As a psychotherapist myself, I’m tremendously critical of the field – certain, in fact, that therapy is more likely to do harm than be beneficial. Much of that has to do with the degree to which it has become a grift involving teaching people victim mentalities, which keeps them addictively enslaved to the need for therapy, from which psychotherapists profit.
David Sutcliffe is at least a reasonable psychotherapist, because to a large extent he understands the truth about intersexual dynamics. However, he lets two things get in his way as he interviews Andrew Tate in this 2-hour encounter:
a. He remains entrapped by the gynocentric imperative; and
b. He’s so thoroughly committed to assuming the pure worth of his craft that he comes across as determined to find flaws in Tate that, of course, he, Sutcliffe, will be poised to repair.
· David Sutcliffe has numerous assumptions about how life should be for everyone. This is incredibly common among psychotherapists.
· The tension in this conversation is frequently between Sutcliffe being attached to the notion of ongoing paralysis in reaction to childhood ‘traumas’ and Tate’s celebration of how those ‘traumas’ equipped him to prevail as an adult – which mirrors their differing baseline assumptions between people needing help and self-reliance.
· David Sutcliffe appears to insufficiently appreciate the degree to which a person can fully manage the internal dynamic of extrinsic vs. intrinsic control. Andrew Tate describes to him how he, Tate, consistently defines his own self-analysis as having more legitimacy than the analyses others produce about him, and Sutcliffe almost consistently reacts to this as if it must be some kind of defense mechanism. He seems to be unaware that such a strategy is not defensive but offensive in the manner of being proactive. The psychotherapeutic mindset assumes that confidence can never be pure – that it always has to be masking self-suspected brokenness – and therefore confidence is itself a weakness and deserves the pejorative slur ‘arrogance.’
· Sutcliffe doesn’t appear to get the difference between “avoiding your pain” and purposefully creating a productive life approach that chooses proactive problem-solving over giving undue attention to one’s fears.
· Tate’s articulation of the degree to which most human beings are, by choice, firmly-attached to self-reinforcement of negative mental programming is brilliant.
· Tate effectively articulates the power of choosing to see experiences of negative emotions as perfect in their existence while refusing to let them dominate his decision-making.
· Sutcliffe confronts Tate for being “unwilling to submit to outside analysis” because it supposedly exposes Tate to greater degrees of self-delusion, but Sutcliffe entirely refrains from considering the very real possibility that his own adherence to the dogmas of psychotherapy are a significant form of self-delusion.
· Why, David Sutcliffe, even entertain how individual women’s inaccurate presuppositions might be related to Tate or anything else if you can recognize that they’re hypnotized by the propaganda of gynocentric feminism and the generalized matrix? Can’t you recognize that doing so reinforces them for having surrendered to those beliefs in the first place?
· And Sutcliffe’s fallback after failing to convince Andrew Tate that he should stop being what Sutcliffe labels as arrogant is to turn it around on him: if you’re so competent and successful, aren’t you responsible for using your talents to provide even more for other people?
· Questions for David Sutcliffe: is it possible that you’re committed to believing that everyone must unconsciously wonder if one’s father loves him just because the father didn’t behave in this era’s idea of what the perfect Sensitive New Age Guy dad should exhibit? What if insisting that an Inner Child exists amounts to a religious belief?
Sutcliffe far too often argues for the tyranny of the mediocre, combined with encouraging men to behave like women. He thus simultaneously fails to acknowledge either the essential nature of the unique contributions men should be making or the possibility of excellence outside the realm of approximating woman-centric standards. It is just this type of approach that caused me to automatically agree the first time I read someone assert that the baseline purpose of psychotherapy is to turn men into women.
https://rumble.com/v388f9b-david-sutcliffe-and-andrew-tate-full-interview.html