Video in question can be found here.
Stefan lays out a nice gateway argument for normies to reach alt-right policy positions without explicitly advocating for alt-right theory or ideas. And of course we welcome cooperation with libertarians who want to close the borders and secure white demographics in the name of limited government and freedom. But it is important to take this opportunity to distinguish what makes our ideas different from (and we would argue superior to) the libertarian analysis of modern political realities.
The differences here are two-fold: 1) A fundamental difference in heuristics, 2) A fundamental difference in values. I will conclude with an important yet rarely discussed idea in alt-right philosophy: the Kosher Sandwich.
Stefan has a very clear heuristic for explaining political motivations. It is all about the state. All the insidious and destructive policies we see today are the consequence of the establishment seeking more wealth and power through expansion of government control.
Now, most of us on the alt-right have important "red-pill" milestones in our intellectual development. And I will briefly describe one such red-pill moment of my own because it is relevant to the discussion at hand.
When I was a normie/libertarian, I always used to take pride in the fact that I had "principled" positions. I started with fundamental values and principles (in this case "freedom" or "limited government") and used those principles to determine where I stood on various social and economic issues. I value freedom, so I favor legalization of drugs. I value freedom, so I favor reduced taxes. I value freedom, so I oppose gun control. I value freedom, so I am anti-war and anti-conscription. The principles and fundamental values are primary and determine individual policy positions. Policy is downstream from principles.
I used this simplistic principled approach to feel superior to the unprincipled liberals and conservatives, but the liberals in particular. It was seemingly contradictory and baffling the positions the Left would take... Pro-feminism, pro-LGBT, but also pro-Islam? Pro-freedom when it came to drugs and sex, but anti-freedom when it came to guns and religion? Pro-identity politics when it came to non-whites, but anti-identity politics when it came to whites?
A major red-pill moment for me came when I was talking about all these seeming contradictions in the Leftist principles, discussing how illogical and unprincipled all these Leftist positions appeared to be on the surface. But someone said something very important that changed my thinking forever: "Well, they do have a single principle. All of their positions are anti-white."
This was a shocking idea to me. I put the Left's behavior through this new heuristic, a primary anti-white motivation, and suddenly all the things that made no sense at first began to make perfect sense. When I stopped viewing things through a lens of abstract philosophical ideals and looked at politics through the lens of ethnic tribalism and race, suddenly all the apparent contradictions vanished, and there was a clear agenda, a clear motivation, a clear theme to all the apparently contradictory positions of the Left. If you are anti-white, you push feminism, and LGBT, and Islamic immigration, and there is no contradiction there... because all these policies are basically anti-white.
So, I know I'm not going to change anyone's fundamental understanding of the world in ten minutes. I simply want to plant a seed here, to suggest keeping in mind two opposing heuristics for explaining and understanding the world. Stefan's heuristic is that the main motivation at play is state power and wealth. The alt-right heuristic is that the main motivation is the undermining of white identity and traditional white values (family, religion, morality, etc.). All I ask is that when you analyze the world and events within it, you try and apply both heuristics, and see which one more often makes better sense of the situation at hand. I think you will slowly realize the anti-white heuristic actually does a much better job of explaining what is otherwise inexplicable in both Leftist and cuckservative behavior.
The libertarians have made a very strong case for the benefits of freedom and limited government. And I actually agree with them on most of these points, being a former libertarian myself. But I would argue today that valuing race is actually far more effective and achieves far more benefits than the abstract ideal of freedom.
First of all, Stefan himself lays out the fact that if you value freedom, you must take race into consideration. And this is an incredibly telling admission from any libertarian. I would argue it is evidence that from the very start the libertarians are getting things backwards, because by their own admission you cannot have their great ideal of freedom without valuing race.
What the alt-right has recognized is that valuing race is a better proxy for *all* positive ideals than valuing the abstract ideals themselves. Because with freedom you only get freedom. It doesn't ensure a cohesive society, a safe society, a productive society, a high-trust society. Placing the emphasis on race is the most efficient proxy for all these ideals we value, including freedom. After all, you could give the Somalians freedom, but they will still be Somalians, they will still be murdering each other in the streets. You could give a diverse society freedom and limited government, but it would still be disjointed and dysfunctional, and freedom would naturally degrade over time as these naturally distinct tribes compete for power. The simplest way to have all our values satisfied is to value race itself above all else. Our values and culture are downstream from race (and not vice versa as Stefan suggests).
But really this is my alt-right appeal to libertarians, because the true alt-right position goes even further than this. We would argue race itself is more valuable than any of these abstract ideals, including wealth, freedom, safety, or anything else. And this is difficult for most deracinated individualists to understand, so we must offer an analogy to make the position clear. You will always value your own child over the neighbors child, regardless of how your child measures up in comparison with objective metrics like school grades, or athleticism, or physical attractiveness. You love your child more because it is your child, and it is this basic familial, tribalist instinct which ultimately defines the alt-right and its philosophy.
The Kosher Sandwich is a piece of alt-right theory which does not receive nearly enough attention, and so will be extrapolated upon here. The basic idea of the Kosher Sandwich is that the Jewish elite have essentially sandwiched the two competing normie political options between two fundamentally Jewish ideologies.
If you go to the Left, you end up with communist anarchism and/or cultural Marxism, which are quite clearly Jewish ideologies which undermine traditional Western (white) nations and values. The bigger problem is that the "safe" alternative posed, the opposite end of the spectrum which is advocated by the Jewish elites to oppose Marxism, is simply the other side of the Jewish ideological coin: neoliberalism, individualism, and anarcho-capitalism.
It is no cohencidence that all the top intellectuals of the libertarian movement were Jewish (Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, Mises). Individualism is safe for the Jew, because it undermines white collectivism and white nationalism, and thus undermines the threat of collective white opposition to blatant Jewish ethnocentrism. Unfettered capitalism is safe for the Jew, because they can thrive in a "free market" by applying ethnocentric nepotism amongst a deracinated and rootless base population. Neoliberal, internationalist capitalism achieves the same destruction of race, family, and traditional morality sought by the Marxists, and is arguably even more effective in this regard than the Left. The white libertarians who value freedom and individualism above all else are contributing just as much to the destruction of white peoples, nations, and values, (if not more so) than the Marxist Left.
So the white normie is only offered two socially acceptable political positions: Jewish Marxism (which undermines white identity and values), or Jewish Neoliberalism/Libertarianism (which undermines white identity and values). It's two sides of the same coin at the end of the day. And it is the fact that the normie views these two Jewish ideologies as the opposing ideological extremes which is the truly insidious yet clever trick played on the goy.
The alt-right offers the only true alternative to our modern clown world: Positive white identity, ethnic nationalism, traditional values, the family unit, cohesive communities, rejection of materialism (both capitalist consumerism and Marxist communism). In no other place will we find salvation.