Your personal feelings for the guy don't change the facts that he has a huge following of young men that are seeing his message, a message that goes against the Globalists tactics for achieving dominence over the people by feminising the men. And that's why he's locked up right now.

Your problem is that you put feelings over facts simply because you don't like the facts.

I also think you're flat out wrong at a basic level if you have your eyes open for even a second. Older "masculine blokes" are usually happy to go with the status quo and comply. Younger what you would call "effeminate" people are more likely to confront systems of power.

And even if you were right - whtmat are these macho men going to do if those in power really do take control? Threaten to give them a good hiding? That'll scare 'em!!

Truth is even in America where half the population is armed, trying to stand up to the government or military would be like firing a peashooter at a freight train. Gruff hairy men' s men with a scowl is the illusion of power. There's no real power in it.

Alf your problem is that you put online fiction over fact, let alone feelings. Andrew Tate is not a freedom fighter and his message does not create strong men, it creates some of the weakest boys I've ever encountered. Frustrated, lonely and completely at the mercy of their feelings of being outcast and rejected. They're dangerous, but not to the government.

The fact that you see Andrew Tate as your main danger over the clients of Epstein and Maxwell or the people about to start WWW III tells me that you're way off.

I don't see him as the "main" danger in the world and have never even vaguely suggested that I do. I see him personally as a danger to the women he encounters, and the mindset he encourages to be a danger to pretty much everyone in the long run. Other things also being concerning doesn't negate that concern? If we're talking individuals, for example, I think Elon Musk is ultimately far more dangerous than Tate. What difference does that make? I think lions are more dangerous than pitbulls but I still wouldn't trust a pit bull with my kids.

I'm definitely not a fan of Tate, no siree, I'm just concerned about the judicial process in Romania :laugh:

No Charge


Pathetic Police there

The tates are a dream come true for the Romanian justice system. Look, it's american/uk citizens that are abusing our women, our people would never do such a thing ... no, no, no

I mean it's kind of funny because as TS pointed out already that Tate has said that the reason he moved there was because of their sketchy police/justice system, he was more than happy to take advantage of that when it enabled him to do underhand stuff but he never stopped to think that he might end up being the "victim" of it... if I believed in karma that would be it.....

I hope you're not suggesting I'm a fan of his. The guy is a prick. He talks complete and utter bollocks and boasts about his wealth and how great he thinks he is.

That said, he's obviously getting this treatment because he's a threat to the regime. Anyone in the know can see that a mile off.

Your hopes have been realised. I am not suggesting you are a fan of his.

In what way is he any sort of "a threat to the regime". You've repeated this claim dozens of times in these threads but can you actually say in what way he's any sort of significant threat to anyone in power? Or have you just read other people saying that he is?

Because to be clear; I too have seen countless people saying the same thing, but still not one good argument for wat makes him a realistic threat to systems of power. Just "Source: Trust me bro. Matrix got him."

I mean gosh... if anything the man is a Five Star General in the culture wars - which you (much more accurately) also have pointed out is exactly what people in power want going on as a distraction. One minute you're saying Tate is a deliberate red herring/a distraction, the next you're saying he's being "Assanged" to get rid of him.

Why are they cancelling their own red herring?

Did I not tell you how yesterday?

I mentioned that the regime wants men feminised while his message to his large following is to promote masculinity. So he has to be stopped.

Same happened to Tommy Robinson when his message to his large following went against the regime.

Or Alex Belfield.

Because masculine men are going to do ... what ... to systems of power?

What have masculine men done to systems of power throughout history?

Propped them up for the mostpart Alf. Enforced them both physically and socially.

What a feminine men gonna do against systems of power?

I don't really think I can answer the question other than saying that the ability to question and oppose systems of power has absolutely nothing to do with sex or gender.

Even putting that aside - are you genuinely claiming that Tate's brand of masculinity is teaching young men how to oppose systems of power? It's all about control of women and owning shiny cars. Not one word of it has anything to do with government control, other than the Redpill "matrix" nonsense he started spaffing around a couple of months ago. All of which - every single word - he took from forums and groups that have existed for over a decade. He's said nothing new. Literally not one thing.

Really though "Gym bro pick up artists are going to take down the government" is one of the more interesting fan faction ideas I've heard recently. We'll file it under "high fantasy" at the library though.

No, I'm simply saying that the regime whom wants to feminise men, see that Tate has a large following of young, impressionable men and he's preaching to them to be masculine and the regime doesn't want that. So they use their powers to shut him down. That is basically what I'm saying. I don't claim I'm right, it's just what I think.

What do you mean, by saying the regime wants to feminise men? Who does, and how?

Well kids have been getting taught for years now that masculinity is toxic. And then there's the rise of the new religion of LGBTQ+ which has its flags all over every city. Has its own month or two. Is heavily promoted inside popular culture and now in Schools. So who would be the ones pushing this. The ones putting their money behind it.

Tate doesn't preach masculinity he preaches abuse, a sad and underfoot brand of "poor oppressed little me!" masculinity that is indeed toxic. Not all masculinity is toxic, that's never what the phrase has meant, there's just a brand of it that is and that's exactly the type Tate pushed on young minds. It's not strength though, he pushes a mindset that makes these boys feel anything but strong. It makes them feel weak, frustrated and angry and they then take that out on others.

As for your theory about LGBTQ being promoted to diminish masculinity - that doesn't work either, because currently more than 75% of trans people, especially young trans people, are female to male not male to female. It's actual biological females, pumping themselves full of testosterone to make themselves MORE masculine. And testosterone is much more effective than Male to Female hormones.

If the plan is to make everyone "less masculine" it's not going very well if large numbers of females are literally turning themselves into men is it?

My point wasn't if it was going well or not. My point is that they're locking Tate up because they need to silence him.