Who Won? Andrew Tate Vs Piers Morgan | Michael RATES Viral Debate
See all of our exciting content on DailyWire+ here: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe-plus
Who won one of the most popular debates on the internet? Michael Knowles Reacts to the Andrew Tate Vs Piers Morgan heated interview.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Bambee - Type in 'Michael Knowles' when you sign up with Bambee: https://bambee.com/michael
Mizzen + Main - Get $35 OFF any regularly priced order of $125 with code 'KNOWLES' at https://www.mizzenandmain.com/.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Andrew Tate might be the most talked about man in the world.
Why?
I'm not totally sure.
He's made a name for himself giving advice to anyone and everyone who will listen.
Now, Andrew Tate has sat down for an interview with Piers Morgan.
It has gone completely viral.
Millions and millions of views.
I have not seen it yet, but I'm going to watch and see if I can be a guru to the guru, if I can give any sort of advice to Andrew Tate on how this interview could have gone better.
Right now, head on over to Bambi.com.
Enter Michael Knowles under Podcast when you sign up.
When you're running a business, you run into all sorts of interesting scenarios.
The mandatory sexual harassment training, the wrongful termination suits, an employee not showing up to work on time.
One complaint can destroy your entire company.
Now, the problem is HR managers are extremely expensive.
They can easily cost over $80,000 per year.
With Bambi, you get access to your own dedicated HR manager starting at just $99 a month.
This is an incredible service.
All of Bambi's HR managers are based in the United States.
They can support the nuances across all 50 states.
Your manager is available by phone, email, and real-time chat to help you effortlessly run employee onboardings and terminations, encourage good performance, make sure your business stays compliant with those ever-changing HR rules.
Go to Bambi.com right now.
Type in Knowles under podcast when you sign up.
That'll really help the show.
That's B-A-M-B-E-E dot com.
Enter Michael Knowles under podcast.
I think my sister is her husband's property, yes.
When a bride is walking down the aisle to marry the groom, the father walks next to her and gives her away.
True or false?
But I've been married twice, as it turns out, and on both occasions, I didn't believe the woman was being handed to me as chattel.
Regardless of what Andrew Tate is about to say, or even what was ever in the clip, I do think he made a slight mistake there.
Coming out of that clip, he immediately got defensive.
Before, Piers Morgan ever asked him a question.
Of course, of course, what do you think?
Where that would seem to imply that something he said was demanding of a defense, when if he really believes what was said in the clip, he would just sit there quietly and sort of confidently and wait for the question to be asked.
So already, I could see how this interview started to go wrong, because already he started out from a position of defending And trying to explain a little.
And, you know, if you're in that defensive position, you're already losing.
So would you rephrase what you said there?
Now, that's an interesting point about phrasing.
The way I would say things before I was famous, I have to take personal responsibility and accept that if I make a video that 500 people see and 1% of them misunderstand it, that's not a problem.
If I make a video that 5 million people see and 1% of them misunderstand it.
So specifically on that point, I think my sister is a husband's property.
She took his last name.
She married him.
She wanted to join his family.
She has said it herself.
Right.
So this is just not a good argument.
If he's saying man has a leadership role in the household or even, you know, man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church or something like that, that would be one thing.
But to say that, therefore, because she takes his name, she's his property, that doesn't make sense.
This leftist years tumbler is my property.
Right.
It's not, you know, the leftist tiers Tumblr Knowles.
It's just a complete non-sequitur.
I think the argument he's making is a wrong one to begin with, which is why Piers Morgan is attacking him.
But he's not doing a very good job defending it.
Listen, my friend, if we want to argue about this, we need to go back to the Bible, to the Koran.
You need to argue with religious leaders.
No, no, I'm not talking about anything in the Bible or Koran.
But that's what it says.
No, no.
I'm asking you what you think.
I think that if a woman marries a man and she decides to take his last name, that they have different roles and responsibilities within that marriage, and I believe that.
That's not the question.
True.
I believe the father...
Don't behave like a politician.
The father hands her to the man.
Right, but don't be a politician, because I think you're a straight talker, right?
You keep telling me you're a straight talker.
I think my sister is her husband's property.
Do you regret saying it like that?
I understand that with my newfound fame, perhaps it could be phrased differently.
However, I still believe that a woman is given to the man in marriage.
Take a pause.
He's in a tough position because it's just a false statement.
It just isn't true.
I'm pretty trad.
You know, I totally love gender roles and I believe in marriage as marriage is traditionally understood.
And I'm on board with all of that.
But it just is not the case that the wife is the property of the husband to be considered like all of the husband's other property.
That is not a Christian understanding of marriage.
And that is not the traditional understanding of marriage within our own culture.
So it's an indefensible position.
I don't know if Tate believes it or not.
He keeps saying, well, I would have...
Maybe I offended some people or they misunderstood it or whatever.
But it's just a losing point.
Either he could change his opinion or he could just move on.
But there's no way that he's going to win by doubling down on something that just isn't true.
Yeah, but not as property.
Property is the word that other people use when they ask me the question.
But you're using it when you answer the question.
That's what marriage actually means.
He's showing you here why he is losing to peers in this moment when he's trying to explain what happened in these previous interviews.
He goes, yeah, but property, that's not my word.
That's the word that was used in the questions.
Right, and it's your responsibility when you're conveying your arguments to not just take the bait and all the kind of leading silly premises of the questions that you're asked.
You might be asked some dumb question.
Hey, Andrew Tate, when was the last time you beat your wife?
To use a classic example.
You don't need to say, uh, uh, uh.
That's a silly premise that sets you up to lose.
You should reject the premise and say, what are you talking about property?
I think man has a leadership role in the household.
That would be controversial enough.
But if you take the bait on the question, you're boxing yourself into a corner, and now he doesn't know how to get out of it.
You can't blame people for asking you questions.
Surely, if you want to be accountable for what you've said, you've got to own your responses.
Don't blame the question.
I own the response.
Let me ask you a question now, and you say something, and then say, well, actually, I blame you for asking.
I understand, Piers.
Piers, I understand.
I believe the woman is given to the man.
I believe she's given away by the father.
I believe she belongs to the man.
So fundamentally, you do believe that a woman becomes a man's property.
I believe she belongs to the man in marriage, correct?
Right.
That to me is misogyny.
And you're entitled to your opinion.
Right.
But do you not understand why people think it is misogyny?
I understand why some people can be very offended by what I say.
What they do is they take a point like that and they ignore all the other points I make the other way around.
That's why I've repeatedly asked you about that line to see if you've changed your position.
But the reality is you haven't.
It's not about changing positions.
I'm a full-grown adult and I stick by the things I say.
In reality, he has.
Which, by the way, is fine.
Absolutely.
You can tell.
That's why he's trying to get out of it.
You said, you know, I wouldn't maybe say things the same way now that I did before I was famous.
And yet, actually, you've doubled down and said exactly the same thing.
On certain points.
So that is what you believe.
And that's my point.
Yes.
I'm trying to work out...
Look, I don't know you.
We've just met, right?
Yeah.
I'm trying to work out who Andrew Tate is and what you actually believe.
I don't want to twist anything at all.
Then let me make it very, very clear to the camera.
I believe a woman is given to the man in marriage.
I believe that.
I also believe a man has a duty to protect and provide for her.
He's obviously saying that a woman is not property, right?
To say a woman is given to a man in marriage and that a woman, that the wife belongs to the husband in a very deep sense, that's very different than saying the woman belongs to the man in the way that the leftist years tumbler belongs to me as property.
And to say that the man has a responsibility toward the woman to protect the woman, that's very different than saying the woman is property.
I don't have a responsibility to protect my leftist here's tumbler.
I could throw it against a wall and go buy a new one.
Man can't do the same thing for his wife, or at least he certainly shouldn't do that.
And what Piers wants to do here is also sort of dishonest, because he keeps trying to say, that's still your opinion, that's still your opinion.
But if you're listening to what Andrew Tate is saying, he's clearly saying, that is not my opinion.
The implication, I think, is I said a dumb, completely indefensible thing, but I don't want to admit that I said a dumb, indefensible thing, so I'm trying to both defend my view, I'm trying to say I stand by my views, but then change the view in what I'm explaining, and it's just difficult to listen to.
If something happens or his wife's life is threatened, I believe that women and children first are on the lifeboats.
But a man doesn't own a woman.
They literally buy them as a slave.
Well, obviously we're not talking about that.
We're talking about religious, biblical marriage.
We're talking about something else.
Yeah, but I'm a Christian.
I don't believe that I own my wife.
Do you believe your wife was given away to you when she took your last name?
I believe that there is a process where a father traditionally walks his daughter down the aisle and hands his daughter to this man and they stand there and become a union of two loving people in a partnership.
No.
There's no ownership involved.
I didn't say anything.
He's not selling her.
The father of the bride isn't selling his daughter.
No, absolutely.
That's what property means.
She becomes a member of your family.
I think we're arguing over semantics.
We're not, though, because fundamentally, I don't believe...
You are, but semantics means meaning.
So, yes, we are always arguing over semantics.
Well, I don't think we live in the world of slavery.
I don't own any man or any woman.
Right.
Nobody owns anybody.
When you use phrases like property, that's what you imply.
I understand.
And so my point, again, is you're a smart guy, right?
There's no denying that you're smart.
You're a good talker.
I've seen a lot of the stuff.
What I don't think you quite fully understand No, I understand very well, Piers.
When young, impressionable people who are not as smart see things like, I think my sister is a husband's property, yes, and you've just reaffirmed that belief, they think that they have the right to own women.
I understand that very well, Piers.
That's why people think you're a misogynist.
Completely.
I understand all of this very well, which is why when you're saying I was backtracking, I'm not.
I generally regret, though, the way you phrased this stuff.
Well, this is the point I was trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is when I was not nearly as famous and I was making long format content, I was not sitting there anticipating I'd become the most Googled man on the planet and that few seconds could be taken out of context.
That was not my anticipation.
No, but it's still what you believe.
It's what you believe now.
So what's the difference?
It's manifestly not what he believes.
You just listen to what he's saying.
If you said to me, look, look, Piers, honestly, I've had time to think about it.
He just doesn't want to admit he's wrong.
I don't believe that.
That's one thing.
Actually, you said the opposite.
You said, actually, that's what I think, yeah.
I think that when I... It doesn't really matter whether you recorded it when you're famous or not famous.
It's what you actually believe, right?
I believe that a man has a duty to protect and provide for a woman.
I believe that a woman's father gives her away to the man.
That's what I believe, and in my marriage, that's the circumstance I'm going to live under.
If people want to live in a different scenario, that's completely theirs.
They're prerogative.
You went on to say about authority over women.
If I have a responsibility over it, I must have a degree of authority.
Yeah.
For the same reason if I have responsibility over and people are going to use their mind, it's an example and analogy.
Responsibility over a child, I have to have some authority.
So you believe as part of your ownership or your property of the woman, you have authority over her.
No, I believe if you have responsibility over something, you have to have a degree of authority or you can't be responsible.
Yeah, but authority, again, that you're the boss.
The point I'm making, if you'll please let me show this point, The point I was trying to make was talking about the safety of a woman.
So now, Andrew Tate, it's almost the opposite problem in the first part.
The first part when he says the woman is the man's property, that's just silly and it's not true.
And he shouldn't defend it.
And if he doesn't want to come off as weak and like he's backtracking, then he should just try to move on and say, yeah, whatever, here's what I believe.
You ask me what I believe, here's what I believe.
Well, I just told you what I believe.
And just move on.
Now he gets to the question of, does a husband have authority, a certain kind of authority in the household?
Duh!
Is the husband, in a certain sense, the boss of the marriage?
Duh!
So here, he should just completely double down.
But he's so been off-footed, and Pierce Morgan is very good at this, at off-footing people at the very top of the interview.
He's so been off-footed, he goes, well, no, actually, that's not exactly what I mean.
But he should just double down and be like, yep, absolutely, yeah, a husband has particular authority in a marriage.
So you're saying that the man is somehow the sort of the boss in the marriage?
Yes, ultimately.
I mean, it's not a tyranny, one hopes.
One hopes that it's actually the union of two people into one flesh, you know.
But yes, ultimately the man has a leadership role in the marriage.
Duh.
Deal with it, peers.
He was too strident and obstinate in the first answer.
And I fear he's not obstinate enough in the second answer.
Just stand up for it.
You said something that's perfectly fine.
Stick by it.
And I was saying, well, I wouldn't let my woman walk alone at night.
And they said, well, you're not in charge of her.
You don't get to decide what she does.
I said, I understand.
But if I'm responsible for her safety, and I'm the person who's burdened with making sure she is safe, I have to have the authority to say, don't put yourself in unsafe situations.
The two things are linked.
Well, you don't have the authority.
You can absolutely have the right to say to the woman you're with, I don't think you should.
If she decides, then I can't force her.
Right, so authority implies that you have the ability...
Yes, you can.
You're her husband.
You can say, don't go down dark alleys at night.
You can.
You have the right to say that.
It's actually two liberals arguing with one another on these total liberal grounds of just individuals with no ties of loyalty or obligation to one another, just freely choosing whatever the hell they want.
And Andrew Tate is as guilty of that silly premise as Piers Morgan is.
But no, if you enter into a marriage, you surrender some of your individualism and your autonomy.
The man surrenders some of his, the woman surrenders some of hers.
And the man absolutely has the right.
And as far as I'm concerned, the obligation to say, hey, wife of mine, even if you want to go down a dangerous dark alleyway at night and put your life at risk, I'm not going to let you do that.
And I don't really care what your individual autonomy says.
I, as your husband, am telling you, don't put yourself in that very dangerous situation.
He's got to be a little more authoritarian.
He's got to be a little more conservative.
They tell me this guy's the most right-wing guy on the planet.
That's a very liberal answer that he's giving.
If you think I'm going to lock somebody up in their room, is that what you're implying?
No, I don't think you know what authority means.
I know what it means.
It's a different description of what authority means.
If I have responsibility for her safety, then I have to have the authority to tell her not to do unsafe.
Yeah, but authority means that you have some form of control over this woman.
I think you're trying to...
I'm only trying to get to what you think.
Honestly, I am.
I come with no agenda here at all.
I understand.
And I'm explaining very, very clearly.
If I have responsibility over said subject, I have to have authority over it.
So let me say, you have children, right?
Right.
You have responsibility for them.
No, I have legal authority over my children.
That is very different to having legal authority over my wife or my female partner.
Completely.
But the point I'm trying to make...
So you accept that?
No, if you're in a marriage, you have a legal authority.
You use the analogy of responsibility.
Certainly in sacramental marriage.
My friend, these are...
These are very...
These are actually really important things.
They're important things, but you interrupt me every five seconds, so it's hard for me to actually explain my point.
The point I'm making here is very simple.
You have children, and you're responsible for their safety, so you're going to have authority to say, don't go out at night, perhaps, because you want them to be safe.
I have legal authority.
You have a legal authority.
I'm saying that if I had a woman, and the question where you've raised this soundbite from, I was asked...
About protecting a woman, making sure she's safe.
And I would say I wouldn't want her to go out at night on her own because I'm responsible for her safety.
And someone said, well, you don't have authority over to do that.
And I said, well, no, I can't force her to stay inside.
But if she were to ask me how do I protect myself at night, I would say, well, you should stay inside.
That's how you should do it.
I don't have an issue with what you said.
So we agree.
No, no.
They do agree, unfortunately, and they're both wrong on this topic.
You quite get why there's a furore over what you say.
With respect.
Because the semantics point would be we're saying the same thing in different ways.
But we're not.
I'm saying to you that when you say I have to have some authority over a woman, I say to you, you have no right to any authority over a woman.
Right, because you're a liberal, Piers, and you don't recognize the obligations that men have to women and women have to men.
And unfortunately, Tate seems to be agreeing.
Legally appointed, absolutely not.
I agree.
However...
When it comes to things like personal responsibility or personal safety, men, largely by society, are accepted.
We're the protectors and providers.
We can sit here and pretend that in the world we live in, if me and my wife were walking down the street and men were to come up and try and attack us, I wouldn't be the one fighting.
But we both know in reality I would.
I have a degree of responsibility to protect her.
So if I have a degree of responsibility to protect her physically, then the point I'm trying to make is, I will do my best to make sure she's never putting herself in unsafe situations.
Go further, and you have the authority to do it.
Stick with your first point, man.
She would come to me and say, how can I make sure I'm as safe as possible?
I don't want to interrupt you.
I just want to point out that's not what authority means.
Yeah, Pierce is right about that.
Voluntary authority is not authority.
No, but that's the point.
It's not.
Piers is totally right here.
He's not right about his view of marriage and what a big lib he is.
But he is right about authority has a meaning, and Andrew Tate is trying to run away from that meaning because he doesn't want to sound like an authoritarian, which is considered the absolute worst thing you could be these days.
His point was correct in the first place.
Yes.
A husband has a certain authority over his wife.
Full stop.
End of story.
There it is.
That's not absolute.
It is not permitted to exceed the bounds of right reason and the moral order and be arbitrary and capricious.
But a man, a husband, has a certain authority over his wife.
Yes, that's part of marriage.
Just, you had it.
You were right in the first place.
Say that to peers and move on.
A woman comes to me and says, I want you to keep me safe.
She is handing me authority for her safety.
But do you understand the difference between having authority over somebody and somebody giving you permission to have authority?
Completely.
I never said that.
One is consensual and one isn't.
But why are we pretending I do...
But marriage is that consent to...
The authority of the husband.
I have to have some authority.
Only if I'm responsible for her safety.
If I'm not responsible for her safety, I don't have authority.
That was sad.
That was sad because he made the opposite errors.
In the first bit, he tried to defend a stupid point that genuinely is...
I don't like to throw around the word misogynistic, but it's as close to misogynistic as it gets.
And it's just dumb and it's...
Not a good point.
The point that he was trying to substitute into its place actually was a good point, that the husband belongs to the wife and the wife belongs to the husband and this looks a certain way and they have particular roles.
Yeah, of course.
But he should have just ditched that first point that Piers wanted him to defend and stood by the thing he was actually explaining in the clip.
In the second one, he should have stood by the point he originally made and not gone on to his explanation, which basically just tried to explain away authority as the voluntary association of two individuals, which was a dumb point.
Instead of going from here to here to here, he should have just been right, right down the middle.
Should have been right down to the bullseye the whole time.
Head on over to puretalk.com, enter code Knowles.
With the midterms coming up, here is something that you ought to keep in mind.
Every dollar that you spend is a vote.
And you are casting those votes again and again and again for companies that are working hard to undermine everything you believe in.
For instance, Verizon Wireless customers, you are supporting a company that canceled One America News for their support of Donald Trump.
ATT customers, your wireless provider doesn't just support the far left CNN.
They own it.
T-Mobile customers, your CEO openly advised Democrats on how to beat Trump in the 2020 election.
Don't give your money to woke wireless companies.
Stop it!
Give it to PureTalk instead.
PureTalk not only believes in conservative American family values, but they also give you the best service at a low cost.
Unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just $30 a month.
The average family saves almost $1,000 per year.
That's 1,000 fewer votes for those cell companies that want to keep you from speaking freely.
I absolutely love it.
Incredible, incredible service.
I have and use Pure Talk.
Now is your chance to show corporate America you are done funding their leftist ideologies.
Go to puretalk.com and enter code NOELS.
Save 50% off your first month.
Incredible deal.
on an already incredible deal.
Promo code NOLS for 50% off your first month.
Do you respect women?
Absolutely.
Why wouldn't I? Do you think that 18, 19-year-old women are more attractive than 25-year-old women?
I think there's attractive people.
That's a loaded question.
I don't know.
Well, it's not really, is it?
You know why I'm asking you.
Of course I do.
But I can't sit here and say...
For the benefit of viewers who don't know why I'm asking, you said this.
In general, this is also one of the reasons men find youth attractive.
You want to blow up the internet?
I'll blow up the internet right effing now.
The reason 18 and 19-year-olds are more attractive than 25-year-olds is because they've been through less d**k.
People say, oh, you can't say that, but yes, I can.
A 19-year-old is more attractive than a 26-year-old woman, and I'll tell you why.
Because that 26-year-old has talked to more guys, been to the club more times, been effed and dumped more times, more arguments, more mess, more for me to clean up.
That is misogyny.
Why?
Because you are encouraging a mindset about 25-year-old women that makes them sound out to be infinitely less desirable than 18-, 19-year-olds, We're good to go.
It's on the premise of the sexual revolution that just women are going to be promiscuous and that's inevitable and it's true of all women.
So the issue he has is not that a 25-year-old is less attractive than an 18-year-old just by the virtue of being 25.
The premise that's going into this is that the 25-year-old has just slept with a bunch of men, which may very likely be the case in our culture, but it also may not be the case because the 25-year-old might be chaste and modest.
And in fact, it could be the case that the 18 or 19-year-old has slept with more men than the 25-year-old.
So if that's really the issue that Andrew Tate is talking about, then the age is really just a kind of shorthand for what he's saying, which is that he finds women who are less promiscuous to be more attractive than women who are more promiscuous.
And that is, broadly speaking, true.
He's suggesting that modesty is a greater virtue for women than promiscuity, which is obviously true.
And Piers Morgan says that this is misogynistic.
He's saying it's somehow anti-woman to suggest that women don't allow themselves to be used for the physical pleasure of men who are going to throw them in the trash the minute that they're done with them and they've had their pleasure.
But that's quite the opposite.
It's actually very pro-woman to say, hey ladies, the sexual revolution is a total scam.
Don't let yourself get used by men for their sexual pleasure.
Don't let the guy get the milk for free instead of buying the cow.
Speaking of Andrew Tate's impolitic comments on property.
Actually, Andrew Tate is giving much more pro-woman advice here than Piers Morgan seems to be doing Andrew Tate It has this quality that I think Alex Jones has.
Alex Jones has this quality where he very often says true things in the least believable way possible.
So he'll say something that's true.
He'll say, like, two plus two equals four.
But instead of just saying two plus two equals four, he'll be ripping his shirt off and, you know, screaming, two plus two equals four.
And if you don't believe in that, then you believe in the aliens and the chai comms and the whatever, you know.
But what he's saying actually is very often true.
And Andrew Tate has this issue here.
He's saying, hey women, you should be more modest and not allow yourself to be used by a bunch of dudes.
That will actually in the long run make you more attractive to men and more attractive to better men.
But he somehow manages to say it in the most vulgar, grotesque, and offensive way he possibly can.
But the point is totally true.
Well, firstly, even if that was the case, that wouldn't be misogyny.
Well, what did you mean by what you said?
That's not misogyny, because it's not anti-women.
I'm saying that an 18- or a 19-year-old woman would be more desirable.
It's pretty anti-25-year-old women.
Anti-25-year-old women, we can argue, but not misogyny.
Well, that's misogyny, then.
No, no, no, it's not.
Being anti-any woman at all is misogyny.
Not when I'm saying that women are beautiful and attractive at a certain age.
You're saying 18- and 19-year-olds are more attractive than 25-year-olds?
Well, then ageist, perhaps, but misogynistic, absolutely not.
But you just accepted it was misogyny.
No, I didn't.
You said it was misogyny.
I'm telling you, no, it's not.
So you don't think if you're saying slightly hateful things about her...
That's not slightly hateful.
Well, it is.
You say that to a woman's face if she's 25?
It's not slightly hateful.
So you would go up to a 25-year-old woman and tell her exactly what I've just read of?
Why would I walk up to a random 25-year-old woman?
Because you said it in public on the internet, and it's been listened to and watched by millions and millions of young, impressionable boys.
Correct.
There was a large panel.
There was a conversation.
There was hours-longs of conversation.
There were feminists attacking men for toxic masculinity and attacking me and saying things.
And I said things back which were going to antagonize something.
But I think, see, I'm Which you've done yourself a bunch of times.
I think a lot of allegations of toxic masculinity are not toxic.
Correct.
I do think that kind of sentence that I just read out, that paragraph, is actually toxic.
If you genuinely mean...
It's toxic to say women don't sleep around with a bunch of dudes?
It's not toxic.
That's medicinal.
You probably do too.
I don't think it's misogynistic.
I understand why it can be insulting.
You wouldn't say it to a woman's face.
Well, it depends.
You're making out like I'm walking around the street going up to a random 25-year-old.
You're doing it to tens of millions of people online.
There's no difference.
Not at all.
Oh, then it's no difference, so then he would do it.
You hear Piers Morgan says, you would never say that to a woman's face.
Andrew Tate says, why would I walk up to a random woman and say that?
And Piers Morgan says, well, you do it online, there's no difference.
Okay, if there's no difference, then I guess he would say it to a woman's face.
Clearly, Piers Morgan is just offended that Andrew Tate thinks that young women shouldn't sleep around with random dudes.
And why Piers Morgan is offended by this...
I don't know.
But Andrew Tate here is making the good, wholesome, pro-woman argument.
And Piers Morgan, wittingly or unwillingly, is leading those poor young girls astray.
Young boys, right, in their teens, are you comfortable that they would have that mindset?
Be honest.
I think that young boys and their teens lack life experience.
They lack nuance.
And they need to be very, very careful what they're digesting online, whether it's my content or anybody else's.
You know for a fact millions of them are digesting exactly what you're saying.
Completely.
The entire internet, to a degree, I think any subject you can find, there's going to be a whole heap of content.
I come back to the Joe Rogan thing, Andrew.
A lot of what you say, I agree with.
Yeah.
I do, genuinely.
I've read a lot of stuff you said.
A lot of the stuff you talk about, I think, yeah, he's got a good point, right?
He's got me to agree about a lot of things.
But when I read that kind of thing, I'm like, I just, how much of that is you?
How much of that is some act?
Do you regret saying stuff like this?
And actually, do you see it as weakness?
To admit you shouldn't have said something like that.
No, I don't live with regret.
I think what's happened is that, like I said, long format content, arguments with feminists, arguments with the toxic masculine crowd, arguments with the left, and they're going to take a small clip, small sentence from ours, and they're going to try and paint me as a...
But I'm not left or right.
I don't know what you are, Piers.
Exactly.
That's my point.
That's my point.
Piers Morgan actually does not cut totally evenly left or right.
But we do know that he, on social issues, is left wing.
On the culture, he's very clearly left wing.
He's just admitted that, right?
He's just said, yeah, promiscuity is great.
You know, hyper-individualism and no mutual obligations to one another.
So he's obviously left-wing on that.
He's super left-wing on guns.
He is pro-monarchy.
He's a Brit and he's pro-monarchy.
So that's a kind of a, you know, conservative view, though doesn't really track in America because we don't have a monarchy.
He doesn't like certain libs.
He kind of liked Donald Trump.
So yeah, it's a little murky.
But on these issues, there's no question Piers is on the left.
And you're doing exactly as I knew would happen on this interview, which is because you're a busy man.
You're not going to watch hours and hours and hours of video.
Actually, I have watched hours and hours of video, and I'm going to come to the stuff where I agree with you, and I'm going to come to the stuff about your censorship, which I have issues with.
So this is, you know, it's a long interview, right?
Sure.
I just thought off the top, you said to me, and you were quite bold about it, well, go on, then let's go through this.
And you should keep going.
I will sit here and stand by what I said.
I believe that...
On that, I just read to you then.
Yeah.
Do you wish you hadn't said that?
I understand how it's been misconstrued.
I understand how it's been weaponized and used against me.
Well, that's slightly annoying.
Did I at the time mean what I said in the context of the conversation, which obviously you're not familiar with and the people at home are not familiar with?
No, I meant what I said.
The 25-year-old women, they've just talked to more guys, been to the club more times, been effed and dumped more times, more arguments, more mess, more for me to clean up.
Well, there's a whole bunch of context and conversation around that that's been missed.
I don't think I'm missing much context.
Well, I encourage people who are interested to go watch it.
Right, but I mean, I've just read out three sentences on the bounce there.
I don't think there's any context I'm missing.
He says, you're missing all the context of the conversation.
Piers is like, I've read three sentences!
Yeah, exactly.
You don't get context in three sentences, Piers.
I was explaining, I was talking with a Muslim guy who was on the panel, and he was explaining how youth is very valued in most parts of the world.
and why virginity is valued in most parts of the world.
The feminists were arguing against it.
And I was sitting there, actually very much like you, a mediator between the two, explaining why in most of the world still today, perhaps not in the Western world, virginity is coveted, youth is coveted in most of the world and throughout all of human history.
And I was sitting there making the point, explaining why in certain parts of the world they think how they do, even though it's very different to the Western world.
So I was making a point, mediating between two groups very similar to yourself.
The conversation has been misunderstood.
They've taken this clip of it, and it's been weaponized and used against me.
I understand that.
It's because I'm now the most famous Google person on the planet.
It's inconvenient, sure.
But I'm definitely not a danger to women in any regard.
I date women 25, 26, 27 years old all the time.
None of them are offended by the things I'm saying.
I don't think you're a danger to women.
Of course not.
I think the danger, if it concerns you, the danger is the influence you have on young men to have this kind of mindset about women.
And that's really where I'm trying to get to what you really believe and how much you've just shot off because you think it's entertaining and you haven't really given it much thought.
And whether now you're a bit older and you've had all the fallout, whether part of you is thinking, actually, as Joe Rogan says, if you hadn't said stuff like this, you'd probably still be on all these platforms You'd be massively more popular, massively more famous, massively richer.
So I'm really just trying to get to on the blatantly misogynist stuff.
Do you just wish you hadn't said it?
With great power comes great responsibility.
It was certainly said before the great power came.
It's inconvenient to a degree.
However, like I said at the time, with the context of the conversation, I know that I'm not saying things which I believe to be detrimental to the world.
However...
They've been misconstrued and they've been misunderstood.
If a 25-year-old woman was watching this, would you say, I'm sorry for saying that?
Well, I wouldn't want anyone to be offended by anything I say.
But I say things that offend...
And this is the thing that's interesting, Piers.
Please let me finish.
Again, you're behaving like a politician.
But hang on.
You can say I'm interrupting.
You do.
But you're answering a different question to the one I asked you.
Now Tate's getting...
As an interviewer, you're behaving...
Sure.
Okay, let's...
Okay, you accept that.
Let's accept we both got on.
Okay.
So again, my point is simply, if a 26-year-old woman is watching this and has heard those comments...
See, at this point, Tate's doing pretty well because he's kind of mocking Piers a little bit.
But at this point, it's really tedious for the viewer, too.
All Piers is saying is...
This is really misogynistic.
And Tate says, no, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
And so at that point, you say, well, I reject your premise, Piers.
I don't think it's true.
And I think very clearly, if my criticism is of some women, but not other women, and by the way, even those two groups of women are just stand-ins for broader concepts like modesty and promiscuity.
Even if, let's say, it's 25-year-old women versus 18-year-old women, then by definition, my criticism can't be misogynistic, because the common thread between what I like and don't like is women.
That's common to both.
The thing that I'm criticizing here is age, so call me an ageist or something, even though, again, age is just a stand-in for broader concepts of virtue.
Your premise is wrong, so I reject that.
And then peers just keep saying, do you take it back?
Are you sorry?
Do you take it back?
And at this point, because it's dragged on so long, I just think Andrew Tate has to realize this is not a good faith conversation.
Just say, I don't.
I'm not sorry.
But are you sorry for it?
I'm not.
But do you take it back?
No.
But are you sorry?
No.
And at a certain point, if you just keep saying no, no, no, no, no, Piers has to move on.
I will say that I am sorry that that offends you.
However, there's a large contingent of the world...
That doesn't mean you're sorry.
No, I'm not sorry.
That's the point I'm making.
I'm sorry if that offends you.
However, there's a large contingent of the world that believe that, and I was mediating for a conversation.
Parts of the world that believe that about 26-year-old women are parts of the world where women are not allowed out on their own.
That's a conversation now.
They have to wear full burkas.
Well, that's a conversation now.
They're not allowed to drive cars.
That's nothing to do with me.
But is that the kind of world for a woman that you have...
I was mediating a conversation.
No, I'm asking you what you think.
I don't live in a country where that happens.
You're using that as the excuse for why you're not sorry for saying it.
This is squishy stuff.
Just double down and say, I believe what I believe.
Move on.
Do you think it's fine?
I don't think it's fine.
I live in a world where...
You don't think it's fine?
The reason I... This isn't that hard, Andrew.
You can simply say, Piers, you know what?
With the benefit of hindsight...
Don't say that.
...and said it like that.
No, don't say that.
Don't give him what he wants.
I'm sorry I said that.
Say, I'm not sorry.
I believe every word I said, and screw you, Pierce.
That's what you've got to say.
...parts of the world.
It's not a view I share.
Now, I would respect you more if you said that.
Right, because you're a big lib, and you want me to encourage women to be promiscuous.
But I'm not doing that.
I'm not sorry.
And we're moving on.
My content existed because I tried my very hardest to be an absolute and not a realist, especially with uncomfortable truths.
I was pointing out that very uncomfortable truth.
When you're explaining, you're losing, man.
It's an uncomfortable truth in many parts of the world.
It's not a truth that I'm happy about.
It's not a truth I'm freeing.
No, hang on.
You're taking it again.
What do you mean that's a truth in other parts of the world?
That's what you said.
You're not talking about another part of the world.
Just say it's a fact that modesty is better than promiscuity.
It's a fact.
It's a truth.
It's your belief.
I was talking about what the people on the panel believe the difference is.
Yeah, stop trying to get out of it.
The difference is age.
What's the difference, though?
Well, a 26-year-old is older than a 19-year-old.
And so you stand by what you say.
No, that's a dumb argument.
If the age is a stand-in for these concepts, then it's a good argument.
If it's just the age, then it's not a good argument.
There you go.
Just say sorry.
That's the better argument.
I'm not believing what I'm saying.
It's about you understanding that there's large conversations going on.
I'm just reading back stuff you've said.
I know you are.
And I'm asking you, do you believe it?
I believe that it's more likely a 26-year-old's had more partners than a 19-year-old.
You don't know that.
I don't know that.
You don't know that.
You don't know that at all.
That is a dumb thing to say.
If you're saying that's my premise, I'm using these as sort of...
As all 26-year-old women.
It's not about...
We're repeating ourselves here.
Yeah, and you're both just not...
You're just talking completely past one another and Tate is totally taking the bait here.
All he had to say is, Piers, I was using 18 and 19-year-olds as one concept and 25 and 26-year-olds as another concept as it would be popularly understood.
To represent relative modesty and inexperience and even perhaps virginity and promiscuity.
It is a fact here, there, everywhere around the world that modesty and virtue and virginity are to be preferred to promiscuity and allowing men to use you for their sexual pleasure until they throw you in the trash and then some other guy picks you up.
That is just a fact, and it might offend you because you think that women should just go sleep around with any guy who winks at them, but that won't make them happy.
It won't lead them to a good life.
It's not objectively good, and so we're having a moral disagreement here, peers, and I'm on the side of modesty and virtue, and you're on the side of slutting it up, and I'm right, and you're wrong.
Are you sorry for...
I'm not sorry.
I just explained to you exactly what I said, and the way that I phrased it was metaphorical, and I used some narrative, and I took some creative license, but the point that I think pretty clearly made was true, and it remains true.
But do you regret it?
I don't regret it.
It was true.
But will you apologize?
I won.
But, but, but...
And it would have ended that misery of an interrogation.
Oh!
You believe depression is a real thing?
I believe that feeling depressed is real.
I don't believe depression as a clinical disease is real, no.
Really?
Correct.
You don't believe people can be clinically depressed?
I think PTSD is very real.
Unfortunately, I have some friends who suffer from that.
I know that feeling depressed is real.
I believe that the number one power you have against these things are trying to take control of your own mind and affecting your own life.
I believe that it's not healthy to hand over all your power and believe that depression is an outside disease that you can't affect.
True.
I know that when I've had difficult periods in my life, and also many of my friends, like I've said, suffered from PTSD and been through terrible things.
I've lived a very difficult life, and I know people who have.
The things that made them feel better is when they woke up and said, you know what, I'm not going to allow this to damage me anymore.
I'm going to take responsibility.
I'm going to get up and I'm going to fight this as hard as I can.
True.
By the way, on that...
I agree.
So we agree.
My favorite speech is the Rocky Balboa one.
Okay, so then we agree.
No, no.
Here's what we don't agree.
Pierce.
Hang on.
You've got to let me interject when I don't agree with you, right?
Where I don't agree with you is that there's no such thing as clinical depression.
There absolutely is.
It's a proven scientific medical reality.
There's a different argument about have we gone a bit too soft, right, in schools and all the rest of it?
Absolutely.
Do I think some people moan and whine too much about their lot in life?
Definitely.
Are we a victimhood society?
100%.
Is there such a thing as clinical depression?
Absolutely.
And my argument is that if you actually bracket everybody who's not clinically depressed...
And doesn't have the genuine medical condition, then actually if millions of people are deemed to have depression, the ones who really need the help don't get it.
That's my point.
Well, that I would agree with.
You're right.
I think it's certainly an overused term.
There is such a thing called depression.
No, I don't.
And that to me is a damaging view.
Okay.
Andrew Tate's view is the more correct of these two views.
These guys are both wrong, but Andrew Tate's view is closer to being correct.
Andrew Tate got most of his soliloquy correct, except for that first part, the first part where he said, you've just got to take full responsibility of just your own life.
You're the one in control.
You've got to realize you're the only one making decisions.
That's not true.
That's not going to help you because, again, it's a worldview that is missing God.
And so if you're missing God, then you're missing the whole thing, especially when we're talking about matters of Despair.
What does despair mean?
It means the lack of hope.
What is hope?
Hope is a fact and a theological virtue.
Faith, hope, and charity are the three theological virtues.
And so without faith in God, hope is impossible, at least in the long run, at least on the things that matter.
The reason that they're both wrong is because they're having a debate about depression as a physical condition.
Thing and depression as a metaphysical thing.
Depression obviously has a physical aspect.
Probably not a chemical imbalance because that's been pretty much debunked.
But depression looks like something.
You can't get out of bed.
You're listless.
You're not hungry.
You kind of mope around and drag your feet, and maybe there is a chemical quality to it in the brain or some physical manifestation of it in the brain or anywhere else.
It certainly has that.
It also has a metaphysical quality to it, too.
You feel your melancholy.
You feel your spirits are kind of down.
You're maybe thinking of really sad and dark things.
Maybe you're even contemplating suicide at the extreme of it.
And so that's not physical.
That's metaphysical.
What these guys want to do is cleanly and neatly separate it one or the other.
But that's just so modern.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Not one thing on this earth is just physical or just metaphysical.
Not God himself is just metaphysical because God himself is incarnate.
That's the incarnation.
That is Jesus Christ, is the word, the logos, the divine logic of the universe, made flesh and dwelling among us in real time and space.
And that is the understanding of the relation between symbol and symbolized that forms our entire culture and led to all of the greatness of Western civilization, led to our very consciousness right now.
And over time, especially as we have moved away from that religion and that understanding of the world, those concepts have become so abstracted that we're having these incredibly stupid debates where everybody loses because both sides are representing some part of the whole, some facet of the whole of reality, those concepts have become so abstracted that we're having these incredibly stupid debates where everybody loses because both sides are And And so it's just going to be babbled back and forth and no one's going to get to the heart of the matter.
I would say the first thing you need to do is stop accepting the identity of a clinically depressed person.
Stop accepting you have no control over this.
And what you need to do is stop identifying that way and let's work together to try and fight against it.
But there isn't an eminent doctor in the world who would tell you there is no such thing as clinical depression.
Who would not tell you that some people...
It's simply beyond their control.
I think Johan Hari wrote a book saying exactly that, my friend.
Johan Hari's a journalist.
Sure.
And my point is that a lot of people who are...
So are you, peers.
LAUGHTER You're also a jerk.
Why am I taking your stupid word for it?
That's not a disease.
That's situational.
Andrew, you're simply wrong.
If that's what you believe, Piers, it's not.
I don't believe in things that take power away from it.
There is not an eminent doctor in the world.
This is so shallow, it makes me want to pull my hair out.
I can't become clinically depressed.
Why do you know?
Because I don't believe in it.
Again, this is that little area where you lose me.
No, I don't lose you.
You are.
Because somebody with your following says...
The thousands of people who have emailed me saying, my doctor told me I was clinically depressed and it's a disease that I have got in my brain and I can't be fixed.
And I started listening to you and I realized that that's not the case and I can fix my own life and you're the only person who has ever helped me.
Thousands of people have emailed me.
I bet Andrew Tate is more helpful than most psychiatrists on this issue.
Okay.
100%.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I am reading the emails of people who I have cured of clinical depression.
You're reading emails from people who have believed you when you say there isn't such a thing, and they've probably never been diagnosed with clinical depression.
They just want to go along with what Andrew Tate says.
I don't think so.
And I think your view of that is, that view is dangerous.
I respect that you think my view is dangerous.
Pierce's argument is so shallow, I fear I'm going to be sucked through the floor and disappear forever into the abyss.
PTSD is a very real thing.
It's actually going to become concave.
I did not say clinical depression is massively over-diagnosed.
I said that people who claim to be depressed But don't have clinical depression.
I think that is massively overblown, right?
In other words, there are a lot of people who just have a bad day and declare, I've got depression.
And I say, well, have you been to a doctor?
Have you been clinically diagnosed?
If you have and you have clinical depression, that's one thing.
But if you haven't, we could probably work on some mental strength and resilience skills with you.
But a clinically depressed person has an absolutely proven medical condition that is beyond their control.
Not according to me and many others, my friend.
What do you know about it, honestly?
You're not a doctor.
You're not trained, are you?
I'm not a doctor.
You're not a psychiatrist.
You're none of those things.
Sure.
You're a guy on the main.
But psychiatry, it's amazing that he's referring to psychiatry here.
Because one, who's he really referring to?
Some pop doctors who have lost so much of their credibility in recent years.
The entire medical establishment during COVID lost so much of its credibility.
The lobbies, you know, I think of the American Medical Association or the Psychiatric Association, they changed the DSM, the Guidebook of Mental Disorders, based on political correctness.
Because it's no longer politically correct to point out that men who think that they're women are mentally ill.
They just changed the definition in the DSM based on what?
not based on science or based on truth, but based on political correctness.
Furthermore, psychiatry is in the throes of a major crisis right now.
It's the major replication crisis, which is a huge number of major psychiatric studies cannot be replicated.
They have absolutely no scientific rigor to them whatsoever.
And so the idea that Piers is deferring to these people as the be-all and end-all authority is totally laughable.
It's not only the category error here of pretending that depression is purely physical or purely metaphysical, just like anything is purely physical or purely metaphysical.
But it's also just a really basic journalistic fact-checking error.
It's an error of what authorities to trust because he's deferring to people who have a terrible track record on the truth.
Much of which I agree with, as you've seen in the interview, but some of which is ludicrous, and that's one of them.
It's not ludicrous.
It is.
It's not.
If you said to me, we're in a victim whose society's got to stop, I'm with you.
Okay.
But the moment you try and deny clinical depression...
I believe feeling depressed is real.
I do not believe it's a disease that you catch from the sky and you cannot affect.
I believe that no matter what happens, I believe you have control of your own mind and you can fight against it.
I believe if you change your circumstances in your life, you may feel different.
I'll give you a quick example.
To a large degree, that's true, but not in all cases.
I obviously am not a psychiatrist.
I'm not a doctor.
I told him, because I replied to my emails.
I said, have you been to a psychiatrist?
He said, yes, I'm clinically depressed.
I've been on these pills this amount of time.
I'm on antidepressants.
It doesn't work.
I said, I don't know what to say to you besides this.
And he said he lost his girlfriend.
That's why I became clinically depressed.
I said, listen, go to the gym, get a six-pack first.
Once you've got a six-pack, email me again.
If you still feel like killing yourself, I don't know what else to say to you.
But I'd say, strong body is a strong mind, go train.
He went, he started sending me progress pictures, emailing me him getting in better, better shape, and eventually got a six-pack.
He's now a professional bodybuilder.
And he said, I can't believe I was considering that.
I feel so much better, etc.
The doctor was telling him he was clinically depressed and couldn't cure it.
He started taking control of his own life, and now he felt better.
Now, I'm not saying it's the case for everybody.
I'm just saying...
Here's my question, though.
Have you seen the guy's medical records?
Of course not.
I just told you the story.
So you're just taking his word for it?
I am taking the word of a man who emailed me with a bunch of medication and specific...
So you're denying proven science because one guy writes to you who you help and you've not seen any evidence he ever had clinical depression diagnosed.
I'm denying the idea...
Proven science?
Go on, your...
The overarching theory of clinical depression...
That is the basis for the modern psychiatric prescriptions on clinical depression.
The idea of the chemical imbalance theory that demands the widespread use of these expensive depression drugs that 1 in 8 Americans are now hooked on and 1 in 29 teenagers are now hooked on.
The scientific basis for that just got completely gutted and there is no evidence whatsoever that SSRIs correct any sort of chemical imbalance.
Just within the last...
What, five or six weeks?
That whole thing has been gutted?
And yet you still hear from Piers Morgan.
It's the proven science.
It's the proven science.
Ignore the reality of the people that are telling you actually what's happening to them.
I don't know, I'm going into a little bit of a Paul McCartney.
Well, you know, here, Andrew Tatey-Wadey.
So, Piers Morgan, I'll just speak in the American accent for now.
No, I'll speak in the Paul McCartney accent.
He says...
So you're going to look at all of your emails and you're going to talk to all the people that you know and they're going to show you the results and you think that just because you've seen it in reality that that's actually better than what's been published in these bogus medical journals?
Is that what you think?
And to entertain says, yeah.
Or at least I hope he says, yeah, because that's obviously much more reliable than the BS statistics that have largely been debunked.
You know, rants in public to tens of millions of people denying something because this guy writes to you and says he had it and you cured him.
And I think that's a dangerous mindset, Andrew.
That's fine.
That's why you don't have a responsible view of your influence over people.
Disagree.
It's very responsible because I'm saving people's lives.
I disagree that if you feel depressed, I disagree that you cannot affect it and change your life and take control and fix yourself and feel happier.
I disagree with that.
I refuse to accept that there are people out there who cannot become happy, contented individuals.
What is dangerous about what he's saying is it gets back to the same problem of a view that puts man at the center of the universe rather than God at the center of the universe because he's calling on men to be their own saviors and men cannot be their own saviors.
You can do a lot to help yourself.
You can do a lot to put yourself in a better position.
You can practice the virtues and make yourself healthier to a large degree.
But you are not ultimately in control of your destiny or of fate or of the order of the universe.
Ultimately, God is.
And so what's dangerous about this is that when these things don't work, and Andrew Tate even admits that in some cases this won't work, you go to the gym and you still will be a little bit depressed, at least for some group of people, that you blame yourself.
And it's the same problem as the prosperity gospel, this idea that if you just pray a little bit harder, you'll get a lot more money because God rewards people who pray really hard by giving them a lot of money.
So if you don't have material success in this world, that that must be some kind of sign that you are not saved or your faith is insufficient or something.
And that's very silly and corrosive and really destructive.
He's falling in some ways into the same era Piers Morgan is, which is he's trying to set the world up and establish a view of the world on purely physical grounds.
You know, he's trying.
It's just not you just go to the gym and you just lift the weights and you just...
Mind over matter.
You yourself will just pull your body into submission.
Once you have that six-pack, you won't be depressed anymore.
But that's not necessarily true.
This is a fallen world.
There's a lot of brokenness.
There are a lot of things that are unexplained.
A lot of work around the fringes.
Ultimately, you are not in control, which is why you need to have faith and hope and charity for your fellow man.
I refuse to accept we live in a world where God has created people who, no matter how hard they work and how good their life becomes, can't be happy.
I don't accept that.
I accept that the universe is a very giving place and that God loves all of us.
And if you try your best and you work hard, you can become a better person.
And I also will argue with you, and I'll counter the problem.
Yes, you can become a better person.
On your platform, telling people they have clinical depression, there's nothing they can do about it, is far more dangerous.
I didn't say that.
Okay, well then, if they have clinical depression...
Why do you misquote me?
No, because you're saying...
You hate being misquoted.
No, you're saying if people have clinical depression, then they have a disease.
They go to a doctor, and they get diagnosed, and they get drugs.
You just take drugs.
Something opposite of what you just said I said.
I would argue the point that if somebody has depression of any kind, whether it's clinical, whether it exists or not, whether they feel depressed or not, whatever, that taking control of their life, taking personal responsibility and working hard is always going to be the positive, best thing they can possibly do for their life going forward.
How positive is it?
So sit in here saying, I don't believe in clinical depression.
You don't believe in depression.
No, I don't.
I believe that people can take control and fight against things.
I believe in personal sovereignty.
Right.
Right, that's the problem.
Good.
So we agree.
No, we don't.
Yes, we do.
No, we don't.
Beers, you're on my side.
You're afraid of being cancelled along with me.
I said to you from the start, I agree with a lot of what you say.
Completely.
But I'm taking you to task over the stuff I don't agree with.
He's saying, ultimately, I believe in personal sovereignty, right?
And I like people exercising their own will and having some control over their lives in its proper place.
But I don't agree with Andrew Tate here.
I do not believe, ultimately, is the be-all and end-all first principle in personal sovereignty.
That is what the serpent in the Garden of Eden told to Eve.
Okay, that is what the Satanists of the 20th century insisted upon.
The first commandment of Aleister Crowley, do what thou wilt.
No, no, no.
That's the bad stuff.
I don't believe, ultimately, in the total personal sovereignty.
I believe in the sovereignty of God and what's good.
And he even is alluding to this, and he's even mentioning God, but it doesn't jibe with so much of his worldview.
It's quite incoherent.
When you accept the sovereignty of God, which really establishes whatever good version of individualism there is that comes by acknowledging the sovereignty of God, which gives you so much More control over your life, the sort of thing he's calling for, and gives you true freedom.
But if you reject that and you put man as God, you will be lost.
You will ultimately not save yourself.
If you put God at the center of the universe, then you will have tools to work through sadness.
If you put man at the center of the universe, sadness becomes a sin.
And being sad is not a sin.
Sometimes things are sad.
I was at a funeral recently.
It's sad to be at funerals.
You don't want to be sad all the time, but grieving is fine.
Sorrow is part of human nature.
Jesus wept.
Shortest line in the gospel.
That happens.
And so the fear of this idolatry of man and of your own will and the sovereignty of the individual or whatever is that ultimately when you are sad because it's a fallen world, you won't be able to make sense of that and you won't be able to.
At a certain point, you won't be able to pull yourself out of it.
Go to MizzeninMaine.com, use promo code Knowles.
I absolutely adore MizzeninMaine for a couple of reasons.
One, I consider myself an esthete.
Okay, I really like good, clean style, especially in men's clothing.
MizzeninMaine cannot be beat.
But also because...
I derive from the Italian peoples.
We perspire a little bit.
A lot of people perspire, and the Mizzen and Main dress shirts are so amazing because they're like athletic wear in the way that you're not going to sweat through them, but they have the exact same style and crisp, clean look of dress clothing, not just the Oxford shirts.
Incredible performance polos.
They've got great chinos.
Lightweight, breathable, moisture-wicking.
Absolutely phenomenal stuff.
If you want the best dress shirts money can buy, you've got to go to Mizzen and Main.
That is M-I-Z-Z-E-N-A-N-D-M-A-I-N dot com.
Use promo code Knowles.
You will get $35 off any regular price order of $125 or more.
$35 off any regular price order of $125 or more at MizzenandMain.com, promo code Knowles.
We're talking about Alex Jones, right?
Who I have a bit of history with.
He tried to get me deported from the United States.
Did he?
Yeah.
What is your view of Alex Jones?
I think that Alex Jones is a sovereign individual who, very much like the rabid left, deserves a chance to speak.
The people who insist on the ultimate sovereignty of the individual are the rabid left.
Or at least they share the same premises as the radical left.
It's funny that Andrew Tate is called a right-winger or a conservative or something.
But so many of his, he shares exactly the same premises of the left.
Which is that the individual is ultimately totally sovereign.
Consent is ultimately the only thing that really matters.
And you have no moral obligations to anything higher than that.
That's the leftist view.
That is essentially what defines the left.
And so it's just liberals arguing with liberals.
You can tell he's got an intuition that that's not sufficient, which is why he'll talk about God, and he'll talk about marriage, and he'll talk about loyalty, and he'll talk about tradition.
But he does it in this incoherent way, because when he makes moral statements, he keeps coming down to the same stupid leftism that he criticizes.
Truth on issues is usually somewhere in the middle, between two extremes.
So you think Sandy Hook was staged?
I don't know anything about Sandy Hook.
Really?
You know he's just been sued by the families for millions and millions.
I have no idea.
You don't know anything about it?
No.
So why would you support someone in public when you know nothing about the most infamous thing?
When have I supported him in public?
You have supported him in public.
I've been on his podcast.
Yeah, but you said nice things about him.
I say nice things about lots of people.
What do you think of Alex Jones?
I said nice things about you, Pierce.
That's fine.
So you should.
So to sit and say that I've been on a podcast and I say nice things about him...
But you said you support his right to speak about things like Sandy Hook?
I don't know Sandy Hook.
I don't know.
You know what it was?
It was a mass shooting.
Of school children?
Okay.
But to sit and...
No, no, let's stop for a second.
Please don't interrupt me.
I know why you're good at your job.
First, you interrupt people a lot, which is good.
It's a good skill.
And there you go.
Prove me right.
And the timing's good.
Here's exactly what I do.
I only interrupt people like you when you either refuse to answer the question or answer a completely different one.
Sure.
And I want to remind you of what the question was.
Fair enough.
Or when you misquote me back, which you've done repeatedly through the interview, where you say, you see, Piers, you agree with me.
And the viewer who's been watching will go, no, he didn't.
Cool.
No problem.
The other thing you do is you try and set these traps like now.
So you're saying...
What's the trap you think I'm setting?
You're saying that I agree with every single point of view a man has.
I literally didn't say that.
You're saying, well, you support Alex Jones.
Why would you misquote me?
Because you're saying you support Alex Jones and you said you've been on his podcast and he said this.
I don't know...
What do you think of Alex Jones?
I don't know everything he said, Piers.
What do you think of him?
I think on his podcast he was cordial.
I think he was professional on his podcast.
I've also done podcasts with rabid leftists and people who openly hate me.
Is it wrong?
I do a podcast circuit.
And I don't know everything he's ever said.
So I don't know what you're trying to get here because I did a podcast.
If you let me get a word in edgeways, I'll tell you.
It's a lame trick.
If you let me get a word in, I will tell you.
Let's go.
Tate's argument on Alex Jones could be, I'll tell you,
though, Alex Jones, if you go story by story, if you just say, here are 100 stories that Alex Jones covered and 100 stories that CNN covered, I would bet you a lot of money that Alex Jones has a better track record than CNN. And so if Piers Morgan is insisting that we just focus on this one story or this one statement or this one whatever from this one guy and we have to disavow, it's just a silly game.
And that's what Andrew Tate is pointing out there.
And so he's absolutely right.
I just wish.
The guy clearly has a good gut instinct.
He realizes something is wrong with the culture that we're in right now.
He's articulating his problem with what's wrong right now.
In a clumsy way, which is probably why he's gotten so popular, actually.
I think if he had said it in a more articulate and precise way, no one would have paid as much attention.
So it's probably benefited him in terms of his notoriety.
But I also wish that he would take it even further.
He's got his intuitions about this.
He's right.
He's got the kind of scheme of what's gone wrong in the world.
He realizes something's up.
But at that bottom...
Philosophical and theological level, he hasn't quite worked out why it's wrong.
And so he can't quite articulate it, which is why he can fall into the traps that Piers Morgan laid for him and does not totally successfully dig out of them.
Just got to go all the way down to first principles, figure it out.
