Rearing children

Cape Florida lighthouse
By Brice Cooper

Rearing children |
Wednesday – March 4, 2026

In this 21st century the question of children and really of childhood appears to be at the forefront of civilization, and this approach to children is really a rather new phenomena. For instance, the idea that a child's opinion should have any impact whatsoever is in fact so recent that it can only be said that rearing children in this way has to be not much older than perhaps, at most, 70 years old. Indeed, it appears that a lot of conspicuously hip and "modern" people tend to approach the modern matter of childhood in this regard, and really this is often another expression of feminism, or at any rate assuming that children are "qualified" is often an assumption than coexists with feminism wherever it is applied. But it should be noted that childhood, a topic that I have covered in the past, is a fairly modern concept as well, and really the only traditionalism within the concept of "childhood" is the knowing that children are not qualified and that qualification appears as a result of experience only, and this is why children are unable and in need of rearing, something referred to today as "raising", and of course it could be construed that this emphasis on "raising" has very much to do with the materialist character and the "evolutionism" of modern naturalism, as if children simply evolve naturally into adults, a perfectly preposterous concept entrenched in the humanist dogma, and really something that is demonstrated by most so-called "adults". Indeed, is there really a qualitative difference to speak of anymore between children and adults, between the least qualified and the supposedly qualified? Not really, and that's why childhood and adulthood are reduced merely to neologisms and to quantification: childhood and adulthood are merely numbers that can measured as the passage of time with respect to some reference point, moderns call this "birthdays", or in even more fantastical ways, always emphasizing the quantitative within measurement, as if quality somehow spontaneously arise over a period of time; there are very many individuals who may have rotated around the sun many times but that nonetheless are severely less qualified than some other individuals who have rotated around the sun fewer times. Of course, this concept of age is central to understanding how one rears children, because after all the concept of egalitarianism is expressed here too: the expectation is that the passage of time should lead to more complexity, really that the principle of manifestation should proceed from less complex to more complex and that at the end every manifestation has reached some kind of "average" complexity; of course, this is an inversion of the metaphysical order of things, where each principle is manifested by how it proceeds from complexity to simplicity, from sacred to profane. In this way, it would be true to say therefore, that children are individuals who have yet to become differentiated, but differentiation must be understood not in the egalitarian and liberal sense, but rather in the metaphysical sense, for the qualifications so apparent in each individual cannot be explained by "psychoanalysis" and by blaming parent for the way in which they reared their children, and also it should be noted how truly individualistic the assumption, the modern assumption, of parenthood is. Of course, this is a matter of blame and really a lack of skillful means, because the only circumstances that would warrant criticism of parenthood is material shortcomings. This means as well that parenthood truly must be understood as a public concept; the way in which a child is reared is considered a matter of "free inquiry" and whatever privacy used to exist within the concept of "family" has been wholly discarded, because after all modern humans exist on a level lower than most animals, and as such every aspect has to be quantified and made public. What are children in this conception but the future described entirely in volumes, mass, and other mathematical units? Indeed, children are special in so far as they are considered public property; this could be said about adults too but adults are really considered the public but as such they are nonetheless subject to the public. This means that the real distinction between childhood and adulthood is the matter of when the individual is considered a part of the public and not merely subject to the public, an entirely monstrous conception of qualification rooted in democracy – truly the definition of the most common denominator. The rite of passage has been reduced to nothing other than a number, a quantity, a fantasy, a figment of popular imagination. What kind of qualification is this? But of course quantity begets quantity.

    So, with that out of the way, how do you rear children? Is there even such a thing as rearing children? Well, I would submit that there's no such thing as "raising" children, and really the qualitative impact parents can have on their children is really nonexistent, but sure, there is such a thing as a quantitative impact that parents to pose, and this is why there's such a confusion about mental illness and other conditions connected to the general mentality of men today, and of course, the psychoanalysts would blame these potentially adverse mental "developments" on the parents, and to the extend that a disturbed mental faculty belongs to the material domain this would be quite right, but when it comes to qualitative manifestation, parenthood has nothing to do with it, but because of the individualism of the modern world it's of course fancy to think of someone's apparent aptitudes and in-aptitudes as a kind of result of how they where reared, as if "good" parents could all "raise" the same "genius". Again, this disordered conception of the rearing of children is entrenched in egalitarianism. You may turn your children into monsters, but only monsters in the most outwardly manifestation; you may, however, not turn your children into something that they are not; you may not claim dominion over a domain that does not belong to you. This does not mean that you should allow your children to go about in the world as "freely" as possible, but it does mean that you should create some kind of distance between yourself and your children, and further, it also means that whatever qualitative aptitude befalls you, this is also likely to befall your children, something understood in most traditional civilizations.

    Simply put: your children does't become, they are born and this grants every individual their birthright, something entirely lost in the jungle of the modern world. Every individual is preceded by the primordial body, by pure essence, pure potential, and this essence is expressed in substance and may not be altered or manipulated by quantitative disruptions of the most fantastical kinds, such as that of psychoanalysis and "trauma" – substance is contained within essence, never the other way around. The earlier one accepts this, the better. If you seek to rear your children, by all means do so in an appropriate manner dictated by your particular and substantive circumstances, but do not delude yourself by assuming that you have any dominion over qualification. Lastly, why are some people said to be born ugly, and why are some other people said to be naturally beautiful? Is this just a matter of "preference" for one kind over the other?

Reginald Drax – March 4, 2026.