'As of yesterday, according to Tate’s website, he and his brother Tristan have donated “$12m+”' (DANIEL MIHAILESCU/AFP via Getty Images)
Last April, just weeks after he was released from a Romanian prison and placed under house arrest, Andrew Tate revealed his path to redemption. There was no mention of the charges against him, which include sexual exploitation, rape and forming an organised crime group. Nor did he highlight the porn sites, manosphere networks and get-rich-schemes that helped to bolster his fame. Instead, he focused on a remarkable new programme to salvage his reputation. He announced he was becoming a philanthropist.
The self-proclaimed King of Toxic Masculinity, who converted to Islam in 2022, had previously claimed to have funded a number of charitable projects, from establishing a dog shelter in Romania to rebuilding an orphanage, but this was a whole new level of giving. “I donate $25 million a year to feeding children in war-torn countries, especially in the Islamic world, because that’s where war is,” he explained in a video posted to TatePledge.com, which compiles evidence of his alleged good works. “I’m going to be starting a foundation, the Tate Foundation, which is going to be dedicated to charitable acts. I will be spending millions and millions of dollars on charitable acts for the rest of my human life. God has blessed me with fantastic wealth. It’s more money than I will ever personally need.”
In case viewers didn’t get the message, the video then displayed a statement: “This is how the most famous man on earth exerts his influence. Despite all the attacks from his fiercest critics, he is the only one actively trying to change the world for the better.” So, nine months on, how is he doing?
As of yesterday, according to Tate’s website, he and his brother Tristan have donated “$12m+” in “14+” countries in collaboration with “20+” non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and changed the lives of “1,165,340+” people. The site carries details of 43 of the projects they have donated to, the most recent being on December 18, when they helped to provide winter clothes for Yemeni children. Other programmes include the installation of water pumps in African villages, the provision of school meals at orphanages in Somalia, and the handing out of clothes and food parcels in Syria, Gaza and Yemen. Some of these are also supported financially by the War Room, Tate’s online network that charges $8,000 to join.
Looking at these various programmes, it certainly appears that his donations are enabling charity workers to do valuable and much-needed work. There is, however, a catch: there is very little evidence of more than a million lives being changed, or of tens of millions of dollars being spent.
Fewer than 10 charities feature in the videos, and at least one is now defunct. The Tates’ most regular collaborator is Muslim Global Relief, a Manchester-based charity with an income of £3.4 million and three employees. Its deputy managing director Mohammed Bashir told me that Muslim Global Relief had conducted “16 to 20” projects with Tate-donated money this financial year — but that the total amount spent was “£30K at most”. Asked whether the Tate-funded projects were long-term or one-off events, Mr Bashir said: “One project at a time in different places.” The charity, he added, had made a policy decision to carry on taking money from the Tates, regardless of the charges they faced. However, if they were found guilty, Global Muslim Relief would sever all ties.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think the the word “alleged” should go before “philanthropy” most of the time the term is used. You can’t even trust Mother Theresa, if you can believe the late and great C. H.
Her beatification and canonisation would never have gone ahead if there had been anything in Hitchens’s purely commercial effusions.
Of the many, many millions she raised in donations, not one rupee was spent on alleviating the suffering of the poor dying patients on whose behalf she had ostensibly been raising funds.
They were told that their pain and misery was Godly and thus terminal cancer sufferers lay on mats on the floor with no palliative care beyond aspirin.
Some saint.
I ask this sincerely: Please point to one or more credible sources that documents these details. I accept that she was a “mixed bag”, but the level of indifference and absence of any real ministry to the poor that you suggest is indeed well toward the opposite end of sainthood, and not an uncontroversial or incontrovertible claim. So I’m requesting references or leads.
AJ,
I’d suggest the documentary “Hell’s Angel” and Christopher Hitchen’s book “Missionary Position” would be an eye-opener.
As to what constitutes “credible sources” I suppose that rather depends on your political outlook these days, so i will confine myself to criticism from more “progressive” sources:
In 1994 The Lancet reported that patients received “nothing close to the treatment that they needed to relieve their pain.”
Doctors called her hospitals “homes for the dying” since the mortality rate was very high and there was almost no palliative treatment. According to the testimony of two volunteer workers who left in disgust, the “patients” – Hindu, Sikh and Muslim – were baptised and converted to Christianity when they were on the point of dying and were unaware of what was happening.
Dr Jack Preger spent 40 years as a “street physician” in Calcutta and was horrified at the Missions. “The nuns were not delivering proper care,” … “Needles were washed in cold water and used over and over again. They were blunt.”
Even the NY Times was scathing, “Mother Teresa’s Missionary of Charity was one of the richest organizations in the world, yet the facility under her watch had used syringes rinsed with cold water, tuberculosis patients were not put in quarantine, and pain medicine was not prescribed.” The article also highlighted that during her time in Calcutta there were major floods that left several hundred thousand homeless. Not one penny of the millions under her control went to help those victims.
Mother Theresa responded to the criticisms thusly: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.”
With the many millions in donations she had raised (from some very dubious sources – Papa Doc Duvalier was a big fan), she could have built several state of the art hospitals and hospices. Instead the money went to the Vatican bank to be spent on lobbying against the relaxation of abortion laws around the globe.
That enough for you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/world/asia/mother-teresa-critic.html?smid=url-share
Please see this too. Dr Aroup Chatterjee – Mother Teresa- The Final Position
Thanks for the link, Sayantani, but I’m afraid the article is behind a paywall.
I subscribe to a wide variety of publications but there are a few I refuse to pay for. Alongside the Guardian, the NYT is very much on that list!
I am with you there – NYT, Wash Po and Guardian are on my ” avoid’lists too- NYT earlier had a free to read option limited to 3 articles per month- sorry for sending that link!
Here is a You Tube link with Aroup. https://youtu.be/tyRkws6RdgQ?si=TnU1fiJ9q7-yhTRW
Many thanks, will watch later.
Yup. I’ll look into several of those leads soon though not Hitchens, whose characterization of her mission, and vicious contempt for anything at all god-related I’ve heard enough of already.
I’m not confined to left-leaning sources, let alone decidedly progressive views (which I rarely share in full) but will avoid those that seem biased, like dogmatic atheist or an ultra-conservative anti-Catholic zealots (not intended for you). Thanks for the thorough and substantive follow-up.
*Follow-up: I read the Economist obituary you linked to and admit there’s some shocking points there. Christ in the form of hideous suffering; a bit too much like the self-flagellation of medieval monks or “saints” on pillars.
After further reading and viewing, I could grow more condemnatory after your example, but at present still consider her a “mixed bag”.
The millions under her control mightn’t have been well allocated or spent, but she didn’t use them on herself either. Her desire to transmit her love for Jesus should have been fortified by a better standard of medical care, but I think there was a level of (admittedly extreme and weird) sincerity in it too. Too much of the abstract and otherworldly Christ it seems, and not enough Jesus of Nazareth, with his open and outstretched hand
(Will continue to “investigate” but wanted to drop this note while the board might still get checked by some who don’t revisit exchanges for as long as I often do. Thanks again, Mr. Taylor).
Satan’s little buddy, Christopher Hitchins, an ironic name.
Thank you for that. I knew she had acted in some way against abortion.
As someone from Calcutta, who grew up in a city which morphed from being an imperial capital to being dubiously analysed in the light of the beatification of MT, I say that Chris Hitchens was absolutely spot on correct about her.
She inspired a kind of povertarianism that besmirched an entire city and took away attention from its genuine problems-( of which there were many) including a totalitarian Marxist state level Government.
Far more genuine work to help a city battered by India’s Partition( 1947), the Bangladesh saga of 1971 and the waves of migration which destroyed it’s civic infrastructure, were done by other philanthropic organisations.
But MT had a dubious agenda from start to finish. And the big bucks to purchase publicity.
Is the Marxism due to too many people attending university but not obtaining the jobs they consider they are entitled to due to their education? It appears to be that Marxism is an urban religion attractive to people with a grudge against their fellows and the universe. This is because the reality of their lives does not match their unrealistic expectations which is based upon their prolonged time spent in education. This in turn gives them the conceit they are intellectually and morally superior to others.
Marxists whether male or female, heterosexual or homosexual or any skin tone appear devoid of imagination, initiative, ingenuity , innovation and a sense of grace, elegance and refinement. They hve the ability to turn a palace into a slum.
What appears to be the case of MT is that she is the complete opposite of all the Roman Catholics who created hospitals to heal the sick. The oldest hospital in Britain is St Thomas’ which could date from 1106.
Did MT share some of the same characteristics as the Calcutta Marxists, the conceited belief in their intellectual and moral superiority ins spite of the visual evidence?
Maybe going off- topic here, apologies in advance for that.
Calcutta, as you may know was founded as a British city by Job Charnock in 1690. It was very much the early bridgehead of colonial modernity, and was where the fusion of East and West started, in spawning what was known as the Bengal Renaissance in the 19th century.
Lord Macaulay’s experiment of creating an Anglicised Westernised middle class by introducing Western education and English as a medium of instruction started here in 1835.
Consequently it’s fate was perhaps tied to decline as soon as the British left. In 1947 when millions of Hindu refugees poured in from newly created East Pakistan, without corresponding exchange of population to Pakistan, thanks to Nehru’s botched approaches, there were too many hopeless young men without jobs.
The Bengali Hindus lost their lands in Eastern parts which then became Pakistan ( including rich landowners reduced to poverty overnight)
Plus Nehru started a disastrous policy of taking away Calcutta’s colonial advantage of supremacy in tea, jute and heavy engineering, many of which were run by British firms( especially Scots owned).
The treatment of refugees was highly discriminatory too for they did not get the rehabilitation those from Punjab got in the North.
So, these displaced and badly treated refugees became the solid anti Congress votebank. In the 1960s ultra Left Maoist Marxism engulfed the city in mindless violence. You can read about Naxalism in Bengal easily on the Net. Here is one relatively unbiased link-
https://www.sahapedia.org/calcutta-1950s-and-1970s-what-made-it-hotbed-rebellions
Net result was that anti- Congress( Nehru’s dynastic party since 1950 particularly)feeling ran high and the Communists owning allegiance to Beijing came to power in 1977.
A sordid totalitarian regime. Which ruled for 34 years rigging elections etc
I grew up under it and can’t have any good words for it.
Your last point is very interesting – MT certainly had shades of superiority like the Marxists.. it was perhaps a symbiotic relationship.
She duped people like they did.
Being schooled in a Christian public school ethos I have nothing against genuine charity work. But she didn’t do that. Just a PR stunt and cheating millions of gullible Westerners.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for spending the time explaining Calcutta. I never understoood why Marxism became so dominant. The time lines coincide with the split between USSR and China in about 1956 who go on to create ” Third Worldism ” or Brown Communism as explained by pascal Bruckner.
What I find alarming is how poorly the history of India is explained since 1947 and also Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Britain. Basically post 1947 India is explained as that Nehru was wonderful and all the problems are due to the people who opposed him.
The apparent closeness of of Modi to Russia now makes mores sense. Do you think this is in part due to fear of internal threat from Muslims and external threat from China in both India and Russia?
You raise very pertinent points.
As a historian of India in general and of Calcutta in particular let me be honest, there has hardly been any non Marxist history of India written in India since 1947.
Nehru was a Socialist. His daughter Indira ruled with Communist support in the 1970s.Father and daughter ensured a stranglehold of Leftist historians dominating Indian academia.
The few dissenting voices like RC Mazumdar, KM Munshi etc were sidelined or castigated as ” imperial apologists” or ” Right wing’. Entirely unfair.
It’s sad that most of Western academia since the 1960s also fell to Leftist interpretations of Indian history.
Over the last few decades India has seen a resurgence of factual and narrative history. For anyone interested I would highly recommend Swapan Dasgupta, Venkat Dhulipala ( on the Pakistan movement) Dr Peter Robb and Ishita Bannerjee Dube ( a general narrative history)to understand Indian history from a relatively unbiased lens.
There are also good magazines available online- Open magazine at http://www.openthemagazine.com and Swarajya magazine at http://www.swarajyamag.com are two better sites.
Unfortunately most of what appears in Western MSM on India is through the same Leftist lens. I was startled to find this even on UH( other than Raquib Ehsan)- supposedly a non Leftist site. Wikipedia is fairly unreliable too on Indian history given its ideological moorings.
A proper and dispassionate biography of Nehru is yet to be written. What exists is mostly Left hagiography. On most other themes of Indian history the writers felicitated in the West are predominantly Leftist.
The topic of India- Russia at present has been dealt with extensively by many writers, especially SD Muni.It has its roots in the fact that Pakistan was a firm ally of the US since it’s creation and still is. The US still sells arms to Pakistan which are inevitably used against India. It has close ties with the Pakistani army and it’s intelligence.The US also props up pro-Pakistan elements in other South Asian countries like Bangladesh – where it actively supported the Jamiat Islami in recent elections. There has been lots of speculation that the IS- KP which triggered the Iran bomb blasts is an ISI ( Pakistani intelligence) funded one.
Narinder Singh Sarila has an interesting book on the geo- strategic aspects of Pakistan’s creation- The Shadow of the Great Game.
Strangely there is also a convergence between the US and China against India, which again makes India and Russia more natural allies( both have fought fierce border wars with China).
Thank you for the effort in writing your reply. Your commnts demonstrate the paucity of the coverage of India.
This is all far more interesting than the actual essay, its effort wasted on a tacky waste of skin like Tate. Thank you.
Unfortunately, there is very little coverage on India on UH where I could comment.
Thank you for your eloquent and detailed response.
According to her own writings, Mother Teresa experienced recurring doubts about her beliefs, and frantically searched for proof of God’s existence. I wonder if she became more fanatical in her outward actions and her depictions of Calcutta as a city filled with leprosy and poverty to somehow fill the perceived spiritual void and to assuage her own doubts? I have no proof of this, but compensation mechanisms are well documented behaviours in psychology, and it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Maybe. All I can say is that there was lot’s wrong with what she did, and to take down a city just to gain publicity for herself is not a Christian approach.
It’s exactly what the Marxists did- wail, whine and project an image of deprivation to suit their electoral causes.
Calcutta was propaganda – wise destroyed with this twin assault.
So you think all the money went into her cars and mansions? You surely must be kidding…You might also want to visit the nearest charity run by them in South London and see for yourself.
Not related to what the Tate brothers get up to, but I have no idea what makes Hitchens great as well as late.
CH did some good, but his attacks on LT was not one of them.
I prefer her to the “great” CH
‘The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.’ Albert Camus
In an attempt to rehabilitate her image Meghan Markle talked a lot about her (much publicised, yet undetectable) “activism and philanthropy”. Though perhaps we needed a new word to match the definition.
Philanthropist – a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.
Meghanthropist – a person who seeks to promote themselves, whilst taking vast donations to their own ‘foundation’, and merely talking about good causes.
Perhaps Andrew Tate’s version needs its own word too ..
Charitate? – Diverting money you might have spent on PR into buying column inches describing how worthy and entirely untoxic you are for supporting various causes – oh, and by the way I have 16 supercars and a $5million watch, or something
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wonder for Gates, does he fall into one of these 3 categories? or do we have create a new one?
Gatethropist – “business as usual” under the guise of charity, the paymaster calls the shots
I find the Tate phenomenon interesting so I’m glad to see some investigation of his charitable work. I just looked at one of those Little Hearts Foundation videos. Feeding orphan girls cakes with his name written all over them is somewhere between parody and perversion.
…and grooming.
It’s the sort of thing Alan Partridge would just love!
The world Cabals have decided men with testosterone and traditional masculinity are bad – they hate strong men and they want weak men – and they have gotten what they want.
Tate is part of a global attack because he tells young men to be Moral, work Hard, be the best they can be, do not do crime, be polite, but also workout, take noting, be a Man.
The globalists cannot abide this – thus the very suspect NGOs here know if they want those Soros $ they must toe the line. This writer is just part of the globalist machine. 99% of this article is agenda.
”is featured in a food distribution video in Lebanon with posters bearing the names of Andrew and Tristan Tate. Yet it claims it didn’t receive money from the brothers. The charity said: “Human Appeal has never received any donation from a Tristan or Andrew Tate. A member of the public in the UK donated in a legitimate manner and wished to dedicate his donation to the names Tristan and Andrew Tate. Like most charities, donors are permitted to dedicate their donations to third-party names of their own choosing.”
Sounds like Tate gave it and this guy is digging for issues he can attack with.
”A second donation of £12,000 was attempted to be made by the Tate Foundation in November 2023 to ‘Action For Humanity – Canada’. As a result of our due diligence procedures, we did not accept this donation.””
There is is, yet again – Soros and his WEF Ilk own the NGOs, who mostly are bad, not good forces – if you know the truth of them. Maybe the writer should check that – but no, he is after Tate, like the pack of baying wolves the ‘MSM’ is.
Now – the charges against Tate he lists? LIES – quote us the charges – you cannot as those charges are not real. Romania has charged Tate with TicToc videos is all, as Russel Brand has been ”charged’ as a means to destroy him as he fights agenda of making people and society weak – and tries to make it strong instead.
This article is ‘The truth about Andrew Tate’s charity workHis alleged philanthropy isn’t all it seems’ and yet is all lies and not the truth. It is cherry-picking and distortion to promote a global agenda attacking Masculinity.
I would recommend you watch Tate being interviewed by Tucker Carlson.
Yes, Tate is deeply flawed – yet also admirable. I am an Alpha Male kind – and despair at the de-masculising, emasculating, of men which is the prime drive today. Destroy Men AND Women AND Family – that is the agenda of the globalists and the sort who conduct the campaign such as this.
The postmodernist Liberals want your young men cutting off their parts and doing drag shows for children and fighting ‘Toxic Masculinity’ which is really Human Masculinity – as they attack Femininity. They hate humans and want them sterile and sheep like, they want psychologically weak, confused, self loathing, and eunuchs. Tate resists this – and so this sort of media to attack him.
Well what a surprise. Tate grifting and mugging off his supposed followers again.
Usually there is some comment maker here who steps in and defends him as a champion of downtrodden masculinity, or similar such tripe, thereby demonstrating there’s one born everyday.
Yes I defend him. I am a Man – I defend Masculinity as I defend Femininity and Family.
We need all voices against the Post-modernist troony, testosterone free un-masculine males, un-feminin females – that make for twisted and confused young.
The Education system and what it does to the young boys and girls – That is the evil. That is the sickness. Maybe this guy can write about that – but no – the sickness they promote is part of the correct agenda.
Tate (listen to him, not the smarmy voices like the one writing this) has a message and it is for young men to be: Hard Working – his main point is to outwork everyone – YOU decide your success by how you work. Study, do NOT break the law, do Not do drugs, Work Out, be Polite, when married be 100% faithful and raise the best children you can, devote your life to your family above all else. You are a Man – act like it. Take nothing from anyone who is disrespecting or taking from you.
“This is how the most famous man on earth exerts his influence. Despite all the attacks from his fiercest critics, he is the only one actively trying to change the world for the better.”
In what version of the world would this come from, or be endorsed by, a sincerely charitable actor, let alone the only person “actively” doing all the good works for which he praises himself?
Clearly: we all do not have the insight required to make a definite judgement. However, I do not see this caveat being mentioned anywhere in the text. I would appreciate investigation into global philanthropy trends that can affect us all (positive and negative), such as the Effective Altruism 2.0 movement rather than sort of a “witch hunt” after a single person about we all do not know enough.
Don’t you think Tate has earned this level of scrutiny, and brought a lot of it on himself, in an unforced way?
So if a person says something contradicting established opinions they automatically sign up to get them “scrutinized”? Isn’t that what killed Giordano Bruno and ultimately silenced Galileo Galilei? In a democracy we leave the investigation of individuals with the judicial branch. Even if we are of a complete contrary opinion or morale codex.
I wouldn’t class Tates alleged crimes as something as trivial as contradicting established opinions
I think he’s a self-important jackass, to put it mildly. The mention of Bruno and Galileo is way off the mark, and not even a sober comparison.
Even so, while his brand of eff-you machismo would certainly continue to earn him enemies and scrutiny given his popularity, he’d be relatively untouchable if it weren’t for his exploitative porn webcam empire.
I’m surprised that you seem to admire this guy. If you are calling for us to withhold judgment until the case against his character and conduct are more blatant, that’s another thing, one that would make more sense to me.
Perhaps some do know enough, just not you.
Secret Evidence is always such a thing. Look at all the people in Russia (or in the former eastern Germany) accused based on secret evidence. Why do we criticize these countries (or better dispise their governments) if on the other hand we welcome accusations based on secret evidence if it fits our moral compass? Or, look at the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We almost destroyed a whole country based on secret evidence.
The desiccated husk occasionally occupying the White House has taken millions in bribes from foreign adversaries and secreted them away into 20 shell companies for decades. His degenerate son sells laughable daubs to influence bribers for half a million per because his only other job as his father’s bag man has run its course.
The former speaker of the house doesn’t even bother to deny she makes millions from insider trading, as do most of her senate colleagues.
Innocent protesters have been imprisoned without trial for exercising their civil rights, and the man they supported is being illegally kept off the 2024 presidential ballot, whilst the United States plummets into Third World tyranny.
And Mr. Investigative Journalist is giving us a little story about a weirdo no one gives two f*cks about. Yep, that’s 2024 for you.
Exactly. Tate lay well be low hanging fruit. There is a forest of faux NGO’s dripping with the poisoned fruit of their sociopath founders.
Investigative journalists are allowed to discuss and write articles about more than one subject at a time you realise?
Sure. And I can offer my opinion of his effort here. That’s what the comment section is for.
You can prove all of that, right? Just like you can prove the 2020 election was stolen from Trump?
I’ll wait…
Exactly.
That’s a load of rubbish.
Andrew Tate is trash. Islam is pure evil. They are made for each other.
I’m sure that in Tate’s mind, human trafficking can be turned into religious practice by converting to Islam. After all, multiple wives …. dehumanizing women …. grooming …. buying the people around you. … all in the name of Allah.
He’s right about one thing though.
“especially in the Islamic World, because that’s where war is”
Well said.
My thoughts exactly when I read that the vile Tate brothers had joined Islam. They are indeed made for each other.
Baaaaa, Baaaaa….
This all smells like terror financing to me! next thing, he will be smuggling guns hidden under warm blankets
So Tate’s charity, like those of nearly every charity/ngo worldwide, is a scam. Tate is a great target: sleazy, involved in dubious, possible sex trade. But he’s a mere sideshow to the Clinton, Soros, Gates, Pritzker, the zillion faux “green” charity scams.
His snarl-faced hypocrisy ain’t helping his cause, nor the needy people he exploits to promote his purported high moral purpose.
Do you admire this guy? Fair point to some extent on charitable scams more generally, but why does this criticism seem to upset you more? I’ve been critical and skeptical of Bill Gates. But Is Gates a violent pornographer and is his charitable activity as hollow and self-promotional as Tate’s?
Maybe not a pornographer but his ex-wife became that way in part to distance herself form his Epstein connection.
A major stretch of so-called “whataboutism”.
This smashing of everyone into a mean gruel–where all are considered equally dirty* and thought-tribe partisanship cynicism reigns supreme–is a real problem.
*or the fact that none are without some blame or blemish means all get thrown in the pot with the most rotten
So not true.
This is what I thought. With the level of corruption going on on the world, why would a journalist bother to spend so much time on somebody who is basically famous for saying some unfashionable things about women. Their hatred of him is bizarre.
Like many: He sought the spotlight, derived huge fame and wealth from it, and now claims injustice when the lens can’t be tinted far enough in his favor.
Your blind defense of him is more bizarre than their hatred. What is good about him? Is unfashionability–or sticking it to the “libtard-femnazis”–some admirable project that requires his smug mug in order to prosper?
All philanthropy is a scam – the Gates Foundation dwarfs the Tate Foundation by an order of magnitude in this respect.
And the bias of this journalist against Tate means all the claims he follows up with should be treated with an appropriate degree of suspicion:
“There was no mention of the charges against him, which include sexual exploitation, rape and forming an organised crime group. Nor did he highlight the porn sites, manosphere networks and get-rich-schemes that helped to bolster his fame”
Anyone who followed the case in Romania knows that the charges were bogus; Tate is a free man precisely because of this. As for porn sites, is the left-leaning journalist using this reference to suggest these sites are sinful? Is that what the left now believes? Or is it just a sideswipe dig to puff out this obvious hitpiece.
At last we have a true Tate fan here to defend his hero!
I wonder how much Graham has spent on Tate videos learning all about how to make money and get women? I guarantee its a lot! Wonder how that worked out!
So not true.
It must be pretty upsetting for Unherd readers to see one of the intellectual leaders of the conservative “movement” being criticized like this.
Tate. Trump. Tucker Carlson. Boris Johnson. Quite the lineup you guys have….
Burke, Scruton, Chesterton, arguably every philosopher before French Enlightenment Rationalists like Descartes. Your ‘lineup’ tells all we need to know about your understanding of your political ‘enemies’.
Also Oakeshott, Nozick, Hume and arguably Rand. (Some of her ideas a bit out there though)
However, CS is not on here to have an intellectual debate and I doubt he / she / it has even heard of most of these thinkers, even on the left. Would probably not understand them anyway. Only on here to goad, troll and insult. Not a serious contributor.
I say all this as a fairly undogmatic person and one who detests Tate, Trump, Bannon, Owen Jones and Corbyn equally.
And then the postmodernist left has heroes like the diddlers Foucault and Derrida. Truly political titans.
Matthew 6, verses 5-8.
Why not share the article with its subjects ahead of publication to allow an opportunity to gauge its veracity?
Is the rise of A Tate and men like him because young men in deprived areas have no role models such J P R Williams FRCS, rugby player and surgeon
JPR Williams: a rugby union great who changed full-back role (youtube.com)
British medical schools have a history of producing good rugby players.
Imperial Medicals Rugby Club – Wikipedia
and
Christian Craighead CGC
SAS Operator Christian Craighead (Obi Wan Nairobi) (youtube.com)
Young men in deprived either see educated men who are weak or tough men who are coarse, crude and ignorant. If one has reputation for being tough one is less likely to be attacked; whereas if one is educated and weak, one will be attacked.
Simple solution; bring back boxing, rugby and cadet forces, run by tough men. The Devil provides mischief for idle hands. One and half hours of physical training to the point of collapse, six days a week means young men will not have the energy to make trouble. The development of oxygen rich bodies, serotonin, dopamine, testosterone and endorphins will produce happy and contented young men.
As Orwell pointed out British Left Wing Middle class Intellectuals despise patriotism, physical courage and British Culture and these people have dominated the Civil Service, Education, Academia, Media, Teaching, The Law , Politics and public opinion on social issues since the late 1960s and been influential since the late 1930s. Comprehensive schools removed cadet forces rugby and boxing from the curriculum from the mid 1960s onwards.
He is a modern. He appears less as a p-mp than as a facilitator. There he’s the mirror of the self-employed OnlyFans girls but he got there first in breathing the p-rn industry at its own game.
I would be beyond horrified if my daughter brought someone like this thug home. On the other hand, she’s nearly 30 so probably much too old for his taste.