We Need to Talk About the Conservative Obsession With Andrew Tate

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Of all the things that make no sense to me, the right-wing obsession with Andrew Tate makes the least amount of sense.

If you haven’t heard of Tate, consider yourself lucky. He’s a disgusting human who has bragged about getting girls to fall in love with him so he con them into making him money on OnlyFans. He’s also on tape physically beating a woman while other videos show him admitting to having seduced and slept with 15 and 16-year-olds as an adult.


Tate is currently charged in Romania with various counts of rape and human trafficking. Prosecutors allege he and his brother held seven women in confinement, placing them under surveillance and forcing them to pay back “debts.”

For reasons that are beyond me, though, some on the right have decided to treat Tate as a persecuted victim. That has led to an incredibly weird dynamic whereby everyone knows Tate is an abuser, yet he’s still treated as some kind of conservative thought leader.

The latest example of that comes via Candace Owens, who is furiously promoting a new interview she conducted with Tate. Here’s the trailer that was dropped on Thursday.

Owens’ promo opens with her smilingly greeting Tate before cutting to her asking about him beating a woman with a belt (there is a video, but I’m not linking to it). She says “I want you to explain to them what that was,” which is a very tepid way to broach the subject of physically abusing a woman. Then after another cut, Owens says, “I’m glad to hear you’re not proud of the video.” So I guess that’s it?

The next part of the trailer is Tate lecturing on pornography and chastising men for not having the “fortitude” to “wake up and say I’m better than that.” That all sounds good until you remember he’s allegedly forced women into pornography, and at the very least, he has admitted to tricking women into it for his own personal gain. Finally, Owens asks him what his “life will look like in the next five years.” You know, real hard-hitting stuff.


Would someone please tell me what Andrew Tate brings to any discussion? Some will say he’s a valued voice on masculinity, but that that’s ridiculous. There’s nothing masculine about abusing women. There are plenty of other guys who go to the gym who you can take advice from out there. You don’t need Tate to be that voice.

For further context, here’s a montage that went viral of Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Tate. The latter’s answers are intermixed with videos and articles showing he is lying on many points, and much of the evidence presented is Tate’s own words.

One could suppose that Carlson was caught flat-footed, having not done enough research on Tate to effectively push back, but Owens doesn’t have the same excuse because she conducted her interview some weeks later.

Here’s my problem with this aside from this moral degeneracy of treating Tate as anything other than the creep he is. Yes, Owens is obviously sympathetic to him, but the bigger issue is that mainline conservative outlets are willing to give this guy a platform for one reason: Clicks.

This isn’t about Tate “telling his story.” He’s already had ample opportunity to do that, and I’d say that a man who openly admits to abusing women doesn’t really deserve to “tell his story.” It’s not about him providing valuable advice to young men either because he has none of that to give. Instead, Owens gave him what looks to be a patty-cake interview because she knows it’ll produce hits, and by virtue, it’ll produce money.


Is this what conservative media is going to become? If I wanted morally-repugnant profit chasing, I’d just become a disciple of the mainstream media. Right-wing media is supposed to be different. It’s supposed to be a counter to dishonesty, not a promoter of it. It’s certainly not supposed to be a rehab facility for abusers and alleged human traffickers. If those basic boundaries don’t exist, then what are we even doing?



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos