They might be a bunch of 'nutters' but I don't think its sufficient to just ridicule them anymore. We need to acknowledge the danger they represent. They are probably the most intelligent on the right, because not only can they usually articulate their views well they are also very clever in disguising their racist and authoritarian views so that they can appear as being moderates, for example claiming to be non-racist because they oppose 'collectivism', although at the same time refuse to support movements like black life's matter because they refuse to recognise the existence of privilege and inequality and only believe in 'individuals'. They appeal to liberals and are a gateway for people to move to the far right.
How do we fight them, how do we expose their links with the far right, and the disguised racism which underpins their views?
I'd also like to know how the so called 'Alt right' has come about. I don't really understand the phenomena because it seems to consist of people who have views which are all over the place and contradictory, which makes it difficult to pin-point exactly what 'Alt right' means and be able to fight it.
In the States it’s a problem that’s already well out of hand considering how we have members of congress and government (people like Paul Ryan, Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul - who he supposedly did not name after Ayn Rand - Gary Johnson, etc.) who are self-described “libertarians” - of the private property type of course - and the fact that the right in North America has succeeded in redefining the word to mean pro private property and anti-state, which doesn’t help the people who use the term in its original anti-capitalist and socialist sense to get their politics across to others. I think Gary Johnson did an excellent job, however, of making a complete joke of himself during this last campaign (not knowing what Aleppo is and having an interview meltdown) and discrediting right libertarian views for most people. (Then again, Trump.) I don’t know much about the UK equivalent to the American Libertarian Party or how much of a problem right libertarianism is outside the States. (There’s actually a Wiki article that lists all the different "Libertarian” parties of every country; most of them were formed recently.)
The best way to deal with, as far as terminology goes, these right-wingers as well as people (mostly politically ignorant liberals) who unknowingly associate “libertarian” with private tyranny is to continue pointing out that “libertarian” has always been the shorthand way of saying “anarchist and socialist” and that it was originally used politically by a libertarian communist (Joseph Dejacque) in a letter to Proudhon and then in an anarchist journal, etc. If you’re dealing with “An”Caps who are the more “radical” versions of right libertarians who admire people like Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand and who want to reduce the state even further if not eliminate it altogether, merely point out that anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism and that all of anarchism’s major thinkers (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.) have supported things like workers’ control and have been against private property. Just point them to any number of introductory books on anarchism (like from Berkman, Malatesta, Guerin, Rocker, etc.) in which there’s no mention of Rothbard or Rand, or point them to how Rothbard admitted to having "[stolen] the word from our enemies":
(Rand also had contempt for the right libertarian movement of her days, correctly noting that anarchism has for the most part been "collectivist" or social:
)
Or simply point them to history like Makhno’s Black Army and the libertarian communes in Ukraine, the Spanish anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution (in which Orwell participated and wrote a book about, Homage to Catalonia), etc.
As far as content is concerned, just point to the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and the inconsistency of calling oneself a “libertarian or anarchist” but giving capitalist social relations (capitalist-worker) a free pass. After all, freedom for capital is not the same as freedom for the working class/majority of the population who don’t have access to the means of production and are forced to sell themselves to those who do in order to survive. The state or an equivalent will always be needed to combat all the anti-social effects originating from the market as well as to protect private property rights, otherwise workers wouldn’t put up with their low wages and poor working conditions, joblessness and so on, and would just take over their workplaces and begin managing them themselves. The state and capitalism have always gone together and have helped one another, so their arguments are not even worth debating or taking seriously.
I don't see what other strategy you have in mind other than directly pointing out all these facts, as well as all the flaws and inconsistencies in their ideas.