THE IRON CURTAIN AROUND ANDREW TATE
American born Andrew Tate, went from a relative unknown to household name within a few short months this year! Why and how such was possible in a heavily censored and politically correct age, is the obvious question that should be on the lips of our media, yet they are distracted (and intentionally distracting their audiences) with faux moral outrage over his supposed “hate speech” and crimes against their snowflake sensibilities.
Exactly how a man raised largely in Luton, England by his single mother and US based chess champion father, became the most googled man on earth, is based on one core idea- young men are crying out for honest, truthful leadership and role models. In a world where men have been told to be more emotional, less traditionally masculine and raised on a strict diet of egalitarian, feminist curriculum across the west for the last few decades, a natural push back to equilibrium is being formed. Already I can hear the screeches “but we live in a patriarchy” and “it’s ok for men to show their emotions and embrace femininity”, but never do these people ask why traditional masculinity formed in the first instance, let alone listen to the rational explanations of Andrew Tate, who may occasionally lace his logic with comedic hyperbole, these lefty puritans call for immediate censorship and even violence, against the formidable four times kickboxing champion.
The critics cherry pick extreme sound bites to justify their censorship agenda, yet if you ask any avowed Tate hater what specifically he has said, you’ll get blank faces and deliberate or low IQ misunderstandings of his points. Often these perfect individuals will claim it’s not what he’s saying but “ how he says it” which is “problematic”. This is truly reprehensible reasoning. To say that style is more important than substance when it comes to issues such as motivating men to workout daily, make more money and learn how to be a more charming, functional man worthy of respect, should be the real topic of the discussion here. The aforementioned prioritising of “style or “tone of speech” over content- which sincerely calls for boys and men to realise their value is truly within their hands to improve and maximise, is the most disturbing message the critics and censors are communicating. What happened to judging people by their actions and content of their character? Since the modern left have no substance or meaningful philosophies to offer young men themselves, they seek only to critique, deride and eventually delete others who dare to advance meritocratic, masculine and stoic principles.
The sweet talking nihilists who have no problem with authoritarian governments, the lockdowns, mandates, central bank inflation or lgbt gender theory being foisted upon us all, will scream from the highest mountain about how evil Andrew Tate and his ilk are, yet where is the evidence? He is not a sex trafficker as they repeat ad nauseam, nor did he beat his ex girlfriend who has clarified the matter numerous times. Yet it’s so much easier to demonise strong individual men, than to realise an entire establishment is hard wired against you and that is why there are record divorce rates, depressed obese soulless men and a widening social gap between the sexes. If the holier-than-thou Puritan leftists were actually pure of heart and had better solutions to these modern ills destroying the substance of western civilisation, I might be more inclined to entertain their calls for mass censorship of ideas they call “hate”. However they do not, beyond facile calls to “be kind” these people have no prescription for young men specifically because they assume men to be mentally identical to women.
This blank slate, social constructionist theory, quickly falls apart when you ask them if men and women are the same physically, of course they’ll admit we aren’t, men are stronger. Men are more aggressive than women in every single country and culture, it’s young men speeding in cars and lighting fires, not girls! Yet the mind and body are not separate entities, the brain is a physical organ like any other part of the body and a male brain is functionally and structurally different to that of a female, with different hormones acting upon it also. This brings us to a central claim that Tate is “sexist” or “misogynistic” because he once argued men are more intelligent than women, if anyone looks at the scientific data, the bell curve distribution of IQ’s is wider amongst men than women. What this means is more men are of both very low and very high IQ compared to women- circa four times more genius level men than women, which is likely why men dominate chess at the highest echelons and why men are the majority of the homeless. The average IQ between the sexes is similar, but averages don’t exist in reality- for instance if the average household has 2.3 people, we all know 2.3 people can’t actually exist. Therefore in the case of IQ, it is the most extreme individuals- the Tesla’s and Francis Bacon’s who drive society forward in great leaps, rather than average “middle of the bell curve” individuals.
Men are also wired to take more risk, primarily because we have at least six times more testosterone which both clarifies thinking and makes us more aggressive, less agreeable and less emotional. Risk taking translates to more financial success amongst very few men- which feminists use to broad brush all men as being “privileged”, ignoring the majority who are in low paid manual labour and comprise 90% of workplace deaths.
Conversely women are biased towards safety, which is a great thing in ensuring the survival of our progeny and future generations, however safety mindset people can’t expect to earn equal amounts of dollars in the marketplace- and nor should all women want to, there are far more important things in life than being a well paid tax slave! Why is it that “womens liberation involves mimicking men, dressing, acting and working like men, how is that a true expression of femininity? Andrew Tate’s rants are largely an expansion on the aforementioned facts and dynamics, he may not be “qualified” in the way the postmodern French gender theorists behind third wave feminism are, but he likely has more real world experience with women than the collective sum of John Money, Foucault and their ilk, not to mention the Twitter soy boys who have conspired to cancel him.
In my anecdotal experience, guys like Tate who are openly offensive and make “sexist” jokes, are often the most trustworthy and gentlemanly with women. We accept there are differences but don’t hate women by any stretch of the imagination, but rather see the differences as complimentary, massively necessary and enjoy their company which only a woman can offer- they balance our aggression and ideally we offer women both physical and mental security. Tate instructs his followers to open doors, pay for dates and be a man worthy of dating. Anyone can Google the research on dating apps which shows women “like” circa 5% of men whilst men are far less picky “liking” circa 60% of women on sites such as OkCupid. This is backed up by other studies showing women find 80% of men to be “below average” attractiveness, which is mathematically impossible but alludes to the historical fact that a majority of women seek a minority of men and to be in that minority of men you must exhibit signs of physical health, wealth and mental stability. Most men are truly invisible, average incomes and bodies and often not aware of the hypergamous nature of women; which is to be understood and accepted, rather than a basis for frustration and violence, as we saw in the case of Elliot Rodger.
Women do not seek homeless men, men who cry as much as they do or show signs of low confidence or aspiration. No matter how many times the “fat positivity” crowd open their gobs saying “women prefer Dad bods” or “men who workout are far right”, the fact remains women continue to lust after men with some muscle and ability to defend them. These are the ancient pillars Tate has leaned upon and only in an insane and cognitively inverted world should that be “controversial”.
What hope is there to turn around the 40% reduction in testosterone since 1980, if there are no fathers or male role models to tell men to shape up, eat better and respect their bodies? Who in the approved social media is telling men to discipline their minds, increase their mental acuity and attention spans and become someone worthy of respect? Jordan Peterson perhaps, but he’s been attacked no end also, even softly spoken men on the side of masculinity are cancelled because it’s not about the style of delivery or alleged controversy but rather the fact that these perpetually comfortable weakling men abs women who comprise the modern political left, simply hate disagreement and cannot allow debate. Just as Ardern and Trudeau would rather demonise, demonetise and use their media and police dogs, to attack any opposition rather than debate us in the light of day and prove us to be wrong.
What is the point of young men knowing “sexist” facts you may ask, won’t it just result in more hate and abuse towards women? No, quite the opposite! If men realise they carry the burden of risk, reward, success, conquest, honour, courageous acts and all the qualities the better men who came before us embodied….then we have a duty to act in the world and improve every sunrise! Tate largely embodies this message, I may not agree with every aspect of how he dresses his thoughts, body or the colour of his Bugatti, but the fact remains that he did the work, he rose above his starting position, claimed what he desired and now motivates others to define themselves as they see fit. This is a truly terrifying message for any establishment that wishes to contain and misdirect the masculine energy which has historically been the only source of revolt against tyranny.
Women have never defeated tyrants and feminised societies never will! That isn’t hate speech but a fact. Like Tate, I do not say such things to incite disdain towards the opposite sex but rather implore men to fill the obvious gaps in the social strata and hierarchy, in which we used to occupy. In my mind, the descent of our great civilisations has been turbocharged by the advent of social media which has given a voice to people who previously would be ignored. For example some poorly dressed, obese man (or pink haired woman),with no social gravitas or admiration of women used to be ignored in the back of a pub or equivalent dosser-riddled park, but now such people can have hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers and actually shape social discourse disproportionately to their accomplishments and worthiness.
Meanwhile tall, handsome, intelligent men can be ostracised, ridiculed and censored by these misfits who have hijacked the newly formed, virtual social hierarchy. This is why our leaders are no longer philosophers, our thinkers no longer warriors and our society no longer values truth, beauty, strength or legacy. We are isolated, divided and in a Cold War against one another along the lines drawn by cultural Marxists. It’s not that we aren’t different but rather that by understanding and truly accepting our differences and functional inequalities, then we can fill each others strengths and weaknesses more effectively as families, small towns and large societies.
We cannot do such in these “failed societies” as Tate aptly calls them, which proclaim “diversity is strength” whilst they kill contrary thought and mandate superficial “kindness” which is quite obviously not the social glue or purpose the west so dearly needs. The fluffy epithets of a Trudeau or Ardern are nothing more than fleeting, feel-good, cliches that seek to emotionally please the myopic masses who live wholly in their feelings in the eternal now. Our armies of feminised men and women wishing they were men, seek to never endure pain of any kind, hence we print over recessions to delay the hardship of economic downturns, we seek to erase “harmful words” from the vocabulary such as telling students they “failed” an exam and in the last decade we increasingly censor men in all levels of society who seek to deliver harsh truths, regardless of if they are seasoned academic lecturers or ordinary blue collar workers.
The solution to all of this censorship, tyranny and decline of relations between men and women is so painfully obvious. We revert to the roles which just about every culture on earth agreed upon. No I do not mean a reversion to slavery, nor do I think women are property or anything so ridiculous. To the contrary, self ownership is exactly why slavery and sexual assault are immoral! It also means personal responsibility, ownership of our minds and bodies and not contracting our thinking out to governments or medical decisions out to corrupted “experts”. A philosophy of radical self ownership would result in men becoming more capable, fit, confident and attractive to women. It would create men who could stand up to feminists and not just nod and smile at them for fear of sexual ostracism as they do today. (The proof of that statement is more men are sexless today than ever and yet women are enjoying similar rates of intercourse which is evidence they are attracted to and sharing fewer men).
This matters because our entire species is wired around sex and it’s unequal distribution. All Tate is doing is trying to ensure his audience is at the top of that echelon and able to reclaim society from the NPC’s- the emasculated Twitter trolls, talking heads on media and avatars of men who have erected a false social order and put themselves on top by way of fiat decree. These pseudo males and their low energy followers absolutely fear the day the facade falls and the true pyramid of social order rises, with uncensored and unapologetic, healthy men at the apex, who will not tolerate the lies, corruption and mediocrity of this modern age. The longer the stifling of discourse continues and the more aggressively they ban us not only from social media but banking and emerging social credit systems, the stronger and more merciless the pushback upon them will be. The eternal flame of freedom and masculinity ensures that conquest!
NZs Media Revolution
Facts & Evidence based
Not a pay to say platform