Richard Spencer's Wife Divorces Him - Cites Abuse

[Gefjon]

During their marriage, the white nationalist leader sometimes told her to use her own savings to pay for groceries, saying that his money was “for the cause”, she alleged. He also regularly failed to pay water, internet, electricity and cellphone bills and failed to make healthcare payments, causing their health insurance to lapse three times, including once shortly before the birth of their second child.

Reading such stuff, I'm more and more convinced certain folks shouldn't breed.

[Schmetterling]

It doesn't look to me like she was paid to slander him, since both their lawyers tried to have the court documents sealed. And so far, his wife declined to talk to Buzzfeed and the media, it's only RS himself who has made public statements. His wife is likely familiar with the bad side of the limelight, and had her family threatened with violence and the like, so she probably didn't want to wash her dirty laundry in public. She is also not an "anti", she seems to be a Russian nationalist/conservative, follower of Alexander Dugin and has helped her husband with his cause. So we can sort of dismiss ideological differences. Anyway, it doesn't look good for him. The emails appear pretty damning, and if she's got phone recordings of him shouting, it's pretty settled.

The sad thing is that this will be used as a black ball for nationalism and conservatism, and it will further the gap between genders once again. If RS despised his wife so much, why didn't he cooperate with the proceedings or seek a divorce himself? Maybe it's RS who was the one paid to create this scandal...

[Bleyer]

Only a coward would use physical violence with a pregnant woman, and refuse to provide for his children. Add to that the fact that he committed adultery and cheated on her with a leftist gay/tranny supporter. It cannot get any more pathetic than that. I will have no sympathy for such clowns.

[Þoreiðar]

Only a coward would use physical violence with a pregnant woman, and refuse to provide for his children. Add to that the fact that he committed adultery and cheated on her with a leftist gay/tranny supporter. It cannot get any more pathetic than that. I will have no sympathy for such clowns.

#BelieveWhamman!

Richard has done tremendous work in putting the Nationalist concerns of Whites across the globe to the forefront of public discourse and opinion, and helped create international networks for Nationalists, as well as arranging large events and public speeches.

What have you done?

The emails appear pretty damning, and if she's got phone recordings of him shouting, it's pretty settled.

I don't know if this says more about your inclination of believing any woman's accusations, or the court's propensity for anti-male bias in such cases.

The sad thing is that this will be used as a black ball for nationalism and conservatism, and it will further the gap between genders once again.

Only if women and male "believers" continue to choose the female accuser's side of the story by default. I think you should ask yourself why you feel the need to do so. The case has just recently surfaced, and there are lots of details and sides to the story yet to be uncovered. On one side, you have some woman that you've probably never even heard about before, and know close to nothing about, and on the other side, you have a man who has been in the public eye for years, and has been crucial in advancing the Nationalist cause in recent history. If your main concern was Nationalism, and not feminism, I find it hard to conceive why one would automatically run to her support.

[Finnish Swede]

Who is this guy? Is he someway important? I know Rommel, Patton, Mannerheim ...

If you go and marry Russian? ... well ... you make the bed you lie in.

[Þoreiðar]

And why must the woman always be blamed for everything? How about not giving her any money for essentials for her and her children? Letting her and her children's medical insurance run out? Refusing to pay child support? Telling her she's fat, ugly, worthless, and that she should kill herself? Treating her like a slave? Physically and psychologically abusing her? Making her work for him and his websites without any compensation? The list is endless.

Again, you're working from the premise that all her claims and accusations are true.

Didn't say it was a myth, just that they only present one side of the story.

Sure, I agree with that. But you have to keep in mind that these sites sprung up as alternatives to the main stream media and discourse, where the male side of the issue is given close to no attention and concern, and often even subjected to ridicule. The female side of the story has been repeated over and over again, drilled into our heads from early childhood. Everyone is aware of the problems and mistreatment women face in relationships. How men are screwed over, has just started to get attention in recent years, due to male dominated sites addressing the issue.

Tell that to the "supreme gentleman" and other incels who murdered women.

How often does that occur globally? Besides, the majority of those guys aren't even White, not to mention never being a part of the Alt-Right in any way.

[Norman Pride]

#BelieveWhamman!

Richard has done tremendous work in putting the Nationalist concerns of Whites across the globe to the forefront of public discourse and opinion, and helped create international networks for Nationalists, as well as arranging large events and public speeches.

What have you done?

I don't know if this says more about your inclination of believing any woman's accusations, or the court's propensity for anti-male bias in such cases.

The quality of Spencer's professional or ideological work - which is debatable, many white nationalists themselves have criticised him, but anyway... - does not absolve him from the guilt regarding domestic affairs. He could be the most known/famous/efficient person in the world, and that still would not excuse such behavior. Also, what Bleyer may or may not have done does not invalidate what he said. It still remains factually true. If a murderer tells you murder is wrong, his assertion is no less valid because of who he is. That's called an ad hominem fallacy.

Instead of trying to detract from the topic by belittling others who disagree with you, how about sharing with us the proof that speaks in favor of Spencer's defense. You're quick to defend him, however so far, you cite nothing in his defense, apart from the fact that his wife is a woman, so we are supposed to believe that that automatically makes her a liar. Where is the logic in that? I see none. Or is he supposed to be right because he is a man, and consequently, he must tell the truth? Again, we are not talking about a "she said" case. Have you read the court files from Scribd? There is evidence that speaks against Spencer, so it is not a matter of believing "the female accuser's side of the story by default". It's you who seems to side with someone based on their gender and "by default".

[Winkelried]

As someone who has worked with divorcees, I can assure you that men also lie, some through their teeth. Surely, there are plenty of cases where women lie about physical violence, and some courts tend to side with the woman, especially if there are children involved, as they believe it to be less risky. However, in this case there is more to it than her claiming that he abused her. She was (well) advised to document and record the incidents with her husband, and those will weigh in her favor substantially. It will be pretty tough for Mr Spencer to argue against phone recordings of him telling her to murder herself & the like. The most he can say were that they were taken out of context, but tell someone to kill themselves in any context, and ask whether their parents will attent their funeral, and it still looks bad no matter.

[Schmetterling]

I don't know if this says more about your inclination of believing any woman's accusations, or the court's propensity for anti-male bias in such cases.

So you are saying that if there are voice recordings of someone saying something, the default that should be assumed is that they are faked? If someone has bruises and submits photos thereof, the default assumption should be that the photos are faked? Or is it only the case if the accuser is a woman? Because that's what it seems like you're suggesting here.

Anyway, such things can be pretty easy to demonstrate, an analyst/expert could tell, and it would speak volumes in Richard's favor. It would completely destroy her credibility. But since he hasn't done so, I have to wonder why - and apply Occam's razor here. She provided evidence, while he did not. So far, we only have his word, and I don't base my conclusions on mere hearsay. But it seems like this is what you would like me to do? Believe his word, because he is Richard Spencer, and male, so therefore he cannot lie... Have to agree with Norman Pride here, you're doing essentially the same thing you criticise others of.

Only if women and male "believers" continue to choose the female accuser's side of the story by default. I think you should ask yourself why you feel the need to do so. The case has just recently surfaced, and there are lots of details and sides to the story yet to be uncovered. On one side, you have some woman that you've probably never even heard about before, and know close to nothing about, and on the other side, you have a man who has been in the public eye for years, and has been crucial in advancing the Nationalist cause in recent history. If your main concern was Nationalism, and not feminism, I find it hard to conceive why one would automatically run to her support.

Once again, because I have seen damning evidence. I am not interested in gender, but only intersted in facts. If she is lying, she is lying. But so far, the facts don't speak in Spencer's favor. His wife also doesn't seem to have a motive. She could have gone to the media herself and slandered him, and the media would have surely been interested in the juicy details. His wife is not a feminist either, she is also a nationalist herself and a mother. She was also like a right hand for him, and did a lot of secretarial and behind the scenes work, helped with his websites, wrote articles, translated works, set up meetings, etc. She has defended him on an ideological level. She has her own blog, where she talks about Russian politics and the like. Also, you are incorrect. I've known about her and read her articles and blog before this scandal. She's not exactly a private person or a nobody either. Anyway, their reputation in the public eye is irrelevant. Someone can be an excellent politician but a terrible husband/father. And preservation is about family as well. If you write and speak about traditional family values, but beat your wife and fail to provide for your child behind the scenes, something is very wrong. It doesn't change the value of your statements, but it can do a great deal of damage in the long run. You may fail to recognize that damage, I on the other hand can see it. Time will tell which one of us is right. I hope I'm wrong, but knowing the effect of such stories, I wouldn't bet much on that.

PS: I am far from a feminist. I am happily engaged to be married, an aunt and soon to be mother. My main concern is Germanic preservation, not misogyny disguised as "nationalism" and "traditionalism".

[Þoreiðar]

Instead of trying to detract from the topic by belittling others who disagree with you, ...

I wouldn't call Bleyer's statements a "disagreement". 'Libel' and 'unfounded character assassination' seems more fitting. There is nothing proven about the allegations towards Spencer as of yet, but still people are overly eager to jump on the bandwagon of condemning him for all kinds of vile acts he is supposed to have committed. The fact that he is a central figure in the Alt-Right movement, should call for a higher level of cautiousness among the people who share the central tenants of his ideology. The people willing to step into the public light and press the issues that are closest to our hearts, are few and far between, especially the ones with a high verbal and cognitive intelligence. They are smeared and attacked from every angle, by powerful media outlets, international corporations, and governments on all levels. If even the people who have every reason to give these people moral support, choose not to, and instead resort to the same tactics and sentiments as our enemies, then there's not much hope for our movement.

I'm not saying he is exempt from responsibility for his actions, should they prove to be true. And if so, I hope the Alt-Right breaks all connection with him. But I think he deserves the basic judicial right of being considered innocent until proven guilty, just as anyone else. But by the looks of it, some people just like to see others fall.

... how about sharing with us the proof that speaks in favor of Spencer's defense. You're quick to defend him, however so far, you cite nothing in his defense, apart from the fact that his wife is a woman, so we are supposed to believe that that automatically makes her a liar. Where is the logic in that? I see none. Or is he supposed to be right because he is a man, and consequently, he must tell the truth? Again, we are not talking about a "she said" case. Have you read the court files from Scribd? There is evidence that speaks against Spencer, so it is not a matter of believing "the female accuser's side of the story by default". It's you who seems to side with someone based on their gender and "by default".

Nope, I am simply operating by the principle of 'innocent until proven guilt', and pointing out other people's reluctance to adhere to this same basic principle, which seem to be based on nothing else than feminist (il)logic and religious female victimhood.