Andrew Tate vs BBC- Reaction

Hey you are you wasting your time on social media again, your brothers and sisters in Islam net from Norway are establishing a message in a Dawa center. Establishing a message to convey the message of Islam is one of the best deeds a Muslim can do. There's a huge need for annoying you know this and I know this, so that makes it even greater. So give generously and Allah azza wa jal give you even more.

So I'm Ali Kumamoto, Allahu Allah cattle, how are you guys doing? As many of you will know, and retail has been incarcerated without charge for some time, subsequently put under house arrest. And now this is the first BBC interview of his got the first interview of his kind, that has just landed actually, where he was talking to the BBC, in fact, a docile and placid

interviewer, very weak body language, very weak argumentation. And I wanted to actually do kind of analysis on this. So let's take a look at the first point she makes and come back and responding kind. You've got the police, naming you by name, as someone who has a harmful influence on children and on women in the UK and elsewhere, because of the things you say, the first point she makes about the police, as she uses that as a kind of appeal to authority. Now, aside from being fallacious, the problem here is what makes the police any kind of authority anyways, I mean, she would have been better off actually mentioning sociological experts, because this is a sociological case, the effect

of Andrew tape, she would have been better off mentioning and academic. But even that is problematic, because who cares? I mean, these are just opinions anyway. But the point is the police does not represent the judiciary, in the UK, let alone can impose judicial ruling. So the fact that she mentioned the police as some kind of an important opinion, when we know that this institution in the United Kingdom is one which has been repeatedly accused of institutional racism, and corruption and all kinds of problems is itself problematic. Let's see the second point and respond, you are the most dangerous man in the world. I've said I'm the most dangerous man in the world. It's almost

comical at this point, it's actually

laughable at the point of commonality. That's why I would say, I mean, this is if you're meeting somebody here, you're meant to be representing alleged victims of major crimes. And this is the strongest argument that you can present. I mean, this is the strongest thing you can say. I think you do a great disservice, okay, to those individuals who want this man to be questioned, in a harsh manner and in a targeted manner, because it's this the strongest thing you can provide. You said, you said, you said that you're the most dangerous man in the world. I mean,

you can bring up with any MMA fighter who said something very similar to that you go into question, and then when that kind of thing, he's a fighter, he's, he has a track record of being a kickboxing champion, bring Mike Tyson he says the same thing. Bring Muhammad Ali, he said the same thing. Is this a joke or something. So let's see what she says after that. You've also said that a woman's intimate parts belong to her male partner, I'm glad you find that funny. I found this quite actually malevolent, and malicious what she did after that, after he was laughing at this point, she says, You said about women's use that a man owns daughter, the intimate parts of women. And then I'm glad

you found that funny. And he was already laughing at the first thing that she mentioned. So as if to make him to implicate him into doing something which you didn't, which is laugh at the point about finding woman's private parts or owning them or whatever it may be. So I found this actually quite malicious and disingenuous in authentic. This shows weakness and insecurity actually don't have behalf because she couldn't elicit anything from him. So she was trying to force the issue and contrive something which wasn't even there. So let's take a look at the next part of this interview. England, which is a failing nation, which has knife crime going through the roof violence go through

the roof, men's mental health going through the roof. I liked this monologue by Tate because he starts off by talking about some issues because she mentioned two or three organizations in the United Kingdom, she says and he says, Look, England's got its own problems, which is true. We've got a knife, crime epidemic, all these things that he mentioned is absolutely true. I mean, I looked at some statistics 50,000 people I think in 2019, were stabbed in the United Kingdom. There are some bigger fish to fry, but she's here talking about us to a social influencer about his words online. She wouldn't do that really with people of ethnic backgrounds. Okay. Potentially grime artists and

then why are these people not question on the same level? I don't understand that. We have people all over London for example, whether they call it grime and yes everyone called drill drill out, you know, the drill artisans are talking about all kinds of things. Why don't you call

If this is the standard, this is the problem here. Why don't you talk to these people about these things? I think it's because there's a cultural reasoning for it.

Maybe it's because he's saying it in prose, maybe why not comedians be scrutinized in the same manner. So I feel like there's a massive double standard going on here. Let's see the next thing that she states have an image of finance.

Excuse me, you have an image of financial success, but it comes along with attitudes towards women that are really problematic. This is a very unusual point, isn't it? She says that, you know, you have these, this financial success, but then you then you have the side orders. You mentioned the one point of misogyny the side or Well, that's the point that you're asserting the point. So you have to bring the evidence. I mean, you're making you're giving your opinion at this point. You're meant to be eliciting as the look, you're an interrogator here. Well, at least you're attempting to be an interrogator. So you should be trying to elicit something from him trying to catch him try to

corner him. You're just imposing your opinion at this stage. It's actually quite embarrassing. I'm surprised you even work for the BBC. I'm surprised they put you on this project. I don't know why they put the BBC should have put something like Jeremy Paxman or Jeremy Paxman type to go against toe to toe with this guy. Because quite frankly, this is no match. It's like putting a lightweight with a heavyweight. This is embarrassing why they're doing this. I wanted to see more. I want to see him being tested more, because there are some serious allegations. I mean, there are some serious allegations he should have been tested on these allegations. And like he correctly said they should

have been talking about why was he incarcerated for this long? Why is it justice system? As it is in Romania? Why was there no discussion from Amnesty International and other, you know, human rights organizations about him being incarcerated without charge? Because it was that guy Schofield wasn't named Phillip Schofield. Why don't they interrogate him on these issues like that, while they talk about him like that? Hmm. Because the reason why is because he represents to a large extent the same ideological belief systems. They've kind of, you know, if anything, not done that with him, they wouldn't do that with him. I want to see that with him. I want to see that kind of attitude with

him.

And this is the next point that I wanted to mention here. Let's see what she says. She, she states something about if you said,

women lose authority, and I think this is a very telling point, because she's bringing her own ideological baggage here. Let's take a look at this point here. Most women, would you want to lose authority in the relationship to not be treated as a Free and Legal equal? Who do you mean by what most women, most white women, most Western women, most willed women? If you go to Nigeria, and ask women women there, would you want to lose authority? I want you if you went to Mali, if you went to Malaysia, what do you mean by most women in the world? Well, we have lots of evidence to show that women of these parts of the world they don't believe in the kind of egalitarian ideological points

that you believe that you clearly are trying to espouse, vomits on us shoved down our throats quite frankly, shoved down our throats.

Colonial feminism, I don't think the majority of women in the world today believe in the kind of colonial Western feminism of the egalitarian system that you believe in, frankly. So if you ask most women, what we mean Western women don't have to be white, or can they be from other races or other religions? What kind of woman was What do you mean by authority anyway?

And frankly, let's go to Western women, because, I mean, maybe she means Western women. Because if you ask most women, let's go to Western women. Would you relinquish? Okay, some of your quote unquote, authority, decision making capability, let's say for the sake of argument, that's what she might mean, in a relationship that she would otherwise have. For a degree of protection? I think they would actually. And the evidence of that is in some of the studies like the famous study by Quinn, quite a Q ing on hypergamy, which indicates that the majority of Western women will actually go for a man who's got more money, which would probably put them in a subordinate position in terms

of decision making capabilities, but for that extra financial protection. So I think there is a case to be made that if you go and ask most women, would they lose authority in relation to be treated, not to be treated as equals or whatever it is to relinquish part of their authority? I think they would actually, depending on how that I think many women would do that. But once again, you have to define your terms and it becomes a childish argument almost childish to a point of commonality.

Is this what is resorting to, and it gets even worse, she's the PVC representative. This is the strongest argument she's giving to a man who's who is influential, although she doesn't want to agree with that. But at least to the extent what she's claiming someone broke into this house right now is a homicidal maniac. I would expect me and the other men in this room to stand up and face them while you were in the when you when the other women in this room could protect yourselves. I would actually believe the men should go and engage the attacker. I believe that so he makes a really good point here. He says if someone broke into this, I think this offense

Classic point, because it shows you this idea of rights and responsibility paradigm. And this is a staple part of traditional gender roles. Yes, you sacrifice parts of your so called rights.

But then you also relinquish, we forego part of the responsibilities that are required that go with that, right, which means that you get additional protection, which means yes, I promise you that woman there with her weak body language, crossing her arms, asking docile questions, that individual, that woman, they're representing the BBC, in the most abysmal way possible.

That individual if there was any level of physical threat that faced her, she would rely on men undoubtedly, in that house to protect her. And she would feel nothing about that she would feel no sense of

she would feel totally entitled to that. In fact, she would feel totally entitled to that.

So yes, yeah, I think he made a very good point about if someone broke into this house right now. That's why she circumnavigated that point. These are the points that we're not addressing the fact that the Ukrainian situation, yes, women and children can go back to their countries or to another country and be rescued. But then men have to fight these things are being ignored by Western feminists, they are being ignored, that the entitlement is there, but the rights and responsibility and that's why he's become influential and famous, because he's speaking to those facts, true facts, which women like this, yes. Ignoring. They're ignoring these points. So that's another point. Let's

see what she says here, because it gets even worse. I mean, why the moment she gets even weaker? Why so many women saying that when their boyfriend stopped following you, they're not they experience more control? So many, they experience more abuse? How many? What we're really talking about? You're not presenting any peer reviewed sociological data here.

You're giving anecdotal evidence?

And how do we know that the correlation equals causation? I mean, oh, it's my time with this anyway, anymore. But the point is, this is that look, say what you want about the West, there's one thing that Western legal systems have, which is called natural justice, that people are innocent until proven guilty. There's one thing I would say that this BBC representative failed to do, which is interrogate him properly, give him a run for his money, okay? Because at the end of the day, he is someone who can speak well, you should bring someone who can speak well and test him. The BBC failed him, she failed her, and actually shows a greater agenda at hand, which is that these people here

are desperate, desperate to force their narrative down our throats. And I say, I think the world has had enough. I think that people have had enough. And now the elephant in the room needs to be addressed, which is, is feminism even true? Why don't we subbed? Why do we interrogate feminism?

Obviously, we don't believe it. But let's let's cross examine feminism that you believe in so strongly? Is it good for women?

Is it harmful for me? Let's have these conversations, because that's really the goal. He represents a counter current to the dominant narrative. In the Western world. Yes, there are some serious allegations, and I'll be honest with you, yes, there are words and statements that he's made, which he would have been much better off not making these things. Especially in game theory, they've got this idea of the the infinite player, you know, the infinite player is the one who thinks about the finite usually, I mean, beast of a finite play the infinite player, someone who continues and thinks about doing the same work as they're doing for for a very long time was the finite player thinks of

doing the work that they're doing for such a short period of time. I think Andrew Tate needed to think more a bit more like an infinite player, frankly, from a game theory perspective, because a lot of these statements that he made are not self contained. And they could have been self contained. And that will be my criticism, tandragee. He could have had more self contained statements, because a lot of them now are being used, misappropriated, but frankly, he he won this one definitely. It was an easy victory for him. I think he found it very comfortable. And this woman here is she's really shamed herself.

I think she quit her job actually.

I think she's I think she's you quit her job. I will suffice was that was salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa to get the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told us to whoever builds a mosque for Allah, Allah were built in a similar the house in Jannah. And we know the great reward that will not only be gained but rather will fill your grave after your death. Whenever someone prays that whenever someone gives shahada in the masjid whenever someone learns something in the masjid, yes, that will be something that you will have on your scale.