Nilsi

To each their own.

Everyone is cooperating to some extend. I work for a company. We cooperate. We can outcompete other companies though, because we are not fully coupled to their collective interest. And I can always backstab my colleagues to get a bigger piece of the pie. There will never be a perfect state in the universe where EVERYBODY cooperates with EVERYBODY. Spiral Dynamics literally tells you that people are born selfish fucks, so there will never be a shortage of selfish actors. This is the classic tragedy of the commons. OF COURSE the world would be better, if everyone acted in total interest of the whole -- BUT THAT'S NOT THE WORLD THAT PRESENTS ITSELF TO YOU, IF YOU ACTUALLY GO OUT THERE AND PLAY SOME OF THESE GAMES YOURSELF. I'm not suggesting people participate in the game of power - if you want to become some transgressive Jesus figure, good for you - you will ALWAYS stay a slave that way though. Sorry I offended you, little snowflake.

Every finite game has predatory niches that can and will be exploited, by necessity. This "game" is self-organizing, meaning these dynamics are inherent in the system as long as any player is pursuing their self-interest decoupled from the interest of the whole. So unless you want to pitch me on your TURQUOISE pipe dreams, YOU dont understand evolution

This is how the world works - at a certain level of ambition, you have to be this ruthless, or you will be outcompeted. Either you drop your ambition and accept that you will never make it to the highest echelons of society, or you accept the rules that are presented to you and keep playing the game. Why do you think only psychopaths make it this far? No person with a conscience could handle this shit, yet that's exactly what's required to make it to the top - IN ANY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. Analagous shit happens in the business world, in politics, in academia, in the movie industry, in organized religion... Only that no one in their right mind would come out and talk about the dirty work they had to do to make it to the top. As for a clip that depicts his positive attributes, how about the following one. The presence and image he projects is the definition of excellence to me. The way he speaks, the way he moves - even his physical image screams MASTERY to me.

What does this have to do with masculinity? This is completely unisex advice. Masculinity necessarily has to be defined against femininity, otherwise what are we even talking about? Like it or not, but masculinity is very much about the mastery of predatory and sexual instincts. That means being able to throw a punch if necessary; keeping your cool when talking to a hot chick with a fat ass; being able to provide for yourself and the people that depend on you; sacrificing short term pleasure for long term gain... - if you can not do those things, you are a failure of a man.

Andrew Tate is more like a fine art painting than McDonalds. You wouldn‘t call the Mona Lisa cheap, just because it‘s „mainstream.“

He's not primarily a "success" coach.

Leo preaches awakening though, not mastery.

Blocked.

If you can't see the mastery in the way he moves and speaks, you just lack any sense of proportion and aesthetic sensibility. This is actually incredibly disrespectful and dishonest. You probably possess less than 1% of this mans charisma, elegance and experience, yet talk like you know it all.

Then again, I'm not even sure it's possible to "create your own values." Even if you look at people like Leo or Schmachtenberger, it's quite obvious that their core values and character have been there from the beginning and simply got actualized and refined over time. So in some sense Tate did the best he could, which is why I admire him.

I'm not the one who threw out this coceptualization. I only call it "dark" because these values are rather disagreeable and non-conformist, but that's of course completely relative and contingent on contemporary norms and ideals. To me he is someone who highly actualized all the values and ideals he grew up on, but failed to break out of his conditioning to create his own values.

I don't think it's that black and white. He is also a legitimate paragon of mastery and excellence.

By having it serve some higher ideal than power for it's own sake.

I think he just wants to protect his message from corruption as much as possible. Once you open the door to monetary incentives, you enter a slippery slope.

The thing is that psychopathy shields you from much of this "suffering." Such people are still way happier than the average joe.

I know many millionaires and all of them became "religious" after crossing a certain threshold of worldly success. It's just a psychological coping mechanism. We all need meaning and once you have acquired all the stuff you always dreamed about, you have to find something else to fill this void.

To me he is a perfect specimen of self-actualization. period. It just so happens that many of his core values and beliefes are rather disagreeable and self-centered.

Once you are as entangled with the public consciousness as he is, you can not simply change who you are. There is way too much reinforcement on his biases at this point. He can still keep self-actualizing forever, but his core character and values will not suddenly change.

If I was Leo, I would create a premium tier Patreon subscription with access to a private Telegram group for 50 bucks a month, or something along those lines. I've been in such groups and the experience was always impeccable. No one minded paying the money and everybody who is really serious and cares about the subject matter will somehow manage to spare the money.

I think this is due to the fact that if you marinate a chicken in garlic, it's gonna taste like garlic. His father was a sociopathic chess grandmaster working for the C.I.A. He grew up in one of the worst neighborhoods in england He spent years in the world of professional fighting He went on to become a pimp He got involved with the mob and investet in real estate and gambling What values do you expect this man to have? He is still extremely successful and highly self-actualized, but in a very "dark" way.

Nietzsche would admire a great deal in him - courage, ambition, hard work, assertiveness, mastery -, but he would ultimately reject him for failing to go beyond the narrow definition of success, which he inherited from his culture and to which he became a mouthpiece.

That was my original point. Its not that he got lucky. He is just the perfect storm of fantastic genetics, hard work, high expression of dark triad traits, power literacy and growing up in a culture obsessed with material success.

He is a kickbox world champion - one of the most ruthless competitive endeavours in the world. I know people that have made 10mil in network marketing with roughly 100 people „working for them“ - imagine the money you will make by being the most googled man in the world. His car collection alone is probably worth 20mil. Most people here (Leo included) totally lack a sense of proportion and aesthetics . Tate is dismissed as „just another misogynist mans coach“ when he is clearly an absolute speciman - way beyond anyone else that came before him.

Imagine a giant billboard on Times Square with Leo's face and some text like "Wake up, you're dreaming!" next to a QR code that leads to the website of his own 5-MeO-DMT brand. That's what I'm seeing in my minds eye and it's glorious.