It's a weird set of circumstances. "Alt-right" was a vague label that had a ton going for it. Just reading it, you think "an alternative to the existing right." It picked up immense momentum in 2015-16, and bridged a lot of divides. What set everything in motion was Milo posting an article which set out to define the alt-right. Really, it was a pretty fair article when it comes to describing the thing as it was at the time of publishing. Now, ironically, Anglin saw that article as an attempt to gate-keep, and in turn, he published an article which was more prescriptive. The article took a hard-line approach, demanding that the alt-right be explicitly anti-Trump's Chosen and pro-white. He made a point of excluding people such as Milo (fag one of Trump's Chosen People), and made the point that the label must be defended. The irony is that, a few years hence, the label would become tantamount to plain-old "nazi," and Anglin would make the move toward "America First," arguing that the enemies of white people are inherently America-haters, and the response would be to be pro-American and present as regular people. Yet, in doing so, he divided much of the former alt-right, and his article had been the main impetus of excluding fellow travelers from using that label, leading to its being abandoned by virtually everyone. He effectively managed to halve the alt-right itself, ruin that label, and then halve what remained a second time.
In fairness to him, the first halving was just about solely comprised of grifters, and the second halving was probably a mix of grifters and feds. But then again, it's hard to see the pushing of Christianity as anything other than grift. In the end, hopefully he's right and this lockdown nonsense causes major societal collapse. But really, the idea that people are going to share his articles because he doesn't have a section dedicated to "the Trump's Chosen problem" is laughable.
