As a dedicated cosmotarian who is often troubled by my paleolibertarian "allies," I nonetheless can't see anything redeeming in this article whatsoever.
How does it support its own headline? What is Trump's "racialized rhetoric" other than border hawkish talk? Paleolibertarians are not the inventors of border hawk rhetoric.
Maybe we could say that the alt-right is frequently "racialist" and that a lot of former paleolibertarians have drifted toward the alt-right, who in turn usually support Trump. That's about the extent of it, and good riddance to those "libertarians," I'd prefer an alliance with moderates like what we're getting with Johnson/Weld 2016.
But the article, of course, goes on to lump all libertarians alongside this minority of paleolibertarians. Reason Magazine? That's the cosmotarianest publication there is. The idea that they wanted Apartheid is
ridiculous, and even if they had, there's no way that would have influenced the alt-right Trump supporters. There are no connections here.
Also, what is with OP mentioning the Tea Party? The Tea Party was never consistently libertarian, paleolibertarian, or whatever. Its supporters did not consistently support any particular candidate. It really doesn't fit this narrative at all.
