A lot of people I've spoken to are not really alt-rights or fascists. Most of them are libertarians and ancaps at HEART. But the problem they see, and which I can agree with to a certain degree, is the choosing of two evils.
If you cannot see that there is NO WAY we will get a libertarian/ancapistanish free society, and therefore you have to chose between leftisism and alt-right, well, then the answer is pretty easy. If your choice is between preserving your race, culture and identity as a white european, or commit cultural and racial suicide, it makes sense to be alt right, right? I mean, all this insane stuff is going down RIGHT NOW. The liberterian utopia of John Galt's secret land is just so far off in time. Let's say Europe imports 200 million third worlders, we're going to be wiped out for eternity. And unless you're one of those who think that's just going to be great and we're all going to be brown(ish) and hold hands and make a new culture, well..kiss your libertarian dream good night FOR EVER. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I definitely see their point.
I hear what you are saying, but none of that matters where right and wrong are concerned. It is always wrong to advocate for policies that must by default harm an individual. Even if it is only one innocent individual harmed, and thousands saved, in theory. Being "pragmatic" carries a hefty cost. If ends indeed justify the means, then one must be prepared to become "the means," as well. If one accepts "collateral damage" (the loss of innocent life) in war to combat terrorism, then one must--if one is consistent--accept that he also may be "collateral damage" someday (or his children) if he is to remain morally consistent.
So if you consider my example then..Let's say that's what happens. Europe accepts millions upon millions of third worlders under leftist rule and destroys our culture. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but let's say that for arguments sake. Let's also say that the people that now are the majority(third worlders) have way less propability of being capable of thinking in libertarian ways (they are more prone to accept totalitarianism and government and rulers) Now we will never have freedom. Or we might, but the odds have decreased drastically. OR..we could protect ourselves from this mass invasion by implementation of non-libertarian values like closed boarders etc. Then with time work to eliminate the government (or a minarchy) and then the whole issue would be non existing. Remember TIME is a factor also.
It is always wrong to apply force to even one non-violent individual. Always. ion one compromises on this, one has no ethical or moral foundation, regardless of the hypothetical "what ifs."
So the peoples of the north in game of thrones have no right trying to keep the whitewlkers and co out? Because one of them might be a nice guy? They should just sit wait and see what happens?