Can we talk about Andrew Tate

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Miles Mathis is a persona non grata around here, however that does not mean he doesn't occasionally make some astute assessments. Even if you can't stand Mathis, his take on Tucker and Tate brings up many of the same questions being asked here along with a few more and I do like his analysis and style when he is saying something useful. (which is maybe 10% of the time). But I think he points out some things that are worthwhile. Like WHY would Tucker "interview" (read: PROMOTE) this guy AT ALL???

Teaser: (Warning, some typical Mathis trash talk)
1689296613820.png
"But again, why would Tucker promote this guy? ... That is what Tucker does as well: he promotes certain people, ideas, and themes. I agree that he is on the right side on some issues now, and that he and Tate are generally on the right side of this one: promoting masculinity, protecting boys, and pushing back against the New World Order. I just don't like them using Tate to do it. He isn't a good spokesman for the cause, and I can tell he wasn't chosen to benefit the cause but to promote himself. He was inserted into this argument to use this popular theme as a vehicle for his advancement. ...

Just study that picture from the interview. It is very strange, isn't it? Tate is supposed to be under house arrest in his own mansion in Bucharest, Romania, after spending 90 days in a real jail. Again, I am not buying any of it. It looks to me like just another story they made up, to give Tate street cred. They are remolding him in the mold of Assange, Snowden, and those guys, making him seem important and sinned-against by the powers that be. An outsider like you. Although he is actually a huge insider. He is another rich kid.... I don't believe he was ever in jail for a second. And why does he have a mansion in Romania? In his own words, it is because Romania is corrupt. Where I come from, only criminals like living in corrupt places, so again, why is Tucker interviewing this person?

The picture above is weird for another reason: what's with the gorilla on a pedestal, placed in the most prominent position? I guess that is the most prized possession in Tate's art collection. I thought at first it might be a Jeff Koons, but I couldn't find it on a quick search. May be one-of-a-kind. .... Why does it matter? Because, along with some others things, it reads wrong. Both guys are wearing loafers without socks, and they have the same color theme, dark on top and pale chinos below. Did they coordinate? ...... But no matter what else it is, it is strange being lectured to on masculinity by two guys wearing expensive blazers and high-dollar loafers without socks, in front of a gilded gorilla."

Full Link:
http://mileswmathis.com/tate3.pdf
 
Well,

I can't say I am surprised by the turn of events, I never really followed any of what he did, some of the messages he imparted to people had bits of value for men, but when you really dug into that, the larger message, it was a mess of egotistical control and manipulation for the sake of empty victories. "go be a rake, because otherwise you're worthless as a man"

it went from, embrace the higher traits of your masculinity, respect, protectiveness, assertiveness, you know, the kingship of your life, which is what JBP proposes to young men, essentially embrace your dangerous aspects so that you can behave like a gentleman and not be harmless by default, all the way to... treat every woman like garbage, because all women are simply looking for the toughest/richest monkey.

And that monkey looks like what Tate looks like, apparently wealthy, loud and obnoxious, disrespectful and immune to women. So it was a whole movement to convince every confused young boy to aspire to be like him, and some women to look for a guy like him. And convince every man that their worth was only to be found in somehow aspiring to be as physically desirable as possible, not as an exercise of working on yourself internally, to discover yourself, but on putting on the costume of an "alpha".

And what's sad is that, it created a whole movement where now there are channels on YT where compilations of "men putting women in their place" are the thing, which is beyond silly, and it's just as bad as women putting men in their place, as feminist would be proud of showing.

His message was all about form and nothing about substance, it wasn't about the individual and his own nature and how to work that into an interface with the world, it was about a system that works for mammals not humans. So Tate was the other extreme to the extreme feminist movement.

Anywho, it's going to be interesting because now it will drag people like JBP down with him, despite their messages being almost diametrically opposed. In fact, if I remember correctly, they were accusing JBP, at the height of the hatred for him, of being someone exactly like Tate.
 
Anywho, it's going to be interesting because now it will drag people like JBP down with him, despite their messages being almost diametrically opposed. In fact, if I remember correctly, they were accusing JBP, at the height of the hatred for him, of being someone exactly like Tate.

Here is what JBP said about Tate recently:

I really haven't said anything about Andrew Tate and I probably won't tonight but but well I'll make a few comments about the Andrew Tate phenomenon you know I would say is that the mystery is there is a mystery in relationship to Andrew Tate and the Mystery is why is he so popular and I I think the part of the reason he's so popular is because he he doesn't easily bend a knee so to speak you know and it isn't obvious to me that he doesn't bend a knee because of his stellar moral character but because I'm I'm not particularly what would you say impressed by what he's done on the sex business front it it seems to me a bit on uh pimpy side let's say and I'm not a great admirer of pimps so wait even if they're the electronic version and uh and so you know but I I don't know that much about the details of his life and apart from that you know rather casual diagnosis I'm going to leave it alone but there is a mystery there and the mystery is you know why has he captured the public imagination and it's clear that he's become a voice maybe you know maybe like a like a a kind of a violent rapper same sort of attraction to young man and that attraction is the attraction of what's alternate what's the alternative to a kind of cringing defeat you know and so maybe a a forthright aggression is a preferable alternative to a cringing defeat and I have some sympathy for that viewpoint you know so and I think Tate at least stands for that and and apart from that I don't know enough about him or what he's done or what he stands for to comment um and so we'll leave it at that

Viewed as a thuggish and violent guy, ready to thrust into agression, seems an interesting analysis. It reminds me of the fascination with drug traffickers, such as Escobar and others, a sort of hero, someone who built a persona that is perceived to be against a bigger enemy, but won't bend a knee.
 
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.

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.

Fully agree. I think watching the Tucker interview can be quite educational. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tate is some kind of character Łobaczewski described. As Laura said the language people use and the context in which they use it can reveal a lot about the inner landscape. Despite his heroic and „admirable“ persona and story he presents in the video, there are numerous occasions where you really have to wonder about his choice of words and how that squares with that persona. On top of that he keeps answering and talking in strange and odd ways, just as if a normal, decent worldview informed by a conscience is foreign to him. There are many such examples in the video that really make you wonder.
 
Both guys are wearing loafers without socks, and they have the same color theme, dark on top and pale chinos below. Did they coordinate? ...... But no matter what else it is, it is strange being lectured to on masculinity by two guys wearing expensive blazers and high-dollar loafers

Dude, it's called upper class style, and one of the most classic outfits. Tucker is old money, and Tate wishes he were. I agree though that whoever started not wearing socks paired with chinos and even suits should rot in jail!

Added: I always thought Tucker nailed the preppie boy style like few others, and it naturally suits him, it's authentic. That's who he is. Whereas Tate, when you look at the details, just comes off as the lowlife prole pimp that he is, no matter how expensive his cloths.
 
Last edited:
Added: I always thought Tucker nailed the preppie boy style like few others, and it naturally suits him, it's authentic. That's who he is. Whereas Tate, when you look at the details, just comes off as the lowlife prole pimp that he is, no matter how expensive his cloths.
I agree, and it is just a facade. Anyway, this Tate is just horrible and his strengths - if you call it - (will, dedication) are just misguided and misused and only to serve him.
 
I follow a few "right wing" telegram channels to see what that other side thinks (myself I'm neutral but conservative) and Andrew Tate is promoted as a victim. His "victimisation" is portrayed using the left / right dichotomy where his persecutors are "lefties". I presume this is why Tucker interviewed him.
 
I think comparing Trump or Tucker with Tate amounts to an attempt of making sense of things by comparing Apples with Oranges.

What I see in Trump is basically decent guy with heavy narcissistic wounds, who manages to try to do good things despite that. Which is a feat in itself given his background and what he managed to do (become President)! In a similar vein, but much more mildly (in terms of narcissistic wounding) what I see in Tucker is similar; a decent man trying to do good. And it should go without saying; everyone on this planet has narcissistic tendencies to one degree or the other. And obviously, like everyone else, both have flaws and believe in a number of lies and are naive in one way or the other. Who isn’t?

What I see in Tate on the other hand is basically a rotten and manipulative character.

As for why Tucker interviewed Tate, I think it is pretty likely that Tucker just didn’t do his research properly and was taken in by the „smooth talk“ of Tate. Naive. As usual, if you are not aware about manipulative characters in the way Łobaczewski described them, you are prone to be manipulated. And maybe part of the reason why Tucker felt the urge to interview Tate in that way was: because some forces wanted him to do exactly that, in order to smear him and what he says, and by association, everyone else who voices similar views. Notice that Tucker, naively enough, also brought up Kennedy in the Tate interview. Well…

Unfortunately, I think this will turn out to be just more gunpowder to defame Tucker and what he is saying and people like Kennedy. Maybe he will come around though and set the record straight in regards to this interview.
 
Last edited:
I follow a few "right wing" telegram channels to see what that other side thinks (myself I'm neutral but conservative) and Andrew Tate is promoted as a victim. His "victimisation" is portrayed using the left / right dichotomy where his persecutors are "lefties". I presume this is why Tucker interviewed him.

Still, it is kind of disappointing that despite Tucker's perspicacity, he chose to conduct this interview.

I think it's a good example why Political Ponerology is such an important book. Even if one is a no BS person with solid researching talents, it's still possible to be blindsided by the lack of knowledge in this particular area.

It's so weird and unfortunate, that it even made me think that it could be symbolic in some way. Tucker opened the door and allowed himself to be used and manipulated in this way. Not a good sign. It's like they "got him", or this is how they are going to get him.
 
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.

Just to clarify something about this: yeah, we used to label people "psychopath" pretty freely, at a time when we were new to the idea and were to an extent in 'awe' of it. Since then however, we've learned a lot more about the topic and the nuances involved. We've come to realize that, through the ponerization process, an entire society can become, to one extent or another "psychopath-like". So we don't really label people "psychopath" so much anymore, primarily because we realize that a) it's nuanced and b) it's not really that unusual anymore, and c) there are many, many 'varieties' and levels of disturbed and deviant behavior to the point that half the population could be on the psychopath and character-disturbed spectrum. So we don't so much label people as psychopaths anymore, but rather notice the myriad and complex ways in which people exhibit deviant thinking and behavior.
 
Both guys are wearing loafers without socks, and they have the same color theme, dark on top and pale chinos below. Did they coordinate? ...... But no matter what else it is, it is strange being lectured to on masculinity by two guys wearing expensive blazers and high-dollar loafers without socks, in front of a gilded gorilla."

Good observation. That outfit is standard for Tucker. I'd say that Tate chose to wear almost exactly the same outfit to a) make himself appear "just like Tucker" to the audience and b) to psychologically prime Tucker to like him, as in the "mirroring" ploy.
 
Word to the wise.

June 9th 2018

(L) So in other words, this whole left attempt to take over our world is sort of what 2nd Thessalonians referred to as man attempting to take the seat of god in the temple, so to speak?

A: Yes. The Beast.

Q: (L) Okay, well that's pretty interesting; there’s a lot of beastliness in our world today. I was reminded when I was thinking about all of this postmodernism and this Jungian business about something that was said in a session back in 2002 or 2001 or whenever; it was about frequency resonance vibration. And then there were mentions in the transcripts about frequency resonance robots and frequency resonance pied pipers. Basically, the it was said that the plan was to get bodies to resonate in such a way that 4D STS could download directly - if only temporarily - into this reality. So, is that what is happening with a lot of these groups of leftists and postmodernists inspired by Jung and the postmodernist philosophers and sociologists?

A: Indeed. But do not get misled by labels because the right has similar tendencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom