If you haven't heard about the news surrounding Epstein island and the fabled namelist containing the names of prominent Western elites and politicians, you would have at least heard about the case of P. Diddy recently, where some people are purporting that his "namelist" is worst than Epstein.
Our favourite chad Andrew Tate has a theory (links to a 5-minute video, I couldn't embed because it's a Rumble video):
https://rumble.com/v523ybx-why-does...ore-with-western-elites-than-in-other-co.html
Here are a summary of his main points:
- Prominent men having multiple partners is generally more acceptable outside the West. Such as in Eastern Europe, Asia, etc.
- Men intrinsically want more than 1 partner, even if they are in a happy relationship. It's how men are wired.
- Western elites cannot do that, and have to repress themselves. That is why they have to go to islands to fulfill these.
- Repression leads to perversion. This is why they end up f*cking underage girls, or with weird fetishes.
He goes into a lot more detail in the video, and it got me thinking. I think it makes a hell lot of sense.
What do you guys think?
Those points describe a correct concept, but the concept doesn't cover nearly the whole picture. P Diddy for example can hardly be said to have been forbidden from having multiple partners.
I think what it comes down to most often, if we're talking extremely wealthy and/or powerful people, is a loss of identity in the face of temptation.
Most people live out their identities within a framework set out by society, and they stay on the straight and narrow not because they are intrinsically great characters, but because they don't have the capability or resources to circumvent society's rules. They know themselves because of the path that society has laid out before them, not apart from it. Their sense of self is molded by all the restrictions and allowances that operate on their lives, from their parents, to their teachers, to all the implicit and explicit social regulations throughout adult life.
The problem is that when someone is given the means to do away with all these regulations, they no longer have any sense of who they are. You can imagine for example a bricklayer called John who wins the lottery, and then proceeds to become an alcoholic gambler addicted to prostitutes. "I was John the bricklayer" he says. "I got up every morning at six, just like I did when I was a kid (back then my mom would spank me if I didn't), and I went to lay bricks, and I had to be there at eight sharp or my friends and my boss would get stuck into me. And if I got fired then my wife would get stuck into me, and that would be even worse. Now, I don't have a job, and I don't know who I am".
That's not just how John lives but how everyone does, to a greater or lesser extent. It's why it can be very hard for guys starting seduction to undo their conditioning, because although they know consciously that it is only conditioning, they cannot go against it without running up against a loss of their sense of self. And it's why, I believe, there are dudes who are great seducers who struggle with self esteem and depression, because their identity is built not by the stable constellation of regulations of a typical life, but on nothing more than continued sexual conquest.
Loss of identity is unbearable if either the gratification of impulses, or a higher level, moral identity, cannot come in to take its place. But a true moral identity, that operates more or less independently from society, is without exception extremely painful and arduous to achieve, and most people will try to avoid going through it - simply because it's much easier to let either society or one's impulses take the wheel.
I remember another thing Tate said which I think is more relevant to his own point, which is that a lot of very wealthy people he's met are weak-minded and wholly unimpressive individuals. Money and power doesn't make you someone great, it only shows you who you really are.
