Red-Pilling Our Children

^[1]3,080 Words

Contemplating all the thorny dilemmas facing race-realist or white identitarian parents brings me back to the story of the Soviet youth Pavel Morozov ^[2] (or Pavlik, as he was known). I say “story” because the boy and the hagiographic myth which surrounded him for over fifty years were two very different things.

Pavel Morozov was a thirteen-year-old peasant boy who, in 1932, reported his father to the Soviet political police (then called the GPU) for forging documents that allowed internal exiles to return home. In other versions of the story, the father was hoarding grain.

In either case, the boy’s vengeful family, led by his grandfather, murdered him, turning the true-believing young communist into a martyr. After an outraged Soviet public demanded harsh punishment for the Morozov clan, the family members were executed by firing squad. Pavlik’s father, who was serving ten years in a gulag, was done in as well.

Later, statues of Pavlik popped up across the country, and his school became a shrine. Songs as well as an opera were written about him. Sergei Eisenstein even directed an unreleased film about him. In a masterstroke of propaganda, millions of Soviet schoolchildren were indoctrinated with the myth of Pavlik Morozov.

Of course, almost none of it was true, and the actual events surrounding Pavlik and his death were much more mundane and sketchy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, researchers not only revealed the unreliability of evidence surrounding the Soviet narrative, but began to construct a wholly different one. Perhaps Pavlik never tattled on his father at all? Perhaps his father was having an affair, and the boy was told to report him by his vengeful mother? Perhaps the boy was killed by other boys during a dispute over a gun? Perhaps the grandfather was sympathetic to Pavlik and led the search party for his body? Perhaps Pavlik was done in by the GPU itself?

We may never know for sure. But that doesn’t matter. What does matter is how swiftly the Pavlik myth took with the left-wing Soviet populace. These were people who believed that the individual’s relation to the state outweighed his relationship with his family. Families, along with religion, are great conduits of tradition and folk wisdom in a post-nationalist society. If the state can weaken religious and familial ties, then it would have a greater shot at programming young minds to conform to its agenda. So it made sense that such people would actually praise children who expose their parents as dissidents, regardless of how many people die as a result.

Race-realist and white identitarian parents in the West now face similar dilemmas. If you don’t red-pill your children, they will not be inoculated against the pervasive, anti-white agenda of our elites. On the other hand, if you do, your children could turn on you like young Pavlik. They could, through the use of recording technology and the internet, expose you as a racist and potentially ruin you. I wrote about such an incident almost three years ago in an article entitled “All for a Prom Date” ^[3] in which a daughter published her father’s profanity-laced rant when he discovered she was taking a black boy to her prom. It was a thoroughly sordid yet eye-opening affair. It also, in my opinion, demonstrated how not to red-pill one’s children on race.

So how should parents red-pill their kids?

At the risk of sounding trite, I think we should start from a position of love. No child under a certain age can contemplate the care and concern that only a parent knows. You have to show them that with everything you do with them, which includes providing for them, playing with them, punishing them, and educating them. Families are the atomic units of great civilizations, and it takes work and sacrifice on the part of parents to keep it that way. Of course, this isn’t the place to go over all aspects of parenting. For the sake of the issue at hand, we will assume that parents wishing to red-pill their children already have a lock in place when it comes to love.

Beyond this, my first rule of thumb is to be actionary, not reactionary. What does this mean? I define “actionary” as simply being proactive against left-wing indoctrination, or forcing an indoctrinated child to react to certain standards that have already been set in the home. When you have kids and don’t have the resources to homeschool, you know this indoctrination is coming. Not only this, parents should assume the worst in their school teachers and administrators. Before long, all schoolchildren will be taught to deplore things such as race realism and white ethnocentrism and to laud such things as racial egalitarianism and non-white ethnocentrism. Of course, some school districts will be better than others, but it is safest to assume that all schools will seek to counter the measures that whites must take to maintain their majorities and the health of their race.

My second rule of thumb is to tell the truth. Our baseline should be to always keep our communication with our children based in observable reality. However, we must present this reality in ways that match the child’s level of sophistication. For example, I clearly remember my first encounter with a black person when I was a small child. I was young enough for my mother to still be able to hold me, so I must have been around four or five. I met one of her colleagues, a black woman, who was perfectly nice. I was just shocked that a human being could look like that. Afterwards, my mother gave me an earnest spiel about how blacks are no different than whites except for skin color. I knew something wasn’t right about this, and I remember even then wondering what my mother was really getting at. I know in hindsight that my mother, who was a tacit race realist like many back then, was lying to me in order to protect me. She didn’t want her son to get in trouble for being a racist. But her drawn-out explanation on race only confused me at the time.

Parents shouldn’t do this. Instead, from the point that the child is old enough to understand the basics of race, parents should stress the otherness of other races. This is what I wrote in “All for a Prom Date”:

First, I would always stress the “otherness” of other races. This is something I’ve noticed older generations doing all the time when I was growing up. He’s not just “that guy” over there; he’s “that black guy.” It’s not “the laundromat down the street”; it’s “the Chinese laundromat down the street.” If a person was not white, then his race instantly became his dominating characteristic. This wasn’t mean-spirited or denigrating. It was just how people talked back then. In my parents’ generation, non-whites were unusual because of their race, so it made sense to identify them as such. Exceptions were made of course for non-whites we got to know. But there were so few of them that such exceptions were minuscule.

Today, of course, children are taught to ignore race entirely unless mentioning it will make non-whites appear virtuous or whites appear non-virtuous. This is an attempt to turn the tables on whites and “otherize” them for a change. This is also the first step towards anti-white racism: when children become comfortable bringing up whiteness in exclusively negative contexts, it’s not too much of a leap from there to insisting that whites should have no racial interests at all.

So, I think white parents should go back to otherizing the other. Do it casually, do it nicely, but do it. And often.

Once racial divisions have been established in a child’s mind, white parents should gently pile on the information as the child grows and becomes more aware of their circumstances. I would imagine that a child should know their parent’s views on race before middle school. Of course, this will require white parents to be conversant on topics such as psychometrics, crime rates, unemployment rates, genetics, and other issues so to keep up with an inquisitive child’s persistence.

John Derbyshire’s famous Taki article “The Talk” ^[4] would probably come in handy. Another useful resource would be Paul Kersey’s “Stuff Black People Don’t Like” ^[5] (SBPDL) series. Kersey forces us to remember the names of white victims of black-on-white murder. This humanizes white people in a way the mainstream media never does. So if a child were to rush to the defense of a pro-black, anti-white activist organization, a parent should mention these names. If the child is stubborn, then the parent should describe the manner in which each of these people were killed. For example:

Levi Ellerbe ^[6], 6 months, kidnapped and set on fire by a black woman in Louisiana. July 2018. No reason.

Tyler Wingate ^[7], 24, beaten to death by a black male in Detroit. July 2019. No reason.

Bob Long ^[8], 73, strangled by a black male in Iowa. October 2019. Home break-in and robbery.

Mark Schlemmer ^[9], 38, shot by a black male in St. Louis. November 2019. No reason.

Melissa Hamilton ^[10], 50, raped and stabbed by a black male in Tennessee. December 2019. No reason.

Tessa Majors ^[11], 18, stabbed by three black males in New York City. December 2019. Home break-in and robbery.

Gruesome stuff, I know. But this is the world we live in. The same, by the way, goes for Islamic terror starting with 9/11. The Religion of Peace ^[12] is a great resource in this regard. So if a child were to repeat lies about Islam being a religion of peace, a parent can disabuse them rather quickly. This information should be at the top of a parent’s head and ready for deployment the moment a child begins regurgitating the egalitarian nonsense they picked up in school. This will nudge the child out of the safety-zone of dogma and force them to think on their feet where they would be at a disadvantage against a well-informed adult. As I wrote in the article:

In any case, the message should be clear: stay away from black people or refute my numbers. Pick one.

“All for a Prom Date” ^[3] goes into greater detail on the topic, and cautions parents against overdoing it in the racist rant department. Keep the F- and N-bombs to a minimum and generally behave with class. If you read some of the unbelievable things the father said to his wayward daughter, you’ll see what I mean.

Beyond this, I believe parents may want to consider the following guidelines when red-pilling their kids:

Instill white pride. There are countless ways in which to do this because the greatness of white civilization is still all around us. It’s almost impossible to avoid. All a parent has to do is underscore how whites share not just a cultural heritage with the great European civilizations, but a racial one as well. From here, a child can take pride in any number of accomplishments from the past or the present.

Do not raise bigots. It’s one thing to be a race-realist based on the data. It’s another thing entirely to be arrogant about it—and it is from this arrogance that bigotry in all its mean-spiritedness arises. Such an attitude is ugly, can potentially get a child in trouble. It’s also unjust to members of other races who are honest and upstanding people. Whites certainly have demographic issues with the groups to which these people belong, but that’s no excuse not to mind our manners when dealing with them.

A terrific article by F. Roger Devlin underscores the dangers of racial chauvinism. In “1905: The End of the Omnipotent White Man,” ^[13] he writes of Japan after defeating Tsarist Russia in the 1905 war:

A convenient home-grown doctrine of racial superiority was developed to rationalize the country’s new ambitions. As early as 1916, we find a Japanese author fantasizing about a “billion Japanese with their slaves” colonizing North America, dismissing Americans as “a few chattering mongrel Yankees . . . a race of thieves with the hearts of rabbits.”

By the 1930s, such arrogance had come to dominate the Japanese military, and the country embarked on a campaign of foreign conquest.

Of course, we all know that such arrogance led to disaster, and not only for the Japanese. Instilling a healthy sense of humility in children would be a great way to prevent such arrogance from taking root.

Do not be afraid to discuss white victimhood. There’s a complacency among whites that we are just going to have to shatter. It’s as if we see ourselves as part of a permanent majority which is in a position to bestow kindness and charity upon less-fortunate races. This self-flattering prejudice has not only created a treacherous blind spot which non-whites continually exploit, it’s also incorrect. Whites have been badly oppressed by whites and non-whites alike in the past. A parent can describe what’s going on today in South Africa ^[14] as anti-white oppression. The same can be said for historical oppression, such as the  2-3 million white slaves ^[15] plucked out of Europe by the Ottoman Empire from 1500-1800 or the 20 or so million whites ^[16] killed in the Soviet gulags and terror famines or the white indentured servants that were no better than slaves ^[17] in the United States centuries ago.

As for current events, how a parent frames things could make all the difference. For example, the phenomenon known as “white flight” has often been considered proof of white racism. However, a parent should instead call it the response to ethnic cleansing by non-whites. Black-on-white crime is not merely crime, but a form of predation against whites. I like to compare white-on-black crime to the grisly relationship between the Morlocks and the Eloi in H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine. This is an idea that a teenager can wrap their mind around, and is a great way to challenge ideas that their teachers will claim are unassailable.

What is said in the house, stays in the house. For obvious reasons, red-pilled children should know to never disclose their parents’ beliefs to anyone. This reminds me of a short story—alas, I cannot recall the author or title (if the synopsis rings a bell with anyone, please let us know in the comments). I think it takes place in South America, perhaps Pinochet’s Chile, where a child is given a homework assignment: Write an essay about what your parents do at night. Clearly, this is an attempt by an insidious state to turn children into unwitting stool pigeons against their potentially subversive parents. The main character is a child who starts an honest essay about how his parents perform suspicious activities at night, such as printing leaflets or hoarding arms or conversing with strangers about politics, or something along those lines. Soon, however, he sees through the ruse and makes up a pleasant lie about how at night Mama knits and Papa plays chess, and he doesn’t know any more than that because by bedtime he’s sound asleep like a good boy.

We may not be at this point yet in all parts of the West. But that day is coming.

Don’t be a one-note blowhard. Children, especially in the prosperous West, tend to be raised in a bubble. It’s often hard for even the most precocious of them to appreciate the pressures an adult feels. So while they’re dealing with typical kid problems such as school, sports, social lives, and hormonal changes, most kids may get bored by the topic of race. Parents who cannot stop beating a dead horse run the risk of being tuned out entirely. Instead, parents should discuss taboo topics only when necessary and try to keep track of what they say to minimize repeating themselves.

Have zero tolerance for miscegenation. Some things you just can’t retreat from, even if it makes you look like the bad guy. The father in “All for a Prom Date” may have behaved badly, but he wasn’t wrong. Miscegenation with blacks or any full-blooded member of another race should be forbidden, and children should understand from an early age that it is incumbent on them not only to marry and have children, but to produce children that look like their mom and dad. One great way to instill this value is to keep children in personal contact with their oldest living relatives (if possible) and to keep as many photos, videos, and keepsakes of the ones that are no longer living as you can. If the children see themselves as part of a long line extending back into history and forward into the future, they will have a better regard for preserving the identity of that line.

As I wrote in “All for a Prom Date”:

Finally, we should make the consequences clear. From an early age, our children should know that dating blacks will be strongly discouraged. Sexual activity with them will be outright forbidden. Marriage and children with them will result in the complete destruction of the family.

As painful and as awful as that would be, we should tell them that this is not a threat. It’s a promise.

I understand that things are more complicated today than they were a few decades ago. Thanks to half a century of non-white immigration, the line between what miscegenation is and isn’t has now blurred. A person who is seven-eighths white and one-eighth black is white, as far as I am concerned. But what about someone who looks white but is a quarter Chinese or half-Armenian? In those circumstances, all I can say is to trust your instincts and do what you think is right. Very little in life is going to be ideal, and this should color all the decisions we make in nearly everything we do. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for those ideals while raising our children.

Finally, what if your child turns into a Pavel Morozov? Supposing despite your best efforts your child becomes a Social Justice Warrior who subsumes their intellect and identity into the anti-white agenda of our elites? That would be a heartbreaking turn of events, and, as a fellow parent, my deepest empathy goes out to all parents who are betrayed by their children in this regard. All I can say is that if enough of us red-pill our children effectively, then we will have to deal less with the modern-day equivalent of the Pavel Morozov myth, and more with the real thing, which would be a great improvement.