Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. We are off for the holidays, but
Speaker 1: in advance we made you a fantastic show. Today, Dana
Speaker 1: Blute of the podcast The Last Resort is going to
Speaker 1: tell us about their fantastic podcast. The covers the California
Speaker 1: secession movement and the national divorce concept. But first we
Speaker 1: have the author of the new handbook for a post
Speaker 1: row America, the West Alabama Women's Center's very own Robin Marty.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics. Robin, Hello, thank you for having
Speaker 1: me back. Thank you for coming back. We've interviewed you
Speaker 1: a bunch of times during the SPA when we saw
Speaker 1: what was coming, then the year of horrible nous between
Speaker 1: SPA and the leaked Dobbs decision, then that dog sitution,
Speaker 1: then in Coming Down. It's been now a couple of months.
Speaker 1: How has life changed in Alabama? That is such a
Speaker 1: huge question. And honestly, I'm afraid to talk to you
Speaker 1: because every time I talk to you, things get worse.
Speaker 1: I promise I'm not a witch you. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we are still at West Alabama Women's Center, and
Speaker 1: we are surprisingly still open. Originally we thought we had
Speaker 1: about three months left in us to be able to
Speaker 1: stay around, but we did a lot of fundraising and
Speaker 1: so we are still here and we are going to
Speaker 1: be here until at least June of next year, according
Speaker 1: to my books. So I'm very excited about that, and
Speaker 1: it's good because we're going to a pretty desperate state
Speaker 1: out here right now. I mean state physically, in state emotionally. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the need for abortion did not go away. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that has been so very disheartening out
Speaker 1: here is the fact that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: us assumed that people were going to try to leave
Speaker 1: the state. We assume that people were going to self
Speaker 1: manage and that they would need us to be able
Speaker 1: to help them. But the reality is we are seeing
Speaker 1: patients who do not want to be pregnant, do not
Speaker 1: want to have another child or a first child, but
Speaker 1: they are just resigned to it. And they're resigned to
Speaker 1: it because they see this as just another way that
Speaker 1: the government has forced something on them that they didn't
Speaker 1: want in a long series of these sort of government
Speaker 1: actions against their body. They see this as another way
Speaker 1: that they are being harmed in the same way of
Speaker 1: not being given decent jobs or healthcare or schools drinking water.
Speaker 1: This is just another way that the government says we
Speaker 1: do not care about you, and you don't have any
Speaker 1: choice in your future. And so that's what we're trying
Speaker 1: to address right now. One of our primary goals right
Speaker 1: now is that we do pregnancy confirmation, which is required
Speaker 1: when a person is pregnant and uninsured in order to
Speaker 1: get onto Medicaid, so that they can then be seen
Speaker 1: for prenatal care appointments and doctors. We're doing that confirmation
Speaker 1: because obviously people who are uninsured can't get a doctor
Speaker 1: to confirm their pregnancy, which is what they need to
Speaker 1: get Medicaid in order to get a doctor. So we're
Speaker 1: seeing them, we're providing early prenatal care, and then we
Speaker 1: are just trying to address every need that we can.
Speaker 1: Today or yesterday, we had a patient who came in
Speaker 1: who was eight months pregnant. She thought she had no
Speaker 1: very insist so she did not realize that she was
Speaker 1: that far along. She's advanced maternal age, all of these
Speaker 1: other things, and so we saw her and we're getting
Speaker 1: trying to get her referred to a hospital for a
Speaker 1: doctor who can deliver, and it will be a high
Speaker 1: risk pregnancy. But she's also eight months. I mean that's
Speaker 1: like very far along. Yeah, and it had no prenatal care,
Speaker 1: has nothing. And so this is what we see in Alabama.
Speaker 1: People who don't have access to health in time to
Speaker 1: know that something's wrong. People who don't understand even necessarily
Speaker 1: how their bodies are supposed to work in order to
Speaker 1: be able to recognize pregnancy. If there's a lack of
Speaker 1: health care, there's a lack of education, and there's such
Speaker 1: a lack of compassion. So you're saying to me, you're
Speaker 1: seeing people who are just resigned to this is what
Speaker 1: my life is now. Yes, very much so. I mean
Speaker 1: it's not like they then get some check. I mean,
Speaker 1: they can't afford to do this right, not at all.
Speaker 1: And the thing that was so heartbreaking about this patient
Speaker 1: is that she actually surprisingly ended up next door at
Speaker 1: the crisis pregnancy center instead of us, because they're still there.
Speaker 1: What are they even doing now if there's no abortion
Speaker 1: in the state. They did nothing for her because I
Speaker 1: talked to them a couple of times, and they had
Speaker 1: asked what we were doing, and I mentioned that we
Speaker 1: were doing prenatal care now and if they had people
Speaker 1: who need assistance to be good help that we're doing
Speaker 1: STI testing and treatment. If they have people who need assistance,
Speaker 1: we can help. We're not doing abortion. And an eight
Speaker 1: month pregnant woman walks in and they don't help her,
Speaker 1: and they don't give her instructions how to get to
Speaker 1: us who are right next door. They told her that
Speaker 1: they didn't know where we were. So I mean Alabama.
Speaker 1: I've only been here two years. But there is this
Speaker 1: this aura of people who are in charge will do
Speaker 1: anything in order to keep their power in place, and
Speaker 1: they don't care who they hurt. They don't care what
Speaker 1: happens to people that are not them, as long as
Speaker 1: they are maintaining their power and their control over the state.
Speaker 1: What does that even mean? Like the thing you were
Speaker 1: telling me about that really haunted me, which I feel
Speaker 1: like you're going to tell me worse things about now.
Speaker 1: Are the women who are in the middle of having
Speaker 1: a miscarriage who can't get treatment. Is that still going on?
Speaker 1: And it is still going on? Um, we have been
Speaker 1: able to see some of them, which is would we
Speaker 1: know there are probably more? This is still. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're still six months in, so this is still pretty new.
Speaker 1: We are still seeing people who have come to the
Speaker 1: hospital and who have been turned away from the hospital
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, oftentimes just to wait out and see
Speaker 1: if anything changes, if they miscarry on their own, that
Speaker 1: sort of thing. I'm very worried about next year in
Speaker 1: all honesty, because our state are politicians that are in
Speaker 1: charge are still zealous. We have now had six months
Speaker 1: in which the Attorney General has been successful at convincing
Speaker 1: everybody including us, that there is such a thing as
Speaker 1: a conspiracy law that would make it illegal for us
Speaker 1: to help people leave the state. And what I am
Speaker 1: very worried about is the way that that is going
Speaker 1: to get doubled down on next year, because we already know,
Speaker 1: for instance, that a group has found a lawmaker that
Speaker 1: is supposed to be proposing a bill that abortion will
Speaker 1: be illegal and anyone will be punished for having an abortion,
Speaker 1: so it will be the person who obtains the abortion
Speaker 1: as well, and that, according to the bill includes if
Speaker 1: they go out of state to have an abortion, that
Speaker 1: they could be punished for it in Alabama. So that
Speaker 1: allegedly is going to be introduced in the next session.
Speaker 1: I've been seeing all of this pop up of Comstock
Speaker 1: Act laws. So um Comstock Act was in the nineteen
Speaker 1: hundred's early nineteen hundreds, the idea that it is illegal
Speaker 1: to provide information about birth control or contraception or abortion,
Speaker 1: or to provide that in the mail. This is what
Speaker 1: the anti abortion activists are using in order to try
Speaker 1: to get the FDA to withdraw their their approval of
Speaker 1: medication abortion. Then we've seen it in different state and
Speaker 1: city ordinances that are being introduced, like the one that
Speaker 1: was in Pueblo, Colorado when they were trying to stop
Speaker 1: a new clinic from opening there. So everything that is
Speaker 1: is bad, everything that is the most extreme, the most
Speaker 1: Christian theocratic part of what law could be like. I
Speaker 1: expect all of these things to be tried out in Alabama,
Speaker 1: and it terrifies me because in Alabama it will pass.
Speaker 1: Is it still that if you're bleeding and you go
Speaker 1: to the hospital, they won't treat you. Is it worse?
Speaker 1: Is it a little better? I mean, well, it's difficult
Speaker 1: to tell. I believe I know that the medical professionals
Speaker 1: have met on this, and I believe that there is
Speaker 1: some organizing and trying to find out what they are
Speaker 1: in fact allowed to do. Our issue in Tuscaloosa is
Speaker 1: the fact that we literally only have one hospital. So
Speaker 1: in our city there is no option other than going
Speaker 1: to Juid City Health. That is where you go, and
Speaker 1: so that is if you are having bleeding and an issue,
Speaker 1: you would go there or you would come to us.
Speaker 1: And so now obviously we're in the situation where we
Speaker 1: can do an ultrasound and seed leading. We can do
Speaker 1: ultrasounds and see is the feat of developing, is the
Speaker 1: embryo developing, does it have a heartbeat, is it in
Speaker 1: the right place? All of those things. We can do
Speaker 1: testing to make sure that the amount of pregnancy hormone
Speaker 1: in the blood level is not increasing the way that
Speaker 1: it's supposed to, and all of those things should say.
Speaker 1: Because of the fact that we did them, we have
Speaker 1: proven that this is not a viable pregnancy, this is
Speaker 1: not an abortion, and we should be fine, but we
Speaker 1: don't know if we are. And that's what's scary about it.
Speaker 1: Because if you watch anti abortion UM literature, all of
Speaker 1: their press releases lately, everything, they are being very very
Speaker 1: specific about the idea that an abortion is an elective
Speaker 1: procedure anything else is not an abortion. And so essentially
Speaker 1: it comes down to your intent with your pregnancy. Did
Speaker 1: you want to be pregnant, then you can have an abortion.
Speaker 1: Did you not want to be pregnant, you cannot have
Speaker 1: an abortion. You need to remain pregnant. So it's really
Speaker 1: punitive and nonsensical, like the Republican Party right, exactly right.
Speaker 1: And it's where you get the idea there is no
Speaker 1: medically necessary abortion, because then they'll say that whatever happened
Speaker 1: that was not actually an abortion, that was a removal
Speaker 1: of a piece of tube that happened to have an
Speaker 1: embryo in it, that was making labor, making labor happen
Speaker 1: before the fetus was viable. That's what they will always
Speaker 1: use as their acrobatics around it, when it's really just
Speaker 1: it comes down to did you want to be pregnant,
Speaker 1: then it's okay. Did you not want to be pregnant,
Speaker 1: then it's bad. Is this increasing maternal fetal mortality? I mean,
Speaker 1: I have to assume it's going to It's too soon
Speaker 1: for us to be able to see the numbers. Yet
Speaker 1: I can tell you that we are seeing patients who
Speaker 1: come in who are more pregnant than would usually be
Speaker 1: in having their first appointments, so we know that that
Speaker 1: will eventually lead to to bad health outcomes because it
Speaker 1: always does. But the other thing is it's not as
Speaker 1: much we are going to have bad maternal mortality right away.
Speaker 1: A lot of the impacts of the maternal mortality is
Speaker 1: the idea of child space, sing and so letting your
Speaker 1: body be able to recover from a pregnant before they're
Speaker 1: pregnant again. So we might not see the impact in
Speaker 1: the first year, but then as the second year comes
Speaker 1: and they're pregnant again, and the third year comes and
Speaker 1: they're pregnant again. Because again Alabama is doing nothing to
Speaker 1: try to expand any sort of access to contraception. They're
Speaker 1: just saying, Okay, you can't have an abortion. So this
Speaker 1: is not something that is going to be a one cycle.
Speaker 1: This is going to be they are going to become
Speaker 1: pregnant over and over and over until they die. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there education about birth control or now? And not
Speaker 1: so much. Um, there really isn't much in the way
Speaker 1: of sex said in our schools. In fact, it was
Speaker 1: up until I think two years ago, it was actually
Speaker 1: okay for what sex said does exist for in public
Speaker 1: schools to say that being gay was high risk life
Speaker 1: that would likely kill you, and that that actually took
Speaker 1: I believe three sessions in the legislature before the bill
Speaker 1: was passed that removed that from the sex sidon curriculum.
Speaker 1: I don't believe we're as bad as Mississippi, where you
Speaker 1: can't actually show a condom being put on anything. I
Speaker 1: think we are allowed to put a condom on a banana,
Speaker 1: but I'm not positive. But the reality is the groups
Speaker 1: that usually do this sort of sex aid outreach, we
Speaker 1: don't really have much in the way of planned parent
Speaker 1: put down here. We don't have reproductive health care centers
Speaker 1: that are going to do that, and so inevitably it's
Speaker 1: going to be these faith based groups that are tapped
Speaker 1: that end up going into do set said and they
Speaker 1: are totally unscientific. They are yeah, this is the do
Speaker 1: you want to be that used piece of tape? Are
Speaker 1: you that chewed piece of bubble gum? That's the kind
Speaker 1: of stuff that they do. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: that is, but I don't even want to now. Oh,
Speaker 1: the bubble gum one is great. It's it's the idea
Speaker 1: of Okay, so if you have sex with somebody, then
Speaker 1: it's like being a chewed piece of bubble gum And
Speaker 1: is anybody else gonna want to put you in your
Speaker 1: in their mouth once you've already been in And it's
Speaker 1: always about the women obviously, yeah right, no man, They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're ruining yourself anyway. But so yeah, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: very shameful, and it's mostly about making making those who
Speaker 1: who are female feel ashamed of their bodies. Wow, that
Speaker 1: is really so fuck cost is the I like the
Speaker 1: chocolate the chocolate bar one where they will actually take
Speaker 1: a bar of chocolate and everybody passes it around and
Speaker 1: then and they're supposed to hold it for like thirty seconds,
Speaker 1: and then by the time it gets the last person,
Speaker 1: it's all melted. And they're like, yep, that's what happens
Speaker 1: when you have sex with too many people. You are
Speaker 1: a melted, ugly bar melty chocolate. That's pretty stupid. What
Speaker 1: can the casual listener to this podcast do? I think that,
Speaker 1: in all honesty, the thing that I would love to
Speaker 1: see the most is I wish that people would remember
Speaker 1: that we still have eleven states down here, all in
Speaker 1: the same region, all in the poorest area of the
Speaker 1: United States that have not expanded medicaid, and I'm starting
Speaker 1: to I mean, I think everybody's abandoned us over that idea.
Speaker 1: Like it was one thing when there were more states
Speaker 1: that hadn't done it, but now it's like we've moved
Speaker 1: on from it. We understand that Obamacare is not its
Speaker 1: best the best that it could be. And I know
Speaker 1: that we all want universal single payer and I am
Speaker 1: a for that, But the reality is that until we
Speaker 1: can get to that, and until we can find something
Speaker 1: that will happen nationally that our states can't opt out of,
Speaker 1: we need to be pushing for medicaid in these states
Speaker 1: down here in order to make sure that people have
Speaker 1: access to preventative healthcare. Are Preventative healthcare is going to
Speaker 1: get them through these pregnancies. Preventative healthcare is going to
Speaker 1: help them prevent pregnancies if they if they don't want
Speaker 1: to become pregnant. And I firmly believe that if we
Speaker 1: could just find one state in this group that the
Speaker 1: rest of them will crumble. It's just because these eleven
Speaker 1: have held fast together for so long. If one of
Speaker 1: them does it, then it would shame the rest and
Speaker 1: I'm looking at Atlanta, Georgia basically as being that place
Speaker 1: that could really flip things if Georgia could expand medicaid.
Speaker 1: I believe that Florida, Alabama, Mississippi. I believe that Texas
Speaker 1: really has a chance. But we need people to remember
Speaker 1: that that's still a fight that exists. It's not over
Speaker 1: for us, and it is literally killing people every day.
Speaker 1: So interesting. Thank you so much, Robin. I hope next
Speaker 1: time we talk to you there will be some good news.
Speaker 1: The right still relying on something or at least don't
Speaker 1: make it worse sor right. Thank you so much. Dana
Speaker 1: Blut is a producer for the podcast The Last Resort.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics. Dana, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: You have a pretty wild idea here talk to me
Speaker 1: about California secession. It's a really broad topic, but definitely
Speaker 1: not a new one. The idea of California succeeding from
Speaker 1: the United States has been around for quite a while,
Speaker 1: but for this particular podcast, we focused on a group
Speaker 1: that is an interesting one. You know. It was started
Speaker 1: by two guys, and Louis Marinelli and Marcus Ruise Evans,
Speaker 1: and they built a movement Um, that's been around for
Speaker 1: I would say at least the past ten years, and
Speaker 1: they believe that California would be better off becoming it's
Speaker 1: an independent country, and that the United States would be
Speaker 1: better off without California. They've built followers, but overall it's
Speaker 1: been I would say it's been a tumultuous ride for
Speaker 1: this group. Can you explain to me why they think
Speaker 1: we'd be better off separating from the fifth largest economy
Speaker 1: in the world the rest of America. They think that,
Speaker 1: you know, America would get laws, for example, past a
Speaker 1: lot easier, that we are culturally, at our core, very
Speaker 1: difference than the rest of the country, and that the
Speaker 1: United States has different political values, and that sometimes it
Speaker 1: is held back by liberal California. So why not have
Speaker 1: the United States? So they're conservatives, know, the group in
Speaker 1: California is liberal. Yeah, they assume that the rest of
Speaker 1: the United States is more conservative than California and therefore
Speaker 1: would be better off, you know, passing its conservative laws
Speaker 1: or being the conservative country that they believe. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: United States is, So that's why they think they'd be
Speaker 1: the rest of the country would be. They're off, But frankly,
Speaker 1: they just think more than anything, they think California would
Speaker 1: be a lot better off, right, Well, that makes a
Speaker 1: lot more sense. Tell us why California. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think we would be screwed, But tell us why California
Speaker 1: would be better off. Yeah, it kind of depends where
Speaker 1: you sit on the political spectrum. But they believe that California,
Speaker 1: as the fifth largest economy in the in the world,
Speaker 1: as you know, America's bread basket, as a place that
Speaker 1: has these utopian values at times, would be better off
Speaker 1: being independent, would have a lot more global power, not
Speaker 1: just you know, amongst its neighbors, but also in the world,
Speaker 1: and so would be able to play a bigger role
Speaker 1: in even global politics and arms deals and um, trying
Speaker 1: to spread you know, better environmental laws, and would have
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of cards in its corner being
Speaker 1: the fifth largest economy in the world and being America's
Speaker 1: bread basket and where you know, some of the water
Speaker 1: comes from, so, you know, on the surface, when I
Speaker 1: first started out, like m this is an interesting idea, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess you know, it does. On the surface it
Speaker 1: can seem like a compelling, compelling argument for California, just
Speaker 1: not for the rest of us. Yeah, not for the
Speaker 1: rest of the country. The rest of us are completely screwed.
Speaker 1: Tell me about the tumult. And also I want to know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is them or a different
Speaker 1: part of the California's secession movement, but it does seem
Speaker 1: to me that Russia was giving some money into one
Speaker 1: of these organizations. Part of that the Russian division stuff
Speaker 1: is they love secession movements. Yes, this is the group
Speaker 1: that we had a podcast about. Yes, and that is
Speaker 1: probably the biggest tumult of all. So this group, the leader,
Speaker 1: as I said, Louis Marinelli, was one of the founders
Speaker 1: and the president for a really long time. Louis is
Speaker 1: a complicated character. He started out as a conservative while
Speaker 1: advocating against same sex marriage and was you know, started
Speaker 1: out as a staunch conservative and over the years, you know,
Speaker 1: he says that he made the turn and became more
Speaker 1: liberal and started this group because he wanted better immigration policies.
Speaker 1: He was married to a Russian he and wanted to
Speaker 1: be able to bring his wife over and live in
Speaker 1: peace in California without having to go through all the
Speaker 1: complicated immigration policies. So he, you know, made the switch.
Speaker 1: But Louis is someone that has ties has long time
Speaker 1: ties with Russia. He went there first to teach English
Speaker 1: and so taught English there for a while, and then
Speaker 1: it came back for a little bit, married a Russian
Speaker 1: and then moved again and became you know, Moscow became
Speaker 1: his base while he was president of Yes California. So
Speaker 1: he says, you know that it was never he just
Speaker 1: chose to live there because he likes it, doesn't you know,
Speaker 1: shouldn't say anything about his loyalty to California. The story
Speaker 1: that you referenced comes from the fact that he struck
Speaker 1: up a friendship with a guy named Alexander I. Knov
Speaker 1: or Yonov, and Alexander Jonov started this group in Russia
Speaker 1: called the anti globalization movement, and actually not just California secessionists,
Speaker 1: but Texas secessionists and Hawaiian secessionists and other American secessionists
Speaker 1: around them around the country. Uh participated in Alexander Jonov's
Speaker 1: is summit that he had for anti globalization movements across
Speaker 1: the world. So it's not just Californians that actually went
Speaker 1: to Moscow to be at this summit, but also Texans
Speaker 1: and otherwise. And but Louis Louis because he was based
Speaker 1: in Moscow, became you know, I guess um friends or
Speaker 1: at least friendly with him, and Alexander Yonov gave him
Speaker 1: an office to to make the California Embassy based in Moscow,
Speaker 1: and as the FBI indictments that came out a couple
Speaker 1: of months ago, will say he did receive money from
Speaker 1: Alexander Yonov, which neither one of them denies, but they
Speaker 1: um they say it was five hundred dollars and that
Speaker 1: it wasn't used towards a protest. But of course, you
Speaker 1: know TBD on that. I don't know that. I it's
Speaker 1: hard to know what to believe. But we did ask
Speaker 1: both of them about receiving funds from Alexander Yonov and
Speaker 1: whether he had ties to the Russian governments as an
Speaker 1: FBI and Diatmond says, Alexander Yonov does deny that he
Speaker 1: has ties to the Russian intelligence. Again, I don't. I wouldn't. Um, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't have evidence either way, but yeah, exactly exactly
Speaker 1: why would he lie? I mean wild he lie? Right,
Speaker 1: So there's certainly is some sense that it's possible that
Speaker 1: this California succession movement was birthed in Moscow. I didn't
Speaker 1: know that it was birthed in Moscow, but it definitely
Speaker 1: had ties to it, and I would say that it
Speaker 1: received It's undoubted that it received support from from Moscow.
Speaker 1: Do you get the sense that these people are more
Speaker 1: than just chaos agents? You mean, like, yes, Californya, the
Speaker 1: secession group, I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are some people who really believe it, but I mean, clearly,
Speaker 1: Russia's interest in this has nothing to do with, you know,
Speaker 1: with California. I mean, it has to do with creating chaos, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think Russian interests are kind of supporting, as you say,
Speaker 1: chaos agents maybe, And although obviously that's not what they
Speaker 1: would say, but I actually would say these two founders
Speaker 1: did believe that, especially Marcus Ruiz Evans, the other you know, founder,
Speaker 1: did strongly and still strongly, really believes in this wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: So I personally wouldn't just say that, you know, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to reduce them to just chaos agents, because
Speaker 1: I do believe, especially Marcus, I do believe that he
Speaker 1: is genuine in his wanting California to succeed, even if
Speaker 1: a part of it might be also ego, you know,
Speaker 1: male ego is quite strong and to to be the
Speaker 1: president of something, and in one interview he said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, if California sees like you know, maybe we
Speaker 1: could be president of California. You know, it's like a
Speaker 1: ego is a very strong actor. Here it sounds insane.
Speaker 1: This is a pretty fringy movement. Yes, it is fringy.
Speaker 1: Although secession movements in America right, like in Texas, right,
Speaker 1: things are fringe until they're not. As we have seen,
Speaker 1: especially over the past five years, as we have unfortunately experienced,
Speaker 1: there's a bloodless secession. Talk to us about that. They
Speaker 1: believe in a non violence Yeah, well, the national divorce idea.
Speaker 1: So basically this would be brexit, right, Yes, I guess
Speaker 1: that's what they would hope except worse referendum. But they
Speaker 1: think they would like for it to be bloodless. In
Speaker 1: our podcast, we really go down the rabbit hole and
Speaker 1: sink would this be bloodless? And I think we land
Speaker 1: on the fact that that would be very difficult. As
Speaker 1: one of like Barbara Walter wrote the book about Civil
Speaker 1: War in America and has studied civil wars globally. As
Speaker 1: you know, the most violent wars are around secession globally,
Speaker 1: so they've always been the most violent wars around land.
Speaker 1: And so it would be very hard to believe that a,
Speaker 1: you know, California could secede without blood and yeah, and
Speaker 1: then there's a whole host of other things, the fact
Speaker 1: that Northern California is quite armed and very stands on
Speaker 1: a very opposite political spectrum then these guys or Calxit,
Speaker 1: So it would be hard to imagine that secession would
Speaker 1: be bloodless. Um, what weird stuff did you learn during
Speaker 1: this podcast? I learned a lot. The Russia stuff was
Speaker 1: quite fascinating to me. I had heard and speaking to
Speaker 1: Alexander Yonav which we did twice, that was quite strange. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we spoke on a zoom call and he I don't know,
Speaker 1: there's like weird wallpaper in the back, and you know,
Speaker 1: there were those kind of weird moments. I spent some
Speaker 1: time with the State of Jefferson group up in northern
Speaker 1: California around reading and was really interesting to me and
Speaker 1: interesting to them as well, because I think very few
Speaker 1: people from Los Angeles where I live ever interact with them.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a very violence movement, a heart
Speaker 1: far right movements in northern California that's growing. Is that
Speaker 1: like the New Idaho stuff? Yeah, yeah, similar to that.
Speaker 1: They you know, they want to create, you know, a
Speaker 1: state of Jefferson, which kind of incorporates some of the
Speaker 1: Idaho counties that also you know a great you know,
Speaker 1: stand along the same political lines. They also have militias,
Speaker 1: you know. Yeah, spend some time with the militia. You know,
Speaker 1: there's yeah, I mean, the the United States is changing
Speaker 1: a lot. You know, I'm disheartened, I think after making
Speaker 1: this podcast sadly with the state of the country. I
Speaker 1: think the division is a lot more aggressive, angry, and
Speaker 1: visceral than I had imagined. And lastly, I would say
Speaker 1: the thing that I learned the most, it's not weird,
Speaker 1: but quite amazing, was you know, the landback movement that STSCA,
Speaker 1: the host is very much involved in, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's an incredible movement of indigenous activists really trying to
Speaker 1: get some of their learned back, or some of their
Speaker 1: rights at least back. And California has one of the
Speaker 1: most violent histories against indigenous populations and that was something
Speaker 1: I didn't know before making us. Is there any chance
Speaker 1: that they can get some of it back? They have
Speaker 1: they have gotten some of their land back in northern California.
Speaker 1: Other parts of the country, they're they're starting to get
Speaker 1: some of their land back. So it is like a growing,
Speaker 1: growing movement. But yeah, it's positive in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways as well. Thank you so much. This is great.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thanks so much for having me. That's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and Friday to your the best minds and politics makes
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.