The Dishonesty of Adolescence

The latest deflection strategy is another propaganda war on white families.

The new Netflix series Adolescence has apparently been a big hit, with many commentators praising every element of the piece as a sophisticated, nuanced and moving portrayal of the terrible social effects of online influencers distorting the behaviour and feelings of young men. The story centres on a working class white father dealing with the arrest and interrogation of his 13 year old son following the death of a girl of similar age.

The father’s background is apparently that of a former troublemaker and football hooligan, now reformed, who genuinely loves and wishes to protect his child. (I’ve been told this former hooligan element is online rumour, but haven’t confirmed either way). More importantly, the story that unfolds show that the son was to some extent bullied and dismissed by the girl he killed, and to a greater extent programmed with misogynistic, ‘incel’ attitudes by online influencers.

Key elements here seem to reference contemporary culture in rather obviously progressive liberal ways. The concentration on online influencers clearly is intended to invoke controversial figures like Andrew Tate and more broadly criticisms of the effects of feminism. It’s meant to present that the alienation of young men is engineered by sleazy and themselves hideous online personalities who need to be suppressed. It’s the young male vote which has been most and increasingly opposed to progressive Globalist attitudes (there’s endless polling evidence of this, and for example of things like the Democrat vote in the US, especially among white voters, being extraordinarily weighted towards and reliant on university educated women).

What’s being presented then is that working class white families are a social problem leading to violence and harm. It is these families who are fragmented. It is these families who, however loving, aren’t monitoring their children online and aren’t protecting their children from toxic influencers. This is the demographic to worry about, apparently.

It’s 13 year old white boys from the majority populace who are dangerous, and it’s ‘rightwing’ or Alt Right online figures who are stoking violence towards women, and it’s white dads who are failing as moral guardians.

Some of the critics of the series have been very blunt in expressing the central dishonesty here:

Which is of course consistent too with a recognised pattern or agenda from Netflix regarding the portrayal of race in its programming. Many have spotted a combined attempt to constantly demonise white people (all villains are white, all killers are white, all racism is always white on black racism) and simultaneously a DEI type urge to ‘blackwash’ history and pretend that even real white historical figures were black or can be accurately portrayed by black actors:

In both these contexts, then, the Netflix choice to cast a white family at the centre of a story about modern teen murder was bound to raise just as much of a knowing sneer outside metropolitan liberal circles, as it was bound to be enthusiastically greeted by the kind of people ready to recast all social ills and all racial divisions as the fault of the Alt Right, Far Right or white supremacism.

These impressions are perhaps not helped by the actor who plays the white father, who is himself mixed race though of white appearance, going on a promotional tour and talking about all the horrid racism he supposedly suffered for part Caribbean ancestry (Stephan Graham, who has also starred in football hooliganism movies that present the standard liberal attitude to the white working class).

All of this suggests a deliberate agenda. As do the realities of teen murder (and child rape) and where these are primarily coming from when contrasted with this fiction.

Before the release of the series, the most recent widely known and socially significant cases of child harm in the UK, to say the very least, don’t match the demographics and alleged causes displayed in the series.

Thus far, and may that continue of course, there has been no wave of incel teen murders in the UK. There have been no recent murders at any age category where the killers are ‘incels’ (a supposed category of misogynist young males, primarily white, who feel that women have rejected them, feminism has distorted society, and who are ‘involuntarily celibate’ due to contemporary sexual attitudes).

Andrew Tate may himself be deeply unpleasant. The rape and abuse cases against him may be true. But they have not, yet, been proven true in a court of law. And the uncomfortable fact is that some of what he says can still be TRUE, even if he is saying it for malign purposes or is himself a horrible person. One of the basic realities of life that strict and enforced political orthodoxies (like modern progressivism) ignores is that very bad people can still say things that are true, and that very good people can still say things that are untrue.

Before we even come to asking ourselves whether the people claiming to be very good are just as or more malign than the people they want to censor and silence.

It’s my personal view that charges against Tate may be true. It’s also my personal view that when he says attempts to silence or imprison him are politically motivated, that’s also true. Because when he says as well that feminism has distorted current attitudes, and that men and boys need to learn to be masculine, need positive male role models, and need to be given respect and admiration for qualities like courage and entrepreneurial endeavour rather than constantly being berated, demonised and humiliated in a society that no longer values them at all, he’s right.

The problem is not that these points are false or evil. It’s that Tate’s behaviour is not that of a positive, protective, traditional male, and certainly not that of a positive role model. It’s that his behaviour probably mirrors every cliche of ‘toxic masculinity’, which is unfortunate given that toxic masculinity is itself a pretty evil and reductive concept demonising all men and all boys.

But the central fact is that there is no wave of online influenced incel or Alt Right attacks on girls and women in the UK. It doesn’t exist.

Direct attacks on actual feminists, of the physical attack kind? These are statistically actually more likely to come from transgender males who think they are women. As is online abuse of feminists.

Large scale sex attacks or rare but increasing cases of child murder? Statistically far more likely to come from ethnic minority and imported killers, rather than from white British children.

The Southport killer was not motivated to kill three little girls and injure many others by listening to Andrew Tate or by questioning feminism. He was a Muslim immigrant and we put people in prison for saying so, which is a judicial and moral obscenity. He killed because of a combination of personal psychosis and Islamic instruction. The police found an ISIS training manual in his home-and concealed that fact until after they had arrested and imprisoned people for accurately predicting he would be a Muslim. He wasn’t white, and he wasn’t 13 years old.

The most recent child slaying that made headlines in the UK? That was this case:

“Hassan Sentamu, a teenager, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 23 years for the murder of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in a dispute over a teddy bear in Croydon, south London, in September 2023. Sentamu admitted manslaughter but denied murder, claiming his autism spectrum disorder had caused him to lose control during the meeting. However, a jury found him guilty of murder by a majority verdict. The incident occurred after Elianne and her friend had teased Sentamu the day before, leading to the fatal confrontation where Sentamu stabbed Elianne multiple times, including in the neck, which proved fatal.”

And what was the background of this killer? Was he a white boy with a white father who was raised in England with English cultural lessons? What do you think?

“Hassan Sentamu was an immigrant to the UK. He was born in Uganda in 2006 and came to live in the UK at the age of five with his three sisters and mother who had fled domestic abuse.”

Doesn’t fit the Adolescence template very well, does it?

Similarly the Manchester arena bombing, which killed and harmed more little girls in the UK than any other single attack, which effectively targeted little girls by focusing on a concert by a singer very popular with little girls, was like the Southport murders an Islamic terrorist attack. Both these attacks targeted little girls. Both were Islamic. Both the killers were from ethnic minorities.

And of course the mass rape on an industrial scale of little girls and teenage girls was not performed by Alt Right incels who oppose feminism. It was performed by non-white Muslim adult males who were first or second generation immigrants. White families were the victims, not the causes, of these attacks.

Everyone who isn’t in a progressive liberal bubble of dishonesty knows that rising crime, rising harms to children, increasing rape and murder, are not coming exclusively from 13 year old white boys who have been on the internet too much. These increases and the social and moral disintegration they represent are made most likely and most often involve imported and savage attitudes rather than ones already present in Britain.

Perhaps at this point we should mention that Andrew Tate is himself a Muslim from a mixed race background? So even if the liberal narrative were correct (which it isn’t) we aren’t talking about an evil fostered by white British families.

At the same time that Adolescence is lying about where modern threats to young girls in the UK are coming from, former England football manager Gareth Southgate, a very woke figure who previously obsessed on race issues and BLM support while England manager, is giving lectures about (surprise surprise) toxic online influencers. This speech was praised throughout British mainstream media:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/19/gareth-southgate-rails-against-callous-toxic-influencers-in-dimbleby-lecture

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqjpzg0qwno

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/03/19/gareth-southgate-dimbleby-lecture-toxic-influencers-threat/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14513997/gareth-southgate-blasts-manipulative-toxic-influencers-misogyny.html

All of the above links cannot be directly shared here, but will work if you highlight them and click open link. I share them in this way despite the block on the link opening automatically in order to illustrate the concerted media voice on this.

Southgate’s Dimblelby Lecture speech presses exactly the same message as Adolescence. What is that message?

It is that the rising violence is a rightwing and white problem, and that the answer is increasing State censorship of online content. Only this can save our children.

A distortion all the more obscene as it comes as a deflection from real threats these woke progressives have increased. We are supposed to be silent about Muslim child rape gangs, be silent about imported disgusting attitudes to women and children, and be silent about ethnic crime rates and troublesome cultural attitudes.

Ignore that. Look at this.

Blame Andrew Tate, but even worse, blame white families and blame anyone who opposes either feminism or mass migration. It’s the online content, dude. It’s not the Muslims, bro.

It’s you.

You disgusting 13 year old white boys, or you disgusting Far Right white dads. You’re the real problem.

Even your disgusting Far Right White Boy Free Speech. That’s the problem.

These things don’t all come along at once by accident. They come along not as a reaction to rising crime with the intent of preventing it. They come along as the reaction to the reaction, as an attempt to suppress awareness that multiculturalism and mass immigration harms women and children. It’s not a moral horror at the crimes. It’s a moral horror at people correctly identifying the ACTUAL origin of the crimes. And it’s another psychological nudge campaign aimed at increasing hatred and blame towards the white working class while justifying more censorship and repression of them too.

It’s female safety and rights and Third World culture that are actually incompatible, but you aren’t supposed to know that. Hence the deflection and the entertainment propaganda, as well as the increasing censorship.