This post is a response to a question initially posed on Quora, and can also be accessed via “https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-the-charity-Tate-Pledge/answer/Antonio-Amaral-1“

I had to double-take on this question. “Tate Pledge”? … WTF?
Is this a reference to Andrew Tate?
Sure enough… it is!

Holy 30 Pieces of Silver, Batman!!!

I want to ignore this question from this querent because I already feel slimy. However, I think it would be a disservice to those who still can’t understand the difference between an authentic human being and the lowest of predatory and parasitic scum.

It breaks my heart that people can see this:

… and yet, NOT see it for what it is.

The branding alone screams it’s a scam. For someone desperate to repair their reputation on the level of optics, even if he doesn’t care about substance, he’s being quite moronic to dress up like a pimp-gangster and peddle himself as a caring member of a community he earnestly wishes to contribute positively toward.

Take a moment to reflect upon the title, “The Pledge of the Tate.” That’s like someone speaking about themselves in the third person while elevating their image of that person to mythical status. He’s not “just Andrew Tate,” one of the dozens of other “Andrew Tates on the planet,” but “THE TATE.” There is no need for “Andrew” because that softens the hammer of the single vowel “TATE” a bit too much for his ego to consider it worthy of inclusion in his pledge title. He is a legend in his imagination — even after being busted for sex trafficking — for dehumanizing women as vessels for his amusement.

This egotistically bloated idiot is so full of himself that he has no clue that his presentation already turns off anyone who isn’t a naive gumba incel with machismo wannabe fantasies.

What’s worse is the amount of digging to determine the legitimacy of this scam requires a whole bunch of seconds that almost add up to one full minute of research effort to dig up how much he’s willing to sink into the depths of inhuman psychopathy.

Since you asked me what I think of this, then this is what I think of this:

These are examples of psychopathic predators in our society whose aspirations for justifying their pampered existence rely on the parasitic strategy of bottom-feeding by preying on the naive sentiments of the most vulnerable in society.

These monsters should be rotting behind bars, not roaming free to wreak more havoc while destroying lives in their wake.

After having a look at your profile, Keith, it seems rather clear from a cursory glance why you might be interested in following the antics of a disgusting example of the worst of humanity, but that’s because you present yourself as someone desperate to assert your individuality without actually developing the critical thinking skills to understand what that means enough to make it manifest.

You seem drawn toward stereotypes of masculinity to promote your image, and I’m sure that works within a limited demographic, but that’s also why you’re doomed to perpetual bottom-feeding for the rest of your life.

This mindset is built upon the cynical quicksand of a misanthropic take on fellow humans with whom one wishes to engage in a profit-generating venture. There is no motivation for a real connection being sought, nor solutions or assistance offered that benefits others. It’s an egocentric view of the world that regards relationships as forgettably transactional on the most superficial levels: “Pay attention to meeeee!!!! — and give me money while you’re at it.”

This leads me to one of my biggest complaints with our currently toxic and religious-like fervour of regard toward the economic system we call “Capitalism.”

Our capitalist system of today breeds misanthropy in a race to the bottom while celebrating the most superficial of parasitic characteristics of humanity.

We were warned at the outset by great thinkers from history that we would be struggling through the late stages of a corrupted system and have now arrived at their predicted destination.

What we once championed as the fertile ground of innovation has become a stale mockery within a puerile homogeneity.

What matters is expedience over substance. The why of what we do with our lives has been distilled into achieving above minimal survival at the expense of relationship depth and community.

The sad consequence of prioritizing expedience over substance is that we breed out the requisite sensitivities toward nuance that would immediately understand that orange abomination of a homepage with Rush Limpballs overtones is a front for yet another scam by an, at best, ethically challenged sociopath.

Lacking the cultivated sensitivity required to interpret nuance correctly exposes people to con artists who capitalize on personal insecurities that have been conditioned to revere toxic role models in a sub-culture characterized by Stockholm Syndrome cases.

The odds are excellent that anyone who can interpret anything positive within the embodiment of toxic masculinity has been a victim of it their entire lives and was broken by it in childhood.

Your profile screams that you’ve been more of a victim of it than a perpetrator, but you can’t seem to extricate yourself from this toxic cognitive prison. I can see that you believe humour is how you view your access to success, and I commend you for trying to be charismatic in such a way.

Making an impression in this world is tough, primarily if one seeks to be liked, if not admired. We need that kind of reinforcement to survive. It’s an essential component within Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Belongingness is right up there and wedged between basic physical and psychological survival. The trouble is the choice of role models one makes in one’s efforts to achieve what one aspires to.

It’s easy to see from your profile that you’re not a troll so broken as to define your existence through childish provocation, and I suppose that’s why I felt compelled to provide an in-depth answer to your question. You seem to be trying, and you deserve credit for that.

Questions like this one I’ve been answering and this one below:

…indicate to me that you’re picking your ideas from sources who are, at best, kludges, who cannot help but become toxic influences in your thinking processes. I’m not going to advocate dropping these idiots from your radar because you need to understand better where they’re coming from so that you can better triangulate your position in society. I highly recommend expanding your horizons by adding more nuanced and evolved thinkers to your information consumption efforts.

It’s easy to see by the rest of your questions that you have a sincere curiosity about the world and are not obsessed with toxic role models. I suppose that’s what gives me hope that you will rise above being swayed by or taken in by despicable monsters who present a fraudulent image of themselves to appeal to a toxic set of presumptions about personal identity that were cultivated within you by a dysfunctional society.

I wish you all the best of luck in your journey through this madhouse. I hope you improve your abilities to discern between substance and fraudulence while continuing to challenge yourself to rise above the antics of superficial idiots.

Cheerios.