Last week I wrote about the extent to which Quakers are interfering in British democracy. Today I wanted to expand on the subject, delving into the grants of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) – one of several foundations linked to Joseph Rowntree (1836-1925).
To add a bit of historical context (in case needed), Rowntree was an English Quaker philanthropist and chocolatier at the family business Rowntree’s (now owned by Nestlé). Like other successful Quakers (such as the Cadburys), Rowntree used his business wealth for many charitable causes. I don’t doubt that he was an impressive and honourable man who changed people’s lives for the better. The issue is how centuries old Quaker philosophy transposes to the modern day. Too often Quaker trusts in Britain sound as if they were being run by Novara Media. Just look at how Quakers in Britain responded to Wednesday’s Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman:
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bless you Charlotte for the work you are doing. Like the C of E it seems Quakerism has lost its way. Sad, not only as they were once devoted to helping the poor and also created – the Fox family – some extraordinary gardens in Cornwall. Just the best places to take sacred medicine
Marvelous.
I’m surprised they haven’t started running a free abortion and euthanasia clinic yet.
Why do all these lefties always need so much of other people’s money?
Good question and one answer might be found with one of the Leaders of BLM who used donations to buy property for herself & other people.
Or our own AR who at one time had two Council properties.
The whole thing about leftism is other people’s money.
It’s about not creating anything useful or beautiful.
Marx lived off Engels’ family money.
Grifters and parasites.
I don’t really agree with their causes, but at least they don’t take my money by force to accrue more power and fund projects to control me.
Unlike the government.
They absolutely do: The money of these organisations is of no intrinsic value. It’s just valuable because it can be exchanged for things with intrinsic values. Rich people really live from the productive work of others in exactly same way people on benefits do, they’re just a lot more expensive.
The chocolate business later run by Joseph Rowntree (1836-1925) would have been gearing up manufacture of Chocolate Nibs when Karl Marx (1818-1885) began publishing Das Kapital with sidekick Engels in 1867.
Can’t help but wonder what Rowntree would have thought of the heirs to Marx capturing the Rowntree Foundation to promote Marxist ideology accountable elsewhere in the world for evils brought about by the likes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
And like Lenin, without ever setting foot inside a factory, the malcontent Marx railed on behalf of the workers against capitalism and the bourgeoisie Marx himself came from.
Familiar story for the worst part of two centuries, continued unto this day by the middle-class intelligentsia of the Greens, the Fabian Society and our very own lawyerly Sir Two-Tier, proclaiming to represent “working people” from the platform of an eight-million pound fortune acquired through the profits of the Human Rights Industry.
God save us from these comfortably-off, do-badder preachy hypocrites and their luxury dis-beliefs.
Marx was a lifelong bludger..
I’ve learnt a new word!
Me too. Nowadays would have effortlessly milked the welfare state.
Activists appear to shop for an organisation, charity, or trust that they can take over to promote their own purposes. It’s a method of gaining power without the necessity of democracy or voting.
It doesn’t seem to matter that the original intent of the organisation, charity, or trust is subverted too.
Fills a meaningless life you see, and makes you feel righteous and better than others
Like regulatory capture, (where ‘the left’ slide actors into positions of power that those of the right fail to muster enthusiasm for), foundations and charities are also vulnerable to such usurpation of their offices to meet the political ambitions of their present incumbents with agendas never considered by their original founders . The Ford Foundation being a good example, the National Trust too. We need to roust this mob out from everywhere and take control of such organisation.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[Genesis 1, 27]
I wonder when the first ‘christian’ organization will officially disown the bible.
This article may unintentionally be misleading. Though the Joseph Rowntree Trust emerged from Quakerism and is still formally a Quaker Trust ( whatever that means in legal terms) it functions completely independently from the Religious Society of Friends( Quakers in Britain) who have zero input into or influence upon its running or decision making. Though Quakers as an organisation are certainly ideologically captured, what they do and say ( and incidentally ‘official statements’ online and in the press are no means indicative how many Quakers think or act or believe) must be distinguished from the somewhat dubious and highly politicised activities of the Rowntree Trust. Re the trans issues there is a difference between saying that Quakers will be loving and welcoming to all does not mean universal agreement among Quakers on the issues of what constitutes a woman or biological reality etc. there is no consensus, even though public statements spin it that way.
Re the trans issues there is a difference between saying that Quakers will be loving and welcoming to all does not mean universal agreement among Quakers on the issues of what constitutes a woman or biological reality etc. there is no consensus, even though public statements spin it that way.
As quoted elsewhere, the Bible is quite explicit with regards to men and women existing because God created them in different ways. The disciples of Trans have also stolen the Christian body/ soul dichotmoy and their claim that inately gendered people aka souls can be born in wrong bodies implicity asserts that God is either fallible or evil. Considering this, people who welcome worshippers of Trans in their midst cannot be called Christians.
Just for clarification, many, probably most Quakers, in this country, don’t call themselves Christians.
Sorry for assuming that the historic term had any relevance for the woke lobbying and ‘networking’ organisation of today. But since the Church of England is as openly anti-christian, the assumption seemed appropriate.
Most Quakers can’t even define what a Quaker is and their fiery prophetic Christian origins are, sadly, lost in the seventeenth century and what exists today is quite the liberal muddle so your assumption was hardly far from the mark
It must be a Reform Partry manifesto commitment to remove charity status from organisations which so actively get involved in party politics or which fund politrical campaigns. Only incidental campaign costs should be permitted which are directly relevant to actual charitable activity for the direct benefit of indivduals.
Past officers of these charities should be examined and internal documents checked to identyf wilfull brazen activities with no charitable intent and criminal charges and restitution orders muct be made.
Political parties in the UK should not be permitted to receive funds from charities nor charities to give to them in cash or in kind (free services, etc).
‘Migrant democracy project’. Is this an oxymoron?