[Intro] Part 1 of Interview took place in 2nd hour of show.
JIMMY SENGENBERGER: Time now for the second hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS. Thanks for joining us, being a part of the program. Great to be with you. (303) 696-1971, our telephone number to join in the festivities… or you can go onto the 710 KNUS app and text into the show there as well as tweeting at me at @sengcenter – that’s ‘seng’ – with an ‘E’ not an ‘A’ – ‘center’ on Twitter.
Okay, the next couple of hours are going to be just a very fascinating discussion. It’s what we always have with our guest for the next two hours. Fan favorite Dr. Marv Treiger was a Marxist radical in the 60’s, involved in the radical movement, he knew a lot of people then – some names like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn that you know now – he knew them when. Well, at least in the case of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it was before they did the Weather Underground Terrorism – but still he knew them in their young days [on three occasions – MT] and all the radicalism that was going on then. Over time he converted to Buddhism, he’s a Buddhist teacher, and now – particularly in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks and also the Obama Presidency – Dr. Marv Treiger, a retired psychotherapist, is a Conservative and a Trump supporter. And it is so great to welcome our good friend to the program, Dr. Marv Treiger, back to the show. Good mor – Good evening. Good morning? Good evening! I wish there was, you know, like a nighttime and I was taking a nap, actually, but Marv, welcome!
MARVIN TREIGER: You were just having a Biden moment.
SENGENBERGER: [laughing] Yes, there you go! You know, he’s the gaffe that keeps on gaffing!
TREIGER: [chuckling] That’s it, indeed. And it’s so good to be here, so good to hear your voice on the air, and looking forward to this exchange.
SENGENBERGER: Always great. We go back now, 2014, wasn’t it? You were here, you did some volunteering to help elect Cory Gardner in the 2014 Election cycle and we brought you in studio that first time when you were in the state. You were in the People’s Republic of California for many, many years and you recently just moved to another state.
TREIGER: Yes, to Prescott, Arizona.
SENGENBERGER: Unfortunately, not here in Colorado. You should have moved out here to Colorado, but I understand why you might want to have chosen Arizona, there are multiple reasons for that, we don’t need to get into that. But I just want to ask you a very important question that will help refresh us on your background a little bit, and that is, why are you a Conservative now when you were so far to the left back in the 60’s that you left the Communist Party? You bolted from the Communist Party because it was too – as I call it – CINO for you, Communist-in-Name-Only – and then you’re now a Conservative and not only that but you strongly support Donald J. Trump as President?
TREIGER: Well, I mean, it’s a long story and a long road, but the short version is that, for one thing, my Buddhist practice – many, many months of solitary retreat and working with grand masters and my own teaching and everything else – you go to the foundations of Leftism, first of all, of Atheism, and secondly, of the style and mode of behavior and all of that. But the real shift and the real change took place during a solitary retreat when in 2001, when the terror attacks took place, at that point I had been seven months in retreat that year – and my mind was extremely clear, my heart was extremely open. And I was always very well-informed about politics. In fact, my wife had said, do you want to know anything about politics while you’re in retreat? And I said, no, unless – my big mistake – it’s on the level of Pearl Harbor, which, sadly, it was. And so, at any rate, within a few hours I kind of saw – I mean, not in a Nostradamus prophecy-of-the-future, but just, you know, I put it all together – and I could see that America was going to be facing a new threat and alliance between the International Left – Socialist, Communist, Marxist Left – and the Islamists on the religious extremism of the Right, and that they both were interested in taking down America because America was an obstacle to both their plans even though they are completely opposed to one another. But nevertheless, they shoveled those differences under the table and so, for example, the Left protects Islamism by talking about Islamophobia every time you criticize it, and the Islamists – well, they don’t have to bother protecting the Left, they’ll just go after everybody.
But what I did notice about those two currents later after thinking about it, and what I was thinking about for tonight, is that I think that in human nature there are many flaws, many shortcomings, but one major one is that there is a glitch, a utopian glitch in the software. Human beings are prone to falling for utopian projects that are going to transform the world and therefore their lives. They’ll be forever sitting on a beach with a margarita kicking up the sand and happy and happy. And everyone wants, imagines things better and everyone imagines things with no problems. But when that becomes an ideology and an affliction, it’s extremely attractive to the vulnerable, and it was attractive to me as a young man and I can see very much how it’s attractive to the young today. And in general, both Islamism and Communism are utopian theories in which the whole world will end up at peace because they are running things.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, there is a sense of hubris that I catch in all of these people who think oftentimes, Marv Treiger, we hear a leftist say, “Look, Communism or Socialism haven’t been tried right; if we did it the right way it would actually work.” Yet, isn’t that an example of tremendous hubris to think that if we just put that individual who’s making that claim and charge, suddenly the Socialist utopia would actually turn into a utopian society that will work?
TREIGER: I think you’re exactly right, and that’s one of the defense mechanisms that preserves the utopian glitch – because if you’re not reaching the utopia, well then there must be a reason, and so it must be that somebody goofed up, and if we just get it right then it will come about. Yeah. But, you know, there’s a third major glitch of utopianism afoot in the world today, and this is one of the important reasons why I became a strong Trump supporter, and that is this Globalist itch, the idea that a world society, a New World Order that will be -and Global Governance – will take place in such a fashion that there will no longer be nations, there will no longer be national sovereignty and that there will be only peace and prosperity forever for the human race. And this is no less that same factor, it must be something in the genes of human beings because all sections of the political spectrum have a tendency, on occasion, to suffer from this affliction, and certainly the Globalists of today, especially those for Global Governance, I think fall into that category.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, and we’re going to spend a good chunk of time later on the Globalism issue, because there’s a lot I agree with you on in that regard, a lot I – or some, at least – that I disagree, I don’t know about a lot, but some that I disagree with you on and I look forward to peeling back the onion, as it were, on that question, Dr Marv Treiger.
But one thing I want to point out is that in each of these utopian ideas, you seem to see that they throw out the notion of individuals pursuing their own self-interest as the means of attaining prosperity. You and I were talking about this earlier this afternoon, where individuals are always pursuing their self-interest and that’s how Capitalism works. Adam Smith has one of the best quotes I think ever describing how Capitalism functions, and he said in his Wealth of Nations – in 1776, of all years – quote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In other words, in essence, by pursuing what you think should be done in order to better improve your life by providing some kind of quality product or service that will better somebody else’s life, all of society will in the end benefit from that more than some grand design or utopian schemes.
TREIGER: Well, that’s, yeah, I would completely agree that that’s the case. So, for example – and by the way, Buddhism also can be afflicted by this particular utopian dream, the idea that if we’re simply just purely compassionate, that we will in fact, that people will then recognize the goodness of our hearts, we will serve others and as a natural consequence they will wake up, see the same thing and do the same thing and pretty soon the whole world will be compassionate. And Adam Smith understood that you had to deal with human nature that was self-interested. And the Buddha properly understood, recognized that the big obstacle to awakening was the ego and the sense of an absolute self in each person. So, it cut both ways, the Self gets us in trouble but it’s also the reality of our self-interest, and Adam Smith understood that. And by the way, his other book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments —
TREIGER: — which, in my opinion, was his greatest book, because it dealt with human nature in great depth, summed up your wonderful quote from before by saying that what the Free Market did was it generated “forced altruism”. In other words, people actually were doing something compassionate, they were helping someone get something they needed by getting something that they themselves needed for themselves, and so everyone comes to the marketplace and goes away with something and you have actually helped another person, that other person has helped you. And all of that is an organization of society around the truth of human nature.
SENGENBERGER: Are you familiar at all with Marxist professor/economist Richard Wolffe?
TREIGER: Richard Wolff?
TREIGER: No, I don’t know that name.
SENGENBERGER: Okay. So, he’s getting, making the rounds a heck of a lot among the Left, leftist YouTubers love him. He’s a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. And we only have a couple of minutes left here, but I’m curious about this critique that I heard him give to the notion of pursuing self-interest on one of the leftist shows, where he said, “The problem with that idea of ‘the capitalist’ is that they presume that in pursuing your self-interest you know what that is, and therefore you will actually pursue your self-interest properly. And that doesn’t actually happen because humans are contradictory, that is to say, we may love, love, love chocolate and we may eat a heck of a lot of it because we want to satisfy our taste buds but there are negative effects to that. And therefore, are we really pursuing our self-interest when we’re hurting our health by enjoying it from our taste buds?” And so, he says that that self-interest idea is fundamentally flawed. What do you make of that critique from the Left?
TREIGER: Well, I think it’s playing with words. Obviously, we’re self-interested. Obviously, we, you know, um —
SENGENBERGER: But we don’t know our self-interest oftentimes, he says, or we’d pursue the wrong thing —
TREIGER: Exactly. Well, but no, he’s right about that, and of course that’s the truth. And we don’t know our self-interest and we, and there are many dimensions to the question of having insight into what is genuinely one’s self-interest, and we learn, hopefully, from experience. So, in the marketplace, it’s forced altruism, or forced compassion, okay. But in the family, the principles, because of family affiliation and love and the raising of children and all of these things, are the type of institutions whereby one can actually be selfless. One does for one’s children and sacrifices for them and the children, starting off very selfishly, will hopefully learn that for the next generation. So certain kinds of behaviors of humans flourish under certain conditions and run into problems in other conditions and this is one of the reasons why the Left and the Marxists want to undermine the bourgeois family – or really, the family, period, they call it the “bourgeois” family, but there is no other kind of family, really, that is fundamental to human society. And, because, they want the government, somehow they believe the government and its policies will be able to bring about this compassion through forcing it upon all people and that the family will actually be an obstacle because people will insist on doing it their own way and for their own children’s sake and —
TREIGER: So, it’s a complex question.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, I think that where his flaw is, is he presumes, okay, well, since human beings are contradictory, we need some benevolent government to be able to help make decisions or guide individuals to making the right decisions for their own interest. And that is not only an example of hubris but it is a complete misunderstanding of the interests of those in government who will not know what is best for you and me even if they might think they do. They don’t know us, they don’t know our interests, and they have their own interests that they would like to pursue using the power and heavy hand of government.
We’ve got to take a quick break here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”. Our guest is Dr. Marv Treiger, as we continue on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
SENGENBERGER: As we continue with the best bumper music known to man, just about six years running here on 710 KNUS, I’m Jimmy Sengenberger. Thanks for joining us. Dr. Marv Treiger, our guest. And Marv, we’ve got two minutes left in this half-hour and then we’re going to start going into the three different types of utopian ideals that, well, they don’t work, because they’re utopian, that we want to talk about tonight. Communism, Islamism and Globalism. But on the subject of self-interest, on government control, that aspect of the conversation, what would you like to add in our last two minutes here?
TREIGER: Well, the feed of the utopian affliction is in Richard Wolff’s very comment about benevolent government. The nature of government is such that one section of the population acquires power over another at a certain point. And unless it’s checked through democratic means, through, you know, ‘voting the bums out’, through separation of powers, distribution of power, unless that happens, it’s guaranteed that the flaws in human nature will lead this benevolent government into – it’s too attractive – into an oppressive force.
SENGENBERGER: But wait – isn’t that why you have Democratic Socialism? Democratic, Marv?
TREIGER: Aahh. Well, that raises the whole question of the strategy and tactics of the International Communist Movement. And different methods of getting to the same goal. So, I think we’re ~~ yeah, we’re going to take that up.
SENGENBERGER: Yes, indeed. Here’s the thing, by the way, that Democratic Socialism, is that in a, you know, in a true dictatorship, [emphasis], ‘in a real just Communist society that’s dictatorial, where there’s no Democracy, not Democratic Socialist, but you just have Socialist society. In that kind of society, you know, the wolf just gets to decide to eat the sheep, but in a Democratic Socialist society, the wolves get together and vote to eat the sheep.’ How about that?
TREIGER: Well, you’re speaking about majoritarian tyranny, which was the fear of the Founding Fathers —
SENGENBERGER: Yes, which can be the case in Democratic Socialism where, [emphasis] ‘Right, we’re taking people’s money, let’s just vote to do it.’
TREIGER: Well, that’s right, but then when you scratch the Democratic Socialist – this guy recently, David French, who made this statement, he’s a Democratic Socialist, he made the statement that all the wealth should be basically redistributed or confiscated and spread apart, spread about.
SENGENBERGER: Is that David French?
TREIGER: Well, I —
SENGENBERGER: Because David French is a National Review guy, so you might have quoted somebody.
TREIGER: Oh no, no. Yeah, yeah, I mixed [cross-talk] —
SENGENBERGER: We’ll be right back with Dr. Marv Treiger, fascinating stuff ahead on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”
SENGENBERGER: [plays harmonica along with bumper music] Welcome back to “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”. Dr. Marv Treiger is our guest. So I don’t think I’ve ever done this yet, but Marv, we’ve been friends for five years, I figure it’s about time I pull out the harmonica with you on the air, brother.
TREIGER: I am delighted.
SENGENBERGER: It’s always great to have you. And it’s pretty fun, isn’t it? It sounds good?
TREIGER: Yeah. Listen, you know, you put in your licks, man, and they’re great.
SENGENBERGER: [laughing] Well, I appreciate it. [plays harmonica] Alright, there you go. Marv Treiger, everybody, joining us… We were talking about a few different topics in the first half hour but you teed things up in the beginning of the show, Marv, about – or beginning of the hour -about the three utopian… what is it, utopian fallacies? Glitches, utopian glitches. Communism —
TREIGER: Well, I call them, it’s a glitch in the software [chuckling].
SENGENBERGER: Glitch in the software.
TREIGER: A glitch in the human software.
SENGENBERGER: Communism, Islamism and Globalism. Globalism’s going to be interesting because so much I agree with, a lot that I may or some at least, that I may disagree with on some levels, we’ll probably save that for the next hour and delve into it. But let’s talk about Communism. What’s the glitch of Communism, Marv?
TREIGER: Well, you know, if you go to Highgate Cemetery, which I have done, where Karl Marx is buried, the famous slogan from the Communist Manifesto, “Workers of The World, Unite!”, is right there on the tombstone. And it’s often followed by the phrase, “You have nothing to lose but your chains.” And so, in other words, you’re going to enter into a utopia by uniting and all of the things that are obstacles will eventually disappear, including oppressive classes including the state itself.
So, it’s very much a utopian concept and it’s also international and therefore worldwide. But it’s gone through, as we see, an amazing series of ups and downs. It had this great success in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which was actually a revolutionary coup d’etat from below. And then it got giddy with success and it started to take an extreme Left-wing line in all the other countries, and it started to suffer from one defeat after another. A revolution was destroyed in Hungary once, two in Germany, Chang Kai-Sheck wiped out his Communist Party (temporarily in 1928). And the key one was in Germany in 1933, where the Communist Party was so Left that they attacked the Social Democrats – who were themselves, by the way, Socialists and also lodged in the working class – as “Social Fascists”. They split the working class, they could not unite, and in that split, vacuum, Hitler was able to rise up. And as a result of all of that, the Communist Movement suddenly, finally, by 1935, decided to completely change its strategy, and in a famous, famous talk, a guy by the name of Georgi Dimitrov put forth something called the “United Front Against Fascism and War.” And what that was, was the Communist Movement was, from then on, engaged in alliances with other groups, and often they would be front groups or they would be mass groups or it would be short-term alliances and they would be around some simple issue that everyone could agree upon. And then, from that point on, the Communist Movement started to have successes again, and that continued, in fact, there was an alliance in World War II between the great Communist nation of the Soviet Union and the West, and the United States.
In the aftermath of that war, the Communist Party in the USA applied the United Front in something they called the “Anti-Monopoly Coalition”, and it brought them great success even though they had small numbers. They were able to infiltrate the Democratic Party, they were able to influence many movements They would attach themselves to a just cause, like, for example, getting rid of Jim Crow, and as a result, people were friendly toward them. That was the period of time in which I became a Communist. So as long as they took that kind of approach, they would gain, but as soon as they put forth their full program in its extreme form there would be one defeat after another. And —
SENGENBERGER: Because they had divided.
TREIGER: Because they would divide ~~ they would start eating their own ranks, and they would start —
SENGENBERGER: Can I just stop you there–
SENGENBERGER: — for a clarifying question that puts it into today’s context?
TREIGER: Sure, of course.
SENGENBERGER: I mean, of course we saw the real – I mean, the Cold War was all about Communism specifically. Do you think that this broadens out to sort of Leftism more broadly in seeking alliances? Because I see alliances right now between people who may be more Communist-specific or very much so in that regard or were true-blue Socialists, or you have people who consider themselves Progressive but not so far down that road, but yet there are things that connect them and a lot of different things that connects them, Marv Treiger. And one thing that they’re all on board with, too, is identity politics, although that’s deeply divisive down to the point where at some point you’re not going to be allied with everybody because your identity will have to take precedence over the collective thing that you share, which is Leftism. Am I making sense here, with the question?
TREIGER: Very sharp.
TREIGER: Look, the United Front was the support for multiculturalism and identity politics. Okay? The Party used to have groups. There was a group with the workers, there was a group with the women, there was a group with the African-Americans, with the Hispanics, they would have all these little groups and identity politics, and so long as there was this broad umbrella and they were all marching against the capitalist enemy, they would make some kind of advances.
But at a certain point, the purism and the utopian glitch starts to come in, and nowadays there is no single party behind it all, there’s no international conspiracy behind it all. And so therefore there’s no real discipline, and groups start going extreme at any time, and they start fighting amongst themselves and defeating themselves. And we see that going on ~~ you know, somebody, you know, one Democratic candidate will argue for Medicare for All, and then another one will take it up and then someone will say, Medicare for all illegals, and then they’ll all raise their hands that they’re in favor of it, and someone says, no, the program’s not full enough, we should have a basic income for every person. And so, they cannot ~~ they end up with what we’re seeing going on, on the Left today, is an extreme Left turn, not just a Left turn of the Democratic Party and the radicals within it, but we’re seeing an extreme Left-turn that is negating their ability to form the kind of united front that would succeed electorally. And that, I think, has not been noticed yet by the Conservative thinkers. They see the radicalization of the Democratic Party but what they’re not quite seeing is that it’s actually a self-destructive form of that radicalization in which they are more likely to defeat themselves.
SENGENBERGER: Dr. Marv Treiger is our guest here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”, NewsTalk 710 KNUS. If you want to join into the festivities, give us a call. (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number to join into the festivities.
We’ve got Jack first up here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” Jack, you’re on with Jimmy and Marv.
JACK : Yeah, Marv, I’ve got a question for you, you can give me a comment on it. But Eugene Debs’ Industrial Workers of the World – which started at that time, early 1905 or ’10, him with Gompers in England – but they’re headquartered and they’re still alive in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Comment on that.
TREIGER: Well, there’s ~~ one of the things that I notice – by the way, I’m from Chicago and I’m mourning the setbacks for the Chicago Cubs last week, oh my God! But that’s another subject. Yeah, I’m from Chicago and I know that milieu and I know something about it politically. And the IWW started there actually back in 1881, and –-
JACK : Mmhmm.
TREIGER: — one of the things that’s true of things that’s true of the Left, Jack – and I noticed this when I was a political activist with them, and this was the key thing – and that is this: you could be an anarchist, it was okay, you could come to the Party; you could be a libertarian, you could come to the Party; you could be a Liberal; you could be a Democratic Socialist; you could be a Communist, you could come to the Party; you could be non-political, you could come, too; everyone could come to the Party. But if you were a Republican or a Conservative, you were persona non grata, and you were to be isolated. And remember the slogan I mentioned earlier of Dimitrov, was “United Front Against Fascism.” So, the thing that holds the United Front together is when they find an enemy that they can point to and identify as exactly the evil devil, you might be the equivalent of the Devil, evil devil, and that would be the capitalist class. So, everyone else is kind of, at some level, is tolerated – of course, when push comes to shove, then the pure doctrine has to come forward and if a comrade departs from it he is isolated and then loses all friendship.
SENGENBERGER: Hey, I want to jump in and see if you got a final comment to that, Jack.
JACK : One more thing.
SENGENBERGER: Go ahead.
JACK : Hey, you mentioned Anarchist. During that Anarchist movement, they didn’t have AR-14’s but they had revolvers, they had six-shooters, and when the Anarchists were killing all of the heads of captains of industry, the heads of state and terrorizing people, they used bombs they went to pubs where people were having a beer at night, they went to restaurants, theaters, and they did it all with bombs. But, you know, they could have just as well gone in there with two six-shooters and shot people up. They didn’t use guns, they used bombs.
SENGENBERGER: Thank you, Jack, for the call. Any comment on that, Marv?
TREIGER: Oh, definitely. You know, there was also an anarchist movement in Lenin in Russia, his brother was an anarchist who was involved in the killing of the Czar and, the earlier Czar, and was himself killed. And the anarchists and their bombs, they take the view that the people are just ready to rise up and they just need a spark. Mao Tse-Tung used to say, “a spark can cause a prairie fire.” So we provoke the masses into fighting – that’s why the Weathermen also used bombs, and the Weathermen had the same idea. And the Communists considered that extreme and they rather wanted to build up the energy to the point where the masses themselves would rise up in such a force that they would succeed in a revolution. And so that was an argument between the Communists and the Anarchists —
SENGENBERGER: That’s fascinating.
TREIGER: The Islamists, the Islamists are similar to the Anarchists in that they are quite prepared to use bombs and mass killings and everything else, and they don’t care, the weapon of choice is the weapon that’s available, and that’s the real source. And that’s really what —
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, well, I just want to jump in because we’ve got to go to break here, Marv Treiger, but you talked about Dimitrov and when you’ve mentioned again the notion of United Front Against Fascism, that resonated with me the second time you said it just now in terms of Antifa, which is supposedly standing for Anti-Fascists and that’s something that we’re hearing talked about a lot on the college campuses. And so, [emphasis], ‘look at the fascism of the white-privileged people and all that kind of stuff, and we need to fight against that brand of supposed fascism’ – with their own brand, by the way, of fascist methods, through silencing speech.
TREIGER: Yes, through doing it violently, silencing it brutally and violently.
SENGENBERGER: Any thoughts on that, briefly?
TREIGER: Well, Donald Trump tweeted tonight that they’re contemplating putting Antifa on the terrorist watch list.
TREIGER: And he also mentioned that the Mayor – I think it was of Portland, that he ought to start doing his job right, because we’re kind of watching how he does it, because he’s tolerated and permitted Antifa to run the streets.
SENGENBERGER: Um, well, I’m hearing that that may not have been tweeted out? I’m going to double-check on that, Marv, that’s what Chandler’s saying, they were just checking and not seeing that tweet coming out from him. So, if you —
TREIGER: Uh —
SENGENBERGER: Or you can check it. But —
TREIGER: Scott Adams published it about an hour and a half ago.
SENGENBERGER: That Trump had tweeted that out? Okay.
TREIGER: Yeah, mmhmm.
SENGENBERGER: We’ll do some digging just to verify that. I would trust Scott Adams, pretty sharp guy and he’s on top of a lot of these things. We do have to run to a break, then we’ll find out about that. We’ve got Dr. Marv Treiger right here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
SENGENBERGER: We continue on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” Look folks, we’ve got to just correct the record here on whether or not Trump tweeted something out. Dr. Marv Treiger says Trump tweets out that he’s going to be naming, considering naming, Antifa an organization of terror, and that Scott Adams had tweeted this out from President Trump. And then Chandler with sports behind the glass on his way out and Patrick, who’s new behind the glass, both tell me, look, we’re not seeing it! Trump didn’t say that, it’s not there! Well, I checked, ten hours ago, Donald Trump said, “Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA and ‘ORGANIZATION OF TERROR.’ Portland is being watched very closely. Hopefully the Mayor will be able to properly do his job!” I had to find something to poke at Chandler on his way out the door, and haze Patrick a little. Marv, you were right! There you go, sir. Congratulations!
TREIGER: Well, very good.
TREIGER: Well, maybe their guard will be down now if I’m wrong.
SENGENBERGER: [laughing] That’s a good point! You know, maybe just maybe they’ll just presume, hey, Marv must be right on this, and then they will find some very clear ~~ is this a different Jack? Okay, we’ve got another Jack here. Before we go to the break, let’s go to Jack on Antifa. What’s up, Jack? Two Jacks tonight.
JACK : Yeah, yeah. Hey, first of all, I don’t know who this guy is you’ve got on the air, but —
SENGENBERGER: Dr. Marv Treiger.
JACK : Oh, okay, well, I don’t know where he got his doctorate, but comparing Islamists to the people who are anti-racist and opposed to Nazism is totally absurd. First of all, even if you try and compare Islamists and say that they are people who believe in Islam, which is questionable the majority of people who believe and practice Islam are non-violent and peaceful. And secondly, the idea, somehow, that racists are equivalent to people who are anti-racist and anti-Nazi is just also absurd. There’s no comparison here, he’s comparing the apples to oranges and trying to take this line of Trump, which is a distraction because of all the deaths and the right-wing demonstrations that have come out again and again. Now this Trump [cross-talk] —
SENGENBERGER: Hey Jack, I want to jump in here, jack, because I’m just about out of time. Would you like to stick to the other side of the break so Marv can respond and then you can answer back to what Marv responds? I’d be happy to do that.
JACK : Yeah, just ask him how many people have been killed by Antifa.
SENGENBERGER: Okay. We’e going to – hold it right there. Jack, stay on the line, please, we will come back. Marv, I want to make sure we give you adequate time to give a response and allow Jack, if he wants to stay and do a little bit of a back-and-forth here, I’m happy to do it… Dr. Marv Treiger on the line… We’ll be right back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” Don’t go anywhere. Another hour up ahead.
[End of Part 1]