(First published August 8th, 2023. For the audio version of this article, please see my YouTube channel.)
As, once again, the mainstream media purports to be spitting with apoplexy that this "misogynist" and "vile influencer" has been released from house arrest (after insulting Amanda Holden - gasp and pearl-clutch - how very dare he?!), whilst much of the alternative scene champions this "masculine hero", courageously challenging woke orthodoxy and feminism, the single most important question remains utterly unaddressed...
Why the hell do we even know this guy's name?
How, exactly, did this ex-reality TV star with the dubious Dick Van Dyke accent (totally sounds like he's putting that on, as other reality stars have been known to do), become one of the most famous men in the world - not just at the current time, but, quite possibly, ever?
It's because he is an intelligence/military creation, selected at birth and sculpted from childhood (a childhood which Tate himself confirms included known mind control techniques such as extreme sleep deprivation), to fulfil his current role - as an epically influential and high profile change-agent, here to spearhead and promote an enormous cultural shift. This is always how the establishment prompts dramatic cultural change, and the role of intelligence agencies and the military in creating change agents for this purpose is well documented in this book.
To have the seismic impact on the culture that Tate is currently having, an individual needs to have the full collaboration, collusion, and bankrolling of every arm of the establishment - e.g., social media giants who won't de-platform them (Tate currently has 7.5 million Twitter followers - more than the UK Prime Minister), mainstream media editors who won't ignore them (lack of publicity being the death knell for all would-be influential people - and Tate enjoys blanket media coverage almost daily), etcetera. "Andrew Tate" has hence become a household name - he is an internationally famous megastar, every bit as well-known as a Hollywood celebrity or prominent rock God - and that doesn't happen unless it's meant to.
So, we must ask ourselves: why does the establishment ensure we know the names of, for instance, Brad Pitt or Paul McCartney? Is it because the establishment simply wants to benevolently entertain us with fascinating films and melodious music? No, obviously not - the reason these people are promoted to prominence is so they can influence us when they push major social agendas.
People we've never heard of and have no emotional investment in can't have the required level of impact on us, which is why the establishment invests billions promoting certain names and faces to global prominence and then, when they've reeled us in with their "amazing acting" or "musical genius", they reveal their true purpose, which is to push the establishment's agenda - just as we saw in Covid, when big names in Hollywood and the music industry all went lockstep pushing jabs, masks, and restrictions.
High-profile big names are the establishment's number one weapon in agenda pushing, which is why they never (ever) allow anyone to become a high-profile big name, unless they completely own them.
Hence, it is inconceivable that anyone in the alternative scene could believe for a nanosecond that Andrew Tate is anything but an establishment-owned asset, here to push a nefarious agenda, the nature of which is in the process of being fully revealed.
As soon as I became aware of Tate, I said he is one of a controlled cabal of "cool young conservative influencers" who are here with a particular mission. Other names in this group include Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, the UK's (and Peterson's colleague at ARC), Louise Perry, and of course, Candace Owens, with whom Tate recently conducted a three-hour interview.
Many people who considered Owens to be the "real deal" were left reeling in shock over her decision to interview Tate, lamenting that she's "fallen for his lies" and has "lost her integrity", etc - in reality, Owens hasn't fallen for anything, and is just revealing her true colours as part of the club, as I always said she was. As I said back in September 2022:
"Now, I agree with a lot of what Walsh and Owens say (Perry annoys me - too smug), but I recognise that to have the level of visibility they have achieved (Walsh has over a million followers on Twitter alone), without being de-platformed by the mainstream social media vehicles, means they are establishment assets.
You are simply not permitted to play a prominent role on the world stage if you are not. For proof of this, see what happened to Milo Yiannopoulous. Originally an establishment asset meant to agitate the political climate, promote divide and conquer, and to usher young men towards a twisted version of conservative extremism, he was doing very well for himself and was famous around the world - until he went off script. When he started behaving erratically and making allegations against big names in the industry - a massive no-no - the ruling classes who controlled him simply ended his career overnight. He now languishes in obscurity and relative poverty and we haven't seen his name in the headlines in years.
"So, that's how you know Walsh, Owens, et al are controlled. Because if they weren't, they wouldn't be where they are - or would be swiftly removed."
Initially, all these assets - the "cool young conservative influencers" (CYCI now for convenience - or maybe CY-ops...) - were presented to us as if they were organic and unconnected, that they had enjoyed their respective meteoric rises to fame simply on the merits of their own genius, and absolutely were not part of a lavishly bankrolled cabal of intelligence creation assets meant to engineer massive social change.
Now we see the truth - that they are integral parts of a coordinated cultural attack and are all intimately linked (please read this article I wrote last month, linking Jordan Peterson to Louise Perry). Peterson - and his family's - connections to Tate are already well-known: now we see Tate's connection to Owens, and, following Andrew's own interview with him, his brother Tristan has recently done an interview with Tucker Carlson.
The purpose of all these people is, as I have been cautioning for some time, to bring in an immense cultural shift comparable to the magnitude of the social changes that happened in the 1960s... but going back in the other direction.
They are prepping us for an ultra-conservative, and religious, cultural revolution, and they've paved the way by playing the long-game - introducing these influencers as cool and appealing, with their wealth and fast cars (the Tate brothers), their hipster beards and love of whisky (Matt Walsh), and their credentials to particularly annoy the left by being a black female conservative (Candace Owens).
All these people have made a name for themselves by publicly saying things that most reasonable people, sick of debauched and degenerate liberal extremism, agree with: that boys shouldn't be shamed for being boys and the notion of "toxic masculinity" should be challenged; that young people should be supported to explore the merits of stable committed relationships rather than hook-up culture and porn; and that, of course, women really don't have penises.
When we hear major cultural figures saying these things, in contrast to the ever-increasing rank insanity of the so-called liberal left, we feel so relieved and grateful that we let our defences and scepticisms drop, and that is when they've got us.
They then start drip-dripping some slightly less reasonable things into the equation, such as Andrew Tate's belief that women "belong" to men, and Candace Owens' declaration that if a woman has been ill-treated by more than one man, it is only because there is something wrong with her.
But by the time they start saying these things, people have become so invested in, and emotionally attached to, their new "heroes", that they're prepared to give them a pass - or even start defending them. Such is the primal power of the tribe, and finally feeling we have found a group we belong to.
It has always fascinated me just how many people push back against my noting that Andrew Tate is a fundamentalist Muslim (which he absolutely is and has qualified this on many occasions), with something along the lines of, "yeah, but he doesn't really talk about that, it's not a big part of his life, really it's just an irrelevance. The important things are how he challenges wokery and has big muscles."
And that's exactly how the establishment has got you under his spell. By having you believe that a fundamentalist Muslim who has publicly declared his love of suicide bombing terrorists, and is often seen prominently brandishing a Quran whilst regularly quoting it on social media and praising Allah... doesn't really care about religion much and it certainly has no meaningful impact on his advice to millions of young impressionable men.
The only reason Tate has not been more overt about his religious extremism and the kind of society he is here to usher in is because he had to win an audience first, and certainly wouldn't have achieved that with religious sermons. The man's not stupid (or rather, his handlers and scriptwriters aren't), and they knew they needed to win people's trust first with "reasonable" sounding rhetoric that would appeal to culturally liberal, secular young people, before unleashing the true agenda.
But now that they've got that audience, that hardcore, ultra-loyal fan base for whom the Tates can do no wrong, the truth is starting to be made more explicit.
Here is Tristan Tate, in his recent Tucker Carlson interview. where he declares the West is "dying" and the future is in the Middle East. Why?
"I'll give the credit to religion. I'll give the credit to the Islamic faith,' he said, arguing that the Middle East had no rows about LGBTQ issues or drag queen storytimes.
'They don't want that bulls*** in the country. They don't want their kids being taught immorality in their school.
'So if you have kids, and you're a very busy man, and maybe your wife is very busy too, and you want a comfortable environment where you know that your kids can go to school and learn things like math, and history, and geography, without drag queens reading stories to them.
'You can go to the Middle East and be assured of what is happening in your school, in your home, in your family, on the streets.'
I go to the US and feel unsafe. I feel unsafe walking around the streets. I see the pandemic of homelessness and drug use.
'How is this the capital of the free world? I look at the leadership and it makes me sick, on every level.
'So yeah, the Middle East is the place to be for now."
Tate fans will want to protest, "yeah, but he just means because the Middle East is wealthy and has nice amenities" - yep, and he is absolutely explicit in saying that the only reason they are able to have those things is because of Islamism and strict religious values.
The Tates are now explicitly revealing what they are really here for, and - now they have become so firmly embedded in the cultural fabric that no-one can ignore them - this reveal will start radically accelerating.
The purpose of Andrew Tate's' "arrest", as I said at the time, was to build his credentials as "maligned anti-establishment hero" who is cruelly persecuted, wrongly imprisoned, and then eventually, triumphs as justice prevails! Tate has literally said himself that "being wrongfully imprisoned is part of the hero's journey", so this is all just narrative fiction to entrance the masses and make them invest ever more in the Tate story arc.
To be clear, the whole arrest saga was completely fake - every bit as real as Greta Thunberg's staged "arrest" (and we were being given a little nudge-nudge, wink-wink about this by the two confecting to have a Twitter spat right before the "arrests" occurred).
I said as soon as the Tate arrest happened that it was inevitable he would be exonerated, and I was able to predict this, not due to any incipient psychic abilities I might have, but because I have learned how the machine manufactures "heroes" for us when they want to use pied pipers to usher in mammoth social change. And Andrew Tate ticks every single box for such an establishment creation: direct family connections to the intelligence agencies (his father was CIA) who are known to sculpt the children of their assets for future change agent roles (this is how they created the social "heroes" of the 1960s, with their Tavistock ties and CIA links); massive worldwide fame, huge visibility on mainstream, alternative, and social media alike, and so on.
As it happens, I believe this "religious revival" will be a relatively short-lived stage, and I've written more about why here (essentially, this is the establishment's last ditch attempt to destroy Islam, by pushing an ultra-draconian version of it that will eventually inspire mass revolution - a similar scenario to what is happening in Iran now), but we are first going to have to live through it.
Keep a close eye on the CYCI brigade, and watch them mutate ever further away from their "cool, reasonable" facades, as they reveal who they really are (or rather, who they really serve) and what they're really here for.
And to free yourself from this endless matrix of manipulation once and for all, remember the maxim that, if they're a household name, they're in the game.
That's why the most important question about Andrew Tate is not if he's really a misogynist, a thug, or even a criminal: it's why we know his name at all.
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Substack (where you can also join my mailing list)
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.