I want to make something clear.
Libertarianism and national socialism refer to methods of conflict resolution. The former is limited to the scope of settling property disputes and keeping the peace whereas the latter depends on some degree of expropriation, monopolization, and institutionalized trespass against private property for the purpose of stimulating industry and social spending.
They can both be used to justify white nationalism, but they’re both equally insufficient as the basis of group identity because the identity of a group can’t be reduced solely to the method by which the group addresses physical conflicts.
When I say that I’m a libertarian, I don’t mean that I organize or associate with people on the basis of some shared libertarian ideology. I don’t even identify as a libertarian first. In reality, I identify, organize, and associate with people on the basis of genetic, cultural, and physical proximity, all of which are upstream from public policy. When I say that I’m a libertarian, I just mean that I prefer libertarian property norms as a means by which to avoid and address property disputes between myself and people who prefer law and order because such norms minimize conflict and maximize standards of living when people agree to abide by them.
People who don’t agree to abide by the libertarian property norms of first use and consensual exchange should be excluded from appealing to the non-aggression principle in their own defense when state violence is used against them.
And state violence should be used against them. It’s almost perfectly consistent with libertarianism to use state violence against people who reject the non-aggression principle. The only real victims in such cases are the taxpayers who are forced to incur the associated costs, though their tax burden would probably still be less than if such malcontents were allowed to freely trespass within their countries.
I know I’d certainly look at mass deportations as tax money well spent.
Christopher @Cantwell asks libertarians: What has the non-aggression principle done to prevent parents from being forced to hire mentally unstable gender confused dickgirls as teachers for their children? The answer, of course, is nothing. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful; it just means it doesn’t prevent conflicts when people don’t agree to adhere to it. It only works when the other person reciprocates. That’s why people who don’t adhere to it must not be allowed to appeal to it in their own defense.
In reality, rights are not “inalienable”. They’re normative. They’re established to avoid and address conflicts over the use of human bodies and the physical resources those bodies employ. They necessarily depend on a natural reciprocity that only tends to exist in high trust, homogeneous white communities. Libertarianism is thus implicitly white nationalist.
Also covered: South African white genocide, campus epidemic of anti-white hatred, and more!