There is always a clash amongst cultures. But the alt-right's thesis is that it is related to immigrants.

Instead of making a case against immigrants by taking one example after the next of integration problems, you need to generalise your claims to ensure that they are consistent. Without requiring consistency of argument, you can basically claim anything you like.

Is that it includes immigrants; we certainly don't exclude the other obvious clashes (Syria is the current awful example), but it's the immigrants in the US and Europe that are among the most important right now.

As for your latter point, I'm only here to explain what I've gathered about what the Alt Right is about, not necessarily to explain it beyond that, and while I don't claim its views immigration are inconsistent, a high level of consistency is certainly a bit much to ask this early in the formation of its philosophy, that's very much a work in progress.

Cultural integration is a multigenerational process, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I think the issue is that people have different perspectives on integration.

Some people see it, others don't.

Echoing masondixon's reply, we on the Alt Right disagree, starting possibly as far back as the Irish immigrants who played a variety of significant roles in the Civil War, e.g. the NYC draft riots. For a stark example of that quite a bit later, in the 20th Century, see the Curley effect: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curley+effect It's anything but integration, or good for the Republic, society at large, etc. especially as its paradigm of identity politics was followed by other groups.

I think a lot of the Left's freak out over the election of Trump as well as the rise of the Alt Right is that, having first opened the bottle of identity politics and used it to great effect, they're genuinely and legitimately frightened that the genie they've unleashed is not under their control, and that "whites" are starting to enter the game.

Especially since, per Vox Day, identity trumps culture, which the Left has captured, which trumps politics, where the Left has been in fact winning (forget the labels and much of the rhetoric, look at actions) due to the establishment right/GOPe accepting its definitions of reality, rules of the game, and all that.

Trump very noticeably does not accept the Left's rules on how the game of politics are to be played, as we're seeing in now ludicrous examples like that family steak dinner.

In America, manifestations of the Curley Effect are far more likely to come from class warfare or political ideology (such as abortion, LBGTQ rights, etc) than from ethnic diversity.

I agree that white use of identity politics does concern the Left... because identity politics developed to promote minorities and underrepresented communities. That whites feel the need to act like a minority group is disturbing considering the economic and political power that we obviously weld.

Identity politics, by its very nature, promotes a "my group first" mentality. The Left justifies its use by underrepresented minorities as a way to promote their interests and improve their quality of life. It's why blacks in the 1960 were demanding the right to vote, rather than protesting for or against the Vietnam War. The idea is that this will eventually lead to a more level economic and political playing field. However, if even the most privileged demographic groups engage in identity politics, then economic and political inequality will likely either be maintained or be exacerbated through tyranny of the majority.

I don't see it being about whites though. I think its everyone except-the-activist-element-of-the-minority-group. People think Trump's victory is a victory for whites, but then cannot understand why some blacks, latinos, muslims, women, gays would vote for him.

> However, if even the most privileged demographic groups engage in identity politics, then economic and political inequality will likely either be maintained or be exacerbated through tyranny of the majority.

The minority always needs the support of the people wielding the power to make changes. The prominence of these movements comes from the whites joining their cause and campaigning for them. So it is in these movements best interests for the privileged demographic to engage in identity politics....or so you would think.

But what is happening now is that the privileged are peer pressured to go along with everything, but are told not to engage or criticise.

Naively, you would think that this social justice machine that has been created is a positive force.

But the backlash from the election of Trump shows that it is moving to fast and is actually counter-productive to the objectives of these movements.

Well, apparently they voted for Trump, so maybe?

It's why blacks in the 1960 were demanding the right to vote, rather than protesting for or against the Vietnam War.

I have an (even :-) older friend who grew up in the D.C. area, and was an eyewitness to an huge protest that I think was at the Mall, at which MLK denounced the Vietnam War, you don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Opposit...

That's one of the problems with identity politics, it's part of the Left's problem with having no limiting principles, i.e. X is never enough.

Anyway, we disagree about our (white) degree of "privilege", and that's not counting the Left's crowing about how soon we'll become a true minority (see also Bertolt Brecht), some even go so far as to say we live under a Minority Occupation Government, making a play on the white supremacists ZOG. As I commented in another HN topic, today the career of scientist would be closed to me.

As this election demonstrated, and as the Left's freak out way beyond any in my lifetime over a Presidential election confirms (I wonder if you'd have to go back to Lincoln), here's no "if" here, as this article I just stumbled upon and am about to read puts it, "This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente" (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-ameri...).

(ADDED: And, yeah, the idea there ever was any more of a racial détente than there was between the US and USSR is bogus, as anyone who's been around for a few decades with their eyes open can attest, it didn't survive the '80s.

And the author is dead wrong about how this is going to proceed, now that the Left has broken faith and demonstrated they can't be trusted. Like the Evil Empire, another transition from a détente is to fight to victory by one side, in this case, all it took was one President who was determined to end, rather than "contain", the USSR.)

If you're on the Left, if you're an Official Minority, if your livelihood depend on the NFL, etc. etc. etc. it sucks to be you, but perhaps you shouldn't have opened that genie's bottle. Except, of course, that conflicts with the no limiting principle issue, the Left is congenitally unable to resist the temptation.

:-O