Is anyone else completely obsessed with the Democratic primaries?

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#21

Actually, I just read an open letter to Obama from Nader, and one of the points he makes to support his argument that Obama has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promise of “change”, is Obama’s record on nuclear power. When he was a state Senator (in Illinois, I think?) he received a lot of campaign financing from the state’s biggest nuclear corporation, and in return he refused to support any legislation requiring the nuclear industry to clean up its act after a series of spills. And in this election, he has stated that he supports nuclear power.

Has no one else noticed how he swung way over to the right after he cinched the nomination? I remember feeling shocked when I heard some of his rhetoric during the primaries, that a member of the corporate parties would ever say such anti-corporate things. That made me feel that he might actually believe in some of that stuff, rather than just another double-speaking Democrat, although I always knew that the system would force him to toe the corporate line regardless of his personal beliefs.

But then the next thing I heard, after the primaries, he had changed his positions on a bunch of issues, voted for the wiretapping bill that he earlier had denounced and said he would never support, and moved back his Iraq timetable. I’ve also read that his campaign has received far more corporate contributions than McCain - in fact the Democrats have never before had this much more money than the Republicans. Wall Street has completely thrown its support behind Obama - probably because he seemed likely to win, but also because Obama would represent them (he voted for the $700 billion bailout). The corporations would never give hundreds of millions of dollars to a candidate that threatened their power in any way.

As someone who knows that civilization can never stop destroying the planet, due to its very nature, I feel that voting only perpetuates the false illusion that the system can change for the better, and that change can happen through voting. To quote Urban Scout in “Voting vs. Rewilding”:

voting...keeps you psychologically invested in the outcome of a broken system that your vote cannot fix.

I believe that the whole concept of democracy, and voting, represents a masterful plot by those in power to trick their slaves into believing that they have freedom, while they remain enslaved. A naked oppressor is easier to fight, while people have a much harder time trying to fight a hidden oppressor who they can hardly even identify. And if the oppressor can trick people into believing the enemy is someone else, and to identify with those in power by supporting one of their political parties… well then they have them, hook, line, and sinker.

The lesser evilism arguments has always felt like flawed logic to me. First of all, we can argue which “evil” is worse, since the Democrats do far more to promote illusions in the system (by pretending to represent those who desire change). Studying the history of social movements has shown me that the Democratic party truly does represent the graveyard of movements - once they co-opt the movement and redirect it back into the system, people leave the streets and go home.

Also, the lesser evilism argument assumes that we have no choice but to vote for one of the two “evils”. But why? We can refuse to support either evil. And if I don’t want to lend any support to the system, then why would I turn around and support a corporate politician, who represents the status quo?

So no, I didn’t vote for Obama - and the more I think about it, the happier I feel about it.

Jessica

#22

I worked for the Nader campaign in 2004 and voted Nader/LaDuke in 2000. When it came to voting for Ralph Nader in this election, I listened to what Howard Zinn had to say here:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2606

Well, you're not going to break the paralysis of the two-party system within the party system. In other words, you're not going to break it in the electoral system by putting up a third-party candidate whose showing will inevitably be pitiful and will therefore only be a demonstration of the weakness of the movement outside of the electoral arena. If you choose to go into the electoral arena, you'd better go in with strength. If you're going with weakness, you are not doing a progressive movement any good. To me it is a waste of Ralph Nader's energy to throw himself into the electoral process, 'cause his energy is best used by building a movement, by doing what he has done for most of his life very effectively, reaching out to millions and millions of people who will not vote for him but who really believe in his ideas, and help him to organize those people so that whoever is elected as president will then have to face a constituency, a citizenry which demands change.

Either McCain or Obama was going to be elected President of the United States. As I continue on my rewilding journey, I think electing Obama will make the journey a bit easier. Plus, if we’re smart about it, he can be a useful tool for us to use in rewilding this culture and nation.

Take care,

Curt

#23

Yep, that’s essentially why I even voted at all. For a while there I wasn’t sure there would be enough difference in that specific impact to bother voting at all. However, the last few months have shown me that McCain/Palin would have a great deal of difficulty in adjusting/accepting the need for Americans to change on a meaningful level. I think Obama/Biden would have more success in that regard.

In other words, beyond policy, I think Obama may have an opportunity to allow Americans to entertain options that they wouldn’t if McCain was in office. It’s a very small difference, but I think the psychological impact could amount to something significant, tho’ certainly not earth-shaking.

#24

Way back when Clinton was in office he made the economy better supposedly ,he was somewhat environmental with the roadless act thing among others.Things seemed alot easier back then.Behind the scenes he signed executive orders and bills that lessened our civil liberties.And the whole while the people loved him and what he had supposedly done for us.At least we all knew that Bush is an evil fuck.I guess we will see how this Obama guy can screw us behind the scenes whilst promising change.My guess is that this guy will just be another evil fuck in sheeps clothing.

#25

Green, I think you’ve hit on an important point. I have been noticing how widespread certain assumptions are, not just in the wider public (and around the world!), but even here on this forum. These assumptions may hold true, or they may not, but I think we should all clearly examine those assumptions and not just take them for granted.

I am referring primarily to the assumption that Obama represents a lesser “evil” than Bush/McCain, and that if he wins, civilization won’t destroy the planet as badly. First of all, in my examination of the evidence, I find very little difference between the corporate policy of the Democrats and the corporate policy of the Republicans with respect to the natural world. Both wholeheartedly support the development of industry, support the lessening of regulations on industry, support logging and mining, support the destruction of the natural world at every turn.

I think there exists a popular myth that the Democrats don’t actually support those things (even when they act to support these things, time and again). I believe that every time they DON’T support industry, they have been pressured by outside forces (the public, in social movements) to an extent that they can no longer ignore. In fact the Democrats concede demands from the public as part of a very intelligent strategy - to diffuse social movements, and to foster the illusion that the Democrats aren’t a thoroughly corporate policy (a successful strategy, as we see). They realize that people are much more likely to resist naked exploitation, but if they can slide the exploitation in under the rader, no will protest (and they will actually be more successful in exploiting in the long run).

But, the side effect of this strategy does manifest as a less exploitative policy, sometimes. So in this respect they do represent a “lesser evil”. We should ask, though, whether that is outweighed by the long-term effects of this strategy. One example of how this strategy ultimately leads to worse policies lies with Clinton’s welfare reform. Because he didn’t face opposition from an outraged public (as a Democrat), he was able to achieve the exact thing that Reagan and Bush Sr. had been trying to do for years, but were prevented by an outraged public - cut millions off the welfare rolls, and institute requirements that welfare recipients work in order to receive benefits.

I can illustrate another example, that of logging. The Liberal party in Canada has the exact same political agenda as the Democratic party. In one country, the Democrats did reduce logging somewhat, designating wilderness/roadless areas and legislating some environmental protections (although the logging has continued at a breakneck speed, in other parts of the forest). In the other country, the liberals have instituted no such protections, and do everything they can to facilitate the most rapid exploitation of forests possible. What has caused the difference? The environmental movement happening in one country, putting tremendous pressure on the government (until it died out, anyway), and not happening in the other. This to me shows clearly that any pro-environmental legislation results from pressure from social movements, and would not happen without that pressure.

I also find it highly questionable that Obama would “power down civilization”. Yes, I think he would institute policies that would prolong the survival of the system, by lessening its suicidal march into oblivion, because the Democrats represent a far more intelligent strategy than the Republicans in this respect. In the area of foreign policy, for example, the Democratic strategy would clearly lead to more global political and economic stability.

But that only means that the US will have more success in pursuing its agenda, worldwide (the agenda of civilization, obviously), than the Republicans would. The Democratic strategy represents that of George Soros, Wall Street, and the majority of the world’s ruling elite, who understand that overt occupation (the short-sighted strategy of the neo-cons) does not serve imperialist goals nearly as well as does instituting puppet governments behind the scenes (through covert CIA actions like supporting military coups).

So we should ask, does this prolonging of civilization mean good, or ill, for the natural world? And does it mean that civilization would begin to dismantle itself (“powering down”)? The answers seem obvious to me. Therefore, I believe that the Democrats can represent a “lesser evil”, or a “greater evil”, depending on how one looks at it (from a wider perspective, I believe the latter).

Jessica

#26

I remember how easy it was for me as far as my economic situation in the last few years of the Clinton.Everybody seemed to want to give money away.I also remember reading and seeing all this same draconian shit happening behind the scenes.In my opinion the Democrats will sneak around with masks on and fuck us every chance they get while the Republicans just say what the hell and fuck us very openly every chance they get.

#27

Jessica,

I hear you 100%, and think you’ve provided a great analysis of democrats undermining public movements.

I did have a more thought out reasoning why I voted for Obama than I let on, but since Obama’s been elected, it really no longer matters. In terms of dissent, I think the Democrats do a great deal, as you say, to co-opt and kill mass movements. But I don’t think primitivism will ever become a movement since all mass movements tend to be reformist in nature. So I don’t think we have anything to worry about in that regard. But in terms of fomenting the radicalization of the masses, the Bush presidency hasn’t done much. As Republicans hold power, those on the left who might otherwise find themselves disenfranchised and disillusioned with the whole shebang, have an easier target in the Republican president. In a way they co-opt the frustration of the left, making them believe that all their problems stem from the Republicans having power. This diffuses dissent and resistance into something less threatening to power.

At least in the last eight years, despite a horrendous Republican administration, the most powerful social movement has not been the anti-war movement or the environmental movement but the Obama movement. With the democrats in full control of congress and the executive, those on the left will have no one to act as a vacuum their frustrations, as Bush has been. This may mean those frustrations lead to a radicalization of many on the left as they realize that their precious democrats won’t or can’t deliver what they thought they could. As a friend of mine pointed out, the WTO protests in Seattle occurred after 7 years of a democratic presidency. During the Bush administration, social movements have sputtered. What happens when all those Obama-folks realize that despite having all the cards in their favor, Obama doesn’t deliver? Where will they go with their energy then? I don’t know if that will truly happen, but I’m trying to maintain a positive perspective.

My sense is that Obama will try to enact a mass public works program to revitalize the American empire and its failing infastructure. From what he’s been saying recently and what Biden was caught saying, I don’t think this plan will involve coal (see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ). This is important to me as it may slow the destruction of Appalachia to mining. Furthermore, by limiting coal as an energy source for civilization, civilization is given an expiration date that will come sooner than if coal were exploited to the max. Like you said, Obama may renege on this, but I’ll hold on to the hope that he won’t. Nuclear, of course, is another major problem. And though I’m no fan of a grid comprised of 100% solar and wind power generation, I feel that’s a technophile dream that simply won’t work in the real world.

In many ways, I think there’s a large psychological component to this. I think by and large the masses of Obama voters would love to see an electrical grid powered entirely by wind, solar, and geothermal power. Al Gore’s saying that’s a possibility in the next 10 years, giving these people hope that can be done, further leading them into that illusion. So if this civilization tries to risk its existence on the hope that everything it does can be powered by so-called “renewable energy,” I’m glad to see them jump off that cliff. To me that’s a “cleaner” way for civilization to collapse than for there to be major new investments in “proven technologies” like coal-to-liquids and nuclear power.

I’m totally with you that civilization will not give up the ghost willingly, but I think there are different “save civilization” strategies out there, which, though they will all fail, will yield different long-term results for what the world looks like once this civilization ends. I think the green tech option looks more appealing than the brown tech one, and I suspect that now that the election is over, Obama will choose a plan that looks more like the “green tech” program.

Either way, I’ll live my life the best I can and won’t wait for someone to hand me the life and future I desire.

~wildeyes

#28

Wildeyes, you make a lot of good points. Especially the point that Bush years have radicalized a lot of people, but unfortunately that has merely resulted in this Obama craze. So yeah, hopefully having a Democrat in office - who then fails to deliver the promised change - will break those illusions and cause further questioning of the system.

Jessica

#29

I’m trying to be optimistic, but I see just another fascist in the office who supports domestic surveillance.

#30
I think there are different "save civilization" strategies out there, which, though they will all fail, will yield different long-term results for what the world looks like once this civilization ends. I think the green tech option looks more appealing than the brown tech one, and I suspect that now that the election is over, Obama will choose a plan that looks more like the "green tech" program.

Wildeyes, I feel the same way about this, and even though most mainstream democrats are just as much invested in the continuation of civilization, I think there is more emphasis on the environment and interdependency. I’ve heard several republicans talk about about “liberal brainwashing” that happens through public education and mainstream media. Well, what my radical liberal education has taught me is to question the motives of the people surrounding me, the nation, and civilization as a whole. By “brainwashing”, I think the republicans mean you’ve been wiped clean of your blind patriotism. The reason I mention this is because the country as a whole always seems to be moving leftward, and I think you’re right that when Obama can’t solve everything, more people will become dissillusioned with the system as a whole.

 My hope is like yours in that that this Obama presidency will contribute to a less messy transition away from Civ.  I'm not big on the revamped auto-centric infrastructure thing, but I think that higher environmental regulations and caps on economic growth combined with a more knowledgable and skeptical electorate will help more people leave Civilization consciously.

You could argue that this will buy civilization more time, allowing it to do more damage, but I see it differently. I think a steep collapse with a bunch of “unconcious” people trying to cling to and rebuild civilization seems like it would be much more damaging to rewilding and the environment. We have to remember that all us billions of people and our possesions and weapons aren’t simply going to immediately dissapear. Although it may be inevitable, I would rather not see the entire world turn into a “third world” where ruling factions rape, pilliage, and destroy peaceful rewilders. Daniel Quinn once said it was better for us to vote for Al Gore because he has a “more changed” mind. I agree with him in the hope that being a “more liberal” society will lead more people to understand why civilization is unsustainable and why we must not try to rebuild it.

#31
You could argue that this will buy civilization more time, allowing it to do more damage, but I see it differently. I think a steep collapse with a bunch of "unconcious" people trying to cling to and rebuild civilization seems like it would be much more damaging to rewilding and the environment. We have to remember that all us billions of people and our possesions and weapons aren't simply going to immediately dissapear.

Although it may be inevitable, I would rather not see the entire world turn into a “third world” where ruling factions rape, pilliage, and destroy peaceful rewilders. Daniel Quinn once said it was better for us to vote for Al Gore because he has a “more changed” mind. I agree with him in the hope that being a “more liberal” society will lead more people to understand why civilization is unsustainable and why we must not try to rebuild it.

Brian, you make interesting points. With regard to how fast civilization should come down, I see this as weighing two factors - the effect of civilization on the natural world (which would obviously benefit from stopping the machine of destruction as fast as possible - right now would be best), and the process of awakening consciousness and preparedness among people (which would obviously benefit from a slower collapse, giving people more time to prepare physically and mentally).

I personally feel that the existence of the natural world trumps any benefit to humans of winding down civilization in a “kinder, gentler way” - because I don’t think a slow winding down IS kinder and gentler to the natural world, only to humans. The longer mining goes on, the more nature dies. The longer industrial fishing goes on, the more the oceans die. And those things will continue until civilization finally collapses, so the longer it takes for that to happen, the longer the destruction will continue.

Yes, a sudden collapse might effect its own destruction of the natural world, in the process - but I don’t see how anyone could argue that it would meet or exceed the massive scale of the destruction happening today. As an example - with machinery and fuel to power it, industrial logging is cutting down far more trees than any number of humans could possibly cut down with axes for firewood. Just think about it - right now we (civilized consumers, I mean) consume far more tree flesh in the form of paper products, lumber, etc than we would need to use to keep warm and cook food.

Similarly, I would like to juxtapose the violence that would potentially ensue after a sudden collapse, with the violence (specifically against humans here) that is happening right now because of civilization. Take, for example, the shocking statistics for rape, child abuse, and domestic violence. Or the number of people maimed and killed in automobile accidents, or by police brutality. What about the 2+ million people in jail in the US (and how many more elsewhere in the world), constantly experiencing mental and physical violence by the prison guards and other inmates? What about the millions of women and children (and men) with eating disorders because they have learned to hate their bodies? What about the endemic depression and mental illness, and the increasing rates of suicide? What about the tens of millions of refugees of war around the world, struggling to survive? What about the tens of millions killed by civilized warfare? The list goes on…

Also, I don’t think any number of roving gangs of thugs post-collapse would have the ability to do as much violence as the current armies of the world, with the amount of resources and technology currently available to them (to the tune of $800 billion a year).

So it seems to me that both humans and non-humans would benefit from a faster collapse, rather than a slower one. I think the relatively privileged position many of us experience can somewhat distort our view, since we aren’t the ones currently suffering and dying from civilization. In fact, I think those in power try their best to insulate us from that reality, because that reality would quickly burst any illusions we might have, and subsequently any popular support those in power currently enjoy.

Jessica

#32

Hey all,

I’m looking for a third handle after reading Jessica’s last post (I should mention to that I’ve read all of Derrick Jensen’s work and I’ve been a member of his reading club since he created it). If I agree that civilization should collapse as soon as possible I’m all for the deaths of possibly billions of people, myself and my family and friends . If I agree that civilized humans should attempt to build a sustainable civilization I’m being athropocentric and hate nonhumans.

Is this what they call a dichotomy? Does this create cognitive dissonance? I ask these questions in earnest.

Thank you,

Curt

#33

Hi Curt - sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. IMO cognitive dissonance is a result of brains in the habit of using Aristotle’s rules of thought, that two contradictory concepts can’t both be true. Part of rewilding to me is freeing our brains from these painful constrictions in thinking.

Are you familiar with Jungian psychology? It’s part of Joseph Campbell’s mythology work as well, that there are many voices, primary selves that we have inside, that each play a role in our lives, and we have many disowned selves as well. Part of the work of healing the splits in our psyche is to become aware of these conflicting selves and help them start to appreciate each other. Anyway, when you described these two conflicts, I was thinking about these two different selves in you each with a point of view, and a powerful emotional feeling. One is the holder of the tribe, the one who understands like a gardener that for life to thrive, balance and death must happen. This one has a wider point of view. The other is an individual with personal relationships, parents, friends, lovers, children who wants to thrive and allow possibilities for those he loves. Both valid points of view though they contradict. Shifting points of view can be difficult if you try to make them both true, when they are just incomplete.

Both of the points of view you point out narrowly define you as a bad guy, are you callous (death of billions) or are you anthropocentric? , to me the only thing to do is escape all these definitions, jump out of the boxes, and figure out how we are supposed to live, and then go do it. What’s a real true alternative point of view? To talk from the entire planet’s point of view is way too big for me, though awareness of honoring it has it’s place. Something I’ve been working with is to try to be as thoughtful, open and aware as possible, and honor life, and live from that place, kind of with this humble acceptance that live or die, it’s all going to turn out. But I don’t want to be blind with any kind of ideology, because everybody thinks they are doing the right thing. My hope is as we become more undomesticated, as our awareness of what thriving in a living community means, and we start rediscovering an ability to trust our instincts we will know how to live. There’s this quote from the movie KPAX that I come back to again and again. It’s the part where the psychiatrist Mark asks Prot how the KPaxians know right from wrong without politics or religion and Prot responds with "Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark. "
I want to get THERE without all the agonizing, tap that body/instinctual knowing and allow the culture to allow that to happen…

#34

Imo, I don’t find the questions particularly useful. Yes, I think civ should collapse as soon as possible. No, I don’t think civ humans should try to build a sustainable civ (cuz I think it’s a fools’ errand, frankly), but I do think humans should try to build many sustainable cultures. After all, humans do not equal civilization.

I see plenty of room for humans and non-humans. It seems to me, that the question is how to integrate the two groups. To my mind, that falls into the realm of interrelationships, something that I think Americans may have more of an opportunity to learn by having Obama as president, as compared to McCain.

#35

Curt, instead of trying to worry about building a sustainable civilization (fool’s errand, indeed, jessica), I try to worry more about building a sustainable CULTURE with my friends and family. Is this the third handle you’re looking for?

#36

My solution, Curt, echoing that of the others that posted: just rewild!

Actually, it surprises me that you see a dilemma here. I don’t understand where you hear such judgemental voices coming from, framing the decision in such a short-sighted way. Who said these things to you?

#37

Thunder thunder thunder democrates HO!!
Obama Obama!
OBama Obama!
Obama Obama Obama! ;D :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile:

#38

Hi Willem,

My solution, Curt, echoing that of the others that posted: just rewild!

Looking back, that’s what I’ve been doing since I read Ishmael a decade ago. So far it’s been a fun and challenging journey.

Actually, it surprises me that you see a dilemma here. I don't understand where you hear such judgemental voices coming from, framing the decision in such a short-sighted way. Who said these things to you?

No one really said them to me in this thread, but I have gotten that impression from similar internet conversations in the past. I think what happened was that one of those primary selves (Probably the one most influenced by our secular puritanical culture), that Marita was talking about in her last post, reared its head. Just like no one in this thread really said that a vote for Obama is a vote for civilization, but that is the impression one of those primary selves got.

Does this make sense?

Take care,

Curt

#39
Brian, you make interesting points. With regard to how fast civilization should come down, I see this as weighing two factors - the effect of civilization on the natural world (which would obviously benefit from stopping the machine of destruction as fast as possible - right now would be best), and the process of awakening consciousness and preparedness among people (which would obviously benefit from a slower collapse, giving people more time to prepare physically and mentally).

Hey Jessica, thanks for the thoughts, and you definitely have some really good points as well. I probably need to read some more Derrick Jensen to get some new perspective on this. I guess I should clarify my current view a little better. I definitely take into account that civilization stopping immediately would be ideal for every living organism, for the reasons you mentioned (unless there’s a nuclear holocaust or something). I guess what I’m still having trouble with is how I view the process by which civ will collapse, and how that applies to things we should do and think in our current lives to help the earth.

First, I made the mistake of sounding like I preferred a slow collapse, when I really think that (huge war aside) it will be a somewhat slow process no matter who is in charge of government, or what the conciousness of the people is. Both political parties are currently pursuing alternate energies to extend the life of civ, so that will probably happen no matter what. Of course, no one can predict the future, but I imagine that civ growth as it is now will might be unstoppable until a decade or so after the Peak Oil decline (which may already be happening). At this point, the civ growth that was supported by cheap oil will probably not have prepared to replace the cheap energy source, and will begin to have huge economic disparities and try to work quickly on new energy sources. Innovations probably won’t keep up and there will be some increased war, poverty and starvation. Alot of civ will have to adopt 19th-century style economies and lifestyles (like axing down trees for wood like you described).

It is at that point in the collapse that I am worried about the mindsets of those in charge of the world’s governments, and the conciousness of the electorate. I don’t think all of the oil and other resources will be gone, they will just be very expensive, and many people in power will probably remain in power and be able to choose what is done with the remaining resources. I have many fears that are basically flashbacks to the last few centuries. If no one has the conciousness to stop it, i don’t see what will prevent people at this point from continued mining, deforesting, and explotiation of native lands and peoples. All of these things happened before without 20th century technology and oil-economy.

I could go into more detail about why I have this view, but my wishful thinking is that a more liberal government and people at this point would not neccesarily “buy civ more time” but would have more respect for the earth and interdependency and not make selfish choices. The more people that think this way, the better off the earth would be. Yes, they may be trying the “fool’s errand” of making civ sustainable, but since the decline of civ is going to happen no matter who is in charge, why does that matter? I just think people who are trying for sustainable civ will be more open-minded and accepting to rewilding. I guess I think this is relevant to current ideological and political views because if we teach that humans and the earth are equally screwed no matter how we think or who is in power, it could create an excuse for apathy, or “enjoying it while it lasts” in many civ people’s minds.

If guess what I’m getting at is that if rewilding is the answer, then I think having at least a somewhat understanding and supportive neighbor in civ is essential in the early stages. Whether politics and ideology can create this atmosphere is arguable, but i think that every bit of knowledge about earth science and interdepency that is taught and introduced into public discussion is helpful. I also don’t think that supporting a conservative agenda would neccesarily “speed things up” in any way that is beneficial to the earth. Democrats may have intentionally or unintentionally diffused some social movements, but I think liberals in general have allowed for more public discussion of human rights and environmental issues. Maybe I’m being naive, but I think just talking about these things now will help everything out going into the future.

P.S. I just realized I live in a “blue” state and should’ve voted for Nader.

#40

I gave several talks at a local high school on my version of rewilding on Wednesday and Thursday.

On thing that kept coming up; the students wanted to know what I thought they “should do”. What position I advocated.

I kept having to repeat: “I don’t know. What do you NEED to do? If you use what I’ve offered you today as tools for looking at your life, what new things do YOU see? And what changes then does that inspire you to make?”

Over and over. They felt pretty certain I had some agenda, as surely most everybody in their life does when acting like they want to “help” them.

It finally clicked for most of them that I didn’t give a shit.

Then they got excited.

REAL excited.