Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to the Call It Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to continue our streaming between the Line series and discuss the Eugenics Crusade, the two hour documentary written and directed by Michelle Ferrari, which first aired back in 2018 and is available now to stream.
This documentary tells the story of the rise and fall of eugenics in the American scientific, social and political spheres. A story which has several themes which still echo today, even though it seems so very far removed when you watch it or when you read about this from early 20th century.
Joining me today is a man who lays down laws like Allen Carpet Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. You gonna get the people one more chance, man.
[00:01:12] Speaker B: Yeah, just one more.
[00:01:14] Speaker A: Just one more. All right. All right.
Now we're recording this on January 2, 2023. And before we jump right in, I just want to be clear on what we're discussing in terms of what eugenics is. Eugenics, the word was coined in the late 19th century by actually a cousin of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, and it means literally, quote, well born.
And the science of eugenics in large part began with the mindset of trying to be more selective with the procreation of humans in order to breed in more desirable characteristics and breed out less desirable characteristics, kind of in the same way that's done with crops or farm animals or racehorses. But as the documentary shows and we'll discuss, it, ultimately went much further than that.
So, Tunde, to get us started, what did you find most interesting about the eugenics movement as told in this documentary?
[00:02:17] Speaker B: That's a loaded question. There was several interesting things to it. So I don't know if there's a most, but I guess if I could go 30,000ft with it, the overarching theme that it's another, you know, eugenics is another example where I think humans, you know, us as all of us people, tend to think that, you know, number one, are dealing with the knowledge they have at the time.
Eugenics, I think, is an interesting example of how culture can kind of dominate and control things that are supposed to be kind of more secular from an intellectual standpoint, like science.
And I think it's kind of what I felt when watching the documentary kind of getting through. It was another example of kind of the lack of humility, I think, that all of us have as people, that somehow our time is the most important time ever and that somehow these new technologies that we develop in our society will allow us to Engineer humanity in a certain way for the better. And that's what I mean by the cultural aspect because I realize what was considered better back then, 100, 120 years ago is different than what would be considered better now today. And it's just interesting. Right. And so that's where I just feel that eugenics is not unique. But maybe it was unique in its time because of the kind of amalgamation of technology along with the demographic shifts in Western society.
But the thoughts that brought us to eugenics have always been there and are still there. Yeah, that's kind of where I feel like there's a lot of moving pieces that interest me in this.
[00:04:09] Speaker A: Yeah, that actually that's was my. The thing that was interesting to me is that how the. The impetus, the things that were the social ills or, you know, the, the concerns as far as the society caring for people, having to care for people or people that need extra care. All of that stuff, all of the reasons why the. Some of the people in that day came up with the answer of eugenics. All of that stuff still exists. All of that stuff existed at various points throughout history. Now they were in an interesting time because the urban. It was really the development of urban societies as we know them today in the sense that, you know, in the documentary made note on how you had masses and masses of people moving to the cities. This was on the, you know, as that was happening. And so the city is becoming more crowded, more crime, more just unruly stuff. At the same time, with all this immigration that was happening and they were all mainly flocking to the cities as well. So there were these concerns that people had as far as concerns as far as actual just order and the ability for society to maintain itself in these cities with all these people and so forth, you know, with factories and stuff like that would be the reason they were coming. There were jobs, but it's difficult to ramp up, so to speak, a urban area that may have had 40,000 people or 50,000 people, and then in 10 years it might have a half a million people or it might have, you know, more than. Even more than that. And so that struggle led people to other rise and so forth. And the other piece I would say was yes, the, the how it's very particular, like the person who is deciding what are the desirable characteristics setting aside, like you can have a different conversation if you want to say certain types of disease, things like that, as far as quote unquote undesirable characteristics, but it, it never is that. It always goes to I don't like this person. This is the other. They're an other eyes, something and then these. What's desirable and undesirable with these characteristics as it, as it went in this eugenics movement always ends up becoming something about not people that are. That have any objective thing wrong with them that you just don't like what they do or how they live or how, you know, what they look like and so forth. And so then you're like, oh, that's the stuff we gotta breed out. So, yeah, it becomes so subjective so quickly in an area that people initially tried to present as, oh, this is science, people. This isn't, you know, we're not out here just talking nonsense. This is like, this is real science and we're gonna make things happen. You know, from a scientific standpoint.
[00:06:39] Speaker B: Yeah, that was the thing to me that was interesting about eugenics and the fact they. I think they labeled it kind of a quote unquote, pseudoscience, which is, it was kind of. This term in my head is it was a bug in search of a windshield. You know, it was a theory in search of scientific confirmation that over maybe a 30 year period, science confirmed that it wasn't a theory based in any real fact.
[00:07:07] Speaker A: But in that lag when there were some results that said, hey, there might be something to that, the zealots, so to speak, they took it and ran with it.
[00:07:15] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, no, that's what was interesting is number one over that period of time, unfortunately, a lot of people got hurt because of these theories, which we'll get into a little bit more in detail how that may have led to the cause of World War II in certain aspects. And then the other thing that I find going back to the desirables versus undesirables, because that's a very important point, because on top of the documentary, I just got curious. I started looking online a bit because they alluded to this in the documentary that a gentleman said that there's evidence of the idea of eugenics, meaning trying to breed more perfect people in Sanskrit, kind of these ancient writings. So it is true. Plato apparently referred to ideas that we'd consider eugenics, meaning he thought about breeding more appropriate people to try and make a better humanity. And they even talked about things like certain Brazilian tribes, Native American tribes, as well as the Spartans, that they would do infanticide, basically kill babies that were born with defects, birth defects, things like that. So one can say, okay, this isn't new in humanity. The idea of trying to rid a society of quote, unquote, Undesirable, whether they be physically deformed, mentally deformed, things like that, or of bad quote, unquote, character is something that we know historically has gone on for a very long time. And that's where I said to me, it's just interesting the combination of where the world was, because they allude to this in the documentary that the 30 years prior to the beginning of the eugenics movement saw at the time the greatest technological revolutions on earth in human history.
[00:09:03] Speaker A: People believed in science. Like science can make anything happen in that.
[00:09:07] Speaker B: Exactly. And that's what I found interesting. Not only belief in science was prevalent belief in kind of collectivism.
[00:09:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:09:14] Speaker B: And that the government could solve problems. So, like, Teddy Roosevelt was a big proponent of eugenics, things like that. They even talked about people like Langston Hughes, like some of the subcultures in America began to ascribe to some of these ideas that you could breed your way out of certain negative, I guess, cultures and breed your way into a more positive existence as a group.
[00:09:36] Speaker A: Yeah. And I mean, honestly, if you think about it though, the. Then this is where it gets really dangerous because on an individual level, people do this kind of thing all the time. People like, oh, you know, I like this characteristic or whatever. And you might choose a mate based on characteristics that you are not an all. But based in part on, you know, you like certain characteristics or whatever. On an individual level, that happens. It makes sense from the. You see it in the animal kingdom, you know, like once people started farming or, you know, planting animal kingdom, once people started farming and started being able to see how they could combine different strains of plants and get hardier plants, the idea comes to you almost naturally. The problem was, so to speak, that as we. As the documentary gets into and so forth, that it doesn't. It's not that easy. And so trying to, like, systematize it and organize it in some kind of societal level doesn't work out like that. You know, it doesn't. And so like. But one other thing that, you know, like where my mind went to or two other things where my mind went to when seeing this was one was this was done. We've hear reports about, at least, you know, and recorded in history that this kind of thought process or approach may have been done with American slavery as far as to try to, quote, unquote, build or breed stronger slaves, more resistant to the elements and so forth. But also, you can see how this type of mindset may have led to the inbreeding stuff, you know, which takes you in A terrible direction. You know, as far as the loss of. We know now genetic diversity is very important. So you don't necessarily want to double down on the same thing over and over again. But without knowing all that stuff, you can see how this kind of basic thought that can make sense can then go into so many different directions actually that once you take two steps down the road, you're, you're in catastrophe. But the premise itself still made sense. And so. But yeah, well, what stood out to you now?
[00:11:33] Speaker B: Just going to add, because the documentary makes a good case or, sorry, they say it in a very interesting way, that what eugenics did was preserve pre existing order.
And that was important to a lot of people because of the demographic shifts at the time, late 1800s through the early 1900s.
[00:11:53] Speaker A: And so that wasn't why the scientists necessarily were pushing it. That's why I like the evangelists, the people that pushing it.
[00:11:58] Speaker B: That's why the scientists, Scientists began to get interested because like you're saying about the, the idea that like the, the. Whether breeding fruit flies or, or breeding chickens, that somehow maybe there is a scientific way that you can make humans better, more stronger, you know, rid.
[00:12:13] Speaker A: Rid people of mentalism, the idealism of it.
[00:12:16] Speaker B: Yeah, and, and that's right, I agree. Like over that kind of couple decades, once the scientists really got their hands into it, they found that, and especially as the research into actual genetics and the discovery of chromosomes and things like that in the early 20th century took place, what they began to find was, yeah, first of all, human beings aren't peas, you know, like plants, and they're not as simple as fruit flies. There's a lot more complexity. And then they even found that an animal as simple as a fruit fly in comparison to us humans, if you just hit it with X rays, you can create so many mutations that it goes out of control. So a lot of the scientists began to distance themselves from the eugenics experiments because they just weren't proving to be factual once put up through the scientific method.
[00:13:10] Speaker A: Well, the next thing I wanted to actually get into was the evolution that we saw with the science aspect. You know, like, and like you said, it started out in some type of, in more of an idealism type of thing, like, oh, we can get rid of. And that's the other thing it started out with, was less about desirable from a cultural standpoint, but more of desirables in, you know, resistance to disease or certain types of defects. But in any event, it started out trying to almost search for something better, but then it, the, the Science almost went on one track where they're trying to actually prove whether or not this works. And they're doing experiments on different animals and all that stuff. Hey, can we control what the, when we breed two different animals or, you know, whether it be insects, fruit flies or whatever, and, you know, they're having different characteristics, can we control what the output is? Can we control what, what, what genes are passed on to the offspring? And if you can control it, then you can say, okay, we can isolate and get rid of certain things by controlling what happens. And it goes all the way down this progression where they try to prove it and they cannot prove it. And then ultimately science is on the side and within a decade or two of that it not being something that we can actually reliably replicate. But at that time, though, the people pushing from a social and political standpoint had already taken off and they were going, so what did you, what did you make of how those tracks happened kind of in parallel, so to speak, where you had, at a certain point, maybe at the very beginning, there was some alignment on. The people wanting to do this from a social and political standpoint were like, okay, yeah, let's, let's find the science that make it work. But as you pointed out, it was more of a bug looking for a windshield. Like, they were, they already had their conclusion. They were looking, they were asking the scientists not to disprove it per the scientific method, but to prove it. But, but once there was a certain divergence, basically where they went on their own and they're like, look, we're going with this and we'll talk later about how their, their justifications evolved over time as the science community, as they diverge further and further from the science community. But what'd you make of that kind of initial place that they started in and then the gradual divergence?
[00:15:28] Speaker B: Very interesting. You know, stay with me as I go down this rabbit hole here.
[00:15:34] Speaker A: Okay, okay, fair warning.
[00:15:36] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. For the audience, too, because I'm, I, I'm going to go this direction, but I'm not staying there. Just for example, you know, I kept thinking of the big lie.
[00:15:44] Speaker A: Interesting.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: And that's why, like I'm saying, it's not to get in, you know, off topic and get into, you know, modern politics in America. But what, what it got me thinking of again, the human aspect of it, that is like the big lie. The big lie was again, a bug in search of a windshield. Right. It was, it was a theory pushed by people that weren't happy with something and like We've documented in other discussions whether first starting with the courts, then trying to get people, the culture got riled up through TV and the Internet and all that. And it's kind of like eugenics, right? Like, at one point, the serious people were on board with looking into the big lie and saying, let's look at the data, let's look at the election results. Let's do recounts by hand in states like Arizona and all that. And what happens is the evidence kept showing. I mean, I remember, I think it was the Arizona recount where the election was certified by 100 votes more than your initial thing. And so what happens is then the serious people start kind of jumping off this train that looks like it's going to hell. And what you're left with is just these true believers from a cultural standpoint. And I think that's why it reminded me of the similar thing that something that was so heated and emotional, you know, Here we are two years after the January 6th event, and the serious people are off that. That. That narrative, and they've moved on to other things, and only the core hardcores are still beating that drum. And I think eugenics reminded me of just. I don't know why the two things merged.
[00:17:21] Speaker A: No, I can see what you're saying because there was the initial, like, everybody who's kind of would be interested in that particular outcome, anybody who was interested in, oh, we might be able to do better as far as offspring, healthier babies was like, okay, yeah, let's learn more, let's learn more. Everybody's on board. And then as the evidence starts to roll in, or as the zealots, the evangelists, start veering into other territories like, oh, no, we're not just looking to get rid of disease, actually, we're going to just try to remake society. We're going to try to breed out certain races. And they're like. And the other people are like, well, hold on, I thought we were just doing healthy babies. And so that is the divergence, though, that you see is as the zealots reveal themselves more as actual zealots, not just interested or curious people. And as the evidence rolls in that doesn't support what the initial premise was. There's a choice there that each person needs to make. As far as, all right, am I just pot committed to where I started because of confirmation bias and because of what. This is just the way I want to go with it. Or it oftentimes takes a bigger person to say, oh, looks like I'm on the wrong. I Picked the wrong train here. You know, I need to get off the train now and get on the other train because this train is going not somewhere where I want to go.
[00:18:35] Speaker B: No, that's a great point because I think, you know, within all these things, there's, there's genuineness, right. And things that can be looked at and maybe applied to make things better or fix things in the future. So with the big life, for example, you know, I agree with you. It's like the Holocaust as created and executed by Nazi Germany was, I think, that nail in the coffin for eugenics where it took maybe the idealism of, hey, let's do some things that we think can create a better society. And it went from sterilization, which I don't agree with, to exterminating humans on.
[00:19:17] Speaker A: Sterilization, by the way. Like, actually, hey, we'll look at you. We don't think you are, we don't think you're smart enough. So we, we as a society are going to decide then that you can't have kids because if you have kids, then they're not going to be smart either. And they're going to be, if you're not smart enough, you're more likely to commit crime. So that's what you meant by sterilization.
[00:19:33] Speaker B: Yeah, and where I'm making the connection is, so there's a lot of people that, like, you're saying from a distance, right, they don't have to see people getting sterilized. They don't have to see the, you know, all the insane asylums where people get shoved into because they're considered, quote, unquote, morons, which was a medical term back then, so on and so forth, right? So they can say, okay, I guess that has to be done for us to have a better society. But once the Nuremberg trials happened and you really learned what happened in the Holocaust, that's when I think a lot of people are like, okay, I didn't sign up for that.
[00:20:02] Speaker A: Well, I think it's an interesting point that you bring up and the documentary did point out how, as you said, that Nazi, what the Nazis did actually put a final nail in the coffin in terms of, okay, like, yeah, you can't do this because what they did, basically what they decided was, okay, well, instead of forced sterilization, which they said, that's too slow to get out what they deserve, I mean, to be the, the undesirable characteristics. So, yeah, they just, they took it and what it is, really, they took it to what could be considered to be a logical Conclusion that is a. Could be considered a logical conclusion of eugenics is if all of these, if we're all competing for resources and sharing the same stuff, then, you know, like, hey, you, you're going to start doing extreme things. If you play that eugenics mindset out on a societal level. Again, I think that's important here, is that the issue here isn't, oh, I like this characteristic. I'm going to choose a mate that has this characteristic. This is me telling 100 other people I like this characteristic. So all of you that have it, you can't have kids. And that, to me, that kind of leap is one that we see in societies a lot of times where, like, a lot of that is when we, when, you know, in our country, we value, or most of us value, keeping religion separate from the legal aspect. And part of that is in that same line of thinking is that, okay, well, if you're going to have freedom, then you can't. One person can't say, okay, well, because of my religion, I'm going to make it illegal to do this or do that. It's very different if a person says, hey, because of my religion, I'm not going to do this or do that. I don't think that that's right. So I'm not going to do it. Individual choice, society allows for that. But it's always when. Not always, but it's oftentimes when we have these things that may be. They may be good practices, they may be something that would be desirable to do on an individual level. And then we say, you know what? We're going to make everybody else do it. And, you know, what was pointed out repeatedly in the documentary is that it's always the person who's making the decision on what is desirable, what's not desirable. They just choose, basically, what's desirable is themselves. And, you know, they're like, oh, yeah, we'll just make everybody like me. And it's like, all right, this isn't workable. And that's not much different than what the Nazis did. One last point, I'll kick it back to you. But, you know, it was. I found it interesting, though, in the trials, you know, with the Nazis and how they pointed to the US Supreme Court actually upheld state laws forcing sterilization. And they upheld it and said, no, forced sterilization is okay. And the Nazis were pointing at that, say, hey, how can you say we're war crimes? You guys say, this is okay in a civilian sense. You know, and so, I mean, it's Crazy. Just the point being that the Americans kind of got this ball rolling. Germany took it to. Took it further, basically. But they were following our footsteps. They were following our cues, you know, when they did all that. Those atrocities.
[00:22:55] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's interesting, you made a very good point that, you know, unfortunately, and I say this, we're not fans of the Holocaust here. Right. So I'm not.
[00:23:06] Speaker A: Definitely not.
[00:23:07] Speaker B: I want to be very clear about that.
[00:23:08] Speaker A: Definitely.
[00:23:08] Speaker B: What I'm saying is, though, the point you make that the Holocaust, you know, the extermination of a group of people or the desire to do that, let's just say it that way, is the natural conclusion, because it's a good point. I never thought of it that way. Clearly, sterilizing people is done with the intent that you're ending that line.
[00:23:27] Speaker A: That line, yeah, exactly.
[00:23:28] Speaker B: And so the.
[00:23:30] Speaker A: But that's not the only way, and that's not the most efficient way to end.
[00:23:34] Speaker B: Yeah, well, it's just that you're right, it was too slow for some people to do that. Right. So they had to step it up and say, okay, I got to make sure within my lifetime, in the next 20 years, I see a world without this whole other group of people. And that's. That's fascinating. And it's. And it's. It's terrible at the same time. And what it is, is it really tells us that anytime that we see people trying to divide people into these groups and say that, you know, let's call it what it is. Right. Desirables versus undesirables. You make a good point. The natural conclusion, we shouldn't be surprised if it goes to these types of extremes.
[00:24:11] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:11] Speaker B: And clearly the Holocaust is probably the most extreme version of that in history, especially because of the industrialized way of exterminating human beings. But we can say any genocide in history, you know, whether what the Turks did To the Armenians 100 years ago, you know, or something like that, or, you know, what the Japanese tried to do to the Chinese, you know, prior to World War II and during World War II, those are all examples where the Japanese thought they were superior to other human beings. And they decimated people in Manchuria and China just like the Nazis decimated people in Europe and other examples like that. So I think it's a great point you make that we all have to be careful. And that's why, you know, you and I kind of have this joke about people who are cooperative and non cooperative.
[00:25:00] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:00] Speaker B: And I think once you start seeing people who are non cooperative, one must assume that, okay, if this is allowed to play out all the way we've seen where human beings will begin to hurt other human beings.
[00:25:13] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think you're right in terms of how what it does reveal, the cautionary tale nature of it, is like, what the genocide helped connect to people who it wasn't and it wasn't. I'm not saying that it should have been obvious to them at the very beginning, but what it helped them connect is that sterilization and genocide, there's not much space. But for sterilization and genocide, there's not much space between those two. Those are going down the same road. One is definitely further than the other, but it connects that. And so the cautionary tale being that, yeah, once people start talking about once. Once you go down the road, first of otherizing, then dehumanizing, then, you know, coming up with all these justifications why you can do this or you can do that, these roads are going down the same path. And hopefully, you know, we as society, by learning about this stuff, can, you know, learn to recognize these. And. Because a lot of times, and, you know, is the story of the Nazis, we don't recognize it a lot of times if it's. If our group isn't the initial target.
[00:26:18] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's true. Because when your group's the target, it makes it much more emotional. You pay attention.
[00:26:23] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean, not just emotional. It makes it much more of a immediate threat.
[00:26:26] Speaker B: That's what I mean.
[00:26:27] Speaker A: Like, yeah, it's.
[00:26:28] Speaker B: It's. Yeah, I mean, that's better term than what I had, is it's emotional because it's an immediate threat.
[00:26:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:26:34] Speaker B: And. And so. But one thing before we jump to the next kind of section of the discussion, you know, it's a great point you bring up with the Nazis saying the natural conclusion. Because I think this is something that, you know, another thing that just watching this documentary reminded me of is.
I'll see if I can say it all succinctly, which is.
I kind of felt like it's another example of kind of the lack of humility that we have collectively as humans at times. Because, you know, it's this idea that. Remember, you stated it well. The. The Nazis lifted and borrowed a lot of their ideas from the Americans. So it wasn't just eugenics, even things like the Jim Crow laws. Yeah, they. They were studying them. They were in communication with American politicians and scientists of how to apply the same segregation laws in Germany against groups like Jews and gypsies and political dissenters and all that. And so they. The. The interesting thing is those are things that, again, because we don't fully teach all the sides of history, not only in our country, but the world doesn't do it, we tend to think that we are immune to going down these roads. And I think that you said it. Well, I was thinking about something you said on the show when. When I was preparing for this, and you said something about like, I don't even think my spouse is perfect. You know, like this kind of thing, like, just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean I can't love it.
[00:28:04] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:28:04] Speaker B: And I think this was. It reminded me, watching all this stuff, like, yeah, we're imperfect. And the Germans were pointing to that in their defense trials at Nuremberg. They were citing actual American laws. They were using. And because we don't teach that to ourselves, we don't see when we go down these slippery slopes and listening to rhetoric that is divisive and may lead people again. We had people coming up with eugenics here, England, Australia, Canada. The Germans took it and went to another level with it. And there's people talking things now in the world today in 2022, 2023, that, you know, we may. Most of us might be able to hear it and we can walk away and say, okay, but there's going to be somebody that takes it and runs with it, and it hurts other people. And the idea of creating these utopias, I want to quote something from the documentary. They said, quote, the problem with utopias is that they set a set of aspirations that then blind you to a certain set of consequences. And that can be dangerous.
[00:29:05] Speaker A: Yeah. And that classic ends justify the means type of thing.
[00:29:08] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:29:08] Speaker A: You know, so that's what it was like.
[00:29:09] Speaker B: Sterilization led to extermination. Like you said, the natural conclusion, because you had this idea in your head that we got to get rid of these undesirables. So as long. And that's the thing. So even if science isn't telling us where, it reminds me of a big lie, even if the facts don't line up, I got to keep pushing this thing.
[00:29:26] Speaker A: Well, that's the thing that made it very fascinating from that standpoint, it's frightening as well. But we see, this is like the science jumped off board, so to speak, quietly, you know, in more of the earlier phases of the eugenics movement. But it got. It caught on from a social standpoint and political standpoint, and the momentum for those kept running until things happened publicly.
[00:29:50] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:29:51] Speaker A: That then halted the science, the. Excuse me, the social and the political, the science community itself saying, hey, actually, you know, we are, our research doesn't support that we can make this happen in the way we're talking about it. That didn't really move the needle once the ball got rolling from the social standpoint. And so, you know, and that's, that's actually the next thing I wanted to ask you was what did you, what did you make of how quickly from a social and political standpoint? Now this wasn't just organic, there was effort made to make it happen, but how quickly it was able to take hold, you know, and because this is something that nobody in the public had heard of this thing in 1900 and by 1920, in the 20s, you know, they're, they got laws on the books, they got, you know, Supreme Court ruling on it, saying it's okay. Like this went from nothing that was talked about to like people are going to fairs and you know, the Betterment Commission and eugenics is everywhere. Like it took on or it, it jumped, you know, it came, became very prevalent very quickly. What'd you make of that?
[00:30:50] Speaker B: How much time we got left?
No, because as you're talking, you know what I'm thinking of? What's that critical race theory? I'm thinking of, you know. Yeah, like, you know, we've done a show, right. That it's been around since the 70s, no one heard of it, no one cared. But in the last two years, all of a sudden it's everywhere. Right.
And so the power of the media, basically the power of. Yes. Those systems and meet narratives. Right. And when people want to get behind them and push them, they get pushed. The other thing that. Because I'll jump back to it in a second, but just to talk about the prevalence, because I find this too, just like whether it's the big lie or something else, these things don't happen without a lot of support and a lot of money.
And you know, from Ivy League schools, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, all of them had eugenics programs, were promoting the study of eugenics, things like that. You had the documented that one of the scientists had courted the widow of E. H. Herriman, the wealthy banker, and got her to donate a lot of money for the research and all that. And I just thought of it too, like yeah, it takes getting the whole culture in, but a lot of it is also fear based. Right?
[00:32:11] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:32:12] Speaker B: So just like the big lie was about fear that if the opponent gets in the country is going to end.
[00:32:17] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:32:18] Speaker B: And I think back then was very similar because of between the Demographic changes around the turn of the century, of the 20th century, as well as the prevalence of technology allowed for a lot of the fear to get disseminated. And that's what, what, what, what, what kind of gets you to this place where people begin to want to embrace it at that level of Ivy League schools and the wealthy get into it like, yeah, okay, if we don't do this, our country's gonna end, and I'll pass it back here in a second. But there was a lot of the similar language back then as well, that I found people like Madison Grant and others that just like, if you didn't do this, if you didn't put up these walls, that then the country America was over.
[00:32:57] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, it was a lot of that same rhetoric, you know, like, oh, this is the America.
[00:33:01] Speaker B: Yeah, we got like walls and bars.
[00:33:03] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And yeah, if we, how big of a wall can we build around America? And you know, this was the eugenics piece was that first legislation. It led to that first legislation that greatly restricted immigration, you know, in the United States. And at that time, it was the Eastern Europeans and the Southern Europeans they were trying to keep out. It's always, you know, it's always somebody trying to keep out for some reason. And we see that now. You know, it's just, I just want.
[00:33:25] Speaker B: To touch on what you just said, because that was the culture point I told, it pointed at earlier in the show, which is 100 years ago, the culture was that only western Nordic descendants of Europeans were desirable. And they said that Eastern Europeans, especially Jews, were less intelligent than native born white Americans.
[00:33:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:33:48] Speaker B: 100 years later, here we are where the authoritarian streak in the United States fawns over places like Hungary and Russia.
[00:33:57] Speaker A: Yeah, Eastern European.
[00:33:58] Speaker B: That's what I was saying that in preparing for this, I just realized this is why it's actually BS because, well.
[00:34:06] Speaker A: You know, it's bs, but this is just another illustration, if you want to, if you want to start going down the list of the reason all these.
[00:34:11] Speaker B: People were bad 100 years ago, but now they're okay.
[00:34:16] Speaker A: Well, I, I, the propaganda piece was, was definitely something that stood out. And you know, like you said, the amount of money and you know, like influence that was getting behind it. But I think even more core to it than that, the reason why you were able to get people on board, I think like at the institutional level, Carnegie Institute is giving them money until they, you know, until they looked at it from a science standpoint. Eventually, a couple decades later, stop, give, stop donating money to the eugenics foundations and so forth. But it fit into a lot of pre existing kind of concerns that people had. Like, oh, your concern is about social ills, drinking, the drunkenness or, you know, abuse, spousal abuse or whatever. Your kids not being able to eat. Oh, your concern is about health and just being healthy and fit, or your concern is about, you know, any of these kind of concerns that you have. There is a way that the eugenics people could sell you or that they had the solution to it. And so to me, that was. It brought together so many disparate people. They gave you the example of like the kellogg, you know, Dr. Kellogg, the guy who came from the Kellogg syrup, and he was a health nut. He was in that fitness and stuff like that. And he got, he got a taste of the eugenics thing. He's like, yeah, he's all on board, you know, like right away, like, yeah, this fits into all of the other stuff that I'm doing. So I think that was part of eugenics as well, is that it seemed that they, they had a message for no matter what your thing was, they had a message.
[00:35:35] Speaker B: It was like a QAnon of 100 years ago.
[00:35:38] Speaker A: Remember the birth control?
[00:35:39] Speaker B: Whatever you want, we got it.
[00:35:42] Speaker A: I want to try to see if I can pull up her name, but the birth control lady, the lady that was pushing birth control, like, she was pushing birth control and you know, it was like, oh, yeah, you know, women need to be able to, like, women shouldn't have to bear kids all the time and so forth. More from like, the impression I got was that it was much more from a feminist standpoint and not feminism as we think of it now, but just to not force women to carry babies all the time.
[00:36:04] Speaker B: But that's what she found an outlet with eugenics, exactly. Was palatable at the time.
[00:36:09] Speaker A: She then she said, hold on. If I incorporate my message into eugenics, then all of these people that are pushing back on me when I'm like, yeah, the man shouldn't be able to make the woman carry a baby. If I just put this in a eugenic standpoint, they get on board with me and they're like, they're riding out with me now because. And so to me, that, that exemplifies how, you know, there certainly was also some opportunism here where people were like, okay, because this is such a catch, all because you can fit almost any message into it. And because, you know, like, you can almost find anybody's thumb screw with this. I think that played a big Role in it being able to get so big so quickly.
[00:36:44] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a great point because it reminds me then of when we did our documentary show on prohibition. Yeah. And you know, you think about the lead up to the, you know, let's say prohibition, I think was 1920, 21, the official law. So the lead up was, you know, over the prior decades, which was around this time of eugenics. And like you're saying about the catch all, there are a lot of people, both from the anti kind of drinking movement as well as anti immigration movements that latched onto eugenics for their specific concerns in those areas.
[00:37:18] Speaker A: Because remember, we haven't said it out loud out specifically, but at the time the eugenics people were trying to link drunkenness.
[00:37:27] Speaker B: That's what I was getting at, this idea that eugenics was saying that. Yeah, whether it was drunkenness, which leads to poverty, which leads to crime was something that was hereditary. And so like if we get rid of what was.
[00:37:42] Speaker A: I think it was Henry Goddard who was one of the, you know, like one of the big influential people with this. He was saying that feeble mindedness, as he termed it and was a term that was used back then, you know, commonly caused two thirds of the problems in society. If we just get rid of this one thing, then we'd have much like significantly less problems.
[00:38:01] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and that's what I'm saying. And, and what you see is then the, the, the transformation of the culture. And so there's, you know, I want to, I got some quotes here. That's it. Just again, it, there's a lot of similar rhetoric today which is fascinating to me. So in May of 1920, Charles Davenport, who was one of the better known.
[00:38:21] Speaker A: Researchers, he was the Harvard educated guy that institutionalized the, the, the study of eugenics and was an early evangelist.
[00:38:28] Speaker B: And that's what I mean. Like these were Ivy League schools. And again, similar to some other things we've talked about, we don't learn about that. Our country at the highest level supported these things culturally. And so Charles Davenport said of Eastern European immigrants in a letter he penned to one of his friends In May of 1920, quote, can we build a wall high enough around this country as to keep these cheaper races out?
[00:38:54] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:38:54] Speaker B: And then there was a famous actress named Lillian Russell and she said that the American melting pot was a catastrophe. Quote, if we don't put up the bars and make them higher and stronger, she warned, there will no longer be an America for an Americans close quote. It's just interesting, like, and again, that's.
[00:39:13] Speaker A: What I thought those terms echo, man.
[00:39:15] Speaker B: But that's what I thought of. Think about it. She's specifically talking about Eastern Europeans, all that stuff and stuff coming over Ellis island, all that. And I think about now, it's the same exact rhetoric about what people coming from south of the border.
[00:39:28] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:39:29] Speaker B: And it's just interesting, right? Like, okay, maybe in a hundred years all those people, descendants of these immigrants from South America will be trying to keep someone else out of this place.
[00:39:37] Speaker A: Yeah, they'll be trying to keep the Martians out, man. Exactly.
[00:39:43] Speaker B: I might support that one, though.
[00:39:45] Speaker A: They might get you with that one. Oh, man. But I mean, I think, you know the quotes that you, that you brought out. Yeah. Those things echo. It's jarring when you say that's why it's people, you know, I could see that. Yeah, I could see that on the news tomorrow. You know, like that again.
[00:40:01] Speaker B: Yeah, for sure. But that's why it's like people all are talking like this and then like you're saying then something bad enough happens and it gets exposed to everyone else and then people are ashamed from it. Right.
[00:40:13] Speaker A: Because.
[00:40:14] Speaker B: And then nobody wants to acknowledge that they, that they actually supported this at one point.
[00:40:18] Speaker A: People always seem to forget how far certain people will take things like they themselves a lot of times won't take it that far. But they don't recognize that. Oh yeah, but there are people who will and they will take it very far. And then you're going to look up and say, oh well that's. Yeah, that's why we don't go down these ends justify the means roads. Because there are some people that will do some crazy things on, you know, just on behalf of whatever those ends are, you know. And so the, the one other piece I wanted to mention with this piece, and then I'm going to get, you know, we can wrap up with our last, our last point. But the also one other thing with, with Henry Goddard, one of the things that was very interesting with the feeble mindedness and he created, he was, he was, he was one of the creators of like standardized testing. But then as in now one of the things, it's easy for us to look at it now with the distance and see how what they were testing wasn't intelligence, but more so have you been exposed to a scholastic environment and had you been exposed to and assimilated into the culture? It was testing cultural things much more than raw intelligence. Because, you know, like again, looking back on it, they're looking at all these tests and it's like, yeah, there's no way you would, you would have any familiarity with a lot of these concepts. These weren't testing two plus two. You know, this is like, oh, okay, well, here's, you know, this is how this house is built. What's missing from this house that's built? And it's like, well, hold on. They build different types of houses all over the, all over the world. Like, what are you talking about? How are they going to know specifically how a specific house would look in New Jersey if they've never been to New Jersey? You know, so it's like they test in these cultural things, but they take that stuff and run with it and it's like, okay, yeah, we can, we're going to sterilize this person because, you know, this and that. This person's feeble minded. But the standardized testing piece and how that's, you know, initially was created to try to help people at the facility that Goddard was working at. But then you realize, and you know, the army adopted it and so forth and preparing for the draft for I believe World War I. But okay, yeah, let's test the intellectual proficiency of people. But you know, again, the, the idea of it might have sounded good, but the execution of it left a lot to be desired because the test didn't test what they were trying to test.
[00:42:24] Speaker B: Well, and it also, the conclusion of the test basically said that half of the literally 50% of the US army were morons. Literally.
[00:42:34] Speaker A: And when we say morons, again, it's not the insult that you hear now. Yeah, it was like moron was a classification, clinical diagnosis.
[00:42:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:42:40] Speaker A: These are diagnosis of, you know, and.
[00:42:43] Speaker B: Remember, let's say this too, because for the audience. Right. It's also about the, the input method and that's very important. It's kind of like the old, what do they call it, giggle for computers. Garbage in, garbage out.
[00:42:56] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:56] Speaker B: If you have garbage going in as a way to test people, then you're to get out garbage. Yeah. And so for example, number one, remember the documentary does a good point too, pointing out these were different times than today.
[00:43:09] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:43:09] Speaker B: It's almost, it's understandable why we put a lot of effort into public education in this country because back 100 years, 110 years ago, you know, 50% of the country was illiterate. You still have a lot of people living on farms, coming from farm. Most of the immigrants coming to the United States were illiterate. Definitely illiterate in English. And so you had examples where a question on an exam for people who are literate was what type of engine is in, you know, this type of engine is in what car? And they say Ford.
[00:43:38] Speaker A: They got brands of cars.
[00:43:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:43:39] Speaker A: And it's like, okay, how are people gonna know brand names of cars?
[00:43:42] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:43:43] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:43:43] Speaker B: I mean, I'm literate and you could stump me with a question like that today. And that would be seen if you answered that wrong. That was a knock against your intelligence.
[00:43:52] Speaker A: Yeah, you're feeble minded, man.
[00:43:53] Speaker B: They had different tests for people who were illiterate. Showing them like they showed. An example was they showed an image of a house and an immigrant from Czechoslovakia drew a cross on the top cross because to that immigrant it looked like a church. But they said that he got it wrong because the American tester was like, no, you're an idiot. You know, that's not a church, it's a house.
Yeah.
[00:44:16] Speaker A: It's like, well, but the expectation was. And again, this is the tester not recognizing their own blind spot. Correct. You know, like things that are familiar to them, they then impute on that everybody should be familiar with if they're smart.
[00:44:30] Speaker B: And so, and I was just gonna say this is why it wasn't scientific. This is when science began to say, okay, well you know, that doesn't really mean someone's actually intelligent or not. The idea that they've never seen a house like in the United States as it means they haven't been exposed to.
[00:44:44] Speaker A: Certain things or that they're not familiar with all the different brand names of cars. And it's like, well, you know, like. So, yeah, those are familiarity with culture, you know, and so it's, it's, it's one of those things. Yes, the, that was another piece where this, that's another example of how it diverged from science, the implementation of these things as science is digging and digging and digging and saying, hey, this stuff, we can't back this up, we can't get the outcome we want out of fruit flies. You know, when we're trying to do this and you guys are saying you're going to get it with humans and you know, on the other hand though the social and political, they're ramping it up still and they're going digging deeper and deeper. So just, you know, do you think society, you said, you know, you point out how this was a long time ago, but do you think that society has learned a lot since then as far as dealing with the social ills, as you had mentioned earlier, the social ills that led many to, to try to use eugenics to Try to address these things, because we still have poverty, we still have, you know, a lot of the things. We still have people with substance abuse, you know, we have drug issues and, you know, that opioid endemic, you know, was huge, you know, just this century, you know. So what do you think? Are we. Have we learned a lot or, you know, we better or are we, you know, still doing the same thing?
[00:45:51] Speaker B: I just hearing you say it is what gets me thinking back to that point I made earlier about kind of humility. Right. Like, I think what I got out of this documentary, after everything else I've got in my head, was just like, you know, I think we need to accept as human beings that we're just imperfect, imperfect. And, and, and, and I will.
[00:46:10] Speaker A: See, that's the thing. I can accept that you're imperfect.
[00:46:12] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:46:15] Speaker A: We all can do that.
[00:46:16] Speaker B: Touche. And so. And so.
[00:46:18] Speaker A: But we need to hear that. We need to be able to accept that we are us individually. Yeah.
[00:46:23] Speaker B: Collectively human beings. We're imperfect. And. And this idea of some utopian society is. Is probably a fantasy, right?
[00:46:30] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:46:31] Speaker B: And if. And well, and let's think about that. Honestly, like you said about, you know, I'm imperfect, but you're not, meaning what is really a utopian society that's different to different people, too. And so, again, it's this acceptance that, you know, maybe we shouldn't be this strive for perfection. It shouldn't may end up getting us in places we don't want to go. And so that's why I say, like.
[00:46:56] Speaker A: Somebody like Strom Thurman's idea of utopia would not be one that I would share, you know?
[00:47:02] Speaker B: Well, I mean. I mean, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's idea of utopia wouldn't be one that we share either. Right? Correct. So it's just, you know, everybody's got something a bit different. Or the Taliban.
[00:47:11] Speaker A: The Taliban, yeah.
[00:47:11] Speaker B: That's a really good about them. Right.
[00:47:14] Speaker A: Their idea of they're trying to build their utopia and we're over here, like, what's going on?
[00:47:18] Speaker B: Yeah. And so that's what I was just thinking. So that's why I say, I think to answer the question is like a bit of a yes and no. I think society has learned. I think one thing we realize with technology is the power of images.
And I think that collectively allows for some sort of transparency in how bad things get. Because I think about not just the Holocaust, the images that came out of that. You think about things like the civil rights movement in the United states of the 1960s. We've talked about things like this where it was the images of the southern police officers putting dogs on children and fire hoses on children that got the culture of the country to begin to look at it differently and say, hold on, we're really. This is who we are.
And so. And we can take that, extrapolate it out through other examples of history.
And so I do think that there is something that has. We're more aware, let me put it that way. But I do think, you know, in 1920 is when according to the documentary, President Calvin Coolidge signed into act, the Restriction Act. It's called the Restriction act into law. Sorry. And it basically shut the door for immigration and reduced immigration by 97% for the next 40 years.
[00:48:36] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:37] Speaker B: And you know, they were saying in the documentary how this didn't lead to the Holocaust, that's Germany's fault, but what it led to was the denial of people from Eastern Europe who are trying to seek sanctuary and leave Europe and get out of that environment. And many of them died because the United States didn't let them in. And I think to modern times like the Syrian refugee crisis, you know, Venezuela, or even now, this past year, ukra. And I think about how when the Syrian people were fleeing atrocities into Europe or when it was proposed that we bring, you know, allow some of them to come here, the reaction of many Americans and Europeans to that, when I think about, you think about who's coming to our border these days, is all Venezuelans mostly. It's not Mexicans and other people from that part of the world. They're fleeing atrocities there. And then I look at, unfortunately, the people of Ukraine fleeing atrocities. All of them deserve our sympathy. But here in our Western culture, it seems that we've treated the people of Ukraine with more sympathy from a cultural level and from our media and all that than we have the other two groups I mentioned. And so that's what tells me that some of this cultural hangover of the desirables and undesirables we're going to pick as a culture who deserves our sympathy and who doesn't is still, well, alive.
[00:50:04] Speaker A: Well, yeah, and a lot of people.
[00:50:05] Speaker B: Don'T want to discuss that. That's that point, though.
[00:50:07] Speaker A: And I mean, and that point was made less eloquently but in the documentary and that we still have this thing where human beings are tribal, you know, and it's just like that tribal peace will always is evergreen as an opening for people who want to divide, for people who want to do things that otherwise they may have a Difficult time getting support to do, you know, ends justify the means stuff. Because tapping into some of those tribal instincts is, like I said, it's evergreen. And I'd say the thing, to me though, I think the biggest thing is that it's just hard to deal with. Like we're talking about social ills. In many cases that led to people saying, hey, maybe eugenics is the way we can breed out, you know, people, you know, with addiction problems. We can breed out, you know, this, this defect or that defect or, you know, we don't like this characteristic or whatever. And again, not even getting to where it became racial and oh, we, we need to breed out everybody who's not Protestant, like what, you know, type of thing. But the, the social ills that really were. When this was still idealism, you know, it was like, hey, maybe we can make, we can have healthier kids, we can build a better society. Those things don't go in I, There was insight, I thought. Now Thomas Hunt Morgan was the, the scientist that, that, that started and really led up the, the fruit flies, where you experiment on the fruit flies, trying to. And the reason for that was because with a human being you can't study this stuff that well because the lifespan is so long and it takes 20 years or 15 years before people can even reproduce. And so by that time, you just can't see enough generations to really form conclusions.
The poor way to do that was to try to get oral retellings of history, which was tried by the eugenics people for their own purposes, but that's not a reliable scientific approach. So Morgan used fruit flies, which. It's a matter of weeks and months when you can turn, turn around generation after generation. One of his disciples, one of the people who kept on doing that research, Herman Mueller, what he came out with, you know, in the. More in the 20s, is, you know, and he was saying, look, the social problems that you guys are trying to address. And he kept the fruit fly research going. And he's the guy actually that turned the X ray on him and that saw how the mutations, how you can create mutations, but you still don't know what's going to happen with mutations.
But he came out and was saying, as a rebuke and saying that, look, these social. You can't solve social problems with these biological mechanisms. The biological mechanisms are unpredictable. You have to solve social problems with social solutions. And that's difficult to do. That's difficult to do because people, a lot of times are wired in a zero sum way and then people are Very tribal as well. So I think that we're better. I don't think everyone has a very negative impression or thought on trying to help people from, you know, refugees from Venezuela or wherever coming from central South America. I don't think everyone in the country does, but I just do think that the evergreen nature of this tribalism piece will always, it'll always be two sides. It'll never be, hey, this, let's, let's create a better society not through breeding, but through the mechanisms in our society which would be messy anyway. Even if we try, even if 100% of the people were on board with doing that, we still would try and fail a lot because unintended consequences and stuff like, hey, let's just solve this problem, it's not still not that easy. But ultimately we do, we do have a recognition on large part of that. We have to come up with social solutions. The problem is just trying to get everybody on board, get enough people on board for the social solutions and then trying to find the right balance of social solutions that don't go too far to one way. Welfare and Social Security, those are social solutions to things like poverty, but they have unintended consequences too. It's hard to find a balance there. It's just, it's hard to do.
[00:53:50] Speaker B: So that's where I think it goes back to the humility piece where for sure, you know, just, hey, we're always going to have these things like welfare is a good example. Right. Maybe we should just appreciate that in a society like ours that deals with, you know, resources, there's always going to be people in our society that have a lot less resources than everybody else. Now we, unless we take a more.
[00:54:12] Speaker A: Drastic communist type approach, which we don't think works.
[00:54:15] Speaker B: Yeah. What I'm saying is as long as that number can be kept to a very minimum amount, let's say 20% or less of the population is really kind of in that poverty type of environment, then that's where something like welfare can be looked at and say, okay, this could be one of a solution to try. Because this idea that we're going to have this utopia where there's nobody ever that's on the bottom of the totem pole, I don't think is real. When you have a type of society like ours.
[00:54:44] Speaker A: Yeah, large, large complex society and the point being of the welfare is that, okay, well, yeah, we keep a, we have a system set up that will keep the number of people in poverty to a minimum and then welfare just raises the floor. Like what does Poverty mean even now poverty means something different now in the United States versus does in certain other countries. Some places the floor is even higher. You know, you go to certain countries and other most countries the floor is lower. And so. But the welfare idea is like okay well let's just raise the floor. There's still going to be people there. But again how well the system was working if that's what you're trying to do is create a fair system is going to dictate how many people more so are in welfare than genetic breeding and so forth is kind of what we have learned.
[00:55:23] Speaker B: You know, it's interesting. I know we got to jump with this whole the culture of the thing. Like you're saying genetic breeding. When you look at what I mentioned just now, this modern, let's say just as last 10 years between the Syrian refugee crisis, the Venezuelan refugee crisis and then the Ukrainian refugee crisis, unfortunately, because all three have not been embraced by let's say the majority of our countries and our culture. And there's been a lot of fear. I remember when President Obama proposed bringing 1500 Syrian refugees to the United States to try and just do what the United States always has done is be a haven for people fleeing the areas like that.
It was met with such backlash. They had to cancel the program because there was this fear that again terrorists were going to be infiltrating them and all this others if you look at the way that the fear is of the immigration on the south of the border is things like the great replacement theory and, and this idea of breeding. Right.
[00:56:22] Speaker A: I mean even that's what I'm saying. Those eye that's evergreen you could always come up with some reason that some other is going to do something terrible. And that was your point when you were pointing out the walls and the bar and same stuff they were saying in the 1910.
[00:56:35] Speaker B: But think about this. The Ukrainian refugees aren't met with the same type of skepticism and fear. But that's what I mean by the change in the culture. 100 years ago Ukrainians were considered just as bad as Arabs and everyone else. But today they're not. And it's just an interesting thing.
[00:56:52] Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. I mean the last thing I'll say, and this is the also this would probably file under the humility piece that you just said is that the eugenics piece seemed to underestimate the fact that smart people commit crimes too, you know, like. And they a lot of times commit bad crime. Like it's not like we don't see this one to One oh, the dumber you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. You know, like there's a lot of people that think they can outsmart the system and that do try to outsmart the system or that just you know, like integrity, morality, those things don't seem to line up on a arc with intelligence. And that's why I mean one of the things you notice in the documentary and we'll end on this is how as the science diverged and said you can't really control this in terms of the characteristics and all these like you can't control it down to the science that you need to justify sterilizing people. I should say there's some influence. I was too tall parents so I have a tall kid. But the science that they're trying to do for eugenics but what ended up happening with eugenics movement as it spiraled further and further I would say out of control and spawn the Nazis and all the art or in inspired the Nazis is it became less about these characteristics and more about about like health and characteristics, stuff like that and just more about oh well the races and these are dirty races things all conjecture or oh the sexual prowess. Like these people like to have sex more. So we're going to breed people that don't like to have sex more. And it's, it went into all these kind of, you know, just fuzzy things that really just okay, I don't like this person or these people so therefore I'm going to say this about them. And then we can use eugenics as an excuse to try to limit their ability to procreate. So it ended up, it started as the bug searching for the windshield and it ended that. Is that there as well? You know and there was this evolution of time where it picked up steam societally picked up steam politically. There was a brief bump where science was before science had disproven it. But ultimately it's something that's worth learning about, you know because like I said, it echoes as you've given many examples today. It echoes through our times today because yeah, as you said, you can't take no matter you're trying to attack feeble mindedness or whatever, but some of this stuff is just humanity. It's just who we are and learning how to deal with that and you know, social versus anti social. That's what it comes down to a lot of times. So from there we can wrap. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of called like I see it in the New Year first episode of 2023. 3. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys, tuned to Evan Lana. All right, we'll talk to you next time.
