In Batman versus Superman, Lex Luthor says, “Do you know the oldest lie in America, Senator? It’s that power can be innocent.” In the film, Bruce Wayne decides that Superman is just too powerful and needs to be stopped because he’s a danger to society.
We need heroes. We’ve always needed heroes. The archetypal hero embodies strength, courage, mastery. The hero slays dragons, rescues the innocent and helpless and crusades for justice. The hero is powerful.
The hero fights for ‘good’, as he defines it. You may find you do not like his definition. The ‘shadow’ side of the hero is arrogance, narcissism, and using his mastery for himself rather than the world. Hence, a little dispute between two big superhero egos.
Andrew Tate, former professional kickboxer, founder of Hustlers’ University and former social media influencer has become a hero for a generation of young men. But he is a selfish sort of hero – even an anti-hero – bragging about his Bugattis, private flights, venerating money, demeaning the role of women, toting guns, all while a fat cigar hangs from his lips.
I’m an unlikely champion for Andrew Tate. He’s big enough and ugly enough to fight his own battles. And I don’t like his neanderthal attitudes towards women one bit (although I have sympathy for his promotion of traditional family values). But I want to rebut the idea that deplatforming him makes the world a safer place and explore why he has become a modern day hero for a generation of young men.
The controversial social media star was removed from Instagram and Facebook by parent company Meta for violating policies on dangerous individuals and organisations on Friday 19th August. TikTok and YouTube soon followed. Tate had 4.7 million followers on Instagram at the time of deplatforming, and videos with the hashtag #andrewtate had more than 13 billion views on TikTok. You might say he had Superman-esque social media powers.
Heroes must overcome the problems of their times, which is why the cultural and literary hero has evolved over time; social conditions create different heroes. Andrew Tate displays a sexist streak which is unpalatable to mainstream doctrinaire, and this has ultimately led – at least ostensibly – to his downfall. In fact, sexist diatribes were not his only fare, and his content focused on how to overcome depression, be successful and not be ‘a slave to the system’.
In multiple videos he tried to expose that freedom in modern society is an illusion and that people should understand manipulation and cut their own path. He doesn’t believe in climate crisis, he talks about globalists and hidden agendas, he casts doubt on the severity of Covid. In short, he has been a misinformation unit’s worst nightmare.
Many believe this is why Tate was really removed from social media platforms and de-monetised. Over the last few years, how many people have started to question the slippery, illusory quality of freedom? That life is not what they once thought? Tate’s apparent handle on an uncomfortable truth might be the secret to his social media stardom.
I spoke to teenage boys about why they like Andrew Tate and why they thought he was actually deplatformed. Journalists writing about Tate seem all to ready to demean boys for liking Tate and show little interest in understanding why. In fact, the idea for this article started with WhatsApp messages from one of my own sons. Normally he messages me to ask when dinner is, or send me links to clothes he wants me to buy. In the week that Tate was booted off social media, my son had an epiphany about freedom of speech and cancel culture. To my amazement, we had our first meaningful conversations about power and politics.
Young men were forthcoming about Tate’s allure. Joe, aged 15, said, “All my friends watch him. He’s got an interesting lifestyle, people look to up him. I think he’s straight up about what he thinks. He makes me laugh. Some of his opinions are quite – I don’t know how to say it – extreme. I like him.” Which views are extreme, I asked. “His views on women. Stuff like how he’d rather be in a plane flown by a man not a woman. He doesn’t think women should drive.”
Similarly, Frank, 16, acknowledged that Tate is sexist: “You can’t talk about Andrew Tate in front of girls. Partly he believes what he says, partly he’s trying to be funny, but girls don’t like it. They don’t like that he’s said it’s ok for men to cheat but not girls.”
I wondered what Frank made of that. After all, Tate has been removed from the internet because his misogynistic views are supposedly dangerous. He told me he agreed with some of his views on women, for example that women are better at some things, and men are better at some things, such as physical strength but said he didn’t agree it was OK for men to cheat, although he understood the “theory” behind the view.
All the lads I spoke to found Tate to be a positive role model, on balance. Will, 17, said that Tate was “alpha”, which is what he wants to be, while he felt that society encourages men to be “beta”. Frank was particularly moved by Tate’s content about male depression: “He was a positive role model because he taught young men not to be depressed. He says the cure for depression is being manly and successful. I agree with that.”
Young men also feel browbeaten by ubiquitous terms such as toxic masculinity, and relentless ideological education at school. “Woke people are passive aggressive and force their views on people,” complained Frank.
These young men were cynical that the calls for Tate to be removed from the platform were made over fears that he could be normalising violence against women. None of them believed that the real reason was misogyny. And why would they? The drill and rap lyrics they listen to, and the social media platforms they inhabit, are awash with sexism.
Have you seen Pornhub recently? It will take seconds to find a clip of a woman being slapped, or worse, and called a whore or bitch. Try searching for ‘TERFS’ or ‘JK Rowling’, on any platform, to find a multitude of recommendations that women standing up for women be raped, violated, hurt, burnt or killed. There are supposedly ‘progressive’ videos encouraging young gender non-conforming girls to have a double mastectomies, for goodness sake. Boys are contacted direct on Snapchat and Instagram by sellers of prostitution and drugs. If the social media platforms really want to clean their houses of sexism, violence and crime, they have much work to do. Andrew Tate barely touched the sides of the misogynistic cesspit.
“What’s the word for misoygny when it’s directed at men?” asked Frank. I paused briefly, as I reached for “misandry”. Frank exploited my pause: “Exactly. No one knows the word. Hatred against men isn’t as common against misogyny, but it happens and no one cares. White men are at the bottom of the food chain. Andrew Tate was rebuilding masculinity.” He seemed resigned, rather than angry.
Heroes speak to the need to achieve. While they are often disguised as normal individuals – such as Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne – they have an inner ability to be larger than life and succeed. Clark Kent’s Superman outfit is worn underneath his daytime clothes. He can break free at any time. What does Andrew Tate represent to young men? I’d suggest they hunger for his hero’s garb of cigar, muscles and fast cars which signal that his masculinity broke free of the woke Matrix. They want to explode into a larger mythology of success.
Will told me that Tate had become too powerful and the Government didn’t like him. I asked how he thought the Government had him removed from social media platforms. A “conference call, probably”. There are literal telephone calls between Government and Big Tech, as Nadine Dorries confessed in the House of Commons. Will’s instincts might be right in this case.
Joe concurred: “It’s weird because he was taken off so quickly, but there is a bunch of other people who do much worse and they haven’t been taken off. It doesn’t make sense. He just says things that people don’t want to hear and that’s why they banned him.”
“If someone opposes the Government, they can be wiped off the internet,” Frank explained. “He wasn’t taken off social media because he’s a misogynist, but because he goes against the Government. It also happened to Donald Trump. I don’t like him but it’s scary that anyone can be taken off social media if they have too loud of a voice. We need someone with a powerful voice to speak out about what’s happening, but Andrew Tate was the powerful voice.”
Frank thought that Tate was targeted specifically because he encouraged people to be individuals. He believes that, “The Government don’t want men to be strong and have our own minds. They want us to be sheep. Manly men do their own thing. The Government don’t want that.”
In the week Tate announced a mass exodus to Rumble, daily active users on the platform surged 45.3% compared to the previous week, according to data collected by digital intelligence company Similarweb.
Will Tate benefit from the ‘Streisand effect’, whereby censorship results in more attention? And can it last? “Our research, along with leading academic research, shows that while these ‘influencers’ might transition some of their following to alternative platforms after being removed from more mainstream ones, they almost invariably fail to regain both the following and broader content reach they had on platforms with billions of users and recommendation engines like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or YouTube,” said Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
That’s the win that social media companies – and the wokerati influencers behind them – want. Tate’s audience will be constrained now he preaches from his exile on Rumble.
But what will happen to the 4.7 million followers on Instagram? They are unlikely to forgo their addiction to the mind-numbing cascade of acceptable Instagram and TikTok content, and they are now well-trained in the short form clip, so Tate’s long diatribes on Rumble will likely earn tens or hundreds of thousands of views, rather then millions. But the thirst for a hero (or anti-hero) won’t be satisfied by woke approved accounts.
Add a new cynicism about the Government to this hunger for a hero. A generation of young men now know that powerful voices can be silenced by authorities. “I hate the Government,” Frank told me.
Tate needed sunlight and debate, not to be cancelled and martyred. “They have made martyrs of us,” preached Tate on a new Rumble video. “They thought they could cancel the Top G… I emerge more powerful than ever before.”
His cancellation is a blow for free speech and millions of young men know it. His message was you can’t trust the authorities. Now those young men will think that’s true. They might be right.
And what’s worse, if Tate’s cancellation reinforces the idea in young men’s minds that he was right about not trusting the Government and the media, they might just think his attitudes to women were right as well. Any parent of teenage boys knows that ongoing exploratory and gentle conversation is the antidote to the onslaught of cultural sexism, not a high profile cancellation.
Journalists have hurried to praise the ejection of the King of Toxic Masculinity from the internet. They don’t get why he was a success in the first place. They criticise Tate and they criticise the young men they think he duped into liking him. GQ described his huge audience as “the lonely and the resentful”, seemingly unaware that this describes millions of young men who do not feel they benefit from “male privilege” in the least.
The young men I spoke to were not radicalised by Tate, but they might be radicalised by government censorship. They won’t stop looking for heroes. And heroes overcome the problems of their times.
Laura Dodsworth is the author of the Sunday Times bestseller A State of Fear: how the U.K. Government weaponised fear during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article first appeared on her Substack page, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Excellent article by Nick Rendell— vitally important, because the next “Plandemic” will be bird flu, which was added to ordinary flu vaccines in 2009, “accidentally” non-radiated, as doctors discussed with Alex Jones of Infowars 14 years ago.
Please see the following two links, if you can access The Telegraph article from 2008. The 2009 Infowars interview has been reposted by Alex Jones now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html
https://www.infowars.com/posts/avian-influenza-added-to-flu-vaccine-in-2009/
Listening just now to the audio taped 2009 Infowars interview, they also said NATO went to Thailand and forcibly injected pregnant Thai women three times with tetanus jabs (when only one is needed), and their babies died. They also described eight US troops being vaccinated experimentally together and dying, and that more troops were dying from inoculations than from gunfire.
Tetanus jabs (to which they said live viruses have been added) are often given after dog bites. Is that why the government has done so little to protect the public, not even requiring dogs to be muzzled in public spaces? And Michael Gove requiring all tenants to be allowed to keep dogs, and forbidding landlords from preventing it?
“When you inject live viruses into the bloodstream [instead of muscle tissue], you bypass the critical part of the immune system. And vaccines, in fact, cause all auto-immune diseases, non-traumatic seizures, cancer and genetic problems.”
(Sorry not NATO, of course, but the UN, the audiotape said. Too late to edit. I was trying to type and listen at the same time, but I’m not very good at multi-tasking.)
Please listen to this Danish Professor talking about live virus vaccines and mRNA injections. She argues that the study showed that live virus vaccines reduced mortality for not only the target disease but for other pathogens. But she could also see some vaccines were worse and caused mortality. Unfortunately the modern Pharmaceutical industry has poisoned the ‘well’ with their blatant attempts to make ‘vaccines’ mandatory for the entire planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_nKoybyMGg
Danish professor: mRNA vaccine study sends ‘danger signals’
Thanks for that link, which I’ll check out later.
Just now at the end of the Infowars 2009 audio taped interview, was this shocker:
“Putting the bird flu virus in with the regular flu is actually what’s going to make the mutation happen to create the hybrid, that’s going to allow the bird flu to infect the human. And this is self-evident… in my book, entitled “The Biology of Aggression”, and that’s all about the Rabies virus.
“They are now also putting Rabies virus into many human vaccines. There are many movies out now that actually illustrate this. “Quarantine” is the best, because in “Quarantine” they actually admit that the Rabies virus is what’s making these people become ghouls. This is going to get even worse, folks, and this is being done intentionally.”
At the end of the 2009 audio taped interview, they said that RABIES Virus was also being put into human vaccines.
From what I remember there is no treatment for Rabies. I think it was the documentary series ;Monsters Inside Me where they told the tragic story of a child getting Rabies then going into a coma.
Yes, you are right, though when I looked it up on the NHS England website just now, they said this:
” Although there is no cure for rabies once symptoms develop, post-exposure treatment (i.e. rabies vaccine with or without rabies immunoglobulin) is highly effective in preventing disease if given correctly and promptly after exposure.”
Personally, I don’t believe viruses exist, but are just manifestations of a toxin, bacterial or fungal infection; however, I’m not a medic, so what do I know?
Two very obvious points that must be borne in mind:
Fraser Nelson likes to keep a foot in both camps but always errs toward the establishment.
Rod Liddle is very good at engaging gob before brain.
I remember in 2020 when he criticised people resisting the mask mandates saying….Is this really the hill you want to die on. As if you can comply your way out of tyranny.
Exactly
The hard evidence is rolling in thick and fast now. Woefully under educated Ministers and Civil Servants got taken for a ride by Big Pharma, aided and abetted by Gates of Hell during his visits to No.10 in 2020. The timing of Event 201 was also ‘quite remarkable’.
Our Govt spent £450 billion on removing human rights, promoting mRNA therapies and virtue signalling. The proper course of action was to do absolutely nothing, except encourage everyone to boost their natural immune systems as best they could. No profit in that of course. (Any yes, I was saying this in Mar 2020 as my long suffering family can testify).
“Woefully under educated Ministers and Civil Servants got taken for a ride by Big Pharma”
No way. I will never accept this because it provides the perps with the “not me guv” excuse. It falls in to cock-up theory and the C1984 was definitely no cock-up.
In fact there are no excuses for even the most stupid MP’s of the time. Those in the decision-making brigade knew exactly what they were up to and the backbenchers owed it to themselves and their constituents to educate themselves about what was really going on. They did not do that.
By May 2020 I had worked out we were being scammed and so had thousands of others across the country. I joined Lockdown Sceptics in September 2020 and it was a few months up and running by then and The Conservative Woman was about 5 / 6 years old by that time. The Scamdemic information was out there very early. Nobody within cycling distance of Westminster has any right to claim ignorance.
The proper course of action was for MP’s to do the bloody job we pay them for – find the truth. They failed. Once they had found the information, information that I had secured by May 2020 lets not forget, MP’s were duty bound to bring the government down.
They failed to a point of treason.
There are no excuses.
Never Forget. Never Forgive.
I don’t disagree with your conclusions at all.
FWIW, I think the Scientific Advisors (Witless, Unbalanced etc) bear more responsibility than anyone, although the Johnson and Hancock were utterly appalling.
Also 3 cheers for LDS and TCW!
Three Cheers for Lockdown Sceptics, Yes!
But NOT for TCW The Maryolater Woman Hypocrite who boasts about “Defending Freedom”, while denying Freedom of Speech to anyone daring to criticise Maryolatry on her “Defending Freedom” website, banning and blocking them like a Jesuit.
She also appears to be using Toby Young’s website to continually draw attention to her own, attempting to control and dominate the comments section of every article on Toby’s website, instead of sticking to her own.
In contrast, it is TOBY YOUNG’S FREE SPEECH UNION and THE DAILY SCEPTIC that are genuinely, steadfastly and courageously “Defending Freedom”.
As mentioned above, in the election campaigns Lockdowns, jabs etc were a minor blip. It was Brexit and Truss wot done it FFS.
The article repeatedly mentions something called “covid deaths”. I am aware of “official” figures that were based on people who died within a certain period of a “positive Covid test”. I presume that is the meaning of “covid death” intended in this article. I can’t take that seriously – it’s a meaningless figure. All-cause mortality is the only game in town.
I agree tof.
“Covid deaths” is meaningless because in some jurisdictions all deaths were recorded as covid. And even if tests were conducted they were done using the discredited PCR which was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool.
It’s a bit like testing waste water by drinking it – guaranteed to get a result.
“Covid deaths” are a complete nonsense.
Number of “Covid deaths” where “Covid” was the only cause of death recorded was a small fraction of the headline number
Also the shoving of a thin stick up people’s noses, in some cases has caused harm.
When my mother died, the GP had hardly visited so he put “suspected stroke” on her death certificate – I suspect many death certificates are best guesses. All-cause mortality is indeed the only game in town.
Indeed. I think the rules for death certs were changed for “covid” but even then I think the “official” stats for “covid-only” deaths were negligible.
“During part of the winter of 2021-22 the U.K. experienced its last period where Covid accounted for more than 10% of all-cause deaths. ”
Well well. If they count like they were told to in the worldwide ruse by the CDC (Cull for Disease Control) in America only 6% of that 10% were Bioweapon Only deaths. But since we now have millions of deaths by Bioweapon Cure, they have mixed things up good. According to plan.
The most blindingly obvious factor for me is that the first Death Jab, in the UK, was released on 2nd December 2020 almost a year since the Scam began. So why weren’t people dying in their millions between January and December? Why were the bodies not piled in the streets?
It certainly wasn’t masks because they were deemed not necessary until Whitless and Bankballance did a screeching u-turn after Incarceration I. It wasn’t anti-social, society destroying distancing either.
It always did scream lie from day one with Chinese people doing cringeworthy pratfalls. My favourite was the Dead Person Falls on Floor and Puts Hands Out To Prevent Bashing Face sketch.
https://www.vaxcontrolgroup.com/
My research shows that the biggest control group, and they must continue to say NO to bioweapon cures, is Africa – the Billion strong smoking gun.
https://worldyturnings.com/2022/12/20/is-africa-the-covid-smoking-gun-part-2/
And we should not loose sight of any other reported side-effects.