Is Andrew Tate a traditionalist?
Getting put into prison has been hugely beneficial to Andrew Tate when it comes to circulating his message. The media have done backgrounders on him that reproduce what he says. His ideas were already widely circulated but were previously largely unknown to a mass-media audience
So what is his message? What stands out about it is its opposition to feminism. He is the anti-feminist. He defies feminist political correctness. He says that women should be subservient to men, in particular. But is that all there is to him? The apostle Paul said the same (1 Corinthians 11).
Where he differs is in his semi-Calvinist claim that wealth is a sign that you are one of the elect. He links his message to a display of conspicuous wealth. When I see pictures of him puffing on a big cigar, I just laugh but it is a traditional wealth display and that probably still works to some extent. And his collection of expensive motor vehicles does tend to indicate wealth -- if he actually owns them.
So his unlikely message is that if you push women around it can form part of a wider set of behaviours that lead to wealth. And Tate purports to show the way to wealth.
Its a seductive message to young males who have constantly been told in the educational system and elsewhere that masculinity is toxic and to ones who lack much success with dating women.
And it is his extremism that attracts. Traditional male behaviour is still so common that it has no novelty. And Tate is NOT a teacher of traditional male behaviour. I would have a better claim to that description. I open car doors for women (and am invariably thanked for it) and at parties that I go to the women tend to self-segregate in the kitchen for a large part of the time while the men yarn in the living room or on the deck. And I am a great believer in treating even female children as ladies -- as long as they are in fact ladylike.
But my way of life attracts no media interest of any kind. It does however seem to be good for my relationships with intelligent females. I have often had more than one lady in my life at the same time and I still do -- in my 80th year. So I have nothing new to teach. Traditional gentlemanly behaviour works well in my experience
But there are of course many "incels", males who have found no success in dating females no matter what they do. And there will always be such males. They were once somewhat praised as "bachelors" but that usage seems to have fallen completely out of use. These days they simply feel like failures. What is to be done about that?
Not much. Unless the man has some attribute -- usually good looks -- that attracts women, he will inevitably have a thin time of it. All he can do is try to lead a Christian life and reap whatever rewards that bestows. Religion is a comfort in that matter as in much else.
So what is the psychology of Andrew Tate? I will put on my psychologist's hat to venture a comment on that. He does give the appearance of being very insecure. His constant boasting is a good indicator of that. But all his behaviour may simply be an act and he has at times said it is.
It think that the key to what he has become lies in his appearance. Tall, well-built men are attractive to almost all women and Tate is tall (6'3") and has a bodybuilder physique. So he has no doubt found it easy to attract women. And that has shown him that feminist pieties are a load of bunk. You don't need to twist yourself into a female-shaped pretzel to have a good time with the ladies. Behaviour that is quite the opposite of feminist prescriptions works very well.
That does not mean that Tate actually behaves in a boorish way with women. Attractive women in particulare will not put up with too much of that. So in actual relationships with women, Tate almost certainly behaves in a courteous way. Some women who know him well say that he does. So the rough way of treating women that he preaches is probably not how he himself behaves in intimate relationships. He is probably more of a gentleman than he makes out
That some young males adopt his proclaimed ideas of wise behaviour is therefore regrettable but in a feminist era some degree of that behaviour may have some attractiveness. Current theories of ideal male/female behaviour don't seem to be working well. Large numbers of females report great difficulties in finding a suitable partner.
And confidence in men is a major source of attractiveness to women. Milksops are a turnoff. And whatever else he does, Tate does encourage male confidence. Self-confidence has certainly stood me in good stead -- JR
*************************************************
‘South Park’ Episodes Banned from HBO for Depicting Islamic Prophet Muhammad
Five episodes of South Park have been banned from HBO Max for depicting Islamic prophet Muhammad, reminding fans that virtually every other religion is considered fair game for making fun of — except for Islam.
South Park, which started in 1997, has five episodes that depict Muhammad: “Super Best Friends,” “Cartoon Wars Part I & II,” “200,” and “201,” all of which are missing from the HBO Max lineup, notes Screen Rant.
In addition to being banned from the streaming service, the episodes are also missing on the South Park Studios website, with each episode hit with a “currently unavailable” notice.
In the episode “Super Best Friends” — which originally aired on July 4, 2001 — the cartoon character Stan calls upon a team of superheroes to counter magician David Blaine’s suicidal cult known as “Blainetology,” which is a very clear dig at Scientology.
The team of superheroes consists of the heads of the world’s most popular religions: Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Joseph Smith, Laozi, and Muhammad.
Muhammad is also depicted in the episodes “Cartoon Wars Part I & II,” which originally aired in 2006. The episodes are inspired by the controversy surrounding the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which published a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb as his turban in 2005.
In the episode, the fictional town of South Park is panicking after the show Family Guy announces it will be showing Muhammad in its series. The Cartman character argues that depicting Muhammad is offensive to Muslims, while the Kyle character argues the Family Guy episode should be aired as an expression of free speech.
Before the episodes originally aired back in 2006, South Park creators were reportedly in a feud with Comedy Central over depicting Muhammad. Comedy Central ended up airing the episodes with a black title card over the Muhammad sequence. But the episodes were stilled banned from HBO Max, despite censorship already being in place.
At the time of the controversy, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone argued that Comedy Central was hypocritical, as most other religions were considered fair game to poke fun at, but Islam was not.
The episodes “200” and “201” were also censored by Comedy Central when they originally aired in 2010. In the episodes, actor Tom Cruise recruits 200 fellow celebrities previously made fun of in the series to bring a class action lawsuit against South Park for defamation.
Cruise later agrees to drop the lawsuit, on the condition that he can meet the prophet Muhammad. At this point, the “Super Best Friends” from years earlier return, which brings another depiction of Muhammad.
At the end of the episode, a speech by Kyle is heavily censored, and viewers can hear a very lengthy audio bleep, as well as see that Muhammad is covered with a big black box, and his name is covered by more audio bleeps.
But again, despite all of this censorship, the episodes are nowhere to be found on HBO Max.
*****************************************************
A Major Scientific Study Confirms What We All Know about men and women
Every so often, a moment of sanity prevails in our culture, quite unintentionally. At such times, reality hits home, and most people don’t even notice it. But that’s exactly what happened with the announcement of the findings of a major scientific study. For a split second, reality overtook ideology, as left-leaning journalists shared the results of this study without thinking through the implications.
I’m referring to the news, first reported widely on Fortune.com that, “Women are more empathetic than men, study of hundreds of thousands of people finds—at any age and in any country in the world.”
In response I tweeted sarcastically, “A major new study has revealed that ‘women are more empathetic than men.’ This leads to two startling revelations: 1) there is such a thing as women and men. 2) there are real differences between women and men. What do you know!”
Yes, presupposed in this major international study, which involved 300,000 participants, is the fact that there is such a thing as males and females. They really exist, and their existence can be defined, despite efforts to make “woman” (and, by extension) “man” undefinable. (Think of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s now infamous answer to the “What is a woman?” question, and see Matt Walsh’s “What Is a Woman?” documentary.)
Without this presupposition, namely, that there is such a thing as women and men, the study would have no meaning. In fact, it would be impossible even to conduct the study. Otherwise, all we would have is difference between humans and humans. That’s it!
We could not report on differences between women and men, since sex and gender are merely what we perceive them to be. Instead, we would have differences between humans, and the results would be, “On average, certain humans are more empathetic than other humans.”
It would be like doing a major survey comparing the health of taller people (let’s say people 6 feet tall or more) to shorter people (here, under 6 feet tall). The only way it could work would be if height was definable and tangible. But if my height was whatever I perceived it to be, so much for the study. I would have no meaning or purpose at all.
It’s the same with differences between the sexes. If sex (and, consequently, gender) is whatever I perceive it to be, then scientific studies like this are worthless. After all, if I’m a biological male who identifies as a female, then I have undermined the whole premise of the study.
How, then, did the makers of this health study craft their questions so as to get tangible, substantive answers?
When you click on the test itself, conducted under the auspices of the University of Cambridge, you are asked a series of background questions, beginning with, “What is your age?”
This reminds us that “age” is not a matter of perception, even if we feel younger or older than our actual years. Our age is identifiable, going back to the year we were born. That is a fact.
The second question is: “What was your biological sex assigned at birth?” What do you know!
Despite the use of radicalized leftist language, as if your sex was arbitrarily assigned to you at birth by the doctors and nurses, the survey must ask for biological reality. Otherwise, to repeat, the survey has no meaning at all.
Quite tellingly, in today’s upside down culture, you can’t simply ask, “What is your sex?” Instead, you need to ask what was written on your birth certificate when you were born. Your actual, biological sex matters!
Even so, the survey listed the options of: “Male; Female; Intersex; I prefer not to say; I do not know.” (Are we really supposed to believe that some people do not know if they were born male or female? We’re not talking here about the very real biological category of Intersex, where there is potential ambiguity.)
Not surprisingly, given the madness of our woke society, the next question asks, “What is your gender?”
Here the choices are more expansive (but of course!): “Female; Male; Transfemale; Transmale; Non-binary; Other; I prefer not to say; I do not know.” (Enough said. I don’t need to add any commentary here.)
What is remarkable, though, is the test results page (I took the test to see how I scored).
Under, “Your Empathy score (EQ)” we are told that, “Most females score 6 to 16” and “Most males score 4 to 15.”
What happened to all the other categories? What happened to the transfemales and transmales and non-binary people?
Those categories no longer exist, displaced by differences between “females” and “males,” and that information was gleaned in question 2: When you were born, what was your biological sex? That’s what really matters.
Later, the test results page explains that, “On average, more men than women have a Type S brain type and more women than men have a Type E brain type. It is suggested that these brain types are caused by genetic and prenatal hormonal levels (2,3), as well as by environmental factors.”
Accordingly, the Fortune.com article reported that, “Females, on average, score significantly higher in cognitive empathy scores than males regardless of nationality, language spoken, and age, a massive new study published on Monday in the journal PNAS found.” And the 250-word abstract of the study references “females” 8 times – without qualification or equivocation.
Accordingly, David Greenberg, a psychologist and social neuroscientist at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University and lead author on the study, commented, “Our results provide some of the first evidence that the well-known phenomenon—that females are on average more empathic than males—is present in a wide range of countries across the globe. It’s only by using very large data sets that we can say this with confidence.”
My wife, Nancy, saw this reported on CNN in the most matter of fact way, with both the CNN newscaster and the doctor brought in for commentary seeming to forget that it is bigoted and transphobic to speak of differences between women and men. In the words of NARL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), “We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it is not just cis-gender women who get pregnant.” But of course. And men can menstruate too. All clear!
As I wrote in 2017 (with reference to “menstruating men”), “There is an all-out war on sexual difference (often referred to as ‘gender’), and if it wins the day, it will lead to societal chaos.”
That chaos is already here, growing by the day. But for a moment this week, quite unintentionally, reality crept back in and sanity prevailed as news outlets reported the simple, verifiable (and, widely known) fact that women, on average, are more empathetic than men.
Men and women do exist, and there are differences between the two.
What do you know?
****************************************************
Canada to re-educate Jordan Peterson for ‘wrongthink’
Wokeism has destroyed Canada. We knew the situation was bad when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of protesters in order to silence political action against his regime’s appalling abuses of human rights. It became unsalvageable when Trudeau followed up this behaviour by speaking about his love of China’s dictatorial powers over citizens.
Long gone are the days of suffocating niceness from our northern cousins. Now, professionals who disagree on social media with Canada’s ruling elite find themselves ruthlessly threatened by institutions that are meant to stand for liberty of thought.
That ‘stuffy’ and outdated value is scorned by the younger generation who prefer the comfort of ‘approved truth’ and safe nests feathered with media ‘consensus’.
While most Western regimes find themselves under attack from a mixture of neo-Marxism, eco-fascism, gender extremism, and whatever ‘ism’ TikTok culture involves – it is Canada that leads the way on policing ‘wrongthink’. They have readily embraced the insidious idea that the government and its bureaucracies have a right to ‘re-educate’ those who dissent.
In a series of tweets today, Dr Jordan Peterson reported his situation at the hands of these lunatics:
‘BREAKING: the Ontario College of Psychologists @CPOntario has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting @PierrePoilievre and criticising @JustinTrudeau and his political allies.
‘I am to take a course of such training (with reports documenting my “progress” or face an in-person tribunal and suspension of my right to operate as a licensed clinical psychologist.
‘About a dozen people from all over the world submitted complaints about my public statements on Twitter and [Joe] Rogan over a four year period (out of the 15 million who follow me on social media) claiming that I had “harmed” people (not them) with my views.
‘In its wisdom @CPOntario decided to pursue these complaints even though they could have dismissed them as vexatious.
‘I have been accused of harming people (although none of the complainants involved in the current action were clients of mine, past or present, or were even acquainted with any of my clients).
‘And even though many of them falsely claimed that they were or had been clients of mine and were allowed by @CPOntario to have their complaints investigated despite this falsehood.
‘We are now in a situation in Canada under @JustinTrudeau where practising professionals can have their livelihoods and public reputations threatened in a very serious manner for agreeing with the Official Opposition and criticising major government figures.
‘If I comply the terms of my re-education and my punishment will be announced publicly. I have already had the second most serious category of punishment levied against me and have been deemed a high risk to “re-offend”.
‘Canadians: your physicians, lawyers, psychologists, and other professionals are now so intimidated by their commissar overlords that they fear to tell you the truth. This means that your care and legal counsel has been rendered dangerously unreliable.
‘Ask Queen’s U law professor @PardyBruce if he concurs on the legal front.
‘To reiterate: I face public disgrace, mandatory political re-education, disciplinary hearing, and potential loss of my clinical licensing for agreeing with @PierrePolievre and criticising our standing PM @JustinTrudeau.
‘I am willing (if @SPOntario concurs, which they won’t) to make absolutely every word of all this fully public so that everyone can decide for themselves what is actually happening.
‘And to let the chips fall where they will in consequence.’
It’s music to the ears of the Left, whose publications have delighted in calling him ‘dangerous’. The idea that speech is harmful has been fashioned into a political stick with which to whack away legitimate opposition to the madhouse of Justin Trudeau’s regime of fear and control that was brazen enough to misuse emergency powers to protect his political reputation during Covid.
The simple truth is that Jordan Peterson is not afraid of the new Left. He has spent his life studying the mannerisms of authoritarian states and knows, acutely, that he is living in one during the scaffolding stage. This makes him an essential target that must be publicly burned at the stake or else opposition to Wokeism and other dogmatic policy will build.
During an interview in December of 2022, Jordan Peterson said:
‘When the pandemic emerged, the totalitarians acted first and they acted in a totalitarian way which is, “Well, why don’t we just lock everyone down?” Which is sort of the totalitarian answer to everything. And in our herd-like panic in the West, we immediately imitated them. That’s the spread of a pathogen too. It’s the spread of a totalitarian pathogen of ideas and that also shook us up terribly in the West.’
For more than a year, questioning the ‘science’ of Covid policy was considered a ‘threat’ to public health, dangerous, and outright banned on social media platforms. Those who questioned absurd health advice were turned into public enemies to be isolated from society. It is still disallowed for Australian health professionals to openly speak against Covid vaccines, even if they believe their patients are being harmed.
Controlling speech is what the worst regimes do, and yet Western leaders have increasingly sought to punish individuals for ‘wrongthink’ to the cheers of university students, who have been raised to hate any and all voices that speak to liberty. Conformity has replaced inquiry as the chief virtue of the cafe class.
Will Peterson’s academic peers stand shoulder to shoulder with him in defence of freedom of speech and thought – the foundation of their industry?
Or is academia too timid, corrupt, sickly, or comfortably drip-fed from Trudeau’s treasury to mount a rescue mission for Canada’s soul?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/canada-to-re-educate-jordan-peterson-for-wrongthink/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment