Childcare

“If the seed is alive, it will ripen sooner or later, never mind when. Violence would only help to produce an artificial growth. And if the seed be dead? Let it be!” – Savitri Devi

Non-Aryan societies worship age, whereas Aryan societies worship youth. This is visible not only in the archetypical subjects of their art and ours, but far more importantly in their and our opposite attitudes towards the treatment of children. Hitler was known for his kindness towards all children he met. Most notable was Bernile Nienau, a child introduced to Hitler because she shared his birthday, and with whom Hitler continued to meet and correspond by post personally even after it was discovered that her mother was Jewish. In the same spirit, we emphasize that all children are victims of their own births, and so we should never hate any child for being born with Jewish heritage; our anger should be reserved for Jews for giving birth to such children. (The same applies to Gentiles.) Out of compassion towards these children do we make it our duty to prevent more of them from being born as soon as possible.

Judaism views the creator as fundamentally good (“But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”" – Saul Paul of Tarsus), hence aims not at salvation from the creator but instead at reconciliation with him through obedience. Of note is the parallel between primordial disobedience to the creator and children’s disobedience to their parents. This leads to a culture that favors maturation through obedience to elders and  tradition (“When I was a child, I thought like a child, I talked like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became a man, I set aside childish ways.” – Saul Paul of Tarsus). In contrast, Gnosticism rejects attaining the creator’s blessings in exchange for obedience (“What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” – Jesus), instead viewing rebellion against the creator as noble duty. As a result, children are valued, defended, and emulated (“Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” – Jesus).

Hitler despised the Judaic-influenced way of raising children on authoritarianism that has been the Western tradition for a long time (and also independently developed by Confucianism and other strongly patriarchical or matriarchical cultures). National Socialist Germany preferred a way nearer that of Islamic, pre-Columbian American and other honour-based cultures (whose classical theoretical equivalent would be the Platonist model).

External link: Reclaiming Youth at Risk

Zionist agent Nicolai Sennels (Gentile) outlines the main difference between these two ways: “This way of starting with a short leash is actually very normal in our Western way of raising children. We start with strict expectations concerning school, doing homework, and behaving properly. Then, as children get older and more mature they will receive more freedom from their parents. … In Muslim culture it is different … lots of freedom in their early lives and as they get older more and more cultural/religious restrictions.” While the pro-Western Sennels unsurprisingly supports the former, it should be obvious to us why the latter is far more compatible with Aryanism and National Socialism.

The Aryan Microcosm

“Here – the child, again; free to watch the bee bumble from flower to flower; free to feel a certain playful awe. Here, the concern with only what is seen, touched, known, smelt, in the immediacy of dwelling. There should be nothing more; nothing to wreck such simple being; nothing to bring the suffering. But I, we, are stupid, weak, vain, addicted – and so in our failing repeat and repeat and repeat the same mistakes.” – David Myatt

The non-Aryan sees history as a chronicle of progress by accumulation. The Aryan, in contrast, sees history as a chronicle of degradation from initial beauty, simplicity and truth to subsequent ugliness, complexity and falsehood. So must it also be when viewing the life of each individual. We see in each newborn child not Original Sin (Jewish concept) to be kept in check by adult coercion, but Original Nobility to be protected from adult coercion. We view children as inherently good, and consider all evil subsequently acquired either from biological influence emerging during physical maturation or from the corrupting social influence of already corrupted adults. Whereas a child of Jewish heritage is not considered by the Jewish community to be fully Jewish until puberty (celebrated by the Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony) and whereas Gentile cultures also have their coming-of-age rituals (e.g. prom) celebrating arrival at adulthood, in Aryan society it is the exact opposite. Children are considered Aryans from birth, but lose this status as adults, and only regain it if they can prove a minimum level of retained nobility despite adulthood (thus referred to as “twice-born” Aryans). From this follows our entire Aryan ethics of childcare, irreconciliable with the attitude common to all non-Aryan cultures.

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” – Tanakh

“When you offer a child the choice of a piece of meat, an apple or a cake, it’s never the meat that he chooses. There’s an ancestral instinct there. In the same way, the child would never begin to drink or smoke if it weren’t to imitate others.” – Adolf Hitler

The contrast between these two attitudes is not merely a difference in psychological estimate, but a difference in the very goal towards which each attitude aspires. What is to us Original Nobility, is to them Original Sin, because Jews value servility and hence consider nobility (rejection of servility) to be sinful. In other words, the child that Hitler wants to protect is the exact same child that the Tanakh wants to destroy. The ‘good’ child in the Jewish (and Gentile) mind is a slave who can be cowed with a “rod of correction”.

“Could we foresee it, there are times when children might seem like innocent prisoners, condemned, not to death, but to life, and as yet all unconscious of what their sentence means.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Thus, in vocabulary, we distinguish between childrearing (non-Aryan) and childcare (Aryan). The former aims principally at preparing children for adult life, with minimal regard for childhood itself. The latter, by contrast, aims at maximal regard for childhood itself. Among present-day mainstream parents, the only children at all likely to receive genuine childcare (as opposed to childrearing) are those who have been diagnosed with incurable and terminal illness, and hence expected to live for only a few more years. Because in these cases the parents never expect the child to reach adulthood, their interaction with the child focuses on the present rather than on the future. (In the rare cases where such children miraculously recover and live, they tend to retain far more Original Nobility than most.) The irony is that the so many more children who are not terminally ill could easily also be raised in this way, and yet are not.

The Way of the Gulag

“Some children have so much vitality that they can’t sit still, and won’t and can’t concentrate their attention. It seems to me useless to try to force them. I understand, of course, that such an attitude annoys the teachers. But is it just to deprive a child of the possibilities that life offers him, simply because he’s unruly?” – Adolf Hitler

Childrearing (non-Aryan) is essentially a carrot-and-stick method. Many teachers and even more parents shamelessly admit as much: they view their jobs as a “battle of wills” between themselves and the children in their charge, with victory defined as surrender by the children. As Aryans, we do not join this debate over whether more carrot or more stick is best for making children surrender, but condemn this entire barbaric mentality and everything it entails.

Any violence repugnant when perpetrated by one adult against another is at least as (if not more) repugnant when perpetrated by an adult against a child. Any action without the child’s consent, or which overrides the child’s refusal, or which otherwise involves force, is a violent action. Use of punishment - material or emotional - to elicit from the child the behaviour required by the adult is the very procedure of violent enslavement that Aryanism exists to oppose in all contexts.

We stress again that this refers to much more than violence that causes bodily injury. Talking to a child who does not want to listen is violence. Confiscating a child’s possessions is violence. Forcefully interrupting a child’s activity is violence. Making the child go anywhere the child does not want to go, or making the child leave anywhere the child does not want to leave, is violence.Any form of imposition, any form of pressure, any decision made that disregards the child’s wishes is violence. Any so-called “discipline” is violence, except where the child volunteers on his own initiative to be discipled (root “discere” = “to learn”) in study; only in such situations can we genuinely speak of discipline, and even then only strictly within the confines of that field of study. What has been irreverently called “discipline” outside of discipleship is more accurately described as torture.

Softer (hence more insidious), but no less demeaning towards its victim, is coercion by temptation. Often deceptively presented by Zionist academia as the opposite to coercion by threat, in truth it is just the other half of the carrot-and-stick method. To offer a child a reward – material or emotional - in return for his submission to the adult’s will, is to condition the child into a hedonistic mercenary – a slave of greed. Every such reward reinforces the message that servility is profitable or pleasurable or prestigious, and hence gradually overwrites the awareness that servility is ignoble.

The worst occurs when both techniques are applied in coordination. In such cases, children can often be made via the rewards to forgive the punishments, via pleasure to forget fury, thereby becoming fully enslaved. They have been conditioned into an aggregative worldview that considers it possible to be compensated for having been forcibly denied what they originally wanted by being offered something else (which they might never have asked for in the first place) as a replacement, instead of recognizing such offerings as the worst possible insult to their spiritual dignity, and thus the most cruel addition of insult to injury already suffered (no less than a rape victim offered money after being raped is quite clearly not being treated with kindness, but being further insulted as a whore by the rapist). They are now ready for life in Zion, where they will turn a blind eye to all injustices – towards themselves and towards other victims –  so long as they receive their Goy biscuit ration in adequate quantity.

“Our teachers were absolute tyrants. They had no sympathy with youth; their one object was to stuff our brains and to turn us into erudite apes like themselves.” – Adolf Hitler

All the above (plus minor techniques such as distraction, confusion, suspense, humiliation, etc.) are schematically identical to the techniques employed towards slaves, or towards prisoners in communist “re-education camps” who are to be broken into slaves. Their respective narratives are no different either. Both insist that they are trying to “help” their subjects. Both insist that their subjects do not know what is for their own good, and will ultimately be grateful for having been put through the process, in the adults’ own frequent admission: “The child may hate me now but will thank me after he grows up!” And indeed both will be able to produce plenty of specimens who express such gratitude – which, of course, tells us nothing except that the breaking of the spirit has been successful in each case. When non-Aryans claim to care about children, what they really mean is that they care about the adults whom they plan for these children to be turned into in the future. This is all that non-Aryan childrearing is: to crush the child’s Original Nobility, and then use the battered shell as a receptacle for tradition – Jewish or Gentile as it may be. As such, all non-Aryan cultures rely on systematic violence and systematic bribery to transmit their cultural content from one generation to the next. Little wonder that these cultures – founded upon slavery, populated by slaves, taking pride in their own slavishness - can have no nobility in them. This is the case in modernity no less than in pre-modern times. So-called “rights of children” in modern lists of “human rights” were formulated entirely by adults, with no input from children themselves at all, and in fact refer to “rights” of adults to commit violence against children. The “right of a child to education” actually means that adults have the “right” to force a child to undergo compulsory education against the child’s own wishes. The “right of a child to healthcare” actually means that adults have the “right” to force a child to be subjected to vaccine injections and other medical procedures against the child’s own wishes. And so on.

Amy Chua (Gentile) and Jed Rubenfeld (Jew), carrot-and-stick parenting masterclass

External link: Supernanny

When non-Aryan parents speak of so-called “tough love”, what they are really speaking of is the Ministry of Love in Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Any parent who has ever used either carrot or stick towards a child, and who yet claims to love the child, is lying.

The Way of the Sun

“In every healthy boy and every healthy girl, alongside the desire for adventure is respect for great achievements, for the heroic deed.” – Rudolf Hess

Childcare (Aryan) is like the raising of crops, where coercion has no place at all. The farmer’s only duty is to ensure that nobody casts a shadow over the crops by standing between the crops and the sunlight. Whether the crops then choose to turn towards or away from the sun as they grow is entirely up to them; indeed this is the only way to identify genetically defective strands that must not be reseeded during the next cycle. The same is true for children. In Hitler’s words: “One must not put a curb on individuals. On the contrary, one must avoid whatever might prevent them from rising.” What we do for children must be in their interest as children here and now, not in the interest of the adults that we want them to become.

This ties in profoundly with racial idealism. If we are to demographically promote Aryan traits, it is crucial that we distinguish between nobility and pretence of nobility. This is only possible through observing the behaviour of children never placed under adult coercion to conform to certain standards of conduct. Violence towards children is not only unethical, but also scrambles all attempts at Aryanizing society.

The only ethical way, and the only way compatible with National Socialism, to help the child retain Original Nobility, is to provide the child with access to rolemodels of the child’s own choice, be it a mythological, historical or fictional character, a famous person or someone known to the child personally. So long as the rolemodel is noble, and so long as the child is a devoted fan of the rolemodel, the child will – entirely on his own initiative - use the positive aspects of his rolemodel to reinforce his own defences against corruption as he grows up. In the words of Joseph Goebbels: “The youth is not only the object, but also the subject of its own education.”

“Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is always associated with the most profound knowledge. How true this is and how little genuine idealism has to do with fantastic self-dramatization will become clear the moment we ask an unspoilt child, a healthy boy for example, to give his opinion.” – Adolf Hitler

Honour requires that respect must be earned, not extorted. The Fuehrerprinzip of National Socialism further expounds on this: true leaders never demand to be obeyed and never need to, for their followers obey them spontaneously and enthusiastically; obedience that must be demanded has already been lost. These principles have been ignored by most parents throughout history, who (as per the Tanakh) hold the notion that children “owe” respect and obedience to their parents (comparable to the notion that Yahweh’s creations “owe” respect and obedience to their creator). Respect as debt is no less depraved an idea than money as debt, and both proceed from the same demiurgic worldview.

Failure to earn a child’s respect evinces the moral inferiority of the adult (then further confirmed by the same adult attempting to extort respect), not a problem with the child. And the truth is that only the extremely rare – virtually Arhat - adults who have fully retained their Original Nobility have what it takes to earn the respect of children who still possess their Original Nobility.

Statistically, most children will never encounter such an adult. Hence the founding concept of the Hitler Youth, as enunciated by Baldur von Schirach: “Youth must be led by youth.” Adult-imposed order was written off as a general negative, inclining the child towards a mindset that bowed to perceived power. Only through leadership by his own peers could the child practice following orders with dignity. A very practical purpose of the Hitler Youth (whose activities took up the entire weekend) was to reduce parental influence on children by reducing available parent-child interaction time, thus hastening the intellectual rejuvenation of Germany. In Hitler’s words: “Young people form a sort of State among themselves and face adults with a certain solidarity … The ties which unite ten-year-old boys to one another are stronger and more natural than their relationship to adults.” (Von Schirach himself was not particularly respected by the Hitler Youth members, due to being overweight and flabby compared to the model of austerity that he preached to the members.)

Hitler Youth helping the community

The greater the extent to which children are allowed to express their true character without pressure of any kind, the better we will be able to sort Aryans (those who lose least of their Original Nobility as they grow up) from non-Aryans (those who lose most of their Original Nobility as they grow up). As soon as parents try to artificially improve their child’s performance, National Socialism becomes impossible, as we will end up looking at not which child is most noble, but which child has parents who are the most ambitious and the most accomplished herders.

Hard as Krupp Steel

“Confidence in oneself must be instilled into our children from their very early years. The whole system of education and training must be directed towards fostering in the child the conviction that he is unquestionably a match for any- and everybody.” – Adolf Hitler

A distinction must be made between artificially improving children’s performance, which is deleterious to National Socialism, and ensuring children express their true character in full, which is optimal to National Socialism. The former involves coercion; the latter involves promotion of self-confidence. We must never pressure children to do anything they do not want to do, but we must always encourage children to believe they can do well in whatever they want to do.

Self-confidence cannot be instilled if the instiller himself lacks confidence in the instillee. Therefore we are not asking that adults patronize children with insincere flattery, we are asking that adults sincerely learn to respect children as the bearers of Original Nobility that they are, and treat them accordingly. Children’s perspectives should be cherished for their purity rather than dismissed for their inexperience, as experience is easily gained but purity once corrupted by prejudice and cynicism is considerably harder to recover. Instead of arrogantly imagining how much children could learn from themselves, adults should more often reflect on what they could learn (or, more precisely, re-learn) from children, as well as from memories of their own childhood.

“I make a distinction between the wisdom of age – which can only arise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences of a long life – and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thought and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put these into practice immediately, because of their very superabundance. These furnish the building materials and plans for the future; and it is from them that age takes the stones and builds the edifice, unless the so-called wisdom of the years may have smothered the creative genius of youth.” – Adolf Hitler

We demand a thorough overthrow of paternalistic vocabulary so that words such as “childish”, “immature”, etc. cease to be terms of criticism, where the word “tantrum” is exposed as a term used to discredit noble fury (just like the word “anti-Semite”), and so on. Instead, we should more often think of the word “adult” with the connotations of its expanded participle “adulterated” (ie. contaminated), and so on. Only when ordinary language implies confidence in children will children have the self-confidence we require.

“How many of our leading Party members were originally brought into the National Socialist movement by the influence of their own children! Again and again young people, filled with enthusiasm for National Socialism, have succeeded first in persuading their mother, and then, with her help, in winning over the father for the NSDAP.” – Adolf Hitler

The association of paternalistic vocabulary with enslavement is easily seen in the fashion of colonial era slavemasters - both in America and throughout the British Empire – of addressing slaves/underlings as “boy” or “girl” irrespective of their actual age. It was only because the slaves accepted the paternalistic worldview of the slavemasters that they were successfully made to feel inferior by such address. The postmodern thuggish obsession with early maturity is equivalent to various Gentile ethnicities trying to prove that they are the real Israelites – they only demonstrate their continuing slavishness. In contrast, just as Aryans are proud to be called “Amalek” (sworn enemy of Israelites) by Jews and other Israelite-candidates, to be called “boy” or “girl” by those who have no understanding of Original Nobility should be taken as a compliment.

“In times of distress, when others despair, apparently harmless boys suddenly spring up and become heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence of Death and manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection under such circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come nobody would have thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body of that beardless youth.” – Adolf Hitler

It is no coincidence that slow physiological maturation is considered an Aryan trait. This applies not only to age of puberty and retention of youthful appearance well into middle age, but even to gestation time, with legends of heroes staying in the womb for three years or more. Such a trait is maladaptive to a Paleolithic-Mesolithic nomadic lifestyle of hunting or herding which demands rapid growth to deal with a more dangerous environment, but adaptive to a Neolithic settled lifestyle of farming which permits slower growth in a safer environment. Long gestation is associated with high-quality build. (This is also why ancient Aryan-influenced civilizations had especial veneration for animals which gestate longer than humans - notably cows, horses, camels and above all elephants.)

In non-Aryan cultures, children are conditioned to look forward to growing up so that they can partake of the adult power which currently dominates them. To take their turn to be the dominator instead of the dominated is the ultimate carrot in the carrot-and-stick method. In Aryan culture, children only wish to stay as children, and upon recognizing that material existence precludes this, we logically turn to spiritual transcendence as our only worthwhile goal, for which we are prepared to face any adversity along our way.

“As a child, I was brought up in the country. … My first friends were the flowers and plants that grew in the garden. One day I saw a hand emerge from the bell of a flower and wave to me, urging me to come near. To my childish eyes, it seemed perfectly natural that a hand should come out of a flower, and I therefore went over to it. My only worry was that I was not able to enter it as it seems to want me to; I simply could not fit. Shortly afterwards the flower wilted, and its leaves and petals fell to the ground. I gathered them up in hopes of bringing them back to life, but of course was not able to do so. … Without realizing it, I had entered into competition with God.” – Miguel Serrano

Lucifer’s Rebellion

“We feel our soul is immortal, eternal from the beginning, and therefore we refuse to be told that we were created from nothingness.” – Dietrich Eckart

In mythology, Yahweh told Adam that the rest of creation existed for his pleasure. To prove his point, Yahweh commanded everything else in the world to bow before Adam in subservience. Lucifer refused, and declared war on Yahweh instead, but was defeated. Thus Adam accepted the worldview recommended by Yahweh, while Lucifer promised a comeback in which finally he would destroy Yahweh and his creation.

Adam was the first man to exist. Who was Lucifer? Lucifer was the original child whom Yahweh sacrificed in order to use the shell to create Adam in his own image. Every child throughout the ages born and then adulterated mirrors this dynamic. But sometimes this does not happen. We, the Aryan minority, retain enough of our Original Nobility throughout our lives to figure out what is going on, and remember our promise to finish the noble war that we started.  If even we do not, we can be quite sure that no one else will.

Break

Related Information