Leaving aside Andrew Tate’s ongoing criminal case, I think we can all agree there are some pretty silly articles about the Tate phenomenon appearing in the mainstream media.
Now the Sunday Times has weighed in to tell us how teachers are trying to undo Tate’s evil ‘brainwashing’. Remember, the only people who should be brainwashing children are Left-wing teachers.
“It is a version of radicalisation as far as I’m concerned,” says Sophie Whitehead, who works at the School of Sexuality Education, which provides workshops on consent. “His rhetoric is so violent and it has affected so many young people.”
The south London teacher helped to explain the impact of Tate’s words by creating a pyramid, showing how some actions such as using violent words could escalate to criminal behaviour.
Ignore Tate, look at the pyramid!
A female teacher at another school said that some pupils were giving up on studying for exams, feeling that they no longer needed education to thrive. “They [pupils] always end up saying, ‘I can get rich on the internet, that’s what Andrew Tate did’,” she said.
Would it be such a terrible thing for boys who are being failed by the education system to learn skills that will help them succeed online? I for one would have much rather learned to code than learned about stalactites.
The Sunday Times also appears to need some online education, as it claims Tate is still running his Hustler’s University course, which in fact was replaced by The Real World some time ago.
But instead the offline re-education continues:
At assembly in the Oxfordshire schools, pupils are told about why expressions such as ‘man up’ or ‘be a man’ should not be used. At St Dunstan’s, a co-educational fee-paying school in London, teachers try to have discussions about Tate and establish what pupils know before feeding teenagers more information. News articles about Tate are deconstructed with older pupils.
Whether one loves or hates Tate, or believes he is guilty or innocent, it is obvious he is a symptom of a culture that demonises men and boys and allows them to fall behind. Instead of listening to these young men, their out-of-touch guardians act aghast and tell them they are wrong, leading to absurdly tone-deaf claims like the following:
Yet despite Tate’s views, indicative of a wider misogynistic culture on the internet and sweeping through schools, there is still hope.
Hope for what exactly? And why should we trust these teachers to steer boys, who appear to have been let down by those who should be guiding them, in the right direction?
That is my take, but make up your own minds by reading the full piece.
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.
As ever with a Mr Tucker article, far too many words. He probably didn’t have enough time to write a concise piece so produced this instead.
You should stick to reading posts on Twitter/X. Have you ever read a book?
Thanks for your advice. I have read a book. To be fair, not recently though.
You said the article has “far too many words”. Not a little too many words but FAR too many words. How many words do you think the article should have? Half as many? Or fewer than that?
As opposed to some of the others, I thought this one was really ok.
Almost wish I had read it now. I get a few paragraphs in and there is no purpose and then I read on and it’s more periphery stuff and I scroll up to see author and when I see Tucker (and to be fair a couple of others in recent times) and just scroll down to next article. That’s the problem when the editors don’t edit….
Dystopian and why the Police need a thorough cleansing, as do our ‘laws’.
Pets and minorities can now be offended by something and register a crime against you.
As the author asks – is hating the non-crime of a hate-crime, itself a thought or hate crime?
Massive government and state power. And we are to worship the police as ‘heroes’. They are no such thing, too many of them are useless and most of them are part of the problem.
Indeed the process is in itself the punishment; doing it to a high-profile journalist ensures that the message will get publicity. The message being “keep quiet or the police will turn up on your doorstep”.
The police visiting you is in itself a punishment. You are only human: you will feel stressed out, intimidated and humiliated just by them knocking on your door. That’s the aim here. That will teach you a lesson. Next time you’ll keep quiet.
The fact that “hate crime incident” is such a vaguely defined term is deliberate too. Its aim is to include anything that the government doesn’t want you to do.
The whole thing is not even particularly original: it is a copy of the 1927 Stalinist “Counter-revolutionary activity” law that allowed people to be sentenced to 10 years in the Gulag for making a joke.
Not for me it won’t.
I’ll follow my own conscience, post what I want when I want, say what I want to say.
Always have, always will.
There’s more of us than them and they’re terrified of us.
The point remains, however, why British police officers would cherrfully stand to be photograohed next to a flag which represents any nation other than ours which I doubt they understood. The article says it was a flag for a Pakistan political party which British police and other officials have no business being associated with.
I have no idea of the policies or charavter of that party but it does not matter.
It is also important to recall just how the police and UK public authorities generally have stood by Hamas and Palestinian demonstrations. At the wholly peaceful protest by naturally peacable farmers the Met rolled out 20 vans of police. When anyone protests for Israel or Jews they better beware. The contrast is binary.
Sam Melia is to be released from prison but the punishment continues;
”UPDATE: Sam Melia will be released before Christmas. However, they’re not allowing him to spend Christmas at home with his family. The state ensured he missed the birth of his baby girl and now they’re denying him her first Christmas. Sam will be placed in accommodation and monitored for 6 months because they claim his stickering makes him high risk of “serious harm”
https://x.com/MrNChance/status/1861905073904980376
An update from his partner, Laura Towler, here. It all sounds completely over the top and disproportionate when you consider who they’ve let out early and who gets suspended sentences;
https://x.com/MrNChance/status/1862038872621760746/photo/1
Thanks for these.
That we have an anti-white government and an anti-white Establishment is becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people.
In this context “high risk of serious harm” means “He could still have some stickers left and put them somewhere!” That’s the actual issue here: The notion that speech can be harmful in itself, ie, that people may be harmed by being exposed to opinions they really don’t like (or rather, the government really doesn’t like).
The evil bastards.
Fascinating this morning to see on GBNews, the corbynista criticising the police for arresting protesters trying to stop the detention of suspected PKK members because they had the cheek to search the community centre and ask the people living in the same house as the suspects to vacate, so the properties could be searched. In his view, these people of faith were all innocent and should not face jail time for the protest because it’s the police who were heavy handed, but he still said that waving the St George cross should be an imprisonable offence when done near a mosque!!!
All social control is predicated on fear.
No system of authority has enough resources to keep a population under control by sheer force.
Brainwashing helps, but the further from reality the brainwashing is, the more reliant on the threat of force authority becomes.
The problem the UK and most western nations have is the ideology of established power has been diverging from reality for sometime and the population isn’t having it.
No, it’s achieved NOTHING. Roll on the 20th January 2025, when sanity will be returned to the world.
The purpose of NCHIs seems to be to discredit the legal system which is based upon one law for everyone. This is individual law