The thing is, as authoritarian ideologies like fascism and socialism fail (and the lighter form of socialism called social democracy), there has been this new push to focus on culture, to even elevate it to primacy over the individual. In truth, this is a predictable backlash to the "neoliberal globalists", whose great evil was that they were not liberal(libertarian) at all. They used monetary policy and imposed national currencies to steal from the people while using regulations to choke off competition. While they were all for free trade, open borders, and private ownership in the economy, it didn't effectively matter. They were always able to squeeze regular working people out of their assets by ruining their money, and limiting how they can compete. As their system falls apart, they have proven all to willing to crush protesters and online media under their thumb, they have thrown liberalism(libertarianism) into the dumpster.
Unfortunately, as their system falls apart there will also likely be an unhealthy dislike of immigration and free trade, because of how the neoliberal globalists used it as a weapon against us. This is where the value of libertarian philosophy comes in. In many ways, it makes sense right now to side with the "culturalists", because they are attacking the neoliberal globalists, who happen to be our biggest threat and enemy at this time. However, we should be ready for them to take a dark turn once the neoliberal globalists fail and to soundly reject the culturalists as well.
The problem never was immigration, but instead how they were being baited up here with promises of entitlement programs in order to change democratic outcomes. The problem never was free trade, but all the regulations and monetary policy that put us at a disadvantage to China. The problem was never black communities, or people with strange gender and sexuality ideas, but how this was being shoved down our throat while we were forced to finance "woke" education, which was really just stealing capital via taxes from white hetero males for financing hatred towards white hetero males. In effect, they were trying to attack our freedoms by attacking the demographics and societies that were most sympathetic to freedoms, since they couldn't attack our ideas. But if we solve the latter problems, the former ones will solve themselves.
If you feel confident that what you have written here is a sound and empirical argument, why don't you post it into a syllogism with all your terms having been defined, and then see if your premises can be tested empirically and whether they lead logically to your conclusion.
I'm curious if you can do that. If you can show where the argument is in this post, I will honesty criticize myself and see where I went wrong in 10 years of studying arguments that yours completely slipped past me.
Thanks and I look forward to understanding this post more with your help :)