Speaker 1: Alz media.
Speaker 2: With scenes of the genocide and Palestine plastering or screens
Speaker 2: over the past few years, and increasing analysis of the
Speaker 2: settler colonial and supremacist route of Israel's violence. It's having
Speaker 2: me thinking more about the concept of settler colonialism. Many
Speaker 2: people know now about Israel's settler colonial past and it's
Speaker 2: parallels with the US, Australia, South Africa, and Canada. Those
Speaker 2: are common comparisons, but few know much about the settler
Speaker 2: colonial origins of Liberia, which has gained a little attention
Speaker 2: as people have begun learning more about the concept. So
Speaker 2: I'd like to take a look at Liberia, Israel and
Speaker 2: the parallels of settler colonialism. This is it can happen here.
Speaker 2: I'm Andrew Sage Andrewism on YouTube, and I'm joined once
Speaker 2: again by James Again.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to learn about this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm mainly looking into parallels through the lens of
Speaker 2: analysis provided by historian Patrick Wolfe in his famous article
Speaker 2: Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Nature, with other
Speaker 2: historical resources and articles linked in the show notes fust Off.
Speaker 2: Before we start making comparisons, I'll need to introduce the
Speaker 2: concept for those unfamiliar, settler colonialism is, in one sentence,
Speaker 2: an ongoing structural process where outsiders permanently occupy indigenous lands
Speaker 2: to build new societies. Wolf notes that invasion is a structure,
Speaker 2: not an event. He calls setler colonialism inherently eliminatory but
Speaker 2: not invariably genocidal, and calls elimination an organizing principle of
Speaker 2: setler colonial society rather than a one off occurrence. Unlike
Speaker 2: the kind of exploitation colonialism which seeks to extract resources
Speaker 2: and leave, settlers come to stay to claim land. As
Speaker 2: Wolf quotes that were bird rose to get in the
Speaker 2: way of settler colonization, all the native has to do
Speaker 2: is stay at home. Settlers tell various stories to justify
Speaker 2: their eliminatory ambitions race, religion, ethnicity, civilization status, but it
Speaker 2: really comes down to territory. Settlers want to establish lastin
Speaker 2: autonomous communities by eliminating the existing indigenous way of life
Speaker 2: and replacing it with the colonizer's culture, economy, and political order.
Speaker 2: Wolf says that settler clunism destroys to replace point into
Speaker 2: the quite visceral example of Israeli settlers of root in
Speaker 2: ancient olive trees and replacing them with foreign fruit trees,
Speaker 2: or as Israel often euphromizes it, making the desert bloom.
Speaker 2: Elimination doesn't have to mean the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people,
Speaker 2: though frontier homicide tends to be a trend, but elimination
Speaker 2: seeks to dissolve indigenous people and their way of life
Speaker 2: through various means expulsion, encouraged population mixing and forced assimilation, enclosure,
Speaker 2: child abduction, missions and board in schools, religious conversion, marginalization,
Speaker 2: labor exploitation, and more often several at once. Settler clunalism
Speaker 2: tends to remain deeply embedded in the laws and institutions
Speaker 2: of the countries foundly that way, but Woth points to
Speaker 2: a curious side effect of settler clunalism, which is the
Speaker 2: way that settler society subsequently attempts to recuperate indigenity in
Speaker 2: order to express its independence from the mother country. He
Speaker 2: references Australia's incorporation of indigenous symbolism for one example. Australia, Canada,
Speaker 2: the US, New Zealand, South Africa, French Algeria, Rhodesia, Liberia,
Speaker 2: and Israel are all examples of contemporary or historical settler
Speaker 2: colonial societies used on the parallels between just two of them,
Speaker 2: Liberia and Israel. In eighteen eighteen, the American Colonization Society
Speaker 2: scouted what was then known as the Grain Coast and
Speaker 2: deemed it a suitable location for their planned African colony,
Speaker 2: meant to be a home for formerly enslaved people in
Speaker 2: the US foreign emancipation, as well as free black people
Speaker 2: that already existed in the territory. The first successful settlement
Speaker 2: was established in eighteen twenty two after an agreement with
Speaker 2: the local chiefs signed in eighteen twenty one granted the
Speaker 2: society possession of Cape Mesurado. Now, some free black Americans
Speaker 2: had advocated returned to Africa projects long before the ACS
Speaker 2: was even founded, so we shouldn't erase the agency in this.
Speaker 2: But the ACS was led by a mix of white
Speaker 2: abolitionists and white and slavers who mostly just wanted to
Speaker 2: rid themselves the free black population in the US. Most
Speaker 2: free Black Americans opposed the project, either in a or
Speaker 2: in time. Those Black Americans that did participate came to
Speaker 2: be known as Americo Liberians. They carried on the American
Speaker 2: Colonization Society's narrative that the establishment of Liberia was a
Speaker 2: return to the promised Land and exodus of formally enslaved
Speaker 2: people returned into the ancestral homeland to establish an independent
Speaker 2: land of freedom, and as a minority in that land,
Speaker 2: the American Liberians would establish a government and various settlements
Speaker 2: they ruled that would attempt to expand Liberia's initial territory
Speaker 2: and to bring civilization and Christianity to the natives. Those
Speaker 2: that went were clearly heavily influenced by the American background,
Speaker 2: viewing themselves culturally, socially, and educationally superior to the Native
Speaker 2: African ethnic groups they encountered. After a few decades of
Speaker 2: support from the American colonization society, independence was declared in
Speaker 2: eighteen forty seven, but only recognized by the US in
Speaker 2: eighteen sixty two. They also very quickly a deteriorating economic situation,
Speaker 2: marked by heavy foreign deck obligations culminating in multinational intervention
Speaker 2: and oversight in the early nineteen hundreds, as well as
Speaker 2: the establishment of a million eco rubber plantation for the
Speaker 2: Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which would exploit the indigenous
Speaker 2: people in Liberia for decades to come.
Speaker 1: Any time is setting up a rubber plantation. I feel
Speaker 1: like that should be a massive red flag that you're
Speaker 1: one of the bad guys. Yeah, yeah, exactly, people who
Speaker 1: have been subject to settle a colonial violence and to
Speaker 1: like racially motivated sound like a cople I say, racially
Speaker 1: motivated violence, like the violence to inherent and racism and capitalism,
Speaker 1: the idea that the way to kind of right those
Speaker 1: wrongs is to become the one doing the violence, not
Speaker 1: the one subject to the violence. It's it in the Anmar, right,
Speaker 1: like a country that was brutally colonized by the country
Speaker 1: that I was born in, but in which essentially today
Speaker 1: the state of Myanma is it self a colonial entity.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We have a number of different ethnic groups, dozens of
Speaker 1: ethnic groups within Memma, and we have one ethnic group
Speaker 1: which is dominated governance, and which has dominated the military,
Speaker 1: and which has used the tool of the state to
Speaker 1: extract resources, labor, human bodies from the other ethnic groups, right, Like,
Speaker 1: because they've gone from being colonized to effectively being like
Speaker 1: a contiguous empire, and they've adopted the logic of the
Speaker 1: colonizer in doing so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Unfortunately, this is a very common phenomenon. You know,
Speaker 2: this is why I tend to view nationalism, even so
Speaker 2: called Third world nationalisms, as dead ends, as explicitly counter revolutionary,
Speaker 2: as against the liberation of all people. Yeah, because that
Speaker 2: construction of the nation state, or really of states and general,
Speaker 2: tends to come with the establishment of certain superiors and inferiors,
Speaker 2: you know, subordinates and rulers. Yeah, and the privilege in
Speaker 2: of certain religions, ethnic groups, skin tones, whatever the case
Speaker 2: may be, even within so called ethnically homogeneous societies. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You can even look at Japan, right, which is touted
Speaker 2: by you know, supremacists of all flavors as an ethnically
Speaker 2: homogenous society. Even within that society there's you know, colorism,
Speaker 2: and there's also the exploitation and marginalization of certain groups
Speaker 2: within that territory, such as the I knew.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think a lot about like nationalism. Now, there's
Speaker 1: a time when there was a movement to try and
Speaker 1: use nationalism as a positive thing. They have a Brotherhood
Speaker 1: of Nations, right, It existed within Catle anti fascism in
Speaker 1: the nineteen thirties, Like, we are a nation which has
Speaker 1: been suppressed by the state, so we will build a
Speaker 1: nationalism that doesn't suppress people right, which sort the same
Speaker 1: thing with Kurdish people right, with the Kurdish Freedom movement.
Speaker 1: Their understanding, I would say, was more advanced than the Catalans,
Speaker 1: and that like their their analysis was that we are
Speaker 1: a nation that has been suppresed by multiple states, and
Speaker 1: therefore we will build society without the state in order
Speaker 1: to link create well where there is no boots, so
Speaker 1: you can't tread on people, right. I still believe that
Speaker 1: that is possible, but like in the last six months,
Speaker 1: you know, I've seen people back away from that within
Speaker 1: Kurdistan write and start talking again about the Brotherhood. People's
Speaker 1: was a mistake. They feel betrayed. I don't think those
Speaker 1: people would consider themselves to be superior, but they feel
Speaker 1: that their project didn't work. That really makes me sad. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the Brotherhood of Nations like didn't succeed in Syria, right,
Speaker 1: And we've seen it effectively at like Sirious Dog or
Speaker 1: the Syrian Arab Republic after hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 1: gave their lives for it to be a place where
Speaker 1: everyone could be free. And yeah, it really saddens me
Speaker 1: to see that that, like, like I really hoped for
Speaker 1: something better. This idea of brotherhood of nations which acknowledges
Speaker 1: people's difference, but it doesn't create a hierarchy. But we're
Speaker 1: not We haven't made it quite work yet, I guess.
Speaker 1: And because we live in a world right where where
Speaker 1: they appeal to nationalism and bigotry and the idea like
Speaker 1: specifically in Syria, I think that like Arabs should not
Speaker 1: be equal to Kurds was appealing. Through making that appeal,
Speaker 1: this project was able to be sabotaged, I guess now.
Speaker 2: I think that while we're still fortune the front approaches
Speaker 2: to liberation trying to figure out what that looks like,
Speaker 2: we've seen the truck record of nationalism, is my point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, I think it's fair like it's it's
Speaker 1: been used much more as a force for dividing us,
Speaker 1: in making us hate each other, than it has been
Speaker 1: for creating a world what we can all live together
Speaker 1: alongside each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a digression, but in my experience in Trinidad,
Speaker 2: what I've noticed is that their efforts to kind of construct,
Speaker 2: and they have been since the establishment of Trinidad as
Speaker 2: an independent country trand Tobago as an independent country in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty two. First led by doctor Eric Williams. There
Speaker 2: were efforts to kind of build this kind of cross
Speaker 2: racial like overarching like Trinidadia and Trindigo Nian identity, which
Speaker 2: I mean, I use that term trind Diego in some
Speaker 2: of my work, but the Beagle is kind of attach
Speaker 2: to Trinidad against their will. And even now if there
Speaker 2: are people who try to push that trend bag or unity,
Speaker 2: but there are also people who will assert, particularly people
Speaker 2: from Tobago, who will assert that yeah, no, we want
Speaker 2: greater autonomy, we want even independence from Trinidad. And so
Speaker 2: for maybe certain people unifying purposes that would use the term,
Speaker 2: but I try not to give off that impression that
Speaker 2: I'm using it for kind of unifying nationalism, because I
Speaker 2: think with the nationalism of such a young, quote unquote nation,
Speaker 2: a nation of nations of various people from all over
Speaker 2: the world, mostly brought here against their will. Yeah, they
Speaker 2: are these competitions I think over the proportionality of the
Speaker 2: representation of different racial ethnic groups, the competitions over who
Speaker 2: gets to define what this Trinidadian nation is, what it
Speaker 2: means to be a Trinidadian and afthlets to kind of
Speaker 2: balance or imbalance the proportion of representation depending on which
Speaker 2: government is in power. You know, our current government is
Speaker 2: very much oriented toward a kind of Indo Trinardi and
Speaker 2: Indian focus and have in many ways marginalized all other groups, maligned,
Speaker 2: all other groups, disrespected all other groups within the country
Speaker 2: to kind of elevate the sense of or get back
Speaker 2: for the Indian people in turnet and I don't want
Speaker 2: to go too much down that road talking about that,
Speaker 2: but it's just another example to me or the frustration
Speaker 2: and misdirection that comes with investment in nationalism, which currently
Speaker 2: holds a monopoly both here and as much of the
Speaker 2: world on narratives of liberation and anti colonial resistance. So
Speaker 2: I was treated as a anticlonial resistance is synonymous with nationalism. Yeah,
Speaker 2: as though the two cannot be distinguished.
Speaker 1: It should be a relic of the twentieth century, right,
Speaker 1: like it was heavily tied to state socialism. Right.
Speaker 2: The idea of the way that we.
Speaker 1: Fight the wrongs of colonialism is through creating post colonial
Speaker 1: nation states and ignoring the fact that many of those states,
Speaker 1: many of the boundaries they find themselves within, include a
Speaker 1: diverse range of identities. Like you said, of many people,
Speaker 1: including those bought against their will to those places, and
Speaker 1: many of those identities don't line up with the national identities,
Speaker 1: and it almost always results in a change of the
Speaker 1: oppressure rather than the absence of oppression.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you could literally just look at the
Speaker 2: entire history of independent Nigeria. Yes, the one very clear
Speaker 2: example of that. Yeah. But getting back to the comparisons, right,
Speaker 2: I don't see an explicitly titled ideology behind the founding
Speaker 2: of Liberia beyond settler clunalism, I suppose, but the implicit
Speaker 2: ideology was the supremacy of the elite American liberian way
Speaker 2: of life and the right to that territory and the
Speaker 2: label and the resources of its people. While the elite
Speaker 2: would themselves be subordinate to the global catalyst order dictated
Speaker 2: particularly by America and Europe, so the supremacy the American
Speaker 2: Liberian elite did not place them in a position of
Speaker 2: supremacy in the global stage. They were still in a
Speaker 2: subordinate position in some ways. Turning out to Israel, the
Speaker 2: political Zionist movement emerged in the late nineteenth century Europe
Speaker 2: amid programs and a failure to achieve equality for Jews
Speaker 2: in many countries. Its most influential early theorist Theodore Hurzel,
Speaker 2: argue that Jews constituted a nation and that anti Semitism
Speaker 2: could not ultimately be so through integration into European societies. Instead,
Speaker 2: they required a state of their own, and Palestine was
Speaker 2: not initially the only territory under consideration. Various proposals included Argentina, Uganda,
Speaker 2: and other locations before Palestine became firmly established as the
Speaker 2: movement's focus. Not all Jews agreed with this political Zionist
Speaker 2: cause that many Jewish socialists, particularly those associated with the
Speaker 2: General Jewish Labor Bund, rejected Zionism altogether. They argued the
Speaker 2: Jews should fight for libration where they lived, rather than
Speaker 2: establishing a separate nation state. Nevertheless, the Zionists colonial settlement
Speaker 2: efforts began and expanded in Palestine through the late nineteenth
Speaker 2: and early twentieth centuries, aided by wealthy benefactors, land purchases
Speaker 2: from absentee landlords, and growing immigration. The movement received a
Speaker 2: major boost in nineteen seventeen when the British government issued
Speaker 2: the Balford Claratia Express in support for the establishment of
Speaker 2: a Jewish National Home in Palestine, despite the fact that
Speaker 2: Palestine's Arab population constituted the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants
Speaker 2: at the time, a settlement expanded Sinus narratives increasingly emphasized
Speaker 2: the idea of return. The Jews were not colonizing a
Speaker 2: foreign land, but return into an ancestral homeland from which
Speaker 2: they had been dispersed centuries before, and the state of
Speaker 2: Israel was officially established in nineteen forty eight, accompanied by
Speaker 2: the Nakba or catastrophe, when more than seven hundred thousand
Speaker 2: Palestinians were displaced or expelled from their homes across Palestine.
Speaker 2: Like Liberia before it, ISRAELI emerged as a state founded
Speaker 2: by a population claiming a historic connection to the territory,
Speaker 2: and like Liberia, is legitimacy would be built upon narratives
Speaker 2: of return, civilization, and nationhood, while the indigenous inhabitants found
Speaker 2: themselves excluded from the political order being constructed on top
Speaker 2: of their home now Already, these situations aren't exactly one
Speaker 2: to one, but they don't need to be. To apply
Speaker 2: a settler clonal analysis. The key questions for ascertaining settler
Speaker 2: clonalism are if the settlers established permanent residents, if they
Speaker 2: claimed political sovereignty, if they dominated inditionous populations, if they
Speaker 2: created institutions that privileged settlers. Basically, what was the political
Speaker 2: and social order that emerged after they arrived and who
Speaker 2: was elevated and degraded by it. For Liberia, the answer
Speaker 2: becomes pretty clear once we look at how the new
Speaker 2: state was organized. Over the course of the nineteenth century,
Speaker 2: American liberia and settlements expanded their territory through a mixture
Speaker 2: of purchases, treaties, coercion and military expeditions, and outright warfare
Speaker 2: with Inditionous peoples, who made up the overwhelming majority of
Speaker 2: the population, were largely excluded from political life for generations.
Speaker 2: They lacked meaningful representation and government, and were treated as
Speaker 2: subjects to be administered. The settler elite monopolized state institutions
Speaker 2: and eventually established what was effectively a one party state
Speaker 2: under the True Whig Party, which ruled Liberia for over
Speaker 2: a century. The Liberian state extracted taxes and tribute from
Speaker 2: indigenous communities, relied on indigenous labor, and by the early
Speaker 2: twentieth century, international investigations were uncovering systems of forced labor
Speaker 2: and human trafficking so surveyor that they generated an international scandal.
Speaker 2: While the settlers themselves had once been victims of slavery
Speaker 2: and racial oppression, they recreated similar class and ethnic hierarchies
Speaker 2: in their state. Liberia, of course, differs from many other
Speaker 2: settler colonies, but they retained the basic framework of a
Speaker 2: settler population, clearing sovereignty over territory inhabited by indigenous peoples,
Speaker 2: and concentrated political and e chemic power in its own hands.
Speaker 2: Now compare this to Israel. From the late nineteenth century onward.
Speaker 2: Zionist organizations acquired land through purchases and violence following the Knappa,
Speaker 2: which created one of the largest refugee populations in the
Speaker 2: modern world. The Palestinians, which remained within Israel, was subjected
Speaker 2: to military administration for years. While Palestinians in the occupied
Speaker 2: territories continue to live under a different legal regime than
Speaker 2: Israeli settlers. The nineteen fifty two Citizenship Law and the
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen Nation State Law cemented the Jewish supremacist heart
Speaker 2: of the Zinis project. As since nineteen sixty seven, settlement
Speaker 2: expansion in the West Bank had steadily increased, accompanied by
Speaker 2: land seizures, home demolitions, restrictions on movement, and the fragmentation
Speaker 2: of Palestinian communities, and Gaza has been an open air
Speaker 2: prison where settlers occasionally move the lawn aka slaughter population
Speaker 2: since two thousand and seven. It's worth noting a major
Speaker 2: difference between the two cases, which is the demographic element.
Speaker 2: America Liberians remained a small minority ruling a much larger
Speaker 2: indigenous population, but the entire history of American Liberian ruled Liberia.
Speaker 2: Those kind of demographics are more akin to settler societies
Speaker 2: like South Africa, Rhodesia and French Algeria, which leaned heavily
Speaker 2: into the exploitation aspect of clonalism. Israel developed differently intentionally
Speaker 2: to ensure that Jewish people became the demographic and majority
Speaker 2: within its territory, so it's more comparable to settler societies
Speaker 2: like the US, Canada and Australia. Such demographics necessarily led
Speaker 2: to a difference in how indigenous peoples were managed between projects.
Speaker 2: Liberia system depended upon indigenous labor, while Israel's project has
Speaker 2: generally prioritized secure in land while minimizing dependence on Palestinian labor.
Speaker 2: In many periods of Zionus history, Palestinian labor was actively
Speaker 2: displaced in favor of exclusively Jewish labor. But again, settler
Speaker 2: colonism operates according to a logic of elimination that might
Speaker 2: often be expulsion and extermination, but it can also mean assimilation, confinement,
Speaker 2: and whatever else. Again, the settlers want the land. The
Speaker 2: native becomes an obstacle, and difference that the societies developed
Speaker 2: different methods for dealing with that obstacle. The US had
Speaker 2: its ethnic cleansings, removals, reservation system and boarding schools. Australia
Speaker 2: had frontier wars, stolen generations and land dispossessions. Canada had
Speaker 2: assimilation policies like reservation schools. South Africa and a wide
Speaker 2: rule couldn't expel the black majority, so they maintained apartheid
Speaker 2: controlled reservations and extracted labor. But again, what matters for
Speaker 2: definance at the clonalism is that indigenous sovereignty is displaced
Speaker 2: and set look control over the land is secured. Of course,
Speaker 2: indigenous people in all cases do not take this abuse
Speaker 2: lying down. From the very beginning of Liberian settlement, Indigenous
Speaker 2: peoples resisted the crew grabo by and numerous other ethnic
Speaker 2: groups fought against territorial expansion, taxation, forced labor, and attempts
Speaker 2: by the Liberian States to extend its authority into the interior,
Speaker 2: and despite generations of American Liberian dominance, indigenous resistance never
Speaker 2: entirely disappeared. Eventually, the political order that had governed Liberia
Speaker 2: for over a century began to crack, economic crisis, corruption
Speaker 2: and grow, and resentment towards settled domination culminated in a
Speaker 2: military coup in nineteen eighty led by Samuel Doe, overthrowing
Speaker 2: the government of President William Tolbert and ended more than
Speaker 2: a century of uninterrupted American Liberian political dominance. Now, that
Speaker 2: coup clearly did not create a free or egalitarian society.
Speaker 2: Liberia would soon face dictatorship, civil war, and immense suffering,
Speaker 2: but it did mark the collapse of the older settler
Speaker 2: elites monopoly on state power, and efforts at recovery in
Speaker 2: the country are ongoing. Palestinian resistance, on the other hand,
Speaker 2: faced a very different structury from the beginning of Zia settlement.
Speaker 2: Palestinians resisted displacement and land loss through protests, strikes, political organizing,
Speaker 2: and armed revote. The Great Arab Revolt of nineteen thirty
Speaker 2: six to nineteen thirty nine saw Palestinians launch a massive
Speaker 2: reich An uprising against both British colonial rule and Zonu settlement.
Speaker 2: Decades later came the first and second in defaders mass movements,
Speaker 2: a combined protest, civil disobedions, community organized and armed resistance.
Speaker 2: Pastidians have built a number of institutions alongside international solarity
Speaker 2: movements in an effort to sustain their efforts under occupation, siege, exile,
Speaker 2: and apartheid. Amid the destruction genocide of Gaza, passing and
Speaker 2: resistance continues. Liberia and Israel are both settled clunal projects,
Speaker 2: but they are different enough in scale and goals and
Speaker 2: methods and historical development that obviously treating them must equivalent
Speaker 2: for be misleaded. The point of the comparison is to
Speaker 2: identify what these societies have in common. Since the cool
Speaker 2: In Liberia, the old American Liberian elite has lost its
Speaker 2: monopoly on power, but in Israel, the settler clunal project
Speaker 2: is alive and well, with ever expanding settlements, occupation, displacement,
Speaker 2: and brutality. Whether settler dominance in Israel remains or falls
Speaker 2: is yet to be seen in Liberia. The end of
Speaker 2: settler rules not automatically bring justice, equality or freedom. Deliberation
Speaker 2: through state power has not brought their relief, especially in
Speaker 2: the context of a global capitalist order. The replacement of
Speaker 2: one ruling class for another has ended the struggle, but
Speaker 2: maybe put us semi cooler on that struggle. I believe
Speaker 2: the aim of deconization must be not merely the fight
Speaker 2: against the people at the helm of the system, but
Speaker 2: the very helm of the system itself, dismantling the structures
Speaker 2: that make domination possible. The first place, for Palestine and
Speaker 2: for all people's struggling against oppression and then set localism
Speaker 2: is only the beginning in the pursuit of liberation. That's
Speaker 2: all I have for today, All powers to all the people. Peace.
Speaker 3: It Could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 3: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 3: cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the
Speaker 3: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 3: You can now find sources for It Could Happen here
Speaker 3: listed directly an episode description. Thanks for listening.