Softening up conservatives in preparation for the anything-goes sexual agenda.
Some of you may remember 'conservative' gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos, who blew up in 2016 and became a regular fixture on the talk show circuit. Despite his campy shtick, Yiannopoulos quickly became a favorite of the right, telling them all the things they wanted to hear.
Despite being gay, he said homosexuals should get back in the closet. He lambasted feminism and lesbians. He portended to be Catholic and vehemently railed against Islam.
His star soared higher and higher. He scored a lucrative book deal with Simon and Schuster, with a reported advance of US $255,000.
Like Andrew Tate and Steve Kirsch, Yiannopoulos considered himself a really smart guy - and he wanted everyone to know it.
Problem was, like Tate and Kirsch, Yiannopoulos was nowhere near as smart as he believed himself to be.
The first draft of his manuscript was returned with a barrage of criticism.
“Throughout the book, your best points seem to be lost in a sea of self-aggrandizement and scattershot thinking,” wrote editor Michael Ives.
“Careful that the egotistical boasting that your young audience finds humorous doesn’t make you seem juvenile to other readers.”
When an inflated self-view combines with an endless parade of gushing admirers, celebrities start to get overconfident. They start to think they can do no wrong. They start publicly doing and saying things they really shouldn't.
During an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher alongside comedian Larry Wilmore and commentator Malcolm Nance, both African-American, Yiannopoulos told Maher he needed to get “higher IQ guests.”
In October 2017, during an Australian radio station interview, Yiannopoulos called thousands of Syrian refugees “rapists.” When told they were Christian, the anti-Islam commentator quickly backtracked on his comments.
But the final straw came when Yiannopoulos started defending sex with very young teens.
Appearing on the Joe Rogan show, Yiannopoulos nonchalantly defended sex between adult men and underage boys. He admitted to being sexually abused by a priest when he was a child. Rather than lament the abuse, the so-called conservative thanked the priest. “I’m grateful for Father Michael,” he said. “I wouldn’t give nearly such good [oral sex] if it wasn’t for him.”
He defended pedophilia as a way for young boys to “discover who they are.”
When Rogan objected that sex with boys was not okay, Yiannopoulos accused him of using “feminist” arguments. The inference being that true conservative men shouldn’t have a problem with adults molesting teens; if they did, they were woke feminist simps.
In a follow-up interview on the Drunken Peasants, Yiannopoulos tried to justify his comments, but simply dug a deeper hole for himself.
Yiannopoulos wasn’t recommending sex with young children, you see. "We're talking 13 [with] 25, 13 [with] 28, preferably consensual," as if sex between men in their mid-twenties and boys barely in their teens was perfectly okay. His nonchalant addition of "consent" as a preferable but not essential component of such encounters suggested he was okay, not just with pederasty, but non-consensual sex - also known as rape.
No to mention that ‘consent’ is an irrelevant - and legally invalid - concept when applied to sexual relationship between adults and much younger minors.
After his defense of pedophilia, things quickly unraveled for the self-adoring Yiannopoulos. His book deal was canned; an attempt to sue Simon and Schuster was unsuccessful, although he reportedly got to keep $80,000 they'd already advanced him.
An invitation to deliver the keynote address at the February 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC, was promptly withdrawn.
Yiannopoulos resigned from his role as tech editor at 'alt-right' publication Brietbart. While Breitbart initially stood by him, other disgusted staff members issued an ultimatum that if the proud hebephile didn't leave, they would.
Yiannopoulos remained unrepentant.
“We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff,” he said, calling the idea of consent between two partners “arbitrary and oppressive.”
When was asked if he was defending pedophilia, Yiannopoulos - who constantly boasted of his alleged high intelligence - said he did not know the meaning of the word.
“Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”
In strict semantic terms, he's correct. The precise term for an adult who molests a 13 year old is hebephile. None of which changes the fact that the adult is a deviant targeting a far younger person barely into their teens and still in their physically and mentally formative years.
Pedo or hebo, the fact remained Milo Yiannopoulos was what any rational person would quickly identify as an unrepentant sexual deviant.
As the ego-feeding fame quickly evaporated, Yiannopoulos was left with only one choice if he had any hope of remaining relevant:
Repent.
Yiannopoulos took to Facebook, claiming: “I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a coordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.”
No-one believed him.
In a bizarre 2020 turn of events, Yiannopoulos claimed he had undergone "conversion therapy" and was now "un-gay." The fact that Yiannopoulos was married to another man did little to bolster his new claim, so the flamboyant activist claimed he had "demoted" his black husband to "room-mate" status.
To sum up: A proud hebephile - a guy who thinks there is nothing wrong with adults having sex with 13 year olds, with “consent” being a preferable but not essential prerequisite - was able to worm his way to the top of the alt-right influencer tree.
A similar process appears to be repeating itself with Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate: By His Own Definition, Very Gay
Like Yiannopoulos, Andrew Tate is an arrogant, narcissistic exhibitionist whose egotistical boasting resonates with his predominantly young audience.
The script for Tate, however, has been fine-tuned. Instead of being flamboyantly gay, the mixed-race but Caucasian-looking Tate has co-opted rap music's in-your-face machismo, with its degenerate, bling-laden, high roller, "bitches and hoes" shtick.
The sexual deviancy agenda is still present, with the thirty-something Tate repeatedly boasting of having sex with teenagers. Unlike the foot-shooting Yiannopoulos, however, Tate's boasts involve barely-legal teenage girls, rather than underage teenage boys.
Tate is presented as a misogynistic ladies man, the messiah who's going to put the "man" back into manhood. He boasts of possessing a harem comprised of "top bitches, middle bitches, bottom bitches," and implores men to embrace the "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" approach to male-female relationships. In Tate's hedonistic world view, the place of a woman - or should I say barely legal teenage girl - is either in the kitchen or sprawled semi-naked over a European supercar.
As comedian Jimmy Carr stated quite seriously, Andrew Tate is what a fourteen year old boy thinks masculinity looks like. Tate's gospel is a scene from a teenage masturbation session, being presented to the world as male liberation.
Tate has a lot of people fooled, but to those of us who've been paying attention in life and have become adept at identifying overcompensatory behavior, Tate's antics don't just raise red flags - they set off screeching alarms.
Confident, self-assured people don't need to shove their alleged success in your face.
A true Alpha male doesn't repeatedly tell you what a tough guy he is.
He doesn't brag incessantly about his alleged sexual conquests, and he doesn't incessantly boast about his collection of overpriced exotic cars.
He doesn't constantly tell you how smart he is.
And he sure as heck doesn't post YouTube videos insisting he has a big shlong.
Those behaviors are all hallmarks of a try-hard, a hopelessly shallow and insecure person desperate for validation.
But the Tate story doesn't begin and end with extreme douchebag exhibitionism.
Witness the exhaustive effort to present as a "ladies man." The overcompensatory machismo, coupled with a constant stream of photos showing him spread-legged in tight apparel and over-the-top Liberace-style jackets - the kind of imagery traditionally targeted at gay male audiences rather than heterosexual females.
A common feature of psy-ops is that the truth is often hiding in plain sight. The Masonic numerology and symbolism. The cryptic clues, such as being arrested for human trafficking shortly after tweeting a fellow globalist shill whose first name is also the pseudonym of Europe's primary human trafficking monitor.
And now the repeated cryptic mentions of homosexual behaviour.
Listen Carefully, Andrew’s Telling Us Something
In early 2023, Tate posted the following hypothetical question to his followers:
"Would you rather have sex with a transsexual who is a legitimate 10, or a woman, which is a legitimate 1?"
Note the clever, transgender agenda-affirming word play. A transsexual - a biological male presenting as a woman - is described not only as "legitimate," but a "10" - the epitome of physical attractiveness.
A biological woman, meanwhile, is presented as a "1" - the lowest possible rank of attractiveness.
Tate posted a follow-up video, in which he ridiculed every reader that answered “woman.”
These silly readers didn’t understand the question, declared Tate, because he was so much smarter than everyone else, on so many levels.
The self-proclaimed genius then set about doing a Milo Yiannopoulos, digging an even deeper hole for himself.
The real question, said Tate, was would you prefer to have sex with “Megan Fox with a dick” or “Hulk Hogan with a pussy”?
“That’s the question I’m asking,” continued the insane one, “Megan Fox, or Hulk Hogan?”
If you’re a non-weird heterosexual, there’s only one obvious answer to that question:
Neither.
In my nearly six decades on this planet, and in all my travels, I’ve never been presented with such a choice. Neither has anyone in my social circle.
I’ve also yet to see a woman who looks like Hulk Hogan. That I gotta see. Preferably from a distance.
In other words, Tate’s hypothetical question was absurd and irrelevant.
The only real question is ... why was he even asking the question?
The answer comes toward the end of that clip, when he says:
"What is straight, what is gay? It's all a big sliding spectrum, isn't it?"
"If you're going to sit there and go, 'no, no, it's gay to bang Megan Fox with a dick', I counter that argument - it's gay to bang Hulk Hogan with a pussy."
"So which one is it?"
Again, to any red-blooded individual whose sexual predilections are confined to the opposite sex, the answer is straightforward: Neither.
No-one is forcing you to choose between “Megan Fox with a dick” or “Hulk Hogan with a pussy.”
It’s a false dichotomy.
So why does Tate present this false dichotomy, this irrelevant hypothetical, as if choosing between these two aberrations is an inevitable choice in life?
Why does he issue an ultimatum (“So which one is it?”) for a choice anyone who stays away from Diddy-style parties will never have to make?
The reason is because Tate, or more precisely his handlers, are grooming us. They’re trying to get us to accept greatly blurred sexual boundaries, to usher in their non-reproductive, deviant New World Order where transsexualism is exalted and pedophilia normalized and legalized. If that all sounds a bit outlandish, I suggest you read this article where I detail how the UN is diligently working to do just that.
It’s not hard to define gay and straight. If you’re a biological male who is only attracted to and only has sex with biological females, or vice versa, you’re a heterosexual. If you are only attracted to and only have sex with the same gender, you’re homosexual.
If you swing both ways, you’re bisexual.
It’s not rocket science. But Tate and his handlers are deliberately blurring and complicating the issue, in an attempt to surreptitiously remove the boundaries. They want to normalize sexual behaviors that people with boundaries have no interest in adopting. They want to bring homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia under the same banner as heterosexuality.
They want to create a world where perversion and deviancy become the norm - not just on porn sites or Hollyweird parties - but in everyday life.
This is why thirty-something Andrew Tate - the ideal Alpha male in the eyes of his millions of gullible followers - repeatedly boasts to his young audiences of sex with barely legal teenage girls, and gets their minds working on the question of whether they should have sex with “Megan Fox with a dick” or “Hulk Hogan with a pussy.”
It’s surreptitious mind conditioning, disguised as harmless social media banter.
Dear Lord, Protect Andrew From the Temptation of Crack
In July last year, the eminently unholy Tate posted the following tweet:
It seems Tate was struggling with addiction issues, and was pleading for divine help.
But just what addiction was he grappling with?
Brother Tristan chimed in with a clue, in the form of a correction:
The implication of Tristan’s tweet didn’t go unnoticed by other users.
Just a bit of misguided humor between brothers, thou doth protest?
Then consider a bizarre tweet in April of this year, in which Tate declared heterosexual sex should be for making babies only, and that any man who has sex with a women for enjoyment is gay.
He also claimed that anyone who hits 40 with less than 5 children is gay.
Tate was claiming men who enjoy sex with women are in fact men who enjoy sex with men.
Got that?
Meanwhile, those who engage in passionless intercourse with women purely to create genetic offspring are the real heterosexuals. You know, just like all those gay politicians and celebrities who have sham marriages in order to create children and the fake appearance of a heterosexual family life.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people lambasted Tate’s insane tweet. His comment was so inherently absurd, so utterly ridiculous, that no remotely intelligent person could even begin to take it seriously.
The only way for intelligent people to interpret his statement was as a thinly-veiled coming out statement.
Tate, the popular influencer admired by millions of terribly gullible people, was dramatically loosening up the boundaries of what it meant to be gay.
Was this to quell the inner voice inside, reminding him of what an egregious fraud he was?
Was it so that, should he ever be outed, he could point out if he were gay, so were all the men who enjoyed sex with women and all the men over 40 with less than four kids? What’s the big deal, right? They stick it in a vagina, he sticks it in a bloke’s poop chute, but at the end of the day we’re all gay, right?
Wrong.
As an idiot who has gone to great lengths to portray himself as the player of all players, and as a man nearing 40 with no children (after-the-fact photos with unnamed, blurred-face children constitute exactly zero proof of fatherhood), Tate was basically declaring himself to be gay.
Thanks for letting us know, Andrew, a lot of things have suddenly become much clearer now.
Wakey, Wakey, It’s Another Fakey
The Tate brothers stink of psy-oppery. They also reek of hypocrisy. Andrew Tate is giving off more gay energy than the Sydney Mardi Gras.
If you’ve been following the Diddy story, you’ll know there have been reports from surprised attendees of his infamous white parties, shocked at the sight of big-name rappers engaging in homosexual activities.
For those objecting that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, don’t be so disingenuous. You know damn well this is not an attack on homosexual folks.
It’s an attack on deceit and hypocrisy. It’s an attack on the smoke-and-mirrors world of the Globalist parasite and pederast class, who control and manipulate others by entrapping them in embarrassing sexual situations, forever ensuring their subservience.
What eventuates of the Tate story remains to be seen. Are his current legal problems the result of being cut loose because he’s become a loud-mouthed liability who’s giving the game away?
Were he and his brother fooled into brazenly boasting about their web cam scamming and human trafficking, even proudly boasting that they controlled the girls’ accounts and seized their passports, because otherwise “they will run away”?
Was this the material that would allow their handlers to discard them once they had served their purpose and/or become a liability?
If that’s the case, they delivered their own conviction via YouTube, without the need for a single wiretap.
As I detailed last week, the Tates are not who we’ve been led to believe they are.
Leave a Reply