You may not do with others as you please.
How do you square that with the position of "I'm taking my family, with agreement of all adults, out of Leftist society" being a grave sin?
You do not get to do with others as you please, so
you also don't get to shove people in a group and force that group to follow a particular view, nor do
you get to go in to another group and demand they change to hold your views.
What is the actual fundamental functional difference between the "reactionaries" homeschooling their children and you
demanding actively working to demolish aspects of a culture
on another damn continent? You need to be
coherent in your views, and you have stated nothing that actually clarifies an underlying reasoning that
your forced cultural conversion is okay, yet people just refusing to participate in it is not.
But I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of the self styled Asatru Movement.
What's to say the revival movement has to be exclusive? Liberation Theology exists, and the current mainstream understanding of Christianity takes the notion that humans were created by a higher power that holds them to a universal standard as justification of universal rights. Why would it have to be the
outright reactionary religious views returning trying to backtrack to the 1950s, instead of those who just use religion as the groundwork of much the same ethics of interference you
say you support and decide that the ceaseless drive to force compliance with those ethics is a violation of them?
Most of modern-day Satanism is pretty much the latter, alongside
a lot of other countercultures, at least in the US, taking an extremely contrarian set of beliefs to arrive at the mainstream code of ethics, that being individual liberties, with a few points inverted. In the real-life examples, debauchery being presented as a good, in your case, presenting the argument that minimizing the ability to choose wrong is itself an infringement on autonomy.
Once a culture has shifted towards progress it is extremely difficult to re-establish the old order.
Soviet bloc shows otherwise, and we are currently living through a rerun of the previous century in many regards courtesy of Capitalism managing to reboot the Gilded Age, except
even more asshole-driven and wealth-worshiping because now the entertainers get to be big role models when they were considered worse than whores the last 20's and the rich are at the point of
actually bribing countries into submission.
Much the same happened after the fall of Rome, as well, with the general peasantry returning to their communal behaviors once the big, central government taxing them and imposing laws shattered, and once more returned to it in the Americas when the necessary liberties and land returned (Amish, Quakers, most of the midwest for at least a century, etc.). In the absence of population concentration and governmental pressure, people have pretty much always returned to ultra-traditionalist community-focused living. Because that's what
just works and comes
naturally when you have a small population without outside interference.
In similar conditions, populations will take on similar patterns of behavior. The details of beliefs will usually persist, but the
way of life will converge quickly. The more particular the base of knowledge needed for this, the longer it takes and the more likely a divergence, but when it comes down to it, farming towns have lived overwhelmingly the same way through all the kingdoms, empires, republics, democracies and any other form of government, because few are the governments that bother meddling with them beyond getting the food.
Once the inclusive narrative takes hold as your kind are coming to discover it is very difficult to dislodge.
The issue we're having is that you think inclusivity somehow applies to the obliteration of entire categories of belief, demanding the upholding of moral standards in other societies a great distance away, and demanding that parents not be allowed to determine their children's education. Meanwhile, we look at the word "inclusivity" and actually think we should be inclusive of
beliefs, provided they do not turn into wrongful
action by the society they are within, and respectfully allow other societies to have different standards of wrongful action so that beliefs outside our won acceptance are not
brutally oppressed, and therefor retain their autonomy.
The nature of gradual conversion under inclusivity is to
reason with the other, to talk them out of it, not
indoctrinate them, deny them the ability to choose "wrong". Because we don't see ourselves as perfect paragons, and therefor see ourselves as fallible, so most of us look to determine what is right by
reason and work to extend this reason to as many as we can, while not actively removing the seemingly-unreasoned because they may indeed have quite valuable ideas within their worldview and we may still be wrong on some matters, and more importantly they are entitled to decide the values to teach their children.
We place limits on how those values may be taught, for the
material safety of the child, but children are not given full autonomy. It is the parent's responsibility, as you say, to teach the child not to make mistakes, and part of this is them having the right to teach the child correct courses of action, which is fundamentally the persistence of the parent's beliefs.
The key thing is that autonomy includes the
right to be wrong. Something you are comprehensively denying, by demanding a sweeping policy of obliteration of dissent to your ideas of what it means to be "right". My own position, at least, is liberty to enable gradual progress towards a better world, rather than a forced thrust to
one kind of progress as you call for. I
don't believe in an end goal that would be the best world like you, I believe in a
process to improve the current one.
And if the process results in your end goal, that is fine by me, but the important matter is that the process of questioning and reasoning and having the right to speak of bad ideas to determine
why they are bad and should be rejected is followed. Keep the lunatic reactionaries around to show them wrong to others, instead of elimiating them and thereby having little practical example to firmly prove the view truly
wrong.
How are you not authoritarian? You are, in fact, demanding enormous control, demanding others act in accordance with your views, demand opposing views be eliminated... The nearest would be that you have some delusion that just because it's corporations doing the dirty work, it isn't
actually authoritarian, because it's not a single big "government" doing the ruthless oppression. The Anarcho-capitalists at least pretend the big corporations can be out-competed, you are literally saying to deny competition to the agenda.
As most of us hold inclusivity as a good thing, we consider censorship to
always be wrong, alongside forced indoctrination. And censorship is more than book-burning, it very much includes deplatforming, the practice of removing visibility of the speech rather than wholly preventing it. Indoctrination, too, is more than being locked in a select group and forced to acquiesce for companionship, it includes extremes of bias in education to leave reasoning unable to dissent, which is why we bitch about all the politically loaded material in universities. And, in this case, your plan to destroy religion.
Not all homeschoolers are locked away from dissent. That is actually quite the minority, often overlapping with the parents themselves being in much more intensive cult behaviors, as their peer groups usually include those who do it because of the abysmal state of public education for purely academic reasons, and they interact with those who are withheld for different cultural reasons. Many parents homeschool
specifically to teach their children to question what they see and to reason so they don't make mistakes, because the public education system makes no appearance of doing such a thing.
---
I'll also note you dropped the thread of discussion on two-axis political categorization. If there exists non-authoritarian Right, then there must be points that define Right vs. Left separately from any question of authoritarianism, and therefor some qualifiers of authoritarianism exist perpendicular to the Left/Right divide that can be held by the Left.
Your statement of Enlightenment values being what defines "the Left" is both untrue, due to the advent of Modernism and Post-Modernism, and contradicts your opinion that Authoritarianism is always right-wing, because the Enlightenment called for philosopher-kings, because the unifying ideas were
just intellectualism, the thought that it's best to reason rather than follow authority
just because it's authority. It's not a rejection of authority itself in any capacity as a
rule, because the Enlightenment thinkers were quite often
feudal nobility, or at least employed by them.
For fuck's sake, eugenics came from Enlightenment thinking. Rather directly so, because the Enlightenment
did not actually reject demographic superiority, all it did was make a call for
demonstrating superiority instead of having automatic right to rule.