Andrew Tate is selling a disfigured, impotent concept of masculinity—an inversion of traditional Christian masculinity. It deserves nothing but our scorn. Let me explain briefly. 

On a basic level, Christians understand than the purpose of physical strength and martial prowess is to defend those who are weaker than you.

More specifically, the Catholic idea of Gentilesse, developed in the centuries leading up to the crusades, is that you must love those over whom you have power. This includes your vanquished enemies, but also obviously includes women and children under your care and protection. This is where chivalry and the chivalric code came from, which was the basis for European nobility.

The Christian idea of masculinity and manhood, then, has everything to do with self-sacrifice and suffering for the good of others. It is derived from the example of Our Lord, who was the ultimate Man, the perfect exemplar of the chivalric code.

This Christian idea of manhood has nothing in common with Tate’s degenerate, Islam-derived notions about lording over and ruling by violence those who are weaker than you. That concept of manhood is not just alien to the Christian West, it’s also weak and gay, and anyone who platforms Tate is promoting it, however unwittingly.  

(Also let’s dispense with this nonsense that “young men on the right are listening to Tate bc no one else on the right is talking about masculinity!” Yes they are, it’s everywhere.)