A common misconceptions is that ‘freedom’ must arise from ‘liberty’, or that the two are interchangeable. Part of the problem is the false dichotomy that the absence of liberty implies the existence of oppression (liberty follows from liberation), and that the former must actively resist the latter. This leads to an endless struggle of liberty versus oppression, that never ceases, because one can keep devising new forms of oppression that liberty must ‘fight’, the result being the inexorable march to the progressive ‘singularity’.
Advocating a compatibilist view, Thomas Hobbes and David Hume postulated that free will is simply freedom from external coercion. Coercion is often justified by do-gooders under the guise of ‘maximizing liberty‘ and fighting imagined oppression, ironically leading to less of the very freedom and liberty they seek. In a libertarian sense, to be ‘free’ is be be able to act on your own volition, provided such actions don’t impede one’s autonomy or private property. Classical liberalism is correct about some things (in choosing ‘equal opportunity’ over ‘equal outcomes’, as well as support of private property) but is wrong about trying to impose its values, which are often universalist, on society, business, and in government.
Reactionaries argue that democracy, as well as constructs such as ‘liberty’, the virtues of which are often touted by mainstream politicians, are the problem, not the solution. For aforementioned reasons, reactionaries are more sympathetic to freedom than liberty, which is could explain why many on the alt-right were (or maybe a handful still are) libertarians or an-caps. But private property and autonomy alone, without a national ‘cohesiveness’, is insufficient. The pursuit and idealization of such ‘universal’ ideals are an invitation to heterogeneity, because such abstractions are not specific enough and can be applied to everyone. Biology and possibly ethnicity, however, are specific, the opposite of universal.