In this news round up, Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Sami Winc discuss the extension of the Gaza War in the Middle East, the resignation of Dr. Gay, and California’s Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA7) yet another discrimination effort.
Menu
Hallelujah,we did it!
Israel-Palestine, a land occupied by two different peoples, both claiming ownership given to them by God. Then there’s the axiom:”The right to return”. A problem without a solution.
Uhh, over the past few years (say, 3,500-4,000), the Middle East has been occupied by more than two religions or tribes or kingdoms or empires – but one language and culture base: Semitic (which includes Arabic and Hebrew). As far back as 1259 BC (BCE if you are not Christian), after 80 years of war, bloodshed, and crop destruction in the single largest fecund land then known to man (the Fertile Crescent), Egypt (Ramses II) and the King of the Hittite Empire (Ḫattušili III) in Anatolia, the reigning superpowers of the day got tired of the fighting and economic drain on their treasuries to build chariots, feed horses and men that were not being used to plow fields, agreed IN WRITING (hieroglyphics and cuneiform) to stop fighting, drew a ‘line in the sand’ and divided the land you would currently call Palestine, but then known as Assyria, and vowed to enforce the peace and land division throughout all time (The Treaty of Kadesh, 1259 BC.) The Egyptians still live in the place they were born (the Nile), and the Hittites were an Anatolian-based Empire even if followed by the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. The Turks and the Egyptians are still standing and still are the only non-Semitics in the area, just as they were 3,500 years ago. So there is no right of return; the Semitics are the same place they have been for close to 4000 years. Let’s dump the whole problem on Erdogan and El-Sisi and tell them to enforce the peace and lines they agreed to.
Great talk, appreciate it.
The Israelis were around long before مُحَمَّد
.
Copy from:
One person ⇨ plagiarism
Ten persons ⇨ topfcal discussion
A hundred persons ⇨ subject synopsis
A thousand persons ⇨ comprehensive rewiew
Claudine Gay, who I had never heard of before she testified before Congress, seems to be in hindsight, a person of very low moral character, who masquerades as an individual of high and exacting moral standards.
It seems that she was a person of low moral character all of her life, given that she plagiarized her PhD thesis as a relatively young adult.
Why would not the Harvard Board of Directors, who must have interviewed her extensively, not be able to discern this? How did Ms. Gay manage to elude criticism of her, albeit scanty, written dissertations prior to that interview. Did no one detect the plagiarism, not even in a PhD thesis which presumably gets some thorough review. This brings into question the quality of those reviews.
In other words, how are these people getting a pass through the system? The system seems to be broken.
Hober, as Victor said, she did it because she knew she could. It is as simple as that.
Yes, the system is broken, but hopefully not irrevocably. Time will tell.
“…she did it because she knew she could…”
And that is the definition of moral bankruptcy.
Excellent discussion Victor. The entire melodrama is reminiscent of the ploys used by obama, clinton and other marxists. Gay and the harvard corporation have unfortunately become the pejoratives that were leveled at hard working Americans: Dregs- the worst or lowest part of something.
Clingers- to hold on tenaciously to something
Deplorables – people deserving censure or contempt
Irredeemables – people being beyond remedy-hopeless
Chumps – stupid or foolish people – suckers
Semi-fascists – a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation or race above the individual
Victor, after listening to your podcast I learned that the word “bimonthly” has two, legitimate, but very different meanings. Previously, I had thought it meant on “every other month”. But according to the online dictionary I found on the search engine, Bing, it can mean both “occurring every two” and “occurring two times.” These are unfortunately VERY different meanings.
Today and on at least one previous podcast I have heard you refer to your “bimonthly lunches with Thomas Sowell”. Until now, I was sure you meant you had these lunches every other month. But in this podcast you stated that the bimonthly lunches were every other week. I had thought that “semimonthly” was the only correct adjective to use to denote this frequency. But I was wrong. Alternatively, bimonthly can also be used.
The online dictionary states this ambiguity has existed in our language for about 150 years. I wish it would go away because it can lead to confusion. Because of bimonthly’s two very different, but apparently legitimate definitions, the words “biweekly and “bimonthly” can mean the same thing.
HOW CRAZY IS THIS !?
That’s what intellectuals do. Screw up the simplest things. Older I get less I trust intellectuals.
VDH should have recorded the administrator who told him no White males.
At the end of the podcast, Victor describes the core of progressivism. A progressive believes-whether he’ll admit it or not-that he is smarter than everyone else, and therefore, should rule over everyone else. Rule by experts. It’s scientific. And we sub-Omegaloids should just shut up and do as we’re told. We’re too stupid to understand the why, so just do. That is what they believe, and it has been consistently so, ever since our country was infected with the idea in the 1880s.
And as far as the influence of DEI on training goes (training-collective but singular, Sami, there are no “trainings”), yeah, probably every company in the country suffers through that now.
I work for a software company, and even the videos we have to watch annually for cybersecurity certification are full of multiracial characters, except for white males-white males can be Goofus to the Gallants around them, but that’s all-and all in a hip, millennial world of man buns, blue hair (remember when “blue hair” was a lady over 70?), daishikis and head scarves. It has nothing to do with the content, but it’s a subtle presentation of the ideology. Propaganda isn’t just torchlight parades and rallies on a large open space.
More and more, I think we’re doomed. They knew what to do, how to get around us. Maybe we never had a chance in the first place. A creeping totalitarian Statism seemed so far away, that most of us never believed it could happen.
The title of your new book sums it up, Professor: “The End of Everything.”