Jimmy Sengenberger

Radio Host · Speaker · Commentator · Nonprofit President

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

Trump, Buddhism & Understanding the Left – Part 2 (of 3)

August 4, 2018 Seng Center Blog guy talk, mental roto-rooter, radical to conservative, UK democratic socialism origins

Airdate 7/7/18
Second Hour:
-Is taking a roto-rooter to your brain necessary when you switch political views?
-Moments from my journey from radical to conservative.
-Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolvable?
-Is Trump’s election a Big Bullet dodged?
-Is private ‘guy talk’ tolerated by other guys and should it trump policy when voting?
-Origins of democratic socialism in Great Britain.
Podcast: 38 minutes

(Prof. Margesson was delayed and unable 

to appear on air.  This show is a full 3 hours with 

Marv Treiger on these subjects & more.)


[Continuation of First Hour]

JIMMY SENGENBERGER:   Time now for the second hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  Great to be with you, hope you’ve had a great Independence Day week.  (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number if you’d like to join into the festivities.

At any moment we’ll be joined in studio by Dr. Rob Margesson, liberal Communications Professor at Regis University, but in the meantime, we’ve got Dr. Marv Treiger, our other guest.  And Marv, you know, I want to go back in history for a moment for your life – to remind folks a little bit about your background and how you came about to become a Conservative in a little bit of ways – but more to talk about your kind of the history and understanding of things of the past.  And I want to start with this point, because you were a radical back in the 60’s, involved in radical movements and so forth and bolted from the Communist Party because it wasn’t extreme enough for you, so on and so forth.  I mean, it was as recently as the early 1990’s, for example – we were talking about this earlier – that you were included among recordings along with the noted Leftists Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and you for a radio station in California.  So talk to us a little bit about your Leftist background.

DR. MARVIN TREIGER:   Well, with regard to that particular occasion, yeah, that was when the First Gulf War broke out and while I had not been really politically active since 1972 I still had the Marxist categories of thought in my brain.  And it was only later that I realized, you know, it’s not enough if you switch – if you reject the particular worldview and you switch allegiances and you retrain and re-inform.  You have to also kind of apply a roto-rooter to your categories of thought because it’ll still popping in the software.

Anyway, so in 1991, the Iraq War broke out and I opposed it.  And at that time KPFK, which is a very Left-wing – really Marxist – station and has a number of affiliates around the country, New York and other places.  I did a show – I actually stood in for somebody who was absent that day.  And I did a twenty-three-minute monologue and it was so powerful to the listeners that I was deluged with [requests for] copies.  And my wife and I sent out thousands of copies, mailed them to people in those days, cassettes.  And KPFK was so happy with that that when they offered their premiums for new subscribers they offered three cassettes: one from Howard Zinn, one from Noam Chomsky and the other one from myself on the Iraq War.  

So you know I was still thinking in those directions even though my actual life at that point – I’d become a psychotherapist; I’d gotten married to an extraordinary, wonderful woman; I had formed an Institute, the Bodymind Institute – I wasn’t really into politics but I followed the news, that was about it.  And then I got deeper and deeper into Buddhism, and I would say that the crucial, really the thing that undermined the foundations of my Marxism at the level, at the granular level, was my Buddhist practice.

And so that continued on through the 90’s, and then the decisive turning point issue was 9/11.  And that year, I was in retreat seven months – three months in solitary retreat.  And as I was about to go into the final three-month solitary retreat, Cathy, my wife, asked me, ‘Do you want to know anything that’s going on politically?’ and I said, ‘No, honey, I don’t – unless it’s on the level of Pearl Harbor.’  Well, that was my mistake [chuckle] so she sent me the terrible, terrible news.  It was brought to me in this remote cabin.  And I had a lot of students and I needed to, you know, say something – they all gathered back in Los Angeles.

But within twenty-four hours of reflecting on it – and at that time, Jimmy, my mind was really pristine clear and my heart was completely open, as that kind of seven months can do for you – and I immediately saw the future.  You know, not in a Nostradamus kind of way, I mean, but realistic way.  And that was that the Radical Left – that I’d been a part of and which I’d been drifting, drifting away from – that that group was going to form a de facto alliance with the Islamists, with the terrorists, and that they were going to cover for one another and support one another.  Later, of course, we got Islamophobia, which the Left raises every time there’s a criticism of Islam and that Islam kind of to some degree downplaying its conflict with the Left, focusing on the {Big} Satan America and the Little Satan Israel.  But that unity was ~~ why did they form it?  Why was it so clear to me that they would form it?  Because they both have [in their minds] the same enemy in the world and that is America.  And America is the symbol, first and foremost, of civilization, of democratic capitalism, of a functioning republic, and of an extremely powerful force supported by its people.  So, I thought, you know, when I get out of this retreat, I’m going to have to really do a study.  And I began shortly after that to reexamine all the foundations of everything and that process is still going on.  You know, I was re-reading the classics, going into the Greeks, into the Romans, studying the Old Testament, the New Testament, deepening my Buddhist practice.  And, in fact, last week I spent a week at Hillsdale College in a course with wonderful people on the relevance of the Ancient World to our times today.  And so that process never ends.  And that’s kind of the short version of my transformation. 

SENGENBERGER:   You know, it’s really interesting when you talk about the background of making this roto-rooter process as you’ve described it, Marv, take place and evolve over time.  When you were reassessing everything, I mean, how does that even happen?  I mean, you were so far to the Left that you thought – back in the day in your younger days especially – that you left the Communist Party because it wasn’t radical enough, and then you turn around and you start reassessing everything.  I mean what is that thought process like?

TREIGER:   Well, you know, first of all, it’s emotional.  It’s really linked to emotions.  And by the way, that’s what we are. We’re emotional beings – emotional beings capable of reason.  And the two both need to be there, otherwise we go astray.  And we need to be connected not just with our own internal process but with that which is beyond us and bigger than us – so that totality.

So I think that the first thing I came to realize was that I had been in a dead end – that all my dreams and hopes for the improvement of humanity were dashed and were not going to happen along that path.  And I began to see how that path was creating horrors of many kinds.  And then it came, I don’t know when at what moment, but I realized that, you know, the human being with all of its strengths and its flaws, its tragic flaws, is incapable of constructing a utopia.  And so I began to see that the utopianism and the reaching for utopia is one of the ~~ which is a natural thing in the young and it’s kind of idealistic and compassionate and it seems to bring all the good features in the person to one point.  But those utopias then start commanding any behavior that will bring out the utopia and the means end up justifying the end and the next thing you know you’ve got, you know, 100 million deaths due to Communism.  In theory, Communism is probably the most compassionate theory you can ever imagine, everyone will be equal; everyone will be free; there’ll be no state; there’ll just simply be the administration of things.  And people will hunt in the morning and dabble in work a little bit in the afternoon because we’ll be so wealthy and rich and then, you know, have lovely dinner and good conversation, read poetry and listen to music and then the next day, blah, blah, blah.  Well, that utopia fell apart one thing after another.

So that was one thing.  A second thing had to do with Israel. And by the time – remember in the late 90’s, Bill Clinton, one of the fine things he did was he spent a lot of his political capital trying to get an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  And the Israelis who so much wanted to accomplish peace made concession after concession including giving up 97% of the land that they had where the boundary lines were drawn in the aftermath of the last war between them and the Palestinians.  And the Israelis were prepared to do all of that so long as the Arabs would simply give up the idea that Israel should cease to exist.  

And Arafat, at the last moment, after the agreement was all but signed, said, I will not sign it till the Israelis agree to the Right of Return.  And the Right of Return was the idea that all of the Palestinian Arabs that had left Israel and all their progeny would be able to return to Israel – which would be a demographic overwhelming.  And that was proof that he had no interest whatsoever in peace.  And it’s so ironic because a similar number – it was about 670,000 originally now millions because of the – a similar number had all sought – of Jews had come from Northern Africa, from other parts of the Middle East, and from Europe, from Russia and settled in Israel and that amount of people pretty much was equal.  (Just the number from the middle-east equaled the arabs who left Israel.-MT)  And so sometimes when there’re great displacements of people you say okay, it’s a wash, we’re here now, they’re there, let’s just do it that way.  But no, they wanted to destroy Israel.  And when I saw that, it made me rethink my whole approach to the Israeli question because I’d been very anti-Israel.  And so that undermined it and that was big.

SENGENBERGER:   Hmm.  That’s powerful.  I mean, really striking.  Dr, Marv Treiger joining us here on the program, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number.  Don’t go anywhere, we’ve still got a lot more coming up.  Keep it here.

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   [Music]  A show for freeborn men and women, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  Thanks for joining us, for being a part of the program.  If you want to join into the festivities, give us a call, (303) 696-1971 is our telephone number to do just that.

It is certainly a fascinating time to be alive.  And, you know, Dr. Marv Treiger, our guest here on the program, when we look at America today and where we are at as a society, culturally and ethnically, racially, talking about politically, every different term that you can find under President Trump, how do you view society today? 

TREIGER:   Well, I think, first of all, I think we dodged a tremendous bullet in the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the last presidential cycle and the continued control of the House and the Senate with President Trump.  I think that, as it is now being revealed by the FBI shenanigans, bias and action to support that bias on a number of fronts in the investigative thing, the team around Mueller, the behavior of the Mueller outfit, the degree to which the news-media has become simply a partisan expression of the Democratic Party and really indulgent in fake news.  Because of all of those things, I think we dodged a tremendous bullet.  The Obama transformation of the United States – the fundamental transformation of America, which he said, he announced when he was first elected, that he was going to fundamentally transform it – I think that that process had gone much farther than we even thought but everyone suspected it who came out to really strongly vote and who had been fed up with political correctness and everything else.

So I think now the worm has a turned and I feel like the Republic is in good hands, for the prosperity is shining and the potentialities are great and people are learning every day.  You know, there’s now a #WalkAway Movement —

SENGENBERGER:   Yes, yes.  And —

TREIGER:   — on the net.

SENGENBERGER:   It’s interesting, isn’t it, when you talk about that.

TREIGER:   It’s really worth getting into – I won’t go into it further because you might want to get into it —

SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, yeah.

TREIGER:   But anyway —

SENGENBERGER:   Well, I have a question that I know a caller’s going to want to ask, is it okay if we jump in and get to Joan in Denver?

TREIGER:   Oh sure, but let me just say —

SENGENBERGER:   Yeah.  We’re just about out of time in this segment, so —

TREIGER:   Oh sure, absolutely, always.

SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, we’re just about out of time in this segment so I want to give her a chance to respond.  I’m hoping Rob Margesson will be in studio at the bottom of the hour so I don’t want to carry it over.  Let’s go to Joan in Denver, you’re on with Marv Treiger and Jimmy Sengenberger.

JOAN:   Thanks.  You referred to the great work of Bill Clinton.  I want to know, Professor, if you have viewed this series of You Tubes – all you have to do is go to You Tubes and put in “Clinton Chronicles”.  There’s one 1 hr 51 minute, another “Clinton Chronicles: Vince Foster”, 1 hr 10 minutes.  And he is a very, very dangerous person, Mr. Bill Clinton.  And this exposes a lot of what the Clintons were connected to.  So what I’m wondering is, is your heritage Jewish or can I ask about your background?

TREIGER:   Of course you can.  Yes, I am the adopted son of Russian-Polish Jewish immigrants.  My father was throughout his life barely literate.  He worked on the market docks in Chicago and then had a little grocery store.  My mother finally graduated high school in America in her fifties and was valedictorian of her class.  And they were wonderful, loving parents.  So the Jewish question was very important for me in my formation because when I was sixteen years old we didn’t have any books in the house, really, we had some Reader’s Digest condensed books but I saw a copy of something called “The Black Book”.  And I would take it into the bathroom and read it.  And it was the story of the Holocaust – a systematic telling of that story.  And in reading that I would sit there in that room and I would sob, and I would read it and I vowed that I would be an anti-fascist my whole life.  And so I think that was a very positive, positive shaping. [And that would lead me in my youth to idealizing the “compassion” of Communism. MT]

Now with regard to Bill Clinton, you know, I completely agree with you.  I completely agree with you about Bill Clinton – about his disreputableness, about his ~~ you know, he and Hillary, it goes all the way back to the beginning – Vince Foster, you name it, the Rose what’s-his-name firm in Arkansas.  But only on this issue –

JOAN:   Rose Law Firm.

TREIGER:   Yeah, yes, exactly.  Only on this issue he did make a serious effort.  That effort led to the discovery – because it was a serious effort – it led to the discovery of the complete unwillingness of the Arabs to live with the Jews.

SENGENBERGER:   And on that sentence we’re going to have to leave it there.  Joan, thank you for the call —

JOAN:   Yes, well, I hope you —

SENGENBERGER:   We’ll be back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   With the best bumper music known to man, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  Thanks for joining us, being a part of the program.  (303) 696-1971, our telephone number if you’d like to join into the festivities.  Dr. Marv Treiger joining us here on the program for the full show… Marv, I want to play just, this kind of goes to the discussion earlier in the program —


SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, go ahead.

TREIGER:   Oh good.  Oh, I was just going to say that I never answered your question about Amy Barrett and about religious tests.

SENGENBERGER:   Oh yeah!  Thank you, let’s go to that.

TREIGER:   Yeah, I always remember these things.  So basically, Senator Dianne Feinstein, when she was – it’s Amy Barrett, isn’t that the name?  I think I have the name —

SENGENBERGER:   Yes, Coney Barrett.

TREIGER:   Ah that’s it, missed the middle name.  Okay, when she was being ~~ she went up for committee in terms of appointment in this term to become an appellate judge and she was questioned by Dianne Feinstein.  And in that questioning, Dianne Feinstein kind of leaned forward and raised the question of whether or not her dogma, her attachment to dogma might influence her on things like Roe v. Wade, right.  Okay, so it kind of, she revealed ~~ Feinstein revealed her card there, and that is that in the mind there’s a religious test for her.  But the thing about the term dogma – which gives her a slight out, not much – but dogma is a pejorative term referring to views that are so fixed and frozen that they can’t be changed and that therefore are negative.  But Dogma also is the official term used for the wonderful teachings of the church, and so maybe one is a Capital-D, one is a small-d.  So I think, though, the cat is out of the bag and that we’re going to see that they will move forward and it will be in fact a religious test as we’ve seen with these different cases, you know, the baker and the this and that one – not the baker but some of the other cases in Indiana and other places like that.  But even though ~~ but, I don’t think they’re going to come out with it overtly but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, so let me put it that way.  But it won’t go far.

SENGENBERGER:   What does this say about where they are at in terms of their thought process on the Left, deciding that they need to use this religious push as a basis for their questions, as the basis for their votes, so on and so forth.  Essentially why does the Left feel the need to inflict upon a judicial appointment a religious test for office that so blatantly is stated clearly, plain-as-day in the Constitution is not permitted?

TREIGER:   Well, really, in my opinion, it’s because of their general strategic objective, which is to undercut religion amongst the people of the United States and to move them in a secular direction in which a different set of values, which are much more relative values, multicultural values, hedonistic values, materialist values are much more brought to prominence.  Whereas those people with religious convictions, you know, there is that link, that personal, direct experiential link in the best of cases between parishioners and their God and the teaching of that God through the Great Books, and that is something that helps hold the Republic in place.  And so I think it’s part of a general assault that they’re making on the Republic.

SENGENBERGER:   Hmm.  It’s a ~~ I think it’s a sad day when you have to think about how this is a component of a strategy for fundamental transformation, as President Obama would put it.  You know, when we look at the intriguing aspects of the Left here, they have an interesting perspective on being able to force their views upon others.  So I want to go to another Michael Moore clip here from a couple of weeks ago —

TREIGER:   Oh, okay.

SENGENBERGER:   — where he talked about the idea of Liberals giving in to Conservatives.  I wonder your thought on this, take a listen:

[Start Clip]

COLBERT:   Okay, so what do you make of these calls for civility?  Do you think that —

MOORE:   The calls –

COLBERT:   Confronting people, say, in restaurants or —

MOORE:   The calls that are coming from the uncivil asking Democrats who are usually so wimpy and weak and ‘no, it’s okay, you know, we’ll take half of universal health care, we don’t need the whole thing’.  You know, that’s how our side sounds all the time.  We’re constantly giving in and then a few people want to stand up and say no, I’ve had enough, that’s it.  And we don’t have to be violent.  We have to remain non-violent, but, you know, the worst that’s going to happen to anybody in the Trump administration is that they don’t get to have a chicken dinner in Virginia [audience chuckling], I mean, I don’t know.

[End Clip]

SENGENBERGER:   ‘Wimpy, weak, constantly giving in’, is that, as you understand it, how the Left operates?

TREIGER:   Not at all.  By the way Jimmy, I just want to say, I so – for me it’s so much fun, I so appreciate your show because I never have any idea what in the heck you’re going to ask me about —

SENGENBERGER:   [chuckling]

TREIGER:  — so it’s kind of like, boom, you know.  So, but I love that, so thank you and thank you just for being who you are.  

So, with regard to the Michael Moore and civility.  So he’s arguing, first, that it’s coming from the ‘uncivil’.  Oh my gosh.  Well, all you have to do is listen to, watch the difference between CNN and Fox News and you will see from the Conservative Right pretty unremitting civility.  If you think of Mike Pence you get a tremendous sense of civility, you know.  And Trump is a nice kind of antidote to that because he is a brawler from Queens and is a counterpuncher.  And he doesn’t go after people, they go after him, and then when he does he usually gets the best of it.  And I grew up in Chicago.  I grew up in a rough neighborhood, a tenement district and it was tough and so I kind of understand and appreciate that.  

However, where is the violence coming from?  It seems to be coming from the Left.  It was a ‘Bernie-deranged-supporter’ let’s say, quote-unquote, who picked up the idea – I checked them on his Facebook – who shot up the Republican baseball practice and nearly killed Steve Scalise, wounding four guards as well.  I mean, unreal.

But the other point Moore’s making is he’s saying, ‘oh, we’re just soft and they’re hard and they’re tough and…’ Well, first of all, I think that civility has become, unfortunately, more a center-right and right phenomenon than it is at all a Left phenomenon.  But the Left itself is divided into a Soft Left and a Hard Left.  So the Soft Left, you know, which you find on the campuses quite a bit, for them safety is the big issue – to be safe from offending opinion.  And then the Hard Left comes along and pushed for hate speech laws.  The Soft Left says, we’re terrified that Trump people will beat us up or harass us.  But we don’t get reports of that happening, instead what we get is reports of public officials being harassed and harangued and not allowed to eat civilly in a restaurant.  And Michael Moore can’t be clear about that?  I think this is an example of how partisanship can really blind a person.

SENGENBERGER:   Well, but of course the Left would say, folks on the Democratic side of the aisle would say: remember that time where President Trump and the rallies seem to condone violence against somebody else in the audience who was a bit of a heckler; remember that time when President Trump said terrible things about grabbing women without their permission; remember that time where President Trump condoned or consistently blasted the free press in a very, what they would say is vicious way, so on and so forth.  They point to these different instances and say, there is no leg for Republicans to stand on for civility when you have a President of the United States a man like Donald Trump who is the pinnacle of the Republican Party right now.

TREIGER:   Well, I think you do a much better job of being devil’s advocate here than Michael Moore.

SENGENBERGER:   [chuckle]

TREIGER:     So I think, you know, you raise more challenging things.  Something to understand about Trump.  This is a man during the campaign who would get in front of audiences for an hour at a time, sometimes much longer than an hour, without a teleprompter, without a text, and he would just riff, he would just talk, he would just explain, he would just make comments.  And when he would do so, you know some of his spontaneously-inspired remarks would hit the mark.  But they didn’t always hit the mark, and I don’t think that that comment was supportable with regard to taking out a – you know, someone who was there – by the way disrupting the thing and that’s what ought to happen.  I think that that was an error and a mistake, I think he’s made a number of mistakes.  I don’t think that he’s a perfect man, I think that he is like all of us, a flawed man.  But I think his virtues far transcend his vices.

Now, with regard to the question of grabbing tarts that was part of that, the tape, it had a special name, I forget what you call it —

SENGENBERGER:   “Access Hollywood” tape, yeah.

TREIGER:   Ah yes, yeah.  Well, first of all, I don’t know.  Listen.  Single guys like to engage in macho-istic guy-talk.  They —

SENGENBERGER:   Although Trump was married at the time.

TREIGER:   Uh, well.  Oops, [chuckling].  Okay, so he was married.  Well, but he ~~ oh gosh.  Ah, hmm.  Well, uh… Let me say this.  I had a big email exchange with a woman on this question.  And she said that the two main men in her life would never say such a thing and she quizzed them and she said that they would never say such a thing.  And there is a certain proportion of men who would never say such a thing and they don’t even say it with their friends and they don’t even say it when their wives are not in earshot.  That’s the case.  However, the final point I made to her was that just about every man will tolerate another man talking like that under certain private conditions.  They’ll just tolerate it.  They’ll ~~ you know, it’s very unusual.  This is just sort of a guy-way of talking.  And the circles in which Donald Trump was moving, which was – and the place and time in his life, you know, where he had all of these opportunities, all of this power, all of this celebrity, all of this attraction and money, it was just kind of like the way things happened.  And that was then, this is now.  And I think the common sense of the American people and the voting booth went and looked beyond that because they understood what we were in for with a Hillary victory and because they were kind of in a way throwing the dice and believed enough in Trump that there could be something positive that would come out of his victory, and that was, I think a certain portion of the base voters.

So, you know, when I left Marxism, I was still, you know, a ‘materialist’ quote-unquote, a bit of a hedonist and I went through some years, at that time I was single and chasing girls was what I was kind of mostly interested in.  Oh boy, I’ve learned so much, I’ve learned so much in thirty-two years with my wife.  And you know what I’ve learned?  I’ve learned what really, what true intimacy is.  And it’s the discovery over decades of just how different another human being is, and the discovery over decades that whenever you look at your partner as a teacher, you learn, you change your ways, you don’t try to change theirs —

SENGENBERGER:   Hard break is here.  Well put, Marv Treiger.  More after this, stay with us 710 KNUS.

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   Rockin’ and rollin’ back on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” NewsTalk 710 KNUS where we are never flirtin’ with disaster – only the truth and how to better the country.  Right here on 710 KNUS.  

But someone who would love for the United States to flirt with disaster is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who of course is the Democratic Socialist, self-described, who won a couple of weeks ago in New York City for Congress in that primary.  And she’s going to be the next congresswoman for the 14th district in New York, make no mistake about it.  But she’s a twenty-eight-year-old self-described Democratic Socialist and she’s been asked multiple times how she defines it.  Well, this is her definition of Democratic Socialism:


[Start Clip]

COLBERT:   What does “Socialist” mean to you?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:   For me, so, for me Democratic Socialism is about really ~~ the value for me is that I believe that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live [audience applause].  That’s what I think.

COLBERT:   I’d say simple.

OCASIO-CORTEZ:   Seems pretty simple.  So what that means to me is ~~ so what that means to me is healthcare as a human right [audience applause].  It means that every child, no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it [audience applause].  And, um, you know, I think that no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States. [audience applause]

[End Clip]

SENGENBERGER:   And she echoed similar sentiments this past Sunday on “Meet The Press.”  Dr. Marv Treiger, former Marxist Radical-turned-Conservative Trump Supporter continues with us on the program.  What do you make of that description of “Democratic Socialism”?

TREIGER:   Well, maybe it’d be good to say a few words about the origin of Democratic Socialism, to make sense of what she had to say.  You know, it really arose in the 1880’s in Great Britain, not unsurprisingly because they had already a long democratic tradition and the Marxist revolution didn’t seem to be getting anywhere.  And it was put forward by a guy by the name of Bernstein, Edward Bernstein.  And Bernstein suggested that Marx was wrong.  That the society would polarize into a small class of capitalists – tiny little group of benefited ones – and then a large, large increasingly impoverished group of proletarians and unemployed and there’d be a great chasm between the two, and finally the vast majority would rise up in a general strike, conduct an insurrection and come to power.

Well, the statistics already at that time in Great Britain showed that one of the things that resulted from democratic capitalism was the growth of a middle class.  And so if you’re drawing a bell curve with a bulge in the middle, the middle was the middle class.  And that middle class included small capitalists, small independent businesspeople, people independent in other ways.  It included the white-collar, it included amongst the blue-collar workers particularly in the trades, and so, it was a growing group.  So, then the theory was put forward, well, we’ll move gradually to Socialism and we’ll base ourselves more on the middle class.

Now, what, however, were the goals?  The goals had not changed.  Socialism was going to mean the nationalization of the principle means of production within the society – principle means of production and transportation – and it was going to mean a centralized government.  And it as going to mean that people [who] were, their betters – the experts, those in government – would set the perimeters and the dimensions of what constituted acceptable behavior. So basically, what you told —

SENGENBERGER:   Marv, what you’re teaching me right now is that I should never ask a question that I think might be answered simply by Dr. Marv Treiger because we are already out of time in this segment. [chuckling]

TREIGER:   [chuckling]

SENGENBERGER:   We’ll continue that explanation, get to political correctness. We’ll see what happens in this third hour.  You’re listening to “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  (303) 696-1971.

[End of Second Hour]