The Andrew Tate Conundrum
Andrew Tate may be a pimp, a boor, and a misogynist – but this does not necessarily make him a human trafficker
Last year I penned a piece named The Elon Musk Conundrum in which I attempted to untangle my conflicting feelings and philosophical hang ups on perhaps the most enigmatic figure in the freedom movement – the eccentric billionaire tech bro who, depending on who you ask on our side of the argument, is either a saviour and patriot, or at best, a misguided prodigy, and at worst, a double agent and scion of the New World Order.
The jury is out for me on Elon, and I expect, much as I discussed in my essay Going Down the Rabbit Hole, it may remain that way indefinitely – for to think that a mere mortal like me could decode the deepest yearnings and objectives of one of the richest and most powerful men in history is absurd, and the best I’m likely able to do is point to his good aspects, acknowledge the bad, weigh them up, and pick a tenuous position and make peace with the fact that I simply don’t know.
My feelings about Andrew Tate fall into the same category.
Depending on who you ask, he is either a saviour, controlled opposition, or a despicable criminal – and it should be noted that the latter designation is purported not only by blue-pilled normies, but by those on our side of the argument also – that is to say, those who are fighting for truth and freedom.
My esteemed peer, William Ramsey recently did a podcast with Roberta Glass that reminded me just how divisive Andrew Tate is even within the counter-hegemonic paradigm. Both William and Roberta took the position that Tate is indeed a toxic and abusive man, and self-evidently guilty of the charges levelled at him and his brother Tristan by both the Romanian state and (implicitly) by the global media complex.
Much of the episode hinged on apparently leaked text messages from Tate’s private members’ War Room, recently discussed in a Rolling Stone article titled Leaked Texts Appear to Show Andrew Tate’s Alleged Trafficking Tactics in which the magazine engages in the kind of rank conjecture we’ve come to expect from the corporate media (for let us no longer kid ourselves that Rolling Stone is anything less than an agent of The Machine), but more importantly, in which they offer absolutely no evidence whatsoever, relying instead on weasel words like “alleged” and “appears to show”.
It would appear the leaked messages do exist on Reddit and such places, and I admit I have not had time to review them fully – but such things can be easily fabricated, and if indeed the evidence is so sturdy then why does the Rolling Stone article not reference them and conduct a proper analysis? Are we simply meant to take the word of the establishment as gospel all of a sudden? Furthermore, I would have expected that if the texts proved blatantly illegal activity had occurred then the record would reflect this. Instead, all I’ve seen are indications that Tate may have manipulated women into doing what he wants. I’m no lawyer but it’s clear there is a legal grey area here: people manipulate one another every day, sometimes in distasteful or even morally abhorrent ways, but where manipulation ends, and violent coercion begins is a tricky thing to untangle.
Now, let’s get one thing straight: I am not here to shill for Andrew Tate.
After a brief infatuation in which, I must admit, I was swept up in his bombastic hypermasculine rhetoric, I have since kept Tate at arm’s length – I even unsubscribed from his email list, mainly because I find his brand of aggressive douche-fap-marketing basic and contemptible: Yeah, you’re not going to get anywhere sending me daily emails calling me a “loser” bro. That might work for the legions of lost young incels whom you poached off Jordan Peterson when he was in Xanax detox in Russia, but I’m not a loser. I know who I am; I know my strengths; I know my weaknesses; I have made peace with the imperfection of my being, and I’m okay with God. And I think he’s okay with me. I do not need your approval.
Your sorcery won’t work on me, mate (and I’m not giving you any of my money – Lord knows you don’t need it).
Furthermore, I find the way Tate made his money distasteful. Moreover, I find it downright hypocritical that a guy who bills himself as a mentor figure for young men, who can help them rise above the gynocentric programming of the education system, and break the shackles inceldom, got rich by preying on these very same men through the mendacious medium of cam girl prostitution.
Tate is a pimp and a boor, and perhaps even a misogynist – but again, the last time I checked, that wasn’t illegal.
Were I to jump on the bandwagon and condemn Tate as a criminal based merely on the highly dubious reporting of an outlet steeped in progressive culture war disinformation, I would consider myself guilty of the same hypocrisy I ascribe to him. Rolling Stone provides no evidence as to the veracity of the text messages, and merely speculates by way of this very telling sentence:
“In the messages, which sources close to the War Room verified to Rolling Stone, Tate appears to be boasting about manipulating one of his girlfriends into doing sex work for him.”
Sources close to the War Room. Now where have we heard that before?
How often during the eight-year smear campaign against Donald Trump have news outlets used phrases such as “sources familiar with Trump’s thinking”?
This is not evidence. It is, quite simply, rank conjecture – and again, is manipulation a crime?
It is important also to note that the woman upon whom the allegations hinge, has herself repeatedly denied that they are legitimate, and Rolling Stone even admits this, saying:
“The woman, whose name Rolling Stone is withholding, is listed by Romanian prosecutors as an alleged victim of Tate’s sex trafficking operation, though she has repeatedly denied this. She did not immediately reply to a request for comment.”
This goes to the heart of a situation that bears all the hallmarks of an establishment stitch-up. Tate himself calls it a Matrix attack, and his analogy is not without merit, but we don’t need to speak in such dramatic terms to see this thing for what it is.
The case is so flimsy that even the prosecutors star ‘witness’ denies being a victim.
And it is not just this latest ‘victim’ who denies that Tate ever coerced her. We see that same odd incongruency in the statements of the original ‘victims’ upon whom the imprisonment of the Tates was predicated late last year.
In February it was reported that “The Romanian prosecutors considered the two women as victims of the Tate brothers despite their claim that they worked voluntarily for the two men. The magistrates took the clinical psychologist's report into account and ruled that they did not speak knowingly and had been brainwashed through their exploitation.”
Consider this. The alleged victims claim that no crime was committed against them, but the Romanian state has decided to disregard their testimony and make the determination for themselves on the basis that a psychologist (an expert) believes they were brainwashed.
How convenient.
I don’t know the truth of the matter but to me the whole thing stinks.
Andrew Tate is a thorn in the side of the globalist establishment – at least this is the best determination I can make with the evidence at hand – and to me, this is the most likely explanation for his targeting by the Romanian authorities, who it must be noted are mere puppets of the EU – the engine room of progressive globalism. But could it be possible that Tate is a deep cover plant, as has been argued by Miri Finch? Sure, it’s possible – his father was in the CIA after all.
Hardcore sceptics like Finch hold that no one with the name recognition of Andrew Tate gets to that position without establishment backing, and she levels the same accusations at other conservative influencers such as Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, and Ben Shapiro.
I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, and that one is a corker. So sure – it’s possible Tate and the rest are controlled opposition.
Finch’s explanation as to why the establishment would wish to elevate influencers who discredit their program of woke progressivism is less clear – she appears to believe that the long game is to take the world back in the opposite direction, to a hardcore system of religious conservatism, which she claims is why Andrew Tate recently converted to Islam.
I won’t deny that I find Tate’s sudden embrace of the Prophet problematic, and as a Christian this is another reason why I’ve cooled on him in recent months. But there are some conspiracy theories that test the bounds of plausibility, and sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.
My view is that if the global ruling elite wished to remake the world along fundamentalist Islamist lines, then it would be entirely within their power to do so without the cloak and dagger theatrics that Finch purports. Why bother with the gigantic ruse of progressivism in the first place? It doesn’t really make sense to me.
Certainly, I believe the relentless push to fill Europe and the UK with young Muslim men bears the marks of nefarious demographic engineering – and there could well be something in this. Likewise, my friend William and his guest Roberta could be right – Tate could be guilty of the human trafficking charges, and his prosecution could simply be the action of a benevolent system wishing to bring a predator to justice.
I don’t buy it though. What about Ghislaine Maxwell? This same establishment, having bumped off proven child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in his jail cell then made a great show of throwing Maxwell to the wolves but stopped short at revealing the names on her client list…
How convenient.
Ghislaine Maxwell is officially guilty of child sex trafficking – which means it had to have been established in court that she trafficked children to one or more rich and famous people. Why then has the identity of these perverts been suppressed?
The answer is: because the establishment is not interested in bringing paedophiles and sex predators to justice; on the contrary, it has a vested interest in protecting them.
Are we to believe that the same conglomerate of elites who buried the Epstein and Maxwell story has now seen the light and wishes to expose Tate for the same crimes?
I don’t buy it.
But I’ll be the first to say I don’t know. All I can say is that, regardless of my personal feelings about Andrew Tate and the way he made his money, the evidence currently available suggests to me that he is being targeted by The Machine for cancellation because his influence is dangerous to their agenda.
Moreover, the man does have an incredibly powerful message and it’s not hard to understand why so many millions of young men have flocked to his banner – and I’m not even talking about the sports cars and muscles and cigars.
Here are just a few clips of some of his more profound moments that I have assembled over the past couple of months:
It may not sit well with those of us who take a less patriarchal and macho view of male-female relations, but what it boils down to for me is that Andrew Tate is exactly what you get when you feminise every aspect of society.
For feminised we have been. I wrote recently that The Western world of 2023 is a gynocentric corpo-matriarchy. Everything from kindergarten through school, to university, and the corporate machine itself, is all now filtered through a gynocentric lens. Gone are the values of strength, rugged individuality, ambition, and personal responsibility – and in their place we now have kindness, inclusivity, and safety.
Tate is the reaction and, such as reactions tend to go, he is somewhat extreme.
It is easy and convenient to point at Andrew Tate and say ‘this is not what we want for our young men’, and it may mollify our sensibilities to cast him as a villain, but I require hard evidence before I will condemn a man as a criminal, regardless of my personal disagreements with him – and until such evidence becomes available, my position is that we as a society have spent the last few decades emasculating our boys and young men – and Andrew Tate is simply the stark and inevitable result.