Many of you know Andrew Tate from his high energy, insanely passionate tik tok shock videos. What you probably didn't know is that his ascent to fame and popularity was not an overnight fluke. Andrew had been making videos with provocative content meant to provoke thought or deliver the shock factor that social media demands, for many years. Like any other content creator, he carved out a niche in an attempt to dominate and rise to the top - that is social branding 101. Saying the same generic things everybody else says, sets no one apart. We know this, just as intimately as Andrew does. So, in an attempt at social media fame, he became the shock king - make it as shocking and as bold as possible. This is what virality has demanded for years. This is what we have demanded since the advent of social media, because this is what we all respond to - shock content. Andrew Tate made it shocking; he made it bold and delivered. While some of us loved it, others of us hated it. That has historically been the theme of social media fame. We all intrinsically understand that polarity drives stardom.

We have inadvertently set a standard for what virality and fame require. When that standard is met, we cannot then say "You were too shocking in the things you said because women are exempt."

That is madness. If we are going to request an Andrew Tate ban under the guise of "his content is harmful to women", we must show the women who have been harmed and we must also ban every Kardashian/Jenner sister whose obvious love affair with cosmetic surgery created an entire pandemic of the BBL where many young women have lost their lives even at the extent of flying to DR and Mexico to obtain the Kardashian/Jenner/Nicki Minaj cosmetic surgery effect. That is actual, physical, tangible, fatal harm that social media has never addressed. These are people social media has elevated to stardom. In fact, open a new IG account and you'll see that it's the Kardashians and Jenners who Instagram first shows you to follow. What have they positively contributed to young girls? There's been astronomical amounts of documented cases of young girls suffering self-esteem issues for feelings of inability to compete with the cosmetically enhanced they constantly see on Instagram, and for not feeling as aesthetically pleasing as the filtered pictures of the celebrities Instagram pushes on young girls. That is long lasting psychological harm. Has Instagram removed its filters? No. Because none of this is about protecting girls from the things that actually cause them harm.

I can point to hundreds of overtly degenerate songs with vulgar profanities and messages that Instagram hosts in its own catalog that I'm allowed to play in any of my reels. What about Cardi B's "Wet Ass P*ssy" that has dominated social media? The glorification of promiscuity is harmful to young girls. But has Instagram banned Cardi B or the Kardashians for inflicting harm? No. I can log onto Twitter and see live hardcore porn that is available for every minor on the platform, both its young boys and girls. The platform is replete with pedophiles. What have they done about it despite our many cries to remove porn from social media? Nothing.

Further, how many live murders have been captured on Facebook live, traumatizing its viewers? How many dead bodies have you seen on these platforms? How many women have lost their lives over years of meeting strangers on Facebook? And what has Meta done about any of this?

Wasn't Mark Zuckerberg called up before Congress twice and still hasn't done anything to protect his minor users from pedophiles?

So, you see, this lynching of Andrew Tate isn't about any harm caused to women by anything Tate has said, nor is it about truly protecting women, because Andrew Tate didn't post any of his shock videos on his Instagram. It is about a man who acquired global fame outside of the system's control. It is about curtailing his influence, reach and power.

Essentially, it is about curtailing you and I. When a man we see as one of us (not an elite inside the Matrix), rises up to say "Become men" to a generation with the lowest testosterone levels, that means something. When he says "Learn to fight to protect yourself and your loved ones", to a fatherless generation who were never taught traditional principles of protecting and providing, that means something.

The social media tactics that Andrew has employed, is no different from what many celebrities and reputable companies have also employed.

Let's illustrate:

Recall when luxury designer Gucci sold a clearly racist shirt? In this day and age, it is beyond believable that no one on their entire enormous staff, had the good sense to know it was racist and offensive. However, I feel safe in saying the call was made to offend an entire race for the tradeoff of the virality that would save Gucci millions in marketing and advertising. The heavy backlash came (rightfully so), and Gucci was allowed to offer a subsequent apology.

 

The brand "H&M" did the same thing when they placed a little Black boy in a hoodie saying "Cutest Monkey". They achieved the intended virality and the free marketing and publicity that comes with that; then consequently apologized and moved on.

 

 

 

The notorious Kardashians have come under fire repeatedly for the appropriation of Black culture and aesthetics. There are those who think it's a trivial issue, while others understand its flagrancy from a historical perspective. They still continue to do whatever keeps them relevant in the social media landscape because after all, social media is their entire claim to fame.

 

 

The point is, the social media age has, by its very nature, created the propensity for offensiveness and shock factor content. It is the single most potent form of driving virality. This is what Andrew Tate has done. While we should each hold a measure of social responsibility, singling him out to be banned for the things he has said that might be offensive to particular demographics, is just not a believable sell when we have failed to hold our music and entertainment industry accountable for its pervasive violence and degeneracy sold to our youths.

Andrew Tate means something to us. He's given us strength when we felt weak and despaired. He's helped us to find our warrior spirit to beat depression, hit the gym and find a purpose. He's been the father that many of us didn't have.

Is he perfect? Absolutely not. Has he said some things that can be construed as toxic? Absolutely. So has many others. However, his content has been deliberately taken out of context and assigned a seriousness that was never intended.

Andrew has been evolving and offers the world more good than bad. An attack on Andrew Tate is an attack on all our voices. Today it's Tate, tomorrow, it's you.

I'm all for cleaning up the culture. I'm all for young girls valuing themselves and their bodies. I'm all for young men respecting themselves, women, the role they play in society and of equal importance, staying out of jail. But that requires a meaningful, well-intentioned conversation amongst all the movers and influencers. Why not have a sit down with the music heads, the Kardashians, influential rappers, social media heads and social influencers across the spectrum. If this is about safety and impact, banning one man has no effect on that. So, we call on Zuckerberg to reinstate Andrew Tate and let's all work together for change towards the greater good for all.

Social media is powerful. More powerful than governments. But without all of us, everything fails. They fail. The system as it is, fails. We, the little people, hold the real power when we unite. The social media giants and the controllers of the world are only powerful when we hand them control over all of us. Let's all work together to create something bigger and greater than any one man. 

Use your power and sign the petition to have Andrew Tate re-platformed. Let's use Tate's reach, power, and influence to create a change for all us, for the greater good. LET'S CHANGE THE WORLD!!