On 12/12/2017 07:02 AM, juan wrote:
I wanted to comment on the quaker thing as well. The word consensus is derived from and requires consent. Theocracy or religious fraud, especially of the jew-kkkristian variety has fuck to do with consent. By definition fraud destroys consent.
By the way, jew-kristian theocracy is the very opposite of anarchism and cypherpunkry since its anti-philosophical root is an all knowing all seeing tyrant.
Back in the day Friends were one of many radical social movements that appeared in response to the early development of the Industrial Age and the first appearance of a "middle class." These movements were shaped in large part by the rapid spread of literacy and availability of books, including bibles which common people could read and interpret for themselves for the first time. The Partition Act and other radical social/economic changes in England and Europe during the 1600s turned the world upside down - the origin of the word "revolution" - and the stage was set for interesting times. The Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, and many other factions are long gone, but the Mennonites, Amish, Unitarians and Quakers remain with us today. One thing all these movements had in common was their rejection of Church and State authority, in preference for what would today be called "human rights" and religious freedom. All met and most survived violent persecution by State authorities. Early Friends called the Roman and Post-Roman churches the apostasy, in reference to their self evident abandonment of the Christian teachings of their own Bible in favor of collusion with State authority and the financial interests of "hireling ministers." Along with the other groups mentioned above, Friends were religiously motivated anarchists owing no spiritual /or/ material allegiance to any established institution. These groups developed institutions of their own, some more anarchistic than others but all grounded in radical egalitarianism, voluntary membership, and adherence to community standards developed by the communities themselves. In England the Friends existed in substantial numbers, and caused so much trouble that William Penn, advocating on their behalf, was able to obtain a Crown Charter for a colony in the New World expressly as a dumping ground for English Quakers. More than enough were eager to get out from under Crown authority to quickly populate Pennsylvania with Friends. The Quakers considered the Native Americans as human as themselves, and saw a clear reflection of their own methods of self-governance in the tribal councils and federations process. The Friends paid for the land they took and engaged in normal commerce with the locals. As a result, Friends came to be known as "the honest white men" and still enjoy a unique reputation among native communities. Friends were among the earliest and most stubborn of pacifist organizations, refusing to bear arms. They also openly refused to use the language and mannerisms of master and servant, hard wired into English culture, and for this many were jailed, tortured and/or killed. Their adamant rejection of merely human authority, in preference for local self rule on a model often /mistaken/ for consensus by outsiders, completes the picture of the most viable anarchist movement to emerge from the Age of Enlightenment. It's been a long, winding road since then with plenty of forks and dead ends. Our numbers have collapsed, in the U.S. midwest a conventional "protestant" sect has co-opted our Society's name, but Friends are still here: A pale shadow of the Society's former self, banging along on two or three cylinders but still capable of exercising social and political influence /far/ beyond what our numbers would suggest. We rarely advertise and never lay a high pressure sales pitch on anyone. Sociologists studying religious beliefs and attitudes in the U.S. find that conventional churches have been largely abandoned by people who want, ironically enough, exactly what the Religious Society of Friends has to offer... but they don't know we exist.