This is almost as straightforward as the name sounds. To me, it is the application of the core themes of Stoic philosophy—some such can be found in Meditations by M. Aurelius—to the Christian faith. As such, I do not believe that this is exclusive to a particular denomination or current of Christianity; rather, anybody who understands the Gospel message is apt for the application of Stoicism to their understanding of life on earth.

So, what does this necessarily involve? To note, I will readily admit that, whilst I am not an Orthodox Christian, said faith has been a forerunner is applying this perspective to its faith. The connotation that life is necessarily involves swings of pain, loss, debasement, and suffering in some form or another must lead us down a path of inward reflection, humility, honesty, and righteousness—to note, virtue. Whilst it is very true that we cannot control when these things will happen to us, it is correspondingly true that what we can control is our response to it: do we become sorry and bent out of shape at the first unfortunate instance, or do we stand upright and respond to it with somebody who is certain? To the Christian, this means an absolute faith in God, including His work and promises of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.

In short, that is how I apply Stoicism to my Christian faith.

Agarianism.

There is not a huge amount to say on this section apart from the fact that I earnestly believe in the superiority of the rural life, including the rural community and its corresponding developments. Much of what can be found there today is, to my understanding, still vastly superior—albeit not as much as it has the potential to embody—to the life found within the large cities.

Palaeo-libertarianism.

Palaeo-libertarianism, much like palaeo-conservatism, implies and asserts a traditionalist element to the philosophy; it thus stands in contrast to the modern-day adherents, viewing them as disenfranchised and, therefore, victims to a modernist narrative; in this sense, they are useless.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., long-considered the pioneer of palaeo-libertarianism, wrote in a short piece that: Freedom isn't enough—we need tradition, including a bourgeois mentality, social authority, cultural strength, etc.—, we do not need state authority—we need social authority, and thus a natural, evolutionary, and voluntary form of coercion—, we need to remove the narrative of egalitarianism—in favour of just, natural hierarchies promoted via meritocracy; the list continues. (If you wish to read in detail, see the latter link for the full piece. It weighs in at five pages, so would take about fifteen minutes to read from beginning to end.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030746&forum_id=2#36463541)