When Andrew Tate Tells the Truth

Are we morally required to support or deny a truth from a dubious source?

Sometimes our social media interactions raise important points it’s worth repeating in an article. I generally avoid repeating my Facebook exchanges here, but will do so when they cover vital ground. Today I’ve had what I think is a very interesting exchange, both for the importance of the specific topic (reactions to the Muslim child rape crimes in the UK) and for a wider philosophical point about truth and the value of truth.

The older I have got the more I have seen truth and morality as utterly dependent on each other, and sometimes indistinguishable. Moral crimes are always excused and covered by lies, and always prevented and exposed by truth. Much of the modern insanities we are witness to are ones that can only exist by denying objective reality, by substituting ideological loyalties in place of truth, and by lying to ourselves and others about important issues. The mainstream media of course have become the purchased deniers of truth, the custodians of what is considered truth who themselves have no idea what truth is, except to always detest and attack it when they encounter it.

It is especially true that in a society being destroyed by lies, it is impossible to be truly moral while unable to discern truth independently and accurately.

But there is a complication in this. What do we do, for example, when a truth is shared by a vile person? Is support for that truth support for the source of it? I don’t think it is. I think it is the truth of the statement that matters most.

A friend of mine shared an image of an exchange on X in which Elon Musk agreed with Andrew Tate. This comes in the context of Musk doing invaluable good by speaking up for truth with regard to the disgusting mass rape of British children by Pakistani Muslim men and the equally disgusting and determined efforts of the current Labour government and the entire British political establishment to assist the rapists by burying the key truths about them.

But it is also, of course, in the context of the Tate brothers themselves facing multiple accusations of sexual abuse, sex trafficking and rape of children and adults.

In this instance we are required to consider which context matters most, and whether truth can be be shared from a dubious source. Here is the exchange as it was presented in the post I’m referencing:

“Andrew Tate: There is an Islamic crime problem in the UK. This is an objective fact.

Elon Musk: True words.

Nathan Livingstone:@elonmusk “This Muslim under house arrest for sodomizing a fifteen year old makes some good points about Islamic crime in the UK.”

When my friend shared this exchange, it was obviously as a criticism of Musk for agreeing with Tate. Tate’s nature was assumed to be a thing that made agreeing with Tate unacceptable.

I said this:

“A statement made by a despicable person or a hypocrite can still be true. If it’s true the truth is not affected by the source.

The Tates say a lot of things that are stupid. They also say a lot of things that are true.

It’s also the case that it’s perfectly possible for them to be BOTH personally vile AND the victims of silencing and demonisation campaigns by equally or more vile authorities.

You only consider the source. Here, Musk is simply considering the statement.”

I think my position here is both logical and moral. It amazes me how people, including friends, sometimes lack basic logic and that firm bedrock of real morality that always supports logic.

If Satan himself said “there’s a Muslim crime problem in the UK” it would still be “true words” regardless of the source.

It is still, as Tate says, an objective fact. And it remains so whoever says it.

Just as trying to deflect from this fact, or treating the nature of the source expressing it as in this instance more important than the fact, is ultimately supporting the mass rape of British children by Muslim men.

For all I know the Tates are indeed sex trafficking pedos. I also know they only got into issues with the law about it when they started saying things the authorities don’t want said. I don’t know if the claims against them are solely about silencing them and false, or partially true, or fully true.

I do know that saying there is a Muslim crime problem in Britain is true. It’s too mild a statement, but it’s true. And that our current Prime Minister was part of that industrial scale mass child rape by denying it, deflecting from it, calling criticism of it being far right, and imprisoning people for telling the truth about it all while refusing to imprison the child rapists.

That’s much more important than Andrew Tate.

If a response to Muslims raping children is “well there are white perverts” or “well the people saying this aren’t nice” those are vile deflections from the truth.

The truth remains the truth, and ALL attempts to deny it regarding Muslim child rape gangs remain forms of support for child rape.

And you can always judge these things or anything controversial on the truth of a statement. When Tucker praised a scumbag who describes Churchill as the real villain of WWII as a great historian, that was vile because what the scumbag was saying was untrue and evil. The fact that Tucker has said a lot of true things previously and platformed a lot of people previously who were sharing truth doesn’t change that. Musk agreeing with a TRUE statement is not vile.

If Bill Gates suddenly turned around and said “they weren’t vaccines, and they killed people” the statement would be true, regardless of his guilt in the promotion and mandating of those treatments.

It’s sensible to be aware of the nature of a source, but not in a way that excludes objective reality. The nature of the source does not change the nature of the statement.

I can’t think of any person on the planet so vile that an objectively true statement from them automatically becomes untrue. And conversely there is no person so pure and good that an objectively false statement from them becomes true.

Ignore all deflections. Hate all pedos. But the biggest pedo crime in British history was supported and is STILL supported by the people saying anything they can to pretend that there ISN’T an issue with Islam in Britain.

How can people be so bereft of logic that they don’t see this, and so bereft of morality that they don’t see this?

Tate’s statement WAS an objective fact being expressed. Nathan Livingstone’s reply WAS a roundabout way of supporting Muslim child rapists by focusing on the source of a statement rather than the content of the statement (just as telling us that Tommy used to be a football hooligan is such a deflection).

Thank God that Musk seems to have both logic and morality in his opinion forming. These are rare qualities today.

There was a further follow up to this exchange. My friend, who I know to be a decent person who has long sought to expose the Tate brothers and who I have no reason to believe does so as part of any establishment cover up, said this:

“That argument doesn’t work since it relies on defending another terrible person. Would you say the same thing if it was Epstein saying this? And stop with the lies that they are being silenced for what they are saying when the truth is the Tate brothers are just terrible people in general.”

If anything this point makes my belief in the validity of a truth regardless of the source even firmer. It really is the case, as I see it, that the facts regarding the vile crimes against white children in the UK are now so obvious, and have now so obviously been subject to an attempted and hypocritically racist cover up for so long, that the nature of any critic of this is entirely immaterial.

This truth must be expressed. Any deflection is more support for all the evil that has been previously allowed, and any exposure is support for the innocent victims who have, for so long, been denied and ignored. So this was my final word on it:

“Yes I would say the same thing if it was Epstein saying it. I’d say the same thing if it was Idi Amin saying it, or Hitler saying it, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Satan. You obviously missed both the point and the part where I said an objectively true statement is still true even if it comes from Satan.

And NO, recognising the STATEMENT is true is not defending them. It is defending truth.”

Without truth, we can only have evil.