- “What will happen if schools are forced to shut again?” – The prospect of yet more closures is leaving both parents and children utterly exasperated by the overreaction, writes Kathryn Flett in the Telegraph.
- “Man killed himself after being made redundant by Covid-hit golf club” – “A veteran greenkeeper killed himself after being made redundant by the golf club where he had worked for 33 years after they made financial cuts because of the effects of the pandemic, an inquest heard,” reports MailOnline.
- “FDA’s forced hand drops Pfizer’s bombshell safety document” – “The highly confidential Pfizer documents, which have been synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency revealed by the actions of pivotal Governmental agencies… are finally being revealed,” writes Sonia Elijah, who examines the information previously hidden from the public in Trialsite.
- “‘Toxic spike proteins’ made by Covid jabs ‘often cause permanent damage’ in kids: mRNA inventor” – “The risk/benefit analysis is not even close with this vaccine, for children,” says Dr. Robert Malone, in a recent speech reproduced in Lifesite.
- “Care home chain bans residents’ families unless ‘essential care givers’” – Barchester angers families with rules on routine visits stricter than Government guidance, reports the Guardian.
- “Why don’t we introduce obesity passports?” – “The latest argument for vaccine passports is that we have to increase vaccine uptake to reduce pressure on the health service. By this logic, we should also consider restrictions for those who are overweight,” writes Dr. Noah Carl in RT.
- “We have been deprived a national conversation about moving on from restrictions forever” – The costs of restrictions have been devastating, as everyone can see. Yet we are poised once more to add to the collateral damage, writes Sunetra Gupta in the Telegraph.
- “Finally, some opposition to Covid authoritarianism” – Only a democratic fightback will get us out of this mess, writes Fraser Myers in Spiked.
- “There aren’t 10,000 patients in hospital with Covid in Wales” – The latest data from the Welsh Government suggests the correct figure is actually more like 500, reports Full Fact.
- “Get ready for tougher restrictions, Scots warned” – “The First Minister urged Scots to limit gatherings to three households and cancel work Christmas parties, while businesses are now legally bound to facilitate home working where possible,” reports the Times.
- “English football club beats Government Covid rules by reducing stadium capacity” – “Carlisle United has announced they are working around mandatory Covid rules set by the U.K. Government for any crowd of 10,000 people or more by reducing their stadium capacity to 9,999,” reports RT.
- “The end of the pandemic will not be televised” – “As an extraordinary period in which social life was upturned, Covid will be over when we turn off our screens and decide that other issues are once again worthy of our attention,” write David Robertson and Peter Doshi in the BMJ.
- “Ryanair boss says U.K. response to Omicron shaped by ‘idiots’” – Michael O’Leary blames Covid rules for 1 million fewer passengers flying with airline this month, reports the Guardian.
- “Over 65s in France without Covid booster jabs lose their ‘health pass’” – “Over-65s in France without Covid booster jabs will lose their ‘health pass’ under new rules being implemented from today,” reports MailOnline.
- “New furlough calls only reinforce the sense of blind panic” – It is inflation and not new variants or further support for business that we’ll be worrying about three months from now, writes Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph.
- “Unvaccinated U.S. Google employees set to lose pay & get fired” – “Google has said that more than 150,000 of its employees in the U.S. will be placed on unpaid leave and terminated if they don’t comply with the company’s Covid vaccine mandate,” reports RT.
- “Lockdowns fuelled massive rise in gaming and addiction, experts say” – “During the pandemic, nationwide stay-at-home orders handed gaming companies a golden opportunity,” reports the Epoch Times.
- “Almost 3,000 children in New South Wales hit with fines of up to $5,000 AUD for minor Covid rule breaches” – Fines worth $2.1 million AUD issued to 2,844 children aged 10 to 17 years-old since middle of 2020, drawing ire of legal and advocacy groups, reports the Guardian.
- “Having Covid in last six months leaves you relatively safe from Omicron” – “People who caught Covid in the past six months should be ‘quite well protected’ from Omicron, a leading expert on the virus has said,” reports MailOnline.
- “The new Dark Ages” – The woke assault on Western civilisation is taking us backwards, says Joel Kotkin in Spiked.
- “In Liddle-o parentis” – “As a society, we have raised a generation in which a significant portion of those who attend university are babyish, sociopathic tyrants,” says Collingwood, who comments on the student protests at Durham University following Rod Liddle’s speech in Bournbrook Magazine.
- “Temporary measures will become permanent restrictions” – In light of the recent vote to approve ‘Plan B’ measures, Lord Daniel Hannan talks about the danger of temporary emergency powers becoming a permanent feature of everyday life.
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.
The argument holds a certain amount of water, for me, though I can’t help thinking there have always been and will always be boys who look up to people like Tate, as indeed there are always people of all ages and both sexes who look up to or at least hanker after less than ideal role models – and I am not even sure “role model” is necessarily an applicable term a lot of the time. There are people with pretty disastrous lives who try to live like some idiot from social media or TV or whatever, but a lot of people just find those kind of people mildly interesting/distracting/amusing/titillating and don’t seriously try to emulate them. I’m not saying that’s ideal, but I am not sure that there be too much hand-wringing about it.
But yes, more properly decent men with what have been traditionally identified as more “masculine” qualities would be a better outlet. I like the “chivalry” idea.
Gangsters and criminals aren’t the even close to being the richest people. Unless he means….
Based on my own first hand experience, my impression is that teenage boys are sick to the teeth of wokeness.
I think this guy is right on the money, but it’s a message Jordan Peterson has been putting out for quite a few years now. Maybe it’s gathering momentum.
“Chivalry is the thing that we’re missing today…”. Hmmm. Most of us associate chivalry with being courteous, particularly with women e.g. opening doors, taking off your coat to put around your wife, paying the bill etc. Putting women before yourself. But this is based on the belief that women need/want to be looked after and almost all women in today’s society have made it crystal clear that they do not want this, so why chivalry? What’s the incentive to be chivalrous to the angry woman that gives you the hand gesture in her car? The woman that pushes in at the bar? All the women who’ve been telling men that masculinity is evil and they are sh*t? All the women (a couple on here) that reply to questions about feminism by trying to mock and humiliate (male tears, male fragility, male this, male that etc)? No, chivalry is not the problem; the problem is why there is no incentive to be chivalrous. Over to you ladies.
Agree, Chivalry on one hand requires grace on the other.
Andrew Tate appears to be yet another figure of hate for the easily triggered. He isn’t. He’s playing the ‘toxic male’ role perfectly, interspersed with some really astute analysis of our crazy world. He really is smarter than he looks, and the simple thinkers of the left can’t rationalise that.
Don’t agree. Most women I know absolutely love to be treated like ladies, but of course without being patronising.
I think the idea that all women don’t want that is created in the same way that the idea that we all want a gender-free, gender-fluid, racially hypersensitive world.
For some reason you’ve missed out an important part of what I posted i.e. “and almost all women in today’s society…”. You confuse me tbh. You post about the problems with feminism and so you know that feminists do not want to be treated differently in any way, but then you post that all the women you know want to be “treated like ladies”. What does that even mean in today’s world? It’s almost like you’re trying to earn brownie points after knowing you’ve lost favour. Look, you’re a good poster, but be consistent at least. And please tell me the planet you’re on because I want to be on it. Deep down women may want to be treated like ‘ladies’, but that sure as hell isn’t what they tell everyone or how most women behave
I don’t see the inconsistency. Most women I know aren’t feminists, they’re normal people who recognise that men and women are different and who aren’t offended by gentlemanly behaviour, but the opposite.
That doesn’t mean I don’t know the odd feminist or that I’m not a bit familiar with feminist ideology.
Both are possible, no?
Please read your own previous posts chap. You are now saying feminism is NOT a problem. Your own posts will answer your own question about inconsistency.
That’s a very degraded idea of it. The whole serve the weak concept actually is, because chivalry is a property of knights who serve someone strong, namely, the king.
The weak only appear here because chivalry is about knight’s code of honour and unprovoked attacks on someone who’s very much weaker aren’t honourable because no bravery is required for that: Everyone can attack the relatively defenseless, that’s a typical course of action of pompous cowards who want to show off (often for the members of the unfairer sex :->) but don’t want to risk anything while doing so.
Another important proper of someone that’s honourable, alongside with courage, is politeness, ie, proper behaviour towards others, even if those others perhaps wouldn’t behave propery themselves. It’s extremely impolite to let a door slam into someone’s face, hence, when there’s someone close behind you, hold it until he or she had a chance to get it themselves. I usually let it slam if people mistake me for their private door opener and don’t take it over once they can reach it. This has nothing to do with putting woman before myself, it’s just the kind of courtesy one should extend to everyone unless there’s individual, good reason not to. If people try to berate me for that, they’re acting implolitely, that is, dishonourably, which implies that their blathering doesn’t matter.
So many words, such little meaning. You seem to misunderstand the difference between politeness and chivalry. Oh, and thanks for the history lesson. Enlightening. Thank God for Google aye?
At least, I don’t need 29 words soley to express I didn’t understand any of this plus a bit of seriously bizarre abuse exemplifying how completely you didn’t understand any of this. If that’s your typical behaviour, your apparently typical experiences with woman don’t surprise me.
When articles like this pop up it’s the same bitter individuals with an obvious axe to grind repeating the same, tired old sexist tripe who react. They can’t resist apparently. You can put money on who will respond and what they will say by now.
Much like the mask articles, I dont get involved as there’s nothing further to add and I’ve made my views perfectly clear on these matters by now.
Just stopped by to say great comment though. A non-hostile man who doesn’t have ‘woman issues’. How refreshing on here!
Bingo. As always with you. Thanks.
I have sort-of a middle position here: I know what FreeLemming is referring to and I really both dislike and disagree with these people. It’s just that their statements don’t concern me — there’s a German saying Leute reden viel wenn der Tag lang ist — during a long day, people will talk a lot. I’m also from a different cultural background and most of what is called (toxic or non-toxic) masculinity here is – in my opinion – simply bad behaviour of people who could have done with an education. My idea of conduct that’s appropriate for a man (not male) simply doesn’t include – to use a somewhat infamous example – having sex with a blind-drunk female student behind a row of refuse bins.
The reason why Tate is not a good role model is because he’s essentially the male equivalent of a self-licking ice cream cone: As far as I know this, everything he does is about him. That’s not how a man should behave.
Somebody give me a clue as I can’t be bothered to google it.
Who is Andrew Tate?
Can’t help you Judy.
I’m up here in Australia and have also not heard of him.
Assuming he’s a brash chauvinist, doesn’t seem surprising that telling white boys they are the root of all evil and everyone else is a victim pushes them towards someone with an opposite and simplistic view of manhood.
Thanks for that Dr G – I am in Thailand so maybe someone from the UK will enlighten me?
Former council estate kid made good via a career in martial arts culminating in being a World Champion kick-boxer. Since made many millions through websites for grown-ups, and various other business interests. Has a very simple and clear view of what an alpha-male is, and isn’t shy in being one. Into conspicuous consumption via million pound cars. The epitome of toxic masculinity to many on the left, competitive, ambitious, successful. In some ways he reminds me of a Hugh Hefner for the new generation. He’s worth listening to for some interesting angles on the ‘patriarchy’, but there’s no doubt in my mind he is playing a character to annoy just the right people.
I’d really love to see on of these alpha males compete with a machine gun. Or try to out-run a horse.
Same here but he doesn’t sound like my cup of tea.
Former kick-boxer turned person-in-the-online-sex-business who’s also a limited-scale internet celebrity.
Tate is an actor, a performer, a brand. Of course boys want to emulate him: he is rich, successful with women and gives off an aura of supreme self confidence.
The establishment is doing its best to destroy men, masculinity and manly role models. The mainstream push the idea of toxic masculinity and radical feminism to the point that boys have become seen as dysfunctional girls. Big government are replacing the need for competent men by acting as sugar daddy for single mothers and loser men.
This is no time for chivalry. In fact being the chivalrous nice guy provider can make boys even more unattractive to women. Some say that the average girl prefers the “bad boy”, not the “white knight” (at least until their biological clock tells them it’s time to settle down with a resource provider after they’ve spent their peak years being run through by all the studs). Time for boys to be more like Tate: look after themselves (ignore the blandishments and advice emanating from our corrupt institutions) and to hell with what they say!
I agree with the little I’ve read of Knowland, but I can’t help thinking we need a better word than chivalry, which to anyone who understands the term probably has connotations of the ‘knights of yore’, Jane Austen, and so on. And the qualities we’re looking for don’t apply only to how males treat females, but more generally to the respect and care of our neighbour – a distinctly, though not exclusively, Christian idea.
There is a short story written by Paul Gallico about a woman trying to decide which man to marry. One of the characters tells her to evaluate kindness as it is a trait which outlasts love, passion, drama, emotion etc. I have always thought it is a good measure of a person, especially a man, (a caveat being that kindness to animals but not to humans is a red flag).