Speaker 1: The Age of ten from you were listening to the
Speaker 1: Age of Transitions. I'm your host, Aaron Franz. Com here
Speaker 1: at you Alive this Friday night, February twenty eight, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. Live every Friday night from the facilities of
Speaker 1: o'chelly dot com ten pm to midnight Eastern Standard Time.
Speaker 1: First hour the Age of Transitions. Second hour Uncle of
Speaker 1: the podcast. This week again Uncle is away on vacation,
Speaker 1: so actually we're doing one hour just the Age of
Speaker 1: Transitions this week, but typically two hours two shows ochelly
Speaker 1: dot com. Do consider going to I have a request.
Speaker 2: I have a request which came two at a time,
Speaker 2: this time from two different listeners to me message direct
Speaker 2: that they want you because will you be in touch
Speaker 2: with Uncle while he's away.
Speaker 1: I mean, I honestly, I barely have, mostly because I'm
Speaker 1: just busy in the days and then I haven't talked
Speaker 1: him much. When he gets back things will be back
Speaker 1: to normal, but I haven't been talking to him much.
Speaker 2: I got you well a message from a few listeners,
Speaker 2: and I've heard this from more than a handful, but
Speaker 2: two just now as you went live, okay messaged me
Speaker 2: to say tell Uncle that we are very unhappy that
Speaker 2: we're having to wait this long for the Super Bowl
Speaker 2: bet resolution show. So they are very upset that they
Speaker 2: didn't get the resolution on all the bets. We got
Speaker 2: Robin and I can't even remember who was on the
Speaker 2: bets now, but we're going to have to go back
Speaker 2: over that. And everybody's got an answer for their dirty
Speaker 2: dollar bets. So let uncle know that. And they want
Speaker 2: them to know that they are unhappy that they had
Speaker 2: to wait because he's on vacation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well just tell you know. He's a busy guy.
Speaker 1: All right, I'll be back. I don't think he'll be
Speaker 1: back next week even but the week after, so you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to wait. Yeah, he's out there, bab, we'll
Speaker 1: be Baseball.
Speaker 2: Is going to be cranking up before he gets back.
Speaker 2: I mean, what the hell, man, I.
Speaker 1: Know the timing is rough on that, but that's the
Speaker 1: way it goes.
Speaker 2: It is what it is. But I thank you for
Speaker 2: doing this Aaron as usual. And I know you were
Speaker 2: about to say, you know, go to a Shelly dot
Speaker 2: com and make a donation to keep the network going,
Speaker 2: but also really quickly just for your listeners, and then
Speaker 2: I'll shut up. I promise, not like last week. But
Speaker 2: the thing is, I am openly searching for some of those,
Speaker 2: you know, additions for our little island of misfit toys here,
Speaker 2: because I think we need to add some broadcasters. So
Speaker 2: I'd like to add some broadcasters. And I'm openly discussing
Speaker 2: this with people who maybe you're just getting started or
Speaker 2: want to extend, or just need a new home for
Speaker 2: what it is they're doing, and would love to add
Speaker 2: you to the radio and podcast feeds Prochelly dot com
Speaker 2: and the network because right now it's just me, Aaron
Speaker 2: and Uncle, and we are the We are the network, okay,
Speaker 2: with a couple of replays on the weekends, yes, but
Speaker 2: not too many. So we have lots of open slots,
Speaker 2: just saying and oh, by the way, Aaron, we're also
Speaker 2: going to have to change our Skype thing pretty soon.
Speaker 1: I don't know if Yeah, actually that was what I
Speaker 1: want to talk to afterwards, Chuck. Yeah, I did notice
Speaker 1: that focus of news, like, well, we can't use that anymore.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll be talking about that when we're done with broadcasting,
Speaker 2: but I just want to let you know that we
Speaker 2: won't be able to say anymore, Hey, you can join
Speaker 2: us via Skype because Skype is going away, so we're
Speaker 2: gonna have to use Microsoft Teams if we want to
Speaker 2: transition my stuff into it. And yeah, I'm not happy
Speaker 2: about it, but who knows, maybe it'll open us up
Speaker 2: to other possibilities, so maybe it's a good thing. And
Speaker 2: broadcasters have complained for years about Skype, which is funny
Speaker 2: because almost everybody still uses it to some degree. But
Speaker 2: now they're going to get their wish Well, Skype, they
Speaker 2: need to do better. Well, now Bill Gates is going
Speaker 2: to give you teams and force you onto that. He's
Speaker 2: even going to transfer the credits over if you have
Speaker 2: any credits for your subscriptions or whatever after twenty something years.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, I was wondering about the credits because
Speaker 1: I do have ten dollars. Actually, I thought about doing
Speaker 1: maybe an Uncle show or a series of Uncle shows
Speaker 1: where we use up the rest of my ten dollars
Speaker 1: in Skype credit. Since it's going away, we just called
Speaker 1: numbers and make that a show on the Uncle's Show.
Speaker 1: I thought might be fun.
Speaker 2: Hey, that would be cool, But you do have the
Speaker 2: option of saving it and allowing it to transfer to
Speaker 2: Microsoft Teams.
Speaker 1: Just so you know, I might want to just use
Speaker 1: it because I don't. First of all, I think it'll
Speaker 1: be funny. Second of all, I don't know if I
Speaker 1: want to transfer over, but we'll see. That remains to
Speaker 1: be seen. That's a whole lot of whatever. It's just
Speaker 1: another stupid program.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: I mean whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, And look, I've got about thirty five. So
Speaker 2: you know what if you guys run out and you're like,
Speaker 2: oh damn, I wish I had more credits on the
Speaker 2: Skype and you need it, let me know. I'll work
Speaker 2: with you on it. We'll use my Skype credits.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, yeah. We did call on a live stream
Speaker 1: on a Saturday when we were watching videos. We called
Speaker 1: one eight hundred VHS tape nice. So you know, maybe
Speaker 1: call some numbers like that up and see if we
Speaker 1: can get anywhere with it. Nobody answered when we called
Speaker 1: that number, but I'm sure we can call something like, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of numbers we could call, so maybe
Speaker 1: we'll make that a little show.
Speaker 2: Did you know in New Jersey there was an exchange
Speaker 2: where you could literally dial six six six hell just
Speaker 2: saying uh, you could dial it, and a guy used
Speaker 2: to answer it, and he was periodically aggravated.
Speaker 1: Okay, oh oh, okay, okay, yeah, because he kept okay.
Speaker 1: It wasn't an actual service call. It was just like
Speaker 1: a call, like a goof like eight six seven five
Speaker 1: three oh nine. You call that and then some old lady,
Speaker 1: poor old lady has answered to deal with it.
Speaker 3: Was like that.
Speaker 2: There was some guy that for about a decade, I
Speaker 2: know this living in New Jersey. It was a workable
Speaker 2: exchange in nine oh eight and seven three two. You
Speaker 2: could dial six six six hell on your phone and
Speaker 2: it would connect to this guy's number, and it was
Speaker 2: this same guy. I heard it when I was like thirteen,
Speaker 2: and I heard it again when I was twenty three,
Speaker 2: and I swear to you, I was like, wow, the
Speaker 2: same guy still has this number.
Speaker 1: Yeh's ay, he's dealing with it. He's just living impressive. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And it was a landline in New Jersey. So I
Speaker 2: don't know if it still exists, guys. So you know
Speaker 2: what's funny is I may have just prompted some people
Speaker 2: to go, let me just dial New Jersey's exchange and
Speaker 2: see whatever they might do it. I don't know if
Speaker 2: you should. I guarantee it can't be the same living.
Speaker 2: The same guy sounded pretty old in like nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: nine or what. Let me think about this, I was
Speaker 2: twenty three. What year, let's see ninety two. Oh, it
Speaker 2: was twenty three in nineteen ninety five. So the guy
Speaker 2: sounded old in nineteen ninety five. Okay, I don't think
Speaker 2: he's still around, But wouldn't that be funny if it
Speaker 2: was the same guy and then twenty three years later
Speaker 2: from now, still the same guy answers the phone. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying he was. And by the way, it wasn't
Speaker 2: just like the guy was definitely I don't know if
Speaker 2: he was playing along with it, but he was not
Speaker 2: like it seemed like you might have been talking to
Speaker 2: somebody who was not necessarily one hundred percent in this realm.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, that's exciting. I'm really glad that that's the
Speaker 1: way it worked out.
Speaker 2: It was very weird, Like the guy was definitely annoyed
Speaker 2: and he said it was a regular phone line, but
Speaker 2: then he said other things, and he did it a
Speaker 2: ten year span apart. It's the same guy and he's
Speaker 2: still talking weird stuff. When you asked him questions or
Speaker 2: he said stuff to him, he.
Speaker 1: Would have very weird responses, Well, it's like the human
Speaker 1: phone Wiji board thing. That's cool almost and I've heard
Speaker 1: other weird urban legends about that. But literally, there was
Speaker 1: a six to sixty six hell in New Jersey.
Speaker 2: So just say it, all right, Aaron, I'll leave you
Speaker 2: to your show now that I've given you weird food
Speaker 2: for thought. Thank you very good.
Speaker 1: Okay, well now, uncle, but you got me Ohelly dot
Speaker 1: com Live show Friday night. Here we are the Age
Speaker 1: of Transitions dot Com. My website, you can find my
Speaker 1: book Revolve Man Scientific Rise to Godhead. It's in paperback
Speaker 1: or ebook copies. There also have t shirts for the show.
Speaker 1: We have the Patreon campaign. Thank you for supporting on Patreon.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I believe I'll be able to post a
Speaker 1: new Patreon post with the next tape in the series
Speaker 1: from the Singularity Summit two thousand and nine tapes, and
Speaker 1: we'll get some more interesting interviews that Carlos and I
Speaker 1: got at that event all these many years ago now,
Speaker 1: so I'll be posting that upson look for that. Also
Speaker 1: have the affiliate links bookshop dot org. Click on the
Speaker 1: link of the side of my website to bookshop dot org.
Speaker 1: Done anything you buy, well, I'll get a small kickback
Speaker 1: for sending you there, and we'll cost anything exkewer to use,
Speaker 1: so please do remember to do that. Also, if you're
Speaker 1: thinking about starting a podcast, Libsyn use that as your
Speaker 1: podcast hosting service. You can use my promo code fronds.
Speaker 1: You'll get two months of libs in for free. It's
Speaker 1: a great service, all right. So with that aside, thank
Speaker 1: you for listening. This is a special show because it
Speaker 1: is an interview. I did an interview pre recorded last weekend.
Speaker 1: I recorded an interview with Anita se Chan, who is
Speaker 1: the author of Predatory Data, Eugenics in Big Tech, and
Speaker 1: Our Fight for an Independent Future. It was nice enough
Speaker 1: for her publisher to send me a copy of the book,
Speaker 1: which I'm holding right now. I will say that I'm
Speaker 1: a little embarrassed when I did the interview. I haven't
Speaker 1: read at all yet, but I am part of the
Speaker 1: way through now, and I will say it is an
Speaker 1: excellent book that I honestly recommend, and the subject matter
Speaker 1: is one of those things that is integral to this site.
Speaker 1: I've talked about the links to eugenics and technology, transhumanism,
Speaker 1: the big tech scene generally. I've been talking about this
Speaker 1: for quite a while, but honestly, it's been a while
Speaker 1: since I've covered anything about it on this show, for sure.
Speaker 1: So it's a good thing to return to that very
Speaker 1: important and real topic and connection of eugenics and big tech.
Speaker 1: So Anita say Chan, my guest here, does a great
Speaker 1: job of that. This book is really good and yeah,
Speaker 1: worthwhile reading to remember that all these things that we
Speaker 1: take for granted in this high tech world we're living in,
Speaker 1: they have very real, disturbing philosophical origins that the proprietors
Speaker 1: of all the big tech proprietors of all these things
Speaker 1: that we use, all these digital toise and whatnot that
Speaker 1: we have, they don't want us to see that connection.
Speaker 1: That's for sure. It's real, it needs to be remembered,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure today's show is going to do a
Speaker 1: good job in helping along with that. If Now, what's
Speaker 1: also interesting is Anita mentioned on the interview she recommended
Speaker 1: that you go to bookshop dot org to buy the book,
Speaker 1: which you can, and I will have a link on
Speaker 1: the post for this show at my website to post
Speaker 1: for this interview. I have a link that actually goes
Speaker 1: to my bookshop and you can buy this book, which
Speaker 1: I recommend. And once you know that, I thought that
Speaker 1: was a kind of interesting synchronicity there. So with all
Speaker 1: of that in mind, I think we're just going to
Speaker 1: play this interview now, So please enjoy my interview with
Speaker 1: Anita say Chan Today on the show, I welcome a
Speaker 1: special guest, the author of Predatory Data, Eugenics and Big
Speaker 1: Tech and Our Fight for an Independent Future. Anita say Chant,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yes, I really appreciate you being here. I have a
Speaker 1: copy of your book in my hands. But to begin
Speaker 1: this interview, why don't you just let my audience know
Speaker 1: who you are, who you are, what you do.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I am a information scientist and media studies scholar
Speaker 4: based at the University of Illinois and again chap and
Speaker 4: I worked on Farminess and Yell approaches to technology with
Speaker 4: a background in science and technology.
Speaker 1: St Okay, very good. Now what about this book, Predatory Data?
Speaker 1: What is this? What led you to write it? What's
Speaker 1: going on?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: Uh, it is my second book, and uh it was
Speaker 6: a book that I had written after moving to the.
Speaker 4: School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois. I
Speaker 4: had had my primary line in the College of Media,
Speaker 4: and what I discovered when I moved to the School
Speaker 4: of Information Sciences was that a lot of my students,
Speaker 4: even some of my colleagues, weren't so familiar with the
Speaker 4: history of our field, including really importantly how deeply the
Speaker 4: foundations of information sciences, including the foundations of the kind
Speaker 4: of data economy and the technical and methods of statistical
Speaker 4: aggression that we continue to teach our students as really
Speaker 4: the kind of again foundation to predictive methods. It's everything
Speaker 4: that we in data ecologies. It's essentially why you see
Speaker 4: but determines what you see on most forms of social
Speaker 4: media and online media that we encounter today. All those
Speaker 4: forms of predictive methods and methodologies all have their roots
Speaker 4: in eugenics. But it was a history that I discovered
Speaker 4: that most of my students and many of my colleagues
Speaker 4: even were not so familiar with, and which is pretty
Speaker 4: astounding to me, given how powerful the American eugenics movement
Speaker 4: was and how policy is shaped our information cology, not
Speaker 4: just in the nineteenth century, but as I say, with
Speaker 4: the methods that they developed that continue to shape our
Speaker 4: information economy today.
Speaker 1: All Right, Well, that's fascinating. I have to say I
Speaker 1: didn't know that full story, but wow. So what you're
Speaker 1: saying is you switched over from media in at your
Speaker 1: school teaching that to it essentially like what used to
Speaker 1: be called COMPSI is that information sciences. That's that's equivalent, right,
Speaker 1: It's a separate field.
Speaker 4: Information sciences is proxy. It's a stem. It is a
Speaker 4: stem based the science and technology based discipline. But it's
Speaker 4: not the same as computer science. It's still it has
Speaker 4: its roots in library sciences, and so there's still unlike
Speaker 4: computer science and information sciences, there's still a human user.
Speaker 4: Their original sort of conception of the human user that's
Speaker 4: central to the discipline was the library user, like the
Speaker 4: user of library systems, whether it was the librarian and
Speaker 4: training or whether it was the human who was using
Speaker 4: those indices and those archives and essential databases of the
Speaker 4: library system. So that's different than the computer science where
Speaker 4: your software systems. Right. So, but they're quite proxy, and
Speaker 4: many of our students, much like in computer science, go
Speaker 4: on to work in Silicon the valley. It's a very
Speaker 4: very normal trajectory for professions information scientists to get trained
Speaker 4: to work in information professions that include data sciences, in
Speaker 4: h in big tech and corporate sectors.
Speaker 1: Got it. So all of this stuff is separate, but
Speaker 1: it's analogous and they all work together. Okay, So and
Speaker 1: this is essentially like the cataloging of information, is what
Speaker 1: it is if we kind of want to break it
Speaker 1: down into.
Speaker 4: Sure, yeah, exactly exactly, system of classification, indices, information management,
Speaker 4: all of that, archives, archival management and design, interrelation between
Speaker 4: archival systems, and again, how all of that gets interpreted, used,
Speaker 4: processed by humans. All of that is you know, central
Speaker 4: to information sciences.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for bearing with me. I know this
Speaker 1: is all basic. How Ever, I'm getting the sense that
Speaker 1: the basic elements of this might be what's most important, because,
Speaker 1: as you're saying, when you were switching fields, it seems
Speaker 1: like your previous specialty in media helped inform what you
Speaker 1: were doing. It's like what we what you were saying, was, hey,
Speaker 1: look there is a philosophy behind this. What appears to
Speaker 1: just be banal information, you know, like data entry and
Speaker 1: things like that, This isn't just data entry where we're
Speaker 1: just in putting data and numbers into this digital library.
Speaker 1: There's actually like there's reasons and perhaps even philosophy for
Speaker 1: how this the genesis of this?
Speaker 4: Right, there's a politics and a cultural history to all
Speaker 4: of these things. I mean so coming from critical humanities
Speaker 4: and media studies I sort of and science technology studies
Speaker 4: is my foundation discipline. Those sorts of sort of of
Speaker 4: methodologies of critical histories, cultural histories, sort of looking into
Speaker 4: the history of knowledge practices and disciplines is pretty foundational
Speaker 4: to what we do in critical humanities, right, and especially
Speaker 4: from sort of historical and cultural historical perspectives. So the
Speaker 4: name Francis Galton for most, uh most, I hope most
Speaker 4: of your listeners who made who are interested in history
Speaker 4: would be familiar.
Speaker 1: Yes, he's the.
Speaker 4: Founder of eugenics, of course. And the connection that gets
Speaker 4: lost oftentimes is not just that he was, you know,
Speaker 4: this sort of cousin of Charles Darwin who came who
Speaker 4: was part of these patrician elite circles and scientific circles
Speaker 4: in the late nineteenth century. Uh, And that of course
Speaker 4: he had you know, for many people will know that
Speaker 4: he was a sort of aton, you know, kind of
Speaker 4: scientist who was meandering and sort of you know, dipping
Speaker 4: his toes into a number of different disciplines before he
Speaker 4: really found eugenics as his cause. You know, he was
Speaker 4: doing work in uh colonial data collection and meteorology and
Speaker 4: was known for being obsessed with counting. As he sort
Speaker 4: of came about and by the late eighteen sixties to
Speaker 4: start to write his first treatises on eugenics, we had
Speaker 4: to remember that the world in the late nineteenth century
Speaker 4: was one that was being shaped, of course by new
Speaker 4: patterns of globalization, independence movements internationally, industrializations in cities and
Speaker 4: across the West that really changed the demographics of what
Speaker 4: urban London looked like, of what various cities across the
Speaker 4: United States look like. And for Galton this was this
Speaker 4: kind of obsession with not just counting, but also his
Speaker 4: preoccupation and his real concern suddenly of what would this
Speaker 4: mean to see this kind of new proximity and mingling
Speaker 4: of classes and diverse populations in ways that he had
Speaker 4: never seen before. What would that mean for the future
Speaker 4: of the nation, for the future of the West. And
Speaker 4: he was quite convinced that in the long run, this
Speaker 4: kind of continued mixing without any version of moderation or
Speaker 4: without control, and certainly without sort of any kind of
Speaker 4: public education around the eventual degeneration that he was convinced
Speaker 4: would happen would lead to a kind of national demise
Speaker 4: and a kind of larger demise of the West, and
Speaker 4: his program and eugenics really started to sort of trace
Speaker 4: and attempt to impuricize the kind of work and the
Speaker 4: value and the pretible fitness of the well born classes
Speaker 4: to continue to generate the well born, but that uh
Speaker 4: would increase mingling, that would end up essentially being a
Speaker 4: program for degeneration, for genetic degeneration, economic degeneration, social degeneration,
Speaker 4: but eventually also national degeneration. Uh So his uh, his
Speaker 4: obsession really not just with counting, but his deep anxiety
Speaker 4: and paranoia around racial demise was really what drove him
Speaker 4: to develop all the all the kinds of methodologies for eugenics,
Speaker 4: for data tracking, for ratification of human populations, and eventually
Speaker 4: to found the method of stisco aggression. Again all driven
Speaker 4: by his kind of deep anxiety around around uh eugenic
Speaker 4: cro of the that the failure to implement a eugenic
Speaker 4: program would essentially need to the demise and the fall
Speaker 4: of the West.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it's fascinating to see the genesis of eugenics
Speaker 1: with Galton. Uh, and then the history of that brought
Speaker 1: over to the States, Cold Springs Harbor, all of that,
Speaker 1: and just listening to your description of Francis Galton and
Speaker 1: his ideas about this, uh, I mean, you can see
Speaker 1: how it's I mean, it came to the States, and
Speaker 1: then eventually this becomes taboo. I don't know if we
Speaker 1: want to jump forward that far already, but eventually eugenics
Speaker 1: falls out of favor, and so then the idea of
Speaker 1: crypto eugenics comes to the fore. Isr is your book
Speaker 1: here predatory data about like the new version of crypto eugenics.
Speaker 1: Is crypto eugens even real? Is that? Like?
Speaker 4: No, Yeah, I call it techno eugenics and uh, And
Speaker 4: the parallels that I draw is that there's continuities between
Speaker 4: the first generation of eugenesis and the kind of version
Speaker 4: of new techno eugenesis that we're seeing really taking over
Speaker 4: the White House and uh implementing a fairly large program
Speaker 4: for the attack and the deconstruction of democratic institutions. And
Speaker 4: in part of the book is written also to remind
Speaker 4: ourselves that this kind of program, this version of scientists
Speaker 4: to use their kind of stature as scientists and their
Speaker 4: proximity to data, specifically their techniques around the surveillance and
Speaker 4: monitoring of populations, and their conceit that, and their conviction
Speaker 4: and their argument over and over again that the numbers
Speaker 4: always showed some version of natural hierarchy questionable, I should say, right,
Speaker 4: I mean the book I think details quite well how
Speaker 4: this was always this was Eugenics was the first age
Speaker 4: of disinformation. But data never actually showed what and could
Speaker 4: prove what Galton and his fellow eugenicists sought to ultimately
Speaker 4: try and convince the larger public, But they continuously doctored
Speaker 4: their information and the data that they collected to try
Speaker 4: and again, everything from literally editing photos to trying to
Speaker 4: doctor surveys or effectively doctoring surveys that were to be
Speaker 4: used as IQ exams for immigrant populations coming into Ellis
Speaker 4: Island so that they could argue that eighty percent of
Speaker 4: the immigrants coming into Ellis Island in the US, who
Speaker 4: were at the time largely Southern Eastern and Jewish immigrants
Speaker 4: coming in that eighty percent of these non Nordic classes
Speaker 4: and non Nordic raceces were essentially feeble minded and shouldn't
Speaker 4: be allowed to come into the US. Because of this
Speaker 4: kind of form of disinformation and the manipulation of data,
Speaker 4: they were able to effectively lobby for changes to immigration law,
Speaker 4: So the nineteen seventeen and nineteen twenty four immigration laws
Speaker 4: which put in the first quotas racialized quotas that into
Speaker 4: US immigration policy and essentially designed them to privilege Nordic places,
Speaker 4: so Northern Europeans, and to essentially cut off and limit
Speaker 4: immigration coming in from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe. Jewish immigrants,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Latin American and African immigrants of course, had
Speaker 4: were reduced, and Asian immigration from Asia was almost completely
Speaker 4: cut off into the nineteen fifties they had managed previously,
Speaker 4: and eugenesis, as the LOOC also details and covers and reviews,
Speaker 4: had managed to effectively put into place Chinese exclusion laws
Speaker 4: starting in the eighteen seventies, with the first band on
Speaker 4: Chinese women, initially essentially arguing that they were contaminants to
Speaker 4: the race, that they were bringing in bad blood uh
Speaker 4: and would essentially infect good, middle class, heteronormative white families
Speaker 4: with their bad blood and would contaminate populations with sexual disease,
Speaker 4: but also forms of supposedly uh uh uh contaminating moral
Speaker 4: depravities like criminality, opia, addiction, laziness, all of these things
Speaker 4: were thought to be essentially a contaminating force that the
Speaker 4: Chinese were bringing in and that Chinese women especially were
Speaker 4: kind of key source of and so our very first
Speaker 4: the first globally exclusion acts for immigrants anywhere in the
Speaker 4: world was quite in place, uh in the US first
Speaker 4: against Chinese women. Against that notion essentially argued by eugenicists,
Speaker 4: medical professionals at the time, other science scientific classes, and
Speaker 4: public health officials who testified to the validity of this,
Speaker 4: to the authority of this, and again we're, as I mentioned,
Speaker 4: quite inclined to manipulate data in order to make the
Speaker 4: kinds of arguments and essentially promulgate disinformation in order to
Speaker 4: make the kinds of arguments that they did, but were
Speaker 4: quite effective at doing so, and they're in uh. Immigration
Speaker 4: law for the next five five decades. Really in the
Speaker 4: US would be redesigned through eugenic effective eugenic policy lobbying
Speaker 4: and organizing, and so this is a reminder for us
Speaker 4: of how effective this kind of uses of disinformation by
Speaker 4: scientific classes, again using and collecting data on human populations,
Speaker 4: manipulating that data, targeting political classes with their messaging, and
Speaker 4: larger publics in order to affect new policy. We have
Speaker 4: precedent for all of this from over one hundred years ago,
Speaker 4: and it got quite far, not just with eugenic policy,
Speaker 4: not just with eugenic policies that articulated themselves through changes
Speaker 4: and radical changes and immigration law, but even the passage
Speaker 4: of things like sterilization laws of the unfit in over
Speaker 4: thirty states. By the late nineteen twenties, most of the
Speaker 4: US thirty states, more than thirty states that is, had
Speaker 4: passed for sterilization, enabled the for sterilization of the unfit,
Speaker 4: the quote unquote so called unfit who were in state institutions,
Speaker 4: and states in the West were quite we're quite leading
Speaker 4: promulgators of this. In California was one of the California
Speaker 4: in Indiana or two of the first states with David
Speaker 4: Starr Jordan, who was initially a professor at the University
Speaker 4: of Indiana, who then moved, of course, famously to become
Speaker 4: the first president of Stanford University UH and dedicated much
Speaker 4: of his career to becoming to being an active pro
Speaker 4: eugenic advocate and leader helped to found one of the
Speaker 4: uh uh David star Jordan not only but published and
Speaker 4: wrote pro eugenic treatises that became best sellers in their day,
Speaker 4: but also founded various eugenic societies grounded in the West
Speaker 4: Coast that brought in fellow leaders in political sectors, scientific
Speaker 4: and commercial that is, business sectors, sort of the elite
Speaker 4: of the elite UH and fellow patrician classes of the
Speaker 4: in the US to organize really a kind of eugenic
Speaker 4: network and to really help to create make California into
Speaker 4: and parts of the West Lieling into sort of models
Speaker 4: for what eugen policy can supposedly bring about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's wild. And of course we have Stanford, big
Speaker 1: hub for technology, absolutely, and it's just it's it's really something,
Speaker 1: and it's uh, it's something to see this because what
Speaker 1: we're seeing is an ebb and flow of this same thing,
Speaker 1: which is eugenics, the concept of eugenic genics ebbing and flowing,
Speaker 1: and eugenics being used as a I mean, what this
Speaker 1: is is a pseudoscience, right, uh, going under the banner
Speaker 1: of legitimate science. It's like, hey, we've got legitimate science,
Speaker 1: We've got this biological so they're using like this biological
Speaker 1: data that they say corresponds to the social sciences, and
Speaker 1: then they wrap that over into politics, like, hey, we
Speaker 1: gotta you know, we got to make these new laws
Speaker 1: because hey, we have we have the proof here eugenics
Speaker 1: is real. Okay, and so and so. That's just so
Speaker 1: there's so many things going on. There's so many obfuscations.
Speaker 4: Correct. Yeah, it was, as the book argues, and eugenics,
Speaker 4: and I would argue as well, contemporary techno eugenics with
Speaker 4: the kind of again marriage of a radical version of
Speaker 4: of eliticism that has articulated itself throughout Silicon Valley and
Speaker 4: now wants to remake policy not just in the US,
Speaker 4: but as we can see now with books like Elon
Speaker 4: Musk really sort of meddling directly and starting to throw
Speaker 4: their weight and their financing behind other far right political
Speaker 4: parties across the West and across Europe. This is not
Speaker 4: just a sort of program much like eugenics from one
Speaker 4: hundred years ago. This is not a program that only
Speaker 4: saw its sort of work being done, you know, in
Speaker 4: one nation, and it was very happy to sort of
Speaker 4: let that lie. It was a program that was quite global.
Speaker 4: Eugenics in it to day, much like eugenics now really
Speaker 4: saw its promise as being one of reordering a kind
Speaker 4: of global order, remaking the global order, and remaking societies,
Speaker 4: and especially sort of trying to demonstrate the wrongness of
Speaker 4: democracy and democratic institutions really, you know, trying to attack
Speaker 4: democracy at its very foundations, and to demonstrate the rightness
Speaker 4: of organizing society around the kinds of racial hierarchies and
Speaker 4: stratified societies and segregated societies that eugenicists fundamentally believe was
Speaker 4: was the correct way, the best way of designing strength
Speaker 4: and maintaining national superiority and national fitness, and so the
Speaker 4: continuities you see. I mean to argue that Ugenix was
Speaker 4: the first global movement for dratification. It was also the
Speaker 4: first global movement that I just mentioned for disinformation. It
Speaker 4: was quite successful for growing across the West, seeded in
Speaker 4: UH in the UK, in in England with Francis Falton,
Speaker 4: but it was really in the US the kind of
Speaker 4: choralist to us, with the waves of immigrants that were
Speaker 4: coming into the East and West coast, that it really
Speaker 4: saw its earliest forms of of national model and successes
Speaker 4: take place well before not to Germany. Not to Germany
Speaker 4: by the nineteen thirties was looking to the US for
Speaker 4: all its successes, as its model for an inspiration. But
Speaker 4: the continuities between contemporary and past eugenics are just uh.
Speaker 4: Lets I argue in the book eugenics never really went away,
Speaker 4: but techno eugenics draws enormous inspiration. And the continuities are
Speaker 4: that we can see are make themselves obvious, not just
Speaker 4: that they were both movements and both forms of political
Speaker 4: forms and social political forms that were driven by a
Speaker 4: radical eliticism, but that also aim to convince publics that
Speaker 4: this was empirical, uh, that it was important, and the
Speaker 4: notion of both of these movements or both of these
Speaker 4: forms of eugenics as having been they needed to have
Speaker 4: a kind of foot in science or make those claims
Speaker 4: that they would be able to come to prove their
Speaker 4: their science of inequality. That they were obsessed with collecting
Speaker 4: and siphoning data from human populations, and we're convinced that
Speaker 4: with enough data they would be able to demonstrate that
Speaker 4: some populations were inevitably always going to be unfit. Uh
Speaker 4: and that with the fit more more fitness, that the
Speaker 4: well born bore more well bornness and more fitness, and
Speaker 4: uh that especially one could could continue to demonstrate with
Speaker 4: enough data, you would be able to prove that the
Speaker 4: exceptional would always breed more exceptionality, and that again we
Speaker 4: so called the counterpart part to that, that the unfit
Speaker 4: would would lead to further and more unfitness. That's all that,
Speaker 4: And there was no point because precisely because the well
Speaker 4: born were always going to uh breed more of the
Speaker 4: well born, and the unfit were inevitable going to breed
Speaker 4: more in fitness. Pauperism, criminality, alcoholism, prostitution, all of these
Speaker 4: things were wont to get reproduced over and over again
Speaker 4: amongst the unfit. The poor bore more of the poor,
Speaker 4: and it was inevitable, inevitable, it was biologically predetermined from
Speaker 4: their point of view. And because of that predetermination, there
Speaker 4: was no point to investing in public institutions. There was
Speaker 4: no point to investing in public schools and the sorts
Speaker 4: of things that democracy and welfare states would lean into,
Speaker 4: because supporting the unfit was only wasting resources. It's only
Speaker 4: going to be throwing away funds that should actually go
Speaker 4: to the well born. And to shore up your strength
Speaker 4: and to enable the well born to be as fit
Speaker 4: and as enabled as they possibly could be, rather than
Speaker 4: wasting them irresponsibly on classes and populations that were never
Speaker 4: going to amount to anything. So the revial of democratic institutions,
Speaker 4: we can see that from the first generation of hugenesis.
Speaker 4: And we can see obviously that the kind of rapidity
Speaker 4: by which Musk and fellow magaite and not just must,
Speaker 4: but you could certainly see it in the kind of
Speaker 4: rhetoric that even people like Peter Heel and Martin Dresen
Speaker 4: and right wing advocates from within Silicon Valley. I mean,
Speaker 4: their writings on the kind of incompatibility supposedly of democracy
Speaker 4: and technology go back more than a decade. So these
Speaker 4: are not this is not a sudden right wing turn
Speaker 4: from within Silicon Valley. This kind of radical eliticism has
Speaker 4: existed within Silicon Valley, and if anything, was very very
Speaker 4: happy to finally find a messaging take foot from a
Speaker 4: kind of radicalized right political party with mougism, and uh yeah.
Speaker 4: So you can see any number of different parallels between
Speaker 4: the kind of elitement of science from over a century
Speaker 4: though who use their status display politics and markets and
Speaker 4: the continuities that we see with technogugenesis today.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, I don't know how closely you follow the
Speaker 1: whole propaganda sphere for this new political reality that we're
Speaker 1: in the mega propaganda world, but I will say that
Speaker 1: I would assume fairly closely with your media background. But me,
Speaker 1: I would say that I have been following this for
Speaker 1: a couple of decades now, closely more closely than I
Speaker 1: would like to admit. Actually, because I've been making podcasts,
Speaker 1: I've been in alternative media and all this. I've been
Speaker 1: in this world where I have seen it over time.
Speaker 1: There's these different elements from online media that have been
Speaker 1: used by this cadre and they It's just been fascinating
Speaker 1: to me to see the messaging shift over the couple
Speaker 1: of decades here. Because, Uh, I'll just throw a name
Speaker 1: out there. Alex Jones is one of these characters that's
Speaker 1: used to promote all this. Now, if you go back
Speaker 1: a couple of decades, he made this film that he
Speaker 1: put out on his website that was supposedly pointing out
Speaker 1: eugenics and high technology and how the two go together.
Speaker 1: Fast forward to now you have him. Uh, I mean,
Speaker 1: if if you can't see that he's he's working for
Speaker 1: these people as a propaganda outlet. I don't know what
Speaker 1: to tell you. Well, I'll just say it's it's fast,
Speaker 1: it's it's been fascinating to see that. It's it's been sad.
Speaker 1: But uh yeah, this far right political movements and the
Speaker 1: stuff that they spread online is just the most virulent racism.
Speaker 1: And it's just what I will say, it has been
Speaker 1: wild to see it, uh start, you can see it starting,
Speaker 1: and then you see it picking up, and then the
Speaker 1: people that are enamored by this and never admit that
Speaker 1: that's what it is until it's too lady.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I mean it's becoming that it's
Speaker 4: very it's not even simly veiled any longer. You can
Speaker 4: see it quite explicit and much less so. Eugenics is
Speaker 4: always we should keep in mind that, I think, if anything,
Speaker 4: eugenics never has gone away in the US. There have
Speaker 4: always been there maintained, you know, eugenics research organizations and
Speaker 4: foundations that continued to you know, fund eugenics studies, and
Speaker 4: especially looking around at the kinds of the wanton spending
Speaker 4: in in public education and the need to sort of
Speaker 4: promote more of the gifted and the ways that public
Speaker 4: education was siphoning off resources from the gifted. You know,
Speaker 4: there are arguments around that we should bring back also
Speaker 4: sterilization laws of the unfit, cetera. You know that even
Speaker 4: continued into the nineteen seventies. So eugenics have never never
Speaker 4: fully gone away. What we see continuously as an attempt
Speaker 4: for eugenics to sort of make its way back into
Speaker 4: the public mainstream and to test the public appetite for
Speaker 4: eugenics messaging. You can see it exactly nowadays when you
Speaker 4: see Trump make and must make overtures to the need
Speaker 4: for more intelligence in Silicon Valley that you know, or
Speaker 4: the need for more intelligence even in public sectors. When
Speaker 4: Trump was critiquing the you know, Washington plane crash and
Speaker 4: said that we needed more people with high IQs, you know,
Speaker 4: in working in in aviation and that with more merit. Right,
Speaker 4: that if we just had more people with real talent
Speaker 4: and genius. We need more geniuses, literally is what he
Speaker 4: said in those and aviation, and that would have prevented
Speaker 4: the kind of accident that we had seen. Forget that,
Speaker 4: of course, he's attacking all the forms of regulation that
Speaker 4: would maintain safety over all of these sectors. But uh,
Speaker 4: that language of natural talent of geniuses i Q. All
Speaker 4: of that goes back to exactly eugenic treatisease. Eugenesis were
Speaker 4: the first in the US to promote i Q tests.
Speaker 4: I mean, Balton's publications, earliest publications were exactly titled on
Speaker 4: heredity and talent, you know, and genius that way, all
Speaker 4: of these things were correlated together.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 4: And he's and literally when you when you see you know,
Speaker 4: uh must talk about the kind of demise of civilization
Speaker 4: because Silicon valleyites aren't having more babies. I mean it
Speaker 4: is not these are barely these are not veiled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, part he is built into cult of personality like, look,
Speaker 1: I'm out here having children all the time, but you're
Speaker 1: at like thirteen now, and that's great because I'm the
Speaker 1: world's smartest guy. I'm doing you favor.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's not raising these kids, and he's not right.
Speaker 4: But as far as he's concerned, right that that actually
Speaker 4: that follows his program that all of this is just
Speaker 4: based on genetics. Right from his point of view, genius inevitably,
Speaker 4: inevitably leads to more because it's all biologically predetermined. None
Speaker 4: of this a good parenting being a present and responsible
Speaker 4: father or having that kind of parental figure in one's
Speaker 4: life is irrelevant. Right, So all of this and his
Speaker 4: messaging back to Silicon Valley, I mean again, it's all
Speaker 4: fimly veiled. The fact that he's got you know, literally
Speaker 4: nineteen year olds and twenty year olds while working for him,
Speaker 4: who are who openly on their social media promote eugenic
Speaker 4: policy and have argued I think for what the twenty
Speaker 4: five year old that was fired from his team and
Speaker 4: uh then Musk after after the Wall Street Journal reported
Speaker 4: that just looking at the social media feed of this employee, uh,
Speaker 4: they were able to see that essentially he had had
Speaker 4: posted things such as we just need a eugenic immigration policy.
Speaker 4: Uh uh, and then was fired over that scandal, although
Speaker 4: Musk of course came to his offense and that that
Speaker 4: should never have happened again sort of trying to align
Speaker 4: some version of argument that this is someone who earned
Speaker 4: their stature in my team because of some version of merit.
Speaker 4: Forget about whether or not they are they have the
Speaker 4: character and disposition or fortitude to actually steward with care
Speaker 4: public information and public data of literally, you know, hundreds
Speaker 4: of millions of Americans right, no zero record of of course,
Speaker 4: of actually being able to demonstrate any care and responsibility
Speaker 4: for publics, let alone b publics, but publics at large.
Speaker 4: But again, over and over, nonetheless, over and over again,
Speaker 4: what you see is them leaning into arguments of merit,
Speaker 4: that they are deserving, that they are the fittest, and
Speaker 4: that somehow that should put them into a class of
Speaker 4: exceptionality where anything goes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Uh, and they should be able to do what they
Speaker 4: want to do without oversight. This has been their fundamental
Speaker 4: argument from again dating back to also eugenesis from from
Speaker 4: over a century ago, but certainly the continuity that we
Speaker 4: see nowadays with technologgenesis, that they should be able to
Speaker 4: that their privilege and their exceptionality should remove any version
Speaker 4: of democratic oversight from them, that they should be able
Speaker 4: to be the best versions of themselves, and to push society,
Speaker 4: of course, to to presumably it's death version. Arguably what
Speaker 4: they what they argued will be it's death version by
Speaker 4: just letting them, uh, run of luck with and run
Speaker 4: of luck with either no oversight on them or just
Speaker 4: being able to redesign policy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And these are the guys that are putting in
Speaker 1: place this new artificial intelligence system correct to run everything right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it should. It's horrifying, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah. So so so what what do you believe
Speaker 1: we're going to get if we allow them to continue
Speaker 1: this project?
Speaker 4: Oh, I mean we've already seen versions of what you
Speaker 4: could do. I mean it's gonna look, it's gonna it
Speaker 4: will be horrifying. So I'll give you an example. I mean,
Speaker 4: that's already happened in that real world. And uh so
Speaker 4: for the longest and you know, you don't have to
Speaker 4: have the most extreme versions of it even for it
Speaker 4: to do the kind of damage that should be anathema
Speaker 4: and that should be out out ageing to all of us. So,
Speaker 4: uh for the last you know, many of your users
Speaker 4: or your listeners, I'm sure we're from oial with Facebook
Speaker 4: as a platform. And no, of course that Facebook is
Speaker 4: not just sort of the you know, a popular platform
Speaker 4: in countries like India and portions of the global South.
Speaker 4: But in India, uh, Zuckerberg and had had made deals
Speaker 4: with the Indian government and they're under Modi shamed. Also,
Speaker 4: right wing authoritar arguably national has Has is known for
Speaker 4: his Hindu nationalist policies and runs a kind of right wing,
Speaker 4: the authoritarian right wing, arguably authoritarian UH. Certain people would
Speaker 4: say UH, certainly, certainly not not argued at all that
Speaker 4: it is nationalist, the Hindu nationalist government and party that
Speaker 4: UH made a deal has made deals with MODI such
Speaker 4: that the Facebook is essentially the backbone of the Internet
Speaker 4: and most peoples in India's means of being able to
Speaker 4: access the internet. In in India, nonetheless, despite that kind
Speaker 4: of large stature and privilege, there had been very little
Speaker 4: content moderation around disinformation and around conspiracy theories in the
Speaker 4: same way that we had seen in the US. So
Speaker 4: although there have been many complaints for the spread of
Speaker 4: disinformation leading up to let's say, the twenty twenty elections
Speaker 4: and in twenty sixteen, et cetera, it was far far
Speaker 4: worse in the global South. When by twenty nineteen, when
Speaker 4: the Francis Hougen papers the Facebook papers had been released,
Speaker 4: it was found that eighty six percent of Facebook's funds
Speaker 4: on for safety and security, So the funds that it
Speaker 4: was using to support safety insecurity for users through content
Speaker 4: moderation was essentially only being invested in the US. And
Speaker 4: because of that right that the rest of the world
Speaker 4: gets the split the remaining sixteen or fourteen percent right
Speaker 4: that the rest of the world then essentially is living
Speaker 4: with almost no content moderation. And what you saw was
Speaker 4: an explosion of hate speech of disinformation against various minoritized
Speaker 4: populations in India, especially dull It and Muslim minority populations,
Speaker 4: which meant that there were epidemics literally that were even
Speaker 4: reported about in the New York Times, of mob violence,
Speaker 4: of literal lynchings of people who were called or suspected
Speaker 4: of being a Muslim who was coming into A report
Speaker 4: would spread on social media, literally on Facebook's platforms. A
Speaker 4: report would spread on social media that someone had been spotted.
Speaker 4: They were unknown, they were coming into the village to
Speaker 4: kidnap Hindu children, to convert them, or to steal wives
Speaker 4: and covert them, et cetera. And before you know it,
Speaker 4: a mob had formed around the unknown persons and mob
Speaker 4: violence would be unleashed. Any number, literally hundreds of these
Speaker 4: incidences were being reported over and over again, where victims
Speaker 4: were everyone from twelve year old boys to even Google
Speaker 4: workers so you know, well to do uh information UH
Speaker 4: professionals and knowledge workers and privileged information sectors were victims
Speaker 4: of this kind of mob violence. It's pretty horrifying. There
Speaker 4: are also reports from various scholars from the Global South
Speaker 4: that would report also film lynchings, so things would spread
Speaker 4: via social media as well, and quite violent UH forms
Speaker 4: of attack and mutilation of bodies that were being celebrated
Speaker 4: as defenses of the cond nation. UH and that all
Speaker 4: of this, again was being spread, this form of this informationtion,
Speaker 4: but also celebration and realization of this kind of mob
Speaker 4: violence and defense again supposedly of the true heart of
Speaker 4: the nation against this un uninvited threat was spreading across
Speaker 4: social media UH and any number of human rights workers
Speaker 4: and UH and scholars in the Global South were making
Speaker 4: reports over and over again to UH to Facebook that
Speaker 4: they needed to do more to tap down on this
Speaker 4: spread and glorification of of mod mob violence and spread
Speaker 4: of disinformation. That it was entirely predictable what kinds of
Speaker 4: tax against minoritized populations would be coming up, That it
Speaker 4: shouldn't have been difficult to be able to flag and
Speaker 4: limit some of that spreading, and yet none of that
Speaker 4: ended up happening. And so again we have real world
Speaker 4: I'll give one other example as well, because there are
Speaker 4: UN reports that are literally written about it, the kinds
Speaker 4: of nationalists violence that literally tens of thousands of Muslim
Speaker 4: minorities in Burma and me and Mar were experiencing the
Speaker 4: bur Huina Muslim population that was had been well documented
Speaker 4: in the twenty ten, twenty ten, twenty sixteens, et cetera. Uh,
Speaker 4: that a kind of attack by the nationalist government, by
Speaker 4: a militarized a military and government on this population as well,
Speaker 4: that was spreading across, that was spread and amplified through
Speaker 4: social media. And uh and that targeted again the minoritized population.
Speaker 4: That all of this was being broadcast and stream through
Speaker 4: online channels.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 4: And that there was very little and and that even
Speaker 4: human rights workers were victims and drawn into these kinds
Speaker 4: of violent attacks. And UH that yes, none of that
Speaker 4: was despite reports back to the companies, little was really
Speaker 4: done to to camp down on it. H. And you saw,
Speaker 4: of course you and reports being written that really called
Speaker 4: out the companies for not taking any responsibility despite literally
Speaker 4: years and years of and and bodies that that should really,
Speaker 4: from their point of view, have been accounted for.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, that's that's horrifying. And as you're describing all
Speaker 1: of that, I absolutely see the analogous sorts of posts
Speaker 1: that go on to our social media here and how
Speaker 1: all it takes is that I mean to think that
Speaker 1: it can't happen here is just insane at this point,
Speaker 1: is all I'll say.
Speaker 4: So, No, absolutely, I mean, we've already seen exactly how
Speaker 4: polarized and how violent political language has gotten in day
Speaker 4: to day life in the US from the social media
Speaker 4: plous forms those the earliest arguments they were making or
Speaker 4: essentially essentially a form of those populations. Safety is is
Speaker 4: just too expensive for us to be able to, uh write,
Speaker 4: that's hitting a hierarchy of who's a profitable public and
Speaker 4: who's not? Who, where are there where are their profits
Speaker 4: in their user in their user basis? And who deserves
Speaker 4: safety and who doesn't. But now the arguments are even
Speaker 4: more cynical. People like Elon Musk are quite happy and
Speaker 4: entirely okay with seeing violence and harm and injury at
Speaker 4: scale so long as it's not touching the well born,
Speaker 4: and from his point of view, any kind of limitation
Speaker 4: even safety regulations on AI end up meaning that you
Speaker 4: have to slow down development, and at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, in his cost benefit analysis, the greater safety
Speaker 4: of the public or of general workers is not worth
Speaker 4: the cost that would be to what he sees UH
Speaker 4: and what felt technougenesis and techno elitey as a sort
Speaker 4: of larger benefit to especially and really only two parties
Speaker 4: like himself, the kind of uh, you know, the cost
Speaker 4: innovation is not worth UH, it's not worth putting safety regulations,
Speaker 4: the lives of of uh of those who will be sacrificed,
Speaker 4: the safety and the lives of those who will be
Speaker 4: sacrificed in the name of tech, of tech development and
Speaker 4: tech dancement, for him, is entirely worth the calculation.
Speaker 1: Yes, now this I've I have to say thank you.
Speaker 1: I need to say a chance for coming onto the show.
Speaker 1: You've gone through so much, it's been great. I've i've
Speaker 1: i've I've absolutely loved this interview, So thank you for
Speaker 1: coming on. First of all, But Predatory Data. That's your book.
Speaker 1: Would you like to tell people like where they can
Speaker 1: find it or anything more about the book itself before
Speaker 1: before you?
Speaker 8: Sure?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: Yeah. It was published with University of California Press, a
Speaker 4: wonderful nonprofit press. It's also available open access if you
Speaker 4: order it also on bookshop dot org. You can support
Speaker 4: your local booksellers and local bookshops, and you do not
Speaker 4: have to buy it on Amazon. I would not encourage
Speaker 4: you to do that.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny, Anita, is that I have an
Speaker 1: affiliate link with bookshop dot org. I'll put your book
Speaker 1: on my recommended reading list. Absolutely great.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and for anyone you know it's it is open
Speaker 4: it's available also open access. I mean that was one
Speaker 4: of the benefits of working with a nonprofit press and
Speaker 4: recognizing the value of that. So yeah, more than anything,
Speaker 4: it's an educational resource that h yes, you know, in
Speaker 4: whatever means it's easiest for for folks to access. I
Speaker 4: hope they can.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, thank you once again for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: You're welcome back anytime. This is great. Yes, thank you, Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you. H Okay. So that was my interview with
Speaker 1: Anita say Chan once again, the author of Predatory Data.
Speaker 1: I will have the link to the book on the
Speaker 1: post for this podcast at the Age of Transitions dot com. Also,
Speaker 1: if you go through my affiliate link to bookshop dot org,
Speaker 1: it's going to be on the top of the list
Speaker 1: on my little page there where there's books by guests.
Speaker 1: I already have this book on that list, So if
Speaker 1: you buy it from that, Anita will get a book sale,
Speaker 1: I'll get a small little referral fee, and you'll get
Speaker 1: a great book. So I would highly recommend that. As
Speaker 1: I said, I've begun reading the book myself and it's wonderful.
Speaker 1: It's a good reminder as I'm saying, that big Tech
Speaker 1: does have eugenic fillsophoical roots, but also eugenic ambitions with
Speaker 1: what they're doing, and they're meddling into politics and all
Speaker 1: of this dominant political scene that we've seen come the
Speaker 1: prominence and the regime that's in control now that has
Speaker 1: been bought and paid for by the big tech oligarchs.
Speaker 1: They're the ones in control and control. And isn't it
Speaker 1: funny that all of the alternative media, formerly fringe right
Speaker 1: wing slash libertarian ideas that were floating around online for
Speaker 1: so long, that those guys are right in line with
Speaker 1: all that stuff that they're coming out openly saying so
Speaker 1: much now and that it's the same thing. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: hardly even know where to start with all of this.
Speaker 1: There's just so much to get into, and the show
Speaker 1: is nearly over now, which is line. But I just
Speaker 1: hope that listeners show understand what's going on and that
Speaker 1: we stop taking for granted all of this propaganda that
Speaker 1: we are inundated with and understand what it actually is.
Speaker 1: And eugenics is a big part of it, Racism big
Speaker 1: part of it. It's dangerous the situation that we're in now,
Speaker 1: and it's horrible that we just can't so many of
Speaker 1: us just can't snap out of it and see what
Speaker 1: we've gotten into. So it's a wild, wild situation we've
Speaker 1: gotten into. However, there is hope. I do believe that
Speaker 1: we can still educate ourselves. We can still understand what's
Speaker 1: going on. We don't have to fall victim anymore. We
Speaker 1: can take the power back where we can start thinking
Speaker 1: along these lines. So much wild stuff in the news
Speaker 1: this week, but we're not going to even cover that.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about. Plenty of plenty of time on future
Speaker 1: episodes of the Age of Transitions to deal with what
Speaker 1: we can And I'm once again thank you to Anita
Speaker 1: stay Chan for coming on the show. I also look
Speaker 1: for other good guests in the future on the Age
Speaker 1: of Transition. So I'm having some success getting good guests,
Speaker 1: so look for that. If you haven't listened to the
Speaker 1: Age of Transitions before. Please do subscribe to the podcast
Speaker 1: Go Back We're on. We're getting close to five hundred
Speaker 1: episodes now, so plenty of old material to go back into.
Speaker 1: Plus there's lots of stuff coming up. We're going to
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do what I can to stay up on things,
Speaker 1: but also stay grounded in realizing that this isn't just
Speaker 1: something that appeared out of no where. So we're going
Speaker 1: to do all of that and so much more Friday
Speaker 1: Nights Onto Chili dot Com once again, The Age of
Speaker 1: Transitions dot Com is my website. My name is Aaron Franz.
Speaker 1: As always, I will leave you by saying secret secon.
Speaker 9: In Denial as secret Wars with air strikes, sights tanks
Speaker 9: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 9: covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
Speaker 9: In Denial rips the cover off many of them. Using
Speaker 9: new files.
Speaker 3: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 3: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 3: really failed and why the United States did not earn
Speaker 3: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 3: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 3: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 3: In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 3: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 3: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 3: com in digital or physical force.
Speaker 8: Hey we are, Hey, we are hey?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Hey do we are?
Speaker 10: Hey?
Speaker 8: Do we hey? Hey?
Speaker 10: You need to name name Ned, don't do.
Speaker 11: To go to.
Speaker 5: The bad pens pens pens Penner senior sen teniers, pious
Speaker 5: tenders of pious spinous peris. Uh well, well, uh.
Speaker 1: What about the hard time?
Speaker 8: Said the ship man who be food?
Speaker 12: What about a back could bad the bunny?
Speaker 13: I said, you know, I guess I was.
Speaker 11: A conquest tess.
Speaker 10: I spoke you later to Master Bart talking about the.
Speaker 12: Post of my kitchen, posting my soul, most of my
Speaker 12: comfort of posting my god what to pi?
Speaker 8: So so.
Speaker 12: With all jobs, Gowl, it sound like cool of Foca
Speaker 12: Sky still be.
Speaker 13: Not your black star, h.
Speaker 12: The cold broom to the black side of black Cloud.
Speaker 12: Let me tell you about holiday. I'm not to say
Speaker 12: what Sun, don't Sun, She's gonna tat yell. I just
Speaker 12: take yall what I'm gonna bake yo?
Speaker 13: She makes sob and.
Speaker 12: Smack you got mother, but don't mean nothing. Don't wait
Speaker 12: with the body to fight said no, I love you, okay, No, seein.
Speaker 7: Some dun Dunn.
Speaker 5: Dunn and.
Speaker 7: Dun dunn dundum and then.
Speaker 11: B go ahead call it the truth about the JFA assassination.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, what do you want to know Tony.
Speaker 11: Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry
Speaker 11: handswer weapons.
Speaker 2: Really I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 11: But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to
Speaker 11: prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has
Speaker 11: a real effort on the DFA assassination. Bootlaim.
Speaker 2: Go to Amazon dot com, enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 2: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 2: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 2: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 2: well a different perspective.
Speaker 1: Let's say you can.
Speaker 2: Get Judith Ary Baker in her own words from the
Speaker 2: author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor
Speaker 2: Brown at k I as JFK at aol dot com.
Speaker 2: It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many,
Speaker 2: many fantastic claims. Judith very Baker, in her own.
Speaker 5: Words, thank you for all the great inform the dot
Speaker 5: Com Radio.
Speaker 1: Chili dot Com revelation through conversation. Today on the show,
Speaker 1: I welcome a special guest.
Speaker 14: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 14: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 14: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 14: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 14: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 14: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 14: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 14: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 14: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 14: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 14: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 14: island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 14: because they were on mobile launchers. Verren could have led
Speaker 14: to a Third World War, and they wanted to go
Speaker 14: to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson, reveals
Speaker 14: why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against.
Speaker 14: For more information, the Warstate dot com