From Biden Diary to College Censors

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 listeners of the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

This is the Friday Roundup and we are on December 31st, so New Year's Eve.

Happy New Year's Eve to everybody out there.

How are you doing today, Victor?

Am I very well?

Okay.

And it's been a lot of rain in California, I understand.

Are you enjoying it?

Yes, I am.

I am looking out the window and it's been raining for four days with another day or two up at, I have a little cabin up in the mountains.

It was five feet before the storm.

I hear there's another eight, so I will have a lot of digging if I drive up there to do.

And it couldn't be better for farming.

We'll just see how honest we are about our water storage and whether we decide to let most of the runoffs come March and April out the San Joaquin and Sacramento watersheds to the ocean.

I hope not.

Yeah, okay.

Well, we have a lot to talk about in the news, but first let's have a word from our sponsor.

Welcome back, and I would like to remind everybody that Victor is the Martin and Nealey Anderson Senior Senior Fellow in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution and the Wayne and Marcia Buskie Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College.

Today we're going to do, as we do on the Friday news roundup, several different stories.

We're going to look at James O'Keefe and his acquisition of the Ashley Biden diary.

And then we'll turn to Manchin's vote and the Democratic Party's disappointment with the Senate and we'll explain that.

And then a little bit on the academic world.

And maybe if we have time, we'll hear a little bit from our Joe Biden on COVID.

But let's start then first with James O'Keefe.

And I understand he's in a kind of a complex legal situation since a diary apparently is privileged material and that the U.S.

government and in fact the federal government has raided his house and tried to, well, at least they're bringing a case against him.

And in the midst of that going on, some of his own privileged correspondence with his lawyer about the legal boundaries of using privileged material has been taken by the New York Times.

And he's left without any federal help to sue and to raid the New York Times for his own privileged material.

So I was wondering, Victor, I hope I got that right.

It's a very complicated case.

Let us hear your thoughts on it.

Well, there's a lot of issues here.

For our listeners, it's very clear.

Remember that Hunter Biden's sister, the daughter of President Joe Biden, apparently left her diary at an apartment she was sharing with someone.

A new tenant came in and found it and then mysteriously communicated with people that she felt, and she was probably a Trump supporter, that the country should know about it.

Had a lot of salacious and lurid leaks from that diary, if it is indeed authentic, that she felt that she had taken showers with her father at too early an age or things like that, too late an age, or any at all, I suppose.

And things like that, yeah, it was.

And then that somehow found its way to James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, but he didn't publish it.

He wanted to know if it was authentic and he made inquiries.

And at that point, the FBI was triggered.

As Scott Johnson has pointed out numerous times on the Powerline blog, the FBI has become a praetorian guard for left-wing influential people, particularly Joe Biden.

And we remember that about how they protected the Hunter Biden laptop and would not allow it to be aired until we found there was another copy of it.

But in this case, they set up...

a sort of Roger Stone-like redux where they raided him in the early hours.

They made him walk out in his underwear.

They tried to humiliate him.

They went through all of his records.

Whether they got his private communications with his own legal team from that raid, we don't know.

But those contents, which are sacred in American history of jurisprudence, attorney-client relationships and information, was leaked to the New York Times.

And the New York Times printed it, which brings us to the irony of the whole situation.

And that is, the New York Times, remember, was publishing a series of investigative damnations of O'Keefe for even considering to publish the private life in a diary.

Okay, they didn't publish it.

They didn't release it, but the very idea that they would

was considered damning enough that the FBI would go get their materials.

And then the New York Times published as part of the proof, an earlier memo of lawyers and O'Keefe, his lawyers, communicating about the boundaries under which he could conduct his type of journalism.

Okay.

So here's the irony, Sammy.

The New York Times is saying,

how dare you, how dare you even consider publishing the private diary of someone

and who's not a lawyer, and they did not, Operation Vertas, publish it.

But we're going to turn around and we're not even going to have a doubt.

We are going to consider the ill-gotten correspondence with you and your lawyers, and we're not going to tell anybody how we got it.

So it demands the question: where is the FBI in this?

How does the New York Times know the details of when he's going to be busted?

How did they know?

How did CNN know when Roger Stone was going to have that sort of marquee bust in his case?

And who in the FBI is leaking?

And this is not an artifact.

This is not something that hasn't happened.

Remember, James Comey, the head of the FBI, testified that he went and talked to Donald Trump in a private conversation.

And then he went out on FBI materials, electronic devices, and he called it memorializing those conversations, which were confidential, if not more properly, classified.

And then he leaked them to an intermediary who leaked them to, I guess, the New York Times.

So it started at the top.

And this brings in this narrative that we've been hearing, hearing, hearing.

Who in the world said that the FBI is sacrosanct and exempt from the consequences of its own misbehavior?

And somebody

is going to have to at some time say, there's a pattern here.

Robert Mueller, who knew that there was no Russian collusion 90 days into his investigation, still went after.

And then we have Peter Strzok,

no comment necessary.

Lisa Page, no commentary.

The missing cell phone material that conveniently were lost by F.

We have James Baker, the FBI legal counsel, no, no, you know, helping to seed the dossier.

We have Christopher Steele, who worked as an FBI contractor, even though he was a toll fraud.

We have Andrew McCabe, who on numerous occasions lied to DOJ investigators, apparently under oath.

We have James Comey, who had amnesia 245 times under oath.

And now we have this FBI working in concert with left-wing media to go after people on behalf of the Biden family.

And, you know, there's been a lot of people in the Wall Street Journal of impeccable credentials have called for the dissolution of the FBI.

They don't mean the destruction of the investigatory ability, but to break it up.

and to outsource it to particular agencies so they would have an investigative ability, but not to concentrate all of that power in Washington, or you inevitably get a J.

Edgar Hoover.

At least the only redeeming, I guess, asset of J.

Edgar Hoover is he did go after mobsters and bootleg and all that stuff.

I don't know what the FBI is doing.

They seem to be going after Virginia, what, school parents, and they seem to be very interested in protecting Hunter Biden and the Biden daughter diary.

but I can't see what they're doing given the intelligence and investigatory lapses we've had.

Why don't we either just move it, as I've said before, to Kansas City or somewhere in the middle of the country, or just take its various divisions and divide them up among the relevant cabinet and existing agencies, but not concentrate that power in one place in Washington.

You're saying that, and you're reminding me of 9-11 when they thought that everything was so divided up that one voice wasn't speaking to the next voice and we didn't know what was going on fully do you think that most i hope you tell me i'm wrong here but it seems to me that a lot of this breaching and the power of the fbi has changed post 9 11 and that that's when we're getting all of this use of the fbi for political purposes or am i wrong uh well there was the firewall that certain that was more of an intelligence agencies would not communicate with each other to protect.

And that went way on the other side because we knew that terrorists were taking advantage of that.

And that type of latitude allegedly led to the types of things we saw in 9-11.

But this isn't, this has nothing to do with national security.

And in fact, I wouldn't mind if they follow the law, but they do what they're supposed to do, and that is investigate threats.

to United States security within the United States, as well as, you know, law breaking that crosses interstate lines.

But remember what they don't do?

When Antifa was going back and forth across state lines, or we have this racketeering that's going on with people smashing and grabbing high-end items and selling them on the internet, they don't go after that.

And they didn't go after some of the people who were breaking the law as foreign operators.

A foreign national cannot be paid to participate in a political campaign.

We know Christopher Steele did.

Now, he can say he was an OPPO researcher or whatever, but that was against the law, probably.

The FBI not only did not investigate him, they enlisted him.

And so they've got too much power and they're politicized.

And I think the root cause of this is it's not just Democrat or Republican.

We see the same abuses in the Pentagon.

We see the same abuses in John Brennan's CIA.

We see the same abuses in the NSA and when Clapper was director of national intelligence.

Okay.

I think what's happened is we have created on our coast this hard-left progressive culture that is so wealthy and influential and controls the media, Silicon Valley, sports, entertainment, academia.

We've talked about that.

So when these people get to Washington, they are fish that swim in a particular type of sea of money and progressive politics.

And then they virtue signal and they try to say that they're on board with transgenderism and climate change and critical and they and they cannot stand conservatives beyond the normal hatred that conservatives want, smaller government, fewer bureaucrats.

So it's a really toxic stew that we've cooked up.

And we've got to really think in radically different ways.

And I can't think that James Comey or Andrew McCabe, or to be candid, Christopher Wray, the current director of the FBI, or Peter Strzok or Lisa Page did more good than bad.

I think they are not a positive influence on America today.

And after saying that, I'll probably get a knock on my door.

That's how cynical and suspicious I am of their power.

Yeah.

All right.

Let's turn then to our Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and his various antics, can I call them?

But for example, he's spent $419 million in select precincts to throw an election.

I'm not sure that he did or didn't, but it definitely did a lot to throw elections to the Democrats.

And then on the other other hand, he's building an estate in Hawaii, in Kauai, that he wants to refab a reservoir that at one time broke and killed seven people.

And so he's, you know, his own rule for himself and his private world and then turning everything over to the Democrats and people who hate his.

particular capitalism, which we'll get to later even.

Well, he's a very, I think, in a way, a sinister figure figure in american history but forget the whole thing that he buys up a couple hundred companies anytime anybody poses a nascient threat to facebook and he's got a monopoly on social media almost a global monopoly okay

and forget that he's the i don't know what he is the fourth richest person he's worth about 80 billion dollars and forget about they tried to put parliament out of business and all of that stuff but he engages in activities that the left would think didn't like he's a monopolist they say they don't like big corporations being monopolies.

He goes to Kauai, and what does he do?

He buys 700 acres with beach access, and then he immediately tries to evict native Hawaiians who've had long homesteader plots.

I don't know whether they released or what, but he uses a third party to force them out and gets caught at it.

And then he tries to deny people access.

I think the laws in Hawaii are similar to California.

If you go down to the PCH in Malibu, they have these very wealthy, very liberal people by law have to let access to the beach.

And every time that I would go there, I noticed that they usually parked some kind of huge vehicle in front of the walkway or they had a wisteria

or maybe, you know, some type of dense foliage that they didn't quite remember to prune, so it was hard to see where to go.

But they were trying to discourage the public, the public that they say they love, from getting anywhere near their quote-unquote beaches.

And he did the same thing.

And now he's decided that he's going to apparently, I don't know why he wants to buy another 100.

So he added another 700.

He owns now about 1,400 acres.

of former agricultural properties.

He's got this huge estate there.

I don't know how big it is, 50,000 square feet or 40,

likely.

And then he's now got this reservoir.

I guess either he wants to control it or he's a public servant.

He thinks he's going to fix it or he doesn't want anything to happen to him that this other owner did who killed seven people and went to prison for it.

I don't know.

And he did the same thing in Palo Alto.

He really played fast and looted with zoning rules about the size of his houses and lots and stuff.

And I think the most egregious thing he's done is he put $419 million into under the radar into the last election.

And he did it through third-party non-profit entities with high-sounding names that they were for the integrity of voting, which meant they weren't.

They were for challenging the integrity of voting.

And he did something very sinister in that he targeted particular states and particular

precincts with these third-party get out the vote, i.e.

mail-in and early voting.

And he poured inordinate amounts of money.

And he really went to the government employees of Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania and said, Look, we're here to help you.

But they didn't ever ask, well, are you going to help that red precinct over there or that other one?

No, no, no, we're going to help you.

And so I think that's against the law.

Can you imagine what would happen if it were not against the law that you would have every right and left-wing billionaire going around the country and pointing out areas where he thought that he could change the election if he poured money and hired a shadow force of helpers to get out the vote, but he wouldn't do it to another one.

Can you imagine what the left would say?

If here I am right on the border of three congressional districts and one is very conservative, the Devonunas district, and some right-wing person came in and spent $419 million

and one of them was this district.

And then right over here, we have the Jim Costa left-wing district.

And he did not want to give one dime so that poor Hispanic people could have better access.

So they would say.

And And they would have an outrage.

But so, what I'm getting at is what he does is, these are connected, Sammy.

So, he practices monopoly.

He tries to put people out of business.

He buys off potential companies.

And then he censors people whose ideas he doesn't like.

He being Facebook

in a way that's contrary to the First Amendment.

I know he's a private entity and all that, but it's not equitable what he does.

It's loaded.

And he

then is a land grabber of quote-unquote indigenous peoples of hawaii and he's used his money to be very callous and run roughshod he's apologized for it but he did

he gets a complete pass and how does he get a complete pass like all of these people from soros who was convicted of a felony in france and can't go back

or

You name these people, then they do medieval penance.

And his is, well, I'm on your side.

So monopolies are good because I gave you 14.

I think no single act,

you know, I wasn't a big fan of the Kraken and the Dominion computers communicating and all of those things.

I made two points.

The election was questioned when in March, April, May, lawsuits, in particular pre-selected states.

by the left challenged the sanctity of legislators establishing balloting protocols and they overturned them in many either they did that or by bureaucratic edict by that i mean you didn't maybe have to have your whole name or your complete address or voting ids that were were changed requirements were changed this was part of that effort is what i'm saying to change the mechanics in a way that was really suspicious and that the republicans see that happen again they're going to be in big trouble no matter what the polls show so they need to be very careful they need to expose mark zuckerberg and the other people of silicon valley the arrogance that they feel that they're some kind of left-wing messiahs because of all the money they've made.

And this isn't the first time he's done it.

And all of these people have one thing in common.

Zuckerberg, Bezos, you name it.

They're very arrogant, narcissistic, egocentric.

Not that everybody, I mean, you have to be a little bit to make that kind of money, but what I'm pointing out is they have contempt.

for the average American.

They feel that they're more moral, they're more spiritual.

Same thing with the Hollywood celebrities.

And when you look at how they live, they live like something out of Petronius of Satyricon or Louis XIV's Versailles, and yet they preach about equity and diversity and inclusion.

It's the craziest thing in the world.

Yeah.

Well, on that note of Facebook, I do much of the running of the website.

And we have new social media outlets because one of our readers said, why doesn't Victor get an account on MeWe and Gitter?

And so we have opened accounts on MeWe and Gitter.

So if anybody wants to go out there and get an account and then join us there, you can avoid the Facebook syndrome, I guess, or quagmire, whichever one you want to call it.

But also speaking about Democrats crying and whining.

Recently, Joe Manchin got them with all their tears out crying and whining and angry about his vote.

So his decision to not support the Build Back Better bill.

And so we see recent article in Mother Jones by a writer called Tim Murphy.

He and some of the Democrats are looking at the Senate as a suspect democratic institution.

And in fact, he says that, and I'll quote his words here that he uses about the Senate, that it's undemocratic, it's unrepresentative, it goes by arbitrary and arcane sets of rules and parliamentary procedures.

And I was wondering if you could comment for us on this new democratic fear, I get of the Senate.

Yeah, well, there's about five subtexts to this column.

And one of them, of course, is Tim Murphy fits this profile of these young hot shop hit cool reporters who write things that are absolutely nonsense because they have no grounding in literature or history or philosophy.

That's one.

And two, this man knows nothing about

the

founding principles of his country, the Federalist Papers, the communications that went on between the founders.

I don't think he knows the Constitution at all.

The U.S.

Constitution

is based on the British and French Enlightenments.

It has a lot, incorporates a lot of ideas of Montesquieu's spirit of laws about a tripartite type of government in which the judicial and the legislative and the executive check each other because they were terrified, given European history, of the abuse of power.

It goes back to the Roman system.

You know, there were two executives.

They were so paranoid.

And then they had the tribal councils versus the Senate.

And then they had the courts as another.

And that goes back to the Cretan and Spartan systems, where they had, say, in the case of Sparta, they had the assembly of the people, i.e.

a house of representatives.

They had the gerusia, the Greek word for Senate, essentially the older men that would check the youthful exuberance.

And then they had had the two kings, which became sort of the model for the two consuls.

Then they had, of course, the Epheret with sort of the judicial branch.

Okay, so why do we have a Senate that has two representatives from Wyoming with about 500,000 people and two from California where we are, we have 20 million people per senator, they have 250.

Because we're not a radical democracy, as this writer seemed to think either we are or that we should be.

We were always a constitutional republic and we were so for a reason.

The House, you only have to be 25.

You represent 750,000 people.

In equal measure, every representative represents that.

The makeup and the allotment per state changes every 10 years based on the census.

And you go in and out of power.

elections every two years for everybody.

And one third of the House flips every, I mean, excuse me, I'm talking about the cent, but every two years, the whole house can flip so the idea is that these people are very attentive to popular opinion and that's good whether it's the Tea Party or maybe the left-wing people that came into that but the Senate

got to be 30 you have to live in the state that you represent the congressman doesn't have to live in his district and

you get six-year term and one the Senate does not flip over every two years it only one third of it flips over.

And so the idea was that these are more sober and older people and slower.

And the House kind of sparks them and moves them.

Hey, get going.

We've got to do something.

We've got to have civil rights legislation.

And they say, now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

We want to slow down.

You people are caught up with the frenzy of the day.

And then the judges sit in one part and then the executive in the other.

Okay, that's a system.

But they don't like it.

Now, why don't they like it?

Because

they don't control control it.

Believe me, Sammy, if they had 60 senators, as they did in 2008, after the 2008 election, when they came in in 2009, they had a super majority.

It was veto proof.

It was, not that he would have vetoed it, but it was filibuster proof as well.

They didn't say a word.

When Barack Obama was in the minority, he filibustered the elito appointment.

He loved to filibuster.

When he was at the McCain funeral, he said it was terrible.

It was racist.

Got to remember who we're dealing with with this writer and the other.

These are like children that are eight or nine years old.

You remember dodgeball or kickball?

And the teacher would, you know, say, this half of the classroom, you're going to be in the circle, and you're going to, the other half is going to throw balls at them and then they're going to switch.

Well, there was always a few people who said, this is not fair.

It was always because it wasn't fair because they'd lost.

So these are children.

The system is toxic.

It's racist.

It's homophobic when we don't control it.

When we do, it's wonderful.

And so after they won the House and they won the Senate de facto with Harris and they won the president, suddenly democracy was wonderful.

Now we're watching something.

We saw it about a month ago as his, i.e.

Biden's popularity tanked as all of the issues ground to a halt.

Suddenly we're told that democracy is in danger.

In 2022,

22,000, we could have a coup.

We even had, as we talked talked earlier, these three officers came out and wrote an op-ed and said, you know, in the Washington Post, there could be a coup.

Projection, projection, projection.

So what I'm getting at is that was all preemptive ideas and preemptive rhetoric that we don't like the system.

You got to change it.

What's the intent of it?

So if I'm Joe Conservative sitting here today, I'm supposed to say, wow.

These people are really angry.

I better pull back a little bit.

I don't want them to think that I'm a coup plotter or I want to ruin the country or I'm an old white guy.

What do they want?

That's what it's intended.

Because this man knows that they cannot amend the Constitution.

I wrote about all this in the Dying Citizen, the recent book that came out on October 5th, that they were doing this.

There's a concentrated effort in law schools, among radical progressive circles.

and academics in general to change the Senate and make it like the House.

They hate the Senate.

Now they hate it because

they feel it doesn't give them the results they want.

And remember, it's a very good idea to have a slower, more deliberative body that has a filibuster and can slow down.

If you really want radical change, then Barack Obama said it, not me, then you better start winning elections.

And he meant by that, control the House.

See if you can get 60 senators or at least keep so much pressure that a few of the opposite party will join you if you're logical and rational, and then win the presidency.

And if you don't do that, then you want to change the system.

So it's part of these crybabies, oh, I don't want

nine person Supreme Court.

Let's get 15 and we'll appoint them.

Or,

I don't like...

I don't like the 180-year filibuster.

Let's get rid of it because we used to like it, but now we don't.

It doesn't help us.

But we'll say it's great if we get in the minority in a year, two years, but not now.

Oh, I don't like 50 states in the Union.

Let's get in Puerto Rico and and a wide we get four extra senators right away.

Oh, I don't like the constitution that says states have the primary responsibility for balloting laws in national elections because they won't give them the ID.

Let's nationalize it all.

And let's get rid of that electoral call.

We used to love the electoral college because of the blue wall, but the blue wall crumbled in 2016.

And George Bush was not elected.

He was selected in 2000.

And Donald Trump, you know, let's just get rid of it.

Who cares about a 233-year-old tradition?

That's how they think.

And so now we're going to hear from now on, the Senate is, and they're not going to change it because they don't have the ability to amend the Constitution.

They don't have the votes in the Senate.

They don't have the votes in the state legislature.

But

if they keep this mantra that the Supreme Court is right-wing, we can't pack it, and then they're going to get a lot of rhinos or people to say, well, please just stop.

It's sort of like we're all supposed to go into a fetal position, put our hands over our ears, because I can't take this anymore.

Please stop.

What do you want?

And

I want to have my book reviewed in the New York Times.

I want to be invited to the A-list in Washington, D.C.

at night.

I want to go on Letterman or the successors of the Letterman.

I don't even know what I don't even watch those shows anymore.

But the point I'm making is They want to so intimidate and bully our elite, our being traditional and conservative elite, that they have something that we want.

If you have something that says, if there's something out there you don't want, or there's everything you don't want from them, then you're liberated.

The truth will set you free.

So if you have the idea and our sinners must have that idea, I don't care what you say about me.

It doesn't make any difference because it's crybaby stuff.

You can scream and yell.

And I think that was sort of the come to Jesus moment for Joe Manchin, at least for now.

They thought they could do this to him and call him a racist and go out to his little houseboat where he lives during the week and intimidate him and call him all these names and say all these.

And he just thought, what a bunch of spoiled little brats, these kids.

I got 75% of hardworking West Virginians that are coal miners and

hardworking people, and they like me and they think these people are ridiculous.

You have zero influence on me.

Well, can I just say one thing?

I hope everything you say about their crybaby politics is true and that it doesn't work for them.

But right now we have COVID still around.

And so their couch voters may still be swaying elections and their crybaby politics may reap some rewards.

But I hope I'm totally wrong on that.

No, I'm not saying that they're impotent.

I'm saying that you have to be defiant.

in face of their threats and their machinations because they were not impotent in 2020.

You take away that $419 million.

It's not Victor Hansen's opinion.

It was in Time magazine, the boast and the braggadaccio, how they pulled it off by a left-wing writer.

You know, they bragged about what we did, and they did.

I think they had a huge influence on the election.

If you don't believe that, you could just say, you're right.

You had no influence on the election.

So just let us spend $419 in districts where we need to get out the vote and see what happens.

Was that be okay?

And they would go crazy.

All right.

Let's turn then to the academic world.

And I have two cases of two different professors.

One was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and the other one is at Cal State San Diego.

And I want to do the University of Pennsylvania first Amy Wax, who had so many degrees behind her name.

It was incredible.

I think she was a lawyer and a doctor and all sorts of things.

And

this was a cultural statement, and she said this, we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact, if not formally, by people from the first world, from the West, than by people from countries that have failed to advance.

And I don't know if that probably was controversial, but the second part of her quote is a little bit more.

She says, let us be candid.

Europe and the first world to which the United States belongs remains mostly white for now.

And the third world, although mixed, contains a lot of non-white people.

Embracing cultural distance, this is what she's advocating for, cultural distance nationalism means, in effect, taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.

And I'll let you go on that.

I just want to say it seems to me it's a bad idea to mix culture and people's racial makeup together myself.

But if you want to comment on this Amy Wax quote and her case, I think she was fired, let go.

No, she was punished by her law dean.

Punished.

It's very funny.

I remember the law dean said things like sucks, and he was very kind of crude about it.

But I think everybody knows what she meant.

And she meant that the Western paradigm, that is that countries that adhere to certain principles or protocols, and that is constitutional government, free market capitalism, private property protection, the rule of law, equality between the sexes, the rationalist tradition, free speech, free rights to assemble, et cetera, et cetera.

As what we know in the Declaration, the Constitution, and the corpus of customs and traditions that arise in the Judeo-Christian tradition creates a cultural dynamism.

And you can define that in a lot of ways.

You can say clean water or nuclear power plant, whatever you want to say, but that is dynamic and that attracts people from other systems.

And that is the problem.

When you come from a system that does not adhere to that and you want to join that, then there's a level of lack of confidence because you are leaving Oaxaca, Mexico or the Sudan, and you're saying with your feet, I want to join a more dynamic society, but I like my home country, but I find it wanting.

And so people, most people being human, can't do that.

So, they create these artifices.

Oh, well, these people are very unkind.

If they're so unkind, then go back home.

Or they don't believe in La Familia or whatever.

Okay, so she made that point, and she was right.

But because she is an academic and a doctor and lawyer, sometimes I'm not sure she was aware because she had not been out in the public arena.

I don't think she quite get ambushed the way she was,

but she fell in on occasion to making that cultural distinction, a racial distinction.

By that, I mean a lot of people are not going into Bulgaria right now.

Not that I'm making fun of Bulgarians, but it is not as dynamic, let's say, of France or Britain or the United States or Canada.

So it's not that all quote-unquote white people have a superior tradition.

I don't even want to use the word superior, a tradition that attracts people from the non-West.

But what she meant was overwhelmingly that had been true, at least for a long time.

I say a long time because as a student of Greece and Roma, you can make an argument that ancient Greeks and Romans looked a little bit more like southern Europeans do today,

or people from Spain, or people maybe from parts of Mexico or Latin America than they do me.

My ancestors were pretty barbaric up in Sweden.

I can guarantee you that as somebody who's read a lot of the sagas.

Okay, big deal.

She made an equation between white and Western culture that in many places is exact, but many places, some places is not exact.

And they pounced on that.

And they said she was racist.

But they didn't refute her when she said that the majority of people, she said even in more hyperbolic terms, but of African-American students at her pinned classes were not in the top part of the class or not in part of the aggregate rankings.

And that had been true of most law schools.

And you can make the argument that when you have affirmative action, you're bringing people in from non-traditional cultures or family life or whatever, they cannot compete with hard-driving, you know, WASPIS culture if you want.

And I'm not just saying WASPI's culture, because we know that in the 30s, there were discriminations against Jews and there are discriminations against Asian Americans now.

And both of them pretty much said, so what?

I'm going to beat these people, these WASPIs, at their own game.

And they did.

And so if you look at aggregate SAT scores, which by the way was created, give an avenue free of bias and prejudice by having a disinterested test.

And they did.

And their cultural values in the Asian American community, most of the Asian American communities, that I don't want to be so stereotypical

that they're all the same, and most Jewish communities, they put such an emphasis on family life and excellence in education and upward mobility and professional training that you can make the argument that today their incomes are higher than the so-called white majority and they are and their educational levels are higher but some cultures didn't do that or they couldn't do that or they didn't want to do that and that was her point that most of them didn't excel along that mean

and so rather than what they should have said is you're absolutely wrong here is the data here's all the african-american students at the university of pennsylvania here's their class rankings and individual classes.

Here are how they rank.

And you were wrong, but they didn't do that.

And so you just call a person racist.

So she spoke at the Hoover Institution.

I met her and talked to her for an hour.

I found her very impressive.

I think the only thing that I took away is this is a person, she's my age, 68, that

was a scholar.

was a doctor, was, I mean, gosh, you were right about all the impressive degrees and training and education and professional lives that she's had.

But I can tell you that growing up on a farm where so-called white people were the minority in the community and they're the vast minority today, I think it's about 90% non-white where I live, and then navigating the waters of academia, one thing you are very careful about is using the word white

as a synonym for Western civilization's excellence.

And that doesn't mean that most of the countries in the world with the highest GDPs, if we take away the oil-importing countries, are majority white, but it does mean this, that countries can change and adopt, pick and choose various aspects of civilization that they find conducive to their own advantage, whether it's Japan or Singapore or other countries like that.

And maybe in a minor case, the communist Chinese trying to emulate Western-style market capitalism.

But take the case of Japan.

It's got a very sophisticated society.

In many ways, it avoids many of the social pathologies that we suffer from.

It's not diverse at all.

It doesn't believe in diversity, nor do most Asian countries, at least that are not de facto diverse from earlier phenomenon.

So Western civilization is open to anybody.

And that was what was so great great about the African-American intellectual tradition.

People like Tom Sowell or Glenn Lowry, or in earlier cases, Martin Luther King, or even going back,

way back.

And the idea was that nobody had a monopoly on Shakespeare.

Nobody, it didn't matter that he was white or that he was English.

It was the ideas that transcended time and space.

And he could be just as much relevant for the African-American community because we're humans first.

They went after her.

It was a very cruel, as I remember, there was a review by Isaac Chotener in the New Yorker magazine where, and remember what that guy does, he's a young guy from California.

I had to interview, he interviewed me one, I didn't set it up, New Yorker, and I had asked him if I could have a copy of the interview before he published it.

And

could I look at the transcript?

Because what he does, he says, edited for length and clarity.

What does that mean?

That means he calls certain people up and he,

in my case, he said, oh, I met you.

I'm a a big admirer of your work.

I met you at a party once.

I can't remember him at all.

I don't know if that's true or not.

That's what he said.

And then, can I just talk to you?

And, you know, you make some good points.

And then they talk to you for 20 or 30 minutes.

And then he goes out and selectively edits.

And you have no control over that.

So you just don't do that.

And I got very angry at my publisher.

I just said, I'm not going to do that.

Why did you guys set that up?

Well, she did a very candid interview with him.

And he did that.

You can tell it's selectively edited.

And he couldn't answer any of her blunt questions.

He kept using the word racism, and she kept asking questions.

But what her larger point, just to finish, Sammy, is why does Mark Zuckerberg live where he does?

And why does he want this rock wall he built around his estate?

Why do they do that?

Why does Barbara Streisen have a big wall?

Why does

all of these people do that?

And why do Kenya West or Dr.

RZ or whoever these people, these very wealthy rappers, it's because they feel

that they want to associate with a particular class, not necessarily race, but class of wealthy, exclusive, elite people.

And everybody has to keep that in mind.

And so when you start attacking people, and you start calling them racist, then you have to go look back at the people who are making those allegations because increasingly they come from a very discriminatory, pampered, wealthy elite.

And why do they do that?

And I think if you're Oprah or you're Megan Markle or you're Barack Obama, you do not want to be carjacked.

You do not want to suffer crime.

You do not want to be booed when you go into the ghetto or the inner city.

So you virtue signal, but you do not want your security guard to drop their vigilance.

And the same with Mark Zuckerberg.

He wants all of those perks, but they're antithetical to what a progressive considers diversity, equity, and inclusion.

His idea of diversity is his Asian American, wealthy, privileged, Ivy League graduate wife.

His idea of equity is, I have all the beaches and I get to pick and choose who has access to it.

And I have the nicest view.

on my island and I'll see who gets to look over my wall and who doesn't.

That's his idea of equity.

Inclusion, that means I'm going to include in my $419 million grant all the blue states that can be warped to give a result that's in my economic, cultural, spiritual interest.

But I'm not going to include any of the red freedom.

That's what they believe by diversity, equity, and inclusion.

And then we get into, you know, we're talking about academia and all of these cases that you mentioned, especially Amy Wax, when you read, and I guess there are others, but you read these officials in academia and what they say, deans, provosts, it's just banal.

It's just, I mean, what her dean could not, when he took away her first year classes,

his explanations were just pathetic.

And you just get these frightened little people.

Many of them are white males.

And they think, oh my God.

I've been operating on this Frankenstein monster and it came to life and it might eat me, the creator.

And I've got to tell everybody everybody that, but you can't eat me.

I'm the white guy.

And so much of this anger, I think this is a really important point.

So much of this anger, the woke movement comes from very, very upwardly mobile, professional African-Americans, Latinos, transgender, gays, et cetera.

Who have no concern for the lower class in their own.

None at all.

And what are they angry at?

They're angry about the deck chairs on the Lido deck

saying, I deserve that.

I deserve that anchor spot.

Oh, no, I need that Washington Bureau chief job.

Oh, no, no, no, I want to be provost.

I don't want to be dean of equity.

That's just a stepping stone.

I want to be provost without the equity.

That gives me the prestige.

I want my son into.

It's an argument of this new, and how it manifests itself is the white people who control things because they have been the majority population, they have a head start on everybody, even poor white people, especially poor white people.

But they say,

don't go after us.

We're sensitive.

We're for you.

Go after that guy in,

you know, in southeastern Ohio or that hillbilly in West Virginia.

They're that nutty guy in Tulare.

These are white.

clingers and dregs and scum and all that.

But don't go after us.

We're for you.

So what we're seeing is that there's a squabble for the spoils of the American professional classes between professional minorities and entrenched white leftists.

And they squabble back and forth.

What happens is the so-called marginalized, which means privileged, elite community says that they want this and they want that proportional representation.

They want Hollywood, you know, the best actor role, more commercials, whatever.

And then the white group says, well, it's endemic racism.

Can I say that 25,000 times a day and you'll let me have my job?

25,000 times I'll say it's endemic white racism.

And it's all those people that voted for Donald Trump.

That's what it is.

Yeah.

And they'll say equity, equity, equity.

And then

someday they realize that they have soulless pursuits and then they get even more angry at themselves for being soulless and without courage.

This is what Amy Wax has courage.

And you know what Aristotle said in the app at, he said, without courage, there can be no other morality.

There's no other values.

If you're a coward, or another point in the Nicomicathian ethics, I think you said it's easy to be moral in your sleep.

It doesn't matter unless it's actualized.

And boy, I'm 68 and I've been in this academic racket for 40 years.

And I can tell you that courage is in short supply among academics, even though they're one of the few places, professions, I should say, where you can get guaranteed income and guaranteed tenure almost for life under this system after six years.

And I saw a lot of broken down farmers and welders and truck drivers and pruners and peach pickers, and they had nothing

and they had courage.

And so they had everything.

Well, I have one more academic I want to look at, but first let us hear a word from our sponsor and then we'll be right back.

Welcome back.

And we were just discussing the assault on academia and academics.

And I have one more person I wanted to talk about.

Her name is Monica Casper.

And this time, she's on the other side of the coin from Amy Wax.

And she is a head of the Dean of the Arts and Sciences and the head of the gender and women's studies at Cal State San Diego.

And I want to just read one of her tweets she wrote about the right agenda.

She says, quote, just so we're clear on the rights agenda.

Racism, good, abortion bad, money good, women bad, capitalism good, sustainability bad, stupidity good, science bad, power good, equality bad, white people good, non-white people bad, stench indeed, unquote.

Just to notice that her binaries are not accurate, but anyways, the simplistic mind of the West, even a dean, it's just crazy.

But go ahead, Victor, let us start with.

It's really courageous to say capitalism good, money good, because I can imagine where she lives.

And how much does she make?

If capitalism is bad, why not just give 50% of her salary to some group of people that she finds wanting?

Or why doesn't she just say, you know what, capitalism is bad, money is bad.

I'm moving to, you know, the border with Tijuana where I can see the real people and live with them.

These people are just so dysfunctional.

They are an artifact of the late 20th and early 21st century, this creation of this professional, whiny, ungracious class without any gratitude.

And they're really pathetic.

So here's somebody who's what, a sociology professor of gender gender studies or something, a specialist in gender studies that didn't even exist 30 years ago.

And now she's dean or provo, dean of arts and sciences, as if she has what?

Arts and sciences, she has expertise to adjudicate matters in English literature or history with that background.

And so then she goes out and tweets, and you know what they're going to say.

It's freedom of speech.

Okay, but if you just substitute those words that she said were, you know, disgusting, bad, bad, and just put some other protected idea or group in there or just flip them.

Just take what she said and flip them.

Then she'd be fired because it wouldn't be free speech.

It would be, quote unquote, hate speech.

And so it's just, they don't even make an attempt anymore.

So how would you like to be a young professor and

you would publish, say, three important books on the Civil War and 19th century America, and you were coming up for tenure in the Cal State system, okay, and your department on a close vote because you were a white male and let's say you had conservative tendencies, they suspected it was deadlocked.

And that tenure decision went up to her.

What do you think she would do with somebody who tweeted that?

Would she call you in and say, hmm.

I have to find further information I can't detect in your CV.

Is capitalism good or bad?

What do you think about money?

Can you give me your views on abortion?

I'm saying that because she put them out in the public square and editorialized them.

Yeah.

And I think she probably, you can check Sammy, see if she did it on San Diego State Twitter file or something.

Yeah.

And so

I think it was her own.

I think it was her own Twitter.

But she identifies herself, no doubt, as a dean.

And she's proud of the fact that she's being a dean.

And so basically, you have a sophisticated, supposedly sophisticated

academic who is smearing half the country.

And why does she do that?

What's going, yeah, what is going through her mind?

And the mind is, hmm, the more that I smear people who represent about 5% of the faculty and about 15% of the students or 20% of the students.

and maybe 30% or 40% of the greater San Diego community, the wiser I sound, the more secure my job may be.

And I'm submitting my base.

I think people calculate that.

Because if she was, I don't know, dean down in

where, let's say, over in Utah or Wyoming, I'm not saying that all the universities are liberal, but she might be a little bit more circumspect.

before she does that.

These people, again, they don't have courage.

They just go with the flow.

So the flow right now on campuses is it's a race to virtue signal and to be the loudest and the most public in your condemnation of what a Donald Trump supporter or white supremacist.

But there are certain rules to this virtue signaling performance art.

It's like a group of people kicking someone.

It just reminds me again, I keep going back to that metaphor.

I grew up out here in rural California with a really tough

K through three and then even tougher four through six and then kind of wild seventh and eighth grade and then high school.

And I just remember when there were fights and stuff, and somebody went down, people just rushed over and kicked them.

And I'm serious.

And when there was somebody that people wanted to go after and they decided to go after them, they would go after them.

But my point is that that's what this bully mentality is, this mob mentality.

They should go read the Oxbow incident, because if people had nooses in their hands, they'd be very dangerous.

And they have electronic nooses as it is.

And so it's a mob mentality.

And that's anybody that joins that mob is disreputable.

In my view, I try to ostracize them.

I have nothing to do with them.

Anytime somebody calls me about an interview, usually from the New York Times, any of that stuff, not an interview, but a line or a comment from any of these groups.

And I can register the person talking to me.

If they fit that profile based on their prior behavior, I want nothing to do with them.

I never reply.

I don't talk to them.

We have to ostracize these bullies and these mobsters because, gosh, gosh it just i mean what would happen to me if i decided that i'm going to start tweeting i know that you have the twitter account and you announce certain things you know that revolve around an article or book but we don't do personal tweets and i have never done it but what if i started to do it and i just said oh wow

left-wing communist and totalitarian Stalinist and racist and this and this.

And then I just put that out there.

It's always based on the idea that the left has moral superiority, and therefore you start with that deductive premise: I am morally superior because I am sensitive and I care.

Remember those little signs that came up after George?

This house does not tolerate racism and stuff.

I only say that because I was riding my bike through a neighborhood in Palo Alto and I saw something to the effect of this house deplores racism, this house does not tolerate inequality.

And I looked there, and there was a Range Rover on one side of the garage driveway, and the other one was a BMW.

And I thought, wow, this house

does not tolerate equity.

Or does not tolerate inequality.

All right, Victor, can we turn finally to our last segment here, which is on your books, the 26 that you've published?

And we were on to Fields Without Dreams, Who Killed Homer, which you published with John Heath, and the Wars of the Ancient Greeks.

And so I was wondering if you could tell us about the writing and publication of those books.

Yeah, Peel Thought Dreams, I wrote that kind of at a strange time at 95.

And

that was when the globalization hit agriculture.

And by that, I mean suddenly there were huge vineyards and orchards and

not just Mexico, but Chile and Argentina.

And they were advertised as this is going to be great for farming because it's going to extend the produce year.

So you can buy fresh grapes, you know, in, I don't know, December and January.

But it didn't end like that.

It meant that you couldn't store your produce anymore because they were overwhelmed with fresh stuff coming from overseas that as a result of American outsourcing and offshoring capital and expertise.

And suddenly new varieties started appearing so you could buy grapes and stuff all through the year.

I have no problem with that.

But the type of agriculture that emerged was vertically integrated.

I'm not just making this up.

I would go to a local land bank to get a loan, and the guy was very astute.

He said, You should either get big or get out.

And I'd say, What do you mean by getting big?

He said, Well, you guys farm 185 acres.

Do you have a big cold storage?

No.

Do you have your own broker?

No.

Do you have your own trucks?

No.

So you put your product and you cannot.

And I said, Well, we do go to six or seven farmers' markets.

And he said something very astute.

He said, well, you should only do farmers market and become peddlers.

And we had an old, we bought when a bell telephone was broken up, we bought like an old decrepit Bell telephone.

So I would get in it and there was no radio or anything.

And we would, I'd go teach school.

Then we'd get in the car, drive all, you know, I'd go to Monterey or Santa Cruz.

And then we would open up.

the back end and put a table and peddle fruit.

And it was actually pretty good.

Meet people and everything, but we were not agrarians anymore.

We were peddlers.

But he was saying that was the only thing he could think of because you're all going to go broke.

And then he said, well, you're teaching.

And so your question is, how much do you make an hour?

And I didn't, I think I was making $23,000, $24,000.

That's what I lived on.

And then he basically said, he did some little, you know, back of the envelope.

He said, well, how many hours are you on the tractor besides teaching?

And I told him, he said, well, you're paying about $15 an hour.

I said, What do you mean?

He said, You're taking money from your salary and you're paying me, the bank, $15 for the pleasure of going out there at 104

and

using your tandem disc to go up and down your vineyard.

You like that?

Because that's what you're doing.

And so, all of these experiences, Sun-Made Raisin, I wrote about the collapse of the Sun-Made Raisin Cooperative.

And they still to this day owe my family about $65,000 since 1983 when it essentially collapsed, had to be recapitalized.

And I talked about brokers and losing entire crops.

It was very funny in agriculture.

You get a call and it'd say, hey, those grapes that you sent us in September,

well, we can't sell them as we told you.

So they're cold storage now.

And you would be charged about 50 cents a box per two weeks.

And we have to sulfur dioxide them.

And that's going to be charged.

Well, I said, Well, when are you going to sell them?

You told us you want, you gave us the date, I thought they would ship.

Well, we're going to wait till the price stabilizes.

Of course, they had vineyards and they went out first.

And then, all the people who weren't part of that corporation, then the allied growers, they called us, we were last.

And then they pulled the price.

Of course, to get the higher price, you had to sell them in January, which meant half them rotted.

So, what we would do is we would drive over and we would go to the packing house and they'd fork on all these beautifully packed grapes.

And then we'd go over to a vacant lot and we'd open them all up and we would pull out all the little mold and repack them.

We did that for days on end.

And we did that with persimmons.

And

then that was the human part of it.

And then I would talk about, you know, I had a Santa Rosa four acre thing and we pruned them ourselves, my brothers and I.

And we were stupid.

I mean, I was dumb.

I was in my 20s.

You know, I did this before I started back into academia, but also during academia.

And then I would prune.

And then we would try to thin them.

And then it was time to pick.

And I said to myself, wow, the Santa Rosa price is $8 a box.

And there must be at least 600 boxes an acre.

Wow, 600.

That's almost, you know, $4,000 or $5,000 an acre.

And there's four acres.

We're going to make $20,000.

gross.

And then it's just mostly our labor.

We've probably spent, you know, five.

We'll make $50,000.

And then all all of a sudden, the next day I looked up, and this is in May.

When does it ever hail in California in May?

And a hail storm came over, and I swear to God, it just sat right over our

vineyards and orchard.

And

it was no more than 90 seconds of a hard hail.

And I moved on.

I went and looked the next day, and every single plum had a scar on it.

I used to drive my brother crazy, and I can see why he went crazy.

I'd walk out and I'd look around and I'd say, hmm, today this is a pro-rate expense for the year per diem for the insurance, for the fuel, for the power, for the taxes, for the insurance.

Here's our actual expenses this particular day.

Here it is.

And here's the income.

And we are short.

And that was what happened.

And fast forward, and I talked about the raisin disaster and everything.

And I said at the end, this is not going to go on, American small farming, unless you have off-farm income and you can rent out or you rent your place out to a corporation or you become a peddler.

So we discussed this

and I got out of farming and I started writing more and

everybody who didn't went broke in my family.

And so I still have 42 or 43 acres and do I rely on it for income?

No.

Is it rented out?

Yes.

If anybody in my my children said, we want to go farm, what would I say?

I'd say no.

And that was tragic.

And why was that tragic?

Not because it affected our family, but because the land was everything.

It was used for other things.

You know what I mean?

It was fields with dreams.

So all these little checkerboard farms that I grew up in, I knew the kids that went there.

I knew their parents.

There was a shame culture.

They would call you up and they'd say, Bob Jones stayed out the other night and he hit a fire hydrant.

Did you know that?

And he's my nephew.

And I want you to know he feels bad about it.

Or there was a water

balloon attack on some homes.

Did they hit your place, Victor?

I said, yeah, they did.

Well, my daughter feels really bad about it.

She's going to come over there and scrape off because there were some eggs too, I bet.

That was the kind of thing.

And then there was PTA and Little Ig and everybody knew each other and they created this culture.

And it was actual natural diversity.

So I'm looking out the window right now and I can say right due west of me was an Indian American from the Hindu Kush, Punjabi, and right to the east was an Armenian American.

And right to the south was a Japanese American, who, by the way, whose family was an intern, World War II.

And right to the north was an Armenian family and a Dutch-German family.

Okay, and nobody even knew it.

No one cared.

This is supposed to be the racist 1950s and 60s.

My grandfather would say, well, that Japanese guy, I got to go talk to him.

He knows how to farm.

Damn it, that guy can, he didn't say damn it, but darn it, he can farm.

Or the Japanese guy would come over and say, you got to watch that Armenian.

The guy is sneaky.

Or the Armenian guys would say, you got to watch that Japanese guy.

Or the Japanese guy or the Punjabi would say to the Armenian, you got to watch that white guy.

So they did deal in traffic and stereotypes, but it wasn't, no one had a monopoly on it because they were human.

But they created a stability.

There was no crime.

There was no locks on the door.

I remember we went up to the mountains once, and my father said, anybody know where the key to this door is?

I've been looking for it.

We never locked it.

Or if we'd locked it, we had a big ring right in front of it.

When we did have a key and we found it, you could walk up and there was a loquat tree and there was this big ring right there.

I thought, wow, this is silly.

We had all these people that would would come in.

We didn't even know they were uncles and cousins and they would just drop in.

No invitations.

You know, I'd come in and there's, wow.

And then these Christmas and Easters, it was all these farmers would just kind of drift in.

And anytime a farmer kind of died, his widow, she would start showing up or her kids.

And now it's all gone.

It's just corporate.

And the corporations are absentee landowners.

Most of them are family corporations, not all, but, you know, if it's Stuart Resnick, he lives in LA and he's got, I don't know, 200,000 plus acres, and we've got all of these mechanized crops and they're mostly for export.

And the place looks, I mean, my place looks great.

The almonds, it's a wonderful guy, wonderful family corporation rents it, but No one lives on the land.

The only people that live in the land, the ghosts of these departed farmers, their houses remain, but they're taken over by people who came mostly for the most part illegally from Mexico.

And they're not just one house.

So I can go down my avenue and I can say, there were these people, there were these.

And when I say there were these, I'm talking about ethnics, not so-called just white people.

And in those homes now,

there are about 30 people living on that lot, not just in the house, but on lean-toos, on trailers, on shacks.

And the whole civilization that once existed that was very slow in coming.

And what do I mean by that?

Mosquito abatement, the mosquito abatement, the dog pound, making sure everybody had a dog that was vaccinated with metal licenses dangling from their neck, the billing codes, the whole bit.

That doesn't exist anymore.

It does not exist anymore.

A guy put solar panels on my old shed, and I went through, I don't know what it was, a year of regulations.

And finally, I got so exasperated, I said, Would you just go across the street and go over there and look at that?

There are Winnebagos with no tires.

There is no running water in some of those houses.

There is Romex wire strung everywhere.

There's dogs that have fit me.

There's no licenses.

There's no vaccination.

There's standing water after rain.

There's no mosquito abatement.

There's no building codes.

Why don't you just go over there?

You'll have a field day.

And he said, are you crazy?

This is an inspector from the county.

Once I got into that mess, I'd never get out.

and it wouldn't be safe.

And so I said, so I'm a stupid person who follows a rule.

He said, basically, yes.

And so that's how it all warped into that.

And the basis of it was that there was an economic viability.

When I get depressed, sometimes I read my grandfather's diaries.

Some of them are 70, 80 years old.

And they're always the same.

It's Rhys Davis, 1943.

Temperature, 78 degrees, March 2nd, cloudy, wind coming from the northwest.

And then it's the following has to be done, thinning, pruning, weeding.

And then it said about my grandmother, Georgia.

Mom is out cooking for four people who are going to drop by.

The Wednesday Walnut Improvement Club women will come over in the afternoon.

I'm going to go to the Masonic Lodge tonight.

And it was a very stable, systematized, orderly.

And then we all look forward to watching Gunsmoke Saturday night in his diary.

And we can't wait to see her Lawrence Welk.

And,

you know, everybody makes fun of this this toxic 50s and 60s generation but I want to see what they created that was so much better cancel culture I don't know YouTube TikTok well Victor we're going to have to call this a day can we just go with one book today and then we'll go on with yes I think I want

to shut me out Sammy

it's sometimes hard and it's so as your listeners probably will agree interesting to listen to you but we'll have to call it a day today from the complex case of James O'Keefe and Project Bertos to the couch voters and the crybaby politics to a whole host of interesting and different things, our strange academic left, and your book.

And on this New Year's Eve, I hope that everybody has enjoyed this and be very careful on New Year's Eve.

I think we all are now, but don't drink and drive and enjoy yourself.

And happy, happy.

I was going to say happy partying, but be careful in that partying.

Victor?

Yes, and let's all pray together that 2022 will not be like this honest charibles

2021 and this honest cheribolis 2020.

Let's hope that we get a break.

All right.

All right.

And on New Year's Day, we will do a roundup in our next show of all of the strange Orwellian things we're supposed to believe from the left, and we'll say goodbye to all that and on to a new year 2022 that will hopefully look a lot better.

So, we'll see you guys tomorrow for that roundup of those strange and wonderful Orwellian beliefs we're supposed to have from the West.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, thanks everybody for listening.

And this is Victor Davis Hanson and Sammy Wink, and we're signing off.