Why Andrew Tate Is The Black Book's Only Hope (Jeffrey Tate Pt. 2)
Failure to condemn Andrew Tate’s activity could set Epstein’s accomplices free.
In Part 1 of this essay, we examined the eerie similarities between Jeffrey Epstein and Andrew Tate—how both Epstein and Tate were raised in modest income households, and each turned their circumstances around to earn millions. They also believed in doing anything to win, whether that was through Ponzi scheming or a webcam scam. Epstein and Tate also share a strange bond in the dark arts—a flirtation with witchcraft, abuse and trafficking. In Part 2, I’ll expand on why both their differences and similarities matter for the future of justice and humanity, and why ignoring Andrew Tate’s behavior could set Epstein’s accomplices free.
Let’s start by taking a closer look at their targets.
Targets
To understand Tate and Epstein’s targets better, I’ve chosen to categorize them as the bait and catch. Of course, these categorizations aren’t meant to dehumanize the abuse victims, nor imply naiveté on the part of those enabling the abuse. It’s an aid to understand the hellish and multilayered manipulation of these two predators.
Those classified as the bait of both Epstein and Tate bear some similarity in that they were women, and Epstein’s victims were often underage girls. We cover the horrors that these women endured in Part 1.
But when compared side-by-side, the “catch” column of both Epstein and Tate’s targets are nothing alike. Epstein’s catch were powerful, wealthy men—think Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton. Tate’s catch are boys as young as 13, who aspire to the level of power and wealth that presidents and royalty possess.
Both bait and catch are human beings. Both were lured into their predator’s snares by manipulation and intimidation. But the catches attempt to suppress their complicity or victimization through silence and deflection, or give birth to a secondary form of intimidation and manipulation. Let me explain.
One prevalent theory driving the ‘Epstein didn’t kill himself’ movement assumes that Epstein was murdered to keep the names of those who got caught in his honeypot—the catch—away from the public eye. They perpetuated intimidation. And this is also seen with Tate’s catch—young naive men, drawn by the ill-acquired wealth of Tate, and who now threaten those who dare to paint their master in an unfavorable light. The only other option for those who fall into the bait and catch traps is to tell the truth, and that bears its own host of consequences.
Ultimately, Tate and Epstein’s catch differ this way; the young men, (and I don’t want to assume that these are only ever men) do not merely buttress Tate’s platform with likes and hearts—they follow him with loud, religious vigor. And then they mutate into extensions of Tate whenever he’s faced with persecution through censorship and imprisonment.
As we established in Part 1, The Real World students are incentivized to embody Tate through an affiliate program that rewards them with a commission for referrals, and referrals are driven by Tate content disseminated through accounts operated by these students. This means Tate has a PR army on the ready, willing to bend reality in Tate’s favor, if it means a pretty penny from these referral conversions. It’s a digital cult that welcomes manipulation for one’s own gain. An Aleister Crowley ‘Do What Thou Wilt’ commission on cocaine.
If Epstein’s catch are powerful in wealth, Tate’s catch are strong in number.
And while Tate’s catches are enslaved by amplification, Epstein’s catch are bound by silence. What does Epstein’s catch stand to lose if the truth comes out—the truth that lays plain their participation in the sexual abuse and trafficking of children? To start, they could face the same prison-bound fate as Ghislaine Maxwell. Followed by the loss of a legacy built over decades. For others, that might look like the loss of a royal lineage preserved for hundreds of years.
Besides the hand cuffs, and ruined generational wealth, their egos stand to suffer quite the blow too, as they’ll be forced to surrender their prestige to their rivals. They’d also be forced to step down as CEOs, presidents, heads and leaders—besmirching not only themselves, but the brands they championed. Brands that probably employ tens of thousands globally. Further strings of corruption would be investigated. Political unrest and restructure would ensue. The consequences of exposure are a spiral of catastrophe for those complicit.
However, the most surprising effect of the screechiness of Tate’s catch against the stealth of Epstein’s, is that either camp is the other’s worst enemy. But only one camp is the other’s only hope of burying an evil past.
Here’s where the convoluted Matrix theory that Tate and his trolls spout comes in.
Hustler’s University was closed after financial processing company, Stripe, disassociated from the program. This led to a revamped online school called The Real World—inspired by The Matrix trilogy. The Real World’s brand also pays homage to the Red Pill community—inspired by The Matrix as well—and its core belief that posits reality as an organized fiction, designed to emasculate men, and which places humanity in a caste of subjugation. Those that benefit from this fake realm are an unseen cohort of sadistic elites.
This is where the cognitive dissonance triggered by the comparison of Epstein and Tate emerges. Remember Epstein’s stealthy catch? In the eyes of the Red-Pillers, Epstein’s clientele are the overlords that control the Matrix. This framing divides the Tate and Epstein camps into a binary of good and evil.
The glaring similarities between Jeffrey Epstein and Andrew Tate are therefore not as hard to notice, as they are to accept.
Critical Response
When Andrew Tate is often dubbed a ‘trafficker’ by news media, those who sway red often retort with the innocent-until-proven-guilty quip. The kind of patience that was never extended to Jeffrey and Ghislaine when they were slammed with similar charges. In fact, if Epstein and Maxwell were proven innocent in court, it would only serve to solidify the theory that shadowy powers were working in favor of the elites.
The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance grow more apparent when presented with one stark difference between Jeffrey Epstein and Andrew Tate.
We have barely ever heard Epstein speak.
A YouTube compilation of Epstein’s voice, most of which were gleaned from deposition recordings, amounted to a whopping 8 minutes. And in most of the clips compiled, Epstein repeatedly pleads the fifth. On the other hand, Tate’s TikTok videos alone have received over 11 billion views. And in that tsunami of exposure, Tate’s beliefs and practices have been stated and affirmed many times over—even to the extent of self-incrimination.
Despite the fact that Tate has more steam behind his conviction through personal confession, conservative pundits commit to a defense of Tate’s behavior and beliefs, despite speaking from an ideological foundation that decries grooming, and advocates for independence and autonomy. (A kind reminder that ‘misogynist’ isn’t a label forced on Tate, it is how he self-identifies.)
This cognitive dissonance would be a benign stain in the fabric of ideological consistency, if it wasn’t for the insane benefit Epstein’s accomplices could gain from the normalization of Tate’s teachings.
If we were to entertain the possibility that Epstein didn’t kill himself, one can assume that the person (or people) bold enough to subvert justice through murder desperately needed to protect their name(s) from the public eye.
Returning to the catch and bait categories of Epstein’s targets, the catch targets stand to lose significantly if exposed. The only thing that could affect their futures is the public’s reception to their acts of complicity, and that is dependent on collective public moral norms.
And right now, the right really hates harming children.
To be fair, the recent outrage over Balenciaga’s BDSM shoot demonstrates that most Americans with brains and hearts are disgusted by grooming and the exploitation of innocent, powerless humans. What if failure to recognize the similarities between Tate and Epstein only serves to normalize abuse and control, especially amongst the circles that are highly critical of Epstein?
The only thing Epstein’s catch can’t control is your understanding of right and wrong. Good and evil. And right now, those hypnotized by Tate are dumbing down definitions of trafficking and excusing rape, manipulation and abuse, simply because Tate is vocally opposed to woke liberalism.
And no, I’m not suggesting that Andrew Tate is “controlled opposition”, although my argument isn’t far off from that train of thought.
Opposing wokeness does not grant righteousness. Self-identifying solely by what you're against makes room for overlooking rot within the group. It takes a strong core to realize an objective, universal morality in order to recognize evil wherever it rears its ugly head. Otherwise, evil ascribed and confined to one group will only serve to quench the degree of evil on the side of those doing the condemning, therefore creating an ever-descending seesaw of degeneracy.
So the next time you recognize an inconvenient injustice, don’t be afraid to call it out.
Because if Tate desensitizes the elite's strongest critics, then Epstein has won.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments.