A Friend of Man (and Israel)

Several years ago an article was published in the WSJ: “The Quakers: No Friends of Israel.” I was appalled and embarrassed.

How did this happen? How did an article like that get published? Why were Friends not outraged? Frankly, the article escaped my perusal at the time it was published, but when I (finally) saw it I had an epiphany: The national “Quaker” organizations, if not the local meetings, have been seized by political extremists and are now taking political positions in the name of American Friends. Including seeing to it that this article proclaiming their opposition to Israel and the Jewish people in favor of the Palestinians was published.

Why?

The vast majority of those taking a hardened position and opinion are not students of the history of the region or the history of the parties involved, have never lived in or visited Israel, and "know" only what they have been indoctrinated with, and yet Friends let that article go unchallenged and unconsidered.

Why?

The philosophies of the American Friends and the philosophy of the Jewish people are almost perfectly compatible. In fact, I would assert that the Pennsylvania Friends, William Penn in particular, were informed by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and Friends’ practice of silent and expectant waiting is, without doubt, a direct expression of our Jewish cultural heritage (click the link to an excellent article, one of many, by Rabbi Brant Rosen).

Some form of silent worship has a long tradition in Judaism, one that our people has regrettably allowed to lapse. The Talmudic sages would “be still one hour prior to each of the three prayer services, then pray for one hour and afterwards be still again for one hour more.” (Moses Maimonides) interpreted this as silent motionlessness in order “to settle their minds and quiet their thoughts.”

In this new age of Reason, most of us have come to reject the dogma and the infallibility of ancient religious texts and recognize our common humanity, while accepting that some groups of people are not interested in subjugating and subsuming their culture into the whole. On a personal level, I reject the idea of “peoplehood,” ethnicity, and race identity. But that does not mean to suggest that I would use force or coercion on those who feel differently, and I am completely untroubled by the inconsistency of rejecting “peoplehood” while thoroughly enjoying the cultures created as a result of “peoplehood.” People will associate, disassociate, propagate, miscegenate, evolve, and devolve as they will and must be free to do so. Humanity will be unrecognizable to any of us in a thousand years.

But who is it in America, and in the West in general, that has taken this stand against Israel, and the absurd posture and policy culminating with the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement? Well, it is the same political interests that have seized control of the national organizations claiming to speak for American Friends. I think we all know who “they” are. “They” are the inherently violent political factions that hate family, children, property, and liberty in general—and the United States and Israel in particular. They are the purveyors of anger, the promulgators of propaganda, and the sworn enemy of the life force that provides humanity with a path to the future. We all know whom I speak of. Apparently, it is not enough to hate America, the moral and political scions of the greatest political achievement ever—the Friends' creation of Pennsylvania. Now we must hate Israel, too.

So I say to Israel, and to the Jewish people:

This Friend is your Friend. I consider you, and all people of reason and peace, to be Friends. All of us have been confronted with the incredible and overwhelming evidence and discoveries regarding our existence that has come to light since the dawn of the Age of Reason and that have swamped and routed the explanations that came from an earlier time in human history. The Jewish people have made greater contributions in this effort than any other “peoplehood”—and they have also suffered the “blackest crime in human history". One wonders if these are not related (and I do not mean to belittle the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution, the Ukraine Famine and Stalin in general, or the slaughter in the Congo; these are also “the blackest crimes”).  Please do not think or believe that American Friends are “no friend of Israel.” I don’t know the precise genesis of this story, why the WSJ thought it was worth publishing, or why more people here were not appalled by it—but I have my suspicions and I am working to counter the disturbing ideas of these people in my sphere of influence.

Gregory T. Jeffers
Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc.

Israel Gets It, Russia Gets It

Demographics trumps politics in any intergenerational struggle for primacy. No belief system, no faith, no political ideal, and no socio-economic strategy can overcome demographics. Quakerism collapsed in North America. It was almost completely extinguished by demographics—the meetings that survived the collapse did so via recruiting members, not by producing children. And let us speak "plainly": Many of these self-identified Quakers are not attempting to live out the testimonies. They are using the brand name of the Quakers to legitimize the political belief system that took one of the largest faiths in Colonial American and nearly killed it.

We can get a good idea how close an idea has come to the "Truth" by the violence, if any, of the response. If I said that little green men nearly killed Quakerism, people would sympathize with my obvious mental illness. If I say that scolds and anti-family/anti-children political sensibilities (nearly) destroyed Quakerism, I am set upon with requests for censorship. And though I do sympathize with the mental illness of those who wish to engage in censorship, I will not stand down.

What happened in the 1600's in England is historical fact—but it has little to do with Quakerism in America. Too, we have a great deal more information about existence than the people who were relying on Bronze Age politicos engaging in tribal aggrandizement. I am sure that George Fox was a good and prophetic man, but reason and rationalism, like shaving cream, cannot be stuffed back in the can. The evolution and the subsequent political achievements of Quakerism in colonial Pennsylvania dwarf's everything before or after it—with the possible exception of the Magna Carta—and that incredible achievement was brought low by demographics. By identity politics; and—irrespective of what the agenda editors and astroturf specialists of the humanities professoriate in general, and the "Women's Studies" departments, in particular, have to say in their Wikipedia edits—it was not the scolds putting men out of meetings over their participation in the American Revolutionary War. That idiocy is an outrage.

Israel gets demographics. (Click the link.)

Russia's President Putin gets demographics (if you don't want to watch the 5-minute address, and I highly recommend it, just watch from 3:45 to 4:30. "Let children be born!").

What about us? What is it "we" get? That was rhetorical.

What we get is outrageously hypocritical identity politics and requests for censorship.

Several years ago, a couple of friends of mine and I conducted a demographic study of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Senate, and the Arizona state legislature (we felt a state legislature would be less elite, and one of the people helping was from Arizona). What we found was that Republicans produced nearly 3 children each and Democrats produced less than 1.4 children each. We also found that the SCOTUS had very high fertility (well, the men on the Court had high fertility. The three Feminists on the court had 2 children between the three of them; Scalia skewed the distribution as the father of nine. 9!!! But all of the men on the Court had gone through the maturation process that comes of being a parent; unfortunately two of the three Feminists on the Court had not had the benefit of the experience of parenthood). In fact, roughly 1/2 (50%) of the elected female Democrats were childless vs 1/5 (20%) for elected female Republicans. Only 3% of Republican men where childless.

The mathematical model that governs demographics is "e" when women produce more than 2.1 babies, or "exponential decay" when women produce fewer than 2.1 babies. Well, sort of. The equation is complicated by the number of years between generations. Hence the imperative for the demographic dead-ends who now control the power structure of the humanities professoriate. They simply do not produce enough offspring to maintain their numbers, and so must recruit the offspring of others.

We also did a follow-up study on Democrat marriage. NOT ONE of the "white" Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate was married to a non-white. ZERO interracial marriages.  In fact, the only prominent (Governor, U.S, Senator, Congressman, Big City Mayor) "white" politician with an African American wife was the mayor of New York. (If you have a data point of other such unions, please point them out to me.) The hypocrisy of that one still boggles the mind, but there it is.

"Those who breed, succeed. Those who do not, lose their seat at the table." (Original to me, but feel free to use it early and often.)

What is it "Liberal" Friends want (there does not seem to be any "Conservative" Friends)? To be "right"? To be virtuous? To claim the moral high ground in every conversation? Because what we are really doing is sitting together in silent expectation of our impending doom—unless we stop politicizing everything and start creating families who produce children. I write to reach out to the young and potentially fecund among us. I am not trying to change the mind of a 50/60-something, childless, and self-identified "Liberal" (read: Feminist/LGBTVQRS)—because it wouldn't matter if they changed their minds (though I would hope that such people would not be hostile and do damage to the cause given the short time they have left). The philosophy of liberty and freedom of conscience that yielded the testimonies will live or die in the conception of children, at the First Day Schools, and perhaps at some of the colleges that carry on the tradition. At the moment, things are not looking good—but that can change. And the only way it will change is to renounce the gender and identity politics that has set us at each other's throats and raise happy and well-adjusted children. If we do not change we will die.

QIASL




















#Simplicity #Integrity #Localism #Community #Feminism #Authoritarianism #PrivateProperty #Liberty #Family #Abortion #Collectivism #Authoritarianism #Family #Quaker #Philosophy #Libertarian

Why Do We Believe The Things We Cannot Know

What matters most to you as an individual?

What do you have real and meaningful control or influence over in your life?

The conflict between these two simple questions is driving modern mankind insane. Why would we believe we should take action regarding assertions we have no way of confirming on issues we have absolutely no control over while—and as a direct result—floundering in the areas that are of great importance to us personally and that are under our control and/or influence?

We see this everywhere and at all times. I see it in myself quite regularly. All of us have things to do that would be to our great advantage that we let lapse and we use that time to form and internalize hardened opinions on something we can't possibly know a thing about. It does not help that our leaders are busy voting on legislation that they have not read and do not understand. We must feel that since our leaders do it, we should too. Now that is #@!&* insane. It's just the craziest thing ever if you think about it. We insist on putting forth propositions based on premises with no evidence. And we do this because we think we have evidence—because we saw it on TV, read about it on an internet news site, or heard about it from people who have similar biases, some of whom are so evil that they commission "studies" to support previously reached conclusions. The energies we put into the thoughts and consideration of things we have absolutely no control over, as the stuff we can influence/control falls apart as it stares us in the face, boggles the mind.

I am starting to think that this is not just phenomenon. I am becoming convinced that some kind of fairy or pixie or mini-drone or gremlin is flying around our heads and when we are not looking they are blowing sh#! in our face that we breathe in and this stuff causes us to self-destruct.  Or maybe the fluorescent lighting is telling our bodies to secrete a hormone that causes hypocrisy (just in case: tongue firmly in cheek!). Whatever it is it seems to make us want to take on the misfortunes of billions of strangers—as if we could do anything about it—by hiring tens of thousands of government thugs with guns, dogs, clubs, and jail cells, when we should be concerned about the expanding blob taking shape in the mirror, or the sullen kid taking up space at the kitchen table furiously thumbing away at the distraction device he has been provided with to help pass the time of his sentence in suburbia, or if you want to get really heroic by becoming good and real neighbors.

We see this nonsense all the time. We are castigated to do something about the homeless by a person who binge-watches Netflix but who have never strapped on a tool belt, or to do something about the environment by people who have not put up a &^%$# clothesline, or having to listen to someone breaking their arm patting themselves on the back because they are helping save the earth from exceeding its carrying capacity by not having children (while their social interests have no possible risk of conception). We are all guilty.

The truly nutty take it a step further. They get "active", i.e. doing things that now cause actual harm—things like protests and marches or engaging in deception—rather than just being pathetically ineffective and hypocritical. These folks have stepped it up to criminal and haughty. That's a heck of a combination.

But there is good news. At any time of our choosing we can stop the drama of pretending to matter on some national or international issue—becasue we don't—and get "active" (goodness, I hate that word) locally: Have a FAMILY! Run for dog catcher, volunteer to put up a neighborhood vegetable garden, or organize transportation for elderly neighbors to go grocery shopping or to have some company. Whatever. Anything is better than social justice warring and virtue signaling. There are lots to do. In our community, it happens all time with no organizational effort required. On a regular basis, there is someone at my door who needs a ride to town, has a calf stuck in a cow, or needs help loading a deer onto a field wagon (we get some strange opportunities engage in real community in my 'hood). And I find myself at least as often knocking on my neighbors' doors to help me get the hay in, or catch an errant horse, or hold up the other end of whatever broke that day—but that's the way it is in small communities. It might take a little more effort to actually accomplish something—rather than virtue signal—in the city or in a suburb, but with a little effort, and if we completely ignore national and international politics, I think some measure of "community" can be had. Certainly more than is had now.

Of course, there is a huge difference between politics and policy and ethics and morality. Discussing ethics and morality are incredibly important for human development. And while confusing the inherent violence of politics and policy for ethical and moral conduct, and the conflicts and social miasma that error creates is the crux of the problem, we do not have to participate in any of this as individuals. The power structure that wishes to consume the energies of our lives to further their agenda can best be defeated by ignoring them, by refusing to fund them, and spending all of that wasted energy and resources "locally". I place that in quotes because most of us do not have a "local" anything anymore, and it was this power structure that stole that from us. We have been convinced to migrate to large population centers so that we can live without family or children, stacked up on top of each other like cordwood while remaining strangers, taxed into submission, breathing the air of traffic jams and office chemicals, in search of "elite employment"—all the while  operating in a complex and nefarious social environment that has as one of its imperatives a need to convince us that we are immortal. (No one sends us a note when we have "aged out"—and we will all "age out" (if we are lucky). This hits some people harder than others going by the demographic data on anti-depressant and anti-psychotic meds).

To date, most of the "localism" propaganda we have been hit with has come from aging hippies (and other aging deviants) in deep regret of a misspent youth—but I have come around to thinking that they are really onto something, in much the way that I think the recent regathering in Quaker philosophy is on to something. But there is a key ingredient missing—a path to the future for the generations to come. No children = no future. People can—and will—argue from the margins: "Lots of children at our Meeting!" But any rational examination of this will only show that we are busy going extinct—again. Aging out. Dying off. By rejecting reality we sow the seeds of our own demise. Condemned to online "retirement communities" of virtue signaling in an effort to compensate for earlier failures. But we have credentials and approvals from the self-destructive power structure, so it's all good!

The cities can flourish temporarily via immigration (well, until they run out of immigrants) from the countryside—but local communities must be self-reinforcing. They must provide their own building blocks of "Community"—children. The evidence is all around us: Well adjusted children and functioning adults come from a culture of respect for family and private property (the accumulation and maintenance of "capital" or "surplus" to be passed on to future generations). Feminism/collectivism and the rejection of family and private property yield empty nurseries, obesity/tattoos/piercings/opioids (self-harm/mutilation), and lots of "crazy aunt in the attic" syndrome—before causing the culture to die out altogether. This is not a rejection of their humanity. It is a rejection of the philosophies and sensibilities that always leads to oblivion. Of course, the individual should be free to pursue oblivion. Now, if only misery did not just love company. But misery does love company, and the examination of this falls under ethics and morality and not dreaded national and international politics and policy.

More soon,

QIASL

















#Simplicity #Integrity #Localism #Community #Feminism #Authoritarianism #PrivateProperty #Liberty #Family #Abortion #Collectivism #Authoritarianism #Family #Quaker #Philosophy #Libertarian

Tis the Season for Reason

Thousands of years ago Bronze Age scribes and intellectuals attempted to engage in a universal philosophical explanation of existence, political science/organization, and the control of labor and agricultural production in an agrarian civilization that evolved into the foundational texts of the great religions of the Middle East. There is a long and ever-growing list of discoveries about existence that dwarfs the ideas promulgated and contained in the totality of these ancient texts and almost entirely in contravention of them—and yet they endure.

People seem to need tradition and continuity, so much so that when confronted with new and better evidence regarding our existence, people choose tradition and continuity over the evidence. This conflict will eventually be settled in the bedroom by human sexuality and in the kitchen around the family table—not in a political body or on a battlefield or in a pulpit.

Conflict has been a universal human experience. We exist in a constant struggle for primacy—for resources, for sexual partners, and for descendants. Obviously, our desire and passion for procreation have consistently won out over conflict. When cultures clash, first they fight—then they have sex and produce children. Individual survival of conflict, whatever the conflict is, always manifests itself in the next generation. If it had not, I would not be writing this and you would not be reading this.

Large swaths of the body politic of the West deny this, but they are going extinct—even as they rage. Biology and mortality are completely indifferent even to its own errors, which nature cures every 70 years or so. “Those who breed, succeed (at least politically)” (original to me; feel free to use it early and often).

A friend sent me a video of one of the morning TV shows (we don’t have commercial TV in the home and he thought I would find this worth seeing) in which several aging/middle-aged talking heads were ringing their hands about the latest propaganda battle in the Gender War and wondering out loud, “How are we going to come back from this?” Such mind-boggling arrogance! “How are we going to come back from this?” From where? Two people, who had consensual sex while working together at the same company?  Mankind "came back" from nuclear bombings, the Holocaust, the Ukraine famine, the Killing Fields, the slaughter in the Congo... and these people are wondering "How we are going to come back from this?"

Leaving that silly idea alone for the moment: it all really depends how one defines “we.” Since most of the people talking on that show, its writers, producers, and executives, will either be pushing up daisies in a cemetery or be drooling in a nursing home within 20 years (7,305 days, 1,044 Saturday nights) or so (and maybe a lot sooner), I don’t know why they are so concerned or why they should include themselves in this “we” thing. Do they think that their children—if they bothered to produce any—are even remotely concerned?

Blinded by the lights of the cameras, these media “players”—and the people enthralled to them—have entered into the terminal phase of their cultural existence, completely unaware that the grim reaper is standing right behind them. They have spent their existence as “moralists with a stick” (also original to me). People who do not actually live themselves, spending their existence watching other people living on TV/computer screens and intently internalizing the belief systems that the media producers infect them with, and beating the people who do actually live about the head and shoulders for not conforming to a morality that the moralists cannot even articulate. A morality that completely denies the biological imperative and life-giving force of (hetero) human sexuality, and which has lately contrived to convince the common man that there is no difference between the ideas of Malem In Se and Malem Prohibitum. And they are willing to sacrifice our joy in life at the sacred alter of their temporary sense of self-importance. But Mother Nature, including biology, always bats last.

These are people who Creation was not kind to. Creation infused them with confusion. Creation crossed and shorted-out their wires and deformed their structure. For some strange reason these poor souls feel they can get even with Creation via the destruction of Life itself, of our culture and history, of our intellectual, personal, and artistic achievements, and anything and everything that might possibly contradict their narrative and by doing so give comfort and support to their feelings of inadequacy and sense of persecution. Such people rarely have children and so have more time to politically agitate and radicalize in their efforts to destroy—to “get even” with—Creation. Of course, that is never going to happen. The universe is going to do what it was set in motion to do. What will happen is that these people are going to pass from existence, as every man who has ever died has done and every man who has not died as yet is going to do. The earth and Creation will swallow them up and break down the errors made in their DNA into ashes and dust, and a new crop of human beings, people who, like every other human being, came into existence at the point of an aroused male attracted to and temporarily objectifying the incredible beauty of a nubile feminine female, will come of age completely unaware and unconcerned with the sensibilities of these lost souls. And not so much as a faint echo of their enraged—and deranged—existence will endure.

All people are born with an unlimited capacity to experience joy, passion, pleasure, achievement, love, and the virtue of integrity expressed in the care of their children before their life ends. For reasons that will likely never be fully understood—not because these reasons cannot be understood but because the sensibilities of these people are not worthy of being understood—some people choose to spend the time they were allocated expressing outrage at existence. Such people are never celebrated. They are never mourned. They are never missed. Not even by their compatriots or those they claim to champion. The rugby scrum of humanity will continue down the path of evolution and will wink out of existence just as every other mammalian species has done or will do, and in the same inconsequential timeframe on the cosmic existence scale.

The enraged, the frightened, and the neurotic are incapable of Reason. They are incapable of producing children as well as raising well-adjusted children into functioning adults. They seek to destroy that which they themselves cannot participate in, but in the final analysis, these people simply do not matter. They are dead-ends and a cautionary tale waiting to be reduced to fictional stories for future generations—an “Aesop’s Fables” for the anti-social deviants who experience anger rather than joy and passion and procreation.

In the “Devine Comedy”, Dante places the angry and the sullen in the “Fifth Circle of Hell”. How prescient of Dante! If Reason allowed for Hell I think that is right where the angry and sullen of this time belong.

Best,


QIASL























 #Simplicity #Integrity #Localism #Community #Feminism #Authoritarianism #PrivateProperty #Liberty #Family #Abortion #Collectivism #Authoritarianism #Family #Quaker #Philosophy #Libertarian  #MeToo # Liberals # Progressive # Democrat #RightToLife #MeNeither

Building a Community That Lasts

I was exchanging correspondence with authors, philosophers, mathematicians, and engineers Rob O'Grady (150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future) and Dmitry Orlov (Communities That Abide) on the subject of "Community". Their comments to me shall remain private. Herewith is my reply to one exchange:

(Quote)

Hey Rob and DO, thanks for the reply.

I focused in on your "community-lite" remark (naturally). Of course, I think that is the right way to go about this.

Community, as I grok it, simply cannot be "communal". I visited "The ****", the largest and oldest commune in the U.S.—and it was a shocking disgrace. The population consisted of feckless and mentally ill aging male hippies, few women, and no children. I was appalled. I had planned to stay for a week but realized that by day 2 that I had seen the entire abasement, and so we left. It should be mentioned that my wife and the younger children had seen enough by lunchtime of the first day (we arrived late the night before on our converted school bus that we use as an "RV"; the "welcome" we got is a story in and of itself). I am still traumatized by the experience. This was the moment that I fully grokked Dmitry's railing against the distraction of politics. The place was one *huge* political distraction of protest where nothing got done—but they were extremely proud of their solar array, so they had that going for them (snicker). I asked them where their dairy was, or their hen (eggs) house, or the grain mill, or the livestock—things a self-sufficient "community" needs either individually or communally— and was informed that they were all vegetarian and that they did not keep livestock. So I assumed that they would have massive gardens and fruit patches and orchards to make up for the absence of animal calories. What I saw sickened me. It seemed to me that their socio-economic model was to collect government "disability" checks and to rent space to park dilapidated trailers upon where they might "live"—if one can call what I saw there "living".

What I propose is to encourage young couples/families who have the ability to finance the purchase of a functioning homestead in our community (there are several Amish farms for sale and a number of parcels large enough to homestead on), and then "lend" them equipment/tools/implements if they cannot afford them (they may keep the implements if they succeed; and if they fail the equipment belongs to the community and can be used by other community members in a similar fashion) and help them get started in a marketable trade or artisan business. Because, as I continue to noodle this, unlike the Amish and the Mennonites, these people will need several years to learn how to make themselves productive in this way of living. They have no knowledge of this way of life, having spent their existence moving bytes around on a screen and occasionally talking on a telephone. Worse, they may well have spent time listening to crazy people on the Web (or reading "homesteading" books) and have internalized opinions very much like the way many of them have internalized political belief systems. I have a solution for this: For not a great deal of money, our organization can hire a Mennonite or Amishman to teach newcomers with a hands-on example, almost an apprenticeship, at his farm. There has to be redundancy. I am not getting any younger. The key is to get to critical mass. At least 10 families with children. With that, between newcomers and children coming of age, we can get our community to model after the typical Amish or Mennonite "church group community" of 25 families—coincidentily enough, roughly 150 souls; a "Dunbar number" community—in short order.

I have had lots of interest from "whoofers" (they actually call themselves this). I would tend to call them "loafers" and have taken to discourage them from visiting given the poor experience we have had with them in the past. A community cannot survive single and uncommitted transients any more than it can survive childless middle-aged couples. The former consumes time and resources and then leave, making absolutely no contribution to the community whatsoever, and I fear that the latter would consume time and resources and then, infinitely worse, might stay and consume more and more community resources and turning the community into an old age home that young families would flee from. Families will take care of their own their own, but it is unreasonable to ask young families to accept into the community people who have not made a lifetime of contribution but who will now require end of life support and comfort.

(For my upcoming book I coined the term “The Feminist paradox” to describe this. Feminists may well hate men, marriage, family, and children—but elderly Feminists will happily consume the resources and efforts of families and other people’s offspring. They will also happily consume inheritances from their own parents and ancestors while making no personal sacrifices and providing nothing to future generations. (Here, read what Kant, the Left's favorite philosopher, has to say on the subject.)

Feminists were complicit in the murders of millions of unborn babies and now, in the Feminists’ old age, they want to hold a gun to the head of the babies they didn't kill—the now-adult offspring of their contemporaries and seize resources by (government) force. This is also true of the LBGTVQR community. I am not denying the humanity of any human being; I am pointing out the economic realities of using government extracted resources to fund social programs for what has always been—and will soon be again—family and personal responsibility. It is not a coincidence that childless people are less interested in private property and inheritance and find collectivism appealing. They have no family to command their loyalty and have no difficulty justifying the confiscation of resources from others by government force (mob rule).)

Imagine the Mayflower or one of the early settlement ships coming to North America from Europe. Did they send single men? Or couples too old to have children? Of course not. Too, most settlers of new communities in the past had the benefit of a lifetime of actual and useful skills. Can you imagine a shipful of today's recent college graduates being set ashore in New England in the 17th century? In any event, any new settlement, community, or nation for that matter cannot be formed around people who do not produce children.

In any event, I am thrilled to hear that you have four families in your community. You are getting closer to the critical mass needed for success.

Regards,

Greg


(Unquote)

The Complexity Trap

Mankind has enjoyed tremendous benefits as a result of industrialization and the subsequent advances in infrastructure, science & technology, and antibiotics, surgical technique, and anesthesia.

(Please note: I placed infrastructure first because it was the delivery of clean water and the removal of disease-causing waste, and sanitation in general, that benefited mankind most in terms of health and lifespan—not "healthcare". I placed science and tech next and include in that space things like the advances in nutrition, food production, and refrigeration. And notice I did not even say “healthcare” or “medicine”? In the absence of antibiotics (a medicine, of course), I think all of the positive input from “healthcare” as a practical matter when measured in lifespan evaporates with the distinct exception of the management of pain and vaccines.)

We enjoy far longer lifespans here in the industrialized West than our preindustrial ancestors did, and our lives are far more comfortable. There. I have given the devil his due. Too bad that wasn’t enough for the devil because, in addition, the devil has taken our emotional and physical wellbeing from us. We are incredibly unwell physically and emotionally. And the people who (think they) benefit from our condition do not want us talking about it. Our complex lifestyle and the resultant obesity and anger epidemic has ravaged our physical health and our peace of mind—and the diets, health insurance(!), government programs, psychotherapy treatments, hormone therapies, gym memberships, diet pills and medications, bariatric surgeries, personal trainers, antidepressants/antipsychotics, exercise programs, and every other expensive and specious patch-fix the intelligentsia have slapped on this wound has only increased Complexity and has not brought us (back) to good physical and mental health—and they never will!—because the cause is the universally complex nature and essence of our lives.

Screw “The Matrix” and all of the movie special effects.  The problem is “Complexity”—and it is very real and it really is all around you. This Complexity thing has done a number on us. I don’t need to “fat shame” us. We have already done that by acknowledging how truly ill we are when we coined and used that phrase to defend the indefensible in the first place. We are enraged; walking time bombs of social-justice-warring vitriol. Saaammmokin’ mad do-gooders out for our 15 minutes of virtue signaling fame as we sit exhausted from the Complexity of our lives in front of the TV and listen closely as it tells us what to think while stuffing our face full of high carb take-out alone in our childless homes convinced of our immortality because Complexity made sure we have never had the inconvenience of having to witness and accept death. And it is our belief in our immortality that gives us the room to do all of the mental gymnastics we do that result in a population of enraged, obese, and childless lunatics.

I mean, really! Would any rational person who knew—not feared, but knew—they were going to die at "three score and ten"—and would be irrelevant a decade or even two before that—construct a system where they take on a mountain of debt to stay “in school” until almost 30? Would they commute 2 hours per day to a fluorescent-lit dungeon for 8, 9, 10 or more hours per day to work with people who can’t wait to eviscerate them if they find someone attractive or if they say something that offends someone (regardless of how emotionally unstable and overly sensitive that someone might be)? Would a rational and reasonable person who understood the limited nature of time and their own mortality load up on 30 years worth of debt for houses and cars and nannies (or childcare if you are poor) in exchange for a few idle years in old age?

Of course not! We’ve obviously gone stark, raving mad. Driven insane by (the unholy trinity of) soul-crushing, body-bloating, and mind-numbing Complexity. Worse, we are completely addicted to it. We can't help ourselves, though deep down inside we know we should be making other arrangements. We know that being 50 or 100+ pounds overweight has turned the volume knob on our life down to where we can no longer hear ourselves live, reduced to screen-watching others live and critiquing their conduct. We know we should be marrying and having children when we are young enough to see our offspring through to adulthood and maybe enjoy a grandchild or two. We know we are wasting the beautiful moments of our brief existence in anger and rage, protesting over the unfairness of the world or human nature itself. Deep down we know, even as we deny, that we will soon be as dead as fried frogs legs and the world and the universe will go right on existing as it is. We just haven’t done anything about it yet. But we do know we should get a move on.

The solution to the problems born of Complexity is to remove the Complexity. No "Red Pill". No drama. Many of us use the phrase, “practice (or practicing) Simplicity”. I have used it myself. But of course, that’s just silly. We don’t have to “practice Simplicity”. All we need do is reject/remove Complexity and Simplicity follows. Simplicity is the default; the factory-setting of the human condition, if you will. You were born Simple. Complexity happened to you along the way.

Simplicity is not a vow of poverty. Mankind was given Reason, and the ability to experience joy and pride in our accomplishments. You can still work hard, and achieve fantastic professional, personal, intellectual, or artistic success while living simply. But by doing so you will never be trapped by your own success, wasting the precious moments of your mortal existence doing something that you no longer wish to do but having no other choice precisely because you are trapped where you are because the self-inflicted Complexity of your life has removed all other options. And if you are fortunate enough to live long enough there will come a time in your life where you have a firm grasp on your mortality (some are slower than others on the uptake on this) and will wish to pursue different objectives.

Often we confuse Complexity with freedom because we believe that our stressful and complex lives are the sacrifice we must make for other rewards, many of which we associate with freedom. If that were true why are we waddling about looking like Humpty-Dumpty, enraged, and slurping meds just to cope? Complexity often manifests itself as a form of arrested development. Complexity is life in a rut. It is Simplicity that provides freedom and flexibility, well at least according to me and Ben Franklin, Henry D. Thoreau, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, et al. At the very least I am in good company here.

OK, here is where I must depart. I don't know what your chief purpose in life is. I can’t tell you how to go about rejecting Complexity or what to do next. I know how I handled it (and you could read the book I wrote about my experience in rejecting Complexity, "Prosperous Homesteading"), but I can’t tell you how to go about it. I can tell you that it is a process that goes back and forth and that requires extreme vigilance and diligence to keep Complexity at bay. I can tell you that you can always back up a step if you think you went too far and I can tell you I have never met anyone who went too far (yet).

How about this: Keep removing Complexity from your life until you are fit and trim, medication free, and no longer angry—and for the average American or Western European that is going to be quite enough of a shock because the zeitgeist, for reasons beyond my comprehension, wants you obese, angry, and medicated and has worked tirelessly to get you there. By the way... Happiness is too much to ask for—because, as Søren Kierkegaard said, no matter what you do, you are going to regret it. Fit and trim, medication free, and not angry is easier to accomplish than happiness. It is best to keep our goals modest and reasonable.



 Actually, Kierkegaard said it this way:

Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.

Had enough of signaling your virtue online? Feel the need to engage in some real and measurable do-gooderism? Reach out to me at: greg at quuchurch dot org and I will be happy to fill that need.

Our Peace Testimony (and the premises that support it)

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 is also one of the most counterintuitive ideas that spring forth from our philosophy of rejecting the use of force, violence, or coercion to achieve any goal—moral, political, personal, or material—and is universal. And it was this philosophy, this testimony in particular, that inspired William Penn to create the Frame of (colonial) Pennsylvania (actually, there were three Frames), and I would assert as the greatest political achievement in the history of civilization (and certainly since the Magna Carta).

“William Penn was the greatest lawgiver the world has produced, being the first, in either ancient or modern times who has laid the foundation of government in the pure and unadulterated principles of peace, reason, and right.” —Thomas Jefferson

Without the Quaker testimonies, there is no "Holy Experiment" of Pennsylvania, no Philadelphia, no "Virginia Declaration of Rights", no American Revolution—and no French Revolution!—no Benjamin Franklin, no Freedom Hall, no U.S. Constitution, et al for it was the philosophy of the Quakers and William Penn that the individual had rights that existed prior to the establishment of the State and which were not subjugated by the establishment of the State that gave birth to all of those developments. For the previous 12,000 years of civilization (or so), Man had no say in his government. This was the gift of the Quaker testimony of Peace to mankind—the creation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, the only political achievement to rival Penn's Pennsylvania. Or should I say really just the expansion of Penn's Pennsylvania?

(Of course, Man did not get the (universal) vote for another 100 years; Woman for another 240 years. Feminists make a great deal of noise about this but any critical thinking works out something like this: Men did not have universal suffrage for 98% of the history of civilization. Women did not have universal suffrage for 99.2% of the history of civilization. In exchange for that 1.2% time privilege men died in droves and within a relatively short time handed that privilege over to Women without a shot being fired. Think about that for just a moment.)

Unfortunately, the Peace testimony became adulterated, diluted, infected, and compromised at every turn by the State and those who support authoritarianism. The Peace testimony never suggested that the individual is not entitled to his life and his property and that it was a violation of the testimony to protect oneself. It then follows, and this is going to be hard for some, that Our Peace testimony does not draw a distinction between what we may do ourselves and what we may hire others, including employees of the State, to do. Conversely, if we find it acceptable and in keeping with our Peace testimony for the government to protect us then it follows that it is not a violation of our testimony to protect ourselves.

Here is the critical issue: An action that violates our philosophy does not become an acceptable action merely because we have hired a government force agent to do our dirty work; to do things and take actions that we would not do ourselves. I refer to that as violence by proxy (original to me, but feel free to use it early and often). Importantly, it does not matter if that government force agent wears a military uniform or a police uniform. Might, even the might of a majority (mob rule), does not make right. And yet we have voted away the rights of our fellow man and have committed violence (by proxy) upon him for political, moral, and personal belief systems and agendas. By accepting this we have disgraced ourselves.

The War on Drugs is a violation of our Peace testimony! Arresting a woman (or a man) for prostitution (customer or worker) is a violation of our Peace testimony! Abortion is a violation of our Peace testimony! Stealing the production of another is a violation of our Peace testimony! If you doubt any of this I invite you to support your position in an open dialogue under the rules of logic in a reasonable and rational co-examination of the facts.

We, as individuals, have rights to live as we choose free from the violence of those—or the violence of their proxies—who wish to impose their own moral, political, or personal belief systems or agendas upon us. These were the premises our entire ethical foundation was constructed upon. So why is our fellow man willing to shoot, beat, use dogs, torture, and imprison us in violation of these premises for actions that are neither violent nor a crime against property? For "crimes" where there is no victim?

At our founding, We, The People and the government, did not engage in such violence. What changed? Well, more on that later. The first step is to get back to the practice of our testimony to Peace. And to do that we must thoroughly examine our premises and then abide by them.