Andrew Tate’s Trojan horse: Would the right let in a ‘minor-attracted person’ too?

Judging by their embrace of Andrew Tate, it seems as though some conservative influencers in 2025 are ready to trade in their familiar “Christ is King” mantra for a new one: “Pimping ain’t easy.”

Benny Johnson is a popular conservative commentator with over 3 million followers on X and close to 3 million subscribers on YouTube. He caused a major controversy in right-wing circles after announcing he would have the man known as “Top G” on his show to discuss the sentencing phase of President Trump’s hush-money case. Johnson advertised his guest with an image of both men in black aviator shades with images of a crying liberal woman in their lenses.

American conservatism will die a well-deserved death if it becomes defined by its foes rather than its values.

The imagery was telling. Andrew Tate has described his webcam operation featuring over 75 women as “pimping” and bragged about getting “betas” from all over the world to send money to the women “working” for him. His appearance on Johnson’s show wasn’t going to be a hard-hitting interview about Tate’s own legal troubles, an update on his human trafficking case in Romania, or his past statements about controlling women.

Tate’s contribution to the show was essentially a series of comparisons he made between himself and President Trump, as well as complaints about conservatives “policing” right-wing bad boys. At one point, Alina Habba, one of Trump’s legal counselors, joined the show and gushed over Tate. She compared his legal travails to Trump’s and told Tate she sympathizes with him, admires him, and has his back.

I try to avoid therapeutic language, but Tate’s defenders conducted a master class in gaslighting. Instead of addressing the concerns conservatives have about Tate’s content and views, they made the issue about censorship and free speech. Johnson even tried to shield himself with the Bible, posting, “He who is without sin cast the first stone …”

I have no problem with media personalities speaking to guests with controversial views. I’m an ’80s baby who remembers when talk show hosts would invite provocateurs to explain their ideas and defend their positions in front of a hostile crowd. But there is a big difference between Phil Donahue interviewing a former Klansman to understand his views and fawning over him like an Exalted Cyclops groupie.

The pushback against Tate and his defenders isn’t about “cancel culture” or policing speech. It’s driven by the fact Tate promotes a lifestyle and worldview that are completely antithetical to what conservatives claim they value.

I highly doubt any conservative influencer would post an image promoting a drag queen who performs in front of kids or a pediatric surgeon who performs “gender-affirming” hysterectomies and then screech about free speech and censorship when fans criticize their decision. Likewise, no one would accept such a lapse in judgement with out-of-context scriptures.

Conservatives have a right to determine which ideas need to be debated publicly and which personalities should be promoted widely. Failure to use discernment when considering allies and co-belligerents always backfires.

I saw this firsthand in 2020 when Black Lives Matter turned a self-evidently true phrase into a movement that gave its leaders political power, cultural influence, and a multimillion-dollar real estate portfolio. Of all the victims of BLM’s obvious scam, the churches and pastors who hitched their wagon to anti-family Marxist lesbians were by far the most pitiful. My issue with them was not their naïveté. It was the fact that they thought they needed people with such anti-biblical views to deliver a message about the value of human life that could be pulled straight from the Bible.

Likewise, American conservatism will die a well-deserved death if it becomes defined by its foes rather than its values.

You can’t take a bold public stance against pornography one minute and celebrate OnlyFans “entrepreneurs” the next simply because they have “based” takes on politics. You can’t claim to care about rebuilding the family one day, then fawn all over people whose ideas will only create more broken homes. You can’t call out transgender ideology when it’s pushed by “impossible women” in public health roles but prop up men identifying as women on the right because they appear to be more convincing counterfeits or support the incoming president.

The litmus test for the right can’t be how much a person is hated by the left. You don’t have to be an expert on Andrew Tate’s legal issues to understand why conservatives shouldn’t want to see his ideas and views legitimized. If having the right enemies is all it takes to become a conservative media darling, a shrewd “minor-attracted person” could simply hide his pedophilia behind a manufactured persona characterized by standing up to the globalists trying to destroy Western civilization.

No serious political movement should be that easy to hoodwink, and no self-respecting person would want to be.

​Andrew tate, Benny johnson, Alina habba, Red pill, Manosphere, Conservatism, Free speech, Cancel culture, Minor attracted person, Donald trump, Crime, Human trafficking, Degenerate, Opinion & analysis 

You May Also Like

More From Author