10 June 2013

Stardusk – Moral Relativist & Narcissist

Stardusk has decided to create a video in three parts (over half an hour) wherein he rants like a fool about natural rights and rational self-interest, trying to come across as someone with a modicum of understanding when it comes to philosophy. I will save people some time by supplying part three, where he summarises the whole video in ten minutes (why didn’t he do that in the first place? Most likely since he needs to embellish his arguments with so much tripe that you cannot see how weak they are). What he does is reveal (finally) where he stands philosophically – he is a Hobbesian style pessimist that denies any objective existence of morality, arguing that morality is a construct defined by agreement of the collective, and that natural rights are fictional. So finally we have an unwitting admittance on his part regarding his philosophical nihilism and collectivism.

Starry is a collectivist that feels rights are defined via the approval of authority, and that all morality is ultimately subject to these parameters. This is nothing to do with individualism. It is collectivism through and through. To be an individualist you must believe that rights originate with the individual. It’s as simple as that. Anyone that argues to the contrary is a fool, and I will not waste my time with their circular arguments to the contrary.

Starry claims that I am a “collectivist fascist” because I do not allow gay parenting or IVF. Both of these claims are flat-out lies. I do not deny gay adoption at all, and have never done so. He is welcome to show me where I have. Second, I do not deny people IVF on the condition that they back up their right to reproduce with their responsibility to parent. Rights and responsibilities cannot be decoupled, and the fact that Starry does not make that correlation is further evidence of his collectivism and nihilism, which I have indicated is endemic in MGTOW circles for a while. I am admittedly very concerned about the risks to the child that go along with IVF, which are not discussed very much due to the political and financial interests that coincide with this procedure. The suppression of the evidence in this sense is very similar to what happened in the tobacco industry for decades. This is a ticking time-bomb, and makes me very apprehensive to feel that this procedure is worth risking the quality of an individual’s life on, for the irrational selfishness of adults and social engineers.

During Starry’s rant he also claims that female self-interest can be pursued alongside reproductive interest while men cannot do this because society will not allow it. He is clearly trying to suggest that the fact that men have always had natural roles as providers and protectors means that this forces men into a role where they cannot pursue their own self-interest, while women do not have that problem because their self-interest is identical to their natural roles. Once again we see that Starry tries to alter his language by ranting ad nauseum and make circular points that are so long-winded that they drive you to sleep. Ultimately this is the same old junk; women have a hypergamous instinct that makes their self-interest synonymous with their reproductive interest. Starry, you’re an idiot. You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of those simpletons that follow on your every word in your cult of personality, but this is one person that can see right through the embellishment, and get to the chewy centre. You’re a one-trick pony, though I will, yet again, explain that hypergamy is like any other instinct inherent to both males, female, and on a universal level. It has advantages when controlled and disadvantages when left unchecked, and there is no deterministic whim that makes any instinct fatalistically inclined. Someday Starry might get that. But I doubt it, because the cult of MGTOW would abruptly die if conjecture did not accompany it.

Starry also attempts to make some bold assertions in his video regarding gay parenting. He suggests that there is no evidence that gay parenting is harmful to children. The fact is that there is no evidence that it is beneficial either. What there is evidence for is the fact that gay relationships are far more unstable, and that gay couples do not stay together as often as heterosexual couples as a demographic, even in the present higher divorce environment. I am not going to directly discuss these fallacious leaps that Starry makes in this video here because I’ve discussed them many times (see this post), not least the fact that a family where both biological parents are involved in raising the children, acting out their natural rights AND responsibilities to parent, is by far the most stable family setting.  

What’s disturbing about men like Starry, who claim to stand up for men, is that they fail to see that the attempt to make parenting accessible for people other than the biological parents (when they are not abusive) has resulted in a redefinition of father’s rights to parental responsibilities, with no right to see their own children. We thus see very clearly how much of a shill Starry is. His own denial of all rights and responsibilities originating with the individual has resulted in the problems fathers are faced with today. He is a part of the problem, and as I’ve said many times, is attempting to finish what feminism started. 

Starry conflates the idea that rights originate with the individual, by extrapolating that which can be achieved in a state of nature, as collectivist fascism. He simply cannot see that natural rights are based on what can be achieved in a state of nature; reproduction, parenting, property via labour, and the right to life being four prominent examples. Any civilisation is then based on the protection of these natural rights, with the acknowledgement that these rights are a very part of you - a birth right. To deny them is akin to denying someone the natural right to breath, turning them into a slave of approval, whatever mechanism this might be – democracy, appeals to popularity, or some morally bankrupt creed like MGTOW. Who has the authority to deny the existence of rights that originate from nature? Starry and his cult of social engineers that want to manufacture a scientific utopia, where reproduction is a loveless institution akin that you’d have to be a Huxlian sociopath to endorse? This highlights why each and every one of us has a responsibility to protect our natural rights from authoritarians that seek to deny that these rights exist, making us slaves to the desires of sociopaths.

By the end of Starry’s vid he goes into a tirade of the calibre I have never heard in my life (I wish I were exaggerating, but I am not). He accuses me of all manner of things, purely on the basis that I believe in natural rights and responsibilities. Is John Locke a fascist, the man almost entirely responsible for influencing the US Constitution? He attempts to contrast such views with Hitler. I am blown away. He literally assumes that objective values equal authoritarianism, as all collectivists do, when in truth it is the idea that no values objectively exist, and thus all values can be defined, that is totalitarian. Look at North Korea, Communist China, the French Revolution, or even Nazi Germany – all of them rejected nature. The dearth of understanding for this disgusting human being is remarkable, though at this point I suspect that it is far more than mere ignorance.

I have already shown that it is Stardusk and his insistence of fatalism in female behaviour that mirrors fascistic qualities, to the point that the Redstockings Manifesto is identical to that of Stardusk’s rhetoric with a little tweaking. At this point it’s easy to see that Starry is desperate to sling as much mud as possible at me to keep his reputation intact (a narcissistic protective mechanism), so he can continue to lie and dupe fools into following his cult of personality without me exposing him. The haphazard use of the word fascist in this final segment of these pathetic videos he uploaded is what I’ve grown to expect from a leftist, which by now is clearly what Stardusk is, considering how much he denies unalienable individual rights, and likes to rely on identity politics and class consciousness.

Leftists like Starry love to muddy the waters as much as possible. The co-option of the word libertarian is also a leftist tactic I’ve addressed in the past, which Stardusk is hell bent on achieving.  Starry is a sociopath of the highest order, exhibiting significant signs of narcissism as he feeds off the naivety of damaged males yearning for some sort of group acceptance, lying and manipulating wherever possible. He attempts to alienate anyone that disagrees with his fascism, and will revert to covert aggression, lying and professional victimhood to get what he wants. The guy turns my stomach, and I cannot trust the integrity of anyone that succumbs to his appeals to flattery that accompany his narcissistic personality. Beware if he approaches you with flattery. You are just a pawn in his game.


  1. I watched a video, about a few years ago by Barbarossa, where he claimed that if all the men in the world disappeared; society would completely collapse and the human race would go extinct. However, if all the women in the world disappeared men would just build an incubation machine and everything would go on as normal.

    Unfortunately I can't name the video, but it ultimately led me to unsubscribe because I felt that this was horribly divisive to the sexes. Indeed, I remember one woman commented that she supported MRA/MHRM but that she was offended by his brash statements, he brushed her off completely, saying "it's a fact".

    So honestly I'm not surprised at any weird shit being peddled by MGTOW's now.

  2. Narcissism is the first 'mode' of self-regard that a human being experiences. It is infantile though reason can be found for it being appropriate for the infant.

    Most people find it easy to let go of it in favour of a more adequate response to all the many people around, particularly those they depend in whole or part upon.

    And of course we are an inter-dependant animal, a social animal. To achieve full adulthood we need to experience Independence and self reliance from which state we can approach and bind with another Independent opposite sex adult at a similar transitional stage.

    Rejecting nature is a feminist concept. It does men no good at all, especially MRAs to copy the faults and failings of feminists. Yet so many MRAs do just that, reverting in their disappointment in women or the current social milieu, back to a narcissism mode. They are so 'independent' that they value no-one but themselves. Others are there only to be controlled, bullied, manipulated, coerced or driven away.

    One can see this in the immature MRAs. One can almost understand it in the recently 'bereaved' ones who might have an excuse in their pain. But some revel in it. Barbar, Elam (in particular) stardusk and a few others.

    They should grow up, but cannot. They are too far down the slippery slope, going too fast to stop and their arses are on fire.

    1. It certainly blows my mind how many MRAs are prepared to sell their rights down the river due to their own ignorance and utopian idealism. You'd have to be pretty ignorant or stupid not to see the problem manifesting, as it did with feminism.

      Look at what happened to fathers once the state had control of the natural right to be a parent. And now we have MGTOW fools, and others, claiming that authority controlling natural rights is the solution, as did the feminists. All it will end up becoming is another zero sum game.

    2. I will not wander into fatalism, but it seems there is an increased likelihood of co-option (as Erin Pizzey found) when things like this begin.

      The only thing I can work out to resist this based on reading through many of my philosophy and politics books, and the content here and in other places, is to maintain a 'Mad-Eye Moody' state of constant rational vigilance against nonsense, much as I used to with Religious arguments.

      I do not find it odd, but the only people I ever seem to see eye to eye with, are those like yourself or my Catholic friends and acquaintances.

      Not to make a it a 'text-bite', but it seems that any special interest group is very vulnerable to falling into the tropes of collectivism and supremacist ideology.

      I would like to say thanks, for giving me much to think about, and consider, I'm glad my rationalist position isn't 'Right-Wing, so called.

      Do you have a view on people such as A.C Grayling, he has an excellent book "Liberty in the Eye of Terror", which makes many of these points about over weening and interfering states, I highly recommend it.

  3. "He attempts to alienate anyone that disagrees with his fascism, and will revert to covert aggression, lying and professional victimhood to get what he wants."

    This quote pretty accurately illustrates your own personality, MrE. You run your blog and your youtube channel like an egotistical maniac, not only alienating anyone that disagrees with you, but you outright ban them from your channel, or delete their comments. That, my friend, is pretty fascistic. If somebody disagrees with you, how about you learn to reason with them, or ignore them if they are being unreasonable? If they are continually spamming nonsense, not attempting to make any points or challenges to your arguments, I can understand you giving them the boot. However, when somebody is attempting to argue honestly, whether what they are saying is stupid or otherwise, there is no reason to ban them. All you are doing is creating an echo chamber of your own design, a sort of cult of personality if you will.

    1. You've been blocked for this sort of behaviour before. When proven wrong, in the case of the political spectrum being collectivist on the left and individualist on the right for example, you simply rant ad nauseum in reams and reams of nonsense, expecting others to respect your space to comment, while you have no respect for the boundaries of others, and are too arrogant to abandon your flawed arguments.

      Thus you treat other people like your property because you are an egomaniac that believes others should endure your aggression, and then moan when others call you on your narcissistic complex, or turn you away.

      Thought I'd point that out before I went back to removing your comment and preventing you from mischaracterising me and my channel. Goodbye.

      Oh, and I take great pleasure in denying you with the ability to force your lies and aggression onto others. It's absolutely the worst thing you can do to a narcissist like you :-)

  4. I used to like Stardusk actually... Until I had my first real girlfriend 16 months ago. I stopped listening to his rants completely 4 months ago when she moved in with me and together we listened to some of his rants, and she confirmed for me that he is a narcissistic prik.

    1. Oh he is certainly a narcissist. Of that there is no doubt. How dangerous he might be underneath his façade is uncertain, but I have little doubt that he is a highly manipulative character.

  5. "The co-option of the word libertarian is also a leftist tactic I’ve addressed in the past"

    This is a joke, right? "Libertarian" was a left wing political movement until it was co-opted in the US by Murray Rothbard.