Barbarrossaa Responds to Someone Irrelevant

In spite of my irrelevance in Barbarossaa’s eyes (which is no doubt a lie considering that you would never respond to someone that is as irrelevant as he suggests) he uploaded a video response to my recent post, “Face it, MGTOW is a Cult”. Barbarossaa could barely contain his rage, calling me all manner of names while he desperately attempted to attack my character, and create as many straw-men as possible, anything but respond to the philosophical content of what I wrote, such as class consciousness, pessimism, and the groupthink mentality that now dominates MGTOW circles. Barbie’s video was so devoid of substance that I am not going to waste my time responding any more than is required.

Barbarrossaa seems to think it’s a prudent use of his time to respond to someone “mental”, that has “lost” the battle of ideas when it comes to the philosophy of men’s rights. Like the rest of his MGTOW cult he spreads this idea that my channel is somehow dying, and that the only way I get views is by addressing MGTOW. Well Barbie, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. My channel subscriber count and viewership has been growing steadily, though I admit that my refusal to revert to demagoguery, like you and Stardusk, means I don’t get as many subscribers as you two. Presently I am getting a minimum of fifty per week (feel free to keep count if you like). But whatever subscribership I get (of which I appreciate their loyalty) at least I keep my integrity intact, and if there’s one thing life’s taught me is that this is what counts, especially when it comes to being happy with yourself. As for you Barbie, anyone can keep their identity a secret while ranting hatefully online, and then deflecting and ad homming anyone that challenges their dogma.

Barbarossaa also claims I only talk about the left and MGTOW. No Barbie. My channel is centred on individualist philosophy, libertarianism for example. Go and see the variety of video topics I address on my channel yourself. It’s there for anyone to see, so again you’re lying. Ironically the one with the one-dimensional channel is you, constantly attacking women as an entire demographic. Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of limited topical scope. Wow, you really can’t see the hypocrisy right under your nose, can you?

He claims I misrepresented his family life by suggesting that he was “raised in a ghetto culture”. Admittedly it appears I was incorrect to state he was “raised” in a ghetto. But still, this statement was not baseless. I based it on a previous video he made in response to MRA+, wherein he asks me whether “I’ve been to an urban ghetto?” He then states he has, using this to cement his arguments regarding the failure of family life. That’s the trouble with Barbarossaa. He takes a section of the population, which by most standards would be considered dysfunctional, and then transfers these experiences to all his arguments to keep his hypotheses afloat. Straw-man after straw-man is what we get from this fool.

Barbarossaa previously liked to give the impression that he has a tough urban background in the “Bronx”, but in truth, and as his video response shows, this is bullshit. He is however clearly a very angry young man that demands a crusade against not only all women, but any men that do not adhere to his relationship strike, which as I’ve said many times, was never originally a part of MGTOW.

Let’s now move onto Barbie’s attack on my family life, which he’s done many times in the past, accusing me of living off my wife while hypocritically demanding that all men adhere to that oh-so ludicrous straw-man “traditionalism”. Once again we see how ridiculous Barbie is. He seems to think that by supporting two biological parents raising their children as a couple in a loving relationship, I am demanding that the father must be the provider, while the mother must be the nurturer, and am thus a hypocrite as a stay-at-home Dad. Seriously Barbie, this lie is getting very old, and if it isn’t a lie then there is something significantly wrong with your ability to listen. I have never said that men must be providers, or that women must be nurturers. The modern world allows men and women the flexibility to mix these roles, which is great for fathers because it allows them to be a bigger part of their children’s lives, and I can honestly say personally that having this opportunity is a wonderful one. Barbie is assuming that because I have stated that sex roles were rigid in the past due to practical reality, that this means they are equally rigid in the present. No Barbie. Let’s get this through your head once and for all; I do not believe this. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur, and for that matter yet another straw-man. You really do like these straw-men effigies it seems.

During Barbie’s video response he also claims that MGTOW are non-violent. Admittedly MGTOW are not physically violent, so in this sense they are not traditional thugs, which is a word I used to describe them in the post he is responding to. But MGTOW most certainly do revert to aggressive and coercive tactics to silence anyone that disagrees with their lifestyle choices, and as we can see they will rely on as many fallacies and as much vitriol as possible to shut you up. They will then immediately fall into victim mode (just as feminists do) when the gaping flaws and hypocrisy in their reasoning are called out. MGTOW are not criminal thugs, but they are certainly online thugs.

As usual Barbie tries to suggest in his response that MGTOW is whatever you want it to be, in spite of the fact that no one is allowed to be MGTOW that is in a relationship with women, at least not the MGTOW that he and Stardusk define. Further semantics are then employed by suggesting that my use of the word “corrupt” is not an accurate representation of what MGTOW feel female behaviour actually is. Barbie says that Starry’s use of the word “maladaptive” is more apt. So let’s see what maladaptive actually means:

“Not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation.”

Once again semantics are employed. You see, women cannot “adjust” to the present environment, which indicates inherent inferiority of women as an entire demographic. In the past this has been linked to biology, but since this has been thoroughly refuted it’s essential that as many semantics are employed, much like the manner in which feminists cling desperately to their arguments. By deflecting and changing the language as much as possible the MGTOW cult can keep its simple-minded theories alive, so the lemmings can keep falling off the cliff, promised a technological utopia akin to some sort of fascistic Star Trek universe.

The final point I’ll comment on is Barbie bringing up my reply to ThatCynicalCynicism in a comment section, after he typically replied to me in a snide manner, along with a whole group of lynching MGTOW thugs (yes thugs, Barbie). I stated that MGTOW is essentially a movement treading dangerously close to the type of ban on heterosexual relationships now synonymous with radical feminism. Again, the MGTOW cult seems to think it is immune to this sort of corruption that happened to feminism. I have seen several comments where MGTOW have stated something along the lines of preferring to be gay than associate with women, or turning your back on “hetero-normative behaviour”. Barbie has made it clear that he is not interested in representing gay men who wish to make their sexuality a primary concern, albeit Stardusk has now started parroting Elam’s talking point that gay men have always been persecuted because heterosexual women don’t want to lose their power over men. So we have a clear divide in MGTOW circles in this sense. Either way, there is a growing homosexual agenda in MGTOW circles that, yet again, mirrors radical feminism.

In conclusion there is nothing of any substance to Barbarossaa’s response. It’s all deflecting, semantics, and numerous fallacies, particularly straw-men. Better luck next time Barbie. This is one person that has put a target on the back of MGTOW so large that you could see it from a mile away. Why? Because it would be totally hypocritical of me not to oppose the male version of feminism, while opposing feminism itself.

N.B. Here is the response to Stardusk's unbelievably dense and dishonest three-part video series about my views and values.