Speaker 1: All the media.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome. Take it up, and here I'm joined
Speaker 2: once again.
Speaker 3: By yours Davias.
Speaker 2: Hello, Hello, Hello. And recently I was reading through a
Speaker 2: photo book called Humans by Brandon Stanton. It features interviews
Speaker 2: of people on the streets all over the world. He
Speaker 2: started off and he kind of became well known online
Speaker 2: for the Humans of New York series. I'm sure if
Speaker 2: you've heard of that, Yeah, I think so, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: So he did that for a while and he ended
Speaker 2: up traveling at the parts of the world and doing
Speaker 2: basically the same thing, just interviewing people on the street,
Speaker 2: getting their insights, hearing their struggles, hearing their story. And
Speaker 2: when I saw the book in the library, I just
Speaker 2: I picked it up orroed it, decided to read it through.
Speaker 2: And it's really profound in a sense, and you get
Speaker 2: a sense of the spectrum of humanity, of what people
Speaker 2: are going through, of the highs and lows of the
Speaker 2: human experience, make you laugh on one page and make
Speaker 2: you cry for the next page. And seeing that variety
Speaker 2: of humanity reminded me of another book that I read
Speaker 2: and finished recently, which is called Humankind Hopeful History by
Speaker 2: Rutga Bregmant, a friend of mine, had given it to
Speaker 2: me because he said it had changed his whole view
Speaker 2: on the world. And so I wanted to talk about
Speaker 2: some of the concepts that I picked up in that book,
Speaker 2: like the origins and critiques of veneer theory, why most
Speaker 2: people are actually pretty decent, and the problems with some
Speaker 2: of the narratives of our wickedness. And the next episode,
Speaker 2: I want to get into some of the reasons why
Speaker 2: people do bad and what we can do about it.
Speaker 3: Sounds exciting because there is a lot of bad right now.
Speaker 2: Is there is? I mean, as on that stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: what would you say is the most common perspective you
Speaker 2: hear on humanity and human nature?
Speaker 3: I don't know, Like there's there's this clash between like
Speaker 3: this like liberal humanist version and then this like Christian
Speaker 3: moralist version, I guess like in the States right now,
Speaker 3: but that's been going on for decades, if not centuries.
Speaker 2: By liberal humanists on Christian I mean, I think I
Speaker 2: get a sense of what the Christian moralist vision is right,
Speaker 2: that we are all sinful, destined for hell any salvation,
Speaker 2: that that version of the story, yeah, yeah, more or less,
Speaker 2: and the liberal humanist perspective is I mean.
Speaker 3: I don't know, like this this this forever search for
Speaker 3: like what human rights are and like human decency. So
Speaker 3: we come up with like governments and rules to actually
Speaker 3: like govern over our morals as a democratic process that
Speaker 3: continues to evolve over the course of like hundreds of years.
Speaker 3: We're like, you know, on the moral arc of the universe,
Speaker 3: just not fully you know there yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've heard that perspective, I think most commonly and
Speaker 2: decent in my spaces, I tend to hear the you know,
Speaker 2: people are wicked, people are sinful in religious cases, or
Speaker 2: people are violent, people are selfish, and that kind of
Speaker 2: in that similar number of vein where we have these
Speaker 2: systems in place to kind of check ourst simpulses, to
Speaker 2: kind of keep us regulated and to keep society functioning.
Speaker 2: And Bregman opens his book by discussing the idea of
Speaker 2: civilization being a thin mask that covers our true savage instincts.
Speaker 2: He calls it the veneer theory, and he spends the
Speaker 2: rest of the book basically points it out all the
Speaker 2: different errors in that judgment. I mean, he doesn't claim
Speaker 2: that we're all good people, happy go lucky saying so
Speaker 2: anything like that, But he does see it. For the
Speaker 2: most part, most people are pretty decent, and I know
Speaker 2: that clashes with all a lot of people are accustomed
Speaker 2: to hearing, and there are some very notable exceptions. But
Speaker 2: despite the efforts of elite to pain and purport a
Speaker 2: different picture, there's actually a lot more leaning towards our decent,
Speaker 2: if not good nature and the contrary. But of course,
Speaker 2: of these kind of conversations, who are set to go
Speaker 2: back to the debate between Thomas Hobbes and Sean jack
Speaker 2: ersue we can't escape these guys. Hobbes, of course, had
Speaker 2: the perspective in Leviathan, which was written in sixteen fifty one,
Speaker 2: that in the absence of a strong central authority, human
Speaker 2: beings would live in a condition of perpetual war, with
Speaker 2: every man against every other man, a war of war
Speaker 2: against all. As he would have put it so to him,
Speaker 2: people are naturally self interested and driven by the desire
Speaker 2: for power and survival, so without laws or a sovereign
Speaker 2: to keep them in check, individuals would act purely on
Speaker 2: their own instincts, lead into constant conflict over resources, safety,
Speaker 2: and dominant life. In this state of nature would be
Speaker 2: solitary for nasty, brutish, and short. A couple of years later,
Speaker 2: a couple of decades later, Rousseau was writing in the
Speaker 2: Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men,
Speaker 2: and he basically flipped Hobbs view on its head. He
Speaker 2: believed that humans in the state of nature were peaceful, cooperative,
Speaker 2: and guided by basic needs and compassion, and there was
Speaker 2: a development of hierarchies and institutions that had led to inequality, jealousy,
Speaker 2: and competition which basically corrupted human nature. In his words,
Speaker 2: man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.
Speaker 2: Do you take a side in this debate?
Speaker 3: By the way, er not to be the centrist option,
Speaker 3: But I don't know. I think both these things play
Speaker 3: into each other. I definitely don't believe in the idea
Speaker 3: that like this state is the only thing that reigns
Speaker 3: people in and stops them from doing a moral acts. Right,
Speaker 3: It's the same thing as like without without God or
Speaker 3: without the Bible, then everyone would just be like raping
Speaker 3: and murdering it. Meanwhile, actual Christians obviously rape and murder
Speaker 3: all the time anyway. But like, no, like this this
Speaker 3: idea isn't the only thing that keeps you from becoming
Speaker 3: this like, you know, savage, like inhuman monster. People can
Speaker 3: be morally good without this this like religious notion. And
Speaker 3: I think in some ways the state can also operate
Speaker 3: as a religious notion to these people, where you know,
Speaker 3: the police is the only thing that's keeping you from
Speaker 3: becoming this like horrible monster who just hurts everyone around you.
Speaker 3: But I also have my sympathies to the like alternate
Speaker 3: side of that, and I can see there's a great
Speaker 3: deal of oppression and horrific violence that can only happen
Speaker 3: at scale under the organization of a state. So I
Speaker 3: will pick the annoying centrisce option.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know that there are a lot of people
Speaker 2: who have the sense that, you know, the state and
Speaker 2: the laws all that's standing between us and the purge
Speaker 2: or mad Max or something like that. Sure, exactly, So, yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't think that Hobbes's over generalization of human nature
Speaker 2: as inherently violent and selfish holds up when you look
Speaker 2: at the diversity of human experience and human societies. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's not to say that violence and conflict were absent
Speaker 2: in a world out state, but you know, context matters. Resources, environment,
Speaker 2: group size. All those things would have played roles. I
Speaker 2: don't think that we should be accepting Rousseau's romantic light either,
Speaker 2: So I guess I'm in the centris to count with you.
Speaker 2: The truth does seem to lie somewhere in that middle ground,
Speaker 2: that human nature is flexible and then it's shaped by social, ecological,
Speaker 2: and historical contexts. What's getting the weeds of humanity's origins
Speaker 2: is stimulating as an exercise. But there's only so much
Speaker 2: we can know about the past for certain. What we
Speaker 2: can't know for certain is the present, And what we've
Speaker 2: seen in the present is that when disaster strikes, people
Speaker 2: have tended to help each other. In Hurricane Katrina in
Speaker 2: two thousand and five, the official response was famously criticized
Speaker 2: for being slow and disorganized, and yet despite media attempts
Speaker 2: to pain these people as looters and thugs and all
Speaker 2: these different things, community members, neighbors, volunteers all stepped up
Speaker 2: to rescue people, to mobilize food, shelter, and basic aid,
Speaker 2: to expropriate when necessary to get people what they needed,
Speaker 2: long before federal agencies gone on the scene. Similarly, in
Speaker 2: a more recent occurrence, after the cranfelt tower fire in
Speaker 2: the UK in twenty seventeen. The official channels had failed
Speaker 2: the people of that tour many diet as a result.
Speaker 2: Regulations that were supposed to protect people were not enforced
Speaker 2: or were absent. And yet it was community members who
Speaker 2: sprang into action to provide water and shelter and food
Speaker 2: and clothes and emotional support even when the Twin Tours
Speaker 2: fell on Stement eleven, two thousand and one. And this
Speaker 2: is an example that brag when I actually spent some
Speaker 2: time talking about people actually helped people descend the stairwells
Speaker 2: in an orderly fashion. You know, they would say, you know,
Speaker 2: after you going down the stairs, and passers by would
Speaker 2: go in and help others to evacuate and assist the
Speaker 2: wounded law before the emergency services arrived. So people acted
Speaker 2: and prioritized helping others even in a disaster scenario. And
Speaker 2: yet what do we see in dystopia and fiction. In
Speaker 2: apocalyptic fiction, you see people just like driving around shooting
Speaker 2: guns in the air. You see the purge, you see
Speaker 2: them the ceiling, zombie apocalypse scenarios. In Rebecca Solnitt's book,
Speaker 2: A Paradise Built in Hell, she found that disasters peeled
Speaker 2: back the layer as a society and revealed the empathy, cooperation,
Speaker 2: and ka at humanities core. She noted that when disaster
Speaker 2: strikes is when people most often reveal the better natures,
Speaker 2: and yet those negative narratives tend to have more suite
Speaker 2: in the popular imagination.
Speaker 3: No, and this is like so true. I remember in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty, during the wildfires on the West Coast, the
Speaker 3: anarchist response was to set up these like giant, like
Speaker 3: mutual aid centers for people fleeing from the fire, you know,
Speaker 3: like not like other anarchists, just like regular people fleeing
Speaker 3: from the fire could get necessities and figure out housing. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: right wing militias were setting up checkpoints, monitoring to make
Speaker 3: sure Antifa wasn't you know, like raiding people's homes as
Speaker 3: they were fleeing from the fires. Like these were the
Speaker 3: two options you had. You had, you had anarchists actually
Speaker 3: helping the people who were who were fleeing from this
Speaker 3: horrific fire and setting up like massive, massive like aid
Speaker 3: distribution centers. Meanwhile right wing militias were pulling people over
Speaker 3: at gunpoint making sure Antifa wasn't up to any shenanigans
Speaker 3: and similar stuff happened last year during Hurricane Helene on
Speaker 3: the East Coast, where you had a whole bunch of
Speaker 3: like Southeast anarchists in the Appalachians do mutual a disaster response. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: right wing malicious were spreading rumors about like FEMA fraud
Speaker 3: and all of all of this crazy stuff, not actually
Speaker 3: helping anybody. But it was anarchists doing a large a
Speaker 3: large amount of the actual water distribution and like medical
Speaker 3: assistance on the ground as the federal response was delayed
Speaker 3: and insufficient.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I was aware of the anarchist efforts
Speaker 2: during these disasters, but I wasn't. I didn't know about
Speaker 2: that situation with the right wing militias setting up checkpoints.
Speaker 2: That's shocking but still wild, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, it's so funny because those are the people,
Speaker 3: you know, claiming that, you know, without the government we
Speaker 3: would have the purge, anarchists would just go around doing
Speaker 3: all kinds of crazy crimes. I get when things actually happen,
Speaker 3: their attempts to like deputize them as like their own
Speaker 3: police force actually creates those conditions. Meanwhile, anarchists are the
Speaker 3: ones actually helping.
Speaker 2: People exactly exactly, and yet despite these situations, these these
Speaker 2: things happen again and again. We still have these popular narratives.
Speaker 2: You don't know, the narrative I see referenced all the
Speaker 2: time Lord of the Fliers.
Speaker 3: Yes, of course, of course.
Speaker 2: All the time. Right. It's basically become a cultural shorthand
Speaker 2: for the idea that people are just savage at heart,
Speaker 2: that this Veneo civilization is the only thing keeping us
Speaker 2: in checked. I mean, these days I do see people
Speaker 2: joking that it's because those were British boys.
Speaker 3: So true, actually, so true.
Speaker 2: But well, I get that.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: I think it's also important to remember that it's like
Speaker 2: people are taking this work of fiction as if it's
Speaker 2: an anthropological study, yeah, when it's just something that a
Speaker 2: guy made up as an analogy for, you know, the
Speaker 2: situation during World War Two.
Speaker 3: I think it's also good to remember that the British
Speaker 3: are people too. I have a British co worker, so
Speaker 3: you know, we have to we have to show them
Speaker 3: a little bit of human human dignity exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: People embrace the story because it confirms what they want
Speaker 2: to believe in this climate of cynicism. But Ragman actually
Speaker 2: tells a story in the book about a true instance
Speaker 2: of when a shipwreck of young boys occurred. Of course
Speaker 2: there't They weren't British boys. There were Tonguan boys as
Speaker 2: and from the country of Tonga. So in nineteen sixty five,
Speaker 2: six Tonguan boys we were stranded on a remote island
Speaker 2: for over a year, and rather than descended into violence,
Speaker 2: they survived through cooperation. You know, they built a garden,
Speaker 2: they shared duties. They didn't do any human sacrifices, you know,
Speaker 2: they created a rotor system to get things done. There
Speaker 2: resolved conflict. When people were in conflict, they would go
Speaker 2: on time out. They put each other on timeout and
Speaker 2: go on opposite sides of the island until the you know,
Speaker 2: cooler heads prevailed. The figure out ways to deal with
Speaker 2: their conflicts, to organize themselves without authority and without chaos.
Speaker 2: But the problem is that these fictional narratives become so
Speaker 2: powerful instead of the real ones, that they have a
Speaker 2: similar effect to the placeboy effect. In fact, it's the
Speaker 2: Placeboy effects evil twin the no Sea Boy effect. Now,
Speaker 2: I'd heard about the place boy effect before, and I'm
Speaker 2: sure you have as well. But for those who don't know,
Speaker 2: it's basically where someone's health actually improves after receiving what's
Speaker 2: basically a dummy treatment like a sugar pill or a
Speaker 2: fake surgery or a saline injection. The body heals itself
Speaker 2: because the mind of the person believes it's being healed.
Speaker 2: The mind in that trust into medicine. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: just that's amazing to me even now, and they'll quite
Speaker 2: understand how it works yet, but it's still really cool.
Speaker 2: But there's another dimension to the placebo effect that I
Speaker 2: hadn't heard about before, but it makes intuitive sense. I
Speaker 2: suppose it's called the no Seaboy effect. And Bregman is
Speaker 2: the one who introduced me to that concept. So the
Speaker 2: no Seaboy effect is where instead of belief heal and you,
Speaker 2: it's belief that makes you sick. So people experience real pain,
Speaker 2: real symptoms, and even real illness, not because there's an
Speaker 2: actual physical cause, but because in their minds they expect
Speaker 2: to be harmed. So their minds to that fear of
Speaker 2: harm into actual harm and injury. And there was one
Speaker 2: case study that he used where a child had drunk
Speaker 2: a coke and photo was poisoned and then just created
Speaker 2: this mass hysteria almost with dozens of children in hospitals
Speaker 2: with headaches and nausea and pradic attacks because they drank.
Speaker 2: Go to the point where Coca Cola actually had to
Speaker 2: recall all of those drinks even though tests had showing
Speaker 2: that there was nothing in the drinks that we're making
Speaker 2: people sick, but theirs bodies still responded as if there
Speaker 2: was because they believed they heard the story, they heard
Speaker 2: about it, they saw what happened to others, and they
Speaker 2: believed it would happened to them. And that's the no
Speaker 2: super effect in action, right, So we get the concept.
Speaker 2: So Bregmun actually stretched these concepts beyond the field of medicine,
Speaker 2: and he basically made the points that what if these
Speaker 2: contents are abate into how we view each other? You know,
Speaker 2: so what if I believe that people are selfish, cruel
Speaker 2: and violent by nature? Actually makes it so, you know,
Speaker 2: if you expect the worst from people, you'll act on that.
Speaker 2: You know, you might be colder or more defensive and
Speaker 2: more likely to punish or preemptal. And what happens as
Speaker 2: a result is that, you know, people pick up on
Speaker 2: that energy, they're spawning kind they withdraw, they retaliate, and
Speaker 2: then that cycle ends up feeding itself and to the belief.
Speaker 2: That negative belief becomes a social reality, a self fulfilling prophecy.
Speaker 2: So we end up building institutions that are based on
Speaker 2: that cynical expectation. We design policies that are based around
Speaker 2: the punishment we are, train ourselves to see strangers as
Speaker 2: threats rather than as neighbors. And then when we have
Speaker 2: a fallout, as when that prophecy is fulfilled by our
Speaker 2: own actions, we can then say, well, see I was right.
Speaker 2: You know, people are awful. But what we don't see
Speaker 2: is that our expectations and the systems we build around
Speaker 2: those expectations are part of what ends up making it
Speaker 2: that way. I think an easy example to going to
Speaker 2: is with prison right. People expect criminals to act like animals,
Speaker 2: to act like monsters, to beasts, and so they create prisons,
Speaker 2: and in those prisons treat them like animals, monsters and beasts,
Speaker 2: and people respond to that. You know, you treat people
Speaker 2: like animals, they're going to behave like animals. So then
Speaker 2: the question that Bragmann poses is what happens if we
Speaker 2: decide to treat people like their good you know, trusting
Speaker 2: their intentions, leaning into care, and building our systems around
Speaker 2: the assumption that most people are decent. So how do
Speaker 2: we make that leave? I said before that you know,
Speaker 2: we don't really necessarily need to go into the past
Speaker 2: to see how people behave in the present, but it's
Speaker 2: a good idea to get a sense of how we evolved. Right.
Speaker 2: A lot of people have a brutal perception of human evolution.
Speaker 2: You know, they truck comparisons between us and chimpanzees, or
Speaker 2: you know, they make it see first of all like
Speaker 2: nordn bernobles entirely and also ignoring the fact that we
Speaker 2: are our own speecies with our own evolutionary history. You know,
Speaker 2: people have are very cynical and honestly insultant, like view
Speaker 2: of the cave men of our past. But our histories
Speaker 2: are actually pretty soft. In fact, Bragman argues in favor
Speaker 2: of something called self domestication theory, which has a little
Speaker 2: bit of anthropological and evolutionary biological back in. And so
Speaker 2: the basic claim of this theory is that the reason
Speaker 2: Homo sapiens survived and other ancient humans didn't isn't because
Speaker 2: we were the strongest, or the smartest, or the most
Speaker 2: cun in or because we were friendlier, that we evolve
Speaker 2: to be more social, cooperative, playful, and trust in self.
Speaker 2: Domestication theorists basically compare humans as puppies to the other
Speaker 2: homo species as wolves, that we domesticate ourselves to become
Speaker 2: less aggressive or faces softened, our bodies became less robust,
Speaker 2: and our openness and friendliness allowed us to build relationships,
Speaker 2: to build groups, to raise children, community, and to survive.
Speaker 2: And so if we accept our theory we had not
Speaker 2: that and build that into our foundation, that we did
Speaker 2: evolve our capacity to be kind, that it is something
Speaker 2: that is within our humanity, that it's not a fragile
Speaker 2: gloss over savagery or a morality that's given to us
Speaker 2: by religional law. Then we can basically become who were
Speaker 2: capable of becoming, you know, we can create systems that
Speaker 2: allow us to develop that. And this sounds really optimistic,
Speaker 2: This sounds really happy, go lucky and woo. And we
Speaker 2: are going to get into some of the darker chapters
Speaker 2: of our humanity in the next episode. But I wanted
Speaker 2: to wrap this one up by back in the Death
Speaker 2: of Catherine Kitty Genevieves in nineteen sixty four. It's another
Speaker 2: example that Breckman refers to in his book, and it's
Speaker 2: one of the classic case studies that was used for
Speaker 2: a long time to illustrate the apathy and cold heartness
Speaker 2: of humanity. Because the New York Times, which as we
Speaker 2: all know, is a reputable and trustworthy institution, The New
Speaker 2: York Times claimed that she was stabbed in the street
Speaker 2: while thirty eight neighbors looked on and did nothing. Right.
Speaker 2: This was the quintessential story that was used to say,
Speaker 2: you know, look at that bystanding effect. Humans just don't care,
Speaker 2: you know. There was used as an example of apathy,
Speaker 2: of urban de kay, of everything wrong with us. But
Speaker 2: the story was wrong. The reporters will help this story
Speaker 2: and it was wrong. I mean, yes, she was murdered,
Speaker 2: but people did try to help. Someone called the police,
Speaker 2: but this wasn't a time before nine one one, so
Speaker 2: it was yet to call like the local station, and
Speaker 2: then the response process was a bit slow. One neighbor
Speaker 2: actually rushed out and held her as she died, held
Speaker 2: her in their arms. So the press spun this story
Speaker 2: as like some bleak tale, and the few of psychology
Speaker 2: ate it up because it was part of a trend
Speaker 2: at the time to create this perception of humanity, but
Speaker 2: the real story was a lot more hearing, a lot
Speaker 2: more human. I mean, it was messy and somebody still
Speaker 2: murdered her. But this this idea of the byastounding the
Speaker 2: fact that has been so inflated. A lot of the
Speaker 2: key studies that have been used as examples of them
Speaker 2: have been chipped away at over time, and that's one
Speaker 2: of the main stories that has been pretty thoroughly debunked
Speaker 2: at this point. So I like where Bregman's been going.
Speaker 2: But we've glossed over the dark side, you know, the
Speaker 2: shadow of our humanity. You know, even he acknowledges in
Speaker 2: this book that we do bad stuff as well. So
Speaker 2: the next episode we are gonna wade into that. But
Speaker 2: how you're feeling about humanity so far.
Speaker 3: I think I actually do have an underlying optimism like
Speaker 3: beneath how I move around in the world, which is
Speaker 3: which is kind of odd considering the sort of stuff
Speaker 3: I do for work, but it is it is true,
Speaker 3: and I think part of that is what just keeps
Speaker 3: me going. I don't know, like, yeah, I've I've I've
Speaker 3: certainly been around my fair share of like doomers and nihilists,
Speaker 3: over the years, and at the very least those people
Speaker 3: don't seem to be very happy and don't seem to
Speaker 3: be enjoying life, and sometimes it's hard to enjoy life, absolutely,
Speaker 3: but I think I think you need to be able
Speaker 3: to find a place for yourself within a world that
Speaker 3: has like evil as a almost inherent component and find
Speaker 3: your way either through that, sometimes around that, but oftentimes
Speaker 3: through it. And I think that's I mean, that's that's
Speaker 3: just been a part of like growing up. We're certainly
Speaker 3: growing up in like a weird time, but I think
Speaker 3: that's kind of always been true, like that that was
Speaker 3: true one hundred years ago. So I don't know, I
Speaker 3: part of me and maybe this is just over the optimistic,
Speaker 3: but but part of me continues to resist being a
Speaker 3: doomer despite all of the bad news that is trying
Speaker 3: to infiltrate my brain at all times, which is which
Speaker 3: is a very profitable industry, right, I mean, that's somewhat
Speaker 3: kind of what this show is, right. It kind of
Speaker 3: does play into those instincts for sure, which is which
Speaker 3: is something that like we critique amongst ourselves often and
Speaker 3: we try to always find that balance as well. But
Speaker 3: but yeah, like the doom cycle is like a A
Speaker 3: is a huge industry, and there's there's people that absolutely
Speaker 3: want you to always be panicking all the time. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and that drives consumer choices, that drives AD revenue, right.
Speaker 2: I mean Bregman puts forward a very compellent argument in
Speaker 2: the book actually that the news is a public health
Speaker 2: asset totally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, like absolutely, and like I have to keep
Speaker 3: up with the news all the time, and I don't
Speaker 3: think it affects me that much anymore. And certainly in
Speaker 3: you know, doing a daily news show, we try to
Speaker 3: be very selective in the things that we cover. We
Speaker 3: don't cover everything all the time. We try to cover
Speaker 3: the things that, like our hosts feel is both like
Speaker 3: within their wheelhouse and people who listen to the show
Speaker 3: should know about write certain things that you might not
Speaker 3: be hearing about in like a mainstream news. But no,
Speaker 3: the news has a massive thing spiritual evil to it
Speaker 3: as well. There is there is a sinister undercurrent to
Speaker 3: like the news, like as like an industry indeed, and
Speaker 3: that's something that we are also always like butting up against.
Speaker 3: Well on on that optimistic.
Speaker 2: Note, yeah, until next time, we'll follow it to all
Speaker 2: the people peace.
Speaker 1: It could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: now find sources for it could Happen Here listed directly
Speaker 1: in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.