In response to the acceleration of the Western world’s leftward trend, the paleo-conservatives/libertarians have risen from the ashes in the form of the controversial and rapidly growing Alternative Right (Alt-Right). This movement has been mercilessly condemned by the Left, the media, and the mainstream or neo-conservative Right since its inception. However, this attention has only added fuel to its growth and popularity as a large portion of the American population’s trust for politicians, academia, and the mainstream media (MSM) are at an all-time low. This is likely due to the elite’s ever increasing and blatant erosion of the very traditional Western institutions which made America great.
The focus of the Alt-Right has almost exclusively been a cultural one. They have correctly diagnosed the cultural ailments of society, yet many seem confused as to which political or economic principles are most conducive to setting Western civilization back on course to be the beacon of prosperity and progress it once was.
Conversely, many libertarians have focused exclusively on sound political and economic principles, whilst neglecting or dismissing the role traditional Western values play in enabling their practical implementation in the real world. They seem to be under the delusion that, for instance, the cultural values of the average Afghan are no less conducive to one’s willingness to subscribe to libertarian and capitalist principles than the average American’s…etc. Such neglect has hamstrung the ability of many libertarians to move from the realm of theory to application. Tragically, in their naive and misguided attempt to prove their principles to be universally acceptable, they have compromised on the fundamentals in order to achieve a broader multicultural appreciation. Of course, when the ideological core is compromised, the philosophy itself loses its value as being sound, rational, and practical.
Hence, the focus of this work is to demonstrate that not only are the Alt-Right and libertarianism compatible, but they are, in fact, complementary and symbiotic. That they are distinct, yet mutually reinforcing in that they supply the missing components in what the other is lacking for each of their realization. That what is needed is more than an alliance, but rather a fusion wherein libertarians become alt-righters and alt-righters libertarians. It is this “libertarian Alt-Right” which offers the best hope against the malignant cancer of both the State and the Left.
As a strictly legal/political philosophy, libertarianism is only concerned with answering the question: “When is the use of physical force (or threats thereof) justified?” The answer is entirely contingent on the property norms upon which the given legal system is grounded. Proper libertarianism, i.e. anarcho-capitalism, is defined by the particular property norms to which it subscribes: the private property ethic. This ethic states that all scarce goods, including land and other means of production, are subject to private ownership (i.e. the right of exclusive use/control) provided they are acquired via original appropriation/homesteading (i.e. the first user rule) or voluntary exchange. That any uninvited physical invasion/interference with the persons or property of others, or threats thereof, is considered an act of aggression and thus justifies responsive force against the perpetrator, whether aimed at defensive or retributive ends.
For a more detailed explanation as to the nature of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism see Rachels’ “What Anarcho-Capitalism Is”. For a rational justification of libertarianism see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Ethics Of Argumentation”.
Many alt-righters are unaware of the concerted effort to pervert and “thicken” libertarianism, typically with the intent to make it more palatable to the Left. Some, like the self-described left-libertarians, engage in these efforts deliberately whilst others (sometimes referred to as “lolbertarians” or “lolberts” for short) are led astray due to ignorance and an unrefined understanding of the fundamentals. Left-libertarians seek to achieve this perversion by regrounding libertarianism in the more obscure and manipulable concepts of “freedom”, “social equality”, and “anti-exploitation” while at the same time confusing libertarianism’s strictly political individualism with a hyper-individualism.
For more on this see Rachels’ “A Critique of Left-Libertarianism” , Ethan Chan’s “Libertarianism Is Not Opposed To All Forms Of Collectivism”, and CJay Engel’s “Thick Libertarianism Eviscerated: A Response To Charles Johnson”.
Defining the Left and Right
At this juncture, it behooves one to examine what is meant by the terms “Left” and “Right” (at least in their contemporary American sense). These terms denote dispositions ranging from culture, politics, and economics. To help add clarity to this distinction, I’ve crafted a chart which illustrates the respective attributes of both the Left and Right. The chart lists the attributes on a spectrum and explains how one may still be considered overall Right or Left despite having some Leftist or Rightist beliefs. When one tallies his score for each attribute he is able to determine approximately how far to the Left or Right he is (moreover, if one considers any pair of attributes a false dichotomy, then he may pick a position on both without affecting the ultimate score). Of course, this chart is neither perfect nor exact but it does provide a clear picture of the general differences between each wing of thought:
Defining the Alt-Right
Owing to the immense stigma and propaganda surrounding the Alt-Right, it would likewise behoove one to review a coherent definition of its nature. Hoppe, true to form, provides such a trenchant explanation in the following:
“Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social pathologies. In fact, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far more united by what it is against than what it is for. It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State, the MSM and academia. Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Thus, they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative action (aka “non-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about.
As well, the Alt-Right loathes everything smacking of cultural Marxism or Gramsciism and all “political correctness” and, strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all accusations of being racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., etc. And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have termed the “Stupids for Liberty” and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen.” In stark contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate, struggle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups of people acting in concert. ‘Millennial Woes’ (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right: ‘Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.” 
For more on this see Hoppe’s “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”
Traditional Western Values
To this definition, it should be added that the Alt-Right promotes Western Civilization and, by extension, the traditional Western values and institutions which undergird it. These include, but are not limited to (though some alt-righters may disagree): political individualism, rationalism, personal responsibility, low-time preference, capitalism, ingenuity, and the nuclear family. One could stop here, but it’s important to expand on time preference and the nuclear family a bit more. Time preference is defined by Orwell N’Goode in the following:
“One’s time preference refers to how much he values present consumption over future consumption. Someone with a relatively high time preference generally prefers to consume now as opposed to later, even if forgoing immediate consumption would result in a greater number and/or quality of future goods. A relatively low time preference is simply the inverse.” 
Thus low time preference refers to prudence, restraint, and self-discipline. This also apples to social interactions, not purely financial ones. Someone with low time preference is more inclined to act with generosity, civility, and integrity towards friends, spouses, and professional associates now for he knows doing so will enhance the long-term value of such relationships by encouraging reciprocal behavior later.
For more on this see Orwell N’Goode’s “How ‘Time Preferences’ Make or Break Civilization”
Matthew Dewey defines the nuclear family as “..a monogamous pair bonded couple raising their mutual offspring” and goes on further to claim this institution is “…the first and last defense of private property and, by extension, civilization itself.” 
The family unit itself was born from practicality and necessity. Hoppe explains:
“Given the peculiar, parasitic nature of hunter-gatherer societies and assuming land to be fixed, invariably the moment must arise when the number of people exceeds the optimal group size and average living standards will fall, threatening whatever degree of intragroup solidarity previously might have existed… This situation is captured and explained by the economic law of returns…that states that for any combination of two or more production factors an optimum combination exists (such that any deviation from it involves material waste, or “efficiency losses”).
The technological invention, then, that solved the problem of a steadily emerging and re-emerging ‘excess’ of population and the attendant fall of average living standards was a revolutionary change in the entire mode of production. It involved the change from a parasitic lifestyle to a genuinely productive life. Instead of merely appropriating and consuming what nature had provided, consumer goods were now actively produced and nature was augmented and improved upon. This revolutionary change in the human mode of production is generally referred to as the ‘Neolithic Revolution’: the transition from food production by hunting and gathering to food production by the raising of plants and animals… The new technology represented a fundamental cognitive achievement and was reflected and expressed in two interrelated institutional innovations, which from then on until today have become the dominant feature of human life: the appropriation and employment of ground land as private property, and the establishment of the family and the family household.” 
Thomas Malthus goes on to explain the rationale for the nuclear family in particular and why it was adopted in the West:
“the most natural and obvious check (on population) seemed to be to make every man provide for his own children; that this would operate in some respect as a measure and guide in the increase of population, as it might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, for whom he could not find the means of support; that where this notwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for the example of others, that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such a conduct should fall upon the individual, who had thus inconsiderately plunged himself and innocent children in misery and want. — The institution of marriage, or at least, of some express or implied obligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be the natural result of these reasoning’s in a community under the difficulties that we have supposed.” 
Finally, Hoppe affirms the peril faced by the Nuclear family and its central role in Western civilization:
“Hence, as the result of the trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera.” 
As previously mentioned, the Alt-Right correctly understands that a key ingredient to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous civilization is common culture. Inhabitants of a culturally homogeneous society know what to expect from others and what is expected of them and thus are able to secure a higher social trust with their fellow citizens. This helps mitigate interpersonal conflict, decrease transaction costs, and promote cooperation. In this environment, long term business relationships are more viable which in turn enables the execution of more productive and roundabout production processes. Unfortunately, many libertarians deny the impact that culture has on one’s willingness to adopt libertarian and capitalist principles. They naively believe that such principles are universally and equally acceptable to people of all cultures. Hoppe disputes this idealistic notion in the following:
“Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of ‘live and let live’ should hold. Yet surely, while this ‘live and let live’ sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this ‘live and let live’ is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.
A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a ‘bad’ neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a ‘Freudenhaus,’ a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. (So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their ‘live and let live’ ideal also hail the motto ‘respect no authority!’)
The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a ‘strong man’ and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.” 
Black’s law dictionary defines the “Nation” as:
“A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty [State].” 
This should make clear that a nation does not necessarily entail a State, yet it usually entails commonality in at least one, but more often a combination, of the following: language, custom, religion, race…etc. Nationalism, on the other hand, simply involves placing a premium on the interests of a particular nation defined as such. Once elucidated, it becomes clear that nationalism is quite natural and harmless. In the contemporary Western world, it is not only tolerated but encouraged for non-whites or people of non-Western descent to embrace a strong sense of nationalism. This is typically extolled as a celebration of beauty found in the diversity of cultures around the world. However, the same such celebration when conducted by white people of European descent is scorned and severely ridiculed as “racist”, “supremacist”, “fascist”, “xenophobic” and a slew of other meaningless yet stigmatized leftist epithets. This has to do with the spread of Cultural Marxism which will be explored in greater depth further on.
For more on this see Rik Storey’s “Libertarianism Needs Nationalism (Not Statism)”, Griffin Daughtry’s “In Defense Of Libertarian Nationalism”, and Ethan Chan’s “There Is Nothing Unlibertarian About White Nationalism”
The question now becomes how to form and sustain a stateless nation? One solution is to form contractual covenant communities. When one purchases property in such a community, he does not acquire full ownership. His ownership, instead, is limited to the extent of the community’s covenant conditions. Such conditions may include prohibitions on certain types of public behavior such as lewdness, drug use, drinking, the promotion of aberrant sexual behavior…etc. They may also entail certain requirements relating to the upkeep of one’s lawn etc. Thus, if one violates these conditions, then legal action may be taken against him without violating his private property rights, or the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP). Many of you may have heard of Hoppe’s infamous remarks regarding the “physical removal” of communists, Democrats, and those who publicly promote homosexuality. However, these remarks were made in the context of a covenant community which prohibited the conduct of such behavior and the entry of such people. Stephan Kinsella elaborates in the following:
“…..in a private, covenant-based order, one that is not only libertarian but also traditionalist and based on the family-based social unit, people who are openly hostile to the underlying norms of this society would tend to be shunned, maybe even expelled (not aggressively, but consistent with property rights). Some of your uncharitable critics say you mean that homosexuals themselves would be expelled merely for being gay. I thought what you meant was not gays per se, but rather those people openly hostile to the basic cultural norms of society, who openly and habitually advocate incompatible lifestyles/ideas and against the underlying normative purpose of the community—like a guy who hates science fiction would be out of place at a Star Trek convention. Thus, the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis of society.” 
For more on this see Stephan Kinsella’s “Covenant Communities Explained”.
Perhaps one of the more noteworthy attributes of the Alt-Right is its explicit interest in the preservation of the White race. But what exactly is race and why does it matter? Eli Harmann provides some insight:
“…there is remarkable consistency and repeatability in colloquial understandings of ‘race’ and population geneticists and forensic anthropologists can map these popular conceptions with great accuracy to a variety of objective features which are much more than ‘skin deep’ (genetic markers, bone structure, etc…)
Racial and ethnic demarcations are actually about kinship and relatedness, defining extended human families that share some degree of kinship. Why is this important? Kinship altruism is the norm throughout the animal kingdom, though altruism is rare in other contexts. The main reason is that kinship makes altruism, and its reciprocity, more evolutionarily stable and self enforcing.
……In a nutshell that’s why race is important, because race is a close proxy for kinship and trust is always higher and transaction costs lower with people who are more akin, along any number of dimensions, but especially genetic. Thus racial and ethnic criteria are sound, rational, and adaptive criteria for in-group/out-group identification.
This is why ethnocentric cooperation evolved a.k.a in-group preference. This always evolves under a wide variety of conditions and assumptions provide only that reproduction is local (offspring are not randomly distributed geographically but emerge in proximity to parents) and traits are at least somewhat heritable.” 
The “white race” essentially refers to European descended people. However, what relationship do white people have with libertarianism? What is the connection? Rik Storey answers:
“It has been hypothesized that European libertarian and individualistic cultures and institutions are the result of four socio-biological qualities: IQ, time-preference, testosterone, and psychopathy. It so happens that ethnic Europeans fall between the East Asians (China, Korea and Japan) at the higher end of the spectrum, and the Bushmen and Aboriginal Australians at the other (but closer to the East Asians) on all these factors. For example, the average East Asian IQ is 110, for Europeans it is 100 and Bushmen average at just over 60. Having a relatively high IQ with moderate levels of testosterone and psychopathy has culminated in a general spirit which was described by Spengler as ‘Faustian’ in its restlessness.” 
Finally, Hoppe recognizes the role white people, especially white men, have played in both developing and establishing a libertarian social order:
“…libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards.” 
For a more elaborate analysis of the nature of race and its relevance to one’s genetic and cultural predisposition to western libertarian values see Eli Harmann’s “The Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libertarian Social Order”, Rik Storey’s “Why Libertarianism Is Unique To The West”, and Francis’ “Race and IQ: The Case For Genes”
Developing A Strategy With Race In Mind
In America, an incredible 94% of libertarians are White and 68% are male . Anyone who dismisses this as mere coincidence is either a liar or a useless idiot for the Left. To a libertarian with common sense, this would cue him to take deliberate measures to protect white people, especially white men, from systematic legal and social targeting. Hoppe affirms this in the following:
“…any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people. White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of tax-payers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message” 
Another oft ridiculed topic earnestly discussed by the Alt-Right is that of “White Genocide”. It would benefit one to clarify what exactly “genocide” is so as to dispel some common misconceptions:
“Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation . . . It is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feeling, religion, and the economic institutions and systems of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
….In any case, it is the point (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that is the main aspect of ‘White genocide’.
If we observe what is happening in the Western world, we can witness that there is in fact a policy of relentless massive Third World immigration into all White countries, and only White countries. These open border policies, combined with forced assimilation and legally forcing White areas to become more ‘diverse’ (meaning less White people and a blended humanity in all and only White countries), is what qualifies current goings-on as (white) genocide as defined by Article II part (c) of the United Nations Genocide Convention, because these deliberate policies are inflicting on our people conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction in whole or in part.” 
Socially, one may witness efforts towards these ends taking place through the popular diminishing of marriage, endorsement of interracial relationships, promotion of homosexuality, advocacy of abortion, and the encouragement of transgenderism to name only a few. All such campaigns are primarily directed at white people. For example, it is socially acceptable to encourage black men to partner and procreate exclusively with black women, however encouraging white women to exclusively partner and procreate with white men is utterly taboo.
Legally, the subsidization of immigration, anti-discrimination laws, and affirmative action laws serve to not only forcefully integrate and intermingle unwanted foreigners with white people, but also enable non-whites (excluding Asians) to enjoy a parasitical relationship with them as a whole. (Obviously some whites are parasites, and some non-whites are net-tax payers and contributors.)
Hoppe explains that such efforts aimed at White genocide not only place white people in jeopardy, but also imperil the parasitic class which feeds upon them:
“….most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them. All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle – i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns – that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labor? And isn’t it only on account of the success of the traditional white, bourgeois family model also that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time? Do not most of today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living standards to the achievements of their alleged ‘victimizers?’
…I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labor, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic lifestyle and conduct. Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected.
… That doesn’t mean that you should be uncritical of the ‘Western,’ white male dominated world. After all, even these societies most closely following this model also have their various States that are responsible for reprehensible acts of aggression not only against their own domestic property owners but also against foreigners. But neither where you live nor anywhere else should the State be confused with ‘the people.’ It is not the ‘Western’ State, but the ‘traditional’ (normal, standard, etc.) lifestyle and conduct of the western ‘people,’ already under increasingly heavy attack by their very ‘own’ State-rulers on their drive toward totalitarian social control, that deserves your respect and of which you are a beneficiary.” 
For more on this see Hoppe’s “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism”
“Racism” is an obscure and elusive concept being made ever more broad and ambiguous by the Left. For the sake of clarity, all the different meanings and senses of the term, based on how it is generally applied, will be provided in the following:
[1.] Believing the races are different. [Reasonable]
[2.] Believing a distinct and prevailing culture tends to be associated with each race. (Of course the same may be applied towards religion, geography, etc.) [Reasonable]
[3.] Believing certain cultures tend to yield greater material prosperity, lower crime, and scientific progress. That, by the transitive property, certain races as a whole tend to excel in these areas with respect to others. [Reasonable]
[4.] Believing culture has an impact on IQ, thus certain races have a higher/lower average IQ than others owing, in part, to cultural differences. [Reasonable]
[5.] Believing biology has an impact on one’s propensity to adopt certain cultural norms, and has a likewise impact on IQ. Believing the biological differences between races aren’t limited to mere skin color or physical body shape/structure, but that they tend to also include variations in mental capacity, testosterone levels, and the like. [Reasonable]
[6.] Having a professional or personal preference for the company of a particular race or races of people over others, other things being equal. [Reasonable]
[7.] (Subjectively) valuing a particular race of people over all others, other things being equal. [Reasonable]
[8.] Believing every member of a particular race shares the same set of cultural, political, moral, or religious beliefs. [Unreasonable and absurd]
[9.] Preferring the company or valuing every member of one race, over every member of another [Unreasonable]
[10.] Believing every member of one race is mentally/physically superior to every member of another [Unreasonable and absurd]”
It should be unequivocally stated that only meanings 1-7 apply to the vast majority of the Alt-Right. Likewise, the vast majority of the Alt-Right recognize that meanings 8-10 are absurd and/or unreasonable, contrary to Leftist propaganda.
At this point, one may wonder why white people and Western civilization are being unduly targeted. What is the ultimate goal? Frankly, the ultimate end of the Left is to establish a global egalitarian socialist State. They happen to correctly recognize that the largest obstacles to this end are traditional Western values and, by extension, white people, as they constitute the vast majority of those who harbor and live according to them.
Ethan Chan elaborates on the nature of Cultural Marxism in the following:
“The difference between the traditional Marxist class theory explained above and cultural Marxism is quite simple. The theory itself remains the same in the case of cultural Marxism it’s simply applied to different categories. Instead of dealing strictly with socio-economic class, cultural Marxists focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability status, and a host of other cultural categories. Such thinking has given rise to ‘intersectionality,’ a prevalent form of cultural Marxism which stresses a relation between the various ‘oppressed’ classes of different demographics and the need for them to work together to overthrow the supposed white, capitalist, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, conservative, Christian patriarchy. As such, the ‘intersectional’ cultural Marxist evaluates each person by placing him/her/‘xir’ on a totem pole of privilege vs. oppression.
A white gay male, for instance, is more oppressed than a white straight male, but more privileged than a black gay male. Still more oppressed would be a black lesbian, and even further down the totem pole would be a black transgender lesbian, and even further down would be a black, Muslim, transgender, mentally disabled (or as they say, ‘neurodivergent’), morbidly obese lesbian. Essentially, the idea is that the more ‘oppressed’ one is based on her position on the totem pole, the more deference and sympathy she ought to receive from society to rectify the alleged injustice of her oppression. For example, many cultural Marxists believe that whites ought to pay reparations to blacks as a form of collective restitution for slavery and Jim Crow laws. Moreover, the left promotes affirmative action initiatives and anti-discrimination laws, believing that if one is part of an ‘oppressed’ group then he has a right to demand access to another person’s goods and services.
In short, cultural Marxism is simply traditional Marxist class theory repackaged in terms of cultural rather than economic classes. However, the end goal of bringing about a socialist society remains in place for the vast majority of cultural Marxists.” 
For more on Marxist Class Theory and Cultural Marxism, see Hoppe’s “Marxist and Austrian Class Theory” and Ethan Chan’s “Saving The West & Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism”
Modern day feminism is an ugly beast (not unlike most feminists) that has served as the primary vehicle for the destruction of the Nuclear Family. N’Goode explains:
“…it has become clear that modern feminism has become little more than a pernicious conduit to dismantle the remnants of the nuclear family apart, leading to the limitless expansion of the state. Modern feminists are often an unsightly embodiment of the very ideology they shrilly preach. Many have either endured nasty or spoiled upbringings, prompting them to detest the mere fabric of the traditional family structure and wishing for its demise. Painting men out to being authoritarian and abusive, while “promising it all” to women has rendered modern relationships unstable. Women can raise a family, keep a high-energy career, enjoy a fulfilling sex life and plenteous leisure, but unfortunately, there are only twenty-four hours in a day. Something has to give. And that something is often the marriage or the kids as it would be a progressive heresy to be an anachronistic, unglamorous housewife.” 
The resulting epidemic of single motherhood has had far reaching effects on the culture, mindset, and health of children being reared in the West. Rachels has this to say:
“The majority of child abuse perpetrators and welfare recipients are single mothers. The shocking rise of fatherless homes has precipitated an increase in violence, abuse and crime. Statistically, the absolute best thing both biological parents can do for their children is commit to one another as part of a traditional nuclear family.…..
The State has also played a large role in breaking up the family unit. Big Brother has taken the place of father and husband by subsidizing single parent households whilst penalizing married households with higher taxes (as they tend to be in a higher tax bracket since they generally bring in more income). Single parent families account for 90% of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare) recipients. Half of single mothers are on food stamps, yet only 12% of married couples with kids are. It is also worth noting that the rate of children living in single parent households has quadrupled since the 1960s (when State welfare expanded significantly). The poverty rate drops 65% for women who marry the biological father of her children when compared to their jobless single mother counterparts! Alternatively, the poverty rate drops 38% for women who marry the biological father when compared to single moms who work part time. ” 
Contrary to popular belief, radical feminists are not primarily concerned with the well being and protection of women. Instead, they are more concerned with breaking down the edifice of Western civilization and bringing about a socialist order. They resent white patriarchy much more so than patriarchy in general. This is evidenced by their bizarre alliance with Islam:
“It is undeniable that compared to modern Western standards, women are treated abominably in Islamic countries and even in Islamic neighborhoods in Western countries. Women are subjected to barbaric customs and violence, but Muslims have been ostensibly hard-done-by according to the Progressive Stack. Leftists are often cultural and moral relativists, which would make foreign practices beyond questioning as other cultures and moral frameworks are allegedly equally valid, just different. Furthermore, given that Muslims rank higher than many leftists on the Progressive Stack, leftists are (by their twisted logic) socially indebted to Muslims for any existing inequalities.
Islam shares many ideological similarities with leftism. The logical conclusion of both ideologies is totalitarian; espousing anti-capitalism, globalism, expansionism, anti-Westernism, and only extending tolerance to their followers. In our age of rampant hedonism and nihilism, Islam has been able to exploit its adherents’ fertility in becoming an ideological force to be reckoned with, in the West. The West’s turning its back on Christian values in favor of secularism has rendered it defenseless to the proliferation of Islam. Islam is an uncompromising faith which has begun to impose its rules on citizens in Western countries where Muslims have become a sizable portion of the population. As a result of this, around a hundred non-legally-binding Sharia courts have emerged in the UK alone – not to mention thousands of unaddressed cases of female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, cousin marriage and birth defects, honor killings, rape gangs (as a form of jihad), etc,” 
Libertinism basically refers to hedonistic or high time preference behavior. The Left encourages such behavior as it induces many to disregard the long term advantages of capitalism in favor of immediate short term socialist “gibs”. It also helps them rationalize promiscuous behavior and the socially destructive consequences thereof. Emotional beings are easily allured by any philosophy that says “live in the present, do what you want when you want regardless of the consequences, you don’t have to be responsible for your actions, and you should be bailed out with the resources of others when you make dumb decisions”. Orwell N’Goode expounds upon the detrimental effects of high-time preference behavior:
“Low time preferences elicit discipline, foresight, and strategy as the individual becomes more future-oriented. To ensure that a person’s children receives the best possible upbringing, parents must have low time preferences to save, pay bills and leave behind a formidable inheritance. A healthy society’s individual plans far beyond his own lifespan to provide for his offspring.
…Sadly, western societies are becoming increasingly overcome by high-time preferences. Individuals have become very egoistic, hedonistic, solipsistic, nihilistic and indolent. Instead of choosing a productive lifestyle, individuals have elected a life of pleasure-seeking and instant gratification. Instead of self-improvement, there is self-degradation. Instead of thrift, there is profligacy. With high time preferences, there is promiscuity and carelessness, leading to unwanted pregnancies. After flings or throwing caution to the wind with irresponsible sexual partners, single motherhood rates increase. With no male presence in the household, the mother has little choice but to resort to welfare participation or severely hampering her career potential by settling for a low-income job. A fatherless upbringing is one of the worst things the child can be subjected to; as criminality, risk of abuse, mental problems, truancy, and early sexual activity all increase. The child from a single parent household is also likely to emulate the same behaviors of their parent and slip into the cycle. High time preferences place a tremendous burden on the productive in a statist society as poor behaviors such as criminality, drug addiction, alcoholism, voluntary unemployment, violence and costs from their consequent effects are externalized onto the taxpayer. Our great redistributionist social-democratic welfare States help create the aforementioned poor behaviors and drives up time preferences of all members of society.
The welfare State in a nutshell, takes from productive individuals and hands it to largely nonproductive individuals. Immediately, productive individuals subject to higher tax levels become disincentivized to work longer hours or to self-improve, as their marginal utility for extra income in exchange for more work becomes lower than their disutility for work and marginal utility for leisure.” 
For more on this see Orwell N’Goode’s “How Time Preferences Make or Break Civilization” and “Degeneracy Is A Product Of Big Government, Not The Free Market”
Something libertarians and the Alt-Right should already have in common is a fierce opposition to Globalism. As libertarians, our ultimate goal is to have the individual be the sovereign over his person and property, thus a global state should be seen as the polar opposite of this objective. Likewise, other things equal, sovereigns which are more decentralized should be favored over those that are more centralized. Local > County > State > Federal > International governing bodies…etc. This is why secession must be vigorously pursued along side the Alt-Right if libertarians wish to achieve their ultimate ends. Hoppe expounds on the State’s globalist efforts in the following:
“In order to reach total control over each individual person, the State must pursue a divide et impera policy. It must weaken, undermine and ultimately destroy all other, rival centers of social authority. Most importantly, it must weaken the traditional, patriarchic family household, and especially the independently wealthy family household, as autonomous decision-making centers by sowing and legislating conflicts between wives and husbands, children and parents, women and men, rich and poor. As well, all hierarchical orders and ranks of social authority, all exclusive associations, and all personal loyalties and attachments – be it to a particular family, community, ethnicity, tribe, nation, race, language, religion, custom or tradition – except the attachment to a given State qua citizen-subject and passport holder, must be weakened and ultimately destroyed. And what better way to do this than to pass anti-discrimination laws!” 
As previously mentioned, cultural homogeneity is a key ingredient to sustaining a healthy civilization, thus one may conclude that multi-culturalism will have the opposite effect. This speaks to how Globalism isn’t only unlibertarian, but also impractical. Chan has this to say:
“…the paleolibertarians reject political centralization because they recognize that culture actually matters – that one cannot simply apply the non-aggression principle in blanket fashion to the entire world, or even across a large country such as America without taking regional cultural particularities into account. Such a measure can only result in irreconcilable social tension and conflict, providing a perfect opportunity for a centralized state to arise once more to “keep the peace.” That’s not to say that the non-aggression principle is faulty, of course, or that libertarianism must include more than the non-aggression principle and a working understanding of private property norms. However, it is worth noting that certain social conflicts can arise where a simple appeal to the non-aggression principle may not suffice, and in the absence of an “unwritten constitution” (i.e. a set of shared cultural values and commonly accepted social norms) may prove quite thorny.
….While it’s true that the libertarian philosophy of private property rights and non-aggression are based on an objective understanding of legal principles, one must also recognize that without being rooted in some sort of cultural tradition (as the American founding principles were) attempting to mold societies according to them is doomed to fail. People do not naturally coalesce around abstract ideas, but around concrete things such as a common culture, kinship, faith, language, and history.” 
For more on this, see Ethan Chan’s “Preserving Liberty Requires Common Culture”
This brings us to the related contemporary issue of mass Muslim immigration to the Western world. What is so disconcerting about this is not only the standard issues that come about via multi-culturalism, but that Islam in particular is especially anti-libertarian:
“Under Sharia Law, there is little to no freedom for non-Muslims and women. Non-Muslim inhabitants of an Islamic society are referred to as dhimmis, or second-class citizens. Islamic law is simply not compatible with a civilized society. Non-Muslims would have to submit to their Muslim rulers and pay them taxes. The dhimmi in the Ottoman Empire were not considered equal to Muslims and were not allowed to carry weapons or ride on top of horses or camels. Even though Christians and Jews were allowed to live in the Ottoman Empire they were severely oppressed and persecuted. The justice system under Sharia is dualistic; there is one set of laws for Muslim males and another set for women and non-Muslims.” 
Of course this begs the question: to what end are Leftists encouraging this mass immigration? The answer is quite simple: it supports their myopic political interests. Because Leftists tend to be high time preference oriented individuals, they neglect or dismiss the long term impact such immigration will have on the Western world. Orwell N’Goode expounds:
“Leftists can weaponize Islam as a battering ram to demolish the dilapidated remnants of Western values. Muslims boast a significantly higher birth rate to Westerners. Strength in numbers, within Islam, will eventually consume our valueless, nihilistic society. Furthermore, a significant proportion of European Muslims are wholly dependent on welfare. Their higher fertility often entitles them to larger state perquisites. Muslims also vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties, putting their financial or social habits beyond question in many public platforms, as their detractors are simply Islamophobic. So, in playing the long game and finally deconstructing Western values, with “the long march through the institutions” drawing its close, leftists will have a clear numerical advantage in future elections, ad infinitum. However, before a progressive utopia can be inaugurated, I predict that history will repeat itself and Islam will trump ‘progress’.” 
For more on this see Rumman Khan’s “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty Or Western Civilization” and Orwell N’Goode’s “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism”
Contrary to popular belief on the part of many libertarians and Alt-Righters, “public” property border restrictions are perfectly compatible with libertarian principles. The completely unfettered and open state border policy advocated by lolberts and left-libertarians is the one that is most far removed from libertarian principles. Rachels elaborates:
“Ironically, the completely unrestricted and ‘open State border’ position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. In contrast, the ‘invite only’ immigration restriction proposed herein is the one most in line with private property rights and libertarian principles. This is because it recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims of aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private owners of all developed or improved upon State ‘public-property’ and, as such, any uninvited foreign invader must necessarily be guilty of trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further, it takes the question of whether a particular foreigner should be welcome out of the hands of the State and places it into the hands of its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. This is a far more decentralized solution than the unconditional ‘open State border’ one.” 
Of course, this may still give Alt-Righters pause as they may believe that, according to this proposal, any domestic property owner could practically invite all the denizens of the world. However, this is certainly not the case:
“…because libertarians are in a position of having to come up with a next best solution, they must approximate how the majority of ownership shares would be voted if such a vote were allowed to take place (remember some individuals have more shares/claim than others due to their greater net tax payments or aggressive victimization by the State in question). Admittedly, one cannot predict the exact outcome of such votes hence why the solution described herein is next best and not perfect. (It is important to note that the completely open state border solution is the furthest removed from the principles of libertarian justice.)
However, one can say with near certainty that a policy of ‘anyone and everyone should have unfettered access and/or use of our joint private property (‘public property’)’ would be the most disagreeable solution for the vast majority of shares (and share holders).
Likewise, a policy of ‘any individual joint owner, regardless of the size of his claim, may invite however many people he wishes to our joint private property and have zero liability for any violations to property they may perpetrate’ would also be one of the most disagreeable policies to the vast majority of shares (and share holders). Hence, one may confidently disregard this proposal as well.
However, a policy of ‘joint owners may invite whoever they want to our joint private property, but they must first acquire liability insurance for their invitees so as to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this foreign visitor during his stay’ is likely far more agreeable to the private joint owners of so called ‘public’ property, and is one that is far more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure of individual discretion over its access.” 
For more on this, see Rachels’ “The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders”
The Compatibility of Libertarianism and the Alt-Right
As stated in the introduction, the Alt-Right is largely absent a unifying political and economic theory, as they are primarily focused on preserving traditional Western culture and the White race. This has led to the formation of many factions within the Alt-Right, some of which lean more libertarian and capitalist whilst others lean more statist and socialist. Conversely, libertarianism is exactly the inverse as Hoppe explains:
“Libertarians are united by the irrefutable theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset. They are clear about the goal that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if anything concerning these questions: First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved. And second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point. To answer these questions, in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and sociology or at least a modicum of common sense. Yet many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense. They blindly accept, against all empirical evidence, an egalitarian, blank-slate view of human nature, of all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable.
While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory.
……Given the lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise. Yet this fact should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: of how to maintain a libertarian social order and how to get to such an order from the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo.” 
What both libertarians and the Alt-Right would do well to realize is that their philosophies are complementary and symbiotic. That adopting libertarianism would greatly assist in achieving Alt-Right ends, and likewise that adopting the Alt-Right position would help in achieving libertarian ends. Libertarianism is the Yin to the Alt-Right’s Yang, so to speak. Perhaps one of the largest sources of skepticism the Alt-Right has towards libertarianism and capitalism is what they incorrectly perceive the globalist effects of international free trade to be. Chan answers this concern in the following:
“What distributists [Alt-Righters] correctly associate with globalism are the various political agreements like NAFTA and TPP which are often touted as ‘free trade deals.’ What they fail to realize about these agreements is that they are really managed trade deals involving a slew of corporate subsidies, labor and environmental regulations, all sorts of supranational infringements on national and local sovereignty in the name of “harmonization,” and sometimes even outright coercive transfers of wealth between different countries. As Hans Hermann Hoppe once said in an interview, ‘a free trade agreement only requires two sentences: Whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’
This is far from being the case with modern-day trade agreements, which are sometimes thousands of pages long, filled with many provisions like the ones mentioned above that have absolutely nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with the centralization of political power into the hands of supranational governing committees….
But what about true free trade? Would that necessarily lead to the destruction of nations and local cultures and traditions that distributists [Alt-Righters] ascribe to it? This is hardly the case, if free trade really is as simple as ‘whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’ All trade would consist purely of voluntary exchanges, with none of the coercive political arrangements involved in modern-day ‘trade deals’ that erode local sovereignty in favor of globalism. Therefore, communities, where people had a genuine interest in preserving their own culture, would face no real threat from free trade, as their in-group preferences would lead them to prioritize cultural preservation over foreign trade (for example, choosing to patronize the local businesses run by their neighbors instead of importing cheap goods from China).
As for the claim that free trade destroys jobs, Georgi Vuldzhev of the Mises Institute writes:
‘It is true that greater competition between domestic and foreign workers can lead to a decline in wage rates and possibly unemployment in some sectors of the economy. But this is only a short-term effect. Free competition between foreign and domestic producers also naturally leads to lower prices for the goods and services which can now be freely imported from abroad. So, while nominal wage rates are pushed down in some sectors, real wage rates rise overall for everyone in the economy because of the decline in prices.
Thanks to free trade, consumers spend less money on certain goods and services and this allows them to spend more money on others, which leads to rising demand and thus profits in the sectors providing the latter, and consequently leads also to more investment by entrepreneurs. This higher rate of investment naturally leads to the creation of more jobs in these sectors and thus offsets any original rise in unemployment that might have occurred.’
The rise in real wages which is facilitated by free trade, therefore, results in a lowering of time preference rates which incentivizes increased saving and investment in productive enterprises that can then create more jobs. Also, the small, local family businesses cherished by distributists [Alt-Righters] would likely become much more prominent without the competition-destroying subsidies and regulations that large corporations consistently lobby for and which are major features of the trade agreements of today. All of this would be conducive to the distributist [Alt-Right] goal of having the majority of common men possess enough capital to start their own small businesses, and to the libertarian goal of protecting private property rights.” 
For more on this, see Ethan Chan’s “Alt-Righters: Capitalism Is The Cure, Not The Disease” and Hans-Herman Hoppe’s “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration”
Likewise, much of the consumerism, materialism, and degeneracy the Alt-Right decries is an effect of Central Bank inflation, welfare, and taxes, all of which are departures from capitalism. Orwell N’Goode has this to say:
”The consumerism that drives maniacal hedonism and progressivism today can be pinpointed on our social democratic post-Keynesian economic models. As a result of graduated (progressive) taxation, inflationism, artificially low-interest rates, welfare and heavily regulated markets, individual time preferences have shifted artificially high.” 
For more on this, see Orwell N’Goode’s “Degeneracy Is A Product Of Big Government, Not The Free Market”
Political Inidividualism vs. Hyper Invidiualism
Another mistake made by left-libertarians, lolberts, and Alt-Righters alike is assuming that libertarianism somehow entails hyper-individualism. However, libertarians are only individualist insofar as they recognize the individual has final legal say over the use of his own body or justly acquired property, regardless of the will of the State or some other such collective. Chan elaborates thusly:
“One of the most common criticisms of libertarianism from conservatives and progressives alike goes something like this: ‘Libertarians want a world where everyone is reduced to an atomized, ‘free-thinking’ individual competing ruthlessly with other individuals in the marketplace in Social Darwinistic fashion, with no institutional loyalties or connections to anything beyond themselves. To the libertarian (envisioned by many as a fedora-tipping, neckbearded, militant atheist, anti-social hipster), neither family, community, nor church should have any role in society, as these are ‘authoritarian’ and ‘collectivistic’ institutions that violate the sacred libertarian tenet of individualism.’ This ‘rugged individualism,’ as the critics say, is the backbone of libertarian ideology.
But is this truly the case? One certainly might think so from talking with certain libertarians. Anyone who has been in libertarian groups for some time has almost certainly seen ‘collectivist,’ ‘authoritarian,’ or ‘statist’ used as an insult against those who either (a) advocate for culturally conservative values (even without implying support for state enforcement of those values) or (b) make some kind of generalized statement about a particular demographic. They will claim, for instance, that the alt-righters who point out disparities in average IQs between different racial groups are exactly the same ‘collectivists’ as the social justice warriors who demand that whites pay reparations to blacks for slavery and Jim Crow laws. Or they will claim that the anti-feminists who point out differences in behavioral tendencies between the sexes are guilty of the same offense as the feminists who rail against the ‘patriarchy’ and demand all sorts of special legal protections and privileges for women to overthrow said ‘patriarchy.’
….is libertarianism individualistic? And if so, in what sense? It is certainly individualistic in that it affirms the individual right to justly acquire private property and exercise exclusive control over it. If one adheres to the Austro-libertarian tradition, one also recognizes the praxeological truths that only individuals can act or think and that any sort of ‘group’ action must be understood in terms of individual actions. One might also add, based on this, that only individuals can bear moral responsibility. These axioms, when taken together, form what is referred to as ‘methodological individualism.’ This is the libertarian individualism of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe.
Then there is ‘lifestyle individualism.’ This is the type of individualism which is most often attacked by critics of libertarianism as I explained previously. They will use slogans like ‘no man is an island’ as if it were an actual argument against libertarian philosophy, believing that libertarianism is about ‘self-sufficiency’ and living off the grid. Now, to be sure, there are some self-described libertarians who advocate for this kind of lifestyle, but does the definition of libertarianism as explained above imply that such a lifestyle is inherently libertarian? Not at all. Neither private property norms nor the non-aggression principle require that one live a ‘self-sufficient’ life in isolation from the rest of society, but only that any transactions that one engages in with other people are voluntary. So we can see that appeals to the importance of community and family in no way constitute an argument against libertarian theory itself, although they might function as a legitimate criticism of certain libertarians who do not value these things.
Somewhat related to ‘lifestyle individualism’ is cultural individualism. This is the kind of individualism which is often appealed to by left-libertarians in support of feminism, multiculturalism, counterculture, and other leftist social causes. According to this view, cultural and social norms such as gender roles and the nuclear family are ‘collectivist’ and ‘oppressive’ towards the individual and should be overturned. Only when people have been ‘liberated’ from these norms and become rational, free-thinking individuals will we have a true libertarian society, they say. Furthermore, it is often claimed that making generalized statements about particular demographic groups, and especially making decisions based on such observations, is ‘collectivist’ and therefore unlibertarian. Allegedly, culture and race do not exist as these are ‘collectivist’ concepts that put people into – gasp! – groups. Hence, the desire for cultural homogeneity and cultural preservation is then seen as an affront to this sacred ‘individualism,’ which prompts many left-libertarians to reactively support cultural heterogeneity and cultural erosion instead (that is, at least when it comes to traditional Western European and Christian cultures).” 
For more on this, see Ethan Chan’s “Libertarianism Is Not Opposed To All Forms Of Collectivism”
Finally, Hoppe affirms that, regarding libertarianism, the way to transition from the realm of theory to application is to adopt and act in accordance with the Rightist conception of the world as it is:
“True enough, the libertarian doctrine is a purely aprioristic and deductive theory and as such does not say or imply anything about the rival claims of the Right and the Left regarding the existence, the extent and the causes of human inequalities. That is an empirical question. But on this question the Left happens to be largely unrealistic, wrong and devoid of any common sense, whereas the Right is realistic and essentially correct and sensible. There can be consequently nothing wrong with applying a correct aprioristic theory of how peaceful human cooperation is possible to a realistic, i.e., fundamentally rightist, description of the world. For only based on correct empirical assumptions about man is it possible to arrive at a correct assessment as regards the practical implementation and the sustainability of a libertarian social order.” 
For more on this see Hans Hermann Hoppe’s “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism”
The Way Forward: Hoppe’s Plan
With all this in mind, we may now conclude with an outline of what concrete steps must be taken in order to achieve the ends of the “libertarian Alt-Right” union proposed herein. For this task, I shall once again borrow from Hoppe so as to not duplicate magnificent effort (these steps are in no particular order of importance with exception to the first step):
One: Stop mass immigration.
Two: Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries.
Three: Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards.
Four: End the Federal Reserve and all central banks
Five: Abolish all ‘affirmative action’ and ‘non-discrimination’ laws and regulations
Six: Crush the “Anti-Fascist” Mob.
Seven: Crush the street criminals and gangs.
Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums.
Nine: Get the State out of education.
Ten: Don’t put your trust in politics or political parties.
For a more elaborate explanation of each of these steps, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”
 Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”
 Orwell N’Goode, “How Time Preferences Makes Or Breaks Civilization”
 Matthew Dewey, “Going Nuclear (Family) Against The State”
 Hoppe, “A Short History Of Man”
 Thomas Malthus, “An Essay On The Principle Of Population”
 Black’s Law Dictionary, “Defining ‘Nation’”
 Stephan Kinsella, “Covenant Communities Explained”
 Eli Harmann, “The Relationship Between Race, Culture, And A Libertarian Social Order”
 Rik Storey, “Why Libertarianism Is Unique To The West”
 Hoppe, “Realistic Libertarianism As Right Libertarianism”
 PPRI, “In Search Of Libertarians In America”
 This Is Europa, “What Is ‘White Genocide’?”
 Ethan Chan, “Saving The West & Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism”
 Orwell N’Goode, “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam And Feminism”
 Chase Rachels, “Single Mothers And Feminism Ruin Children”
 Chan, “Preserving Liberty Requires Common Culture”
 Rumman Khan, “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty Or Western Civilization”
 Rachels, “The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders”
 Chan, “Alt-Righters: Capitalism Is The Cure, Not The Disease”
 N’Goode, “Degeneracy Is A Product Of Big Government, Not The Free Market”
 Chan “Libertarianism Is Not Opposed To All Forms Of Collectivism”