Kenosha V. Waukesha

Cooler temperatures are rolling in and as always, Quince is where I turn for false staples that actually last.

From cashmere to denim to boots.

The quality holds up and the price still blows me away.

Quince has the kind of false staples you'll wear non-stop, like super soft 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters starting at just $60.

Their denim is durable and fits right, and their real leather jackets bring that clean classic edge without the elevated price tag.

What makes Quints different?

They partner directly with ethical factories and skip the middlemen.

So you get top-tier fabrics and craftsmanship at half the price of similar brands.

When the weather cools down, my Quint sweaters are a go-to.

My cashmere short-sleeve that works under any jacket, formal or casual, or my thick, long-sleeve, go-everywhere, do-everything sweater that pairs with any pant or jogger.

Quince products are my favorites, which is why I went to Quince to buy my recent very beautiful purse that leaves the house every time I do.

Keep it classic and cool this fall with long-lasting staples from Quince.

Go to quince.com/slash Victor for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.

That's quince.com slash victor for free shipping and 365 day returns.

Quince.com slash victor and we'd like to thank Quince for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

Hello and welcome to our listeners at the Victor Davis-Hanson Show.

This is the Friday edition where we round up, where we have a roundup of news and topics.

This week, Victor actually had a request.

He wanted to talk about the Kenosha and Waukesha incidences and to do a comparison.

So we'll be doing that on the show today.

I would like to remind everybody that Victor is the Martin and Nealey Anderson Senior Fellow in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution,

and the Wayne and Marcia Buskie Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College.

Before we get to our show today, let's take a moment for a word from our sponsors.

Welcome back, And we have a very eventful week, and unfortunately, so, but we had an incident in Waukesha, in Wisconsin, of a man who mowed down people in a parade celebrating, it sounded like Christmas.

And I know that you wanted to spend some time talking about the differences since we just had the Kyle Rittenhouse case and he was acquitted.

And Victor, that you wanted to do a little bit of a comparison between the two.

So how about we go ahead and let you just start?

That would be nice.

Your words on, I know you've been talking a lot about Kyle Rittenhouse.

Maybe we'll start with Waukesha and the Darrell Brooks incident in Waukesha that killed five people and wounded 48.

Sad.

Yeah, I mean, Wauisha and Kenosha are about 60 miles apart, but they might as well be across the cosmos.

They were treated so differently so far.

And it's been, you know, it's just been a few days since this terrible killing in Waukesha.

But think of it for a minute, just the binaries.

So the nation obsessed over a 17-year-old who had no criminal record, who was being pursued by, I think, what could legitimately be called a mob.

And one member of that mob walked over to confront him, assault him, who had a lengthy record, including pedophilia, child molestation, and was out from a mental institution that day and had tried apparently, reportedly, supposedly, allegedly to commit suicide.

And they got an altercation and he shot him.

Then he ran and the mob pursued him and he was confronted by two violent people in that mob.

One person we don't know the identity, although the district attorney apparently did and didn't fully disclose that to the defense.

And he jumped on him.

And then I think he was fired at, but he missed and he escaped or he left.

The other person tried to hit him with a skateboard and was shot fatally so.

He had, like Rosenbaum, a lengthy arrest record, including felony convictions.

And then finally, the fourth or the third person who was shot, but the fourth who assaulted him, chased him and pointed a gun at him, and he was shot in the arm seriously, but not fatally.

Okay.

So we have an incident of the people who were shot and the person who shot them were all white.

And yet this was created by the media, I think that's a good word, created by the media and the left and Antifa and BLM and the left in politics as a showcase racial.

divide.

And I guess the logic was that Mr.

Blake, an African-American person who had gone to a former acquaintance.

He had a court order not to go there, apparently.

He had also a felony record.

He was in the past violent.

She, not the police, they didn't just randomly pick him up.

She called law enforcement.

They came.

He apparently had a weapon, a knife.

He went to the car.

They were afraid that he was getting out of there.

There was an altercation.

He was shot.

Somehow that became in much of the media that he was lethally killed.

He was not lethally killed.

He was seriously wounded and partially paralyzed.

But the point I'm making is that that prompted the riot and the looting and the arson in Kenosha.

And so there was no order.

There was no tranquility.

There was no calm.

The police either could not or would not enforce the law.

And the district attorney, And we know from subsequent activity on the part of the district attorney's office, did not step forward.

The government governor, the mayor, none of of them stepped forward.

And so there were a group of individuals who were asked by businesses.

They say businesses say they volunteer.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

And they tried to keep order from this continuing reign of terror, so to speak.

And one of them was a 17-year-old.

And that's where all of the misinformation started.

In other words, we were told, think of this, that he was a white supremacist.

I don't know how Joe Biden got away with retweeting that, but he did.

It's a complete fabrication.

There was no evidence whatsoever.

This is from a left-wing media, remember, that reported that and went with it, that said Donald Trump was improperly weighing in on the Rittenhouse initial arrest and shooting.

But if you go back and reveal what Trump actually said, it looks like this,

it looks to me, but we'll wait further investigation.

It was mild in comparison to just labeling somebody de facto a white supremacist, as Biden did.

And that kicked it off.

Then he became the white supremacist.

I know.

Then they said he crossed state lines plural, even though he was living with his mother right across the state line in Illinois, state line singular.

And he went over to see his father and other members of his family in Kenosha, which was far more his home than where he was in Illinois.

They said he was armed and ready, he did not bring an arm, a weapon.

AR 15 allegedly was not the actual weapon.

The AR doesn't stand for armed rifle or automatic rifle, excuse me.

It's a semi-automatic weapon anyway.

It was a legal weapon.

It was not illegal, as was said.

It was not illegal for someone 17 years old.

I mean, I'm talking now with someone who was nine years old with a semi-automatic 22 that hunted frequently with it.

It was not illegally for him to possess it.

He did not own it.

He did not buy it.

All of that was repeated falsely in the media.

And when he volunteered and supposedly he erased graffiti he offered medical and then he was in the wrong place at the wrong time wrong in the sense that a series of events would lead to death and he would be the shooter and his life would be forever changed but anybody who looks at the particular videos or looks at the circumstances around the shooting would come away with two conclusions.

This was a clear case of self-defense.

A lot of activists said, well, if he had been a black or African American, he would have been convicted.

I don't think so.

I think had he been African American and a group of white mobsters were chasing him, there would have been outcry.

And then had he shot all of them and killed all of them, people wouldn't have been upset about it.

So that was a false comparison.

I think it was not believable by anybody.

But nonetheless, when the trial started, then we really got into circus fashion because the district attorneys apparently was indicative of the entire offices of that town and maybe that whole area around in the area of Wisconsin between Chicago, Illinois northward to Milwaukee, given what we know from other trials, it was a circus.

And what do I mean by that?

I mean all of the evidence was not released to Mr.

Rittenhouse's attorneys.

There were two different videos.

One was grainy, one was more precise.

The defense did not get the more accurate video.

The fourth person involved who jumped and went away was not immediately identified.

That information was not given to the defense.

Only the prosecuting attorney gave it.

There were offers, there were intimidations in the courtroom that the judge himself had to intervene and say, you cannot say that arson that was taking place on the part of some of the people in the mob is a minor offense or nothing, or you cannot intimidate people by bringing up a Fifth Amendment defense.

And finally, the piece of resistance was the DA in the aftermath of the Alec Baldwin accidental shooting due to carelessness, pointing a semi-automatic weapon at the jury with his finger on the trigger apparatus, apparently to try to make them shudder and feel what it would be like to have an automatic weapon.

But it's hard to know, just in finishing with the Kenosha, it's hard to know what to make of the prosecuting attorneys because they were so incompetent.

And by incompetent, I mean not just pointing a gun at people, but saying things that were just outrageous.

I mean, one of the lawyers on the prosecutorial team said, well, you should take a beating.

And if you were really man, you'd go fist to fist.

Anybody who saw that knew that to turn around and try to fight with dozens of people trying to kill you or hear you or maim you would have been tantamount to suicide.

And then we had this crazy idea that, in addition to that, they brought in one of their lead witnesses, the third person who was shot, Krauskuz, I think his name was.

And he admitted under cross-examination that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and that he had done that before he was shot.

So why would you not prepare your case with any anticipation that one of your star witnesses would be actually a witness for the defense?

And then we had the MSNBC reporter who apparently was filming the jury bus and on and on and on.

And then the judge was sort of a, I don't know, an incompetent or an editorialist that was very active, but active from the bench in a way that was embarrassing rather than helpful.

And you put it all together and it was obvious that he was going to be obvious from a rational point of view that he was going to be exonerated, not necessarily from a political point of view, because the left in this country wanted to convict him which it really demands a question did the da think that this case was so weak that there was no chance that he could convict rittenhouse of these several counts of first-degree variations on first degree homicide and therefore he deliberately i don't know went through a mediocre prosecution and hopes that it would all just go away, but he had to do it for political reasons or for pressure in the community, because I don't know how else to explain how incompetent they were, because the case was bad from the beginning and they made it worse in the actual prosecution.

Yeah.

You know, what I wanted to ask about was putting Kyle Rittenhouse himself on the stand.

We saw the interview by Tucker Carlson.

And what do you think about that?

Was that just a lucky stroke that he was so convincing?

Was that no, it was a very wise thing on the defense.

They had interviewed him and they understood that he did not come across as boisterous raggedocious mean he did not have a felony record on cross-examination if they said have you ever been arrested have you served time do you use drugs those were going to be negatives and when he gave them details about how he got the gun and his family relations that that was a brilliant thing and the more that he was cross-examined the more he came across as a confused frightened 17-year-old year old who thought he was doing a good thing by trying to help a car dealer save his car fleet and he was probably too young to be in that situation without training but he wasn't a malignant force at all he was not guilty of murder and that was clear from the cross-examination and that was a disastrous cross-examination among many by the district attorney and it also demands questions what were they thinking when they contrasted in this case, a 17-year-old without a criminal record who was trying to do what he thought was helpful to the community?

Maybe you can argue that carrying a loaded weapon is not under those circumstances, but he is everybody.

Yeah, he was per se contrasted with the people who he shot who were assailing him.

And they were convicted child molester, among many other felonies, a convicted domestic dispute person who had threatened to cut up the belly of his own brother, and then a person who had an unlawful weapon, intoxicated using a weapon, and had a lot of other weird, not felonies, but weird arrests.

And then we had the person, jump kick person that also had a long felony record that we didn't really hear much about in the trial.

So it was very asymmetrical.

And the defense ran with that.

But it does ask you why they were doing this.

Why were they trying to do it?

Just to close, that was a very important trial.

One of the most important trials, I think, in my lifetime, because think what was at stake.

Here you have a community like Minneapolis, like Portland, like Seattle, like Waukesha, where the police either cannot keep the calm or protect innocent civilians.

And Waukesha is not a good example because they were caught off guard.

But they had warning, at least from the first few hours, the mayor and the governor did, that something could have been done in Kenosha, and it wasn't.

And so then the citizens ask, they are destroying businesses.

They are torching buildings.

They are beating people up.

They are looting.

And what am I going to do?

And so somebody decides to use a weapon under the Second Amendment to walk around and help people protect their property.

And apparently he was invited to do so.

There was some backpeddling on that invitation, but that was a key moment in the trial where he said he was, and others said that they were invited.

People did not want to be doxxed who invited them, probably, but sort of backed out of that in some way.

But the point I'm making is: if you do not have the right under the Second Amendment to protect your property and your person, your house, then you have no rights.

Because if you think about it, then you are entirely vulnerable to what the state in its capriciousness chooses or not chooses to do.

And in this climate in America, if you're living in a big city, city, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, then when you have civil insurrection, violence, looting, arson, protest, et cetera, from the left, we know that either the police will not or cannot stop it.

Think of the Chop Chaz

zone of insurrection that was in Seattle, where the police just said, you know,

we can't get near there.

And we know that the district attorney will adjudicate whether to prosecute a crime or not, depending on the ideological or even the careerist pressures upon him.

In other words, the system is gone completely bankrupt.

And the individual then has no remedy to rectify it in his particular case.

And so what does that mean?

That means the American citizen is entirely dependent on the district attorney and the ideology which he represents.

So you can see what's going to happen.

You're going to say, well, you know what?

You guys want Seattle to burn, I guess, because you're right-wing or you're racist or you're homophobic.

And people didn't like that.

So they're legitimately protesting.

Now they got a little out of hand, but this is social justice.

And by the way, if you try to intervene and try to do what the police are deliberately not doing, i.e., enforce the law, then you may end up in jail.

And if you use violence, we're not going to allow you to plead self-defense and so that was what the agenda of the left was and that's why the media glommed onto this and that's why they were so obsessed in contrast as we'll see to waitisha that didn't have the same political fodder for an agenda that kenosha did yeah so can we move on then to waitisha and have a talk about it generally and then maybe we can talk about some things that relate to both of them after that yes well we saw last Sunday that during this Christmas parade, a red vehicle broke through the barriers and started to mow down.

I say mow down with the use of a car, people participating and looking at a Christmas parade.

And there were a lot of videos from different angles.

And five people were killed and over 40, we don't have the exact number, I don't know exactly how many, 45, 40, 48 were wounded or hurt or injured.

okay and

at first there were reports that an african-american in dreadlocks was the driver and that would not seem improbable not the sense that the race or the appearance but that people would know who it was and could find a description because he drove right through everybody there were literally hundreds of people right next to the car who could see him And yet for hours, that description was not acted upon, apparently.

The news were very sober, very professional, and did not jump to conclusions in exactly the opposite fashion that they had in the Riddenhouse case.

Joe Biden did not get on Twitter or he did not release a statement saying that this was a case of BLM or black-on-white violence or anything that would be incendiary.

So what I'm trying to get at is the left, when it wants to be sober and judicious and circumspect, can,

but when it doesn't want to, it doesn't.

And the right didn't try to do this either.

I mean, there were even, you know, conservative venues did not come out immediately.

I mean, there were some people on the internet, no doubt, but they kept pretty much calm.

And then the information came out.

They found ID related to the suspect, Mr.

Brooks.

And it turned out that he was a repeat felon.

It was not just a repeat felon.

He had...

five open arrest charges pending against him, two of which were felonies.

It turned out that he was not just likely, allegedly, supposedly the driver of the vehicle that caused such death and destruction, but that he had used a car in a similar fashion to try to kill somebody, and he had been arrested for it, and he was out on a thousand dollars bail.

Okay, now put this in this entire climate of asymmetrical supposed treatment.

that this racist country then privileges Kyle Rittenhouse by charging him with five felony counts, three of them I think were homicide, that would put him in jail for the rest of his life.

And we had video evidence that he defended himself versus somebody who had a long history of criminality and was deliberately let out on a very small bail.

And most of the convictions, when you follow them, were not prosecuted to the full extent of the law in this sense of punishment, incarceration.

And yet we're supposed to believe that there's this asymmetrical treatment.

And so had he just been charged and bail set at a reasonable level, then Mr.

Brooks would not have been out to cause the mayhem that he did.

And you know what's even more ironic, had he started to come in and break through that barrier and charge and had anybody there shot him.

and killed him and prevented that mayhem, I think there's a pretty good likelihood if I want to engage in the same suppositions that the left is doing, that shooter would have been charged with homicide.

They would have said, you know what, he was just mistaken.

He lost his way.

And that's exactly what they did say at the beginning.

Remember the initial left-wing narrative.

Mr.

Brooks was confused.

He was just leaving an altercation that he had and he took the wrong street and then he was trying to avoid.

Anybody who looks at the videos can see that he's swerving and hitting deliberately people.

And he broke through there exactly knowing what he was doing.

And then we get the further information about his background, that he was a wannabe, although very mediocre rapper, such that that genre is.

And in his videos, he uses the N-word.

He's got a lot of anti-Trump venom.

He's got a lot of anti-white venom.

He's got a history of saying anti-Semitic things.

So he seems to be very racially obsessed.

And we'll see what he says and what his attorneys allow him to say, if anything, and we'll see what he's charged with.

But the district attorney is going to be as politicized in this case as he was in Kenosha.

So, what are we left with?

To make sense in America, we're left with the media that downplayed the mass murder of five people and injuries over 40.

And I say downplayed it because if you looked at the New York Times, you had to go back into the middle of the paper to find the story.

And when you went on cable news, as I did, you didn't see this leading the headlines as you did with the Kyle Wittenhouse story.

And so, the the media reacted in very different ways.

In other words, it had nothing to do with the number of people or the magnitude of the crime, because by any fair comparison, Kenosha was less lethal, an incident, or a tragedy, or a murder, or a shooting, or whatever one side calls the other than was Lakeisha.

Okay.

And then we're left with the assailants.

One assailant has no criminal record whatsoever and broke no laws until he was there.

And this supposed alleged, and I'm being very careful, suspect has a lengthy record.

The other case had nothing to do with race in the sense that the three people who were shot were white and the person who shot them was white.

This case may well have, not just because the supposed or alleged assailant was black and the victims were for the most part, we don't know all of them yet, but they seem to be overwhelmingly white.

And the assailant has a history of racialized venom that he put out for public consumption on social media.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that anybody had said anything or invited any type of violence on the part of Mr.

Brooks.

And yet we're told that the one that has nothing to do with race is racially motivated.

And this one that may have a racial component to every media for the whole last few days is silent about it.

It shows you that the news, the left, politicians, the district attorney, they all massage the narratives and predictable contours.

So do you think that in addition to the, I think there's five counts of intentional manslaughter that they're going to charge him with, that he should be charged as well with hate crimes?

It depends on, again, none of us have access to the full corpus of what he said.

and what he's done.

So to charge him with that, if you had a comprehensive prosecution, they would go through all of his videos, all of his social media posting, talk to people who knew him, look at him and see if he wrote anything, subpoena his email, and see whether or not there was a pattern of venom expressed to people who were Jewish or not African-American, see what it comes up.

And if there were,

And he said in particular to anyone, and what did he say to people before he left what was he doing before he left where was he in the last few days what did he say after the written house trial and verdict and if there is a pattern there yeah and he should be charged with a hate crime although myself i've never been that impressed with the idea of a hate crime because it's a crime is a crime

and when you go into the motivations within the mind of somebody when there's a different race involved between one who's shot and one who's shooting, or one who's the victim and one's the victimizer, you get into very nebulous areas.

And it's hard to know to what degree somebody acts out of hatred because the crime itself of violence is hatred in a way.

Could we

take a second for a word from our sponsor and then we'll come back to talk a little bit about the larger sense of these, both of these incidences?

Welcome back, and we're on to looking at some of the broader implications of Waukeesha and Kenosha.

And I just have one question.

Oh, I should remind your listeners that you can be found at victorhanson.com, that you also have two shows that you do, and hopefully, it'll be three with your co-host, Jack Fowler.

They're all under the Victor Davis-Hanson show

in Apple podcasts and Spotify and other platforms that you can find him on.

He's found on Facebook at V D Hansen's Cup and on Twitter at V D Hansen and on Parlor at Victor Davis Hansen.

And then also there is a fan club on Facebook that you can join and a lot of Victor's material gets on to there.

We'd love to have everybody at the website, however, and it's improving improving every day, basically.

But Victor, before you go and start to talk in a broader sense, I was wanted to just put in one question and then if you can touch on it whenever you feel like.

Do you think that we're seeing a change in the left agenda from this pathology of obfuscating anything a black man does, criminal or not, and accentuating anything that a white man does, again, suspected criminal or criminal or not?

I think there's some things that are going on.

And one of them is the truth.

And we're all subject to the truth.

And the narrative that BLM, the black leadership in Congress on the left, and the left in general, has promulgated is that crime is out of control.

And it's white supremacy, and it's white prejudice, and it's white superiority, and it's whiteness, and it victimizes innocent people of color.

That's the narrative.

That's what Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, said when he was going to ferret out white supremacists.

That's what people said about the January 6th, so-called riot compared to the 120 days of rioting the summer before.

But when you look at the actual data, you have to eventually have data and just take three indicators that you might want to consult to see if that was an accurate assessment.

Why don't we just say, well, wait a minute, let's look at the number of people in the general population percentage-wise, and then find out what percentage of that population commits violent crime.

And when you look at 12% to 13% of the population of African Americans, for whatever reason, they commit an inordinate amount of crimes compared to the percentages in the general population.

Depending on rape or murder or violent assault, it can be as high as almost 40 or 50 percent of all crimes committed.

When you look at so-called white people that are the so-called so-called oppressors, I know that the left said, well, they impress in insidious ways.

They steal money on Wall Street.

Okay.

I was talking about violent crime, because that's what they were talking about.

Then you start to see that about 70% of the so-called white population does not commit 70% of the crime.

If you want to turn to hate crimes and see who is the group that is committing them disproportionately and who is disproportionately on the receiving end, it's not so-called white people.

It's not not Asians.

It's African Americans who commit hate crime in a disproportionate number.

If you want to look at interracial crime, and let's be very clear about interracial, it's very rare.

It's only about 7% to 9% of all violent crime.

Most violent crime, as you see in Chicago or in the white community, is committed white on white or black on black.

But when you do have these crimes and they exist in the many thousands, then it's inordinately more common for African-American people to commit violent crimes against whites than whites are against African Americans.

And think that you're basically saying it's more likely that 12% of the population will commit violence against 70% of the population than 70% of the population will commit against 12% proportionately.

That's a staggering statistic because

The right, the conservative groups don't really want to bring this up, but the left brings it up all the time, but does it fraudulently and presents false data, or at least assumes that their arguments are based on real data that's not there.

And when we get into supposed police shooting of unarmed black men, again, the data is very ambivalent.

It's only about 25 people out of 11 million arrests are shot while unarmed in the custody or in the near proximity of policemen by policemen.

And when you look further at that,

while about half of them are shot as African Americans and half are about white or other groups.

And that is disproportionate and true because African Americans are only 12%.

When you look at the number who come in contact of the 11 million or so arrests per year, then it's not disproportionately African American.

In fact, it's just the opposite.

It's less proportionally African Americans are shot per African Americans that are arrested vis-a-vis white people.

So what I'm getting at is, in this contorted explanation, is there wasn't a lot of data, if any at all, to support this blanket condemnation that African Americans are dying in the street because of white supremacy.

It just wasn't there.

And then you can see it in a lot of different criteria.

You can see the juicy smollet.

Why would we have a juicy smollett hoax that he was attacked by two white MAGA people?

Why did he have to say that?

Because he knew that it would resonate with the left and the media, and there was no evidence.

We know it was a complete fabrication.

Why did we have to promulgate hands up, don't shoot, with Michael Brown?

We know he didn't say that.

People in the immediate vicinity said he didn't say that.

Why did we have to say that when it was overwhelmingly false?

Why did we have to create Trayvon Martin into an innocent victim that happened to be walking around with Skittles until this, and remember, he's a white Hispanic.

We invented that.

We never said that Barack Obama was a white African American, but we did say that George Zimmerman, who was half Latin American, was going to be Peruvian, I think, was going to be a white Hispanic for the melodrama involved.

But why did we have to create Trayvon to the ideal youth and George Zimmerman into something alt-right Germanic killer who just pulled out his gun and shot him?

And then why do we have to Photoshop the pictures of him or cut the 9111 and selectively edit it on cable news TV?

Why do we do that?

And I can get into the Duke Lacrosse.

Why do we have to take Nick Sandman, who just, you know,

from a Catholic boys' school?

He's in there in Washington, and the young boys are just very exuberant.

They're sitting there, and there's all these protests with some black militants.

And then there's a Native American banging a drum who comes up to him and bangs the drum in his face and tries to intimidate him.

And why do we can't we just report that?

Why do we have to say that he didn't say a word?

He just didn't back off.

And we make him into a white, preppy, privileged, racist, et cetera, MAGA, Trump, whatever we do.

And then we make Mr.

Phillips into some heroic combat veteran in Vietnam, you know, when he was there years after there was any combat going on on the American part in Vietnam, and who had a long record of suspicious activities as an activist that sort of prompt these psychodramas for media consumption.

And we can get into a lot more, but why do we do that?

We don't have to do that if we have an epidemic of white-on-black violence.

It's almost as if there's a dearth dearth of product, so you have to invent the product.

There's too many want to be victimizers, victims, and not enough victimizers.

So the media constructs this.

So this is a long answer to your question.

Are people kind of getting tired of it?

They are, because the data is not there, and they're getting tired of these feigned incidents and turning people into saints that are not, or conveniently not reporting data, or having district attorneys deliberately warping and weaponizing criminal cases for political or careerist points of view in a larger landscape, the last 10 months of the woke policy that crime is a social construct, that it just represents the values and the exploitation and the exploitative values, I should say, of a white upper class establishment.

By that, I mean that just as inflation is a proper way to redistribute money, so is crime.

And I'm being serious now.

Hannah Nicole Joan, the architect of 1619, said that, you know, destroying property was not really a crime.

We had these, all these mayors who said things like, well, you know, there was crime, but, you know, it was against property.

It was a summer of love, or just brick and mortar, or when they burned down government buildings.

And so now we have this idea that you can go into the Bay Area and the Bay Area vicinity, and Hayward, and Walnut Creek, and San Jose and Union Square, and you can just mass loot and there will be no repercussions.

And there wasn't.

And so in that context, yeah, people are getting very tired of being called racist and being called culprits and being called oppressors when the evidence does not back that up.

And we have a veritable bloodbath each weekend in places like Chicago and Baltimore and Philadelphia, large cities in the United States of black on black crime, which could be prevented if law enforcement and the DAs cooperated into protecting the innocent in those communities.

And yet no one says a word about it.

Instead, they've searched for these other very tenuous, if not non-existent, examples to prove a larger agenda.

And so we're getting to existential questions because if the citizen can't trust the DA to weigh evidence and either prosecute or not prosecute on the basis of that evidence, but rather use ideological or careerist concerns, or if the police will not arrest or will arrest people based on political considerations, and if the citizen cannot protect himself without fear of having his life ruined or being doxxed or being attacked, and if in the larger area, when you look at the institutions for reassurance and you see that the FBI, just to take an example, whether it's the malicious and untruthful testimonies of James Comey or Andrew McCabe or James Clapper of the Director of National Intelligence at one time, or John Brennan, or you see Kevin Kleinsmith's felonious behavior, or you see the Robert Mueller hoax, and then you turn around and you say, well, wait a minute, that institution is not what I thought.

The CIA and the FBI, I have my doubts like I do with the criminal situation, but at least the military.

And then you see that the military is saying that while we are subject to hypersonic threats from China, that we don't seem to have a comparable capability, they are ferreting out supposed supremacists or conspiracies of which there's no evidence in the military.

And Mark Milley is joining in on that course if he's not calling up his Chinese counterpart to, in theory, warn him if Donald Trump suggested he might be too aggressive toward the Chinese.

And you add into that retired generals and admirals who are disparaging their commander-in-chief in violation of uniform code of military justice.

It's Mussolini-like, Nazi-like, liar, treasonous, traitor.

So, what I'm getting at is that the media, as we saw with these sensationalized coverage of these incidents and politicized, and what used to be the hallmarks of civilization, the way that the district attorney office functions, the way that the police keep the calm, the way that the FBI investigates in a non-partisan fashion crime that crosses state lines, the way in our intelligence agencies operate, the way that the Pentagon, these were bastions of conservative support, and they're gone.

They're gone.

These institutions are all suspect.

They've all been corrupted.

They're all eroded.

They're all fearful.

And that's because a

20 to 30 percent of the population, the radical left, empowered by bicosto global wealth and especially in tech and Wall Street, has created created a revolutionary fervor of this woke movement.

And I think it's, this is again a windy answer to your initial question.

And that was, are people getting tired of being called racist and seeing disproportionate or asymmetrical events reported in the media in a false fashion?

And the answer is yes.

Yeah, thank you.

I would just like to make one observation and then we have to close off here.

But it seems like given all the statistics that you said,

if a person is black, they would be much better off associating themselves with the right wing that says we're going to treat everybody as individuals and look at their individual talents, et cetera, than to be part of this left-wing push to have everybody put into racial tribal.

categories.

It just seems

so clear that that would be the interest of

Blacks in our community.

That's not only true, but when you look at African Americans such as Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele or Larry Elder or

people in Congress that are African American, that are black and African Americans that are conservative, and you look at writers and actors that are African American, and they're all beginning

to, I shouldn't say beginning, Tom Sowell's been doing it for 60 years, but they're beginning to say we have to live in a racially blind society.

This is not 1950 or 1960, but Lester Maddox and Bill Connor in the South.

This is a very progressive, enlightened society where opportunity is open to everybody, and African Americans are making greater wage gains per capita at a higher rate than is the white community, of which 16 or 17 different ethnic groups are earning more per capita income in a supposedly white supremacist society.

So, yes, and what's good for the conservative movement is that some of the brightest and most capable observers of the American scene are African American.

And that's precisely because they have firsthand and intellectual experience and training with these pathologies of the left.

And they understand exactly how the wealthy, white, guilt-ridden, bicostal elite creates creates conditions under which African Americans feel that it's dangerous for their careers or it's not in their financial interest to be empirical and they're bullied.

And you can really see it.

The left reserves particular venom for a Tom Soule or Clarence Thomas

because they find them as existentially threatening.

Because what it says to them is, listen, Mr.

wealthy white guy in Woodside.

Listen, Miss Sarah get over your shoulder scold up on the upper west side in New York.

I don't need you.

Listen, Mr.

Stanford Dean, I don't need you.

Just keep out of my business.

I don't need you.

I don't need you to tell me that you're brighter than I am and you're going to protect me and I'm supposed to vote for you.

And then you're going to make a big government program and then it's supposed to spin.

And this is part of your larger left-wing agenda.

And yet I understand you.

I know you.

I've seen your other side of this.

You know, know, you're a one-eyed jack, and I've seen the other side, and I don't like it.

And so just buzz off.

And when that message gets clear to the white liberal, they go crazy.

So they call Larry Elder a white supremacist, or they call Senator Scott an Uncle Tom, or they call this very successful lieutenant governor in Virginia Winsome Sears.

They start to call all sorts of racial epithets coming from white people.

And so it really, again, it raises the question, are people obsessed with race on the left?

Are they so quick to call people racist?

Because it's a psychological mechanism of projection because they are insecure.

Because deep down inside, if you look at how they live, where they put their kids, what zip code they inhabit, who they like to associate with, they live segregated lives.

And therefore, they have to project this facade that the deplorables or the clingers are racist.

and that somehow squares this impossible circle.

It can't be squared.

All I can say, Victor Davis-Hanson is here here to all of that.

And thank you very much for your words of wisdom today.

And thank you.

Thank you.

And this is Victor Davis-Hansen and Sammy Wink and we're signing off.

It's time your hard-earned money works harder for you.

With the Wealthfront Cash Account, your uninvested cash earns a 3.75% APY, which is higher than the average savings rate.

No account fees, no minimums, and free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts anytime.

Join over a million people who trust Wealthfront to build wealth at wealthfront.com.

Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA SIPC, and is not a bank.

APY and deposits as of September 26, 2025, is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum.

Funds are swept to program banks where they earn the variable APY.