If the aim here is to 'persuade' the public of a libertarian agenda, by whichever means, then the basic problem, as I see it, is that we are embroiled in a paradox within a paradox. We must become less free in order to become more free. Hoppe is right in principle but wrong in practicality: the solution to the existential threat is not more liberty, but less. This arises due to a derivation from Popper's paradox: in order to create and sustain internally tolerant societies, we must be externally intolerant. This leads to a double problem for those of us, including myself, who are desirous of more liberty. We must accept that illiberal policies must be applied to those who do not share a north-western European heritage - specifically, such people must be deported en masse and denied entry - and, in order to reach the point when we can even begin to apply such policies, we must pursue illiberal policies now.
The classical and modernist liberals think that liberty and freedom are rights and the inheritance of all, simply for being human. I contend that this is nonsense because it completely ignores the ontological nature of liberty and freedom. The question must always be 'Who?', as this brings us closest to what these terms mean. Who enjoys freedom? Who can take liberties? Without that qualifier, these terms mean nothing because if everybody can be free, that is to say, equal, within a given geopolitical space, then no-one is free and we are all equally slaves. Indeed, equality itself is a deeply illiberal idea other than when applied in contingent circumstances between people of comparable ability. Freedom itself implies the existence and enforcement of boundaries between people. At the simplest level, I have possession of property on which I am free and on which no-one else may enter without reasonable cause. Any freedom I have as such dissolves when the boundaries between me and an adjoining owner are removed, indeed we cease to be 'owners'. In short, freedom cannot exist on a plane. Therefore, to a reactionary liberal like myself, liberty and freedom are only rights contingently. To be enjoyed as such, they must first be earned, and fought for and defended continuously.
The truth is that none of us, including none of us on this Forum, deserve to be free. We haven't earned it. And the plainer truth is that we're not truly free anyway, we live in a plastic facsimile of freedom. Very few of us truly stand on our own two feet, only a miniscule number of Westerners can make that claim. The rest of us are dependents and akin to overgrown children.
The public will not understand any of this, and I would argue that it is even possible that most of the public are not inherently fitted to living in a free society. Consider my comments on the Rotherham thread, where I examine what I believe to be an exemplar of Western attitudes which involve a curious blend of statism, moral prurience and sexual licence. Moral confusion reigns in our society. That is why I think that, whether you are a nationalist like me or purely a libertarian perhaps with a conservative bent, there is a case for a metapolitical approach that involves seceding from the surrounding society altogether - indeed, that would be the optimal strategy. If I was being asked what to do next, then I would propose that we all move to some remote area of Africa, Siberia or South America, or wherever, and start again, perhaps initially as an all-male colony, then later, once established, taking on women in order to proliferate ourselves and grow.
But is that practically feasible? Are there sufficient numbers of hardy, determined, independent men willing to execute such a plan? It would be in the finest traditions of western Europeans to do this, but I doubt there are the numbers.
The alternative is to play at politics. Writing essays, and other manifestations of social, intellectual and cultural struggle, is not metapolitical. You have to do what I think Dr Gabb used to do a few years ago: go out on the radio broadcasts and fight in the trenches, issue-by-issue, point-by-point, in the hope that you may build up some sort of momentum that then leads to new political developments, either micro or macro. Alternatively, you could try to infiltrate the existing political parties or start a new party.