One thing I've realised from spending about 3½ years studying the Right is that they have every point of the 'respectability' spectrum staked out.

Their ideological domination is structurally generated by capitalism itself but also functions because it is very consciously and conscientiously networked, financed, appointed and administered. It is, ironically enough, a well planned economy.

Leaving aside the crucial issues of the Right's domination of mainstream economics academia, and the vast, capitalist-funded, shadow intellectual establishment of think tanks and foundations and non-profits and lobby groups... and the huge sub-issue of US 'Christian' media...

also, as a mirror to the Right's domination of the mainstream (corporate) media, from respectable 'quality' papers & stations through the tabloids & open propaganda stations (Fox News, talk radio, Sinclair, etc), the staffing by the Right of today's complex new media environment.

To dominate ideologically in this environment, they have to 'man' a million points on a vastly complicated web of positions, both ideological positions and in terms of actual positions in the online information system.

Put simply, the solution (arrived at through a complex interplay of figures arising structurally and being adopted and supported and funded) has been to encourage the growth of a vast ecosystem of right-wing 'talkers'.

These 'talkers' all essentially say the same things but say them in different ways (from the drastically to the subtly different), using different aesthetics to appeal to different audiences in different online spaces.

It is impossible not to be struck by the proliferation of such 'talkers' and their shows. Much is made (rightly) of the complex ways in which they are connected by influence, friendship, mutual guesting, similar funding sources, etc etc etc.

Far be it from me to downplay such material factors. But it is, in some ways, more pertinent to notice the ways in which they are connected not by actual points of contact but by merely existing as different nodal points in a vast web of influence and 'information' management.

Right-wing politics being (of necessity) mainly a politics of aesthetics rather than of information, it is vital to understand the aesthetic organisation of the right-wing ideology system precisely because it is actually fundamentally an organisation of aesthetic positions.

This is why deja vu is the prevalent feeling when studying any one point. The talkers say the same things over and over and over, with minor aesthetic divergences which they can efface for the purposes of cooperation and emphasize (again: aesthetically) for the purposes of spin.

We've talked often on @idsgpod about how the existence of each point on the far-right spectrum enables points further along to legitimise themselves (aesthetically) as mainstream by performative rejection of the other points which can be condemned as "the real extremists" etc.

Meanwhile, of course, closer points can form of web of uniformity and agreement which both legitimises their positions (safety in numbers) and materially eases the algorithmic radicalisation process by providing a smooth series of incremental steps between escalating talkers.

At each of these incremental steps there is a slightly different talker ready to offer a slighty aesthetically different, slightly rhetorically nuanced, version of essentially the same ideology, opinions, talking points, propaganda lines, etc.

In much the way capitalist ideology has long claimed to offer freedom through the choice between a hundred slightly different but essentially indistinguishable brands of oven chips or toothbrushes or washing up liquids, so it offers a reactionary political version of the same.

You can be told the same things about Antifa and BLM and Venezuela and Trans people on Fox & Friends with legs, on InfoWars with paranoia and bellowing, in Quillette with phrenology, on PragerU with Christian bigotry, by Jordan Peterson with lachrymose anticommunism,

by Tucker with barely cloaked white nationalism, by Nick Fuentes with smirking white nationalism, by Ben Shapiro with pseudo-intellectualism, by Tim Pool with exasperated Mr Reasonable shtick, by Andy Ngo with frantic sinister scaremongering,

by Dave Rubin who's just asking questions and having a conversation, by any number of YouTube chuds with swears and video game analogies, and on and on and on...

This, of course, cannot be divorced from the fact that right-wing politics is essentially a coalition around defence of established hierarchies, today's hierarchy is based on capital, capital is private ownership of means of production including means of mental production.

(I tend to take that sort of thing as read, as an already established... what would be a good word?... 'base'? Upon which to build a, shall we say?, 'superstructure?)

This all fits the theory of fascism as a coalition of monopoly capital and the petty bourgeoisie btw. The YouTube entrepreneur etc is a classic petty bourgeois.