"Get out while you can." This is the message to the Alt-Right, or Dissident Right, from the Buzzfeed piece on Katie McHugh, who was fired from Breitbart in 2017 apparently due to "racist" tweets she had sent. The words are attributed to McHugh, but they may as well have flowed forth from the Pharisaic author of the piece, Rosie Gray, as they are more a threat than a warning. If you do not abandon the Alt-Right, you too could one day be paraded around like a defiled corpse by the Left... but only after you have been sufficiently tortured so that you inform on your friends.
Like Muammar Gaddafi being violently sodomized on camera before being executed and then paraded around, McHugh is put on display by Gray. There is certainly a bit of lip service paid to give the appearance of the victim being redeemed, but this has more to do with making the Left's inquisition seem just. For example, Gray describes McHugh upon their first meeting as "gaunt" and "frail" with "mottled and gray" skin, a sad figure who "seemed unable to face her full complicity in her own behavior." Gray paints a picture of a sickly creature that had crawled forth from its dungeon to meet with her. It was only months later when McHugh was ready to "take responsibility" for her actions and to "tell everything she knows" that Gray tells us she had "shone with a new vitality." In other words, by rejecting "racism" and being willing to provide texts and emails to a Pharisaic inquisitor, the penitent McHugh was visibly healthier and happier for it. But the truth is in untouched pictures, exposing her in a wig and obviously fake eyebrows, hardly an angelic vision of vitality.
For her part, Gray was the stereotypical villain that we would expect in such a story. McHugh questioned everything that the Left has been pushing on the West, and a pound of flesh had to be collected from her, which Gray and her colleagues, such as Joseph "Kill Straight White Men" Bernstein, were all too happy to collect. But there is a twist in this story, as noted by Scott Greer, as it was not by mere happenstance that this particular Pharisaic spider met this particular fly. This was not an intrepid propagandist running to ground the latest doxed dissident. Rather, McHugh was introduced to Gray by an alleged friend who intended to remain anonymous. Sadly for said "friend," however, Greer was also able to confirm that only one person had both the means and opportunity due to his divulging information that only he could have known while he actually lived with McHugh at the time.
The "friend" in question who walked McHugh to her ritual slaughter has also been known to many of the Dissident Right. He is none other than the pseudonymous PT Carlo, formerly of Thermidor, someone who has gone so far as to have allegedly threatened to dox others in the NRx should his true identity be revealed. As things rapidly unfolded, however, "PT" was revealed to be the pen name of Daniel DeCarlo, a freelance writer living in Washington, DC, with a handful of articles appearing in The American Conservative and American Greatness in 2018, relatively conservative yet still mainstream publications. Little of DeCarlo's public writings would be of any concern to the Dissident Right, but that began to change in the fall of 2018, after he had introduced McHugh to Gray and around the same time Thermidor was purged.
In September, DeCarlo wrote a piece wherein he claimed that the Founding Fathers of the US were opposed to "the ethno-nationalist position" as they supposedly believed in "the natural rights of all men ... regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class," which is, of course, ahistorical claptrap. He followed that in October with an article for the Berkley Center—alongside infamous anti-white liberals such as Dorothy Kim—alleging that the Alt-Right is largely comprised of Christians who are shallow, obsessed solely with aesthetics, and are actually at odds with Christian theology, which he says is opposed to recognizing human bio-diversity and any sort of ethno-nationalism. And, conveniently, one day after Gray's piece dropped, he published an article for the blog Mere Orthodoxy wherein he labeled the Alt-Right as the "Anti-Christian Right," advocated for censorship thereof, claimed that the Far-Right is little different than the Left, and said of the (mostly Christian) Alt-Right, "They are enemies. And must be destroyed. By whatever means available. [His emphasis]"
Consider: Is this all mere coincidence? Daniel DeCarlo introduces his roommate, Katie McHugh, to a liberal smear merchant, a Pharisee no less, in Rosie Gray. At first, it goes nowhere, but McHugh and Gray meet again in September as the former had become convinced that she should inform on others. DeCarlo then purges his pseudonymous persona, PT Carlo, and Thermidor, just before he puts out two articles under his real name: the first espousing a safe civic nationalist position, the other targeting the Alt-Right for not sharing his interpretation of Christianity. Then right as Gray's hit piece drops with information on various Alt-Right, or Alt-Right-adjacent, figures, DeCarlo runs another article doubling down against the movement, calling for the censorship and outright destruction of its members, again for not sharing his view of Christianity.
Rather than any of this being about McHugh, it seems that this is really about Daniel DeCarlo using her to place targets on some Alt-Right figures' backs while he tries to erase his own Alt-Right past so as to reposition himself as a safely neoconservative Christian journalist. Gray only made the most halfhearted of gestures towards redeeming McHugh, but she just so happened to paint a picture of her victim as moving from paganism, racism, and the Alt-Right to Christianity, anti-racism, and the mainstream, even as she flatly questioned McHugh's sincerity in that supposed transition. Gray's entire mission seems to have been using McHugh to vividly depict that false dichotomy between Christianity and the Alt-Right, and one wonders if DeCarlo and Gray actively colluded in their efforts to "other" the movement.
Whether or not they indeed colluded, their efforts have certainly born fruit. Ross Douthat of The New York Times freely accepted the narrative, saying, "One buried lede in this story: Saint Augustine still effective medicine for souls." Susannah Black, editor at Plough and Mere Orthodoxy (coincidence?), said, "'St. Augustine rescues young woman drawn to paganism' is not a story I would have expected to read on Buzzfeed. Wow." Chad Pecknold of The Catholic Herald even ran his own article based on Gray's, entitled, "Neo-paganism is at the dark heart of the alt-right movement," showing he too unquestioningly accepted the narrative. All of this is aimed at othering the Alt-Right, as though the movement is inherently at odds with Christianity, so that people will not listen to its words or heed its warnings. Everything that the Alt-Right is and stands for is to be attributed to neo-paganism, even as most of those in the broader movement are conservative Christians of one sort or another.
Thus, let us get to the heart of that argument. Is the Alt-Right inherently at odds with Christianity? Can it truly be attributed to pagan and/or modernist thoughts? DeCarlo indeed argues that believing all people are made in the image of God means that "all human beings—regardless of race, sex, intelligence or social class—share in the same divine image and are of equal worth, regardless of how much this image may be temporarily obscured in any particular case by sin." This seems fine until you realize that what he means by this is that people cannot be concerned with the benefit of their own people, or differences between their people and others such as mean IQ, or anything else of the sort, which he attributes to secularism while calling those of the Alt-Right "spiritual insects," or "bugmen." To his mind, such concerns must be tossed aside with "what is good, what is just, what is to be loved" being all that remains.
So let's apply DeCarlo's thinking to society. The Alt-Right tends to be very concerned with the state of society under liberalism, and there can be no doubt that there are some glaring correlations between race and behavior. For example, per the FBI in 2017, Americo-Africans accounted for nearly 50% of homicides despite being only 13% of the population. In New York City in 2011, in a rare case of specific reporting, it was found that 60% of homicide suspects were black and 33% were Hispanic while whites accounted for only 5%. In 2016, Americo-Africans and Hispanics accounted for 64% of new HIV infections, and, in 2017, the rate of gonorrhea among Americo-Africans was more than 8 times that of whites. According to the CDC, non-white women account for 63% of abortions in the United States, and nearly one-third of Americo-African pregnancies end in abortion. Per the National Center for Health Statistics in 2015, of those who are not aborted, 77% are born to single mothers.
According to DeCarlo, all of the above is irrelevant. If you attempt to factor such things into your politics, you are a "secular bugman" with "pagan thinking." You simply cannot define "us" according to your own people and then exclude others because their presence may not benefit your own, or because they may even be a drag on your society. As with all liberals, he views the Lord's commandments not through the personal lens but rather the global. If foreign hordes appear on your border, your people are not allowed to turn their people away because the totality of them is the neighbor of the totality of you. People hundreds or even thousands of miles away are your neighbors and are your responsibility, by proxy at least through the government. This, of course, is never applied to non-white peoples or nations as they routinely fail to help each other, and the responsibility to take in endless migrants and "refugees" falls solely on whites and the West, which DeCarlo dismisses as "farcical and reified concepts ... cast into pagan idols and worshipped as gods." In other words, DeCarlo's concept of Christianity is little different than any other form of liberal universalism.
Consider, however, Acts 17:26, "And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation." God divided mankind into the tribes and nations of this earth, and Revelation 7:9 tells us that people "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues" will be standing before the throne. The distinctions that God created are no trivial thing and are seen even unto the end of days, but people like DeCarlo would have us believe that such distinctions are little more than mere accidents and should be ignored at all costs lest they get in the way of liberal politics.
Furthermore, as 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." What is a tribe or nation but a family of families bound together by a shared cultural, ethnic, and familial heritage? As Tobit 4:13 tells us, "So now, my son, love your brethren, and in your heart do not disdain your brethren and the sons and daughters of your people by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them." There is no sin in loving and caring for your own people, but there absolutely is sin in refusing to care for your own people and for showing disdain for them.
We can also be quite certain that the Lord does not endorse the sort of liberal universalism espoused by these modernists. For example, Hosea 13:16 and Genesis 19:24-25 clearly demonstrate that a people can bear the weight of their collective rebellion against God, but we are told that it is "racist" to even recognize that certain peoples are more prone to wanton sinfulness. We are also told in Numbers 33:50-55 that the faithful are to "drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places" as any allowed to remain "shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell," but, again, this would be called "racist" and "colonialist." As Deuteronomy 17:2-5 reiterates, there is to be no tolerance for those found in the lands of the faithful who who worship false gods or idols, and this seems particularly relevant since DeCarlo accuses the Alt-Right of such worship, yet it was he, as Judas, who marked McHugh for the Pharisees.
One wonders how those who claim to speak for God reconcile, in their heart of hearts, their modernist, liberal thoughts with the Word. As DeCarlo whispered in McHugh's ear and convinced her to trust a serpent, was he thinking of James 5:19-20, which calls on us to save sinners from their errors? Did he think the blood libel to be enacted was justified because McHugh committed the imaginary sin of "racism"? As the Son said in John 8:42-44 of those whom McHugh had doubted and publicly challenged, and thus brought about her own downfall, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God ... You are of your father the devil." We are promised that He will topple the synagogue of Satan and that those found not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, but we are also supposed to accept that there is nothing more righteous than liberalism with its tolerance, even acceptance, of wanton sinfulness, public rejection of the Lord, the worship of demons, and all the rest by entire peoples because there is no greater sin than "racism."
All of this serves to bring Isaiah 5:20 to mind—"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
And Matthew 7:15-20—"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."
And John 15:18-19—"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
Look at what the modernists and liberals have wrought in the last century or two. Is society better for the spread of false religions and godlessness, the normalization of sodomy and sapphistry, the notion that men can be women and vice versa, the cancerous growth that is feminism, the subversive genocidal force that is "anti-racism," the advancement of greed and usury as economic ideals, and all the rest?
Those who do their best to obey God are hated for it, and they are lectured by those who openly reject God and those who claim to obey Him but do not.