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.