Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Lembit Opik and the Cheeky Girls. S-E-X.
I've always wondered if he ever really knew which one he married. And did that one ever just ring up her sister and say "Hey, I kind of fancy a weekend to myself, could you cover for me?", and they'd swap over while she was ostensibly shopping or something, and he'd never know.

Perhaps they shared the duties more or less 50:50?

And maybe he suspected, but didn't care.
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
That fucked-jawed eejut, posing with women in hot pants. No shame. Throw him to the wolves, like E Borgnine in the Vikings except Borgnine went out swinging an axe rather than his cock.
 

version

Well-known member
I dunno whether it's that new or I'm just hearing about it, but the antinatalist subreddits are apparently now another community tapping into the same sort of energy as the alt-right.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Been considering this analogy of (neo)liberalism/alt-right and puritanism/satanism, and it is really withstanding the audit. Seems to be a robust and effective map, but still a map, still an interpretation.

So (neo)liberalism/alt-right and puritanism/satanism would both be specific examples of orthodoxy and its negation - lets call it negorthodoxy. From a psychic systems perspective, this dichotomy would be a means for the collective-psychic-entity to hedge its bets, and optimize its evolution profoundly. Instead of putting all its eggs in one basket, it is able to fragment its betting into billions upon billions of possibilities, and orient the ideological framework so as to cycle the most effective ones to the top. In principle, at least. This cycling mechanism is liable to fall into suboptimal operation, itself.

So in our case the orthodoxy, which is still gaining momentum, would be a sort of mix of political liberalism and economic neoliberalism, which I jointly denote as (neo)liberalism. Capitalism takes to (neo)liberalism perhaps better than any previous orthodoxy, but I'd love some critique/feedback there.

By capitalism I mean something very abstract and widely applicative: the methodology of seeking out ever more optimal rates of growth. This, at a certain point, entails valuing growth as its own end, rather than as a means to a better society. I think that threshold largely coincides with neoliberalism.

The negorthodoxy, which seemingly generally consists of those who could not adjust to, or even manage to subsist within, the parameters laid out by the orthodoxy; those who exit said parameters, and instead traffic in the "woods". The parameters laid out by the negorthodoxy are, seemingly, primarily a reaction to and negation of the parameters laid out by the orthodoxy, reappropriating the orthodoxy's negative into the negorthodoxy's positive. In the puritan framework, the orthodoxy negated Satan and thus Satan become, from what I gather, the positive tentpole of the negorthodoxy. Haven't researched that, though.

Unsure about whether to classify the negorthodoxy of the puritan framework as "satanism" or "paganism". Perhaps paganism refers to the set of all activity in the woods, beyond the parameters of the orthodoxy, and perhaps satanism refers to a subset of paganism which is a direct inversion of the orthodoxy. If we go with this, then paganism doesn't instantiate the negorthodoxy, but heterodoxy most generally.

In our case, the neoliberal framework, perhaps the heterodoxy isn't quite as clear. I know the term "heterodox" is positively used, by some leftist academics, to refer to those who got cancelled, or at least risk being cancelled, but haven't gone full-on negorthodox, which would be the alt-right.

So the general paradigm/framework would be: the orthodoxy as the colony, the heterodoxy as the woods, and the negorthodoxy as the taboo site within the woods.

Without relying on the puritan imagery, we ca say that the orthodoxy is the area within the parameters laid out by dominant ideological forces, the heterodoxy is anything outside these parameters, and the negorthodoxy as a subset of the heterodoxy that posits whatever the orthodoxy negates.

In the puritan framework: Satan.

In the (neo)liberal framework: Hitler.

You can be anti-orthodoxy without being negorthodoxy, which is largely a semantic point but also contains an important distinction.

Refusing the orthodoxy doesn't necessarily mean positively structuring yourself around its antithesis. The latter is the former taken to its extremity.

So what I think is interesting, sociologically, is the degree to which the negorthodoxy of today is constituted by Jewish people. That is, the Jewish alt-right, who would appear to prefer to side with unironic Nazis rather than grovel at the feet of the orthodoxy, seeing as they could not adjust to its ranks. If this is a serious or sizable fraction of the alt-right, I'm not sure. The whole thing frightens me.

Another interesting point: while unironic Nazis are dangerous in their own right, its the ironic Nazis that more quintessentially represent the negorthodoxy of today. Unironic Nazis become Nazis because of a more or less organic and sincere belief system to them, whereas the ironic Nazis become Nazis purely by virtue of Nazism being denounced by (neo)liberalism. That is the profound point here. Hence the age-old talk of creating our own demons.

@suspendedreason how would antinatalism factor in?

But, again, to stress the central us/them fallacy: just because someone isn't in alignment with you, doesn't mean they are diametrically opposed to you. This is the facile interpretation that possesses far too many of us. Just because someone isn't on board with (neo)liberalism, doesn't mean they identify with the antithesis of (neo)liberalism.

That said, the orthodoxy is, perhaps, consistently and definitively concerned with purity, and thus is inclined to purge most heterodox sentiment, even if said sentiment isn't strictly negorthodox. Negorthodox is a subset of heterodox, and the basic dichotomy is orthodox and heterodox.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Re: the above post, the bold sentence will do, if the whole thing is too long.

I just think its important to lay these things out, seeing as the kind of layered ideology I have in mind would essentially consist of an infiltration of the colony in the interest of steering the development of the paradigm itself.

That would be the higher order operation. Instead of steering a party, you are steering the paradigm of partisanship, most broadly. Higher order operations that necessitate knowledge of virtually every conceivable human discipline. Enlightenment seems to be a prerequisite, as opposed to the end/goal that it is more often seen as.
 

sus

Well-known member
I think you're right on the general principal that ideological diversification is 1) an insurance policy, 2) facilitates dialectics, which means syntheses better than any one input. The specific "alt-right as negorthodoxy of liberalism" I'm not so sure of. Sure, there are strains that are that way; there are also strains of alt-right that are basically hashing out/defending classically liberal values against a perceived challenge (to freedom of speech, religion, etc).

Like you note, the details of the "cycling mechanism" matter a whole lot here—I'd call it something like "selection" or sorting, in the Darwinian sense. Selection rules the world around us, but "survival of the fittest" can look pretty peverse when you're wrapped up in corporate immoral mazes, and soft corruption's the name of the game.
 

sus

Well-known member
Woods as the home of antistructure is an oldie (see Shakespeare) but a goodie. See also the civilization/barbarian dichotomy, or colonist/savage. I've seen some thinkers argue that cosmopolitan liberalism is a conquering, colonizing ideology, and that the current culture wars are an attempt to wipe out "the savages" (those who do not have the specific class and cosmopolitan values of the ruling elite).

I believe the colonists of the cultural left are doing what they are doing out of a conviction that they are (metaphorically or literally) doing God’s work. It’s manifestly clear (to them) that they are good people, and the natives, no mater how noble, are savages under the surface.

Just take a moment to play the mainstream media’s favourite sport, “spot the savage” and you’ll see it. Everyone outside the frontier gates is some form of deplorable.
 

sus

Well-known member
Remember that Jews aren't the only cohort to see its youth convert to barbarity: young black and hispanic voters have flipped surprisingly hard toward Trump.

Too much finger-scolding from the parents, methinks.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Yeah I think my usage of "alt-right" is too broad, and thats largely because I'm not nearly familiar enough with it.

So perhaps not all of the alt right is negorthodox, but the negorthodox "lands" within the alt-right?

And good point about the finger-scolding. As petty as that seems on paper, your parents do tend to be proxies for the perceived orthodoxy, no? And are scopes can only be so wide, generally.
 

sus

Well-known member
I feel semi-qualified to speak on this having spent a few months as a researcher at the Guggenheim specifically on this topic (the various subcultures of the alt-rite)
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I think the term "alt-right" itself is just a bucket term for like 40 different ideologies so I think you're fine
does anyone dispute that tho - it was gone over pretty thoroughly either somewhere in this thread, or in another recent thread

"alt-right" is an umbrella for a bunch of different, sometime overlapping currents of thought united by their opposition to perceived liberal hegemony

been that way since the proto-alt right days of the Dark Enlightenment etc
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
So then the alt-right would be distributed throughout the woods, and not primarily localized around the taboo site, then? So to speak.

If this is the case, how can we specify the group that is localized around the taboo site? It seems to a sort of ironic and trollish nazism.
 
Top