Speaker 1: Alsome Media.
Speaker 2: Hello, and welcome to it could happen here. I'm here
Speaker 2: to ask you if you can imagine a world where
Speaker 2: national borders don't define our identities. This internationalist idea has
Speaker 2: historically been known as cosmopolitanism, and it has some deep roots,
Speaker 2: including interestingly, some connection to anarchism, and of course that's
Speaker 2: what we're seeking to explore here today. I'm joined once
Speaker 2: again by the one and only.
Speaker 3: It's James James Stout. Thanks for having me, Andrew, I'm
Speaker 3: excited about this one.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. I'm really excited to have
Speaker 2: this conversation. Are you familiar with cosmopolitanism?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and like, look, if there gets a more broad
Speaker 3: sphere of like anarchist internationalism, it is something I'm very
Speaker 3: interested in, right, Like, we had an interview on the
Speaker 3: show maybe two weeks ago, for a few weeks ago,
Speaker 3: and people hear this with people explicitly calling internationalists fighting
Speaker 3: in Myanmar. Of course, I've spent time in re Java
Speaker 3: and with internationalists there, so like internationalism is something I'm
Speaker 3: really interested in for sure.
Speaker 2: For sure, I think it's a very compelling and inspiring idea,
Speaker 2: especially in a world that lacks many of those ideas.
Speaker 2: At its core, cosmopolitanism is just the belief that all
Speaker 2: human beings belong to the same shared moral and political
Speaker 2: community that transcends national, cultural, and political boundaries. In the
Speaker 2: book Cosmopolitanism, Ethics and the Wilders Strangers, philosopher Kwame Anthony
Speaker 2: Appia describes cosmopolitanism as quote two strands that intertwine in
Speaker 2: the notion of cosmopolitanism. One is the idea that we
Speaker 2: have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to
Speaker 2: whom we are related by the ties of kith and kin,
Speaker 2: or even the more formal ties of shared citizenship. The
Speaker 2: other is that we take seriously the value not just
Speaker 2: of human life, but of particular human lives, which means
Speaker 2: taken an interest in the practices and believe at land
Speaker 2: them significance. People are different, the Costopolitan knows, and there's
Speaker 2: much to learn from our differences. Because there are so
Speaker 2: many human possibilities worth exploring. We neither expect nor desire
Speaker 2: that every person or every society should converge on a
Speaker 2: single mode of life. Whatever obligations are to others or
Speaker 2: theirs to us, they often have the rights to go
Speaker 2: their own way, so basically, we have obligations to others
Speaker 2: beyond just our immediate affiliations, and that human diversity is
Speaker 2: something to be valued, not just tolerated. So it's not
Speaker 2: the idea of assimilating all of humanity into one singular
Speaker 2: culture or society or government. Is the idea of recognizing
Speaker 2: and embracing the diversity of humans, but recognizing our shared
Speaker 2: affinity all the same. There are a couple of different
Speaker 2: versions of cosmopolitanism. There's moral cosmopolitanism, or the idea that
Speaker 2: all humans have equal moral worth. There's political cosmopolitanism, the
Speaker 2: idea that global governance or international institutions should supersede national borders.
Speaker 2: And then there's cultural cosmopolitanism, which is the blending in
Speaker 2: exchange of cultures through migration, trade, and shared histories. But
Speaker 2: cosmopolitanism fully embraced has I would say an inherent tens
Speaker 2: with power, especially nationalism, the states, and capitalism. And while
Speaker 2: it's true that liberal cosmopolitanism relies on global institutions like
Speaker 2: the United Nations and reinforces hierarchies, anarchist cosmopolitanism envisions a
Speaker 2: world where solidarity, cooperation, and mutual aid emerge from below
Speaker 2: through free association, rather than being imposed from above. So
Speaker 2: today we'll be unpacking the history of cosmopolitanism, how anarchists
Speaker 2: have engaged with the topic, and why it remains somewhat
Speaker 2: of a battleground today. Yes, the term itself comes from
Speaker 2: the Greek cosmopolities, which means citizen of the world. The
Speaker 2: earliest particulation of this idea is often attributed to Diogenes
Speaker 2: of Sinope, who is a Synic philosopher who, when asked
Speaker 2: where he came from, simply replied, I'm a citizen of
Speaker 2: the world. According to Martha Nusbaum, Greek stoics like Xeno
Speaker 2: of Citium, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius expanded on this idea,
Speaker 2: arguing that humanity shares a universal reason and should live
Speaker 2: in accordance with nature, not artificial divisions of state or tribe.
Speaker 2: Of course, many of these philosophers didn't have any issue
Speaker 2: with patriarchy or slavery in Greece, so there is some
Speaker 2: inconsistency in their concept of a shared humanity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the two counts as human I guess, isn't it like?
Speaker 3: Which is pretty bleak.
Speaker 2: Indeed, But let's pass forward a bit. During the Enlightenment
Speaker 2: we see a more structured political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Emergent
Speaker 2: Emanuel Kant was one of its most famous proponents. In
Speaker 2: the book Perpetual Piece, Can't imagine a cosmopolitan condition where individuals,
Speaker 2: not just states, had universal rights and where a global
Speaker 2: federation of free republics would ensure peace and cooperation. However,
Speaker 2: his version of cosson Politanism still relied on legal structures
Speaker 2: and state based governance. Another Nightman thinker associated with cosmopolitanism
Speaker 2: was Dni Dederu, who criticized colonialism and argued for a
Speaker 2: cultural exchange free from that kind of domination. He also
Speaker 2: argued against monarchy, the church, and aristocratic privileges, as they
Speaker 2: were obstacles to a truly free and universal human community,
Speaker 2: which then brings us to the French Revolution, which brought
Speaker 2: these ideas into the real world. Revolutionaries declared the Rights
Speaker 2: of Man and of the Citizen, which proclaims universal rights
Speaker 2: beyond national or social status, but the revolution soon became
Speaker 2: entangled with nationalism, particularly under the Acabins, who suppressed dissent
Speaker 2: and waged wars in the name of France. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 2: Haitian Revolution provided a different example of liberation. In practice,
Speaker 2: enslaved Africans, inspired by the French Revolution's rhetoric of liberty inequality,
Speaker 2: revolted against French colonial rule and established the first free
Speaker 2: Black republic. The revolutionaries, led by to Saint Levitire, argued
Speaker 2: that liberty was a universal human right, not one limited
Speaker 2: to European citizens, and declared Haiti a refuge to all
Speaker 2: enslaved persons. But despite its radical implications, the Haitian Revolution
Speaker 2: was largely ignored or outright opposed by European powers. Their
Speaker 2: so called enlightenment only extended to Europe, ignoring our racial
Speaker 2: and colonial realities. We also see in this time the
Speaker 2: emergence of nationalism, which on the one hand promoted self
Speaker 2: determination for omopressed nations, but on the other hand saw
Speaker 2: the nations state as a superior form of political organization.
Speaker 2: So anarchists were among the earliest critics of nationalism. Patrons
Speaker 2: of Pradawn, for instance, rejected both the nation state and
Speaker 2: centralized cosmopolitan governance, instead advocating for federation, a frequently misunderstood
Speaker 2: concept that refers in anarchist literature to a decentralized network
Speaker 2: of freely associated individuals and groups working in solidarity. Similarly,
Speaker 2: Mikhil Bcunen attacked nationalism as a tool of ruling elites,
Speaker 2: arguing that states used national identities of press, class struggle,
Speaker 2: and international solidarity. Bi Cunin did back national liberation movements,
Speaker 2: but he understood the danger of nationalism as a force
Speaker 2: that often replaces foreign rulers with homegrown oppressors. Instead, Bercunen
Speaker 2: promoted anarchist internationalism, where workers and oppressed peoples across borders
Speaker 2: would unite against both capitalists and state powers. By contrast,
Speaker 2: the Bolsheviks would eventually developed the idea of socialism in
Speaker 2: one country, and the ever paranoid Stalin would famously deride
Speaker 2: Jewish intellectuals as quote rootless cosmopolitans. This, of course aligned
Speaker 2: him with the rest of Europe's nationalists in their anti semitism,
Speaker 2: inaccurate cricketerization of cosmopolitanism as opposed to cultural identity or
Speaker 2: sovereignty and ramid defense of national borders. Honestly, I would
Speaker 2: not be surprised if Trump or Putin used some equivalent
Speaker 2: to rule less cosmopolitanism today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I did see. It was like a pro
Speaker 3: tramp account. I guess constantly or unconstantly paraphrasing Stalin.
Speaker 4: This week, so that was great.
Speaker 3: Really well, they say it's like, how many divisions does
Speaker 3: the judge command? Which is a I think there might
Speaker 3: be a quote from Stalin if it's not quote to paraphrase, right,
Speaker 3: But in this case, it's a reference to the attempts
Speaker 3: by a district court judge in GC to block the
Speaker 3: rendition of people to US ale were accused of being
Speaker 3: members of various gangs and Miroslature being the two main ones.
Speaker 2: Yes, so just being expelled. What's the connection to Stalin?
Speaker 4: Though?
Speaker 3: The quote how many divisions does the judge command? Let me,
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure how many divisions does the pope command?
Speaker 3: Was the starting quite, that's right. So like it's referencing
Speaker 3: this idea that like might makes right and like that,
Speaker 3: you know, if you have the bar of the state,
Speaker 3: then you're not accountable to morally or even even within
Speaker 3: the confines of the state, like separation of powers that
Speaker 3: we're supposed to happen in the US, right, Like if
Speaker 3: you have the monopoly on coercive violence and you're no
Speaker 3: longer constrained by those things.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, I see, I see. So of course, Alec,
Speaker 2: I suppose all those things they appouse. What is happening now,
Speaker 2: and they oppose what was happening then, you know. From
Speaker 2: its inception, anarchism has been an internationalist movement, rejecting the
Speaker 2: artificial borders imposed by state and champion in global solidarity.
Speaker 2: Unlike Marxist internationalism, which has often relied on the centralized
Speaker 2: structures of the first, second, or Third internationals, anarchists emphasized decentralized,
Speaker 2: horizontal networks of struggle that connected workers, revolutionaries, and stateless
Speaker 2: peoples across continents. The anarchist Saint Emer Internationale, which ran
Speaker 2: from eighteen seventy two to eighteen seventy seven, was one
Speaker 2: such network. As discussed by Lucian van der Waldt and
Speaker 2: Schmidt in Black Flame, that group explicitly rejected nationalism and
Speaker 2: state power, and throughout history anarchists worked a bridge linguistic, cultural,
Speaker 2: and national divides from multi lingual anarchist newspapers in the
Speaker 2: nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as Laprotester Argentina, der Camp
Speaker 2: in Germany and The Libertaire in France, through transnational cynicalist
Speaker 2: movements like the Industrial Workers of the World World, which
Speaker 2: organized workers across race, nationality, and language. In the early
Speaker 2: twentieth century and including contemporary mutual aid networks where anarchists
Speaker 2: coordinates across borders to support refugees, disaster relief, and addigenous
Speaker 2: land struggles. Anarchist networks, contrary to popular belief, often extended
Speaker 2: beyond Europe into North Africa, Asia and Latin America, where
Speaker 2: anti colonial and labor struggles intertwined with anarchist thought. If
Speaker 2: you're curious, by the way, about the anarchist histories of
Speaker 2: Egypt or the rest of Latin America, they could check
Speaker 2: out my series on it right here on the canappen
Speaker 2: Air podcast. And if you've listened to that series, you'll
Speaker 2: know that because anarchists were constantly persecuted, exile became a
Speaker 2: defining experience which further reinforced the internationalism. Folks like Michail
Speaker 2: Bi Cunan, Pieter Kropotkin, and Erikomana Testa moved across continents,
Speaker 2: spreading anarchist ideas and connecting struggles. Myl test in particular,
Speaker 2: was basically a common San Diego. You know, he touched
Speaker 2: multiple continents over the course of his life. So boyut
Speaker 2: the late nineteenth century anarchists like Groulph Rocker developed an
Speaker 2: alternative to both statist nationalism and liberal cosmopolitanism, which sorts
Speaker 2: of balance cultural diversity with global solidarity from below. Rocker
Speaker 2: argued that people should be free to maintain their cultural
Speaker 2: traditions without being bound to the state or nationalist identity.
Speaker 2: So liberal costopolitanism was pushing a global order through state
Speaker 2: led interventions, international institutions, and legal frameworks. And while this
Speaker 2: form of costopolitanism has led to some games on people
Speaker 2: in human rights, international refugee protections, and anti genocide treaties, well,
Speaker 2: for one, we see the failures of these institutions and
Speaker 2: practice daily, and for two, they ultimately reinforced the state
Speaker 2: power that creates so much harm, rather than dismantling it.
Speaker 2: The UN and the WTO often uphold the interest of
Speaker 2: powerful states above and before the international laws and obligations,
Speaker 2: whilst sidelining grassroots movements. While liberal costopolitanism sits on its
Speaker 2: hands waiting for elit driven reforms to the system, anarchists
Speaker 2: engage in direct action to support migrants and other marginalized
Speaker 2: folks without waiting for such reform. I have to give
Speaker 2: a shout out here, of course, to the No Borders
Speaker 2: network and also a shout out to the work that
Speaker 2: you do, James on the side.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've see a lot more people than me doing
Speaker 4: it of course.
Speaker 2: So the sad part is, even if it started with
Speaker 2: some noble ideal, the concept of liberal cost of Politanism
Speaker 2: today doesn't so much manifest in the freedom of people,
Speaker 2: but moreso in the freedom of markets and money, the
Speaker 2: globalization of markets and money. So we will bring McDonald's
Speaker 2: Netflix to your country, but you can't come to our country,
Speaker 2: or will kill you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's about it.
Speaker 3: It was really interesting to like the moment I sort
Speaker 3: of became aware of libertarian left politics was in the
Speaker 3: early two thousands in the context of the movement against
Speaker 3: like the g eight as it was then and at
Speaker 3: the time it would be referred to in the legacy
Speaker 3: media as like anti globalization right, which I don't think
Speaker 3: it ever was right by definition. I think it was
Speaker 3: very global, Like you had people from all around the
Speaker 3: world tending these protests and rallies and speeches as such,
Speaker 3: Like it was a very global movement. The problem was
Speaker 3: not with globalization Costopolitanism internationalism. It was with the nature
Speaker 3: of neoliberal capitalist globalization, which let capital move and stop
Speaker 3: people from moving.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It's some old opposition sugg as the free reign
Speaker 2: of exploitas across the globe.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: We let people take their money and employ people at
Speaker 3: lower wages, but God forbid those people ever want better
Speaker 3: for themselves, or to come somewhere where they can materially
Speaker 3: benefit themselves doing the same labor in a different nation,
Speaker 3: for instance.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And to be honest with you, I've never really
Speaker 2: been a respect of borders. I think they're just I
Speaker 2: think they are really really blatantly foolish imposition. I don't
Speaker 2: even think you need to be a radical to see
Speaker 2: the issue with this idea that your one point has
Speaker 2: to determine your entire future. Yeah, that some people in
Speaker 2: the past could cut up the earth and then decide
Speaker 2: where you can roam freely.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think anyone. I see a lot more from
Speaker 3: people who are not by any means radical or even
Speaker 3: on the left, like this, like within Europe, right within
Speaker 3: the Shanngen area, which the UK has decided to remove
Speaker 3: itself from for reasons that are largely racism.
Speaker 4: Like we could move freely.
Speaker 3: When I grew up, my identity and experience was much
Speaker 3: more European than necessarily British. Right, I could go for
Speaker 3: the weekend to Spain if I wanted to, or France
Speaker 3: and flights were cheap then.
Speaker 4: So it did.
Speaker 3: Like I used to get on Friday night, take a
Speaker 3: train to Belgium, raise my bike in Belgium and come
Speaker 3: back on Sunday night, very very often, and like you
Speaker 3: see it here too in San Diego, where like the
Speaker 3: border is just a line and a delay. But for
Speaker 3: most people, like we were a very binational community. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: the one way that that manifests itself is that the
Speaker 3: cost of living in San Diego compares the average wage
Speaker 3: is vastly disparate because we have this over pressure valve
Speaker 3: where like people can't afford it here, they can live
Speaker 3: across the border where the cost of living is cheaper,
Speaker 3: and that allows people to exploit working class people in
Speaker 3: both contexts sadly. Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as you mentioned the UK, by the way, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure if you've heard the news, but Trenidad has
Speaker 2: recently been imposed visa requirements by the UK for fuck's sake. Yeah, really,
Speaker 2: thankfully we still have shanngin area access. Yeah, but just
Speaker 2: recently the UK was like due to Yeah, the usual
Speaker 2: excuse people are using the asylum seeking system that they're
Speaker 2: not removed our visa exemption, so our colonizers have now
Speaker 2: decided that, you know, we don't want you to move
Speaker 2: free in our country. We want you to pay. And
Speaker 2: visas are not cheap theyan ever cheap, especially when there's
Speaker 2: no guarantee, no other than being accepted. Yep, it makes
Speaker 2: it all the more frustrating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and like this just comes after the British government
Speaker 3: attempting to deport Africribbean migrant Kames, part of what we
Speaker 3: call the wind rush generation, which is just one of
Speaker 3: the most disgusting and like, yeah, it just just wanted
Speaker 3: one of the most venal and pathetic things I've ever
Speaker 3: seen a government do, Like these people who the UK
Speaker 3: asked to come so that it could rebuild this economy
Speaker 3: after the Second World War, and then taking advantage of
Speaker 3: the fact that at that time there was no process
Speaker 3: for regularitation and then trying to deport these people who
Speaker 3: have lived their whole lives in the UK.
Speaker 4: It's just horrific.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is. It's horrific, it's frustrating, it's infury, it's
Speaker 2: in really Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it makes me really angry, like if we didn't
Speaker 3: have a wind Rewst generation not that like you need
Speaker 3: like popular music to justify their existence as part of
Speaker 3: our community, and they should be able to stay. But
Speaker 3: we wouldn't have punk music if if we wouldn't have
Speaker 3: scar music. We like so much of what is like
Speaker 3: integral to even like quote unquote British culture. It actually
Speaker 3: came from these people because they are British and they
Speaker 3: belong there just.
Speaker 4: As much as anyone else.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I used to teach a class about music and colonial
Speaker 3: culture and colonialism, which is why that comes to mind.
Speaker 2: I actually missed an opportunity to go to the UK
Speaker 2: earlier this year. I didn't want to pay the cost
Speaker 2: to fly to go at that point in time. I
Speaker 2: know I deeply regrets it because I'm like I could
Speaker 2: have gone. Honestly, I think if you're the UK and
Speaker 2: your your country has still learn so much, like I
Speaker 2: think the UK has the least right or justification out
Speaker 2: of any country if you had to concede that a
Speaker 2: country should be lost, I don't. I don't give any
Speaker 2: country that concession, but if you had to give that concession,
Speaker 2: you could be last to receive that concession as far
Speaker 2: as I'm concerned. You don't get to go on roam
Speaker 2: across the entire planet and then shut yourself off. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you don't get to go on steel and pill fall
Speaker 2: from across the world, shuffle it all into your national
Speaker 2: museum and then block people from access it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It is just like it's just the most clear and
Speaker 3: pathetic like two level standard or whatever, and it's I mean,
Speaker 3: the UK has a very I'm sorry you didn't get
Speaker 3: to visit in one sense, and I'm sure we have
Speaker 3: lots of listeners who are in the UK. Every time
Speaker 3: I'm home, I feel this like profound sense of like
Speaker 3: post colonial melancholy that the UK it's just sort of
Speaker 3: it's getting worse and worse and worse.
Speaker 4: And the way.
Speaker 3: Britain is responding is with our government blaming everyone one
Speaker 3: else and.
Speaker 2: Like trying to strip posterity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like stealing everything they can just mess Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think frustration for me as well as that
Speaker 2: it's not to watch the country itself, although I would
Speaker 2: have loved to have visited like Scotland and you know,
Speaker 2: Whels and that kind of thing, but and all the
Speaker 2: stuff there is to see in London. But The biggest
Speaker 2: frustration for me is that it's a it's a connection point.
Speaker 2: You know, when you impose a visa like that, you
Speaker 2: block people's connections other areas. One of the few direct
Speaker 2: flights outside of this hemisphere, you know, to the European
Speaker 2: and African hemisphere is through a flight to the UK.
Speaker 2: And so by adding that in position, it's like it's
Speaker 2: like the world feels like it's being closed.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you can see that.
Speaker 2: One more where there was almost a time in the
Speaker 2: recent past where it felt like or the world was
Speaker 2: opening up to people, you know, with the Internet, the
Speaker 2: rise of the Internet, and then you had, you know,
Speaker 2: the introduction of things like the Shangan Agreement. Our access
Speaker 2: the Shangan area was reairly recent I think it was
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen we got that access. Yeah, okay, But to
Speaker 2: go from that point in to like just so quickly,
Speaker 2: you know, the tied shifts. So now there's extremely hostile
Speaker 2: global order towards something as fundamental as the movement of people.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it definitely.
Speaker 3: We definitely are entering it in like an era where
Speaker 3: things are becoming more closed off again than many of
Speaker 3: us grew up with, right, many of us you know,
Speaker 3: I said, what most of my experience that I can
Speaker 3: remember was being able to move freely through Europe, and
Speaker 3: that's not the case anymore for British as citizens. Yeah,
Speaker 3: like it's getting visas and everything else is getting harder
Speaker 3: and harder to move around the world. And despite the
Speaker 3: Internet somewhat connecting us, like, our physical mobility is certainly
Speaker 3: much more limited.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I think the idea of cost and Paulson is
Speaker 2: getting back to it, I think it's valuable. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, the idea that we have obligations to others
Speaker 2: beyond just our mediate affiliations is important. You know that
Speaker 2: human diversity is going to be valued, not just tolerated.
Speaker 2: That's fantastic. Carl Levy, an anarchist scholar who wrote two
Speaker 2: pieces on cosmopolitanism that a link in the show notes,
Speaker 2: has argued that anarchism's history offers a third way between
Speaker 2: the hierarchical globalism of liberal cosmopolitanism, which relies on state
Speaker 2: driven global governance, and exclusionary nationalism, which weaponizes identity and borders,
Speaker 2: often in service to the far right, and that third
Speaker 2: way that anarchism presents, not third way in the sense
Speaker 2: of fascism. Third way, in the sense of anarchist possibilities,
Speaker 2: is a kind of federated pluralism, the web of self
Speaker 2: organized groups that interact freely without a central authority. This
Speaker 2: version isn't just theoretical. We've seen it in recent history
Speaker 2: through anti globalization protests, the Occupying movement, the Square movements
Speaker 2: in Egypt, Spain and beyond and so flowed. They show
Speaker 2: the potential, not yet fully realized, for diverse place based
Speaker 2: struggles that remain connected through mutuality and transnational solidarity. We
Speaker 2: have to avoid this sort of abstract universalism that can
Speaker 2: be found in cosmopolitan thought. We must incorporate decolonial struggles
Speaker 2: and crown cosmopolitan practice in the voluntary cooperation of people
Speaker 2: acted in solidarity across differences. Ultimately, the question isn't whether
Speaker 2: anarchists should engage a cosmopolitanism, because they always have. The
Speaker 2: real question is how anarchists can cultivate a cosmopolitanism that
Speaker 2: is truly liberatory, when the connect struggles without eraise and difference,
Speaker 2: foster solidarity without enforcing uniformity, and builds a world where
Speaker 2: cooperation and not domination, defines our relationships. That's what they
Speaker 2: have for today, or power to all the people.
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: coolzonmedia 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.