December 22, 2022 - 4:01pm
Andrew Tate is an unlikely beneficiary of cancel culture. His fame has grown immensely after media reports of him being banned from various platforms, and when his Twitter account was reinstated a month ago he gained a million followers in 24 hours. In an uncanny twist, he’s now becoming a fixture on Right-leaning talk shows, pontificating on topics far beyond his usual ‘manosphere’ remit.
His recent appearances on GB News and Piers Morgan Uncensored see him cover topics ranging from Harry and Meghan to the UK nurses’ strike. Much of what he has said in his recent interviews is considered common sense by a significant portion of the public, such as the idea that “England is one of the least racist nations on the planet” and that society values men based on “how useful” they are. He has also touched on London being poorly run, as well as the issue of online death threats being taken less seriously by the police than a transgender person who is addressed with the wrong pronouns.
So far, so normal. These are the kinds of soundbites that TV talking heads wheel out all the time, and Tate is no less articulate or persuasive than your average on-screen rent-a-gob. If anything, he might be more relatable. At a time when the mainstream media has lost touch with the concerns and perspectives of everyday people, Tate’s has become a compelling voice.
The former professional kickboxer first became notorious for his blatantly misogynistic and otherwise outrageous statements, while simultaneously establishing himself as an online influencer running the so-called ‘Hustler’s University’. This alleged scam of a course targets young men seeking answers and motivation in a world that often appears hostile to them. However, the subscription-based programme, like his latest venture ‘The Real World’, is unlikely to help anyone accumulate wealth, apart from Tate himself.
In his first interview with Piers Morgan the online personality was mostly on the defensive, trying to justify his past controversial statements. The latest conversation with Morgan, however, allowed Tate to showcase himself as a more moderate talking head. He referred to himself as a “bastion of free speech”, a “bastion of masculinity” and a “force for truth”. This is the kind of language that resonates with followers of outspoken conservatives in the US, such as Matt Walsh or Candace Owens.
Is Tate aiming to establish himself as a formally uneducated yet streetwise version of Jordan Peterson, driven by a genuine desire to help young men? Or could this recent rebrand be nothing more than a clever marketing move to try and attract more subscribers for the products he’s selling? Despite Tate’s insistence that he wants to be a force for good, the latter option is more likely.
Yet if he continues to successfully navigate the convergence of the online world and the mainstream media, not everyone will see through him. Just as Peterson has gone from an authoritative voice on his specialism, clinical psychology, to an increasingly dogmatic figure happy to weigh in on subjects as varied as the Ukraine war and the supposed authoritarianism of modern beauty standards, Tate may well follow suit. Whether this development is beneficial for western culture is another question altogether.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“a formally uneducated yet streetwise version of Jordan Peterson” ?? How do you separate Jordan Peterson from his education and expertise exactly? Is that like ‘dehydrated water’? And now JP can be simply dismissed as a ‘dogmatic figure’ because he has opinions outside his formal expertise. Yes, we should only listen to journalists’ opinions, because they are such experts!
I do not listen to Jordan Peterson as a academic lecturer – but as a very human and pretty wise man. His education allowed him to articulate his position, but to me it seems what he is saying comes as a Person with worldly experience and a deep moral/ethical will to help people figure out their issues – not as someone just explaining their ‘Book Learned’ knowledge.
I hold her line comparing them is valid – they are taken in that way, of explaining life, by their followers. You may well feel one is good and correct and the other very flawed – but the role they are taking on the internet are somewhat analogous.
News and opinion should be explicitly distinct. Unfortunately things are going in the other direction.
I do not listen to Jordan Peterson as a academic lecturer – but as a very human and pretty wise man. His education allowed him to articulate his position, but to me it seems what he is saying comes as a Person with worldly experience and a deep moral/ethical will to help people figure out their issues – not as someone just explaining their ‘Book Learned’ knowledge.
I hold her line comparing them is valid – they are taken in that way, of explaining life, by their followers. You may well feel one is good and correct and the other very flawed – but the role they are taking on the internet are somewhat analogous.
News and opinion should be explicitly distinct. Unfortunately things are going in the other direction.
“a formally uneducated yet streetwise version of Jordan Peterson” ?? How do you separate Jordan Peterson from his education and expertise exactly? Is that like ‘dehydrated water’? And now JP can be simply dismissed as a ‘dogmatic figure’ because he has opinions outside his formal expertise. Yes, we should only listen to journalists’ opinions, because they are such experts!
One is a fame hungry provocateur, who enjoys being shocking for its own sake – and makes a very good living from it. The other is a deep thinking, provocative intellectual- who can back up the positions he takes with genuine learning and sincerity.
So, NO.
Andrew Tate is to Jordan Peterson what Milo Yiannopoulos is to Christopher Hitchens.
”Andrew Tate is to Jordan Peterson what Milo Yiannopoulos is to Christopher Hitchens.”
Yes – this is true. They are those equivalents – two sides, one extremely eloquent and educated, one more brash and crude – but to listen to both does increase one’s ability to understand, and to think, on the sides of the matter.
Chris Hitchens is the stupid man’s version of a smart man.
No, the “the stupid man’s version of a smart man” is Stephen Fry.
I’ve no wish to be rude to you, but if you think Christopher Hitchens isn’t “smart” then you publicly self-identify as a bit of an idiot.
You may not agree with what he said and wrote, as is your right, but it takes a peculiar arrogance, or stupidity, to imagine that Hitchens was anything other than one of the most well-read, and ferociously bright, public figures of the last half century.
No, the “the stupid man’s version of a smart man” is Stephen Fry.
I’ve no wish to be rude to you, but if you think Christopher Hitchens isn’t “smart” then you publicly self-identify as a bit of an idiot.
You may not agree with what he said and wrote, as is your right, but it takes a peculiar arrogance, or stupidity, to imagine that Hitchens was anything other than one of the most well-read, and ferociously bright, public figures of the last half century.
I note the article’s headline has been changed, which makes my comment somewhat strange.
If memory serves, the article was originally titled, “Is Andrew Tate the new Jordan Peterson?”
”Andrew Tate is to Jordan Peterson what Milo Yiannopoulos is to Christopher Hitchens.”
Yes – this is true. They are those equivalents – two sides, one extremely eloquent and educated, one more brash and crude – but to listen to both does increase one’s ability to understand, and to think, on the sides of the matter.
Chris Hitchens is the stupid man’s version of a smart man.
I note the article’s headline has been changed, which makes my comment somewhat strange.
If memory serves, the article was originally titled, “Is Andrew Tate the new Jordan Peterson?”
One is a fame hungry provocateur, who enjoys being shocking for its own sake – and makes a very good living from it. The other is a deep thinking, provocative intellectual- who can back up the positions he takes with genuine learning and sincerity.
So, NO.
Andrew Tate is to Jordan Peterson what Milo Yiannopoulos is to Christopher Hitchens.
Whatever your position on Tate or Peterson, there is nonetheless a huge demand for what they are saying so that must tell us something about what is going on in our society…
Good observation. Whether what they say is correct or not, their fame shows how much contempt we have for those who’ve had the stage for ages
It tells you that the right has zero intellectual grounding and simply relies on demagogues and carnival barkers to provide some sort of message. When Donald Trump, a charlatan like Petersen and this Tate character are the thought leaders of your movement then you are truly lost.
Biden? Where do you place him as a thought leader?
He’s an intellectual giant compared to this Tate chap or Donald Trump.
He’s an intellectual giant compared to this Tate chap or Donald Trump.
You’re quite right. Perhaps you could lend us Meghan Markle for a couple of weeks.
I thin after the Jeremy Clarkson debacle you may wish to shut up about Ms Markle for a while.
Why do you “thin” that?
Oh look, the wit of conservatives!
I think that because misogynistic violent fantasies aren’t a great look for anyone. Although to be expected from a pillock like Clarkson.
Oh look, the wit of conservatives!
I think that because misogynistic violent fantasies aren’t a great look for anyone. Although to be expected from a pillock like Clarkson.
Jeremy Clarkson made an over-the-top comment about the Duchess of Duplicity so now the rest of us have to keep our mouths shut about her. Got it.
You don’t have to – just some free advice from me that you probably should unless you wish to considered a witless boor a la Clarkson.
Your choice.
You don’t have to – just some free advice from me that you probably should unless you wish to considered a witless boor a la Clarkson.
Your choice.
Why do you “thin” that?
Jeremy Clarkson made an over-the-top comment about the Duchess of Duplicity so now the rest of us have to keep our mouths shut about her. Got it.
I thin after the Jeremy Clarkson debacle you may wish to shut up about Ms Markle for a while.
Peterson is a charlatan in the same way that you are a serious commenter.
Exactly!
Exactly!
Biden? Where do you place him as a thought leader?
You’re quite right. Perhaps you could lend us Meghan Markle for a couple of weeks.
Peterson is a charlatan in the same way that you are a serious commenter.
Good observation. Whether what they say is correct or not, their fame shows how much contempt we have for those who’ve had the stage for ages
It tells you that the right has zero intellectual grounding and simply relies on demagogues and carnival barkers to provide some sort of message. When Donald Trump, a charlatan like Petersen and this Tate character are the thought leaders of your movement then you are truly lost.
Whatever your position on Tate or Peterson, there is nonetheless a huge demand for what they are saying so that must tell us something about what is going on in our society…
”Peterson has gone from an authoritative voice on his specialism, clinical psychology, to an increasingly dogmatic figure happy to weigh in on subjects as varied as the Ukraine war and the supposed authoritarianism of modern beauty standards, Tate may well follow suit. Whether this development is beneficial for western culture is another question altogether.”
Yes. It is beneficial. Without these alternative medias bringing in alternative thinkers – if only MSM and such blandness and biased agenda as Youtube and the big Network broadcasters allow – the world would be 100 X Stupider.
“Alternative thinkers”?
I think you mean buffoons who have worked out a schtick that the morons of the far right will buy.
re:Buffoon. Look in the mirror. Your leftie shtick is so predictable I could fill in the words for you.
re:Buffoon. Look in the mirror. Your leftie shtick is so predictable I could fill in the words for you.
“Alternative thinkers”?
I think you mean buffoons who have worked out a schtick that the morons of the far right will buy.
”Peterson has gone from an authoritative voice on his specialism, clinical psychology, to an increasingly dogmatic figure happy to weigh in on subjects as varied as the Ukraine war and the supposed authoritarianism of modern beauty standards, Tate may well follow suit. Whether this development is beneficial for western culture is another question altogether.”
Yes. It is beneficial. Without these alternative medias bringing in alternative thinkers – if only MSM and such blandness and biased agenda as Youtube and the big Network broadcasters allow – the world would be 100 X Stupider.
Never heard of the guy and I consider myself fairly well read.
Never heard of the writer either. And hence how do I judge her opinions? I don’t.
Lots and lots of braggadocio to preen through, however much of the advice would be useful to the many rudderless young people out there.
Never heard of the writer either. And hence how do I judge her opinions? I don’t.
Lots and lots of braggadocio to preen through, however much of the advice would be useful to the many rudderless young people out there.
Never heard of the guy and I consider myself fairly well read.
“I’ve inexplicably become one of the world’s leading scholars on Andrew Tate.”
Inexplicable indeed.
“I’ve inexplicably become one of the world’s leading scholars on Andrew Tate.”
Inexplicable indeed.
Freddie, have you checked that ‘Greta Aurora’ has the qualifications necessary to express these opinions? I do hope so. We can’t allow any Tom, D1ck or Harriet to think anything outside their immediate sphere of expertise, can we?
Freddie, have you checked that ‘Greta Aurora’ has the qualifications necessary to express these opinions? I do hope so. We can’t allow any Tom, D1ck or Harriet to think anything outside their immediate sphere of expertise, can we?
“Just as Peterson has gone from an authoritative voice on his specialism, clinical psychology, to an increasingly dogmatic figure happy to weigh in on subjects as varied as the Ukraine war and the supposed authoritarianism of modern beauty standards, Tate may well follow suit.”
It’s principals, not principles, right?
“Just as Peterson has gone from an authoritative voice on his specialism, clinical psychology, to an increasingly dogmatic figure happy to weigh in on subjects as varied as the Ukraine war and the supposed authoritarianism of modern beauty standards, Tate may well follow suit.”
It’s principals, not principles, right?
I am trying desperately to reconcile two snippets from the first two paragraphs of this article.
“His fame has grown immensely” and “recent appearances on GB News and Piers Morgan Uncensored” !
I am trying desperately to reconcile two snippets from the first two paragraphs of this article.
“His fame has grown immensely” and “recent appearances on GB News and Piers Morgan Uncensored” !
Not really seeing how having an opinion on the war in Ukraine is “weighing in” – that sounds like an inference that only qualified “experts” should be allowed public access, right? The ability to ingest information and synthesise rational positions is not necessarily topic specific. The seeds of this war are not hard to research so there is no benefit to restricting the franchise of opinion.
Boris Johnson. Donald Trump. Candace Owens. Now this clown?
Why are conservatives such suckers for low rent conmen?
And I didn’t even mention Peterson. Somehow telling young men to make their beds and stand up straight makes you an intellectual powerhouse on the right. And don’t get me started on his horrendous suits. I suppose dressing like PT Barnum on his day off makes you the sartorial champion in a movement of chubby schlubs.
I’m not a huge Jordan Peterson fan, but it sounds like your knowledge of the guy comes from the back of a cereal box, or from BBC talking points.
“Somehow telling young men to make their beds and stand up straight makes you an intellectual powerhouse on the right.”
Be honest now. You didn’t make this up yourself. You must have got this from some self-satisfied, intellectually overconfident comedian. If this is your depth of knowledge of Jordan Peterson, you might want to dial it back a bit.
It’s called wit, Jim, you may have heard of it although you won’t see much of it around these parts. And you certainly won’t see any of it from the likes of Jordan Peterson. Conservative’s idea of humour is the likes of the grotesque Jeremy Clarkson. Probably more your level if we are being honest.
Certainly not seeing much of it, you’re right.
re: “It’s called with, Jim.”
Don’t give up your day job, assuming you have one and aren’t living in mommy’s basement.
Bad day at the cave, Graeme? The bots are out in force..
Certainly not seeing much of it, you’re right.
re: “It’s called with, Jim.”
Don’t give up your day job, assuming you have one and aren’t living in mommy’s basement.
Bad day at the cave, Graeme? The bots are out in force..
It’s called wit, Jim, you may have heard of it although you won’t see much of it around these parts. And you certainly won’t see any of it from the likes of Jordan Peterson. Conservative’s idea of humour is the likes of the grotesque Jeremy Clarkson. Probably more your level if we are being honest.
So let’s see. You appear to think Peterson’s entire oeuvre is “make your bed, boys.” Which indicates you don’t know the first thing about him.
But hey, his clothes are atrocious. Not like the champagne socialists you likely admire.
We do dress much better than you schlubs, that is true.
And Petersen’s racism is another string to his bow.
Face it – he’s just like Trump, taking the ever gullible right for a ride and profiting off your stupidity. And you defend them while they fleece you. Comical. His tragic suits are just the tip of the iceberg.
We do dress much better than you schlubs, that is true.
And Petersen’s racism is another string to his bow.
Face it – he’s just like Trump, taking the ever gullible right for a ride and profiting off your stupidity. And you defend them while they fleece you. Comical. His tragic suits are just the tip of the iceberg.
I’m not a huge Jordan Peterson fan, but it sounds like your knowledge of the guy comes from the back of a cereal box, or from BBC talking points.
“Somehow telling young men to make their beds and stand up straight makes you an intellectual powerhouse on the right.”
Be honest now. You didn’t make this up yourself. You must have got this from some self-satisfied, intellectually overconfident comedian. If this is your depth of knowledge of Jordan Peterson, you might want to dial it back a bit.
So let’s see. You appear to think Peterson’s entire oeuvre is “make your bed, boys.” Which indicates you don’t know the first thing about him.
But hey, his clothes are atrocious. Not like the champagne socialists you likely admire.
Possibly because the alternatives pay even less rent. And while I might agree that I wouldn’t be seen dead in one of his suits, and I’d quite like it if he shaved more often, or grow a proper beard, I think you’re projecting just a little too much. Actually, I find making my bed quite a good way to start my day
Did you need someone to tell you that? Did you learn it at Hustler University perhaps?
Admiral Bill McRaven – former SEAL, commander in chief of the raid on Osama BL, and one of the most decorated US serviceman – gave a speech back in 2014 about the same thing (also wrote a book titled it later)
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70
Like Peterson it’s about turning your life around and achieving things through cumulating small tasks and making small improvements to your life to work towards achieving bigger things.
But guess he’s just another right wing nutjob…
Did you need someone to tell you that? Did you learn it at Hustler University perhaps?
Admiral Bill McRaven – former SEAL, commander in chief of the raid on Osama BL, and one of the most decorated US serviceman – gave a speech back in 2014 about the same thing (also wrote a book titled it later)
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70
Like Peterson it’s about turning your life around and achieving things through cumulating small tasks and making small improvements to your life to work towards achieving bigger things.
But guess he’s just another right wing nutjob…
Unlike the left I guess. They only support the principled people. And when did Boris Johnson and Donald Trump become conservative?
because you’re just so much more clever than anyone. Though given that, why are your comment so boilerplate predictable?
Cleverer, not more clever.
You’re welcome!
Cleverer, not more clever.
You’re welcome!
And I didn’t even mention Peterson. Somehow telling young men to make their beds and stand up straight makes you an intellectual powerhouse on the right. And don’t get me started on his horrendous suits. I suppose dressing like PT Barnum on his day off makes you the sartorial champion in a movement of chubby schlubs.
Possibly because the alternatives pay even less rent. And while I might agree that I wouldn’t be seen dead in one of his suits, and I’d quite like it if he shaved more often, or grow a proper beard, I think you’re projecting just a little too much. Actually, I find making my bed quite a good way to start my day
Unlike the left I guess. They only support the principled people. And when did Boris Johnson and Donald Trump become conservative?
because you’re just so much more clever than anyone. Though given that, why are your comment so boilerplate predictable?
Boris Johnson. Donald Trump. Candace Owens. Now this clown?
Why are conservatives such suckers for low rent conmen?