Speaker 1: Meaning a light man like this man letting butterfly flapping
his wing big down in a forest. Man, it gonna
cause the tree fall, letting five thousand miles away. Man,
nobody seen it. Nobody else.
Speaker 2: See.
Speaker 1: You don't need to know many like you followed another
story and you got back in fact, that man got
black to name on the panel.
Speaker 2: Man, man, you don't don't matter many All right, Doctor
Ed Dutton, Welcome back to the Jay Burden Show. How
are you doing.
Speaker 1: Hello, good to see you again. I'm going to see you.
Speaker 2: Again, definitely glad to have you back on. So, in
the time since we spoke last, you've released a new
book on a subject I am personally very interested in,
that is Quakers. So where we get into the meat
of it. What interested you about the subject?
Speaker 1: Well, what sparked it was there was a particular organization
called something like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. And
who's funding this organization? Well, a lot of your right
aid friends, a lot of your very online right wing.
Speaker 3: Friends, are likely to say, uh, it's the Jews, the Jews,
it's this, it's this, It's this knee jerk reaction that
you get if you end up due to due to
the Internet and due to the perization of society and a.
Speaker 1: Right wing echo chamber. And yeah, there's a degree to
which that's true. But there's also other groups that are
funding it, such as Roundtree and what are they Well,
they are a Quaker company that makes chocolate and sweets
and things like that. And there are other groups that
were funding it as well, and these were also Quaker groups.
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.
Speaker 2: Well And I mean to that point, I believe even
relatively large charities like oxfam as as far as I understand,
some Quaker roots to it. And in the US, this
history is equally as long. I mean, you have sort
of conical you know, elements to this, like for instance,
The whole reason that my ethnic group got brought to
America is because they needed someone to fight the Indians
because the Quakers wouldn't do. But you have much more
serious instances like even the even the New England Puritans
couldn't stand these people. They kept kicking them out because
they were impossible to be around.
Speaker 1: This is a very good point. So let's take what
Let's take one point after the other. So what ethnic
group are you talking about? By the way that it's
your group.
Speaker 2: You call us a Scott's Irish. Here we're border What.
Speaker 1: Was what was going on during the period when Benjamin
Franklin was living in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was founded by Penn.
Penn was a Quaker convert from a very wealthy father.
He in he had his Charles, the King, Charles second,
the restored King, owed all this money to Penn's father
within Penn's father, and so this was this very wealthy
man goes down into Pennsylvania and what is now Delaware
and he founds this this Quaker colony, and then we
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.
Speaker 2: This was a universal friend, Yes, this was.
Speaker 1: This was in Rhode Island. So they preempted. Everything on
the modern wote left. Everything you can think of is preempted,
is precursored by Quakers, even transfer exuality. And what you
have with Public Universal Friend was this woman that has
a bit of a breakdown, essentially, that has a bit
of a mental breakdown, and she comes back from this
declaring that she's neither male nor female. She's she's not anything.
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?
Speaker 2: Well, there's one thing you mentioned briefly when speaking about
Pennsylvania that I want to bring up, because this is
an abiding character of the Quaker, which is their attitude
towards crime and punishment from a very early early stage
opposing the death penalty, of course, but also our concept
of reformatory prisons in itself is deeply tied to Quakerism.
It's sort of an interesting aside, if you have anything
to add.
Speaker 1: Uh, yeah, well, it's it's just it's just one of
it's just one of many examples of whatever it is.
I would suggest, I would I put it. I'd take
a sort of a much broader view, what almost like
an evolutionary view. What is going on with Quakerism. You
have this particular period of time in the wake of
the Civil War or during the Civil War, where it's
a very time to be alive. It's extremely cold, things
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.
Speaker 2: Well to that point, both this pattern of effectively social
virtue signaling and also radical egalitarianism. When you see that
in the current Quaker order of worship, you can put
quotes around order of worship because basically what they do
is they have these large rooms, the benches facing in
and the order of worship is silence until someone is
led by the light to speak out. And in effect,
what that is is a it is a public place
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.
Speaker 1: There's something so dishonest about it because in normal churches,
I mean the way he would condemn hierarchy, George Fox,
he'd talk about churches as steeple houses. He does that
priests were completely unnecessary. They'd refuse to engage in any
acts that indicated hierarchy. They wouldn't doff their hats to
social superiors. Which is a big thing in those days.
They wouldn't use the formal version of you as existed
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.
Speaker 2: So, friend of mine, Johann Kurz wrote a book Leaving
a Legacy, which is primarily about tracking how families pass
on wealth through generations. Right, so obviously he looks at,
you know, the English nobility, and then as an American example,
he tracks the sort of wasp aristocracy. But he makes
a very int resting comparison between the you know, the
sort of blue bloods of New England and what elite
there was in Quaker country. And what he basically said
is that you do not see the same sort of
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.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Wealth tended to dissipate because instead of being concentrated enough
to be useful, it was split out among everyone's descendants.
And I think that again, if we're talking about that
theme of radical equality, it's interesting to see how that
affects something even down to how do rich people act.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's that's very interesting. So it implies that enforced
equality will ultimately cause problems for you, and it's not
it's not inherently a good thing. Now it from their perspective,
it is inherently a good thing because it allows them
to virtue signal and it allows them to covertly gain
status or to covit or to use that COVID means
to gain narcissistic supply, which they might see as a
good in itself, and to feel better than other people.
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.
Speaker 2: Well it it genuinely is in a social sense, parasitic behavior.
You were depending on the host for your sustenance, right,
sort of bringing in the sort of blood stream of
society while not contributing to its defense. And this is
something that's it's quite easy to say about the Amish
in wider culture because they are the Amish are not
generally speaking regarded positively, especially by the people who live
around them, because they tend to be clannish and difficult
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.
Speaker 1: I believe I was going to say, but yeah, you
make an excellent point. The Amish, I can say, even
from my brief time spent in intercourse Pennsylvania and such
like places, they're not very friendly, not not the old
order harbors. With the Mennonites. I found the Mennonites perfect friendly.
Speaker 2: Oh, the med Knights are great yeah, but.
Speaker 1: The the they're probably passed just as well. But they're
but the old order harbish. They don't seem to be
very friendly, they don't seem to be very intelligent, and
and you know they're kind of but they keep they
keep out of things, as you say, they don't interfere
in politics. They don't. They keep themselves themselves. They have
their own kind of areas. And the worst is going
to happen as you get stuck behind a horse and
cart on a road you can't ever take it, or
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.
Speaker 2: Well and and to that point, there are several prominent
American Quaker charities. But just as an example, right, if
you go to the website for the Friends Committee on
National Legislation, right, and by the way, if you have
a certain eye going through a lot of the revelations
from the first year of DOGE, going around kind of
tracking that network, you will find this organization and others
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.
Speaker 1: In the UK, they passed this rule stating that the
definition of sex was biological. The legal definition of sex
was biological, and therefore if single sex spaces are provided,
that means biologically biological sex. And the Quakers have made
it clear that in their friends' houses they will just
ignore this and we'll just let transsexuals use female spaces
whatever they made it. Absolutely they won't but they won't
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.
Speaker 2: There wasn't particularly devout either.
Speaker 1: No, So that's that's about it. There's one obscure MP
in the UK who was known as the dissenting Dissenter
because he was right wing, but he was a Quaker,
called rich Body as a member of part Conservative, of
a part far right Conservative. But otherwise it's it's always,
it's almost always this this, this left wing version on
any issue, and in America as well and Australia just
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.
Speaker 2: So, Ed, I am familiar with the sort of pro
file of the American Quaker unfortunately I've come into contact
with them before. But in your nation, at a very
basic level, what are Quakers like, like, what part of
society do they come from? How can we describe them?
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose they they're in there. Almost all religious
people are middle class. These days, working class people don't
tend to be involved in any any kind of organized religion,
so they're probably likely to be lower middle indeed mainly
probably upper middle class, often because they're going to be
connected to these families, these industrialist families that emerge during
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.
Speaker 2: One of the interesting dynamics in America that you see
with Quakers, and this really is downstream, a very fundamental
difference between your country and mind. America is still on
a global scale quite religious, and so the Quakers, being
both i've middle class and also quite progressive, exist in
an interesting opposition to the unsophisticated religious morons in quotes,
and so in an interesting way they define themselves in
opposition to American evangelicals. So it is presented as sort
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.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the middle class. I mean basically what
we're dealing with, if you want to talk about it. Sociologically,
middle class people tend to combine intelligence with a kind
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.
Speaker 2: Well, and that that sort of renaming and redefining personal
identity is a big part of the reason that the
Quakerism and transgenderism or so, I mean, they're joined at
the hip. And anecdotally, I know several people brought up
in the Quaker Church, and the vast majority of them
have transitioned. Some of them have just done a double
swap where they were dating as men and women and
are now dating as men and women, at which point
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.
Speaker 1: Fascinating, and it's not thinking that could even be quite
good solved because that many Quakers.
Speaker 2: Especially because most of them lived in the same neighborhood, right,
they were all, you know, on the same streets, so
the environmental factors would be minimized at least to some degree.
Speaker 1: The ultimate way that you signal it is something like
it's like you notice that you get very left wing
middle class people, and they signal their left wing middle
classes by adopting a non white child. And it's the ultimate,
the ultimate form of social signaling, isn't it that they'll
notice that you've got a child of a different race,
or what a good person, what a kind person, what
a committed person they are. But really they're socially signaling
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.
Speaker 2: Well, and and to that point, the communities that are
over represented in adoption, at least in America, tend to
be quite religious, and in my own religious community there's
a large amount of adoption, and those dangers are well known.
But the assumption is, you know what you were taking
on what would be referred to in another era as
a crack baby, because it is the right thing to do,
and as you mentioned, there are very real consequences to that.
I grew up with a lot of kids who were adopted,
and sure some of them turned out fine. But to
your point, many of those traits are hereditary, I mean
the returning.
Speaker 1: Sorry sorry, well, I was just going to say that
the one of the things of courses that went the
Quake began, it was highly radical, highly highly radical and subversive,
and there were certain dangers involved, and so that attracts
a slightly different kind of person from what you'd get
more recently. It's not gonna be the same kind of
people when it was when it started. We're talking people
that are probably very high naism and mixing this with
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.
Speaker 2: Anyway, you're going to say something brief aside, and then
I have a relevant point.
Speaker 1: One.
Speaker 2: The Shakers are still around. There's one community left in Maine,
and there are three of them, which means if anyone
listening to this podcast wants to join, you only need
three guys to take it over, which I don't know
what you'd get, but it would at least be funny
to see that organization taken over by exactly four right
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.
Speaker 1: Yes, sort of a persecution complex that they have maintained, which, interestingly,
I think you could argue you have among the Jews,
you could argue, well, you can see there's a good
reason why they'd have that, considering events over the last
eighty years. But but I think you do have that
among among the Jews. It's a notion of their identity.
They are persecuted people right from the beginning and enslaved people.
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.
Speaker 2: So you're entirely correct about that. I mean, even to
this day, the vast majority of these communities, at least
in my direct experience, they are led by women, either
informally or formally. And you have this sort of you
know what the poster would call rate the longhouse phenomena,
where you have you know a number of these highly
socially aware, you know, older women basically running it like
a henhouse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm sure that's the case. And in general, liberal
religiosity now is highly highly feminine. And we've just had
a female Archbishop of Canterbury appointed in the Church of England.
And that's that as a whole is a lot left
wing than Quakerism. So I wouldn't be at all surprised
by that. As I mentioned earlier, it uh mother Anne
Mary Dyer, the wife of George Fox, was highly, highly
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.
Speaker 2: Well, another historical example is John Brown, who is this
sort of hybrid of a preacher and a brigand he
got tired of murder his way across Kansas and decided
to lead a Haiti style slave revolt ironically enough, he
was captured and then later hung by Robert E. Lee.
But this was a sore subject at the time, obviously,
because they were building tensions between the North and the South.
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.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he wasn't a Quaker himself, but he he
used the I believe he used a farm in it
was owned by a Quakers in base in Iowa or
somewhere or Idaho, Iowa, say, let's say Iowa. Yeah, so
he had he had a great deal of support from Quakers. Yeah. So,
and this was not this was way more than just
freeing the slaves, as you say. This was this was
just destroying what effectly the whole society and everything, and
using violence to do so. So this is this is
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.
Speaker 2: Ed, I think it's a phenomenal note to wrap up on.
What is the title of your book and where can
people find it?
Speaker 1: Here is the book. It's called The Quaker Question, exposing
the sect that really rules the world, and you can
interpret that whichever where you wish to. But that's the book,
and you can get at the moment the hard copies
from the publisher Wifling's for various reasons they they want
to put about themselves for the moment, and you can
get the e version on Amazon.
Speaker 2: Well, that actually works out, because I was aware you
had put out this book. I've not read it. I
wasn't even aware of the title, but while I was
thinking about it, I thought that Quaker Question would be
a clever thing to name it.
Speaker 1: So apparently the allusion to Quaker Oats, which I'm.
Speaker 2: Just a brief aside, not actually connected. I believe the
founders were not Quakers.
Speaker 1: That isn't that interesting. The attitude of the company was
that the Quakers are so wholesome, so wholesome and lovely,
that will name our oats Quaker Oats. But the company
is not connected to the Quakers at all.
Speaker 2: Well, anyway, Ed, this is a fascinating discussion on politics.
Speaker 1: The influence on politics of big Oats is not to
be underestimated. People.
Speaker 2: We again, Ed, this was was fascinating. Obviously, I will
link to your substack as well as your YouTube channel.
Highly recommend people check you out there. You've got a
Twitter and then is there anywhere else People can find.
Speaker 1: You on YouTube Jolly Heretic on YouTube and then Twitter
ap Jolly Herosic and then substack Jolly Heretic.
Speaker 2: Great, all of those will be linked. As far as
my stuff, you can find me the Jay Burton Show
on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you listen to podcasts. This
is what I do. If you want to support me
and get the episodes early with no ads, throw me
a few bucks. I think I have it sent to
the lowest requirement. It's not a lot of money on Patreon,
substack or comb road again, ed, it's been great. Never
won at home. Keep your head up. Good night,