 So the question is, why is there even more polarization among people who mostly agree, or at least more vitriolic polarization? The example, one example being the vegan versus paleo war, where actually there's a lot of agreement. Like both camps are deeply opposed to the industrial system of food production. Both camps generally tend to be committed environmentalists, and both reject the unthinking, unconscious, standard American diet, and the over-processing and industrialization of food. So a lot of agreement there. I think that because polarizing issues that people identify with, because they meet the need for in-group inclusion, for belonging, and for meaning in life, they especially lend themselves to antagonism. Because the need here is to define yourself in contrast to somebody else who becomes the other. So if you're mostly in agreement, you have to find something that you disagree on in order to other those people and to make them into the bad guys. Therefore, your differences become more important than your areas of agreement. If I were an evil Illuminati and I wanted to control everybody, I would set things up this way so that people get identified with their opinions and beliefs, threatened by somebody who disagrees with them, and go to war against each other, ignoring the broad swath of their agreement. Because if they united in alliance, boy, they could really change the system. So better keep them fighting. And the way to keep them fighting is to make the most important thing to them, this unconscious need, the fulfillment of this unconscious need to belong. As long as they're fighting about that, nothing's ever gonna change. And writ large in a polarizing society that's getting more and more polarized, where people are dedicated to defeating the other side and as the formula for changing the world. The formula for changing the world is to defeat the other side. You have to make someone into the bad guy, even if you're a climate change activist. So often the narrative goes to, and those greedy sons of bitches and the fossil fuel companies, they even knew it was happening and they're still not doing anything about it. Here's somebody to hate. If we could only tear those guys down, not realizing that those roles are created systemically and are not happening because of the moral turpitude of those occupying those positions. It's part of the job description. But framing it in a find the enemy narrative actually obscures the deeper conditions that generate an endless supply of enemies. So if I wanna keep things the way that they are, then I'm gonna try to set things up that people continue fighting each other. As long as the energy is going into that, basically that's the energy of war. As long as the energy is going to war, there will be no healing on this planet. I'm afraid that's a very stark statement. Maybe I could soften it a little by saying to the extent that our energy is going toward war, there will be no healing on this planet. And I have to say, even in the social justice movement, even in the environmental movement, even in the peace movement, an awful lot of energy is going into war. How do we create a narrative that arouses enough indignation and hatred so that the perpetrators can be taken down? This is not about giving them a free pass. This is about actually changing things. It does not change anything to tear down the perpetrators and leave a system that generates endless new perpetrators intact. If that system remains intact, then all we have is endless war, which perversely is a desirable outcome if your secret ego motivation is to identify yourself as fighting on team good. You need endless enemies. So the war becomes a self-sustaining structure, both sides leaning on each other, holding each other up. I'm not interested in that. I want to actually change the conditions that give rise to ecocide, that give rise to racism, that give rise to poverty, dislocation. And if I have to sacrifice the self-satisfaction of being on the right side, if I have to sacrifice the perpetrators ever admitting to it, if that's the price, I'm willing to pay it. Are you willing to pay that price? Are you willing to never be recognized as having been right all along? Are you willing, if that's what it takes, for the perpetrators to never go punished, to never even admit that they were wrong? Do you want peace that much? Do you want healing that much? Do you want equality that much? Because if we want a fundamentally changed world, there's a price that we have to pay. We have to become different than we are right now. A sacrifice has to be rendered. And I'm not saying that we should avoid calling out injustice or that perpetrators should never be held to account. But if that becomes the goal, we may end up serving that goal rather than a goal of a healed world. Maybe sometimes it serves and maybe sometimes it doesn't. So let's be clear about our motives here. Let's be clear about what we are serving and ask, what am I willing to give up? How much do I care? How much do I want this? How strong is my prayer?