Andrew Tate was arrested in Miami. Did you know he was white?
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
One thing I find interesting about Western views on the 'Manosphere', etc. is that they tend to be adamant that such things actually are Western to begin with.
I watched a feminist YouTube video making this exact talking point, and at the same time as the word 'Western' was used, it showed the faces of many of these people (e.g. the brothers Tate, 'Myron Gaines' [Sudanese], 'Sneako' [Haitian-Filipino]), none of whom were White bar 'Clavicular'. You hear the word 'Western' and you see only one White face surrounded by dozens of non-white faces belonging to content creators many of whom I have never seen nor heard.
I remember thinking how strange it was, because while it is indeed geographically 'Western', this 'philosophy', in the lay sense of the term, sure as hell has next to nothing to do with White people. Furthermore, it never did, for even when it started out, it was just a different set of non-whites, like Roosh V (Iranian), who were pushing it.
Perhaps this arrest record simply reflects that same kind of widespread thinking: the brothers Tate are 'Manosphere' influencers, therefore must be oppressors, and oppression has become heavily White 'coded'; therefore, the brothers Tate are more White than they are anything else. Likewise, the 'Manosphere' itself must be more Western than anything else by the same faulty reasoning. As someone external to these Leftist mental schemata, I see the Tates as more black than anything else: I vaguely recall Andrew making clear black supremacist talking points and recall them jokingly referring to themselves as 'niggers', which is proof enough that they also see themselves that way.
The video unwittingly goes on to reinforce my observation that 'Manosphere' views, far from being 'Western' in any meaningful sense of the word, are totally a non-white 'philosophy'. It largely focuses on two more obscure Manosphere influencers who are growing rapidly in popularity in their own parts of the world: Andrew Kibe, of Kenya; and 'El Temach', of Mexico.
It became clearer to me that the Manosphere largely originated with black and brown men empowered by the Internet in Western countries. As third-world internet access is growing, these men have simply imported this worldview back to their own ancestral homelands, such that Latin America and Africa, at the very least, are now developing their own homegrown influencers. I recall reading that the Tates are even popular among young men in the Taliban, even though the highly acquisitive, competitive, materialistic, predatory worldview of the Tates is surely incompatible with that of the Taliban's leaders, who are much more ascetic and spiritual, and who would probably view the Tates, Sneako, and the other self-proclaimed Muslims among them as kafirs in all but name.
I don't think that these men do anything beyond mirroring feminism (e.g. replace 'all men are pigs' with 'all women are gold diggers', replace 'marriage enslaves women' with 'marriage enslaves men'), which might be part of why they have become so popular: their arguments already resemble the structure of key feminist arguments peddled by the dominant ideology and mass media, but the roles are simply inverted. They are cognitively easy to grasp because the rest of the argument is one we're already inculcated with from a young age. 'Leftists really say that X leads to Y, but the reality is that Y leads to X', says the influencer, and even stupid people can nod along approvingly because they have heard all their lives that X leads to Y.
Consequently, these people offer nothing to solve the myriad sociocultural problems of today. In fact, I would even say that their worldview is sociologically entirely wrong. For instance, many of them promote a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' type of view that is practically the inversion of my own stance on the famous Structure-Agency debate from the social sciences; namely, that humans are overwhelmingly the product of externalities, especially time and place, and only a minority of what they are is within their own power to change, is of their own making.
The feminists, of course, totally misunderstand this 'Manosphere' phenomenon and are totally oblivious as to how they are ultimately driving it. Take the common idea that it is based on mere 'hate' of women. These men do not 'hate' women any more than they hate the other things that they crave, like money and luxury cars. Who pursues money who hates money; who pursues luxury cars who hates cars? The key to understanding them on this point is not that they 'hate' women, but that they simply see the women they fancy the same way they see the cars they fancy: as something to collect and control. It is not 'hate' but simply an animalistic reversion to the harem building of apes paired with acquisitive materialism. It is ugly, yes, but it is not 'hateful' nor even emotional more generally.
Another red flag is the sheer amount of commercialization involved: 'pay X and you will learn this new tip from me', 'pay Y to attend my upcoming speech'. Make no mistake, these men are getting wealthy from proferring false solutions to deep sociocultural problems. I, for one, will not lament their downfall, especially not that of the brothers Tate.
Although it largely went unseen, the manifesto of the recent Montreal shooter, Seth Hatfield, shows that he was completely invested in these problems regarding feminism. Hence his combining of this kind of worldview, peculiarly, with Marxism. He observed that all of this alterativism: just be more confident, just get a high-paying job, just get some surgery to increase your height, just alter this and that and the other about yourself, reassigns to the individual something that is ultimately sociocultural. Indeed, no man thought in this way until recently: that he would marry and have children was practically a given, and not conditional on ridiculous height, fitness, and salary requirements that disqualify almost all men. 'He must be six-foot tall and have a six pack and earn a six-figure salary! 666!'
Reading all of this, it occurs to me that you have likely read a bit about the Manosphere, but you haven't actually read or listened to much from the Manosphere. Your views about what it is and the different beliefs that make it up is very narrow and filtered through what others say about it.
The fact that the ones you listed are just a tiny handful, and the obnoxious ones made famous by TikTok that make waves in normie news, is a pretty clear demonstration of this. I would wager you've never even heard of Colttaine, Joker, Sandman, etc.
Correct.
Incorrect. I think I watched one of his Odysee videos in its entirety, but found his content unappealing. In the case that this might be a false memory, I just watched one of his latest videos (one that was not about memes like his latest videos overwhelmingly seem to be) and similarly found it unappealing.
In America, the average woman wasn't even voting Leftward of the average man until the 1980s when they finally converged before diverging in the opposite direction. For the overwhelming majority of American history, men were the ones pushing Leftist and liberal views, while women were comparatively conservative. Eventually, centuries of the compounded mistakes of men have led to the current state of women. Women have been the greater let-down to the American 'Right' for only forty years.
Even today, they are not always the greater let-down. In my country, they now support the civic 'nationalists' (the furthest Right you can legally be in this country) more than men do. Men are again the disappointment by refusing to shift Rightward right when women are showing signs of a substantially Rightward shift. I wonder: What are we men doing letting women down yet again?
Has it not occurred to you that were it not for the likes of Charles Fourier, John Stuart Mill, and 'Ashley Montagu' (Israel Ehrenburg), those myriad later hags whom we nowadays associate with feminist literature and thought would only have come around much later, if at all?
Degenerate, weak men have always been the problem. The woman problem is merely a reflection of an underlying man problem: in typical structuralist fashion (the only difference, coupled with Right rather than Left politics), I think it clear that women simply reflect the men around them. Their voting patterns throughout history - and, in my country, today - demonstrate that men are the problem. That the earliest feminist authors were were often men further demonstrate that men are the problem. Women do not shape the world, only men do. They win what men allow them to win.
A New Social Order that brings about anti-'Enlightenment' transformative sociocultural change - one run by the 'tradcucks' that he bemoans - is the only solution. Without that, only extinction lies ahead. What Sandman advocates in his video is not transformative, not counter-revolutionary, it is purely alterative: namely, we just need artificial wombs and other technologies - the stuff of Uncle Ted's greatest nightmares - to disempower women by means of technology.
Using language feminists and consumerists would equally understand and find threatening: We choose Gilead or we choose extinction. There is no room for the American, 'Enlightened' worldview in that future.
Do you mean to say that the brothers Tate and all those others that I have mentioned are in some way unrepresentative of a 'true' Manosphere? If so, why is it that the overwhelming majority of people who buy into these ideas follow such men whilst those men whose names you have rattled off are indeed obscure even to more intellectual persons? I mentioned Andrew Kibe and 'El Temach' as examples of obscure influencers, but the people that you mention are even more obscure than them, indeed, even more obscure than someone like 'Androgenic' (one of Clavicular's 'friends' and fellow content creators, and much more obscure than Clavicular, Kibe, and El Temach).
How can it be that the people who are representative of the 'true' Manosphere are these largely nameless and faceless men, while the named, widely recognized men are somehow representative only of a 'false' Manosphere? The Manosphere is overwhelmingly the men that I mentioned, not those that you have mentioned. Likewise, the Manosphere's base overwhelmingly follows the men that I mentioned, not those that you have mentioned.
Yes, Sandman is more articulate than those prominent ones mentioned, and likely a better man, but I don't see him as making radically different talking points to the Tates, such that someone who hates the Tates will still find his worldview appealing.
That's like a Nazi telling a Leftist: 'Look, I know that you don't like the brothers Strasser, nor Julius Streicher, but I assure you that Adolf Hitler is different enough that you will find plenty to like if you will just listen to him.'
I don't need to listen to every Manosphere content creator to know what these people stand for. The term obviously refers to a cluster of people united by fundamental beliefs (even if, outside of said beliefs, they may wildly differ on more peripheral things, similar to the Dissident Right), and their beliefs strike me as simply a mixture of inverted feminism (feminism creates these people, these people, in turn, create more feminists, in a perfectly symbiotic way); acquisitive materialism; controversialism; and, at times, even an animalistic and instinctual worldview - 'I Grug, I compete with other Grugs over shiny cars and women' - that harkens back to a time, perhaps a pre-tribal natural state, before man even began to reason or build societies.
You charge me with only knowing what these people's enemies say about them. I charge you, in turn, with willfully ignoring the very big fish to selectively present several comparatively optical, sanitized, irrelevant small fries to paint a curated, false reality.
I read about 75% of this. Now I will go support ZOG and foids so they can rape me. Thank for opening my eyes on this matter.
How many of these people actually oppose any 'ZOG'? Probably only Sneako, and only because he became a Muslim 'revert' (i.e. convert).
I recall an Andrew Tate video stating that people shouldn't join the US military. That's all I can recall from these people insofar as serving these stupid governments is concerned.
Now imagine a society run by President Andrew Tate. 'Sneako' is the new Vice President. 'Clavicular' is the new Secretary of the Treasury. Clavicular's OnlyFans whores like 'Alice Rosenblum' are all now high-ranking government officials. 'Myron Gaines' is the new Senate majority leader.
What an absolute joke of a society that would be. One run by social media influencers obsessed with luxury cars, who would obviously be using their position for all sorts of corruption and to collect women. The Manosphere version of Idiocracy. Said society would obviously be more farcical than anything that Trump, possibly even more farcical anything that the dangerous fool Gavin Newsom, could come up with.
I also recall you stating that, despite your username, you are actually part if not wholly non-white. While it may not be the full reason that you see more value - judging by your comment, probably much more value - in what these people say, I suspect that it just serves as further evidence towards my point, namely, that these beliefs are simply non-white 'philosophies'. No regenerate person would see any appeal in Andrew Tate, who laughably reasoned, for instance, that he'd rather have sex with a 10/10 tranny than a 1/10 real woman if forced to choose. Now any real man, any straight man, would choose the 1/10 real woman over the hypothetical 10/10 tranny without hesitation.
Sneako clicked his way through one of these internet sexuality quiz things, which identified him as slightly queer. He then rationalizes it by saying something like 'oh well, nobody is fully straight anyway'. Hilarious. I went through the same quiz he clicked through on stream and got the completely heterosexual result that he thought that nobody could honestly get. He's obviously slightly bent, just like Tate, Spanish Fluentes (watches trans porn), Alex Jones (also watches trans porn), and all of these other weirdos.
Tate is also a convert to Islam.
The US government being an absolute clownshow? Very hard to imagine.
Right, just imagine the current situation except for Trump's impotence.
Yup. But I did find it ironic how well your diagnosis fit the current situaton.
Non-whites, particularly those who live in non-white countries, generally love Hitler. Source: am non-white (but do not love Hitler).
I have to agree with SmiggieBalls here. Your interpretation of the Manosphere is through the lens of the feminist zeitgeist in how they WANT you to interpret, via bad actors and misrepresentatives like Tate and Sneako.
As SmiggieBalls pointed out, Better Bachelor is a straight White male offering insight and advice to young and older men alike.
Rich Cooper has been one of the longer running and largest voices within the space, offering mostly sound advice for lifestyle, relationships and finances. Again, a straight White Canadian male.
SSM, or Strong Successful Male, is a channelk I recommend to everyone. Married or not, EVERY male needs to be watching this channel because it's stories usually written in by bloeks that highlights how a lot of men fall into the beta-male trap and get used and abused and cheated on by womn. Troy, once again, is a straight White male and runs multiple 100K+ channels.
Alexander Grace is another one, with hundreds of thousands of followers, making content very similar to Joker from Better Bachelor. Alexander Grace is a straight White Australian male.
Taylor The Fiend is yet another bloke, very prominent in the Manosphere space, highlighting the issues with relationships and the things that the young lads need to do to improve their own lives. Once again, he's a straight White Aussie male.
Lergion of Men has nearly half a million followers, focuses on self-improvement, pointing out the issues from the Tiny Hat Commission and the gynocentric issues propped up by the zeitgeist. Bo Refec is another straight White male.
Effective Purpose is a fast-rising Christian Manosphere channel, focusing on all of the red pill content from a Biblical perspective. This channel has also inspired multiple other small channels to pop up in the straight White male Christian space, many of whom I've been subscribing to lately. He's also a straight White Canadian male. Although, his biggest sin is engaging in miscegenation.
If you only follow the content creators talked about by the zeitgeist, then you will get a completely distorted view of the Manosphere. But follow the actual straight White males in the Manosphere space and they offer helpful, enlightening and wise advice for younger and older lads alike on how to improve your health, your workout regiment, and how to be aware of the games and tricks that wenches play.
Let's not forget the old Manosphere either. Heartiste, Dalrock, etc.
+Rollo Tomassi, +Mike Sartain
Holy snaps, how could I forgoet the original grandfather of the red pill? You're absolutely right. YT likes to keep unsubscribing me from Rollo, but yeah, add those two.
Plus, I forgot about Rageholic's Doppelkreuz channel, which is a red-pill Christian channel.
and G-Man Speaks, but he has to keep recreating his channel because YT loves to take his content down. Another straight White Aussie bloke with his head on right.
One of the rare long posts that isn't just schizoposting.
I don't see the appeal of the likes of Andrew Tate either. Leaving aside the trafficking and Onlyfans, these people are mostly poseurs. These are old videos of Andrew Tate where he looks like a scared little boy. Apparently, all it takes to fool the online right is to shave your head and brag about "MY FIVE LAMBOS".
What's more is that the online right generally doesn't like blacks or mulattoes like Tate, let alone when they are Muslims. But this guy is OK. Why? He's definitely innocent of all the charges. I know that because he said so.