Can we talk about Andrew Tate
- Thread starter Andi
- Start date
Indeed. Consider how one can say to be a proponent of traditional masculinity, only to make their money by exploiting women sexually? To be a messenger of assertiveness, discipline and restraint, as masculine traits, only to live off of weak men, or simps, who are their customers?
Mytja
Jedi Master
After watching the Carlson interview, I find the message Tate promotes as an antidote to programming nowadays, quite problematic in some crucial points. Among many healthy masculinity traits, he appeared to have mixed a distinct predatorial aroma of how men should be successful in the world of all men being human predators. In a way ponerization of already traumatized young men's minds and beings to actively invest their efforts into becoming predators and maybe even psychopaths/sociopaths. Even Tucker seemed to have fallen for some of that stuff emanating from Tate, being softened by bits of flattering and striking/pointing some similarities between their two cases, of 'being silenced' by/in MSM for instance.
The Mechanic
Jedi Council Member
Carlson completely ignored the human traficking charges I think, like he didn't investigate anything of it.
This guy on youtube does a nice roundup of the charges and what Tate has admitted to doing publicly:
This guy on youtube does a nice roundup of the charges and what Tate has admitted to doing publicly:
I have to admit that the whole Andrew Tate thing went by me completely until I watched the above. So, for the first time I'm now reading and listening to anything related to that, including this thread. What I can say is that I watched about 1 hour of the interview above, and I got an off and somewhat strange vibe from the guy, including his word choices. After looking at just a couple of videos here I suspect that Tate is a pretty shady character and Tucker should have probably done quite a bit more research on the guy and not just believe anything he says. I don't trust him. I would bet on quite some (malicious?) narcissism going on and maybe worst. A spellblinder? Or worst? A god complex of sorts? The fact seems to be how he presents himself with Tucker is quite extremely at odds with what he did and how he behaved towards people, especially women.
PS: How he presents himself in the Tucker video is basically as "the leader" and/or number 1 person globally "who is on a mission to wake people up", especially men. It is easy to agree with a lot of what he says, but I suspect that Tate might just be a narcissistic patsy who is used to defame anyone pointing out similar true things and put the person in the "another Andrew Tate box".
Last edited:
And another good one from last year:
Nice bit of investigative journalism trying to verify his claim to have one a chess championship at age 5. Short answer: he's a liar.
Here is a pretty disturbing one too:
It's not the first time I hear that type of "testimony" (but this one above actually has an audio of Tate himself). There are several videos about girls accusing him of exactly the same.
This one has several points in common:
Heck, we know how that can be faked too, but there is so many of his own videos that it's... iffy, to say the least. The interview with Tucker was interesting. I just have a difficult time separating the message from the messenger.
It's not the first time I hear that type of "testimony" (but this one above actually has an audio of Tate himself). There are several videos about girls accusing him of exactly the same.
This one has several points in common:
Heck, we know how that can be faked too, but there is so many of his own videos that it's... iffy, to say the least. The interview with Tucker was interesting. I just have a difficult time separating the message from the messenger.
Last edited:
Compared to other groups of people, this forum much more readily questions, or claims, that a person is psychopath - with good reason considering the knowledge that has been gathered about such individuals. Labeling Tate a psychopath and being done with him is relatively easy and very reasonable based on some of his own statements, as evidenced by the videos above.
His case is very good for me because I have to constantly keep my emotions and thoughts in check. My gut actually says that he is a flawed, but likely souled human, with obvious potential, quite extreme early life experiences and the usual programming we are all aware of. I have known many men similar to Tate in my life and in my own family - brave, strong, quick witted, hyper-masculine and they all gave off a similar "vibe". My first cousins, uncles and Father have a similar essence and being. They often do have a certain pull and control over certain women, simply by virtue of who they are, and often learn to treat them with less value and respect than would any man of this forum.
The difficulty for me is that often these men are also very loyal, protective and honorable in other ways. The sort who will always "have your back" in a street fight, regardless if you are outnumbered and have nowhere to run. Or who will speak up for you at work even when none of your other, nicer "friends" will. They will also guard their family, including "their women (and this is how they see them unfortunately)" until the end. When Tate makes his bombastic proclamations over having authority over his women because he will "die to save them", I find part of me believes him because I have known similar men who have literally done that very thing. He could be lying of course, and this is where my brain must constantly check my gut and remember how convincing psychopaths/Machiavellians can be.
The men I have known personally at least, flawed as they may be, are not psychopaths. They also are able to change in my experience, albeit stubbornly and slowly, and would better fit the description of "souls in struggle".
Another figure, the most famous man in the world, who shares some resemblance to Tate and these men I have grown up with is, of course, out lord emperor Donald Trump (couldn't help my self with some Manosphere inspired humour haha). I recall prior to his election victory, many in the forum echoed similar sentiments about Trump and his "hyper-masculinity" and treatment of/comments about/interactions with women - most of which is fair and accurate. Even Laura, without whom none of us would be here, with all her knowledge and intuition, was, rightfully, skeptical of him and his, shall we say, somewhat rough edges, to put it delicately. I personally always had a very good gut feeling about the Donald and based on reading the forum at one stage when it wasn't clear what he was about, found myself correcting my gut mentally and putting him more in the "evil" camp - controlled opposition, a "psychopath" etc. With the revelations following this including the Cs comments it then reminded me to remain "above" both my gut emotions and thoughts and to retain perspective as much as possible.
At this point in writing this comment I feel as If I may be adding noise to this thread as I haven't provided any factual accounts only my some anecdotes and discussion of my internal conflict regarding my "read" of Tate. I don't know if he's a goodie/baddie/in the middle. My gut is that he's okay but flawed, my cynical brain reminds me that like most famous people in this world he's likely more in the bad camp. I recall reading, I can't remember where, that Gurdjieff was quoted as saying about Gandhi that (paraphrasing) " I didn't know if he was good or not until they killed him". These days even then one may not be sure.
I often use kinesiological testing for health which has benefited me greatly and after the Cs confirmed that the teachings of David Hawkings, author of power vs. force, who utilizes muscle testing as a truth telling method, has some legitimacy. I have tried muscle testing the question of Andrew Tate's true character and he tests positively, FWIW, although I know I may be biased based on my gut reaction.
I'm reluctant to ask, given how important they are, but perhaps his true character could be a question for the Cs?
His case is very good for me because I have to constantly keep my emotions and thoughts in check. My gut actually says that he is a flawed, but likely souled human, with obvious potential, quite extreme early life experiences and the usual programming we are all aware of. I have known many men similar to Tate in my life and in my own family - brave, strong, quick witted, hyper-masculine and they all gave off a similar "vibe". My first cousins, uncles and Father have a similar essence and being. They often do have a certain pull and control over certain women, simply by virtue of who they are, and often learn to treat them with less value and respect than would any man of this forum.
The difficulty for me is that often these men are also very loyal, protective and honorable in other ways. The sort who will always "have your back" in a street fight, regardless if you are outnumbered and have nowhere to run. Or who will speak up for you at work even when none of your other, nicer "friends" will. They will also guard their family, including "their women (and this is how they see them unfortunately)" until the end. When Tate makes his bombastic proclamations over having authority over his women because he will "die to save them", I find part of me believes him because I have known similar men who have literally done that very thing. He could be lying of course, and this is where my brain must constantly check my gut and remember how convincing psychopaths/Machiavellians can be.
The men I have known personally at least, flawed as they may be, are not psychopaths. They also are able to change in my experience, albeit stubbornly and slowly, and would better fit the description of "souls in struggle".
Another figure, the most famous man in the world, who shares some resemblance to Tate and these men I have grown up with is, of course, out lord emperor Donald Trump (couldn't help my self with some Manosphere inspired humour haha). I recall prior to his election victory, many in the forum echoed similar sentiments about Trump and his "hyper-masculinity" and treatment of/comments about/interactions with women - most of which is fair and accurate. Even Laura, without whom none of us would be here, with all her knowledge and intuition, was, rightfully, skeptical of him and his, shall we say, somewhat rough edges, to put it delicately. I personally always had a very good gut feeling about the Donald and based on reading the forum at one stage when it wasn't clear what he was about, found myself correcting my gut mentally and putting him more in the "evil" camp - controlled opposition, a "psychopath" etc. With the revelations following this including the Cs comments it then reminded me to remain "above" both my gut emotions and thoughts and to retain perspective as much as possible.
At this point in writing this comment I feel as If I may be adding noise to this thread as I haven't provided any factual accounts only my some anecdotes and discussion of my internal conflict regarding my "read" of Tate. I don't know if he's a goodie/baddie/in the middle. My gut is that he's okay but flawed, my cynical brain reminds me that like most famous people in this world he's likely more in the bad camp. I recall reading, I can't remember where, that Gurdjieff was quoted as saying about Gandhi that (paraphrasing) " I didn't know if he was good or not until they killed him". These days even then one may not be sure.
I often use kinesiological testing for health which has benefited me greatly and after the Cs confirmed that the teachings of David Hawkings, author of power vs. force, who utilizes muscle testing as a truth telling method, has some legitimacy. I have tried muscle testing the question of Andrew Tate's true character and he tests positively, FWIW, although I know I may be biased based on my gut reaction.
I'm reluctant to ask, given how important they are, but perhaps his true character could be a question for the Cs?
Tate's a liar and manipulator. I've known that for a few years since coming across earlier videos of him and his brother and some pathetic hangers on travelling around European cities and acting like retarded teenagers (when they were not teenagers). All of his adult male "friends" today are low level men, desperately trying to appear 'high value' by buying expensive cars and making YT videos about them. It wasn't exactly difficult to see.
The fact that he is abusive to women is no surprise at all, he's been that way for a long time, it comes with the self-absorbed shit-head package. I'm really not interested in him, except perhaps as a social phenomenon during the last throes of a mostly rotten and ponerized society, where the scum rises to the top, and the extent to which people like him are being inserted/inserting themselves into the 'trad Con' movement, as a means to destroy any usefulness it might have had.
The fact that he is abusive to women is no surprise at all, he's been that way for a long time, it comes with the self-absorbed shit-head package. I'm really not interested in him, except perhaps as a social phenomenon during the last throes of a mostly rotten and ponerized society, where the scum rises to the top, and the extent to which people like him are being inserted/inserting themselves into the 'trad Con' movement, as a means to destroy any usefulness it might have had.
Last edited:
If in doubt and with no time or inclination to research someone like Tate: when you see someone who wears a particular style of graded-tinted glasses (including indoors) that have forever been synonymous with creepy lecherous men (and pedophiles)...well, you can draw a quick conclusion and move on. You can tell a lot about the inner life of someone by how they present and represent themselves. It shows their essence and who and what they want to become. Tate is large dollop of concentrated entropy, and he's determined to become a dream in the past, and is trying to take as many other men as possible with him.
Last edited:
This is the key point, and what makes this whole thing worthy of study. The Tucker Carlson interview is almost flawless. Much that he says in the interview is on the money and this is the reason he has become a leading figurehead, but as you dig a little deeper it gets dirty. He's even gone all religious recently, Islam specifically, which as a career pornographer is hilarious.
I concluded a while ago that the whole red pill, black pill, men's rights movement is a psyop, or rather a grass-roots backlash turned into one. It has layers of cointelpro on par with that of conspiracy circles and UFOlogy. Even the trad con movement just ends up taking people to fundamentalist Christianity.
It's a good reminder for us to, as a group, network and keep our heads screwed on straight as things get crazier. Sometimes such movements can be tempting, but we have no true allies in any of the "big camps". We can do our best to avoid being pulled by these gigantic social currents in this time of unrest, and keep our perspicacity. Ironically, that's a word Andrew Tate loves to use
.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Interesting choice by Tucker to do this interview since Tucker has a huge following and so Tate gets exposure to an entirely different/new demographic. Tucker is not stupid. And Tate gets a Carte Blanche to portray himself in a favorable light. It didn’t seem as though Tucker was asking the really hard questions in a probing way based on having researched Tate prior to the interview.
Just adding a tidbit: One of the reasons he likes Islam is that it allows for polygamy.
All of this reminds me of the story of Hurricane Carter (glamorized by Bob Dylan's song) who became some kind of "hero" of the civil rights movement. I even sympathized with him until I read about his knockout of Caroyln Kelley. Don"t know if he was a psychopath or just plain brain damaged. Maybe both.