You’re doing an awesome job building this new community. Even the routine kindness of sharing posts is thoughtful and let’s us know you’re engaged in the long term. Well done, thank-you for your courage in defending positions many of us share, and articulating our concerns and hopes in ways we can not begin to convey.
Very interesting - I didn't know much about Tate. It seems like he, along with Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams (mainly through his book, "How to Fail at Everything..."), are focused on saving young men from a number of cultural pathologies. They are providing useful guidance. The hate directed at them is revealing.
Tate and Peterson are at opposing ends of a spectrum. Tate is a common pimp. He brags about it and has an online "school" called PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) where he teaches boys and men how to enter the sex work industry and commit tax fraud to maximize profits. This (and more) is why legal authorities are investigating him. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyses his indictments here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Very interesting and informative interview with a unique individual. He’s sincere and honest, I believe, but YouTube has posted a BBC interview with Andrew that attempts to convict him with what they claim is overwhelming evidence. Either the female BBC interviewer or Andrew is a brazen and vicious liar. I’m backing Tate, but it’s alarming to see how obsessed his enemies are, and the authority they’re abusing. It’s blood sport and worse; and agenda driven mob mentality.
This interview really brought out some good points about his views and also how they target him. Very interesting and accurate take on immigration/masculinity, people with ideals and the other half just repeat what the internet/government says, feminism and promiscuity, etc. His views were excellent and so correct.
"Very interesting and accurate take on immigration..." Speaking of that. Tate recently converted to Islam and is saying that the entire UK should become islamicized. Also to be noted that he has bragged about having muslim friends for decades, going back to the time of "muslim pakistani grooming gang" scandals of Rotherham. Considering his work in the sex industry, one wonders if any of the muslim friends he had back when he lived in UK were members in any of these gangs. Anyway, Tater Tot incriminated himself in several criminal activities, including mafia dealings and tax fraud. A lawyer lays it all out here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
That's how our education system was established. On the Prussian model, turning us all into lining-up good little soldiers and factory workers. On the other hand, growing up in the 50"s and 60"s, women teachers often favored the boys and chuckled at their bad behavior - boys will be boys- when a girl would've been punished for the same.
"That's how our education system was established. On the Prussian model, turning us all into lining-up good little soldiers and factory workers."
And it worked well. The American public education system, with all of it's flaws, was nonetheless one of the things that created a large middle class post WW2. We can complain all we want but there are millions of families and millions of kids around the world who can only dream of such a school system to help lift them out of illiteracy and/or poverty.
Gee, Tate's situation is eerily similar to American veterans still in the DC Gulag for stepping foot onto the property of the People(not inside the People's capitol). Several of their Bill of Rights were violated and nobody cares. Pretty sick actually. I trust organized crime far more than federal governments. Democrats and many GOPe are evil.
"Many of the people in elected office commit far more fraud than this citizen."
They need to do time too. Doesn't subtract from the crimes that Tate bragged about committing and his PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) "course" where he taught (still teaches since it's still going) boys and men the ropes of how to lure financially desperate vulnerable girls and women into the sex industry and then defraud them of their incomes and how to commit tax fraud too. Then there's his claims of drug dealing and mafia partnership and yada, yada, yada. Of course the authorities were going to investigate if these claims carried any weight. He's a conman, pimp and fraud but not a very smart one. Snitches get stitches but a self-snitcher is a bitcher.
No offense to you, but I am not sure what to believe about Tate considering today's media environment. Tax fraud... the IRS is fraud with the power of force.
People need to be taught to identify scams and if their parents or friends do not teach them, well, life will.
Did you watch the video I linked to you above? Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers does a good job analyzing Tate's own self-snitching words. He breaks down what's legal, what's illegal and what's a grey area in Tate's porn business. Tate's a conman, pimp and grifter. Even his conversion to Islam was a grift. Tucker here was either totally clueless about Tate's very large "body of work" online or he knew and chose to cover up. Either way, the way Tate is presently presenting himself to mainstream media is the polar opposite to how he presented himself in his private paid-for "War Room". People who are unfamiliar with him and his businesses see him for the first time in Tucker's faux "interview" and think, "who is this guy? he doesn't sound so bad".
"People need to be taught to identify scams and if their parents or friends do not teach them, well, life will."
From the first video I saw of Tate, I called it. I don't see how people can't see straight though his bullshit.
Thanks so much, Sasha! Three deep bows (not the submissive, Janet Yellen type) of gratitude to you. Stayed up past 1 AM watching the Tucker Andrew Tate interview, but it was worth the lost sleep — it elevated my mind and spirit, and I shared it with both my husband and our son because there was so much great advice for men; it was almost like reading a self-help book. Fabulous!
Maybe your son and husband can pay and join Tate's online PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program where he teaches boys and men how to be pimps in the online porn industry. He also reveals how to commit financial fraud as well as tax fraud, in order to maximize profits. All this and more is outlined here, complete with a legal analysis of his business model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
It was my husband, not you, who enlightened me regarding the other side of Andrew Tate, which for me doesn’t detract an iota from Tate’s brilliant interview with Tucker. I enjoyed your sarcasm and thank you. 🙏🏼
"The other side" of Andrew Tate? That's his most prominent side. His only side really. This recent grift of larping religion and "values" is totally fake to pull one over on people to garner support in his legal battle. It's no mistake that he "converted" to Islam when he did.
Very good interview. Tate is interesting because I've heard negative things about him even from those on the right like Ben Shapiro. But I have trouble trusting that.
Ben, criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down Tate's own self-snitching here. He drew attention from legal authorities because of all his online bragging about criminal activities, including mafia connections and tax fraud. Not only that, he has pay-for courses like PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) where he teaches others how to create these criminal businesses:
Thanks for posting, Sasha. I watched half and will watch the rest later. It is very good. Yet another excellent example of how evil and insane our ruling class is. I’m not at all surprised they want someone like Tate silenced and in prison. This then reminded me of this article on Real Clear Politics yesterday from the Federalist. What Davidson is saying here is that trust is an essential ingredient for a functional society, ours is gone and no country so devoid of trust can survive as a nation.
I very much like Vivek and he says after the debates when he’s been on a national platform, expressed his views and debated others his popularity will take off. I agree and believe he could win the presidency but the democrats will not allow that. They will cheat and steal it but then what? Not only will he be very popular here by then but also in India. Basically a traditional country where Vivek’s traditional values are considered sacred. I follow the Delhi news site WION and see how popular he’s becoming there and this will greatly increase the more they see of Vivek and his beautiful wife, who’s intelligent, articulate and fully on board the campaign. How would Indians react to Vivek being cheated out of victory by the democrats? Keep in mind that all things are now global in our always online global civilization. The world is watching and this is very bad news for our Woke, democrat, ruling class.
“Put bluntly, maybe what we’re seeing now is an early sign that what Democrats, Big Tech, and corporate media did in 2020 was inject poison into our political system, and the 2024 election cycle is going to show us just how deadly that poison is.”
“DeSantis’ Problem Isn’t Trump, It’s That Dems Rigged The Last Election.”
I know how they did it. I read Mollie’s book and watched 2,000 mules by Dinesh and how they rigged the Dominion voting machines by Dr Shiva Ayaddurai. I also watched Megyn interview Harmeet Dhillon and Viva Frei about how they cheated Kari Lake in the governor’s race in Arizona. I saw a video of Kari where she called democrats “evil bastards.” That is precisely how I feel about them.
“J6 Hysteria Is How Media And Other Democrats Are Avoiding Accountability For Their Rigging Of The 2020 Election.”
“Super-compute can reduce fraud by 40% or more — and that is more than enough to stop leftists who are stuck on relational technology.”
Good site. Good article. I think this is something Vivek Ramaswamy would easily understand and even get Elon Musk to help improve on something like this with more advanced AI. Why are Vivek and his wife so totally committed to winning this election? They say because they fear for the future their children will have in America if Woke ideology isn’t defeated. And they also understand the effect this war will have globally.
@Seva, "Thanks for posting, Sasha. I watched half and will watch the rest later. It is very good. Yet another excellent example of how evil and insane our ruling class is. I’m not at all surprised they want someone like Tate silenced and in prison. "
Legal authorities had to investigate Tate after he bragged about drug deals, mafia partnering, tax fraud and using deception to lure poor vulnerable women into the sex industry and creating a PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) online to teach boys and men how to do the same. He exposed himself. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks it all down here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I don't know Andrew Tate from Adam. But from what I gather in my brief exposure in the last 24 hrs he's a former professional kickboxer that some young men are looking up to because they're surrounded by anti-"toxic male" woke/trans bull$#!t and are trying to figure out how to be a man in a world gone mad and turned upside down.
When the Assistant Secretary for HHS is "Admiral" Rachel Levine - a sick perv in a dress who is nonetheless celebrated by the idiots in the MSM and Dem party - I can understand the appeal of someone like Tate to young men looking for an unapologetically male role model.
You can blame Tate all you want, but until the left can sort out the simple biological facts of life YOU are the source of confusing kids both male and female, so don't whine about who they look up to as a result.
Tate said that women are "not allowed out" when they stay at his house in one video clip that resurfaced recently. He talked about his jet-setting lifestyle, and how he has large groups of women staying at his home.
"I'm all over the place, so I end up with all these chicks just stuck in the house, sitting there, bored, completely in love with me," he said. "And of course they don't go out. They're not allowed out."
He said people might assume the women can go out with their friends when he's not there, but that was wrong.
"You don't go to the club with your friends," he said. "I don't know what kind of bitch-ass dude is letting his chicks go to the club without him. No. You stay in the house, you don't go nowhere. No restaurants, no clubs, nothing."
I'm sorry, is this internet clip/gossip stuff supposed to be meaningful in some way?
As I said, as long as the Left/Dems/MSM push the utter stupidity that male/female biology isn't a scientific fact, YOU are the one pushing kids to seek out role models that you (or even I) may not like.
Yes it's very relevant. Tate snitched on himself in many videos. That's why he's being investigated. To see how true his claims are, or not. And his claims are many. From drug deals, to mafia involvement to payroll and tax fraud. He flexed about all of this. Now he's trying to backtrack. Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks it down here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
@Dave, have you watched any of criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers' video analysis about Tate's fraudulent "business model"? Tucker should interview him to get the real scoop on Tate's indictment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I used to be a Feminist. Then I grew older and wiser (especially as Feminism degenerated into what I call "Identicalism"). Division of labor, which is to say specialization, increases the efficiency of labor, and this applies as much to sex-roles as to anything else. To simplify a bit, men are specialized for violence, and women are specialized for nurturance. It is hard-wired. Neanderthals had a gene for what Tolkien called "mathoms": useless items that somehow cannot be thrown away. (I got it.) So, a gene for mathoms can evolve, but genes for violence and nurturance (which must have already existed in pre-humans) cannot? Tell me another one.
No it hasn't. There is nothing in the evidence that gives any percentages. As long as the predominant pattern was male hunters and female gathers, men would evolve traits that made them better hunters, and women would evolve traits that made them better gatherers. I can give you two examples. First, men have less stretchable tendons, giving them more efficient transfer of energy into motion. Second, women have a better ability to see shades of red, which probably helped in making judgments about the right picking times.
While I'm at it, I can also give you two examples where gender-specific traits must developed in male and female humans. First, male humans have evolved to be (all things being equal) attracted to female humans on the basis of remaining fertility (once there is any fertility at all): youth. The connection between this and pair-bonding should be obvious. Second, females have evolved to be (all things being equal) attracted to males on the basis of status. Female chimps in heat are evidently so lusty that they will mate with any male that comes along. It is only the alpha males beating up the competition (or threatening to) that results in alpha males doing all the mating. There is an interesting non-coincidence here. The typical number of men in a band is 8. And what is the proportion of men that women find notably attractive? 1/8.
In my haste to be off on my *completely* un-deserved vacation, I did not say several things that are worth saying. In no particular order ...
1) What may be called Mathom Syndrome is a clear case of "evo-psych". When we (better late than never) put this together with sex-specific traits such as un-strechy tendons in men and "seeing red" in women, then, unless there is some Mystic Impossibility of Overlapping Possibilities (MIOP, delightfully overlapping with "myopic") there is no reason at all that sex-specific psychological traits would not develop: both aspects are independently evidenced.
2) Some study I saw on a site called "Chateau Heartiste" (which I am sure you would *hate*) showed that women are attracted to men showing "small-group leadership". Hmm... what could the evolutionary basis for that possibly be?
3) Andrew Tate could be Ted Bundy without that refuting anything he says. (Speaking of Ted Bundy, there was a time when he was an "up and coming" figure in the Demo Party of Washington. Presumably that means he was in favor of progressive taxation. Does that mean progressive taxation is wrong? Such are the difficulties inherent in "ad hominem" arguments.) Though it is always *possible* that bad person means bad idea, it would be quite a leap (akin to those once undertaken by many a female gatherer springing after a fleeing vegetable, and cursing, no doubt, her lack of manly un-stretchy tendons) to proceed as if "possible" somehow implies "certain".
"(Speaking of Ted Bundy, there was a time when he was an "up and coming" figure in the Demo Party of Washington. "
Bundy was a REPUBLICAN.
Since you got that wrong, the rest may be wrong too. Chateau Heartiste is still online? Roissy must be what - 60 by now? Is he still trolling the bars in D.C. as a senior citizen? I guess he'll die alone with his cats.
Andrew Tate is a common conman and pimp who lies a lot. And he's not even clever enough to not self-snitch.
I said "there was a time". You do a great job of not paying attention to assertions that you do not like. Can you say "Straw Man"? Whether or not you can say it, apparently you cannot think it.
As I noted, without evident effect, "may be" is not "is'". And as I also noted, also without evident effect, Andrew Tate could be Ted Bundy without that refuting anything he says. (The same goes for Roissy.) Tate's "self-snitch" was about ten years ago, and in a recent (3-hr) interview with Candace Owens, he renounces the (problematic) views he held then. "Since you got that wrong, the rest may be wrong too." Where have I heard that before?
I note with considerable amusement that at this point you have, like any good inhabitant of Lefty La-La Land, given up on both evidence and valid arguments, restricting your production to invalid arguments. And that is the ultimate "self-snitch".
I note with considerable amusement that you have given up giving evidence or making valid arguments. Like any good inhabitant of Lefty La-La Land, you produce nothing but invalid arguments.
You do so love your fallacies. (For an extended example of "possible" => "certain", see the last half of Amala Ekpunobi.
I said "all things being equal". And saying "pop evo-psych" does not refute anything.
I am about to be off on an ill-deserved vacation. (It's OK: I'm going somewhere I don't want to be. That will teach me.) So It will be a few days before I make any additional responses.
"Division of labor, which is to say specialization, increases the efficiency of labor, and this applies as much to sex-roles as to anything else. To simplify a bit, men are specialized for violence, and women are specialized for nurturance. "
For the average person in our societies the amount of violence needed to survive is practically nil. And the "nurturing" is such that can be shared without much division (beyond breastfeeding in early infancy). Everything else in infant/childcare can be shared. And of course there is nothing unique about house chores that must be gender divided.
Pre-historic hunter-gathering societies didn't have inflexible divisions of labor. Women hunted too and men gathered also. Present day hunter-gathering tribes (which still exist) are testimony to this.
I would not skip because one has preconceived ideas about Tate. I think it's important to let the marketplace of ideas to have its day in the public square and for us to judge that as witness
Tate is pretty explicit about his ideas in his own online marketplace called the PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program where he teaches boys and men how to get into the sex industry and maximize profits by committing tax fraud. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down what's legal about his enterprise, what's illegal about it, and what's in a gray area here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Both Tucker and Tate left the meat-n-potatoes of the indictments out of their conversation. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyses other video evidence; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I never heard of Andrew Tate so had no preconceived notions of at all but since Tucker was spending three hours interviewing him and I respect Tucker, sat down to listen. After about 20 minutes, however, I had to give up. This seems to be Jordan Peterson territory and he does iit better. Even Chris Williamson has had a couple of programs dealing with the issue of the difficulties facing young men in today's world. Since all of the commentators thought this was an " interesting and informative interview with a unique individual" I must have missed something since while I have sympathy with an innocent person being accused of anything they didn't do and wish him well, I didn't think he was worth a trip to Romania and a three hour interview. : But evidently that is exactly what his "detractors "want me to think and I surely don't want to be in bed with them.
That is where I am too. I truly do not have 2 1\2 hours to spend listening listening to an influencer, even if Tucker is doing the interview. I am concerned about the young men issue, but cannot understand why Tucker picked this guy to discuss it. I basically discredited everything I read online about Mr. Tate and hope the allegations against him are false. But I just don't get this interview.
What I found distrubing about Tate's advice to men is what he himself said - that men need to say NO . As one old enough to remember when men said NO to women a lot - I thought, oh dear, has this Tate fellow learned nothing about women. We fought men saying NO to us for years . What we wanted was dialogue and havinng our opinions valued. Saying NO just to prove you are a man, makes one a bully. It is frightening to be going back to that. But then , I loved Mr Rogers so I probably don't have an open logical mind.
I didn't see Tucker exercise his credentials as a professional Journalist in this interview . He appeared a little too cozy with Tate for my liking almost agreeing that this whole thing was a conspiracy . Perhaps it is, but just as one is innocent before proven guilty one also has to be asked some hard questions which I didn't get.
Don't worry Dorothy. We are not going back to "just saying NO". Women who don't get want they want from relationships with men just leave. And younger generations aren't even sold on the idea of long term relationships, what to speak of marriage, anyway. Boys and young men who take Tate's advice seriously are in for a rude awakening. And older men just laugh at him.
Oh, I’ve always had RFK’s back since the 2000’s when he was speaking out about environmental issues, then also when he started on vaccine safety issues and Pharma corruption.
Yes Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning is excellent and so is this interview. Amazing. It hurt to see what Andrew is going through. But he's one of many in similar circumstances accused of nothing but jailed.
How about what happened to Ashli Babbitt at the Jan 6 Capitol rally? She was shot and killed by a Capital cop as she attempted to climb through a window broken out by rioters while 3 Capitol cops stood there and watched and made no attempt to stop Ashli from climbing through the broken out window. As Kari Lake said of the democrats, they’re “evil bastards.” There is no doubt in my mind that they want to be powerful enough to do to any one of us what they did to poor Ashli who definitely did not deserve to die that day.
“In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation.”
“Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview.”
Many people believe that America is simply too big and too powerful to collapse but many people also believed that about the Soviet Union. No one in 1985 would have believed that the USSR, the mighty "Evil Empire,” would be a disintegrating mess in 5 years. I told that to someone last year who said "But the Soviet Union was a collection of separate countries.” What we have here though is a collection of separate realities which is a much deadlier situation.
Simply ridiculous. Urinals are being removed from schools says Tucker? Which schools? Male students are being told to pee sitting down? Again, which schools? And one does not need a urinal to pee standing up. How many of us have urinals in our homes? Also to be noted is that Tate is now a Muslim and Muslims are forbidden from standing while peeing. Personally I always thought whipping out penises in public bathrooms, side by side with males of varying ages - from children to old men was bizarre and potentially dangerous. Isn't "the right" supposed to be concerned with "grooming" and "what about the childrenz"?
Tucker's complaining about 6th grade boys being told "sit still" "stop joking" "suppress your aggression" "share your feelings"?! Seriously? So students should be told "run wild" "joke all you want" "be aggressive toward fellow students and teachers" and "your feelings don't matter"?
Didn't Tucker used to post videos of *certain* types of kids behaving just like that and then moan and cry about the lack of "discipline" in schools today?
You and readers here would do well to watch an actual Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers break down the indictments. Tucker didn't do his due diligence with this guest (or maybe he did and just ignored the facts). Here's what's really up;
If the fake Tucker "interview" is their first exposure to Tate, they are being deeply misled, which works in this trafficker's favor. So I want to expose them to the facts. But I guess for Tucker fans who are supposedly against "grooming" and "trafficking", Tate is one of the "good traffickers" if he vomits forth some meme-ish conservative adjacent talking points.
This wasn't an interview. It was giving a carte blanche platform to Tater Tot to bloviate. And he was very deceptive about his charges. It's not just "being nice to girls on Tik Tok". Tucker didn't do his research. This is not journalism.
40% into this interview and a pretty important question is unaddressed. Who the hell is this 35-year-old man to be cultivating any kind of relationship at all with other people’s teenage daughters? Is Carlson slipping? Can anyone who watched this through tell me if this was satisfactorily sorted out?
I saw a video of Vivek Ramaswamy recently at a Townhall meeting where he was asked what he would do on his first day as president. He said he would issue an Executive Order banning race based affirmative action. That’s exactly the opposite of what Biden did on his first day in office which was to issue an Executive Order to replace meritocracy wherever it can be found with Equity aka Equal Outcomes.
The clearest and best example I can think of that shows the profound difference between the Woke vs the nonWoke is to compare the thinking and philosophy of a nonWoke public intellectual like Vivek to a Woke public intellectual like Ibram X. Kendi. Like the difference between day and night or sanity vs insanity yet our ruling class, their media and their many useful idiots in the general public are committed to Kendi’s ideology and our entire society now endlessly revolves around this “antiracism” poison which is insane and basically a race war against white people, against anyone of whatever color who opposes them and a war on standards which are the essence of civilization. Basically a war on sanity by the insane and Vivek is very much aware of this.
“Colleges Nuke Merit To Preserve Racial Admissions.” (7 min)
When your desire to own the Libs runs so deep that have to promote some dumb Qanon anti-trafficking movie one week and then have to platform a man who is an alleged human-trafficker the next.
I've read some reviews that claim this association. I have yet to see any present actual evidence of it or even a logical connection. What I read is a lot of self-indulgent hot air and leftist virtue-whining about a movie that, apparently, the unwashed masses like, about a very serious subject, and that just galls them.
Huh? What you call ‘promote’ I call free speech and the marketplace of ideas, much of which (seems) to get short shrift on MSM, most recently evidenced by Ukraine and Covid, among several.
We have brains and critical thinking skills here, J Hardy. Tate may have some level of womanizing sleaze to his approach to life. That doesn’t mean he should be jailed for it.
“Two and a half hours defending & singing the praises of an accused rapist and human trafficker. So brave,” said Joe Walsh, a former 2020 Republican presidential candidate.
Andrew Tate is R Kelly with a twin brother.
Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of himself for this interview. And all of you who respect him after this should be ashamed too.
Judging from the comments praising Tucker for this interview, you all need help.
Dave, do you find it sad, surreal (and a bit frightening?) that multiple times in this interview, Andrew stated ‘I am not suicidal’? Maybe that is all a ruse too?
It is a ruse. He's a bloviator. A narcissist. Want's people to think he's something besides a conman, a pimp, a tax frauder and a grifter. Even his conversion to Islam is nothing more than a grift along the Romania-to-Dubai sex trafficking pipeline. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyzes Tate's own self-snitching here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Thank you for your consistent postings keeping us informed of what Tucker is doing which is always of interest. As far as Andrew Tate is concerned, I had vaguely heard of him but didn't know much about him. He comes off with a lot of bravado and some of his opinions sounded OK, some of his opinions sounded questionable, and some of his opinions were deeply upsetting, for example he doesn't seem to have much comprehension of the reality of clinical depression which is a medical condition.
So what's your explanation for why Epps, who is seen on video committing a crime by loudly demanding that protesters go into the Capitol, was put on a most wanted list but never arrested, and then was taken off the list as soon as Revolver found him "hiding" on his ranch? (The FBI never thought to look there. Better training, please.) And why did Adam Kinzinger, during the show trial, display such a fawning attitude toward this obvious criminal?
Before you succumb to the temptation to cry "Conspiracy Theory", as if that magically refutes anything you don't like, take a moment to think about how that reasoning would apply to "Russia! Collusion!" But wait, wait, don't tell me: that would be "Whataboutism!" Which is to say a demand for logical consistency.
"I don't understand your (and others to be fair) obsession with what is a woman."
Gee, where to start. How about this: I don't want my three daughters to have their female-only spaces or sports invaded by some sick nutcase or just plain pervert who claims he's a she.
Is that understandable enough?
How can anyone proclaim that they care about women's rights (or carp about misogyny or "the patriarchy") if they can't even say what is a woman - or for that matter what is a man?
Can you not see the logical inconsistencies this presents?
"I go along with that. It's the kind thing to do."
Indulging some mentally ill person's sick fantasies isn't kind in the least.
If I claim to be a Bengal tiger, should you:
a.) Indulge my delusion and perhaps put me in a zoo cage with real Bengal tigers to "affirm" me, or
b.) Encourage me to seek professional help
The answer to anyone with their head screwed on straight is clear.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you are wrong. I see no evidence that Musk has Tucker as a, your words, “sidekick.” This isn’t some burgeoning evil cabal. After that you cherry-pick something irrelevant and conclude by saying something like “nice guys should continue to finish last”. No thanks.
For those of us with “open logical minds”, the last 5 years have been a wake up call. The level of hate manufactured against many men, Tucker and Tate included is alarming to us. “Teeny bopper idol”, your phrase, shows you are clueless of the sophistication of the evil orchestrators (including media and government) trying to silence the messengers. Tucker and Tate are calling them out and your contribution is childish name calling. You obviously aren’t here to learn anything new or discover truths. You already know everything. Poor you, when they come for you.
“Teeny bopper idol”, your phrase, shows you are clueless of the sophistication of the evil orchestrators "
That's for sure. In the video posted below criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down Tate's criminal indictments and it's far from "teeny bopper" stuff. Tucker should interview this guy to get the actual facts on Tate (in Tate's own words nonetheless). Tate brags about drug deals, mafia partnerships, deceptively luring financially desperate and vulnerable girls and women into the sex industry, defrauding these sex workers of their incomes, committing tax fraud to maximize his profits, and more. On which platform does he do this bragging? In his PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program which is a private, paid-for platform created to teach boys and men how to enter the sex industry and become a "Top G Pimp".
"it is all orchestrated from on high, and if Elon and Tucker were really good guys, they would not have their present position"
A lot to unpack here.
I agree that much of what we see and hear as far as societal trends, popularity, "news", etc., is indeed "from above" for the purposes of social control. So we must always be vigilant and question the powerful and everything we think we know.
I don't know Tucker or Elon personally, but if I hear them and they happen to speak the truth about some matter, as determined by my own bullshit meter and advanced education, I can applaud them for it, precisely because they (deserved or not) have an extremely large audience. Whether that large audience was gained solely by their own hard work or some evil plot I do not know, but I'm open to hearing hard evidence if it's the latter. But, again, the truth is the truth and if it is uttered by someone with influence and it furthers the pursuit of the truth by more people, I'm all for it.
@Heretic, "Whether that large audience was gained solely by their own hard work or some evil plot I do not know, but I'm open to hearing hard evidence if it's the latter. "
"It's called Controlled Opposition and it's not really a praiseworthy thing."
In spite of your condescending attitude toward, apparently, everyone, others do have the ability to discern what people are saying and whether it comes from the right motive or is serving some other agenda. You don't possess some special insight.
"this continual denial and defensiveness is really pointless"
To what are you referring, exactly?
"I already know how the audience here views things"
Can you also give us with the winning Powerball numbers for the next drawing? Gosh, thanks Mr. Nostradamus!
"none of you are going to let reality intrude at any point"
Perhaps not your personal reality. We may find it does not comport with objective reality.
"I am not going to ignore what I know to be true of both these people as individuals"
What do you think you know, exactly? Be specific and provide evidence, then be wiling to defend it.
"what mystifies me is that apparently none of you are interested in taking the challenge to even look at the sites I mentioned and possibly learn something"
No need to be mystified. Perhaps people don't listen to your "challenges" because you come across as, well, a condescending "Richard Cranium". Perhaps they read things of which you are not aware that may inform their thinking and even elevate it far beyond anything you may think you know.
Here's a hot tip: You're not as smart as you think you are and others aren't as dumb as you think they are.
"There is no part of Musk that isn't pure committed Deep State."
Making sweeping statements is easy. Try to be specific about what you are accusing him of and provide evidence for it. Musk may very well be Dr. Evil's right hand man, but just claiming it in some broad sense is hardly sufficient. No doubt he works for the government on secret stuff, but so do a lot of people. No doubt he's got powerful connections, but he's also got a lot of detractors on the "left" and in the MSM (CIA) press, so there's some disconnect here that needs to be resolved. Is he 100% evil with no redeeming qualities? Or only 50% evil? His release of the Twitter files hardly served the cause of govenment/tech collusion/censorship. In fact, it helped shine a light on it that otherwise wouldn't exist.
"Sending his pernicious megalith traffic is Evil and Immoral and directly contributing to the erosion of freedom."
I hate to tell you, but using the internet in any way is "directly contributing to the erosion of freedom." Big Brother is watching us all, 24/7. The internet was created to spy on everyone.
About the only way to avoid it all is to unplug completely and become a hermit, but even then every square inch of the planet can be seen by satellites, so maybe find a remote cave somewhere.
"If you can overcome your willful ignorance and programming"
Clearly, you have reading comprehension issues. That makes it impossible to communicate with you effectively. It makes it pointless, even.
"The bizarrely hostile reactions on this page cement the obvious reality, offensive though you may find it"
What is offensive is that you spout a lot of generalizations and offer nothing in the way of specifics and evidence while talking down to everyone else. We get that you hate Tucker, et al, but just because I may find that he utters the truth about something and applaud it due to the reach of his platform doesn't make me (or anyone else) "a little girl in 1970 idolizing Donny Osmond". There's a lot about which I disagree with him. But the fact remains that he has a huge platform and even if the truth slips out inadvertantly the truth is always a good thing.
What I find hilarious is that you somehow think you're smarter than everyone else, yet as I comb back through your posts you've literally presented nothing but opinions masquerading as indisputable "facts" in an almost incoherent fashion.
Perhaps you should judge the lack of positive receptiveness to your posts not as a sign of others being ignorant, but you not making a very factual, compelling (and intelligible) case for your opinions.
You’re doing an awesome job building this new community. Even the routine kindness of sharing posts is thoughtful and let’s us know you’re engaged in the long term. Well done, thank-you for your courage in defending positions many of us share, and articulating our concerns and hopes in ways we can not begin to convey.
Very interesting - I didn't know much about Tate. It seems like he, along with Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams (mainly through his book, "How to Fail at Everything..."), are focused on saving young men from a number of cultural pathologies. They are providing useful guidance. The hate directed at them is revealing.
Tate and Peterson are at opposing ends of a spectrum. Tate is a common pimp. He brags about it and has an online "school" called PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) where he teaches boys and men how to enter the sex work industry and commit tax fraud to maximize profits. This (and more) is why legal authorities are investigating him. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyses his indictments here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Very interesting and informative interview with a unique individual. He’s sincere and honest, I believe, but YouTube has posted a BBC interview with Andrew that attempts to convict him with what they claim is overwhelming evidence. Either the female BBC interviewer or Andrew is a brazen and vicious liar. I’m backing Tate, but it’s alarming to see how obsessed his enemies are, and the authority they’re abusing. It’s blood sport and worse; and agenda driven mob mentality.
If interested in a further examination of the BBC interview, watch the episode by ‘Martin Decoder’ on YouTube.
He’s a linguistics expert and he does a great analysis of the BBC woman and Andrew Tate. It’s really interesting.
Here's another great analysis of Tate's own words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
This interview really brought out some good points about his views and also how they target him. Very interesting and accurate take on immigration/masculinity, people with ideals and the other half just repeat what the internet/government says, feminism and promiscuity, etc. His views were excellent and so correct.
"Very interesting and accurate take on immigration..." Speaking of that. Tate recently converted to Islam and is saying that the entire UK should become islamicized. Also to be noted that he has bragged about having muslim friends for decades, going back to the time of "muslim pakistani grooming gang" scandals of Rotherham. Considering his work in the sex industry, one wonders if any of the muslim friends he had back when he lived in UK were members in any of these gangs. Anyway, Tater Tot incriminated himself in several criminal activities, including mafia dealings and tax fraud. A lawyer lays it all out here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
YouTube will probably find some "community standard" that this violates. Better to post to a free speech site like Rumble. Or at least copy it there.
I watched the whole interview. Very interesting. Wow. As a female, I was NOT offended. He made very good, rational comments.
Are you offended by any of the statements he makes in these videos here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Yes, I was not offended in the least and totally agreed with his stance. More women should listen and learn.
Should we learn from this too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Boys are flawed girls is how teachers have acted for some time.
That's how our education system was established. On the Prussian model, turning us all into lining-up good little soldiers and factory workers. On the other hand, growing up in the 50"s and 60"s, women teachers often favored the boys and chuckled at their bad behavior - boys will be boys- when a girl would've been punished for the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp7eVJNJuw&t=3s
"That's how our education system was established. On the Prussian model, turning us all into lining-up good little soldiers and factory workers."
And it worked well. The American public education system, with all of it's flaws, was nonetheless one of the things that created a large middle class post WW2. We can complain all we want but there are millions of families and millions of kids around the world who can only dream of such a school system to help lift them out of illiteracy and/or poverty.
Americans are spoiled brats.
Canada and Australia also seem to be lost. Keep in mind that neither country has a robust bill of rights.
Gee, Tate's situation is eerily similar to American veterans still in the DC Gulag for stepping foot onto the property of the People(not inside the People's capitol). Several of their Bill of Rights were violated and nobody cares. Pretty sick actually. I trust organized crime far more than federal governments. Democrats and many GOPe are evil.
Did they openly brag about committing tax fraud too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Forced theft without representation is fraud. Many of the people in elected office commit far more fraud than this citizen.
"Many of the people in elected office commit far more fraud than this citizen."
They need to do time too. Doesn't subtract from the crimes that Tate bragged about committing and his PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) "course" where he taught (still teaches since it's still going) boys and men the ropes of how to lure financially desperate vulnerable girls and women into the sex industry and then defraud them of their incomes and how to commit tax fraud too. Then there's his claims of drug dealing and mafia partnership and yada, yada, yada. Of course the authorities were going to investigate if these claims carried any weight. He's a conman, pimp and fraud but not a very smart one. Snitches get stitches but a self-snitcher is a bitcher.
No offense to you, but I am not sure what to believe about Tate considering today's media environment. Tax fraud... the IRS is fraud with the power of force.
People need to be taught to identify scams and if their parents or friends do not teach them, well, life will.
Did you watch the video I linked to you above? Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers does a good job analyzing Tate's own self-snitching words. He breaks down what's legal, what's illegal and what's a grey area in Tate's porn business. Tate's a conman, pimp and grifter. Even his conversion to Islam was a grift. Tucker here was either totally clueless about Tate's very large "body of work" online or he knew and chose to cover up. Either way, the way Tate is presently presenting himself to mainstream media is the polar opposite to how he presented himself in his private paid-for "War Room". People who are unfamiliar with him and his businesses see him for the first time in Tucker's faux "interview" and think, "who is this guy? he doesn't sound so bad".
"People need to be taught to identify scams and if their parents or friends do not teach them, well, life will."
From the first video I saw of Tate, I called it. I don't see how people can't see straight though his bullshit.
Did not, sorry. Will do. Remember that I respect free speech as I have put my life on the line for it, if Tate is a POS then...
Thanks so much, Sasha! Three deep bows (not the submissive, Janet Yellen type) of gratitude to you. Stayed up past 1 AM watching the Tucker Andrew Tate interview, but it was worth the lost sleep — it elevated my mind and spirit, and I shared it with both my husband and our son because there was so much great advice for men; it was almost like reading a self-help book. Fabulous!
Maybe your son and husband can pay and join Tate's online PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program where he teaches boys and men how to be pimps in the online porn industry. He also reveals how to commit financial fraud as well as tax fraud, in order to maximize profits. All this and more is outlined here, complete with a legal analysis of his business model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
It was my husband, not you, who enlightened me regarding the other side of Andrew Tate, which for me doesn’t detract an iota from Tate’s brilliant interview with Tucker. I enjoyed your sarcasm and thank you. 🙏🏼
"The other side" of Andrew Tate? That's his most prominent side. His only side really. This recent grift of larping religion and "values" is totally fake to pull one over on people to garner support in his legal battle. It's no mistake that he "converted" to Islam when he did.
Very good interview. Tate is interesting because I've heard negative things about him even from those on the right like Ben Shapiro. But I have trouble trusting that.
Ben, criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down Tate's own self-snitching here. He drew attention from legal authorities because of all his online bragging about criminal activities, including mafia connections and tax fraud. Not only that, he has pay-for courses like PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) where he teaches others how to create these criminal businesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I’ve started to be turned off on Ben Shapiro.
Fascinating! WTH is going on in this world?
Seems to me the UK is completely lost. At least in the US there is some strong pushback.
One of the best and most profound interviews I’ve seen.
We live in a frightening and evil world where not just the Truth but even just Common sense is perceived as dangerous and must be crushed.
Believe your eyes. Live Not by Lies.
Thanks for posting, Sasha. I watched half and will watch the rest later. It is very good. Yet another excellent example of how evil and insane our ruling class is. I’m not at all surprised they want someone like Tate silenced and in prison. This then reminded me of this article on Real Clear Politics yesterday from the Federalist. What Davidson is saying here is that trust is an essential ingredient for a functional society, ours is gone and no country so devoid of trust can survive as a nation.
I very much like Vivek and he says after the debates when he’s been on a national platform, expressed his views and debated others his popularity will take off. I agree and believe he could win the presidency but the democrats will not allow that. They will cheat and steal it but then what? Not only will he be very popular here by then but also in India. Basically a traditional country where Vivek’s traditional values are considered sacred. I follow the Delhi news site WION and see how popular he’s becoming there and this will greatly increase the more they see of Vivek and his beautiful wife, who’s intelligent, articulate and fully on board the campaign. How would Indians react to Vivek being cheated out of victory by the democrats? Keep in mind that all things are now global in our always online global civilization. The world is watching and this is very bad news for our Woke, democrat, ruling class.
“Put bluntly, maybe what we’re seeing now is an early sign that what Democrats, Big Tech, and corporate media did in 2020 was inject poison into our political system, and the 2024 election cycle is going to show us just how deadly that poison is.”
“DeSantis’ Problem Isn’t Trump, It’s That Dems Rigged The Last Election.”
The Federalist. By John Davidson. July 11, 2023
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/11/desantis-problem-isnt-trump-its-that-dems-rigged-the-last-election/
"Dems Rigged The Last Election"
These guys have figured out how:
https://www.omega4america.com/
I know how they did it. I read Mollie’s book and watched 2,000 mules by Dinesh and how they rigged the Dominion voting machines by Dr Shiva Ayaddurai. I also watched Megyn interview Harmeet Dhillon and Viva Frei about how they cheated Kari Lake in the governor’s race in Arizona. I saw a video of Kari where she called democrats “evil bastards.” That is precisely how I feel about them.
“J6 Hysteria Is How Media And Other Democrats Are Avoiding Accountability For Their Rigging Of The 2020 Election.”
Mollie Hemingway Jan 6, 2022
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/06/j6-hysteria-is-how-media-and-other-democrats-are-avoiding-accountability-for-their-rigging-of-the-2020-election/
“Roadblock’s and Status of Kari Lake’s Arizona Legal Challenges.” (10 min)
Megyn Kelly interviews Harmeet Dhillon and Viva Frei. Jan 2, 2023
https://youtu.be/ePbVzbZo_mY
You may find this of interest:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/2024_how_to_outcompute_the_left.html
“Super-compute can reduce fraud by 40% or more — and that is more than enough to stop leftists who are stuck on relational technology.”
Good site. Good article. I think this is something Vivek Ramaswamy would easily understand and even get Elon Musk to help improve on something like this with more advanced AI. Why are Vivek and his wife so totally committed to winning this election? They say because they fear for the future their children will have in America if Woke ideology isn’t defeated. And they also understand the effect this war will have globally.
@Seva, "Thanks for posting, Sasha. I watched half and will watch the rest later. It is very good. Yet another excellent example of how evil and insane our ruling class is. I’m not at all surprised they want someone like Tate silenced and in prison. "
Legal authorities had to investigate Tate after he bragged about drug deals, mafia partnering, tax fraud and using deception to lure poor vulnerable women into the sex industry and creating a PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) online to teach boys and men how to do the same. He exposed himself. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks it all down here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I don't know Andrew Tate from Adam. But from what I gather in my brief exposure in the last 24 hrs he's a former professional kickboxer that some young men are looking up to because they're surrounded by anti-"toxic male" woke/trans bull$#!t and are trying to figure out how to be a man in a world gone mad and turned upside down.
When the Assistant Secretary for HHS is "Admiral" Rachel Levine - a sick perv in a dress who is nonetheless celebrated by the idiots in the MSM and Dem party - I can understand the appeal of someone like Tate to young men looking for an unapologetically male role model.
You can blame Tate all you want, but until the left can sort out the simple biological facts of life YOU are the source of confusing kids both male and female, so don't whine about who they look up to as a result.
Ya dude, I want young men looking up to this guy:
Tate said that women are "not allowed out" when they stay at his house in one video clip that resurfaced recently. He talked about his jet-setting lifestyle, and how he has large groups of women staying at his home.
"I'm all over the place, so I end up with all these chicks just stuck in the house, sitting there, bored, completely in love with me," he said. "And of course they don't go out. They're not allowed out."
He said people might assume the women can go out with their friends when he's not there, but that was wrong.
"You don't go to the club with your friends," he said. "I don't know what kind of bitch-ass dude is letting his chicks go to the club without him. No. You stay in the house, you don't go nowhere. No restaurants, no clubs, nothing."
I'm sorry, is this internet clip/gossip stuff supposed to be meaningful in some way?
As I said, as long as the Left/Dems/MSM push the utter stupidity that male/female biology isn't a scientific fact, YOU are the one pushing kids to seek out role models that you (or even I) may not like.
Yes it's very relevant. Tate snitched on himself in many videos. That's why he's being investigated. To see how true his claims are, or not. And his claims are many. From drug deals, to mafia involvement to payroll and tax fraud. He flexed about all of this. Now he's trying to backtrack. Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks it down here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
@Dave, have you watched any of criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers' video analysis about Tate's fraudulent "business model"? Tucker should interview him to get the real scoop on Tate's indictment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I used to be a Feminist. Then I grew older and wiser (especially as Feminism degenerated into what I call "Identicalism"). Division of labor, which is to say specialization, increases the efficiency of labor, and this applies as much to sex-roles as to anything else. To simplify a bit, men are specialized for violence, and women are specialized for nurturance. It is hard-wired. Neanderthals had a gene for what Tolkien called "mathoms": useless items that somehow cannot be thrown away. (I got it.) So, a gene for mathoms can evolve, but genes for violence and nurturance (which must have already existed in pre-humans) cannot? Tell me another one.
"I was talking about hunter/gathers, and the genetic legacy that must come from that."
That's been debunked though.
From "He hunted the mammoth" to "She hunted the mammoth".
1. https://thenoosphere.substack.com/p/new-study-confirms-man-the-hunter
And
2. https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2023/07/02/she-hunted-the-mammoth-3/
No it hasn't. There is nothing in the evidence that gives any percentages. As long as the predominant pattern was male hunters and female gathers, men would evolve traits that made them better hunters, and women would evolve traits that made them better gatherers. I can give you two examples. First, men have less stretchable tendons, giving them more efficient transfer of energy into motion. Second, women have a better ability to see shades of red, which probably helped in making judgments about the right picking times.
While I'm at it, I can also give you two examples where gender-specific traits must developed in male and female humans. First, male humans have evolved to be (all things being equal) attracted to female humans on the basis of remaining fertility (once there is any fertility at all): youth. The connection between this and pair-bonding should be obvious. Second, females have evolved to be (all things being equal) attracted to males on the basis of status. Female chimps in heat are evidently so lusty that they will mate with any male that comes along. It is only the alpha males beating up the competition (or threatening to) that results in alpha males doing all the mating. There is an interesting non-coincidence here. The typical number of men in a band is 8. And what is the proportion of men that women find notably attractive? 1/8.
"Second, females have evolved to be (all things being equal) attracted to males on the basis of status."
And yet in humans assortative mating is the norm.
"The typical number of men in a band is 8. And what is the proportion of men that women find notably attractive? 1/8."
Aaaah, pop evo-psych. Is it 2010 again?
In my haste to be off on my *completely* un-deserved vacation, I did not say several things that are worth saying. In no particular order ...
1) What may be called Mathom Syndrome is a clear case of "evo-psych". When we (better late than never) put this together with sex-specific traits such as un-strechy tendons in men and "seeing red" in women, then, unless there is some Mystic Impossibility of Overlapping Possibilities (MIOP, delightfully overlapping with "myopic") there is no reason at all that sex-specific psychological traits would not develop: both aspects are independently evidenced.
2) Some study I saw on a site called "Chateau Heartiste" (which I am sure you would *hate*) showed that women are attracted to men showing "small-group leadership". Hmm... what could the evolutionary basis for that possibly be?
3) Andrew Tate could be Ted Bundy without that refuting anything he says. (Speaking of Ted Bundy, there was a time when he was an "up and coming" figure in the Demo Party of Washington. Presumably that means he was in favor of progressive taxation. Does that mean progressive taxation is wrong? Such are the difficulties inherent in "ad hominem" arguments.) Though it is always *possible* that bad person means bad idea, it would be quite a leap (akin to those once undertaken by many a female gatherer springing after a fleeing vegetable, and cursing, no doubt, her lack of manly un-stretchy tendons) to proceed as if "possible" somehow implies "certain".
"(Speaking of Ted Bundy, there was a time when he was an "up and coming" figure in the Demo Party of Washington. "
Bundy was a REPUBLICAN.
Since you got that wrong, the rest may be wrong too. Chateau Heartiste is still online? Roissy must be what - 60 by now? Is he still trolling the bars in D.C. as a senior citizen? I guess he'll die alone with his cats.
Andrew Tate is a common conman and pimp who lies a lot. And he's not even clever enough to not self-snitch.
Tate Speech Matrix of Lies 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVYtxg_DiX8
Tate Speech Matrix of Lies 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akQgqLPmIxA
I said "there was a time". You do a great job of not paying attention to assertions that you do not like. Can you say "Straw Man"? Whether or not you can say it, apparently you cannot think it.
As I noted, without evident effect, "may be" is not "is'". And as I also noted, also without evident effect, Andrew Tate could be Ted Bundy without that refuting anything he says. (The same goes for Roissy.) Tate's "self-snitch" was about ten years ago, and in a recent (3-hr) interview with Candace Owens, he renounces the (problematic) views he held then. "Since you got that wrong, the rest may be wrong too." Where have I heard that before?
I note with considerable amusement that at this point you have, like any good inhabitant of Lefty La-La Land, given up on both evidence and valid arguments, restricting your production to invalid arguments. And that is the ultimate "self-snitch".
I note with considerable amusement that you have given up giving evidence or making valid arguments. Like any good inhabitant of Lefty La-La Land, you produce nothing but invalid arguments.
You do so love your fallacies. (For an extended example of "possible" => "certain", see the last half of Amala Ekpunobi.
I said "all things being equal". And saying "pop evo-psych" does not refute anything.
I am about to be off on an ill-deserved vacation. (It's OK: I'm going somewhere I don't want to be. That will teach me.) So It will be a few days before I make any additional responses.
"Division of labor, which is to say specialization, increases the efficiency of labor, and this applies as much to sex-roles as to anything else. To simplify a bit, men are specialized for violence, and women are specialized for nurturance. "
For the average person in our societies the amount of violence needed to survive is practically nil. And the "nurturing" is such that can be shared without much division (beyond breastfeeding in early infancy). Everything else in infant/childcare can be shared. And of course there is nothing unique about house chores that must be gender divided.
I was talking about hunter/gathers, and the genetic legacy that must come from that.
Pre-historic hunter-gathering societies didn't have inflexible divisions of labor. Women hunted too and men gathered also. Present day hunter-gathering tribes (which still exist) are testimony to this.
Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down what's really going on with Tate's self-snitching here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
It's a long Rogan/Fridman-style interview here is a link to an executive summary.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/tucker-carlson-uncensored-one-one-andrew-tate-i-dont-want-you-think-im-conspiracy
I would not skip because one has preconceived ideas about Tate. I think it's important to let the marketplace of ideas to have its day in the public square and for us to judge that as witness
Tate is pretty explicit about his ideas in his own online marketplace called the PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program where he teaches boys and men how to get into the sex industry and maximize profits by committing tax fraud. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down what's legal about his enterprise, what's illegal about it, and what's in a gray area here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Thanks for this link. I better understand why Tucker picked him.
Both Tucker and Tate left the meat-n-potatoes of the indictments out of their conversation. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyses other video evidence; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Excellent interview
I never heard of Andrew Tate so had no preconceived notions of at all but since Tucker was spending three hours interviewing him and I respect Tucker, sat down to listen. After about 20 minutes, however, I had to give up. This seems to be Jordan Peterson territory and he does iit better. Even Chris Williamson has had a couple of programs dealing with the issue of the difficulties facing young men in today's world. Since all of the commentators thought this was an " interesting and informative interview with a unique individual" I must have missed something since while I have sympathy with an innocent person being accused of anything they didn't do and wish him well, I didn't think he was worth a trip to Romania and a three hour interview. : But evidently that is exactly what his "detractors "want me to think and I surely don't want to be in bed with them.
That is where I am too. I truly do not have 2 1\2 hours to spend listening listening to an influencer, even if Tucker is doing the interview. I am concerned about the young men issue, but cannot understand why Tucker picked this guy to discuss it. I basically discredited everything I read online about Mr. Tate and hope the allegations against him are false. But I just don't get this interview.
What I found distrubing about Tate's advice to men is what he himself said - that men need to say NO . As one old enough to remember when men said NO to women a lot - I thought, oh dear, has this Tate fellow learned nothing about women. We fought men saying NO to us for years . What we wanted was dialogue and havinng our opinions valued. Saying NO just to prove you are a man, makes one a bully. It is frightening to be going back to that. But then , I loved Mr Rogers so I probably don't have an open logical mind.
I didn't see Tucker exercise his credentials as a professional Journalist in this interview . He appeared a little too cozy with Tate for my liking almost agreeing that this whole thing was a conspiracy . Perhaps it is, but just as one is innocent before proven guilty one also has to be asked some hard questions which I didn't get.
Don't worry Dorothy. We are not going back to "just saying NO". Women who don't get want they want from relationships with men just leave. And younger generations aren't even sold on the idea of long term relationships, what to speak of marriage, anyway. Boys and young men who take Tate's advice seriously are in for a rude awakening. And older men just laugh at him.
Definitely need to watch entire interview. He covers many topics, many eye-openers.
Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers does a better job at getting to the "bottom" of Tate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Andrew Tate? I might have to skip this one, the guy seems pretty sleazy to me...
That's how the elites/pharma painted RFK jr. Then I saw the Rogan interview.
Of course, that's exactly what his detractors want you to believe.
I actually started watching it and you’re right, my perception of him was completely misinformed.
We're in the same boat. I felt the same about Tate until I watched this interview.
I thought so too. I also doubted RFK, Jr. It's amazing (delightful, actually) what we find when we listen, watch and think for ourselves.
Oh, I’ve always had RFK’s back since the 2000’s when he was speaking out about environmental issues, then also when he started on vaccine safety issues and Pharma corruption.
Yes Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning is excellent and so is this interview. Amazing. It hurt to see what Andrew is going through. But he's one of many in similar circumstances accused of nothing but jailed.
Thanks for this.
How about what happened to Ashli Babbitt at the Jan 6 Capitol rally? She was shot and killed by a Capital cop as she attempted to climb through a window broken out by rioters while 3 Capitol cops stood there and watched and made no attempt to stop Ashli from climbing through the broken out window. As Kari Lake said of the democrats, they’re “evil bastards.” There is no doubt in my mind that they want to be powerful enough to do to any one of us what they did to poor Ashli who definitely did not deserve to die that day.
“In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation.”
“Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview.”
Real Clear Investigations. Jan 11, 2022
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/01/06/capitol_police_officer_who_shot_ashli_babbitt_refused_to_answer_investigators_questions_810720.html
um, andrew tate is accused of rape and human trafficking. and he is not currently jailed, he is on house arrest. did you watch the interview?
Many people believe that America is simply too big and too powerful to collapse but many people also believed that about the Soviet Union. No one in 1985 would have believed that the USSR, the mighty "Evil Empire,” would be a disintegrating mess in 5 years. I told that to someone last year who said "But the Soviet Union was a collection of separate countries.” What we have here though is a collection of separate realities which is a much deadlier situation.
"Many people believe that America is simply too big and too powerful to collapse "
I don't think there's anybody who doesn't understand the simple fact that civilizations turn in cycles. Nothing lasts forever.
Much of the interview concerns propaganda. I have written a short substack essay on that subject that you might find relevant.
https://drp314.substack.com/p/propaganda-thoughts
Tate kept say “ I’m no conspiracy theorist, but…” The powerful are going to conspire with each other for their mutual benefit.
Simply ridiculous. Urinals are being removed from schools says Tucker? Which schools? Male students are being told to pee sitting down? Again, which schools? And one does not need a urinal to pee standing up. How many of us have urinals in our homes? Also to be noted is that Tate is now a Muslim and Muslims are forbidden from standing while peeing. Personally I always thought whipping out penises in public bathrooms, side by side with males of varying ages - from children to old men was bizarre and potentially dangerous. Isn't "the right" supposed to be concerned with "grooming" and "what about the childrenz"?
Tucker's complaining about 6th grade boys being told "sit still" "stop joking" "suppress your aggression" "share your feelings"?! Seriously? So students should be told "run wild" "joke all you want" "be aggressive toward fellow students and teachers" and "your feelings don't matter"?
Didn't Tucker used to post videos of *certain* types of kids behaving just like that and then moan and cry about the lack of "discipline" in schools today?
You and readers here would do well to watch an actual Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers break down the indictments. Tucker didn't do his due diligence with this guest (or maybe he did and just ignored the facts). Here's what's really up;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I don't think they care that much, bro. I just post the Tucker stuff on here for easier viewing for people who don't use Twitter. But thanks.
If the fake Tucker "interview" is their first exposure to Tate, they are being deeply misled, which works in this trafficker's favor. So I want to expose them to the facts. But I guess for Tucker fans who are supposedly against "grooming" and "trafficking", Tate is one of the "good traffickers" if he vomits forth some meme-ish conservative adjacent talking points.
This wasn't an interview. It was giving a carte blanche platform to Tater Tot to bloviate. And he was very deceptive about his charges. It's not just "being nice to girls on Tik Tok". Tucker didn't do his research. This is not journalism.
40% into this interview and a pretty important question is unaddressed. Who the hell is this 35-year-old man to be cultivating any kind of relationship at all with other people’s teenage daughters? Is Carlson slipping? Can anyone who watched this through tell me if this was satisfactorily sorted out?
I was completely immersed in this interview. Tate has an amazing outlook on the NWO. Excellent interview.
He also has an amazing outlook on his own criminal enterprise, which he self-snitched about here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
I saw a video of Vivek Ramaswamy recently at a Townhall meeting where he was asked what he would do on his first day as president. He said he would issue an Executive Order banning race based affirmative action. That’s exactly the opposite of what Biden did on his first day in office which was to issue an Executive Order to replace meritocracy wherever it can be found with Equity aka Equal Outcomes.
The clearest and best example I can think of that shows the profound difference between the Woke vs the nonWoke is to compare the thinking and philosophy of a nonWoke public intellectual like Vivek to a Woke public intellectual like Ibram X. Kendi. Like the difference between day and night or sanity vs insanity yet our ruling class, their media and their many useful idiots in the general public are committed to Kendi’s ideology and our entire society now endlessly revolves around this “antiracism” poison which is insane and basically a race war against white people, against anyone of whatever color who opposes them and a war on standards which are the essence of civilization. Basically a war on sanity by the insane and Vivek is very much aware of this.
“Colleges Nuke Merit To Preserve Racial Admissions.” (7 min)
Breaking Points. Saagar Enjeti Jul 10, 2023
https://youtu.be/T9HvRkw75HQ
“Glenn Loury Destroys Ibram X. Kendi.” (2 min)
Southern Comfort Productions. Nov 15, 2022
https://youtu.be/8qpt6GbPNdc
When your desire to own the Libs runs so deep that have to promote some dumb Qanon anti-trafficking movie one week and then have to platform a man who is an alleged human-trafficker the next.
"Qanon anti-trafficking movie"
I've read some reviews that claim this association. I have yet to see any present actual evidence of it or even a logical connection. What I read is a lot of self-indulgent hot air and leftist virtue-whining about a movie that, apparently, the unwashed masses like, about a very serious subject, and that just galls them.
I guess Tate is one of the "good" traffickers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Huh? What you call ‘promote’ I call free speech and the marketplace of ideas, much of which (seems) to get short shrift on MSM, most recently evidenced by Ukraine and Covid, among several.
We have brains and critical thinking skills here, J Hardy. Tate may have some level of womanizing sleaze to his approach to life. That doesn’t mean he should be jailed for it.
“Two and a half hours defending & singing the praises of an accused rapist and human trafficker. So brave,” said Joe Walsh, a former 2020 Republican presidential candidate.
Andrew Tate is R Kelly with a twin brother.
Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of himself for this interview. And all of you who respect him after this should be ashamed too.
Judging from the comments praising Tucker for this interview, you all need help.
Dave, do you find it sad, surreal (and a bit frightening?) that multiple times in this interview, Andrew stated ‘I am not suicidal’? Maybe that is all a ruse too?
It is a ruse. He's a bloviator. A narcissist. Want's people to think he's something besides a conman, a pimp, a tax frauder and a grifter. Even his conversion to Islam is nothing more than a grift along the Romania-to-Dubai sex trafficking pipeline. Criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers analyzes Tate's own self-snitching here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
"accused"
You might meditate on that for a bit before gurgling, "you all need help".
No thanks, I'm good with what I said.
Accused = convicted. Got it.
And you think others should be ashamed?
Thank you for your consistent postings keeping us informed of what Tucker is doing which is always of interest. As far as Andrew Tate is concerned, I had vaguely heard of him but didn't know much about him. He comes off with a lot of bravado and some of his opinions sounded OK, some of his opinions sounded questionable, and some of his opinions were deeply upsetting, for example he doesn't seem to have much comprehension of the reality of clinical depression which is a medical condition.
"under house arrest in Romania on charges"
Wait - are you saying he's not actually been convicted of anything?
"anti-feminist groups"
You mean, like the guys in dresses trying to attack actual women who speak out against these creepy weirdos trying to invade their women-only spaces?
BTW: What is a woman? Can a man declare himself to be a woman and he magically beomes one?
Until your ilk can get this malarkey straightened out, your cries of "anti-feminism" ring kind of hollow.
"Sound of Freedom tops the box office"
Yeah, all those stupid deplorables deciding to spend their money on a movie they want to see vs. the latest "woke" bomb from Hollywood. Sheesh.
Heretic, Bruce Rivers the criminal lawyer, breaks down what's really going on with Tate's self-snitching; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
So what's your explanation for why Epps, who is seen on video committing a crime by loudly demanding that protesters go into the Capitol, was put on a most wanted list but never arrested, and then was taken off the list as soon as Revolver found him "hiding" on his ranch? (The FBI never thought to look there. Better training, please.) And why did Adam Kinzinger, during the show trial, display such a fawning attitude toward this obvious criminal?
Before you succumb to the temptation to cry "Conspiracy Theory", as if that magically refutes anything you don't like, take a moment to think about how that reasoning would apply to "Russia! Collusion!" But wait, wait, don't tell me: that would be "Whataboutism!" Which is to say a demand for logical consistency.
Keep in mind, Birtha, he isn't suing. He keeps threatening to sue and if he could have, he would have already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ray-epps-jan-6-tucker-carlson-fox-b2374198.html
Bazinga !
Why would you not care about the implications: that the FBI wanted, and got, a "mass trespassing event" on Jan 6? Is that not concerning?
I must've missed that part where you articulate what is a woman, or how accusing someone of something means they're guilty.
And if you're going to go with present trends...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
I'm sorry, is this internet clip/gossip stuff supposed to be meaningful in some way?
Thanks for letting us know that you can't tell the difference.
"I don't understand your (and others to be fair) obsession with what is a woman."
Gee, where to start. How about this: I don't want my three daughters to have their female-only spaces or sports invaded by some sick nutcase or just plain pervert who claims he's a she.
Is that understandable enough?
How can anyone proclaim that they care about women's rights (or carp about misogyny or "the patriarchy") if they can't even say what is a woman - or for that matter what is a man?
Can you not see the logical inconsistencies this presents?
"I go along with that. It's the kind thing to do."
Indulging some mentally ill person's sick fantasies isn't kind in the least.
If I claim to be a Bengal tiger, should you:
a.) Indulge my delusion and perhaps put me in a zoo cage with real Bengal tigers to "affirm" me, or
b.) Encourage me to seek professional help
The answer to anyone with their head screwed on straight is clear.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you are wrong. I see no evidence that Musk has Tucker as a, your words, “sidekick.” This isn’t some burgeoning evil cabal. After that you cherry-pick something irrelevant and conclude by saying something like “nice guys should continue to finish last”. No thanks.
For those of us with “open logical minds”, the last 5 years have been a wake up call. The level of hate manufactured against many men, Tucker and Tate included is alarming to us. “Teeny bopper idol”, your phrase, shows you are clueless of the sophistication of the evil orchestrators (including media and government) trying to silence the messengers. Tucker and Tate are calling them out and your contribution is childish name calling. You obviously aren’t here to learn anything new or discover truths. You already know everything. Poor you, when they come for you.
“Teeny bopper idol”, your phrase, shows you are clueless of the sophistication of the evil orchestrators "
That's for sure. In the video posted below criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers breaks down Tate's criminal indictments and it's far from "teeny bopper" stuff. Tucker should interview this guy to get the actual facts on Tate (in Tate's own words nonetheless). Tate brags about drug deals, mafia partnerships, deceptively luring financially desperate and vulnerable girls and women into the sex industry, defrauding these sex workers of their incomes, committing tax fraud to maximize his profits, and more. On which platform does he do this bragging? In his PHD (Pimpin' Ho's Degree) program which is a private, paid-for platform created to teach boys and men how to enter the sex industry and become a "Top G Pimp".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Tucker is a few steps behind (at least on the surface), but I think he’s a good guy. His interview on Tulsi Gabbard’s show a while back was well done.
Either Tucker is completely clueless about Tate or he is purposely covering for him. This lawyer exposes what is really going on; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
"it is all orchestrated from on high, and if Elon and Tucker were really good guys, they would not have their present position"
A lot to unpack here.
I agree that much of what we see and hear as far as societal trends, popularity, "news", etc., is indeed "from above" for the purposes of social control. So we must always be vigilant and question the powerful and everything we think we know.
I don't know Tucker or Elon personally, but if I hear them and they happen to speak the truth about some matter, as determined by my own bullshit meter and advanced education, I can applaud them for it, precisely because they (deserved or not) have an extremely large audience. Whether that large audience was gained solely by their own hard work or some evil plot I do not know, but I'm open to hearing hard evidence if it's the latter. But, again, the truth is the truth and if it is uttered by someone with influence and it furthers the pursuit of the truth by more people, I'm all for it.
@Heretic, "Whether that large audience was gained solely by their own hard work or some evil plot I do not know, but I'm open to hearing hard evidence if it's the latter. "
Here's the hard evidence, straight from the horse's mouth, and analyzed by a criminal lawyer; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
"It's called Controlled Opposition and it's not really a praiseworthy thing."
In spite of your condescending attitude toward, apparently, everyone, others do have the ability to discern what people are saying and whether it comes from the right motive or is serving some other agenda. You don't possess some special insight.
"this continual denial and defensiveness is really pointless"
To what are you referring, exactly?
"I already know how the audience here views things"
Can you also give us with the winning Powerball numbers for the next drawing? Gosh, thanks Mr. Nostradamus!
"none of you are going to let reality intrude at any point"
Perhaps not your personal reality. We may find it does not comport with objective reality.
"I am not going to ignore what I know to be true of both these people as individuals"
What do you think you know, exactly? Be specific and provide evidence, then be wiling to defend it.
"what mystifies me is that apparently none of you are interested in taking the challenge to even look at the sites I mentioned and possibly learn something"
No need to be mystified. Perhaps people don't listen to your "challenges" because you come across as, well, a condescending "Richard Cranium". Perhaps they read things of which you are not aware that may inform their thinking and even elevate it far beyond anything you may think you know.
Here's a hot tip: You're not as smart as you think you are and others aren't as dumb as you think they are.
"There is no part of Musk that isn't pure committed Deep State."
Making sweeping statements is easy. Try to be specific about what you are accusing him of and provide evidence for it. Musk may very well be Dr. Evil's right hand man, but just claiming it in some broad sense is hardly sufficient. No doubt he works for the government on secret stuff, but so do a lot of people. No doubt he's got powerful connections, but he's also got a lot of detractors on the "left" and in the MSM (CIA) press, so there's some disconnect here that needs to be resolved. Is he 100% evil with no redeeming qualities? Or only 50% evil? His release of the Twitter files hardly served the cause of govenment/tech collusion/censorship. In fact, it helped shine a light on it that otherwise wouldn't exist.
"Sending his pernicious megalith traffic is Evil and Immoral and directly contributing to the erosion of freedom."
I hate to tell you, but using the internet in any way is "directly contributing to the erosion of freedom." Big Brother is watching us all, 24/7. The internet was created to spy on everyone.
About the only way to avoid it all is to unplug completely and become a hermit, but even then every square inch of the planet can be seen by satellites, so maybe find a remote cave somewhere.
Best of luck to you. Have a wonderful day.
"If you can overcome your willful ignorance and programming"
Clearly, you have reading comprehension issues. That makes it impossible to communicate with you effectively. It makes it pointless, even.
"The bizarrely hostile reactions on this page cement the obvious reality, offensive though you may find it"
What is offensive is that you spout a lot of generalizations and offer nothing in the way of specifics and evidence while talking down to everyone else. We get that you hate Tucker, et al, but just because I may find that he utters the truth about something and applaud it due to the reach of his platform doesn't make me (or anyone else) "a little girl in 1970 idolizing Donny Osmond". There's a lot about which I disagree with him. But the fact remains that he has a huge platform and even if the truth slips out inadvertantly the truth is always a good thing.
What I find hilarious is that you somehow think you're smarter than everyone else, yet as I comb back through your posts you've literally presented nothing but opinions masquerading as indisputable "facts" in an almost incoherent fashion.
Perhaps you should judge the lack of positive receptiveness to your posts not as a sign of others being ignorant, but you not making a very factual, compelling (and intelligible) case for your opinions.
Have a nice life.