The Alt Right is the most decentralized and libertarian political movement in America today. There's no shortage of people in any camp who disagree with me, but I think we would be making a big mistake to take this fact for granted or reject it outright.
Libertarians can't disagree with me without diminishing the system of ethics on which their own positions stand. The Alt Right can't disagree with me without ceding the moral high ground, the importance of which can't be overstated given that white people don't rally around any cause (even their own continued existence as an individuated race of people) unless they have moral certainty.
Libertarians will obviously object and say that everyone on the Alt Right is socialist. To them I say the following:
We live in a world where immigration and territorial defense are monopolized by the government. When one inspects the details of these government programs, it becomes plainly obvious that "free movement" is just a euphemism for unlimited trespass and forced inclusion. Libertarians define socialism as institutionalized trespass, but no form of institutionalized trespass is more destructive than what is euphemistically called "free movement" because physical conflict is always maximized when no one is allowed to exclude anyone else.
It's true that some people on the Alt Right are socialists, but socialism isn't what unifies the Alt Right. The Alt Right is loosely unified by the belief that access to white people, white communities, and white nations is not a human right, and that white people shouldn't be forced to include or fund the importation of anyone who isn't part of their ethnic group.
Not only is this not at odds with the libertarian private property ethic, it's not even unreasonable. If libertarians don't believe in unagreed-upon positive rights or forced wealth transfers, why would they make an exception for uninvited latecomers who believe that they are entitled to access white people, their communities, and their nations?
How many white families need to organize and live in proximity to each other before they lose the prerogative as self-owners and property owners to exclude people who aren't part of their group? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand? A million? Where do you draw the line? Who made you their central planner? If it's a matter of quantity and not principle, what would stop you from ransacking the homes of white families on grounds that there isn't enough diversity within them?
Domestic, white taxpayers have been forced by the government to fund their own demographic displacement through chain migration for decades, the cost of which is now in excess of $300 billion a year and 60 million extra, uninvited people. Our children are born in more debt than they will ever be able to pay so that they can be dumped in public schools where they are taught that they shouldn't reproduce because of global warming; that they're responsible for all of the world's problems because of slavery, racism, and colonialism; that they're obligated to permit the invasion of their country and the destruction of their inherited wealth by millions upon millions of non-white welfare shoppers because they were born with the Original Sin of white privilege.
There is no valid libertarian justification for this. If the roles were reversed and American whites were exploiting government immigration, education, and social programs in foreign countries, raiding their treasuries, radically shifting their demographics, and burdening their children with national debt, you'd never hear an end to the complaints about colonialism, gerrymandering, and gentrification.
Some people on the Alt Right will object with my original point by saying that libertarianism can only work in a white society, or that libertarianism can be used to justify social degeneracy and open immigration. To them I say the following:
It may very well be true that a libertarian society would necessarily be majority or exclusively white. It's also true that there are people who wrap themselves in libertarianism as though it were a more important part of their identity than their family, race, gender, ethnicity, or nationality, but their pseudo-libertarian identitarianism doesn't diminish the validity of a libertarian system of ethics rooted in private property norms and the non-aggression principle. In fact, it is this system of ethics which gives rise to the Castle doctrine, the legitimacy of self and national defense, and the right of self-determination of white people. We don't need to unify around this system of ethics but we shouldn't dispense with it because it's impossible to argue against without lapsing into self-contradiction, and because it proves we have the moral high ground.
Now, it's ALSO true that there are people who use libertarianism as a means by which to justify degeneracy, but those people are just playing Talmudic word games in an attempt to force the social costs of their actions onto other people via the state. I could go into further depth on this but it's probably beyond the scope of this piece, and I'd probably only be preaching to the choir and beating a dead horse anyway.
We don't have to get into purity spirals with party Libertarians or libertines about who the real libertarians are because we're not trying to prove that libertarianism is part of our identity. Likewise, it's not like we're trying to prove that we're the real communist post-modernists when we use Rules for Radicals against the AnComs and SJWs.
But if we're willing to use Alinsky's work against the reds, we should likewise be willing to use Hoppe's work against the Libertarian Party, the libertines, the agorists, the left-libertarians, the mutualists, and the plethora of Koch funded "libertarian" think tanks and community organizers who Orwellianly attempt to use libertarianism as a cudgel against white nationalists and pro-white advocates.
They do not have the moral high ground, and they are not revolutionaries. They are the anti-white shock troops of the very deep state they claim to oppose.
