The ban of Andrew Tate, is it damage control? or infringement of freedom of speech?

Emory Andrew Tate the third, better known as "Top G" by his followers, is a kickboxing

champion, lifestyle guru, multimillionaire, and the founder of "Hustlers University". He is

highly associated with the MGTOW movement, and due to his blunt statements and opinions, he has been banned from Facebook and Instagram.

This ban happened as an attempt to stop the spread of his seemingly radical and blatantly

misogynistic opinions on women, saying things like "I own my girl" and "I can sleep with

other women and still be loyal, but if my girl looks at another man that's cheating" and a

plethora of other things. What most people neglected was that he never posted his own

content on social media. Andrew simply went on podcasts and streams, and then let his

followers do the rest of the work. His content is clipped and shared by random people and

pages on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. Andrew's audience consists mostly of impressionable young men, the abandoned generation who's starving for a father figure and for someone to "guide" them. His content isn't solely focused on women, he also talked about the importance of persistence and not giving up. He made content about martial arts and the gym. One of his most famous quotes regarding the subject, which was later quoted by Dwayne The Rock Johnson, is "The man who goes to the gym every single day regardless of how he feels will always beat the man who goes to the gym when he feels like going to the gym."

Since he makes sense when he talks about the gym, life, work, and money, he must make

sense when talking about women, right? That's exactly what his followers think. But I don't

blame them, I blame their fathers for raising boys with a mind so weak that anyone with a

molecule of charisma and fast-paced speech can influence them. There will always be an

Andrew Tate, Charles Manson, an Isis recruiter... The problem is not evil men with

silver tongues, charisma, and a decent knowledge of psychology, the problem is weak-minded individuals that are dying for a father figure. The villain of this story is not one individual, but rather the collective idiots. Even Hitler wouldn't have started a genocide if he wasn't surrounded by impressionable sheep-like men.

A question poses itself, is this an infringement on freedom of speech? The ban of a

controversial high-profile person from social media platforms is not a novelty, it had

happened before with Donald Trump. Banning people just because they say things we

disagree with is not the solution, it's counterintuitive considering human nature. Society is a teenage kid, the more you take something from them the more they want it. Since most of

his audience falls in that category of impressionable teenagers, this ban will only worsen

things.

Andrew Tate is the direct result of an abandoned generation, a generation that just wants to

be seen. My dear readers, be good fathers, be good mothers. If you don't, your kid might be

lucky to idolize men like Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willick, David Goggins... And if luck is not

on his side then he will end up being a radical follower of the likes of Andrew Tate, Fresh and Fit, and others like them. The ultimate solution for this dilemma and many societal issues is to raise good, morally oriented strong men, otherwise, history will keep repeating itself. This time we were lucky to have Andrew Tate and not another Hitler.

With that, I leave you to ponder these questions: Is Andrew Tate a savior like he claims? Or is he just another con man? Was banning him a good decision? Or is it an infringement on

freedom of speech?

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All