The Corruption of the American Friends Service Committee | The National Interest
October 9, 2021 Topic: Quakers Region: United States Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: QuakersAmerican Friends Service CommitteeIraq WarSoviet UnionNationalismVietnam WarProgressive
The Corruption of the American Friends Service Committee
Most Quakers have no idea how the group which acts in their name has eschewed the values for which they stand.
by Michael Rubin
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)—the official non-governmental organization of the Society of Friends or the Quakers—won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947. They deserved it. The group, true to Quaker theology, professed non-violence and eschewed any groups perpetrating it. Quakers may have been conscientious objectors during the war, but such views neither demanded political conformity nor translated into support for America’s adversaries or regimes that would employ violence against their own people. They did nothing, for example, to enable Nazis to better their economy or facilitate Soviet purges. “The Goodness of God Is Demonstrated in Brotherly Love,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee declared when awarding the AFSC the prize, citing their work helping post-war reconstruction in France, assisting Jewish refugees, interned Japanese-Americans, and prisoners-of-war.
The award itself, however, marked a pivot point for the AFSC. It cast aside the careful relief operations that characterized the previous three decades of its activities, and set its aspirations on the political and diplomatic. Accepting the Nobel Prize, AFSC Executive Secretary Clarence Pickett, announced that the organization would dedicate the associated money to further Quaker proposals to improve Soviet-American relations.
Perhaps it made sense for a group dedicated to pacifism to seek to facilitate peace between the two rival superpowers but Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had little interest in compromise. The AFSC’s post-Nobel ambitions came less than fifteen years after Soviet dictator Josef Stalin starved to death almost four million Ukrainians in “the Holodomor,” and just a decade after he murdered one million more in “the Great Purge.”
Stalin had no tolerance for dissent and a Manichean view of power. Recognizing the immutability of Stalin’s position, the AFSC’s project effectively demanded the United States make greater accommodations to the Soviet Union’s positions. It abandoned its political neutrality and hired a professional, permanent staff, only a minority of whom were Quaker. Rather than anchor themselves to Quaker principles, the revamped AFSC prioritized politics while wearing the mantle of legitimacy born of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded at a time the group operated under a different value system and code of conduct.
The AFSC’s substitution of Quaker theological principles for subjective progressive politics colored subsequent activism and often put it in the bizarre position of promoting violent and even genocidal groups over their victims.
Many progressives castigate the United States for the Vietnam War, but the reality of the conflict was murkier. Ho Chi Minh may have depicted himself as a nationalist but he often subordinated Vietnamese interests to those of his Russian sponsors and advisors. Nor was the United States the only aggressor: North Vietnam invaded first Laos and then their southern neighbor. South Vietnam might have been corrupt, but so too was North Vietnam. Quakers might oppose U.S. policy but, as Henry Bowden, a Rutgers University professor of religion, explained, prior to the Vietnam War, “The idea was to alleviate the suffering from war, not to find politics in it.”
The overt decision by AFSC leadership to do otherwise led the AFSC down the path of moral perversity. During the 1970s, the AFSC defended Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, even as word emerged that the group had killed one million citizens. In Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism, political scientist Guenter Lewy described how John McAuliff, head of the AFSC's Indo-China division, called reports of massacres a U.S. attempt to discredit “the example of an alternative model of development.” McAuliff was the rule rather than the exception. New England Regional Director Russell Johnson dismissed the “bloodbath stories” as motivated both by “a new wave of anti-communism” and Washington’s desire to punish those countries who sought “to close their boundaries to exploitation by multinational corporations seeking raw materials, markets for surplus, and cheap labor.” In effect, the AFSC and Quakers who embraced it talked of non-violence but provided cover for a group directly responsible for the murder of at least one million Cambodians.
The AFSC has repeated its mistakes with regard to North Korea. The group explains, “AFSC’s concern for the Korean peninsula stems particularly from the suffering caused by the Korean War in which the United States was a major combatant.” While this is true—the United States led a coalition operating under United Nations auspices—China and the Soviet Union were also combatants, though the AFSC’s one-sided narrative does not acknowledge this. Nor does the AFSC mention that the war began with North Korea’s surprise invasion of its southern neighbor.
While the AFSC operates projects to bolster collective farm productivity in the North, it conducts no parallel projects in South Korea. Nor does its literature acknowledge that its collective farms are effectively slave-labor camps. The AFSC might claim the moral high ground, but their actions are akin to a foreign NGO helping modern-day China making child labor more productive.
Next, consider Iraq. The AFSC was in good company in its opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, but it went beyond mere opposition when it made common cause with Saddam Hussein’s regime: It actively bolstered Iraqi propaganda accepting and promoting the calumny that U.S.-supported sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Neither the AFSC nor its allies mentioned that Saddam’s regime provided those numbers nor did the AFSC correct the record when that claim proved false. The AFSC was silent, however, to the victims of Saddam’s regime who suffered his chemical attacks or ended up in mass graves. As Barham Salih, then a leading Iraqi Kurdish opponent of Saddam and now Iraq’s president, told a January 2003 meeting of the Socialist International, “To those who say ‘No War,’ I say, of course, ‘Yes,’ but we can only have ‘No War,’ if there is ‘No Dictatorship’ and ‘No Genocide.’”
The AFSC is especially active today in the Israel-Palestine conflict, not as a neutral party seeking to alleviate suffering or further dialogue, but rather as a partisan force. Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe discuss AFSC activities in detail in their book, Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief. The two scholars document how the Quaker group worked with the Palestine Liberation Organization at the height of its terror campaign against Israel and worldwide Jewry and instructed workshop participants to ignore anti-Semitic remarks. Such policy has led the AFSC down a curious moral path. In 2008, for example, the AFSC co-hosted a gala dinner for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Holocaust-denying president. AFSC Spokesman Mark Graham defended the AFSC’s dalliance with Ahmadinejad. “There are many points where we disagree with Iranian policy [but] we believe dialogue is the way to understanding and moving past tensions rather than threats and standoffish behavior,” he said. Such an explanation, though, only heightens the hypocrisy of the AFSC’s calls to boycott the Jewish state.
The AFSC continues to cite its Nobel Laureate status to bolster its moral authority, but those days are gone. The AFSC has soiled its moral legacy as much as Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi and Ethiopian dictator Abiy Ahmed have. In its letters and pronouncements, it makes common cause with radical groups like Code Pink and the National Iranian American Council, a group whose founder Trita Parsi once defended Female Genital Mutilation. It has become a group that remains silent on the incarceration of Chinese Uighurs, dines with Holocaust deniers, and works with Hamas terrorists who openly call for the murder of homosexuals.
Most Quakers have no idea how the group which acts in their name has eschewed the values for which they stand. That is a failure of oversight and the result of many permanent AFSC employees prioritizing political agendas above theological principles. The tragedy here is not simply that the Society of Friends is increasingly associating itself with those who ridicule its principles, but that the roles that an organization like the pre-1947 AFSC once upheld increasingly go unfilled.
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
====
Sharon FitzpatrickGiven the author, with whom I studied 2 years at Abington Friends School, mentions that most Quakers unaware of the information, I am sharing.
It was sad and shocking for me to read, but given the horrendous treatment of my spirit within this Society of Hypocrites, I am more prone to believe.
No oversight and non-Quakers or atheists at the helms of organization lets in the darkness.
The author of article ranked among most intelligent people with whom I have taken classes whose creative mind made AFS more fun for me than any other student. When someone that quick is among a small group of students, the pace of learning can pick up. Perhaps the austere tone can be seen as pace-setting for higher rate Quaker values within actions taken in the name.
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick I don’t think there has ever been a time that a non-Quaker was “at the helm” of the organization, not to mention head of its board. While true AFSC does employ nonQuakers, you must profess to understand, adhere to, and support Quaker values and principles to work there.
Sharon Fitzpatrickunsure what you mean to support or suggest with this information, I personally have no objection to Rubin referring to AFSC as Quaker and so it follows that organization acts in observance of the testimonies and the nonviolent or pacifist methods that are considered the manner of Friends.
Rubin laid out an argument that he bears witness to what he views as contrary to those “values.”
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick I didn’t suggest. I plainly stated. I’m not aware of non-Quakers ever being at the helm of AFSC, either on staff or board levels. The General Secretary is Quaker as is the board president. In fact being Quaker is a requirement for the general secretary’s position per the job description. That’s the antithesis of your statement that there is “no oversight” and no Quakers “at the helm.”
https://www.fgcquaker.org/news/afsc-seeks-general-secretary
Charles K. SummersIt is good to have this information to examine and investigate. Having read it through. I would caution Friends not to assume that it is fully true any more than, as the author cautions, assuming the AFSC continues to follow Quaker tradition and values.
But do try to keep an open mind and investigate, contemplate, and pray. One thing is certain — we always have farther to go to reach our ideals.
Heather BrutzCalling AFSC the "official non-governmental of the Society of Friends" is inaccurate and seems like a poor start to an article.
Sharon FitzpatrickHeather Brutz it is an NGO. And it is both in name and in OFFICE associated with this religion. How would you describe in a few words AFSC?
It is a line item on every budget of every Quaker meeting I have seen, 3 or 4.
I compiled, edited, and published the memoirs of one of those volunteers who received Nobel in 1947. I’ve been maligned and mistreated for my help with Mary Elmendorf’s autobiography as well as many other efforts in the manner of Friends.
There was NO attempt to conform to faith and practice, let alone Quaker values, in how I was treated as a member and after being expelled from this supposedly religious society.
I know Friends consider AFSC stalwart and this perspective is important to CONSIDER. You seem to me to jump to “not trusting” this author from the very first ACCURATE identification of AFSC.
You can consider validity of concerns without agreeing with every point Rubin makes.
He want to a Quaker school for his entire youth and held a genuine attention to the world around him. He isn’t void of familiarity with this religion; he sat in a Meetinghouse once a week to worship while in school.
For viewpoints on the political nature of decisions and actions made by AFSC, I consider an alumnus of the longest running Quaker school on land ultimately called US soil who travels the world in diplomatic efforts to be a really good voice to hear and contemplate.
It seems yo me that you listened with intent to discredit and dismiss.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick there is no organization that is the "official" NGO representing all North American Quakers. And outside of FGC affiliated meetings, AFSC is less likely to be mentioned. And more likely to be criticised.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick my primary issue with Rubin is that he has willingly been a tool of American imperialism for years. He was literally part of occupation of Iraq. And he chooses to associate himself with AEI, which has long advocated for an aggressive US military position in the world. I don't care if he attended Quaker meeting as a teenager. So did Nixon. Sharon FitzpatrickHeather Brutz I did not say anything about ALL Quakers. And the first word AFSC uses to describe itself is Quaker.
Joe Biden is currently in office. The word officially comes from Latin meaning a service, a duty, etc.
The service part of AFSC’s name shows this.
It is IN OFFICE or officially THE Quaker NGO working in international affairs.
Also, you did not answer my direct question of how you would describe on a few words, since you criticized another wording.
The evasion of my question and continuation of dismissal are not evidence of dealing with conflict.
Heather BrutzHe has disdain for AFSC but he worked with Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton. He is not a peacemaker.
Sharon FitzpatrickHeather Brutz I don’t know where you got the idea that only “peacemakers” may provide an opinion about NGOs operating in regions and realms where they work, but I do not recognize or accept this criterion for the validity of the concerns raised here.
If a Saudi prince wrote about some difficulties he observed with AFSC operating in his neighboring nations, the information doesn’t become invalid because not written as if he took an AVP workshop.
Heather BrutzI think it would be fair to question the Saudi prince's motives though in your hypothetical situation. Which is what I'm doing with Michael Rubin. I do not trust his motives.
Heather BrutzAnd the American Enterprise Institute which the author is associated with is a truly awful organization.
Heather BrutzAEI has long supported climate skeptics. And AEI supports agressive foreign policy measures by the United States that are at odds with Quaker values.
Heather BrutzThe author literally worked for the Pentagon in Iraq during the early days of the Iraq War, a war that was based on lies. Why on Earth should we trust him?
Heather BrutzAEI also has a long history of denying that systemic racism or police brutality are real.
Janaki Spickard-KeelerThough there is still "Friends" in the name, AFSC decades ago ceased to operate as a Quaker-led organization, disassociated from Quaker bodies, and to a large extent does not even use Quaker governing process or principles. To say that they are still the "official NGO" of a Religious Society of Friends that is largely fractured over the past century is inaccurate at best. However, I'm all for Quakers giving up the pretense that AFSC is Quaker and that they are doing our peace work for us. It's been a fiction for a long time.
Janaki Spickard-Keeler(Also, does anyone else find it weird that the author and AEI are writing a hit piece about the Quakers - a miniscule faith - and a small NGO? I wonder about the political motives.)
Sharon FitzpatrickJanaki Spickard-Keeler I gathered that it is about Israel and the fact that AFSC has fractured from the religion, but many Friends make assumptions that it continues to operate in accordance with testimonies.
Since acting in accordance with testimonies is challenging among those who claim to be Quakers among themselves, I think it’s near impossible for these to be tools in international affairs. How do you demonstrate equality when dealing with opposing parties? It CAN be done, but it isn’t easy.
Using the Nobel Peace as leverage seems to me to be a clear irritant for Rubin and it may be a caution about not awarding organizations as they are subject to change. Humans change, but a dead individual who is no longer peace-oriented can’t still be using leverage from an award.
Jenny ShieldsJanaki Spickard-Keeler Respectfully I disagree. AFSC has and does keep Quaker principles at heart and just as Quakers were attacked for feeding Germans and Jews alike during WWII it still takes the stance that there is that of God in us all. AFSC goes out of its way to emphasize it does not speak for Quakers nor does it pretend to be the voice of Quakers. I say that based on being a past AFSC spokesperson. I note the reference to a “gala” thrown for Ahmadinejad neglects to mention the gathering was part of a historic visit to Iran by religious leaders of many faiths - including Jewish leaders - to engage in dialogue, one that AFSC and the Mennonite church organized at the time.
Heather BrutzJenny Shields I like AFSC but the description of it in the article as the "official NGO" representing Quakers is inaccurate.
Jenny ShieldsHeather Brutz agreed and AFSC doesn’t describe itself in that manner. Here’s the about us section from
AFSC.org. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) promotes a world free of violence, inequality, and oppression.
Guided by the Quaker belief in the divine light within each person, we nurture the seeds of change and the respect for human life to fundamentally transform our societies and institutions. We work with people and partners worldwide, of all faiths and backgrounds, to meet urgent community needs, challenge injustice, and build peace.
===
Jasmine KrotkovBoth Rubin and defenders of AFSC seem to assume that Quaker organizations are claiming a moral high ground. My experience has been that Quakers often disagree and do things wrong, but stay united in the desire to speak and act on internal truths that are usually not easy to precisely articulate through action. Faith in action has been for me about unity rather than conformity. Rubin may be correct in some of his criticisms. This Quaker claims spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection.
Sharon FitzpatrickJasmine Krotkov Thank you for reminding that process is not static. To examine, or query, was the reason I shared.
It seemed to me that Friends would want to know what one author who has familiarity with Quaker values and opportunity to witness how AFSC is engaging in international affairs has to say about what he sees as a failure.
I don’t know a ton about some of the specifics he raises, but I disagree on at least one point.
Of what I am certain from own experience: atrocious contradiction of Quaker values and practices can be disguised as a Quaker organization. And in the case that I have observed, there is no willingness to examine for the congruence of actions and testimonies.
Kath McThe publication and writer both have plenty of their own biases.
lovely banner ad. I don’t think much of the article.
Sharon FitzpatrickKath Mc that isn’t an ad that came up when I logged in with link 3x. You realize the ads that pop up on any format selected are catered to the viewer as well as representing the party willing to advertise?
So this ad popping up for you might indicate that immigrant rights questions are an interesting of yours.
I am progressive and yet a fellow student in a very expensive program I took as an elective was working as a teacher in public schools, raised on US illegally, paying in to the system, but facing the fact that 2 aging parents in uS undocumented transplanted from Europe were not eligible for benefits.
Would I like to take this poll to answer about a young woman pursing her doctorate who was raised here undocumented getting SS benefits? Yes. Do I realize that
rightwing.org not the place I would like to register my opinion on it? Yes.
The bias of AFSC is supposed to be peace, simplicity, integrity, truth. No one writes without having biases or manages NGOs. Examining those biases and how they relate to standards set is in the manner of Friends.
Sharon FitzpatrickMuriel Strand I am not familiar with Quaker manner based on appearances. If you wish to make comments on the substance of the article, then I am willing to engage, but cursory glance at an article title is not enough information to draw a parallel.
David HoffmanThe author cherry-picks and misrepresents many of his factoids. For example he cites the very uncertain claim that Stalin induced famine in the Ukraine causing millions of deaths, as if this were fully agreed upon. And suggests that AFSC was uncritical of Stalin and Stalinism, in its endeavors to encourage peace between the USA and USSR.
I do remember a travelling AFSC speaker shortly after the US ended its war against Viet Nam, rationalizing the Vietnamese communist regime's political internment camps in ways which I found facile and evasive. I think some AFSC spokespeople made similar naive or dogmatic errors, in failing to denounce the Khmer Rouge. So the author may be factually correct on those points. But what he does with those factoids is misuse them to paint a grossly inaccurate and contemptuous portrait of AFSC overall.
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman the use of word factoid is inappropriate if you are respecting the information a senior fellow who deals with policy or international diplomats and publishes a lot of material on those matters.
There are more scenarios than Stalin’s Russia and Vietnam listed in Rubin’s list.
What he does with the information you grant may be valid is add it to more scenarios; this is not misuse. While you may not be willing to recognize a pattern, Rubin is not “misusing” examples of what he sees as a pattern.
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman also Holodomor is recognized by 15 nations plus the US Congress (not executive branch.) The nation whose history Includes this famine, Ukraine, holds Stalin as responsible in part. While it is true that not universally accepted as historically true, it is enough so for Rubin to refer as factual. I had to look up who recognizes the Holodomor, but I did know what was referred and recalled when this recognition was in news.
Trivializing as “factoid” seems to me in the same vein as treating this reference as of dubious.
US executive branch didn’t recognize who called for Khashoggi’s gruesome murder, but we aren’t claiming authors who refer to the responsible parties as if there is any doubt.
Larry StanleySince Friends’ processes make it excruciatingly slow to speak with one voice on any issue, any writer who attempts to conflate AFSC policy with some nebulous statement that it “acts in the name” of Quakerism has not done their homework.
This hit piece on the AFSC seems to be one of many “news” articles that have followed from the advocacy, by the AFSC, for the rights of Palestinians and their support for the international disinvestment movement that boycotts products generated, by Israeli and other businesses, in occupied territories.
Sharon FitzpatrickLarry Stanley I had to reread the article to find where Rubin claims AFSC acts in name of Friends. It is as the end and does not imply that ALL Friends are represented. He doesn’t make the nebulous into a singular as you have interpreted.
Instead, he correctly stated that AFSC acts in the name of Friends and he speculates that most Friends aren’t aware of the political nature of many efforts and endeavors from AFSC.
David HoffmanI don't find the article valid or persuasive.
I see it as fairly formulaic cold-warrior disparagement of any progressive and humane institution.
I suspect the author's motive goes beyond a generic, shotgun practice of every so often publishing negativity against a different progressive organization, in between bad-mouthing progressive programs and proposals (like student debt forgiveness, or medicare for all).
I suspect this is more strategic: That he realizes AFSC carries considerable moral authority, and he wants to destroy that moral authority by this vitriolic attack.
I expect to see his villification parroted by others on the right, to glibly dismiss positions issued by AFSC, out of hand.
The article and that further strategy remind me of the way GOP operatives villified ACLU as "lobbyists for criminals" and then went on - in phase 2 - to pugnaciously state (as if it were some damning thing) that George Deukmejian was "a card carrying member of the ACLU."
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman “disparagement of any progressive…” is where your comment becomes projection. In the article I shared, AFSC is the NGO discussed. When you claim this scholar has a theme such as disparaging any progressive organization, you diverge from fact. Later, you go on to accuse him of taking up topics that I don’t see on the five titles listed with his name that appear of you click it.
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman and here I see some topics other than those you project on to the author of this article about a single Quaker organization operating in the complex 20th and 21st centuries.
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman if you have evidence of “so often” publications from Michael Robin disparaging progressive organizations that have informed your comment, please direct us to them.
Linda LotzDavid Hoffman FYI he published a similar attack article in the 00s. This is a long standing theme for the author.
Sharon FitzpatrickLinda Lotz could you provide a link or do you feel that an author returning to a theme that remains a problem in his estimation excludes the possibility that his observations are warranted.
“Oh gee, author x write about Epstein back in the 00s and is writing about it again after a decade and more accounts accumulating, I guess that means that author is just biased and fixated on someone who isn’t a problem.”
Writing on the same theme does not invalidate the issue.
If you’ve joined the conversation with this his information, allowing others the benefit of your research is at the very least a great way to show Integrity.
David HoffmanI am not willing to invest further time or energy reviewing past writings and behaviors of Michael Rubin. The Invidious rhetorical distortions In his piece smearing AFSC are clear. Cold warrior punditry is easily recognized. Its slanderous and inflammatory intent and impact are well established.
If others wish to drill down into Michael Rubin's writings and alignments, that is up to them. As a progressive, and as a one-time struggling welfare parent, I have watched, heard, read and been smeared and abusively scapegoated by such suavely inhumane propagandists for decades.
[Further note: Thank you to
Morgan Murray for providing the kind and quality of background regarding Michael Rubin which I describe above, and which confirms what was self-evident to me from reading Rubin's devious and defamatory misrepresentations against AFSC.]
Michael Rubins’ calculatedly disinformational hit piece fits seamlessly into the same callous and cruel stream as J. Edgar Hoover, John Foster Dulles, John Mitchell, Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, Ayn Rand, Dinesh D’Sousa, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and dozens of companion denizens of the corporate and hard Right.
I cannot afford to divert time or intellectual resources from constructive efforts to relieve human suffering, into further debate over matters which I consider self evident.
If anyone is following this thread, please do n’t misinterpret my silence going forward as conceding any point others may raise.
Sharon FitzpatrickDavid Hoffman I read that whole thing and NOT ONE section on the progressive non-profit organizations he disparages, as you immediately accused.
Next, this is proof that Rubin is neocon. That was a known when I posted this. There is no us/them of progressive Quakers and neoconservatives. Rubin having a mind that holds viewpoints that you or perhaps no other Quaker in the whole world holds does not mean HOA observations about AFSC, which are being spread in a sector of our society, should not be considered.
This article is written from a bias against conservatives, but the arguments are not all solid. Here is an example….
Sharon FitzpatrickBarb Katzenapple Anspach there is NOTHING in the bio from Militarist Monitor that contradicts the viewpoint on AFSC, nor does it support David Hoffman’s allegation that Rubin disparages “any” progressive NGO, etc.
Human beings are not hawks. If Rubin was ACTUALLY a hawk, then discarding what he thinks few Quakers know would be fine. But the quick decision by multiple parties to dismiss this opinion as unsound because coming from someone who viewpoints different is not consistent with Equality.
Barb Katzenapple AnspachSharon Fitzpatrick What comes through most clearly in all of this exchange is that YOU feel very strongly about it all. Okay. You've shared the article Rubin wrote, I've read it... do you have suggestions about how you want Friends to respond to it? I'm not clear on what next steps I might do to further explore his contentions.
Sharon FitzpatrickPaul Pilar does NOT call Rouhani a moderate. His quote is juxtaposed with Rubin’s as a “different take,” but it isn’t. Rubin had said he was the besf of the options, but not justified to call him a moderate. And then Pilar says the SAME thing—this is the best of the choices we had.
The article I posted discussed AFSC in its operations regarding international conflicts. Military action is a component of these conflicts. You responded, after some false allegations the author, with a critique of this person’s career. The critique does not support your original reason for not considering the concerns described by Rubin.
Instead, it tells us this person interacts with foreigners regarding their political affairs as it relates to the US. Why you, or anyone here, would think this DISQUALIFES him from having a perspective on what AFSC does baffles me.
I know a couple dozen words in Farsi, but I don’t think a n accusation of a mistranslation means that Rubin is not ascertaining when he travels to these places and engages in diplomacy.
I don’t agree with one point on his article and I also thought he should have disclosed that he has a Quaker educational background in it. Similarly, I think that not disclosing that he had reviewed material Lincoln Group was contracted to produce for Pentagon was not transparent.
The AFSC volunteer friend insisted that I attend an event with John McDonald, whose multi-track diplomacy was renowned for successes. I was heavily involved in several peace related groups at the time and accepted the offer for a place in the room with this person Mary Elmendorf revered. When he got to Israel, though, it was the only nation with conflicts that he was unable to help. He said it didn’t matter of a Israel/Iran or Israel/Palestine or Israel/Egypt.
When American Jews heard I was a peace activist, automatically assumed I was anti-Israel. I am not, but I am a fierce critic of the expansion and settlements.
I am mentioning this because you are doing something similar. You are assuming that someone with a position about Israel is anti-peace. And so you use the military-related career of someone as if it is proof that he is a hawk, and therefore has no accurate observations on the behavior of doves.
===
Jenny ShieldsThis piece was written by a neoconservative “think tank” that also opposed the New Deal.
Sharon FitzpatrickJenny Shields snd as I have had to mention elsewhere in this thread, your comment is an example of “this is bu one of them, not one of us. The validity is dubious because not one of the people who think like us.”
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s not about “us” over “them”. It’s about truth over misinformation. The validity is dubious because it’s full of half truths. Challenging deliberate misinformation is an example of speaking truth to power.
Sharon FitzpatrickJenny Shields except there was not one piece of information on the VERY long bio that makes Hoffman right or the “corruption” of AFSC untrue.
As I did with this one attempt to discredit Rubin, I could go through this career review and find plenty of bias and unsound criticism such as Pilar not contradicting Rubin, but set up as if does.
Humans make mistakes, especially in translating, so we have a bio proving Rubin is a neocon human. This does not establish that his criticism are inaccurate.
The first paragraph of posted article refers to COs, then “neither required political conformity or…”
The criticism Rubin is trying to make about political not being the same as pacifist is proven repeatedly here when you and others declare that Rubin not fitting the form of progressive means his viewpoint about AFSC is not valid.
There are negative references to Trump in his articles—read the most recent published and found several—and yet someone characterized the article as Trumpian.
There has been not a SINGLE attempt to expound on the scenarios Rubin described here. Maybe all are okay with AFSC being a host of a gala honoring Ahmadinejad, so that’s why no one has mentioned that part of the criticism.
Rubin is NOT the only voice critical of AFSC post WWII, especially on Israel.
He does have a significant familiarity with Religious Society of Friends and mentioned Quakers not being aware of these scenarios.
A couple “knew this” and a number of “BS” declarations are not consideration. Neither of those responses indicate that change thought possible. Instead, Friends just write the checks and shield minds with an award given to less than 50 Friends in an era very different from current.
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick no clue what you’re talking about. No one is talking about bios. I’m specifically referring the misinformation in the article. I could care less about anyone’s bio. I already pointed out that the so- called “gala” referenced was actually an event celebrating a historic delegation of religious leaders of many faiths - including Jewish leaders - who traveled to Iran to have dialogue.
Maybe you missed that.
Sharon FitzpatrickJenny Shields you claim an article was written by a “tank” in the first comment here. It is written by a person who is a senior fellow for AEI, a think tank. You dismiss it on the basis of neoconservative, aka “them.”
Rubin wasn’t alive for the New Deal, but you are discrediting his article because published by a think tank that did.
And untrue that “no one is talking about bios.” You aren’t the only person I have witnessed throwing the “them” card here.
It was thrown a couple other times and “proof” that his article in bunk was provided with a bio breaking down Rubin’s career through Obama. I didn’t see anything beyond that period places in the description of this “hawkish” author.
Claiming that a perspective is from a source, as you did by sharing the obvious, has no bearing on the Truth content.
For example, BDS movement intends economic harm in Israel. This is the POINT of the movement. If Rubin has a perspective that BDS is contrary to the peace goal AFSC is supposed to be reaching, then it isn’t MISinformation. It’s an opinion! Based on the accurate info that BDS intends to harm Israeli economy. There is nothing untrue about that statement. And it isn’t misinformation for him to opine about that truth.
Same for the gala. It isn’t misinformation in that Ahmadinejad was an honored guest at an event they co-sponsored.
“Well it was an event on sitar playing and a guest happened to have a history of human rights abuse, but we were there about peace through music, so the guest was there as a musician,” is also an opinion based on the same information.
Yours is not information and Rubin’s misinformation because he doesn’t accept the rationale AFSC provided about a guest.
Truth does not lean liberal or conservative. You saw criticism of AFSC and dismissed it as invalid because of a political bias, continuing to claim that it must be misinformation since it came from a source that opposed a domestic policy in the previous century.
Morgan MurraySharon Fitzpatrick That's ridiculous. The point of BDS isn't to harm Israel's economy. The point of BDS is to end the occupation and end the violation of Palestinian human rights through peaceful methods.
Mary Montfort MelchiorI agree with Friends who see this as largely a hit piece published by an organization that has never seen a war or military intervention by the United States they didn't like. I checked their about page and it has a picture of the former president and lauded the warmonger Kissinger. I actually find it complimentary the thin list of "mistakes" the AFSC has made in more than a century, many of them I would actually argue were not mistakes at all. For example, opposing the Vietnam war was absolutely correct consistent with Friends peace testimony. Maybe some of the arguements made for non-Friends were mistaken, but the war was wrong and opposing it was a major effort of many Friends and Friends organizations at the time. I disagree with a number of the other examples. Also the AFSC is a US based Friends organization that should focus more of its criticisms on the policy of that country as US Friends taxes are used to implement. I think this is promoted because the new General Secretary is a Palestinian-American Quaker, former head of Ramallah Friends school and is a strong voice in the BDS movement. Also as our country is no longer in any major wars the military-industrial complex wants to still get its money. As far as the criticism that it isn't Quaker lead or run, that isn't true if you look at their General Secretary or their board, most of whom are Quakers and if you look at their site list their montly meeting. I actually on the other hand think this does have some relevance. Many Quaker institutions struggle to have enough Friends who want to be a part. We all as Friends could do more. Our schools could use more Friends at every level and many other Quaker affiliated organizations could use more of us willing to step up and take part. Has AFSC been perfect? No. Should Quakers welcome reasonable and fair criticism and look to improve? Yes. I don't think this article is fair and has an axe to grind that is in opposition to Friends principles.
Mary Montfort MelchiorHaving seen the Bio of Mr. Rubin referenced below from
Morgan Murray, this piece makes a great deal of sense as an attack on an organization that has given strength and moral athority to the BDS movement.
Morgan MurrayThat was just a poorly written, poorly argued, polemic, motivated by AFSC's opposition to Israel's 'Palestinian Policies'
We should consider and reflect on our shortcomings and accept valid criticism. This isn't that.
Why post that trash? Please do share serious and well written criticisms, but please show some discretion in posting what in essence has all the intellectual value of an alt-right meme.
Let me clarify. It is of course a valid topic and one worthy of discussion. It would be better served with a better article from a more honest source than the author.
David HoffmanThank you
Morgan Murray. As was self--evident to me from the outset, Michael Rubin is manipulative, incitatory Cold Warrior propagandist, and a colluder in deep, strategically conceived, disinformation projects.
I'm grateful you brought this forward, and relieved that I did not expend energy I couldn't afford, searching for it.
William HenryWhat does one expect from the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing group dedicated to American Exceptionalism and authoritarian capitalism.
David HoffmanWhat is Rubin's reason for displaying such a hideous, gory lead graphic for the article -- as if it somehow reflects some supposedly "heinous" aspect of AFSC?
Is this yet another professional propagandist's manipulative technique, to implant a grisly and traumatizing image in the minds of credulous readers, and to associate that image, and its toxic emotional impact, with AFSC?
Sharon FitzpatrickAEI is a think tank. It does not describe ITSELF as "right wing" and yet a common response here is to ASSUME no credibility in an article or an author due to the political BIAS of those who are making these assumptions. Churches are not supposed to devolve into or contribute to political partisanship in the US. And Friends are SUPPOSED to be prepared to examine behavior and associations on an on-going basis. (See query for those of you who have a lot of trouble with this examine self/own church part of the religion.) There is no reason to write an article about what is working well. Awards are given when extraordinary work is being done. Spiritual gifts is a term used about individuals within the Religious Society of Friends. I knew the human being who wrote this article for 2 of the 13 years his very bright mind were being educated in the manner of Friends. Being honest, fair, kind, funny, and very smart were all observed by me during those years of having in several classes with this person. His bios reveal that living and working in the Middle East have informed his opinions. He was moved to write (more than once, according to one commenter here) about what seems to him a divergence from Quaker values and diplomatic activity he finds counterproductive. I shared it to generate EXAMINATION of those points. And rather than respond in the manner of Friends, considering the validity of what one holder of Inner Light wrote and thinks, the majority of the responses is an immediate and weak dismissal of any reason for concern. For all of you waving this away with the "right wing nonsense," you are declaring there is no Truth within those who hold political position that differ from your own. I admitted that I do not agree with ALL of the points Rubin makes, plus I don't know a ton about some of this (Khmer Rouge confuses me), but that did not inhibit me from thinking this was a topic that should be raised. It is sad and shocking to see this obtuse of a reaction to what could be valued as viewpoint from someone whose mind was set within the parameters of Friends because someone thought those parameters were worth thousands of dollars in tuition.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick Honestly, a lot of people in this thread didn't just question AEI (though doing so is fair and valid.) We pointed out that your friend has consistently chosen to write propaganda justifying US military involvement in the Middle East and we criticized him for those decisions. Some of us (like me), posted his direct articles and made specific points about why we disagreed with him and therefore don't trust him. Others posted third party analyses of his work. We live in an age where a lot of people on the Internet ask us to engage in time sinks arguing back and forth when one person arguing isn't engaging in good faith. I'm not accusing you of that but I will flat out state that a man who chose to ally himself with John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz and work for the US occupying forces of Iraq during the time when atrocities were happening at Abu Ghraib who afterwards consistently hand waved away those atrocities as being the actions of a few bad actors despite the torture memo and the evidence that support for abuses came from the top is not someone whose arguments I need to engage with seriously. I don't trust Michael Rubin's motives. If you want to spend time finding more info about AFSC's activities and ask us what we think about specific decisions they made and why they made them, go ahead. But the fact that people don't want to waste time debating a hit piece written by the think tank that has chosen to be the intellectual mouthpiece for American corporate imperialism is fair.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick It probably hurts to see people harshly criticise your friend. But we aren't doing it for partisan reasons. Biden voted for the Iraq War. We are criticizing Michael Rubin because his actions to date do not support the idea that human rights are actually his top priority in Middle East policy.
Kath McSharon Fitzpatrick I’m curious about your commitment to this article. I think there are certainly valid opportunities to discuss/critique afsc, but the history of aei, national interest, and Rubin are easily available; no need for anyone to assume.
Morgan MurrayAsk your friend to come here and engage with us directly. Unfiltered through a friendship with him, all we see are his actions, which pretty much embody everything that Quakers are against: war, torture, murder, stealing, lying, abuse, and the list goes on.
===
Sharon FitzpatrickThe person who used the laugh response, who I won’t name because he chose not to comment, has shown that ridicule acceptable among Friends.
Assume and dismiss have both occurred plenty, though neither are Quakerly, as assumption is not in Integrity (go get the info or no way to claim truth) and dismissing others not Equality.
That neocon is not the equal of those of you who haven’t lived, worked, and spoken foreign languages in Middle East, because he is less moral than you progressives—that’s what you do when you take a bio as evidence that someone is wrong or not to be heard to determine if wrong.
The laughing emoji is a worse than assumption and dismissal, though predicated on those unQuakerly manners.
It assumed the article and context I wrote are both wrong, dismisses them as such, and then places the topic—which includes a number of grave issues—in the realm of amusement.
I didn’t share this to amuse myself or anyone else. I am confident Rubin didn’t write it because he thinks it is funny or fun.
The pressure on this planet from conflicting human needs has reached a dire point.
AFSC was awarded for their work AFTER military conflict. It was 30 years strong at that point and intrinsically linked to the religious values on which founded.
The volunteers responsible for AFSC’s 1947 recognition worked DIRECTLY with the US military. Mary Elmendorf arranged by serendipity to get them mess cards so they could eat in France and then she arranged for heating for their office by agreeing to publish an invitation to offices in Stars and Stripes; she chatted with a general at an event she was attending for the warmth.
I mention this because posting a bio about Rubin having a military-based career does not mean that he is opposed to peace. The general who rationed some fuel for Friends might have translated some things inaccurately in his career, too. Imagine: working toward peace with those who make mistakes and have opposing viewpoints.
It sounds too hard for those of you who seem to think that having peace by excluding those who make mistakes and have opposing viewpoints is actually peace.
It’s judgement and exclusion.
Discernment differs from judgement in that the material at hand considered in discernment. Whereas judgement is based on assumptions and projections from the zealous.
Turning off notifications for this post because the aim of more Quakers knowing about this perspective has been met, while the prospect of a discussion about these specifics or how to better monitor what is associated with Friends clearly not happening.
FCNL has sent reps to update on its current projects to more than one Meeting I attended regularly. Ideas like AFSC doing the same could have been generated if this perspective was taken seriously. Instead, the response has been to reject it seriously and therefore not have to do anything.
I can simultaneously support BDS and also think that AFSC should not be supporting it. And I can see why a US born Jew who went to Quaker schools thinks AFSC should not be siding against Israel with BDS.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick frankly, you insisted on relying on a weak article instead of actually making your point, such as suggesting that AFSC consider a decision making process more similar to FCNL. Next time, speak for yourself instead of relying on propaganda.
Sharon FitzpatrickHeather Brutz no I did not. You suppose I was just waiting for a weak article to pounce on as intro to some idea of change for AFSC that I had not had.
I am not sitting around making changes in AFSC that I didn’t know were necessary or worth considering.
Instead, I saw a post from an alumnus of a Quaker school (that saved my life) about AFSC. I know he is a neocon, but I have been enjoying his posts or travels in Middle East, and amazingly there is inner light shining from this neocon as he shares.
I have cited why I shared it—because it claims “most Quakers don’t know” more than once. So I thought maybe some would like to know about how neocons are viewing AFSC and it’s actions.
I have also been victim to those in charge of Quaker organizations who behaved without oversight in ways that violate ALL of the testimonies. My personal experience of how far from Quaker practice one Meeting has acted means I cannot automatically doubt that AFSC might not be acting in accordance with testimonies. And as Rubin believes, it might even be causing problems in international affairs.
AEI cares about how those affairs impact US, which differs from what concerns me in those affairs. Rubin and I probably have contradicting opinions about Obama era drone strikes.
Yet that doesn’t mean I call his article weak when it was written to be readable and not a single specific can be shown as “untrue” in his article.
Even the description of AFSC was called inaccurate, but an alternative wording not offered.
What IS weak: the willingness to bear witness and reflect in Friends.
Heather BrutzSharon Fitzpatrick you never actually bothered to respond to
Jenny Shields when she pointed out that his characterization of the event with Achmadinejad was unfair and only half true. You did not respond to my criticism of his defense of the US militar…
See more
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick well since I was personally involved with the religious delegation that traveled to Iran I can unequivocally say that claiming AFSC threw a gala to “celebrate Ahmadinejad” is unequivocally false. If they are referring to the dinner at the UN, it was an iftar and more than 140 religious leaders attended, representing ALL the major Christian denominations including the World Council of Churches and Pax Christie. Anyone who wants the real story can watch the PBS special produced about the delegation, Talking to Iran, that is if you can still find it.
Morgan MurraySharon Fitzpatrick You are spending quite a bit of mental energy and performing all sorts of gymnastics to try to reconcile something that just can't be reconciled.
This is really quite simple.
Your 'friend' is a warmonger, a liar, an architect and supporter of war, genocide, murder, oppression and nationalism.
We, as Quakers, are against all of that.
He wrote that piece as an attack on Quakers because they oppose Israel's quite untenable position on Palestinians.
Instead of insisting that we give up our core faith to adhere to evil, why don't you spend some of that energy trying to convince your friend to be less of a force for evil, pain and suffering in the world?
I say that knowing it is a complete waste of time. But I would rather that you spend your time trying to convince evil to be less evil, than good to be more evil.
Sharon FitzpatrickIt was not my intention to alert Michael Rubin to this effort in fewer Quakers not knowing what his perspective on AFSC by sharing it here. However, I wished to inquire about a Persian name of mythical bird and the contemporary cultural awareness of the creature, so I couldn't contact him directly for the first time in 30 years without mentioning the dichotomous disregard generated by the post. His morning of planting dogwood trees was interrupted with learning how he had been labeled a neocon and dismissed as overly bias, so his responses were in the "you can tell them..." vein. Hence, I have a duty to relay some of his earnest expressions. The dynamic of exchange included some of my own questions about what I had seen in the criticism of his character that was placed here in order to discredit him as a valid critic of AFSC. Having to provide defenses for career moves that appear suspicious to an excommunicated Quaker he knew in a Quaker school 30 years ago would not happen if the author did not earnestly believe these actions of AFSC deserve examination. So I am going to provide excerpts:
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick no one questioned anyone’s character. I questioned his lack of basic facts or at the very least lack of presenting the entire picture the the article posted. Whether that was deliberate or just sloppy, who knows. But if you write for…
See more
Sharon FitzpatrickThere is nothing funny about matters as serious as the list of topics raised as "corruption." It isn't funny that Michael Rubin and I both cared about the topic---one by writing about it & the other by posting what had been written. That anyone would c…
See more
Sharon Fitzpatrick"I don't know what they mean by "neocon"-technically, its about support for democracy but often used as jargon for Jews. Regardless, The AFSC shouldn't be motivated by politics--it should be 'progressive' but rather 'pacifist.'" (I don't know if he lef…
See more
Sharon Fitzpatrick"I work with a lot of progressive groups; AFSC least tolerant. Congress investigated Lincoln Group and found I wasn't involved..."
Sharon Fitzpatrick"But that's neither her nor there, People attack people rather than ideas when ideas are indefensible. ...None of this explains Pol Pot, North Korea. Or Hamas."
Sharon FitzpatrickI will refrain from spending more of my time with quotes and summarize: a human whose perspective informed by ideals of equality, integrity, simplicity, and peace uses his knowledge of languages and ability to assess situations to interact with NGOs on…
See more
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick he discredits himself by not writing the whole truth and by distorting basic facts. You give this person credit but deny the same to AFSC leadership whose perspective is also formed of the same values you say motivate this person, ex…
See more
Michael LaBelleI am guessing this post was intended to raise some hackles. So mission accomplished, I guess.
Sharon FitzpatrickMichael LaBelle guessing is a form of speculation and in this instance I have repeatedly stated my intention. Forgive me the repetition; I posted because there are a number of issues that might be discussed that he raises in the article, plus an overal…
See more
Michael LaBelleSharon Fitzpatrick I think you misunderstood me. I thought your post was fine. I like lively conversations. As this page skews liberal I think it was obvious that feedback was going to be lively though. That’s all I meant
Sharon FitzpatrickMichael LaBelle raising concerns is what I have done. Bearing witness to a post from a brilliant human being that claimed to not usually share his published works on FB, I found that concerns this author described raised some concerns in me. More importantly, I took the exception that he made and the repeated reference to “most Quakers” he speculates not knowing about these activities or how some players view them as a call to correct that possibility.
A few claimed to be aware, but the number of illogical dismissals and personal attacks (on both the absent author and myself) were exhausting and tangential to discussing the complications listed in article.
I don’t have to think he is right about each issue to think it is right for more Quakers to know that someone who has been influenced by familiarity with the this religion views AFSC “least tolerant” of the NGOs with whom he works that are also deemed progressive.
Sharon FitzpatrickMichael LaBelle an illogical dismissal and personal attack example is
David Hoffman alleging Rubin writes disparagingly about progressive organizations and thereby lacks credibility. He at first claims a higher authority than having to back up his allegations and then pressured, provides a bio that includes nothing about the author having written about other pacifist organizations he thinks are far too much in the progressive politics operational mode.
It’s taken as “proof” the author is a “hawk” though no balance is available on the whole list of critiques.
That Congress reviewed the ethics of him getting $150 to review materials produced by Lincoln Group as no different from a similar fee Amnesty International had paid him for similar services and that he has properly disclosed.
So it appear here in a bio without that information clearing him, but wasn’t pertinent to the allegation Hoffman made in the first place. “See he looks at materials for the Pentagon” doesn’t discredit him as some anti-pacifist who sours about all organizations.
If discussing this as Quakers, which is the elusive audience the author invokes, it should not be about politics—whether qualifying or disqualifying the actual concern at hand—whether or not discernment between progressive and pacifist is happening with AFSC in affairs of this world.
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick AFSC is a 501(c) nonprofit hence doesn’t get involved with politics. You keep repeating falsehoods. Again he lost credibility for me because his very first paragraph wasn’t true.
Sharon FitzpatrickJenny Shields and again you have not yet been able to cite anything untrue in the first paragraph. And admitting that a question about credibility in an introductory paragraph does not warrant disregarding the remainder of an article. It is like reading the first sentences of a paper and failing a student because you question the way book described.
I have repeated what is sound. And though YOU have continued to repeat the same thing, it becomes no more valid. The responses from others that drew parallels to “progressive” as of AFSC is accurately described by this political term is what I refer—and that parallels the point Rubin makes.
Something as simple as supporting BDS is political.
Jenny ShieldsSharon Fitzpatrick Actually I have cited several specific examples of half true or in accurate information throughout the article. You keep ignoring them. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them any less valid. You haven’t presented anything more than your opinion - which doesn’t make the actual facts any less relevant. If being labeled “progressive” is political, you could claim that pacifism is political too by that definition. The FBI has infiltrated Quaker grandmas kitting in Florida because the were against the Iraq war. Are they political?
An admin turned off commenting for this post.
===
===
===
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23d)' d='M3 8.008C3 10.023 4.006 14 8 14c3.993 0 5-3.977 5-5.992C13 7.849 11.39 7 8 7c-3.39 0-5 .849-5 1.008'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23e)' d='M4.541 12.5c.804.995 1.907 1.5 3.469 1.5 1.563 0 2.655-.505 3.459-1.5-.551-.588-1.599-1.5-3.459-1.5s-2.917.912-3.469 1.5'/%3e%3cpath fill='%232A3755' d='M6.213 4.144c.263.188.502.455.41.788-.071.254-.194.369-.422.371-.78.011-1.708.255-2.506.612-.065.029-.197.088-.332.085-.124-.003-.251-.058-.327-.237-.067-.157-.073-.388.276-.598.545-.33 1.257-.48 1.909-.604a7.077 7.077 0 00-1.315-.768c-.427-.194-.38-.457-.323-.6.127-.317.609-.196 1.078.026a9 9 0 011.552.925zm3.577 0a8.953 8.953 0 011.55-.925c.47-.222.95-.343 1.078-.026.057.143.104.406-.323.6a7.029 7.029 0 00-1.313.768c.65.123 1.363.274 1.907.604.349.21.342.44.276.598-.077.18-.203.234-.327.237-.135.003-.267-.056-.332-.085-.797-.357-1.725-.6-2.504-.612-.228-.002-.351-.117-.422-.37-.091-.333.147-.6.41-.788z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M10.473 4C8.275 4 8 5.824 8 5.824S7.726 4 5.528 4c-2.114 0-2.73 2.222-2.472 3.41C3.736 10.55 8 12.75 8 12.75s4.265-2.2 4.945-5.34c.257-1.188-.36-3.41-2.472-3.41'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23d)' d='M5.643 10.888C5.485 12.733 6.369 14 8 14c1.63 0 2.515-1.267 2.357-3.112C10.2 9.042 9.242 8 8 8c-1.242 0-2.2 1.042-2.357 2.888'/%3e%3cuse fill='url(%23e)' xlink:href='%23f'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23g)' xlink:href='%23f'/%3e%3cpath fill='%234E506A' d='M4.481 4.567c.186.042.29.252.232.469-.057.218-.254.36-.44.318-.186-.042-.29-.252-.232-.47.057-.216.254-.36.44-.317zm6.658.063c.206.047.322.28.258.52-.064.243-.282.4-.489.354-.206-.046-.322-.28-.258-.521.063-.242.282-.4.49-.353z'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23h)' xlink:href='%23i'/%3e%3cuse fill='url(%23j)' xlink:href='%23i'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23d)' d='M5.333 12.765c0 .137.094.235.25.235.351 0 .836-.625 2.417-.625s2.067.625 2.417.625c.156 0 .25-.098.25-.235C10.667 12.368 9.828 11 8 11c-1.828 0-2.667 1.368-2.667 1.765'/%3e%3cuse fill='url(%23e)' xlink:href='%23f'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23g)' xlink:href='%23f'/%3e%3cpath fill='%234E506A' d='M4.616 7.986c.128.125.136.372.017.551-.12.178-.32.222-.448.096-.128-.125-.135-.372-.017-.55.12-.179.32-.222.448-.097zm6.489 0c.128.125.136.372.018.551-.12.178-.32.222-.45.096-.127-.125-.134-.372-.015-.55.119-.179.319-.222.447-.097z'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23h)' d='M4.157 5.153c.332-.153.596-.219.801-.219.277 0 .451.119.55.306.175.329.096.401-.198.459-1.106.224-2.217.942-2.699 1.39-.301.28-.589-.03-.436-.274.154-.244.774-1.105 1.982-1.662zm6.335.087c.099-.187.273-.306.55-.306.206 0 .469.066.801.219 1.208.557 1.828 1.418 1.981 1.662.153.244-.134.554-.435.274-.483-.448-1.593-1.166-2.7-1.39-.294-.058-.371-.13-.197-.459z'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23i)' d='M13.5 16c-.828 0-1.5-.748-1.5-1.671 0-.922.356-1.545.643-2.147.598-1.258.716-1.432.857-1.432.141 0 .259.174.857 1.432.287.602.643 1.225.643 2.147 0 .923-.672 1.671-1.5 1.671'/%3e%3cpath fill='url(%23j)' d='M13.5 13.606c-.328 0-.594-.296-.594-.66 0-.366.141-.613.255-.852.236-.498.283-.566.339-.566.056 0 .103.068.339.566.114.24.255.486.255.851s-.266.661-.594.661'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
