“What Does It Matter To You?”

“What does it matter to you?” is a common refrain of indignation you’ll often hear from equalists and their phylum. It’s part of the remedial school of philosophical thought that says if a personal action is not directly hurting anyone else, then no moral opprobrium can apply to it. So typically if you get into a debate with a feminist or manboob, it will go like this:

You: Feminist action or behavior [X] is stupid, counterproductive, and rife with externalities.

Equalist felching champ: It’s not hurting anyone, so what does it matter to you?

For a prime example of the genre, here’s a comment by aneroidocean (so pretentious) complaining about the post on mannish female Olympians:

So what is a woman [to do] that wasn’t blessed with wider hips and narrower shoulders? Die quietly?

Gotta love the reductio ad absurdum. A classic leftie feint. You could parry by employing simple logic — “pointing out the fact of masculinized female athletes is not the same as arguing for the prohibition of women in sports” — or you could rightfully conclude that simple logic would zoom right over the heads of such emotional crybabies and choose the mockery route instead:

“No, they should die screaming in agony forced to listen to your pussy whining.”

What does it matter if she competes in the Olympics?

Wuss, there it is. “What does it matter to you?!??????? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! A feeling has been hurt!”

The issue being raised was never about how much it personally mattered to me, or affected my own life. That’s the problem with you unthinking liberals — you always want to reframe an argument you find distasteful, or you find yourself on the losing end of, into a personal matter, a position from which it’s easier for you to morally strut and preen and preach fire and brimstone from your tawdry little masturbatoriums.

The morality, or lack thereof, of manned-up women competing in the Olympics is not the point of the Olympic female athlete post. No one’s rights are abridged if some manly swole she-beast hoists 400 lbs above her head, nor is any moral law du jour violated. The point here is to remind the losers and equalists and assorted anti-realists that there is nothing inherently empowering about female sports participation unless one defines empowerment as “becoming more man-like”. It is also to address, honestly and truthfully, the obvious fact that a lot of female athletes are just quasi-men, in appearance, musculature and temperament. Therefore, the encouragement of women by the media industrial complex into elite sports mostly rests on a foundation of denying women their feminine essence. A nation that wasn’t fucked in the head with an overload of kumbaya horseshit would not shy away from this bald truth of the reality of sex differences, and would realign its cultural incentives so that a proper balance was restored, reflecting innate biological reality, until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men. At the very least, the feminist propagandizing of female sports empowerment has to end, and hand-wringing over “equal representation” needs to become a shameful relic from this ugly, god-willing bygone era.




  2. “What does it matter if she competes in the Olympics?”

    Because she’s a role model for little girls and has a body that most normal American women will never bet able to attain… oh wait!


    • Well-played, sir. Well-played, indeed.


    • Just think of the amount of blubber in the brain preventing the synapse from firing to relate these concepts in such close proximity. Hugh Hefner presented a target achievable with a soft regimen of a little bikini volleyball in the pool, and a thin dew of perspiration after a pillow fight.

      Now impressionable girls are expected to eat a plate of death camp cuisine after joint grinding sessions of tractor tire flipping, all to please lesbian martinets whose embrace comes with an unfulfilling stump. For a normal women nothing outside the Tower of London could bring them to their standards.


    • That’s a good point. Because the Olympics is the most popular place that little girls go to for role models … oh wait!

      PS: Nice use of the weasel-word “most” there. And I particularly enjoyed the implication that those who can achieve it aren’t “normal” (so to hell with them, right?). Well played Sir, well played indeed.


  3. That whole WDIMTY tediocity rears its flaccid grey matter here at the chateau all-too-often… witness the earlier Swedish handball girls thread.


  4. “A nation that wasn’t fucked in the head with an overload of kumbaya horseshit would not shy away from this bald truth of the reality of sex differences, and would realign its cultural incentives so that a proper balance was restored, reflecting innate biological reality, until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men.”

    This, in a nutshell, is the problem in the West and the source of at least my anger and now cynicism, no doubt for most of us it is so. This skewing of incentives to create an equalist utopia is a pricipe example of what I meant in a recent post about our society being out of balance in terms of gender or sex.


    • What necessarily gender differences? Some tribes may well require women to be athletic thus their women would be lean and muscular whereas other tribes would have women at home being caretakers which would lead them to be fat and dumpy.


      • As opposed to being office drones in make work government jobs at public expense, AKA mens’ expense, and also getting fat from inactivity?


  5. Recently, discussing the issue of women and humor, the conversation got to my interlocutor declaring the question shouldn’t even be asked, and even if it is true men are funnier on average, what does it matter? Here’s why it matters:

    1) Science! Truth has intrinsic value.

    2) When women are underrepresented MEN are blamed.
    2a) When X group is subject of X disparate impact it is always based on a false empirical claim. False empirical claims are a prerequisite for stupid normative claims.

    Thus, we have to challenge the false claims.


  6. Re-read the last paragraph, but with a Bob Costas voice narrating in your head. As if its the wrap-up to a night of Olympic watching.



  7. We won’t be seeing feminist progs leaving quietly and without a fight because they are like parasites – they grow stronger as society grows weaker, using their disadvantage as a rallying cry for more ‘action.; Best to mock and ignore.

    As for them deflecting criticism due to your non-involvement, the very fact these feminists push their ‘advancements’ in our face permits criticism. I am shuddering to think how our Canadian women’s soccer team will now be on a campaign for more attention and, of course, gov’t money.


  8. **Therefore, the encouragement of women by the media industrial complex into elite sports mostly rests on a foundation of denying women their feminine essence.**

    Or maybe it provides an outlet to those women not blessed with feminine essences?

    But yeah, does this satisfy the female role model rationale of force feeding hoi polloi shit like the WNBA when the femmels in question are not representative of girls in general and the feminized ideal in particular.

    Or does Ryan Lochte provide a role model to me even though I’m not an olypmic level male athlete. yes, because he works hard and competes and because I identify with strength, fitness, competitiveness, etc…. male values.

    So, these female athletes are role models only to other athletic females, not female females.


    • Quite true. It is natural for boys and young men to be inspired by men such as Peyton Manning, Michael Phelps, and Albert Pujols; who combine their God-given talents with hard work, determination, and grit (remember that term?).

      Or, to apply such to the principles of Game and The Chase, big-league ballplayers and the like usually have an abundance of female attention, sex, and marriage prospects. This happy situation is reversed for top-line female athletes (WNBA, championship weightlifters and boxers) who receive little or no attention from quality men, or are lesbians (the number in the latter category is very high). And no intelligent “female female” wants to aspire to that.


  9. “until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men. ”

    Some people think that Title IX and its friction with male sports is due to excess scholarships for football teams to which there is no female counterpart. However if that were the case, you could simply distribute scholarships by gender quotas and open the rest of the field to everyone else.
    The women trained alongside men will arguably get you more success.

    “Now, K-5 boys and girls will be split as the district revamps its program to remedy years of “Title IX equity issues,” or unequal opportunities for girls.

    But there’s a twist.

    If a school can’t field enough players for both a boys’ and a girls’ team, neither team will be allowed to compete in the eight-game season that begins in January.”




  10. Yeah, I threw a pretty poorly thought out strawman argument up there. Fucked that right up.

    “The point here is to remind the losers and equalists and assorted anti-realists that there is nothing inherently empowering about female sports participation unless one defines empowerment as “becoming more man-like”.”

    The above is not what I originally understood your position to be. I can appreciate the above. Equal representation is silly in the olympic or even sporting term. It’s a competition. If the three best pole vaulters in the world are from one country, they don’t send two away like some twisted sports affirmative action.


  11. As long as the “equalist” pols continue failing to reward “equal work with equal pay,” they can all kindly shut the fuck up and let me sip my whiskey in peace. Oh, and bring me my slippers. http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/


  12. ‘Cause you’re fucking up America for everybody else, lady! (or words to that effect in response to said left/libtard and/or feminazi).


  13. Bravo, CH, you’re on a roll.


  14. In addition to all of our other athletic advantages we have about 10% more hemoglobin per unit volume of blood than women do:


    Steroids have probably closed the gap on muscle mass, but without some way to increase oxygen transport women won’t ever catch up(also on that day prepare for all olympic records to be shattered).


    • That even over states the case. They are 90% in speed records but they are also moving much less by average weight were men I believe are about 20% heavier.


      • the Anerobic penalty is something like 20x the aerobic one and more muscle mass tends to pay for itself up to a certain amount that I’d bet that all athletes try to stay near for each particular event.


  15. How much of modern civilization’s problems can be traced directly to feminism?

    Seriously: giving women the vote at the end of the 19th century paved the way for a century of horror fuelled by mass political movements founded on emotion. The “sexual revolution” has destroyed families and is well on the way to destroying society. Meanwhile our birth rate has collapsed so we’re aging and have to import aliens. Women entering the workplace have driven down wages, and created the modern suburban sprawl.

    The feminizing of our media and society have persuaded savages like Al-Qaeda that we’re weak, leading to endless attacks on our civilization from outside as the wolves try to pull us down.

    The epic, civilization-scale shit test by women against men in the West is killing us all.


  16. on August 10, 2012 at 9:14 pm Mr. Pointyface

    Reification is the mistake of taking an abstract, non-objective term and using it as if it were a concrete thing. It make discussing objective reality more difficult. Using terms like “liberal”; “leftist” and “conservative” are very common example of this misuse of language.

    For instance, a woman who thinks herself “liberal” may campaign vigorously to forbid college professors from having sex with students, viewing the males who do it as predatory. However, she forgets that she is taking the choice away from the adult woman ( assuming students are all 18 years old) and the professor, So she is actually constricting freedom, which conflicts with the basic root meaning of “liberal” which means to free, or something like that.

    On the other hand, you have guys like W who borrowed billions in the form of gubmint debt to fight a war against guys who no one believed had invaded here. And these guys that borrow a ton of money with little intent of paying it back are called “conservatives?” This seems like a most reckless and imprudent act to me.

    Even spending money you already HAVE is not conservative. Borrowing money and spending it is even more reckless. To conserve means to try to hang onto something you’ve got.

    So when lazy writers use these buzzwords to get some “Atta Boy” applause from their ( theoretically) like minded readers, it is imprecise, results in a diluted message in which there is no focused meaning. This leaves Mr. Pointyface nothing to take issue with, and, if necessary, correct the reasoning of.

    Therefore I have to assign CH one demerit for this essay. Please make your arguments more coherent in the future so they can be better evaluated.

    Thank you.


    • That is a good point, but while there *is* a false dichotomy of “liberal” and “conservative” conjured up to bamboozle the masses, there exists true meanings of those labels which point to concrete ideals and actions regarding how we perpetuate (or kill) our nation.

      In the first instance, the “liberal” feminist woman may propose certain things that is not very liberal (restricting the sexual actions of adults), yet remain in good standing with liberaldom. In this example, the hatred of males (especially powerful ones) and the dreaded “patriarchy” is of the utmost importance for the feminist school of liberalism. And remember, that which we call “liberalism” (which I grant you, is a total misnomer) has many disciplines: environmentalism, internationalism, animal-rights, sustainable development… each of these, in turn, is a lie. “Internationalism” — or globalism — is purported to be the striving for peace among the nations and the eradication of national borders, it is really about global enslavement.

      In the second instance, George W. Bush was a willing tool of that which is known as “neo-conservatism”, which, in a nutshell, is the use of endless warfare to achieve the goals that the “liberals” wanted all along. “War is the health of the state” and the leaders of the neocon movement know that state powers can be increased more effectively by “searching abroad for monsters to destroy” [John Adams].

      Do not be dismayed, Mr. Pointyface, by the distortions and false labels.. Seek the path of truth and righteousness.


    • CH talks about a peeve that illuminates a certain brand of lazy thinking bound up in the mindless repetition of cliché. You bring up the Iraq War. Connection not made, chief. And you ask him to make his “arguments more coherent”? I “have to assign” you a hundred demerits. Back to the drawing board.

      Left-leaning thought objects to “labels” and thinks its NAWALTian arguments suffice for a prohibition on stereotype. No kidding, not all conservatives act conservative in all circumstances; neither do reputations for conservatism form the definition of the word. What do your erroneous examples of left and right have to do with conservatism or leftism per se?

      Your problem wasn’t with the Orwellian rhetorical ploy. Your problem was that he labeled it “equalist” and “leftie.” And by Orwellian I mean George Orwell’s classic observation about cliched thinking in “Politics and The English Language“:

      A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. …

      As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. …

      People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. …

      [emphases added]

      When a phrase like “What does it matter to you?” substitutes for better rhetoric, it is an indication of lack of argumentative effort and the sure sign of unthinking. This is indeed a trait of the left, which is marked by its slavish loyalty to ideology, a servitude which relies on individual enforcement and dissemination rather than individual assessment and deliberation. As a famous 20th-century ideologue once put it to an underling (quote from memory), “You job is not to proclaim what is true. Your job is to proclaim that it’s true.”

      On the other hand, CH would do well to read the entire essay as he is a sucker for mixing metaphors. I have the same tic. Writing forcefully is as much an art as symphony composition or fine painting, and we all wander into lazy habits for lack of time or editorial refinement. Especially since the fact of our literacy tempts each of us to think himself equally artistic in writing.

      CH gets a pass for his heavy use of metaphor and adjective because he has invented plenty of “image[s] fresh enough to have an effect.” He throws his creative locutions out there at a ferocious pace, and many of them become currency.

      The Next VP of the US,


  17. on August 10, 2012 at 10:05 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    If you want to see feminist lack of logic in all its glory, Google the following: The Stream – e-Patriarchy – YouTube.

    This is an Al Jazeera news segment on how “the internet promotes misogyny” and rules need to be put in place to prevent that.

    The commenters don’t seem to get basic concepts like free speech. If anyone ventures over there, but sure to “dislike” this video, so we don’t get more of it. And try not to get physically ill reading the feminist’s comments.


  18. Maybe Heartiste needs a wahbulance when he read posts he doesn’t like.


  19. Speaking of equalists, anti-realists, and kumbayah, there’s an article in the Daily Mail about a woman with two heads and so many of the reader comments are something to effect of “She’s beautiful.” or maybe it’s “They’re beautiful.”



  20. on August 11, 2012 at 8:31 am Johnycomelately

    What does it matter?

    Women shouldn’t be playing sport full stop, performance art is the only respectable venue for women to express their ‘athletic’ ability.

    Women’s sport is reverse discrimination, where they can’t compete with men they create gender exclusive institutions, if they want to be equal they should compete in an open field.


  21. They are slinging shit loads of propaganda. Nike just put out a commercial with a 50 year-old female narrator talking through a bunch of girls, most of them minors, oozing ‘grrlpower’. My ‘favorite’ line was: “I’m a fashion model who can dunk.”


    • What about all those ‘yay for moms’ ads from P&G? Not one about a fathers. NBC also aired a montage of all the mothers reactions to their sons/daughters after the games. Again, the fathers may as well not exist. When I mentioned this my own mother said “they weren’t there”. It’s working…


    • Important note, ladies:
      But not just any sperm, it should be the sperm of the person who got you pregnant.


    • The “unfamiliar sperm” theory seems just crazy, now something I can believe is this: if morning sickness is partially caused or increased because of excesive acidity or acid reflux, the alkalinity of semen could probable help.


  22. You: Feminist action or behavior [X] is stupid, counterproductive, and rife with externalities.

    Equalist felching champ: It’s not hurting anyone…

    Well, actually, it is. That’s pretty much the definition of an externality.


  23. Heartiste has some excellent philosophical points about feminism: How it aspires, in the name of equality, to make women in to men, but revealing, at the same time, the inherent hatred of women that is feminism. This is not equality—rather this is bigotry against women. By forcing women to act like men—to look like men, to have the musculature of men, to date like men, to have sex like men, to work like men, what they are saying is: the male body and the creations of the male body are superior to the female body and the creations of the female body. Therefore, change the female body into the male body and hence allow the female body to then create male works (and from what we have seen, these masculine women can only, at best, land in mediocrity).

    It comes from a hatred of the female—most likely from highly masculine women who are naturally more intelligent and competitive than highly feminine women. They cannot garner the attraction of men because they are ugly, so they scorch of the earth of femininity, and suddenly the scales are tipped in their favor. Beware a masculine woman scorned: she will burn down the world and rebuild it in her favor. This is why Stefan Molyneux’s contention that feminism puts socialism ahead of women at all costs: feminism has nothing to do with women, it is simply the socialist matrix’s attempt to get at the female and use female power. So who do they recruit? The masculine women who hate themselves and hate femine women. It is a brilliant coup. Does Mr. Heartiste have any idea how much he is at risk?


  24. It goes the other way,too.Why are these female gymnasts called “women”??? Theyre NOT women,at least no those who are 15 & 16 years old. So Gabby is a woman,femcunts??? What if I FUCKED her?? (Not that I would,just sayin’…) The femcunt would have to doa quick 180 on that.


  25. The definition of ‘liberal’ is open to change, admittedly the current liberals got us here, but being ‘Conservative’ will not get us out of this mess.


    • In this came “liberal” meaning “leftist pinko commie straight outta 1984” and “conservative” meaning “right-wing extremist like Thomas Jefferson”…


  26. “manly swole she-beast hoists 400 lbs above her head”

    My god … did anyone see the tv spot for this [girl??]? She looked like Andre The Giants son.

    I couldn’t help but imagine that if this beast of burden had been blessed with beauty, there is no way she’d be hoisting baby elephants over her head.


    A dose of hate-truth for all you reality contortionists:


  27. Heartiste and co., disregarding the feminist “logic” arguments, can I ask a question?

    Given the obesity rates and the sheer disgust that fuppas bring to the populace, promoting women’s sports might be a way to promote a healthy weight.

    Most women don’t have the time, discipline or genetics to become so masculine and muscular, but most will benefit from running and strenght training.

    Aren’t female atlethes a motivation for females to maintain a healthy and fit figure? Aren’t we better off promoting fitness and performance given the amount of people who would benefit from it?


  28. Bonjour Capitaine Le-Château :

    I urge you to consider doing a heartiste analysis of this thing I’m watching on Fox right now, “Mobbed” with Howie Mandel.

    More than once on this show we have seen all the heartiste precepts gruesomely displayed on this show.

    If your audience says yes, please consider.

    – Arturo



  29. Sorry Heartiste I should have told you a little more about “Mobbed” :

    This show is the ultimate real-life laboratory of the game concepts you teach.

    A few years ago, before I discovered Le Capitaine Château, it never would have occurred to me that the beta dweeb featured in the show was on a collision course with female hypergamy, as he chooses Cheap Trick’s “I want you to want me” to be his theme song (among other core Game mistakes).

    A little more background: “Mobbed” is a new Fox TV show, hosted by the very charismatic but perhaps HBD / Game – unaware Howie Mondel .

    In the episode airing tonight, and which I would like you to analyze for your readership from a Game POV, there is a 32 year-old beta dweeb from Pittsburg who begs Howie to get the attention of this girl he’s been fantasizing about and communicating with for Five YEARS. They have never met face to face.

    The chick, who is about a 7, tells Howie’s people in an earlier hidden camera interview, that she digs guys with tats, and that she does not believe in “love at first sight,” but Does believe in “Lust at first site.”

    Château, this is female hypergamy 101. It’s a trivial show and perhaps not fit for the high-level mental wanking of this otherwise august forum, but I beg you Sir, to consider analyzing it for the benefit of All.

    For the link, google : “Mobbed: I love you and we have never met” air date 11 August, 2012


  30. Women’s super heavyweight weight lifting.

    Feminism, I thank you.


  31. […] Chateau Heartiste – The Ideology Of Powerlessness, What Happens When. . ., Scientific Proof That Women Love Drama, Why Women’s Sports Get Less Primetime Coverage, The Nuclear Neg, You Don’t Need To Be Witty To Have Game, Realtalker Of The Month, Another Hot Russian Babe, What Does It Matter To You […]


  32. […] A brilliant piece by Heartiste regarding a nation losing it’s mind about why sex differences m… […]


  33. Good analysis. I would add that feminist boilerplate goes even further. Take a young single white male. Feminists will use the “what does it matter to you argument” but then spin it around to ad hominem attack *you.* forget the righteousness, they go for the jugular.

    Like sandra fluke and the birth control. In the public eye, a SWM is ‘bigoted’ for even entering the discussion.

    This new ‘Its my Body’ video that Roosh tweeted is a perfect example of hypocrisy wth WDIM2U. One chick straight up says “i have a right to decide what goes in my vagina. YOU have no say.” wtf what does it matter to you what i say?

    my response to feminists out there: u mirin’ brah? H8rs gon’ h8


  34. Go Romney/Ryan 2012!!


    • Thank you. We will need your support. Now please go fuck a lonely Democrat into a voting Republican for me.

      Real alphas transform a lady’s psychology (and eventually, politics) with every thrust. Every time you game a girl, you help our cause.


      Chair of Alphas for Romney-Ryan 2012


      • Please explain what is so “alpha” about a grown-up rich boy (Mitt) who is so insecure that he will almost literally say anything to any group anywhere to curry favor with them?

        Matt, if you’re being serious, you’ve dropped a couple of notches. I thought you would be hovering safely above the muck of politics.


      • You must have poor comprehension skills if you assumed that King A is a pussycrat.

        It also takes a democrat with poor comprehension skills like yourself to swim in an ocean of wisdom like this blog, and still manage to come out dry.


      • Unlike what you may have come to expect from readers and commenters here, I do not view life (and especially politics) through the prism of ALPHA-BETA. Neither do I trouble myself attempting to apply such a narrow focus to my personal life. I do not care about my nor anyone else’s alpha status or lack thereof, and there is much more to the “muck of politics” than discerning whether Mitt Romney is Alpha Enough.

        I am a conservative and a Republican, conservative by temperament and philosophy, Republican by alliance of convenience. Those who claim to “hover[] safely above” it all are tools. I make no pretense of eschewing party politics, and I certainly draw no smug self-satisfaction by imagining myself to be floating gnostically above the ugly mechanics (sausage-making) which are unavoidable in a liberal democratic republic such as ours.

        My support for Romney and Ryan is not an expression of love or fidelity; it is a decision of politics. It is my preliminary approval of their employment application. My scrutiny of policy is connected to a sense of civic duty rather than holy sacrament or personal advantage. I am engaged because our country depends on knowledgeable citizens to be engaged. I care more about whether my baseball and football teams win than I do about whether my political party wins because in sport fandom the partisanship is the point, whereas in politics performance is the point. Our politics fixates on celebrity and rah-rah victory (cf. the unrestrained emotional promiscuity four years ago) rather than the modest purpose for which it was originally organized.

        In other words, my involvement in politics is concerned with result. Period. The entire apparatus of the Democratic Party is geared toward acquiring power first and purpose later. It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to their religious mode of being. That makes the GOP my home, where they are no stranger to the same misplaced religiosity, celebrity worship, and sports fanaticism; but they are the biggest political apparatus that still retains some ability to put ideas into effect.

        We take entirely too seriously the election of public servants whom we employ to run our sewers and catch stray dogs. They are my underlings. We mistake their public prominence for kingly sovereignty. In a republic, the citizen is sovereign, and I am a citizen. This fanatical, personal, and emotional investment in politics is the consequence of the rejection of formal religion. “When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing. They believe in anything.” Politics fills the hole in the proudly “irreligious” man’s soul because it is impossible to live without a metaphysic. One’s failure to adopt a formal metaphysic simply means one unconsciously inherits the zeitgeist, and in our modern case, that zeitgeist commands we “Vote or Die,” among other zealous expressions. (in these precincts, the informal religion is “game” of course.)

        Anyway, I hold unconsciously zealous partisans in as much contempt as I do consciously-declared idiotes, despite their pretensions to superiority and aloofness based on an error in political philosophy. I am a republican and a Republican in the fullest meaning of both terms.



  35. You don’t want female athletes. Who are you the Taliban or a man with a tiny ego? Studies have shown that participating in athletics leads to lower obesity (something that gets complained about constantly here) , better self confidence, and academic performance for both genders. In the Olympics as well as other sports men and woman compete separately often in different sports all together so men can stop feeling so threatened.


    • yes, I’m sure the reason why men and women compete separately is so the men don’t feel “threatened”. I’m sure Usain Bolt would be trembling in his boots at the thought of running against women who wouldn’t even qualify for the mens final if they smashed the womens world record.


    • Dumb cunt… even Martina admitted that she wouldn’t place in the top 100 of men’s tennis when she was in her prime.

      Get thee to Jezebel, woman… there are men talking here.


    • Studies have shown that participating in athletics leads to lower obesity

      lower obesity is good. everyone should exercise and take care of their bodies, nobody was saying otherwise. but women training to the point where they’re physically resembling men is not attractive. at all.

      don’t juice up so much dude. it’s making you prone to rage.


  36. […] [“What Does It Matter To You?”] […]


  37. […] Beta Males Settle For Fat Chicks; Let A Woman Yap A Little; “What Does It Matter To You?”; You Don’t Need To Be Witty To Have Game; Realtalker Of The […]


  38. on August 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm Anti Blue pill

    I HATE FEMCUNt’S!!!!!!

    That is all.