Duck Dynasty Dust-Up

Unless I really can’t avoid it, I do avoid discussing divisive “wedge” issues on the air, and I did not make an exception for the Duck Dynasty dust-up, but I do want to take this opportunity to express one heartfelt view I have.

I feel strongly that the American people, gay or straight, black or white, male or female, must stop allowing the media and politicians to make these differences in our profiles and preferences into national, political issues. They are social issues that we must work out as decent human beings through our interpersonal relationships and within our own communities.

This is the only way, because when these personal issues become political issues, two terrible things happen: one, the political class (including the mainstream media) thrive on the issues and make sure they do not go away – they even try to make them worse; two, these issues become grounds for the government to penalize us for what we say or think or how we choose to live – this is VERY dangerous, no matter which side of an issue you are on.

Let us at all times call upon our politicians to support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and not draw into national politics issues that are not expressly the purview of the federal government–and thankfully, those are precious few.

This entry was posted in gay marriage, immigration, libertarianism / anarcho-capitalism, original articles, politics, race & the state and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Duck Dynasty Dust-Up

  1. hugh says:

    I do understand your comments here are heartfelt. And I further understand they comport with Libertarian philosophy. And certainly the government and media uses wedge issues against us. But with that said, I believe this aspect of Libertarianism is flawed, and indeed dangerous to the survival and health of nations. Nations once flourished based on the commonality of its people, language, culture, values, etc. And some of these values, such as heterosexuality, cross into most other cultures. But today, we have individuals holding the levers of power and influence in this nation, who are intent on breaking down the family unit, the basic building block of a nation. I believe their intent is to weaken this nation to the point where a global government can be imposed. Your approach to essentially live and let live, gives the power brokers unfettered ability to overtly and covertly manipulate us, without rebuttal by us. Just look at the garbage on TV, including the commercials. All sorts of dangerous agendas are advanced. Our history is being taken from us. At some point we will have nothing to cling to and build on. I never considered in my wildest thoughts that a concept such as “gay marriage” would be advanced and passed into “law”. The very word “gay” was once a fine word in our language, but it has been co-opted to take away the reality that homosexuality is. While I have never watched “Duck Dynasty”, I am very thankful for the comments made by Phil Robertson, especially the “graphics”. Our young need to think about this, as they are so naive and easy pickins for the evil manipulators. Again, the manipulators are not altruistic individuals who share your philosophy Monica. They have an agenda to destroy this nation and all it stands for.

    • austrogirl says:

      Hi Hugh,

      I have owed you my thoughts on immigration so let me address that with this…

      My basic principles, as I know you understand, are extreme libertarian. The basic law is: Don’t touch me or my stuff. If the state served this end, I would not reject it, but the state uses our faith that it will play the role of protecting us and our stuff and instead takes that trust and uses it to give privilege to the govt-connected. Because of this, I am an anarcho-capitalist – I believe capitalist society is self-ordering, with commerce itself giving rise to the mechanisms to protect life and property.

      That said, I find it difficult to totally reject the outlook of our founders who were well-educated, thoughtful, experienced men who knew they had the opportunity to create a govt that could faithfully carry out the duty to protect the citizens and their stuff. It appears to me that for whatever reasons, this experiment, while almost flawless in design, failed completely. Even perfect words on parchment cannot get the modern state to limit itself, it seems.

      THAT said, I will address your position, which is, I believe, that you think this experiment would have had a chance if we the people had been faithful shepherds but we were no match for the outside force that hijacked the experiment. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, and I think the outside force was in fact the Anglo-American Establishment described by Carrol Quigley and that they were trying to reverse the outcome of the American Revolution, and I believe they succeeded for all intents and purposes. The anarcho-capitalist position would be: if not them, someone else – coercive monopoly government can never be contained.

      I think you disagree with this – I think you think there is hope for self-limiting coercive monopoly government (as our founders did), and that we need to neuter the tactics of the outside forces that work to undermine our experiment & that those tactics include cultural subversion. I agree with you there, cultural subversion is a critical tool of this force. Everything from disconnecting children from parents to deliberately making citizens of people who have not been prepared to appreciate and preserve the Constitution have aided this crowd in undermining this great nation.

      The way I square my libertarian philosophy with the still-have-hope-for-the-American-Experiment view is that gays and immigrants, for example, are used as political tools, but there is nothing inherent in our constitution or our country that makes these groups incapable of helping to preserve America’s greatness. Homosexuality doesn’t have to be political anymore than sexuality needs to be the mainstay of pop culture – consensual sex between mature people can be personal and private and should be – making sex a public issue in my mind is what gives it such great cultural power.

      As for immigration, I think the 1965 Immigration Act was designed to undermine our country by bringing in people who did not have a sophisticated understanding of what makes this country great and who were not required to gain one before being allowed citizenship. I would say that citizenship should not be given as a matter of course, even to a spouse of a citizen. I believe requiring mastery of English and a thorough study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are reasonable requirements for anyone to be able to be a citizen or even to vote, but that willing and ambitious people from any country can achieve this.

      In short, I think we can establish and support our values and draw parameters around what are appropriate topics for public discourse without focusing on outward characteristics as disqualifiers. There’s a good chance I come to this position having been someone who has benefitted from ignoring prescribed roles and who is descended from immigrants, but I still try to keep myself honest.

      Finally I will say, two people from whose views mine often differ, Robert Bork & Pat Buchanan, I hold in very high esteem, and they are certainly closer to your view than mine in these matters. I hope I am right and we can transcend our cultural differences and restore the American Experiment at the same time, but even that seems undermined by the inherent impossibility in my mind of self-limiting coercive, monopoly govt.

      Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Hugh…I hope we can continue this discourse for our mutual benefit,

      • hugh says:

        I so appreciate your response to me re my major concern: immigration and related topics. And your closing was right on the mark as I too look forward to continuing this discourse. People that are polar opposites can communicate well, if they are of good spirit. But in our case, I bet if we would construct a Venn Diagram of our political (and other) positions, we would find much overlap.
        As I reread your response to me I note your first ¶ comment suggested a capitalist society is self ordering, though you add a caveat in the next ¶. In Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which I’m currently reading, the author would differ with your thought. He likens our condition to a Monopoly Game where the bankers (and elites) win all. I’m inclined to think Griffin has it right, and you also agree the system has failed completely. You bring up the Anglo-American Establishment and Carrol Quigley and I fully agree with you there too. Quigley’s tome is in my reading pile. I must get to it.
        And you assume correctly that I do not think the form of governance, as envisioned by the founders, can be recovered, at least by the present citizen body.
        The issue of homosexuality is of lesser interest to me than immigration and related. In fact, as an immigration activist, I have numerous homosexual friends who are on the same side with me. Our common bond is focusing on the open borders crowd (and its immense). What these particular friends do in the confines of their homes is of no interest to me. Where I get exercised is when the government, media, corporations, etc., try to “normalize” the deviance or sickness to corrupt our naive young. Are you surprised by my position here?
        I would agree 100% with you re your ¶ commenting on the 1965 Immigration Act. But I do believe you ignore a critically important fact – ethnicity or race. And my position follows basic human nature, though our controllers would label it “racist” to attempt to discredit me. I consider interpersonal relations on both the “micro” level and the “macro” level. On a micro level, I can potentially be friends with any one, of any race or ethnicity. But on the macro level, group dynamics forge in. I strongly believe our DNA is hard wired for us to naturally associate with our own tribe at the exclusion of other tribes. It is part of our survival mechanism. That is why the founders established a system, where up until 1965, the homogeneity of our nation was maintained by essentially only allowing Europeans legally in. But in 1965 Ted Kennedy conned the legislature to eliminate the restrictions, and now we are rapidly sinking. The same is happening in Europe. Demographic projections indicate both France and Germany will be Muslim majority within 50 years or so. I don’t hate Muslims, but I do know France and Germany will cease to exist as we know them. Wouldn’t even surprise me if those countries’ names were changed. I disagree with that. This trend is not the will of the citizens. It is an agenda which is thrust upon us, to destroy our unity and then control our every waking moment.
        Monica, this has been an interesting exercise for me. It turns out I essentially agree with you almost across the board except re the “race/ethnicity” factor. I know you indicate that you hope you are right, and that is sincere on your part. But what if you are wrong? This forced social experiment (I’m being nice) or blatant power grab by the elites (probable) might end up destroying the world. And there are other interesting topics such as who are these elites who are destroying our cohesiveness, our unity, our strength? The dots do connect. I need to finish reading Griffin’s book and pick up Quigley’s.

        • austrogirl says:

          Hi Hugh,

          A few things…

          I read Creature twice and I don’t think I differ with the author – I believe that the coercive monopoly state, which alone can get away with the use of force and fraud on its own behalf and, more important, on behalf of its cronies, is at the heart of corporatism and bankerism. I believe that a free market would wipe out unsound banking and uneconomically large corporations every single time one emerges. That’s the difference between libertarians and anti-globalists / Marxists – the latter do not see that the source of the injustice is the force and the fraud the state commits on behalf of the connected.

          To your other point, as an individualist, I find it hard to conceive of people as subordinate to the collective – could be the way I’m wired. I will say I have observed sometimes natural children are a better fit with their parents than adopted children (not that they can’t make it work, just that there seem to be different struggles) and I have wondered if it’s the fact that natural children are genetically predisposed to behaviors their parents have observed and dealt with before in their own families. This could go to your tribal view of human relations; but I also think that each individual is worth taking on his or her own terms, so I guess I won’t accept that these tendencies, if true, should be relevant to objective political philosophy. However, I do try to inform myself on a variety of views and in so doing I came upon a book that I am certain you will like, although it is absolutely sloppily and disjointedly written. It’s called What You Should Know About the Constitution (…the stuff on the Constitution is good, but I have to stay I was uncomfortable with the author’s views on immigration and race, but again, I try not to shy away even from things that disturb me.

          What do you think of my idea that all prospective citizens or even prospective voters must be fluent in English & be well-versed in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights? I think that this would preserve the American Experiment better than pulling from European countries – after all, look at what Europe has gotten herself into … Socialism, declining standards of living, demographic crises – whose to say those guys wouldn’t vote us into the ground even faster?? Of course, if the govt were charged with educating the people on the Constitution we’d be SUNK! So it’s circular…no hope for the system! That’s why I’m an anarcho-capitalist!!


  2. Monica, I wonder if folks really think marriage is a simple issue. On one hand, I see marriage as a religious issue, which the government should not be involved in at all, and on the other, I see a contract, freely entered into , and binding upon both parties. How do you sort this out? Either way it seems that freely entering into a contract is a basic human right, but how shall breaches of contract be addressed without intervention?

    • austrogirl says:

      Hi Greg, You bring up two points I have pondered myself. First I will share with you that when I was about to marry in 1999 (before gay marriage was a twinkle in David Axelrod’s eye), my father begged me and his brother, the priest who was to marry us, to perform the marriage without a marriage license. His argument was that the state has no business making us ask permission from them to marry. I agreed with him, but Fr. Joe would not break the law, understandably. (Fr. Joe was an extreme libertarian like I, but he also loved Harry Browne & took his philosophy in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World to heart: you will not find freedom in jail!)

      Second, I will say, yes, contracts freely entered into should be enforceable. Here’s where that gets tricky though….marriage contracts have a huge amount of settled law and implications that would be difficult to spell out in a single agreement. Maybe high-priced pre-nups solve that problem, I don’t know – I don’t have one! But I think it’s a practical reality that marriage law can be complicated because of the questions of property ownership, responsibility for dependents and taxes (the subject of the deciding case). That all said, in a free society, lawyers could sell “marriage packages” on or something and lay out all the ins and outs in the fine print. You could pick your package and be on your way! There would still be nuances to settle but they could always refer to the common law of one district or another for unsettled issues.

      Frankly, I think gays are nuts to want to get married, and once the community sees enough examples of monied partners getting taken to the cleaners by divorce courts, the trend must surely fade.

      Thanks for the comment – gotta love intelligent discourse!

    • hugh says:

      As sort of an aside to your post, I clicked on your Twitter link. I’m old school and do not partake in any of the social media as I don’t trust these applications. But for grins I looked at your “followers” and saw two names I recognized: Karl Rove and Paul Broun. Now I have never met Mr.Rove, but I did meet Congressman some years ago when he headed up the Georgia Republican Assemblies, supposedly the “Republican wing of the Republican party”. Now today both are pure Neo-Conservatives…love them foreign adventures, questionable “over-allegiance” to other nations, etc. I know one certainly can’t control who views your material, but I just found that interesting. Who knows who would view (or monitor) me if I ever set up a blog.

  3. hugh says:

    To respond to your points and questions: I could have done better with my points re what Griffin writes and your related comments. Yes, you probably don’t differ with the author. This is my first read of the book and I’m only a third of the way through. And I don’t have the background that you have. But I would just say that while the free market has astounding abilities to correct matters in all sorts of ways, there are other influences that can trump the natural actions of a free market.

    Re the people issue – individuals versus group behavior. I try to judge every individual as just that, an individual. Consequently, I have friends and acquaintances of many types. And I spent a year in Africa some forty years ago. That was a request on my part. But secondarily, I consider the “group” aspect. Through my personal studies, I did learn, and believe, that we, as humans, do identify with our own group, or tribe. This is a very uncomfortable subject in today’s PC world. But we do know that much of today’s PC orthodoxy is in contradiction with what we were taught (before PC took over) or instinctively sense. Yes, it would be nice if this wasn’t the way things really are, but should we build our nation (whole world, really) around a social experiment (actually hard edged political agenda) that probably flies in the face of what we truly are? Remember, as I noted in my previous comment, France and Germany will no longer exist in the near future, as we know them. And how old are those nations? This was not a natural event, it was forced. Your comments re the natural versus adapted children were excellent. You have probably heard about the very recent Mitt Romney/black grandchild adoption hubbub? It will be interesting how that works out. Statistics show there are higher odds that problems in these situations occur at greater frequency when we go further out the racial limb from our own circumstance.

    You mentioned a book by Dr. John Coleman, with divided thoughts on your part. I had heard of the author, but nothing more. My Internet search led to interesting results. The late Eustace Mullins (died 2/2010) had questions about Dr. Coleman. Mr. Mullins noted that Coleman was also known by the aliases of John Clarke and Joseph Pavlonsky (possible Mossad affiliation). Mullins also noted that Coleman seemed to freely plagiarize information from Lyndon LaRouche. But also important, Eustace suggested Coleman was some kind of “agent” who sought to cause turmoil within the non-establishment movement. You probably know that Eustace Mullins was the last living protégé of Ezra Pound. I remember being taught in school as a youngster that Pound was committed for insanity, but the teacher delivered that comment with a clear question mark. And other information suggests Pound was a political prisoner as his views were felt to be threatening to the establishment. Sounds like this might be a rabbit hole to me and am passing this along, FYI. But I must add that this information was from sources other than Mullin’s and he is now dead. It should be further clarified as misinformation is rampant.

    Monica, I thought your idea that all prospective citizens and voters should be fluent in English, well versed in our founding documents, etc. was absolutely excellent!!!! I have long felt that. It infuriates me as I realize the effort of the thoughtful, knowledgeable, patriotic voter is easily offset by individuals who share none of those characteristics. And even if of good intent, how could far away “others” begin to share everything we hold dear and “are” if they have no basis of understanding. We are steeped in what we are. And re the government, we can never trust them! Everything they suggest must be independently corroborated and constantly monitored. But I must close now and I continue to suggest further consideration of the ramifications of “group” behavior and its impact on nations. That grave concern does not conflict with the appropriateness of dealings with all individuals as individuals!

    And you will get a kick out of this: Lew Rockwell’s site is one of my browser “bookmarks”, which I often visit. Here’s a hyperlink to an article on Lew’s site involving Pat Buchanan and comments on his books, including “Death of the West” and “Suicide of a Superpower”. A chap named Ron Paul is also mentioned. You will note that my concerns re immigration and related topics are presented front and center:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s