Tim Engbrecht

The Fouches' video spoke of an "elephant in the room"--but I believe there is an even BIGGER elephant which is hard to talk about without folks getting either aggressive OR defensive and emotional.

Baldly put: Certain brands of fundamentalism and their accompanying world-views are extraordinarily dangerous to the goals of a science-based, rational, Earth-restorative movement (which is how I perceive Mollison’s vision of Permaculture).

I couldn’t help but notice in scab-picking my way through the Fouch-video’s comments, that a VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE of the commenters referenced 'scriptures'… and I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that the Fouches count themselves as “some of the chosen”.  

To be clear, I’m NOT interested in a wholesale, firehose “religion-bashing” session, here… My roots are in the same fold, if the truth be known, though I have a much different perspective now than I did as an ‘earnest youth’.

But here’s the Elephant, as I see it:
There is a LARGE contingent of earnest, religious believers of various persuasions—mostly those who would self-identify as “fundamentalist”—whose world-view asserts that this mortal life we shuffle through is merely a staging ground for some ‘ultimate, post-death/rapture reality’.

This, I believe, is a huge problem.

While religions and ‘faith’/spirituality are not (in themselves) the problem, the believe that this life (and this PLANET) must be purged away before “real reality” kicks in—creates a situation where adherents to this belief lack the incentive to build PERMANENT CULTURES & COMMUNITIES in THIS life. Some even believe in HASTENING the planet's destruction in the service of fulfilling a 'Messianic prophecy'.

How does this relate to the Fouch-scapade?.. I have a theory, based on nothing but my overactive imagination, that there was something MORE than Paul reminding Ms Fouch of her mother; more than them hearing about a poop-munching-mouse; or fearing locked gates; or desiring to build a YouTube empire; or being offended by the suggestion that Wheaton Labs could use kitchen help; or their own over-compensation for showing up late and dropping the ball on their end of an agreement. (though all of these make perfect sense, too)

…my THEORY is that Paul offended their world-view, and they lashed out because they believe they are fundamentally better (or 'holier') than he is.

As I've said--I don’t know Paul, but I’ve put in my time watching his videos over the last 10 years-or-so, and suspect that we’d get along just fine.

At the same time, I don't think anyone would assert that Paul is a good candidate for cross-cultural diplomacy: It would SHOCK me if he didn’t, over the course of a week together with a family of extremely conservative Christian folks, say or imply SOMETHING that lumped him in with the devil himself in their minds. (side-note: In the Fouche's video-review of their rocket-stove, their son noted that a big “minus” of it was that it was “dirty”… what were the odds that these folks were EVER going to get along with the crew at Wheaton Labs??)

In MY community, there are a lot of fundamentalist religious sects… and while these are some really NICE, GENEROUS people—at the end of the day, many of them believe that WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME TEAM.  I am destined for hell, and they are destined to inherit my house once the Earth gets re-built to their saviour’s specifications.

Again, not all ‘believers’ are of this persuasion…  I, myself, really dig on Joseph Campbell’s interpretations, and value sacred texts and traditions for their narratives, lessons, and historical perspectives.  –but if folks sincerely believe that this world is ‘fallen’ and must be cleansed by their god… then it seems pretty unlikely to me that they will PARTNER with our efforts to rehabilitate the biosphere that humans have damaged.  That doesn’t mean I don’t want to associate with these people—it just changes the conversational focus and the level of ‘trust of intentions’ I am able to extend.

At some point, our various communities will have to engage in a difficult, “Taboo” discussion about cosmologies/world-views…because it seems to me that as long as folks believe that ‘heaven’ is somewhere ELSE, they’re unlikely to do anything more than re-arranging deck-chairs on this Titanic-planet.

I stumbled across the Fouche’s video several months back—and for almost 12 hours, I felt the sort of hollow disappointment we feel when a public leader gets caught up in a scandal.

While I’ve never met him, and live in a different country, I’ve been enriched by the generosity of Paul’s online content for the better part of 10 years now; and yet through a SINGLE VIDEO—posted by a couple I don’t know AT ALL, and which contained almost NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION—I found myself being bent towards the conclusion that Paul was engineering the next Waco or Heaven’s Gate cult(!).

THANKFULLY, I didn’t just allow the dark fears and suspicions ignited by the Fouche’s video to win the day.  I dug a little deeper, read Paul’s response (in this thread), sifted through many comments and responses on BOTH sites, and even reached out to Paul directly in order to find some answers that would settle whether I would steer clear of Permies or the Fouches in the future.

None of this makes me a first-hand witness, however I would ask anyone who is reading this post to consider the following:

1) The Fouche’s video was NOT an impulsive, off-the-cuff response to a disappointing experience at Wheaton Labs; it was a calculated attempt to destroy Paul’s credibility and his livelihood. If you watch it AFTER reading Paul’s description of his exchanges with Nick and Esther during the event in question, it plays VERY differently.  

2) It was DESIGNED to lead viewers to the conclusion that Paul was running some sort of cult—but without saying the words directly—(perhaps to avoid accusations of libel?) …and yet this is a bizarrely implausible suggestion: Cult leaders CONTROL INFORMATION—they don’t go to extraordinary lengths to facilitate dialogue, explore divergent opinions, and establish incredible online forums dedicated to the free exchanges of ideas!

3) The Fouche’s video relies almost entirely on innuendo and an appeal to trust the Fouche's judgement in their indictment of Paul. Again, by failing to provide any specific claims, evidence, or other corroboration (besides “there is a locked gate”), and by saying “of course this is only our opinion”—the Fouches appear to be conscious of libel laws, and are trying to do as much damage as possible without actually saying something that could be called out as a blatant lie.  

4) The Fouches, who are building a YouTube channel in order to finance their own family’s private homesteading venture, benefit financially from the controversy they have generated, directed at the most popular Permaculture website on the planet.  I do not have insight into their motives, but NO ONE should be able to publicly assassinate another person's character without evidence.  It is unfathomable to me that the Nick and Esther spent a week (or more?) at Wheaton Labs posting videos for their YouTube followers, and yet when they decided to slander Paul and suggest he is up to no good, they have no substantial evidence(video OR otherwise), but lean on "trust us!". It doesn't make sense; Paul's explanation DOES.

Please READ the comments on both websites regarding this issue and make an informed judgement about who you think has better EARNED your trust.  My own conclusion is that the Fouches have a loyal online following of largely sincere Christian folks who believe they share values in common, but who do not actually KNOW Nick and Esther personally.  Nick and Esther have asserted that they are building their homestead completely alone, WITHOUT physical community.  It is much easier to control your public image if that image is generated exclusively by videos you shoot and edit yourself.

In contrast, Paul Wheaton is a VERY PUBLIC FIGURE, hosting workshops, posting online seminars, and traveling extensively to spread information concerning Permaculture and its capacity to make positive changes to the planet and in its human communities.  He is a brash, sarcastic, unapologetic bull-in-a-china-shop—and yet people STILL choose to be around him!  My suspicion that he is a big teddy-bear who gets hurt deeply by this sort of ‘public hanging’ has been confirmed in the handful of email exchanges I have had with him since reaching out to set my own mind at ease about what the Fouche’s video was really all about.

I hesitate to involve myself in this sort of online discussion, which so often degenerates into name-calling and character assassination, but my conscience compels me in this case.

Thank-you to Paul for his restraint in NOT resorting to mud-slinging and “lowest-common-denominator” human behavior in response to this attack on his character. I have never in all of my years seen you “shut down” reasonable discourse or assassinate someone else’s character for ANY reason—never mind in the absence of substantive evidence.

It is SO much easier to destroy something than to build it—I suspect we all remember what it feels like to have our sandcastle stomped on by another child when we were younger.  We appear to live in an age where  people actually acquire followers and gain money by stomping on sand castles.  

I hope that some of the Fouches' followers, many of whom seem to be sympathetic to a religious/Christian world-view (judging by the comments on their site), decide to hold Nick and Esther to a higher standard and call them out for the malicious slander they have flung at Paul in this video.  I believe their scriptures say something about "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"...

My highest respect to you, Paul.