The Duggar family in 2021, from their official Facebook page.
1,723 words
Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets (2023)
Directed by Olivia Crist & Julia Willoughby Nason
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. — Psalm 127:3-5 KJV
Reality television had been refined into an art form by the broadcast networks by the mid-2000s. Meanwhile, cable television had proliferated into a myriad of channels. Some of their putative purposes included university-level education in the fields of history, biology, and health. But it turned out that high-level history lectures or instruction on surgery didn’t draw audiences like lowbrow entertainment.
One such channel, The Learning Channel, morphed downwards into the “lurking” channel. Its shows began to center on people with hoarding problems, dwarves, and fat people. One such program was about the Duggar family of northwestern Arkansas. The Duggars are a family of fundamentalists who have been influenced by the Quiverfull Movement, which encourages American Protestants to have large families in accordance with the Biblical passage given above.
The Duggar family became overnight celebrities after a photograph of them was taken at an Arkansas political event. Their reality show, 19 Kids and Counting, began airing in 2008. The show detailed the ins and outs of a large family doing ordinary things. The children were mild and obedient, while the parents, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, were always smiling. The family promoted wholesome sexual values, traditional sex roles, and Christian messages. From the outside looking in, everything was perfect.
You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel The New Austerities here.
However, things which glitter are usually not gold. It turns out that one of the Duggar children, Josh, had molested his sisters. After the scandal broke in 2015, more evidence of malfeasance came to light. Josh had several accounts through a (now defunct) website called Ashley Madison that connected married men and women who wished to have an affair. Josh had also paid a porn star for sex and had a large stash of child pornography.
These sexually reckless escapades caused the show to be cancelled in 2015. Josh was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison for the child pornography. He represents only 5.2% of the Duggar children, however; all the others turned out well and remain celebrities online.
A documentary on the Duggar family and the wider movement of which it is a part was released in 2023. It is worth a watch. The Duggar family and their movement are mostly worth emulating, but the problem of Josh indicates that they are not perfect. Examining such problems and finding ways to reduce them can help to move the interests of the American Majority forward.
Fundamentalism vs. modernism
When England was under threat from the Spanish Armada in 1588, Protestantism was united against Catholic Europe. The Protestant powers — England, Holland, and Prussia — were then supreme in Europe. But eventually, the Protestants began to divide. This was not fully recognized until 1898, when British Protestants entered into a vicious war with Afrkaan-speaking Boer Protestants in South Africa.
This war highlighted the differences between modernists and fundamentalists. To explain it simply, modernists don’t take the Bible literally while fundamentalists do — although ironically, fundamentalism is the result of modernity. Many Boers thought the world was flat due to the phrasing of some passages in the Bible, despite the fact that their ancestors who had navigated their way to Cape Town in the seventeenth century had understood that the world is round.
The Boers didn’t call themselves fundamentalists during the war, however. The term “fundamentalist” comes from an American Civil War veteran named Lyman Stewart. He was a wealthy Presbyterian who sponsored the publication of a series of theological works emphasizing the “fundamentals” of Christianity.
Fundamentalism wouldn’t have grown to the degree that it did were it not for the idea of continuous progress that had been endorsed by the modernists, and its discrediting due to the disaster of the First World War. Modernists were also involved in “civil rights,” so every race riot, mugging, or drive-by shooting had the potential to turn a modernist into a fundamentalist.
Homeschooling and the Institute for Basic Life Principles
The relationship between fundamentalism and “civil rights” cannot be emphasized enough. One of the goals of the “civil rights” activists was to integrate sub-Saharan Africans with whites in the schools. Integration was carried out across the South at the points of bayonets. It ultimately failed due to low-level violence perpetrated by the sub-Saharans, however. Whites then abandoned the cities they had built to the sub-Saharans and created new towns for the sake of “good” schools — i.e., mostly white schools.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here
A byproduct of white flight to the suburbs was the homeschooling movement. Homeschooling parents needed materials with which to teach. One of the organizations which provided them was the Institute for Basic Life Principles, which was founded in 1961 by Bill Gothard, a fundamentalist minister. Interestingly, 1961 was the year when the fruits of “civil rights” began to take effect, and its negatives in the form of crime became noticeable. Gothard’s organization was therefore a natural response to this problem.
Bill Gothard is from a family of ministers from northern Illinois, and has mixed European ancestry. He is an assimilated member of the American Majority, but is not an old-stock American. Many people who had Puritan ancestors settled in northern Illinois. Gothard is noticeably influenced by Puritan folkways. One of his ideas on parenting is that of “breaking the will” of a child.
In his book about British folkways in America, David Hackett Fischer wrote that the Puritans understood that the
first and most urgent purpose of child rearing was what they called the “breaking of the will.” This was a determined effort to destroy a spirit of autonomy in a small child — a purpose which lay near the center of child rearing in Massachusetts.[1]
“Breaking of the will” works in the short term, but it runs the risk of raising children who will grow up without the ability to use their freedom wisely. In my own life, I’ve seen young people who grew up in restrictive homes fall apart when they get to college. The young women seem to be the ones who have the most trouble. Some fell pregnant to the first “bad boy” they met, some developed eating disorders, and others flunked out of school or otherwise failed to become independent and had to return home for several years. This isn’t to say that promoting traditional values is a bad idea, but one needs to understand that gradually increasing freedom for the child is a necessary part of child rearing.
The Institute of Basic Life Principles encourages large families and sexual morality among its members. Women are expected to dress modestly. Sexually reckless behavior is frowned upon. Although sexually reckless behavior is exactly what brought down both Josh Duggar and Bill Gothard. This happened to Josh in part due to the repressed environment in which he was raised, coupled with the money and fame he had achieved. Bill Gothard’s story is slightly different, however.
Bill Gothard has never married. He also had a large following. Any man who makes a career out of public speaking befoe large audiences becomes attractive to women. He also made a point to surrounding himself with young women from his movement, and engaged in illicit sexual activity with them. This activity seems to have fallen short of intercourse, but it was enough to cause scandals. One such scandal broke in 1980 and another in 2014. Gothard survived the first scandal, but not the second.
Bill Gothard had gained access to these young, obedient women because he convinced their parents to allow them to work for him while being unsupervised. Any situation where a prominent man has access to young women without any outside control runs the risk of such a scandal. The only way to avoid it is to avoid the situation in the first place.
Former members of the fundamentalist movement are featured in the documentary. We learn of a woman who married young to an equally young man; the marriage ended badly. The ideas about marriage within the movement are generally good, however. Parents, who have more experience, should definitely be involved in monitoring their children’s courtships, but this approach runs the risk of leading to a bad pairing should the parents encourage their children to marry when they are still too young. Marriage is a tricky business, and it is probably best for young people to date as many different people as possible before marriage.
The Institute of Basic Life Principles also recruits young men to work hard in building facilities, and maintains a “paramilitary” arm consisting of young men who exercise, go camping, and conduct close-order drill together. This is depicted in a negative light in the documentary, but hard work is a necessary experience to have while growing up, and the discipline involved in physical exercise and working as part of a team with other men is likewise rewarding in the long term.
Evolution in action
What one sees in the Duggar family is evolution in action, even if, ironically, fundamentalists don’t believe in Darwinism. The Duggars’ fundamentalism has made them evolutionarily successful: They have many children, and their children are having children.
Bill Gothard’s influence led to a positive trend in the American Majority, where fundamentalist families are growing through increasing birthrates. This is the same way that the New England Yankees expanded westward. They tried to convert the Indians — and more recently, Latin Americans — to their way of thinking, but their ultimate success came as a result of having more children.
Political Christianity
Both the Institute for Basic Life Principles and the Duggars have much that is worthy of being emulated and admired. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion, was likely overturned in part because pro-choice supporters either failed to have children or were aborted.
Victory in the war of the cradle is ultimately an effective strategy. This documentary doesn’t really discredit the Duggars and their ethos, but it does expose their potential pitfalls.
Note
[1] David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 98-99.
14 comments
Some of the author’s historical musings are seriously erroneous. In 1588 neither the United Provinces of the Netherlands nor Prussia were powerful states. The Dutch became a great trading and maritime power in the seventeenth century, Prussia a great land power a century later in the reign of Frederick II.
There was no solidarity between the Protestant states any more than between Catholic France and Catholic Spain, who were often at war with one another.
While the Spanish Armada failed, the Dutch fleet enjoyed much greater success against England, especially in the raid on Chatham in 1677.
Commercial and colonial rivalry and Realpolitik trumped denominational allegiance pretty well every time they came into conflict.
Thanks for the comment. I stand by what I wrote.
In 1588 the Protestants in Europe were United against Catholic Europe, especially against Spain.
All the Protestant nations took off economically after Spain started to decline in 1588. While it didn’t happen overnight, the trend started then.
No war between the Protestant powers had the effect that the Boer War did in highlighting the fact that different branches of Protestantism had diverged so much.
The British persecution of the Boers is something that always made me raise an eyebrow when it comes to the contradictions of historic racial views.
Such a dishonor would never have been possible under a more traditional flavor of Christianity.
Obviously I feel sympathy for the Boers.
I too can recall that in 1588 the Neatherlands were ravaged by war against the spanish.
My mom was one of ten kids raised by wonderful parents. Of the five boys and five girls there was one sister who was self centered, mean spirited, greedy and bitchy. I am one of six kids, and of the three boys and three girls I have one sister who turned out like my mean aunt but even worse. You could lay that at the feet of the female nature and I wouldn’t argue. But I will at least posit that Josh Duggar is just that one that decided the rules weren’t going to apply to him. These types actually enjoy ruining it for everyone else as a form of power. Tale as old as time.
I find this animalistic “breeding” mentality repulsive. Its what herd animals do. We need better and not just “more” people.
This is an unfortunate display of lack of understanding where families are concerned.
There is a huge, canyon-wide difference between sexually indiscriminate and promiscuous black females breeding system dependent welfare children and future felons vs a large, loving white family, with monogamous, dedicated, traditional gender role following parents, whose children learn TREMENDOUS life lessons and social skills through their relationships with siblings.
Think about the valuable lessons for older siblings that come from having younger siblings to mentor, help teach, etc as well as the advantages that younger siblings have from experiencing the broad array of talents and personalities of their older family members.
Think about the security that children from that kind of family feel. They know they will never be alone, never have to worry about being friendless with nowhere to go.
Sure, there are bad apples that come from every bunch, but I promise you, these deliberate, patriarchal, large white families have a much greater track record of producing good, well rounded human beings than the urban single mothers whose children have a dozen different fathers.
The difference is vast.
Excellent article with excellent observations. It doesn’t scratch the surface of the sufferings of people who come from large families especially when we are not granted the forced breeding advantage that fundamentalists have.
Now let’s return to my original basic point about the people in your dissident circles?
How many of you have more than 1 child? Almost every single one of you dissident right public speakers and leaders have between 1 and 2 children.
And then you sneer down on those of us who come from circumstances where we have GREATLY SUFFERED the COST of doing what you want to save this civilization.
Does anyone see a logical problem with that? Ignore my feelings. Just consider the contradictions here.
You realize that most people on the far right are functionally SOCIAL Liberals?
What the hell are you talking about with your keeping on shouting out about suffering and cost in all-caps? This is at least your second instance of this in as many days. Are you a woman talking about labor pain? What?
As far as Christian silliness goes and their tendency to suck up to whoever is in power. I would like to ask some of you this:
How would the effects of religion be any different if the lyrics too “o come o come emmanuel” was “O come o come Hercules” or “O come o come Thor?”
Is it really such an issue if the center of narrative is the homeland of the Jews? Especially if the Jews hate your religion anyway.
I appreciate the approach the author took here. Identifying ways of living that solve existential problems and encouraging adoption and if necessary improvement of what is working and analyzing the problems that arise with sobriety and calm is something we need a lot more of. I would love to see a similar feature on home schooling and schooling in general. Our school system is being used to break and/or ensure our young are never properly formed at all and it is as much a crisis as our TFR crisis. I would love to learn more about how our folk have been tackling this issue, and see it approached with the same analytical sobriety.
I do not recognize anyone from this picture.
“Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion, was likely overturned in part because pro-choice supporters either failed to have children or were aborted.”
Seriously?
First of all, Judeo-Marxism is definitely not on the wane, and Conservatives ain’t winning what is already long gone. The latter are either not serious or they are not even trying.
Secondly, Red states like Texas are already effectively Purple and will be deep Blue and overrun with the usual rainbow-haired Libtards and Beaners right quick.
Thirdly, Democrats in Purple states are already pontificating endlessly about “protecting Abortion rights.” While this is not going to move mountains, they tend to be more politically vigilant than Conservatives ever will be ─ other than maybe cutting rich people’s taxes or protecting gun rights.
Red States like Texas and Idaho, which have passed extremist anti-Abortion laws, are going to end up badly overplaying their hand.
The actual reason that Roe v. Wade was overturned is because for decades Republicans have only appointed Roman Catholics to the Supreme Court. And these papists are against abortion nominally ─ even if they always refused to admit in Senate confirmation hearings that this was a litmus test for them.
Democrats on the other hand have only appointed Jews, Negroes, or “Wise Latinas” to the highest court.
So, if Hillary had been elected in 2016 we would have gotten a few more Jews or Negresses on the bench, and Roe therefore not only would not have gotten overturned, but pro-Abortion laws all over would have been strengthened.
My aunt was George McGovern’s DNC Chair in 1972, Jean M. Westwood. She was a moderate Democrat and Mormon from Utah/Arizona who was not too keen on abortion ─ especially abortion used as “birth control.”
She would have acknowledged that “therapeutic abortions” (i.e., pregnancy termination for the health/life of the mother) had been abused by expensive Jewish doctors in the past (e.g., when birth control was illegal). So she would have wanted the practice of pregnancy termination regulated responsibly and not turned into a universal right.
However, she changed her mind when her third pregancy went wrong early on but the obstinate obstetrician dithered until the only option was a hysterectomy to save the life of the mother.
A timely therapeutic abortion would have saved the day and been legal in Utah for that reason ─ but the doctor was either worried about the optics of an abortion or just oblivious. He probably assumed that it would be a stillbirth anyway ─ and doing nothing at all but leaving it up to God was not particularly unusual in those days. I am not sure what religion the doctor was, but probably Christian.
Anyway, being forced to only have two children instead of the usual half-dozen for an LDS woman of that generation, meant that she had time to dabble in politics. Btw, this is not “oversharing.” I just related Mrs. Westwood’s published memoirs to the best of my immediate memory.
I am somewhat enjoying the Liberal tears about Roe v. Wade having been overturned. In Idaho, “Social Justice” Ob-Gyns are leaving the Boise area for Bluer climes ─ and I can’t say that the state really misses them too much. But the new “no exceptions” anti-Abortion laws are beyond dumb, and they are going to backfire politically as soon as someone gets into trouble as a result.
I don’t understand what the Christcucks think that they are winning here. The only cohort that currently uses abortion (free for the poor through Planned Parenthood) as retroactive birth control anyway are PoC.
White Women of all classes ─ probably even most Catholics ─ actually just use real birth control.
The Pope may not like it, but as Earl Butz used to say, “he no play-uh da game, he no make-uh da rules.”
I remember back in 1990 the Idaho legislature passed an anti-abortion law and it made national news. However, the moderate Democrat governor vetoed the bill as being too extreme. As a TV engineer I was responsible for the remote link to the Governor’s live interview, which went out over the national news.
The point is that a more moderate anti-Abortion law would have likely prevailed in Idaho even in 1990 ─ and whether the Supreme Court would have actually challenged it is questionable. “Republican Party Animal” David Cole could probably write something more eloquent than me about how stupid the GOP really can be.
I hate to use the term “Finkelthink,” but the abortion issue is not a serious one for either side; it is the classic two-party system contrived gridlock. And especially for White Conservatives, a huge waste of political capital.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.