Tate-Hate and Western Man's Fate
The evil Jordan Peterson may be the best Jordan Peterson.
Andrew Tate, I hear, is among the biggest social media influencers on Planet Earth. I don’t know much about him myself, except (1) he speaks with a deaf person’s accent, (2) he doesn’t have much in the way of a chin or a hairline, (3) his mother is a white Brit and his father was a unicorn—that is, a black chess master—and (4) he has some kind of background in martial arts.
Considering his comic-book persona, what seems most interesting about the guy is the space he’s carved out for himself as a public intellectual.
In fact, Tate is almost an exact counterpoint to that Doc Brown to the millions of spiritually lost Marty McFlys out there, Jordan Peterson. And I suspect that Tate’s popularity has the same ultimate source as Peterson’s: the Western epidemic of fatherlessness.
Some young men, it seems, sought masculine grounding in an internet stand-in for a wise uncle; others went with the internet stand-in for the local drug lord.
Tate’s appeal, as far as I can tell, is precisely the appeal a small-time crime boss has for the male mental midgets loitering around the ’hood. He serves up equal parts alpha-ape swagger and trashy wealth displays…things that are to manly virtue as lips and tits inflated to 90 PSI are to maidenly virtue.
But, be that as it may, I have to say, I’m not convinced Tate is an altogether bad guy. He’s in the business of online hucksterism, so he’s required to be a performing social-media monkey, and no one can say he doesn’t perform. The question is, besides converting clicks into hundred-dollar bills with which to light hundred-dollar cigars, what’s he doing for mankind?
Well, maybe more than might be assumed.
Which brings us to the issue at hand.
The reason we’re here, see, is that last week Tate was dominating the Xmosphere thanks to his latest, hotter-than-a-New-York-activist take. That take was, in essence: Hey, white men, you’ve all become bitches, and you’re doomed to get out-bred and go extinct.
Man, that’s super offensive. You got me, Tate. I’m trembling with indignation.
But like I said, he did his job, because here we are talking about him. And my real point is, he just might be doing some good. The now-infamous X-tweet was met with no end of exactly the sound and fury it was calculated to incite. On the one hand, there are people like this Substacker, who find Tate reprehensible on a personal level. On the other hand, a lot of pro-white accounts, anonymous and otherwise, called Tate a subversive agent and an n-word.
Now, I can’t deny that Tate is an eyesore and a rather seedy role model. And I can neither confirm nor deny, in any definitive way, the subversive-agent charge. And I suppose it can’t be denied, from a strict DNA perspective, that the n-word accusation is not wholly unfounded.
But what’s the story behind the story?
The first thing to understand here is that—assuming he is not a subversive agent—Tate is no dummy. He’s positioned himself at the center of the zeitgeist and gotten filthy rich in the process. And as far as the topic he’s chosen to take on—the fate of white people and our civilization—he has a unique perspective. He has neither white nor black skin in the game, but he does have a dog in the fight.
To engage in a bit of psychobabble, Tate is his own invented character, because he has no genuine history or tribe to attach himself to. He’s a privileged product of white society, but too not-white to be what he apparently actually is—a far-right racist bigot homophobe neo-nazi misogynist conspiracy-theorist hate-monger.
So he speaks out, and lashes out, and makes everything about him, because “him” is the most profound thing he has to connect to.
Beneath his absurd persona, however, due to his high IQ, he relates most strongly to people who are truly able to think, and he wants to exist in the culture those people create.
That concludes the psychobabble portion of our program. Now onto what Tate is actually saying.
He’s calling whites names, savaging our manhood, and predicting the end of the white world. But is he celebrating these things? No. It seems obvious to me—and inasmuch as he can be believed, Tate confirms—that what he’s attempting to do is bring an unfolding catastrophe to the forefront of the collective consciousness.
His message, put with cave-man bluntness, is that women need to be breeding stock, and men need to be men...and that failure to check these two boxes leads to (1) the collapse of birthrates and (2) the collapse of pragmatic policies that keep your civilization up and running.
I mean, hate Tate all you want, but look around you. To deny what he’s saying is like denying that our orgy of LGBT-etc. glorification has been a slippery slope straight into the cesspit of pedophilia.
As has been logically proven in absolute and inarguable terms elsewhere, women ain’t men. They don’t think like us, and arguably they don’t, by and large, think at all...at least about things that don’t begin and end in their intrinsically narcissistic drives.
If that’s true, but your entire culture is an eggshell-treading, mealy-mouthed, ever-flinching negotiation with the fairer sex—lest they spiral into a state tantamount to demon possession and do all they can to ruin your life—well, then, as Tate states, to quote Jake Blues, you’re really up shit creek.
Regarding birthrates, just think: for basically all of Western history women dropped kids, practically nonstop, accidentally. The result of (1) default female subjugation, (2) the absence of womb-vacuuming procedures and fertility-murdering pills, and (3) our sex drives being, as they are, in permanent overdrive, was endless pregnancies and, hence, endless births.
Regarding the maintenance of a particular civilization, be it Ancient Greece, the Holy Roman Empire, or the libertarian fantasy of the US founders, men always—always, for better or for worse—said, “Fuck it, talk is cheap, we’re going to war.” This impulse to cut the crap and sort things out with head-bashing and bloodletting has been, until the rise of Clown World, a mainstay of Western civ.
No doubt, this impulse can have miserable consequences, many petty power-struggles or international wars are utterly moronic, but the fact remains that until recently we didn’t just talk, we took action…and the further fact remains that there were plenty of us to take action. We could lose half a million men in a retarded war and make up the ground, without even trying, in 20 years.
But now, with the jamming signal of female histrionics in our public decision-making, we just talk—and in pathetically circumspect terms. And with the biologically based, female whore-impulse detached from the very reason God has instilled women with that impulse—namely, swollen bellies and litters of brats—there’s a rapidly diminishing number of us to even do our half-assed talking.
Them’s the facts. It would seem that if Tate truly reveled in those facts, he would just keep working his goofy hustles and counting his money. But what he’s actually doing is what his revered counterpart, Jordan Peterson, won’t—getting to the heart of the matter.
Does Tate have much to offer beyond his insights about the value of males being pricks, and the value of us using our pricks as God meant us to? Like I said, I don’t follow the guy, so maybe, maybe not. But as he compares with Peterson, the Lobster King seems to be ensnared, and ensnaring young men, in that trap of…just…fucking…talking. Tate at least is discussing definite action, and a return to the standards and practices that might allow us, and our civilization, to continue to exist.
“I’m a white boy looking to do my thing.” - Merle Haggard.
I have a hard time buying into the all we do is talk instead of fight narrative when our country has essentially been in a state of perpetual war since WWII:
WWII: 1941-1945
Korea: 1950-1953
Vietnam: 1955-1975
Gulf War:1990-1991
Afghanistan: 2001-2021
Iraq: 2003-2011
Ukraine/Russia: 2022-
Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran: 2023-
Not to mention the myriad of smaller military engagements throughout the world like Bosnia, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Syria, Lybia…
It’s not talk that resulted in our streets being full of PTSD burdened and addicted veterans. It’s not talk that led to us spending about
$325 billion a year on the VA.
The idea that women are somehow a brake on said violence is equally laughable when they tend to vote for and support said military interventions in higher numbers than men.
The problem isn’t that the U.S. is engaging in too much talk and not enough violence, it’s that said violence is focused on purported foreign enemies while the domestic enemies are ignored.