Alex Jones Interviews Andrew Tate
(www.infowars.com)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
I know people here have rather mixed opinions about these two personalities, but they do discuss how everyone can reject the media's chronic demoralization and fear campaigns in detail.
I think their points are especially relevant at a time in which the media is amping up the COVID fear porn and calling for the surrender of Constitutional rights.
Both of them express ideas that are worth thinking about and hopefully convince new listeners that self-empowerment and independence are more attainable than you may think. You do not have to let some power hungry, self-serving institution define you!
I simply don't understand why the right is so desperate for validation they turn to guys like this. He's at best one step up from Epstein. AJ should want this guy's head on a spike.
Because the Right has literally no leadership whatsoever outside of maybe Trump and even that is a tenuous thing. The Right is desperate for a strong man to follow because on a base level they need their heirarchy and right now there is no one to lead which means all they'll do is keep bleeding out.
More importantly, every time someone on the Right gets anywhere near a place where they can speak Truth and be effective, someone on "the right" sabotages them.
Tate has red pilled more men and boys than anyone else by orders of magnitude. As bad as he is he's still better than anyone the regime props up.
I don't know if Tate is that bad. Scamming lonely men out of millions of dollars is really bad. But it doesn't involve sex trafficking.
I'm like 90% sure he was a strawman that the feminists set up to knock down. The problem is they didn't have the credibility to knock him down so the situation quickly spun out of control.
Pretty sure his dad or uncle is "ex" CIA.
Alex Jones is awesome and hilarious, and I don't know enough about Andrew Tate to care one way or the other.
I will say, it bugs me that so many people feel the need to go "well, I don't like Andrew Tate but..." We've got a few people here who openly praise Hitler. Is admitting to liking Andrew Tate such a bad thing? It just feels like bowing to the current narrative. If you like Andrew Tate, that's fine.
Tate has publicly bragged about scamming men despite his main supposed upside being that he somehow helps men. Hitler was, if nothing else, serious about his politics.
For me it's simply confusing how on the one hand you have people like AJ (rightfully) wanting to see Our Betters hang for trafficking children as sex slaves and on the other hand interviewing this guy.
If (eg.) AJ regularly went on rants about what a terrible person Emperor Titus was for conquering Jerusalem then interviewed Hitler for his interesting views on stopping Weimar degeneracy, I would find it similarly confusing. I don't think I've read or heard anyone praise Hitler and condemn Titus: usually that's a package deal.
I'm sure Tate in dealing in the underworld has some based views on some things, because I suspect people who deal in that world who don't accept reality as it is probably don't last very long. No doubt Epstein would have interesting/based things to say too: would he get the same deference were he alive?
Again, not super familiar with Tate, but from what I have seen the accusations against him seem exaggerated (not to mention incredibly convenient considering he was already hated.) It's like hating Assange for being a "rapist."
Is some of what Tate has done distasteful? From what I've heard, absolutely. But they were consenting adults, who seemed to gain from the transaction. Was it a little creepy and cultish? Yeah. Is it on the same level of the things Epstein is suspected to have been involved in? Not even close.
I'm not saying Tate is spotless, or even a good guy. I just don't like people bowing to the narrative of the people who want us dead. You could find much worse people than Tate around, who have much less interesting things to say. We're already all painted as the Bad Guys simply for our views, and for being here. No one here should look down on someone who says "you know what, I like this Andrew Tate guy." That's my point. Again, not even saying I'd agree, but liking Andrew Tate is far from the most controversial view someone could put forward. It's a free speech issue, and not much to do with Tate himself. If someone likes Tate, they should say so, without couching it in platitudes to our enemies.
And certainly the people who are smearing Tate are much more worthy of condemnation than Tate himself is.
Epstein was worse, and the left hates Tate because he's not their guy in the way that Epstein was. I grant you those two things.
Still Tate like any pornographer encourages the thought processes of young adults for their own personal gain. Even when they know those same thought processes tend to lead to ruinous ends.
I do not respect that. In fact I consider it demonic. It's not something normal people do as they get older. Normal people look at what the young are doing, think "I did the same thing and it was a bad idea: I wonder if I can convince them not to make the same mistakes I did" and try even if they won't listen.
Not defending Hitler; but he was not a sex-trafficking mutt.
Andrew Tate drugs, molests, rapes, and sometimes murders little girls?
I have not seen evidence that he's raped anyone. He seems more like the "pickup artist" type. Sleazy but more interested in seducing/tricking women into bed than forcing himself on them. It's possible but I'm not ready to make that assumption.
I don't like how his businesses take advantage of lonely men, but I don't hold much sympathy for simps either. It's their money. After that it's basic annoying "manosphere" grifting. Far from a grooming gang.
A lot of his "advice" to men is plucked straight from the pickup artist community though.
I don't root for him. I said he's sleazy and would have said the same if he was associated with the left. He's an obvious grifter so I doubt he has any ideological principles.
As far as "sex trafficker" goes a lot of people throw that around and my reaction is that "Sex trafficking" is a fake crime because it's used to describe all kinds of shit that has nothing to do with forced pimping. The kind of stuff Eliza Bleu was alleging. The only legitimate "sex trafficking" would be abducting a woman and selling her to some gang or overseas sultan. Or let's say hiring her as a "hostess" and then stealing her passport until she has sex with 1000 men. Obviously anything involving children too. They can't consent to the sex or the labor.
The problem is we don't have any evidence he forced anyone into anything outside some accusations from women which are notoriously unreliable. He's a degenerate piece of filth no doubt, but I'd need to see much more credible evidence to put him in the same category as grooming gangs and alphabet pedos.
I like how most of the hate for Tate here amounts to a complete regression back to “believe all women”. Did you people learn nothing from MeToo? Women are liars. He’s a pornographer, but he’s not a sex trafficker or a rapist.
More importantly, he has red pilled more young men than possibly anyone in history. That was the extent of his reach on social media at the height of his popularity. School boys all over the world are pushing back against their feminist teachers because of Tate. He has planted more seeds of dissent than anyone else on “our side” by an order of magnitude. Dude is nowhere near ideal, and he’s a moral disaster, but he’s not our leader. He’s just a menace tossing really big stones in the pond, and that’s valuable.
Tate has publicly bragged about scamming men. I don't know if the criminal charges against him are legit or not. I never looked into it. Following Tate isn't going to lead anyone into doing anything politically useful. Disliking feminism isn't going to do jack shit on its own.
If Tate is telling the truth, then women aren't even accusing him until they're broken down with classic coercive tactics (12 hours of questioning etc)