What is consensus?

[juan]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:46:29 -0500
Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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."  


	I think quakers were involved in the allegedly/so called 
	libertarian movement('classical liberalism'). Some examples
	would be john bright (anti corn laws), thomas paine  and herbert
	spencer. These last two 'dissenters' influenced by quaker
	parents. I think paine says in "age of reason" that quakers
	were closest to deism. 

	Also I got this bit about quakers from this author
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_(Radical)
	
	
	"The Pharisees were a set of self-righteous and sanctimonious
	hypo- crites, ready to play into and keep up any religious
	farce that might serve to invest them with an imaginary
	sanctity of character, and increase their influence over the
	minds of the majority, whose good nature and ignorance in all
	ages and countries, is but ever too ready to subscribe the
	claims thus made upon it. 

	They were the Quakers of their day, a set of commercial,
	speculating thieves, who expressed their religion in the
	eccentricity of their garb ; and, under professions of
	extraordinary punctiliousness and humanity, were the most
	over-reaching, oppressive, and inexorable of the human race. "

	another passage 

	"This is an early specimen of primitive Quakerism, the policy
	of a sect of the most arrogant, most ignorant, fraudulent,
	intolerant, and inexorable men that ever adorned the gospel and
	disgraced humanity. In every thing the diametrical reverse o£
	their professions." 


	diegesis : https://archive.org/download/diegesis00unkngoog

	looks like he didn't like them too much....




> 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.


	I'd point out that being persecuted by state authorities
	doesn't automatically make the victims anti-state free-thinkers.
	Christian sects persecuting one another isn't exactly news. 

	Puritans were persecuted in england and in turn hanged quakers
	in amerika it seems.

	...So I got somewhat sidetracked and realized that in the land
	of the free, the english-american government used to hunt and
	hang witches in ~1700 - salem trials but I suspect there must
	be more...

	so quakers weren't necessarily being singled out - they were
	just subjected to standard anglo-american civilization, like
	witches.


> 
> 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.


	which means that quakers got stolen land courtesy of the
	british empire and were part of the criminal european
	enterprise that invaded america, though granted they might have
	been less agressive than other invaders



> 
> 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.


	I'll have to disagree again, 'judeo-christian'  theocracy is not
	anarchism - you may argue that quakers were more libertarian
	than other theocrats but still not anarchists 



> 
> 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.


	well it's hard to find anything good coming out of the US apart
	from bombs, inflation, sabotaged hardware and software and the
	like...so  maybe quakers have a high ratio of influence with
	respect to their small numbers, but their net effect against
	american fascism is pretty much zero, sadly



> 
> 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.