Drama in the alt lite / new right

[weambulance]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Milo was claiming BA violated an NDA and implied he was going to sue him. Maybe that's what Mike was referring to. BA says he's not under an NDA with Milo. Who the hell knows what's going on with that?

Regardless of which side you take in this fight, if any, this is a textbook example of how not to do damage control and ease someone out of your organization. Roosh hit on that in his periscope today, regarding the "saving face" issue.

What possible gain is there for Mike and Milo to try to shred Baked Alaska? Is what he's doing so offensive that he needs to be destroyed, regardless of how much damage it does to them? Mike has said some things that are pretty goddamn close to defamation, frankly, though as a lawyer I'm sure he's not crossing the line. But is that path worth going down?

We should all look at how Mr. Trump handles problems in his organizations and learn from him. Do you think he would ever allow a situation like this to blow up? No, he would handle things in such a way that the person he's kicking out feels good about the decision to leave.



P.S. - Since it came up, Baked Alaska is 29.

 

[Roosh]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Note the tears.

 

[gonzoman925]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Secondly his article he released on Baked Alaska is noticeably comment disabled.

The article is comment disabled because it's posted privately and only accessible by the link I just provided. He did an 'ask me anything' scope 5 minutes after he tweeted the article.

While that is true, on the scope he was only reacting to the hate comments and not the many many saner critical voices that were also in the scope.

He presented the position that it was just 1488ers annoyed with him.

No, a lot of middle of the road but strong free speech advocates were disappointed too.


Secondly on the $5000/month point someone else said, i am given to understand it was a one time $5000 fee.

We all like Mike here, i do loads too, but he was putting Baked into a pressured situation where the guy had to accept personal humiliation or break. Baked ended up breaking.

 

[redbeard]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Mike posted his side of the story over at D&P: https://www.dangerandplay.com/anthime-gionet-aka-tim-treadstone-aka-baked-alaska-drama/

Thanks for sharing. This clears it up.

A free party would have been a disaster. See all of you there

 

[BortimusPrime]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

If anything the civic nationalism approach has been more effective than any Stormfront rant, simply by virtue of outing all the neocohens like (((Ben Shapiro))) that were busily touting themselves as conservative intellectual hotshots until Trump became popular and then suddenly they went full-on cuck.

 

[Gorgiass]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

And he presented that "stabbed in the back by a jew" thing as something BA created when it was something he just retweeted, created by @HightechLowlife88 (88 = DOB, or Heil Hitler? Honestly don't know).

What difference do you see here? Either way it's an endorsement of the image. Plenty of people have been rightly banned from this forum for posting racist, gay and otherwise offensive memes and pics that they didn't create. It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it.

And by the way, that's exactly the wording Cernovich used "posted to his public Instagram", no mention of creating it. Not that it should matter in the least.

 

[Enoch]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Just watched BA entire periscope. He comes across as a bit of whiny child who doesn't want to be part of the club now that is not "fun" anymore. I wonder if Mike offered a payoff for Baked to back out of the event gracefully.

 

[Uzisuicide]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

I like the 'don't punch right' idea but this nazi shit is sabotaging our chances at effecting any real change

I agree, and am sympathetic to MC's position. It's obvious the damage that is done in the West by leftists period. Not just leftist Jews (although they are ubiquitous). Those issues can be hashed out but the Nazi shit is lame. As a Nationalist myself, I'm also a Christian Zionist and believe there should be a Jewish state of Israel. The Alt-Right was just an amalgamation people who shared different but overlapping views and was bound to has a degree of in fighting. Those overlapping views are predominantly a part of what was once the Tea Party. Let's hope we don't go the way of the Tea Party. It's starting to feel same. But we have a champion in Trump which is something the Tea Party never had.

Uzi

 

[weambulance]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

And he presented that "stabbed in the back by a jew" thing as something BA created when it was something he just retweeted, created by @HightechLowlife88 (88 = DOB, or Heil Hitler? Honestly don't know).

What difference do you see here? Either way it's an endorsement of the image. Plenty of people have been rightly banned from this forum for posting racist, gay and otherwise offensive memes and pics that they didn't create. It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it.

And by the way, that's exactly the wording Cernovich used "posted to his public Instagram", no mention of creating it. Not that it should matter in the least.

What difference I see is the obvious, intrinsic difference between the two actions. I'm not sure what else to say to you if you can't see the difference between a retweet and creating an image.

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

Why's he bringing up Baked Alaska's "real name"? It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's a technique designed to paint Baked Alaska as dishonest for using a pseudonym. Well shit, by that standard I guess we're all shitbag liars, including Roosh, right? Mike is trying to paint a picture of the guy in a way he wouldn't have to if he had an ironclad case on his side.

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

I've been following Mike for years. I think he's done a lot of great work, and he's led me to ideas that directly improved my life, but this behavior flat out looks like shit. It does not look like someone who's in the right and knows it, with nothing to hide.

Once again, I find myself in the bizarre position of trying to argue the case of the side I don't even agree with. But I'm not going to descend to intellectual dishonesty and lies just to prop up my side. I'm not going to endorse Mike's handling of this situation just because I think he's right about the substance of their disagreement.

 

[Gorgiass]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

It's a blog post written by one of two guys who were involved in a disagreement. You seem surprised that it doesn't read like a news article. Just because two sides are presented independently of one another doesn't mean that truth is impossible to discern. I watched a few minutes of BA's periscope last night and read a few lines of tweets and was amazed that he made it as long as he did in that partnership, he seems unhinged.

BA was laughing semi-hysterically then saying "I can't stop laughing", his mannerisms, the words themselves... Didn't see Cernovich's but I've seen enough of his priors that I know he wasn't behaving like that.

I also thought that the line he texted BA summed the whole ordeal up beautifully - "One day you'll grow up, sign contracts and take financial risk, then see others 'just wanna have fun'. Seen both sides of that coin and I think he really hit the nail on the head.

 

[gonzoman925]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

I've been following Mike for years. I think he's done a lot of great work, and he's led me to ideas that directly improved my life, but this behavior flat out looks like shit. It does not look like someone who's in the right and knows it, with nothing to hide.

Once again, I find myself in the bizarre position of trying to argue the case of the side I don't even agree with. But I'm not going to descend to intellectual dishonesty and lies just to prop up my side. I'm not going to endorse Mike's handling of this situation just because I think he's right about the substance of their disagreement.

yup feel the same. Ive been reading him, applied his work, and learning from him for years now. And i'll continue to do so. Mike is a genius.

But in this particular situation, it seems like Mike went full blast, gave Tim an unrecoverable position which pushed Tim to tell all on twitter and has now set out to pick him apart using every legal means necessary.

I never thought Mike would do that to a member of the right much less a fairly prominent one [as far as outreach to non red pill people is concerned]. Yes people are going to point out Richard Spencer, and i didnt like that whole salute thing either, but i could understand MC's position being against it.

But for this, it almost seemed like a completely different person. One that was wanting to jettison some people before the big day at the ball lest some 'embarassing' elements of the right say something provocative or out of line to any person in power that was attending.

If it's Tim today, who will it be tomorrow?

It also seems like there was probably private fuckups that Baked may have done as far as deadlines and such and Mike got fed up with it.

But you are right in that there is a lot of psyops at work. Deleting periscopes, tweets. Reframing your opposition, ignoring the legitimate positive critics that want reconciliation and riling up as many people as possible so you can use the dumb tweets and memes of what they say as evidence that you were right to cast them off.

Mike is an extremely intelligent nearly 40 year old man with a family. He lives and dies by the catchphrase "when are you going to get serious with your life?"

Tim is a guy who is 10 years younger, only recently redpilled and was unemployed for a long time until this whole MAGA thing gave him something positive in his life. He had a colourful past, and still has some inner demons that he probably battles with. He also has hope and ambitions, but he's not quite worked out the rules of the game when it comes to things. He's genuine and sincere, and fucks up from time to time.

This is like and angry tyson fighting a sick little kid with leukaemia because tyson raised money for him. Its kinda brutal and needless you know?

 

[weambulance]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

No, I was explaining why your logical statement that "It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it." is incorrect. Sorry to get pedantic, but I don't need to disassemble the rest of your argument if the premise it's based on is wrong.

Asking whether BA agreed with it or not is a simple deflection of my point that Mike presented it in a misleading matter as part of his general spin. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or not, when the point is that Mike presented in a specific way to make it look like BA made the thing himself. Mike could've just as easily have posted an image of the retweet including the original creator, if he was interested in showing the whole story. He didn't.

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

It's a blog post written by one of two guys who were involved in a disagreement. You seem surprised that it doesn't read like a news article. Just because two sides are presented independently of one another doesn't mean that truth is impossible to discern. I watched a few minutes of BA's periscope last night and read a few lines of tweets and was amazed that he made it as long as he did in that partnership, he seems unhinged.

BA was laughing semi-hysterically then saying "I can't stop laughing", his mannerisms, the words themselves... Didn't see Cernovich's but I've seen enough of his priors that I know he wasn't behaving like that.

I also thought that the line he texted BA summed the whole ordeal up beautifully - "One day you'll grow up, sign contracts and take financial risk, then see others 'just wanna have fun'. Seen both sides of that coin and I think he really hit the nail on the head.

I seem surprised? No, I seem like someone pointing out that it's spun, and should not be taken as a factual account. The degree of spin is heavy. If you don't see why that matters, for the third time, I don't know what to tell you. If you're clearly right, you don't need to present a spun case like you're trying to get your client off in criminal court.

BA is upset over this. Wow, that's a strong argument against him. Of course he's upset. Mike is saying a lot of nasty shit about him and tearing him down. Did you expect him to just take that in stride?

Today, Baked Alaska is going off the rails, by the way. He's obviously seriously wounded by Mike's behavior and his lashing out in ways I don't like because it undermines stuff I believe in and isn't going to help us. And that's why this is a textbook example of how not to handle a situation like this. Besides the potential for damaging movements I care about, now Mike also just made an enemy with a significant following and little to lose.

Mike isn't perfect. There's no need to rationalize everything he's doing. That doesn't help anyone.

 

[ElFlaco]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Does Roosh really not have a brand? He does and that's as it should be. A brand helps people know what to expect and what value they can hope to find.

During the incidents recounted in Free Speech Isn't Free (Canada, summer 2015), there was a tightening of speech on the forum, emergency mode, not just for safety but also to avoid giving ammunition to enemies.

That was a good move then and I don't see how it was fundamentally different that what Cernovich and others with a 'new right' brand are doing now, wanting to distance themselves from elements dangerous to their brand's health.

And lets not forget Elliot Rogers. Guy was on the forum and possibly browsed here too I bet.

This is a good example of what not to do. Do not imagine links that murderers have to this forum, especially when it's speculation like you just did. Elliot Rodgers didn't have an account here and there was no evidence he read the forum.

If you made such a comment during an emergency I describe, you would be banned immediately.

This is a smart policy. Like it or not, what's posted on the forum ends up reflecting personally on Roosh and on this "movement" in general. There's no sense in giving the enemy ammunition that can be used to dilute and distract from the message.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

If anything that has made the forum more effective in constructing devastating arguments against the enemy. A lot of what starts here spreads outwards onto other platforms.

 

[Gorgiass]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

No, I was explaining why your logical statement that "It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it." is incorrect. Sorry to get pedantic, but I don't need to disassemble the rest of your argument if the premise it's based on is wrong.

Unless a post is accompanied by a statement or image of disavowal, to use the buzz word (for example, multiple laughing emojis) posting something is taken to be an endorsement. Particularly when the post falls exactly in line with the poster's repeatedly stated views, and particularly when those views are ones which the poster is currently being called out on. I took this to be self-evident in my original statement.

Asking whether BA agreed with it or not is a simple deflection of my point that Mike presented it in a misleading matter as part of his general spin. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or not, when the point is that Mike presented in a specific way to make it look like BA made the thing himself. Mike could've just as easily have posted an image of the retweet including the original creator, if he was interested in showing the whole story. He didn't.

Here is the exact quote from Cernovich's post - "Tim proves my instincts right by posting a meme of me being being a back-stabbing Jew. Tim posted this to his public Instagram account...Here is the “inspiration” for the above meme."

I read this and didn't assume for a second that he created the meme. But then again, it was perfectly in line with his stated views, was a clear endorsement of the meme, and so the creator was irrelevant. I agree Mike isn't perfect, and don't even follow him regularly, but in this instance he is clearly in the right in my mind. I appreciate him taking the higher, less popular road, and don't like seeing him take flack for it.

 

[Eastside]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

It is because in this situation, Mike is the leader trying to organize an event and also manage his overall brand and Baked Alaska is a loose cannon employee that is disrupting what Mike is trying to build by not following his rules. BA doesn't have anything to lose because he was already kicked out of the club for being stupid. That is why he is acting with more recklessness. #MAGA3X was started by Mike and BA was always a pointman/employee. Not the creator. I remember this when is was actually developing a couple months ago, and Mike is telling the truth on that. All of the verifiable stuff in Mike's post is true and fits the data we have available. As far as Mike deleting stuff, he simply hasn't been saving his Periscopes. He has done this before when it isn't something he wants to have tied to his brand long term, but still wants the information to get out to the people that are more interested.

By the way, if in this situation the ad hominem attacks are true, then it is not a "logical fallacy," or even really "argument" at all. It simply is the case that BA was working for Mike (and by extension Mike's brand) and fucked it up by going too far into the 1488 stuff and refusing to drop it. If BA isn't personally conducting himself how Mike wants him to, then Mike has a right to cut ties with him, plain and simple. This is the dispute going on with cutting BA out of Deploraball.

By the way, I'm not sure if BA is using alcohol or drugs or not, but his comments about just wanting to have "fun" with something, while in reality it requires more serious organization and effort, reek to me of the someone who has substance abuse issues. His specific phrasing reminds me of several drug addicts in particular that I had the (un)pleasure of having to live with for extended periods of time. Maybe it is nothing, but it definitely sets my alarm bells off.

 

[Thersites]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

This is just random related to this drama. Regardless on where one stands in the ideological divide, there warning to see the dangers of overextending yourself and losing your frame. Mike did his year end blog post talking about things he did not do well, there is line that is resonating in my head after reading about this drama:

Operationally I’m a mess

When you read post, you understand that Mike has created lot of work that he can't handle at the moment. There is so many lose ends to handle, creates a lot of stress and makes one's mind muddled with thoughts. When Baked Alaska cause his disagreements, Mike impulsive reacted the same way as he does when going after the cucks, MSM, and bullies without thinking it through. As for us look in at the fight right now, we seeing what happens when emotions run high and you forget to think of all the consequences.

And that's why this is a textbook example of how not to handle a situation like this. Besides the potential for damaging movements I care about, now Mike also just made an enemy with a significant following and little to lose.

This is the part that has me worried a bit. When a man feels like he has nothing to lose, will burning everything down in spite.

 

[weambulance]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

By the way, if in this situation the ad hominem attacks are true, then it is not a "logical fallacy," or even really "argument" at all.

This is the only point in your post I'm going to respond to because I'm not going to argue interpretations any further. Fine, some people disagree with my assessment, but I have other stuff to do today too. I've made my points.

I basically can't even post anymore today. The captchas are so far up my ass now that half the time I time out on trying to post before I finally get through the retarded street sign captchas.

However, yes, ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

[...]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

I feel like this is one of those "Everybody wants to be a nigga, but nobody wants to be a nigga" issues. Everybody hopped on the "alt right" circlejerk without looking into the meaning of "alt right" (established years ago, with WN links) or its links. It was all good and happiness was everywhere, if someone fell out of line they were instructed to fall back in line. Then Trump won and everybody wanted to be the chosen "alt right", the original mission was lost and now people fight over what it means to be alt right.


It's a bit of an irony that manosphere folks are battling it out on social media, and we shun mend who are drama queens or battle it out on social media....because that's what SJWs and women do.

Edit: It seems things that were okay to say in the name of alt right are now not okay to say...because money and branding.

 

[Eastside]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

By the way, if in this situation the ad hominem attacks are true, then it is not a "logical fallacy," or even really "argument" at all.

This is the only point in your post I'm going to respond to because I'm not going to argue interpretations any further. Fine, some people disagree with my assessment, but I have other stuff to do today too. I've made my points.

I basically can't even post anymore today. The captchas are so far up my ass now that half the time I time out on trying to post before I finally get through the retarded street sign captchas.

However, yes, ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I probably phrased that in an unclear way. My interpretation of Mike's comments on Baked Alaska were that he wasn't trying to make an argument against BA at all. Hence the "argument" part that I didn't agree with. I think he was approaching it from the angle of trying to clear the air overall and show his side of the story that people weren't getting from BA's twitter feed. I think Mike essentially laid out the reasons why BA was dropped and kept it to that without delving too much into unrelated ad hominem that wasn't directly related to the situation at hand, outside of maybe the real name stuff which I can see both sides of. I just didn't interpret it the same way as you I guess.

 

[weambulance]

RE: Drama in the "new right"

^

Oh I see what you're saying. Sorry, I misread what you meant. It was clear the first time now that I'm reading it again.