Left-leaning Politicos With Eyes Wide Open and WWII Defense of the Soviets

Flu season is here and COVID cases are still climbing across the country.

When people start getting sick, medications disappear fast.

And that's why we trust All Family Pharmacy.

They help you prepare before it's too late.

Right now, they've dropped prices on ivermectin and mabenzazole by 25%.

Plus, you can save an extra 10% with the code VICTR10.

You'll also get 10% off antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, and more of the medications you actually want on hand.

Whether you're fighting off a cold, protecting your family from flu season, or staying ready in case COVID makes its way into your home, having a few months' supply brings peace of mind and control.

They work with licensed doctors who review your order online, write the prescriptions, and ship your meds straight to your door.

Go to allfamilypharmacy.com/slash Victor and use the code Victor10 today.

Hello, and welcome to the Victor Davis Hansen Show.

This is our Saturday edition and we do something different on the weekends.

Victor talks for a little bit on the Megal Middle segment on something about history and we are currently on a discussion of the beginning of World War II and he will look at the second half of the invasion of Russia.

So stay with us for that.

First though we'll go to some of the latest news and Jeff Bezos's Washington Post has decided not to endorse either candidate.

And so we'll talk about that topic first.

So stay with us.

We'll be right back.

If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this.

In today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing your home titles and your equity is the target.

Here's how it works.

Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name.

Then they take out loans using your equity and even sell your property and you won't even know what's happened until you get a collection or foreclosure notice.

So when was the last time you checked on your home title?

If your answer is never, you need to do something about it right now.

And that's why we've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can find out today if you're already a victim.

Go to hometitaloc.com/slash victor to get a free title history report and a free trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.

That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it.

Please, please, don't be a victim.

Protect your equity today.

That's home-titallock.com slash victor.

Audival's romance collection has something to satisfy every side of you.

When it comes to what kind of romance you're into, you don't have to choose just one.

Fancy a dallions with a duke or maybe a steamy billionaire.

You could find a book boyfriend in the city and another one tearing it up on the hockey field.

And if nothing on this earth satisfies, you can always find love in another realm.

Discover modern rom-coms from authors like Lily Chu and Allie Hazelwood, the latest romanticy series from Sarah J.

Maas and Rebecca Yaros, plus regency favorites like Bridgerton and Outlander.

And of course, all the really steamy stuff.

Your first great love story is free when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wondery.

That's audible.com/slash wondery.

Welcome back to the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

Victor is the Martin and Ely Anderson Senior Fellow in Military History and Classics at the Hoover Institution and the Wayne and Marcia Busky Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College.

You can find him at his website, victorhanson.com.

Please come join us here there.

It is

called the Blade of Perseus and you can can join for $5 a month or $50 a year or just come free for all of the free stuff on the website, which is copious.

So we'd love to have you join us, though.

Victor, so Jeff Bezos has decided to resist

endorsing a candidate.

And so he's

instructed his Washington Post not to

support or endorse a candidate.

And they are up in arms.

And I was wondering your ideas on that.

I don't understand that.

I mean, they think that these publishers and owners are just what, anonymous race or ghosts, they don't exist, and that they lose $75 million a year.

So, whatever they're doing is not working.

In other words, the Washington Post did not used to lose $75 million in equivalent dollars.

So, why are they doing it?

Do they ever look at themselves and say,

We just say the same old thing: Hitler, Trump, Hitler, Trump, Right-wing, horrible.

Saint Obama.

You know, more immigrants, the better, especially if they come in illegally.

Crime doesn't matter.

Cash should go to.

Nobody wants that anymore.

But they just keep hammering and hammering and hammering.

The same old fossilized, ossified, calcified columnist and the news.

And so finally,

the publisher says, yeah, I may be the second richest man in the world, but I don't have $100 million just to lose every year so you people can spout off.

So this is what's going to happen.

We're not going to get into the politics because I have businesses to run.

And you people every single day are saying that the person who has a good chance of being president is Hitler.

And so in other words, my money and my resources are calling what might be the next president of the United States not

somebody I wouldn't vote for.

He's not going to vote for Trump.

But somebody who is a dictator, is a fascist, is a Nazi, is Hitler.

He's human.

So I could lose a lot of business.

That's what they're accusing him of.

And they're right.

But the point is, if they don't like it, just leave.

Yeah, exactly.

I work at the Hoover Institution, and we have a common rule.

And the rule is you should not disparage a fellow, tenured senior fellow in the public domain.

John Racian established that.

I don't know if it's in the handbook.

I don't think it is, but it's a wise protocol.

I have been attacked by, I think, two or three senior fellows publicly.

I never went to the director and said they're violating.

I don't think I should.

But the point I'm making is, I would say there's three or four of them that I disagree with entirely.

And

I think they don't adhere to the mission statement of free markets, personal liberty, and limited government.

But would I ever go out in the public sphere and say, Mr.

Smith isn't?

No, I wouldn't.

And I have people write me all the time and say,

you should say something about your Hoover fellows.

There's some liberals there.

Why don't you say, because that's the protocol.

And if I don't like it, I should leave.

I don't own the Hoover Institution.

The overseers do.

They are the people who donate the money and the endowment.

And then the administrator.

And she was elected.

And Condoleezza Rice and John Racian and Tom Gilligan and all the other ones have have certain duties.

And one of them is the institution will not function if you have senior fellows in the public domain attacking each other.

So when people write me and say, you should go, you should reply to that.

Why?

If I'm going to reply to it, I'll just quit.

But if I'm going to stay there and take their salary, then I'm going to play by their rules.

Don't they get that?

No.

They don't, do they?

They think they own it.

The second thing is, in our business, it's very important to be humble and understand your market value.

Your market value is volatile.

It depends on a lot of ingredients.

How many columns are you writing?

Are you in the public sphere?

Do you get speaking invitations?

Do you get television?

Do your books sell?

That kind of stuff.

That adjudicates whether you want to have F you money.

In other words, If you don't like that institution, you say, I'm done.

And then other institutions rush to hire you.

Do you think those people at the Washington Post, if they do follow their,

I don't know, their conscience, and they say, you know what, Jeff?

I'm not gonna not in my name.

I'm not gonna be a part of this.

I quit.

You think, who's gonna rush out and hire them?

W newspapers?

No, nobody's gonna do it.

Newspapers are cutting back on their op-eds.

They're not gonna hire them.

And some of those people have been there for 30 years.

And you don't know who they are.

They don't write books.

They don't write essays other than that weekly column that fewer and fewer people read.

So they have no humility.

And so every year I sit down and I say, these are columns.

These are essays I write for special jobs.

These are guest teaching.

This is my primary job at the Hoover Institution.

These are books.

These are television.

This is Fox.

This is Newsmac.

Some of these are going to go away.

And I either have to have open revenues, but one thing I do don't touch with is my primary job that I'm loyal to the Hoover Institution.

And I don't talk about it in a deprecatory way.

And I don't attack my

fellow fellows.

And I try to honor the mission statement.

If you can't do that, you've got to leave.

And these people in the LA Times and USA Today and Washington Post have this inflated ego that they're so important.

If I were to leave, you know,

the,

gosh, it was all clarified by Jennifer Rubin, who was an entertainment lawyer from Hollywood, very left.

And then during the heyday of the Bush year, she flipped, of course, and said she was conservative and got a lot of mileage at commentary.

And then they hired her at the Washington Post.

She had a couple years of going after Obama.

Then she flipped back to where she is now, left-wing.

But she was telling everybody, you've got to quit.

And you people in the L.A.

Times, if they're going to not endorse Harris, think of that.

Journalists are supposed to be disinterested.

But if you don't do it my way and my ideology, you've got to...

Now she's still there.

Well, why don't you quit?

Does Jennifer Rubin really think that if she were to quit,

that A, it would make any difference, that people would say, oh my God, Jennifer Rubin quit the Washington Post.

I'm canceling my subscription.

Oh my gosh, Bezos better have a special meeting with her.

He's going to lose her.

Or do you think, secondly, if she did quit,

let's see,

maybe

Dallas Morning News, Political.

I got to get Jennifer Rubin.

She's out on the free market now.

There's going to be a bidding war for her.

No, it's not going to happen.

No.

And these people, they have these megaphones.

They don't understand that a lot of things that happen to us in life were accidental.

It's not a pure meritocracy.

It's who you know, how you network, and people

who

have positions should know there are other people who would want those positions that are more capable of them in some cases.

But they don't.

They don't.

No.

I don't know how many times, I've been in this for 40, 50 years.

I don't know how many times.

And I won't mention names because it's not fair because they can't respond, that I've been at a dinner or I've been on a panel or I've had to go go speak, and there's been a famous pundit, and the person has been utterly rude, utterly rude, not just to me, the fellow panelist, but to people who come up and kind of say, you know, I don't want to stop you from eating, or I know

this is a book signing, but all I wanted to say to you is I really like it.

And they said, look, I'm eating.

This isn't a book signing.

I'm not going to sign you.

And I can't tell you that in almost all of those cases, no one, they didn't end up well.

And the people that I'm thinking about right now, nobody, they don't read, they don't write, nobody reads them anymore.

They don't understand this

cycle of ascendance,

the summit, and descending.

And

I was taught that by my mother.

She was, you know, she was a very rare person.

She was the first student body president that was a woman of her high school.

She organized a group of, at 17 and 18, of the paper and local people to protest the forced relocation of Japanese Americans and try to get people to band together and farm these little farms, 40 and 60 acres, and then put the money in trust accounts.

She had a friend at the local paper, Lowell Pratt, they wrote op-eds.

She was 17 or 18.

She got two bachelor's degrees from the University of Pacific and Stanford.

She went to Stanford Law School.

I think she's one of the fourth or fifth women, 1946.

She came right back and this little

800 feet square foot.

That's what we lived in.

We have no money to build another house, so my dad, a new home, so he built a little 800-square-foot addition next to it, not even connected.

So we walked out in the rain between the bedrooms and the living room and the

kitchen.

So my point is, she had four children.

She lost one,

a sister who died at one.

And

she just was a mom until she was 40.

And then she

became a very accomplished appellate court lawyer, and they appointed her a superior court judge.

I think the second in Fresno County history.

Then I think she was the second appellate court judge, who was a woman.

She died very early of a brain tumor.

My point is, during this cycle when she was getting a lot of speaking invitations, we were in trouble farming.

So we went to six or seven farmers' markets for five or six years.

Well, she would meet us in Santa Cruz.

And she would, my dad, but she would put on jeans and a t-shirt and go out and peddle fruit with us.

I said, Mom,

you know, well, we have to,

it's not that it's, I know you can hire somebody at $8 an hour or whatever it was, but it's important that we all get in this together and we all don't forget where we are.

And when you're going up, you make friends easily, but when you're in your descendants, you've got to be nice to people when you're on the ascendants because you might need friends when you're, I mean, from a practical point of view.

That really struck me because everybody should realize that

if you think you're doing very well, very few people do very well their entire lives.

Winston Churchill saves

Western civilization.

And what was the reward for doing that?

As soon as they felt they didn't need him, they voted him out of office, insulted him.

The most unfair thing in the world.

And,

you know, it can happen to anyone, anyone, anytime.

So you've got to keep that in mind.

And these people are so arrogant.

They thought,

I can't believe this is happening to me.

I am Jen Mugin.

Well, get used to it.

Yeah.

Heather McDonald wrote an interesting assessment of this situation in the City Journal, and she concluded that all of it was obfuscating the real problem, which is that their paper is, in fact, biased.

And that's a problem for a newspaper.

That's why nobody's reading it.

That's why they're losing 75 million.

The point is, they can be liberal as they were in the past.

They were definitely liberal.

But they had some code under Benjamin Bradley and others.

They had Catherine Gay.

They had a code.

And so did Newsweek.

They had a code, and they don't have a code anymore.

They're just blatant.

This new generation feels that we are so morally superior that any means are justified to get this superior in justified.

And they don't understand.

That's why they hate this

deplorable, irredeemable chums, dregs, hobbits, crazies, clingers.

And now garbage.

And now garbage, fascists, Nazis.

They don't like these people because

they're the majority of the country.

They are the muscular classes that they're substituting class for race.

A lot of blacks, Latinos are flocking to them.

And the nasal

tone,

the NPR, hello everybody, this is NPR.

Nobody wants to hear that.

Nope.

And that's why they think, you know, we're not worshipped anymore.

Wait, wait.

I have a PhD from Harvard.

No, I have a JD from Stanford.

I'm the

Susan Collins Smith Distinguished Professor of Rhetoric at Princeton.

Who cares?

Nobody cares.

But they have all these alphabetic degrees and titles and all these job descriptions they've worked at,

and they don't have any common sense.

So this election is really a referendum on the elite.

Yeah.

The elite professional classes.

Well, what the editorial staff has threatened to do is endorse in their columns anyway so it will be interesting to see if they in fact try to do that and what Jeff Bezos does if they do.

Well Victor let's turn to then Pennsylvania which we're all curious about and what will happen on Tuesday and recently there was a interview of Fetterman and he claimed that he had been out in Pennsylvania and he was talking about a

shop that was apparently quite large and it just had all Trump paraphernalia in it.

And what he said was this, that the support in Pennsylvania was palpable.

And he says, quote, it's taken on a life of its own.

And he says, that doesn't mean I admire it.

It just means that it's real.

So he sounds like he's a little bit worried about that palpable support for Trump.

Yeah, he is.

And I understand that people can be quiet in their support, and that can be more numerous than the people that that are excited and loud.

That was brought home to me especially in 2020.

We've talked about that when Joe Biden's rallies were sit in the car and watch it like you're watching a drive-in movie or something in Honk when Trump was out in the flesh with 60,000 people.

So I understand that, but what I think he's noticing is that that's one Tesser in a mosaic and the Tessras are all forming a pattern now and you can start to see the picture.

And the picture is he notes the enthusiasm.

Other people note that

there's been 600,000 more

registered voters that are Republican than just four years ago

in a state that he lost by 80,000 votes.

Just think of that.

And these are registered by Republicans.

And so they're not going to go out into rhino districts.

And he's starting to see

the rallies are very good.

This is where he was almost killed.

There's a lot of people that are angry at the Harris ticket because they did not pick the Pennsylvania governor, Shapiro.

They should have.

So there's a lot of, you put them all together.

It's not one calculus.

It's the aggregate number.

And that's why I think

Trump looks pretty good in Pennsylvania.

And another thing is

there's a couple of things going on.

When you look at these aggregate polls now,

this is what you're starting to see.

They're very close, but when you look at how some of them are aggregated, it's not the aggregator's fault.

They pre-select polls.

But you're starting to see some

outliers.

And they tend to be on the left.

CNN.

Harris is ahead by five, six, seven in Wisconsin.

She's not.

But

those polls are taken to change the

mean.

And

you don't see a bunch of them say Trump is ahead by seven in Arizona.

No, he's not.

He's probably ahead by two.

But if you see a poll like that, the intent is to take the average and weigh it toward him.

So if you, I think they should just, when they see these outliers, they should just get rid of the ones that

are just crazy.

Yeah.

Unless they can show a new type of polling or modality that's ingenious or something.

Yeah, and then the averages might reflect a better number.

I think the averages are showing that I have a feeling that he's not

radically

under polling, but he's somewhat under polling, maybe a point or two, that he's actually higher than maybe he is in these close ones like a point.

I think he's got a very good chance of winning six or seven of these states that are in question that will determine by one percentage or one and a half percent, like he did in 2016.

But I may be wrong.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, he seems to be finishing much better than her, but of course we have three days left to go, so who knows what happens.

We can never know what can happen.

Nobody in their right mind.

If you had said a week ago there's going to be a comedian that goes to his great Madison Square Garden rally and he's going to make a joke about Puerto Rico's garbage because it's been in the news about garbage, but he's going to do it in in a crude, stupid way, and that's going to really hurt him.

And then just when they think they've got the magic bullet, excuse the metaphor, given Trump's assassination attempts, then all of a sudden Joe Biden says, garbage.

And then that ends that narrative.

And then this, Donald Trump comes up with this brilliant idea to extend the entire conversation by getting into a garbage truck, as he did with the McDonald's.

By the way, you know, we've talked about that garbage, but there was something weird about it.

And that is, we said last time, you know, he is in a he's in the White House, and she's out on right near it in the ellipse.

And it was very sad.

It reminded me there was nobody around him, you know, that he was just sitting there.

And I do two or three Zoom interviews a day.

And I'm speaking to you right now.

My computer has four books on it.

It's kind of haphazard.

I don't have engineers, but

it's pretty much my eyes are level with the camera.

And then I kind of, I'm in this old garage, it's now an annex, and the lights, so it doesn't have a glare.

When you looked at that, he looked kind of like a ghost.

He was white, but it was like it was down.

It was, you know, nobody had propped it up.

He was looking, the angle was really weird.

It was so amereatory.

It was like,

well, there's just old Joe there in the corner, and somebody wants an interview.

Hey, you know what?

Don't get the lighting, guys.

Don't get the engineer.

Don't get the brand new computer.

Don't get the props.

Don't have a test.

Don't have sound or anything.

Don't go over the talking points with him.

He's a loser.

He's just let him go.

And that's what they did.

Anybody, anybody could have given an interview with better optics and better laptop

visuals than that.

And it was just, he's just been cast off.

It's weird.

And I don't know how he's going to finish the next 90 days.

I really don't.

Because even that, when he looked at the transcript, it didn't make sense anything he said.

Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican,

he's obviously had a stroke or he's had something that has really diminished his capacity in a way that it wasn't even true three months ago.

And I think they've just said, you know what?

And now they're saying, I shouldn't say I think they're saying it.

People in the reaction to that comment are just saying,

it's all baked into him now.

We don't worry about it.

They're kind of lying, but they say, you know what?

Everybody expects that from him now.

And

they don't even take it seriously anymore.

But Trump made that into gold for his own campaign, nonetheless, regardless of what.

His problem, though, was to

make people take what biden says seriously yeah because he says so many crazy things

we should lock trump up i'd like to take him out for a swim all that stuff

and yeah it just gets back to what obama said don't i want to underestimate

joe's ability to f things up

he said that was the person who appointed him vice president

well victor let's go ahead and take a break stay with us and we'll be back

Welcome back to the Victor Davis-Hansen Show.

So our middle segment, Victor's going to talk some more.

Last week he did the first part of the invasion of Russia, but it went on for two and a half, three years.

And so he's going to finish that up.

And we all know that the winters are often cold.

They always say that about

the Russian landscape and so it makes it difficult for an army to get in there.

But there's much, much more to why the Germans lost this particular invasion.

So we look forward to that.

Well, we ended up last time, it's December 1941, and the German army is right outside Moscow.

And Japan is looking at this and is going to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th with the expectation within days Russia, which poses a threat to Japan on its northern flank, will be out of the war.

Bad idea.

I should have waited a month.

If they had waited two months, they might not have declared war on all this.

But anyway, the point is, what happened?

Well,

there's about seven or eight things that happened.

First of all, they were using the calculus of World War I, where they knocked out Russia in two and a half years, and they couldn't knock out France.

So they knock out France in six to seven weeks, and then they think, based on World War I calculus,

that they never knocked out France in World War I, but they knocked out Russia in two and a half years, so it's about half.

So, six or seven weeks taking out the great French army would mean three or four weeks taking out the Russian army.

With no consideration of the ruthlessness and murderous nature of communism, it was very different than the Tsars.

Then they were northern peoples, the Germans.

They say, we know how cold is.

Germany is just as cold as Berlin is as cold as Moscow, and

we ran through Europe in six to eight weeks.

Halder said after 11 days, he's the

chief of the Wehrmacht Oberkommand of the Wehrmacht.

He said, you know, the war is over in 11 days, because they racked up, you know, a million prisoners in the first two or three weeks.

But

what they didn't realize is when they got into Russia, they had done no intelligence.

They didn't know what a T-34 tank was, that it was superior in every manner to the Mark III and Mark IV, which was their mainstay, no Panthers or Tigers yet.

That although they outnumbered, this was the largest invasion in history, 4 million people.

And they outnumbered

the Red Army, which was deployed worrying about the Japan.

They had been fighting the Japanese on the Mongolian border.

They had troops in Siberia.

They had troops everywhere, but they were outnumbered about 4 million to 3 million

in the theater.

But they did not understand.

There was at least 4 million other troops that could join the fray.

So in 1941 they had a numerical advantage.

By December it was over with.

Then it was five to four.

German army grew every year in Russia, believe it or not, 41, 42, 43, and then it couldn't grow anymore, but the Soviet army finally doubled the size.

So they were going to be outnumbered.

They didn't understand about the winter.

They had no winter clothing because they thought they would be out very quickly.

They had lost valuable reserves trying to take Crete, trying to go into Greece, go into Yugoslavia.

They had lost 25,000 people in Poland and the Low Countries and 25,000 in France and they had lost about 1,000.

So they were trying to rebuild that and so they go in there.

arrogant, they don't know the roads are bad.

And any army that goes into a country has what you call exterior lines.

They're expanding from their base.

They have interior lines, the Russians.

So as they start to fall back, the distance to supply food and ammunition from their supply centers shortens.

It gets longer,

longer and longer, just as it did with Napoleon.

So these are classic age-old factors, and they all come to a head in December.

But before you say, well, then the war is over, no,

they get pushed back about 150 miles, and then there's a kind of World War I line from Leningrad to about 150 miles, 20 miles outside of Moscow, all the way down

to the Black Sea,

near Sebastopol.

They haven't taken it.

The next year, they have to wait during the winter, and they hold on in the winter.

Then they get new equipment.

They're starting to bring in tiger tanks, more 88-millimeter guns.

They are fighting

pretty well in Africa.

They haven't lost Africa yet.

There's a brief moment where things look pretty good, say June to August of 1942, in the world in general.

Now, what do I mean by that?

They're going to take Tobruk.

Rommel's going to take Tobruk

in summer of 1942.

And they're not going to go into Leningrad and Moscow as the Russians expect.

They're going to take their forces and deplete, hold those two, Army Group North and Army Group Center, and they're going to go southward.

That was where they had the trouble, remember?

That's what Gudarian had to go down and bail them out, and they lost precious time when he had to go back to Moscow and they never took it.

But they want to go into the Caspian Sea.

They want to go to Grozny and they want to get the oil fields and cut off the Volga River traffic to Moscow.

And they want to get, they're going to have the Don, the Dipner and the Don and the Volga rivers, and they're going to get the oil.

And that will supposedly knock the Russians out of the war.

And for a brief moment,

they are right near Grozny.

And they've gone up the Volga River.

Unfortunately, stupidly, they split their forces and they're going towards Stalingrad.

But they've got Stalingrad surrounded.

So if you look at the map in July of 1942,

Rommel looks like he might take Alexandria.

The German army is not too far from the Caspian Sea and the major oil fields.

They can either destroy or expropriate them.

The U-boats have recovered and they're having enormous early 1942 success knocking out shipping from North America to Britain.

The U.S.

bombing campaign has started and it's a disaster.

They're suffering unsustainable rates of daylight, unescorted unescorted bombing.

And so the Germans look pretty good.

And then

certain things start to happen.

The Red Army starts to get Lindleys,

25 to 30%.

And it's not just Lindlease the British and the Americans are giving them.

They're saying, what can you do and what can you not?

They have a very asymmetrical economy.

We can make big artillery.

We can make tanks.

But we don't have any aluminum for airplanes.

We'll give you aluminum and we'll give you airplanes.

We will give you radios.

We will give you food.

We will give you rail.

They supply about 70% of the rail cars.

But more importantly, in such a large theater, you need to move troops around.

We will give you 400,000 GM and Studebaker heavy trucks.

Heavy trucks.

So you can put men on them and you will be motorized.

Every one of your divisions will be

motorized.

They, the Germans, are working on

to get trucks by assembling everything they've stolen from France and it doesn't work from Belgium and they are not motorized.

They are powered by horses.

So the German army is now overextended and then we invade in the fall, November, North Africa and that's going to

and then the British stop Rommel at LLMain

and suddenly in the middle of 1943, it's bigger than Stalingrad, they lost.

They surrender a quarter million Germans in North Africa.

And then in July, we're already into Sicily.

And then in August, we're going into Italy.

And so the German army has lost all these troops in North Africa.

They are now diverting troops from the front.

to put them in Italy and Sicily.

Sonar, escort, air cover has destroyed the U-boat fleet.

By 1943, they're not doing very much at all.

They're taking horrendous losses.

By late 43, we are starting to,

for the first time in early 44, use

thunderbolts and then Mustangs and escorted bombing.

We're learning how to do it.

We're using different types of munitions.

We're working more closely with the British.

They're doing it at night.

We're doing it at day.

Bombing is starting to take a toll on the industrial capacity of Germany.

But more importantly, the only thing that works are these wonderful 88 millimeter flat guns.

I mean, they're not the big ones, but you can knock down these planes with them, and they're mobile.

But unfortunately for the Germans, they're the only way they really have to blow up heavy Russian tanks, at least until they have tigers and panthers, and they never have enough of them.

So they're taking 10,000 of these back from the Eastern Front and putting them around German cities and tilting the barrels up as flat guns.

And the Luftwaffe, the reason that they were so successful in late 41 and 42, they had air, not air superiority, air supremacy.

They had destroyed 5,000 Soviet planes, but now the Luftwaffe is tired, but more importantly,

about 50% of their squadrons have been used in North Africa and Sicily and Italy, but more importantly, they're trying to shoot down B-24s and B-17s and Lancasters.

And they don't have any close ground support for the troops in Russia.

All of these things

come out in the fore in 1943,

when that big line I talked about starts to break.

And it doesn't mean they're not going to take Kharkov again, but it is manifest at Kurse, and that's this huge tank battle in southern Russia, in which

It's the largest battle in history.

And it goes on, there's a bulge in the line, and the Germans

telecast basically, or everybody knows they're going to try to cut off the bulge.

The Russians make minefields, they have T-34s everywhere, the Russians lose a lot more soldiers.

Tactically, the Germans fight better, but when the battle is over, they're never able to fight an offensive.

So from mid-43 to 45, it's just going to be slowly the Russian army is going to get up to 12 million people.

Remember, there is to speak no strategic Russian surface fleet.

There is no strategic Russian bomber fleet.

There's really not anything other than a tactical air force.

There's not really a successful Russian submarine fleet.

They do have submarines that will do some damage in the north and Baltic Seas.

There is no Russian front in Sicily.

There is no Russian front in North Africa.

There is no Russian front in Italy.

There is no Russian front against the Japanese.

They are not fighting anything but German in a linear fashion.

They have everything concentrated.

People should remember that, because they do kill 75 to 80 percent of all German soldiers, but they can only do that because the Allies are taking great risk by diverting 30 percent,

20 percent of their

GNP, gross to GDP, and they're giving it to Russia.

And that accounts for 30 percent of all of their military GDP.

And that just tells the Russians, we will supply you, you don't need to worry about naval warfare, strategic bombing, we will bomb targets like Dresden, that was a transportation center, that will help you.

And they ground down the Germans.

And

by the time of D-Day, they're near the Polish border.

And then the probably the largest offensive in history is Off Operation Bagration, and that's in 44,

early 45, and they crack Army Group Center wide open.

And then everything starts to collapse.

In early 45,

the Baltic states come under Russian control.

Finland has now capitulated, created a deal, and the Germans are fighting

the Russians.

Excuse me, the Germans are fighting the Finns.

who are forced to fight on the side of the Russians up in Lapland in central Finland.

And the Germans

are retreating.

And a lot of German civilians, it's going to be about 14 million of them, both at the near the end of the war and the night after, are being ethnically cleansed from

all the way from the Sudetenland all the way up to East Prussia.

Konensberg is going to be Kalingrad, it's lost.

Danzig is Gdansk again.

And

it's a

slow crumble.

And then the Allies

Allies are just wondering will they honor the agreements outlined at Yalta and reified at Potsdam and how they divide up Europe.

In other words, where does this Soviet government with 500 divisions, where do you stop it?

Because the Americans and the British only have about 200 divisions in Europe.

Where do you stop it?

And there's a big fight.

You let it go all the way in and do the dirty work and take Berlin as you agreed to, But Berlin is 70 miles.

It's supposed to be divided and jointly held, but it's 70 miles in what will be Russian territory according to earlier agreements.

And Patton says, I can take it.

I can go right in and take Prague, and I can go take Berlin.

They won't fight me.

They'll be happy, the Germans, to give it over to me.

And they said, no, George.

And he says, you know what?

At the end of the war, where this East German line will be of Russian-dominated Germany, you're going to have a jointly held city of France, Britain, United States, and Russia, and it's going to be inside a Russian enclave, and they're going to cut it off.

So we've got to take it.

We've got to make a corridor.

And they said, no, you'll break the agreement and cause World War III.

So that's what happens.

And of course, at Yalta, we kind of don't understand what's going on.

And so we give the Russians a free hand to come in and capitalize the last three weeks in the Pacific.

They haven't done a thing.

They've had a non-aggression pact with the Japanese in April of 1941.

So literally Liberty ships with Russian flags on them full of American goods and munitions

are

steaming in the Pacific

going in either to the Persian Gulf or Vladislavac.

And they're passing Japanese submarines and Japanese air power while those assets are killing Americans on the islands and they are not even being attacked because Russia has this non-aggression pact with Japan.

And

so

again,

Russia violated every agreement that it signed with its two benefactors, the United States and Britain, and it kept everyone that it signed with its enemies,

Germany and Japan, at least until the very end with Japan.

So

to sum up, somewhere around 30 million civilians were killed.

If you count the Holocaust, and

most of the camps were in Poland, so you've got about 36, 37 million people killed.

As I said earlier, World War II is largely a story

of Germans and Japanese killing Russians.

Jews and Chinese.

That's what the majority of the deaths are.

That's where you get up.

Of the 70 million people, you get about 55 to 60 in those two theaters.

Well, Victor, let's go ahead and take a break, and then I have one question about all that.

And so stay with us, and we'll be right back.

Welcome back to the Victor Davis-Hansen Show.

We

are going to look at a few things in the news, but first I wanted to ask Victor

a question on the russia invasion do you think that the um or what do you think would be russia's fate if the united states and britain did not give them all that material

that's a hotly debated question and especially during the cold war when that was re-fought the soviets said that they defeated the germans as guys said they killed 75 to 80 percent of all german soldiers the americans said you would have lost the war without us

i think we can conclude there was about three things.

If

Hitler had not invaded Russia,

then

he would have probably been almost impossible without nuclear weapons to dislodge from Europe.

He had all of Western Europe and he would have had four million people.

But that is assuming that he and Stalin would have

been

friendly under the Molotov-Ribbentrop forever.

I don't think that was going to be possible, but that's just a fact.

So then you say it didn't happen.

Would Russia have been able to survive fighting Germany had the United States not aided it?

And that aid has to be broken down into two facets, military and non-military.

Military wouldn't say

if we were not bombing Germany and diverting Luftwaffe resources and 88 millimeter guns, and if we were not

in North Africa, which they had about

up to 300,000 men finally, and if we had not invaded Sicily and Italy, and there was about 800,000 Germans there, and if they were not

in Western Europe,

in the sense that they were making fortresses in all the seaports of the Atlantic.

They were occupying France before they thought it was going to be invaded with about 100,000 Germans.

But once they knew we were going to come,

then

they had the Army Group West was about a

million men.

And then when you take about the air resources, flat guns, and pilots to stop the bombing, what I'm getting at is about 30%

of the manpower and wherewithal was diverted from the Eastern Front on the German side.

Remember, the Russians didn't do anything out.

They didn't help us with strategic bombing or surface stuff, as we said.

The other aspect then is the aid.

And some people said, you know, they didn't want martial aid afterwards because they thought that they would be more visibly dependent.

But when you look at it, it was actually more than 20%.

It was closer to 30%, as I said.

They wouldn't have been able to build.

Finally, they were outbuilding the Germans in terms of aircraft.

They had no aluminum to speak of.

We gave them all of the the aluminum.

They had no aviation flu.

Their octane was not, it was about 70%.

We gave them 95%, 98% octane.

That came from us, aviation fuel.

They did not have pre,

they did not have K ration, C rash.

We gave them billions of those.

Boots, clothing, food,

as I said,

radios, and especially jeeps and trucks.

So we motorized the entire...

And what does that mean?

That means in a huge front from Leningrad to the Black Sea that you could shift around Soviet divisions much more quickly than the Germans could.

The Germans, again, were relying on horses.

And so they could put 16,000 men in trucks.

And when you have 400,000 trucks that were given,

so I don't think they could have won without us.

Could we have defeated them?

Well, we had the atomic bomb eventually, and we had air power, but we would have lost a lot of people trying to reclaim.

I don't know if we could have landed on the beaches of Normandy if the Soviet Union was an active partner, as it had been from

August 23, 1939, all the way to June 21st, 1941.

They were supplying 25%

of the Wehrmacht's machinery,

natural resources, gas, refined gasoline, oil, coal,

iron ore, and grain from the Ukraine.

So I don't, it's a very,

you know,

who deserves the greatest credit for World War II question.

Yeah, two-way, two-way street.

Yeah, I can answer it any other way.

During the Cold War, the Russians really said, you know, we took the brunt of it.

They did take the brunt of it, but they would have lost, they would have lost World War II

once Germany invaded, had we not been fighting in the air against Germany, in North Africa, in Sicily, in Italy, and did not have control of the seas and were able to supply them.

We supplied them.

From three different directions.

We've supplied them from Archangel in the northern Arctic.

We evaded the

the German U-boats.

We went all the way in the Pacific to Iran, and we kind of, the British kind of made sure that they had control of that government, and we supplied Army Group South via Iran, and then we went to Vladislavic from the Pacific across the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

So we did that.

They weren't able to

get those supplies anywhere else.

Okay, Victor, let's turn to the finish up the news of this week.

Gretchen Whitner wrote an article, and surprisingly for Fox, but that's another issue, where she says, help me elect Harris, who will build a brighter future for our girls.

And then, of course, the article was the one-issue campaign.

And that's my real question is,

can somebody win on this one-issue abortion?

It seems that, number one,

the Roe versus Wade merely, or overturning it, merely put the

onus or the rights back to the states.

So that's not a real big change.

And then they just, these people are just ignoring all the sex

trafficking coming across the border and that young girls who have practiced their entire lives to be in sports are getting their titles taken away from them by transforming the trend.

So your question is, does the abortion issue overshadow all of the other issues as it pertains to women?

Yes, and does that really buy her a lot of women votes?

Well, she's ahead by women.

It's gone down.

She's only ahead by women by about five points.

She's losing men by seven.

And

she's appealing to her.

The reason she's only ahead by four is that if you look at married women with children, Trump's ahead.

So she's talking about a large cohort of women from 18 to 40 that J.D.

Vance has

called cat ladies, right?

Yeah.

That's kind of a cruel thing, but I don't think he meant it to be cruel.

But what he's talking about is women that live with somebody, maybe have no children, one child, professional women, degreed,

and in their

curses,

they feel that they could be pregnant from a relationship, and therefore they would like to terminate it.

So do they, and this is interesting because if you look at the original field of Republicans

in the primaries, except for Nikki Haley, the one that was the most liberal was Donald Trump.

He was not restrictive like DeSantis was.

It was, let the states handle it under the federal system.

And he had pretty much,

and when they asked him, well, if you were a governor or if you were a legislature, what would your state system look like?

And he said

unrestricted abortion in matters of incest and rape

and

prohibition of late-term abortion.

And that's kind of debatable, but what he meant was the period in which most fetuses would be viable outside of the womb.

I don't know whether that is six months, seventh month, eighth month, ninth month.

And then

let that interim be up to the states.

Now that that was a hard position because that's where the American people are.

When you say that you're not going to allow abortion for rape or incest, you lose the American people.

When you say that you want a Dr.

Gosnell type, a baby can be terminated as they're alive, you lose the American people.

So, how do they use that?

They have to demagogue that.

They have to say that's not what he wanted.

He wants a national abortion ban on all abortion.

He didn't want that.

And they are so desperate.

They took the example of this young woman who

took a

birth control pill, which

nullified, made her pregnancy inert,

but then she did not,

in that process, sometimes the discharge of the terminated fetus is not complete and they have to have a procedure to clean out the uterus.

And that person didn't have that procedure and unfortunately she was somebody where that she was infected.

She went to another state where it was much more liberal, but then she did not get immediate attention.

They didn't catch it in time.

And so she got sepsis and died.

They're using that as an example of a woman who, but it's so strange, why don't they just say, we don't need to go that far.

We don't, we're basically talking about a birth control pill foul-up in infection.

Why don't we find women who wanted an abortion, let's say in Alabama, and they couldn't get it and they couldn't get to a state nearby that allowed it and they died.

They couldn't.

This is not 1920 when you're, you know, it's hard to go from state to state.

You're talking about going to an airport and being in any state in the United States in six hours.

And if you don't have the money,

you can drive to a state that allows pretty much abortion on demand pretty easily.

If you're in Utah, you can get to California.

If you're,

I don't know, and you're in eastern

Idaho or Wyoming, and you can get to Washington or Oregon.

So it's not that hard.

So they're using this because

they've lost men.

And the other thing, and they need not just 50-50 women, they need to win by eight or nine points on women.

And they're losing.

Why are they so close?

They're only now four or five.

Because of certain things like women resent the fact that they have to compete against biological males.

Or women resent the fact that if you're single and female, it is not safe to walk in New York, in Chicago, in San Francisco, in Seattle, in Los Angeles.

I would say after dark, but even alone during the daytime, it's not downtown if you're alone.

And then, of course,

economics, so it is kind of a stereotype, but most women do more of the shopping than men do, and they're more attuned to hyperinflation and things like food or car insurance.

They pay the bills.

And so that nullified the abortion.

So I don't think that's going to carry her to the White House.

The other problem is,

and this is more sensitive, that we're a country with a 1.6 fertility rate.

And so here you have a whole party and females saying,

you've got to abort board.

It's gone up to a million abortions.

And yet the population is not reproducing itself.

It's shrinking.

And this is one reason, one, among many, that the left want to open the borders, because because they want to say, we want to have women, we like 1.6, we'd like a million abortions.

And if we're going to be old and we can't take care of ourselves, then we'll import these people.

And by the time we import them, we'll make them into leftists anyway.

But they don't really see that

there is a historical comp,

there's a historical landscape that's not, you don't want to get into it.

And what I'm saying by that is they're basically saying, we want educated women to have all all of this travel or educated young couples, and we don't want them really to have children.

We don't really care if they have, and we want to abort up to a million fetuses.

And, you know, it falls heavily on the black population.

And before you say, well, Victor, that's not fair.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to a New York reporter feminist in which she said, what is the big problem about opposition to abortion?

Aren't we aborting the right people?

She said that.

Yeah, but what did she mean by the right people?

She meant non-white people.

And she meant that so clearly that the New Yorker tried to stop that and tried to stop the publication and then tried to explain it away because it was so radical for that to say it.

And then when you, because you have to contextualize that in the long history of the eugenics movement.

And Margaret Sanger, the beloved founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist.

So it's the Democratic Party who came up with the idea that abortion was a very valuable tool to eliminate non-white people.

And that's what's

kind of ironic right now.

Yeah, it sure is.

The black community is still voting 75%

for unlimited abortions for a party that has a history of using abortion as sort of a selective Darwinism.

Yeah.

All right, let's turn then.

Another strange article this week was Newsweek, and the title was Trump is a Clear and Present Danger to American Jews.

And that just blew me away, so I had to read it.

And he basically argues his points when he finally gets to saying, well, how do you know Trump's a danger to them?

He says, well, his father was an anti-Semite, and those anti-Semitic rallies that we've seen in the past year, which were the Democratic, you know, the pro-Palestinian ones.

They were started in the Trump administration, his argument.

Yeah, so I read that article.

It's by Jason Fields.

Nothing, I mean, I don't want to be an ad hominem, but nothing he writes is serious.

He's not a serious writer.

I read that article.

Within five seconds, any undergraduate could have torn that article apart.

Trump's dad,

was of a generation that said things, but he actually endowed a synagogue in New York

for people in his neighborhood who bought some of his homes.

Maybe it was a business deal, maybe not.

Trump's

son-in-law is an active, observant Jew.

His granddaughters are Jewish.

And he says, well, just because you support Israel, he didn't just support Israel.

That everybody does.

Trump did things that make you very unpopular in the Middle East,

with Arab American and Muslim communities and with Europe, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which needed to be done, saying that they're not going to give back the Jewish governments.

Israelis are not giving back the Golden Heights, getting out of the Iran deal, cutting off Hamas from U.S.

aid,

declaring the Houthis terrorists.

He did a lot of stuff that no one had ever done for Israel.

People who hate Jews

don't do that.

And then when you see Jews going to these rallies, I mean, this person has to fall back on the Marxist idea of false consciousness.

Well, they don't really know what's in their interest.

So he's playing the Barack Obama talking to black people.

But the other thing is, he says, well, there were anti-Semites that he talked to.

And so

you're Donald Trump and everybody wants a piece of you, and you go to Mar-Lago, and all these people on the fringes of your party

show up, and and you don't quite understand what's going on and therefore you're an anti-Semite because Nick Fuentes is.

According to his logic, then

Kamala Harris is and so is Barack Obama because

the biggest

anti-Semite we've had in the last 40 years is Al Sharpton.

I don't think we've had anybody that says, tell those Jews to put their yarmic on and come over.

I'm ready for them.

Or Reverend Wright, dim Jews, dim Jews.

I can't talk to Obama because they're dim Jews.

Or Jesse Jackson, Jaime Town.

Well,

Harris just had it, we see clips where she had an interview and Al Sharpton, the anti-Semite, says, would you sign a reparations bill?

Yes, I would.

So apparently she's like this, and Al Sharpton came to the White House under Obama more than almost any other activist, according to Mr.

Fields.

And they're all anti-Semites because they didn't understand that there were these Jew haters

that showed up in not just one occasion like Nick Fuentes, but they deliberately cultivated.

And then he says, well, hate crimes happen under Trump.

Well, yeah,

because that's when the left went crazy.

And if you look at hate crime statistics, Jews that make up about 3%,

2% to 3% of the population, they represent about 50%.

of the victims.

But who are the perpetrators?

Is it the white

MAGA guy with a cowboy hat from Wyoming?

No.

It are blacks, double the numbers in the population.

Latinos, almost double the numbers.

Arab Americans are Muslim Americans, way overrepresented.

So he's so disingenuous.

The people who are committing, as just happened this week, with an immigrant from Mauritania who shot a Jew who was here illegally, The people who are attacking Jews on the street are not MAGA people.

They're what the woke woke would say part of their community.

And he's not

intellectually honest enough to admit that.

So the whole thing is just a diatribe, and it falls apart about the first sentence.

And he's written a lot of really poor things.

And

everybody

who looks at the data and says,

Is there an outbreak of anti-Semitism on campus,

on the street, in the big cities?

Yes.

Is this associated with the left?

Yes.

And I'm on a campus, I saw it, I saw Ben Shapiro posters, and they had begone with an insecticide can, i.e.

Holocaust gas.

We just did a 900-page report at Stanford University written by liberal academics, finding that there was rampant anti-Semitism on campus.

We had a professor who said, person of color who said, Jews go over there, leave your property

over here.

Now you see what it's like to be a displaced Palestinian.

My point is who's doing this?

Who, when I walked to my office, said, river to the sea, river to the sea, meaning no Israel, no Jews.

It's the left.

And which particular party will not deal with that wing?

And we saw that from Claudine Gay and the presidents of these universities who were all left wing.

And they were terrified to come out and stop it.

It's left-wing, left-wing, left-wing, left-wing.

Yeah, it sure is.

And he knows that.

Yeah.

Well, I would like to welcome back to our show the sponsor, Truth Social.

If you're looking for a great place online for news, discussion, and entertainment, then check out Truth Social, Donald Trump's social media website.

You'll get breaking news stories, commentary from top media figures, and of course, my own Truth social account.

And that is Victor Davis-Hansen's

Truth Social account.

If you want to see Trump's legendary Truth Social posts, then get on Truth Social today.

Join a growing community of patriots on a free speech platform designed to avoid censorship and cancellation by big tech.

Make your voice heard, join the movement, join Truth Social, and we're happy to have them as our sponsors.

So, Victor, as the ending piece, peace de résistance, I have a

comment on your website from a

reader and it's to one of your VDH Ultra articles, 15 Ways to Destroy Democracy and Save It, Democratic Style.

Part 9.

And he says that, and I'm going to paraphrase the first part of it, but that he went down directly at age 18 to register to vote.

And then he says this, then promptly voted for Ronald Reagan in November of 1980 and every election since, I'm assuming he's meaning he voted for the GOP.

I must admit that I've lost some faith in our democratic process and sometimes wonder if I'm wasting my time going to the polls.

I already mailed in my ballot for the current election and I'm waiting to see what happens next Tuesday.

But if we have to deal with another four years of the radical left-wing Marxist agenda, then I feel I might have to make a new life in Bolivia, like Butch and Sundance.

And thank you, Alex Pills.

And I think maybe some of our listeners feel like that, but I hope that they don't leave the country if things go away.

As someone who lived almost three years abroad,

And I think for 30 years traveled every summer abroad, sometimes twice.

Before I would move to Bolivia, I would very carefully investigate what life is like in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, etc.

Maybe it's okay if you can afford guards and you're very wealthy, but I don't think it's going to be something that's going to improve on the United States.

Even under Kamala.

I'm speaking of someone who had a torn kidney ureter in Greece in 1978.

I can tell you that was not fun in there.

I can tell you someone that got amoebic dysentery in 1974 in Greece.

I can tell you that was not fun there.

I'm telling you somebody that had a ruptured appendix in Tripoli, Libya, and was operated on a table by a Libyan, a very wonderful doctor, but with ether and only, it was pretty primitive.

As far as health care and safety, as bad as you think the United States is, it's preferable.

And if you don't believe me, look at the border and see those mobs out there.

That's what the left cannot

contextualize, explain away.

Why are these people from all over the world trying to get in here?

And there's a particular reason.

It's free stuff, yes.

It's

keep your own customs and nobody hassles you, liberty, yes.

But there's a general sense that things here in every aspect are superior to where they came from.

That's kind of ironic.

I just want to get off topic just a second, because the left on this whole topic of moving, immigrating

into the United States is so

disconnected, so incoherent.

They're giving us all these reasons why we're systemically racist and we were flawed at our founding.

And 1619 is the real date.

And then you see all of these people wanting to come into a supposedly racist country.

In the case of Mexico, where I live, we've had tens of thousands of indigenous people who speak the same language as elites in northern Mexico and Mexico City from Oaxaca, from Michokan, from Chiapas.

And what are they coming?

They do not want to live with people around them that speak Spanish and run their government and feel that their government's job is to take care of them or the cartels, whatever reason.

They're coming over here.

And they're coming to a country that was founded by what?

English people.

And it doesn't make any sense.

If it were true that this is an unattractive place.

And then finally, and this is very important,

when we have these millions of people that are coming in, and you, the host, make no effort to assimilate them or integrate them or teach them civic education, then they will naturally replicate the life that they had over there because they haven't been inculcated in the alternative.

They know the symptoms of the alternative.

A good economy, prosperity, generosity, safety, supposedly.

I say supposedly now.

But if they don't assimilate and integrate, and they come in such numbers that they can create enclaves that replicate where they came from, whether it's China,

then why would they want to come here?

Because if they had their wish, it would turn into those places.

So the only, what they're really saying is, I want my music, I want my food, I want my clothing I want my customs and traditions great great great literature music but I don't want the judicial system I don't want the way they treat gays I don't want the way they treat women I don't want the poverty I don't want the pollution I don't want the crime I don't want the illegality I don't want the corruption So I want to come to the United States and get rid of all that and then cling to my cultural veneer.

Okay, that's fine, but you have to accept the core.

And that means you have to assimilate.

You've got to learn our language, and you've got to follow our laws, you've got to pay your taxes, and you cannot function as you did in your prior country.

Now, the left thinks that's cultural appropriation.

But the left who says they think that's cultural appropriation live in houses like where Barack Obama is, or Nancy Pelosi is, or Chuck Schumer is.

In other words, they're shielded from the deleterious consequences of their own ideology and politics.

They came down to the San Joaquin Valley and they met people from Mishokan or Oaxaca and they said to them, just, you don't have to do anything.

We need you.

Just be yourself, just like you were there.

They wouldn't want to live here.

No.

And the people who wouldn't come if they do that.

I'll just finish.

I had a good friend I went to high school with.

And this is kind of a weird story, but he said to me very quickly,

I went to this town and my kids were there.

It was 100% immigrant.

It really is.

I won't mention the town.

It's about 20 miles from here.

And I didn't like it because it was like what it was in Mexico.

So then I went to another town and it was 70% of people who were just arrived from Mexico and they had the La Raza ideology.

And my kid was not being competitive.

I wanted him to be an engineer.

And then I went to another one.

And he ended up in an area of Fresno called Clovis, which was at that time

90%

affluent, probably

white, Asian, Armenian,

ethnic, not just white, but very

affluent and very disciplined.

The schools were considered at that time the best schools.

And so I said, well, what you're saying is that the more and more illegal immigration comes into these towns

and the immigrants are not assimilating and integrating fast enough for your taste, and you get to a critical mass of 60, 70 percent, in which the culture tends to remind you of what the country it is that you left, you move to a more antithetical paradigm.

You know what he said to me?

What?

He said, When all of California is there, I'm going to Oregon, and when Oregon's all that way, I'm going to go to Washington.

When Washington's all that way, I'll go to Canada.

And what he was trying to say is, I just want to have an antithetical paradigm.

I don't care about race, I just want to have

meritocracy, free markets,

a non-corrupt judiciary, policemen that follow the law.

I don't like people throwing trash on the side of the road.

I don't like them taking their garbage and going out in the country and dumping it in their sofas or mattresses.

I just don't like, when they get in a wreck, I do not want them to flee the scene of the accident, because I ask him all these things.

Yeah.

Flee the scene of the accident.

Nearly half all the accidents in Fresno County or LA County are people who leave the scene of the accident.

So

that's something to remember when we talk about changing.

I know why the letter writers frustrate.

I am too, but you've got to stay here and fight and try to insist that immigration become legal, measured, diverse,

and merucratic.

And it'll be fine.

We're enriched under those conditions with immigrants.

I'm with you on that, Victor, and I'm sure your listeners listeners are too.

So, thank you very much, and thanks to our listeners for choosing to join us today.

We're happy to have you.

Thank you, everybody, for listening.

Much appreciate it.

This is Sammy Wink and Victor Davis-Hanson, and we're signing off.