← Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words
Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words
Victor Davis Hanson: Letitia James Indictment Is Just the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’
01:35:04
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
A
A pattern of fraud committed by Letitia James.
- [00:05]
B
The bottom line is that what they've actually charged her for is the tip of the iceberg. The better question is, do you want to deport illegal criminals in general? I still think it would have been positive, yes. I mean, I liked every. But it was just compared to what most people have to do. And I look at all these professors that are so angry, they don't understand, and then they say, well, we got a PhD. It's very hard to get a PhD. No, I got a PhD. I got it in basically four years. It's a joke.
- [00:49]
A
Hello and welcome to the Victor Davis Hansen's new show, and it's called Victor Davis Hansen in His Own Words. This is our Saturday episode and we'll do something a little bit different in the middle segment, and that is to look at a historical topic. And Victor wants to talk about fighter planes in World War II. Before that, we'll talk a little bit about the Ukraine, Tom Holman and Letita James or Latita Leticia James. Excuse me. Stay with us and we'll be right back after these messages.
- [01:20]
B
Right is still right, even if you stand by yourself. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. This is Hans von Spakowski, host of the Case in Point podcast, which looks at the hottest cases affecting politics, culture, and everyone's daily lives. But we talk about them without confusing legal jargon. And we have interesting guests like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. And we end with reviews of classic Hollywood movies relevant to the topic. Case in Point, the podcast available everywhere you won't want to miss.
- [02:03]
A
Welcome back to the Victor Davis Hanson Show. Victor is the Martin and Nealy Anderson Senior Fellow in Military History and Classics at the Hoover Institution and the Wayne and Marcia Buskey Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College. You can find him at his website, victorhansen.com and the name of the website is the Blade of Perseus. Please come join us there for ultra material that is exclusive to subscribers for 650amonth or $65 a year. And we'd love to have everybody come join us. So, Victor, before we get to the middle segment and the history, I want to talk a little bit about a subject that I was going to do for the Friday show, but I didn't have time. And that is that there's in the news currently or at General Keane has been saying that he thinks the Ukraine is going to use Tom Tomahawk missiles to hit a Russian drone plant. And the only way they could use Tomahawk missiles is if the United States gave them to them.
- [03:05]
B
Yes. So there's two questions here. There's the strategic question and there's the geostrategic question. The strategic question is that Russia has been non stop hitting Ukrainian power plants, hospitals, staging areas, factories with impunity because it's re engineered the Iranian drone that it bought, the Shahid drone, it's got huge factories and they're sending hundreds of them at once. So if Ukraine were to stop that, it wouldn't be enough to hold the Russian army back at the front, which they're doing. They would have to do what Russia is doing to them, trying to have a strategic campaign to either limit their weaponry or their income. So that would be justified. And a Tomahawk missile is the most accurate missile, short range, 100 or so miles. And they could at least even longer. Excuse me, I think it's much longer. I don't know what I was talking about. But they could stop a lot. I think they've already destroyed about 18% of Russian oil refinery and they're even importing some oil, refined gas from other countries. So that's the only thing that keeps the Russian military going, is the oil sales to India, China, etc. So if the United States were to give them sophisticated Tomahawk missiles and the intelligence how to use them, and here's a qualifier, they would have to have United States, American technicians, they wouldn't say they were there, but they would have to train the Ukrainians and they would have to guide them and service them and calibrate them. So you would have American de facto on the ground in Ukraine helping target Russian strategic targets. That would be justified and it would help Ukraine win the war. Then there's the geostrategic reasoning and as I said earlier under the Cold War protocols, which we still follow because it's Russia versus the United States versus the Soviet Union versus the United States. It's the same thing. There were a lot of proxy wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East. But there was a general rule that in a proxy war the nuclear rival did not itself participate and hit the homeland of its rival. So in Vietnam, Russia did not go in there, they went in there with advisors. You can fight in that war, but they didn't hit the homeland. We didn't either. We didn't do it in any of these wars. The one time they came close to it was 1962 and Khrushchev put missiles that were capable of hitting the southeastern United States with nuclear weapons. We went to Defcon. I think we went to Defcon 4. We almost went to the nuclear level, and that was a taboo. So we said to Khrushchev, you can't do that. Now we kind of weaseled out of it and said, we'll take missiles out of Turkey, but what we're doing, if we were to give them Tomahawk missiles, and basically we were using a proxy to attack the homeland of our nuclear rival. And that's when Putin said that would be intolerable. And Trump said he might do it. I don't know why we just didn't do it and keep quiet. I think Trump wanted not to do it, but wanted to threatened. But he'll have to follow through if he's threatened and it's going to escalate. So bottom line, what is justified strategically and morally because of what Russia is doing to Ukraine is not justified geostrategically because it puts us at a threshold of a whole new game.
- [07:12]
A
Well, let's then turn to the home front, as it were, or to domestic issues. And there was this really very good interview on Newsmax of a Sam Antar, who is a forensic account economist, and he unveiled a pattern of fraud committed by Leticia James. And so that's very significant in the case against him on her loan applications for buying houses. So real estate deals, what are your thoughts?
- [07:42]
B
The bottom line is that what they've actually charged her for is the tip of the iceberg. And there can be additional charges brought to the grand jury at any time. They are saying that to achieve a lower interest loan and lower property taxes, she said that this property of hers was a second home and would not be rented out. And yet it apparently was. And she has a niece, a grand niece or somebody living in the property who has a long felony record and then who is out, who has skipped bail. And so immediately you say, is it a felony to allow a family member that you know is under arrest and wanted and has skipped bail to use your facilities to be shielded from law enforcement? That's very tricky legally, but for the attorney general of New York, it's devastating. And then there's this accountant brought up a number of other things that in 1983, going way back, she may have said that this was a family occupied property she bought in the New York area by listing her father as a spouse. Then there's another question of whether she at one time listed a property, this second property, as her primary residence, which if that were true, would have disqualified her for being Attorney General of New York. And the bottom line is these documents have all been signed. And so she has never said she didn't do it. She said that it was racist, it was sexist, it was lawfare. The problem she's having is a good lawyer will get a good prosecutor in this case, will get into the, they'll try to have some of her testimonies. I don't know how they'll get them in, but if they get any of those testimonies where she said, I'm going to get you Donald Trump, I got my eye on Trump Tower, I'm going to bring you down, then juries being human will not. They'll want to emotionally as well as the evidence, they'll want to convict her. I don't know why all of people that I respect like Andy McCarthy and all these people say it was a weak case, it's either true or false. And then the question is, well, they wouldn't have. There's only 3,000 cases of mortgage fraud. That's not how it works. If you are a high level official, especially one who's a top law enforcement officer in New York, then you're expected to meet a higher standard. So the question that I would say to Andy McCarthy and others who've questioned this would, well, if she wasn't this person, she would have not been looked at. They'll say, well, there's only 3,000 people who have been convicted of this per year. Something like that, you know, lying about the status of a property to get. But how many attorney generals, that's the real question. How many attorney generals have done this and gotten away with it? We don't know, but I have a feeling very few of them have. So she knows what she's doing. It's the same thing with all of these cases with John Bolton. He either transmitted the stuff or he didn't. And somebody said, well, they wouldn't have looked at him if he hadn't have crossed Trump. Well, he would have never been exposed, except he brought himself into the political arena by trying to write and publish a book in the 2020 campaigns cycle when he was warned by a federal judge who allowed him to publish it, but warned that he wouldn't have allowed him if it hadn't have gotten that far. He didn't want to stop the actual the book was printed, didn't want to stop the dissemination, but he did warn him that you are now subject to. You've subject yourself, subjected yourself to criminal and civil exposure. And the only reason he was not indicted, because Joe Biden thought he owed a debt of gratitude because he felt the Biden, the Bolton memoir, had weakened Donald Trump. So it's a little bit more complicated, but ultimately all these things will be adjudicated and the fact that it wasn't a federal prosecutor who made that decision, but they brought it before a grand jury, as often happens in federal cases and these are liberal states, Virginia, D.C. it's hard to get a, an indictment from a, you know, east coast court or jury. And they did a grand jury. So it shows you that there's something there.
- [12:36]
A
Yeah, I guess we all know that in terms of the law, some of us drive faster than the speed limit, but we don't all get caught. But the one that does can't say, well, there's other people out there.
- [12:48]
B
That's a Good point because Mr. Jones, the attorney general candidate in Virginia, everybody's talking about the horrific things he said about the speaker of the Virginia legislature when he said he wanted to kill him or assassinate him. He wanted his kids to die in his spouse's arms. That's all true, but it was rhetorical. What he, what they don't really talk about is two things that should have been disqualifying. He drove 116 miles an hour. That's hard to do that put everybody on that road anywhere near him in danger. And more importantly, when he was sentenced, he was not jailed for that, but he was sentenced to community service, I think 500 hours. And he defrauded the government by using his own political action committee to hire himself as a nonprofit, but that should have been disqualified. So he had a lot of stuff that was disqualifying. And in the case of Letitia James, she's already said it's the, they're playing the race card. Of course she played the race card. She talked about Donald Trump being white and when she went after him, and that was how she got elected, reelected to the attorney Generalship. And that was the subtext. And now it's quite ironic that she's playing the race card and saying, I'm only being attacked because I'm, you know, Fanny Wills, fill in the blanks, proud black woman. But she.
- [14:17]
A
This is, I know that you and Jack talked about it, but what do you think the chances of that Virginia governor who wouldn't, you know, disown him, I guess, from her, her ticket? What do you think her chances are getting?
- [14:33]
B
It's almost even now. And some of the pollsters, Trafalgar and Rasmussen, that had the best reputation in the 2024 election and 2022 have them almost dead even. It's very funny about how all these people call. They use the race card. So then you have Winsome Sears, who's an African American woman and a renowned white columnist makes a cartoon about her where she doesn't. She's portrayed not just with thick lips, but in a menstrual type, kicking her heels and just sticking, gesticulating as if she's on a menstrual show in the cartoon. And then they publish it without any thoughts. So the left has a long history of being racist and they project that racism onto other people and they call them that. And I don't care what color you are, but Letita James has been a racist and she is now claiming she's a victim because she's projecting what she has done and use race against Trump and this other, these, these race. These cases. In the case of the Attorney General, they have a black challenger and a Cuban American incumbent and the Attorney General, and then they have a open race between a black woman and a white woman. And so the left is kind of flummox because they have been using racist attacks in this cartoon against a black woman, at the same time claiming that Jay Jones is a victim of racism. So I think everybody, that what's the common denominator? Everybody's tired of it. They're just so sick of the the view, Kendi Jones, Ta Nehisi Code, blah, blah, blah, race, race, race. And then without any discussion of class, that we're talking basically about the elite class of America. The Obamas, the Eric Holders, the Ta Nehisi Coates, the Hikem Jeffries, very privileged, highly educated, very wealthy, high incomes, all talking as if they're victims. And it's time to look at class as far as privilege and not race.
- [17:01]
A
Okay, let's then look at the Tom Holmes case that he's been accused of taking a bribe is how the left puts it that the FBI recorded him. However, he wasn't a public official. He was in a private business. So I'm not sure how anybody distinguishes between a business deal and a bribe in a.
- [17:24]
B
This is going nowhere. It was, it was filed. The investigation was started by the Biden administration for obvious reasons. He is guilty or not guilty as a general that goes to work for Lockheed or General Dynamics or Northrop. You cannot tell me that they do not discuss their future employment after they leave. And they are hired quite legally because they have a whole retronetone of, of former high officers in procurement. And they call up and said, hey, bud, remember me? Yeah. Oh, General so and so General Smith. Yes. Well, we got a superior product over here at Lockheed. It's better than Raytheon. You know, that's what happens. So he's a private person and he is a lobbyist, basically. And he said somebody comes up to him and says, I will give you. He says, someday I'll have influence. And I have influence right now. I used to work for and I know a lot about it. If you want to give me money, I can further your efforts to get a government contract. That's what he, that's the worst. If that's all true and he took $50,000 and he was trying to get it, then you get to the next point of view that now he is the head of ice. And did he then go back to the people that he got 50,000 for consulting or advice on how to, you know, just like a general tells General Dynamics how to get a contract in the Pentagon. And did he. Is there a quid pro quo? And they don't seem to have any. So Cash Patel said this was the prior investigation, it went nowhere. And now you want to dig it up. Only because he's very successful in deporting supporting people. It's not going to go anywhere. Would I have done it? Not that I'm a moral exemplar for anything, but in my limited experience, anytime some affluent person has called me up and said, I'd like to give you some money if you would mention my product in a column or on a podcast or. That's happened a couple times. Not so, you know, not so explicitly. I've said no, not. But you have to do it in a very polite way so you don't come across sanctimonious or self righteous because you don't want to, you know, you don't want to say, I'm so much better than you. You just say, I don't think that's a wise idea. I'd like to help you, but I can't because I can't endorse a product on a, you know, if we have a, you can buy an ad and this is, here's the name of our ad sponsors. Just buy a, you know, 32nd A.D. that's above board. But I can't, I can't just incidentally mention things. I can mention people I like, you know, but there's gray areas. But everybody knows you can't take money and then do something you otherwise would not. I don't think I, I, it's very important. This, I'm A little worried that I really like the idea that Jared Kushner and Donald Trump and Witkoff are all businessmen and they cut through the diplomaties, but they have, they create a climate as we have to be careful about. There are a lot of Americans doing business in the Middle east in general, but in particular, they see the Trump administration as business orientated and the Gulf trillionaire economies flush with cash and liking Americans now and wanting to do business. And so you have to. I'm a little worried when I hear stories, and the Wall Street Journal ran with one, that there are people claiming they speak for Trump or the Trump family and they're making, you know, millions of dollars suddenly. It's an old rule of thumb, would anybody talk to me if I didn't know so and so. And the answer, if the answer is no, you got to be careful.
- [21:48]
A
Well, the last thing on immigration, J.B. pritzker, the governor of Illinois, has said that when Donald Trump is gone, these ICE agents that are there may face prosecution. He seems to be threatening them. And I thought that was a horrible, horrible thing they're just doing.
- [22:07]
B
He is a. He's really getting close to legal exposure. He should read the supremacy clause. Article 6 of the Constitution says in matters of federal jurisdictions, like enforcing federal law or protecting federal property, the federal government has supremacy over all local and state jurisdictions. So basically, what Pritzer is saying to ICE is the federal government does not have a right to come into my state or Mayor Johnson City and protect federal property from attacks. And they are throwing stuff in there and they're harassing our federal employees from filling out a federal task. He's going to lose, lose, lose. As I said earlier with Jack, Jan Brewer thought she could do the right thing and say, I'm going to force the Obama administration to, as federal stewards, enforce our federal law by acting on the state level. And they sued and said, this is a federal matter and you're a state. You have no business going down to the border and enforcing federal law over our decision not to. And they won. This is what caused the Civil War when South Carolina shelled a federal Fort Sumner and federal forces were there and there were armories all over the South. They were federal post offices. There were federal property. And once the Confederacy said that they were going to succeed in 1861, no one knew what to do because there was nothing in the Constitution. There was a lot about in the Constitution how you admit a state, but there was nothing how a state is free to succeed. And so nobody knew what to do. And Lincoln did not want the Union to be torn apart. So they came up with a rationale. The Southern states are expropriating federal properties, federal weapons, federal forts, and we have a right to go in there. And he was going to supply the troops that Fort Sumner and protect federal property and let force them to do the same thing. And we did the same thing with Eisenhower. Somebody was a real ignoramus. It was George Stephanopoulos. How did we get that name again? $16 million big mouth. And he said on a recent his show that Donald Trump is thinking about doing the Insurrection Act. That's the use of federal law superseding going into an area of chaos and insurrection and using federal law to override state law. And he said it's never happened that he ever overruled a governor who didn't want him to come in. Come on, man. Eisenhower went in Orville Faubus in Arkansas, said, we're going to treat black people the way we want. They don't have to follow the Supreme Court decision. We're not going to let them in. And Eisenhower said, you don't have a National Guard. We just federalized it and I'm going in. They did the same thing in Mississippi. He did the same thing in Alabama with the. So Stephanopoulos is such a partisan, he doesn't even take one nanosecond to look it up and he just spouts off. But Donald Trump is basically saying to Pitzer Fitzer, Pitzer, yes. He's saying to him, you are a state official and you are threatening federal employees and trying to impede them from doing their job. And now you're threatening to put them in jail or to prosecute them later on with implied threats. So you're in an insurrectionary mode. And if I declare the Insurrection Act, I can arrest you for trying to impede the enforcement of federal law and more importantly declaring that you're immune from it and that you're a sovereign body. I'm just going to federalize all of the Illinois National Guard and I'm going he can do that and he hasn't done it yet. So he's embolden. And what he is doing is he is in a competition with Gavin Newsom for who to see which one can be the most outrageous and get through the 20, 27, 28 race and appeal to the base. And Gavin Newsom just put dumb and dumber ad. He put Jim Carrey and what's his name on from that crazy movie and said, this is Netanyahu and Trump and he did it at the very moment of their greatest success and getting the hostages back, when the world was watching these half starved hostages being embraced by their family. And Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, as if he doesn't have enough to do with the Palisades fire, the gas gasoline problem, the refinement, the whole thing. And what does he do? He takes time out to tweet that the people who made this possible and got the hostages back, and for the first time in 50 years, you might have a peace settlement is dumb and Netanyahu is dumber. That lasted about what, 13 hours and he took it down.
- [27:26]
A
I'm surprised it lasts that long, but I guess it shows how dumb.
- [27:29]
B
Well, then the government, he says, well, I can be, I can outdo that. If Gavin's going to rile up the squad and AOC and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and the nutty people on campus, then I'm going to say, I'm going to arrest ICE people. So these people are incoherent. And there's one philosophy, common denominator, one theme about all of the attacking Teslas, attacking ICE facilities, tweeting that you're going to beat people up in the mouth, the potty videos, Schumer using the F word, Kamala Harris saying, we're going to get those mother, you know, f all of this horrible language. There's one thing create so much chaos, so much disruption, so much verbiage that the American people get sick of it. And as a collateral damage, they go and blame Trump. Not that they won't blame us. Their popularity is an all time low, but they're not up, they're not the presidency. So their theory is, well, that's in the future. Right now I'm going to be a suicide bomber and I'm going to do so much damage to by shutting down the government and tweeting these crazy things and using this foul language and calling him a fascist and Hitler, that I will bring down his popularity. I will stall and bleed out the economy. We'll get into a recession and then everybody will say, oh, make it all go away, please. I'm in a fetal position. I, I don't know if it's Trump's fault or not, but I just can't take it anymore. And then it'll be a whole new day in 2028. We'll all forget it and they will run as builders and creators and positive statesmen. I don't think it's going to work.
- [29:11]
A
I don't think it's going to work. Either I think it's going to be their own electoral suicide. But in the meantime, Gavin is potentially facing another problem in his state and that is that in San Francisco they're, they're dallying with the idea of bringing in federal agents to help them with deporting illegals. And there, there was a poll taken for specifically illegals who are selling fentanyl and 80% who could be. 80% who couldn't be for that.
- [29:44]
B
You know, I mean that's a little.
- [29:45]
A
Bit extreme, but it, it did say the question was do you want federal age to help deport illegals who are selling.
- [29:54]
B
But I mean the worst people in the world would be people selling fentanyl litter here illegally. I don't. The better question is do you want to deport illegal criminals in general? I still think it would been positive. Yes.
- [30:07]
A
Yeah, but that shows something about San Francisco.
- [30:11]
B
I think people who don't live in California, they got to realize that even though these people are crazy leftists that live there, if you went up there in 2007, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and I used to go up and speak at the Hyatt Regency a lot for various groups. It was in a renaissance. People in Silicon Valley, these youngsters, young hipsters, they were leaving, they didn't want to live in San Jose or Palo Alto. They wanted to live in the city. And you would go up and speak. I'd go up and speak and go to a dinner, give a lecture, you know, town hall or city building or something. And then it would be 9 o' clock and I would be staying somewhere like a mile away. I would just walk. It was perfectly safe, it was lit up. And you see all these young people as you pass the restaurants, they were packed. You would see the Twitter thing here. All these Silicon Valley had headquarters and they destroyed it. Partly it was Covid, partly it was the administration of the double whammy of Gavin Newsom for eight years and London Reed for eight years. Liberals and in the state at large. And now when you go up there it is, it's got a little better with Mayor Laurie, but it's a non godly mess. I went up there and last time I was there is last year in March. And I mean they were. Each little store has a pressure washer. It was pressure washing the feces off into the gutter. And you could see little splatters on the side of the lower walls. And then you see people walking around screaming and yelling, you know, on whacked out. Then you see people defecate it was horrible. And they just. And then they'll say, well, it doesn't affect me in Presidio Heights. It doesn't affect me. And Pacific Hikes Knob Hill. Well, no, of course it doesn't. But that just means that you don't really live in San Francisco because you don't go downtown. The same thing with Portland. People I've heard say, well, Portland's wonderful. In the suburbs. You don't really. Well, yeah, if you never go downtown, but you're. Then you're just a suburb of Portland. That's what it's funny about the left, their attitude in Chicago or San Francisco and about ice coming. I mean, ice deporting people or Trump trying to stop the. It's never. You're lying. It's safe. It's where I live. It's safe and I have money and I have a good zip code and we have a private security group. And I don't go downtown. So why are you coming in? So when you look at the people protesting, they're overwhelmingly. Not always, but they're overwhelmingly affluent white people. Which brings me up to an apology. As I said earlier, I had, I had used the word Karen and a person got angry at me and I said I wouldn't use. I didn't use the word Karen right now. But the not to be spoken name of this demographic is often opportunistic. They are the Martha Vineyard people who rush to get care packages and puff coats and all these nice accoutrements for the illegal aliens. And then they got, see you wouldn't want to be you. And they had a bus waiting within 24 hours to bus them to New York. Get them out of here. But let me be liberal and performance aren't my virtue signaling.
- [33:45]
A
Welcome back to Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. These podcasts are available on Spotify both in audio form and in video form. And they're available on YouTube as a video and also rumble. And you can find the audio version in Apple Podcasts. So join us there. And also come join Victor Davis Hansen's website, the Blade of Perseus. It's got lots of free stuff on it, his articles and links to these podcasts. And it has ultra material. That's two articles a week on ideas Victor has and then a video podcast on Friday and that you can join that for 650amonth or 65 a year. So please come join us. So Victor, I know that you want to talk about fighter planes in World War II, so take it away.
- [34:42]
B
We're Opening it up for inquiries about what you would like to discuss. And we had some on the TED events, but I thought we talked about that during the Vietnam. I had a couple people who said, well, you talked about Focke Wulf 190s and World War II and which plane. And it was kind of a not nerdy, but a person wanted to say what's the best fighter plane? And it's a larger issue. Generally speaking, there's so many varieties of criteria that adjudicates that answer. What I mean by that is you just don't look at a fighter plane and say how fast it was, how high it could climb, how fast it could climb, how much you have to say. You have to take in consideration what was the kill ratio between it and its opponents, how many planes were lost versus how many were killed, what period of the war did it come out, what different variety or model of that plane. You're talking about how many were produced, what was the cost and what was the caliber of the pilot at that particular year. If you put all of those variables in, there's a general pattern that when the war broke out in 1939, the United States and France and other European countries were all about the same. And it was generally a plane had about a thousand or eleven hundred horsepower prop plane. It usually had two machine guns, maybe a 20 millimeter cannon. And they could reach speeds, top speeds at about 300 miles an hour and they could go up to 30,000ft. And then quickly, the Japanese had been improving at a faster rate than peacetime America or peacetime France or maybe even peacetime Britain. With one exception. They had created the Spitfire supermarine fighter that even during peace they had kept up with this wonderful Rolls Royce Merlin engine liquid cooled engine. And when the war broke out, it was essentially comparable to German's counterpart, the B.F. 109. So magnificent plane short, they each only had a short range of 4 or 500 miles, not even that 300 miles. But it had a supercharger. When a plane gets high up and there's oxygen gets thin, it loses its performance. And you can either do one of two things. You can make a mechanical pump air turbine that will push air that you can't find in the atmosphere through the intake and just force it into the combustion process and then supercharge it so that the, you have a greater deal of oxygen in the fuel as if you were down at sea level or, or you can turbocharge it. You don't use an electric machine to pump the air, but the Gas that goes out can be recirculated and turned around and pumped back in and recycled and that's a little better. It sometimes it takes a little bit longer to kick in. But the British had done that and so they were about comparable and that's what won the Battle of Britain. The the Supermarine Spitfire, along with a Hurricane which wasn't as good, but it could dive and leave. The Americans came in watching all of this and they knew some things were wrong. That their Pre World War II fighters, the 193941 would not be comparable to either the German Bf 109 or the Japanese Zero, which had come out in 1939 and had a huge range, like 1500 miles in one direction. It was very light, it had no armor plating for the pilot and it had no self sealing gas tanks, you know, lined with rubber. So if you shoot it, it doesn't blow up and it stops leaking. The gas tank and was very light and it had about a 800 horsepower engine so it could turn and dive better than anything else. So for the first, when America went in, they had to go in with what they had, the P40,41, the P38 coming out. That was a two engine fighter that never worked very well. It was a good plane. But my point is in 1941, in December and all of 42, the American planes, the F4 Wildcat, the naval fighter, they were not as good as the Zero. They developed, they developed ways to counteract that by they called it the thatch weave and various formations, they could stop the advantages of the Zero. But more importantly, German pilots and Japanese pilots had been fighting for years. So you had all these young kids. But what saved the Allies were they had brilliant engineers and they were working, working, working and they came out with something called the Pratt Whitney Double Wasp engine. It had 18 cylinders and it was air cooled. That's very important because an air cooled engine will last a lot longer. If you shoot a liquid cooled engine that has radiator and you hit a jacket, it'll heat up. It has no mechanism other than cool water. Now it might be cooled better, but it's much more vulnerable. But this Double Wasp engine was capable of being air cooled and it had a big induction on some models like the P. And more importantly, it could produce 2,000 horsepower. So they immediately in 42 said to themselves, this will be the American. We're going to put it in a carrier plane called the F4 Corso with a gull wings area on carriers. We're going to put it in the Pacific with the Hellcat fighter and we're going to put it in the P47. It was used everywhere and we made 16,000 P47s and it was a very, very powerful engine. And the American idea, just like our big clunker cars, was we're going to make the most powerful engine, the heaviest plane. We're going to put armor behind the pilot. Preferably they're going to be liquid cooled so they're not going to be easy to shoot down. They're going to be reinforced struts on the wings and we're going to put six to eight machine guns in them and we're like 3,000 rounds and in one second you'll probably have four or five hundred rounds at one target and we're going to get a turbocharger, supercharger. They can go up to 40,000ft and function very well. And then they're going to dive down and reach speeds of 460 miles an hour. And they're going to shred the enemy and then out climb them and go up. But what they're not going to do is getting into a dogfight, turning and, and rolling with a Zero and all of this. And so that plane was this. Well, it was the P47 Thunderbolt, the Hellcat and the Corsair. And once they got into the main carrier fleet in 1943, late in 1944, when you had Hellcats that were land based, Marine Marines use them, but so did the Air Force and you had Corsair Gull wing fighters, they destroyed the Zeros, they just absolutely destroyed them. There was a, a new plane the Japanese came out. The Shinden was a very good plane, almost as good as. But the pilots by then had all been killed. And by 1944, and remember what I said, these planes were updated so the P38 Lightning with two engines that didn't have originally the Pratt Whitney double Wasp, it was starting to be up. So you had suddenly the early models were being upgraded the P38 and then you had the Hellcat and the Corsair and then they got some Thunderbolts in the Pacific and they just, you know, the Marianas, Turkey Shoot, the Battle of Philippine Sea, they just, the air battles over, they wiped out the Japanese. They had kill ratios of 15 to 1. Whereas in 1942 they were losing say Wildcats or P40s flying tide, those types of planes, Warhawk, except at 5 to 1 they were losing and their pilots were getting better and more experienced and they had better fuels, aviation Fuel. And the Japanese were getting less and less training. And then the Pacific, they made the P47. It was the heaviest plane ever made as a fighter. They call it the Jug. It was huge with this huge engine in it and it could reach speeds of 420 miles an hour. And the weird thing about it was it was developed to be a fighter bomber. In other words, it would come down and blow up tanks with rockets and trucks and troops. But until the Mustang came out, they used it to escort bombers. Even though you wouldn't want to get one of these big heavy duty planes. Even though they were as fast as the BF109 or the new Focke Wulf 190, it was a brilliant German plane and you wouldn't want to get in a dog fight with them. But they were used that way. And so finally people said, well, we've got to be more specialized. The F40. P47 is a really great plane, but its natural role is not to escort fighters into Germany and then dog fight a lighter bf109 or one of these new, just as fast, if not faster, Focke Wulf 190s and dog fights. So we're going to use it more as a fighter bomber. And it destroyed thousands of trucks, tanks. It was wonderful, the P47. But then to get a better escort, they took a P51 that was. Had a particularly designed wing. It was called a North American Mustang. But the problem was they put an Allison engine and it was a good engine, but it wasn't up to, to the Pratt Whitney double. And that engine is big. And they wanted a light, maneuverable fighter like the Spitfire that could dog fight the Germans. So they didn't know what to do. So then they put the new Pratt Whitney that was in the Spitfire, they put it in the American Mustang. And the American Mustang actually had a tougher frame and a more aerial dynamic than the, than the original Spitfire. Of course, original Spitfires, the British, being geniuses as they are, kept improving them and so did the Americans. So at the end of the war, the two planes that were probably the fastest in major production, you could have always have a prototype, were the Spitfire, latest model, and the latest model Mustang and the mate. So they put a liquid cooled English, you could always tell they had the pointed nose, not the round flat. And the P51s then had drop tanks and they had enormous range and they were lighter than P47s and they flew all the way to Germany. And then Doolittle came in and said, you know, you don't have to stick next to the B17s, go out and dog fight. And these pilots then were young, they were getting 6, 700 hours. Luftwaffe were losing pilots. They didn't have enough fuel and it didn't matter what plane they were in. The kill ratio of the Mustangs went from, from 1 to 1 up to 2, 3, 4 to 1 in some cases. And then there was a big fight after the war. Well, we're in Korea, we don't have enough jets. What we're going to use for ground fighting we should use the one that's a little faster, the P51. Big mistake because for in the Korean War when we still use prop planes, we should have used the P47. It was indestructible, it had armor and it was heavily built and it had an air cooled engine. And there's stories of, you know, having three or four cylinders blown off and it could still fly 500 miles. It was a what? But it's a story about these engineers at the Vought Corporation, North American Corporation, Lockheed Corporation, Bell Corporation. And they kept making these brilliant engines. And finally you went from about 800 horsepower power to 2000 or 2500 in some of the latest Double Wasp engines. And they did that in two years. And by the end of the war we had produced about 60,000 Hellcats, Corsairs, Mustangs and Thunderbolts. And you could argue that they were all better than the Japanese models. And they were as good or not better than the bf109 until the very latest model. And just as good as the FOC with 190. And that won the war really. That allowed them to stop the loss rate of B17s in 1943. At some of those missions at Swine Fort and the oil fields in Romania, they were losing 7, 8, 9% and they got down to 1% because of these fighter planes. And then they unleashed them at D day. You see those movies where I think in Saving Private Ryan they're all going to be killed in the end. And then those Mustangs come in and they, they change. Or maybe they were Spitfires, I can't remember. I think they were American Mustang and they had ground support. So they had a 9 to 1 superiority in numbers by 1944 and they dominated the whole. I think there were only two real Luftwaffe planes on D day that kind of strafed. And that was in the longest Day. That was an actual two straight story.
- [48:56]
A
Did the Air Force often change the nature of the battle or the course of a battle? Was. So it was very significant as. Which one's more significant, your tank brigades or your Air Force?
- [49:08]
B
The. What are you.
- [49:10]
A
Which is more significant, the tank brigades or the Air Force?
- [49:13]
B
Well, the one who revolutionized everything was George Patton. And when he. He was ostracized, you know, for slapping soldiers, but he didn't go. He wasn't allowed to participate in D Day. And he was planning all of June and July when he was on ice. And then they activated the third army, about 600,000 troops, and they put him in charge. So he and Hodges were rival. Hodges had the first Army, Patton had the third Army. Bradley was the commander of them, along with Montgomery, and they reported to Eisenhower. But they were going to have Patton go, believe it or not, in the opposite direction in the Brittany peninsula to clear it out. But that's going. That's going west, not east. So he very quickly sent a division and said, handle it. I'm heading east. And they said, george, you're south. Monty's only 500 miles from Berlin. Hodges is 800. You're like 1400 miles. You got to go into Czechoslovakia. So what he did was he had something that they didn't agree with, a narrow front. So he would send his tanks out in front and just envelop a village, go around a village, go around a German town or French town, and then cause panic and then send in the infantry and the artillery to. The artillery would soften it up and then send in the infantry. Now, traditional German strategy was to outflank them because they were on a narrow flunt. They were just going as fast as they can, 50 miles a day to shock and awe them. But then he got the American Army Air Force to be his flank protectors. So he sent in P47s and P51s at huge numbers. Pete Quesada, the air commander and Patton would say, I'm going in here and I want the. And these planes would just act like, I don't know, hawks or eagles. They would just go. And anything that moved, they would shoot. And they. They prohibited or prevented the German panzers from getting to the rear. So he didn't worry about. He said, blank the flanks. And he just kept going and going. And he would have gone across the Rhine in 1944, but he ran out of gas. Every time he went 50 miles, they'd say, oh, my gosh, it's going to take another truck. It's going to take 20% of the truck's fuel just to get the truck going to give you the fuel. And then it was 50% of the fuel is going to be used to transport the fuel. And then Monte wanted all of it for this crazy bridge too far. Arnheim Campaign market garden. But the Americans work the best with ground support. And the Germans, after the war, they were always asked, would you rather fight? The British are the Americans. And they often said the Americans, as far as actual fighting, they thought the British were more professional. They'd been fighting longer. But then they got angry at the American way of fighting, because the American way of fighting wasn't to go engage the Germans necessarily. The doctrine was to use superior artillery. We had better artillery. Everybody talks about the 88. Well, we had the 105 in proximity from fuses and everything, and what they call time on target. They would get a target and they would say, here's a German supply depot. And no matter what the caliber of the weapon was 155 millimeter, 75 millimeter, 105. They all had different velocities. They had a computerized method that they could synchronize all of it to arrive in one place and just blast them apart. And then they used heavy bombers in Operation Cobra to blast them apart. And so they didn't send any Americans in there to fight. So the idea was you blast them apart, then you bring armor, and we're going to produce more tanks than the Germans. They are much more reliable. They're not as heavy and they don't have as powerful a punch, but they outnumber the Tiger and Panther 10 to 1. And then they're going to be supported by air power. So the Germans, after the war, when they interviewed people, they said, well, they cheated. We never really got in hand. We had better panzer files were better than the Brazoukas. Our hand grenades were better. Our potato mashers, they had handles. They. We had better machine guns. But they cheated. They would just come up to us and then they would call in air strikes, bombing strikes. And then they. When they started going, they strafed us. And then we had our great Panzer corps, and there'd be 10 Shermans for every Tiger. Of course, they won because we out produced them.
- [54:03]
A
They weren't playing according to the rules the Germans were expecting.
- [54:07]
B
Well, the final thing is, if you talk about an army's efficacy, the United states fought for four years and they lost about 450,000 in combat. And the British, who emulated our tactics, lost about 405,000. Germany lost over three and a half million. Four million. Japanese lost three million. The Russians lost 20 million. Probably 15 million soldiers. The Chinese lost 15. So how in the world did the United States win the Pacific theater and the European theater and lose except for the British and the British as well. And the answer was air power. Air power. Air power Hour. They had the best planes, the best bombers and the most. Most of them the greatest number. But the point I'm making is if you looked at the American plane arsenal in 1940 when the war was raging in Europe and you said is the P39 Air Cobra or the P40 Warhawk P36 are they going to be competitive? No. And same thing with tanks. And then the word got back to these private companies that you need to double your horsepower and the engines and you got to design new types of machine guns. So when they made the it was typical American like a heavy American car on the 1970s, a class clunker, you know. But they weren't clunkers, they were really well built powerful 56 Chevy type thing compared to a little Citroen or something. They weren't elegant but man they had the horsepower they had. They were hard to shoot down and they had great pilots and they had. They didn't go. They didn't really the theory was would you either have a 20 millimeter cannon or a machine 50 caliber machine gun. So a cannon was about. The shell was this long, the shell was like that but it had explosive. So if it hit a B17 it would blow up. But you could only shoot about one per second and you can only or so heavy you could only carry about 200 or 150. Or would you rather have machine guns solid steel, this armor piercing, this long but each one of them could shoot 700aminute and you'd have eight of them with 3,000 rounds. So you push the button and those four guns on a thunderbolt on each wing eight they were synchronized all to meet in the center. So when they hit that button you would get a thousand pieces of last anti armor steel like a basketball, just solid lead going right into a plane and just blew them apart. Afterwards they asked the German the Japanese and they said well we always thought cannons were better but actually the American emphasis on a 50 caliber with a lot of shells and a lot of was a better idea.
- [57:17]
A
So Victor, I was wondering your thoughts on the democrats these days are denying antifa as well we know and they I what I. What I'm curious about is these young antifa followers how they must feel if they've been denied as I don't understand.
- [57:36]
B
They say they're Antifa. I mean there's something at my campus where a professor said he had the anti fascist lean league that he founded and he winked and nodded and said, well, I didn't use the word antifa. Wink nodded. Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota said there's no such thing. And then they have a picture of him during the George Floyd. Right. Holding the antifa manual. We have professors of antifa studies. So anti fascist. Yeah, it's a, it's a group but they, you know, somebody is telling them where to to assemble. They all come with helmets and gas masks. Often they're the same helmets and the same gas mount. They're funded by somebody. These people apparently don't have a job so. And there's thousands of them. And so I think they're saying that for one reason when you say well, how do they feel when they're not given their due? Well, that was when they weren't subject to federal racketeering and conspiracy charges. So it was like we're anti. Antifa. What are you going to do about it during George Floyd? Oh, you're going to defund the police. Ha. You're scared of us. And now Donald Trump comes in and says you're looking at 20 years in prison for a federal racketeering. Oh, I'm not antifa. Who had never said that.
- [58:59]
A
That's me organization.
- [59:01]
B
That's mean. I'm just a welfare organization. I'm an anti fascist. I'm still fighting World War II against the Nazis. Come on, don't do this to me. That's mean.
- [59:11]
A
I, I liked it better when they were the glitterati of protest.
- [59:14]
B
I liked it better when they were honest about it. Yeah, exactly.
- [59:19]
A
All right, let's turn to the bigger question and that is the MAGA divide and I think it's either illustrated by or led by Tucker and Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Marjorie Taylor Greene Green and it it all blew up over Charlie Kirk's death and they.
- [59:42]
B
Crystallized it.
- [59:44]
A
Chris. It did and the Charlie Kirk himself I feel sorry because they're bringing him into it as though he didn't like the state of this is the accusation and the theory out there that he was beginning to not like the be pro Israel, the state of Israel and that the Israelis knew this and that they, they Candace where she has evidence that one of these Israelis knew that the young assassin was going to assassinate Charlie Kirk on that day. So the implication that somehow the Israelis were connected to.
- [60:18]
B
Yeah, I think what she's doing from what I understand I Want to be very careful what I say. I don't want to unfairly make allegations, but this is. She's been very critical people who insinuated that. But she said something like, I didn't say that the Israelis planned the murder of Charlie Kirk. What I did say was that Charlie Kirk wanted to break with the Netanyahu government and they were upset about it. And you can make your own conclusions, which is. And then we talked about this. Maybe we slightly disagreed, but Tucker was asked to give one of the eulogies at Charlie Kirk's commemorative funeral service. Okay. And he said, I can just imagine. He was talking about the people who were killing, killed Charlie. Well, at that point in time and nothing has changed since we know who killed Charlie Kerr. His name was Tyler Robinson. He was in a relations with a trans person. He had broken from his Mormon family and was a hard leftist to the much to the degree that he was. Anybody at that age knows anything. But he is communicating on a social network of pro trans stuff, very radical stuff. So he's American homebred leftist and he hates Charlie Kirk and he's mad that Charlie Kirk is coming. And he said he's going to do something about it and he shoots and kills him, end of story. So during the eulogy Tucker said, and I'm loosely quoting so I'm not being verbatim, so everybody listening, make allowances up. He said something to the effect I can imagine of people and a lamp writ lit a lamp lit room, I. E. Pre industrial in the Middle east eating hummus, Middle east food, happy about it. Well, people said wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The person who you mean, they were.
- [62:42]
A
The people in the Middle east at the time were. It was Jesus, Jesus's time and they were happy that.
- [62:47]
B
So what Tucker was trying to allure to that Charlie Kirk was a Christ like figure, just like Christ. And he was saying things that upset the status quo. And the status quo in Jesus's case were the Pharisees. But in Charlie's case he was trying to compare the people who wanted him dead with the Pharisees. I think that's pretty fair, analogous. The problem with it is Pontius Pilate killed the Romans killed him. Now the Pharisees, you could argue may have been happy about it because he was a challenge to their authority. But I don't think you can make the concrete case that they brought evidence to Pontius Pilate and said, you're a pawn of ours. He had his own reason and it was political. He wanted stability in a Roman province. So what he was. So what a reasonable person could conjecture from what Tucker said was that he was saying that the modern counterparts of the Pharisees were Jews in the Middle east and they were happy that this modern Christ was killed or not so happy. They said, the way he put it, they had a what are we going to do about this problem? And the problem in his example was that Jesus threatened the supremacy of the Pharisee Orthodox Jewish establishment. And the modern metaphor he was using similarly, he was saying that Charlie Kirk threatened his establishment Orthodoxy in America of supporting the Israelis. That was what he said and that's what got him in trouble. But it wasn't just that. He brought on Daryl Cooper and David Cullum. And while they had, they had some points, very few. I mean you can say that Stalin was a mass murderer, killed 20 million of his own people and he caused this 50 year cold war and he was a horrible person. But that's a leap from saying that we had no choice or it was in our way to have fewer Americans killed by ensuring the Russians didn't surrender and have a huge Eastern front and supplying 30% of their material so they would kill three out of four Germans. But they went beyond that. He was basically these people on his show saying that the Russians were worse than the Germans and the people who engineered this alliance, like Churchill was a terrorist and it was. And in the case of David Cullum, that we might have been better, he said even joining the Germans to fight and think what that would entail. That would be basically saying this man who caused this war of 70 million dead and destroyed Western Europe and killed half the Jews in in Europe was preferable to Joseph Stalin. He didn't say we should just stay out of it. He said that we David Column that we should ally with the Germans. So I the point of all this is. And then Marjorie Terry Greene has been very outspoken that she wants to break from the Netanyahu government, etc. Etc. And what I don't understand is this. On October 7th, Israel was attacked. 12 Just take that away and there wouldn't have been any Gaza. There would have been nothing. I've been there before. That field, that wall wasn't even a wall. They knocked it down in five minutes with a bulldozer. It wasn't the Theodisan walls at Constantinople. And my point is that the Israelis were trying to work with Hamas and play them off against the the Palestinian Authority. 20,000 Gazans were coming in and making three times the wage into Israel. So if there was any problem, it was the Israelis misplaced magnanimity and naivete about what these people were doing when they were coming in, working, scouting it out, planning this, getting their arms and money from Iran and take all that away. All they had to do was say, I'm not going to do that. And if they had it just said, I'm going to call in the Emirates and got gutter and I'm going to call in the Saudis and I'm going to promise that we're going to build a Gaza, Mediterranean, southern France utopia. They would have done it for them, but they didn't want to do that. They wanted to kill Jews and be destructive. That's not hard to see. So I don't know what's going on. And I've always said that because I was on for six or seven years on Tucker Show, I owe him a. But I'm because I like him. I feel that he is headed in a direction that's not going to end well because I don't know what Candace is doing. I don't know her there. I met her before. She was pleasant enough when I met her. I met her husband before. But if you, you want to pursue the idea that Macron's wife has male genitalia, that's a demonstrable fact. Or not. And then you want to pursue this idea that maybe Charlie Kirk was killed by people or forces other than Tyler Robinson and you're going to get, you're going to build your audience. But what are you building your audience on? You're building your audience on a conspiracy theory. And you don't you have an obligation as a public voice to not to go by evidence and be empirical. So I don't know what, where they're headed, but Donald Trump is apparently headed in the other direction. He's never been closer. He was at the Knesset and they said he's the closest, the best friend Israel's ever had. So what, where do you, where do you go if you're Marjorie Taylor Greene or Candace? Are you fighting for the heart and Bannon, Are you fighting for the hearts and minds of Donald Trump, his granddaughter, his, the, I mean, his kids are Jewish, his grandkids on the Kushner side. Ivanka, she's converted.
- [69:17]
A
Yes.
- [69:17]
B
So you expect Donald Trump to like that. And when you say that hitting the Iranians is going to cause World War 3, I mean from a military historical point, that was there was no military defenses and left and that was thanks to Israel. So I don't know where it's all going. But Part of it is that October 7th unleashed this idea that you could be anti. You can just. It was sort of like the outbreak of a war when you do something unthinkable and nothing happens. So the anti Semitic Wes said wow, they just went in there and killed rape. The worst day in the Holocaust. And people are happy. Wow. The taboo is broken. You can say anything you want about Jews now you can revert to the old anti Semitism and everybody's on the campuses of Harvard, they're roughing up Jews. Jews are running into the library at universities scared. The Columbia MIT Jews, their Persona non grata. This is wow. At Stanford they're tearing down the pictures of Stan of Jewish hostages. And when that went on that brought a momentum. It was kind of like the George Floyd oh wow, DEI defund the police, you can riot. It's the new wave. And that's what happened. And nobody said no, I'm not going to do that. And everybody needed to. So each person according to their station. If you're a historian and you see this Darrell Cooper going on there and spouting things like oh, they had no idea that they were going to kill Jews and Ukrainians. They went into the war and they didn't know they're going to be so successful. And then you know that there's a hunger plan written by a German DASH officer, DASH professor about how to starve Ukraine and take all the food and what Baba Yar was not a one off but it was a whole year of killing Jews and that was the whole plan. Then when somebody says that, what's the purpose of saying that? I don't know. I know but I don't want to say because I'm not going to accuse somebody. Well then the point is. Well I am going to accuse Darrell Cooper of fabricating history from for nefarious reasons. And so same thing with David Cullum. They know that's not true. They know that the German that Churchill wasn't a terrorist at least by standards of World War II compared to the enemy. I mean he, he approved the firebombing and all that but that was only after the Germans started it.
- [72:06]
A
I think anybody who's a ordinary and has common sense can see that is to be on the side of Israel is to be on the side of civilization. I mean regardless of.
- [72:15]
B
Well as I said earlier, I mean it's obvious you're a hostage. Would you rather be a hostage under Israel condition or are in a tunnel under Gaza? Don't tell me. Well, they're poor. No they're. No, I'm just talking about, would you rather be a hostage? Would you want to go visit? You want to go to the west bank or stay in a hotel in the west bank or in Israel? Do you want to stage a demonstration against the government in the west bank or you want to do it in Israel? You want to wave an American flag, you want to wave any flag. And you know, in Israel or in the west bank or Gaza, and everybody knows the answer to that. And believe me, if a bunch of Israeli soldiers go across the border on October 7th on a preemptive attack and they rape, kill, behead, commit necrophilia, they're going to face charges in the Israeli judicial system. They're not going to come back and have the majority of population say, I'm going to join you. I'm going to go loot these. They're not going to happen.
- [73:23]
A
Cheer them on.
- [73:25]
B
And it's the same thing when people protest. The Jewish kids that protested, I saw them at Stanford. It was, I don't want to use the word pathetic because I don't mean pathetic. But compared to the resources that the pro Hamas kids had and the vile things they were shouting. You saw this little group of Jewish kids and they were perfectly polite. They were. They would close up shop at the end of the day and not stay overnight in most cases. I talked to them. It was like night and day. They didn't know who I was. I would walk there, I said, what are you guys doing? Oh, let me give you a talk. And then when you'd go by the pro Hamas, he'd scream and yell in your face. And if you said anything that they didn't like, they. It was day and night, scream and yell more.
- [74:14]
A
All right, Victor, so at as we do always at the end, I have some comments from the Again, this was from YouTube and Susie590 says that is the basic philosophy of the Democratic party machine in 2025. They truly believe they are better than working class Americans and they are frightened of the power the middle class is gaining by virtue of hard work, following, following the law and adhering to traditional values and mores. Basically, they are afraid of common sense. So thank you, Susie, for that.
- [74:53]
B
That's true. They assume that the whole purpose of the progressive left is that the majority of the American citizens won't do what they do. In other words, that some poor guy will get up at 5 in the morning, he'll go out and work, he'll clean the streets, he won't break windows if he disagrees with somebody, he won't torch their car. He won't sit on the sidewalk with feces. He won't do any of that. And then if the majority do that, then society has a margin of error that allows some other people to burn the American flag, throw rocks, attack ice, do all that stuff, shut down the government. But they always assume that the majority won't do that.
- [75:37]
A
Yeah, they assume the majority will be lawful so that they can and productive.
- [75:42]
B
And keep the lights running and food coming and grow food. The farmers don't do that. If they said, well, the price of raisins was $1440 and then it was 470 in one year and everybody's going broke and these are because of that capitalist sobs and I'm going to go not produce food. No, they don't do that.
- [76:06]
A
All right. And I have one more comment here. Oh, you know, I had an interesting one from Andrew Graham. He's, this is a short one here from Edinburgh, Scotland. Thank you, Victor. You're a national treasure for your country.
- [76:21]
B
I like, I've been to Scotland and Edinburgh.
- [76:24]
A
Yeah.
- [76:24]
B
There was a very warlike, proud race. I, you know, I, I always read Sir Walter Scott novels. I'm not, I'm being facetious, but David Hume philosophy. Yeah. I don't. And I never understood how the most bellicose, most rugged individualists area of Great Britain is now the most left wing. It doesn't make sense.
- [76:52]
A
It does not make sense. All right. And just a person D6W writes, other than Monday being Columbus Day, it was also a great day for the world. I look forward to hearing Victor's thoughts on the epic events that happened on Monday, which we got a lot of on your Friday edition. And President Trump and his teammade history. And President Trump will go down as the greatest president of all time.
- [77:19]
B
Yes, I, I must say I have to be very careful when I say this. I opened my email on Monday morning and there were my Hoover blast. You know what it said? Happy Indigenous People's Day. And I thought, wow, we are supposed to be the center right think tank on the West Coast. I know we were at Stanford University, but who put that in there? I don't think it represents the majority of views. It's not the director's view, it's not the board, the overseer's view. It's not the majority of the fellows. It must be a staffer or somebody. But when they say Indigenous People's Day, that means what? That it would be much better that right now there were no Europeans had never come to the North American continent, is that it? And it would be sort of like the Amazon basin and AOC and the squad. Presley, she said that she felt that we were on occupied land but she has a house in Martha's Vineyard, I think, or maybe it's on Nantucket. Why don't you just give it over to indigenous people then? I'm reviewing a book that's going to come out in the New Criterion about a classics book and he won't use the author as a classicist and he says he has to use the indigenous name of New Jersey until he identifies himself with all of his academic laurels. And he says professor of Classics, Princeton University, New Jersey. In other words, I'm not occupied land now because I want you to know about how I've got all these European laurels, European derived laurels. And it's like I went to a class and a guy asked me a question once at Stanford. He said aren't you happy that they changed Junipio Sarah Court? I was outside my office just are you happy or angry? We named the Stanford court Jane Stanford Court, the founder's wife. And I said I don't believe in that changing names for the whims. And he goes not a whim, it was expropriated land. I said well why don't you change the main Junipio Sarah Boulevard that all everybody uses and lives that would be better, maybe more influential or better yet Stanford according to your own value system and which is not adjusted for time and space or conditions of the 19th century, spoke ill of Asian people. So why don't we change the name of Stanford and I would suggest Chumash University and we give back, I don't know where your dorm is back. We'll make your dorm into an indigenous persons thing. And he got very angry. The other thing I meant during the whole illegal alien thing under Obama when the all the campuses were protesting against they did, I wrote a column and I said I got a solution for all where illegal aliens can stay. It's summertime, there's enough room for a. I think it was 2 million people on American campus. Stanford has room in the summer for five or six thousand illegal aliens to stay on the campus. And just think of it. You've got Stanford Law School right there, free legal health, you've got Stanford Medical School, free medical help, you've got graduate students, free tutoring and let the campuses empty. It's got plenty of room for camping and everything. We could put 5 to 10,000, we don't have to bring them down to Southern California, Fresno county or Rio Grande Valley. We can put them at Stanford University. How long would that last? I think it would be about as long we know the answer because the Nantucket, the Martha's Vineyard answer. We know what would happen. All these students with purple hair and rings in their nose and develop all this. They would say, we love you. And then they'd say, we're going to have a big rally out in the Oval tomorrow. And then they would go out there and there'd be 50 buses waiting for them. And they're say, you're going to go to Bakersfield. That's how the left.
- [81:54]
A
I know, exactly.
- [81:55]
B
That's how the left thinks. It's the most. It's really a psychological condition. To square the fact that they're elitist. Elitist. And they're materialistic and they like nice things and their comfort with the guilt that they have over it, which they square that circle by projecting this whole cosmos of caring and demonizing anybody who's capitalist or. But it's a psychological thing to. To justify their own selfishness and sanctimonious. It really is.
- [82:27]
A
Well, they don't seem to even see their own ill liberal liberality. For example, your example of the flyer that came out. Why wouldn't they just humor somebody and put half Columbus and half natives if that's what they wanted to do? Right. They're. They're not even as liberal as the Pilgrims were who came over here in the 17th century. They at least brought the native Indians in as the I. That might just be lore, but you know, they brought them in that whole celebration of Thanksgiving.
- [82:58]
B
I will bet you the people who did that fly, or whoever they were were, were the people who were the most bitter about getting bonuses and complaining about their work conditions and stuff. You know, I. I noticed that.
- [83:12]
A
Good guess.
- [83:14]
B
Just to finish one last anecdote. 1983, as I just mentioned, the Sun Made Raisin cooperative collapsed. They owed us over $80,000. We only. We were short 180 tons the year before. A thousand dollars less a ton. So there was 180,000 less income that fall of 84. A year later I went to work at Cal State and they hired me for one class to teach Latin. I begged to have any class they could teach. No. So I went up there and I had talked to these farmers at coffee shops that were all going broken and they. It was weird. I mean, I knew a couple that blew their brains out, but they were like, it is what it is. And we're just going to have to eat, we're going to have to just cut back. And, and we all were talking about how you cut back. You don't drive diesel fuel as much. You don't do you don't you get used staples or something. You buy used equipment, you make it do. And they were kind of tragic and philosophical about it and they had miserable lives in the sense of what they had to live on. It was, it was terrible. And the price. And then they thought, well, we'll plant plums. And the price of plums went from $14 for 28 pounds down to four. Everything collapsed. This was the Reagan readjustment before the boom in 84. But by the time the boom came, everybody was broken. The land was bought up by larger interests. But anyway, I went up to. So I was. I hadn't been in academia for five years. I got my PhD for five years. So I walk up to this campus. I had never been there before. I lived here my whole life. I'd never been to Cal State. So I walked there and I go up there and the first thing they tell me is you're tracking in dirt on the carpet. And I was irrigating here. So. And then I think I told you a week later that I had a gun in the back, 16 gauge to shoot scare coyotes. And they, the cop, somebody ratted me out. So I went there and the cops were surrounding my car. Luckily it wasn't loaded. But anyway, it was a big adjustment. So then they said, well, these are some professors and they want to talk to you about your Latin class. And so I go to coffee, I won't mention their names. And I thought, wow. I said, I actually said to him, we're not getting paid by the hour, are we? And they said no. And I said, wow, I'm making $600 a month, 40 hours, you know, 40 hours a week, that's 80 hour, 160 hours a month. I am making like 455 bucks an hour even though I'm not teaching on a 40 hour week. And I'm losing money farming and I'm all dirty and, and I'm under the tractor with hydraulic fluid in my face and I'm spraying Diazinon and defend and dimethywate. And I'm all. And, and you know what they were talking about? It was just one professor was saying, you know, I do make 65, 000 a year. 1983. And I get really angry when they say that. We get summers off and we Only work nine months. He said, we only get paid for nine months. I said, well, does your month, your check come every month? They said, yes. But I said, what do you do? And he goes, well, I go to Italy. And I said, well, you're not working then, are you? And then the other guy was telling me, you know, I have a really tough schedule. I got to teach three class. And we had to teach four classes semester. It was a lot. But he said, I have to teach three classes on Monday. And I said, well, what are they? I teach at 8 and 10 for. For an hour. I said, so you're over at 9 and you teach from 10 to 11. Then what do you do? Well, I go home. What do you do? He said, I play tennis and I go out to the club. I said, when do you come back? Well, I teach my third class from six to nine. And then I said, you do that every night? I said, no, I do it once a week, my three hour. So I said, wait, you have one class and then you get that whole thing? I thought we had to teach four class. I only got one. I'll take that class. I need it. And he said, no, no, no, no. And then he said, I'm on release time. And I said, for what? He said, for. I got. I have a research. I said, what are you working? I said, I don't know yet. I said, so you're only teaching. You get third off and you get all this. But the point I'm making is here are all these people 20 miles away that were flat broke losing their farms and were very stoic and noble, about like the middle class always is. And here were these elites with all these degrees, and they were around this coffee not working. And I kept thinking, man, I'm just sitting here. If I did this on a farm for an hour with coffee, everybody would call me. A lazy sob. So then I call, I got home, my mom and dad, I went by their house, and they said, how was your first day? And it was only 25. I was 30, 29. And I said, it's so weird. I get paid. And I didn't do anything. And then my mom goes, well, did you tell anybody that? I said, yeah. And he said, well, don't do that. Do not do that. You want to be paid a lot up there for not doing anything. And don't worry about the farm. But it just. And then the next 20 years there, it was always the same thing. All these crybabies would say, all these little slides. You know, I go to The Faculty Senate. I just want to say something that in the Daily Collegian they use this word. And I felt personally offended. And then another person would say, I just think we have to have a. A proposition that we are going to formally go on record against the Reagan administration. And then it was like, okay, it was just a. A joke. It really was. I mean I liked every. But it was just compared to what most people have to do. And I look at all these professors that are so angry they don't understand and then they say, well, we got a PhD. It's very hard to get a PhD. No, I got a PhD. I got it in basically four years. It's a joke. And it was very hard. PhD classical language. Because I. I tell you, if you had to get on a Massey Ferguson and use a tandem disc and plow all day long versus work on a PhD or you were a Wilfer like Martine I saw on top of the house with 50 pounds of shingles tipped toeing along the ridge cow Victor look at me 30ft down on either side and he's an expert. Or I see my friend Armando up in the attic with 110 degrees in the summer rewiring it. That is work. And that's why I get so upset when I saw that Claudine Gay testifying and all this psychodrama and all these professors. I'm not bashing academia. I love academia. I love the idea of a university. But come on, let's get a little real.
- [90:41]
A
As long as they're doing what they're supposed to do, which is teaching.
- [90:44]
B
They don't.
- [90:44]
A
And enlightening. No inductive reasoning.
- [90:47]
B
You should never even know what the political. I hope. When I taught I never brought politics and I. I knew they thought I was probably conservative and got more so, but I never. I had a student just to finish. She was from this area and she's very left wing, I think I told you every time I would speak about Western Civ, she'd turn her back to me and she'd go like this and turn around and I said, can you face. She said, well, you said I didn't even have to go to class. I said, you don't. I don't need you here. But if you're going to come to class, you have to show respect for the other students. You're just turning your back. And then she came up to me and she said, well, I don't really like this class, but I have to have it, so I'm not going to come to class you don't take. Well, I said, no, just do the work. So I don't know how she did it, but she did pretty well. And she wrote these essays that were better than B plus. So I gave her, I think, an A minus. And she comes in and goes, you gave me an A minus? And I said, yes. And she said, why did you give me an A minus? I hated you and I hated your class. She said that to me. I said, it's irrelevant. I don't care if you like me or not. You did A minus work and that was it. That's what you're supposed to do.
- [92:05]
A
That's what you're supposed to do. They don't even understand that she was angry.
- [92:09]
B
She wanted me to give her a B or C and then complain to the dean.
- [92:14]
A
Yeah, exactly. Well, Victor, we're way over time here, so let's go ahead and thank our audience. And thank you for all the wisdom today.
- [92:21]
B
Thank you, everybody, for listening. Sorry I went off on that last excursives.
- [92:26]
A
It's okay. It was wonderful.
- [92:27]
B
We'll see you next time, everybody.
- [92:28]
A
We'll see you next time. This is Sammy Wink and Victor Davis Hansen, and we're signing off.
- [92:33]
B
Thank you for tuning in to the Daily Signal. Please, like, share and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website@victorhansen.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.