The Egyptian military has saved Egypt...

[UndercoverElephant]

...as well as in touch with reality rather than off on some idealistic whim

I don't think there's anything wrong with idealism... even if it's unattainable in reality, it's better to aim high and fall short than to curtail our aspirations.

There's nothing wrong with aiming high, unless

(a) you are aiming so high that nobody is likely to take you seriously, and you want to be taken seriously

or

(b) you are aiming high when other people's lives are the ones being affected, but aiming lower when it's your own reality that is being jeopardised, because this becomes a very insipid and unpleasant form of hypocrisy.

I have two problems with Biff's "idealism."

The first is that it tends to be arranged in such a way that his cosy little reality remains untouched by what he advocates, while other people (namely the poorest propertyless people in his own country) pay the price.

The second is that the first simply hands ammunition to people with morally repugnant right-wing views like Jonny2Mad. Make no mistake - Jonny doesn't like non-white/non-English people, and believes this to be "a natural state of affairs." I find this abhorrent. But Jonny must laugh out loud every time Biff goes on about abolishing statehood and allowing free immigration to the UK, because he knows perfectly well that this just drives ordinary, rational, non-racist, non-nationalistic people towards his camp. Biff is handing Jonny a winning card to play. Yet Biff cannot or will not see this. He is so keen to hang on to his irrational, poorly thought-out idealism that he does not care if the actual, real-world result is to bolster the position of his absolute ideological enemies.

[biffvernon]

UE, you are still ascribing to me views which are not mine and have failed to give any example of where I have said these things. That's just plain wrong.

Did you watch the Owen-Jones talk from 7 minutes in?

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, you are still ascribing to me views which are not mine and have failed to give any example of where I have said these things. That's just plain wrong.

Did you watch the Owen-Jones talk from 7 minutes in?

OK.

8:15 "People in Egypt looked at me and said 'I am not Egyptian. I a human being. I am from Planet Earth."

Well, Biff, I am also a human, also from Planet Earth, but I am also British. This is what is known as a "false dichotomy". It is perfectly possible to be a human, from Planet Earth and Egyptian at the same time. What you have here is Egyptians rejecting their status as Egyptians at just the same time as Egypt is about to get flushed down the toilet as its resources/cultural problem kicks in in a major way. Hardly a great surprise, is it? What we do NOT see is a similar feeling being expressed by people in the UK, apart from by a few fluffy, land-owning, I'm-alright-Jack liberals like yourself. The ordinary man on the street in the UK, who fears for his own future in a way that you do not, because he is poor and you are not, expresses something very different. But you don't care about him, do you?

Sorry, but it was detached-from-reality nonsense of exactly the sort you peddle. It was not "thinking bigger", as it claimed to be. It was failure to think properly at all.

approx 9:50 - 10:30 Stops talking about freedom of movement, starts talking about religion. I agreed with this, and the rest of what he said, until 11:08, when he claims that we should hand over responsibility for caring for the environment to farmers. Sorry, but if those farmers are profit-motivated rather than environmentally-motivated then this won't work. More woolly thinking.

Then..."hand over the seas into the care of fishermen". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F*** me, Biff. That was a side-splitter!

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way, Biff:

Peter Owen-Jones is a priest. It is his job/mission to spread the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who (supposedly) walked on this Earth two millenia ago preaching unconditional love for all humans, including one's enemies.

Unlike yourself, I am not an atheist and I actually take this very seriously. But I am NOT Jesus, and I'm not a priest either. I'm just an ordinary human being who tries to do his best. And, quite frankly, unless you want to set yourself up as Jesus or a priest, then preaching unconditional love for one's enemies is best left to those who reckon they've actually got what it takes.

Otherwise you end up getting right up other people's noses like a very bad smell.

[jonny2mad]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3 ... of_britain

Apart from Spain and maybe Israel no country that’s been invaded by Islam as thrown out the invader, in Spain it took 700 years and men like Charles the hammer martel and Charlemagne to drive out the Muslims and then the Spanish Inquisition for hundreds of years after the fighting and real fanaticism .

So at the very best we have hundreds of years of civil war and genocide to look forward too or islamisation




you could ask who were the good guys who warned about this situation and tried to stop it who caused it

[woodburner]

By the way, Biff:

Peter Owen-Jones is a priest. It is his job/mission to spread the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who (supposedly) walked on this Earth two millenia ago preaching unconditional love for all humans, including one's enemies.

Unlike yourself, I am not an atheist and I actually take this very seriously. But I am NOT Jesus, and I'm not a priest either. I'm just an ordinary human being who tries to do his best. And, quite frankly, unless you want to set yourself up as Jesus or a priest, then preaching unconditional love for one's enemies is best left to those who reckon they've actually got what it takes.

Otherwise you end up getting right up other people's noses like a very bad smell.

Wasn't it part of Jesus's teaching that people should preach forgivness and to love ones enemies? So by what authority do you tell people not to do such things? I think one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain" covers it. 'scuse me while I blow my nose.

[biffvernon]

As I said before, UE, you are still ascribing to me views which are not mine and have failed to give any example of where I have said these things. That was just plain wrong. And it's still plain wrong. We'll not get far with a discussion if you keep telling me and the rest of the world what I think but get it utterly wrong. All this "I'm-alright-Jack" stuff is the exact opposite of my character. As for 'land-owning' my property is probably worth less than the average semi-detached house in Greater London but I have foregone London's job opportunities and spending what money I've earned on fast cars and holidays in the sun, preferring to buy a small-holding and practice permaculture. So just stop jumping to false conclusions about what I think and stick to what I say. If you disagree with something I have actually written tell me and we can have a rational discourse.


I'm glad you watched the rest of the video and, as I suspected, it was not all a case of preaching to the converted - some of it you disagree with. My interpretation of the part about Egyptians differs from yours I think. He was making the point that nation states are now corporate-industrial-military entities and it is in this respect that they are now out-moded and should be done away with. I thought his description of nations was pretty good but on that point you and I may differ.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'false-dichotomy'. I'm from Planet Earth, but I'm also a European, a UK citizen, English, Kentish (until they created Greater London, when I became a Londoner) and then I migrated to Lincolnshire where I am now from East Lindsey District and North Somercotes parish. So many borders, but only at one of them am I asked to show a passport.

I suspect you missed what he was saying about farmers and fishermen too. He was objecting to the agro-chemical, industrial ecocidal farming system we have today and promoting farmers of the type who say "I live as if I were to die tomorrow but I farm as if I were to live a thousand years". That is truly sustainable farming (and fishing).

Yes Peter Owen-Jones is a Church of England vicar, but I don't hold that against him. I happen to be an atheist but I hold many religious people in high regard. I rather consider myself as a Christian in as much as I think a lot of the teaching of the person commonly called Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth was very good and I use much of it as a basis for my views of ethics and morality. If people followed more of his teachings the world would be a much nicer place.

As for thinking bigger, should I suppose that calling for an end to the burning of fossil fuel is detached-from-reality nonsense? I've always preferred to aim high, so I call for fossil fuel burning to be stopped by tea-time tomorrow. I doubt it will happen. There will probably be arguments over time-zones and the definition of tea-time and some cultures probably just don't understand the concept of tea-time or have other objections. But it won't stop me trying to get folk to aspire to a nicer future, lived within the ecological constraints of our planet.

[Standuble]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3 ... of_britain

Apart from Spain and maybe Israel no country that’s been invaded by Islam as thrown out the invader, in Spain it took 700 years and men like Charles the hammer martel and Charlemagne to drive out the Muslims and then the Spanish Inquisition for hundreds of years after the fighting and real fanaticism .

So at the very best we have hundreds of years of civil war and genocide to look forward too or islamisation




you could ask who were the good guys who warned about this situation and tried to stop it who caused it

I don't think that would apply there. Islam conquered most of the world in a lightning sweep (absorbed Persia and most of the Eastern Roman Empire after they were devastated by war) and gradually worked their dominion over their people across centuries. The ruling dynasty for a long time (Umayyad) were corrupt and happily let people keep their own religions because they could tax them at higher rates due to dhimmitude. To avoid these religious taxes people gradually converted to Islam. This does not include those who welcomed the Muslims as liberators from the Romans and Sassanids and those who accepted Islam because they thought it was another form of Christianity. The later caliphs (Abbasid etc.) were stricter and would have completed the process.

The borders between nations broke down and countries were conquered because their fractures meant they were divided and could not defend themselves. Combined with the above and you have the reason why all these nations are Muslim.

Spain survived because the French drove back the Muslim line which could not be maintained. In the northern mountains they achieved an insurgency which took a long time to gain hold because the region was poor and Muslim Spain was strong. When it faced internal strife and interest from a now more prosperous Europe the non-Muslims made gains.

South East Asia are from what I understand mostly Muslim because large numbers of Muslims made their way there as immigrants and imported their culture whilst they merged with the natives.

Western Europe (and America) are not like either. There are too many non-Muslims, the populations have the potential to become too strong if they rise up and the infrastructure is so complex and deeply layered that Muslim revolutionaries would not be able to manage it without strong guidance from a significant non-Muslim block. Add that to institutionalised hatred of the Muslim system and the potential for secular patriotism and you could be looking at one heck of a clash which would be decided within a few years and not a few centuries.

There's also WW2. For better or worse Europe knows what it is capable of and to the extent it is willing to go to reach its goals. It knows about its dark side and what it can achieve when it indulges it. I would think that if the threat was great enough then Europe would be tempted to follow the same path. After all, it cannot truly look at itself as a continent and see itself as sinless and without guilt.

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way, Biff:

Peter Owen-Jones is a priest. It is his job/mission to spread the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who (supposedly) walked on this Earth two millenia ago preaching unconditional love for all humans, including one's enemies.

Unlike yourself, I am not an atheist and I actually take this very seriously. But I am NOT Jesus, and I'm not a priest either. I'm just an ordinary human being who tries to do his best. And, quite frankly, unless you want to set yourself up as Jesus or a priest, then preaching unconditional love for one's enemies is best left to those who reckon they've actually got what it takes.

Otherwise you end up getting right up other people's noses like a very bad smell.

Wasn't it part of Jesus's teaching that people should preach forgivness and to love ones enemies?

Yep.

So by what authority do you tell people not to do such things?

Eh? I'm not a Christian, and not a priest. I said I was not an atheist, not that I was a Christian. Biff, on the other hand, is an atheist.

I think one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain" covers it. 'scuse me while I blow my nose.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Lord Beria3]

I feel very sorry for Biff here.

Although I disagree with many of his views (I assume I am the 'right winger' on this board as referenced earlier) Biff strikes me - without meeting him in person! - as a very good man who has a very optimistic view of human nature and humanity in general.

Now like many, I think he is hopelessly naïve at times in his views and assumptions but at the same time his hope and desire to believe in the better angels amongst ourselves is not only positive, it is essential.

It is too easy in the 'peak oil community' to end up thinking the worst. The reality is that our future will be mixed. We will see some terrible things in the years and decades to come but also many upsides, people really together, adjusting their values and embracing the free and non-materialistic things in life that are the most important in the grand scheme of things.

[biffvernon]

Thank you LB3. I think it might be better to say that I have a hopeful rather than optimistic view of human nature and humanity in general. I'm certainly not naive and am really very pessimistic about humanity's future, but while there is a spark of life left I think it better to talk up the positive with what you describe as an essential desire for the better angels.

If we give up hope then...well, there'd be no point writing on PS.

[Little John]

Thank you LB3. I think it might be better to say that I have a hopeful rather than optimistic view of human nature and humanity in general. I'm certainly not naive and am really very pessimistic about humanity's future, but while there is a spark of life left I think it better to talk up the positive with what you describe as an essential desire for the better angels.

If we give up hope then...well, there'd be no point writing on PS.

I'm sorry, but this is disingenuous waffle.

The following are facts as stated by you on several occasions on this board. They are not interpretations of your thoughts. They are reiterations of your stated positions:

You believe in property rights for individuals, including, of course yourself. Which is rather handy for you, since it precludes the possibility of anyone coming and freely partaking of any of your individually owned resources. One must logically presume,from the above, that you believe that the state's (commonly funded) resources may be properly be called upon to enforce your individual property rights.

You do not believe, however, in communal property rights as evidenced by your belief in open borders such that all resources owned in common by the people of this country should, in fact, not be owned in common, but should be made available, without qualification, to anyone from outside this country who wishes to come and live here and partake of those common resources.

So, in short, you believe that your individual property rights should be enforced by commonly funded state resources, but do not believe that communal property rights should be enforced and protected by commonly funded state resources. Indeed, further, you believe that the state should seek to actively facilitate the availability of such resources to anyone from anywhere outside of this country who wishes to avail themselves of them. Again, very handy is it not, that your beliefs should be configured this way, in that they just happen to fully conform with your own personal individual interests.

All of the above is a rational reiteration of what you have said on this and other threads on this forum.

[UndercoverElephant]

(I assume I am the 'right winger' on this board as referenced earlier)

Nope. You are a right-winger, but only of the "normal" sort. I was actually talking about Jonny2Mad, who is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

Biff strikes me - without meeting him in person! - as a very good man who has a very optimistic view of human nature and humanity in general.

Of course he is. Neither Steve nor myself think Biff is a bad person. He means well. He also knows that we mean well. But this board is about discussing difficult topics, and I (and Steve) have a major disagreement with Biff about some stuff we consider to be very important. He's not a bad person, he's just got some things badly wrong, IMO.

Now like many, I think he is hopelessly naïve at times

Exactly. And in the context of this board, that can't be allowed to go unmentioned like it might be in normal life.

in his views and assumptions but at the same time his hope and desire to believe in the better angels amongst ourselves is not only positive, it is essential.

I don't agree. I don't think we actually need fluffy, liberal idealism.

It is too easy in the 'peak oil community' to end up thinking the worst.

Well, don't take this personally but some people are more prone to this than others. You're one of the most prone of all.

The reality is that our future will be mixed.

My disagreement with Biff isn't really to do with optimism/pessimism. Perhaps it was more to do with this in the past, but not so much anymore. I'm not complaining that he is being too optimistic, but that he is not be realistic enough, which is not quite the same thing. I'm also accusing him of organising his idealism in such a way that the people who are likely to suffer if his ideas were put into practice aren't him. If we open the border of the UK to all-comers, most of those people aren't going to end up in Biff's part of Lincolnshire. They are going to end up in places Biff never goes to, and that sticks in one's craw.

[Little John]

....I'm.....accusing him of organising his idealism in such a way that the people who are likely to suffer if his ideas were put into practice aren't him. If we open the border of the UK to all-comers, most of those people aren't going to end up in Biff's part of Lincolnshire. They are going to end up in places Biff never goes to, and that sticks in one's craw.

This is exactly it.

[biffvernon]

The following are facts as stated by you on several occasions on this board. They are not interpretations of your thoughts. They are reiterations of your stated positions:

You believe in property rights for individuals, including, of course yourself. Which is, of course, rather handy for you, since it preclude the possibility of anyone coming and freely partaking of any of your own personal individually owned resources. One must logically presume,from the above, that you believe that the state's (commonly funded) resources may be properly be called upon to enforce your individual property rights.

Yes. Is there anyone here who thinks otherwise?

You do not believe, however, in communal property rights as evidenced by your belief in open borders such that all resources owned in common by the people of this country should, in fact, not be owned in common, but should be made available, without qualification, to anyone from outside this country who wishes to come and live here and partake of those common resources.

Absolutely not true. I have never said that. Ever.
Which makes the rest of your post without foundation.

Come on Steve, stop telling the world what you think I think. If you want to quote something I've written and challenge it that's fine, I'll defend it or retract it, but don't make things up.