The Deterioration of the Anti-Semitic Website Alternative Right

The new logo for the Alternative Right website is a simplified black and white text. The original imagery was much better: gold and black text with a forest as the background suggesting the writers' attempts to guide us, its readers, out of the maze of trees and branches.

The founder of the original site, Richard Spencer, wrote that he wanted an aesthetically superior quality to his website. For a while, he delivered this aesthetic and intellectual vision. Then, it deteriorated (see article below).



This new stark black and white logo emphasizes the dripping blood that had always been part of the logo. Is this racial blood? Blood of the ancestors? Blood that will get spilt?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I continue to research group blogs and websites. A while ago, I used to read a blog that rose quickly and gained prominence called Alternative Right. I then got disillusioned by its far-right homosexual contributor Jack Donovan (I wrote about him here and here), and a Canadian woman who stresses her Russian background although she had left Russia as a young teen-ager. A writer who was clearly a white supremacy supporter, Alex Kurtagic (he has his own website here, and his book is advertised at a Nazi site, I**r**o**n**s**k**y**p**u**b**l**i**s**h**i**n**g - I'm writing it this way so that I don't get unwanted emails from that group to my site. Remove the asterixes, and search for the three-word title in google to find the site), was also one of the authors. At some point, Richard Spencer, the site's founder, began to make it clear that he doesn't like Jews. In fact, here is commentary on him at Larry Auster's site, where I sent in my skepticism about the site, and specifically about the "Russian-Canadian" contributor Nina Kouprianova, who also happens to be Spencer's wife (these are no real conservatives, or right-wingers. They populate the usual liberal world of wives keeping their own names, and husbands insipidly standing by).
The discussion at the View From the Right under "Richard Spencer and the Eternal Jenin" revealed the anti-semitism of the site:

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I may be reading this wrong, but here is a writer at Alt-Right, who presents herself as “a proud Muscovite” via Canada, who is promoting a fellow-Russian’s Armageddon view of the imminent collapse of America. Every time I read Alternative Right (hardly at all these days), there is nothing traditional (radical or not) or Western about their thoughts. What an odd site.
To link this with this entry, I think anti-Israelism is anti-Americanism at its core.

LA replies:

I think you’re onto something. Let’s look at this way. What are the two main targets of the Muslims? Israel (the Little Satan) and America (the Great Satan). And what are the two main targets of the international left? Israel and America. And what are the two main targets of the paleocons/Alt-Rightists? Israel and America. At this moment The American Conservative and Alternative Right are effectively supporting Hamas against Israel. As I said in another current entry, at a certain point many of the anti-Israel paleocons are going to realize their identity with Hamas and the international left, and consciously embrace it.

Richard Spencer has disappeared from the face of the internet world. The hundreds of articles and posts published at the original site have also disappeared. Some form of an Alternative Right site still continues, but is being run by other members, and has had a considerable make-over. It has been chiseled down to a bare minimum, and few of the original writers remain. A dubious, far-right sympathizer Alex Kurtagic is still there. And there's a recent article up titled "A Tale of Two Bitches" by Andy Nowicki, which leaves me wondering who would read such an article (I read the first lines, and it appears to be about feminists), and who would continue to read a website after such an article appears in its pages. Not me.

Richard Spencer and his Canadian-Russian wife have disappeared from the social commentary scene. But I suspect the ever-renewing Spencer will reappear in some other guise (an author?). His wife continues with her original field of expertise, graphic design. She has put up a site, with her full (Russian name) on display.

I think that "hate" sites exhaust their readers and their writers. The many (too many) fund raising drives that Spencer undertook at the original Alternative Right never helped to materialize it into a long-term project.

But, I don't think it is simple financial losses that caused this abandonment. Spencer gambled with his ugly beliefs, and as they started to come to the surface, his readers, and writers, eventually left. I wrote in 2010:

If [the Alternative Right] keeps this up, the magazine will be confined to a narrow (and ugly) niche - like Stormfront.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Morality based on what?

Richard Spencer
"We Own the Alt-Right."

The Milo Phenomenon is now all over the news:

The obscene, sodomy-celebrating, and nasty provocateur; rising GOP star; and Breitbart contributor, Milo Yiannopoulos, was recently invited to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Fortunately, his invitation was quickly rescinded when an interview with Joe Rogan from ten months ago came to light in which Yiannopoulos gleefully recounted performing a sex act on a Catholic priest when Yiannopoulos was 14-years-old–a sexual act that Yiannopoulos insisted did not constitute pedophilia.
[Full article here]

Alt-Right[1] founder Richard Spencer has posted his commentary on Milo Yiannopoulos who used to be (or still is?) a follower of Spencer's Alt-Right movement. The video is at Altright.com's youtube page under: Milo Goes Up in Flames.

Below, I've excerpted from the long commentary (25 minutes long) on the points where Spencer discusses in moral terms the perverted sexual behavior of Yannopoulos.

As a side note, I have wondered why Spencer spent a rambling 25 minutes to discuss Yiannopoulos. I believe it is because of his inability to make a moral judgment on Yiannopoulos' behavior, and therefore his roundabout way to try to deem the behaviour as unacceptable. It is one thing to recognize the moral (or immoral) nature of someone's behaviour, it is quite another to judge it right or wrong.

I list and discuss the excerpts below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from the commentary:

- What Milo is saying..."is totally indefensible."

- "Speaking as a father, I just simply cannot abide what he said. Milo just needs to recognize the fact that no normal person is going to accept what he said. It makes our stomachs turn."

- "The fact is this [pedophilia rings that Yannopoulos was privy to] is criminal. This is not OK legally speaking."

- "Look the fact is, if you witness something like that...you're legally and morally at the very least, I'm not a lawyer but you are at the very least morally obligated to say something and to try to stop that, or at the very least to take that information to the authorities."

- "This is just not acceptable. No-one is going to defend Milo. I'm sorry Milo no-one is going to defend you on this."

- "When someone is being attacked and there's a scandal, I almost want to defend them, because I know just how unfair the media is. I faced this myself with Hailgate. Everyone knows the punching incident, and I appreciate the people who defended me."

- "If this were any other scandal, I would not pile on. I do not like piling on. But in this case you, I have to pile on."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 25-minute recording, Spencer vacillates between legal obligations, fatherly responsibilities (he has a toddler daughter), societal decorum, the unfair media, and normal behavior. Authorities (law and order), legality (lawyers and judges), normality (what one doesn't do in civilized society, at least publicly) are the issues he brings up in an attempt to explain why it is wrong to have pedophilia rings. He tries to frame his responses around morality or moral obligations, but he never specifies what morality and what moral obligations.

Spencer's hurt feelings of being insulted by the media ( "I know just how unfair the media is"), as though the media are really the cause of his and rejections, is the narcissistic reaction of someone who has no-one else to turn to but himself. "They attacked me because they are unfair (and evil)" says the narcissist, rather than search for something wrong in his approach.

Spencer is an atheist. As an atheist, there is nothing that tells him, other than his own perceptions, logic and observations, and societal "norms" what is moral and what is not moral.

Below is an excerpt from on a recent interview Spencer had regarding his atheism.

From The Friendly Atheist Blog at Patheos[2]:

Spencer has previously described himself (8:12) as a “cultural Christian,” but he told me in a private interview (over Twitter) that he is in fact an atheist. He also said the separation of church and state is “an utter illusion.

”Here’s an excerpt from the discussion:

McAfee: Are you religious? Do you support the Separation of Church and State?
Spencer: I’m an atheist. The “separation of church and state” is an utter illusion. The state and religion state [sic] deeply connected.
McAfee: So, despite your lack of religion, you do think religion and government should be connected. Is that right? Do you think a secular government would fail?
Spencer: A truly secular government could never exist. Sovereignty is a magical thing. For a political order to function — for it to accomplish its tasks, including war-making — the population must *believe* in it.

Why is pedophilia immoral? What is wrong with loving little children? After all pedophiles can argue that their behavior is a form of love. Unless it is a "rapist pedophile," most pedophiles are attracted to one (or two or three) children and maintain long term interactions with them. The young children become attached to them.

Legally society can decide that having sex with 5 year old children (who can say "yes" and "no," and make decisions) is perfectly acceptable and that it is not a crime.

Spencer is repulsed by pedophilia as a father of a young daughter. That is his frame of reference: disgusted with - and ready to tackle - anyone who would approach his child thus. What about men who don't have children? From what depths are they to channel the emotion of repulsion of a man having sex with sons or daughters who are not theirs? And how about fathers of older children? In fact, most fathers are protective (both of their daughters and sons) way into the children's adulthood, and only marriage gives them the peace of mind that their son or daughter isn't being "abused."

Society is held together not just by legal codes but by spiritual references. Spencer and the growing number of atheists are counting on a Christian society that produced these laws, behaviors, and civilized relationships, and that maintains (or can maintain) a functioning and good society. Laws, since they deal with right and wrong, and have a moral basis, have to be based on a spiritual reference. In Spencer's ideal world, such laws to protect him and his family would exist in a world without God, but he would not discard the Christian spiritual framework. Such is the hypocrisy of atheists: they will acknowledge some authority higher than man when they are threatened by nefarious forces. In Spencer's case, it is the realization that there is a pedophile out there advocating sex with children as young as his own daughter.

I've written about this here, here, here, here, and here.

I write in In Defense of Judeo-Christian Tradition::

It is unprecedented that people come outright and say "I am not religious." Previous generations wouldn't even know how to articulate these thoughts. What is even more irritating is the "but" that many of these people add. "Although not religious, I’m a defender of the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition." What does that even mean? As in "I will abstain from participating in one important element of Western tradition, but I will support it anyway?"

People can be overwhelmed by the beauty and poetics of the Bible, just as one can admire the poetry of Shakespeare. But, how can they, if they are so drawn to this book, not feel the mystery and transcendence of it as well? Where does that "tremendous literary achievement" lead to? Just for us to feel its tremendous literary achievement? Isn't there just something a little more than that?

Such is the ways of our modern world, where atheists sit around talking about the literary achievements of the Bible, as though they are great connoisseurs, and yet not have an ounce of reaction to its bigger picture.

It is Christianity which firmly and soundly built the society that was able to remove pedophilia from its midst, and which carved the laws which could punish the transgressors (the criminals).

Like all atheists, Spencer is an cultural opportunist. He latches on to what would make his life, his milieu, his relationships humane. The world created through God is good as long as one can get rid of pedophiles who would prey on one's daughters, but there is no logic to God's existence and therefore there is no God.

Here are a few of the infantile (I'm not denigrating Spencer here, I am just saying that his arguments are based on some kind of immature grievance that "God didn't answer my prayers"):

- Atheism offers the best explanation for the physical forces that cause natural disasters.

- Atheism offers the best explanation for the presence of unjustified pain and suffering in the world.

- Atheism offers the best explanation for God's silence in the face of adversity.

- Atheism offers the best explanation for divine hiddenness.

And so on. The full article (twelve points in all) is here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. Alt-right is a term that appeared in November 2008 when Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right". In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the 'alternative right.' The term is commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right magazine.

The alternative right has alternately been called libertarian nationalism, "neo"-paleoconservatism, "evolutionary" conservatism, "scientific" conservatism, and the post-religious right. [Conservapedia]

2. Patheos is a non-denominational, non-partisan online media company providing information and commentary from various religious and nonreligious perspectives. [Wikipedia]

Sunday Post: Smoking Out the Heavy Sinners

1 Corinthians 6:9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

OK, it is Sunday and I try to refrain from blogging on matters not related to Sunday.

But who said that humor (or laughter) was not allowed on a Sunday?

Here is Alt Right Duke Richard Spencer in an existential mood, according to MAGA DOG (which of course Spencer promptly "retweeted.")

Maybe it has to do with him moving in with his mother after his fame and wealth whittled away.

Or that his Russian spy "wife" (who COULD be a man given Spencer's history) is not around to console him (either way...). See here for more (Part Dvah).

Or that he owes a lot of money and cannot even come up with the payment for a lawyer to get him out of some situation which could just be a scam for cash.

Here is some moral support on twitter for his Morrissey pose:

BringBalanceNow ⚖️
‏Replying to @MAGA_DOG_2020 @RichardBSpencer
Morrissey.

@SexyCentrist
Replying to @MAGA_DOG_2020 @RichardBSpencer
fat?

Yes, Morrissey is a pretty good resemblance, LOL. He's the homosexual "New Wave" pop star who sang "Girlfriend in a Coma" in the 1980s with his band The Smiths. A comatose girlfriend is perfect for The Gays. That was before I was fine tuned to smoking out homosexuals, and liked his music (I had the cassette).

"Why Do They Hate Us?"

National Policy Institute director Richard Spencer speaks at the 2015 American Renaissance conference about political persecution he faced in Budapest, Hungary, and Whitefish, Montana. He traces anti-white attitudes to deep-seated feelings of guilt and shame. “Whites,” he says, “have a special capacity to become their own worst enemy, a unique ability to inflict guilt on themselves.”

[Transcript]

Blowing Up Christmas

Satan is ever present. He lurks where we are happiest and thus least vigilant. That is a fault and a great error.

Christmas is a celebration, but like Mary and her family, we have to travel cautiously.

Here we have the great answer to America's ills, the "alt-right" movement (who ever started a movement with abreviations?) blowing up a Christmas tree. OK, it is not a nativity, but they're treading water carefully. Next year...

I tried to read the discussion posted under the image titled:

The crew of Alt-Politics discuss Christmas, Paganism, childhood, and their experiences of the holiday.

Yep they said it: the "P" word.

I wasn't allowed in unless I signed up, when they would clearly block me.

Here's more:

Richard Spencer is American Editor of AltRight.com; he’s President of The National Policy Institute and founder of RadixJournal.com.

appears at the bottom of the image. "American" editor? So much for localism, so much for America. Here we have a global movement growing its horns.

They just want us to have a general idea of what they're up to. So that we're not completely surprised.

HO! HO! HO!

Figuring Out Where Nina Kouprianova's Loyalties Lie

Nina Kouprianova: Russian Spy?

The wife (estranged?) of the atheist Richard B. Spencer, Nina Kouprianova, writes extensively on Russia and has a twitter handle where she calls herself Nina Byzantina‏.

Her biography tells us that she left Russia as a young teenager and she attended high school and university in Canada, and lived in Canada before moving to the States, where she now resides. For all practical purposes, she is a Canadian/American.

It is odd that she devotes so much of her time on Russia. She seems to be presenting herself as some kind of spokeswoman for Russia, but it looks more like a glorification of the country. Why, as a Canadian/American, does she invest so much of her time on Russia? In her interviews, she talks about her expertise and academic knowledge on the subject. But her link to Russia seems more than academic (or theoretical). Her cultural and personal commentary shows that she is more than a detached observer. So what happens when things settle down in Russia (or the Ukraine)? Will she make the personal investment and move there, and live there, as a Russian? These are innocuous enough questions, but there are some asking about her Russian ties. She has previously "relocated" to Russia in 2009 to do research for her doctoral dissertation (which she completed in 2012) titled: "Revolution, Tradition, and Modernity: Russian Consumer Advertising in the Era of NEP [New Economic Policy]."

She wrote a fascinating article in the journal The Soul of the East in 2014 which she titled "Being Who We Are."

She writes as a bona fide Russian:

We will also have to examine our recent past, since we were considered a stronghold of the “global Left” in the 20th century. It would be most logical to treat the Soviet era precisely as a period in history. Otherwise, there is the impression that Lenin and Stalin are still alive ruling our lives on a daily basis. It is time to leave necropolitics behind.

The latter will help us stop looking for cravings toward Tradition, faith, and hierarchy in the Communist Party’s congresses and speeches of leaders.

Here is a photograph she took while in Russia dated on her website as 2013. It is the Ivan the Great Bell Tower, which dates back to the early 16th century.

Kouprianova is all about Russia.

I think Kouprianova's story is the usual story of contemporary immigrants who cling to their "native," past however remote it may be, and instigating the consequent, steady, erosion of European (Anglo or Franco) cultures in the US and Canada to promote their own.This is natural and desirable, but BACK IN THEIR OWN NATIONS.

But, Kouprianova has been "hijacked" by the Russian government, naively or not, (I think - strongly - the latter) , which various medias sources have noted (1, 2). And to give a "fair and balanced view," this (conservative) website calls her a Russian nationalist. Again, how can an American citizen be identified as a "Russian nationalist?"

Western Europe has historically associated cautiously with Russia. The formidable country is hard to classify as East or West, and really should hold its own geopolitical label. Russia can be an ally of the West, but it will always, and primarily, be Russian. This, I think, is what current political leaders are "confused" about. Putin will side with whomever will make him strong. And he may go beyond personal power and delve into deeply seated patriotic feelings for his country to make his decisions, but we don't know this. He may still be all about brute force.

I think that is the same context within which Kouprianova presents her commentaries and opinions. But she goes a step further and presents Russia as the promoter of white Western Europe. In this 2009 Taki Magazine article she writes:

[F]or those concerned with the “Death of West,” some comfort can be found in the fact that what is taboo in western Europe and America [promoting a blond, blue-eyed population] is a national priority in the Motherland.

This is clearly one (perhaps the only) point of similarity between her and Spencer: the promotion of white European culture within the American sociopolitical sphere.

Here is an article addressing her Russian "ties."

Nina Kouprianova, who also writes under the name Nina Byzantina, publishes articles lionizing Vladimir Putin, criticizing western media and appears on the Kremlin-funded RT network to promote anti-Ukraine talking points.

Kouprianova's personal interest based on her identity has morphed into a cultural and political obsession that it would have been called treasonous by bygone eras. Contemporary Western society, of course, will make not such commitments, which is why the likes of Kouprianova are able to flourish in our countries.

Below is a photo Nina Kouprianova recently put up of Putin on her twitter page with a shadow of a cross engraved/tattooed on his forehead.





In a post above it, she has a photo of Marine Le Pen with a cross (protruding out of her forehead).

Perhaps Koupriavona is saying that we are united through our Christianity.

I think that is a false and dangerous premise.

Countries do exist. It is not only religion (and also very different variations of the same religion) which form and unite them. And the Orthodox Church is especially region and country specific, and depends much on cultural contexts.