Speaker 1: Welcome to part two of conviviality. What is it? What
Speaker 1: are people thinking about it? Always this funky Latin would
Speaker 1: changing and evolving and sitting into an entire movement, and
Speaker 1: how is it affecting other movements. Last time we spoke
Speaker 1: about the idea of conviviality, you know, which is essentially
Speaker 1: good vibes, fun, happy, chill, cool interactions between people you know,
Speaker 1: living well together and and joint life in the company
Speaker 1: of others, making sure people are included and welcomed so
Speaker 1: they can relax and have a great experience. We spoke
Speaker 1: about the illest multi hyphen it that is ivan Ilich.
Speaker 1: We spoke all the philosophical foundations of being built around
Speaker 1: for reality and what those implications have been on metaphysics
Speaker 1: and philosophical anthropology and epistemology and more. And so now
Speaker 1: we're going to get into the actual movement. So the
Speaker 1: first Manifesto was published by the Center for Global Cooperation
Speaker 1: Research in twenty fourteen. It discusses some of our current threats,
Speaker 1: including global warming and its consequences, ecosystem degradation, nuclear disaster risk,
Speaker 1: resource karse ty, poverty, wealth disparities, political disintegration instate conflicts,
Speaker 1: terrorism and security, criminal networks, influences, e specultive financial politics,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah. You know, you know the drill.
Speaker 1: If you're in this space, everything sucks. It could happen here.
Speaker 1: That's the name of the show, et cetera. The central
Speaker 1: challenges that we could drive ourselves to extinction right now,
Speaker 1: and if we don't turn this car around, and we
Speaker 1: could take most of the world with us. This particular manifesto,
Speaker 1: which is asking four basic questions and their considerations and
Speaker 1: what we should consider about them. Right For one, for
Speaker 1: moral question, what may individuals legitimately aspire to and where
Speaker 1: must they draw the line? And the Manifesto answers with
Speaker 1: considering that every individual has a legitimate aspiration to be
Speaker 1: treated with equal dignity, to have access to the necessary
Speaker 1: material conditions for their vision of a good life, or
Speaker 1: considering other's perspectives, and participate meaningfully in political life and
Speaker 1: decision making. However, individuals must also avoid exceed in bounds
Speaker 1: and succumb into this infantile desire for power and control,
Speaker 1: which jeopardizes social cohesion and the principle of common humanity.
Speaker 1: What that means is that we need to actively be
Speaker 1: combatant corruption, refusing to engage in actions that compromise please
Speaker 1: vive personal gain, opposing the corruption others to the extent
Speaker 1: of wuntabilities encourage fighting hierarchy. I mean to Manifestor doesn't
Speaker 1: say a thing about fighting hierarchy, which I think is
Speaker 1: a faul to the manifesto. But I think for an
Speaker 1: anarchist reading that the implications are pretty clear. And that's
Speaker 1: what I have to do with a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: I read, you know, like read between the lines and
Speaker 1: pick up the points that the author missed. And so
Speaker 1: that's the moral consideration, right, What should we aspire to?
Speaker 1: Where must we draw the line? We aspire to being
Speaker 1: trud with equal dignity, have an access to decision making power,
Speaker 1: having a good life by having access to material conditions met.
Speaker 1: And we try to avoid exceeding boundaries our social boundaries,
Speaker 1: and we should try to avoid exceeding social boundaries related
Speaker 1: to hierarchy and control and power. The second question is political.
Speaker 1: It asks us which are the legitimate political communities. So
Speaker 1: the Manifesto argues that the establishment of a single world
Speaker 1: state in their future is unlikely and the political organization
Speaker 1: will continue to be based on the plurality of states,
Speaker 1: and that I think demonstrates the limitations of this Manifesto's
Speaker 1: imagination are configurabism. That's what happens when you have this
Speaker 1: clearly radical idea and you try to squeeze the radical
Speaker 1: idea into a fundamentally unradical and statistical idea as nation states.
Speaker 1: But let me not excessively editorialize. I'm just presenting this
Speaker 1: movement and what its proponents have been arguing. Right according
Speaker 1: to their perspective, states and political institutions are considered legitimate
Speaker 1: only if they uphold principles such as common humanity, common sociality, individuation,
Speaker 1: and managed conflict. To me, that's wishful thinking. But I
Speaker 1: digress submit states and it pains me to even say this,
Speaker 1: but just communicating, just communicating what the manifesto argues. The
Speaker 1: legitimate states extend rights beyond civil and political rights, encompass economic, social, cultural,
Speaker 1: and environmental rights. They ensure a minimum income for the
Speaker 1: poorest citizens, while also implemented a maximum income to prevent
Speaker 1: excessive wealth accumulation. The legitimate states maintain a balance between private, common, collective,
Speaker 1: and public goods and promote associational activities within a global
Speaker 1: civil society. They view digital networks as cools, as tools
Speaker 1: for democratization, and treat them as commons, foster and openness,
Speaker 1: free access and partiality and sharing. And they also revive
Speaker 1: the tradition of public service and prioritize the preservation of
Speaker 1: existing common goods while promoting the developments of new common
Speaker 1: goods for the benefit of humanity. Again, it goes without
Speaker 1: saying I take issue with this investment in states. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of their goals are noble, if not
Speaker 1: if they were not so tied down whether this investment
Speaker 1: in this state structure, because for an anarchist perspective, many
Speaker 1: of these ideas are not compatible with the structure of
Speaker 1: a state. And even theoretically, even hypothetically, if a state
Speaker 1: would implement all these changes where people had full prisipery
Speaker 1: involvement and decision making, where the where the hierarchies were flattened,
Speaker 1: and where everyone had free access and open access and
Speaker 1: their commons and all this laddida some anarchists, not every
Speaker 1: but some anarchists wouldn't even consider that to be a
Speaker 1: state anymore. But let's just get into the weeds of
Speaker 1: anarchist discourse and we're moving on the third question that
Speaker 1: the Manifesto ask is an ecological question, which is what
Speaker 1: we may take from nature, and which is what we
Speaker 1: must take from nature? Which is what we may take
Speaker 1: from nature and what we must give back? And the
Speaker 1: Manifesto asks us to consider that human beings should no
Speaker 1: longer see themselves as owners and masters of nature, but
Speaker 1: rathers interconnected with it. Right to ensure ecological justice and
Speaker 1: preserve a well managed natural heritage for future generations, humans
Speaker 1: mus establish a relationship with nature based on giving back
Speaker 1: as much or more than they take. The Manifesto argues
Speaker 1: that the level of material prosperity that can be sustainably
Speaker 1: extended to the entire planet is roughly comparable to the
Speaker 1: average wealth of the wealthiest countries in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: and that wealthier nations must be the responsibility to reduce
Speaker 1: their demand on nature relative to nineteen seventy standards, even
Speaker 1: as they maintain their current quality of life. Priorities of
Speaker 1: this Manifesto include reducing to two emissions, emphasize and renewable
Speaker 1: energy sources over nuclear and fossil fuels, and shifting away
Speaker 1: from viewing animals as mere resources for industry. The principles
Speaker 1: of gift and interdependence should thus guide relationships with animals
Speaker 1: and the earth as a whole. Lastly, the first Manifesto
Speaker 1: leaves us with an economic question, which is how much
Speaker 1: material wealth we may reproduce and how should we go
Speaker 1: about producing it? If we had to remain true to
Speaker 1: the answers given to the moral, political, and ecological questions,
Speaker 1: Manifesto asks us to consider there's no proven connection between
Speaker 1: monetary or material wealth and happiness which promotes any then
Speaker 1: to explore alternative forms of prosperity beyond economic growth. As
Speaker 1: you can see early on, we're making those connections to
Speaker 1: the idea of de growth. More on that later, and
Speaker 1: so this cause for a plural economy that balances the market,
Speaker 1: the public sector, and social solidarity economy based on the
Speaker 1: nature of goods and services involved. Again their perspective, but
Speaker 1: while the markets and profitability are legitimate, they must align
Speaker 1: with principles of common humanity, social cohesion, and ecological considerations.
Speaker 1: And by addressing the issues of the financial economy such
Speaker 1: as renterrorism and speculation through strict regulation, oversight, market restrictions,
Speaker 1: and elimination of tax events, humanity can tap into a
Speaker 1: broader spectrum of riches beyond economic and material wealth, including
Speaker 1: fulfillment derived from duty, solidarity, enjoyment, and createivity inferious domains,
Speaker 1: which of course highlights the importance of creativity and meaningful
Speaker 1: relationships with others as an essential component of a prosperous society,
Speaker 1: even if not materially or monetarily prosperous. The manifesto goes
Speaker 1: on to define convirivulism, the term that they use to
Speaker 1: describe all those elements and existing systems of belief that
Speaker 1: help us identify principles for enabling human beings simultaneously to
Speaker 1: compete and cooperate with one another with a shared concern
Speaker 1: to safeguard the world and the full knowledge the reformed
Speaker 1: part of that world and that its natural resources are finite.
Speaker 1: When it comes to Convivialism's crucial for us to hold
Speaker 1: on certain principles that can guide us imagine conflict, prioritizing
Speaker 1: cooperation while being mindful of the limitations posed by scarce resources,
Speaker 1: recognizing respect, alter into viewpoints and doctrines, opening the doors,
Speaker 1: engage in die logue and praise to perspectives, and being
Speaker 1: open to question and growth. All of that this manifesto
Speaker 1: sees as essential to the idea of configulis. It even
Speaker 1: goes on to propose convivialist policies, right, you know, the
Speaker 1: minimum maximum income, protecting natural resources through various reforms and regulations,
Speaker 1: tackling unemployments, promoting reduced working hours, supporting the growth of
Speaker 1: the Associationists economy. Of course, I feel that's where the
Speaker 1: manifesto falls short. But I do appreciate they had some
Speaker 1: of the ideas that it introduces or that it expounds upon.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'd appreciate all of the answers to the
Speaker 1: questions that itself that it raises, but I appreciated raising
Speaker 1: those questions, even if I might have slightly different answers
Speaker 1: to them. This thesis of this manifestore seems to be
Speaker 1: that a different kind of word is not just possible,
Speaker 1: but crucial and agently necessary. I don't like that it
Speaker 1: doesn't call out capitalism sufficiently or really at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it seems to have an overly cozy relationship with
Speaker 2: the state, too.
Speaker 1: Which is yeah, yeah, great, not cool. They do say
Speaker 1: quote there will clearly be as many, perhaps conflicting permutations
Speaker 1: of convivialism as there are of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, liberalism, socialism, communism,
Speaker 1: et cetera, not least because convivialism in no way invalidates
Speaker 1: these So fair enough, in a sense, I appreciate that
Speaker 1: they can accept that their particular interpretation is not the
Speaker 1: only one that there can be. I'm sure by this
Speaker 1: particular passage they mean that there will be socialist orientations
Speaker 1: of convivialism and liberals of convivialism, and Christian orientations of convivialism,
Speaker 1: and et cetera, because they don't see convivialism as incompatible
Speaker 1: with any of them. I think I might take some
Speaker 1: issue with, I guess, not refining contrivialism. Further, I appreciate
Speaker 1: that they themselves didn't refine it, because you know, they're
Speaker 1: clearly quite liberal, But I think that contribualism as an
Speaker 1: idea is something at least we uh distilled. Further, because
Speaker 1: when you have this sort of free for all everybody
Speaker 1: and everything goes approach to the ideology, I think it
Speaker 1: opens up a lot of room for states and corporations
Speaker 1: and NGOs to kind of slip in there and be like, oh,
Speaker 1: look at us, we are going to add confrivilism to
Speaker 1: our constitution and that kind of thing. Like then they
Speaker 1: go and everyone applause and like wow, xyz. Government just
Speaker 1: added contribualism to their constitution and three chairs for them.
Speaker 1: And then the government just continues doing what it usually
Speaker 1: was doing before it added convidism to its constitution. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like with the whole I spoke about with my
Speaker 1: Vivere podcast episode. Yeah, it's kind of like a situation
Speaker 1: Yasuni it t right. Ecuadorian government was like, we are
Speaker 1: going to protect this forest. We're not gonna drill for
Speaker 1: oil in this forest, even though it has a bunch
Speaker 1: of oil in this forest, over six billion dollars with
Speaker 1: oil in this forest. We're just gonna ask the international
Speaker 1: community for like three point six billion of that oil
Speaker 1: and once you'll pay that, we're not going to drill
Speaker 1: the oil. And we want to set this precedent for
Speaker 1: other countries to follow, and YadA YadA, and we added
Speaker 1: to our constitution and all our cash money. Right, but
Speaker 1: then they got like two hundred million dollars worth of
Speaker 1: pledges and then they were like, actually, you know, we're
Speaker 1: still going to do it even though we didn't get
Speaker 1: all the money, and then he lad, They're like, nah,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do it anymore. And then a
Speaker 1: couple of years after that they started drilling in the
Speaker 1: National Park, and then a couple of years after that, yeah,
Speaker 1: they started drilling even for the even closer to indigenous
Speaker 1: territories within the park. So you know, that's like it
Speaker 1: caught up in the fluffy words of states and corporations.
Speaker 2: And yeah, there was a there's a there's a version
Speaker 2: of this that happen in Bolivia where they did like
Speaker 2: a very similar thing, and then within half a decade, uh,
Speaker 2: like riot police were storming the offices of like of
Speaker 2: one of the giant like digious confederations.
Speaker 1: So it's you know, yeah, I mean keep in mind
Speaker 1: a lot of what states do a lot of politicians too,
Speaker 1: is just pr right, And I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people are able to recognize that when it's happened in
Speaker 1: their own country, but due to ignorance perhaps of other countries.
Speaker 1: This a politician doing the same thing in another country,
Speaker 1: and they're like, wow, why can't we be more like them?
Speaker 1: And it's like, well, yeah, it to be fair, you know,
Speaker 1: there are politicians and governments that are doing better than
Speaker 1: other politicians and governments, and I'm I'm not going to
Speaker 1: like blind my eye to that, but yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, there's still politicians, there's
Speaker 1: still governments. They're still doing their pr putting out their
Speaker 1: best image, put on the best foot forward to hold
Speaker 1: on to whatever power they have.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and with both Ecuador and Bolivia too, it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 2: if if you want your politicians to have pr like that,
Speaker 2: like you two can block every single road and your
Speaker 2: country start starving your capital out, like yeah, Yeah, Politicians
Speaker 2: do not descend from the heavens. They are the product
Speaker 2: of a combination of material conditions and social forces. So
Speaker 2: get better social forces.
Speaker 1: Exactly, exactly. That's the that's our elevator pitch for anarchism.
Speaker 1: By the way, But I did say there were two manifestos, right,
Speaker 1: So what about the second manifesto? Right, Concivulist Manifesto number
Speaker 1: two published by the Concrivilist International in twenty twenty recent
Speaker 1: and they define Confibualism as a comprehensive philosophy that encompasses humanist,
Speaker 1: civic and political principles aimed at foster and harmonia scooing
Speaker 1: systems in the modern era emphasize and the importance of
Speaker 1: living together and outlining normative principles to guide that. In
Speaker 1: deeval second manifesto of Concriviualism emphasizes the need for a
Speaker 1: new political philosophy to challenge neoliberalism drast global issues. Pause.
Speaker 1: This idea of it's something that you see a lot,
Speaker 1: particularly in that sort of Engio space, right, A lot
Speaker 1: of not radical organizations and movements will speak about challenging neoliberalism.
Speaker 1: And it could usually tell because they specify new liberalism.
Speaker 1: They don't say capitalism. They're not anti capitalists, they're just
Speaker 1: anti neoliberalism, which in itself is not radical because newliberalism
Speaker 1: in itself is just a recent permutation of capitalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I should point out, like there as bad
Speaker 2: as neoliberalism is, like, there are forms of capitalism that
Speaker 2: are worse than it. So yeah, yeah, you know, see
Speaker 2: see as evidence World War two. Uh yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 2: just wanted to put that on the records.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, but just just for the sake of
Speaker 1: people's own ability to scrutinize information and scrutinize movements. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting trick of the language because by rallying against neoliberalism.
Speaker 1: They're able to like bring a lot of the anti
Speaker 1: capitalist people into the mix and draw from that crowd.
Speaker 1: But a lot of these movements are not themselves anti capitalists.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you want something more than a
Speaker 1: nicer capitalism, that is something to keep in mind. Even
Speaker 1: if you were and even if you know you take
Speaker 1: part in the movement, nothing wrong with that, still something
Speaker 1: to keep in mind. So the second matter of fest
Speaker 1: to it also highlights the interconnectedness of young people's concerns
Speaker 1: about climate change and environmental degradation. Talks about the struggles
Speaker 1: of those seeking freedom from dictatorships or those being forced
Speaker 1: to migrate, and it aims to offer and would say,
Speaker 1: into vision for a post neoliberal world where promoting shared
Speaker 1: values and the sense of agency. Furious intellectuals, activists, writers
Speaker 1: and artists so all committed to this collective project with
Speaker 1: the aim of creating this globally shared vision for the
Speaker 1: future that is more inclusive and more participatory. The manifesto,
Speaker 1: the second manifestor, like the first one, talks about the
Speaker 1: post World War two growth in principles and human rights
Speaker 1: and the shift in capitalism towards speculative and rent their practices,
Speaker 1: talks about the decline of liberal democracies and the rise
Speaker 1: of illiberal democrateurs, and speaks about resentment growing from past
Speaker 1: clear domination and radical movements including al Qaeda, Reflecting that animosity. Again,
Speaker 1: like the previous manifesto, it talks about ecological threats like
Speaker 1: global warming and air pollution, oceanic pollution and accumulation of
Speaker 1: plastic waste, nuclear disasters, weekends, ecosystems, rise and employment, job displacement,
Speaker 1: wealth inequality, lack of regulation for transnational companies, political fragmentation,
Speaker 1: and terrorism. All that fun stuff, and this time the
Speaker 1: second manifesto outlines five principles to form the basis of
Speaker 1: policies or ethics or organizational actions. Right common naturality, common humanity,
Speaker 1: common sociality, legitimate individuation, and creative opposition. These principles emphasize
Speaker 1: one the interconnectedness of humans with nature to the importance
Speaker 1: of respecting the shared humanity of all individuals. Three the
Speaker 1: value of social relationships for the need for individuals to
Speaker 1: develop the individuality or respecting others, and five the recognition
Speaker 1: of peaceful rivalry for the common good. These principles are
Speaker 1: meant to be guided by the imperative of hubrist control,
Speaker 1: which promotes cooperation and prevents the desire for power and excess.
Speaker 1: The manifesto all symphasizes the importance of balance and these
Speaker 1: principles to avoid their potential negative consequences. One of the
Speaker 1: things that the Manifesto is really trying to get at
Speaker 1: in particular, and the reason that it even establishes this
Speaker 1: imperative for hubrist control, is because it argues that ideologies
Speaker 1: focus primarily on satisfying material needs and overlook the crucial
Speaker 1: role of recognition and desire, and that by reducing part
Speaker 1: the fulfillment of needs, ideologies fail to address the problem
Speaker 1: of limiting the desire for power and control. To me,
Speaker 1: it just seems like the people who wrote this manifesto
Speaker 1: aren't familiar with anarchism and anarchism's centuries long confrontation with power,
Speaker 1: control and the desire for it that has altered the
Speaker 1: course of very hvarious human societies. Right digress, The manifesto
Speaker 1: instead points to religions as playing the historical role of
Speaker 1: trying to curb our desire for power and control. That
Speaker 1: seems to me like a very poor argument considering the
Speaker 1: history of religion, but The point that the Manifestoro is
Speaker 1: trying to make is that modern democratic discourses struggle to
Speaker 1: restrain limitless desire and often reproduce the humors that they
Speaker 1: aim to combat. And so the role of a convivialist
Speaker 1: movement then should be in part on persuading individuals to
Speaker 1: renounce the desire for dominance and reinforce the principles of
Speaker 1: common humanity, sociality, naturality in legitimate interviewation and creative opposition. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the direction people are taking convivialists
Speaker 1: and is radically enough because I think it leaves room
Speaker 1: for it to fall into existing structures. I mean, the
Speaker 1: manifest even talks about creating a convivialist party to reignite
Speaker 1: hope and liberal democracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I also want to just point out the
Speaker 2: sort of like.
Speaker 1: Just how.
Speaker 2: How weak of a position it is to, you know,
Speaker 2: have one of your goals just to convince individual people to.
Speaker 1: Want less power.
Speaker 2: Like I think that's just just sort of boldly anti
Speaker 2: structural as a present prescription.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean, I guess that's something that I've
Speaker 1: come to expect from certain MILLI use, right, a lack
Speaker 1: of engagement with uh structural domination and how structures inform
Speaker 1: how individuals behave you know, like, yes, individuals act within structures,
Speaker 1: but I think people have actually underestimate structural incentives, Like
Speaker 1: it's not just about oh, if you get rid of
Speaker 1: this bad person from a position of power, but this
Speaker 1: good person a position of power, and everything will be
Speaker 1: hunky dory. Like nah, there's still there's still like you
Speaker 1: still haven't confronted the way that that structure, that position
Speaker 1: incentivizes certain behavior. But like I said before, I'm an anarchists.
Speaker 1: I take what I like, I leave what I don't.
Speaker 1: They're also saying a manifest so they're confibulism longs to nobody.
Speaker 1: So I've decided that, you know, my version of confivuloism
Speaker 1: is not going to be this water down, watercress salad
Speaker 1: kind of pathy, weak limpristed take on, you know, world
Speaker 1: alter and structural change. Lastly, I didn't want to touch
Speaker 1: on because I could say I would the significant role
Speaker 1: that conviviality is played in the de growth movement, particularly
Speaker 1: highlighted in texts like the Growth of Vocabulary for a
Speaker 1: New Era inspired by Ivan's ideas. Conviviality and the growth
Speaker 1: has referred to native society that values joyful sobriety, responsible
Speaker 1: consumption and the use of limited tools that are emmansipiratory
Speaker 1: and responsor to human needs. The ideas that Ivan outlined
Speaker 1: and tools of conviviality which I spoke on in the
Speaker 1: first part. This two parter is considered part of the
Speaker 1: intellectual roots of the growth as an idea itself, and
Speaker 1: conviviality is often discussed in relation to technologies, including digital technologies,
Speaker 1: and how technology is suitable to a de growth society
Speaker 1: must be convivial. One particular tool has been developed for
Speaker 1: self assessment, political education and researcher lining with convivial principles,
Speaker 1: and that is the matrix for contrivial technology or MCT.
Speaker 1: And the matrix for convivial technology is to go with
Speaker 1: a very basic definition, a normative schema that forsters. Discussion
Speaker 1: concerning degrowth technologies in context of political education them city
Speaker 1: is meant first to reflect on the dimensions of the
Speaker 1: materials we use in technology is and how we produce
Speaker 1: those technologies, how we use the technologies, how the technologies
Speaker 1: fit into the infrastructure, how accessible they are, how interactive
Speaker 1: they are with the environment, how adaptable they are, and
Speaker 1: change in circumstances and much more, how appropriate they are
Speaker 1: and much more. But beyond the MSCT, conviviality is also
Speaker 1: being used in the de growth space to describe public spaces, goods,
Speaker 1: conservation movements, and even humans. Within the growth literature, transitioning
Speaker 1: to a convivial society is considered to be one of
Speaker 1: the core objectives of the de growth movement, one of
Speaker 1: the core shifts that needs to take place for us
Speaker 1: to de grow as a society. And so that's the
Speaker 1: all in short of it, the convivialist manifesto, convivialism and
Speaker 1: contriviality as ideas how they've changed and been adapted, and
Speaker 1: how people have been building on the ideas therein in
Speaker 1: the sphere of philosophy and politics, education and technology and
Speaker 1: more food for thought. I hope you appreciated this brief exploration.
Speaker 1: As I like to say at the end of my videos,
Speaker 1: and I consider it particularly aptain in the context of
Speaker 1: conviviality and convivial technology is all power to all the people.
Speaker 1: Once again, you could find me Andrew on YouTube dot
Speaker 1: com slash aneurism and support me on feature dot com
Speaker 1: slash saying true. And as usual, this has been it
Speaker 1: could Happen Here, Where things happen, we talk about stuff.
Speaker 2: It could Happen Here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 2: coolzonemedia dot com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 2: find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at
Speaker 2: coolzonemedia dot com slash sources.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.