Andrew Tate: A Role Model?

A Cultural Perspective.

Many seem to refer to Andrew Tate as a male role model. But is he? Especially from a cultural perspective?

First, we need to look at how we define masculinity in Norse culture. Overall, the ideal Norse male is based on a warrior. We touched a bit on the subject in two previous posts: “How to be a Warrior: A Matter of Ethos, Training, Readiness and Fitness”, as well as “How to Remain Warriors: Ultimately, the Norse warrior is a way of life”. Essentially, in Norse culture the typical and ideal male - and thus warrior - is based of a set of fundamental evolutionary traits and characteristics better known in popular culture as those defining the Spartiates (and incidentally, the less known Jómsvíkingar). The Norse masculine identity involves fitness, resilience, stoicism, aggressiveness, territoriality, honor, loyalty, fighting capabilities, self-sufficiency, symbiosis with nature and the wilderness, the innate urge to further one’s blood line as well as a fundamental primal inclination. 

Andrew Tate may be fit, but this were any similarities with our culture end. He is the opposite of the ideal Norseman male or role model and he promotes instead a gang/black ghetto/urban culture. While he claims to reject the system, his entire existence is in fact completely reliant on the very “matrix” he so vocally opposes. He embraces a lifestyle focused on material and artificial pursuits, misplaced hedonism relating to un-needed and useless luxuries defined by their price tags, surrounded by the very whores he pretends to abhor. His fighting career was exclusively for show and entertainment, with him specifically and willfully opting out of any actual combat engagement. His very survival is dependent on the stock market and the big corporations he allegedly rejects. He does not display (nor actually promote) resilience or stoicism, his aggressiveness is primarily verbal and defined by misplaced fabricated outrage, he has no concept of territoriality, completely lacks honor as demonstrated by his conversion to Islam primarily for financial gain, he is not loyal to his own people, his fighting capabilities are solely for show, he has no self-sufficiency whatsoever outside of the system, is so detached from nature that he would not survive a few hours in the wilderness, has no children, and lacks fundamental primal inclination. Tate may talk a lot - and be compelling in his speeches - but he doesn’t walk the talk. It is all hot wind. 

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here, the leopard city shoes that would otherwise be inadequate even at the San Francisco gay pride, the blink of his watch and glasses (generally, of course, worn inside), the too perfectly trimmed metrosexual/gay failed attempt at a beard, the overpriced designer suit which sole purpose is to show off, all the way to the very trendy small bottle of San Pellegrino. All demonstrating a persona that is completely and utterly detached from the world of actual men who display fundamental evolutionary traits and characteristics of such. 

Tate’s following consists primarily of younger white males, clearly lost if only based on the fact they are pursuing a role model that is neither their race or culture, who are only rebellious against the system because they feel excluded from it, and who in fact crave belonging to that very “matrix” they supposedly oppose. As the direct product of modern culture and society that is heavily based on gang and black ghetto culture. These men are also psychologically weak as many have fallen for Tate’s “get rich quick” typical scam with the promise of belonging to a community without any standards outside of paying money, on a web site that runs fraudulent scripts showing fake testimonials to coerce the inadequate into subscribing, and which generates Tate millions of dollars of revenue every year. 

Ultimately, Tate does not represent at all masculinity, the identity of a man and thus warrior. He is not only far from being a male role model, he is almost the opposite of it.