The Quaker Question w/ Dr. Ed Dutton: The J. Burden Show Ep. 448

And actually the influence that the Quakers kind of fly under the radar when it comes to people that are into conspiracy theories and they want to look at this idea there's a conspiracy of rich, influential people that are funding the left and trying to destroy Western civilization and whatever. And they always talk about Jewish interests. Of course, your friend has heard of the Rothschilds, of course, but has he heard of Barclay's Bank, Has he heard of Gurney's Bank?

Has he heard of Lloyd's Bank? And all of these organizations are Quaker, and in particular, Cadbury and Rowntree do a great deal to fund left wing, left wing stuff and they are Quaker. And so I thought, why is it that this group just because they come across as pat they talk about being pacifist, and they talk about

and all all this kind of thing. Nobody really bothers about them, but they should because their influence on basically subversion that there isn't There isn't a left wing campaign in the last three hundred years really that hasn't had Quakers behind it. And all they really do is left wing campaigns. If you compare them to Jewish people, there are many Jews that have contributed to right wing kind

of ideas. Benjamin Dosraally, the arch imperialist was Jewish, or Hernstein and Murray, Well, they look at race differences and so forth. Well, Hernstein was Jewish. And there are many Jews that have won Nobel Prizes for science and so forth and have contributed a great deal to Western civilization. But with the Quakers, all you really have is left wing subversion. So why is nobody focusing on them? So that's kind of what inspired.

couldn't stand these people. They kept kicking them out because they were impossible to be around.

are under Quaker rules. I think there was the death penalty for murder, but otherwise it was extraordinarily liberal and so forth. And constitutionally pacifist. And then you get into a situation where England, of which America is a part, is what the states are apart, is at war, whether I think it was at the French uh and and the thease of Americans ally with the French and start invading Pennsylvania and killing people in killing the Scots Irish.

In fact, the Scott's Irish planters and the Scot's Irish planters flee to the capital of Pennsylvania and beg those who are running Pensylvania help, and they say, no, we can't do that. No, we're pacifist, we can't do that,

and so and so and so. In the end you end up in a situation where Benjamin Franklin helps to bring about a sort of private army, and in the end those that were in charge of Pennsylvania resign and go into just being religious and not being involved in politics because they won't stand up, they won't fight against even those that are invading and killing people within the Quaker state that was Pennsylvania. It's extraordinary. And then the

other case you look at is that the other Puritan colonists. Yeah, you've got a colony and that colony is having to fight outside as it's having to fight Native Americans and so forth and so and they're killing them, and so of course you need law and order, and so what do they say? What does this woman I think her name was maryder what does she what does she argue? She argues in favor of this kind of antiinomianism where basically there's no law in order, there's no law, there's

no laws, there's nothing that unites us together. There's nothing that holds us together. There's no positive and negative ethnocentrism. There's just God inspires me with my ideas. And that's right, because God inspires me with them. I have what's called the inner light. God is in me, and I will do what I like. Now I'm not, of course, these were people of their time. It's very brutal. They hanged

very dire in the end, in the end. But but but she was so in chaos within a community that needs to hold together against the enemy at the gate that is killing it. Now, whether you think that it's morally right or wrong, they're taking Native American land as a different issue. But assuming that you side with the colonists, they've got to defend themselves. This is chaos. They threw her out, they made her leave. She went back to England.

They made it quite clear to her that she was exiled and she was not to come back to the colony. And she comes back just just so she can be a martyr, just so she can be executed, I would argue. But by the way, there's good. There's good research indicates that martyrdom is a kind of maladaptive form of narcissism. And I strongly suspect that what you get with a lot of these people, you get a lot of people on the left anyway, is they are relatively high in narcissism.

They deal with their negative feelings or whatever by telling themselves that they are superior to everybody else, and in particular, they are more moral than everybody else. They are more as it were, godly sometimes than everybody else, to the extent that that that need for narcissistics apply can literally be fulfilled by by martyrdom. I mean, there's worse than that. There's the the universal uh, the what's it called now, the the Universal Friend.

She is she is Public Universal Friend. And she would get incredibly angry, the same way that trans women get angry if you address them by as men or by the wrong pronoun. She would get incredibly angry she was addressed as a female or addressed by her original name, it was her dead name, and she would demand that she'd be addressed as what she was, which was public Universal Friend. Fascinatingly, in the Wikipedia article about her, they

don't use the pronoun she. They use the pronoun friend, which which which, which just tells you the extent to which the Quakers were this ideal, like, what is this

idea of the inner light? This is this is the fundamental idea in Quakerism that God is God, isn't something outside us that can guide us or whatever God is in us, and so there's a sense in which it's almost pantheism, that there's a sense in which or gnosticism, there's a sense in which we are God, and therefore what we do is what God wants us to do

because it is God's will, because we are God. The only way you can define your own sex and say I am male, I am female because I say I am is if you believe that there is really no true objective reality, and that we are all little I am the reality, You are your reality. We are all little sparks of divine light in a world of darkness, where we are I am that I am, I define

what I am. And that idea, that woke idea is there is germinating already in the public universal friend, and not just in the public universal friends, but in other other people within Quakerism as well, This whole idea, even that the idea that they are sinless, we can talk about that. And is there in Quakerism that you are God?

are getting much colder. The population is getting too high for the amount of the agricultural land that you can deal with, which is one of the reasons why you have all these people fleeing to the United States and the colonies and so on. You have the Civil War itself, and then the interregnum, the Republic, which turns everything on its head, the abolition of bishops, all kinds of stuff. It's a crazy world. It's an unstable world. It's a

frightening world. I don't think it's any coincidence that you get the witch craze at exactly that time as well. And also when people are high in mortality saliens, and when people are uncertain, and when there's political uncertainty, people become much much more religious and much much more religiously fervent, and you get these kinds of religious experiences, and you get people going through phases of very intense religious fervor,

and that's what you see with Quakerism. And so you just have this man that's an educated man, the shoemaker called Jorge Box, who's incredibly charismatic and inspiring and so on, I'm sure, and the law and orders breaking down because normally you had to have a license to preach and things like that, but it can't really be enforced because

it's just chaos. So he's able to go around preaching in the countryside, and he takes everything, every tradition, everything that holds society together, every example as it were, of positive ethnocentrism, everything that's uniting, and attacks it and now in favor of essentially equality. That's what he goes on on about equality, which is of course damaging to the group as a whole because it's the group that's high in positive and negative ethnocentrism, according to concluding models, which

tends to dominate other groups. But it emerges at that time of chaos where you have to find a niche. You have to find a niche where you can basically pass on your genes. And so what is your niche? If you're in the middle, you're in the middle, you're middling sort, you're up against it. You've got to find a way of getting ahead of getting a bit more well. Obviously, as we see now, what you can do is virtue

signal or purity signal. You fear a fair fight, so you virtue signal or you purity signal, and thus you covertly play for status. And that's the essence of Quakerism. It's that you virtue signal about equality and harb avoidance in a society which does value those things. Because we are pack animals, we value equality, individual interests to quality, harboroids, but also group or into things. But you such as

the medisa, authority, tradition, sanctity, whatever. But you focus on those things and you covertly play for status, and you cloak yourself in this idea that oh I'm just so kind, I'm so wonderful, I'm a pacifist, I'm nonviolent. And this of course allows you manipulatively to get past the immune system of everybody else and thus attain slightly more status,

slightly more resources. And this is what they do. And I think that if you look at the psychology of the kind of people that are attracted at times of crisis to these new religious movements, they're very high in Euroticism. They tend to be very mentally unstable, and they need something that makes absolute sense, and they feel bad about themselves, so they need a way of feeling superior to others.

And one way they can feel superior to others, and Quakerism offers this is by feeling that they are morally superior to others, by telling themselves they are morally perfect. God indeed is in them. They are God in a sense. How much more perfect can you feel? And that's what Quacarism allows them to do. So it would have attracted

in the first instance. I think these people that were quite mentally unstable and thus quite therefore kind of developed to kind of narcissism, essentially, a kind of grandiose narcissism, uh and and but it worked as an evolutionary niche because yes, some of them would be persecuted and whatever, and there would be problems and George Fox spent time

in prison and so on. But broadly it allowed an evolutionary space to be created where they could kind of play for status via their virtue signaling and people and people let by the more anti social aspects of that signaling, like how like how now we overlook the far left gluing themselves to roads and and things like this. We kind of let them get away with it because they appeal to this idea. Well, look, we're peaceful, We're such peaceful, kind weak people, but they're not really. And that's I

think the space that they they carved out. And then they marry in and until I think was it the eighteen sixties, they had to marry in or they would be thrown out of their community. So they marry other people like them, and so you end up almost with a proto sub ethnic group among the among the English genetically English people of the UK of Britain, America, under a few other places.

for social progressives to signal their values. I mean quite literally, as someone who's been to these services, you will hear yesterday's NPR special repeated almost blow for blow, and everyone, of course, you know, congratulates themselves about how brave they are to be talking about at the time I went kids in cages. And of course, you know, if you're a cynically minded fellow, you might say, well, was that the light or was that you know, National Public broadcast.

in those days. They'd only use the informal. They wouldn't even use the months of the year because they argued these were pagan I think, you know, it was so extreme things like this. Of course they wouldn't drink. But it's actually a de facto hierarchy. It's just it's dishonest,

because of course there's a hierarchy. What happens is the more dominant people in the group inevitably will be the ones that get up and say things and in these silent meetings, and inevitably, inevitably and and so there's a de facto hierarchy. There are facto people in charge. If you were to do what's called a network analysis and anthropology, you'd soon find out who was in charge of every single one of these Quaker meeting these friends, friends meeting houses.

So it's it's just it's dishonest, and it's wrapping yourself up in the in the cloak of equality and avoiding offense and harm, avoidance on whatever, whereas in reality there's an obvious hierarchy to it. But I mean, yeah, I was first that came aware of. It was actually the first wedding I went to. I I was twelve years old and my friend my dad had a colleague. I

don't know if the colleague. The colleague was of Indian extraction, and his wife was Norwegian that spoke very good English, and they're both living in the UK, and they had a Quaker wedding and then and they said, rather than bring us gifts, please bring us something that everybody can share, which I suppose is nice and fair enough, but there's something a bit kind of virtue signaling esque about this,

isn't there. And so then we go to the wedding and it was to just sit there and make their vows in silence, and occasionally one man and it was one man, a very clearly socially dominant, quite tall, muscular man in his early sixties, we get up and say something, Oh, I just think love is so amazing, and it's amazing

this gift God has given us or whatever. And then the mother of the bride, who was also I assume was also a Quaker, because she'd made very little effort with her appearance considering it was a daughter's wedding, and who was Norwegian. But then just get up and go hold hold, hold, hold the hold of holder, hold the hold of hold, translating it for the Norwegian guests. And this would go on throughout the hour. And then they were married, and I thought to myself, hang on a minute,

this idea that we're all equal and sitting in silence. No, it's a very specific kind of guy. I actually thought to myself, Oh, he must be the vicar, because I didn't know anything about Quaker asm I was twelve years old. He must be the vicar. But for some ready sits at the bath. Yes.

signals of wealth. You don't see as many of these grand estates you don't see fortunes past. Generationally, that does happen in those areas, but it tends to have occurred much later. Right, So for instance, you have you know, famous families like the Vanderbilts and others, but that was primarily a late nineteenth early twentieth century feature, whereas that had been happening from the beginning of places like Massachusetts.

And he particularly talks about the Quaker ideas of sort of patrimony in secession, that they had very firm beliefs about distributing everything equally and well, much like Haiti, it didn't go particularly well.

But in terms of the practicalities of running a society, it is clearly not a good thing. The Quakers would have opposed and did a posse. They refuse to fight their pacifists, so they go on about the terrors of the far right. Now they fund the far left. They've literally fund the extreme left, that group like in the UK, groups like Hope Not Hate and whatever. These Quaker organizations

are funding them. But if the Quakers had there, if everybody was a Quaker or the Nazis would just have invaded Britain, wouldn't they, And Britain would have just would have been a national socialist state and King Edward the Eighth would have been the king and Oswald Moseley would have been the Prime Minister. That's what would have happened. Which is so if everyone does what they do, then

the society would just be invaded by them. Just be Mighty's right, and society would just be invaded by the most dominant kind of warlike group. That is what would happen, which shows you that they are basically hypocrites, and that is, this is a specific niche that they've carved out in order to optimize their own good and their own status within the psychological constraints that they operate under. And it's very similar with the Amish, who are related to the

Quake and of course live in Pennsylvania. They're theologically related to the Quakers. They're an of Baptists. The William penn invited those kinds of people to Pennsylvania as well. If everybody operated like the old Order armors from were all Pacifists, well then Pennsylvania would of course be invaded. And if everyone operated like them, and there were splits in the Quakers because of this, the United States of America would never have existed. It would just remain under the tyranny

of King George. And there were Quakers that broke away. They did they called themselves New Quakers or something they called themselves during the Revolutionary War. Who are you know that the American States are, you know, God's own land. The American States are the new Godly Messiah, beacon on the hill. Whatever and we have to fight for it. We have to fight for it. And if we don't fight for it, we will lose it, and we won't be able to create this wonderful religious community of godly

people that we want. We've got a fight for it. And of course they were thrown out of their meeting houses and whatever and and and created new Quaker sects. It's it's, it's, it's it's the whole purpose being that black and white having that idea. Oh no, we must be pacifist always. It is a means of covert or even COVID just expressing to people your utter goodness and and and hoping that that that will give you a certain amount of status and a certain amount of regard.

But it's not practical. Not everyone can do that. And then if it did, it would everything would fall apart, which shows you the fundamental problem with Quaker and its ideas spreading throughout society. Prison reform. You mentioned it earlier. Elizabeth Fry began this Nay Gurney as in Fries Chocolates, another chocolate company, uh began this uh this process in England and spread it to America. What does it mean? It means the prisons are just easier places to be.

What goods that to society that the prison should deter people, Prisons should be in act justice on people. Prison would be nice places. But but the prison reform and it's it's every single left wing thing you can think of. And people go on about the Jews. You know, they wouldn't be Jews in it, very possibly in England if it wasn't for the Quakers. The quake. The Quakers had this were very proto Semitic, as are a lot of Protestant groups and that. And Cromwell was very impressed by

George Fox. So he met him about three times. He was very impressed by him. He asked to see him all this kind of thing, even though he had in jail. He was very impressed by him and moved by him. I didn't suppose that Cromwell was a secret Quaker, but he was certainly sympathetic and it was and it was the and it was it was the quake because the

Quakers were too love staated for someone like Cromwell. I'm sure the gentry that he was certainly sympathetic towards them, and uh and and they were they were sending missionaries over to Amsterdam to try and encourage Jews to Ashkenazi Jews, not sorry, Sophardi Jews to come to come to the UK, so that you could argue that there's quite a close relationship. The parallels with the Jews in the Quaker's quite interesting actually, because you both you have both groups that are outside

the norm. Both are very tight knit groups that high levels of trust, which is what you need to develop things like banking and whatever, and and business and and both are groups that are excluded from the profession, from the professions, and from the universities and so forced into the world of business and commerce and so on. So

the parallels are really are really quite interesting. But yeah, this group is it's unsustainable as a group wide ideology and if it happens, well, then you just get Eventually you're either you're best tolerated like the Armisha are today tolerated by the larger group, but but you can easily be you're completely reliant on them.

to deal with. They also act in a much it's sort of a minor version of the Somali problem as well. But with the Quakers, they function in a similar role, this sort of parasitic role, but have an outsized cultural influence. So in a lot of media. You know, a popular film a while back, Hacksaw Ridge, which was you know, telling the story of a conscientious objector in the Second World War who admittedly acted quite heroically he saved a

number of men as a medic. But nonetheless, that is the wide public perception of Quakers to the point where.

something driving in the country side. Fortunately, American roads are wider than the UK roads, so it's not that much of a problem. But but with the Quakers, it's a very similar relationship. It's a bit like, I don't know how a woman who who lives off you, who she doesn't work her herself, he'sn't doing herself. She just she just she just lives off you. And and the way that she manipulates you is by saying, oh, well, look I'm so helpless. You know, she brings out your desire

to protect her or something like that. But but but but at this is what they're like. I'm a passiveist. I can't I'm helpless. But they're heavily interfere in a left wing direction in politics, up to and including funding extreme left groups that want to bring down or ordered traditional functioning society, and even just committing crimes. I mean there was there have been cases in the UK, and it was Quakers about breaking into airports and messing around

with machinery and things like this. And when prosecuted for this, they turn around and say, oh, well, you're interfering with our right, our ability to worship, because they see their worship as involving following. They're inner light I following their conscience, and you're interfering with that, and therefore you're interfering with their worship. So you have this group that that has with I mean, yeah, there are some Quakers. Don't get me, don't misunderstand me. This is a this is a group.

A whole group of people were talking about. There's some Quakers that don't apps some good. There are various Flams and Swan. I rather like them. Their English musical duo from the sixties and seventies, guy called Donald Swan. He was a Quaker in the war. Before he was a Quaker, he was a calm changed subjector drove an ambulance in very dangerous areas. So you know, let's not all of them, but but but that that's the the general movement among

the Quakers is in that direction. It's left wing subversion. So it is biting the hand that eats it, that feeds it. It's biting the hand that feeds it. And the question is how hard will that hand be said to be bitten before it before it with draws the hand and says no. And the answers from the history of the Quakers is for some reason, because of their pacifism and because of their you know, they're good pr machine and whatever, is very very hard indeed.

throughout it. And some of the issues you know, would not surprise you, talking about you know, peace building, ending wars, which from the Quakers, you'd expect, But if you're a right winger, pick just about any issue you were passionate about.

They're on the wrong side of it, right, So so they talk a lot about you know, electoral justice, criminal justice, immigration justice, gun violence, prevention, you know, all of these issues that you know, if you were all aware of how left wing activists work, you understand that just because those are a string of relatively positive words, they have a very different definition of justice than you do. So it is quite literally any issue that sort of engages the average.

do that. They won't follow that. So even down to things like sexuality, which you would normally expect people that were religious to be quite conservative about, but no, they are, as the public Universal Friend gives is an example, No, they they are. They are not every vegetarianism. Uh, any issue you can possibly think of, they will they will take a left wing perspective, and which is why you

don't get many right. Well, I mean, Richard Nixon was raised a Quaker, but I don't think he was a practicing Quaker, and.

anywhere where they're present. If you go to a Quaker meeting house these days, you will probably see Palestine flags and rainbow flags in the in the windows.

the Industrial Revolution. The Fries they into they often all interrelated as well, the Fries, the round Trees, the Cadburys, uh, these these groups of the Lloyd's and and so on, all of these groups of interrelated people that are involved in Barclays, that are involved in banking, and that are involved in finance, and that are involved in industry. And so that's really the essence, that's the core of the Quakers.

So upper middle class. I suppose you'd say that you occasionally get prominent people that come up that you find the Quakers in things like acting. There was a famous actor called Paul Eddington, for example, that was in something called Yes Minister and something called The Good Life. There's various other prominent actors and people like David the Herd of Blurs, Bangle Blur, a guy called David album Quaker.

There's a Green Party member of Parliament that's Quaker. So it's it's it's it's generally upper middle class, left wing sort of people's that's that's how they operate, that's the and their influence on society in terms of the influence of banking has been substantial. I mean, if you think about how in seventeen forty five that you have the pretenders of the throne, the Catholic line from James the second attend to the throne, you got very close to invading,

invading the whole of England. They got as far south as Derby before that, which is in England before the middle before they turned tail and fled. And the city was was heavily influenced of course by both Jews, uh and and and also and and and and also Quakers, and they put a great deal of money into the into the campaign to ensure that that this this The Whigs, that those were the more liberal group, you know, didn't didn't permit this to happen, didn't permit this invasion that

would have happened. That was supported by the High Tories, the Conservatives, those that were in favor of the King over parliament. So even then it's very liberal politics that they were by the stands of the day, that the Quakers were involved in them, were behind and were and were funding that. Nobody. Everyone really has a kind of positive view of them in the media. Nobody really talks about them. Nobody really discusses what they get up to

and to the extent that they do. You just highlight examples of perfectly charming people that are Quakers, such as Donald Swan I mentioned earlier, or Oliver Postgate, who was behind these Children's a sort of puppet series. I put some Klangners, Paul Eddington, the acts I mentioned earlier, And there's there's some there's there's a sort of others that I favous Quakers that I listed my book. But as a rule, they're all quite they're all quite left wing.

It's middle class left wing activism, of which is at these Palestine marches are a good example of which which happen every week. Uh And and a segment is going to be Quakers.

of the thinking man's religion. You know, oh, you can still go to church, but now you are able to, you know, dispense with all of that nonsense obviously about you know, Jesus Christ in particular, but also the negative social stigma of being on the quote unquote wrong side of any progressive issue. And so I mentioned NPR earlier,

but it very much is sort of that class. I know the people in this group, and they tend to be sort of like middling academic administrators, you know, the sort of people who run you know, not particularly prestigious

programs at large state universities. But also many of them work in activism right in nngos at different charitable again quote unquote institutions, And who knows, who's to say if this is a function of being middle class or being Quaker, probably a little bit of both, but they genuinely despise the you know what's referred to as like the Chud or the Gamut, the kind of working class normal brits

Er Americans. And that is a in my mind, defining feature, particularly as you know, you look into go onto these Quaker websites, read their statements on you know, gun violence, read their statements on war. It is all written in such a way as to distinguish yourself as morally superior to sort of the hoy POLOI the average man.

of pro social personality. And there's an interesting study that I'm doing at the moment which is replicating other studies, which which finds that basically testoster occupational state is positively associated with intelligence, and it's negatively associated with testosterone, so that the higher statues of your occupation and lower on average testosterone is. So testosterone is masculine, it's associated with dominance, it's associated with drive whatever, and lotus osterone is femine.

It's as being cooperative and or that sort of thing. So you can see how the middle class, the upper middle class are going to be basically quite quite highly intelligent, which makes you which means that you imbibe the current set of ideas and you absorb them and then you competively signal them. And the current set of ideas are left wing, so you competitively signal that. Basically, that's what you're more likely to do if you're middle class, For

if you're intelligent and educated. And secondly, you're going to be relatively low testosterone if you're middle class, so you're going to be repelled by right wing kind of stuff perhaps for that reason as well to some extent, and you can see that Quagarism is particularly low testosterone, you know, Pacifism and and all this kind of thing, And so you're going to get a subgroup within the middle class to the extent that Quakerism is gets converts, which it does,

but it's obviously partly herelitary as well, that I would think would be intelligent and very low testosterone and probably a little bit elevated therefore actually in neuroticism and anxiety and mental instability, and therefore for this subgroup, for whatever reason, it becomes attractive. There's interesting crossovers. A very famous Quaker in the UK is professor of Quaker studies at Birmingham

University is called James Pink Dandelion. And this guy was a hippie and which is the lotus asterone peace man kind of kind of kind of person. Yeah, And he saw the parallels between Quakerism and hippidam eye peace and love and no democracy, you just make collective decisions and

this sort of thing. And he found Quakerism very attractive and the divine and the divine light entered, entered, entered into him, and he decided that it's wrong that this idea that other people name me, who are the people to name me? And it's also patriarchal, So he renamed himself Pink Dandelion. But this is interesting, this idea of the self and that God is in me and so forth,

I name myself, I define who I am. So it's that, as you say, it's that kind of wishy was she subset that are also, unlike a lot of hippies, a bit vaguely religious as well, they're kind of vaguely believing God and you and you can see that that subset, although many Quakers don't believe in God, and you can you can see that that subset is is drawn into into Quakerism.

it just seems like being straight with extra steps. But when you combine the sort of person who is involved in that organization to begin with, right, highly progressive, highly interested in social signaling, and that issue, I mean, having a transgender child is from that perspective perhaps the best way to accrue status. Also a for what degree there is a theological tradition of Quakerism, but will just use that term is based very much in the idea of

self defining and name changing. Well, it's no shock that a large number of these children come out as being born in the wrong body. I mean, again, I only have anecdotes, but it's the numbers in that sample set of twenty odd individuals is dramatic. We're talking well over a majority.

with the child. And the reason that they don't want to adopt a white child is because in general, these days, white children that are put up for adoption, Whereas it used to be, you know, a lawyer gets his secretary pregnant and introduceimacy is so unacceptable. The child's put up for adoption. Now it's going to be drug addicts and they and they know deep down that these traits are hereditary and the child is going to be of that

basically psychopic, psychopathic, and they don't want it. Whereas whereas, whereas, whereas in South America or whatever, a child that gets put up for adoption, it's much more probably random, much much more that it's an unfair society. And you can still get some quite reasonable people that are very poor and they have to put their child up for adoption. So it's social signaling. Yeah.

and sure some of them turned out fine. But to your point, many of those traits are hereditary, I mean the returning.

psychopathy as well. It's risk taking. It's probably watered down quite a bit since, and it's stabilized, and it's created its own community and it's cast out those that are uncooperative and all this kind of thing in a way that it wouldn't. But if you look in the early Quakers, I mean they're openly espousing anti natalism in the form of Mother Anne and the Shakers. Well this was a

breakaway Quaker group. She was a Quaker originally who then made her own even more extreme group, the Shakers, where you're not supposed to have you're not supposed to have children, and you even had the use of nudity that you get these Femen protests where these women go and take off their tops and right left wing slogans on their breasts. Well you even had that in the early Quakers. Cromwell

for seen fifty I forget exactly what it was. And this woman goes into Westminster Hall where Cromwell is at prayer, and just takes all the clothes off and starts screaming at everybody about how blats from us and the religious they are. You get, you get things like that. So the early stage is the really extreme stuff that you get on the far left. Now you'd get among the Quakers.

But this, of course lessons as we move on as it as it as it buvocratizes, I suppose to put it in Vapor's terms, and and becomes less radical, and becomes because it's older, and and and so sort of stabilizes.

when guys off the internet. But on a more serious note, I'm glad you brought that up, because the Quakers have a tradition of martyrdom because obviously, early on they were quite radical in an era where the way that you dealt with radical, annoying people was generally killing them or forcing them to leave, and so they have developed this self conception as the ultimate martyrs of society. We were too clean, too pure, too perfect for the outside world,

and so they persecuted us. And albeit as you've said now it is a group of relatively normal, middle class people who are in no way persecuted by the system, they have kept that identity and kept that sort of

self conception. And so when you look to modern protests when they are you know, getting beaten over the head with the truncheon for gluing themselves to some expensive fighter jet or poking holes in the road, it is connected to that broader tradition of you know, the war didn't really exist at the time, but of activism.

And the Quakers follow on in that, which is not inconsistent with the philosemitism of a lot of extreme Protestant groups. Whereas you know, the Catholics took the view that will Catholicism is there and they've rejected it, and so they're bad, whereas the problems that the view is utterly corrupt, so they were they were quite right to reject it. So so that they're they're they're they're they're not that bad.

But yeah, that that that persecution complex is there, That that idea that we have had to struggle against a hostile world. The world used to ban us from various profession, the world, the people used to do this, that and

the other. So that that sense of being the most persecuted, it brings the most singled out for bad treatment, the most, the most that I talked about narcissism earlier, and I was speaking of it more in terms of grandiose narcissism, but you could look at it in terms of vulnerable narcissism with vulnerable nasism, which is a much more feminine thing.

It's notally I am they are narcists. They feel they are superior to others, but they but they But the part of this is a feeling that I am superior because I've coped in the face of being the most persecuted, the most abused, the most beaten, the most messed around, and I've done this and like a burning martyr, and all the time I remained peaceful. And that tells you

how just how ironically, just how superior I am. And so then you could argue going back to this idea of having to live with these people, that you're dealing with, this vulnerable narcissist who lives with you and behave like that and conveys that idea they are the most persecuted, and then also does things to mess up your life and mess up your society and make things difficult for

you to the extent I mean everything. If we say I personally think this is true that the rise of women and female influence has done very bad things in terms of things like freedom of expression, things that you and I would be in favor of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of scientific inquiry, because on average, again it's a bell curve, but on average, women will tend to put safety above freedom, safety and equality and

everyone feeling looked after and validated above the pursuit of truth and that sort of thing. So that's what you could argue, that's one negative thing, very negative thing that Fairmnism has done. Who was a very feminist group right from the very beginning, the Quakers, even in the seventeenth century. The Quakers had very substantial numbers of female preachers, and they were in favor of basically a kind of sexual quality right from the very beginning.

influential as well. There's there's there's so many of them in its in the history of Quakerism of female influence, which shouldn't be surprising because it is it's kind of a feminizing religion that promotes kind of feminizing kind of ideas and is just I mean, there was a there was a particular instance. Was it sixteen sixteen, when was

it sixty? What year, sixteen fifties? This guy just marches into Bristol and proclaims it's called James Naylor and proclaims himself as Christ and this is this is the New Palm Sunday, he says, and I'm Jesus. And then he has these two women with him, Martha and Hannah, and they were interrogated and they refuse they when they asked, what do you think he's Jesus, they refuse to say no. So that that was the fervor of the time that they genuinely believed that James Naylor was Jesus and that

this was the Second Coming. There's this whole fascinating history with these people that that of of just left wing subversion. Every single level vegget first vegetarian society's Quaker anti slavery. I'm not saying slavery is a good thing, but for the history of humanity, the dominant group enslaves the subaltern group, and and and that's just how it is. And they put their own group above another group. That's what happens

in evolutionary terms, that's what's adaptive. Of course, Quaker sexual equality, Quaker getting rid of corporal punishment as Quaker, just anything that is not conservative, it's always has a huge Quaker influence. And we have this online discourse on the right where it's just that everybody goes on about the Jews, and the Quakers kick above their weight to a huge extent.

And the radical abolitionists, those who believed that, you know, the slavery and the society it built must be entirely destroyed, were not only radically Quaker, but John Brown who said, well, I'm going to arm the slaves. I'm going to sort of salt the earth and kill every man, woman and child in this area. He was funded and defended by Quakers.

the kind of that's what they're prepared to do. That's the kind of thing there and that's what they do now.

I mean, they're basically using their money and they have a lot of money with these Quaker groups like Roundery and Cabriy and whatever, to to to fund the far left, the most anti freedom woke, suppressive far left, that is what they are funding, like the Center for Counting Digital Hate that I mentioned at the beginning, that that would that would that would censor us and bring us into even more into in the in the UK, into a kind of Soviet Union than we're already in, and we

already are quite far into it. With people being prosecuted for things, they getting emotional on Twitter, on Facebook and all of this kind of stuff. That's that's that's that's going on in the UK. That is beyond what you know, you find It would be extraordinary for you in America to have to deal with this because fortunately, I mean, the way your sense of self as a nation used to be that you were the true Anglo Saxons. That

you now they've got a melting pot. But the idea, even up until the sixties, particularly in the Southern States, was the idea that you were the true Anglo Saxons and that you maintained the Anglo saxon traditional freedoms and in the face of tyranny, and and you know, a German king and and all all of all of this kind of stuff. And you've maintained the free speech, which we no longer have. You've maintained how it's called double jeopardy,

which we no longer have. You've maintained jury trials, which are they think of getting trying to get rid of in England. Uh, you know, for various reasons, the psychology of the kind of people that would go and would emigrate like that, which is probably a bit eurotic and a bit unstable, I don't know, a bit cynical, skeptical, and various other reasons. You've being up against it being frontier whatever, be being killed, suffering. You know, you've maintained it,

and we haven't. And part of what is behind us not maintaining it is subversive groups within us that try and bring about left wing tyranny essentially, and one of those is the is the Quakers. And yeah, so.