The Faithful Follow the Reactionary Plan for Victory

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/02/islands-of-fertility-in-an-ocean-of-demographic-decline/#more-34254

Brought to us by way of the Thinking Housewife, which is, IMO an excellent blog

Here we have evidence that, just like homeschoolers, the areas of the reactionary Remnant are increasing exponentially, albeit from a low base.  These areas, called Fertile Intact Census Tracts (or FICTs) are areas where the fertility is high and most families are intact.  This is the reactionary long game---simply avoid committing suicide along with the rest of the culture and ensure that it can not take you down along with it in its dying spasms.

Schelling, Kuran, Reaction, and the Way Forward

About a week ago, on my post

http://www.chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/advice-for-conservatives-you-need-to-be.html

a short discussion took place in the comments.  

CLAR said...

my impression is that most reactionary/conservative types are stuck in a mode like wildebeests getting ready to cross a river- milling around, getting frustrated, yet still scared to be the first into the river and have their career ended by the crocodiles enforcing the informal thought crime laws of our government. i definitely count myself in this crowd.

my prediction is that when this shifts, it will be a stampede that might run away with itself. while such radical change will be to our net benefit, it will probably have many negative side effects from being so rapid.

at the time I responded

CLAR,
'Negative Side Effects' is an interesting euphemism. What you're describing is a preference cascade a la Timur Kuran, and yes, I do think such an event is not unlikely.

I've had this on my mental back burner for some time, and recalled a few jigsaw puzzle pieces lying about on my mental map that can probably be usefully pressed into service.

CLAR clearly identifies one major aspect of the problem.  There are tons of wildebeests, and only a few crocodiles, but nobody wants to go first.  This is directly analogous to the metastable circumstances immediately preceding a riot (or more commonly, a riot that doesn't actually happen).  This brought to mind Schelling (for those unfamiliar with his work, specifically, a Schelling Point or 'point of coordination', here's the executive summary.  A Schelling Point is a point around which groups can spontaneously organize based on their estimate of where others of like mind will naturally gravitate.  The classic example is of meeting a person in New York City, where you have no time or place, just a date---the 2 Schelling points being Grand Central Station at noon and the top floor of the Empire State Building).  Fortunately, a lot of mental energy has already gone into analyzing these particular problem.

The publication below provides a hint
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-13.html

The entrepreneur will throw the first stone when he calculates that the risk that he will be apprehended for doing so has diminished to an acceptable level. The risk of arrest declines as a function of two variables--the size of the crowd relative to the police force available to control it, and the probability that others will follow if somebody leads. This latter point could potentially be tricky, because as we have noted, crowds will generally be inhospitable to the commission of violent acts. But it is possible for a crowd to telegraph its willingness to riot. Buford's account (1991: 81n-dash85) of a soccer hooligan rampage in Turin furnishes an example. Members of the crowd marched themselves around in a spontaneous formation with a stilted, unnatural gait, chanting the name of their team. This unmistakable token of cohesion stopped well short of anything that the Italian police could plausibly charge as solicitation or incitement, but served to assure the members of the crowd that a critical mass had formed.

In essence, what is needed to to provide at least one Schelling point to generate plausibly deniable cohesion.  A group needs to be able to communicate its intent in an easily deniable fashion.  Leftists understand this at least at a gut level, which is why they impose their regime of thought crime enforcement so rigidly.  They perceive the possibility of a preference cascade wiping out much of their work and work hard to maintain massive preference falsification per Kuran.  If you ever want to be REALLY encouraged as a reactionary, leaf through some of the books by the left about the vast right wing conspiracies at your local bookstore.  They will tell you what they fear.  It's funny honestly, to read their perception of the average conservative as being like me, but on Thomas Carlyle class reactionary steroids.

If we look at this through a chemical metaphor, one needs several things.  First, the reaction requires sufficient energy to overcome the barrier of activation energy.  The analog of course is that the population must become sufficiently angry to create a prerevolutionary condition per Lenin.  Second, a catalyst is needed to speed things along.  This is where the plausibly deniable cohesion comes in.  I've suggested several things that fit that category here in the past:

1.  Weaken the power of universalist moral rhetoric in the public sphere through mockery and identification of the real particularist interests that ACTUALLY motivate said rhetoric
2.  Assault the various entities of the Cathedral at every opportunity, and use their mistakes to weaken them and erode their legitimacy.  In particular, the Judiciary is presently ripe for the destruction of its prestige.  Several cases of obvious (but deniable) who..whom Jury Nullification can be used to embolden one's supporters and demoralize our adversaries.  Such will almost certainly provoke a disproportionate response from the Cathedral, which is actually a positive thing from our point of view, because it just raises the temperature of the reaction.

Here's how we can reduce the activation energy to Jury Nullification.  First, simply by talking about it (although inside a courthouse, never breathe a word about it or you'll never be selected as a juror) we make it more likely.  Second, it would be very useful to us to break down some of the social taboo on it by maneuvering other groups into making the first move on it.  The group that is really ripe for this are drug users and the legalization crowd.  Pretty close to half the population is against the War on Drugs, at least insofar as pot is concerned.  If you can get substantial sections of that group to start bringing out the jury nullification hammer, the reluctance of other groups to use it will be greatly reduced.  This is something I've been working on for years now in other guises on various forums on the left.

A Central Support of the Moldbug Cathedral: The Civil Service Bureaucracy

Frequently well-intended semi-reactionary politicians win the fight in the polls and in the majority opinion, but fail to achieve any actual victory.  Part of this is the resistance of the Judiciary, which we've discussed at length in earlier posts, acting essentially as a diode blocking reactionary current while permitting current in the 'progressive' direction.  Most reactionaries and conservatives are aware to some degree of this dynamic.  Victory will eventually require the destruction or short-circuiting of this diode.

But most are not aware that the civil service bureaucracy is an even more central support of the Cathedral.  It is probably its oldest and most powerful edifice.  Politicians struggle against it largely in vain, and it deliberately leaks embarassing things when it feels itself under attack, things which are invariably blamed on the attacker.  When budgets are cut---and in the newspeak, simply reducing the projected rate of increase is deemed a 'cut'---it ensures that the most near and dear things to the public suffer the ax first.  It is a bit of a Gordion Knot problem, since the existence of a heavily entrenched civil service prevents any semblance of accountable governance or meaningful movement of the US in non-progressive directions.

However, it so happens I've got a sword to offer you for this turbulent knot.  Here it is:

Return to the Spoils System...the bad old days solution where offices were used to buy votes and key supporters---wait a minute?  You say that sort of stuff still goes on today, to an even greater extent?  Amazing how the civil service acts, intended to act as a brake on governmental corruption simply made said corruption more subtle but vastly more pervasive.

To do this you'd have to repeal all of the civil service acts, and make every single employee of the federal government fire at will---by which I mean they could be fired for ANY reason, and mass firings would be the expected norm when a new administration took power.  They would have to enjoy not even the protections that people in the private workplace enjoy regarding 'cause' or discrimination.

From a practical standpoint, to get there from here you might need to do a bit of counterintelligence work---deliberately manufacture totally inflammatory cases where a handpicked person is totally unsympathetic to the population at large but they can't be fired because of the letter of the civil service law. 

Now some say that the spoils system is far more democratic than the existing civil service system.  That's true, but that's not the reason why I support it.  I support it because the existing system is totally in the hands of the enemy and therefore needs to be destroyed or subverted.  This is the way in which that can be accomplished.  Selling this to the population will require a fair bit of propaganda, probably invoking the fact that the civil service system prevents any actual accountability and is profoundly undemocratic.  Weakening the bureaucracy through budget and staff cuts is probably also necessary as battlefield preparation.  Fortunately the economic and budgetary conditions give us good tailwinds in that endeavor.

Steve Sailer's Strategy

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy-updated-three-steps-to-save-america

I don't identify much with the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't employ Sailer as a campaign consultant, but that's because the Republican party is the stupid party.  Sailer's strategy is the best strategy available to them in the short term (because it would be wildly popular) and in the long term (because it would drive demographics towards a state more favorable to their party).  It is extremely doubtful they'll embrace it openly though, at least at the elite level, because they're afraid of being called nativists and racists.

His strategy, in brief, is:
Promote affordable family formation in groups that vote for you.  Obviously I agree with this---it's also the central pillar of the Reactionary Plan for Victory.
Get most of the Hispanic category to self-identify as white.  I've previously suggested peeling away white people with Spanish surnames.  His proposal is to demolish the category as a whole for AA purposes, which is considerably more ambitious.  What can I say except Amen?
Stop importing people who are going to vote against you.  Here Sailer acknowledges the electoral importance of demographic hegemony.

Lee Atwater, were he to rise from his grave and pronounce campaign strategy, would almost certainly give Saler's strategy two big undead thumbs up.  Atwater, you see, actually probably had a positive expected value as a strategist for the Republican party, something few modern consultants for the Republicans can claim.

Besieging Moldbug's Cathedral: The University System

The various universities are a very important node in Moldbug's Cathedral model. They exert a powerful influence over society and culture because they control the only major credentialing system that won't get you, as an employer, sued to hell and back for disparate impact.
If you want reactionary change, obviously the university system has to be weakened, subverted, supplanted, or destroyed. Moldbug is quite correct in his model that the various nodes of the Cathedral will tend to act to resist any attacks on any of the other nodes, so in practice you need to attack them all more or less at once, if only with spoiling attacks. Fortunately, most of the elements of the Cathedral are doing an excellent job of destroying themselves, but the university system probably will require a little more help from the forces of reaction.

The way to assault the university system is through logistics rather than strategy or tactics. Choke off its long term supply of oxygen--in this case, money. There are ways we can do this with help from conservatives and ironically enough, liberals, the more bleeding heart the better.

1. Dump the exemption of student loans from being discharged during a bankruptcy. In fact, degrade their debt status to the same level as credit cards or other unsecured debt. The bleeding hearts will help you a lot on this, as the 1998 bill that moved this was pretty much a rent seeking move from the banksters. Conservatives who realize who this hurts (mostly their enemies) will also likely get on board. The long term effect of this of course would be to drive up the rates of interest on student loans and make them less available. This will put a choke hold on the ability of the various universities to rapidly raise tuition (cheap money usually creates bubbles after all).

2. Take advantage of initiatives like this one of Rick Perry's.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perrys-call-for-10-000-bachelors-degrees-stumps-1248814.html

I'm not a big fan of Perry, as I don't trust him on the national question, but he does have the habit of occasionally, even perhaps inadvertently, aiming at the correct targets. To him I suggest doing the following:
a. If you don't already have it, institute a common course numbering system and full and free credit transfer from all Texas public universities to all Texas public universities. Getting aligned with a few other states in a reciprocal agreement would be excellent also. The State of Florida has such an arrangement. This move is pretty easily masked as a simple 'good government' effort.
b. Once a) is in place, you can then prevail on one university in your system (i.e. the one with the weakest Alumni) to force the availability of a straightforward credit by examination with only a very nominal fee on most courses wherein a comprehensive final is the standard. Start it out pretty conservatively, i.e. if you score at or above the 70th percentile of people actually taking the course, you get credit for the course for a mere fee of $100 or thereabouts.
If you do that, you'll greatly shorten the degree time for autodidacts and those who just need to credit as they already have the knowledge and further choke more money out of the university system.

Observations from a Steps For Life march last Saturday

On Saturday, I loaded up the wife and the two little ones and we went to downtown Portland for the 'Steps for Life' march, which is a fundraiser for the Pregnancy Resource Center. Being Christian, and a reactionary one at that, I consider being pro-life at least religiously obligatory. Does it pass the test of Scripture? Absolutely. Does it pass the test of Tradition---i.e. the faith as it's been practiced by the bulk on nonheretical Christians throughout the ages? Once again, absolutely. So even though the implications for demographic hegemony aren't at all favorable, there's no way for me to weasel out. It is the will of God. Deus Vult!

But the theological implications of this aren't what I'm here to talk to you about today. Rather, I want to talk a bit some of my other observations from this little rally in the middle of Portland's heathen heart. Also marching that day was the 'Doggie Dash', and in many other years, the Breast Cancer activists are also marching.
One rally had all the kids, more in fact than would be expected from the number of adults present. As you probably guessed, it wasn't the 'Doggie Dash', although I saw a lot of golden retrievers being used as child substitutes looking longingly at the happy children marching on the opposite side of the street. The little dogs seemed far happier with the state of affairs :-)

This called a single truth into clear focus:
The pro-life movement is tactically weak---their demonstrations rarely actually intimidate anyone, much less anyone with actual political power. Furthermore, it is also strategically weak---frequently failing to get the judges and decisions it needs even when it nominally controls the appointing branch of government. It is, however, logistically strong, because it, nearly alone among white demographics (and make no mistake, said movement IS a white thing), is more than replicating itself generation after generation. I saw a lot of the social markers of homeschoolers in the crowd also, which I found encouraging.

Is it enough to be logistically strong, with poor strategy and worse tactics? History says, if you've got the time, the answer is most certainly, yes. The Roman empire, when it was still a vital civilization, endured massive tactical and strategic defeats in the 2nd Punic War against Hannibal---culminating in the disasterous battle of Cannae, but they had the logistical might to make good their losses and carry on the struggle. Eventually the Romans smashed him in the Battle of Zama, and well, Carthago delenda est. The USSR similarly made good horrendous losses in WWII against the Germans, who had tactical and strategic superiority early on.

I suppose the take-away from these is that if you've got logistical superiority, you just have to prevent a knockout blow and you can outlast your opposition. Eventually, if only by luck or Providence, you'll get a sufficiently competent general and adequate NCOs. The only real question is, do you have the time?

Tactically and strategically, the means for victory are at hand. They do, however, require that those in the movement surrender being considered 'nice' by the mainstream media and those influenced by it. Were the pro-life movement half as ruthless as the pro-gun movement learned to be in the late 1990s, the battle would already be won. The pro-life movement, assuming that it can retain its logistical supremacy, CAN win whilst being 'Nice', but it'll be a very, very long struggle, probably at least 20-30 more years. Or it could roll the dice, declare 'Here I Stand'---truly an ironic declaration for a Pople, who is best situated to declare such, and perhaps achieve victory within the United States prior to 2016. Such, however, would require a willingness to fight, and a willingness to demand obedience of its followers by the various churches, particularly the Catholic one. It's still politically necessary in the US to at least pretend a banner of Christianity in order to hold most high political office. By ripping the veneer through excommunication and expulsion, Benedict, for instance, could probably doom a large fraction of pro-choice Catholic politicians. Their own cognitive dissonance would probably cause a fair number of them to genuinely change their positions as well, so there might even be a redemptive purpose in such a declaration. People don't like the mental narrative that they cowardly submitted to their higher authority. The redeemed sinner narrative is easier on the mind, and plays better in the box office and the ballot box. So what say you Benedict?

Reactionary Propaganda---How The Cultural War is Really Fought

Composing good reactionary propaganda is actually pretty easy if you have control of a section of a cultural organ---e.g., a television show. The key is you DON'T go all 'afterschool special' or 'GI Joe--where now you know and knowing is half the battle' on your audience. You see, that induces your audience to actually think about what you said and to attempt to argue with you in absentia. Instead, you just do this:
Imagine on your TV show, you've got 20 regulars and 80 bit players that occasionally show up. Let's say you've got 20 reactionary characters, 60 middle of the roaders, and 20 leftist types.
What you do is make, say, 18 of the reactionaries sympathetic characters, and most importantly, you frequently let them demonstrate higher value when dealing with the opposite sex. Two of the reactionaries get to be low-status. For the leftists, just reverse the ratios. This way you can always point to counterexamples whenever anyone says anything.
Persuasion isn't about reason normally--I blog to encourage those who either consciously or unconsciously agree with me, I've few illusions I can convince anyone to change their mind except via attrition or divine intervention---it's about status and repetition. Humans are profoundly maladapted to television. Lots of people even seem to mentally process characters on their favorite TV shows as being their own friends. This has the effect of distorting their mental histograms as to what various groups in society are really about. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how often you see unsympathetic or uncool gay characters on TV? Now compute the same ratios for nongay characters. Do you think this is an accident?
If, for instance, a reactionary TV producer wanted to make good propaganda for Christianity in the social sphere, he'd just disproportionately stock his character pool with high status characters with Christian social markers. There's not even any need to have them show 'life lessons' or even pray on screen. In fact doing so makes your propaganda easier to resist. Just bang on the subliminal drum repeatedly---Christians, 90% hot 10% not, pagans 50% hot, 50% not, heathens, 10% hot, 90% not. Screwtape would recognize the strategy but obviously few Americans do.

The reactionary plan for victory

Despair not, fellow reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. Raise up your countenance, ye faint-hearted conservatives, standing athwart history shouting, 'slow down'. Victory is not impossible.

First off, let's define what we mean by victory. By victory I'm not talking about some utopian state where injustices cease, the lion lies down with the lamb and the lamb actually gets some sleep. God already has a victory plan for that, but He made it abundantly clear that no man knows the day or the hour. God has also shown no particular reluctance to let a nation destroy itself through its own wickedness. So while God might decide to bail us out of our predicament, He has lots of reasons not to. What I'm talking about in terms of victory is hegemony over the piece of real estate we call the US. If I've any foreign readers who face similar problems in their own nations, rest assured that my sympathies are with you, and you're free to steal whatever you like from my offerings. In fact, you can even claim them as your own original insights, if you think that'll raise your standing and make you more effective.

To define Hegemony, I find the wiki definition pretty adequate:
Hegemony (ἡγεμονία hēgemonía, English: [UK] , [US]: ; "leadership" or "hegemon" for "leader") is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups, regardless of the explicit consent of the latter. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Does this not describe what we, the reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and faint-hearted conservative desire? Is it not what we'd answer the great question---what do you want? with should it be asked and limited to matters temporal and not spiritual?

Why does one want hegemony for one's group? Well, from my perspective, the main reason is to prevent ANOTHER group from having it. The sort of hegemony I'm referring primarily to here is demographic. Demographic hegemony is an existential issue. If you have it, you are not at the mercy of the other groups within your society. They act contrary to your interests only at your sufferance. If you don't have it, very bad things tend to happen. Amy Chua's 'World on Fire' catalogs what has happened to a large number of members of market dominant minorities throughout recent history. The experiences of the Jews with pogroms also provides a great deal of insight here as well. It should not surprise anyone that the majority of affirmative action-type programs throughout the world in fact discriminate AGAINST the minority (especially if it is market dominant) in favor of the majority. The US is backwards here, but rest assured, if whites of Euro extraction lose their demographic hegemony, we'll get in step with the rest of the world on this issue. Some readers will no doubt have personal experiences of what happens when they lost demographic hegemony locally.

A look at election statistics shows that despite purported 'natural conservatism' of said groups that our elite has invited to displace us, they are moving us in precisely the opposite direction. This is so blindingly obvious one has to ask the Republican party---what in the Hell are you thinking? This is perhaps why they are the Stupid party.

If you are on the conservative/reactionary side of the cultural war, immigration and demographic hegemony is one battle that you MUST win. If you don't win that battle, the rest of this relatively nonviolent strategy will do you no good. If your enemies can import unlimited numbers of voters that they can buy off with your money, you have lost. Your only option at that point is recourse to arms. Please realize that any significant armed conflict inside the US will destroy the incredibly brittle infrastructure that we've built up via JIT (just in time) systems and a near total lack of civil defense. For a fictional depiction of what is likely to transpire there, I refer you to 'One Second After'. Simply the collapse of the power grid, inevitable if at least one side views the conflict as existential, gets you there. So if you're looking for a litmus issue, that is it. You need to aggressively support programs like Arizona's and as the resistance by your enemies infuriates more of your faint-hearted allies, to continuously ramp up your demands. Doing so will shift the window of acceptable discourse, and thereby, the window of action that people will be willing to countenance. Ultimately you need something even more profound than 'Operation Wetback'. You're going to be called all kinds of names for this, so you need to start with things that are patently reasonable and build the levels of outrage against your opponents, who will feel compelled to repeatedly play their race cards. The good news is that fundamentally, most of the population is in favor of your position. They just lack the self-awareness and willingness to suffer social disapproval to state it boldly. You don't really have to argue with your enemies. Demographic hegemony is an existential issue is not an argument, it is a mailed fist. It is a statement that no appeal to universalist utilitarianism will sway you. Even if we, the white Americans of Euro extraction, ARE devils spawned by Satan in the pits of hell whose grandfathers stole everything they had from Non-Asian minorities, the answer remains the same. You must and will fight to retain your demographic hegemony. The near total lack of such slander against Japan and China, and in fact most other nations also tends to undermine the claim that the reason that we should cheerfully surrender said hegemony over the US is about universalist utilitarianism in favor of the alternate reason that the speaker is simply anti-white. But his hypocrisy or lack thereof really isn't important. Even if he is totally sincere, and donates 80% of his income every year, living only a lifestyle roughly equivalent to the average human on Earth (fat chance, even Peter Singer the high priest of utilitarianism doesn't do that), it DOES NOT matter. He is your enemy, just as much as the hypocrite who is simply anti-white or the useful idiot who just parrots what he mistakenly thinks will make women find him attractive.
You also need to consider this: Charges of Hypocrisy generally only really stick (i.e., give you a useful lever to pry off more people onto your side from the other side) when you control the cultural battlespace. If you're reading this, you don't control it. Notice how the myriad examples of gross hypocrisy on the left fail to mortally wound even it's most egregious offenders? Only if you control a media that aggressively hounds such miscreants does this tactic actually work. It's a useful approach to stoke the anger and commitment levels of your allies, but it's not really all that useful in getting folks on our side. Sad but true.

What we do have going for us is this:
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/05/conservatives-have-more-children-than.html

Simply put, our side of the culture war is reproducing itself, and theirs is not. With a few enhancements (celebrating large families, supporting those among our friends that choose to have them, and having more children ourselves), this is the core of our plan for victory. Notice that this is not a tactic, nor a grand strategy in the Napoleonic sense. No, this is something far scarier to anyone who has studied history, particularly military history. This is logistics. Logistical superiority is decisive over protracted conflicts when the side possessing it has the will.
In His great wisdom, he has made many of the great sins self-limiting.

The next big component is to prevent the other side from stealing our children for use against us as virtual jannisaries. The major weapon in the arsenal here is homeschooling. Homeschool families, in addition to having a much better TFR (total fertility ratio averaging 3.5, which may be an underestimate given that not all of the families surveyed are likely to be done having children--link follows) are much more likely to pass their world view on to their children. http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/Academic_Achievement_and_Demographic_Traits_of_Homeschool_Students_A_Nationwide_Study.shtml

The reason for this shouldn't be surprising. The average kid spends around 6-8 hours a day for an average of 180 days a year in school. If you count other para-school activities where they're under the auspices of the school, it gets even worse. This has most parents and churches MASSIVELY outgunned. Most people's world views aren't formed by careful contemplation but rather by rote repetition. Here's another secret. It is practically impossible to teach without also teaching a world view. I found this out directly when teaching engineering, which is one of the LEAST ideological subjects I can think of. So since controlling the public schools isn't feasible UNTIL we have hegemony, and schools are inherently agencies of indoctrination, it follows that we should work to withdraw our children from them and undermine their public support, with an eye towards destroying them or coopting them (in the off chance that we start to succeed on a faster time scale than I had hoped). Fortunately, they really are quite wretched at their stated goals, which is really quite surprising when you think about it. Here they are, with massive staffs and tons of educated people available to them, and massive budgets and resources available to them as well. And they STILL can't produce results better than homeschool moms with a high school education or less. This must infuriate them, as it would me, if your average DIY'er could do better engineering than me with my vaunted PhD and years of industry experience.
Here are some excerpts: (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp)

The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
Neither parent has a college degree—83rd percentile
One parent has a college degree—86th percentile
Both parents have a college degree—90th percentile
Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)—87th percentile
Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)—88th percentile

This is really amusing when you think about it, considering that being 'certified' requires a college degree, which has an association with a higher percentile, but non-certified parents still did better (although probably not statistically significantly better). But enough of mocking the prowess of our hard working teachers. Frankly I'm glad they suck, for they did not, making my case to non-ideological potential allies would be far harder. There is no reason in principle that leftist suicidal indoctrination can not be combined with a perfectly adequate academic education. Let us thank God that it is not.

The next part of the strategy, having secured our own children, is to steal theirs. How would we do this? The answer is, the stupid, or perhaps blessed bastards will give them to us. All we have to do is to take them by offering them what they claim they want---i.e., a better education for less money. Getting their young sons is particularly easy. You see, the leftist indoctrination is so anti-male, and especially anti-young boy, that all you have to do to make loyal allies of them is one simple thing. DON'T HATE THEM. A mere lack of animus is really all it takes. There is a generation of young boys that is literally dying for affirmation, particularly from adult males. A nickname for this lack I've seen on a number of blogs is 'Daddy Deprivation'. This lack probably contributes to rates of homosexuality and other social dysfunction. I've seen this effect in my church, which has picked up more than a few such lads sans their heathen parents, who are happy to have free babysitting and group activities from us. Befriend them, form them, and recruit them as soldiers in the fight for their own best interests.

One proposal I'd make for our Catholic brothers of reactionary temperament is to establish schools for the gifted single children of the SWPLs in our large cities. Make them entry-exam schools, like Stuyvesant in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
Provide a top quality education with hard core reactionary Catholic indoctrination, like you did in the days where the Jesuits really were the Society of Jesus (think Counter Reformation days). Provide it for very little money in a school surrounded by people that look like them and are from similar social background (the dirty secret of why most SWPLs go for private education or 'good schools' :-). Jesus said to love your enemies, here's your chance. Their parents are mostly your enemies, but when you love their children, you love them. Almost any mother and many fathers get this. These kids will become very influential in 20 years or so, and their parents will SELL them to you. If you've got the cash and the time, I've got your victory, and I'll even let you claim it is your own original insight. No cite necessary, plagiarize at will. Make sure to amplify the correlates of persuasion for your young charges that you are forming as much as possible as well. This means taking physical education seriously. If they come out of your schools noticeably healthier and in better shape than the average population that they are competing with, their words will be taken more seriously and considered more persuasive by default. It's just the way humans work, exploit it without mercy. If the hottest girls in college are demanding chastity prior to marriage and pushing a reactionary Catholic worldview, the boys will be bent in that direction. Similarly, if the best looking, most eligible men are doing likewise, it will majorly influence the opposite sex as well. For a nearly absurd corner case of this, I invite you to consider my Korean friend's explanation of why they view rioting as a really cool sport over there. He basically told me, because the chicks dig it, and a great wave of cross-cultural understanding swept over me :-) Also, sending them into cultural battle in pairs and groups is exponentially more effective. It is not by accident that Jesus sent the disciples out in twos and groups or that Christianity has always been a faith based around community. It is a lot easier to suppress your opposition in debate when you know you're not alone...particularly when you're much better organized. This is a war friends, make no mistake. Start treating it with the seriousness that requires.