THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

QUAKERS -- INTRO | 2007-08-04

Before I get onto Quakers per se, it is important to realize how the YOUNGER Ben Franklin despised them. This discussion is a direct result of mderpelding's warning me not to get too soft, and the first point I want to make is how Franklin got soft, exactly what mderpelding warned me about.

I think mderpelding is psycho. Or do I mean psychic?

Oh, well, how the hell would ***I*** know the difference?

Ben Franklin's autobiography begins when, by my standards, he was still young. He was child of about sixty when the Revolution started and he stopped writing the book. The reason for this is kind of fun.

You see, his autobiography was written as advice to his (illegitimate) son. He stopped writing it when he went to the convention writing the Declaration of Independence and his son was the ousted Royal Governor of New Jersey and a dedicated Tory. His son's duty was to hang his father if he caught him.

This sort of thing tends to strain family bonds: "Nothing concentrates the mind like the realization that one is to be hanged on the morrow." Ben's side WON the Revolution, but he did not continue the book of advice to his son.

Which is why the Autobiography is so deliciously anti-Quaker. In his last years, Franklin became part of the Establishment. He sided with Hamilton against whites and he had not a bad word to say about the Penns who ruled Pennsylvania.

But the Autobiography ends when he still saw the Quakers naked. He talked about the time William Penn was on a ship with a younger Quaker. When the cry came that pirates were abut to attack the ship, the younger man volunteered to help fight, and Penn gave his blessing. Then it turned out that it wasn't a pirate after all.

So Penn and the other Quakers gave that young man hell for violating the creed of non-violence.

There were more Bronx cheers for the Quakers in the YOUNGER Franklin's autobiography. The fact is that no Quaker males ever lived who were not protected by MEN. So when the Scots-Irish who were in the mountains protecting Quakers from the Indians were attacked, the Quakers said, "So what's the big deal? Nothing to do with US."

Which is what another religious group in Philly says today.

But, as with Penn, it suddenly began to threaten THEM. So Franklin got through a resolution providing GRAIN, a word which could include gunpowder, to those protecting the Quakers.

You see, THEIR little asses were in danger, so pacifism be damned, even if, God forbid, it cost them TAXES..

More later, but Quakers make me SICK.

COMMENTS (2)

#1 mderpelding | 2007-08-06 18:42

The whole concept of "rehabilitation through incarceration" in the penal system is the brainchild of Philadelphia "Quakers".

Putting a man in a cage like an animal will somehow morally rehabilitate him.

That is analogous to caging a child for so-called "wrongdoing".

Any parents out there agree with that?

Little Jimmy failed to do his chores.

Let's put him in a cage.

Let other people beat him up.

He DESERVES punishment.

Not much "Golden Rule" there.

The Quaker is just like the modern liberal. Gaining so-called virtue through the defilement of decent people.

Quakers make me SICK. Too.

#2 Bret Ludwig | 2007-08-07 02:45

I was taught in history class that many Mennonites and Amish came here from Switzerland because military service was compulsory there, without exception. So they moved.

For that we were taught to admire the Mennonites and Amish. On some level I did, but I admired the Swiss more. They had a nation and they meant to keep it, and those who would not do what was needed were not wanted. Moreover, not tolerated. I'm told now the Swiss allow "alternative service", and at that the Jehovah's Witnesses have to be dragged to the court and ordered to.

The modern words "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" originated as medical terms in the early 20th century to describe people in different levels of mental retardation. I forget the sequence of severity. "Idiot" was derived from the Greek <b><i>'idiotes</i></b> which was someone who was, not necessarily stupid, but one who disregarded the civic duties incumbent on citizens of the democratic city-state. (The Greek city-states were about the largest bodies that could conceivably be democracies and at that it failed eventually.) The Jehovahs' Witnesses are <i>idiotes</i> by church decree. They vex me in a way other conscientious objector groups do not.

Maybe that's unfair, and certainly I have no desire to inflict any special societal opprobrium on them. Perhaps like the Amish we might learn something from their governance if we studied it, even. But to me directing one's people not to participate in civic affairs does not fit with my idea of social organization. Perhaps others more learned may clarify this for me.