The Nazi's socialist?

[Zachowon]

A better example, I think, would be Mao's Cultural Revolution, which destroyed huge amounts of culture and was horrendously oppressive.


Even if it could be done without any violence or force, destroying culture is still terrible. Mass media and entertainment destroys culture in a lot of ways and I see that as a major threat of such things.

You have Japan getting rid of Korean culture during thier time there

 

[ShieldWife]

This is actually a mistaken beliefs. Cultures vanish for a number of reasons violence is only one such reason. You also have cultures that merge leaving behind something new. this was often the case when trading outposts were established. You also had cultures that adopted much of other cultures thus they erased their own culture and replaced it with a new culture. The Romans are a prime example of this. The Latin culture which pre-dates Rome was abandoned first in favor of the Etruscan's and then Etruscan culture was merged with Greek culture which gave us the Roman Culture. Memetic's is a highly complicated subject especially as it relates to sociology. When thinking about either cultural reform or eradication most people jump to violence as the "easy" obvious answer. Yet it often times causes more problems than it solves and always ends up being much messier both in terms of human cost and in terms of negative influence upon ones own culture.

Right, cultures change all the time. They evolve, they blend, they adopt new beliefs, sometimes they die. Just like humans right, we grow, we learn, we age, we die. Yet it's still wrong to kill humans, even though humans will change and eventually die naturally. Are there ways in which I would like to change culture - absolutely. In large part, I would like to change culture in ways that would preserve culture and the rich diversity of cultures, beliefs, and traditions which exist across the world.

I guess to really judge your goal, I would like to know in what way you want to abolish culture, what culture(s) you might want to abolish, and how you'd go about doing so. Without context, someone expressing the desire to abolish culture sounds really really bad to me. I don't even want to abolish cultures that I dislike.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

How will you achieve all of this?

How will I achieve what? That is a rather open ended question. I am going to assume the question refers to culture until corrected as that seems to be the direction the conversation has drifted. There are a number of methods I have outlined previously but will restate.
The most important method relies on media and it's ability to normalize as well as delegitimize norms and practices. While it is true that culture shapes art it is equally true that art shapes culture. We are for the sake of the argument going to assume that I have been approached to develop "the plan".
On the top of my hit list is the obliteration of the Disney princess. Yeeted. Erased. Gone. No more Disney princesses every, at least not of the old school. Any new Disney princess would be required to find value and meaning outside of a male protag. The male protag must have at the very least the foundations of a complete person. The princess is not a trophy to be won. If there is a romantic interest between the two (and there would be a period of time where this would not even be an option) it would be tertiary and framed through the lens of healthy relationship development. None of this love at first sight shit.
Television particularly children's shows would also be near the top of my hit list. I would develop them in 2 kinds. First would be something which was flashy and caught the eye of reactionaries and could easily be manufactured into outrage. The second would be more subtle with a much more tame version of the outrage. Where as the outrage show would focus on whatever the outrage was for only of hyper focused seconds, the second show would gradually build to the message throughout the episode in such a way as the parents never truly caught on. See 90's cartoons for an example of this second. Gargoyles, Sonic, Ninja Turltles, Sailor Moon, etc.
Additionally I would also focus on a shift in the tone and theme of music with pop-music being the obvious thrust, but also slowly altering the messaging in the music of the target culture.
An increase in science literacy. This does not just mean an increase in knowledge of scientific facts but an increase in the comprehension of how science works and what it does and does not do. This would mean a reform of science programs in school but also a shift in the way news media covers science as well as a shift in the way science is covered in television entertainment.
This is what I would do for young children and adults. The main focus however would be on the 12-25 crowd as they are the primary drivers of culture. All of the above would be true for them only more so with an explicit counter culture vibe built into their media. No matter how "wholesome" the actual content it would always be presented in a manner that it is something their parents might not necessarily approve of (see Breakfast Club or other 80's cult classic teen movies). Unlike in previous decades however if I were doing it now I would turn it up form 4 to 400.
Additionally carefully curate young attractive individuals who are well put together to create pop content on major social media sites. 90% of their content would be bland and intended to appeal to a mass audience. 2% of their content would be radical. 8% of their content would be mostly bland but with a subtle cultural message built in.

Targeted areas.

One key feature would be to target specific geographic locations either for cultural and economic development, or if the resistance is to strong to export the young to more progressive regions. This would be done primarily though offering better job and education opportunities than they can find where they are at. After 5-10 years with the targeted region dying out I would then begin to incentivize more progressive individuals to move into the area. The end goal is to dilute the target culture so that within a generation, two at max the target culture no longer exists. Even if the culture is still reactionary that doesn't matter as the procedure can be rinsed and repeated as many times as necessary. The objective is not the elimination of the culture itself but rather the destruction and replacement of the underlying philosophy of the culture.

These are all the positive aspects however and I should not neglect the negative incentives. Build into the media ostracization of negative behaviors I wish to see eliminated. To make it more effective individuals who are perceived as holding authority would be encouraged to reinforce shamefulness as being associated with the negative behavior. With this the youth then develops a personality for at home and a personality for interacting with the rest of the world. Given that at about age 10-12 children (now youths) begin seeking the approval of their peers more than they seek the approval of their parents this will divide the youth from their reactionary parents. What is more devious here is that because of the expectation placed upon the child from the parent the parents will either 1) assume that little bobby and beth are perfect children when in fact they hold values directly contrary to their parents. or 2) the parents in an attempt to prevent bobby and beth from holding contrary views will become harsh and dictatorial as well as over controlling thus driving the children away as they age.

This is a very very brief and oversimplified outline. The primary stratagem is to engineer it so that reactionaries are placed into a no win situation with their children. This means as time goes on reactionaries as a group shrink more than they grow but never so much as to be truly alarming to reactionaries. In particular once the entertainment industry is on board with a progressive agenda it is crucial to provide reactionaries with the image that they still have the ability to win. This is especially true the less ability they actually have of winning the culture war.

What I am describing here is "The Art of War" as written by Sun Tzu adapted for cultural warfare.

The thing which I find most amusing however is that reactionaries cannot help but violate one of Sun Tzu's fundamental axioms. It's the one thing that could actually stop leftists, and yet its the one thing they are constitutionally incapable of doing.

 

[Lanmandragon]

A better example, I think, would be Mao's Cultural Revolution, which destroyed huge amounts of culture and was horrendously oppressive.


Even if it could be done without any violence or force, destroying culture is still terrible. Mass media and entertainment destroys culture in a lot of ways and I see that as a major threat of such things.

I've personally spiken and trained with various CMA practioners. Who swear the combat forms of quite a few Kung fu styles. We're straight wiped out by Mao don't know how true it is. These guy's are pretty solid dudes though so.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Right, cultures change all the time. They evolve, they blend, they adopt new beliefs, sometimes they die. Just like humans right, we grow, we learn, we age, we die. Yet it's still wrong to kill humans, even though humans will change and eventually die naturally. Are there ways in which I would like to change culture - absolutely. In large part, I would like to change culture in ways that would preserve culture and the rich diversity of cultures, beliefs, and traditions which exist across the world.

I guess to really judge your goal, I would like to know in what way you want to abolish culture, what culture(s) you might want to abolish, and how you'd go about doing so. Without context, someone expressing the desire to abolish culture sounds really really bad to me. I don't even want to abolish cultures that I dislike.

I explained it above. As to having "judged my goal". I doubt you even understand my goal considering you cannot even state it in a way in which I go "yes that is my goal" but instead build strawmen to help you feel emotionally victimized. The problem you have is that you conflate the desire to abolish authoritarian and morally bankrupt cultures for the desire to abolish the distinction between all cultures. I would never hold such a stupid goal as the impossibility of such a task would be futile.

As to not wanting to abolish cultures you dislike you are either misrepresenting what you mean, or you are a disgusting human being. I honestly don't think its the latter. I cannot truly believe you so monstrous a person that you find the existence of cultures in which it is acceptable casually beat women, to preform female circumcision, to murder daughters, etc, etc, acceptable.

I do not care to freeze time not to prevent the world from changing. Instead I would rather we set our goal than stumble into the future by accident and fighting against a change we cannot prevent. Change is inevitable, it is therefore better to move toward the change consciously and with intent that we may have a measure of control. Again a rich diversity of culture will continue to exist once the poison is excised. Art in all its variety, dance, music, different customs all will still exist. The difference is that negative elements will be eliminated which will prompt fundamental shifts in the ways in which those cultures express themselves. So while they will be born out of the old cultures they will be new cultures.

 

[ShieldWife]

This is really sickening stuff and it's actually already happening. Left wing extremists already control Hollywood, the media, the educational systems and are using exactly the sorts of tactics that Dirtbagleft is advocating. It's really evil.

That's why so many conservative (reactionary!) parents are turning to homeschooling like my husband and I and so many of our friends. We also try to keep our kids away from TV or computer screens any more than necessary. He'll be happy to learn that I am teaching my daughters to be submissive to their husband (when they eventually find some) and that they shouldn't work but stay at home and have babies.

I've personally spiken and trained with various CMA practioners. Who swear the combat forms of quite a few Kung fu styles. We're straight wiped out by Mao don't know how true it is. These guy's are pretty solid dudes though so.

I don't know that much about it, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mao destroyed an immeasurable amount of culture, art, writing, artifacts, etc. The Cultural Revolution was one of the most horrendous events in human history and it's taking Dirtbagleft's desires to their logical conclusion.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I've personally spiken and trained with various CMA practioners. Who swear the combat forms of quite a few Kung fu styles. We're straight wiped out by Mao don't know how true it is. These guy's are pretty solid dudes though so.

Somewhat true. The various temples only had slight variation within form. What was destroyed by Mao was the distinct philosophical underpinning of the various temples. There has been an attempt to recreate some of these traditions but a recreation is always something new as no matter how hard it tries it breaks from the old and there is much oral history which is lost..

 

[ShieldWife]

I explained it above. As to having "judged my goal". I doubt you even understand my goal considering you cannot even state it in a way in which I go "yes that is my goal" but instead build strawmen to help you feel emotionally victimized. The problem you have is that you conflate the desire to abolish authoritarian and morally bankrupt cultures for the desire to abolish the distinction between all cultures. I would never hold such a stupid goal as the impossibility of such a task would be futile.

As to not wanting to abolish cultures you dislike you are either misrepresenting what you mean, or you are a disgusting human being. I honestly don't think its the latter. I cannot truly believe you so monstrous a person that you find the existence of cultures in which it is acceptable casually beat women, to preform female circumcision, to murder daughters, etc, etc, acceptable.

I do not care to freeze time not to prevent the world from changing. Instead I would rather we set our goal than stumble into the future by accident and fighting against a change we cannot prevent. Change is inevitable, it is therefore better to move toward the change consciously and with intent that we may have a measure of control. Again a rich diversity of culture will continue to exist once the poison is excised. Art in all its variety, dance, music, different customs all will still exist. The difference is that negative elements will be eliminated which will prompt fundamental shifts in the ways in which those cultures express themselves. So while they will be born out of the old cultures they will be new cultures.

I don't like Islamic culture, as that seems to be what you're referring to, and I absolutely want to keep it out of Western nations - something that leftists seem to think is as evil as can be. But with regard to practicing those cultures in their own nations - that isn't any of my business.

How am I the authoritarian when you want to use either state power or capitalistic power (your entertainment industry control) to turn kids against their parents and I just want to leave other cultures alone to do their own thing?

 

[Zachowon]

This is really sickening stuff and it's actually already happening. Left wing extremists already control Hollywood, the media, the educational systems and are using exactly the sorts of tactics that Dirtbagleft is advocating. It's really evil.

That's why so many conservative (reactionary!) parents are turning to homeschooling like my husband and I and so many of our friends. We also try to keep our kids away from TV or computer screens any more than necessary. He'll be happy to learn that I am teaching my daughters to be submissive to their husband (when they eventually find some) and that they shouldn't work but stay at home and have babies.


I don't know that much about it, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mao destroyed an immeasurable amount of culture, art, writing, artifacts, etc. The Cultural Revolution was one of the most horrendous events in human history and it's taking Dirtbagleft's desires to their logical conclusion.

I disagree with how you are reasong yours kids, and would say let them take in media, let them learn (when they are older for news and the like.) Show them shows you grew up on ir my generation grew up on. Let them grow up somewhat free.
Raising your kids like how you are could lead to them pulling the rebellion phase of kids you always hear about. I know people who were raised similair and they have went more left because if that kinda way.
I know someone who had more freedom with being raised, such as TV, such as working and everything. She fits what you are trying to raise your kids to be like.

They are your kids though.

 

[Morphic Tide]

What features of Socialism were missing for Lenin to not consider the USSR socialist?

Your quote was that Lenin stated Soviet Russia was in a "transitory state", but did not include the desired end. As Lenin was a Marxist, the end goal was Communism, so he would have considered it transitory were it Socialism, and this is beared out by the fact he named the USSR the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

Until "the big switch"

Which was actually a coalition shuffling, because there's this weird quirk that the general population calling for Jim Crow laws were otherwise small government economic liberals and many of the staunch progressives calling for their end also desired strong governments to enact various social programs, so when Jim Crow laws were finally overturned in the Civil Rights Movement, the big government drive used to uphold Jim Crow laws became toxic to its constituants and attractive to its opponents.

The 1960 party platform of the Democrats called out the Republicans for deeming millions unemployed a normal adjustment. This was before the Civil Rights Act, and the economic talking point is the exact same things.

For fuck's sake, the Democrat party platform of 1960 has this to say about immigration:

We shall adjust our immigration, nationality and refugee policies to eliminate discrimination and to enable members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.

The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man. This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress.

The revision of immigration and nationality laws we seek will implement our belief that enlightened immigration, naturalization and refugee policies and humane administration of them are important aspects of our foreign policy.

These laws will bring greater skills to our land, reunite families, permit the United States to meet its fair share of world programs of rescue and rehabilitation, and take advantage of immigration as an important factor in the growth of the American economy.

In this World Refugee Year it is our hope to achieve admission of our fair share of refugees. We will institute policies to alleviate suffering among the homeless wherever we are able to extend our aid.

Practically word for goddamn word a modern speech, because as it turns out they haven't done away with anything this complains about in the last 60 years. The flip was in constituants, almost no actual policy change occured because the issue supposedly "flipped" was no longer politically relevant, and the politicians themselves didn't do much switching parties.

Georgia is not Michigan is not New York is not California. A New York Democrat from the 80s is not a Georgia Democrat of the 60s. The former is Donald fucking Trump, who should need no elaboration, the latter is Bill Clinton, who personally opposed the Jim Crow laws and ran the son of a man who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as his VP.

The right and left wing and the features of what make them right and left are fixed.

Unless you think that monarchism is politically relevant today, this is untrue. It began in the French Revolution, and the Enlightenment is not the most recent philosophical "revolution". Postmodernism specifically rejects the Enlightenment's goals of hard data-driven intellectualism in policy, on the basis that not all reality is clean data.

All authoritarians are right wing but not all right wingers are authoritarians.

So what do you call the non-authoritarian right winger? Perhaps liberal right? And if the Left is those who follow the Enlightenment, then the "Philosopher King" would be quite clearly Left-wing, as the entire notion of a monarch actually needing to be a highly educated individual to have the skills to rule effectively was a central premise of the early Enlightenment, as opposed to such rulership being pure birthright; not all monarchies are hereditary, after all, just ask the Roman Emperors. Technocratic dictatorships, too, are very strongly rooted in the Enlightenment for much the same reason.

To say LibLeft vs AuthLeft is... well besides being insane it's a category error. No one outside of your lunatic echo chambers talks about left and right the way you do.

...or you are in an echo chamber and fail to realize that most of Europe considers spectacular welfare states (large fractions of your income must be spent to meet the needs of people who are not you) and extreme environmentalist controls to be "left wing"? Incessent demands for censorship of anything remotely approaching nationalism as a whole is "left wing" and ludicrously commonplace for Europe, and quite cleanly authoritarian because it is state power applied to forcefully silence a viewpoint. Hell, the full-on outlawing of entire fields of technology, namely genetic engineering of food, to the point of browbeating African countries into rejecting US food aid in the middle of mass starvation, is a mainstream "left-wing" matter in Europe.

Again, you recognize that not all the Right are authoritarian. As the generally considered opposite to authoritarian is libertarian, that means the extreme of the non-authoritarian Right is therefor libertarian Right, and using fixed points to define politics means that this is more solid because the fact non-authoritarian Right-wingers exist means there must be something other than authoritarianism defining the Right, and therefor points that define Right vs. Left separately from Authoritarian vs. Libertarian.

Centralized planning means that the plans are generated in a designated central location to drive the economic engine.

So the US actually counts right this moment, given the War Powers being enacted to establish control of the necessary elements of the economy to deal with the actually-not-very-lethal pandemic? Does it require it actively be in use to be centralized, or does the ability count? Because if it's the latter, where the government holding the authority to do so in the first place, then you'll find extremely few cases of decentralized planning after the Feudal period.

And once again you don't actually define your terms. I was thinking in terms of policy making, where there's a central body determining laws, while you were completely ignoring that to consider it purely about resource allocation and don't clarify it as such. As we are talking about something that is in part a system of government, rather than purely an economic system like capitalism or merchantilism, it is natural that centralization be considered in a political context.

Anarchism is not about the elimination of hierarchies or even about the elimination of governments.

...Anarchism literally means "no ruler". That is what the "an" prefix means. Just as monarchism means "one ruler". Just as "Democracy" means "people's power". These words are constructed from underlying etymology, and if Left Vs. Right is static and unchanging, so to must these other political categorization terms.

If by cultural genocide you mean the abolition of that culture... well then ya. If however you mean the death of the people who embody the culture then no.

The fact you actually need to ask this question clearly demonstrates you are in an echo chamber, because the UN specifically defines genocide with a split, with deliberate cultural destruction qualifiyng. Per the general consensus on human rights, by the mainstream international organizations, you are calling for genocide of the cultural subset. A firmly recognized crime against humanity.

You also had cultures that adopted much of other cultures thus they erased their own culture and replaced it with a new culture.

There is a qualitative difference between transformation and erasure. Not bothering to retain is functionally distinct from active removal. The former is natural and generally does not disqualify continuity from historians, the latter is generally agreed upon as being a crime against humanity, such that it is a central pillar of why the Nazis are considered evil.

 

[Cherico]

ok doing the math on all of the people D-bag says needs to go.

In the united states 70.6% of the population is christian, 1.9% jewish, .09% muslum, .07% hindu, .07% buddist

22.8% of the population is unafilated these are the people who get to live in D-bags america.

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

world war 2 by the way is estimated to have murdered 37 million people, so if we tried to ennact D-bags plans it would mathmatically be around 6 times worse then world war two thats if it just involved america. Or we could you know not do socialism and avoid that.

 

[Morphic Tide]

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

No, no, it's just finding something more mind-shatteringly humiliating than shoving their face in sewage on a daily basis to do to them to break them from their faith... Forcefully separating every child from their parents and utterly demonizing every "undesirable" value...

 

[Zachowon]

ok doing the math on all of the people D-bag says needs to go.

In the united states 70.6% of the population is christian, 1.9% jewish, .09% muslum, .07% hindu, .07% buddist

22.8% of the population is unafilated these are the people who get to live in D-bags america.

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

world war 2 by the way is estimated to have murdered 37 million people, so if we tried to ennact D-bags plans it would mathmatically be around 6 times worse then world war two thats if it just involved america. Or we could you know not do socialism and avoid that.

If I understand what he is saying, he doesnt intend to kill everyone, just make it so they breed themselves out

 

[ShieldWife]

I disagree with how you are reasong yours kids, and would say let them take in media, let them learn (when they are older for news and the like.) Show them shows you grew up on ir my generation grew up on. Let them grow up somewhat free.
Raising your kids like how you are could lead to them pulling the rebellion phase of kids you always hear about. I know people who were raised similair and they have went more left because if that kinda way.
I know someone who had more freedom with being raised, such as TV, such as working and everything. She fits what you are trying to raise your kids to be like.

They are your kids though.

My kids are no less free than most. In some ways they are much more free because they aren't subjected the hours and hours of soul draining school. They're just protected from the exact kind of negative influence that Dirtbagleft is advocating in this thread.

ok doing the math on all of the people D-bag says needs to go.

In the united states 70.6% of the population is christian, 1.9% jewish, .09% muslum, .07% hindu, .07% buddist

22.8% of the population is unafilated these are the people who get to live in D-bags america.

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

world war 2 by the way is estimated to have murdered 37 million people, so if we tried to ennact D-bags plans it would mathmatically be around 6 times worse then world war two thats if it just involved america. Or we could you know not do socialism and avoid that.

Plus all of the non-believers whose culture, lifestyle, or secular beliefs need to be eliminated to create the socialist utopia. That's just in the USA too. Workers of the world need to unite after all, there are billions of undesirables that will need to be dealt with.

If I understand what he is saying, he doesnt intend to kill everyone, just make it so they breed themselves out

Yeah, that's pretty horrific. There is no nice way to go about eliminating religion and culture.

 

[Zachowon]

My kids are no less free than most. In some ways they are much more free because they aren't subjected the hours and hours of soul draining school. They're just protected from the exact kind of negative influence that Dirtbagleft is advocating in this thread.


Plus all of the non-believers whose culture, lifestyle, or secular beliefs need to be eliminated to create the socialist utopia. That's just in the USA too. Workers of the world need to unite after all, there are billions of undesirables that will need to be dealt with.


Yeah, that's pretty horrific. There is no nice way to go about eliminating religion and culture.

I was just giving my opinion on your way of teaching your family.

 

[ShieldWife]

I was just giving my opinion on your way of teaching your family.

I understand. Though I think that there is a misconception that there is a neutral way to raise and influence children. There isn't. Sending them to school and then to a university, having them watch Hollywood shows and movies all day, and otherwise subjecting them to leftist propaganda isn't a free or neutral education. Someone is going to influence kids as they grow and I'd rather my kids be influenced by me than Dirtbagleft or his more well connected allies.

 

[Deleted member]

My kids are no less free than most. In some ways they are much more free because they aren't subjected the hours and hours of soul draining school. They're just protected from the exact kind of negative influence that Dirtbagleft is advocating in this thread.

I just want to say that I respect your homeschooling efforts enormously. I owe everything to the appreciation for history and reality my homeschooling upbringing brought me. There was no more enriching experience than being allowed to study from the Great Books, and get my hands on Gibbon at the age of eleven. As a teenager I was instead reading Suetonius in a Café, at a time when my hometown was going through a major meth wave after all the sawmills closed and they were selling meth out of the backs of cars in the school parking lot. I can't say I'm exactly what my parents wanted me to be, but I never lost my ability to think for myself or my commitment to avoid being a social parasite. Keep up the good work and never doubt it's the right course.

 

[Zachowon]

I understand. Though I think that there is a misconception that there is a neutral way to raise and influence children. There isn't. Sending them to school and then to a university, having them watch Hollywood shows and movies all day, and otherwise subjecting them to leftist propaganda isn't a free or neutral education. Someone is going to influence kids as they grow and I'd rather my kids be influenced by me than Dirtbagleft or his more well connected allies.

You could filter out what they watch and listen too, I just fear for what I have seen personally with friends of mine as they grow up. Especially Homeschooled kids I know. I hope they turn out great

 

[Navarro]

ok doing the math on all of the people D-bag says needs to go.

In the united states 70.6% of the population is christian, 1.9% jewish, .09% muslum, .07% hindu, .07% buddist

22.8% of the population is unafilated these are the people who get to live in D-bags america.

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

Also, a large group of the "unaffiliated" claim to believe in God, so I guess they have to go too?

 

[DirtbagLeft]

This is really sickening stuff and it's actually already happening. Left wing extremists already control Hollywood, the media, the educational systems and are using exactly the sorts of tactics that Dirtbagleft is advocating. It's really evil.

You should really reflect on that statement
Because it wasn't a strategy we came up with. It was something we adopted as reactionaries (See: RJ Rushdooney) came up with in about the outline which was expanded upon and first executed in the 1960's under the banner of Dominionism. It's held several names over the decades with Christian Reconstructionism being the most recent. See: New Apostolic Movement

R. J. Rushdoony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A key figure within the movement who catapulted it to the public forefront was Pat Robertson. After his failed 1988 run in which he won only 4 states the 7 mountain strategy was modified so that Christians would seek to take over local Republican politics. The 'Silent Majority' was used as the backbone of the movement allowing Christians to organize on a local level. The initial push was for the taking over of local School boards as they are the least contested and most overlooked of political offices. This would then allow the candidates to get their feet wet before moving up while at the same time giving them a strangle hold on the local education policies. It remained effective by and large up through about 2014 after the backlash of the kitzmiller v dover trial. As of 2018 there has been a slight resurgence but they are finding it difficult to regain lost ground even with physical control of the school boards they regained.

That's why so many conservative (reactionary!) parents are turning to homeschooling like my husband and I and so many of our friends. We also try to keep our kids away from TV or computer screens any more than necessary. He'll be happy to learn that I am teaching my daughters to be submissive to their husband (when they eventually find some) and that they shouldn't work but stay at home and have babies.

Again of course you are wrong but that is not a surprise. You look at something which is going on and then tell yourself a story without bothering to look into the history. Homeschooling within the US has been a primarily Christian reactionary endeavor primarily centered around Young Earth Creationism and was a response to it's growing rejection. Hunter Avallone was homeschooled by reactionary parents. Having known many individuals who were homeschooled and it leaves them unprepared to interact with the larger world. The final retreat of the reactionary is to manufacture isolated and isolated communities with which to indoctrinate their children in unchallenged environments as they are aware that they are incapable of winning on the battlefield of ideas.

As I stated previously the primary strategy is to create a no win situation. Homeschooling plays into this.

From my previous post

These are all the positive aspects however and I should not neglect the negative incentives. Build into the media ostracization of negative behaviors I wish to see eliminated. To make it more effective individuals who are perceived as holding authority would be encouraged to reinforce shamefulness as being associated with the negative behavior. With this the youth then develops a personality for at home and a personality for interacting with the rest of the world. Given that at about age 10-12 children (now youths) begin seeking the approval of their peers more than they seek the approval of their parents this will divide the youth from their reactionary parents. What is more devious here is that because of the expectation placed upon the child from the parent the parents will either 1) assume that little bobby and beth are perfect children when in fact they hold values directly contrary to their parents. or 2) the parents in an attempt to prevent bobby and beth from holding contrary views will become harsh and dictatorial as well as over controlling thus driving the children away as they age.

As reactionary ideology becomes less relevant to the wider world it will go seek first to create small pockets of refuge and continuing to shirk it will go extinct. This is exactly my goal.

I don't know that much about it, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mao destroyed an immeasurable amount of culture, art, writing, artifacts, etc. The Cultural Revolution was one of the most horrendous events in human history and it's taking Dirtbagleft's desires to their logical conclusion.

And then you invert my goal.
And yes what Mao did was horrendous art no matter how veil should never be destroyed intentionally or through purposeful neglect.

The art etc will still exist for the most part (entropy does get a say). The art itself will either be appropriated and re-contextualized, or it will find it's way to religious museums. As to the writings I imagine that they will outside of select college courses where they are relevant they will be ignored much as 99.99% of texts are. They will be available to the public but except for the oddball with queer esoteric interests they will go ignored.