Speaker 1: Welcome to I Could Happened Here, a podcast about a
Speaker 1: world sliding ever further into the abyss. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Mia Wong. As the wave of atrocities committed by Israel
Speaker 1: and the Gaza strip rate is on and the moral
Speaker 1: authority of Biden and his liberal cohort crumbles day by day,
Speaker 1: a new generation of right wing media grifters have seized
Speaker 1: on Palestine as a way to boost their own reactionary brand.
Speaker 1: But these are not the standard kind of right wing
Speaker 1: grifter that we've become accustomed to on this show. They
Speaker 1: aren't Chris Ruffo, they aren't libbit of TikTok, and although
Speaker 1: they will eventually appear on Tucker Carlson, they aren't cut
Speaker 1: from that pre existing template. These are our monsters. These
Speaker 1: are monsters birth by the left I grew up in,
Speaker 1: by the generation of new socialist radicalized by Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: the serience of a war, and the election of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is largely to be a set up episode to
Speaker 1: understand the background of the kinds of people who are
Speaker 1: going to come later, But I wanted to start the
Speaker 1: story with a taste of where it's going to end.
Speaker 1: Max Blumenthal is a left wing journalist with the outlet
Speaker 1: Gray Zone. He was for a very long time well
Speaker 1: regarded in anti imperialist circles. In many ways, he is
Speaker 1: the ideological predecessor to enormous portions of the modern left.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty one, Anthony Fauci, the former head of
Speaker 1: the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Biden's
Speaker 1: chief health official, went on Face the Nation to face
Speaker 1: allegations and calls by Senator Ran Paul and Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: for him to step down and quote be prosecuted over
Speaker 1: the course of COVID nineteen. Yeah, after the Saint if
Speaker 1: you happen to Face the Nation, release a tweet about it.
Speaker 1: Bluementhal responded with an incredibly disturbing video. I'm going to
Speaker 1: read the tweet. I'm not going to play the video
Speaker 1: because this guy listening to him is a painful experience.
Speaker 1: Bluementhal responded, quote Nobel winning inventor of the PCR test,
Speaker 1: Carrie Molus on Anthony, quote I am the science Fauci quote,
Speaker 1: and this is from Mollas. Tony Fauci does not mind
Speaker 1: going on camera in front of the people who pay
Speaker 1: his salary and lie directly into the camera. By the way,
Speaker 1: the part where he says lie instead of lying, there
Speaker 1: is a direct quote that is him, not me. So
Speaker 1: to understand how absolutely it absolutely absurd this is we
Speaker 1: need to talk about who Carrie Burris actually is. So
Speaker 1: Max Bluemoenthal is correct that Carrie Mollis won the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety three Nobel Prize for the invention of the PCR test,
Speaker 1: which is now one of the basic building blocks of biology.
Speaker 1: Like they let undergrads and college do this stuff, but
Speaker 1: he is also an enormous crank. Berkeley's alumni magazine wrote
Speaker 1: a profile of him when he died in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: They described him like this quote. He'd become a vociferous
Speaker 1: critic of widely accepted scientific theories, ridiculing the notion that
Speaker 1: CFCs caused the ozone hole, that humans caused climate change,
Speaker 1: and that HIV caused aids now Okay, climate change denihilism,
Speaker 1: I think is something we all understand. The ozone layer
Speaker 1: stuff is extremely funny. This interviews from the nineties. So
Speaker 1: in the nineties we were using these things called CFC's,
Speaker 1: which is a class of chemical that we used in
Speaker 1: like hairspray and refrigerators and using them tore a hole
Speaker 1: in the ozone layer. So the world, for maybe the
Speaker 1: last time, actually performed a collective action, stopped using them,
Speaker 1: and the hole fixed itself. So okay, obviously, carry mollis
Speaker 1: unbelievably and very quickly proven unbelievably wrong. But the last part,
Speaker 1: the part where carry Mullus claims that HIV does not
Speaker 1: cause AIDS, we need to talk about a bit more
Speaker 1: because it is absolutely monstrous and it is going to
Speaker 1: give mollos a body cout. Even Kissinger would not in
Speaker 1: respect to. So okay, we need to talk about what
Speaker 1: HIV AIDS actually is. So I'm just gonna go to
Speaker 1: the CDC for this one. HIV human and aminio deficiency
Speaker 1: virus is a virus that attacks the body's immune system.
Speaker 1: If HIV is not treated, it can lead to AIDS
Speaker 1: acquired amino deficiency syndrome. There is no effective cure. Once
Speaker 1: people get HIV, they have it for life, but with
Speaker 1: proper medical care, HIV can be controlled. People with HIV
Speaker 1: who get effective HIV treatment can live long, healthy lives
Speaker 1: and protective partners. And this is something that queer people
Speaker 1: fought and died for. If you have HIV. There are
Speaker 1: simple and easy tests for it. Now you can get
Speaker 1: treatment and you can live a normal life. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, if HIV isn't treated, you can get acquired
Speaker 1: ammino deficiency syndrome AIDS, and that can and will kill you.
Speaker 1: It is what killed so so many, almost an entire
Speaker 1: generation of queer people killed the for decades and decades
Speaker 1: and decades, and it's still killing them now. Carrie Mullis,
Speaker 1: the guy who Max bluemitthal is tweeting a video of
Speaker 1: to go after Anthony Fauci doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS.
Speaker 1: He thinks that AIDS is caused by malnutrition in poverty,
Speaker 1: and he is going to spend the rest of his
Speaker 1: life telling anyone in everyone he can, getting mainstream press coverage,
Speaker 1: telling people that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. He is the
Speaker 1: Andrew Wakefield of HIV AIDS denihilism. Lots of people believe him,
Speaker 1: including for example, the Foo fighters Dave Gruel. They believe
Speaker 1: him because he is apparently a reputable source. The man
Speaker 1: has a Nobel prize. But unfortunately, as we've already seen
Speaker 1: from his climate denial and his CFC denial, he is
Speaker 1: spreading unbelievably dangerous lies, and this specific lie that HIV
Speaker 1: doesn't cause AIDS fucking kills people. Here's from that Berkeley
Speaker 1: article again. I don't like the way they're phrasing it.
Speaker 1: It's the you know, it's Berkeley, right like, so some
Speaker 1: stuff going to some stuff's going to be racists. His
Speaker 1: views on AIDS don't just look bad, they may have
Speaker 1: had deadly consequences. By the late nineteen nineties, South Africa
Speaker 1: was in the midst of a catastrophic AIDS epidemic. President
Speaker 1: Thumbo mcbecky, under the spell of AIDS de nihilist including Mullis,
Speaker 1: declared that AIDS was caused by poverty, not HIV. Many
Speaker 1: South Africans were denied access to treatment. A two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight study published in the Journal of Acquired Immuno
Speaker 1: Deficiency Syndromes estimated that as a result, thirty five thousand
Speaker 1: babies were born with HIV and three hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: thousand South Africans died of AIDS unnecessarily. This is monstrous.
Speaker 1: And here is Max Blumenthal, who was up until very
Speaker 1: recently at the very least nominally a left wing journalist,
Speaker 1: tweeting a video of this fucking guy to attack Anthony
Speaker 1: Fauci on behalf of a bunch of right wing anti
Speaker 1: lockdown rules. Now, I especially want to do this because
Speaker 1: if you want to attack Anthony Fauci, it is very
Speaker 1: very easy to do from the left. You can attack
Speaker 1: him for his response to the original HIV AIDS pandemic,
Speaker 1: and you know, lots of queer people have done this. Instead,
Speaker 1: Max Bluemandal is tweeting a guy is tweeting a video
Speaker 1: from an unbelievable right wing crank who were responsible for
Speaker 1: the death of three hundred and thirty thousand people. So
Speaker 1: the question we're going to be answering for the next
Speaker 1: three episodes is how did we get here and what
Speaker 1: is happening now? And to do this, we need to
Speaker 1: talk about the rise of American Marxist Leninism. I'm going
Speaker 1: to try to present the ideology as sympathetically as possible,
Speaker 1: because it's important to understand how people came to believe
Speaker 1: in these things, because part of the horror and tragedy
Speaker 1: here is that not all of these people are the
Speaker 1: grifters and shills and right wing fanatics that the ideology
Speaker 1: spawned and who were now having to deal with people
Speaker 1: who are on info Wars agreeing with Alex Jones. Most
Speaker 1: of them were people like us, people who saw the
Speaker 1: horrors of this world and wanted to make it better.
Speaker 1: A lot of the writing about this is clinical and antiseptic,
Speaker 1: largely coming from either academic journals or very very angry liberals.
Speaker 1: And I can't be clinical about this. I can't cover
Speaker 1: this neutraally. And I can't do that because some of
Speaker 1: these people were my friends. There were people I loved
Speaker 1: and respected and cared about, and they're people who have
Speaker 1: now lost, and so I owe it to them to
Speaker 1: be fair about this. So what is the modern generation
Speaker 1: of Marxist Leninism. You could start with the history of
Speaker 1: the Bolsheviks and Stalin's consolidation of power and the development
Speaker 1: of Marxist Leninism as an ideology, and you could trace
Speaker 1: it through the twentieth century, and you could trace, you know,
Speaker 1: the ways which it is and isn't the ideology that
Speaker 1: Lenin had originally been developing. But that really is the
Speaker 1: wrong place to start here if you want to understand
Speaker 1: how this ideology came to be and why so many
Speaker 1: people came to follow it. The right place to start
Speaker 1: is America. It's with a generation of young people who
Speaker 1: grew up in the wake of the two thousand and
Speaker 1: eight financial collapse and the ruthless suppression of occupy by
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. It's a generation of people who grew
Speaker 1: up on the Internet who began to learn about the
Speaker 1: lies we've been fed our entire lives about the world
Speaker 1: and America's role in it. They learned the lies we'd
Speaker 1: been told about the war in Iraq, about Afghanistan, about Vietnam,
Speaker 1: about Allende and Pinochet, about Cuba, about the Sandinistas, about
Speaker 1: American imperialism in Lebanon and Haiti and Guatemala and Honduras
Speaker 1: and Iran, about Patrice Lamumba and the DRC, About Sukarno
Speaker 1: and Suharto in the Killing Fields, about Thomas Sankara, about Saikuavara,
Speaker 1: about the Black Panthers, about a thousand wars and a
Speaker 1: thousand crimes of the American m Empire crime as we
Speaker 1: could spend an entire episode just listing by name. They
Speaker 1: learned in a tremendously short amount of time that the
Speaker 1: American Empire was born of genocide, It was built by slavery,
Speaker 1: and he is sustained by replicating those genocides across the
Speaker 1: world and at home. That the governments they were taught
Speaker 1: from birth to love and respect, slaughtered children in the
Speaker 1: streets with health fire and missiles, and then had the
Speaker 1: unmitigated gall to turn around and proclaim itself the leaders
Speaker 1: of the free world and the upholder of the rules
Speaker 1: based international order. And so they started learning about how
Speaker 1: our capitalist economy really functions. They started reading Marx and
Speaker 1: then they started reading Angles, and it led to other
Speaker 1: Marxists into the great international enemies of American imperialism from
Speaker 1: the last century ho Chi Minh Castro to Lenin, to
Speaker 1: struggles against colonialism in Algeria, and to intellectuals like Phenonen
Speaker 1: and militants like Asada Shakur. It led them to believe,
Speaker 1: to really believe in the struggle against capital and racism
Speaker 1: and imperialism, and that led them to Stalin and Mao,
Speaker 1: and eventually it would lead them down a darker path,
Speaker 1: a path where anything and everything could be justified if
Speaker 1: it meant defeating the American Empire, a path that told
Speaker 1: them it was their duty to back every state in
Speaker 1: the world who could even conceivably check the advance of
Speaker 1: American power. It led them to modern geopolitics, to the
Speaker 1: belief that modern China and Vietnam or socialist states still
Speaker 1: resisting American imperialism. It would lead them eventually to backing
Speaker 1: the very Russian oligarchs that had destroyed their beloved USSR.
Speaker 1: And it would lead some of them into the very
Speaker 1: heart of darkness itself, to an alliance with anyone and
Speaker 1: everyone who opposed liberal interventionism. It would lead in the
Speaker 1: seeking alliance with the arch right wing anti communist Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But it didn't start that way. The co option of
Speaker 1: the ideology is a process that took almost a decade
Speaker 1: and comprised a series of debates in side the left
Speaker 1: about what capitalism, socialism, and imperialism really are and how
Speaker 1: the left should relate to nationalism in the state. We'll
Speaker 1: talk more about how these debates led to a right
Speaker 1: wing turn at episode three. But the core beliefs anti imperialism,
Speaker 1: objection to capitalism, a rejection of liberal interventionism, and some
Speaker 1: of the darker and more conspiratorial tendencies, like accusing any
Speaker 1: protest movement against the government they supported of being CIA assets,
Speaker 1: spread like wildfire. There were contradictions from the beginning, of course,
Speaker 1: how do you square your opposition to capitalism with your
Speaker 1: support for China, a country with almost one thousand billionaires.
Speaker 1: The solution was to lie. Lies about China, in particular
Speaker 1: abound it. Many Marxist Leninists believe, for reasons that are
Speaker 1: deeply unclear to me, that China has public housing that
Speaker 1: automatically guarantees every citizen a home. This is not true.
Speaker 1: This unclear to me if it's ever been true, even
Speaker 1: through this so I mean, I guess you could argue
Speaker 1: it was sort of true during the socialist period. It
Speaker 1: has not been true for a very very long time.
Speaker 1: China has a lot of homeless people. But you know,
Speaker 1: these sort of lies persist because they are what you
Speaker 1: need to believe in order to believe that China is
Speaker 1: a socialist state and not a capitalist one. Another common
Speaker 1: line is that China has a fully socialized healthcare system.
Speaker 1: This is unbelievably not true. China, in fact, used to
Speaker 1: have something like a universal medical system that they operated
Speaker 1: in extreme difficulty with groups of people called the barefoot
Speaker 1: doctors who would go to rural villages that had never
Speaker 1: really received proper medical care before and attempt to treat them.
Speaker 1: This was the thing that China used to have, and
Speaker 1: then they tore it up and privatized it, and now
Speaker 1: Chinese private healthcare is absolute disaster. Calculations by the Chinese
Speaker 1: Journal Twang estimate that almost the entire Chinese economy is
Speaker 1: based on corporations not paying their required contributions to healthcare plans,
Speaker 1: and that if corporations actually paid into the healthcare plans
Speaker 1: of migro workers, the entire economies of entire provinces would
Speaker 1: immediately go under as an enormous majority of their corporations
Speaker 1: immediately went underwater. And so what we're getting a sort
Speaker 1: of picture of is people begin to believe things that
Speaker 1: need to be true in order for their ant to
Speaker 1: square their anti imperialism or their version of anti imperialism,
Speaker 1: which is opposing at all costs the United States with
Speaker 1: their anti capitalism when the two began to conflict in
Speaker 1: terms of, you know, attempting to support a very obviously
Speaker 1: capitalist economy, and this leads to some very very bizarre
Speaker 1: twists in turns. One very common thing is for socialists
Speaker 1: and socialist organizations in the US, or at least I
Speaker 1: say socialists, I made Marxist Leninists organizations to advocate for
Speaker 1: a fifteen or twenty dollars midiroom wage in China, while
Speaker 1: simultaneously celebrating three two cents an hour as the end
Speaker 1: of poverty in China. This has never actually peneted raided
Speaker 1: the minds of the new Marxist Leninists with their endless
Speaker 1: parades of flags and new countries added every day, from
Speaker 1: the genocidal austerity bongers in Ethiopia to the hardline, murderous
Speaker 1: anti communists to rule Meenmore by baton and bullet, new
Speaker 1: Marxist Leninists were able to effectively insulate themselves from reality.
Speaker 1: This left them as prey for a new generation of
Speaker 1: right wing grifters would cynically exploit them for wealth and status.
Speaker 1: They also garnered the hatred of the more internationalist factions
Speaker 1: of the left, and then, as their numbers expanded, the
Speaker 1: increasing ire of liberals, who, stealing a term from anarchists,
Speaker 1: began to call the Marxist Leninist tankies. This, I suspect,
Speaker 1: if you have heard of these people, is probably the
Speaker 1: word you've heard used to describe them. So we should
Speaker 1: talk about what this word actually means. But first, unfortunately some.
Speaker 2: Ads, and we're back.
Speaker 1: To explain what a tanky is, we have to go
Speaker 1: back to, bizarrely, the nineteen fifty six Hungarian Revolution. So
Speaker 1: all right, in nineteen fifty six there was a massive
Speaker 1: uprising in Hungary. The Hungarians effectively forced their government to
Speaker 1: break with the Soviets. The Soviets respond to this by
Speaker 1: rolling a bunch of tanks across the border, claiming everyone
Speaker 1: in the revolution is the fascism, killing them all, and
Speaker 1: they were fairly successfully able to convince a large number
Speaker 1: of Communists that the Hungarian revolutions really were fascists. They
Speaker 1: were aided in this by the fact that the liberals
Speaker 1: also lied about what the Hungarian Revolution really was, and
Speaker 1: this is a lie that they continue to spread to
Speaker 1: this day. The liberal version of the revolution is that
Speaker 1: it was, you know, it was a liberal revolution by
Speaker 1: people who wanted liberal democracy against the Soviets, hotel Terrrianism, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: And that's also not true. The reality of that uprising
Speaker 1: and what most of it was was a rebellion by
Speaker 1: the Hungarian workers' councils. So workers across their factories seized
Speaker 1: control of their factories, threw their bosses out and began
Speaker 1: to manage and democratically the different workers' councils like foreign
Speaker 1: regional federations. It is very stunningly, very very similar to
Speaker 1: the original Soviets of the nineteen seventeen Russian Revolution, which
Speaker 1: in theory the USSR is supposed to be named after.
Speaker 1: But when they reappeared again, the Soviets just absolutely smashed
Speaker 1: them because they weren't advocating for a Soviet aligned one
Speaker 1: party state. And what this actually meant was tanks rolling
Speaker 1: up to the gates of factories blasting apart the very workers'
Speaker 1: councils who are supposed to be the basis of communism.
Speaker 1: This was an attempt, in some sense, yes, to implement democracy,
Speaker 1: but it was an attempt to implement democracy in the factory,
Speaker 1: and it was attempted by the working class to seize
Speaker 1: control the means of production and manage them themselves. Now,
Speaker 1: the smashing of the Hungarian Revolution led to a split
Speaker 1: in enormous numbers of communist parties all across the world.
Speaker 1: The people leave communist parties and droves. This is a
Speaker 1: big enough deal that it spawns effectively like a crisis
Speaker 1: in China, where there is a series of bast strikes
Speaker 1: and people chanting like here another Hungary, and in particular,
Speaker 1: the British Communist Party had a guy on the ground
Speaker 1: in Hungary reporting of what was happening, and his reports
Speaker 1: split the party between the people who supported the Hungarians
Speaker 1: and the people who supported the Soviets. The latter faction became
Speaker 1: known as tankies for their support of rolling tanks across
Speaker 1: the border and slaughtering in the working class. The term
Speaker 1: was revived in the twenty tens to describe the return
Speaker 1: of Marcist Leninists, so though much of its usage was
Speaker 1: about Russia and Syria rather than the original Hungarian uprising.
Speaker 1: Now it is true that all of these people do
Speaker 1: actually support or they do actually believe that the Soviets
Speaker 1: were crushing like the return of fascism, but that that
Speaker 1: actual belief, like the belief in you know, that the
Speaker 1: Soviets were right to crush the Hungarian Revolution, is effectively
Speaker 1: irrelevant now except as a sort of marker of loyalty,
Speaker 1: because you know, the USSR is gone and the Hungarian
Speaker 1: Revolution is gone too, and so what's left is a
Speaker 1: term that on the one hand does correctly, you know,
Speaker 1: it does correctly describe a part of their political tradition,
Speaker 1: but it has it has a tendency to sort of
Speaker 1: anchor these arguments in the past instead of the presence
Speaker 1: with the substance of disagreements with the Marxist Leninists actually
Speaker 1: are now marxistlenin Iss. They're also just yeah, they're called
Speaker 1: mls to Marxist Leninists absolutely hate being called tankies except
Speaker 1: under you know, the circumstances where they adopted ironically, and
Speaker 1: I'm of two minds. I have called these people's tankies
Speaker 1: a lot. But the biggest problem with calling these people
Speaker 1: tankies is that the original tankies, the people who supported
Speaker 1: the Soviets butchering the Hungarian working class, were actually communists.
Speaker 1: They were Marxistlninists who supported the USSR and believed that
Speaker 1: state ownership of the means of production was the socialist
Speaker 1: transition to communism. These modern quote unquote Marxist Leninists don't
Speaker 1: even believe that both Stalin and kruis Chef, for all
Speaker 1: the differences, would have had these people shop for supporting
Speaker 1: capitalists in their imperialist market economies. If you tried to
Speaker 1: explain to Mao that Deng Jao Ping, with his people's
Speaker 1: billionaires and a trillion dollars of American treasury bond singing
Speaker 1: it sitting in his coffers, was doing communism, he would
Speaker 1: have branded you a capitalist, wrote and sent you to
Speaker 1: your re education camp at the end of the day.
Speaker 1: Whatever else. The original tankies, the British supporters of the USSR,
Speaker 1: were communists. Their modern day equivalents don't even have that
Speaker 1: to height behind. They have been reduced to capitalists with
Speaker 1: a hammer and sickle fetish. So who are these people really?
Speaker 1: What they've become is suicide net socialists because the suicide
Speaker 1: nets are the actual content of their politics. This is
Speaker 1: the actual content of backing states like the People's Republic
Speaker 1: of China. It is full throated support for the suicide
Speaker 1: nets to fly under the roofs of the Fox confactories
Speaker 1: at Shenzhen. The reality of their suicide net socialism is
Speaker 1: that the Chinese working class would rather kill themselves than
Speaker 1: live under it. And it was these suicide net socialists
Speaker 1: who sins spawned their bastard children, patriotic socialism and eventually
Speaker 1: Maga communism. So how do we understand what these people are?
Speaker 1: I am going to give the final word to Karl Marx,
Speaker 1: the man whose ideology in theory spawned theirs. I'm going
Speaker 1: to read from one of Marx's most famous works, the
Speaker 1: eighteenth through Mayor. I'm pretty sure I've quoted it on
Speaker 1: the show before. The tradition of all dead generations weighs
Speaker 1: like a nightmare on the minds of the living, And
Speaker 1: just as they seem to be occupy with revolutionizing themselves
Speaker 1: and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely
Speaker 1: in such epochs of revolutionary crisis, they anxiously conjure up
Speaker 1: the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from
Speaker 1: them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present
Speaker 1: this new scene in world history and time honored disguise
Speaker 1: and borrowed language. Thus Luther Martin Luther put on the
Speaker 1: mask of the Apostle Paul. The French Revolution of seventeen
Speaker 1: eighty nine to nineteen fourteen draped itself alternatingly in the
Speaker 1: guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and
Speaker 1: the Revolution of nineteen forty eight knew nothing better to
Speaker 1: do than to parody. Now seventeen eighty nine, Now the
Speaker 1: revolutionary tradition of seventeen ninety three seventeen ninety five. This
Speaker 1: is precisely the trap that Marxist Leninis have walked into.
Speaker 1: Faced with mass social upheaval. They knew nothing better than
Speaker 1: the down the mask of Stalin and Mao, and it
Speaker 1: was a terrible mistake. Here is mark again. The social
Speaker 1: revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take us poetry from
Speaker 1: the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin
Speaker 1: with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about
Speaker 1: the past. The former revolutionaries required recollections of past world
Speaker 1: history in order to smother their own content. The revolution
Speaker 1: of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their
Speaker 1: dead in order to arrive at its own content. There
Speaker 1: the phrase went beyond the content. Here the content goes
Speaker 1: beyond the phrase. But we never buried our dead. The
Speaker 1: memories of dead generations still weigh like a nightmare in
Speaker 1: the minds of the living. And in the next episode
Speaker 1: we will walk face first into that nightmare and behold
Speaker 1: the abyss within.
Speaker 3: It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 3: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 3: coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio, app,
Speaker 3: Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can
Speaker 3: find sources for It could happen here, Updated monthly at
Speaker 3: coolzonemedia dot com, slash sources. Thanks for listening.