to live app. Fast. Start building today@base44.com.
- [01:46]
B
And we're back with Dr. Seb Gorka, a good friend of mine and I think a media and scholar personality you're all familiar with. And Seb, before we get into national security, what's your historical assessment of the second administration say vis a vis the first? It seems to me that this time Trump is addressing symptoms rather than just manifestations of the progressive problem.
- [02:15]
D
Well, first things first, Professor. Absolute honor to be on your show, as I revealed to you and your team before we started recording. And I don't want to make the most esteemed historian and strategist blush on his own show, but every morning as I drive from my home to the White House to the campus here, I listen to your podcast with Jack and with Sammy. So it's quite a thing to be actually a subject of the podcast, and I just can't do better than reiterate what you have said in terms of putting this administration into the correct historic context. And I literally came from a bilateral meeting with a very close partner of Ras in the Middle East. And I said to that delegation, literally minutes ago, the same thing I say to my colleagues across the US Government in the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the State Department. I try to give them a little bit of advice. They don't all appreciate the tectonic historic significance of the current presidency. I think you've labeled it a counter revolutionary or an anti Jacobin presidency, which it is. I and my colleagues live in a skiff in a secure classified information facility for 12 hours a day. And we come outside and we check our cell phones, which we have to leave outside the skiff and we say, oh my gosh, what has the President done in just the last 30 minutes? Is it the fourth or the fifth peace treaty? Is it 5% NATO GDP spending? I cut my teeth 30 years ago on NATO issues. We dreamt of having partners spending 2%. The president has ratcheted that up to 5%. Whether it's 1.6 million deportations or self deportations, whether it's $5 trillion being brought back from the Middle east, whether it is. I was in the Sit room, I was in the Situation Room during Operation Midnight Hammer professor and to see the quintessence of a perfect military operation, the likes of which if you read in a Tom Clancy novel, you would say no, the credulity, I don't buy it. You can't have multiple US Aircra flying into Iranian airspace dropping fourteen thirty four thousand pound bombs and not one missile is launched against them, not one attack aircraft is launched by the Iranians. This is a historic presidency if but for one reason alone, the tariff system. What the President is doing with tariffs is a complete rewriting of the global trade and economics environment which will be as large as Bretton woods for different reasons or even bigger than Bretton Woods. So yes, I'm biased. Yes, I've known the President for 10 years, since I briefed him first as candidate Trump. But I think people do not understand, especially the quote unquote experts in the beltway around D.C. that this man is changing history for probably the next 50, if not 100 years.
- [05:24]
B
I want to ask you a Thucydidean question between the real cause and the pretext, what he called the prophesis and the aetia, but because what he is doing is very disruptive to the post war, 80 year old kind of calcified order. So when you talk, and I don't want to get into specifics because of the security principles and ramifications, but when you talk to your counterparts or people in your field in different governments, do they see us as disruptive? Chaotic disruptive in a positive way? Welcome relief. Is it a mixed bag? What is their reaction to what's going on in the United States?
- [06:10]
D
Of the options you gave me. Welcome relief. Welcome relief. We have people, we have countries who we like to work together with. And I don't mean just the allies of NATO, but very important non allies who don't have security guarantees, but who are close partners, especially when it comes to disrupting and neutralizing, you know, the jihadi threat that is today global. And I can't tell you how many meetings I've been to in the last scant seven months where they've said, honestly, Dr. G, they call me Dr. G. America has not been a good partner. You've either demanded much of us and not delivered anything in exchange, or the Biden administration scolded us and made sure that we had, you know, gay pride parades in our capitals which are mostly Christian or even Catholic. And then sometimes they just turned their back on us and. And weren't America weren't partners. I had a head of a delegation this morning say very diplomatically, sometimes America has shifting priorities. And I said, sir, you should have an ambassadorial rank. You are such a diplomat. Because our friends were ill treated. I said this before I came back into government. The Biden years saw our friends treated like enemies and our enemies treated like friends. Just the juxtaposition of Israel and Iran. Israel treated like a pariah. The Obama administration sends its lackeys into Israel to lobby and work against Netanyahu. And under the Biden administration, literally billions of dollars unleashed for the purposes of a murderous regime that preaches destruction of America from the pulpit every Friday as we are the great Satan for the mullahs of Tehran. Most nations, if they live in the real world, if they are Thucydidean and understand fear, honor and interest, are very, very happy that a strong America is back. An America which is predictable. I'm sure you are as frustrated as I am when the talking heads say, oh my gosh, Donald Trump, he's so unpredictable. Au contraire. He is the most predictable president we've had in generations. Why? Because. Because if it's good for America, he will do it. If it's bad for America, he will stand in the breach like a colossus. Eminently predictable.
- [08:50]
B
That's a good reference to Julius Caesar's description in the play Julius Caesar. Remember, everybody about Cassius or Brutus says he doth Strode like a colossus.
- [08:59]
D
Colossus.
- [08:59]
B
We are like pygmies beneath his feet. That was sort of cruel. It would be a cruel seminal to apply it to the European people were waiting outside his door, but it is accurate. Let me ask you if we have all of these installations in Syria and Iraq and throughout the Middle east, given the rapid changing landscape, or canvas the Middle east, because Hezbollah, temporarily at least, has been sort of inert or made inert by Israel. Ditto Hamas. I don't know how we would characterize the Houthis. They were attacked, I guess yesterday by the Israelis or this morning. I shouldn't say attacked in a response to their earlier provocative attack. And then there's Iran. What do you, as a counterterrorism expert, if we were to look at the globe in general, but particularly the Middle east, is our primary worry Shia Crescent, allies of Iran, Iran in particular, their subordinates? Or is it isis fundamentalist, radical, traditional jihadis that were Sunni, or is it renegade? It just seems to me that the whole canvas has changed so much now. We had this conversation, oh, two years ago, and I said, sebastian, this brilliant operation that you described, the only problem we had was we had to ask Israeli permission to go into Iranian airspace. You would have thought I was crazy. Or if I had said Hezbollah, the supposed SS shock troops of the Middle east, had their private parts blown off or their hands at least three or four thousand, no one would have believed these radical changes. So when you guys are looking at counterterrorism, preventative, responsive, what are youris. It Sunni? Is it Shia? Is it mixed? What's the main concern that the American people should be worried about?
- [11:03]
D
So two things. When I look exterior to the United States, number one, and again, I tried to give this advice to my colleagues in government. The President of the United States, President Trump, is a preternatural geopolitical thinker. He doesn't live in these, you know, what do we call them, ironically, the stovepipes of excellence of the US Government. He doesn't care about one country, one region, one threat group. He looks at them comprehensively. And when he looks at the Middle east, he looks at it through a very simple prism of Iran. Iran. When you read even the unclassified reports of the billions of dollars that Iran has pumped, not into the future of Persia and the Persians and the minorities who live there, but into the funding of proxies, Sunni and Shia, it is numbers that beggar belief. So when the President wrote that letter to the ayatollah, he was very clear Two things will not be permitted by this White House. The mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons. That's why Midnight Hammer. And secondly, we will not permit you to continue to support proxies. If Iran were not supporting the myriad proxies of the region, the world would be a safer place. So number one, what Iran continues to do, to destabilize the whole region and export its messianic occultation of the Hidden Imam. Apocalyptic vision when it comes to other threats. The week before the inauguration, I was here in the White House receiving transition briefs from the outgoing team. All the politicals had left. They'd all, you know, crying into their serial and the professionals were left in the building. And I received and I doffed my cap, very good briefings from the professionals of the counterterrorism community. And the one thing that left me a little bit perturbed was the map of Africa and especially the spread of ISIS into Central Africa and parts of the Sahel. Now it is disturbing, but on the flip side, there is a positive interpretation. Why is ISIS moving itself into parts of Africa? Because they can't build a caliphate or hangout in the Middle East. When we came into the administration the first time eight years ago, the President said destroy the physical caliphate of isis. And we did so in short order. So Africa is a little bit troubling, but it is also a metric proof of how successful we have been in the Middle east to squeeze the remnants of ISIS onto that continent, often in a way where they are forced to exploit pre existing conflicts that are mostly tribal or ethnic and trying to impose their Sunni Wahhabist caliphate ideology on top of it, which isn't an exact match. So we will deal with that threat as well. But the good news is we are drafting the President's new counterterrorism strategy. And the bumper sticker that I can discuss freely is finishing the. There are a handful of Jihadi groups that pose a threat to America's homeland. And our intent under this president is to deal every single one of them such a debilitating blow that local partners, local actors, can suppress that threat to a sub strategic level. And people like me will be out of a job because terrorism is not going to be an issue of mass casualty attacks in New York, Washington or Pennsylvania.
- [14:50]
E
We'll get you right back to the show, but first I'd like to take a moment for one of my favorite sponsors, Quince. Quince has the closet staples you'll want to reach for over and over again, like cozy cashmere and cotton sweaters from just $50, breathable flow knit polos and comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. The best part, everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markup. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. Keep it classic and cool with long lasting staples From Quince. Go to quince.com Victor for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Quince Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Victor to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Victor and we'd like to thank Quince for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hansen Show. And now we return you to the Saturday Edition.
- [16:10]
B
It seems that you're in an opportune moment because usually people in the National Security Council, they have these rivalries with their quasi counterparts in the State Department and they're very worried about an open border and 10,000 people the last four years coming through, although I'm not sure your Biden predecessors worried much about it. It's kind of unusual, isn't it, that people in the National Security Council, at least as far as the political appointments in the State Department, they're more complimentary than antithetical, aren't they? Do you have counterparts in the State Department that want you to succeed and want to partner with you?
- [16:45]
D
Oh, absolutely. Our colleagues in the counterterrorism bureau are superb. And I often get asked this question, Victor, what's the difference between because I served in the first administration and they asked me what's the difference between that one and this one? And I could not describe a larger gulf between the two experiences. Why? Well, number one, we don't have traitors inside the building. We don't have, you know, John Kelly. And this pains me. I spent several years teaching the Marines at Quantico. But to have a Marine as chief of staff, never elected by anyone, deem it his duty to undermine the intent of the commander in chief and to subvert his decisions and to slow roll them through the Pentagon is just anathema to the republic's principles. To have the likes of a Mark Milley, who was on the hotline with Beijing telling them, don't worry if Donald Trump wants to go to war as president, I'll give you a heads up or a Vindman, a colonel leaking classified presidential conversations to the Washington Post or irrelevancies who weren't maga like Rex Tillerson. As a cabinet member, that is gone. That age has been jettisoned. I have friends of mine who are cabinet members. You know, John Radcliffe, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard. We are united in our desire to serve the President and the mandate of the nigh on 80 million Americans who re elected him. So we are here to get stuff done. And it could not be more different than it was in the first administration. And the only challenge is Victor keeping up with the president every single day. He is not interested in excuses. He just wants performance. You look at the likes of Tom Homan, I mean, could you imagine a better person as borders are wonderful. Stephen Miller, you know, the genius behind the first Trump administration's immigration policies. Destroying the lying legacy media every single day. He takes, takes the microphone. Caroline Levitt, is there a better press secretary? I can't remember one. So it is a team not of rivals, to quote that famous book. It is a team of patriots who are connected at the hip in their desire to execute the mission.
- [19:14]
B
I think the president himself has basically said that. He said that his second administration, he didn't fault his first administration. He just said that he'd learned. He said two things. And I just finished a sequel to the book. So it's called the Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and His MAGA Agenda and his MAGA Counter Revolution. But it seems to me when he's referenced what you're talking about, it's in two contexts. One, that he wasn't interested in Washington. And when he got there, he was snowed. Not snowed in the sense of being naive, but all these resumes came his way from what I would call the Romney wing or the McCain wings, even the bipartisan swamp. And he was under enormous pressure to get a team very quickly. And these people had sterling resumes according to the standards, the establishment. Establishment, yes. And then the second thing is, and this is more controversial, he said at one point, you know, when he was in the wilderness, he had a chance to look back with perspective. I don't think he said it was a good thing given what he went through. But there was something paradoxical about it because after he went through the 91 indictments trying to get him off the ballot, the Mar a Lago raid, these people exposed themselves in a way that he wasn't able before the first term to, really, because he wasn't interested in Washington. And then he said, I got to know. I think the quote that I remember, I got to know the bad people, and I got to know the good people when he was in between terms. And that the other thing I've noticed, he has a propensity to select people that not only are independent thinkers and MAGA adherents, but they have suffered personally from the very agencies in which they're now directing, whether it's Cash Patel or Tulsi Gabbard. They went after Jay Bacharya. HHS was not fond of Robert Kennedy Jr. And so you get people that are running these agencies that come in with deep suspicions about the way they had been politically weaponized in the past. And that makes all the difference?
- [21:27]
D
Well, I mean, yeah, completely. Absolutely. I myself, I don't know if you recall this. It was revealed. Yes, I remember.
- [21:35]
B
On January 6th. Didn't they kind of go after you as well?
- [21:39]
D
Well, Nancy Pelosi's committee, the January 6th Committee, because my name was mentioned by someone in a text, simply mentioned. They managed to get my cell phone provider to genuflect in front of the January 6th Committee and provide all the data from my phone, my wife's phone, and my children's phone to the committee. I mean, not to mention the fact, I'm sure you're also aware of, it was revealed that the then Biden ambassador to the Ukraine illegally tasked the State Department to collect my social media data along with Donald Trump Jr. Dan Bongino, John Solomon. That's actually a criminal activity. The State Department cannot collect data on U.S. persons. And interesting that it's the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine who is doing that. So, yes, we have people in, in this administration who have a very healthy distrust of the powers of government and the abuses that were committed by the likes of Brennan, Stroke, McCabe, Clapper, Mueller, Comey on down, simply because they disagreed with the political identity of the candidate who won the election in 2016. So, yes, God bless Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and even those who weren't necessarily victims, like my current boss, the acting National Security Advisor, who understands that you cannot allow this to happen again. Otherwise, the American populace, Marco Rubio, knows this. Secretary Rubio, The American populace will never believe in the rectitude of their government unless this is set straight. And what is it, the phrase, Was it black or which great British philosopher was it? Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
- [23:42]
B
This is one of the most common questions I get from our side is, is this retribution or is this delayed justice? Or this is. It seems about one third of the question says, why are we getting in this tit for tat. And the other two thirds are, if we don't do this, there's no deterrence and people will go right back at it. I think you and I are in the latter group that you don't. It's not vindictive. But if there is culpability there, you have to follow it through the judicial process or it's going to.
- [24:16]
D
I've never understood this criticism. It's like those who don't like the style of the president. I mean, the first question is, you know, the man who is performing your brain surgery or piloting the plane that you're, you know, traveling in, do you care whether he uses salty language now and again or doesn't share your taste in music or do you want him to get stuff done and to fly the plane safely and to give you the correct brain surgery treatment you need? I never understood this style over substance issue. And I think it's analogous to the question of, well, is this revenge and retribution? Can we stop and be logical for a moment? What an asinine criticism. If it's revenge or retribution that requires for a crime to be committed against the individual who is exacting revenge. If it's capricious corruption, that's another issue. But if it's retribution, a wrong was done. Are we supposed to sweep it under the carpet? And then what is the average individual's faith in the system if it is swept under the carpet? The man I now work for was facing 700 years in prison. As you have recited from memory hundreds of occasions, his home was raided by armed agents of the FBI who came equipped with props with the unclassified cover sheets that say top Secret, splayed them on the floor, took photographs, and then illegally provided those photographs to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Shouldn't that be somehow put right? Otherwise, the average American is going to say, oh, they could do that to a former president. Well, then they can do it to me. And they did it to January 6th. Defendants who committed no real crime, who walked peacefully through the halls of the Congress. I'm not talking about the ones who are violent, but grandmothers who are praying peacefully and who got a custodial sentence for, quote, unquote, trespass that day. That must be somehow adjudicated as wrong. And the last thing most egregious of all for those who live in the intelligence, you know, the realms of intelligence, as I do, we now know what Brennan did, along with Gina Haspel and along with elements of the FBI and the CIA they used allied services to do an end run around the US Constitution and to spy on President Trump, his campaign and members of his first administration because they knew it was a crime for the CIA and FBI to do it without a crime or a predicate. So they got other agencies from other countries to do so and they tried to destroy people like General Flynn and Peter Navarro that must not be allowed to stand.
- [27:18]
B
We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
- [27:27]
E
We'll get you right back to the show, but first I'd like to take a moment for one of my favorite sponsors, Quince. Quince has the closet staples you'll want to reach for over and over again, like cozy cashmere and cotton sweaters from just $50, breathable flow knit polos and comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. The best part, everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markup. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. Keep it classic and cool with long lasting staples. From Quince, go to quince.com Victor for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Quince Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Victor to get free shipping and 300 day returns. Quince.com Victor and we'd like to thank Quince for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hanson Show. And now we return you to the Saturday edition.
- [28:46]
B
And we're back with Dr. Seb Gorka. I think a lot of us, when people say, well, look at what Trump said or he's in a fight with Rosie o' Donnell or he's using, as you say, salty language, part of the, part of the profile of the president is he's antithetical to the entire status quo and he's a disruptor. And he knows that the more candid and blunt and even provocative he can be, the less people are going to try to compromise him, bring him over, make him, you know, moderate. So he's openly adversarial to this system that we've inherited. And I don't think people quite realize that. Why he sets the left crazy, not that they were not angry at George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan because they know that they can't compromise him. They can't moderate him to their point of view because he's blunt and he opposes not just what they do but what they represent in a way that I haven't seen anybody. Ronald Reagan did a counter revolution for a while, but it wasn't as holistic as Donald Trump. Donald Trump is questioning the entire nexus of the liberal progressive project. He's questioning the legitimacy of these elite universities that gouge the government on grants, that don't protect the First Amendment, that have racially segregated graduation ceremonies or theme houses, quote, unquote, in violation of the Supreme Court ruling. And then as soon as he does this, and then he's right up to NPR and PBS. Why does NPR have 84 people in the editorial? So to be that ambitious, he doesn't say, well, I apologize, I might have offended you, or I'm going to give the medal of Freedom to somebody on the left. He doesn't do that because he's a counter revolutionary. And I think that confuses a lot of people.
- [30:59]
D
But if I may, it's more than just the threat he poses to the left wing. It's a threat he poses to the establishment writ large. Especially, as you said, the Romney types or the National Review types. Donald Trump's greatest sin as candidate Trump was he came to this stinking cesspit that is Washington, D.C. and he won the election in 16 without kissing the ring of the Republican establishment. He didn't go to the Bill Kristol's. He didn't hang out with nro. He didn't go to aei. He didn't sit down with anybody and say, what should I do? No. He saw, as a man living in the real world, an America that was broken and that could fix it. And one of the easiest way to get fired in his administration. I've seen this with three star and four star generals is to walk into the Oval and the President says, why are we doing this this way? And the general goes, because that's how we've been doing it for 20 years, Mr. President. I mean, you know, you'll be cashiered and ripped off of your stars within minutes if you say that he is here not to toe the line, not to help you maintain your sinecures for doing nothing at a quote, unquote, think tank. And worst of all, he's the billionaire from Queens. He's not from the Hamptons, he's from Queens. And he has produced where the conservative establishment has failed for generations. It pains me to say this because I grew up under Margaret Thatcher in the UK And I looked at Ronald Reagan as a hero across the Atlantic. Not even Ronald Reagan addressed the march for life as president it took Donald Trump as president not only to address the march for life, but to strike. I'm a cradle Catholic. I thought I would go to my grave with Roe v. Wade on the books. No thanks to Donald Trump, Roe v. Wade has been struck down. The nabobs were talking for 40 years about pro life this, pro life that, securing the border. They did nothing, Professor. Along comes the billionaire from Queens, and he shames them by delivering that which they failed to deliver for almost half a century. That is his greatest sin. He is a threat to both sides of the establishment, and that's why he will never be forgiven.
- [33:35]
B
I think that's right. One good example of that is doctrinaire Republicanism Said, we have to win the Hispanic vote, and the only way we can win the Hispanic vote is to turn away from the border and give the dreamers and have mass amnesties. And even when Reagan did the Simpson Magazoli act of 1986, he took the border patrol off the border, turned over the policing of the border basically to employers with i9 forms. I could see almost immediately the next day what the difference was, that people just freely came across the border. And Donald Trump came along and he said, well, why would that be true? If you're in a Hispanic community and all of a sudden 10,000 people a day are coming, they're coming into your nearby airport at night, and they were flying them into the Fresno airport from midnight till four in the morning, six or seven hundred some days. And then your school suddenly has to drop advanced placement and have English as second language. Your grandmother can't get into the dialysis center. Your son is picked on by an M13 gang member because he doesn't speak Spanish. He's second or third generation. And then you're supposed to express solidarity with that. And so Trump just destroyed that whole paradigm. And in the process, he won 55% of the Hispanic male vote. That was something that we were told that would never happen by really nice people. But you know, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, you have to do this. You have to reach out and have comprehensive immigration reform. And he's got a natural instinct and a cunning that he understands how human nature works.
- [35:17]
D
But more than that, it's just simply a reversion to common sense.
- [35:21]
B
Common sense.
- [35:22]
D
I mean, you don't have to read, what is it you're book, Mexifornia. You don't have to be, you know, Charles Murray and do the statistical analysis. Ask yourself a simple question. I am a legal immigrant to the United States. My job as a nationally syndicated radio host, as a professor of counterterrorism at the National Defense University, or in the White House, will not be threatened by an illegal crossing the border. Who's going to be hurt by an illegal crossing the border? It is the Hispanic immigrant who came legally, who paid his money, waited in line, took the oath of office, and who's busing tables in Dallas, in Atlanta, in comes somebody from Afghanistan or from the Dominican Republic, does his job for 50% cash under the table. That's the person who's gonna feel the pain of 20 million illegals. So the President just said, well, of course, those who are, you know, living here legally paying their taxes, they're gonna be hurt first, including the black Americans who are suffering because they have been put on an indentured Democrat plantation for the last 50 years with trillions wasted and them still being in poverty thanks to the Democrat, you know, chainless plantation of today. So the President is just an exemplar of what common sense. Of course, the minorities will be hurt first by the illegals. Let's fix it. Which county was it, Professor? Starr county or a star county in Texas, 92% Hispanic voted overwhelmingly for President Trump. That's the wake up call.
- [37:09]
B
91 counties. He won 91% of all the counties.
- [37:14]
D
Yeah.
- [37:14]
B
In the United States. You can really see that. I was talking to a very noted economist where I work at the Hoover Institution, and he was railing about tariffs because it defies all libertarian economic theories. And I said, well, I think Trump would ask you, if tariffs are so horrible and trade deficits are good, why do the Europeans, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, and they seem pretty prosperous in the post war. Why do they like surpluses? And why do they like to protect their industries? And why do they want us to have an open market without any restrictions at all, this huge consumer market? And they always say the same thing. Well, it's unsustainable. I said, it's been pretty sustainable for decades. Well, it's not. And so it's common sense. It's a.
- [38:06]
D
And with tariffs, what's often missed is also it's a market moral question as well. Ask that economist, why is it okay for Canada to levy a 200% tariff on American dairy products? I thought we were allies, members of NATO, and really we protect Canada as part of a continuity.
- [38:31]
B
It's even worse than that. What they do is they give you about a $4 or $5 billion ceiling where there's almost no tariffs, but we could send in 20. And then at this magic Number which limits our entrance into the Canadian market. Then these huge tariffs come.
- [38:49]
D
Yes.
- [38:49]
B
And then they can say, well, we don't have tariffs on the first X amount of. And that's what they do.
- [38:56]
D
Or Japan. I'm not an economist, but when my colleagues here at the National Economic Council tell me, well, I didn't even know that we grow a lot of rice in this country. Yes, Japan. Japan was levying a 700% tariff on American rice. And where's the moral justification? Why should American rice farmers be put out of business? Because Japan can have tariffs, but we can't. It's simply common sense. Plus the moral rectitude to stand up for American producers, American workers, American taxpayers.
- [39:33]
B
It is. And I was looking at some of the literature from the Bretton woods conference, the birth of the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and tariffs and all of these treaties. And it was all predicated on the idea that in 1945, 46, Stalin had broken all of his agreements. He was an existential threat. And therefore we had to rebuild Europe and Japan, and then after the Korean War, Korea. So we were going to let them protect their industries, sell stuff to us. We weren't really going to worry about whether they did or not contribute as much as they could to NATO. We were going to do that. We were going to protect them with Sato. And the problem was that it really, that had been ossified. And then you're 70 years afterwards, and these vibrant economies that grew up with that largesse and those concessions thought that it was, was a lifetime contract. And Meanwhile, we were $36 trillion in debt. And they don't quite understand that. And so, you know, Trump says things that really get economists mad. One of the things he said was, and there was a logic to it, he said about the tariffs. Well, and he said this about the NATO contribution. Well, you know, we're going to start clean. We're not going to go back and charge them for all the stuff they took us for over all these years. And that made everybody's head explode. You mean because you paid 16, 17, 18% of NATO? And we were kind of sponging off this. Now you want us to go back and pay for what we got free in the 60s, 70s and 80s?
- [41:10]
D
But I'm confused, Professor. Didn't the Wall Street Journal tell us that by May or June we'd be in a recession and the world would end because of tariffs? What month are we in now?
- [41:21]
B
We're in August. And they said that the stock market was going to collapse. They said GDP would go below 2%. Inflation. They said, I think the inflation rate is about 2.6. It's about what it was in January, February. And they said the tariffs would cause enormous increases today. They were very upset because they suggested that the tariffs might bring in $4 trillion over the next 10 years. And so I don't understand that. That's off topic. I don't understand the Wall. I like a lot of the Wall Street Journal columnists, but sometimes the news division, I don't know what it is on the economics, it has a innate prejudice or dislike of the Trump administration's economic policies. And sometimes they don't even make sense. They're contradictory.
- [42:14]
D
Well, I think it's doctrinaire. I think it's the recrudescence of, you know, we should not be building things in America. Why? It's cheaper to build things elsewhere. That's the future. And the president wholeheartedly rejects that. We want to build ships in America. We want to have rare earth mineral processing in America. A nation is not simply measured by the service industries it can provide, but by what it can physically do in the tangible world. And I think the Wall Street Journal has just become a doctrinaire version of the 1980s.
- [42:50]
B
It is, but it almost has a pathological prejudice because you see articles like, oh, we've self deported over a million people and now we're looking. This is at a time when the American birth rate is 1.67, right below 1.7 and we're going to be short workers. Administration has no idea that the economy is going to start to sputter because we don't have enough workers. Next article, an inch below AI is threatening the jobs of American. We're going to have a surplus of all these Americans because of AI. And then you get the. What is the common theme in these? In these, what I always do when I look at the news division, I look at the bylines, not of the columnists. I love Kim Strauss and people like that. When I look at the news division, it's just almost eerie. There's three places that they come from. When you look at the byline, New York Times, Washington Post and Politico, and they've drafted all these people and it is pathological. They want to find any reason to oppose what's going on. If you look at immigration, they never say to themselves, well, maybe Americans will be higher paid. Maybe the emergency rooms won't be so crowded, maybe the schools won't be so burdened. Maybe we have 500,000 known criminals that came in without audit. Maybe it'll be safer, maybe there'll be less fentanyl and we won't lose 80,000. None of the social, cultural drawbacks of open borders do they talk about. And all of those actually have an economic effect. Effect they will save money with. Cutting back on. I mean, just on the remittances, 63 billion to Mexico and another 60 to Central America, just cutting back some of that by deporting a million people will save. There's a lot of hidden savings and a lot of things that Trump is doing that people don't calibrate.
- [44:52]
D
If I may, there may be an explanation for this dissonance and for this pathological hatred of one man, and I quote, a good friend, one of the true, you know, real journalists left in the world. He's the author of some amazing books including Losing Bin Laden and that's Rich Minuter. Rich Minuter, Wall Street Journal for years, the Times of the uk. And he said on my radio show a year ago, he has a label for the cleavage in America and it goes beyond rural and metropolitan. He says we live in a world where there are those Americans who are accountable and those who are unaccountable, the accountable Americans. For them, when gas reaches $6 a gallon in California and they're a plumber, they're a carpenter, that actually changes their lives. That means they probably can't afford to do that job 100 miles away. Then there are the unaccountables, the Politico writers, the Wall Street Journal writers, the nomenclature, the bureaucrats in dc, the talking heads. For them, they probably don't know what the price of gas is. They probably have no idea how much things cost per item in a grocery store. The biggest problem they have is when they're in Paris, the WI fi in the Starbucks is only two bars and not five bars. That's the biggest problem they have in life, the WI fi signal when they're not at home. I think this is a superb diagnosis. President Trump, one of the most successful businessmen for half a century, was a builder. Builders must live in the real world. They must pay attention to the minutiae as well as to the hundred story skyscrapers, physics. That's why the working class can relate to him. Not because he's rich and successful, but because he lives in a real world and is connected to it. The Rachel Maddows of the world, the Jim Acostas, the senior fellows at the think tanks across this city, the real world has no effect on them and will never have an effect on them until they lose their job and they don't have the, you know, the Harvard connections to slide into the next sinecure. I think this is perhaps one of the biggest distinctions in America and in the West. Not just America, but in the West. Do you live in the real world or are you insulated from it?
- [47:38]
B
Yeah, I agree. And that came up with a colleague that was very angry that Trump was talking to Putin. And I said to him, how do you build a skyscraper in New York? Do you go talk to the union boss and ask him if he's ever had a brush with the law and therefore you're not going to talk to him? How do you talk to the representative from Harlem? Are you going to say that he's a demagogue when you can't talk to him?
- [48:03]
D
The corrupt Democrat mayor, the building authority.
- [48:06]
B
Chairman, the radical green conservationist that wants to stop everything, endangered species. How do you deal with all those people who don't necessarily have a sanitized pedigree or resume? You don't. You have to deal with them.
- [48:19]
D
Right.
- [48:19]
B
And that's what Trump said about Putin. He said, I have to deal with him. And when Biden didn't deal with him, he just called him a killer. Which is true. A murderer. Which is true.
- [48:29]
D
As was Stalin.
- [48:31]
B
Yeah, as was Stalin. And Stalin killed 20, 20 million people. Even Putin is not going to reach that number. But it's that realism. We're going to take a quick break and come back for one final segment with Dr. Seb Gorka. And we'll be right back.
- [48:51]
F
It shouldn't be this difficult to get basic medical treatment in our country, yet so many Americans are still being denied access to the care and medications they trust. That's why I want to tell you about all Family Pharmacy. This isn't just another online pharmacy. They're truly helping Americans get access to the medications they believe in, like ivermectin, mebenzadol, hydroxychloroquine, methylene blue, antibiotics, and many more. And now they've recently lowered their prices to make it even easier and more affordable for families to get what they need. The process is simple. Just fill out a form online, select the medication you need, a doctor reviews your order, writes the prescription, and your order is shipped straight to your door. If you believe in medical freedom, this is the pharmacy for you. This company is truly making a difference. And more people need to know. Visit their website and order what you need today. Go to allfamilypharmacy.com Victor and use the code Victoria Victor 10 for 10% off your order.
- [49:58]
E
We'll get you right back to the show. But first, I would like to take a moment to welcome our sponsor, Vibrance. The ingredients in Vibrance Super C Serum can replace your day creams, eye creams, night creams, neck creams and wrinkle creams, and even dark spot reducers made in the usa. With the highest quality ingredients, including vitamin C, hyaluronic acid, vitamin B5 and vitamin E, Super C Serum delivers noticeable results. Simplify your skin care routine, get a healthier complexion and minimize wrinkles and age spots with Vibrance. And if you don't find it better than your current skin care routine, you'll get a full refund. Go to vibrance.com victor to save up to 37% off and free shipping. That's Vibrance V I B R I A n c e vibrance.com Victor and we'd like to thank Vibrance for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hanson Show. And now we return you to the Saturday edition.
- [51:05]
B
And we're back with Dr. Seb Gorka. Seb, we've got this contentious. I'm going to just finish just your thoughts on the Ukraine, Russia, because your family was from Eastern Europe. And like all Eastern Europe that I've met, they're very suspicious of Russia, given Russia's historical ambitions in that area. It seems to me that the general guidelines of a peace are pretty well known that while it would be nice for Ukraine to get back Crimea and Donbas, they don't have the military wherewithal and they're not going to get it from the Europeans. And I don't think the Europeans privately want them in NATO, but they're willing to give them security guarantees. And then Russia is basically got 75% of these provinces that they have assumed since the February 24, 2022 attack. But they're still tens of thousands of miles that they don't have in these areas. And so we're going to have it. Is it going to be a DMZ along there, a ceasefire? Then we negotiate where the DMZ is. Are we going to then say, well, the only way to force Putin is to supply people? I know you can't. You're not a spokesman for the administration, so I don't want to put you in a spot. But traditional military logic would say if you really want to leverage them, you have to have a secondary boycott and you have to hit targets inside Russia? Cold War logic would say, yes, Victor, but there was A protocol in the Cold War that when you have two rival powers and there's a proxy war, you don't use a proxy to hit the homeland of your nuclear enemy. And when Khrushchev tried it in 62, maybe with Cuba, we went to Defcon too. Where do you come down on all this as someone who's lived in that process? Part of the world.
- [53:07]
D
Well, as you say, it's no secret the baggage I bring to my geopolitical analyses. My father was betrayed by Soviet agent Kim Philby, tortured and arrested at the age of 20 and given a life sentence, only to be liberated during the revolution of 1956 and to escape to the West. So I don't like KGB colonels. And I remember a time when no conservatives like KGB colonels like Vladimir Putin. The idea that we have this wing, this ever shrinking wing of neo Buchananite isolationists who are impressed by the cleanliness of Moscow supermarkets and the fact that they have shopping trolleys. The good news is, as President Trump labeled them, kooky, they do not have any hold on the decision making in this building or in the administration writ large. We did not trigger the invasion of Ukraine. That is the most imbecilic thing I've ever heard. You can't blame NATO or Europe or America. Go and read the speeches of Vladimir Putin from 21 years ago when he said Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states are all illegitimate and are in fact parts of Russia. So the idea that we triggered this is of course absurd. Where it goes from now, I will not undercut either the amazing work of Envoy Witkoff or the President himself. I think we are the closest we've ever been to a resolution. It's not going to be a resolution that solves everything in terms of territorial control, but it will do what the President wants to achieve, which is to stop the meat grinder, to stop the killing. And I'll give one tip of analysis, if I may. You remember the first disastrous meeting of Zelenskyy in the Oval? Why was that all about a rare earth minerals deal? Well, for the very obvious reason that we know what real guarantees of security are. They're not pieces of paper signed in Brussels or Munich. Who can ever forget, you know, Neville Chamberlain getting off that plane, waving that paper from the Chancellor, Hitler, peace in our time moment. Which of course led to the invasion of not only Czechoslovakia, but also Poland and then World War II. If, however, you tie together the economies of Ukraine and America with thousands of businessmen, refinery workers, support staff, dozens or scores of countries of companies that does more for the safety of that benighted country than any piece of paper from Brussels or Stuttgart. So, again, the President looks at the world holistically. It's not just about diplomacy in this sphere, defense in this sphere, and economics here. It's all combined. Why is Scott Besant, one of the rock stars of this administration, so seminal to everything we do? Because it's Secretary Rubio, it's Pete Hegseth, it is Scott Besant together as a team, exercising all the levers of power. All I'll say is I think we are very close to a resolution, and at least we can say one thing. The meat grinder will end. The final shape is yet to be determined.
- [56:43]
B
Yeah, I get baffled by two different groups, and they're antithetical to them. One group is what you say? I call them the Buchanan wing. And I don't know whether the attraction for Putin is that he's orthodox or they have some idea that he's sort of a Teutonic knight. I don't know what it is, but they feel that he's a champion for conservatism and he's not. The other group that I have a problem with, John Bolton wrote a letter, you know, his letter, and it was, you know, Trump is screwing everything up. He's naive. He doesn't know what he wants. It's chaotic, it's a mess. Putin is a killer. But that doesn't get you anywhere to say that he's a killer. So how do you restrain a killer?
- [57:30]
D
Yeah, do you.
- [57:31]
B
How many missiles? He says, well, Trump said he was going to let them attack targets, and then he didn't let. Well, that's a negotiating point on Trump's part. I'm going. They have a blank, Vladimir. They have a blank check to do it. But you really want this to happen. Same thing with the secondary boy. Well, he's going to boycott poor India, but he's not going to. A secondary boycott would be really a good thing to do to stop Putin. But on the other hand, Trump has to think, wow, I'm in these tense negotiations with China. Their trade representative is over here. Here we've got a little polarization with India already. I've got mid term. Do I really want to have a secondary boycott against 3 billion people in China and India as a way to pressure Putin? That would be wonderful to pressure him. So there's all these dimensions that these purists don't even take into consideration. And that's what's. So it's alternative. The alternative was biden we're going to do what it takes. But I have no strategy other than to give Ukraine enough not to lose right away, but not to win. And I have no idea what a strategy of victory would entail and I have no idea what a ceasefire and a peaceful settlement. So I'm just going to sort of go shrug my shoulders and give them some stuff once in a while.
- [58:52]
D
It's utterly one dimensional thinking. And worse than that, in many cases there is, you know, if you look at the Venn diagram, there's a very heavy overlap between the, you know, Putin's a great Christian and family man. The same voices are saying Israel is at fault for everything and the great war criminals are in Jerusalem, not in the Gaza, not in the headquarters of the irgc. So it's a very, it's a perverse concatenation of, of people who can't think strategically and I think are somehow influenced by some mythical version of America in the 1950s that never really existed and hankering for some kind of idyl that just lives in their minds and at the same time looking for an excuse to be anti Semitic with a thin veneer of, well, it's not about Jews, it's about Israel. The good news is these people exist. They're very loud on social media, but their influence on MAGA and especially on the Commander in Chief is minimal. But we every single day must call them out. And before we finish, if I may, Professor, I want to say thank you to you, to Sammy, to Jack, for keeping the Patriots sane during these years in the wilderness, for standing up for the truth, and for never bending to the establishment or to the propagandist. So I personally would like to say thank you on behalf of all those that you helped keep sane for so many years.
- [60:33]
B
Thank you. We just had a. We're just about ready to end because time is running out. Sammy and I did a little bit the other day about David Cullum, the organic chemist at Cornell that Tucker had on his show, and he basically said we should have sided with Hitler. And he's a conservative, supposedly Tucker is. But I thought the first thing came in my mind was we should have sided with Hitler and therefore we just gratuitously declared war on Hitler. He declared war on us.
- [61:05]
D
Or worse than that, the amateur historian who's really, you know, an, yeah, an anti Semite who's saying, well, on Tucker's show, the real, real villain of World War II is Churchill. And then Carlson just, you know, sagely nods that, oh, yes, the man who actually built the gas chambers. And who invaded Poland and had a secret pact with Stalin. He's the victim, but the man who helped save Western civilization is the bad guy. I don't know what happened.
- [61:39]
B
I don't know what happened to these. Just listening to the latest one, though, David Cullen. In 30 seconds, he said three things that were completely, demonstrably untrue. He said, well, there's 20,000 POWs that we didn't get back from Russia. Well, Russia liberated German camps. They had POWs. They negotiated with us. We were in a bad position because we had freed some Russians in POW camp and they were going to be killed or worked to death if they went back to Stalin. And Stalin for a little bit said, well, we'll trade yours if you trade. And we were in a dilemma, but ultimately almost all of them we know were given back. He said, 20,000 died. That's not true. He said that George Patton wanted to join Hitler and fight the Soviets. George Patton, who was suffering from exhaustion as a proconsul of Bavaria, didn't say he wanted after Hitler was dead.
- [62:37]
D
He said that the Soviets are a threat. After the victory.
- [62:42]
B
After the victory. And he said, we have the troops here. At some point we're going to have to fight them. We might use retired German troops. He did not say that he won. He called what he said about Hitler, I personally plan to get to Berlin and hang that paper. Son of a. And the other thing that he said, that we could have avoided the Holocaust by joining with Hitler. The whole hunger plan was predetermined. He had killed 50,000 Germans who had mental defectiveness when he got into Poland. The first, with 7,000 Jews were rounded up in three weeks. So it's almost a mythical effort. And all these people that I knew very well, and you knew them. Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens. It's. I don't quite understand.
- [63:37]
D
I think, I think, I think. I think there's a.
- [63:39]
B
What the catalyst right now. What's.
- [63:42]
D
I don't have a, you know, a univalent explanation for all of it, but I think there's two things that. That are coming together in a disturbing fashion. Number one, clickbait, right? It's not about the truth. It's about. I must have the maximal views. I must have the Most advertising on YouTube or what have you. You. So you've got to. It's not the truth that drives. It's the outrage.
- [64:04]
B
Yes.
- [64:04]
D
And the second thing is combined with the fact that there is no. That comedian who keeps going on Joe Rogan, who debated the great Douglas Murray, that all experts are wrong. There is no such thing as expertise, which means nobody reads a book. Nobody reads Mein Kampf. Nobody listens to the transcripts of hit the script speeches where he's railing against the Jews for seven years. And then because you're not allowed, because some experts, like Fauci lied, therefore all experts are liars. Which taught. Which brings us to what a friend of mine has called the woke. Right. That the right elements of it now see themselves as victims because of COVID or what have you. Which leads to what? Just as much an epistemological argument that truth doesn't exist because there is no truth. They're all lying to you. From the WMDs in Gulf 1 to Covid. This is why the work of people like yourself is so important. Because what do we stand for? Objective truth is real. Read a book and search for the truth, not for clicks.
- [65:14]
B
I agree. And I think there's a third. And it's October 7th. I think something about the events that happen after October 7th rekindled the Buchanan idea. Yes, well, World War II was caused by overdue empathy for an exaggerated Holocaust or exaggerated anti Jewish laws in Germany. Therefore, we allied with communism and our natural allies were the Germans, and they weren't that bad to the Jews. And now look at. But the Jews are doing. They're doing exactly what they did in World War II. They're trying to get us into a Middle east war when our natural friends are the Arabs and the Iranians. And now we're on the wrong side, just like in World War II. And it's the Jews, Jews, Jews. I think that was a lot of it. People talk about Israel comes into their conversations in very oblique ways. When they talk about World War II.
- [66:10]
D
In a strange way, it's the catalyst. So this inordinate loss of life, the greatest loss of Jewish life since the end of the Shoah, since the end of the Holocaust, brings out this triggers those who hid their antisemitism and Israel's response to that massacre, they feel emboldened to say, well, you know who the real war criminals are. So I think it has a catalytic effect to draw out that nascent Jew hatred from those who had it covered under a veneer for far too very long. But the good thing is President Trump and this administration sees those individuals for who they are. And let's not forget another thing. Not only is President Trump the first ever president, as a sitting commander in chief, to address the March for life, he's the first president to pray at the Wailing wall at the temple wall in Jerusalem. The most philo Semitic president since the re establishment of Israel in 1948. Fully behind that nation's desire to destroy everyone responsible for October 7th. That's the reality of America first, not America alone, but we are the pinnacle of the spear for a Judeo Christian civilization. That's why.
- [67:29]
B
True. And the Jews did not everybody as you all know, the Jews did not prompt us to get into World War II and the Jews did not prompt us to bomb Iran or to get involved.
- [67:39]
D
And what happened to World War III? I thought World War 3 was going to happen instantly. We took action against tan professor and.
- [67:46]
B
30,000 dead, remember 30,000 dead. Anyway, we've been talking with Seb Gorka. We've had a great hour. Seb, What? Where can people find your latest book or your wife's book or.
- [67:59]
D
Oh, that's very kind. That's very kind. As a humble government employee, the only thing I have left is my Twitter account. So Seb Gawker on Twitter on X. And Katie, that's very kind of you. Katie's latest book, co authored with the great colleague at Heritage, Mike Gonzalez, is Next Gen Marxism. Katie Gorker, I've read it.
- [68:21]
B
It's a great book. And everybody. Well, we've been with Seb Gorka and thank you very much for listening. And we'll be back with Sammy next time. Thank you very much.
- [68:31]
D
God bless.