Do you remember that 1990's (or was it 1980's?) dish soap commercial that proclaimed that it had the effect of making your dishes "virtually spotless"? I know what "spotless" means. Spotless does not require qualification. Dishes are either spotless or they are not spotless. If they have been washed and are only "virtually spotless", doesn't that mean that they are "almost clean"?
I think this advertising slogan transports well to the current state of affairs here in America, Canada, and much of Europe. We are very much like the dish soap. Only we have come to be "Virtually Alive". Our experience with life comes at the receiving end of a computer or TV screen (says the blogger as he writes on his laptop. Oh well, I would have used a typewriter, or maybe even a quill pen, but the upload is a pain in the neck with these writing instruments) and the steering wheel of an automobile.
I belong to a number of "Groups" on Facebook. I have come to an unpleasant conclusion. The homesteader group members don't homestead, the car enthusiasts never turned a wrench, the cooking group members order takeout, and the horse group members never shoveled manure out of a barn. Any rational examination would lead any reasonable person to conclude that we are virtually alive. Almost living. Almost helping our friends and family like a real community would (we are too far away and far too busy.) Almost maintaining a healthy weight (not really). Almost happy (with the help of our meds). The one thing we are not "almost doing" is being angry. We got that one.
When Jack Lalane, America's first fitness guru, was 90 years old, he told an interviewer that he had sex "almost every day: almost on Monday; almost on Tuesday; almost on Wednesday..."
Today, our young people can't have sex without a signed legal form and a video shoot of the event. As a result, they are almost having sex (porn). Culturally, we had a "safe harbor" for sexual relations. It was called "marriage". Certain political special interest groups hated the idea of marriage and of any responsibility for the sexual needs of one's partner—but outrageous divorce settlements, alimony, and "child support" that is not earmarked for the children are OK, coal miners being nearly 100% male and 92% of workplace fatalities being male are OK, too—but we need more females in leadership roles. And, predictably, now we have no real "marriage"—and no children. As a result of this and some other disastrous inputs, we have simply stopped producing children. Forget the Feminist political battles. Forget the gender war. Without children, there is no future. In 30 years childless Feminists are going to be stacked up like cordwood in nursing homes—guess who is going to pay for that—and no one is coming to visit. No one is going to care about them because the only people who care about old people are their family. When they (the government) finally plants these gender warriors in the ground (more likely they will be cremated) no one is going to mourn them or miss them. It will be as if they never existed at all. Perhaps it is better that way.
Pity the only children of the one-and-done and divorced—they have no idea what family even means. But pity their mothers more. The Old Lady gave it a shot, but fell into the Feminist trap and filed for divorce, only to find that replacing the Old Man was not as easy as it once was, and there is no substitute for family. Old age is awfully lonely without family, clan, and community—even when the government takes over the role of the man of the house. And that corporate gig? Corporations (and your co-worker "family") are not interested in people over 50 any more than anyone else is.
I wrote an article over a decade ago where I pointed out to my contemporaries (I am now in my late 50's) that many of us are not going to have grandchildren because we drank the kool-aid and raised our children to be good corporate drones/angry Feminists/virtue signaling do-gooders rather than well-adjusted, productive, and fecund adults. At least once a month I speak to an old friend, many of whom were distressed by that article, who are now confiding in anguish that their youngest daughter just turned 30 without a grandbaby in sight. I guess when we are in our 60's and 70's we can put our kids' business cards or their prestigious college diplomas in frames over the fireplace.
Recently, I challenged a number of Liberal philosophers to conduct a thought experiment:
Take 150 childless Feminists or LGBTVQRS people and *give* them a tropical island paradise. Give them everything they could possibly need and in exchange they will keep a detailed daily diary. Come back in 40 years or so, or upon the death of the last surviving member and read the diaries of the last 15. What do you think the last several years of entries have to say?
All of the political nonsense we are enduring will pass just as surely as these gender warriors will pass. Don't drink the kool-aid. Misery loves company. (Have you ever met a happy, well-adjusted Feminist?) Live—not virtually live—while you can. Have children. Be a good parent—that is a real virtue. Your parents want and deserve grandchildren—and you will too. There are seasons in life, and when they pass, there is nothing to be done about it. It is much later than you think.
And if it is too late for you personally, you could always invest in the future of someone near and dear to you.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Friday, December 8, 2017
Community: The Final Chapter Guest Post by Dmitry Orlov
This is guest post was written by the irrepressible Dmitry Orlov and is being used by permission. Here is a link to the original article at his website. Orlov has a fine mind but does not suffer fools well.
Community: The Final Chapter
If you filter out from the common, mainstream uses of the word “community” all of the obviously non-community-related ones, such as “international community” (a lame euphemism) or “community relations” (a synonym for “public relations”) or “community center” (a synonym for “neighborhood center”) pretty much all that remains is “retirement community.” There are well over two thousand of them just in the US, with close to a million residents. In comparison, “intentional communities,” including ecovillages, monasteries, communes, survivalist retreats, kibbutzim, ashrams and so on are rather boutique, being mainly aspirational and ideological rather than practical in nature. But added together they present more or less the entire landscape of “communities” within the developed world. And all of them are degenerate cases.
The first cause of this degeneracy is a fundamental internal contradiction. Setting aside for the moment the various “intentional community” experiments, the reason people join retirement communities is because they essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. It usually costs quite a bit of money to buy into one, and the people who can afford to do so are in general those who have been active in the world at large, being for most of their lives a part of society rather than part of a community, and have amassed a bit of a fortune in the process. If they had children, then they have pushed them out into the world at large as well, or became largely alienated from them in any case by having little to offer to them once they reach adulthood.
And then, at some point, they realize that they can no longer fend for themselves in the world at large, that they are becoming increasingly lonely and isolated as their peers age out and die, and it is at that point that they decide to trade “society” for “community.” In essence, they have spent their productive years competing in the individualistic dog-eat-dog world of private business and pubic bureaucracy [sic], undermining and destroying community, but when they become old and frail they attempt to buy their way into community, which is to be synthesized ex nihilo using their purchasing power.
In turn, the purchasing power of their retirement savings has to be maintained by making the younger generations continue to undermine and destroy community by being active in the individualistic dog-eat-dog world of private business and pubic bureaucracy [sic], generating economic growth and asset appreciation that underpin the value of retirement savings.
I very much doubt that this basic point, that it isn’t possible to create community by undermining community values through individualism, would make sense to too many of them. Some of them do realize that their entire economic scheme is unraveling—economic growth has largely stalled (except for some ongoing financial bubbles)—and that their retirement savings are in increasing jeopardy. But they have no idea what to do about it, and it’s probably too late for them to try to do anything about it in any case. (Or is it? That is a question worth pondering.)
The second cause of this degeneracy is the degenerate nature of the communities in question. In order to be sustainable over the long run, a community has to include multiple generations and specifically make room for children born into them; it has to provide for the needs of its individuals, including room and board, upbringing and education, companionship and entertainment, and security; and it has to have a sense of its own unique identity, history and destiny, separate from the surrounding society. I have described these properties in detail in the book Communities that Abide. A retirement community is essentially a conveyor belt that takes old people and carries them to the grave, and is definitely not viable; nor is any community that fails to reproduce and keep up its numbers by having enough children and by retaining them within the community.
Viable communities cannot be formed without a key ingredient: people who are capable of doing so. They need to be generally capable, and enough of them should be of childbearing edge and willing to give birth to and bring up children. This is already a tall order. Success in society is usually predicated on being confined to some professional silo, and this does not produce people who are generally capable. Also, by the time most people realize that perhaps being part of a real community would be a good idea they have already “aged out.”
But that’s not all. They should also specifically be capable of a certain profound act of submission—of subordinating their individual interests to those of their community—and those brought up on the myth of rugged individualism are rarely capable of such a deed even in the context of marriage, never mind within a larger group.
They also have to be capable of putting their trust in people rather than in impersonal, bureaucratic institutions. This, it turns out, is difficult too: most people would rather put their trust in banks, which rob them every month, or in governments, which rob them every year at tax-time, than in groups of a group of people that will probably never rob them at all (unless they are all very unlucky). Some of them would rather put their trust in anonymous algorithms. (As I write this, NiceCash just got hacked and lost $62 million in Bitcoin. You’d think that this might slow down a few of the Bitcoin lemmings, but they are stampeding toward the cliff just as fast as before.)
Lastly, in order to form communities, people have to be able to overcome an image problem. Scratch a “rugged individual” and what you inevitably find is either a wage slave or a government sponge; in either case, a kept person—essentially a slave. But most people prefer slavery to the only two alternatives: being a peasant and being a nomad (peasants need land; nomads don’t).
Those are the two basic patterns of communities that abide that I have found in my research and described in my book: the Roma (Gypsies) are the nomads; the Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites) are the peasants. But this is only a problem at the very outset, because those who belong to viable communities, when they consider who they are, do not see individuals; they see the community as a whole, and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts and can be imbued with a type of dignity of which no individual, no matter how “sovereign,” is ever capable.
Returning to the question of what, if anything, can be done… Supposing that you are either too old, insufficiently versatile in your skill set, unable to part with “individualistic” habits instilled in you by the surrounding culture, unable to overcome the image problem and humble yourself to the point of becoming a peasant or a nomad, or any and all of the above… and supposing that you see the economic scheme unraveling all around you and feel that having some viable communities around would be a very good idea… what is there for you to do?
Well, supposing you have some money, then possibly the best you can do is throw money at the problem; not for your own benefit, or even for the benefit of you [sic] children, should you have any, but for the benefits of those who are capable of forming communities, and willing to give it a try. Because, after all, the starting point of any community is the act of putting others’ interests ahead of your own.
Community: The Final Chapter
If you filter out from the common, mainstream uses of the word “community” all of the obviously non-community-related ones, such as “international community” (a lame euphemism) or “community relations” (a synonym for “public relations”) or “community center” (a synonym for “neighborhood center”) pretty much all that remains is “retirement community.” There are well over two thousand of them just in the US, with close to a million residents. In comparison, “intentional communities,” including ecovillages, monasteries, communes, survivalist retreats, kibbutzim, ashrams and so on are rather boutique, being mainly aspirational and ideological rather than practical in nature. But added together they present more or less the entire landscape of “communities” within the developed world. And all of them are degenerate cases.
The first cause of this degeneracy is a fundamental internal contradiction. Setting aside for the moment the various “intentional community” experiments, the reason people join retirement communities is because they essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. It usually costs quite a bit of money to buy into one, and the people who can afford to do so are in general those who have been active in the world at large, being for most of their lives a part of society rather than part of a community, and have amassed a bit of a fortune in the process. If they had children, then they have pushed them out into the world at large as well, or became largely alienated from them in any case by having little to offer to them once they reach adulthood.
And then, at some point, they realize that they can no longer fend for themselves in the world at large, that they are becoming increasingly lonely and isolated as their peers age out and die, and it is at that point that they decide to trade “society” for “community.” In essence, they have spent their productive years competing in the individualistic dog-eat-dog world of private business and pubic bureaucracy [sic], undermining and destroying community, but when they become old and frail they attempt to buy their way into community, which is to be synthesized ex nihilo using their purchasing power.
In turn, the purchasing power of their retirement savings has to be maintained by making the younger generations continue to undermine and destroy community by being active in the individualistic dog-eat-dog world of private business and pubic bureaucracy [sic], generating economic growth and asset appreciation that underpin the value of retirement savings.
I very much doubt that this basic point, that it isn’t possible to create community by undermining community values through individualism, would make sense to too many of them. Some of them do realize that their entire economic scheme is unraveling—economic growth has largely stalled (except for some ongoing financial bubbles)—and that their retirement savings are in increasing jeopardy. But they have no idea what to do about it, and it’s probably too late for them to try to do anything about it in any case. (Or is it? That is a question worth pondering.)
The second cause of this degeneracy is the degenerate nature of the communities in question. In order to be sustainable over the long run, a community has to include multiple generations and specifically make room for children born into them; it has to provide for the needs of its individuals, including room and board, upbringing and education, companionship and entertainment, and security; and it has to have a sense of its own unique identity, history and destiny, separate from the surrounding society. I have described these properties in detail in the book Communities that Abide. A retirement community is essentially a conveyor belt that takes old people and carries them to the grave, and is definitely not viable; nor is any community that fails to reproduce and keep up its numbers by having enough children and by retaining them within the community.
Viable communities cannot be formed without a key ingredient: people who are capable of doing so. They need to be generally capable, and enough of them should be of childbearing edge and willing to give birth to and bring up children. This is already a tall order. Success in society is usually predicated on being confined to some professional silo, and this does not produce people who are generally capable. Also, by the time most people realize that perhaps being part of a real community would be a good idea they have already “aged out.”
But that’s not all. They should also specifically be capable of a certain profound act of submission—of subordinating their individual interests to those of their community—and those brought up on the myth of rugged individualism are rarely capable of such a deed even in the context of marriage, never mind within a larger group.
They also have to be capable of putting their trust in people rather than in impersonal, bureaucratic institutions. This, it turns out, is difficult too: most people would rather put their trust in banks, which rob them every month, or in governments, which rob them every year at tax-time, than in groups of a group of people that will probably never rob them at all (unless they are all very unlucky). Some of them would rather put their trust in anonymous algorithms. (As I write this, NiceCash just got hacked and lost $62 million in Bitcoin. You’d think that this might slow down a few of the Bitcoin lemmings, but they are stampeding toward the cliff just as fast as before.)
Lastly, in order to form communities, people have to be able to overcome an image problem. Scratch a “rugged individual” and what you inevitably find is either a wage slave or a government sponge; in either case, a kept person—essentially a slave. But most people prefer slavery to the only two alternatives: being a peasant and being a nomad (peasants need land; nomads don’t).
Those are the two basic patterns of communities that abide that I have found in my research and described in my book: the Roma (Gypsies) are the nomads; the Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites) are the peasants. But this is only a problem at the very outset, because those who belong to viable communities, when they consider who they are, do not see individuals; they see the community as a whole, and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts and can be imbued with a type of dignity of which no individual, no matter how “sovereign,” is ever capable.
Returning to the question of what, if anything, can be done… Supposing that you are either too old, insufficiently versatile in your skill set, unable to part with “individualistic” habits instilled in you by the surrounding culture, unable to overcome the image problem and humble yourself to the point of becoming a peasant or a nomad, or any and all of the above… and supposing that you see the economic scheme unraveling all around you and feel that having some viable communities around would be a very good idea… what is there for you to do?
Well, supposing you have some money, then possibly the best you can do is throw money at the problem; not for your own benefit, or even for the benefit of you [sic] children, should you have any, but for the benefits of those who are capable of forming communities, and willing to give it a try. Because, after all, the starting point of any community is the act of putting others’ interests ahead of your own.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Real Community
"The need for connection and community is primal, as fundamental as the need for air, water, and food." — Dean Ornish
Community—from the Old French "comunete"—which can be best translated as "reinforced by its source" or self-reinforcing.
What is more important for the future identity of Quakerism: The manner in which we express “worship/prayer” or the manner in which we live our lives? Can Quakerism survive if we address one aspect and ignore the other? Why is there so much writing on the subject of “Silence and Expectant Waiting” and so very little on the life practices of the Quaker Testimonies?
Community—from the Old French "comunete"—which can be best translated as "reinforced by its source" or self-reinforcing.
What is more important for the future identity of Quakerism: The manner in which we express “worship/prayer” or the manner in which we live our lives? Can Quakerism survive if we address one aspect and ignore the other? Why is there so much writing on the subject of “Silence and Expectant Waiting” and so very little on the life practices of the Quaker Testimonies?
Why did Quakerism, one of the most popular belief systems in Colonial America, nearly die out? (Wikipedia, that bastion of the politically correct agenda editors and the AstroTurf propagandists (don’t recognize these terms? Click this link and watch) asserts that the American meetings collapsed because of internal battles over participation in the Revolutionary War. Of course, this is specious at best. Quakerism was collapsing in Europe at the same time and their members were not volunteering to fight in the American Revolutionary War). What should we do differently than my ancestors did? What is of value today, and what should be discarded given the advances and discoveries mankind has made in the realms of philosophy, politics, science, and mathematics that was unavailable to George Fox and the early Quakers?
I think “Quakerism” collapsed because Quaker communities collapsed—and I don’t think those communities collapsed because of the War for Independence. Quakerism was its people not its “leaders”. Today we recognize these “leaders” because their words and ideas survived memorialized in writing, and the life and ideas of the common man living and working within the community did not. In short, some words on paper endured. The communities didn't.
Can we bring about the practical ideas of the Free Quaker precept of “Community” again in our time? Can a philosophy built on several precepts, the famous testimonies, endure in their absence? We are in a pickle here. Practicing Simplicity and Integrity is an individual effort. Practicing Community is not. Community requires the goodwill and cooperation of the people in a web of interconnected interdependence. Such a community must have a commonality of purpose, ethics, and acceptable behavior. No people can survive as a “house divided” (Abraham Lincoln stole this phrase from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”. Jane Austin lifted the phrase “Pride and Prejudice” from the opening of that work, too. Paine was an English transplant to the colonies (just a little over a year before the revolution) and a Quaker and is widely recognized as the "father" of the American Revolution (while Washington is the "father" of our country). If you like quoting early Quakers who moved the world he is a wealth of material). A community cannot survive the resentment and anger of politics.
Community requires physical proximity. There is no such thing as an “internet community”. Interdependence by necessity means that there will be times when you will be in need and can depend on your neighbor and that your neighbor will be in need and can depend on you. If you are an hour's drive away you are in no position to be of any help.
Community requires a critical mass of people. Getting up to that critical mass will not be easy, and slipping below critical mass courts disaster.
Community requires a critical mass of people. Getting up to that critical mass will not be easy, and slipping below critical mass courts disaster.
Community also requires a local mindset for work, play, school, gatherings and traditions, and elder care (not only will we die, but many of us will experience the indignities of old age). It then follows that a community must produce babies, raise children, and benefit from productive young adults and productive mature adults. A community will have non-productive elderly people to care for. Like it or not, and Creation does not care what we like, relations by blood and marriage, the type of “marriage” that produces children, will dominate. I am not going to pull any punches here: A “Quaker Meeting” of aging and childless political activists is not a community. It may give some a fleeting sense of security but in the final analysis, it is an example of failure. I understand that is a painful observation, but we must learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
This is not to say that everyone must produce children. There are people who, by their individual nature (i.e. LGBTVQRS), will not produce a practically significant number of children. Such people will get old and frail and will need the offspring of others to care for them in their old age. To be fair and interdependent the childless must make other contributions that are of equal value to the community during their productive years—that is the production, accumulation, and maintenance of capital. To reject this is to accept violence and coercion—the theft of resources from other people’s offspring at the point of a (government) gun (legislature or judges). Quakers do not resort to force, coercion, and violence to achieve personal, moral, or political agendas, and they do not hire other people to do such dirty work for them. Might—even a majority—does not make right. The community must not countenance its destruction from within. It is not a coincidence that collectivism is so highly valued by the childless. We need to help such people understand the realities of the situation, if possible. If not, we must cut ties with those whose voluntary actions are not in our best interest.
Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
Community means the rejection of outside politics and other distractions. There can be only one political agenda: The wellbeing and continuity of the community, our testimonies, and our way of life—for we are all mortal. If we want our community, our way of life to survive us, then life, and the family, must go on and children must be given life and then formed by their parents and extended family and community into functioning adults. I am not denying the humanity of people who do not wish to produce children. I am pointing out that in the context of Community such people must make compensating and equal contributions to the wellbeing of the community—or they are not part of the community at all. And they most definitely must not be permitted to destroy the wellbeing of those people who are forming the next generation of the community with their political machinations. Feminism, collectivism, and any form of authoritarianism, identity advocacy, or victim construction will be the death of the community. People who wish to have a real and intentional community must make a close and unflinching examination of this. There are no examples of successful intergenerational communities operating under these belief systems. Your Quaker community will not survive them either. Why would you go through the effort to build a real intentional Quaker community and welcome the elements that will destroy it? Families, men and women and their children, will not tolerate extortion of the production of their lives. They will depart and search for more welcoming groups—which is precisely what happened to all of the Quaker communities of my ancestors (my assertion).
The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — Ben Franklin.
This brings us back to: What is it about our Quaker identity that is important to us? Is it “expectant waiting” for an hour each First day? Is it the day-to-day way of life that we are called to action? If that seems to be a personal question with no right or wrong answer then you have already answered the question. Such people will not have Community because they are incapable of Community. Perhaps they cannot overcome their political frame of reference. Perhaps their internalized belief system has hardened to the point where they feel justified in using violence to abscond with other people’s life work at the point of a gun. Perhaps they are incapable of reason. Who knows? A clear sign that something is amiss is their reaction to being called on to give an account of themselves, their actions, and their belief system.
Fear cannot be without hope nor hope without fear. — Baruch Spinoza
Right now as I write this, most Quakers in the U.S. seem to support the idea that people should be dependent on the government for the things they need: food, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and much else. I think this is absolutely insane. There can be no such thing as our testimony of Community in the absence of community member interdependence. People will not come to rely on each other and make the necessary arrangements to be reliable themselves if they can rely on the government for their needs. We live in some of the most fertile and productive agricultural land in North America. Why are so many of our "regular American" neighbors receiving food assistance from the government? Why don't they grow a garden and milk a cow? Many of our other neighbors are Amish, Mennonite (both old and new order), and other similar but lesser known church groups (let's call them "Plain People") that—in reality—live their day-to-day lives in the Quaker ideal of Community that we hold so dear. They don't use cars or electric, heat their home, cook, and heat domestic hot water with wood, grow most of their own vegetables and fruit, keep and hand milk cows or goats, raise livestock for meat, draw water from a well or rainwater catchment system and completely refuse any form of government "assistance". They will not participate in Social Security or Medicare, neither paying in nor collecting, and they will not purchase insurance of any kind, including health insurance. They don't believe in insurance! They believe (and practice) Community. They rely on themselves and each other. There are sorrows here as there are everywhere, but no one here ever went hungry or homeless over sickness or death in the family. Wrap your mind around that for a moment.
With no cars to get back and forth to medical care and no health insurance shouldn't these people be much sicker and die earlier than the rest of us? That is the line as to why we need health insurance, isn't it? Plain People life expectancy is equal to or greater than other Americans of Western European ancestry and their health span, the time during which they are free from chronic conditions that we think need "treatment", simply blows our average healthspan away. They are fit and thin!!! The striking difference between our "English" and "Plain People" neighbors when we see them side by side at the local hardware store is simply mindboggling. The "English" look unwell, obese, covered in tattoos and self-injury (piercings)—all of this with hardly any family responsibilities and with Big Daddy (government) taking care of them. The Plain Folk have huge family responsibilities and no Big Daddy and they appear to be flourishing, content, and healthy. It was our do-gooder social programs that have reduced the average American to a shadow of the being his ancestors were. Why are we supporting this??!!
At this moment in history, the U.S. dollar enjoys worldwide hegemony as the world’s reserve currency. Because of this hegemony, the largesse of the world’s natural resources as well as (at least a part of) the rent collection of interest on all debt flows into the U.S. (and Europe). This occurs for one reason, and one reason only: The U.S. military and its budget of 50% of world’s military spending and our endless wars (and war crimes). So why do Quakers, with our testimony to Peace, support this?
After all, and in the final analysis, we are supporting it with our rejection and failure in Community. Without the massive U.S. military budget, there would be no U.S. dollar hegemony, and without U.S. dollar hegemony and the ability to print money to pay back debt, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, no Food Stamps (SNAP program), and no fill-in-the-blank do-gooder social programs. Eventually, perhaps sooner or perhaps later, all of this will simply vanish—and Community will no longer be an option; Community will once again be a human imperative. People will need to make different arrangements for everything we now take for granted, and that will succeed or fail based solely on the attributes of each individual community.
With no cars to get back and forth to medical care and no health insurance shouldn't these people be much sicker and die earlier than the rest of us? That is the line as to why we need health insurance, isn't it? Plain People life expectancy is equal to or greater than other Americans of Western European ancestry and their health span, the time during which they are free from chronic conditions that we think need "treatment", simply blows our average healthspan away. They are fit and thin!!! The striking difference between our "English" and "Plain People" neighbors when we see them side by side at the local hardware store is simply mindboggling. The "English" look unwell, obese, covered in tattoos and self-injury (piercings)—all of this with hardly any family responsibilities and with Big Daddy (government) taking care of them. The Plain Folk have huge family responsibilities and no Big Daddy and they appear to be flourishing, content, and healthy. It was our do-gooder social programs that have reduced the average American to a shadow of the being his ancestors were. Why are we supporting this??!!
At this moment in history, the U.S. dollar enjoys worldwide hegemony as the world’s reserve currency. Because of this hegemony, the largesse of the world’s natural resources as well as (at least a part of) the rent collection of interest on all debt flows into the U.S. (and Europe). This occurs for one reason, and one reason only: The U.S. military and its budget of 50% of world’s military spending and our endless wars (and war crimes). So why do Quakers, with our testimony to Peace, support this?
After all, and in the final analysis, we are supporting it with our rejection and failure in Community. Without the massive U.S. military budget, there would be no U.S. dollar hegemony, and without U.S. dollar hegemony and the ability to print money to pay back debt, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, no Food Stamps (SNAP program), and no fill-in-the-blank do-gooder social programs. Eventually, perhaps sooner or perhaps later, all of this will simply vanish—and Community will no longer be an option; Community will once again be a human imperative. People will need to make different arrangements for everything we now take for granted, and that will succeed or fail based solely on the attributes of each individual community.
This is where we are as it regards our testimony of Community. We can stop our political haggling and come around to Community or we can continue on the self-destructive path of identity politics, "bearing witness" at protests, and debating the importance and manner in which we come together for all of 45 minutes per week. The Quaker Quietest period is over. Or at least it is here. We must become real and true "activists". The implications for the remaining Free Quaker precepts, or testimonies that I have not covered yet—Peace and Equality—are stark indeed.
Our mission is to provide a locus for real, viable, self-reinforcing intentional communities (those that produce children and are largely self-reliant) to coalesce around. If any of this offends you I am completely unconcerned. Such people have nothing they are willing to contribute in any event. This is a time to lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. If you would like to know more about how you can make a difference, we need money, volunteers, contributing members, and many other things. Email me at:
Greg at quuchurch dot org.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Our Testimony of Integrity
The Free Quaker precept of Integrity is, like all of our testimonies, a life practice. Integrity is a course of action, not a thing or an item we can carry around in our pocket, retrieving it when needed, dusting it off, and then displaying it in the worn out online virtue signal we see all around us. That is not Integrity. The definition of Integrity is often difficult to agree on, but like all of the testimonies and the universe of human virtue a working definition is necessary before we can proceed.
Where to even begin? A quick search of an online dictionary gives us:
Integrity: noun
1. The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
2. The state of being whole and undivided.
• Synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
Well, that does not help very much. The definition sounds reasonable enough until we get into the details. For us, Integrity is a set of actions—not a person, place, or thing (noun). Whitehead rocked the world with his observation, “We think in generalities, but we live in details.” No words could be more appropriate and relevant than Whitehead’s famous quote when trying to nail down the Free Quaker meaning and definition of Integrity as a life practice.
The Free Quaker testimony of Integrity is not negotiable. One can't get a little bit pregnant in an environment of absolutes. At the base of this call to action is our Creator-given reason and it is our ability to reason that is the spark of the Divine within us. To reason is to think for yourself and to come to conclusions and then take actions that are consistent with a number of ideas that when taken together define our call to action—Integrity (along with our other testimonies).
There is no amount of political censorship that will overcome this. If history has taught us anything it is that the evilest and most murderous ideologies never succeeded in killing a single idea. The cultural Marxists of our era will come to the same end as all of the other attempts at 'idea killing' in history. Every idea must be made unflinchingly available to reason, and we must accept where truth and good conscious take us. Those who refuse, those who continue to defend the indefensible, must be given every opportunity to come to reason, but there comes a point in time when we must move on and ignore such people and refuse to allow their lack of Integrity to infect us. Each of us has our own sense of when to fish and when to cut bait. Part and parcel of our practice of Integrity are taking a course of action to separate ourselves from such people. “Of the world, but not in it.” We must give the people around us an opportunity to come to reason—for our own well-being and the well-being of those we love, but this opportunity that we grant them must not be allowed to harm us. Too, the practice of Integrity is not a call to action to tell the 7.5 Billion strangers inhabiting the world and sharing existence with us how to live their lives. Just look at how poorly that strategy is turning out for the “nation-building” militarists. We are called to community, not self-destruction. We are called to action to live the testimonies; we are not called to action to protest. "Protest" is self-destructive, and we are precluded from harming ourselves by the virtues distilled in our testimony and call to action of Simplicity and any form of political belief system beyond the expression of goodwill for our individual community is antithetical to our testimony of Community. As I said before multiculturalism, political or otherwise, is simply not compatible with Community.
If you seem to want to ask, “What about the historical context of bearing witness?” I will respond by asking “Do you have any hard evidence that this “bearing witness” stuff, what I refer to as political protest, has been constructive for our testimonies?” That “bearing witness” has yielded an improvement in or the emergence of any of the testimonies? Before you insist on responding please read the remainder of this series of posts on what our testimonies mean as a practical matter. Try to keep in mind that our philosophies have always demanded substance and rejected form. That all of our testimonies were practical—hence the word “practice” in our “faith and practice”—by nature.
Is there a time and place to bear witness against the unfairness of the world? In short: Probably not, but if there was such a time and place it would certainly be after we have arranged our lives around the precept of Simplicity, lived the virtues of Integrity, achieved the cooperation and good will of Community, understood the meaning of “Peace” having examined and then rejected all violence, personal or by proxy, and experienced what it is to be equal before the Creator and the equality of expectations between each of us as individuals and the community to which we claim membership to and responsibility for. Only if and when we have accomplished and sustained all of these would we have any reason to engage in a call to action elsewhere. Given the state of Quakerism today I unequivocally assert that we must get our own house and our own community in order before we concern ourselves elsewhere. We nearly winked out of existence. Let us learn from that experience and respond accordingly.
Here is my first attempt at a working definition of the Free Quaker call to action, Integrity:
A series of actions and a set of values that brings about the well-being of those we love and enhances cooperation, interdependence, and goodwill within our Free Quaker Community (also a Free Quaker testimony) provided none of that causes harm to another.
The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc., and the Free Quaker Society of Friends is non-denominational and non-autocratic and was organized as a vehicle to provide a locus that real cooperative and interdependent communities might be organized around. But we cannot do it alone. We need money, volunteers, and contributing members. If you want to contribute or get involved click the link to our “Go Fund Me” page for contributions under $500 or email me at the address below for larger donations or to volunteer. All contributions are tax-deductible and will be put to real and measurable use.
Thanks.
Greg at quuchurch dot org
Where to even begin? A quick search of an online dictionary gives us:
Integrity: noun
1. The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
2. The state of being whole and undivided.
• Synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
Well, that does not help very much. The definition sounds reasonable enough until we get into the details. For us, Integrity is a set of actions—not a person, place, or thing (noun). Whitehead rocked the world with his observation, “We think in generalities, but we live in details.” No words could be more appropriate and relevant than Whitehead’s famous quote when trying to nail down the Free Quaker meaning and definition of Integrity as a life practice.
The Free Quaker testimony of Integrity is not negotiable. One can't get a little bit pregnant in an environment of absolutes. At the base of this call to action is our Creator-given reason and it is our ability to reason that is the spark of the Divine within us. To reason is to think for yourself and to come to conclusions and then take actions that are consistent with a number of ideas that when taken together define our call to action—Integrity (along with our other testimonies).
There is no amount of political censorship that will overcome this. If history has taught us anything it is that the evilest and most murderous ideologies never succeeded in killing a single idea. The cultural Marxists of our era will come to the same end as all of the other attempts at 'idea killing' in history. Every idea must be made unflinchingly available to reason, and we must accept where truth and good conscious take us. Those who refuse, those who continue to defend the indefensible, must be given every opportunity to come to reason, but there comes a point in time when we must move on and ignore such people and refuse to allow their lack of Integrity to infect us. Each of us has our own sense of when to fish and when to cut bait. Part and parcel of our practice of Integrity are taking a course of action to separate ourselves from such people. “Of the world, but not in it.” We must give the people around us an opportunity to come to reason—for our own well-being and the well-being of those we love, but this opportunity that we grant them must not be allowed to harm us. Too, the practice of Integrity is not a call to action to tell the 7.5 Billion strangers inhabiting the world and sharing existence with us how to live their lives. Just look at how poorly that strategy is turning out for the “nation-building” militarists. We are called to community, not self-destruction. We are called to action to live the testimonies; we are not called to action to protest. "Protest" is self-destructive, and we are precluded from harming ourselves by the virtues distilled in our testimony and call to action of Simplicity and any form of political belief system beyond the expression of goodwill for our individual community is antithetical to our testimony of Community. As I said before multiculturalism, political or otherwise, is simply not compatible with Community.
If you seem to want to ask, “What about the historical context of bearing witness?” I will respond by asking “Do you have any hard evidence that this “bearing witness” stuff, what I refer to as political protest, has been constructive for our testimonies?” That “bearing witness” has yielded an improvement in or the emergence of any of the testimonies? Before you insist on responding please read the remainder of this series of posts on what our testimonies mean as a practical matter. Try to keep in mind that our philosophies have always demanded substance and rejected form. That all of our testimonies were practical—hence the word “practice” in our “faith and practice”—by nature.
Is there a time and place to bear witness against the unfairness of the world? In short: Probably not, but if there was such a time and place it would certainly be after we have arranged our lives around the precept of Simplicity, lived the virtues of Integrity, achieved the cooperation and good will of Community, understood the meaning of “Peace” having examined and then rejected all violence, personal or by proxy, and experienced what it is to be equal before the Creator and the equality of expectations between each of us as individuals and the community to which we claim membership to and responsibility for. Only if and when we have accomplished and sustained all of these would we have any reason to engage in a call to action elsewhere. Given the state of Quakerism today I unequivocally assert that we must get our own house and our own community in order before we concern ourselves elsewhere. We nearly winked out of existence. Let us learn from that experience and respond accordingly.
Here is my first attempt at a working definition of the Free Quaker call to action, Integrity:
A series of actions and a set of values that brings about the well-being of those we love and enhances cooperation, interdependence, and goodwill within our Free Quaker Community (also a Free Quaker testimony) provided none of that causes harm to another.
The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc., and the Free Quaker Society of Friends is non-denominational and non-autocratic and was organized as a vehicle to provide a locus that real cooperative and interdependent communities might be organized around. But we cannot do it alone. We need money, volunteers, and contributing members. If you want to contribute or get involved click the link to our “Go Fund Me” page for contributions under $500 or email me at the address below for larger donations or to volunteer. All contributions are tax-deductible and will be put to real and measurable use.
Thanks.
Greg at quuchurch dot org
Thursday, November 30, 2017
Simplicity
The Quaker testimonies, or precepts, of Simplicity, Integrity, Community, Peace, and Equality (all proper nouns in my book) have been asserted not to be "beliefs" per se. Rather they were a call to action as a way of helping people live a good and virtuous life. ("Virtue" has become a political football mostly centered on modern sexual mores; this would have been an absurd idea to the great Greek philosophers, rather than a philosophical abstract, so I hope you won't get stuck on that word at the moment.) I find the "call to action" handle insufficient. There are subtle differences between "belief" and "doctrine," although there are also subtle similarities. I think that the use of "doctrine" as a stated principle is not inappropriate here, but I am mindful of how our philosophy tends to regard the idea of form and mindless creed.
Our first precept is Simplicity. The doctrine of "Peace" was chronologically first, but we are talking about the order of our precepts in our lives. Peace comes later, and I assert that it is a natural outcome of the practice of Simplicity and Integrity.
I think it is axiomatic that the continuous complexity and stressful stimulation of modern life have brought about a great deal of misery even as it has brought about the comforts and conveniences we can no longer even imagine existing without. We have exchanged immediate and localized manual labor for climate controlled electronic entertainment and "news." Some of that exchange is very welcome. Some of it has resulted in universal anger and resentment and the mass hysteria that is now playing out in the media as well as obesity, drug use, depression, despair, and self-injury. But how to practice Simplicity in American and Western modern Life? Well, I am going to get to the how-to of it in future posts. In this post, I want to examine the benefits of Simplicity.
I believe that in the absence of oppression and want people are, for the most part, rational and reasonable. I think that to be human is to be rational and reasonable (of course, that implies that the unreasonable and immoral are somehow less than human). People suffering from oppressive forces, be they political as in the case of the current mass hysteria, or physical as in the case of hunger or material need, can indeed behave less than reasonably.
Simplicity to a Free Friend is not necessarily the wholesale rejection of technology, electricity, or vehicles while spinning wool or reading by candlelight. Simplicity is a mindset of limiting what sensory inputs we are going to allow into our orbit in some rational way before they can negatively influence us and then examine the inputs that we allow into our lives—and carefully examine them—before taking a course of action. How much and what influences and inputs we allow into our lives is the perusal of the individual. A thoughtful and contemplative person practicing Simplicity will be able to discern what is best here, and most if not all of us will avoid getting trapped by things that harm our well-being. Because Simplicity is first and foremost about the ultimate importance, we place on our well-being.
The ancient Greek philosophers had a beautiful word for the satisfaction that comes about through keeping one's life simple—Eudaimonia. The best English translation of the idea that this word describes is "human flourishing." And this is why we say that Simplicity must come first. Because the remaining precepts of Integrity, Community, Peace, and Equality can only exist in an environment where the people themselves, the individuals, are flourishing. Aristotle said it this way—
Well-being has a long list of attributes: First on that list is good mental and physical health. We cannot be good and loving husbands and wives and parents if we are not in good health, and it is the individual who is responsible for their health. Loving relationships, pleasant friendships, satisfying and productive work—work we can be proud of, sustained by, and made secure with—are indeed near the very top of this list. All of these are the very essence of our precept of Simplicity as it is expressed on a personal level and this implies the acceptance of personal responsibility for our well-being. We represent this responsibility to ourselves by avoiding self-destructive behaviors and engaging in healthful and beneficial behaviors (overindulgence in food/drink/drugs is self-destructive; marring our bodies (think tattoos/piercings or any other form of self-injury or scarring) in any way is simply unacceptable. Of course, past mistakes must be forgiven and forgotten; today is a new day).
If each member of the community must be a contributing member, it then follows that the first step is to be in a position where one sees to their own needs first. Otherwise, what is it we would have to contribute if we do not have enough of what we need? Think about that for a moment and then compare that counter-intuitive but perfectly logical conclusion with the nonsensical virtue-signaling dominating the world around us.
The practice of Simplicity will keep us out of debt and other unnecessary financial entanglements that put undue strain on ourselves, our families, and our communities. Pride in our work and personal success is an essential component of our well-being. Material competition with our neighbors is not; this requires a combination of finesse, courtesy, and generosity in our relationships with other members of the community.
Politics and Simplicity are almost certainly mutually exclusive. Oh, you can vote if it turns you on, and you should vote if you are informed and capable of reason. But politics is anathema to the practice of Simplicity—and the more virulent the political persuasion, the less it is in keeping with Simplicity. When Ayn Rand said—
—She was not referring to letting our children, extended family, clan, or community do without while we saw to our own needs. What she was saying was that one must see to his or her own house, family, and community first and foremost. If you have any doubt about this, consider what Rand said about Integrity—
—Rand and Aristotle were very Quakerly in their philosophies!
Practicing Simplicity is the practice of keeping our lives in balance. It means doing many or even most things for yourself—and this yields both skills and personal satisfaction. An over-concentration on work/achievement will take its toll on the family, as will underachievement; This is not easily reconciled with our culture of specialization—until you look down and realize that you have not seen your toes in many years due to the effects of all of that specialization.
Robert Heinlein, the author of one of the 20th centuries best selling novels, "Stranger in a Strange Land," had this to say about specialization:
Many of us will still have to specialize for a long stretch of our professional lives, but I think it is important to consider just how unhealthy it is and to find a way to introduce non-specialized, Simplicity focused activities into our lives—gardening, woodworking, construction, cheesemaking, sewing, knitting, gathering firewood, cutting the grass with a reel mower, fishing, sports with the kids, and anything else we can think of. Simplicity is a form of meditation, one that you can discuss with your other community members.
But most of all, Simplicity starts and ends with you as an individual and with your very personal well-being, the well-being of your family, extended family, and community.
You can "like" and follow us on Facebook (click the link!) here.
People interested in helping us make it happen: We need money, volunteers, contributing and active members, sponsors, patrons, drivers, babysitters, diapers, canned food, clothes, skilled tradesmen, etc.
Greg, QUUC
Our first precept is Simplicity. The doctrine of "Peace" was chronologically first, but we are talking about the order of our precepts in our lives. Peace comes later, and I assert that it is a natural outcome of the practice of Simplicity and Integrity.
I think it is axiomatic that the continuous complexity and stressful stimulation of modern life have brought about a great deal of misery even as it has brought about the comforts and conveniences we can no longer even imagine existing without. We have exchanged immediate and localized manual labor for climate controlled electronic entertainment and "news." Some of that exchange is very welcome. Some of it has resulted in universal anger and resentment and the mass hysteria that is now playing out in the media as well as obesity, drug use, depression, despair, and self-injury. But how to practice Simplicity in American and Western modern Life? Well, I am going to get to the how-to of it in future posts. In this post, I want to examine the benefits of Simplicity.
I believe that in the absence of oppression and want people are, for the most part, rational and reasonable. I think that to be human is to be rational and reasonable (of course, that implies that the unreasonable and immoral are somehow less than human). People suffering from oppressive forces, be they political as in the case of the current mass hysteria, or physical as in the case of hunger or material need, can indeed behave less than reasonably.
Simplicity to a Free Friend is not necessarily the wholesale rejection of technology, electricity, or vehicles while spinning wool or reading by candlelight. Simplicity is a mindset of limiting what sensory inputs we are going to allow into our orbit in some rational way before they can negatively influence us and then examine the inputs that we allow into our lives—and carefully examine them—before taking a course of action. How much and what influences and inputs we allow into our lives is the perusal of the individual. A thoughtful and contemplative person practicing Simplicity will be able to discern what is best here, and most if not all of us will avoid getting trapped by things that harm our well-being. Because Simplicity is first and foremost about the ultimate importance, we place on our well-being.
The ancient Greek philosophers had a beautiful word for the satisfaction that comes about through keeping one's life simple—Eudaimonia. The best English translation of the idea that this word describes is "human flourishing." And this is why we say that Simplicity must come first. Because the remaining precepts of Integrity, Community, Peace, and Equality can only exist in an environment where the people themselves, the individuals, are flourishing. Aristotle said it this way—
We take what is self-sufficient to be that which on its own makes life worthy of choice and lacking in nothing. We think happiness to be such, and indeed the thing most of all worth choosing, not counted as just one thing among others'.
Well-being has a long list of attributes: First on that list is good mental and physical health. We cannot be good and loving husbands and wives and parents if we are not in good health, and it is the individual who is responsible for their health. Loving relationships, pleasant friendships, satisfying and productive work—work we can be proud of, sustained by, and made secure with—are indeed near the very top of this list. All of these are the very essence of our precept of Simplicity as it is expressed on a personal level and this implies the acceptance of personal responsibility for our well-being. We represent this responsibility to ourselves by avoiding self-destructive behaviors and engaging in healthful and beneficial behaviors (overindulgence in food/drink/drugs is self-destructive; marring our bodies (think tattoos/piercings or any other form of self-injury or scarring) in any way is simply unacceptable. Of course, past mistakes must be forgiven and forgotten; today is a new day).
If each member of the community must be a contributing member, it then follows that the first step is to be in a position where one sees to their own needs first. Otherwise, what is it we would have to contribute if we do not have enough of what we need? Think about that for a moment and then compare that counter-intuitive but perfectly logical conclusion with the nonsensical virtue-signaling dominating the world around us.
The practice of Simplicity will keep us out of debt and other unnecessary financial entanglements that put undue strain on ourselves, our families, and our communities. Pride in our work and personal success is an essential component of our well-being. Material competition with our neighbors is not; this requires a combination of finesse, courtesy, and generosity in our relationships with other members of the community.
Politics and Simplicity are almost certainly mutually exclusive. Oh, you can vote if it turns you on, and you should vote if you are informed and capable of reason. But politics is anathema to the practice of Simplicity—and the more virulent the political persuasion, the less it is in keeping with Simplicity. When Ayn Rand said—
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.
—She was not referring to letting our children, extended family, clan, or community do without while we saw to our own needs. What she was saying was that one must see to his or her own house, family, and community first and foremost. If you have any doubt about this, consider what Rand said about Integrity—
The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.
—Rand and Aristotle were very Quakerly in their philosophies!
Practicing Simplicity is the practice of keeping our lives in balance. It means doing many or even most things for yourself—and this yields both skills and personal satisfaction. An over-concentration on work/achievement will take its toll on the family, as will underachievement; This is not easily reconciled with our culture of specialization—until you look down and realize that you have not seen your toes in many years due to the effects of all of that specialization.
Robert Heinlein, the author of one of the 20th centuries best selling novels, "Stranger in a Strange Land," had this to say about specialization:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Many of us will still have to specialize for a long stretch of our professional lives, but I think it is important to consider just how unhealthy it is and to find a way to introduce non-specialized, Simplicity focused activities into our lives—gardening, woodworking, construction, cheesemaking, sewing, knitting, gathering firewood, cutting the grass with a reel mower, fishing, sports with the kids, and anything else we can think of. Simplicity is a form of meditation, one that you can discuss with your other community members.
But most of all, Simplicity starts and ends with you as an individual and with your very personal well-being, the well-being of your family, extended family, and community.
You can "like" and follow us on Facebook (click the link!) here.
People interested in helping us make it happen: We need money, volunteers, contributing and active members, sponsors, patrons, drivers, babysitters, diapers, canned food, clothes, skilled tradesmen, etc.
Greg, QUUC
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Introduction to Free Quakerism, part 2
In the last decade or so there appeared to be a resurgence in Quaker thought, faith, and practice here in America. Meetinghouses were refurbished. Facebook groups popped up. Blogs and podcasts were published. My sense of it now is that this is far more political and less Quaker Faith and Practice, but that would depend on the definition of "Faith" and "Practice".
Parallel to this, writers such as Dmitri Orlov, Rob O'Grady, Sharon Astyk, James Howard Kunstler, and others were tackling the issue of community, one of the five Quaker testimonies, in books and articles—though it must be mentioned quickly that none of these writers/authors/thinkers thought or knew they were examining community from a Quaker perspective. But a rose by any other name...
And of course, I wrote "Prosperous Homesteading" about our experience with the incredible Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities we have lived among.
A definition of "community" is in order. This is not as easy as it sounds. "Community" is another of those slippery abstracts that get slapped onto many ideas and groups that are no such thing—the "Intelligence Community" comes immediately to mind.
A quick look at an online dictionary yields:
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. "Rhode Island's Japanese community"
synonyms: group, body, set, circle, clique, faction; More
2. a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.
I don't think that this is the "community" that those who wish to live in cooperative and mutual interdependence had in mind. Too, the etymology that best captures the concept is from the Old French "comunete"—which can be best translated as "reinforced by its source" or self-reinforcing.
Here is my attempt at a working definition: A group of people living in close proximity and working cooperatively—but not collectively—and reinforced by its source: the people making up the community itself. This definition eliminates "online communities/groups", political parties, political special interest groups, advocacy groups, et al as being properly defined as a community. (Of course, you are free to come up with your own definitions and your own make-believe community.)
Can a community, thus defined, survive with outside political influence or belief systems that pit the members against each other? Can a Dunbar-150 community (click the link!) survive with traditional families and radical feminists, or Democrats and Republicans, or any form of multi-culturalism? I respectfully submit NEARC (Not even a remote chance). No, a small, 150 person cooperative community living in close proximity that is self-reinforcing, that bears and raises children and instills the ethos of the community in their children, cannot survive with the members at each other's throats over politics. We must reject these distractions—feminism, collectivism, authoritarianism— that I referred to in my last post (and all other political or divisive distractions).
No community has ever survived for more than a single generation via recruitment or proselytizing new members in place of establishing families and raising children.
A community of 150 adults will be burying all of them over any 50 year period. There must be replacement adults, people who were raised to identify with the community and who are committed to the survival of the community or the community will collapse. There has never been nor will there ever be an intergenerationally successful community of feminists or LGBTVQRS or Shakers. It matters little if this offends an individual. We are speaking of "community" here. It then follows that such groups and belief systems—but not individual LGBTVQRS offspring or converts of the community, no one is denying their place in the community or their humanity—are anathema to the Quaker testimony of Community as are all outside political interference.
Communities require families and children. What is the point of putting in all of the effort to construct a community of like-minded, cooperative people that is going to implode in much the same way that every commune that ever existed has?
A thought experiment: Just imagine a small tropical island paradise colonized by a Dunbar number of childless, self-actuating collectivist intellectuals. Ask them all to keep a detailed diary. Come back in 40 years and read the entries in the diaries of the last 15 survivors. What do you think those entries say?
There is another Quaker philosopher, Sam Barnett-Cormack, living in the UK who believes that he can overcome all of my assertions to create a childless/or child-light community. Or at least that is what I have taken his writings to mean. You can follow him here.
"Community" might mean many things to many people, but that is not the point. If we wish to have the cooperative, self-reinforcing, and self-sustaining community that my ancestors once had and that the Amish and Mennonites have, right now as I write this, then we must accept certain parameters and rules or all our efforts will be for naught.
Would you like to get involved? We need money, volunteers with skills and who are in reasonable condition to put in a day's work, and young families to build a community around. The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc.
Contact me at greg at quuchurch dot org
Parallel to this, writers such as Dmitri Orlov, Rob O'Grady, Sharon Astyk, James Howard Kunstler, and others were tackling the issue of community, one of the five Quaker testimonies, in books and articles—though it must be mentioned quickly that none of these writers/authors/thinkers thought or knew they were examining community from a Quaker perspective. But a rose by any other name...
And of course, I wrote "Prosperous Homesteading" about our experience with the incredible Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities we have lived among.
A definition of "community" is in order. This is not as easy as it sounds. "Community" is another of those slippery abstracts that get slapped onto many ideas and groups that are no such thing—the "Intelligence Community" comes immediately to mind.
A quick look at an online dictionary yields:
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. "Rhode Island's Japanese community"
synonyms: group, body, set, circle, clique, faction; More
2. a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.
I don't think that this is the "community" that those who wish to live in cooperative and mutual interdependence had in mind. Too, the etymology that best captures the concept is from the Old French "comunete"—which can be best translated as "reinforced by its source" or self-reinforcing.
Here is my attempt at a working definition: A group of people living in close proximity and working cooperatively—but not collectively—and reinforced by its source: the people making up the community itself. This definition eliminates "online communities/groups", political parties, political special interest groups, advocacy groups, et al as being properly defined as a community. (Of course, you are free to come up with your own definitions and your own make-believe community.)
Can a community, thus defined, survive with outside political influence or belief systems that pit the members against each other? Can a Dunbar-150 community (click the link!) survive with traditional families and radical feminists, or Democrats and Republicans, or any form of multi-culturalism? I respectfully submit NEARC (Not even a remote chance). No, a small, 150 person cooperative community living in close proximity that is self-reinforcing, that bears and raises children and instills the ethos of the community in their children, cannot survive with the members at each other's throats over politics. We must reject these distractions—feminism, collectivism, authoritarianism— that I referred to in my last post (and all other political or divisive distractions).
No community has ever survived for more than a single generation via recruitment or proselytizing new members in place of establishing families and raising children.
A community of 150 adults will be burying all of them over any 50 year period. There must be replacement adults, people who were raised to identify with the community and who are committed to the survival of the community or the community will collapse. There has never been nor will there ever be an intergenerationally successful community of feminists or LGBTVQRS or Shakers. It matters little if this offends an individual. We are speaking of "community" here. It then follows that such groups and belief systems—but not individual LGBTVQRS offspring or converts of the community, no one is denying their place in the community or their humanity—are anathema to the Quaker testimony of Community as are all outside political interference.
Communities require families and children. What is the point of putting in all of the effort to construct a community of like-minded, cooperative people that is going to implode in much the same way that every commune that ever existed has?
A thought experiment: Just imagine a small tropical island paradise colonized by a Dunbar number of childless, self-actuating collectivist intellectuals. Ask them all to keep a detailed diary. Come back in 40 years and read the entries in the diaries of the last 15 survivors. What do you think those entries say?
There is another Quaker philosopher, Sam Barnett-Cormack, living in the UK who believes that he can overcome all of my assertions to create a childless/or child-light community. Or at least that is what I have taken his writings to mean. You can follow him here.
"Community" might mean many things to many people, but that is not the point. If we wish to have the cooperative, self-reinforcing, and self-sustaining community that my ancestors once had and that the Amish and Mennonites have, right now as I write this, then we must accept certain parameters and rules or all our efforts will be for naught.
Would you like to get involved? We need money, volunteers with skills and who are in reasonable condition to put in a day's work, and young families to build a community around. The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc.
Contact me at greg at quuchurch dot org
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Introduction to Free Quakerism
The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc. (“QUUC”) was organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. We are a non-denominational and non-autocratic community-based faith organization. QUUC is also known as “The Free Quaker Society of Friends”. Quakers interchangeably refer to themselves and other Quakers as “Friends”. We also refer to our members as either “Free Quakers” or “Free Friends”. We have spent many years living among Older Order Mennonite and Amish communities (Quakers are not Amish! We use electricity, technology, and vehicles when necessary and dress the same as the average American). This experience has been incredibly instructive as to how functioning cooperative communities work and thrive over many generations. We believe that real and abiding communities can come into existence again for average Americans. If you are interested in living in a cooperative community please contact me at the email below.
Our organization is a break from the Faith and Practice and ideology now ensconced in the establishment Quaker organizations. Free Quakerism rejects collectivism, feminism, and authoritarianism in all forms—but especially in the name of Quakerism, the Religious Society of Friends, and any other name that Quakers or Friends are or were known by. We are an egalitarian faith, practice, and philosophy—not an advocacy group for identity politics. We desire to share this world with goodwill towards our fellow man and to engage ideas on the merits—not waste the limited moments of our existence in a constant state of anger, resentment, and frustration.
Our Free Quaker faith and practice is not governed or autocratically informed by the foundational texts of the great religions or by intermediaries. Our faith and practice is a way of life and our creed is our personal moral foundation and the manner in which we live our lives. Our ethics springs from reason and the rational nature granted mankind by our Creator. Many Friends refer to this as our Inner Light. Others see it as a spark of the Devine that resides in all men and women. We do not purport to know the mind of the Creator, and there is no institutional requirement that Free Friends believe or deny the mysticism which envelopes and defines many other faiths. This is an intensely personal and individual choice, and Free Friends must be at liberty to go where their good conscience takes them and are encouraged to look within themselves. Traditionally and since our very inception, Friends sought substance and placed little importance on outward forms.
Free Quakers have five precepts; early Quakers referred to these as the five testimonies.
Simplicity: We hold that arranging one’s life in such a way as to reduce tension, pressure, and hurry will lead to greater satisfaction, pleasure, and joy with our lives during our brief existence. Our primary responsibility is our own, individual well-being: we must, ourselves, be well before we can meet any obligations to our families or to participate in our communities, and it is the practice of simplicity that yields the calm and peaceful mind necessary if we are to live out our next precept of Integrity. Therefore it is Simplicity that must come first.
*****
Integrity: We hold that we are to be industrious and avoid idleness, frugal and provident in our efforts, fair in our dealings, moderate in our consumptions, and place significant emphasis on personal responsibility so that we may enjoy the virtue that one feels when properly providing and caring for our children and family. Integrity precludes despair. Sorrows will come, and Life and the family must go joyfully on and it is our Integrity that brings this about.
*****
Community: Thomas Paine, more than anyone else the Father of the American Revolution, and a Free Quaker, wrote this in his seminal work “Common Sense”.
“…the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour [sic] out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.”
“…the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour [sic] out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.”
Those practicing Simplicity and Integrity will be in a position to contribute to the wellbeing of the community. No community can stand for long without a balance between giving and taking. A community is a voluntary organization of mutual assistance and interdependence. That assistance and interdependence begin in the home of a family where the children are raised and extends from there into the community. The raising of happy, healthy, cultured, and educated children into fitly functioning and well-adjusted adults—this being part and parcel of our personal wellbeing—is our primary responsibility.
A community—and its members—must have an ethos of intergenerational stability or the community will not last. Children must be imbued with values that will perpetuate the community.
*****
Peace: Free Friends do not initiate the use of force or violence—and will not countenance the use of force or violence by proxy—to achieve personal, moral, or political agendas. This does not preclude Free Friends from defending their persons, their family, or personal property that their life may depend on. “Violence by proxy” is as abhorrent as personal violence and is defined as supporting or approving of the application of violence by others—police, military, judiciary, and the non-official—to achieve personal, moral, or political agendas that we as individuals would reject using personally. If an action is immoral it is immoral—and it does not become moral by having or approving a proxy to commit violence for us even if the violence is somehow approved of democratically.
*****
Equality: Free Friends are equal before our Creator, and; Free Friends are equal before the community in what they may expect from the community and in what the community expects from them. Egalitarianism is the rule.
Our precepts—or testimonies—are a call to action. They do not represent the entirety of the human virtues that are important to us.
Our mission is to provide a locus and support system for real communities of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual assistance to coalesce around. We feel that respect for the sovereignty of the individual and the rejection of a way of life that leads to isolated and alienated individuals are the proper course to take for real community. Your rights and value are yours as an individual and are best recognized in community with other like-minded individuals. We believe that a real and productive community that enjoys a common culture and common expectations of reasonable behavior, and that holds personal responsibility and meaningful member involvement in high regard can provide community members with comfort, stability, and security—while also respecting the autonomy of the individual. To us, this is what it means to have a community. The definition of autonomy or freedom is not freedom from responsibility. Rather true freedom implies responsibility. A community is not something one plays at. Real community implies effort and work that result in real contributions by all so that the community enjoys a surplus of capital, or if you prefer—‘abundance’. After all, a community suffering want will not last long.
We cannot do this alone. We need your help in the form of money, members, and volunteers. We ask that donations under $500 be made at our "Go Fund Me" page (click the link!) and that larger donations be made directly (Go Fund Me is not free). All donations are tax-deductible. Your money will be put to good use in very real and measurable ways. If you would like to know more please email me and include a phone number (I don't carry a cell and use google voice) and I will get right back to you.
Thank you.
Greg Jeffers, Quaker Unitarian and Universalist Church, Inc.
greg at quuchurch dot org
greg at quuchurch dot org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The Quaker testimony of Peace goes to the very heart of our way of Life. The Peace testimony defines us, identifies us, and secures us. It i...
-
The Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc. (“QUUC”) was organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. We are a non-denomination... -
Our community is engaged in a serious outreach effort to meet young families from outside of the area who are interested in our way of life ...