Jimmy Sengenberger

Radio Host · Speaker · Commentator · Nonprofit President

Nationally-recognized Radio Talk Show Host Public Speaker Political Commentator Nonprofit President

The Utopian Glitch in the Human Software Part 2

August 21, 2019 2020 Elections Antifa, China, free means fair trade, globalism

[Intro]  Part 2 recorded during hour 3 of the program
JIMMY SENGENBERGER:   Saturday night is never alright for the third and final hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” because, well, it means we’re less than an hour away from the end of this edition of the program. But never fear, we’ll be back same time, same place next Saturday night for more engaging, intelligent talk same style here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS…
Dr. Marv. Treiger, my good friend, on the show, of course, former Marxist radical in the 60’s-turned-Conservative Trump supporter. And we’ve got Jack here on the line joining us on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”. Jack, I want to go back to what you were talking about on the last segment if you could sum up again what you were saying so that we could let Marv respond.
JACK [2]:   Yes, of course. Your guest is making some very flawed, logical -not logical – conclusions, first of all, by comparing Antifa to Islamists and even comparing Anarchists to Islamists. First of all, the majority of people who practice Islam are overwhelmingly peaceful —
SENGENBERGER:   He’s talking about Islamism, though, not Islam per se. Islamism is a more radical ideology. But please, go on.
JACK [2]:   Um, according to you, it depends on how you define those people and what their goals are. But nevertheless, this idea somehow that Antifa is in any way comparable to the racists and Nazis that have murdered millions of people. In this country nobody has even been killed at all by Antifa. And Antifa’s a convenient scapegoat for the people who want to use their right-wing ideology to bring together masses of people to support Trump and his programs and they want to scapegoat groups like Antifa who are opposed to Trump and opposed to the right-wing ideological extremists —
SENGENBERGER:   What do you ~~ let me ask you one question for clarification, then I want Marv to respond. And that would be, how would you define Antifa, exactly? What is Antifa?
JACK [2]:   Antifa is a group of people who are anti-fascists and who demonstrate against fascists and racists when they come out. Otherwise, Antifa is not out on the streets unless it is to respond and oppose Nazism, Neo-Nazis, Fascists and other people of that sort, including some of the many racist groups and KKK groups that are out there —
SENGENBERGER:   Okay, got it. Let’s let Marv go ahead and respond. Did you follow that, Marv?
MARVIN TREIGER:   [chuckling] Yeah, I did. Thanks, Jack, and thanks for summing it up again —
SENGENBERGER:   We’ll come back to you in a moment, Jack. Go on, Marv.
TREIGER:   Uh, first let me just say that you’re right. So far as I know or we know, Antifa has never killed anyone, that’s true. However, what Antifa does do is it doesn’t just demonstrate – which is free assembly and a right enshrined in the Constitution – but what it does is it comes forward with masks and weapons and burns cars and destroys property and prevents people from speaking freely. It’s an anti-free-speech operation because it can’t tolerate contrasting ideas. Now, it’s excuse for that is that these people are racists or Nazis or whatever it is. But what that is mostly – what they are coming forth with – is an excuse. And there’s an atmosphere right now where that’s very easy to do because there’s been all of these false attempts to portray President Trump as a racist, President Trump as a White-Nationalist, as a White-Supremacist and all of that kind of stuff. And I just want you to know, Jack, that in my own life, I spent ten days in prison in solidarity with the Selma Marchers; I spent thirty days in a sit-in, getting an African-American couple to be integrated in Monterey Park, California Housing Project, which discriminated against them. My students, people that I’ve worked with, I know I’m really comfortable in my skin, I’m really comfortable in my White skin. And I am very comfortable that there isn’t a racist bone in my body. And I’ve been around the country and I’ve been talking with people and I have a Geiger counter for this business of racism, I have an ear for it, I can smell it and I hate it and if it ever comes up I immediately take note of it and maybe do something.  But the point is, it has not come up. It has not come up in all the work I did in Colorado, in Ohio, in Appalachia, in California, and now in the place where I’m living. And I do not see White racism as a part of this massive movement behind Donald Trump and I don’t believe that Donald J. Trump has a racist bone in his body any more than I do.
SENGENBERGER:   Okay, Marv. I want to jump in an allow Jack to go ahead and respond to what you just heard. Go ahead Jack.
Jack [2]:   He’s even admitted that he’s a White Nationalist, he doesn’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with it. And a number of -–
SENGENBERGER:   Wait! Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait –-
JACK [2]:   — Republicans have said the same –
SENGENBERGER:   — No, Trump ~~ are you talking about Donald Trump? Trump has said he’s a Nationalist –-
TREIGER:   What’s wrong with Nationalism, Jack?
SENGENBERGER:   Trump has said he’s a Nationalist, he didn’t say he was a White Nationalist. And now it was ~~
SENGENBERGER:   I think that it was a bad –-
JACK [2]:   — He was speaking ~~ look at some of the other –
SENGENBERGER:   Let me just say, I think that it was a – Marv and I disagree on this, I think that saying that ‘Nationalist’ is a bad choice of words, but he didn’t say ‘White-Nationalist.’ And we could go into a distinction between the two, but please, go ahead, Jack.
JACK [2]:   He’s attacking people, people of color, he is making statements which are dog-whistle politics designed to stimulate his base, he’s used invasion and infestation two-thousand times this year just to bring out this base, to bring out this sentiment and these mass killings are one example of that. And you know what? People who have guilt that they don’t want to reveal, people who have doubts about their own racism, that’s the first thing that they use, that’s what Marv is stating, ‘I don’t have a racist bone in my body.’ Sure, you know, I’m going to believe you, you telling me you support this liar, this sexual predator in the White House who’s lied to us so many times, and who’s deliberately using this kind of rhetoric against people of color and Hispanic people as well –-
SENGENBERGER:   Let me ask you a question, Jack. Does anybody ~~ is everybody who supports Donald Trump a racist?
JACK [2]:   I think that there are a lot of people who are and other people who don’t care and other people who are ignorant of what Trump is saying, or who support him because he’s supposedly anti-abortion, you know, so, people have their own motivations. But there is a huge base of people who are Anglo-Protestant-Saxon, who are Caucasian, who are afraid of losing their power and they seek their hope in this guy, Donald Trump, who, again, who has lied, who lied to us about the Trump Tower in Russia, who has again and again and again contradicted himself and he talks about –-
SENGENBERGER:   Russia. Okay. Alright, Jack, I’ve got to stop you there, I’m going to let Marv respond and let you go, but I appreciate the call here on the program. It’s not every day here on Conservative talk radio that someone like Jack gives us a call. So, Marv, please go ahead and share your thoughts.
TREIGER:   Well, just curious Jack, do you support these violent —
SENGENBERGER:   I’ll keep you, I’ll put you back on Jack. I’ll keep you back.  Go ahead, Marv, speak.
TREIGER:   Do you support these street tactics, these violent street tactics that are used by Antifa, which inhibits and stops and halts free speech and terrifies people? Is that something that you advocate? Because you think someone’s a racist? Can you hear me?
SENGENBERGER:   Go ahead, Jack.
TREIGER:   Are you listening?
JACK [2]:   Yes.  Since 1980 —
TREIGER:   Just curious —
SENGENBERGER:   — He’s talking.
JACK [2]:   In Colorado ~~ since the 1980’s, I am one of the many people that have gone out an demonstrated against the Klan, against Nazis and who has fought racists. And I don’t agree with tactics that destroy property and I think that many times that is done by provocateurs. And it’s been shown a number of times that has been stimulated by law enforcement agencies to try and make people and put people in a bad light. But I don’t support those tactics –-
TREIGER:   So Antifa is innocent of that kind of activity?
JACK [2]:   There are some people who identify with Antifa –-
TREIGER:   And condemned it. Have they ever condemned it?
JACK [2]:   A very small number ~~ a very small number of them. but this is, again, a distraction. It’s a tactic by the Trump people to try —
TREIGER:   [laughing]
JACK [2]:   — To try and get them the support that he is losing —
SENGENBERGER:   Wait, are you saying Trump people are infiltrating into Antifa and trying to provoke?
JACK [2]:   Not necessarily Trump people, but there are cases where that has been suspected. So, the idea –-
SENGENBERGER:   Anything can be suspected!
JACK [2]:   — This is a deliberate distraction. This is a deliberate distraction to try and generate support for this guy who has no business in the White House, whose polls are down, who doesn’t know how to talk, he doesn’t know how to address people civilly and he’s a sexual predator as well. And because of that he’s going to lose in November of 2020 and they’re pulling out all the stops to try and get some support for him. And calling Antifa as one of the supporters, supposedly, of the Democratic Party is just nonsense.
SENGENBERGER:   Alright. Marv, you want to respond? We’re getting low on time, here.
TREIGER:   No. No, I don’t. I’ve already responded.
SENGENBERGER:   Fair enough. I will say, I will say this to Jack, and I appreciate you calling in. I think a lot of the aspersions that have been cast by Jack against President Trump and also some of the claims are not substantiated in the level where you can make any sort of definitive assertions about the President of the United States and a variety of the different things that he had mentioned. I mean, the aspect of the sexual predator and I don’t think about the racism. Now, other things that Donald Trump says, from my perspective, that make me cringe, yes, Marv and I disagree somewhat on the tweets, I think he tweets poorly, far too often, and I wish that he tweeted less. Marv has a different view on that, and I don’t know if we’ll have time to get into it we might a little later here on the program. But I think, so, I’m on the record as saying I criticize things that President Trump says, the framing of the issues, things that he ~~ the way that he says things and so forth on Twitter, off Twitter, a lot of times I express disagreement with the approach there. But I know, have talked with people who have interacted with him one-on-one, you see a lot of the things that he’s done throughout his life and career, the way he treats police officers, the way that he handled that ice rink in New York City decades ago and a lot of other stories that show that what he’s doing on the one hand is he’s playing politics and the way that he presents things in terms of his words, he understands how to effectively get across a message to base and what-have-you. But when you understand Donald Trump more as a human being – and I’ve come to follow this more closely as someone who was vehemently opposed to Trump during the Republican primary, I think you get a better understanding of the kind of man that he is and that he’s actually trying to do something better for the average American – of all different stripes – certainly more so than the kind of thing that Jack was presenting.
Marv, do you have a response to what I just said?
TREIGER:   Well, I just wrote a little essay, actually, on Trump’s tweets in perspective (and his presidency generally MT,) and I think what I’ll do is post it on your blog, and people can read it and make their own judgment.
SENGENBERGER:   Sure, we can go ahead and do that, at – all e’s, all the time in ‘Sengenberger’.
Dr Marv Treiger is our guest. We’ve got to take a quick break here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” If you want to get in on the action, give us a call. (303) 696-1971. That’s our telephone number here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”, NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
[Commercial Break]
SENGENBERGER:   Always bringing you your medicine on a Saturday night here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS. Jimmy Sengenberger here with you, whether that is insightful and interesting conversation or medicine for your soul, that is to say, the best bumper music known to man – in this case right now, a little Tab Benoit bringing us back – we’ve got it here for you on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”, NewsTalk 710 KNUS… 
Dr. Marv Treiger is our guest, been a fascinating very interesting discussion here on the program. And Marvin, the next segment, I want to delve into the third utopian glitch that you’ve noticed, you’ve talked about. Communism and Islamism – we’ll get to Globalism in the next segment. But I want to flesh out the question of Islamism and especially Islamism in sort of the unholy alliance of Islamism with Communism or Leftism, and what we’re seeing on the Left as embodied in the likes of a Rashida Tlaib, Congresswoman from Michigan, or Ilhan Omar from Minnesota.
This is a fascinating thing, I mean, for example, Rashida Tlaib – I wanted to get this in – Tlaib was banned a long with Ilhan Omar from visiting Israel, originally by the Israeli Government. They made their decision, it’s their country. And then Tlaib complains about it and she tweets out and says she wants to be able to see her grandmother, and Israel – who’s in the West Bank, who’s a Palestinian. And she said, please let me do this and I’ll go, basically begged the Trump – or rather the Israelis, to go ahead and allow her to do it. Well, then the Israelis say, okay, sure, we’ll let you go see your grandmother. And, well, this is what she says in her statement:
“I have decided to not travel to Palestine and Israel at this time. Visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions meant to humiliate me would break my grandmother’s heart. Silencing me and treat make me feel less-than is not what she wants for me. It would kill a piece of me that always stands up against racism & injustice.”
And, you know, they seem to be – I tend to agree with the call from Jack when he said that most Muslims are good, honest, decent people, they are not trying to harm anybody, they’re good people, and I think that’s true. But I think that there is also a strain of Islamist ideology that has permeated into some in our country and I do think that includes Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and their views on Jews. And their views on Israel are prime examples of that, and they’re also identified strongly on the Left. What do you make of this, Marv Treiger, given everything we’re talking about?
TREIGER:   Well, you know, Israel in their Knesset, which is their parliament, passed a law in 2017 banning people who supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction Movement, the BDS Movement, form entering the country. And they did that, well, for a very good reason, because that’s not an issue just of free speech, that’s an, actually, an issue of taking actionable things, doing things that are directly harmful and hurtful to the country and to the people within the country. And every nation has that right and every nation has utilized it, including the United States, whenever somebody is considered to be going to be harmful. So, this was already, you might say, baked into the cake when Tlaib came forward. And yet Israel was planning to have her come, they were just going to have her come, despite some of her statements that she’s made. But when it became clear that she was not interested in joining the other seventy Democrats and meeting with Israeli officials – both of the government and of the opposition parties – but instead exclusively going to the Palestine’s territories, and attending a rally sponsored by an organization called Miftah —
TREIGER:   — with, actually, some terrorist ties, in order to support the BDS Movement Well, all that was a ~~ it was just too much, so they therefore banned her and they should have banned her and it was their right to ban her. So, I don’t think there’s any problem.
Now, I want to relate this to the conversation we had earlier about —
SENGENBERGER:   We’re just about out of time, Marv.
TREIGER:  — well, there’s a United Front. And Tlaib, she could have been much smarter about this. She could have agreed in a United Front kind of way to join the other Democrats, with all the other things they were doing, and then go off to the side and then do her stuff and she’d have had a week of anti-Israeli propaganda to run on —
SENGENBERGER:   Interesting.
TREIGER:  — as it is, she can still be –
SENGENBERGER:   Well I’ve got to stop you there, Marv. Up against a hard break. We’ll be right back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”. More on the other side, NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
[Commercial Break]
SENGENBERGER:   [Music by Government Mule] Are we getting ready to reach the burning point here in the US-of-A? Who knows, certainly hope not…
Dr. Marv Treiger has been our guest for this hour and the previous hour… And we talked a bunch about Communism and Islamism, Marv, and now let’s go to one where I think we mostly agree but there are some aspects of this where we will disagree, and that is the notion of Globalism as one of the -isms, one of the utopian glitches in the software that you have noticed. Talk to me about Globalism.
TREIGER:   Well, in the aftermath of the Cold War, there was – you remember George H.W. Bush —
TREIGER:   — started talking about the New World Order —
SENGENBERGER:   The Unipolar Moment, right.
TREIGER:   — that was going to be —
SENGENBERGER:   No, that was Charles Krauthammer, wrote the piece called, “The Unipolar Moment”. But you’re right, New World Order, George H.W. Bush, yes. Go on.
TREIGER:   Right. And this was going to be a Liberal International Order along the lines – it was in everyone’s mind – along the lines of Reagan and Thatcher. That is to say, it was going to emphasize free trade, it was going to emphasize Democracy and promote it when possible, and it was going to protect the sea lanes and there were going to be certain beginnings of certain governing rules that would be fair, like, you know, how to use the sea lanes, etc, etc.
Well, that was all very fine and good but what started to happen very quickly and, of course, the UN was already in existence, and there were already other organizations operating, and these organizations were interested in using Global Governance in order to undermine national sovereignty, particularly the sovereignty of the United States of America. And, The Hague, the International Court of Justice. And then all these NGO’s started to also join in on that bandwagon. And then different corporations that had global interests became more and more interested in no longer thinking of themselves even as necessarily an American citizen but sort of a citizen du monde, is a French way of putting it. And —
SENGENBERGER:   Which is what Obama said in Germany. Remember? Obama said those words in Germany.
TREIGER:   Well, I didn’t know that he said those words —
SENGENBERGER:   Oh yeah. No, he said it —
TREIGER:   — But I know that —
SENGENBERGER:   — Well, he did a campaign stop – wasn’t it during the 2008 Presidential Campaign? He went to Germany, he held a big rally there, which I thought was quite audacious – but he as the author of The Audacity of Hope, of course, so he must be audacious – and he declared himself a city of the world, err, a ‘citizen of the world’. I think it was during the election, which was pretty stunning, but I might be mistaken on that. But he definitely used that exact phrase, I know that for a fact.
TREIGER:   Well, interesting. And it was a very common phrase amongst the Left, generally, and amongst bohemians and everything else and these people who were, you know, ‘imagine there’s no countries’, you know, John Lennon, it was a kind of a fantasy, a utopian fantasy that was in the popular culture —
SENGENBERGER:   I was right!
TREIGER:   — As well.
SENGENBERGER:   July of 2008.
TREIGER:   Yeah.
SENGENBERGER:   It was during the campaign he did that. I’m sorry to interrupt.
TREIGER:   Oh, well, that’s alright.  Well, at the United Nations, by the way, he actually talked about, in his speech, about ceding sovereignty to supranational institutions. So, instead of a Reagan-Thatcher Liberal International Order, we were starting to get an Obama-Merkel International Order where boundaries and borders were starting to be weakened, where democratic governing was starting to be severed – I mean, the reason for Brexit in the UK was because Brussels had taken major and more and more decisions out of the hands of the British People.
And so, all of this was going on, and I think that the Conservative Movement was very slow to tune in to this dimension of the threats facing us. They were very good on Communism and Islamism but they were ~~ tended to not get it fully around Globalism and there was almost a kind of a bipartisan agreement going on that the world order, [imitating] well, the United States, we were the big cheese, we were the strongest, we were the wealthiest, so, okay, some people pick our pockets, so it isn’t fair always but maybe that’s the price of being a big, you know, the Grand Velveeta. And so, but Trump came in because this whole situation had gotten so out of hand, you know. The Midwest had been hollowed out, the industries, there were all kinds of problems of an international nature having to do ~~ it wasn’t even free trade anymore because in fact while we were promulgating free trade others were not, particularly the Chinese, and they were insuring that there wasn’t free trade and it became necessary to reestablish a balance. And Trump was doing that, and in order to do that he had to do that internationally but he also had to do it domestically and revive the concept of sovereignty. And I think ‘sovereignty’ is almost a better word to use in a way, than ‘Nationalism’, although Nationalism’s perfectly fine and normal and appropriate, and where would the world be without it —
SENGENBERGER:   In a non-racial context, let’s just be clear, the notion of White Nationalism and Nationalism are two different things. I don’t like the use of the word ‘Nationalism’, I think it’s bad from a messaging standpoint, although I understand where Trump is coming at it from. But I do want to make that clear because Jack, the leftist caller from before, was trying to conflate the two as say that, well, because Trump calls himself a Nationalist he’s calling himself a White-Nationalist.
TREIGER:   Look [chuckling], this is just a word game and a sleight of hand that is played by the Left and I wouldn’t give —
SENGENBERGER:   Fair enough, but rhetoric is powerful.
TREIGER:   And I wouldn’t give them one concession around it. The fact of the matter is that if Global Governance replaces national states, there will be absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely —
SENGENBERGER:   Fair enough, but Marv —
TREIGER:   — And the human race will go down the tubes – [cross-talk]
SENGENBERGER:   Politics is about getting a message across and persuading people.
TREIGER:   What’s that?
SENGENBERGER:   Politics is about —
TREIGER:   Well no, because —
SENGENBERGER:   Yes. It is though.
TREIGER:   No, no, no, no, no —
SENGENBERGER:   Language is important.
TREIGER:   — No, no you’re not ~~ wait, listen to me. The reason why that the term ‘Nationalism’ has to be made clear – Patriotism, Nationalism, Sovereignty – is because it’s being eroded. And we do not need to give them the power to define the meaning of these words because they’re going to define it any way they want.
So, for example, America is still a majority-white county. So if we say ‘Sovereignty’, then they’ll start saying we’re “White-Sovereigntists” —
SENGENBERGER:   Oh, that’s about to change. No —
TREIGER:   If you start saying ‘Patriots’, well —
SENGENBERGER:   I agree, I agree –
TREIGER:   — They’ll say ‘Patriots’ is “White-Privilege” —
SENGENBERGER:   I know, I know. My distinction —
TREIGER:   — Like, it never stops —
SENGENBERGER:   But Marv, let me clarify —
TREIGER:   It never stops!
SENGENBERGER:   Well, let me clarify what I’m sayng, which is, I don’t think Nationalism is the best term to use. However, I’m at least clarifying just the difference between White-Nationalism and Nationalism, which I think is at least an important distinction because you’re not embracing White-Nationalism right now, you’re embracing the notion of Nationalism. And I’m simply saying that if anybody’s going to use the term ‘Nationalism’, I just want to clarify for the Leftists out there, who are going to try to spin the words however they want, that you’re not saying that. Please continue on with your points about Globalism.
TREIGER:   Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely I’m not. White Nationalists are a tiny, minuscule minority of the population that is irrelevant, frankly, to the Conservative Movement —
SENGENBERGER:   The media jumps on it, too. And I’m just, I’m being conscious of the radicalism and the craziness that’s going on here as far as language. Maybe I’m too sensitive to it, I don’t know, but, go for it.
TREIGER:   Well, it needs to be answered. And one of the ways that I feel it’s answered is, every time there’s a Trump rally, what is it that the audience applauds and cheers the most for? Well, I would say first, it’s for the sacredness of life. But following not too far behind that, is the Patriotism. And following not too far behind that is the fact that the African-American employment level is at the highest it’s been, the unemployment is the lowest, and the same for Hispanics. And it’s —
SENGENBERGER:   Very true.
TREIGER:   — to me, it’s so clear where the people in those rallies are at and it is not in any way White-Nationalist at all —
SENGENBERGER:   I agree. And —
TREIGER:   — and you can tell just by watching it.
SENGENBERGER:   Yes. So, on your points about Globalism, because we’re starting to get low on time here, I apologize for the tangent, I agree with you in terms of the – and actually, I find it really interesting, you said, the Reagan-Thatcher model was being replaced by the Obama-Merkel model and I find that interesting, given that Obama had given that ‘Citizen of The World” speech in Germany during his presidential campaign in 2008 when he probably – I would guess, I don’t know that this is the case – but I would guess that he met with Merkel or something along those lines, at that point in time, but interesting little side note. However, I would say that the United Nations, I think, I would be perfectly fine with withdrawing from the United Nations, I think it’s become a useless organization and it’s trying to run roughshod around the United States and Israel and so many different ways that are much more problematic than the headache is worth. And I think that there are a number of other international institutions that are demonstrably difficult, at the least, if not problematic, if not worth withdrawing from.
And I agree with the notion of reviving this concept of sovereignty in a great many ways. However, I would disagree with you, I think on the aspects of trade, whereby I don’t think that China -well, I think has been doing some things that are wrong and we need to change them, but I think there was a better approach to do it than the ham-handed unilateral tariff approach that, while it’s hurting the Chinese economy, it’s not actually making any headway. I think, in terms of this notion of a victory in a trade war, as though you can ever be victorious in a trade war. But I also think that, if the goal is sovereignty, then that means that you actually have to be effective in that regard, and I do think going through the international community – not through an international organization – but President Trump going to Europe, going to some of these other allies and saying, you know China’s screwing us all in a lot of ways, join forces with me and let’s do X, Y and Z – specifically maybe targeted tariffs or other tactics – to get China to change their ways. Again, not working through an international body or something like that, but the President of the United States leading other countries. And instead, he went to the European Union and said, I’m going to pick a little trade spat with you. As well, at the same time, they’re less willing to work with us on China and then he goes in a unilateral route. So, I think preserving sovereignty is important, for sure, but I think there were other ways to go about it that are better. And I also think that free trade is still a positive, wonderful thing.
TREIGER:   Well, think you’re underestimating the deep hole that has been dug by previous administrations.  And by the way, today, Merkel announced that she was not going to pay the 2% for the defense of her own country, that she had already agreed to —
SENGENBERGER:   Alright. Kick her out!
TREIGER:   — yeah, but so the point I wanted to make is about what’s the proper strategy is that there were efforts to rein China in, agreement were made, the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration made such agreements. But those agreements were reneged upon by China, because there had to be leverage because they make agreements and then they don’t keep them. The only way they’re going to keep it is when they see real action taken. And it has to be done in a way where they are vulnerable – which they are, in a way that the United States is not —
TREIGER:   — and so, to me, I don’t see, you know, what your proposing is an alternative to our present strategy.
SENGENBERGER:   Now, see, I think, first of all, I think there’s a distinct difference between whether they’re going to pay money into NATO or they’re going to rally along with us behind a challenging China, in certain areas, to make changes because it is in the best interests of Europe, if properly presented, for them to participate in that discussion. And not only that, when it comes to China – and a lot of people don’t know this – but if you actually look at plenty of the agreements that have been made within the World Trade Organization or settlements, that is to say, or instances where China was penalized, China has tended to follow through with those decisions and settlements more often than not. The areas where there are flaws happen to be more areas where the World Trade Organization has no authority, like intellectual property theft and some other areas where, A) the WTO should be reformed, B) the world community can be rallied together even outside of the WTO to, in targeted ways, address particular issues like that, and C), I think that the Trump Administration was trying to pick on too many different issues and not select specific areas where we know we’d be more likely to get concessions on from China. And when you come with a laundry list and you’re not working your way down like negotiations often do to get to the real cornerstones of what you want, it doesn’t work out so well. I’m just not seeing proof beyond the Chinese economy struggling, or the United States’ economy’s not going to be able to necessarily last this incredibly long time when we have elections and they don’t.
TREIGER:   Well, do you think that we are at the beginning and that it’s unavoidable of a new Cold War with China? I would argue — 
SENGENBERGER:   I think we have been in a Cold War for two decades.
TREIGER:   Okay, well, that’s okay. So, I agree with that as well. But, so, then the question becomes, what is the actual strategy? And they have reneged on it and refused to do things that were beyond the WTO, just to give you a couple of examples —
SENGENBERGER:   Yes, I agree.
TREIGER:   — For one thing, US investment can’t, they can’t invest in China without having a Chinese partner that is in control. And those things, for regular investments but also, and Google is in there and helping the Chinese Government suppress the population through the monitoring of the Net, of the Internet. And I thought, oh my God, these people are just greedy and they’ll do anything for money, but now I see they’re starting to – Google is starting to do this in the United States as well – and it may be that their fundamental policies are not all that different in the sense that they believe in big power control, those who control the means of communication get to control the content and so that’s why they don’t object that much in China, I could go on and on. There are many things that we have to address, and who before Trump has ever done anything —
SENGENBERGER:   I don’t think that ~~ I’ll just say this and then I have to go to a break here, but we’ll give another moment for a thought on the other side, Marv. I don’t think that just saying, oh, he’s taking it to China is enough. I think the strategy is the important thing and I don’t see this as being the viable strategy, it’s the one issue where I do strongly disagree with President Trump. But Dr. Marv Treiger is our guest, we’ll have a very quick segment on the other side as we wrap up here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
[Commercial Break]
SENGENBERGER:   Grooving back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”… Round of things out on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”, Dr. Marv Treiger is our guest. Marv, I’ve got a question in from a listener.  “Good guest, Jimmy. Does Marv have a Twitter?” Marv, we created one at the RNC, didn’t we? Did you keep up with that? Do you use Twitter all? What’s going on with you?
TREIGER:   Uh, well, I don’t Twitter —
SENGENBERGER:   [laughing] You don’t Twitter, You don’t tweet?
TREIGER:   Yes Uh-huh, I don’t twi ~~ Oh God, I do have an email list and I’m happy to —
SENGENBERGER:   How can people do that? Follow you, though?
TREIGER:   — um, well, they would just have to email me and I’ll put them on the list and when I write things they’ll get them. And, you know —
SENGENBERGER:   What’s your email, Marv?
TREIGER:   K-A-D-A-K P-A-W-O That’s kadakpawo@aol. And, um —
SENGENBERGER:   It’s your Buddhist name, right?
TREIGER:   Yeah, it’s my Buddhist name [laughing]. Yeah.
SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, well, let me say this —
TREIGER:   It means —
SENGENBERGER:   — Yeah, go ahead.
TREIGER:   — Sky Warrior Dancer, who comes over and over again from primordial purity. And it’s something to live up to, it’s not to be ‘utopianly’ achieved.
SENGENBERGER:   Okay. Um [laughing] alright, alright. Well, Marv, what we’ll do is we’ll post that blog about your thoughts on Trump’s Twitter. And I’m sure you always like to post the transcripts of these interviews as well, I think, on —
SENGENBERGER:   — remember, all e’s all the time in Sengenberger and we’ll put your email address right there. But Marv, we’re out of time. Dr. Marv Treiger —
TREIGER:   Okay, good.
SENGENBERGER:   — Always fascinating conversation. Thanks for joining us.
TREIGER:   Take care, Jimmy. Bye.
SENGENBERGER:   Alright, that is it for us today. We will be back Monday morning on my sister station show, 6090 KDMT, business for breakfast and next Saturday night, 5:00 pm right here on NewsTalk 70 KNUS. I’m off to go play some harmonica. Have a good night everybody and a great rest of weekend.
[End of Part 2]
The Jimmy Sengenberger Show
Dr. Marvin Treiger
Part 2 [Hour 3 of Program]
August 17, 2019