Red Pill Frauds
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
The Manosphere’s Descent into Spiritual Homosexuality
On March 19, “female Andrew Tate” Hannah Pearl Davis, known by her screen name Pearl, retweeted a series of photos of “actual trans women” who the original poster said “look better than the average ovary owner.” Pearl agreed with this sentiment and, in her retweet, said, “I hate to say this but trans but [sic] more effort into their appearance than most American women.”
Her reasoning? She made the broad, sweeping statement that males identifying as transgender women aren’t fat, wear dresses, have long hair, and have no visible tattoos while – I guess – she’s comfortable alleging that actual females don’t do this. She added, “Men do everything better I swear.”
Anyone familiar with her tired schtick understands that she probably doesn’t believe that males make better “women” than females do, but Pearl is a dyed-in-the-wool provocateur who drives up her engagement rate on social media by regularly posting inflammatory content. She baits people with rage. And nothing great is accomplished.
Co-founder and editor-in-chief of Reduxx, Anna Slatz, responded to Pearl’s misogynist take by saying she was “dropping another quarter in the ‘redpill is a psyop trying to make men homosexual’ jar.”
This same sentiment has been shared by many online commentators skeptical of the new manosphere movement, like Alexander of DatePsych, who said “the red pill is 95% daytime television tier gossip,” or Allie Beth Stuckey, who said “the line between the ‘red pill’ movement and homosexuality is so thin these days. … Like just admit you’re simply not attracted to women and are grossed out by them! No need to shroud your woman-hating in faux masculinity.”
In the past, Slatz has said that the end game of this new manosphere is homosexuality because only other men could love and understand their fellow man, even going so far as to call it “spiritual homosexuality.” Why? It would appear that many red pill teachings tell men to go against their biological nature to seek companionship from a woman.
At the same time that the manosphere instructs men to isolate themselves from women, our modern beauty industry standardizes womanhood into a cut-and-paste, unnatural aesthetic. Think the Karjenner clan and other look-alikes, whose slick, plastic-y appearance can only be achieved through the use of expensive facelifts, cosmetic fillers, Botox, and makeup. I mean, does Dylan Mulvaney, a biological male identifying as a transgender woman, look all that different from biological females like Megan Fox?
Anyway, red pillers often tout aphorisms about how women act – how our natural behavior is antithetical to them being the most alpha version of themselves. Couple that with the image of femininity they’re sold by Karjenner-looking women, which is this cookie-cutter, shallow representation of real beauty, and it’s no wonder why they’ve become so divorced from reality.
Red pillers aren’t the same as incels (involuntary celibates), however, and many are proud of their high body counts. They think they’ve transcended normal relationships but still feel the desire to get casually intimate with women. This argument is as follows: Maybe if they grow so comfortable with male companionship, femininity becomes shallow and standardized, and rates of transgenderism are on the rise, then these men will prefer to satisfy their biological urges with womanfaced men.
Will that actually happen? Perhaps not. If you close your laptop and lock your phone, you won’t find much “manosphere” influence in the real world. I’d wager that most people you pass in your daily commute or on trips to the grocery store have no idea what “the red pill” even is.
But this train of thought is still quite pervasive. Andrew Tate reached mainstream audiences with messages just as toxic as feminism, but quickly became censored and, in many cases, fully deplatformed. Attempting to find original clips of his alpha platitudes proves quite difficult since so much of his content has been purged from regular search engines and social media search features.
more at
Is The “Red Pill” A Psyop To Make Men Gay? | Evie Magazine (archive.is)
On March 19, “female Andrew Tate” Hannah Pearl Davis, known by her screen name Pearl, retweeted a series of photos of “actual trans women” who the original poster said “look better than the average ovary owner.” Pearl agreed with this sentiment and, in her retweet, said, “I hate to say this but trans but [sic] more effort into their appearance than most American women.”
Her reasoning? She made the broad, sweeping statement that males identifying as transgender women aren’t fat, wear dresses, have long hair, and have no visible tattoos while – I guess – she’s comfortable alleging that actual females don’t do this. She added, “Men do everything better I swear.”
Anyone familiar with her tired schtick understands that she probably doesn’t believe that males make better “women” than females do, but Pearl is a dyed-in-the-wool provocateur who drives up her engagement rate on social media by regularly posting inflammatory content. She baits people with rage. And nothing great is accomplished.
Co-founder and editor-in-chief of Reduxx, Anna Slatz, responded to Pearl’s misogynist take by saying she was “dropping another quarter in the ‘redpill is a psyop trying to make men homosexual’ jar.”
This same sentiment has been shared by many online commentators skeptical of the new manosphere movement, like Alexander of DatePsych, who said “the red pill is 95% daytime television tier gossip,” or Allie Beth Stuckey, who said “the line between the ‘red pill’ movement and homosexuality is so thin these days. … Like just admit you’re simply not attracted to women and are grossed out by them! No need to shroud your woman-hating in faux masculinity.”
In the past, Slatz has said that the end game of this new manosphere is homosexuality because only other men could love and understand their fellow man, even going so far as to call it “spiritual homosexuality.” Why? It would appear that many red pill teachings tell men to go against their biological nature to seek companionship from a woman.
At the same time that the manosphere instructs men to isolate themselves from women, our modern beauty industry standardizes womanhood into a cut-and-paste, unnatural aesthetic. Think the Karjenner clan and other look-alikes, whose slick, plastic-y appearance can only be achieved through the use of expensive facelifts, cosmetic fillers, Botox, and makeup. I mean, does Dylan Mulvaney, a biological male identifying as a transgender woman, look all that different from biological females like Megan Fox?
Anyway, red pillers often tout aphorisms about how women act – how our natural behavior is antithetical to them being the most alpha version of themselves. Couple that with the image of femininity they’re sold by Karjenner-looking women, which is this cookie-cutter, shallow representation of real beauty, and it’s no wonder why they’ve become so divorced from reality.
Red pillers aren’t the same as incels (involuntary celibates), however, and many are proud of their high body counts. They think they’ve transcended normal relationships but still feel the desire to get casually intimate with women. This argument is as follows: Maybe if they grow so comfortable with male companionship, femininity becomes shallow and standardized, and rates of transgenderism are on the rise, then these men will prefer to satisfy their biological urges with womanfaced men.
Will that actually happen? Perhaps not. If you close your laptop and lock your phone, you won’t find much “manosphere” influence in the real world. I’d wager that most people you pass in your daily commute or on trips to the grocery store have no idea what “the red pill” even is.
But this train of thought is still quite pervasive. Andrew Tate reached mainstream audiences with messages just as toxic as feminism, but quickly became censored and, in many cases, fully deplatformed. Attempting to find original clips of his alpha platitudes proves quite difficult since so much of his content has been purged from regular search engines and social media search features.
more at
Is The “Red Pill” A Psyop To Make Men Gay? | Evie Magazine (archive.is)
Red pill is homosexual
The "Career Woman" Myth
Everyone is just dying to know: What is she waiting for?
www.psychologytoday.com
.
When a woman is over age 30, single and childless, people want to know why. Not just her doting parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Not just the college roommate whose bridal and baby showers she threw ten or fifteen years earlier. Not just her married mom friends chiding her to get on the bandwagon. Not just her co-workers. Not just the nosy neighbor down the street. Just about everyone is just dying to know: What is she waiting for?
But it doesn't seem to matter what her response is because before they've finished asking the question, the same inquisitors have already added their own reasoning: "Are you too focused on your career?" Or, "Well, you are a career woman."
The term "career woman," for which there is no male equivalent (ever hear of a "career man?"), has taken on a pejorative meaning to women who have chosen a career over having children. Assuming she's made a choice to focus on her career instead of getting married (or finding a life partner) and having children with that partner, is a punch in the gut to the amazing single woman who wants to be a mother. It implies the stereotype that she's cold-hearted, selfish or just completely naïve or in denial about her fertility lifespan. The only proof to the widely-assumed claim that her career is her ultimate focus is that she's got a job.
The "career woman" is a relic of the Women's Liberation Movement fifty years ago, when a woman who sought a career was an anomaly or judged for making what many believed to be a radical political statement of feminism. But today, there are more women in the workforce than men. It's hardly a feminist statement to have a job. At the very least, it's a statement of being a responsible member of society who pays her bills.
Of course, some women do choose to pursue their careers in lieu of being a working mother, or delay motherhood for a couple of years because they feel they need to in order to stay competitive in their industries. Some women believe that their dedication to their career, and the good that they are building through their work, is their ultimate legacy—Oprah Winfrey certainly comes to mind. And some women have absolutely no interest in becoming mothers, their careers notwithstanding.
But as a woman who always yearned to be a mother, and as one who has been called a "feminist career woman," because I am childless, I can tell you that the "career woman" myth is anachronistic at best, hurtful at worst. And any way you slice it, proven to be simply incorrect.
A recent study by the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada reports that when women were asked about their decision to conceive their first child, 97 percent said that had been waiting to be in a "secure relationship" before having children. Less than 30 percent cited "career goals" as being "very important" to the decision. A similar study, in Australia's Journal of Population Health, reports that childless women in their thirties want to have children, but cannot due to reasons "beyond their control." Specific reasons cited include: "not having a partner, not having a stable relationship, or with a partner that did not want children."
Making the choice to wait for love, marriage and a stable relationship is the most common reason why most single women who want to be mothers are not mothers, barring a biological fertility challenge. So next time you are about to ask a thirty-something friend why she hasn't become a mother yet—don't.
The "Career Woman" Myth
Everyone is just dying to know: What is she waiting for?
The "Career Woman" Myth
Just about everyone is just dying to know: What is she waiting for?
www.psychologytoday.com
When a woman is over age 30, single and childless, people want to know why. Not just her doting parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Not just the college roommate whose bridal and baby showers she threw ten or fifteen years earlier. Not just her married mom friends chiding her to get on the bandwagon. Not just her co-workers. Not just the nosy neighbor down the street. Just about everyone is just dying to know: What is she waiting for?
But it doesn't seem to matter what her response is because before they've finished asking the question, the same inquisitors have already added their own reasoning: "Are you too focused on your career?" Or, "Well, you are a career woman."
The term "career woman," for which there is no male equivalent (ever hear of a "career man?"), has taken on a pejorative meaning to women who have chosen a career over having children. Assuming she's made a choice to focus on her career instead of getting married (or finding a life partner) and having children with that partner, is a punch in the gut to the amazing single woman who wants to be a mother. It implies the stereotype that she's cold-hearted, selfish or just completely naïve or in denial about her fertility lifespan. The only proof to the widely-assumed claim that her career is her ultimate focus is that she's got a job.
The "career woman" is a relic of the Women's Liberation Movement fifty years ago, when a woman who sought a career was an anomaly or judged for making what many believed to be a radical political statement of feminism. But today, there are more women in the workforce than men. It's hardly a feminist statement to have a job. At the very least, it's a statement of being a responsible member of society who pays her bills.
Of course, some women do choose to pursue their careers in lieu of being a working mother, or delay motherhood for a couple of years because they feel they need to in order to stay competitive in their industries. Some women believe that their dedication to their career, and the good that they are building through their work, is their ultimate legacy—Oprah Winfrey certainly comes to mind. And some women have absolutely no interest in becoming mothers, their careers notwithstanding.
But as a woman who always yearned to be a mother, and as one who has been called a "feminist career woman," because I am childless, I can tell you that the "career woman" myth is anachronistic at best, hurtful at worst. And any way you slice it, proven to be simply incorrect.
A recent study by the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada reports that when women were asked about their decision to conceive their first child, 97 percent said that had been waiting to be in a "secure relationship" before having children. Less than 30 percent cited "career goals" as being "very important" to the decision. A similar study, in Australia's Journal of Population Health, reports that childless women in their thirties want to have children, but cannot due to reasons "beyond their control." Specific reasons cited include: "not having a partner, not having a stable relationship, or with a partner that did not want children."
Making the choice to wait for love, marriage and a stable relationship is the most common reason why most single women who want to be mothers are not mothers, barring a biological fertility challenge. So next time you are about to ask a thirty-something friend why she hasn't become a mother yet—don't.
The latest feminine outbursts from the F&F simplets made something very clear to me: The redpill cope encourages males to communicate exactly like the women Kevin Samuels was dealing with.
this from a man who is currently single and a failure with women and charges 5000$ an hour
The end point of the manosphere is homosexuality
The manosphere is one of the greatest modern intelectual blights in this world. It would be funny if they had no sway inreal lifehe world at large. But their tragedy is that, in having a problem they actively avoid the solution, and as such are condemend to forever be burdened by their troubles.
Some say a crisis of masculinity is the source and that may have some truth inside. Larval incels wants "to be more of a man" and asks himself "What is masculinity?". So they define masculinity "by everything a woman is not". A good first step in a purely theoretical way, trying to define a thing by listing the opposites.
But they soon discover that there is actually quite little a man can do that a woman can't: women can be brave or cowardly, doctors or forest guards,be gay or straight and many other things. So instead of revising their base assumptions, they attempt to curtail what women can do be defining completely arbitrary limits to their activities: "a woman is a mother", "a woman is submissive", and so on... Well, arbitrary is not the correct word: their definitions never give power to women, only take it from them.
The fun part is that does not stop there: feminine activities like cleaning and sewing must also be rejected. Beauty concerns are seen as feminine so they are rejected as well. CLothes, music, books are next. Everything with a slight whiff of feminity must be evicted form their life.
This eventually culminates in a partial rejection of women: sure a man craves a female body, but just the body. He does not speak with a woman, he does not thrust a woman, he does not work together with a woman. He must dominate and dispose of women. Only another man can be a companion and only those as manly and burly as they are. A woman betrays, a man undestands. A bro will always be there for you.
And finally the last stage of the infection, yet unseen, is the complete rejection of women in their entirety: women become such a danger to the ideology, one must be gay so even their desire is destroyed. Become such a man that only another man can be worhty of them. In the tight and voluminous embrace of masculinity, there is only space for another manly man.
I finally understand why incels and male supremacists hate gays: they are their final form and their eyes are filled with envy at such power.
Reddit
reddit.com
› r/inceltears › the end point of the manosphere is homosexuality
r/IncelTears on Reddit: The end point of the manosphere is homosexuality
The manosphere is one of the greatest modern intelectual blights in this world. It would be funny if they had no sway inreal lifehe world at large. But their tragedy is that, in having a problem they actively avoid the solution, and as such are condemend to forever be burdened by their troubles.
Some say a crisis of masculinity is the source and that may have some truth inside. Larval incels wants "to be more of a man" and asks himself "What is masculinity?". So they define masculinity "by everything a woman is not". A good first step in a purely theoretical way, trying to define a thing by listing the opposites.
But they soon discover that there is actually quite little a man can do that a woman can't: women can be brave or cowardly, doctors or forest guards,be gay or straight and many other things. So instead of revising their base assumptions, they attempt to curtail what women can do be defining completely arbitrary limits to their activities: "a woman is a mother", "a woman is submissive", and so on... Well, arbitrary is not the correct word: their definitions never give power to women, only take it from them.
The fun part is that does not stop there: feminine activities like cleaning and sewing must also be rejected. Beauty concerns are seen as feminine so they are rejected as well. CLothes, music, books are next. Everything with a slight whiff of feminity must be evicted form their life.
This eventually culminates in a partial rejection of women: sure a man craves a female body, but just the body. He does not speak with a woman, he does not thrust a woman, he does not work together with a woman. He must dominate and dispose of women. Only another man can be a companion and only those as manly and burly as they are. A woman betrays, a man undestands. A bro will always be there for you.
And finally the last stage of the infection, yet unseen, is the complete rejection of women in their entirety: women become such a danger to the ideology, one must be gay so even their desire is destroyed. Become such a man that only another man can be worhty of them. In the tight and voluminous embrace of masculinity, there is only space for another manly man.
I finally understand why incels and male supremacists hate gays: they are their final form and their eyes are filled with envy at such power.
reddit.com
› r/inceltears › the end point of the manosphere is homosexuality
r/IncelTears on Reddit: The end point of the manosphere is homosexuality
What a Young Man Should Know, 1933. A checklist for becoming a proper man.
This was published in the March 1933 issue of Harper’s Magazine.
The writer, Robert Littell, details the abilities, skills, accomplishments, and extra-curricular proficiencies that every man should have if they are to become a self-sufficient and well-rounded human being, ready for life, and eventually, marriage and raising their own children. The learning starts from a very young age.
Here is the (short) list:
1. He should know how to swim at least a mile, dive creditably, and not feel panicky under water. He should be able also to revive those less skilful than himself by rolling them on a barrel and pumping their helpless arms.
2. He should be able to drive an automobile well. And he should not be altogether helpless when a car breaks down. He must know how to change a tire and offer some sort of diagnosis when the engine sputters and dies.
3. He ought to know how to clean, load, and shoot a revolver or a rifle.
4. As for self-defense, a man should certainly be able to take care of himself in a scrap. He need not learn jujitsu — old-fashioned boxing will be enough.
5. He ought to know the rudiments of camping, how to build a fire, how to chop wood, how to take a cinder out of his eye, how to deal with a severed artery, how to doctor himself for ordinary ailments.
6. He should also be able to take care of other people in emergencies, to apply first aid, set a broken bone, revive a drunk or a victim of gas, deal with a fainting fit, administer the right emetic or antidote for a case of poisoning.
7. And he should be able to feed himself, to cook, not only because some day he may need to, but because cooking is one of the fine arts, and a source of infinite pleasure. He should be able to scramble eggs, brew coffee, broil a steak, dress a salad, carve a chicken, and produce, on occasion, one first-class dish, such as onion soup. The more he can do, in these days of the delicatessen store and the kitchenette, the better. It is not effeminate, it is not beyond him, and the best chefs are all men.
8. He should know how to use paint brushes, a saw, a hammer, and other common tools.
9. He should also have a beautiful and distinguished handwriting. But the bulk of his writing, particularly if he is a professional man who has much of it to do, should be done on a typewriter, capable of turning out three thousand words an hour.
10. He should play one outdoor game well, and have a workable smattering of several more. An American who cannot throw and catch a ball seems pathetic and grotesque.
11. The bicycle has gone, yet every young man should know how to ride one.
12. He should also be able to skate, sail a boat, and handle a canoe passably.
13. Fishing is a specialty, like chess.
14. Walking is a noble but neglected sport. Americans “hike” once in a long while but seldom walk.
15. He should know a great deal about animals and how to take care of them.
16. He should know how to ride a horse.
17. He should learn how to stay in a saddle with pleasure to himself and a minimum of annoyance to his mount.
18. He should learn how to dance.
19. He should know to play at least one card game.
20. He must have knowledge of how to tip naturally, justly, without fear and without reproach.
21. On the matter of alcohol, he should learn his capacity and stick within its limits; he should know something about the different kinds of drink, and which drinks produce chaos within him when mixed.
22. Where s:x is concerned, nature clearly intended us to make many mistakes in her hope that some of them would be productive.
23. He should know the rudiments of gambling. But gambling might be placed on the same plane as drink — the less use one has for it the better.
24. Higher than almost any other accomplishment on the list is knowing music. There is no reason why any young man who is not absolutely tone-deaf should not learn how to play one musical instrument well enough for it to be a self-resource and a tolerable pleasure to others.
25. A civilized man should know how to read. The ability to read, or rather the habit of reading, is very rare even among intelligent people, and has to be taught and kept up if it is not to become rusty.
26. He should have knowledge of at least one foreign language. French or German preferably both. German children learn an amazingly good brand of English without ever crossing their borders. Why can’t we? For one thing, we don’t really want to. Yet we should. An American who knows only English is blind in one eye.
27. He should know to travel well, efficiently, without fuss or complaint.
28. A young man should be able to express himself clearly before a crowd of strangers, without shyness, muddle, or a pathetic resort to “so much has been said and well said” or “I did not expect to be called on.”
29. The American adult can get to his feet, propose a toast, introduce a stranger, voice a civic protest, heckle a windbag politician, and give utterance to an unembarrassed thought.
30. A a man should command the elementary tool of written language, and be able to put simple things on paper in clear words.
31. He should have a good workable understanding of the structure of business, investments, and banks.
32. Let every educated man, as a necessary part of his education, be thrown into the muddy stream of American industry and see what it is like to swim alone on daily wages.
33. He should before reaching twenty-two have done something because he wanted to, whether other people wanted him to do it or not.
34. He should not acquire property unless he needs it. Insensitiveness to his personal property, unless of course it is extraordinarily beautiful, is a desirable skill for any man to have; It must be learned and worked at.
35. Unusual though this young man may be, he should not seem so. Is not a parent’s basic ambition for his child that he be very different from other people, yet manage to seem almost exactly like them?
This was published in the March 1933 issue of Harper’s Magazine.
The writer, Robert Littell, details the abilities, skills, accomplishments, and extra-curricular proficiencies that every man should have if they are to become a self-sufficient and well-rounded human being, ready for life, and eventually, marriage and raising their own children. The learning starts from a very young age.
Here is the (short) list:
1. He should know how to swim at least a mile, dive creditably, and not feel panicky under water. He should be able also to revive those less skilful than himself by rolling them on a barrel and pumping their helpless arms.
2. He should be able to drive an automobile well. And he should not be altogether helpless when a car breaks down. He must know how to change a tire and offer some sort of diagnosis when the engine sputters and dies.
3. He ought to know how to clean, load, and shoot a revolver or a rifle.
4. As for self-defense, a man should certainly be able to take care of himself in a scrap. He need not learn jujitsu — old-fashioned boxing will be enough.
5. He ought to know the rudiments of camping, how to build a fire, how to chop wood, how to take a cinder out of his eye, how to deal with a severed artery, how to doctor himself for ordinary ailments.
6. He should also be able to take care of other people in emergencies, to apply first aid, set a broken bone, revive a drunk or a victim of gas, deal with a fainting fit, administer the right emetic or antidote for a case of poisoning.
7. And he should be able to feed himself, to cook, not only because some day he may need to, but because cooking is one of the fine arts, and a source of infinite pleasure. He should be able to scramble eggs, brew coffee, broil a steak, dress a salad, carve a chicken, and produce, on occasion, one first-class dish, such as onion soup. The more he can do, in these days of the delicatessen store and the kitchenette, the better. It is not effeminate, it is not beyond him, and the best chefs are all men.
8. He should know how to use paint brushes, a saw, a hammer, and other common tools.
9. He should also have a beautiful and distinguished handwriting. But the bulk of his writing, particularly if he is a professional man who has much of it to do, should be done on a typewriter, capable of turning out three thousand words an hour.
10. He should play one outdoor game well, and have a workable smattering of several more. An American who cannot throw and catch a ball seems pathetic and grotesque.
11. The bicycle has gone, yet every young man should know how to ride one.
12. He should also be able to skate, sail a boat, and handle a canoe passably.
13. Fishing is a specialty, like chess.
14. Walking is a noble but neglected sport. Americans “hike” once in a long while but seldom walk.
15. He should know a great deal about animals and how to take care of them.
16. He should know how to ride a horse.
17. He should learn how to stay in a saddle with pleasure to himself and a minimum of annoyance to his mount.
18. He should learn how to dance.
19. He should know to play at least one card game.
20. He must have knowledge of how to tip naturally, justly, without fear and without reproach.
21. On the matter of alcohol, he should learn his capacity and stick within its limits; he should know something about the different kinds of drink, and which drinks produce chaos within him when mixed.
22. Where s:x is concerned, nature clearly intended us to make many mistakes in her hope that some of them would be productive.
23. He should know the rudiments of gambling. But gambling might be placed on the same plane as drink — the less use one has for it the better.
24. Higher than almost any other accomplishment on the list is knowing music. There is no reason why any young man who is not absolutely tone-deaf should not learn how to play one musical instrument well enough for it to be a self-resource and a tolerable pleasure to others.
25. A civilized man should know how to read. The ability to read, or rather the habit of reading, is very rare even among intelligent people, and has to be taught and kept up if it is not to become rusty.
26. He should have knowledge of at least one foreign language. French or German preferably both. German children learn an amazingly good brand of English without ever crossing their borders. Why can’t we? For one thing, we don’t really want to. Yet we should. An American who knows only English is blind in one eye.
27. He should know to travel well, efficiently, without fuss or complaint.
28. A young man should be able to express himself clearly before a crowd of strangers, without shyness, muddle, or a pathetic resort to “so much has been said and well said” or “I did not expect to be called on.”
29. The American adult can get to his feet, propose a toast, introduce a stranger, voice a civic protest, heckle a windbag politician, and give utterance to an unembarrassed thought.
30. A a man should command the elementary tool of written language, and be able to put simple things on paper in clear words.
31. He should have a good workable understanding of the structure of business, investments, and banks.
32. Let every educated man, as a necessary part of his education, be thrown into the muddy stream of American industry and see what it is like to swim alone on daily wages.
33. He should before reaching twenty-two have done something because he wanted to, whether other people wanted him to do it or not.
34. He should not acquire property unless he needs it. Insensitiveness to his personal property, unless of course it is extraordinarily beautiful, is a desirable skill for any man to have; It must be learned and worked at.
35. Unusual though this young man may be, he should not seem so. Is not a parent’s basic ambition for his child that he be very different from other people, yet manage to seem almost exactly like them?
yawn not interested in fresh and fit myron a closet gay dude and his side kick who is a dead beat who knocked up a woman and abandoned her
GG33, the numeroligist scammer joins Fresh & Fit as their manager. They're charging their fans 4k to party with them.
tree of logic on Richard Cooper
RICHARD COOPER CRINGE
54:07 He's the reason women choose the bear
1:02:27 He's been single for how long now?
1:06:19 He's arrogant in his ignorance
1:13:15 These men hate facts and statistics
1:18:55 Insecure men competing against the bear
1:25:00 A Wild Pickme appears in the chat!
1:28:23 The ULTIMATE reason to choose the bear
1:34:28 They've never been in the woods
1:43:00 A hit dog is a howling man
1:48:30 They always change the hypothetical
1:50:00 Men are mad because women aren't mad
1:56:07 Brad Pitt? Nah, I choose the bear
2:01:12 Stranger Danger!
2:05:17 Richard Cooper is afraid of cats!
RICHARD COOPER CRINGE
54:07 He's the reason women choose the bear
1:02:27 He's been single for how long now?
1:06:19 He's arrogant in his ignorance
1:13:15 These men hate facts and statistics
1:18:55 Insecure men competing against the bear
1:25:00 A Wild Pickme appears in the chat!
1:28:23 The ULTIMATE reason to choose the bear
1:34:28 They've never been in the woods
1:43:00 A hit dog is a howling man
1:48:30 They always change the hypothetical
1:50:00 Men are mad because women aren't mad
1:56:07 Brad Pitt? Nah, I choose the bear
2:01:12 Stranger Danger!
2:05:17 Richard Cooper is afraid of cats!
I’d guess it has more to do with his conversion to Islam.It's Official Andrew Tate is out of the closet
There’s Something Queer About Andrew Tate - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics
I hate to be that guy, but I think it’s time that someone said it: Andrew Tate is incredibly gay.spectator.org
I hate to be that guy, but I think it’s time that someone said it: Andrew Tate is incredibly gay.
Yes, gay accusations are drably cliché at this point … while serving as a status symbol proving a celebrity has finally “made it.” But allow me to clarify. I don’t intend to imply that Andrew Tate would secretly like to engage in intercourse with other men. The whole Andrew Tate affair — and the broader red-pilled manosphere phenomenon in general — is gay in a cosmic sense, meaning its reverence for “heroic” masculinity has developed a kind of fetishistic aura around it, an aura that inevitably carries an erotic charge.
From the alphas and Chads who devote countless hours in the gym, post thirst traps, engage in combat sports, and brag about sleeping with women to the ideological incels who spend their days on the internet praising heroic masculine virtue and owning the libs while functionally being Wojaks and soy boys, the impulse itself to talk about masculinity is categorically pretty “sus” to begin with.
In Western neoliberal societies, the solipsistic subjectivism with which we think about the various attributes of our identities turns them into commodities. Identity for us is artifice, it’s invention, rather than being born organically from the concrete realities handed to us in life. We look to categories like masculinity and femininity as costumes with which we spice up our performance of selfhood. In this regard, Tate’s performance of hypermasculinity and a drag queen’s performance of artificial, fetishized hyperfemininity may as well be two sides of the same coin.
The series of videos featuring Tate and Twitch gaming star Adin Ross only serve to further this point. The dialogues between the two are reminiscent of Socrates and Alcibiades — the wise, elder master and his precocious young disciple. Like in ancient times, Ross’ desire to drink from the fountain of Tate’s wisdom seems to be mixed with erotic longing, which is anything but shocking to Ross’ fans, who are already familiar with his reputation for making thinly veiled homoerotic comments toward other men (for shock value, of course [?]).
In one video, Ross fawns sycophantically over Tate, who welcomes him to his house in Dubai wearing only tight, low-cut kickboxing shorts. Over the course of the discussion, Ross indulges in the sus antics he’s known for. He asks if he can also remove his own shirt and proceeds to do so despite Tate expressing that he has no interest in looking at his “pudgy” body. After doing so, Ross insists on flexing the few noticeable muscles that he has and then goes on to challenge Tate to arm wrestle him.
After losing five matches, he begs Tate to let him smoke one of his cigars, right before Tate starts bragging about the size of his genitals. He intends to prove to all of their viewers that his member is the “largest in the world,” only for Ross to beg him not to — out of the fear of getting banned for breaking Twitch’s censorship policy. Ross continues to shower Tate with compliments, reminding him that he flew halfway across the world just to see him, as Tate repeatedly hurls insults at him — which Ross seems to enjoy in a masochistic kind of way. Ross, who envies Tate’s physique (despite being, as some would argue, a butterface), begs Tate to teach him how to get a six-pack.
Workout trends that focus on developing an aesthetically appealing physique — rather than developing virtue or the strength to carry out one’s duties — have called some to question the extent to which even macho gym bros are being feminized. As art critic John Berger once observed, men look at women, and women look at men looking at them. The slew of men getting dolled up in chic, revealing outfits to go to the gym, carrying tripods so that they can record and later post their workouts — or worse, the men who gaze upon themselves in the mirror and take pictures of themselves flexing — speak to the homoerotic energy within today’s gym culture. There’s a reason some people consider homosexuality to be a narcissism of the soul.
Unlike the old days of “physical culture clubs” where “close knit groups of friends [worked out] together,” at most corporate gyms, says Joe Enabnit, the founder of a small privately owned gym in Minnesota, we are likely to find “sad masses of people” there “alone, headphones in, avoiding eye contact, looking at themselves in the mirror. With Instagram filters, good lighting, and the right angle, [men] can get a lot of likes on their page (which come mostly from gay men).”
“But even if they don’t desire the attention of men,” he continues, “it feels good. They get a sense of validation and a hit of dopamine when they get a click, and they secretly enjoy when a gay man comments an eggplant emoji … instead of men gazing at women, it is men putting themselves on display. But unlike a woman who puts herself on display to attract a man, these men are doing it in hopes of feeling like they matter. They want someone to acknowledge that they exist, and that they are doing a good job.”
Drag queen Zach Langley “Chi Chi” insists that thirst traps betray the traditional image of masculine beauty, which consisted of “a particular balance between a withholding privacy and cultivated manly strength … Self consciously imagining yourself as beautiful and visually presenting yourself that way suggests a homosexual and archetypal approach to masculinity that’s too knowing, too showy, too theatrical…” Langley, who identifies as a gay man, points to the Japanese writer Yukio Mishima, whose “most desirable male images were almost always the ones untainted by self-cognizance. A thirst trap is the negative impression of that unspoken, luxurious maleness.”
The Bronze Age Pervert’s diagnosis of male homosexuality becoming a widespread phenomenon (as well as his own homoerotic tendencies) sheds light on the Tate fandom. BAP contends that contemporary homosexuality is born of the fact that masculinity has been made largely inaccessible to more and more men due to the proliferation of bureaucracies and technocratic power (or “bugmen”). In a Freudian way, the “otherization” of masculinity generates erotic tension toward it as an ideal. We see this in BAP’s fixation with (and frequent Twitter posts of) classical depictions of strong, muscular men.
Within this view, one could also consider Nietzsche (upon whom BAP bases his philosophy) to be “gay” (I’m not the only one to have pointed this out). BAP, Nietzsche, (to a lesser extent) Jordan Peterson, and their red-pilled incel followers valorize masculine strength while remaining rather gaunt and cloying themselves. This tension between the red-pilled Wojack and the Chad who embodies the ideals they idolize is rife with erotic tension.
Many attribute this “feminization” in part to the shift toward service-sector jobs and away from the nuclear family mode as normative. In a recent study, Richard Reeves found that these shifts have left “less powerful men … adrift and disconnected.” Similarly, Sean Thor Conroe, whose novel Fuccboi “charts a reckoning within societal conceptions of masculinity under late-stage capitalism,” notices that “there’s a certain type of young boy, often fatherless, and without an inclination towards certain intellectual or scientific modes, and their outlets for applying their libidinal, productive energy seems to be disappearing more and more in America … men need tasks. They need to find a use for themselves, or else, they take it out on someone else.”
“The old Platonic ideal of capitalism,” he continues, “doesn’t work clearly, but it can in microcosms — like in what role people have, and what tasks they do for the group … Ideas of honour and chivalry aren’t even in the lexicon anymore.” While he has no interest in reverting to “medieval times,” he insists that there’s “something interesting about” those ideals. “Sometimes people want clear direction or instruction.”
At the end of the day, I have a hard time taking the Tate debacle seriously. On my off [my meds] days, I wonder if it’s all just a government psyop designed to radicalize the members of the red-pilled manosphere so that they start behaving in morally depraved ways, thus making it much easier to stigmatize anyone (even the more mild Peterson and Rogan types) who advocates for heroic masculine virtue … or even who believe that there is indeed such a thing as a gender binary. Maybe it is … maybe it isn’t. All I know is that this video that surfaced last week does little to refute my case.
Stephen G. Adubato studied moral theology at Seton Hall University and currently teaches religion and philosophy in N.J. He also is the host of the “Cracks in Postmodernity” blog on Substack and podcast. Follow him on Twitter @stephengadubato.
Ancient religious ideas about populating faster than your enemy and polluting the world with your offspring are still alive today and possibly more than ever.
