Speaker 1: All the media.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to it happen here. Last episode, I
Speaker 2: was joined by your savior. Hello, and he's here again
Speaker 2: because we're gonna get more into what we spoke about
Speaker 2: last time. Last episode, we painted a hopeful account of
Speaker 2: humanity's nature. Could see if my reading of Rutka Bregmann's
Speaker 2: Humankind a hopeful history. So I probably fed into the
Speaker 2: anarchists so utopia narrative a bit with that previous episode.
Speaker 2: But the truth is that I'm not really being optimistic
Speaker 2: and being realistic. But realism has been confused with cynonicism
Speaker 2: for so long that even acknowledging both sides of the
Speaker 2: coin can be seen as overly utopia. People can be bad,
Speaker 2: and we'll get into the why. But for whatever reason
Speaker 2: they are bad, that is why as anarchists have consistently
Speaker 2: argued nobody should have authority. Now they will always be outlined.
Speaker 2: And this explanation I'm about to share it is not
Speaker 2: going to get into every unique case of badness, but
Speaker 2: we are going to get into some of the reasons
Speaker 2: that people do bad and what we can do about it.
Speaker 2: As I said last episode, we took issue with this
Speaker 2: idea of civilization as a thin venail and were put
Speaker 2: forward the premise the Keemans are mostly pretty decent. In fact,
Speaker 2: I didn't mention it last episode, but we don't even
Speaker 2: really like to kill each other, contrary to popular belief,
Speaker 2: brag when actually shares that in World War Two, studies
Speaker 2: showed that many soldiers didn't shoot their weapons even in combat.
Speaker 2: Trained soldiers had a difficult time actually pulling the trigger
Speaker 2: and killing people. There are exceptions, as I said before,
Speaker 2: but in a lot of cases it's very difficult for
Speaker 2: people to actually kill. Military strategies ended up changing once
Speaker 2: authorities realized this, and the training programs of soldiers was
Speaker 2: to readers time to overcome this resistance. But that reluctance
Speaker 2: to killin does also indicate that it takes some effort
Speaker 2: to overcome our general decency toward each other because most people,
Speaker 2: again most on all, are not natural born killers. So again,
Speaker 2: how do we do bad? You know, all sorts of
Speaker 2: atrostees have been carried out by humans, both in ancient
Speaker 2: and modern times. What do you think is the course.
Speaker 3: Self preservation in some way, either physical or psychological. I'm
Speaker 3: not an anthropologist, I'm not a sociologist. Most of my
Speaker 3: experiences with people is both queer people and then looking
Speaker 3: at Nazis and like political extremists. So it's maybe not
Speaker 3: the best sample side for the general population. I think
Speaker 3: I tend to exist kind of on the perimeter of
Speaker 3: most human experience, but probably some form of either psychological
Speaker 3: or physical self preservation in my experience slash opinion.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I didn't think of it. I think it
Speaker 2: comes close to what Breaguen ends up getting into, but
Speaker 2: I think self preservation, well, we'll get into that in
Speaker 2: a bit. You know, it's it's difficult to square that
Speaker 2: with just how brutal some of these disasters have been,
Speaker 2: you know, these atrocities that have taken place around the world,
Speaker 2: organized systemic industrial cruelty, you know, things like the Holocaust.
Speaker 3: Totally, it's interesting because I think it's two paradoxical instincts
Speaker 3: that play off each other. There's this self preservation and
Speaker 3: there's also I believe in I thin guess some version
Speaker 3: of the death drive, and I think those can can
Speaker 3: interact in really odd ways. But the desk drive, Yeah,
Speaker 3: like it's like it's specifically, it's like specifically like like
Speaker 3: fascism and like you know, you can see this in
Speaker 3: like the genocides of the twentieth century and twenty first
Speaker 3: centuries like specifically, but no like fascism as like a
Speaker 3: political embodying of the death, which is I think also
Speaker 3: an aspect. I think these things exist together in parallel
Speaker 3: while being paradoxical, and that's what produces a lot of
Speaker 3: the incongruity around things like fascism, right, it is, it
Speaker 3: is like an inherently paradoxical system.
Speaker 2: When you say self preservation, are you just talking about
Speaker 2: on the individual level, or are you seeing like community
Speaker 2: self preservation as.
Speaker 3: Well, both both, but also I think not even just physical,
Speaker 3: but also like psychological, like being able to like continue
Speaker 3: being able to continue existing as yourself, either within a
Speaker 3: group of people or just you as an individual, Like
Speaker 3: psychological things that you need to do to make yourself
Speaker 3: feel like you're in community or that you are safe,
Speaker 3: that you have meaning, or that you have purpose as
Speaker 3: well as the physical aspects.
Speaker 2: And you're saying that that lends itself to atrocity.
Speaker 3: I think it can.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, well that actually is strikingly close to
Speaker 2: what Bragman ends up uncovering.
Speaker 3: Look at the reasons that people will talk about for
Speaker 3: like why the genocide and Gaza is like necessary, right?
Speaker 2: It is?
Speaker 3: It is playing off both of those impulses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean all sorts of genocides when you
Speaker 2: hear the descriptions of them, and this is what you
Speaker 2: hear of the people who perpetuated them, what their explanations
Speaker 2: or justifications, you know, from the Holocaust to Rwanda to Palestine. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's me and mar you know, totally it is deeply
Speaker 2: Evil's that something we can look away from it? It
Speaker 2: really is difficult to square with the most humans a
Speaker 2: decent thesis when you look at how some of these
Speaker 2: society is, even the ordinary people, for example, the citizen
Speaker 2: population of Israel, even the civilian population, even they are
Speaker 2: like disturbingly genocideh in their rhetoric. And so you know,
Speaker 2: it's like, how do we reach that point? How do
Speaker 2: we get there? How does an ordinary human baby grow
Speaker 2: into that?
Speaker 3: It can happen to you. It can happen very easily,
Speaker 3: and I think it can happen in a short time
Speaker 3: span and you can get out of it. I think
Speaker 3: maybe not just as easily, but you can't get out
Speaker 3: of it also in a fastime span. I think it's
Speaker 3: like that you are not immune to propaganda. Idea you
Speaker 3: can look at like in n To Germany, Robert has
Speaker 3: talked about quote unquote the little Nazis, the regular Germans
Speaker 3: who ended up partipating and becoming Nazis, and you are
Speaker 3: not immune from that, and that can happen as a
Speaker 3: response to a whole bunch of traumatic impulses as well.
Speaker 3: Whereas I think people now even use like politics just
Speaker 3: to You're like this like idea of politics as permission
Speaker 3: to be like an overtly cruel person to other people,
Speaker 3: either like in your life or online. Right, you will
Speaker 3: you will use use various political topics, and that gives
Speaker 3: you permission to unleash unmitigated hostility against people that you
Speaker 3: now perceive as being like immoral or you perceive as
Speaker 3: being like ontological enemies.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly. I mean there were particular studies that were
Speaker 2: undertaken in the twentieth century that are often used to
Speaker 2: sort of explain that, you know, after all of Nazi
Speaker 2: Germany and the post World War TWI era, people will
Speaker 2: seeking explanations for atrocity and so so experiments were done
Speaker 2: and are now pointed to as explanations for how this
Speaker 2: could have taken place. You know, so one particular experiment
Speaker 2: that's really well known as the Stanford prison experiment. Right,
Speaker 2: this idea that you take random students and give them
Speaker 2: a position of power and they become sadistic gods. You know,
Speaker 2: it proves just how thin the ven ale civilization really is,
Speaker 2: or already the evil the civilization could empower. But at
Speaker 2: least for that particular experiment, the reality was never so straightforward.
Speaker 2: You know, the gods were literally coached and encouraged to
Speaker 2: be cruel. You know, they were actually putting on performances.
Speaker 2: The prisoners were also expected to perform, so rather than
Speaker 2: being like an actual scientific experiment, it was more like
Speaker 2: guided theater.
Speaker 3: I mean it inadvertently, it becomes an interesting experiment in
Speaker 3: like humans desired to like please authority.
Speaker 2: Right exactly, exactly, to like perform to.
Speaker 3: The expectations of the people who are actually running this experiment,
Speaker 3: and how capable you are of falling into these roles
Speaker 3: under like under that paradigm exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, you see that in Nazi Germany as well,
Speaker 2: a lot of the people were doing things to please
Speaker 2: the fear, you know, like they didn't necessarily know or
Speaker 2: there was a lot of wiggle room from what I've
Speaker 2: read to interpret the fear as wishes, Yeah, as people
Speaker 2: who wanted to rank up and rise up in the
Speaker 2: in the organization, but interpret things in a way that
Speaker 2: they would presume would please Pitta and his desires moving
Speaker 2: towards the fear. Yeah, exactly, exactly. That's the that's the
Speaker 2: name of the phenomenon. I mean, when the sound for
Speaker 2: Person experim When people tried to recreate the experiment for television,
Speaker 2: E've got it made for pretty boring TV because it
Speaker 2: was bad science in the first place. It's not something
Speaker 2: that people do not actually, it's it's what they do
Speaker 2: when they are pushed, when they are prodded, you know,
Speaker 2: when certain expectations, et ceter. It's kind of similar with
Speaker 2: this other famous experiment that that Bragman talks about, which
Speaker 2: is the Stanley Milcrumb's Obedience experiments, where volunteers were told
Speaker 2: to administer increasingly painful electric shocks the stranger just because
Speaker 2: I got in a lamp code told them to. It's
Speaker 2: like another instance of you know, we doing these things
Speaker 2: just to please authority, even to the point of murder,
Speaker 2: because you know, the dial of the electric shock was
Speaker 2: deadly after a certain point, and you could hear the
Speaker 2: screams of the the victims. Of course they were fake screams,
Speaker 2: but you know, the participants could hear them. But what
Speaker 2: Bragman ended up uncovering is that most of the participants
Speaker 2: will't follow the orders blindly. They were following the orders, yes,
Speaker 2: but they would do because they believed that they were
Speaker 2: doing something good, something good for the good of science.
Speaker 2: That even though the shocks were uncomfortable, that it wasn't
Speaker 2: something they want to do, there was a noble sacrifice
Speaker 2: in the name of progress. Even so, the participants weren't
Speaker 2: in the front. You know, they were distressed, they were shaken,
Speaker 2: they were sweat and they were begging to check on
Speaker 2: the learner. But they also said things like he agreed
Speaker 2: to be in the experiment, you know, or this will
Speaker 2: help science right or I don't want to do this,
Speaker 2: but I have to, demanded lab Coote, who is telling
Speaker 2: them to continue, please continue, please continue. He was calm,
Speaker 2: he was professional, and also even how the nudge is
Speaker 2: that he used were framed made a difference. So if
Speaker 2: he was directly ordering them and telling them you have
Speaker 2: to do this, surprise many people would actually be more
Speaker 2: likely to resist a direct order framed in that way
Speaker 2: for such an experiment, but a more subtle nudge, just
Speaker 2: like know what, you know, science, the experimental requires this,
Speaker 2: you know, the experiment needs to do this at more
Speaker 2: subtle It tended to get people to continue. And the
Speaker 2: people who were interviewed who did take it up to
Speaker 2: those higher volagers, they said they did it because they
Speaker 2: believed they were contributing to scientific development. So it's really
Speaker 2: this misguided belief in a higher cause that also contributes
Speaker 2: to atrocity. It's very easy to get this idea that, oh,
Speaker 2: you know that those are just monstrous people. You know,
Speaker 2: we have this idea in pop culture that these the
Speaker 2: Nazis are like cartoonish monsters. They are monstrous, but they
Speaker 2: are monstrous people. You know, they are, at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, people who do evil with the belief
Speaker 2: that they're doing good. It's a very extent. I know
Speaker 2: that there were some who you know, recanted or who
Speaker 2: knew what they were doing wrong, but they had other
Speaker 2: pressures that were pushing them in that direction. Right. There
Speaker 2: are many explanations we was behaving and all sorts of situations,
Speaker 2: but a lot of the people they thought that they
Speaker 2: were contributing to the right things, didn't care, but they
Speaker 2: were taught to care in the wrong direction. The bad
Speaker 2: guys don't think that they're bad guys. And whether we're
Speaker 2: talking about the Nazis of the past or the Designers
Speaker 2: of today, they construct these elaborate narratives to frame themselves
Speaker 2: as the righteous ones. You know, as far as the
Speaker 2: Nazis are concerned, they are purge in Germany of a
Speaker 2: serious threat to the well be in and the safety
Speaker 2: of their future and all that stuff. Read Designers to stay.
Speaker 2: You ask them, even though they're pariahs of the world
Speaker 2: at this point, you ask them why they believe that
Speaker 2: this must continue, and they will say, you know, we
Speaker 2: have to defend ourselves. We have a right to defend ourselves. YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 2: There are true believers within these groups, you know, who
Speaker 2: are able to commit some of the worst acts, committed
Speaker 2: ideologues who boast of their trustees, who express no remorse,
Speaker 2: who take pride in their role, and people reach that
Speaker 2: point of ideology through a process of radicalization. You know,
Speaker 2: we look at the tends to genocide. I think is
Speaker 2: the framework people have used before to point out how
Speaker 2: a segment of a population can become a target of genocide.
Speaker 2: It's not like one day you wake up and it's
Speaker 2: just like, oh, we're going to geneside this group of people.
Speaker 2: It's a process. You know. First you start off with classification.
Speaker 2: You create a separate group of people, separate category of poison.
Speaker 2: You make them signify themselves in some way, carry ID
Speaker 2: cards or some kind of insignia on their clothing or whatever.
Speaker 2: They begin to face discrimination or some kind the discrimination,
Speaker 2: you know, is ramped up through dehumanizing language. You compare
Speaker 2: them to verment or rodents, the disease. And that's just
Speaker 2: the thing, and we're going to get to that. But
Speaker 2: part of how you get people who would otherwise be
Speaker 2: caring or compassionate about their fellow human is through distance. Right,
Speaker 2: So the people who who are most blood thirsty tend
Speaker 2: to be very far from the front lines. You know,
Speaker 2: people who are demanding that World War One continue, for example,
Speaker 2: they were very far from the actual fighting versus at
Speaker 2: the actual front lines of World War One. You had
Speaker 2: soldiers playing football together during Christmas. That's a separate story.
Speaker 2: But you create distance, either create physical distance or you
Speaker 2: create psychological distance and dehumanization is one of the ways
Speaker 2: you create psychological distance. You distance people from seeing their
Speaker 2: fellow human being as a human being. Segregation is another
Speaker 2: way of creating that distance, which then lends itself to
Speaker 2: the humanization. Comparing the people to wom into animals, anything
Speaker 2: other than human as another step in the humanization and
Speaker 2: can people to separate themselves from those peopuel and then
Speaker 2: they create specific groups. The next stage to create specific
Speaker 2: groups and organizations to enforce discriminatory policies. You fool the broadcast,
Speaker 2: operate the propaganda to polarize population. And then we'll step seven, eight, nine,
Speaker 2: and ten go from actually preparing the removal relocation of
Speaker 2: people to the persecution, the extermination of the group, and
Speaker 2: finally the denial that such a crime ever could so
Speaker 2: that process it can take years, it can take decades,
Speaker 2: but it's something that can turn even the most regular
Speaker 2: poison into virulent proponent of Rihanna side if they are
Speaker 2: not fastidious in their opposition to any such language, especially
Speaker 2: in the early stages, because they get fed this steady
Speaker 2: extreme propaganda of all the actions are justified, their loyalty
Speaker 2: to their inn group becomes tested by their willingness to
Speaker 2: engage in those harmful actions. The stay with that group,
Speaker 2: will do whatever their tool is good, even if it
Speaker 2: leads to other people being hood and it just creates
Speaker 2: an evil. But it's an ordinary evil. It's an evil
Speaker 2: that is convinced of. It's a virtue. It is wrapped
Speaker 2: up in ideology and social conformity because you know, humans
Speaker 2: are social creatures and it drives us to cooperate. But
Speaker 2: that sociality can be narrowed down to test our in group.
Speaker 2: And that's where Breakman actually gets into an interesting point
Speaker 2: about empathy, right, because we tend to see empathy as
Speaker 2: a positive thing, and it can be. But as Bragman notes,
Speaker 2: drawn from psychologists Paul Bloom's work, empathy can also make
Speaker 2: us partial, irrational, and even cruel, because it can narrow
Speaker 2: our focus to those people who are like us and
Speaker 2: ignore others. That's why soldiers can fight and kill other
Speaker 2: people because they feel empathy for their in group, their
Speaker 2: homeland citizens, or their comrades and arms. Their loyalty and
Speaker 2: affection for the people they care about supersedes the lives
Speaker 2: of the people that they don't care about. Now, of course,
Speaker 2: we want to look at systems and we're talking about
Speaker 2: this because I don't think that this hijack and of
Speaker 2: empathy is inevitable. You know, nationalism, propaganda, these things play
Speaker 2: a role in how people end up being separated this way,
Speaker 2: and it's in groups and our groups. But you know,
Speaker 2: there is also indications that in group and our group,
Speaker 2: separation cann occur even in the absence of a stake,
Speaker 2: So it is something we have to be continuously vigilanti of.
Speaker 2: Another aspect of as a systemic analysis or approach, is
Speaker 2: looking at how our position within society also shapes how
Speaker 2: we operate, how we treat people, how we think, and
Speaker 2: how we act. Bragrant cites neuroscience research that demonstrates how
Speaker 2: authority literally changes how we think. Powerful people become less
Speaker 2: empathetic and I'm more likely to see others as tools
Speaker 2: rather than independent people. You know, this is not new information,
Speaker 2: per see. You know, the envirolence that powerful people are
Speaker 2: in both shapes them and are shaped by them, they say,
Speaker 2: and has long gone that power corrupts and absolute power
Speaker 2: crupts absolutely and spaces like Silicon Valley, like Wall streets,
Speaker 2: like Washington, DC, like corporate boardrooms and all the other
Speaker 2: upper echelons of government to divorce rulers and authorities from
Speaker 2: ordinary people, their insular spaces that keep them from being
Speaker 2: challenged or being grounded by the impact of their actions
Speaker 2: and others, so powerful people don't have to care. And
Speaker 2: I think such hierarchies are attractive to people who already
Speaker 2: are inclined to do bad, even if they believe that
Speaker 2: they're doing good. The authoritarians, the supremacists, the abusers, They
Speaker 2: are attracted to those positions. But even good intention people
Speaker 2: could lose themselves in authority too, because authorities as a
Speaker 2: whole existed in this bubble that rewards their worst instincts,
Speaker 2: and a further shape in the system around their worst instincts,
Speaker 2: around distrust, selfishness, exploitation, and so on, to reward themselves
Speaker 2: and their patterns of behavior, and thus, through the social
Speaker 2: most seaway fact, people end up in that expectation created
Speaker 2: by the system.
Speaker 3: I guess my only comment here is that these systems
Speaker 3: are not just exclusive to like state power or like
Speaker 3: corporate authority. These same mechanisms reproduce themselves in all sorts
Speaker 3: of social arrangements, including like radical politics, and frankly especially
Speaker 3: radical politics. You can see it's a lot with groups,
Speaker 3: whether they're communists, whether they're anarchists, whether they're I don't know.
Speaker 3: Social democrats probably have this problem, but no specifically like
Speaker 3: in anarchist scenes, you see this happen constantly. It is
Speaker 3: almost funny how how much of these things just get
Speaker 3: natively recreated and like in group out, group in amics
Speaker 3: are always are always a big issue. I mean, like
Speaker 3: you can also point to the book Cultish, which explains
Speaker 3: how American culture is pretty defined by like cult like tendencies,
Speaker 3: not saying that every single group is a cult, but
Speaker 3: cult dynamic explain to a large part of everyday American life.
Speaker 3: And that's both good and bad. Sometimes being in occult
Speaker 3: is fun until it's not very fun. So these dynamics
Speaker 3: themselves are not necessarily you know, bad, but there's something
Speaker 3: to be like mindful of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, so in being mindful of it, you know,
Speaker 2: that's an aspect of it. You know, we have to
Speaker 2: find solutions to this academic of badness, of behaviors being
Speaker 2: reinforced by these systems that are cause harm to people
Speaker 2: and harm to the world. And so what I always
Speaker 2: advocate for and we is big and small. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: call it the one solution to everything, but it's it
Speaker 2: does encompass a lot, but it's just understanding and taking
Speaker 2: on a dynamic social revolutionary approach to change, you know,
Speaker 2: from the effort to do to confront the existence system,
Speaker 2: to stand up against it. But they're also the things
Speaker 2: that you do to put forward an alternative, to put
Speaker 2: forward and to practice alternatives. So one of the things
Speaker 2: that we can do is to create, but you know,
Speaker 2: perpetuate a positive and trusting take on human decen see,
Speaker 2: you know, to create that social place boy effect that
Speaker 2: can shape how people treat each other for better, but
Speaker 2: that can be boiled down to just be nicer to
Speaker 2: each other. So there's more we've done than that. Of course,
Speaker 2: on the systems front, we also to change how we
Speaker 2: educate each other in radical spaces and also in terms
Speaker 2: of how we raise children. We have to organize you know,
Speaker 2: alternative economic systems and alternative social arrangements that get us
Speaker 2: in the habit of trust, of trusting people's freedom, of
Speaker 2: practicing freedom, and also of emphasizing greater intrinsic motivation in
Speaker 2: people as well. You know, a lot of our society
Speaker 2: is built around control and mechanisms of control through extrinsic
Speaker 2: forms of motivation, you know, like punishments and prisons and
Speaker 2: grades and bonuses and wages, all the different things that
Speaker 2: are meant to keep us going here now. But I
Speaker 2: think a system that more leans into intrinsic motivation is
Speaker 2: something that we should be working toward. You know that
Speaker 2: people do things so they're in see for reasons that
Speaker 2: we are driven by. That I think is far more
Speaker 2: sustainable long term and more fulfilling long term than continuing
Speaker 2: to be stuck with the punishments and rewards that come
Speaker 2: from outside. Yes, we have to develop a revolutionary consciousness
Speaker 2: that is also very much grounded in you know, people's
Speaker 2: intrinsic motivation to have their needs met, to pursue their interests,
Speaker 2: to care for others. And that is where I think
Speaker 2: we'll say tea in fors long term because you can
Speaker 2: create all these bonuses and incentives externally, but I don't
Speaker 2: think it's something that will last. There are, you know,
Speaker 2: experiments in earth with a great emphasis on intrinsic motivation,
Speaker 2: not even necessarily radical experiments. By see what Bregman actually
Speaker 2: looks at examples of schools that don't have grades or
Speaker 2: fixed curriculums, and that companies that don't have managers, that
Speaker 2: are run entirely by employees. I mean, anarchists have been
Speaker 2: known about these, but he emphasizes that the people in
Speaker 2: these environments thrive because they've been trusted to direct themselves.
Speaker 2: They can bring off the best in themselves because they've
Speaker 2: been given the room to do so, you know, and
Speaker 2: spaces like free schools and maker spaces and cooperatives they
Speaker 2: give us the room to develop our cooperation and creativity.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Of course, the system isn't going to stand by as
Speaker 2: these transformations take place. It might tolerate or even celebrate
Speaker 2: some like the examples that Bregman had looked at, but
Speaker 2: those are always going to be treated as exceptions the
Speaker 2: second he tried to make them the norm. I think
Speaker 2: you're going to face some real challenges because ordinary people
Speaker 2: one of these things, but the rulers don't. It's like
Speaker 2: the example that I had brought up earlier, you know,
Speaker 2: the famous nineteen fourteen Christmas truth during World War One,
Speaker 2: where British and Jeman soldiers put down their guns, they
Speaker 2: sang songs, they played football, but eventually the high command
Speaker 2: crack down these truces. The fratnization of people who are
Speaker 2: different from each other was a threat to the war
Speaker 2: machine because these systems are invested in maintaining hostility and division,
Speaker 2: and so we have to consciously and openly stand up
Speaker 2: against hostility and division to build systems that bring out
Speaker 2: the best in people. I don't think that a hopeful
Speaker 2: view of human nature should be seen as utopian. As
Speaker 2: I said earlier, is realistic. Cynicism is not realism. They're
Speaker 2: not the same thing. Having hope is not being that
Speaker 2: you are completely deluded of the darks side or dark
Speaker 2: aspects of humanity and humanity's possibilities. But it means that
Speaker 2: you don't limit yourself to that outcome, that you challenge
Speaker 2: that narrative, and that you seek to do better and
Speaker 2: to create something better. And that's really what I care about,
Speaker 2: and that's all I have to share. All power to
Speaker 2: all the people.
Speaker 1: This it could happen. Here is a production of cool
Speaker 1: Zone Media. For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit
Speaker 1: our website Coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: You can now find sources for it could happen here,
Speaker 1: listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening,