Parenting Alone Is Not Enough
On The Absurd Folly of Continuing the Mistake of Forfeiting Culture
With the left having achieved hegemony in all the cultural and institutional centers of power long ago, many mainstream conservatives and some of a more radical persuasion have assured themselves that all will be right if they simply adhere to a certain standard of highly conscientious parenting. Such highly conscientious parenting includes active auditing and censoring of television, movies, and music that a child or minor is exposed to. Given the deep, thorough ideological corruption of our schools and education system, this high standard of conscientious parenting also very often entails excluding public education as an option, either by resorting to private schools, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, or home-schooling. In some instances, it even includes the categorical eschewal of higher education as an option, an idea that ignores the fact that a son or daughter of age can choose to attend an institution of higher education with or without parental approval, as it also further cedes the institutions of higher learning to our ideological enemies.
Laudable as they are to some, these and other such stop-gap measures may be viable strategies in the short-term, protecting the individual family unit from nefarious, external influences with some very limited modicum of efficacy. However, such strategies will not save our civilization or our posterity on a macro scale, as such strategies often fail, at a micro level, to inoculate or shelter sons and daughters from the cultural milieu that envelops us all. These flaws and shortcomings stem from the axiom that culture matters in such profound, unfathomable ways, defining the individual in the most intimate ways imaginable, as the cultural milieu any one person is born into confines and constricts what is perceived as “individual choice” in ways that can only scarcely be understood or fathomed. Indeed, a proper understanding of the vast power and reach of culture into the mind of the individual impugns and discredits such quaint notions about “individual autonomy” so thoroughly engrained in the collective conscience of the Anglo-American tradition. This fundamental understanding of the dynamic of culture further discredits the notion that such a standard of highly conscientious parenting, alone, with nothing more, can achieve anything of importance in the long run.
Even at the macro scale, such incredibly high standards of highly conscientious parenting suffer from a number of flaws. Most immediately, it requires of individuals the highest effort possible, so much so it teeters on the brink of impossibility. By further ceding the cultural milieu to cultural Marxism and our ideological enemies and expecting a baseline of such incredibly high levels of consciousness in parenting, those who advocate for this strategy without recognizing the need to do something about the culture in the long-run are setting the baseline at a lifestyle that is exceedingly difficult to maintain by any standard. The phrase “difficulty-mode impossible” in internet and gamer parlance comes to mind. This introduces or rather exacerbates a terrible asymmetry between those who oppose the dominant culture and those who subscribe to it, with one side playing “the game” on “difficulty level impossible,” and the other on something between “easy” and “tutorial.” Particularly in an age and society where two incomes are often necessary to have even a baseline standard of living let alone make ends meet, having one parent, ostensibly the mother, stay at home to “home school”[1] concedes upward socioeconomic mobility to our ideological enemies, to the extent such modest prosperity can be still be had in this dystopic shithole of a country. In the long run, the side that enjoys a much easier “difficulty mode” will prevail over the side that must toil on a much higher difficulty setting, although there are caveats and qualifications to that as well.[2] Aside from the far fewer numbers of people who can meet this exceedingly difficult standard over 18 years plus of child-rearing, the difficulties demanded of such individuals lacks appeal in terms of the more difficult lifestyle demanded of anyone who entertains these measures, with fewer economic and social opportunities that are made available by way of the sacrifices entailed.
Beyond that, in relation to shielding one’s children and other loved ones from mass media and pop culture, these measures only provide very limited protection against the influence and power of the cultural milieu that surrounds and envelops us all. This is axiomatic because so much of what is associated with the individual and “individual choice” is defined by the time and circumstance one is born into. To be sure, family and homelife are a powerful external influence on a person during those critical, formative years of childhood and adolescence, but that influence is offset by cultural externalities which are at least as powerful if not more so. Some may balk at this, but the time, place and circumstance a child is born into determines the most intimate aspects of any one person as an “individual,” including the mother tongue he learns to speak, as does the religion he is reared into by way of this cosmic lottery.[3] A further irony is that such emphasis on the family, however simplistic, stems from a dormant, receding culture as well. The very concept of family the advocates of such stop-gap measures cherish stems from values hundreds if not thousands of years old, that is to say from tradition and culture hundreds if not thousands of years old. To what extent naïveté and to what extent stupidity blinds such persons from this obvious truth is anyone’s guess.
Simply stated, all too often conscientious parenting does not work. This was demonstrated in the instance of Leonie Plaar, aka Frau Löwenherz. As articulated in “Culture as Programming: a Case Study of Frau Löwenherz,” Plaar made a presentation discussing her decision to no contact her father due to political disagreements, and encouraged others to do so at the end. Viewers of this and other social media presentations and appearances by Plaar can never know all the details, but all indications are her father provided for his family, above all for his Papakind[4] daughter, was a conservative, traditionalist German who rightly supported Alternative für Deutschland when it was founded. However loving and involved he was in his daughter’s life,[5] it was not enough to shield Leonie from the current, present-day cultural milieu of modern Germany, as she was indoctrinated into far-left claptrap, became a far-left social influencer, and made a presentation before Tincon and on Youtube discussing her decision to go “no contact” while encouraging the audience to do the same if similar circumstances apply.
There are myriad other instances in which parents adhere to this standard of highly conscientious parenting, and despite these efforts, their children rebel and reject the values of their upbringing, even going so far as to disown their parents. There is a seemingly unending plethora of stories and anecdotes of sons and daughters (usually daughters) turning against their parents. A woman named Stephanie Hicks in Keller, Texas gained internet notoriety for disseminating a letter from her father registering his disapproval of her miscegenetic relationship with a black man . Anna Hayes, a white senior in Arkansas, went to a prom with a black male despite her family’s strong disapproval of miscegenation. Although her father made his disapproval known, kicking her out of the house, cancelling her cell-phone and revoking her college fund, she persisted and even disseminated text messages to stir national and international interest as a news story. Some may object that there are outliers, or that somehow, some way, some parents inevitably did something wrong. Consider however that Amish communities, who have pushed efforts to the limits in terms of sacrifices made to resist cultural and societal norms, have a retention rate of about 80-85 percent of young adults deciding to remain Amish. Incidentally, Amish children and minors have known who Madonna is since the 80s.
Even if a son or daughter is raised successfully and shares the parents’ values, conceding the culture to the masses (as establishment conservatism has done for almost a century if not longer) is a strategy doomed to failure, as the culture we all find ourselves in will affect the lives of individuals in profound and intimate ways that cannot be fully fathomed. Consider a young man who rejects societal norms, or who simply does not like the garbage “music” enjoyed by a critical mass of young white women by way of his own personal whims, irrespective of familial upbringing or teachings. So he disdains “Doja Cat,” or Katy Perry, or “Snoop Dogg.” Good for him. Look around social media documenting typical sorority life or other cultural expression of modern life for many young white women. A large number of the most alluring young white women do enjoy this garbage. Holding true to his values and the values of his parents, let alone superior aesthetic values and simple good taste, the pool of available romantic or sexual prospects will be greatly diminished by mere virtue of being subsumed by an alien, hostile cultural milieu.
"What makes most people feel happy /Leads us headlong into harm"
As articulated in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern,” the individual is affected in truly profound ways when large numbers of otherwise suitable romantic or sexual prospects engage in unsavory behavior or are enamored with and taken by repugnant or unsavory elements in the culture. This is according to the simple Law of Supply and Demand, as it applies to the sexual marketplace: the fewer the number of suitable romantic prospects, or rather the more otherwise suitable prospects make themselves ineligible through either transgender lunacy, rampant drug abuse, hyper promiscuity, or even strong, adamant preferences in degenerate music that are irreconcilable with a person of better taste or upbringing, the higher the cost expended in finding a suitable love interest or romantic or sexual prospect. This cost is expended by, among many other things, increased time and effort searching for romantic prospects in a smaller pool of eligible prospects.
The choice then is to simulate and feign interest in garbage music and culture or live with the pain of being an outcast, of suffering the isolation and estrangement as the most alluring and desirable young women join sororities or other social groups indicative of the societal decay and rampant degeneracy of the modern age, engage in hyper promiscuity, binge drink, and partake in the worst music imaginable. What he cannot do—what no one can do despite the blithe, flippant assertion to the contrary—is change the channel or turn it off because he does not like Katy Perry, Cardi B, or whatever the flavor of the month is. Just as it is nigh impossible to find someone who does not know who “The Fonz” is, or for that matter who Kim Kardashian is and what she does, it is impossible not to know who these and other odious figures in the culture are or be exposed to—and thus affected by—such garbage “music” and “culture” or the insidious values they promote.
The power desirable women have in the sexual market place cannot be overstated— especially desirable young and adolescent women in high school, college, and young adult life. The desire, the drive, to attract the most alluring young women is central to the life force and biological imperative, and that is no truer than for young men during adolescence and young adulthood when testosterone and other hormones are flowing. It is the primary motive for teenage boys to try and out and apply for football and other varsity sports. Those more artistically inclined will learn to play guitar or write poetry for many of the same motivations. Stories of young men doing very stupid things, resulting in injury or death, to get the attention of the most desirable women are as old as time. Rebelling against or even running away from one’s parents seems not much more harrowing of a prospect than drag-racing or fisticuffs or any number of high risk ventures that young men have undertaken, since time immemorial, to get attention from highly desirable women.
Many may recall a sensation in the mid to late “aughts” called “Hot Chicks With Douchebags,” which had a wildly popular website and later book showcasing highly desirable women with young men who look and act in such an incredibly obnoxious manner. More astute observers correctly perceive that the obnoxious mannerisms, dress, and so on of “the douchebags” is adopted by the men precisely because it is successful with the most alluring women. If the most alluring women balked at these mating rituals and strategies in favor of other, less odious strategies, manners, and affectations, the men would adjust accordingly. This phenomenon also explains what PJ O’Rourke[6] called the “babe rule,” which stipulates that no social or political movement is going anywhere without a contingent of attractive young women supporting it.
This axiom of the sexual, dating, and mating dynamic has real repercussions on the foolhardy strategy of withdrawing from society and culture to a large degree. Any ideals either instilled in a young man or that he develops on his own will be in great tension with this dynamic. Many, compelled by their sex drive, will conform to societal norms to increase their chances, although being raised in a home-school environment will put most at a distinct disadvantage from those of a more mainstream background, including varsity sports in high school, the Greek system in college, and other mainstream staples of white middle- and upper-class America. The stigma and isolation from such a peculiar upbringing are likely to be a source of rebellion and resentment from a son or daughter. Such resentment and rebellion can be the source of many neurotic personal attributes, as it can greatly damage or even destroy the relationship between parents and a son or daughter. This dynamic also profoundly influences a daughter raised in such an environment, as women look up to other women perceived as having high status, remarkable beauty, and so on. This too is a large fault line by which a daughter may rebel against her parents, including even disownment and going “no contact.”
At the most abstract, philosophical level, to suppose that an individual let alone a family can be insulated from the cultural milieu that envelops us all is the most absurd folly imaginable. Parents cannot, nor should they, chain their children to piping in the basement through adolescence and into young adulthood in a vain attempt to remove them from the horrid auspices of modern society and culture. Young people will know of what their young peers do, both at a local and national level. Some will be drawn to it out of a yearning to belong and not miss out. Especially when pitted against the external influences of peer pressure or dominant but nefarious cultural trends that promote or encourage unwanted, undesirable, or degenerate behavior, there may be no better way to push a young person to engage in that very behavior than strong, overbearing parental disapproval of that behavior. This should be universally recognized as a basic, fundamental tenet of human psychology, and yet it is alien to so many, particularly those in the mainstream conservative set.
Conversely, many of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century, particularly the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were able to galvanize young people by way of a youth movement that swept those societies on a cultural, societal level. Whatever misgivings many may have about the Third Reich, the party achieved great popularity, particularly among young people, through programs like the Hitler Youth, the BDM and the like, as did the Soviet Union with the Komsomol. That National Socialism was a youth movement ameliorated the problem of how peer pressure might contravene parents who supported the regime, as such youth programs effectively thwarted parents who were skeptical of the regime or were outright against it. Again, to what extent one is for or against these ideologies is incidental—what matters is that these strategies worked in building strong cultural influence on young people, which in turn led to an ever stronger political mandate.[7]
As such a cultural youth movement may be difficult, in the short run, to establish and promulgate on a national, macro scale, some recommend a strategy whereby dissidents concentrate in certain, selected geographic areas to establish parallel economies and societies, relocating in mass when applicable. Such measures are imperative as states like California pass laws like the so-called “Safety Act,” which prohibits schools from informing parents that a son or daughter is using so-called customized pronouns.[8] In addition to fleeing states and localities that are irredeemably lost to the left (either through indoctrination or the Great Replacement), this strategy does provide some protection against the elements of peer pressure, as young people are more likely to have peer groups of a similar background in such enclaves. But unless a person decided to try and raise a family in a cabin without modern amenities like the Internet, such a strategy cannot fully insulate the family or the community from mass media or social media or the greater cultural milieu that is shaped by modern media.
Of course, those opposed to the left are running out of real estate to flee to. To the extent we live in a democracy—an indirect democracy by way of democratic republic—this strategy is also bound to fail in terms of a sheer numbers game. Resigning to a parenting standard at “difficulty level impossible” while our ideological enemies enjoy the same on “tutorial or easy mode” ensures that ever larger numbers of people will raise families and have children in accordance with the dominant cultural narrative and associated values or lack of values. Such a result is a foregone conclusion in relation to different groups that adhere to wildly different standards of difficulty or rarity (eg number of football players who can compete in the NFL versus the collegiate or high school level). Conservative strongholds like Idaho and Montana and Texas are already being settled by California Democrats and others. That process had already changed Colorado from a thoroughly “red state” in the 80s to, after having been discovered by Hollywood pariahs like Oprah, Sylvester Stallone and others, to a reliably blue state. Entertaining this asymmetry in difficulty levels will exacerbate that problem, a problem of course compounded by the Great Replacement and Democrat policy of letting in any as many third world brown people who spawn democrat larvae known as anchor babies. The ever-growing numbers of the masses adhering to the dominant culture is exacerbated further by the implements of mass and social media which have such incredible power over the minds of the masses to the point of mind control. Such implements are, of course, wielded by a hostile elite determined to lead Europe and the West into racial and civilization suicide.
Politics is of course downstream from culture, and the guarantees in the Constitution are only as good as there is a political mandate to keep and acknowledge those rights and guarantees. As articulated in Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident, the overwhelming dominance of leftists and cultural Marxists in the cultural centers of power (including education at all levels) has indoctrinated the younger generations, to the point where large numbers do not support First Amendment protections prohibiting government censorship of so-called “hate speech.” Constitutional and other guarantees against such sentiment endorsing government censorship for unpopular speech are only good until there is a political mandate sufficient to override those guarantees with whatever rationalizations those of such persuasion entertain to justify their convictions. This process whereby our ideological enemies outnumber those who stand against them by ever increasing margins will only be exacerbated further so long as people delude themselves into thinking that they can recoil and isolate and pretend that culture does not matter or that it can be escaped from or insulated against.
Given the concentration of mass media and social media in the hands of five or six conglomerates owned and controlled by a hostile elite, the question of how to counteract and reverse the culture is a most daunting one. Because of the complacency of mainstream conservatism, which has for decades held matters of culture in open contempt, the problem is likely intractable. But to the extent matters may not yet have gone beyond the point of no return, pretending that culture does not matter as much as family or maintaining the delusional fairy tale that home schooling and the like is a viable strategy for anything other than a short-term, stop gap measure simply perpetuates that critical mistake of neglecting culture that gave rise to so many of our troubles in the first place. Quite critically, this stop-gap measure perpetuates the critical mistake made by establishment conservatism that, either from indifference of or contempt of cultural matters, ceded the culture to our enemies. While such measures may work to some very limited extent in the short-term at the individual, micro scale, this strategy, without taking matters of culture into account, simply exacerbates the many problems we face in the long-term at the macro, societal level. It is only by discerning how culture impacts our lives and shapes what we perceive in so many intimate, seemingly unfathomable ways that any opposition to the left can begin to understand the nature of the problem before us. This critical understanding is essential for any serious thought and discussion on how to solve that problem, or many number of problems as the case may be.
[1] Despite the appalling state of the American education system, a state which has only devolved more and more over the decades, it is also doubtful to what extent a housewife or even a wife and husband team can teach all the different subjects at even a high school level. Even if a couple can teach English and a foreign language and history, it is doubtful that such a couple could also teach biology, chemistry, and calculus. This problem is ameliorated somewhat with an education co-op consisting of a syndicate of close-knit families whose members have different specialties, as opposed to home-schooling strictly construed.
[2] This is not to suggest that it would be desirable to reduce all resistance levels by way of welfare or school lunches. There is a sweet spot to the resistance level, somewhere between impossible and tutorial mode.
[3] Some, even many would contend that religion is passed down by one’s parents, that is family rather than culture. Unless the parents are an extreme religious minority or part of a sect, religion is a phenomenon passed down by both family and culture. The religious do attend Church with other congregants after all.
[4] Roughly translated as “daddy’s favorite.”
[5] The Leonie Plaar matter likely invokes some of the same pig-headed, irretrievably stupid ideas and talking points at issue here, namely that it is somehow the fault of the family (as this author has been subjected to such inane, moronic blather), namely that her father should have somehow prevented her from attending University, even though 1) even in the States parents cannot prevent a son or daughter of age from enrolling, 2) education is (rightly) paid for by the state in Germany and much if not all of Europe 3) while word is getting out about universities, a middle class German in his fifties or sixties would not have as much reason to know of the goings-on at the University. Of course, it is a mistake to cede higher education to our enemies as well, however much the currency of higher educated has been degraded by grade inflation, ideological corruption, and so on. Finally, the lack of empathy towards a man no one knows much of anything about should be anathema to any sane, decent person.
[6] John Derbyshire mentioned this rule on the June 28, 2024 edition of Radio Derb, although I am unable to locate the exact quote.
[7] Some may object that the Third Reich only lasted twelve years, and that the Soviet Union also failed. The failure of each however is properly attributed to reasons entirely unrelated to these youth programs.
[8] On the absurdity and unworkability of so-called customizable or personalized pronouns, see “This Mockery of Language I: The Farce of Shifting, Customizable Pronouns.”