Sex Workers Don't Claim Bonnie Blue

Bedding 1057 men is one thing, but getting into bed with Andrew Tate is quite another.

Jun 27, 2025

It’s the cultural crossover of the decade. The final boss of rage bait. The epitome of end times. The three horsemen of the apocalypse (if you count the gawping host). The Bonnie Blue vs Andrew Tate interview: a two-and-a-half-hour-long nightmare blunt rotation, chewing the vacuous, mind-numbing, recklessly damaging fat for clout - except it’s so much worse than that. I watched it so you don’t have to, but I won’t be sparing you the details.

Before we get into it, let me first answer the obvious question; “why should we care?”. I get it. Why care? Shouldn’t we just ignore this altogether? Starve it of the airtime, hope it goes away, and leave our minds untainted by these wretched figureheads of depravity? Aren’t we all better off abandoning them at the kid’s table and fucking off for a cigarette? Can’t we all just keep our heads down and all get on with our own shit, hoping that eventually they get the hint and disappear?

Well, short answer, no.

“A survey conducted in April 2025 in Great Britain found that 78 percent of men in Great Britain had heard of controversial influencer Andrew Tate, while 12 percent held a positive opinion of him. In October 2024, Tate's popularity peaked among men in Great Britain, reaching 30 percent. Overall awareness of Tate peaked in January 2025.”

Tate’s influence over the past few years has doubled. Things have gotten worse. Trump is back in office. Keir Starmer has been raw-dogging Britain with his wishy-washy, fascist-leaning views. Nigel Farage is growing in popularity. The divide between men and women grows larger every day. This video, which we all want to ignore, has garnered over 2.5 million views, with 71,000 upvotes. Ask yourself, are we happy leaving 12% of our male population in the hands of this man? Are we happy for that to continue increasing, and in fact not going away, as we’d hoped? Are we happy letting Bonnie Blue be the spokesperson for all sex workers? For all women? Should the rest of us remain silent while these two lunatics take the mic? Or, is it perhaps a little more in our interests to at least know thine enemy?

All I feel like I see these days are reasons to hate men, and to not engage them. Women are sick of men, and they want men to work their own shit out amongst themselves. I don’t blame them, for obvious reasons - I’ve met men - but this behaviour results in people like Tate being platformed, because he’s the only one bothering to actually address men. If we have a world of reasonable, level-headed people ignoring men because they just can’t be arsed any more, the only direction for those men to turn is towards someone who speaks to their anger and validates them. Someone who promises them something better. Someone like Andrew Tate.

I’ve sat through this video twice now, along with a few other videos Bonnie or Tate appear in, to gain a sense of why this crossover even occurred, what it’s for, why we should worry about it, and how we should tackle it. It’s long, it’s laborious, and it’s an affront to my intelligence, and nobody asked me to do it; but it’s important. It’s important to the sex work community, it’s important to women on a wider scale, and it’s important for the future of men in not only this country, but worldwide. Not talking about it will allow it to fester and continue growing, like a weed, like cancer; and I worry in a few years time, we’ll have to do a lot more than just talk about it. So, I ask of you - grit your teeth, clear your schedule, and buckle in. Unfortunately, for all of us, it matters.

We kick off with the host, Rob, asking Tate what he thinks of Bonnie’s “1057 men in a day” challenge. It’s straight into the juicy, manly steak the testosterone-fuelled-audience is craving: they’re raring to go, expectant of Tate to really hammer home what a nasty piece of work (to put it lightly) Bonnie is for doing what she’s doing. Instead, Andrew takes an alternate route - in fact, six minutes in is the first time he brings up the idea that what Bonnie does shouldn’t matter, because this is “what the world wanted”, it’s the “end result of feminism”, and notably, that “all women are sex workers anyway”. He claims women in relationships are little more than sex workers with one customer. Rob challenges him by asking about women who are raising children. Tate says that that makes them mothers, and that mothers have a purpose, and ultimately women should be becoming mothers as soon as possible, as that is apparently the only way to partially break free of the role of sex worker (but not entirely, as that would be impossible). He lets the audience know early on that he’s “given up trying to save the world”, “given up misogyny” and is “all for women’s empowerment” after being “thrown in jail”. He says he’s a feminist now, because “who gives a fuck how the world ends up”. He’s being sarcastic and nihilistic (in the Reddit sense), joking that he would “hate for the BBC to label [him] a misogynist” - but what struck me was when he brought up being thrown in jail in the same breath as claiming he has previously been attempting to “save the world”. He’s beckoning to his obscure past without revealing what exactly it is, leaving only the vague idea of vigilantism. Tate has done an incredible job at building an influential image based around “free speech”, which is so loud and attention-grabbing that most of his audience either don’t seem to fully know, or don’t care, what he’s ever been thrown in jail for. He makes notes of his criminal charges several times throughout the video - but never what they are. All we hear is that because he’s outspoken, and has strict ideas on how the world should run, the powers at be want him silenced. Therefore, his voice carries with it an inflated and false sense of weight; it says “this is what they don’t want us to know”. It’s a con, a misdirect, and not actually too thin of a veil. I’ll come back to this later.

Tate continues his rant (a statement I could say at any time, the whole thing is him ranting, which he himself admits), claiming that “women have only ever been sex workers”. He states that women’s only form of defence or survival throughout history has been to give up sex. This is all in the name of painting sex, love and relationships as purely and wholly transactional - ipso facto, the concept of consent revocation only comes into play when the transaction is improperly fulfilled by both parties. For him, this translates as: if he “gives a girl [he] sleep[s] with a Birkin, [he] can’t have raped her”. Bonnie eggs him on, agreeing with the sentiment by offering up the advice of simply always having a Birkin on hand when he’s having sex - that way, there will be “no court cases”. This is the springboard from which we dive into what I believe is the point of this video. Yeah, it’s a cash grab, and a promotion tool, and the seemingly inevitable all-singing, all-dancing final curtain of what the patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and capitalism strove for; an upholding of emotionally stunted, system-protecting ignorance pedalled as gospel by two figures who benefit from it directly. But why is it these specific two people? Why is Andrew Tate humouring a sex worker?

Authenticity is a Lost Practice

I’ll get a few things out of the way before I really go in on this. This interview is a painful watch. It is mainly Tate talking himself in loops, with Bonnie occasionally chiming in to say something either provocative, vapid, or so strikingly misogynistic that it catches the others off guard. I roughly timed how long she is actually speaking - I think it’s around 40-45 minutes total, of the some 150 available. Andrew apologises for interrupting her, but does little to stop himself from doing so as often as possible. He talks over her when she attempts to interject. He at one point says, “I’m going to ask you a question”, and then proceeds to launch into a self-indulgent monologue with no entry point at which for her to comment. This is Andrew’s signature move, and it’s why I feel no need to do a play-by-play of everything he said - it’s mostly all the same shit. He is constantly filling as much time and space as possible with his voice so that people do not have time to think about, or react to, what he’s saying. While he does throw in the odd pertinent comment amongst his slew of incessant word vomit which could be expanded upon, or perhaps holds an element of truth or vulnerability we might be interested in, it ceases to matter; because he’s already steamrolled past it, and is onto an entirely new topic. He talks of “clown world”; this man is the ringleader.

There is a difference between being a good speaker and relentless, unfiltered verbal output. Tate reminds me a lot of Donald Trump, in that neither have particularly strong moral values, they’ll both believe in anything if it directly serves them in the moment, and that they’re very skilled at deflection by taking criticism and twisting it into something entirely different. In this video, and in others I’ve had a look at, he does something we often see from politicians - he will hear a critique (as is inevitable) and he’ll repeat it, state “well that’s interesting”, and then proceed to waffle on about everything and nothing, occasionally making reference to what was said not really, largely weaving in and out of unintelligible tangents which feature the occasional pause, or big word, or grandiose claim, so that ultimately, anyone listening has been smacked in the face with so much (usually contrasting, occasionally just pure bullshit) information in such quick succession that they couldn’t possibly unpack or make sense of any of it. Even if you did attempt to pry further, he’d just go off for another ten minutes, thus repeating the cycle. This man is a master of wasting time, and keeping in mind that whenever we do see him speak, there is usually an element of time restriction - interviews can’t go on forever - he’s always ensuring that as much of that time as possible is him speaking, and therefore him controlling the conversation, and thus the narrative. Some people read this as intelligence, mainly because they fancy themselves as intelligent, but also because he sometimes does make genuine, salient points - but they are often entirely misguided, and even if they do make sense, they don’t particularly apply to the context. He often walks right up to the root of a problem, following a seemingly logical path that should lead to a sensical end, and then spins on his heels, pointing in the opposite direction.

Bonnie Blue, with the little airtime she takes up, does everything she can to sell out the women she classes as peers (ie, all of us sex worker lot), plus all other women in general. It’s unclear why she’s doing that, whether it’s a genuine hatred, or an attempt to appeal to Andrew’s audience - but regardless of the intention, her words cannot possibly be misconstrued. Nothing is clearer throughout than her misogyny; it’s so strong and upfront that it at times leaves the boys speechless, giggling in shock at how she could come up with statements stronger than they’d dare to. She separates herself entirely, labelling other sex workers as lazy, with “no brain cells”; she states that she finds women in general “boring”, “irrelevant”, and “stupid”. I am not extracting this from subtext, these are her own words. She says that if she were to see a parade of women marching, she’d assume “one of them had broken a nail”, whereas if she saw a parade of men, she’d think, “something serious is happening”. She claims women who don’t have regular sex with their husbands are “lazy and uneducated”, and places the blame with them if their husbands come to her, throwing around spottily traditionalist values and anecdotes about emptying dishwashers while not being sucked off. She even admits that she’s stupid, with her only knowledge of value pertaining to either marketing, or sex work. Andrew, contrastingly, lauds her as “the smartest woman in the world”, and jeeringly asks her to join both his legal team and political party - her answer to the latter being “I’m blonde and suck dick, I don’t have a comment on politics”. Bonnie, unsurprisingly, does not vote.

Bonnie says the same two things repeatedly:

“The women who hate me are single mums of two sitting in council houses” and

“I can give you a tight pussy and good blowjob skills”.

The repetition, paired with her consistent poker face and the wooden, deadpan, unimpassioned manner with which she attempts to deliver her pre-written jokes and sound bites, renders her a pull-string doll, entirely void of personality or substance. She appears to have no social flair as she hurls out vulgarities and provocative statements with zero fervour behind them, almost as if she doesn’t care about, or believe in, anything she’s saying. Sometimes she gets acknowledged, sometimes the men simply bulldoze past her inanities - such as when out of nowhere, she exclaims “my holes are really tight, just in case you were wondering” - as the men continue speaking as if she were not there. At one point, she extends a bid for attention by asking if Andrew thinks she’s soulless; provoking him to say the thing we’re all thinking, as if it’s somehow the aim of her performance. She’s remarked before on The Kat Baker Show when asked about her physical and emotional limits that she has no soul, or emotions, so those limits can’t exist, and she’s only in pursuit of the physical ones. Bonnie wants us to think she’s soulless, because it’s more fitting to her marketed persona as a sex doll (great stuff for us all in the industry there, cheers). It comes across whenever we see or hear her that this woman’s only objective is the same as Andrew’s; Machiavellian - she seeks to gain as much money, status and power as possible, and will stop at nothing to do so. When it comes to Bonnie, there are, literally and figuratively, no holes barred. She embodies the conservative and alt-right ideal of a woman by being a mostly silent, wide-eyed, modestly dressed (not like other girls!), thin, blonde, white blank slate. Of course, she majorly deviates from the standard on account of her ungodly actions, but she gets away with being a “slut”, or a “whore”, and evades demonisation in this setting - because she displays an unwavering allegiance to the patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and capitalism. She agrees with almost everything Andrew Tate says - her one boundary being gay people - and deems him a good role model. Tate accepts her on account of her financial success in comparison to other women; he calls her “the Wall Street banker of this hoe shit. I respect that”. While he begins in a cheeky, impish tone, citing that she is the end result of feminism, and that this is what everyone wanted, so why not let it exist - his reasoning soon takes on a more genuine, and more sinister, edge.

Are these people soulless? Are they psychopaths? Well, it’s impossible to say anything with certainty, because none of us know who these people really are - we only see the mask they put on for the world. It comes across as though they have their own disconnection to their true selves. Therefore, it’s fruitless to attempt any sort of pop-psychology on them - I’m not qualified, and they’re not real. We are living in a time of Brands in place of people. We find ourselves asking of so many in the spotlight, “is that really them? Or is that just who they are on camera?”. True authenticity is a lost practice, initially phased out by Hollywood PR agents, then by the masses as a result of social media - it doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe in, it only matters who you portray yourself to be to the public. Characters are infallible; they’re made up. Once a person separates their selfhood from their image, they are able to remove a degree of responsibility from what they’re projecting. That’s not really me, that’s me on camera. That’s the idea of me, the brand I embody to gain money and status. People don’t dislike the real me, they dislike a method, they dislike a way of playing The Game. That’s my avatar. We must check out of conversations that pertain to the mental states of these characters, because as long as we’re viewing them as the mask, we are fated to be a step away from what’s really underneath it. Are their avatars psychopathic? Sure. Are they? Not my table.

However you view these people (or avatars), one thing to say for certain is that they both love a bit of modern nihilism. They see the world as “going to shit anyway”, so why shouldn’t they focus on themselves and say fuck you to everyone else? Bonnie can’t change the world, she’s a woman! Andrew can’t change the world, they’ll “throw him in jail”! They display their lack of emotionality and empathy throughout, and are seemingly unable to think past their own mindsets - precisely because they’ve been rewarded for them. They have no incentive to do anything else. Whether we like it or not, this is what we’ve allowed to happen. We have created a world of grifters, or “content creators” - a vague, broad net which depicts everyone as their own brand, product and distributor. The aim of the game isn’t to put out something helpful or valuable - it is to meet people exactly where they are, where they’re predictable, so that they can be exploited for as much attention and monetary gain as possible. The system facilitates this by valuing the people who do it successfully, and dismissing any slip-ups (or federal crimes) made along the way. All is fair in love and influencing! I cannot separate Bonnie Blue from Mr Beast; Beast targeted children by selling them games, Bonnie targeted adults by selling them sex. They both pedal any old bullshit that boosts the numbers. Past their demographics, they are doing nothing differently - except, Bonnie Blue cannot get corporate sponsorship in the same way as Mr Beast. Nor can Tate. Their only path to wealth, then, is to be as relevant as possible, with as many eyes on them as possible, and to do that they must simply nod and smile along to anything that vaguely relates to them, and be deliberately controversial when things don’t - because any press is good press. Eyes on them = money in the bank. All the numbers go up.

There’s a wonderful video by comedian Jarrett Moore, called “Cultural Nihilism and The Rise Of The Grifter”, in which he states:

“Propaganda is supposed to separate you from your way of thinking. A grifter’s job is separating a market demographic from their money - selling anti-woke coffee and razor blades because they see people’s alienation and frustration with the system as an opportunity for them to line their own pockets. It’s an insult to the audience’s intelligence that they make content that doesn’t challenge their worldview or perspective. They say, ‘we already know what you think and feel, and we want you to stay right there, because that’s how we know how to sell to you’”.

Bonnie and Andrew have capitalised handsomely on their mindsets of extreme detachment. They refuse to be challenged on their success, or the methods they have used to achieve it - they genuinely just believe that everyone should be like them. What we really have, then, for the sake of argument - are two psychopathic-leaning avatars, attempting to pedal out symptoms of what we recognise as a disorder, as gospel, for profit. Why? Because it works with where people already are, in a patriarchal system. It’s a point of profit for them. But where does it lead?

The Queen of Feminism

Well, first of all, they’ve got to place the blame for all the problems in the world somewhere, so they scapegoat movements they didn’t start or participate in, such as feminism. Interestingly, they do speak about feminism a lot, but they ascribe only to it the values of the patriarchy. They mistakenly use “my body my choice” - a phrase pertaining to the pro-choice movement in which women seek to have control over whether or not to carry pregnancies to term - as “women doing whatever they want”, which is what their version of the feminist movement boils down to. Andrew and his fanbase see Bonnie as the epitome of feminism; a woman doing exactly what she wants with her body, despite what the world wants from her. Tate says to Bonnie, “I think you’re made a very conscious decision, and I think you have separated your emotions from the logical side of your brain so that you can win in the logical realm, which is actually quite a masculine thing to do, by and large. Men often ignore their emotions to win. I think that’s all you’ve done, and I do that every day, most men do that every day - to ignore their emotions to win”. His understanding of what she has done is that she has harnessed “feminism”, alongside masculine traits, to win. And she has won, but what has she won? Well, she’s won capitalism. But to do that, she had to play patriarchy. So, what exactly is this faux-feminism they hate so much?

Bonnie Blue is not a feminist. She is not the “queen of feminism”, as the commenters crown her. She hates women, and the closest she comes to caring about men is ensuring that their “balls are drained”. She thinks she alone is the answer to male loneliness, and is doing a public service - she believes her porn videos should be shown in schools as educational content. Then, she veers direction, to seemingly placate an imaginary third party who doesn’t condone porn, and criticises the fact that kids are only learning from porn; so puts forward more than porn - she offers herself up. Bonnie nobly sacrifices her body to educate fresh-faced 18 year old virgins by deflowering them in a “safe environment” - the environment in question being her orgies. She orders the host to send her his son. She claims nobody will lose their virginity in a loving relationship - “it’s just not realistic, we don’t live in a big happy world”, and thereby believes if men lose their virginity to her, she’s doing them a favour. In her mind, they’re likely to get a better girlfriend, who’s more loyal, because he’ll have gotten good at sex before he met her. So, everyone say thank you, Bonnie Blue! Single-handedly saving relationships all over the world, all with the power of her magic vagina. She continually states that she is a positive influence on men’s mental health, and on society in general, as “sex workers help keep rape rates down”. She pulls out some statistics as members of the adult industry scream at the screen, like Walter White locked in the car begging for Hank’s life to be spared - painting us as martyrs of society by absorbing all of the rapists, because we can’t be raped (cheers again, for that one, Bonnie). She invites rapists to “come take it out on her instead”, claiming she’s a “free alternative to prostitutes” which “can be expensive”. She opines, “men are gonna fuck, they need sex”- that need cannot possibly go unmet, lest these poor souls take out their frustrations elsewhere - so they can turn up to one of her events and get over the longing. Basically, what I’m saying, is that Bonnie has reduced the community of sex workers to living dolls, and men as a whole to no more than the toxic, patriarchal roles ascribed to them, by men exactly like Andrew Tate, because that’s where she can grift them from. She says, men need to fuck and kill and earn. That’s what it takes to be a man. She can sell to that. And she’s doing it while championing herself as a solution to men’s crippling mental health. Good stuff.

Bonnie claims to be “speaking from experience” when it comes to her knowledge of men and male desire, because she’s slept with over a thousand of them. While this might be true of some people, if they have done so relatively meaningfully over years - it’s not true of her, because she did it in one day, in an all-out frenzy with a bunch of dudes in balaclavas. That’s not experience. You can’t claim to have gained a lifetime of insight because you spent one day with 1057 different men, whom you couldn’t even properly see, and you only interacted with for 30 seconds at a time. That speaks nothing to desire. It speaks nothing to the male experience at large. Her experience could come from her supposed past work as an escort (she has claimed before in other spaces that she has only ever worked as a webcam model before her porn career, so unsure of the veracity of this), but overall, it’s fair to say that she’s simply not been in the sex industry, or even on the planet, long enough to have a fully formed understanding of all men - especially with her methods. She claims to be on men’s side and care about their mental health, but she boils their mental health solely down to their sexual gratification. It appears she genuinely believes that men are unwell because women aren’t fucking them enough. She remains dead behind the eyes as she describes her lifeless utopia - her servicing all the poor bastard virgins, as well as husbands who are out there suffering because their wives haven’t gotten down on their knees and drained their balls recently. It’s repackaged, black-pill, incel bullshit.

Body & Soul

I am writing this as both a sex worker and a feminist. Feminism has nothing to do with sex work. No work is empowering under capitalism. Sex work is not feminist, it is simply a means of survival within the already-established boundaries set by the society we live in, and we live in a patriarchal society. Sex work is neutral. The world is patriarchal. Andrew Tate is patriarchal. Bonnie Blue is patriarchal. They all call for men to shut down their emotions and take what’s given to them - to be financially successful providers, and strong, because strong men create good times. Tate respects Bonnie for mirroring these patriarchal values in her own career. Bonnie is not a feminist, but rather a glaring example of “girlboss feminism”, a jejune spin-off of the actual feminist movement in which white women joined the fight exclusively as means to gain equal power to their male counterparts. Past that, the feminist movement ceased to exist in their minds. It was never about the core values of empathy and equality; it was only ever about getting the same opportunities. These women pump-and-dumped feminism. Feminism never glorified work. Feminism is in line with anti-capitalism, and is largely about community. Girlboss feminism didn’t give a shit about that. Girlboss feminism led to movies like Lady Ghostbusters, where we have a group of women acting exactly the same as men, in an over-the-top, juvenile, tasteless display of absurdity. Women were taught by this movement to ogle men back, to slap their male coworker’s arses, to build a roster, fuck around, not care about anyone, shut off their emotions, and get the job done. In other words, it taught them to mimic toxic masculinity exactly in order to "play the game” of patriarchy. Girlboss feminism plays directly into the patriarchy. If that’s what Tate is against, then he’s inadvertently put himself on-side with actual feminism. Except, he couldn’t possibly do that, so what he instead believes is that the way to fix everything is just to kick women back out of the patriarchy. Let him have his mojo dojo casa house in peace! Tate is right, this method of hunkering down and switching off has become how you “win”, if the goal was to be as infamous and conniving as men like him, winning in a world that demands you give it something in return. And what is that something? Well, it’s simple, really; all you have to exchange is every human element about you. Fair deal? Can you feel the rush of something leaving you? Can you feel Tate sucking out your soul as Bonnie sucks out your cum? Is this the dream? A three-way-fuckpile with the two demons who guard gates of hell? Are you satisfied?

Anyway, interestingly, Tate actually makes a lot of feminist points, although he assigns them entirely to the wrong movement. “How does a man keep a woman happy? One is financial, and one is protection or provision, and the other one is sex” - he lists verbatim the exact qualities toxic masculinity instills in men as gospel, and to be solely adhered to, which feminists fight directly against - and then somehow blames the matriarchy, because these are women’s standards. He cites every downfall of the patriarchy, and then proclaims that those downfalls happened due of the lack of it. He twists himself up in so many conflicting arguments that at times I struggled to even follow his logic. He begins to illustrate his point as to why he respects Bonnie with blatant feminism - “men give up their bodies all day long. I gave up my body fighting. I risked my body fighting to make money. Men risk their bodies on building sites and risk their bodies at war.”, then switches halfway through to “men give up their bodies all day long for financial gain, and a lot less money than you’re making. And they hide their emotions to do it” - bringing it back to patriarchal expectations, rather than rounding off what would otherwise be a neutral comment on the fact that all labour is one in the same. He says of Bonnie; “she is a symptom of society. She is the end result of the society we have built and promoted, she is acting how society is telling her to act to get as far as possible, she is being extremely successful financially. She’s notorious. She’s done a fantastic job for herself, built on the parameters that we’ve given her to live within. Here’s the game, she’s played the best”. This is absolutely true if we’re talking about end-stage capitalism within the patriarchy. It’s a perfectly valid point in that context. He expands later in the conversation;

“the society we have built has encouraged women to be as promiscuous, as rebelling, as open, as sexual, and to get as much money as possible - and Bonnie has just played the game the best and won the game. The game is chess and Bonnie is the grandmaster of it [interestingly here, he’s likening her to his father - his idol], you can’t complain about the grandmaster. You have to complain about the game of chess. So it’s completely asinine for anybody to give Bonnie a hard time about anything she’s doing ever when in fact she’s just the best at the game currently being played”.

This statement again, is wholly true, and would carry an incredible weight, if he simply assigned it to the correct argument. He says all the right things, makes all the right connections, and then somehow, some way, blames feminism, instead of the very real structures of oppression he’s just so eloquently described. It’s the equivalent of a magician going to pull a rabbit out of a hat, stopping at the last second, and then shitting out a live grenade. How the fuck did we get here?

Tate doesn’t blame women for (girlboss) feminism, either - he claims feminism is a male movement, as “men are the only ones who can apply force”, therefore “feminism is a group of men, using women against other men - women are the tools”. He says women are not the enemy, simps are. “Simps” is a catchall term he uses to describe anyone who disagrees with him, and/or listens to women. It’s the adult equivalent of “girls have cooties”. Tate demands of his audience that they remain in the childlike-state of alienating women, and praising him and other men, because if they only seek out the social approval of men, they’ll be worthy of respect. On the other hand, if they try to please women, they’re gay. That checks out, right? Well, apparently, yeah - the comments mostly read, “Tate is using her as an example against feminism”. They all believe that he’s destroyed feminism. That’s not what he’s done. He’s literally destroyed and rebuilt the patriarchy in his own image. They are convinced Tate has played Bonnie, pretended to be on her side, and used her as an example of failure. Instead, he’s used genuinely feminist points and critiqued the patriarchy throughout, blamed feminism for it, and then re-promoted the patriarchy to take its own place. It’s the blind leading the blind. He’s the Pied Piper of people with no critical thinking skills. There’s a comment that is alluding to the fact that Tate is proud of Bonnie because she’s taken accountability for her actions; “she’s not making excuses. She has total autonomy. She isn’t blaming men for her plight. 99% of women would blame men”. Apparently they entirely missed the several points in the video where Andrew blames men for feminism, and ergo blames men for Bonnie Blue’s “plight”.

I think I’ve worked out what exactly Andrew means when he says he wants to get rid of feminism, and why he clings onto his values so tightly. He seeks to get rid of girlboss feminism, the kind that we all hate - the kind that makes movies too woke and promotes weight loss tea. Tate denounces girlboss feminism because it’s an easy thing to despise, and as long as his fans don’t dig any deeper, he’s got them on side. He hates girlboss feminism because it allows women to succeed (in terms of money and influence), “as well as men” within the patriarchy. Standing firmly behind that valid rhetoric is what’s gained him his following, because it follows some semblance of logic. His followers believe in his warped definition of feminism, and go with him on marching in the opposite direction from it. Tate hates actual feminism (which I do believe he on some level understands) because it exists as the antithesis of what he has to sell to continue the grift, so he doesn’t focus on that. He just looks at girlboss feminism, and so too, then, do his followers. They think feminism is just women existing. They think feminism is when women do patriarchy. They have no idea what real feminism seeks to do for them, because they aren’t thinking any deeper than he tells them to. He’s told them he’s done all of the thinking for them. Remember: “we already know what you think and feel, and we want you to stay right there, because that’s how we know how to sell to you”. His audience latch onto his arguments; they are simultaneously for and against the patriarchy because they’ve used feminist points to disprove “feminism”, which they use as a replacement for the patriarchy. These are the kinds of minds a small-town drug dealer would cream their pants over - they are the snake oil consumers who would cheerfully buy a bag of oregano for $50 and come back for more in a week saying they had the “night of their lives”. In other words, they’re children. Tate does not seek to dismantle the whole system - as would be the logical conclusion of a man who is seemingly trying to save the world, and save men’s mental health. He wants to uphold the system, just without women. He preaches being free from the matrix, but he is dedicating his entire life to ensuring that it operates as normal.

Being free from the matrix used to mean you’d done a bunch of acid and seen God. It used to mean crying as the sun rose and fractals danced across your vision, a lightning bolt of divine connection and understanding cracking through your heart as you saw the world for what it was, saw through space and time and the cosmos to arrive at perfect serenity, suddenly aware of being at one with the universe, and everything within it. It used to be preached from deep meditators, monks and nuns, seers and spiritualists. It meant paving your own way. It meant seeing the truth. Now it’s been redefined to mean adapting to the jail cell you’re already in, and keeping your head down as you seek to win The Game (it’s not a shock to me that Tate is Neil Strauss’ doppelgänger). There is no fucking sunrise. Everything is grey and you’re not allowed to cry. Andrew Tate has taken the “pave your own way” element of spirituality and bastardised it to befit the model of a worker bee. He recognises that the system benefits him, and that he’s good at it - he doesn’t want to lose that. He doesn’t want his followers to meet God, he wants to be God. His only avenue, then, is to infiltrate the minds of as many people as possible, by romanticising a better way of life, a mystical oasis contained in the past: the “glory days” - when men were solely in charge, and he didn’t have to worry about women. He’s seemingly aware of the fact that the patriarchal system is designed to break, but he doesn’t want to erase it entirely, because that’s not in his interests. He’s comfortable here. He likes the system. He just hates these pesky women buzzing around him, somehow also profiting off of it. He’s a businessman. He wants a cut of the profits.

Let’s remind ourselves that Tate’s fanbase largely consists of men who have no experience of these so-called “glory days”. They are young men, who have grown up in a period of time where men are the enemy. Their favourite film and rock stars are constantly being cancelled or brought to court, and women reject them on the basis of their hobbies, or political standings, or looks, or just on account of them being men in the first place. They exist in a world which seeks to help them in no way, and they are angry, alone, and lacking in purpose. They hear their elders becry a time where you could say or do anything and people still had a sense of humour, when the world “ran as it should”, and they absorb the narrative that the source of everyone’s misery is simply that we deviated from the set, working model of old-school values, and we let women ruin everything. They genuinely believe women have equality now, because they exist in this “woke” world, where they think they’re walking on eggshells. They see it as, women get everything they want, and men get nothing. They think this is the end result of feminism. This is not only wrong, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism as a whole, and of the reasons men have ended up where they are. Tate can’t take sole blame for that one, that’s on all media - he’s just utilised it for his own gain.

The Trick To Life

I feel sorry for his fans. Initially, I thought, maybe they just need someone else to look to; but I’ve realised that another leader isn’t the answer. Sure, I could try and usher Tate fans in another direction, tell them to take the easy route and look for other men to copy - I could mention YouTubers like JimmyTheGiant, who himself broke out of the alt-right pipeline after doing research for his videos - but substituting one thing for another leads to the same place; inaction. I’m more interested in the method, because that gives his fans something to actually do - and isn’t Tate’s whole thing about taking action? Currently, his fans aren’t doing anything - they can’t be, because they’re sitting around getting negged by their demagogue and fighting with girls on the internet, instead of being outside and interacting with real people. I don’t want his audience to glom on to another leader as an excuse to not go and actually get some of their own life experience. They should lead themselves. They should be their own people. I want them to have hobbies. I want them to have friends. I want them to go outside and speak to the people they’re supposed hate, or be afraid of, and be smacked in the face with the reality - that those people are…just like them. Yeah, they have different values, maybe - but we’re all human, and most of us are suffering through this life in identical ways. I need them to be challenged, and a leader isn’t designed to challenge them. I need them to find their own way in the world, instead of just turning to the next bloke who tells them how they should be. They need to go to a fucking bar and try their best to just talk to people. Talk to women. Live life like a normal person. Fuck the 5am wakeup, cold shower, gym five days a week, chicken and rice, 9pm bedtime - the “grindset” is yet another route to isolation. Removing all social elements of your life that aren’t meetings is designed to make you a lonely cog in the machine. You’re telling me you don’t bond over sharing meals, you don’t get to wake up slowly with a lover, you don’t get to go to parties or to even be awake when anything fun is happening, you don’t have any space in your life for emotionality, and everything you do is just to set yourself up for another time, a time way in the future, a time when you’ll be “free”?

Are we aware that we’re just describing self-inflicted prison? Where is the joy? Where are the memories? Where is the life?

We all look outside of ourselves for meaning. Some people choose art, some people choose spirituality, some people choose religion, and some people choose demagogues - because unlike the others, they’re “grounded in reality”. They’re actually here, living and breathing among us; so why shouldn’t we listen to them, over something intangible? Well, the nature of the others is to cast a wider net, to have enough nuance within them to allow whoever is practicing to think for themselves. Demagogues don’t allow us to think for ourselves, they just tell us what they think. It’s the same as AI, in how it affects critical thinking skills by simply giving you an answer, rather than letting you work towards one. Life doesn’t have an answer. Tate is trying to sell you the trick to life, but there isn’t one. Nobody here has the answer, not even him - he’s a recent convert to Islam, after all. If this man is still searching for meaning, how could he possibly have all of the answers? The harder pill to swallow is that the process of living life, as well as thinking for ourselves, is how we find our own answers. We all live differently, we all think differently, and we’re all really just sharing ideas as we muddle through. Tate shouldn’t be an idol, he’s human. Listen to him if you want, but don’t just take what he says as fact. Everything is a theory. The most valuable thing you can do with your time is to find your own theory. Ultimately, that leads to you becoming a far more interesting figure than someone who just imitated someone else.

Right, that’s all a bit heavy, and I’m aware we’re 7,000 words in, so before we hit the home run, let me lighten the mood by gifting you some funny moments from the video.

Sex is Gay: You Just Don’t Get It

At 32 minutes, Andrew is talking about seeking out women with minimal past sexual or romantic experience, as they are more valuable, and Bonnie interjects; “surely your best place to go then is high school” - to which his face falls as he replies, “well I’m under investigation, we have to be careful here”.
Tate believes every man who has sex with Bonnie is gay. He seems very determined to let us know that he is STRAIGHT. He pontificates - citing 2014’s hit [and fictional] movie Interstellar - that there is a “time warp of jizz”, and that if you fuck a girl who has been fucked before, you are technically also fucking everyone else she’s ever fucked, because “everything is happening all at once”, referring to…the bookcase scene towards the end, I think. Y’know, the fantastical Hollywood conceptualisation, based loosely on quantum mechanics? Yeah, that. Yeah.
He believes being horny in general is gay - he admits that he has little to no interest in sex, because it does nothing for him - he sees it purely as a means to an end; said end being another child carrying his DNA. He believes any sex not had specifically for procreation is gay - condoms are gay, anal is gay, birth control is gay, and vasectomies are gay. Having sex with women for enjoyment doesn’t register to him - so it’s defaulted to gay.
It’s notable that whenever Tate talks about having sex, he sounds almost exactly like Mac from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Bonnie’s comment: “everything we’re talking about is stuff you’d learn at history in school”.
When pressed on why he wants “whores on his boat”, if he hates both them and sex, Tate claims he wants them there the same way he “wants trees in his forest” - “I don’t even want to fuck the trees”. [N.B.: he did not say fuck the trees, he said fuck the whores, but fuck the trees is funnier].
Tate claims his DNA is “survivor DNA”, so if he were to leave the mother of one of his children to “go live on a council estate”, his kid would be fine, even if he’s not present in their life at all, emotionally or financially, purely by way of being his offspring.
Bonnie at one point rightfully brings up the fact that people promote her to distract the public from “what’s really going on”. Andrew enthusiastically agrees, calling her “based”. They are both correct.

There’s a beautiful moment around the 2 hour 20 mark, where the three are having an incredibly puerile conversation pertaining to the language of sex, and Bonnie is commenting on how she doesn’t care about the terms used - all she’s interested in is how much she loved her 1000 men challenge (which she’s forgotten to pedal for the past hour). Andrew responds by saying “Bonnie is a unique individual, with a unique set of talents”. Rob chuckles, and jests; “sounds like a gangster movie, a unique set of skills”, wobbling his eyebrows as he references Liam Neeson’s famous monologue. Andrew laughs, absorbs what he’s made reference to, and says, “she is, yeah. She’s uh, she’s…Taken”. The room is still as Andrew waits for a reaction. When he is met with none, he turns to Rob; “that went over your head, cuz that was such a really good joke. Taken? Get it?”. Rob pityingly laughs and says “yeah”. Bonnie, off screen, says “I still don’t get it”. They all move on.

It was around this moment that I started thinking, we used to listen to great scholars, artists and scientists. Now we have two men with loose job descriptions, sketchy pasts, and one brain cell between them, batting the same limp quip back to each other while a woman we can’t see expresses confusion, all happening as the camera holds its focus on the main villain’s blindingly white, plastic horse teeth. This is it. This is both our entertainment and educational resource. This video is a contactless lobotomy. If you’re still with me, I am going insane.

Others, though, feel more sane than ever. The comments read, “if you understand the sarcasm, this is the funniest video ever”. It’s reminding me of the phenomenon that comes as a result of people vehemently avoiding admitting they’re wrong, in order to avoid coming off as stupid. You see it a lot in kids, it’s like a survival tactic on the playground, which has somehow now extended beyond the realms of the schoolyard to feature in our everyday lives (well, theirs, anyway). Instead of digging deeper to try and understand something, they pretend to just get it. They often disguise their lack of understanding with forced laughter, or a smugness that implies they are “in on it”, and that “a lesser mind couldn’t possibly comprehend” - something that holds weight to them, because they’d hate to be caught in their fraud. They will laugh and jeer and jump and clap their hands as they say “you just don’t get it” instead of explaining what they mean. They don’t need to know what any of it means. They just know as long as they’re on side, they’re protected. It’s designed to keep the participants at exactly that level of stunted - they refuse to think for themselves, or even try to understand what they apparently stand for, because they don’t need to. They just need to laugh at the other side. They don’t need to know who they are. Just who they aren’t. “Elite level sarcasm and satire that will go over the majority of simple minds” - his supporters genuinely think their ignorance and complete evasion to understanding is in fact a sign of a high IQ. They believe Andrew Tate has a high IQ. The man who tried to make a joke about Taken, after someone had just made the same joke about Taken. This is their Einstein. “If you’re intelligent, this makes perfect sense”. How? Shut up about how, it just does.

Andrew’s avatar is comparable to The Simpson’s’ Kirk Van Houten, desperately trying to convince Homer it’s cool that he sleeps in a race car bed. Tate’s followers have convinced themselves they want the race car bed, and that anyone who sleeps in a big bed with their wife is gay. Because remember lads, the worst thing you could be is gay, and the only way not to be gay is [checks notes] to only have sex for procreation, to hate your wife, to cheat, to lie, to not spend too much time with your children, to not be too horny, to not sleep with a woman if she isn’t a virgin (because of Interstellar), to not show any emotion, to only seek the respect of fellow men, to never love anything, and to suffer. This is everything you must trade in order to “fix the world”. And the payoff is…uh…unclear. War? or…not war? Hard times? Good times? Soft men? Strong men? Five wives? A hundred kids? Andrew Tate being a free man? Andrew Tate making money? Where do you come in? How can you all be this successful at the same thing? How come it’s seemingly only him that’s successful here?

What is he giving you? Who are you? Are you just an unthinking machine? Do you really believe what he says? Or do you feel nothing at all? Are you satisfied with this life? Are you winning, son?

The content of this video reflects the diary you’d find written in excrement in a drawer at a serial killer’s house. It’s a series of scraps cut from both manosphere manuscripts and feminist texts, interwoven in an eenie-meanie-minie-mo like fashion, and sealed with a kiss in Buffalo Bill’s sickly pink lipstick. It is drivel. It is hypocritical throughout. It is meaningless. It is wholly designed to be clipped and edited and taken out of context by anyone at all, because there are so many different viewpoints going on that if you felt motivated to, you could extrapolate out any agenda you wanted. It’s a fertile soil for discourse, and is, on a wider scale, utterly and wholly pointless. But we knew that, right? So why care?

Well, my till is still coming up short. Why this crossover? Andrew could’ve spouted this exact same horseshit in any setting, he holds the floor 70% of the time - it’s hardly like this was a conversation. Bonnie’s there to promote herself, but what is Andrew getting out of this? Why, specifically, is she there? How does she platform him? What does she represent?

This was no accident, and it wasn’t just a reach for clout. Andrew Tate speaking to Bonnie Blue was a very calculated and conscious decision.

I said I’d come back to Andrew’s con.

The Skeleton Song

It’s important to keep in mind what Andrew Tate has actually been accused of, and is on trial for; which is nothing to do with his outlandish views, or extreme influence, as he’ll have you believe. Most recently, the reasons Andrew has been “thrown in jail”, are to do with the webcam site he used to run, which is breezily mentioned a few times in the video. Tate and his brother allegedly groomed multiple vulnerable people into working for them using extreme manipulation and the “loverboy method”, promising them marriage and happy, fulfilling lives. They then housed them in different locations, and forced them to produce pornographic material for their cam site. Among these people was a 15-year old girl, who Andrew allegedly had sex with while she was a minor. While he admits to he and his brother having sex with two of the women - and them both becoming mothers as a result, it’s unclear which two. This is on top of past charges of human trafficking, controlling prostitution for gain, and actual body harm. Andrew Tate is effectively an example of an old-school pimp on steroids. He has built his empire off the backs of sex workers, whether they were forced into it or not - and he has made millions from them. As he sits there and very genuinely defends the adult industry, seemingly “as a joke” (it’s very much not a joke, and is very much in his interests), he inadvertently proves the case he’s trying to get dismissed - he’s once again using a sex worker for personal gain, right in front of our eyes. That’s why she’s there. The audience are buying his bullshit about Bonnie Blue being the “product of feminism”, when Tate himself has, over multiple years in multiple countries, built a fortune by doing exactly what she has done, one step removed. The “influencing” he does is to distract you from the skeletons in his closet. Except, they’re not in the closet, cuz that would be gay - they’re out on full display, and his answer to that is to mask them by critiquing feminism. It’s a con to stop people from thinking. It’s a thorough, devious plot to brainwash people into believing all relationships are transactional, and all sex is rape eventually, because feminists are out to get us. He mentions his “criminal charges” several times, but the nature of them is never brought up. He’s not in trouble with the law because he “tried to fix the world”. He’s in trouble with the law because he pimps out women. And if he pimps out women, and those skeletons start singing, he needs his audience to subconsciously believe two things; that sex work is always a choice, and sex workers cannot be raped. Enter Bonnie Blue.

It would’ve been interesting if she’d gone on and criticised him, challenged him, or stuck up for herself in any meaningful way - but ultimately, they knew it’d go viral and be clipped to hell regardless, so it wasn’t necessary. It’s far more profitable to agree on everything at the start, and then use the remaining time to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and boost their own egos. But they do have to agree on everything.

There is a video by David Sutcliffe called Andrew Tate vs Therapist (round 2), where this supposed psychologist (cough, Canadian actor turned “core energetics practitioner”) speaks to Tate about his empire being built from exploiting young men - and how it seems hypocritical that he would now champion himself as someone who is helping them. Tate responds by saying that they would’ve been exploited anyway, then swerves to say what he did wasn’t exploitation, because some of the men “would’ve killed themselves” if they hadn’t consumed what Andrew was giving them. Thus, his overall impact was net good. They do not bring up how he exploited the women. They don’t even mention the women. While they make reference to Andrew’s past, they keep the subject matter deliberately vague, which I now realise is a pattern when it comes to Tate. Rarely do people seem to bring up his actual history and how he got his wealth. They stick to talking about his character. These interviews, all of them - they’re his attempt to win the court of public opinion.

It’s the whole message of the Blue/Tate interview. The focus is the absolution of his guilt, on a platform he can freely speak on, where his lawyers and judge aren’t present, and where the jury is the world. Without actually naming any of them, the host directly asks Bonnie if she thinks Andrew is guilty of the charges against him. She responds by quoting “innocent until proven guilty”, and then claims Tate “can get unlimited pussy” and so why would he “cause a headache for himself” by raping someone. This is the same argument they use for Russell Brand and Diddy - that they are sex icons, pillars of promiscuity, sluts and scamps, who have no need to rape someone, because their cup runneth over with consensual offers. Therefore, they cannot possibly be guilty of sexual crimes. Bonnie pushes this narrative by saying all women who “cry rape” (this is a notably repeated phrase), are doing so for attention and money - “if they accuse Andrew of rape, their Instagram following is gonna hit the roof”. They both claim that women who “cry rape” are doing so as a “form of sex work”, using the courts and the judicial system to extract wealth from any men they’ve slept with, and that their accusations are little more than a sinister ploy. They’re directly fighting his court case. They’re fucking doing Incel Inception.

A Trojan Horse for Rape Culture

Initially, the most bizarre thing about the video to me was Andrew’s seemingly overwhelmingly supportive view of sex work, as I hadn’t yet looked into his crimes. I did note that his support came solely through the lens of capitalist gain: “hoes are dumb because they do it for free. Whores are smart because they get paid”. Still, though, some of his views were prescient, and continued to confused me; there is a moment where he comments on social media, and how it depicts a “grass is always greener lifestyle” - that nobody is happy any more because they set their expectations too high based on what they see others doing online. Then, when he’d led me down this logical and factual path, he backed me into a corner, and used the fact I was already both confused and there, to shove his real agenda down my throat. He drives home the idea that everyone wants money, status and power, and that the only people we should respect are those who are honest about that, such as Bonnie Blue - and that the actual, real enemy is women who “cry rape” to the courts so they can lie and cheat and steal their way into having money, status and power. See for yourself:

“Everyone’s just chasing shit all over the place and nobody has any grounding anymore. The grounding used to be from ignorance. You’d meet someone, you knew them. You only knew them - you didn't know the outside world. Even in my generation, when I was 21 - I didn't know what Monaco was, I didn't know Monte Carlo, Dubai didn't exist, I didn't see St Tropez - I didn't see any of this. If you're 21 now, you're sitting - there’s the woman you fell in love with in in high school - she’s in Monaco on a boat, you’re working in fucking Greggs, and you're like "what the fuck, I need money now”. Like, the world's changed. Everything’s complicated, everything's difficult, so I would argue - even though I don't have the answers - the best thing we can do is start from a foundational base of truth and honesty, which is why I say I respect Bonnie for being truthful and honest. It's much better to be truthful and honest like she is than do what these other women are doing - which is pretend they love me to get some money and then cry rape when they don't get it. That’s the true destructive society. The truly destructive female is not Bonnie Blue, it's the woman who cries rape because she doesn't get the money she wants, it’s the woman who takes a man to divorce court and liquidates his empire because she's unhappy that he had a fling on a fucking holiday trip with his boys. Those are the toxic destructive women. It's the women who belittle the man who goes to work every day to pay the rent to pay for the house and won't suck his dick, like Bonnie describes. When you want to have a man go out and work all day every day and give up his life getting up early in the morning to carry bins around so that you can eat food, and when he comes home you have no admiration or respect for him, that’s destructive. Far more destructive than what Bonnie's doing. Because Bonnie's honest, and we should operate from a realm and a frame of honesty at all times, and that's why society's fucked.”

Tate belabours the point that all women are sex workers, because they all use sex for financial gain. They circle back to Bonnie being a proud, honest whore - a woman who will take it willingly and not “cry rape” the next day - a martyr in the face of rape statistics, a community service, and a good way to play The Game. It’s all leading back to the same point - women are sluts, and they use sex to exploit men, and all sex is Schrodinger’s rape, both consensual and not, depending on what a woman feels they can get out of you, and that we are all slaves beholden to women’s feelings because of feminism. He is making these points, which usually begin with something genuine, and then derail entirely into something entirely maniacal - deliberately to first capture the minds of the audience, and then instil into them that any woman who does sex work cannot possibly be raped. She cannot be trafficked. He cannot be guilty. He cannot be guilty. And Bonnie sits there, a clueless (or not, you decide) prop, nodding and smiling along, supposedly the spokesperson for sex workers and women alike, absolving him. He says “a woman will cry rape and then you’ll find out she has an OnlyFans. You literally use sex to exploit men for money. That’s all the rape claim is.” He reduces everything women do to sex work - saying them using Instagram is a form of it, and claiming that all women have is their attraction, whereas men have power, so they have to use sex to gain power. Bonnie is nodding along, remember. There is no other route in his mind, or in hers - and they’re the only one’s talking.

He’s doing this so when they find evidence of him human trafficking, he has already made sure, in a roundabout way, that in the minds of millions of people worldwide, “sex trafficking” is just a fancy term for something not that bad, because everything is sex work, and don’t women need direction anyway? Aren’t men their only protectors? They both keep hammering this point home, albeit with a few weak attempts from Bonnie to bring up consent - that sex workers are the rape sponges of society, and simply by engaging in sex work they are admitting they use sex for exploitative financial gain, and so that will be true of everything they do in life.

So, if sex worker’s can’t be raped, and all women are sex workers, then in stands to reason that no woman can be raped. But also, in retrospect, all sex can eventually become rape, so the concept of rape itself has lost all meaning. This video is a trojan horse for rape culture, wheeling itself into the houses of millions of unsuspecting people worldwide, via fucking YouTube. It’s not a viral video, it is a virus. Anyone listening to these people and agreeing with them is infected, and potentially a danger to themselves and others.

Before this, I defended Bonnie Blue. Everything she did before this was neutral. Many of us sex workers felt the same way - we’re all aware of extreme porn, it’s not a new concept - but when this collaboration got announced, we all sensed something different. I can confirm, it is different - this is the deliberate platforming of a sex criminal. It is an act of violence against women, and men all the same. The agenda is a cancer, seeping into the bloodstream of the the audience, and its intentions frighten me. These are two master manipulators, doing what they do best. Anyone that stands by is allowing it to happen. If we ignore it, we are allowing it to happen.

Bonnie Blue sleeping with 1000 men in a day isn’t damaging to society, it’s a consequence of it. What’s damaging is her mindset, her values, and her loyal subjugation to the patriarchy, because it is the only way her empire can exist. Of course she wants to pedal the ideology that men are all sex-hungry animals who can only be satisfied through the affirmation of their selfhoods by having sex. It’s incredible, really, how they both sit there and do nothing but insult men, expecting them to fit an exact mould, yet also claim that they’re smart and strong, and the only people capable of changing the world; but still, we do feel sorry for them, because they’re super hard done by, but that it’s ultimately okay! Because at the end of it all, they can spunk on Bonnie Blue’s face in a slippery, sweltering, odorous AirB&B, while surrounded by a bunch of equally hard-done-by blokes, all dressed as bank robbers. That’s your prize, fellas. That’s what makes this all worth it. Keep succumbing to the standards forced onto you by the patriarchy, work hard, make money, feel nothing, and take out all your repressed rage and fury at the world that’s forced you to live an uncomfortable, rigid, hollow existence by penetrating this Madonna-like figure for 30 seconds. Oh, and while you’re at it, remember: rape isn’t real. We cool? We good?

We absolutely have to address the audience. We cannot ignore them. We have to teach them the true definition of feminism, so they will know why and how it benefits them. We at the very least have to help them unlearn the idea that rape is a fictional concept. At present, all they believe is that men are hard wired to be dominant, and to need sex. Feminism believes these things are wrongfully and cruelly socialised into them. Feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy by releasing the rigid gender structures placed upon us so that we may all live harmoniously as whole, complete, equal human beings. It’s the acid trip sunset moment. In other words, it would love if men could cry. It would love if men didn’t have to bury their emotions to cope. It would love if men did the opposite to what Andrew teaches them, so that they could actually experience joy. It would love if men didn’t have violent outbursts as a result of burying these emotions. Bonnie and Tate’s avatars don’t possess complex emotions; for them it’s easy to bury. The same is not true of everyone. It is insulting and dehumanising to say that men are bound by biology to be a certain way. People like Tate brainwash men into believing that their destiny is to be violent and dominant, because they themselves have felt the pressure to be those things; and so they spitefully push the pressure back onto others - even though it doesn’t work; it didn’t work for them, and it won’t work for anyone else. It’s too rigid. It’s too one note. Men can be anything - they are complete people who are continually being stunted by the false idea that their aggression and desire for control is inevitable. When Tate teaches other men that their power comes from their lack of emotionality, he is both harming them, and absolving himself. Bonnie does the same when she teaches them it comes from sex. They are reducing men to two-dimensional beings. They are stripping away the meaning of humanity and connection, which their avatars do not understand or feel, in favour of indoctrination into their lonely agenda. The men who fall for it are no longer men, they are no longer human; they are pawns. Tate is not on men’s side, he wants them to be miserable and unfulfilled so he has power over them. He is trapped in a cycle of control, forcing men to be unthinking, unfeeling machines, uncaring as it damages and degrades them. It fucks us all. It makes men shoot up Taylor Swift parties and hang themselves. It makes women either humiliate themselves to share the stage, or abandon men altogether. Nobody is in love. Nobody is content. Everyone is hopeless. Nobody can open up. Nobody can experience being human. We must all only strive for one goal. To make the numbers go brrrrrr (and to keep Andrew Tate out of jail).

Bonnie Blue and Andrew Tate are uninterested in empathy, because they see everything as binary, without emotion coming into it. Everything is based in fact, not feelings. Tate establishes, “women aren’t loyal to anything outside of what they feel” - he paints women as less than because of their emotions. He notes that he can take a girl on a private jet to a mansion in Miami and give her the world and “the next day when she’s mad at you she will literally say verbatim ‘you never give me anything. You don’t take care of me. You reject me. I’m not looked after’. She’ll forget 12 hours before when she had the world. Because women only care about how they feel. They don’t even think. They just feel”. He’s describing here a situation which can absolutely occur and often does, a situation he directly perpetuates; when a man provides everything the patriarchy allows and encourages him to, only displays “affection” through sharing wealth, power and sex, and is then met with tension when a woman feels her emotional needs are unfulfilled. The patriarch was not given the tools to deal with her emotional needs; emotions are a feminine trait. Why is this bitch coming to you about this? You don’t let yourself get bogged down by something as intangible as emotion. That’t not a winner’s mindset. Your life is all about quantitative measures. It’s about numbers. It’s about points. The world has taught you there are no points to be gained in emotionality, only points lost, or a risk of complete disqualification. If you dare to indulge your girlfriend’s feelings, or God forbid, your own, you’re a simp, you’re gay, you’re no longer a man, and your girlfriend will no longer view you as such; she’ll either leave you, or try to control you, as that’s the understanding of what a relationship is - a power imbalance. Acknowledging emotions = loss of power. Don’t let your poker face slip, or you have lost the game. If you lose the game, you’re fucked. Do you want to be a broke-ass soy boy beta cuck? Or do you want to participate in the homosocial playground of living your life devotedly to gaining the sole respect of other men? Men who could make you rich and powerful if you mimic them well enough? Men who make you feel…less alone? Is that how you feel? Less alone?

Who’s really to blame for the male loneliness epidemic?

Breeding loneliness is how these grifters get paid. They need to keep men isolated and angry, in order to harness their egos and frustration to keep them focused on the wrong things, so they continue to mindlessly consume more rage bait, more fear and more hatred, and more alienating, one-sided debates. Then, the grifters turn round and convince those same men that all of it is the fault of men just like them, who were soft, and who have fucked up the whole world on account of that softness. They don’t want you to think differently, they want to affirm the fears they’ve already instilled within you so that they can keep you right where they want you. Right where you’re useful to them. Right where they’re on the stage, and you’re paying for popcorn, thinking that one day, you’ll be up there with them. One day, you’ll be happy, like them. The journey is miserable, but we’ll be happy eventually. Just like them.

This is all, of course, fake. That is not how men achieve happiness. Men need more than that. They apparently just can’t drag themselves away from Tate’s teat for long enough to check. They deserve to be accepted for more emotions than anger and hatred, because they feel them. They may hide them, but they feel them. It takes courage to face up to yourself. It takes courage to tap into empathy. It takes courage to break free from the path of least resistance. The destiny most men want is to find love. That’s human nature. While I am sure there are plenty of other psychopaths and unfeeling narcissists who 100% agree with Tate’s messaging, I can’t help but feel there are many more ordinary people, who are simply seeking what we all want: love, connection and camaraderie. They don’t know where to look, and in a world which teaches them to be vacuous, emotionless consumers and chastises them if they go against the grain, it’s inevitable that their idle hands will fall into the lap of the self-described “alpha”, who’s “beat the system”, and who teaches them to follow in his footsteps. He’s the only guy offering them anything. I worry then, that they are burying their true desires deep within themselves, and that as a result, they will live largely unsatisfying, lonely lives - lives that we allow to be lonely because we ignore them. This will actually emotionally effect them, in a way that Tate isn’t affected by. We cannot be letting an unthinking, unfeeling psychopathic avatar have unregulated influence if we seek to change the world for the better. Only unity can do that, and the mission of this video is to convince people they are better off when as they’re emotionally distant as possible (and to keep Andrew Tate out of jail). You won’t find unity through control. You won’t find it through domination, these things only breed more frustration. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of despair.

Men deserve more. We need them to realise that, so that they reject these patriarchal idols, and move in the direction of self-discovery, compassion, community and love - all things they are allowed to want and have. We know that, but what can we do? Well, I know we can’t make the horses drink, but we can at least lead them to fucking water. We can’t just ignore them, leave them to themselves, or leave them in the clutches of the alt-right. We have to care, I’m afraid. We have to start engaging men again. We have to at least try to talk them round, in a way that speaks to both the logical and emotional parts of their brains. We have to love them, instead of dismissing them, so that we might have some hope of them coming over to our side. If we just tell them they’re not allowed to sit with us, where do we expect them to sit?

I have gone on my own journey to empathising with men after the world (and to be fair, my own experiences) has taught me to hate and fear them. I found this unproductive and restrictive in my life and work, so I looked for another route. I have clearly not arrived at the same conclusions as Bonnie Blue or Andrew Tate. What I believe, and hope, is that their audience is not stupid - they can at the very least understand some sincere concepts - they just need redirection. If we can get all the way up to feminism before someone shouts “it’s over there!”, maybe we’re not too far behind opening the door before the shout. But to do it, we have to participate.

We cannot live harmoniously if we just accept that Men Are Bad. We can’t keep putting people into boxes and writing them off entirely when they refuse to meet us where we are, instead of halfway. Where else are they supposed to look for solace, other than to others already in the box? This happens to everyone, it’s literally just prejudice in action. We all get put into boxes; reduced to ethnicity, political beliefs, religious beliefs, career paths, sexual preferences - you name it. It is the prejudice towards each other that keeps us apart and keeps everyone angry. It keeps everyone fighting solely for themselves and their own survival, just like Bonnie and Tate.

Bonnie Blue and Andrew Tate’s avatars cannot feel love because they are psychopaths whose only goals are influence and power. They do not believe in love, and their entire brands are anti-love, as they seek to build a world as loveless as themselves so they don’t feel as alone. They recognise their alienation from empathetic people. They do not understand them, they hate them, so they say they are lazy and wasting time. These are two profoundly lonely people. We should not be upholding or listening to psychopathic loners, but we’re forced to, because of the patriarchy. I am begging people to choose love over loneliness. We must start letting each other back in. We must muster the courage to move towards each other, and not away. We need to start actively seeking connection again.

The way we do this is by speaking to people gently and drawing out the humanity in them. It’s no different to what Tate does, before he drives the whole thing off a cliff. Find commonality first, let people relate - draw them in, basically, before you sell them the real agenda. In a world of conmen, we have got to up our sales tactics. We’re in an era of absolutism and rejection. This is particularly true of the left - it’s one wrong move and you’re out. Perfect ideologies from the outset, or you’re out. Remain solely in the echo chamber, or you’re out. There’s no time to let people come round; they should simply already be here. What makes the right so powerful is that it doesn’t do this. They are accepting of anyone who agrees with them, because every sale counts. We’ve got the sales skills of Ants-In-My-Eyes-Johnson, and on top of that, we haven’t even really solidified what it is we’re selling. Why did Kamala fail? Because the entire Democratic campaign was nothing to do with what they were selling - only what they weren’t. Don’t worry about what our policies are, just be glad we’re not Trump. And yeah, Trump sold them a lie, but at least he fucking sold them something. Of course we aren’t winning - we’re competing in the fucking salesman olympics, and our entire team is huddled in a corner, fighting amongst themselves as the right take every medal. Our competitors, who, through the false promises of fortune and fame, have driven up individualism, dog-eat-dog, capitalism, imperialism, and the patriarchy - i.e. the world order that only serves the top 1% - and their structure largely sustains itself. Meanwhile, on the left, we’re trying to break down this steel-enforced powerhouse with bananas, and that’s only when we’re not ignoring the problem altogether, or kicking more people out of our club. We talk of community, yet the community is so swift to reject anyone who isn’t a perfect example. The community comes with seemingly zero tangible wins, and it’ll probably kick you out anyway, so why not just choose the other side? The side with the money and parties and girls? The side that’s fucking winning?

We need to start matching up to these people. We need it from actual left-leaning politicians who can compete with the swindlers on the right. The irony is, we do need strength, but not in the “strong men create good times” rhetoric, because that’s nonsensical. We need strength in our softness. We need strength in our acceptance and willingness to keep pushing forward for the main goal, without letting the details bog us down. We must give the people on the other side a reason to join ours, and to do that, we have to disillusion them from the false sense of reality they’ve built. We have to let them out of their boxes. We have to let them back in.

Women, and I count myself in this, have largely so far responded to men’s emotionality with care, before giving up entirely, and turning to girlboss feminism by regurgitating exactly the same toxic values that the patriarchy does. Men used to go to war! We told you all to go to therapy and you didn’t listen, so instead, you should bury your emotions all over again! Don’t speak to us! Don’t even look at us! Stick only with the women who can sell you something, because at least they’re getting something out of you. Stick with the men who support you, even if they’re hurting you further. Ladies, are we in agreement that this probably won’t work? It’s not working so far, is it?

Yes, men can be violent, and I know many of us have experienced their violence first-hand. Violent men’s actions are their responsibility - but stopping the violence from being bred into them in the first place is the responsibility of everyone. I spoke to a guy recently who cleans rivers by processing any waste flowing into them using ultraviolet rays. I asked why he didn’t just clean the rivers themselves; he told me it’s too challenging to do that, but what we can do is treat the new water going in, so that over time, gradually, the overall body of water will get cleaner and cleaner. It’s a great metaphor for the world. We can’t necessarily clean the whole thing up, but we can blast some UV rays at the minds of the youth so they’re prepared - and since they’re the people who will go on to inhabit the place after we die, eventually, the world might just be filled with shiny minds. We must fight against our urges to ignore, to live and let be, and to focus on ourselves - the only way to combat this is to switch strategy, and face the problem head-on. Our movement has to come from community, from leaning on one another, and banding together, rather than breaking apart. Most importantly of all, we must engage the youth, and men as a whole; we have to understand them, we have to love them. Even if it’s painful, even if it’s embarrassing, even if it’s inconvenient, even if it costs money, even if we have to pass out copies of The Will To Change door-to-door and project Good Will Hunting onto the fucking sky using drones. I don’t have all the answers, nor do I claim to; but I know that we’ve got to try. I refused to let the five hours I listened to these succubi speak be for nothing, so let’s count this as me trying. I’ll try to inspire hope. I refuse to give up hope. You clearly refuse to give up, too: you read this whole thing, didn’t you? So, let’s hope together. Let’s act together. And above all, let’s remain focused, unfaltering, and clear on one thing -

From The Whoreses Mouth

Discussion about this post