The ideological geneology of the modern alt-right

It's a bunch of dorks acting edgy on the internet because the grass is always greener and they imagine a right wing society as a utopia where every need they have is met.

This is kind of trying to connect SJWs to the Frankfurt school. In reality their influences are a wide variety of sources.

What you're describing about is more closer to Europe's identitarian movement than to american alt-right, I think many writers from this web counter-currents.com/ are influential in formation of the current right wing resurgence, Alain de Benoist himself is relevant to France for instance

During the presidential election it was basically a catch all term for anyone who supported trump, some time around heilgate (richard spencer nazi salute) the less extreme elements fell over themselves to disassociate from it, at this point it's pretty much just white nationalists.
Even still, a lot of them think that the label is part of some sort of ploy against them.

This thread is much more insightful than I expected.

I see, so what would the people who are not WN or Non-Whites but still support the President fall into? If there even is a category because they're certainly not leftists or progressives, I also don't feel like its anything new either, most people seem to forget that non-white citizens have been in the US since it became a country.

>movement
I'd say it's a mistake to see any of this as a movement, any more than one can see the modern Republican/Democratic party as a movement. The Alt-Right is really just an unofficial party coalescing around a few smaller movements who piggy-back off each other's momentum to gain political power.

>Veeky Forums pass
AHAHAHAHA FAGGOT

If by "support the President", you mean voted for him and prefer him to Democrats, most are the same old Republicans who are the bulk of the Rep vote going back many decades: socially conservative or reactionary, on top economically and wanting to keep it that way. Nothing young or working class about them.

"Alt-right" is posing as something new, but is a creation of the same old trolls who have supported all Republicans forever.

I think this is a sensible statement. The internet allows for more connections between people and idea flow that wasn't possible before.
Do you base this on something other than your opinion? You are not alone with that, but specially for your claim I would like a source.

It makes intuitively sense for ideology to be constructed in reaction to your social environment, but I think you take it too far. I've read a few books of political science dealing with the cognitive and biological traits behind the left and right and that makes me skeptical of what you say.

To rephrase, what you say makes intuitively sense. But it would be incorrect to say that it are not individuals who already have (some of) the traits that make them predisposed towards rightwing ideology,

I've looked for the social explanation behind ideology and haven't found it, just books on the individual biological and cognitive traits that influence it. I guess I need to read Terrence Deacon still, who proposes a more correct form of memetics, but I'm imagining he doesn't answer my questions.

(Cont)
I would rather think that the alt-right is a reaction to mainstream politics, the establishment, instead of peers. And not only, I think other beliefs have little to do with being a reaction and instead are genuine ideas that follow from those psychological and biological traits but also personal experiences.

Blue-collar workers are generally based in rural areas, and leftist parties have generally been focusing on urban areas for decades now. Rural workers are facing an existential crisis as their children trickle out to the cities and the jobs dry up in town. Right-wing parties appeal to them and promise the return of jobs, even if those promises are sometimes reneged on. Left-wing parties are beginning to outright denounce them, or at most, pledge to support programs that would help move those people closer to cities and train in modern jobs, which isn't exactly what they want and sometimes it doesn't happen anyways. So we see a shift in political thought: the socialist working class is redefined to include the urban poor and the students. Rural workers are now considered by some of the more hard left thinkers to be ghosts of the past, undesirables that need to be cleansed to make way for the utopian society.

>has lead to rank-and-file Democrats being really, really insistent on the matters they feel they CAN change

A more cynical person might suspect that these things are being played up exactly BECAUSE they are friendly/non-threatening to the current economic order and its stakeholders. In other words, they are useful sluices for energies that would otherwise be directed toward more substantive matters. This has countless historical parallels, going at least back to the Gracchi debacle in the Roman republic.

>what would the people who are not WN or Non-Whites but still support the President fall into?
The Republican party?

>non-white citizens
>citizens
Nope. Inhabitants, sure. Not citizens.

not according to our laws

I'm not sure that's the case anymore. The 2016 election tipped over to Trump because he captured Upper Midwestern states and Pennsylvania which had previously been "contested" in presidential races, but Democrat-leaning since the 1992 Clinton-Bush race.

These voters were never very enthusiastic about the likes of Bush Jr., Dole, McCain, or Romney. Trump seemed qualitatively different in his approach and appeal. Of course, as a titular Republican, he inherited the voters who vote based on that label, but I don't think it's accurate to typologize his supporters as a whole in the same manner as his predecessors.

The "alt-right" does not actually seem to be very dedicated to Trump, but regards him as more of a vehicle to advance particular policies regarding immigration. There was a lot of alt-right revulsion back in April after he bombed Syria.

The US alt-right (such as it is) seems to be a semicoherent mixture of foreign policy paleoconservatism (contempt for neoconservative/neoliberal foreign interventions), traditional nativism, and economic nationalism (as opposed to traditional libertarianism), infused with modern statistics and research on population genetics and group characteristics.

All of those things have ideological predecessors going back quite a ways, but not in the context of the modern US.

Only white people were allowed for naturalization until the 1860s, so you're wrong. Non-whites were not citizens when "US became a country", end of.

Here is a question: to what extent is /pol/ identical to the alt-right? Did /pol/ cause the alt-right, the other way around, did they develop as correlates, or completely independently?

I stand corrected there I guess

They're not only not the same thing, they're actually opposed to each other. See the entire shitfest between 8ch /pol/ and TRS for reference.
So yeah, while some alt-rightists might have /pol/ack origin, the "movement" developed completely independently of /pol/.

From what little I payed attention to the mess that was once /news/ and is now /pol/, it was a mix of stormfront trying to influence /pol/acks as well as the /r9k/ attitude of life, which is mostly whining and bitching about women and talking up how "alpha" they are. This, plus a healthy dose of recycling memes from /b/ and having no OC of their own that I have ever seen, as well as some /x/ grade crackpots positing conspiracy theories led to the modern iteration of /pol/.

That being said, /pol/'s alt-right is different from, say, reddit's alt-right. But this is more carried-over traditions and ideals from the internet subculture they spawned from rather than any ideological distinction between the two.

Oh, I'm sure there's some of that going on. Even if you find that Bernie's loss was completely fair, there's a mountain of doubt surrounding why his most popular policy proposals (college paid for by taxes, increase in national minimum wage) were not integrated into Clinton's platform. And it's especially suspect why they haven't been reconsidered by the Democratic party after her loss. That's not to mention what all happened behind the scenes during the run-off, either. The reality is that the two parties are fighting for votes — but only enough to win. They're not looking for a land slide. No effort is put into understanding the profile of the 40% of the United States that does not vote — what they care about and what would get them to the voting booths. I suspect both parties' unwillingness to consider economic concessions to the lower class in anything but name is a major factor in such low voter turnout. Instead they fight about abortion: a perfectly divisive concept that has kept us busy for fifty years.

Alt-right is scorned on /pol/. It wasn't two years ago, but it definitely is now. Also stop pretending to be an oldfag when your accounts are obviously complete horseshit.

Since we're on the topic, how does this election cycle compare to previous ones? Is this election cycle the first time we ever saw an "upset" like this or was there an even more brutal election in US history?

>Blue-collar workers are generally based in rural areas, and leftist parties have generally been focusing on urban areas for decades now.
The Democrats are doing EXACTLY the same mistakes the SPD and Commies did in Weimar Germany, all of the campaigning was focused on huge urban centers like Berlin and Hamburg and nobody gave a fuck about rural Prussia, which Hitler took by storm simply because NSDAP actively campaigned and focused on that region. It's like these retards cannot learn from history, Hillary was campaigning like she was running for the president of NYC rather than the United States.

>unironically using "alt-right"
>still using the left/right dichotomy

Noise

Bush v Gore was a shitshow, but for vastly different reasons, and mostly at the end. Trump was a new scandal everyday, which contrasted pretty hard against Obama, who had a mostly calm presidency. Not to make the continuous flow of dumb shit from Trump seem any more normal, mind, it's just the relative scandal-free era we experienced during the last 8 years just made it contrast more.

> denouncing the party that post Clinton betrayed the blue collar workers for not appealing to said workers
That mistake was made long before Hillary ran as president

As someone in a rural area, there was nothing that Hillary could possibly do to sway the rural vote as soon as FOX was against her.

Bush vs Gore and Trump being "shitshows" are mostly just narratives manufactured by the liberal media.

/pol/ was symtomatic of its nature and its user-base. Younger males, many of them on a downward economic trajectory relative to their parents, cynical about institutions and power, combined with anonymity. The anonymity allowed for the open discussion of "verboten" topics like race/IQ (a big one; probably a more important flashpoint than most outside observers realize), national demographics, etc.

I don't think it actually set many trends or spawned broader movements on its own; it was more like a node within an emerging online presence of the thing that came to be termed "the alt-right."

What seemed to fuel it, though (as compared to earlier forums that harped on the same themes) was the general loss of Whiggish sense that society/the economy/technology were all "progressing" along some sort of trajectory whose future points could be anticipated as improvements upon the current state.

Instead, there was broad agreement that things, in many ways, were degrading, leading to an outlook that wasn't nearly as popular before the 2008 financial crisis.

Yes, obviously. The last Democratic president who actually appealed to the rural working class was probably Carter, everything after him were just generic Silicon Valley/Wall Street puppets.

I want to keep this politically neutral but I couldn't help but notice that the scandals that did happen under Obama, usually involving some of the more unsavory people around him, weren't covered as viciously by the or were even defended by the media. Sort of reminds me of all the shit slinging at the turn of the 20th Century and the Gilded Era in the US.

I remember reading that English politics got pretty nasty too

Also a rural guy here, MUH FOX is a shitty argument, FOX News have been shilling against every Democrat candidate and it didn't really make a difference, they were against Obama just the same.

Pic related, compare Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 compared to 2016.

Part of this confusion is people outright claiming the alt-right was racist (elements of it were, but its core followers weren't necessarily, it was originally just a contrarian form of Tea Party with some youth injection and centrist or even leftist positions on a few topics). This caused a bunch of actual racists to call themselves "alt-right"
So there is currently an "alt-right" contingent that primarily deals in race and immigration politics.

Hell it goes back even further. American politics never had any love for its blue collar workers anyway, one only need to look at the history of the IWW

Alt-right got created out of some cucky Paleocons by having them adopt the principles of European Nouvelle Droite. Tea Party was something completely different, mostly just libertarians.

I've probably forgotten a lot of the Obama-era stuff due to the need to keep up with all the Trump-era stuff, but part of the reason I remember Obama getting ahead of or outright avoiding scandals is being very up-front about a lot of the going-ons in the Oval Office and generally being transparent about his time in office, like releasing the visitor logs for who came in to the White House. But if I can compare the two administrations in the simplest way possible, I can say without a doubt that I could not watch the news for a month under Obama and not miss too much. I can't say the same for Trump.
It's a shitty excuse for the continuous shift from blue to red, but that wasn't what I was trying to get at. What your pic shows in essence is the general shift away from things they were personally invested in, like labor unions and expanding infrastructure, to issues like climate change and increasing the minimum wage. This left a power vacuum that the right, generally through FOX, filled in with issues like saying immigrants take your jobs, political correctness killing our culture, ect. Issues that no matter what you personally think of them, a lot of them have taken to heart and now use as rallying cries going into an election, which is best demonstrated with the rise of Trump.

The "Tea Party" tended to be old. Many of the people who showed up to those rallies in 2009 and 2010 are now dead from old-age. They were largely mainline Republican evangelical Christians who felt alienated from mainstream politics and were easily manipulated/fleeced by political operatives and action-groups. It kind of devolved into a moneymaking racket.

Alt-righters tended to be a lot younger - mainly under 40, if not 30, and had open disdain toward most Republican political candidates.

Alt-right is just butthurt white bois that copied the left's identity politics

Rubio was the single biggest manufactured, fake candidate I've ever seen, even more than Hillary or Jeb.

>Alt-right is scorned on /pol/. It wasn't two years ago, but it definitely is now.
I think part of that is because the idea of the alt-right got more mainstream and diluted as a result. Or more specifically, got more associated with Reddit. The same thing happened with all the Pepe-related memes (praise Kek, shadilay, etc.), you rarely see them used now or they're downright scorned.

It's mostly because all the alt-right (((celebrities))) turned out to be ex-leftists and jews who are only in it for the money. Reddit obviously contributed too.

All the people getting fired and the lack of transparency of Trumps admin is just a narrative manufactured by the liberal media? Is it Obama's fault too?

I mean the garbage like grabbing pussies or Trump not celebrating some holocaust anniversary or some shit, completely manufactured non-issues.

American and French far-right movements in the 1970's actually had a fair amount of contact with each other at the time. Raspail's "Le Camp des Saints" was influenced by a book called "The Dispossessed Majority" by a fringe author named Wilmot Robertson.

Robertson published a periodical called "Instauration" from the mid-70's through the 90's. That particular publication is something of an antecedent to the modern alt-right, though its circulation never exceeded the low-thousands, so its actual direct "influence" shouldn't be overstated.

Trump captured those swing states mainly due to low turnout among Democrats. He got roughly the same number of votes there that Romney got in 2012.

There might be a sliver of working class voters who were against Clinton (for trade agreements) enough to switch, but that's a tiny margin. No enough to swing the states.

Most off them seems like subhuman libertarian trash that whants to be edgy and larp as nationalists and traditionalists because they hate feminists and niggers

It's only the label though, not the ideas.
It's mostly because richard spencer isn't masculine enough for them.

The core of the alt right ( no shit here) is a bunch of rightest contrary trolls purged from something awful in the early 2000's when that community made a shift left.They sort of clustered together on the same shitty Internet irc channels and shortlived forums talking about estoic fascist from before ww2 and Pat Buchanan simply to be hipster.

centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

TL;DR there were enough

Alt right is unironically fucking zionist, /pol/ doesn't roll with that shit.

You're not wrong, the entire alt-right twatter sphere smells of goonery to the high heaven if you read them. The same meta-irony and numale sarcasm everywhere. Fuck I can't stand goons.

5 minute explanation.

youtube.com/watch?v=S62_bL7jXDM

That's definitely something to look at, but the election results tell us not to trust polls much. That would go for these surveys they're citing too. Every swing state that the polls were telling us in 2016 would go for Clinton had voting results 3-4% different from the polls, always in the same direction. That tells me turnout was a big factor.

I'm drunk so it's time to spill the beans on the Alt-Right. You guys are totally off the mark.

You know what caused the Alt-Right to grow in power rapidly and out of nowhere? Gamergate. Allow me to explain.

>Be Emperor Globalus.
>Everything is proceeding as planned, the masses trust me.
>Diversity is happening. Globalization is continuing.
>Decide to go out and have a good time.
>Notice that the bread and circuses are sexist and crude.
>Decide this is unacceptable.
>"From now on, all of the bread and circuses must conform to my standards as Emperor Globalus."
>Remove the hot women.
>Remove the violence.
>Remove the white protagonists in favor of obscure PoC.
>Pay off people to support my new shitty version of bread and Circuses.
>People begin to complain that their entertainment sucks
>"You are all racists and sexists for not liking my new version entertainment. Anyone who doesn't like these bread and circuses anymore is an enemy of the state."
>The masses become angry.
>The masses decide that instead of wasting their time on eating bread and mindless circuses, they want to get involved active into politics.
>Bannon appears.
>Milo appears.
>Breitbart appears.
>Pol is introduced.
>People begin becoming political active instead of being distracted by bread and circuses.
>A new vanguard emerges of man-children with nothing better to do but be political.
>Trump appears.
>"We will make America Great Again!"
>"Fuck Emperor Globalus"
>Good enough for me.
>The vanguard responds. Why? Because they've lost their entertainment from politically correct reforms.
>Politics becomes the new pastime for millions. >Emperor Globalus is overthrown by the gestalt of a large group of dissastified masses who were normally too preoccupied with the bread and circuses in the first place, but instead became political because their vidya and movies were taken away.

NEVER.
FUCK.
WITH.
THE.
BREAD.
AND.
CIRCUSES.

Aren't video games more gender/race-diverse than ever, though? It doesn't seem like "gamergate" had much real-world effect. Certainly not on games or studios themselves.

Dumbass. You missed the entire point.

Most people were trapped in escapist fantasies about coping with the reality of Globalism. For whatever reason, the elite decided that this wasn't an acceptable option, and so fucked up the escapist fantasies in favor of Political Correctness points.

Now. The masses are truly cornered. They can't even escape Globalism in fucking video games if they wanted to. So instead, they decided to take the Hard option, and fight back against the system. This gestalt of angry and frustrated men served as the kernel that BTFO of the Deep State, Soros, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Clintonites, the BIS, the Rothschild, Satan, and every other fucker who didn't want Trump in office.

The Globalists created their own enemy by turning the Vanguard masses on themselves, and this group of people spends all day posting on The_Donald or pol rather than diluting their minds with cheap entertainment.

You know the fucked up part about all this? Now it's too late to put this genie back in the bottle. An entire subculture of dissatisfied youths finds themselves more eager to play politics than to play video games.

What a collosal fuck up by the establishment. Talk about owning the world and then mindlessly giving it away.

Autism.

Motherfucker. Revolutions are done by Autists. Lenin. Hitler. Mao, All Autist fuck ups who couldn't hold down a job to save their life. Autism FUELS fucking revolutions, because only the least successful are the ones who try and overthrow the system.

You don't know shit. Even when I dickslap you with the answer, you can't believe it that a large group of detached nerds managed to form the foundation that effectively overthrew the Left. Then again, the Left's demise goes deeper with the Tea Party, but you asked by the Alt-Right, and now I gave it to you.

This is why I'm not a Left-Winger anymore. OWS proved the Left is full of incompetence.

Literally none of those people were autistic and they were all extremely charismatic.
You're making wild accusation and leaps of logic here, nothing else. This is all simply a comforting narrative for you.
You don't even seem to understand the question because you are pointing to something that happened in 2014 as the ideological origin of your movement even though the alt right brings no new ideas. What you're describing is a surge in popularity the majority of which actually went to anti sjw moderates who wave kekistan flags.

Whatever.

You got your answer. How you choose to digest it is on you. Then again, if the Left understood its mistakes, it wouldn't have allowed a Trump victory to happen.

...

I came to know the far-right in 2015 through nrx. They do in fact reference the Camp of the Saints as well as Michel Houellebecq. There was also an element of this on /pol/ during that time, but it seemed to vanish along with the GG exodus.

I remember that Milo was the first person to link /pol/'s frog antics with Richard Spencer's "Alternative Right" concept in a 2015 Breitbart article, a month or two before Hilary made her speech against the "alt-right".

>You got your answer.
you gave an answer but why should anyone be forced to squeeze anything out of a retarded answer?

Werent the gracchi trying to tackle a sibstantive issue though, or do you mean the conservatives who spouted "muh republic"

Are you parroting the dredd scott decision or something? You know that blacks were citizens who could vote in some states after independence but this was taken away in most states after the reconstitution of the us in 1788?

It literally doesn't exist, just a meme name given to all the insufferables on /pol/ from those in the mainstream media and they're so insufferable they started a "movement" around it.

Great post

I don't think "alt-right" as a movement make any sense at all. It's the same old conservatism and nationalism with the occasional "white pride" faggot.

If anything, "alt-left" would make more sense since the new left IS fundamentally different due to the post-modernist influence.

This post is rather misinformed and makes facile and erroneous connections: Jean Raspail was not connected to the so-called Nouvelle Droite, at least not in the way you imply. He is first and foremost a novelist.

Greg Johnson and a number of other prominent anglo-saxon alt-right voices are well acquainted with this strand of thought, and translate and publish works of the European schools of thought.

the ideological geneology of alt right is literaly 4-chan as such

a certain mentality was formed on /b/, some of it crossed over to /pol/, theres a bit of other boards mixed in like mainly /v/ and /k/ and a bit of Veeky Forums and theres probably a influence of redit, and thats it

like thats literaly alt-right as in how it formed

that the actual content ranges from stormfaggotry to antiglobalism to anarcho-xyz is irrelevant actualy, the relevant elements are in the mentality, the stance towards issues and problems posed by the liberal left and centre, which is mainly one of no fucks are given, and lets laugh as the world burns

realy its just the ideology of kids who are inteligent enough to not swallow the shit they are allready fed up with, so they eat up some other, edgyer shit instead

>NEVER.
>FUCK.
>WITH.
>THE.
>BREAD.
>AND.
>CIRCUSES.
This.

Stupid fucking SJWs can't into Capitalist Totalitarianism.

This thread is enlightening for one who identifies with the movement somewhat. I could provide information from an inside perspective if anyone wants it, although I wouldn't consider myself fully adherent to the ideology by any means (fuck Hitler, and other criticisms).

The_donald faggots and most off /pol/ are globalists themselfs, except for restricting immigration.
They are kind off a controlled opposition you could say

Wrong. De Gaules said what the alt right is saying now. For some reasons, it became "racist", so it is labeled far right by the left but really, it's not. I can quote Mitterrand, an actual socialist and you will believe you are on /pol/.

The_donald are just cuckservatives/neocon,
they don't really give a shit about politics.
They are just in it for the memes and "triggering" SJWs, this is show in that they change their opinions and principles to suite what Trump says.
When Trump change his opinions they do it too

>Mitterrand
>Socialist
You jest, surely? Mitterand, Catholic, monarchist and collaborator when it suited him; then "socialist", resistant, free-mason and everything else when that suited him too.
And yet you cannot recognise a political chameleon? Get out of here, user.

The French connection is actually well known in certain areas of the alt right. Visit the site counter currents and you will see many articles on this, as well as book by authors such as Guillaume Faye. Greg Johnson discusses the French new right quite a bit.

Anybody have any Veeky Forums recs on obscure/esoteric right wing literature from the 18th-19th century?

Yep. Arthur de Gobineau's Essay on the Inequality of Human Races is a must-read. There's also a whole bunch - far too much - in French that remains as yet untranslated; some excellent conspiracy theory stuff, as well as novels on same, proto-Protocols tier stuff; some good racialist writings too if that floats your boat: Vacher de Lapouge, most notably.
As for esoteric stuff, more than plenty of that too.

This is partially true.

The same people who voted for Reagan in a landslide and propelled Gingrich's Contract with America to electoral success were Baby-boomers, who got buttblasted when Obama won by basically appealing to everybody but them so they came out in droves to support not just the Tea Party, but the Republican Party's electoral routing of the Democrats at the state level.

Now it is true that the "Alt-right" is mostly edgy youngsters rebelling against the liberal conformity culture exemplified by the Hilldabeast (oh, how liberals forget when Obama came out of the 2008 primaries looking like a dragon-slayer) but most of those Baby-boomers are still alive, now mostly in their late 60s and early 70's, so they're at the tail end of the most politically active years of their life. From here on out, Baby-boomers will be in decline while Millennials will be the ascendent demographic. If the Baby-Boomers were generational blow-back against the New Deal policies of their Depression era parents, the Millennials will be a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction, and that's what's got them all so scared.

Alt-right doesn't really mean anything

This could've been true if majority of people were anti-globalists which is not really the case.

>When Trump change his opinions they do it too
Which for all its associated annoyances is in a way a good thing: only a small and rapidly fading minority of die-hards still clings to the "I'm a true conservative, government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub," meme. I guess they started asking themselves who would be the one doing the drowning, and "le silent majority of true conservatives" stopped sounding like a compelling answer

You have to understand. There's a difference between edgy teen "flouting of the rules" and the things that teen sees which make him grow up.

When I was a kid, I thought we were in a progressing time and that humans of now had qualitatively different and abstract motives than humans before our time. That's kind of how we were taught in school.

Then you grow up and a lot of people...don't. The flaws of human nature become almost painfully apparent in every interaction with society.

If you flood your shit propaganda centers with too much shit, even for the inmates, then you're going to get a backlash. Especially when you lay down massive debt. Not even for something that you can see and feel and even live in (home)! Now you have to look forward to crushing debt in collage and our, sure to be one of many, housing bubbles.

>GamerGate

Young males seeing how raw of a deal they're getting. To the point where they're being harassed for playing non-PC games! And then realizing how monotone and controlled news and journalism is!

"Populations" are only globalists to the extent they imagine the end of "war". They don't see the massive calculation problem in a one state world. "Managers" , on the otherhand, just wants to see the populations fuck off so they bang their secretaries without interruption.

Correct. White nationalists exist among civic nationalists for example.

I agree with this a lot.

Also whoever mentioned ties to the French New Right is correct. Many people especially in the more philosophical circles love Faye, Evola, Guenon, etc.

I've been an insider in the more WN part of the movement for a year. AMA. At work and bored.

>AMA
what specific group(s) are you involved with?

As someone who's probably alt-right (or alt-lite since I'm not a white nationalist) I'm guessing you could say its focus is the following things: nationalism and a focus on western culture (or specifically European-based) culture and a strong anti-Muslim bent. Many want increased border security and other immigration measures. I don't think most (i.e. twitter normies and the like) outright hate Mexicans as much as they see Mexicans and other Latin Americans as emblematic of American decline and Mexico (through illegal immigration) is more of an immediately concern than China and India and places like that where jobs get shipped off to.

There's a very strong anti-PC current as well. Again I don't think the majority are racists but do see white culture and white people as being under attack and demonized by a political climate where many on the left saw themselves as ascendent as the country rejected Bush and had a President who seemed to agree with a lot of what they were saying. Trayvon Martin/Zim Zam is going to be looked back on as a defining moment and I think probably the exact moment you can point to for when race relations began deteriorating.

I think as much as the old conservative guard tries to glom on, I don't think a lot of the "alt-right" really cares about the culture war issues. Maybe to the extent they'd have to in order to keep the old right on board for now but most are millennials or blue collar workers who couldn't give less of a shit about abortion, gay marriage, evil weed, etc. that the Christian groups care about. Same with Israel/Zionism. There's also a distinct rejection of neoconservative thinking towards foreign policy and a desire to keep the United States out of foreign wars and nation building. I'm going to guess that more than a few "alt-righters" were into the anti-war protests during Bush and/or are disillusioned liberals and leftists who feel increasingly marginalized by a party throwing them under the bus.